Both
ENDS
Information
Package
Nr. 14
GENE-TECHNOLOGY
Both ENDS offers a wide range of services to NGOs in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, who are working in the field of environment, development and social justice.
Our standard information service includes Information packs on a wide range of topical environment issues . These packs have been written mainly for Southern NGOs. They are to enable (beginner) environmental organisations to get familiarized with an important environmental subject in a short period of time.
Contents:
a general overview of the theme
details of relevant international treaties, guidelines and conventions
some aspects of the current (international) debates on the topic
a listing of useful contacts in North and South
a list of publications
a choice of Websites
case studies (mainly from Southern countries)
We are making an effort to regularly update the information included in these packs. But since people and developments are moving fast, we will inevitably lag behind somewhat. The information presented is meant as an introduction. If you require more specific information, please feel free to contact us.
You can download the information packs from our Website or you can request an e-mail printed version. They are free of charge for NGOs in the South and Central/Eastern Europe.
We welcome any suggestions or comments which help improve this information pack.
Environmental
and Development Service for NGOs
Damrak 28-30
1012 LJ Amsterdam
the Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 6230823
Fax: +31 20 6208049
E-mail: info@bothends.org
Website: http://www.bothends.org
This activity has been made possible thanks to the financial support of the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM).
1. Introduction
3. Modern gene technology, a key issue
Box 2: Pesticide-resistant super bugs
4.1 Biodiversity and Gene Technology
Box 3: Contamination found in non-GE corn
4.2 Convention on Biological Diversity
5.1 Intellectual Property Rights
5.2
Effects on developing countries
Box 4: US patenting India’s Genetic Resources
7. Arguments for and against
‘genetic engineering’
8.2 What can you do?
10. Bibliography
GENE-TECHNOLOGY
The history of gene technology began with primitive wo/man, growing plants and domesticating animals for subsistence. With the breeding of plants and animals to improve the production of food, gene technology came to being. Bio-technologies used 10,000 years ago are still used, e.g. for the production of yoghurt or bread. In comparison, modern gene technology is extremely young, starting in 1869 with the isolation of DNA by Friedrich Miescher. The first experiments with recombinant DNA (genetic engineering) were carried out as recently as 1973.
Scientists and private companies immediately adopted modern gene technology to meet challenges expected from future food and environmental problems. The first industrial production of genetically manipulated products started at the end of the 1980s.
Almost immediately after the first experiments in 1973, civil society has been on the alert. Almost all aspects related to modern gene technology and Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO’s) are questioned constantly. Great environmental and health concerns are held over the implications modern gene technology has in drastically altering the evolutionary process, a point currently ignored by its proponents. Concerns centre around that erosion of biodiversity will be aggravated by the introduction of GMO’s, that traditional preservation and production mechanisms will be disrupted, and that GMO’s will significantly influence the composition of ecosystems.
A further concern regards the question of ownership. Will the producers have access to GMO’s and the genes that form the basis of these products, or will ownership be restricted to those that hold a patent on each of these products? In the case of the former, if GMO’s are allowed to become the basis of world food production, a narrow ownership structure will put unprecedented powers in the hand of a very small group of people and multinationals.
Public participation in the discussion has never before been so high. Reactions and decisions around the world are extremely diverse. This shows that people are sensitive to the issue, and have not accepted GMO’s on face value.
Gene technology refers to any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify processes of specific uses. (Convention on Biological Diversity, art. 2, 1992). Thus defined, gene technology dates back thousands of years, for example in the making of bread and yoghurt. However, over the past decades gene technology acquired a new dimension, with the discovery of various techniques for recombining genetic material from different organisms. Therefore a more narrow definition of gene technology is necessary to describing modern gene technology. Modern gene technology refers to those techniques which alter directly and precisely the genetic constitution of living organisms through genetic engineering or genetic manipulation. These techniques can employ, a.o.: new recombinant DNA (rDNA) structures, cell fusion and cell cultures from plant and animal material. The results of these techniques are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Genetic manipulation is a revolutionary new technique and still in its experimental stages of development. This technology has the capacity to break down fundamental genetic barriers, not only between species, but between humans, animals, and plants. Genetic Engineering, also known as recombinant or r-DNA technology, is fundamentally different from traditional forms of gene technology. The manipulation of organisms at a cellular level to produce altered organisms with traits that fulfil certain human desires contradicts the laws of nature. Scientists can cut out bits of DNA from living organism’s, called genes, and splice them into totally unrelated species. Animal genes are going into plants, bacteria genes into food crops, and even human genes are being used to change animals and plants.
The main aim of agricultural gene technology, is to modify three characteristics of the plant, namely crop quality (better characteristics such as size or weight), crop resistance against fungi or insects and crop resistance against pesticide (the pesticide can be used without harming the crop itself).
Until genetic engineering was possible, the spectrum of genetic resources available to plant breeders ranged from other varieties of the crop to wild relatives of the species. In particular wild relatives of species have contributed greatly to the disease resistance of for example wheat and rice. With the rise of genetic engineering , breeders have access to an expanding spectrum of genes of more distantly or even non-related species.
3. Modern gene technology, a key issue
Modern gene technology relates to all aspects of a sustainable society: equity, environmental quality and the distribution of the power of decision making and productive resources:
Almost 90% of all available biotic resources are located in developing countries. The major body of ‘traditional’ knowledge on the management of biotic resources is concentrated in the South. However technological know-how of modern gene technology is heavily concentrated in the North. Therefore a wide application of these techniques will inevitably increase inequity at all levels.
The current decision making process is a ‘biotechnocracy’: all major decisions are taken by a small group of, mostly Northern, politicians and private sector representatives. This structure denies the fact that decisions on modern gene technology will affect the life of the entire world population.
Modern gene technology is surrounded by uncertainties, especially regarding impacts on human health and the environment. Indeed, if the evolutionary process is substituted by man-made techniques, it is hard to believe that nature will remain intact. Earth ecosystems will almost certainly be disturbed and consequences can’t be foreseen.
Risks and uncertainties surrounding the introduction of GMOs into the natural and human environment are tremendous. In order to preserve nature from negative impacts, biosecurity has to be guaranteed. In other words, no introduction of GMO’s is acceptable without proof that it will not damage biodiversity and ecosystems. Regarding nature and human health, all unanswered questions need to be resolved and the precautionary principle (in case of doubt no GMO’s are accepted) should apply.
Box 1: Health and safetyAlthough much more research is necessary, research already undertaken, indicates genetically engineered food has the potential to be more hazardous to human health than ‘regular’ food. In 1998, front-page headline stories in the British press, and later on all over the world, revealed Rowett Institute scientist Dr. Arpad Pustai’s research findings that genetically engineered potatoes are poisonous to mammals. Genetically engineered potatoes, found to be significantly different in chemical composition from regular potatoes, damaged the vital organs, and immune systems of the lab rats fed with the genetically engineered potatoes. Most alarming of all was the finding that damage to the rat’s stomach linings, apparently a severe viral infection, most likely was caused by the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv) promoter, a promoter spliced into nearly all genetically engineered food (Cummins, R., Organic Consumers Association, Sept. 1999). Dr. Pustai’s research was never completed, because funding was cut off and he was fired after he had spoken to the media. But more and more scientists all over the world recognise the potential dangers involved in bringing genetically engineered food in the human/animal food chain. Other research also indicated higher cancer risks and the emergence of new food allergies to be possible outcomes of a diet consisting of genetically engineered ingredients. |
Besides the risks involved for human or animal health, the risks of genetically engineered food goes beyond mammals that eat these products. Just as alarming are the potential dangers involved for the ecosystem as a whole. “Genetic pollution” occurs when wind, rain, birds, bees and other insect pollinators begin carrying genetically-altered pollen into adjoining fields, bringing the possibility of polluting the DNA of other, regular crops.
Genetically modified pollen is sometimes found miles from the official trial sites, indicating that genetic pollution is indeed taking place. The release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cannot be reversed in most cases. They reproduce, can cross with related plants or animals, adapt to new environmental conditions and take their own evolution. If something goes wrong, immediately or in one or more generations, there are no means to recall them.
Pollen from genetically engineered plants can also pose a direct threat to beneficial insects. In early 1999, researchers made the discovery that the pollen from a genetically engineered corn species was poisonous for the Monarch butterfly, indicating that other GM crops could also be damaging other beneficial insects.
|
Box
2: Pesticide-Resistant Super-Bugs
New research published in ‘Nature’ shows that the GM insect-resistant crops may produce pesticide resistant pests quicker than expected. The insect-resistant crops contain toxins (Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt) genetically engineered into the plants. Scientists and farmers have long known that sooner or later, insects would become resistant to Bt. However, biotech experts claimed the pesticide-resistant bugs would mate with the non-resistant bugs in designated non-GE areas called refuges, delaying the development of pesticide resistance. However, new research shows that the pesticide resistant varieties have a different life cycle, indicating that they may be more likely to mate with each other, and produce pesticide-resistant super-bugs in large numbers. (source: Biotech News, Nov. 1999) |
Species have always, and will always be subject to extinction. Of all species that ever existed on earth, only one to six percent still survive. Natural selection and evolution make existing species disappear and new species come to life. However, never before has one species has such a dramatic influence over the extinction of other species as does the human species. For the last fifty years, almost two third of the world’s biological diversity has been lost forever, in most part due to mankind.
The total spectrum of human activities, such as agriculture, deforestation, live stock breeding and land being used for industrial purposes, have a tremendous effect on our natural environment. Especially frightening are the threats to those ecosystems that are essential for the continuance of evolution such as coral reefs, old lakes and the tropical rainforest, or to ecosystems like drylands, which are essential in providing genetic resources for agriculture.
Effects from overexploitation of biological diversity is not only limited to the user of this biodiversity. Negative actions can also have serious effects on third parties. Erosion due to (illegal) logging can make an area practically unliveable, can deprive people from their main source of income and result in large amounts of eco-refugees, a common phenomenon in the Americas (van de Wateringen,1997;15). The decline in genetic diversity may result in the definite loss of the natural resources needed to produce the medicine to fight against AIDS or cancer.
Besides the loss of tropical rainforests, deforestation, desertification and the loss of biodiversity in oceans and lakes, the loss of genetic biodiversity in agriculture, agrobiodiversity, has become very alarming. More and more acknowledge that the loss of global agrobiodiversity could have disastrous effects for the food security for the expected 7 billion people inhabiting this planet in a couple of years.
As genetic diversity is essential for agriculture and forestry, sustainability and diversity are closely connected. Diversity enables the ecosystem to recover itself when disturbed. In a non-sustainable situation, a disturbance in one aspect of the ecosystem could mean the disturbance of all aspects of the ecosystem. Monocultures are vulnerable, because one disruptance could lead to a chain reaction in which all of the system breaks down. The diversity of genes incrops for example minimise crop failure due to pests or insects, and new varieties can be bred to maximise production or adapt to changing conditions in its environment. “As important as genetic diversity is to increasing yields, it is at least as important in maintaining existing productivity. For example, crop yields can be increased by introducing genetic resistance to certain insect pests, but since natural selection often helps insects quickly overcome this resistance, genetic resistance has to be periodically introduced into the crop just to sustain the higher productivity” (WRI). High Yielding Varieties (HYV’s), products of the Green Revolution, has led to a trend toward more uniform agriculture. Whereas traditional farming produces modest, but reliable yields, the monocultures producing HYV’s may be extremely vulnerable to pests, disease and severe weather, as all the crops are genetically identical, one pest, or fungus could destroy the entire yield.
|
Box 3: Swiss Detect Contaminated Non-GE Corn from USA The Swiss Department of Agriculture discovered that guaranteed non-GE corn from the USA was contaminated with genetically modified varieties. The corn was purchased from Pioneer Hi-Bred (USA). Before the contamination was discovered, about 200 hectares of contaminated seeds were planted, and another 200 hectares worth of the seeds were sold. Swiss farmers burned the fields planted with contaminated seeds. The Swiss seed importer compensated farmers 700 Swiss Francs per hectare. (source: Biotech News, Nov. 1999) |
Introducing genetically modified organisms into the natural environment produces unique risks, which the natural environment has never before been exposed to.. Pronounced as safe on the basis of laboratory results only, modern gene technology advocates show a poor and simplified view of ecology, denying the complex interaction between all aspects of an ecosystem. Laboratory results do not show how these organisms will behave in the natural environment and in interaction with other, non genetically modified organisms. Neither does laboratory research show any of the potential socio-economic effects that might result from the introduction of GMOs in agriculture on world scale.
4.2 The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Biosafety protocol
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was one of the five resulting documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro). The Convention on Biological Diversity is legally binding and thereby part of international law. The objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity are "the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources”. The Convention is thus the first global, comprehensive agreement to address all aspects of biodiversity: genetic resources, species, and ecosystems. It recognises - for the first time - that the conservation of biological diversity is "a common concern of humankind" and an integral part of the development process.
Under Agenda 21 and the CBD, governments agreed to co-operate on gene technology and related safety issues through information exchange, capacity building and progress toward and international agreement on principles for safety in gene technology (biosafety). The negotiations on a Biosafety Protocol formally began in 1996, although discussions in the form of intergovernmental meeting started as early as 1992. On 22 - 23rd February 1999 the first Extraordinary Conference of the Parties to the CBD took place in Cartagena (Colombia). This Conference had been convened to adopt the draft Protocol on Biosafety, however, no consensus could be reached on some of the key issues of the Protocol and therefore the Conference was suspended.
Some of the main goals of the protocol are:
The precautionary principle must be applied when dealing with GMOs
every country must have the right to refuse the import of GMOs
no exports of GMOs can take place without the approval of the countries involved
there must be strict liability and insurance for the possible damage caused by these GMOs
All GMOs must be labelled for the consumers
GMOs must be kept segregated from natural crops
While the Convention on Biological Diversity itself does not directly oppose to the biotech industry, the enormous interests involved and discussions on the issue made the gene technology industry nervous enough to pressure the US government not to sign the treaty, which they didn’t. There are several reasons for their anxiousness. Both the biotech industry and the US government feared their interests were at stake. And indeed, the CBD contains different elements that address the current state of power relations in the global economy. First, natural resources are not longer regarded as common heritage of mankind. According to the CBD, each country has sovereignty over the natural resources within its territory. In article 15 this sovereignty is restricted, because each country also has the obligation to make genetic resources accessible to third parties (art.15.2). Access is only permissible on the basis of prior informed consent and to those applications of genetic information or other natural resources that are no threat to the environment (art.15.3 and 15.4). Benefits arising from the use of genetic information should be shared equitable. No specific language is used as to how this is to be done, but the gene technology industry fears it will have to share its technology related to genetic information. The third reason the industry is opposed to the biodiversity convention is that they fear it will undermine the regime on intellectual property rights, which is handled under the WTO agreement (within the TRIPS treaty, concerning Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights).
The 1990s saw a strong concentration of power in the so called ‘life industry’: the industry sector that is dependent on genetic information and other natural resources. The number of companies involved in agribusiness is shrinking, resulting in a monopolising tendency in agribusiness, food and pharmacy. Market dominance combined with patents give these companies unprecedented control over the products and processes that are essential to human existence: food, farming and health. The risk involved in this situation is that there will be a growing gap between the North and the South and between the rich and the poor. Access to food, nutrition and health is becoming more and more subject to the free market system. The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) ranking (July/august 1998) of the seed industry giants reveals that the top 10 companies now control $7 billion- or 30%- of the $23 billion commercial seed trade. These top 10 companies have experienced a 25% sale increase in just two years time. Consolidation of companies is nothing new, but different sectors of industry seem to merge together. The traditional lines between seed, agrochemical, gene technology, drug and food corporation is disappearing. These huge corporations have enormous economic might; they have more power than many nation states.
The power that gene technology corporations have is illustrated by their influence during the negotiations on the Biodiversity Convention. As described above, the industry showed itself a strong opponent of this Convention. By using strong lobby force on the US government, and being a financial supporter of republican US president Bush, the gene technology lobby was able to stop the US government from signing the treaty. Recently, the gene technology industry gave up their opposition, probably realising they could increase their influence in the coming negotiations by becoming a member of the Convention.
5.1 Intellectual Property Rights
Over the past years the gene technology industry has filed thousands of patents on genes, but also on entire plants and animals and even parts of human bodies. Patents give their owner the exclusive right to use them over a certain period of time and demand royalties from everybody to whom they give a license to use their patent.
The general principle behind the protection of intellectual property is that the owners of the patent should have a temporary monopoly over the exploitation of their innovation. The original idea was that intellectual property rights would stimulate innovations, since corporations would invest more in research and development when their efforts would be rewarded. The other side of the coin was that these corporations had the obligation to share their knowledge related to their innovation. Recent developments in the system of intellectual property rights seem to ignore the last part and place more importance on the first (Van de Wateringen,1997;40).
Companies cannot file for a patent on any given organism. There has to be an innovative aspect, e.g. it has to be new, innovative and industrially applicable. Original, raw natural material can therefor never be subject to a patent, and farmers can always continue using these raw natural resources. The main risks involving the current intellectual property rights regime are therefor not that farmers can no longer use plants and other natural resources available in their direct natural environment. The main reason for concern is the eventual consequence that only a hand full of companies will dominate the global seed market. Offering package deals to local farmers, not only offering them ’wondercrops’, but also including the whole package of fertilisers and pesticides needed to receive the greatest possible yield, make farmers totally dependent on these companies. If local farmers are convinced into using genetically modified, patented seeds, a further consequence will be seen in the disappearance of local varieties of crops. The negative impact of this loss in genetic biodiversity was described above.
The TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement, signed under the WTO, could have serious implications for third world agriculture and farmer’s rights. It requires governments to afford patent protection for micro-organisms and biological processes involving them, which include genetic engineering processes and genetically engineered animals and plants. It also requires that intellectual property rights on plant varieties be protected either through patenting or through an ‘effective sui generis system of protection’. In practice this means that the knowledge of farmers and indigenous peoples will not be legally recognised, while the corporations which genetically modify biological resources found in the Southern countries, will be rewarded for applications they themselves did not discover. Countries of the South will then have to buy expensive biotechnological products, even though the biological basis (and knowledge on their utilisation) of these products may originate in their own country.
5.2 Socio-economic effects for developing countries
In many countries, government policies have stimulate the transformation from a local orientated, farmer based agriculture towards a farming system that is largely based on global markets. Often this resulted in the shift from a diverse agricultural system, to a system that uses a few high external-input varieties (using huge quantities of fertilisers, insecticides and so forth). Besides the effects on genetic diversity described above, one can imagine the social effects when societies are transformed as quickly as they have been. Traditionally small and closed societies are beingforced to rapidly adapt to the global economy, entirely altering their social structures. Similar experiences resulting from the Green Revolution back in the sixties and seventies don’t bring much console: the sudden disruption of social structure caused a social catastrophe not yet recovered. Because the High Yielding Varieties of the Green Revolution only worked under ‘luxury’ conditions (water supply, constant climate), farmer’s working with them in other than ideal circumstances were confronted with high yield losses.
The consequences of introducing modern gene technology in developing countries are closely connected to the safety issue. The transfer to developing countries of projects or experiments involving genetic engineering could be hazardous, at least until safety regulations are put in place in these countries. There is also a well-justified concern in these countries that the development of new biotechnologies will develop food products which would displace the traditional export commodities of the South (Khor, 1999).
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development conducted several technology assessment studies. The main conclusions were that although the (export) opportunities created by gene technology are of great importance, this potential might not be realised due to secrecy and confidentiality characterising private and also public institutions. Furthermore, the ability of developing countries to realise the potential of gene technology depends on the size and quality of their investment in adaptive research and development. At the same time, there is less demand for raw materials on the world market due to, among other factors, substitution. The current low market prices for raw materials make the substitution through the products of modern gene technology less profitable. Nevertheless, the availability of biotechnological alternatives might create a pressure on world market prices (Biotechnology and development monitor, June 1995).
The effects of substitution may in fact be aggravated by the increasing competition as a result of gene technology, which takes place not only between North and South, but also within the South. The diffusion of gene technology does not take place at the same speed in all countries and results in an unequal distribution of a new production process. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), only about ten developing countries have major gene technology research programs.
|
Box: 4 US Patenting India's Genetic Resources American owned Cromak Research was recently granted a patent on a combination of three Indian herbs, which has been used for centuries in India for the treatment of diabetes. India's scientists are furious. "It's outrageous", said Suman Sahai of GeneCampaign, set up to protect genetic resources and farmers' rights. "This amounts to theft, a violation of our indigenous knowledge. The Americans are stealing fromus with impunity and dispossessing Indians of what is rightfully theirs. It's like someone stealing Coca-Cola's formula and getting away with it." source: biotech news, Nov. 1999) |
The gene technology industry has always tried to conceal their economic motives through ideological arguments. One of their favourite arguments is that gene technology will make it possible to end world hunger. But there is no simple technological solution to end world hunger. The Green Revolution gives us a great example in this aspect. Gene technology is not the answer, just as chemical pesticides were not the answer. Nor is ending world hunger a simple matter of increasing food production. According to the FAO, current world food production is sufficient to provide every person with more than 2,700 calories per day - yet over 800 million people in the developing world suffer from a chronic lack of nutrition. Hunger and poverty are closely linked. That is, while there is more than enough food in the world, hunger persists. Hunger is a social phenomenon of how food production and distribution is organised, not a natural phenomenon of crop failures, food shortages or other "acts of nature" leading to absolute shortages of food.
|
In May of 1999, 500 Indian farmers travelled throughout Europe. This Inter Continental Caravan, as they call themselves, protested against the rise of an international free trade-regime, globalisation and the ever growing control multinational companies have over, for example, the international seed market. The protest was in particular focused on the new technology developed by Monsanto: the terminator technology, first developed by Delta & Pine Land Co. This technique, while allowing the seed to grow to a mature plant, prevents the plant from producing fertile seeds. In effect, farmers can only use the seed once, having to buy new seeds every year. This will have severe consequences for farmers worldwide, particularly in developing countries. Farmers in developing countries are used to buying new hybrid seeds every year. These seeds do not produce the same yielding every year, but they do have the opportunity to replant the seed and hope for the best. Apart from planting regained seeds, they are also used for small-scale trading purposes. Terminator technology will end this practice. Farmers will have to buy new seeds every year, making them completely dependent on large, multinational seed companies (The Economist, Oct. 1999). Delta & Pine Co. was given a patent licence on this technique in March 1998. Two months later, Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land Co. for the total sum of 1,8 billion US dollars. After 18 months of controversy and public opposition, Monsanto recently made the surprising announcement that it will not be commercialising sterile seed technologies. |
7. Arguments for and against ‘genetic engineering’
| Pro | Con | |
| 1 | Genetransfer is not an unnatural process. In nature, transfer between genes also takes place, e.g. through cross-fertilisation | Transfer of DNA as the result of a natural process is not the same as DNA transfer through the deliberate action of men. Ecosystems can only take so much mutations in a given period, natural gene transfer is a slow process and not comparable to the sudden introduction of strange DNA in the ecosystem by genetically modified organisms. Ecosystems have their own stability due to the dynamic relationship between different organisms and their genetic information. Biodiversity is crucial for the stability of the ecosystem and it’s biodiversity that is under threat by modern biotechnology. Monoculture threatens genetic diversity in agriculture making it more vulnerable to pests and plagues. |
| 2 | Modern gene technology does not differ fundamentally with gene technology, as we have known for centuries. Modifying natural species is a practice known by man for centuries and has proven to be useful for human society in the form of medicine, crops and live-stock breeding. | Breeding and cross-fertilisation of organisms is possible to a certain extent. Only related organism can be combined and the physiology of the organisms still remains an important aspect of biotechnological applications, whereas in modern gene technology the organism is nothing more than a collection of genes without physical shape. |
| 3 | The physical characteristics of an organism can be determined by knowledge of the genetic information of this organism. | Physiological characteristics of an organism, being a plant or human or any other living organism, are determined by more than just its DNA. Environmental aspects and the interaction between different genes also have their part in determining the physical characteristics of the organism. The definite effect of DNA on the physiology of the organism and the interrelation between genes remains uncertain and therefor a risky business. |
| 4 | Developments in science always involve taking risks. | Most scientific experiments take place in the safe haven of the laboratory. Modern gene technology goes beyond the experimental setting and introduces genetically modified organisms into the natural environment, without knowing the possible consequences for other organisms and ecosystems. Not enough knowledge is available to guarantee safety. |
| 5 | Advantages of modern gene technology, such as medicine, higher yields in agriculture en less pesticide use, compensate for potential dangers | Advantages of modern gene technology are only temporary in nature. Pest or insect resistance is usually only temporary, because insects and pests can mutate quickly enough to withstand the poison in the plant. Lesser chemical use is often used as a pro argument, but practice shows that no lesser amount of pesticides and chemicals are being used. Economic relations between North and South cause world famine, not an absolute food shortage. Modern gene technology only strengthens this unequal distribution of power. The system of intellectual property rights results in a monopolising tendency meaning that only a few large seed companies control the world market, leaving farmerstotally dependant. |
| 6 | Research shows that genetic engineering is safe. | Research
is more than often incomplete and based on the simplistic assumption
underlining much of the research, namely that knowledge of the genetic
information about the organism is enough to determine the physiological
characteristics of the organism. Research is not focused on the eventual
effects of the GMOs interaction in the
natural environment, effects that may appear after years.
|
The
discussion about modern gene technology reveals a complex network of different
stakeholders. NGOs play an important role in the creation and maintenance of
information flows, awareness building and are often initiators of public debate.
Also, they enhance the development of alternative production methods, based on
principles of organic agriculture, and optimal use of the local knowledge and
biotic resource base.
Farmers
are a key agent in the maintenance of biotic resources. Over the past millennia,
they have developed and applied numerous techniques to make agricultural
production more efficient. If they accept the large scale application of GMOs,
traditional knowledge becomes useless, and farmers will loose their independence
and their role as guardian of biodiversity.
Scientific
and research institutions are the main developers of new techniques for genetic
engineering. These institutions created and maintain ‘ex-situ’ gene-banks of
species, of which most originated in the South.
Most
of these banks are located in, and owned by the North. These banks are vital to
the further development of modern gene technology applications.
The
stance of Governments are very diverse, from clearly in favour to the
development and application of gene technology to active agents in the
discussion against GMOs. What is clear, is that on a governmental level, except
for the USA, the discussions will be fierce and controversial.
The
private sector is a very diverse stakeholder. Approximately ten multinational
food producers and pharmaceutical enterprises are fierce proponents of modern
gene technology. On the other hand, supermarkets and retail stores, as well as
large-scale producers, responding to demands of consumers, are still refusing
GMOs.
Consumers in industrialised countries have shown strong opposition against genetically engineered food. In other countries such a clear outcry has not yet been heard, but the discussion is increasing.
8.1
Consumers against genetically modified food
Resistance against genetically modified food is growing stronger every day. This consumer campaign is particularly strong in Europe, where - according to many public surveys a majority of consumers does not want genetically modified food and more than 90% demand clear labelling of all GMO in food.
In
Germany for instance 250,000 people have joined Greenpeaces "No GE shopping
network" actively writing and talking to their supermarkets and food
companies asking them to stay free of genetic engineering. More than 300.000
have signed an appeal to the government not to allow genetically engineered food
on the market.
In
Austria 1,2 million voters have signed a referendum to stop the release of
genetically modified organisms into the environment and to keep GMOs out of
their food. The Austrian government has subsequently banned the growing and
import of the GMOs presently legalised for planting in the European Union (Novartis
Maize). Luxembourg followed Austria and so did Norway. In most other European
countries the maize cannot be grown, as the seeds are not approved for
commercialisation.
Tens
of thousands of citizens all over Europe have appealed to the French prime
minister Lionel Jospin not to allow the growing of GMs maize, designed by the
multinational Novartis. The maize has been grown in France for the first time on
a commercial base in Europe. However in the end Novartis could not sell more
than seeds for 500 hectares (out of 1,3 million hectares) of its GM’s maize.
In Greece the association of supermarket-retailers issued a statement saying they did not want to sell GMOs in their supermarkets.
In
Germany, Switzerland, France, Denmark and Sweden Greenpeaces "genetic
detectives" are exposing genetically engineered products in supermarkets.
Most of these products have been withdrawn after they were detected.
In
Great Britain Greenpeace issued a "disloyalty card" against Unilever,
who introduced genetically engineered instant food (Beanfeast). Thousands have
joined that initiative and one supermarket chain already withdrew the products.
Another supermarket chain, "Iceland" actively committed itself to
guarantee all their products are GMO free in the future.
In
France and Luxembourg big supermarket chains withdrew "tortilla chips"
which contained Novartis GMO maize. The association of French vegetable
producers issued a statement against the use of GMOs only last wee
In
the United States, where GMOs, such as Monsanto’s "Roundup ready"
soybeans or insecticide containing maize and cotton are now planted in large
quantities, the US Department of Agriculture tried to set up rules for organic
farming, also providing allowances for genetic engineering. In a national
campaign organic agriculture organisations and concerned NGOs organised the
resistance against these plans. More than 150.000 complaints against the
inclusion of genetic engineering finally forced the USDA to withdraw their plan
and acknowledge that organic farming is incompatible with genetic engineering.
(source: Greenpeace international)
8.2
What can you do?
There
are different things individuals and groups can do in trying to stop genetic
engineering. Everybody can make a difference, however small your effort may seem.
Writing a letter to your local politician or supermarket manager doesn’t take
up much of your time .When they receive thousands of letters they can’t do
anything else but listen to what people have to say. Yourself, as a consumer,
can also make a tremendous change. Business is about making money and when
people stop buying foods that have GMO ingredients, producers have no choice but
to stop using these ingredients.
Throughout
this paper you have seen different examples of how people have reacted to the
GMO challenge. You can use these examples and start projects or other
initiatives in your own neighbourhood, county or state.
To summarise, these are some of the actions you can take:
Write
to local and national politicians. In a democracy, you can demand that they
take action on behalf of their voters in banning GE crops in your country.
Contact
farmer’s and farmer’s organisations and ask them to stay GE-free.
National and international environmental organisations can provide them with
suitable alternatives for genetically engineered crops.
Write
letters to producers using genetically engineered ingredients in their
products.
Ask
your supermarket manager to guarantee foods that are free from genetic
engineering.
Buy
organic food.
When
you are not sure you are buying genetic engineered-free food, ask the
supermarket manager or the producer.
Bring
back products that are labelled as containing GE-ingredients.
When
part of an environmental group, you can start a project aimed at informing
your fellow citizens of the hazards of genetically engineered food. As an
individual, you can start with your family, friends and people you work with.
Most
newsletters and magazines have public opinion sections. Every time papers
publicise a pro-genetic engineering article, you could send a letter, which
explains otherwise. If they receive different letters on this subject,
chances are that one of them might be publicised.
Get
in touch with other organisations to discuss
and undertake action that
is most appropriate to your situation.
Over the past couple of years literally hundreds of non-governmental organisations all over the world became active in opposing genetic engineering. Below you will find a selection of environmental-, consumers-, scientific and farmer’s organisations undertaking action against genetic engineering in agriculture. All were taken from the official GM-resistance register publicised by A SEED Europe. You can contact these organisations for information and advice.
Greenpeace
International
Contact
persons: Benny
Haerling, Barbara Kueppper
Chausseestr.
131, D-10115 Berlin, Germany
Tel.:
+49-30-308.89914
E-mail:
bkuepper@greenpeace.de, bhaerlin@greenpeace.de
Look
at the website: http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng
for
national Greenpeace offices, extensive information about all aspects of genetic
engineering and links to other relevant websites.
Greenpeace
International oppose the release of
genetically modified organisms into the environment. Part of their campaign
focuses on the international market for such GMOs from the farmers to the
supermarket, including commodity trade, processors, food producers, retailers
and consumers.
Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC-Group)
formerly
known as RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International)
110
Osborne St., Suite 202, Winnipeg MB R3L 1Y5 Canada
Tel.:
+1-204-453.5259; Fax: +1-204-925.8034
E-mail: rafi@rafi.org
Website: http://www.etcgroup.org
The
ETC-Group is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable improvement of
agricultural biodiversity, and to the socially responsible development of
technologies useful to rural societies. ETCGroup is also concerned about the
loss of genetic diversity, especially in agriculture, and about the impact of
intellectual property rights on agriculture and world food security. In recent
years, RAFI and numerous other NGO’s have worked together and successfully
brought down some unjust and immoral patent claims.
World
Resources Institute (WRI)
10
G street, NE (suite 800), Washington,
DC 20002, USA
Tel.:
+1-202-729.7600; Fax: +1-202-729.7610
E-mail:
lauralee@wri.org
Website : http://www.wri.org
WRI
provides, and helps other institutions to provide, objective information and
practical proposals for policy and institutional change that will foster
environmentally sound and socially equitable development.
GRAIN
(Genetic Resources Action International)
Girona
25, pral, 08010 Barcelona, Spain
Tel.:
+34-93-301.1381; Fax: +34-93-301.1627
E-mail: grain@bcn.servicecom.es
Website: http://www.grain.org
GRAIN is an international NGO whose main objective is to help further a global movement of popular action against genetic erosion by means of promoting popular control of agricultural biodiversity, stopping the destruction of biodiversity by industrial agriculture and by giving support to agricultural biodiversity-based programs.
A Seed Europe (Environmental Youth NGO)
Contact
persons: Stephanie Howard, Helen Holder, Daniel Swartz
PO
Box 92066, 1090 AB Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Tel.:
+31-20-668.2236; Fax:
+31-20-468.2275
E-mail:
steph@aseed.antenna.nl, helen@aseed.antenna.nl,
kuka@swartz.zpok.hu, groundup@aseed.antenna.nl
Website: http://www.GRoundUp.org
A
Seed Europe specialises in copyrights/patents, EU Crop administration, EU
legislation, field trials, monitoring multinational corporations, sustainable
development and TRIPS.
European
Farmers Co-ordination (CPE)
Contact
persons: Nico Verhagen, Gerard Choplin
Rue de la Sablonnière18,
1000
Brussels, Belgium
Tel.:
+32-2- 2173112; Fax: +32-2-
2184509
E-mail:
cpe@cpefarmers.org
Website: http://www.cpefarmers.org
CPE
is specialised in organic agriculture, Farmer’s Union, biodiversity, biopiracy,
biosafety, food safety, national legislation, reduction of agro-chemical use and
sustainable development.
Friends
of the Earth Europe - Biotechnology Program
Contact
person: Gill Lacroix
29
rue Blanche, 1060 Brussels, Belgium
Tel.:
+32-2-542.0180; Fax: +32-2-537.5596
E-mail:
info@foeeurope.org
Website: http://www.foeeurope.org
GMO
Contamination around the world:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/Final_GMO_Contamination.pdf
Friends of the Earth Europe specialises in antibiotic use, biodiversity, biopiracy, biosafety, consumer protection, food safety, IPR’s, monitoring multinational corporations, organic agriculture, sustainable development and TRIPs.
Centro
Ecológico
Contact
person: Maria José Guazzelli
CP
21,95, 240-000 Ipé, Brazil
E-mail:
flaviobo@zaz.com.br
Advise
and information for NGO’s, farmers and government in relation to ecological
products and production. Objectives are to improve socio-economic conditions of
farming families and the preservation of local ecosystems.
Programa
Cambios-UNA
Contact
person: Silvia Rodriguez
Apartado
Postal 86, 3000 Heredia, Costa Rica
Tel.:
+506-277-3601/3290; Fax: +506-240-7374
Specialisation
in research into bio-prospecting, biosafety, consumers protection, ethics,
public participation/right to know.
Contact
person: Fernando Larrea
San
Ignacio 134 y 6 de diciembre, Quito,
Ecuador
Tel.:
+593-2-504-496; Fax:
+593-2-504-496
E-mail:
ferhpi@uio.satnet.net
Website: http://www.riad.org
Specialisation’s
are bio-prospecting, biosafety, food-security, ethics, monitoring multinational
corporations, public participation/right to know, research.
Red
por una Latino America libre de transgenicos - Accion Ecologica
(Umbrella
organisation of anti-genetic engineering NGO’s)
Contact
person: Eliabeth Bravo
Alejandro
de Valdez N24-33 y La Gasca, 12-15-246C
Quito, Ecuador
Tel.:
+593-2-547.516; Fax:
+593-2-527.583
E-mail:
ebravo@hoy.net
Specialises in Bio-Prospecting, biopiracy, biosafety, consumers protection, Farmer’s Union, Human Genome project, monitoring multinational corporations, national legislation, organic agriculture, sustainable development and TRIPs.
Bangladesh
Krishok Federation (Farmers Union)
Contact
person: Badrul Alam
274/2
South Jatrabari, 3rd Floor, Dholaipar Bus stand, 1204 Dhaka, Bangladesh
Tel.:
+880-193-40276; Fax: +880-295-65506/65483
E-mail:
gbs@dhaka.agni.com
Specialises
in farmers issues, food safety, food security, monitoring multinational
corporations, organic agriculture, research, seed and sustainable development.
Forum
for Biotechnology and Food Security
Contact
person: Devinder Sharma
Post
Box 4, Lajpat Nagar-IV, 110-163
New Delhi, India
Tel.:
+91-11-525.0494
E-mail:
dsharma@del6.vsnl.net.in,
eeg@sdalt.ernet.in
Specialises
in food security.
Research
Foundation for Science, Technology, and Natural Resources Policy
Contact
person: Vandana Shiva
A
60, Hauz Khas, 110-016 New Delhi, India
Phone:
+91-11-696.8077/685.3772; Fax: +91-11-685.6795
E-mail: rfste@ndf.vsnl.net.in
Website:
http://www.vshiva.net
Specialises
in bio-prospecting, biodiversity, biopiracy, biosafety, ethics, field trials,
food safety, food security, national legislation, organic agriculture, reduction
of agro-chemical use, sustainable development and TRIPs.
World
Food Day - Farmers and Fisherman’ Movement of Indonesia
Contact
person: Paulus Hardiyoko
Tegal
Gendu KG II RT 50/XI, 55172 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Tel.:
+62-024-380.776; Fax: +32-024-380-776
E-mail:
ganjuran@indosatnet.id
Specialises
in biodiversity, Farmer’s Union, field trials, food security, IPR’s, organic
agriculture, sustainable development.
Consumers
Union of Japan - No GE Technology Campaign Office
Contact
person: Setsuko Yasuda
Asaga
Building 2F, 1-10-16 Meguro, Honmachi, Meguro-ku, 152-0002 Tokyo, Japan
Tel.:
+813-3711.7766; Fax: +813-3715.9378
E-mail:
nishoten@jca.ax.apc.org
Specialises
in antibiotic use, biodiversity, biodynamic farming, biosafety, cloning,
endocrine disrupters, labelling, organic agriculture, other medical applications,
transgenetic animals, sustainable development.
Green
Korea United
Contact
person: Lee So-Young, Youk Kyung Suk
1004
Garden Tower, 98-78 Wooni-dong, Chongno-/ku, 110-350 Seoul, Korea
Tel.:
+82-2-747.8500; Fax:
+82-2-766.4180
E-mail: environ@chollian.net
Website: http://www.greenkorea.org
Green
Korea United is specialised in Bio-prospecting, biodiversity, biosafety, ethics,
cloning/patents, Human Genome Project, labelling, monitoring multinational
corporations, organic agriculture and sustainable development.
Third
World Network & Consumers Association of Penang
Contact
person: Martin Khor
228
Macalister Rd., 10400 Penang, Malaysia
Tel.:
+60-4-226-6728; Fax: +60-4-226-4505
E-mail:
twn@igc.org,
twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: http://www.southbound.com.my/souths/cap/cap.htm
Specialises
in consumers protection, food safety, South and the development context.
A
Seed Nepal
Contact
person: Ramesh Pant
P.O.
Box 7933, Kirtipur Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel.:
+977-1-332.004
E-mail:
rameshannfsu@hotmail.com
Specialises
in animal welfare, biodiversity, biosafety, reduction of agro-chemical use,
south and the development context and sustainable development.
Biothai
(Biodiversity
and Community Right Action Thailand)
80/8
soi 5, Ngam-worgwan 27, Ngam-wongwanrd.,
Muang District, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand
Tel.:
+66-2-952.7371/952.7953
E-mail:
biothai@pacific.net.th
Website: http://biothai.topcities.com/aboutBiothai.html
Back to Content
Australian
Gene Ethics Network (AGEN)
Contact
person: Bob Phelps
c/-ACF
340 Gore Street, 3065
Fitzroy, Australia
Tel.:
+61-3-9416.2222; Fax: +61-3-9416.0767
E-mail:
info@geneethics.org
Website: http://www.geneethics.org
A federation of groups
and individuals who promote critical discussion and debate on the environmental,
social and ethical impacts of genetic engineering technologies.
Soil
& Health Association of New Zealand
Contact
person: Chris Wheeler
PO
Box 36-170, Northcote, New Zealand
Tel.:
+64-9-480.4440; Fax: +64-9-480.4440
E-mail:
soil&health@pl.net
Website: http://www.soil-health.org.nz
Specialises in animal welfare, antibiotic use, bio-prospecting, biodiversity, biodynamic farming, biopiracy, BSE, cloning, ethics, EU Crop Admissions, Farmer’s Union, IPR’s, national legislation, organic agriculture, pharmaceutical applications, religious ethics, research, transgenetic animals, TRIPs and xeno-transplantation.
Africa
Seddouk
Ecology Association
Contact
person: Berkani Aissa
1
rue Boudiba Larbi, 06500
Bejaia, Algeria
Tel.: +213-532-2467; Fax: 213-532-2676
E-mail: ALBerkani@yahoo.fr, ABerkani@dromadaire.com
Specialises
in animal welfare, biodiversity, biodynamic farming, cloning, consumers
protection, ethics, national legislation, South and the development context and
sustainable development.
Institute
for Sustainable Development
Contact
person: Sue Edwards, Tewolde Berhan Gerbe Egziabher
Addis
Abeba, Ethiopia
E-mail:
sue@padis.gn.apc.org
Specialises in biosafety and sustainable development.
Global
2000
Contact
person: Daniel Hausknost, Ulli
Sima
Flurschutzstraase
13, 1120
Vienna, Austria
Tel.:
+43-1-812.57300/812.57310; Fax: +43-1-812.5728
E-mail:
ulli.sima@global2000.at, global2000@global2000.at
Website:
http://www.global2000.at
Specialises
at biopiracy, consumer protection, EU Crops Admissions, EU legislation, field
trials, food safety, national legislation, organic agriculture.
Centre
d’Etudes et de Formation en Ecology
Contact
person: Michel Sornville
28
Rue Basse Marcelle, 5000
Namur, Belgium
Tel.:
+32-8-122.5848; Fax:
+328-123.1847
E-mail:
ecolo.cefe@ecolo.be
Website: http://www.ecolo.be
Specialises
in all aspects related to environmental issues, biodiversity and sustainable
development.
Friends
of the Earth Denmark (NOAH)
Contact
person: Mads Tiesen (chairman)
Norrebrogade 39 1, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel.:
+45-3536.1212; Fax:
+45-3536.1217
E-mail:
foedenmark@nn.apc.org
Website: http://www.noah.dk/english.html
Specialises
in animal welfare, biodiversity, copyrights/patents and ethics.
Action
OGM - Direct Action Group
Contact
person: Bethan Stagg
4,
rue Bodin, 69001 Lyon, France
Tel.:
+34-782-72982; Fax:
+34-782-85578
E-mail:
maison.ecologie@wanadoo.fr, bethanstagg@hotmail.com
Specialises
in EU Crop Admissions, EU legislation, Farmer’s Union, food safety, monitoring
multinational corporations and national legislation. Also produced a guide on
anti-GMO Direct Action in French and English (Spanish will follow).
Friends
of the Earth France/Les Amis de la Terre
Contact
person: Phillipe Lequenne
38,
rue Meslay, 75003 Paris, France
Tel.: +33-1-48.87.3344; Fax: +33-1-48.87.285.23
Website: http://www.amisdelaterre.org/pages/anglais/englishpresentation.html
Information
about all environmental issues. Special publications about gene technology.
Gen-ethisches Netzwerk (GeN)
Contact
person: Henning Strodthoff
Brunnenstraße 4, 10119
Berlin, Germany
Tel.: +49-30-685.7073; Fax: +49-30-684.1183
E-Mail: gen@gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de
Genetic
Concern
Contact
person: Clare Watson, Quentin Gargan
Room
13a, Dame House, 24-26 Dame Street, Dublin 2.
Tel.: +353-1-670.5606; Fax:
+353-1-670.5561
E-mail: geneticconcern@tinet.ie