See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/47788182

IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY ON ENVIRONMENT AND FOOD

SECURITY UTJECAJ POLJOPRIVREDNE BIOTEHNOLOGIJE NA OKOLIŠ I
SIGURNOST HRANE

Article · January 2003

Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS

0 47

1 author:

Marijan Jošt
JOST Seeds-Research, Croatia
38 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Organic and high protein wheats View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marijan Jošt on 11 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

ISSN 1330-7142
UDK = 631.147:504

IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY ON ENVIRONMENT

AND FOOD SECURITY
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Paper is presented at 2002 Conference: ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & HEALTH - what can UVE do
in 21st century Croatism Association of University Women, Dubrovnik, October 11-13, 2002

Marijan Jošt
Agricultural College at Križevci, Croatia

SUMMARY

The application of modern biotechnology in agricultural production processes has generated

new ethical, economic, social and environmental dilemmas confronting scientists all over the
world. While current knowledge is insufficient for assessing the promised benefits and possible
risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the principle of “substantial equivalence” in
comparing GM and conventional food is profoundly flawed and scientificaly insupportable. The
current generation of GMOs provide little real benefits except corporate profit and marginally
improved grower returns.
The TRIPS agreement has allowed worldwide patenting of genes and micro-organisms, as well
as genetically engineered organisms. Granting patents on life encourages biopiracy and the
theft of genetic resources belonging to the local community. At the same time, the patented
product are sold at relatively high prices to developing countries – the same countries from
which the product originated.
Key-words: GMO, genetic engineering , claims and facts, legislation, public oppinion

Foreward

US Government threatens Croatian’s GMO moratorium with WTO action

In June 2001, four Croatian ministries agreed on the text of a draft law to ban genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) and products, and since September 2001, Croatia has been under
increasing US pressure to drop the draft law. The U.S. threatens: “…if such a ban is
implemented, the U.S. Government must consider its rights under WTO.”

After a meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture on September 19. 2001, Mr. Jill F. Byrnes, First
Secretary in Political-Economic Section of U.S. Embassy Zagreb wrote a memo under the
subject (title) “United States Views on Croatian Interim Legislation” dated November 28, and
addressed to the Ministry of Environment. In the memo he insists:
• ”… that there is no scientific evidence indicating that biotech products currently marketed
pose any threat to human or animal health…
• In conclusion, we formally request that the Government of Croatia don`t ban biotech food
products that have been demonstrated to be as safe as conventional food products in the
United States and elsewhere, unless Croatia can provide scientific evidence indicating
otherwise. If such ban is implemented, the U.S. Government must consider its rights under
the WTO.”

1
 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

On December 10, 2001 the US NGOs replay to the US Governement letter stating: “Croatia's
proposed ban or restriction on the importation, marketing, use and production of genetically
modified organism and products has broad support within the United States. It is our opinion
that the reference to the United States' rights under the WTO in the letter is an inappropriate
use of political power. The SPS agreement does allow members to "provisionally adopt sanitary
or phytosanitary measures on the basis of available pertinent information" in cases "where
relevant scientific evidence is insufficient." (Article 5.7)”…
“In the United States, farmers, consumers, processors, and many government officials are
concerned about the lack of oversight and testing of genetically modified organismas and
potential impacts on the environment and human health.
We strongly encourage the Croatian Government to implement EU biotech directives as
quickly as possible. The EU has taken a responsible approach to biotechnology that balances
the interests of consumers, producers and industry. Their implementation will facilitate the
development food security and expedite the accession of Croatia into the EU.”
Signed by:
• Kristin Dawkins, Vice President for International Programs, Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota
• Anuradha Mittal/Peter Rosset, Co Directors, Food First/Institute for Food and Development
Policy, Oakland, California
• Larry Bohlen, Friends of the Earth U.S., Director, Health and Environment Programs,
Washington DC
• Betty Kananen, President, Global Organic Alliance, Inc.
• Beverly Thorpe and Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace USA, Washington, DC 20001
• David Engel, Executive Director, Midwest Organic Services Association, Inc.
• Douglas Hunt, Director, Religious Center on Biotechnology
• Ellen Hickey, Pesticide Action Network North America
• John O'Malley Burns, Goat Hill Organic Farm Inc., Washington, Virginia
• L. Christina Cobb, Director, Free Agency, New York, New York
• Laura Ticciati, Executive Director, Mothers for Natural Law
• Clean Water Action, Boston, Massachusetts
• Mark Huebner, North Carolina Citizens for Safe Food
• Patricia O'Leary, CAFE (Consumers Against Food Engineering), College Park, Maryland
• Professor Philip L. Bereano, Vice-President, Washington Biotechnology Action Council
• Simon Harris, Organic Consumers Association

What is genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering (GE) is a set of biotechnological methods used to transfer a foriegn DNA
segment ower biological barieres of different species (‘horizontal gene transfer’), to form a new
“improved” genetically modified organism (GMO). For instance: by introducing of gene from
bacterias (Bacillus thuringiensis) into a corn plant, the plant become capable to produce a
protein with insecticidal effect and to protect themselvs from a cornborer (Pirausta nubilalis).

In fact, to transfer a desired gene in such a way, in general a recombinant DNA (rDNA) complex
should be constructed consisting from: (a) vector, (b) promoter, (c) desired gene and (c) marker
gene.
a) Vector is used to perform gene transfer. Usually it is modified virus, bacteria or plasmid.
b) Promoter gene is a gene, often from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV 35S – closely related to
human hepatitis B virus and to other retroviruses such as HIV), which determine beggining
and intensity of a new introduced gene action.

2
 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

c) Desired gene should improve a certain characteristic of a new GMO.

d) Marker gene is used to proove succesfull transfer of a DNA construction into the tissue
culture from which a new GMO will be developed.

Claims of biotechnology

To promote genetic engineering and market of products from GMOs, biotechnology is trying to
build the visions of perfect health and miracle food. The main claims in support of GE are(Weeks
1999, Brown 2000)
:
1. Genetic engineering is precise and safe.
2. Genetic engeenering is necessary to feed the world and to help developing countries.
3. Genetic engeenering will protect environment by lower use of herbicides and pestricides.
4. Genetic engineered food is just like natural food
5. Genetic engineering is an extension of traditional crossbreeding.
However, these claims are mainly completely unsubstantiated and vrong. The reality is entirely
different.

Facts:

Ad 1
Genetic engineering is far to be precise… GE determine and isolate the exact gene
(segment of DNA) and build the transgenic construct – the artificial combination of rDNA
complex from a different sources (vector, promoter, desired gene and marker gene), to be
introduced into the host organism. But transfer of such artificial gene complex is random and
error-prone, it means, a scientist is not able to define a destination – the chromosome, the
location on it, nor its neighbor gene in a new host cell. Depending on where the insert lands, it
could have entirely different and unpredictable effects on the host genome (gene instability,
gene silency inactivation, over-expression, genome destabilisation etc.).(Ho and Cummins 2002)

Genetic engineering is unstable and unreliable. For instance in plants, the cell transformed are
kept in tissue culture, a procedure known to generate uncontrollable (somaclonal) variation that
frequently change the plant genome. This can be one source of unpredictability, but instability
can also arise in later generations of propagation of GM plants. Up to now there are no
molecular data supporting the genetic stability of any transgenic line of plants and animals that
has been produced for commercial use.(Ho and Cummins 2002)

…and genetic engineering is not safe – Safety comes from accumulated expirience, and in
fact, there has not been the time essential for accumulating sufficient experience to justify any
broad claim to safety.

How wrong this statement is was shown by experiment: two harmless substances, snowdrop
lectin and potato, when geneticaly engineered together led to harmfull effects on liver and
kidney growth of young rats, while the unmodified potatoes and lectin, when fed to the control
group, did not. The demaging effects of GM potatoes found at yung rats was probably due to
the CaMV 35S promoter.(Ewen and Pusztai 1999) The proces of GE itself is prone to unintended effects
in the end product.

By adding new protein, which was never before a part of human food chain, unknown alergen,
even toxin could be introduced. Example is alergy of GM soybean with genes from the brazil nut
(Nordlee et al. 1996)
, Bt-corn StarLink(Dawkins 2000) etc. Around 30% of the European population claim to
suffer from some form of food allergy. Food allergies, along with other types of allergy, apear to
be on the increase.(Milles 2002) There are not enough knowledge about participation of the modern
biotechnology in these trends. Also, the arival of GE foods has coincided in the US with a

3
 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

massive increase in reported food relatede illness, and in UK huge increase in birth defects
during last five years was observed.(Laurance 2002)

Scientists at the Center for Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, City University of New
York states that biotech-industry is based on 40 years old, today unacceptable ‘Central Dogma’
of neo-Darwinism, which insist that genes (DNA segments) completely control inheritance of all
life forms.(Commoner & Athanasiou 2002) According to the ‘Central Dogma’ transfer of genes from one
organism to another is specific, precise, predictable, and safe. The ‘Central Dogma’ lends
support to the most hard line genetic determinist assumption of neo-Darwinism. It was build on
an idea of connection between the chemical composition of gene and respected protein which
determine inherited character. According to it, genes determine characters in straightforward,
additive way: one gene = one protein. They are stable, and are passed on unchanged to the
next generation. (Exception could be rare and random mutations.) Genetic informations flows
only in one direction, DNA Ù RNA → protein. Environmental influence, if any, can be neatly
separated from the genetic, and genomes cannot be changed directly in response to the
environment.(Ho and Cummins 2002) A number of scientific papers and statements are refered that
three billions US$ worth ‘Project of Human Genome’ showed that, based on the number of
genes determined, it is imposible to explain ammount of inheritable differences between human
being and lower forms of plants and animals. This points that some other, for now unknown,
factors should be involved. Under the influence of specific proteins which are carrying or
dictating ‘alternative segregation’ certain gene is capable to code a number of different proteins,
and as a result, to control a number of different inheritable characterics. According to this, it is
not so easy to predict the function of particular gene based on its chemical structure. All this is
raising a question mark on the main purpose of ‘The Humane Genome Project’ as well as
biotechnology as such. Geneticaly modified organisms represent huge uncontroled experiment
whose results can not be forcasted. Due to the huge complexity of living cell, each artificially
changed genetical system should sooner or later yield in perilous effects.(Commoner & Athanasiou 2002)
The ‘Central Dogma’ explains inheritance in an excessively simple manner, but it still stays
immune to ever more demanding requests of opposing facts enabling biotechnology to continue
its influence on agriculture in a scientifically unfounded manner. Today scientists show that
complex, self-organising, dynamic living systems are not reducible only to constituent genes.

Andrew Kimbell, director of Center of Food Safety explains: “For many years a multibillion
biotech corporations have been selling to American people and Governement assertions about
the safety of their products. Now, we can see that their beliefs about the safety are based on
wrong suppositions which can not resist serious scientific critics”.

Ad 2
Is genetic engeenering necessary to feed the world? - According to the United Nations there
are 815 million chronically under-nourished people, earning les than one US$ a day. At least 13
million people in South Africa risk starvation, with millions more hungry in Afganistan, North
Korea, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. By 2030 the world’s population is expected to top eight
billion. Those facts are complicating the huge task for the world leaders of more than 100
countries at the UN’s Johannesburg Earth Summit (24 August to 4 September 2002). It was a
bitter first-world debate on GM crops, which some say are a solution to world hunger, and
others regard as a threat.

Can the world produce enough food to meet global demands? Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) report reveals GM crop not needed to feed the world.(FAO 2000) Using a
baseline year of 1995/7, according to FAO the growth rate of world population indicates a
drastic deceleration, whille the annual rate of growth in global crop production, as well as global
per capita food consumption will grow significantly. The world average will exceed 3000
kcal/person/day by 2030, and the number of countries having high incidence of
undernourishment will reduce by 84% - all this by ignoring the impact of any future
developments in genetic engineering. According to World Health Organisation (WHO) the world

4
 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

already produces 50% more food than it needs. Today we have a plenty of food, but it is not
distributed equaly. It means, the hunger is not result of food shortage, it is result of social and
economic inequalities between nations, and even between people of the same nation. The little
research that has been conducted about the origins of famine reveals that the solution of ‘more
food’ may be no solution at all. (Horton 2000) Besides, researchers has shown that in India, for
instance, land reform and simple irrigation systems could boost food production by 50%.

Contrary to what has been promised, GE crops do not yield more and often yield less than the
best available conventionaly bred cultivar or hybrid. For instance: the results of over 8200
university-based soybean variety trials in 1998 showed the yield drag of ower 5 percent.(Benbrook
1999)
Biotechnology was, and still is, seen as a major area of expansion for the US business
interests. The products of biotechnology were highly attractive to multinational corporations.
They were patentable and effectively promised control over the food chain to cuntry/company
which could develop the technology first. Othervise, if we want to use biotechnology to help feed
the world’s starving poor we have two options: We can persude government to do it, or we can
mobilize public opinion to persuade biotechnology companies to donate technology to those
who will never be able to buy it.(Raeburn 1999)

Ad 3
Genetic engeenering will protect environment by lower use of herbicides and pestricides
-
Not truth. If an herbicide is used on a continous basis, a weed population can built up resistance
to that compound. For instance: today, farmers growing RR soybeans use 2 to 5 times more
herbicide, because of increased degree of tolerance to Roundup (glyphosate) in several weed
species, or shift in weeds toward les sensitive to Roundup herbicide. There is evidence of a
‘super weed’ creation by cross-polination the wild relatives of cultivated GM crops, or even
worse: the production of virtually undestructable weeds, such as multiple resistant canola
colecting resistance genes to glyphosate and gluphosinate.(King 1996, MacArthur 1998)

It wos shown that GI toxin from Bacilus thuringiensis could have deleterious effects on other
beneficial insects: Green lacewings death rate increases when they fed on army worms eating
corn engineered to contain bacterial (Bacilus thuringiensis) toxin.(Hilbeck et al.1998) Ladybugs life-
span and fertility suffer when eating aphids that have been fed genetically engineered
potatoes.(Birch et al. 1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch buterfly larvae(Losey et al. 1999) etc.

European corn borer can develop resistance to Bt-toxin in GE corn. To suppress this, at the
beginning producers were advised to hold back a 5 percent refugia, planted with non-Bt hybrids.
Later, advise was to increase this refugi zones on 10 percent, and today the US EPA, and other
biotech corporations advice increase on 20, or even 40 percent. The purpose of refugi zone is
to feed non resistant european corn borer insects, which could mate with resistant one, and
produce suceptible offspring.

Ad 4
Is genetic engineered food just like natural food (‘substantial equivalence’)? - In 1989. the
US National Research Council publicly concluded that crops derived from GE do not differed
substantially from those derived using traditional techniques. This conclusion is based upon the
principle of ‘substantial equivalence’ which states that the introduction of a gene of known and
safe function into a crop of known characteristics is technologically neutral, hence the resulting
crop can be presumed to be safe and it is not subjected to mandatory testing prior to release. If
so, why in 1999, the mainstrim British Medical Association (representing 115,000 doctors)
published statement calling for moratorium on planting GM crops and ban on releasing GMOs
into the environment.

5
 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

Ad 5
Genetic engineering is not an extension of traditional crossbreeding. The philosophy of
traditional crossbreeding is build on entirely different principles. It includes diferent branches of
genetics like: population genetics and genetics of quantitative traits. Traditional crossbreeding
respects interactions between genes and environment, it accept that all agricultural important
properties of crop are result of quantitative interactions of not one but a number of genes and
environment. Traditional crossbreeding is relatively slow (8-10 years are needed to produce
new improved organism) but during that selection period the mentioned interaction are
stabilised in the best possible way, which can never be achieved bay any faster method,
including GE. Even as such, the traditional crossbreeding can produce les valuable organism,
but in such a case this is failure of breeder and his incorrect breeding ideotype. For instance: by
produsing semidwarf cerals, new crop has got ability for higher yield in intensive (industrial)
agriculture, but the quality and feeding value of the grain ussualy is lower (les micronutrients,
les proteins etc). It is imposible to improve yield and quality at the sam time – it is well known:
they are in negative correlation.

Legislation and the public oppinion on genetically engineered (GE) foods

The integration of ‘the precautionary principle’ into the Biosafety protocol (Montreal, 2000) was
significant step in protecting biological diversity from potential hazards related to living modified
organism (LMO). The Biosafety Protocol belongs to the Convention of Biological Diversity, and
according to the international law, its legal value is as strong as WTO rules. As a result, a
country has the right to reject growing transgenic crops (LMO), but has to accept food products
containing GMO ingredients. The question remains: Should GM food be lebeled, to give
consumers rights on own decission what to buy? A few examples:

EC Rule 97/35 requires mandatory lebeling of products containing over 1 percent GMO.
According to Business Day (16 August 2002) Cape Town legislation to control the lebeling of
genetically modified food could be passed by the end of the year, once the South African
Bureau of Standards (SABS) finalise its system to segregate GM from normal food. Also, many
surveis of the US public oppinion regarding GM food are conducted in recent years. All of them
very clearly and constantly indicate that American people would like to have GM food lebeled.
Just a few examples: (The Center for Food Safety)
• 92% of 36 thousands polled say they want GE food lebeled - 94% prolabeling response from
women and 84% from men (Vance Publishing in Food R&D, February 1995).
• 93% of American who responded to a Novartis survey agree that GE foods should be labeled
(Novartis, February 1997).
• 93% of American women say they wont all GE food clearly labeled (National Federation of
Women’s Institutes, 1998).
• 92% of Americans support legal requirement for labeling GM food. (BSMG Worldwide for the
Grocery Manufacturers of America, September 1999).
• 93% of Americans say the federal governement should require labels (ABC News.com poll,
June 2001).
• 90% of American farmers support labels (Farm Foundation/Kansas State University,
September 2001).
• 90% of Americans said GM food should have special labels on them (Rutgers University’
Food Policy Institute study, November 2001).
American people believe that the US governement has a constitutional duty to respect the
people’s desire to know what they are eating. Instead, the US governement is not only ignoring
the opposition to genetic engineering in the US. The US governement even threatens to use
international courts to force GM foods on other nations (for instance on Croatia).

6
 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

References
Benbrook C. 1999. Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from
University based varietal trials in 1998. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper No.1.
Birch A.N.E., I.E. Geoghegan, M.E.N. Majerus, J.W. McNicol, C.A. Hackett, A.M.R. Gatehouse, J.A Gatehouse.
1999. Tri-trophic interactions involving pest aphids, predatory 2-spot ladybirds and transgenic potatoes expressing
snowdroplectin for aphid resistance. Molecular Breeding, 5(1):75-83.
Brown P. 2000. The promise of plant biotechnology – The threat of genetically modified organisms. Aug. 2000.
http://www.lifesciencenz.com/reposyitory/external_news_material/promise_opponent.htm
Center for Food Safety, Washington D.C., USA: www.centerforfoodsafety.org
Commoner B. and A. Athanasiou. 2002. The Critical Genetics Project. Harper's Magazine, February.
Dawkins Kristin. 2000. StarLink affair – Who’s going to pay?Courrier de la Planete. 59:31-33.
Ewen S.W.B and A. Pusztai. 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus
nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354(9187).
FAO Report: Agriculture: Towards 2015/30. http://www.fao.org/es/ESD/at2015/toc-e.htm
Hilbeck A., M. Baumgartner, P.M. Fried and F. Bigler. 1998. Effect of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn fed prey
on the mortality and development time of immature Chrisophera carnea (Neuroptera Chrysopidea) Environmental
Entomology 27(2):480-487.
Ho Mae-Wan. 2002. Sence & nonsense in horizontal gene transfer. ISIS special article, 7 August: http://www.i-
sis.org.uk
Ho Mae-Wan and J. Cummins. 2002. Genetically modified organisms 25 years on. The 1st National Conference on
Life Sciences, Selangor, Malasia, 21-22 May. ISIS Feature article: http://www.i-sis.org.uk
Horton R. 2000. Genetically modified food : consternation, confusion, and crack-up. The Medical Journal of Australia,
172:148’149, http://www.mja.com.au
King J. 1996. Could transgenic supercrops one day breed superweeds. Science, 274:180-181.
Laurance J. 2002. Huge rise in babies born with defects. The Independent, London, March 18.
Losey J.E., L.S. Rayor and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, 399:214.
MacArthur M. 1998. Canola crossbreeds create tough weed problem. Western Producer, 15 Oct. 98.
Mills C. 2002. Food allergy and intolerance in Europe – Future directions within the ERA. Proc. EU/ICC Conference
2002 “Implementation of the European research area.” p.95-96.
Nordlee J.D., S.L. Taylor, J.A. Townsend, L.A. Thomas and R.K. Bush. 1996. Indetification of a brazil nut allergen in
transgenic soyabean. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(11):276.
Raeburn P. 1999. Where do we go from here? The view from Times Square. NABC Report 11 – World food security
and sustainability: The impact of biotechnology and industrial consolidation. p. 149-152.
Weeks D. P. 1999. Promises and problems associated with agricultural biotechnology. NABC Report 11 – World food
security and sustainability: The impact of biotechnology and industrial consolidation. p. 16-20.

UTJECAJ POLJOPRIVREDNE BIOTEHNOLOGIJE NA OKOLIŠ I SIGURNOST HRANE

Sažetak
Primjena moderne biotehnologije u procesima poljoprivredne proizvodnje stvorila je nova etička,
ekonomska, socijalna i okolišna pitanja, suprostavljajući znanstvenike širom svijeta. Danas postojeće
znanje je nedovoljno za procjenu obećavane koristi i moguće opasnosti od genetički preoblikovanih
organizama (GMO), a načelo „bitne jednakosti“ u poredbi GM i konvencionalne hrane je znanstveno
neodrživo. Postojeći GM usjevi, osim profita korporacijama, trenutno farmeru gotovo da ne osiguravaju
korist.
TRIPS sporazum je omogućio patentiranje gena i mikroorganizama, kao i genetički preoblikovanih
organizama. Ovo davanje patenta na život potaklo je biopiratstvo i krađu genetičkog bogatstva lokalnih
zajednica. Istovremeno takav patentirani proitzvod se prodaje po visokoj cijeni zemljama u razvoju – onim
istima iz kojih potiće patentirani proizvod.

7
 POLJOPRIVREDA, 2003. 2(9):12-17

View publication stats