IP: Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: "Rob Raisch" <raisch () rivalworks com>
> To: "Dave Farber" <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
>
> (This came to me via a third party and a quick search of the web does not
> reveal its immediate source.  However, I have found supporting documentation
> at
> http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsMay-June99/GEN5-20MonarchButterfly.htm
> l  If this occurs, as it appears it surely must, I will miss the Monarch.
> /rr)
>
>
> Unknown risks of genetically engineered crops
> by Jeremy Rifkin
>
> On May 20, the term "genetic pollution" officially entered the public
> lexicon. Scientists at Cornell University reported in the journal Nature
> that the pollen from genetically engineered corn containing a toxin gene
> called Bt killed 44 percent of the monarch butterfly caterpillars who
> fed on milkweed leaves dusted with it. By contrast, caterpillars fed
> with conventional pollen all survived. The results are all the more
> shocking given the fact that nearly 25 percent of the US corn crop now
> contains the Bt transgene and the Corn Belt states of the Midwest are
> where half of the monarch butterflies are produced each year.
>
> In the wake of the monarch butterfly study, a growing number of
> scientists now say they wonder about the potential environmental effects
> of scores of other genetically engineered crops being introduced into
> the agricultural fields. Indeed, some critics are asking why these and
> other studies weren't done before introducing genetically engineered
> corn, soy, cotton and other crops over millions of acres of farm land.
>
> The fact is, genetically engineered crops are radically different from
> conventional crops because they contain genes in their biological
> make-up from completely unrelated species. For example, scientists have
> introduced an antifreeze gene from flounder fish into the genetic code
> of a tomato plant to protect the plant from cold spells. While
> scientists have long been able to cross close relatives in the plant
> kingdom, the new genetic tools allow them to cross all of the biological
> boundaries, adding genes from viruses, bacteria, other animals and
> plants into the genetic code of traditional food crops.
>
> Ecologists are unsure of the impacts of bypassing natural species
> boundaries. Consider, for example, the ambitious plans to engineer
> transgenic plants to serve as pharmaceutical factories for the
> production of chemicals and drugs. Foraging animals, seed-eating birds,
> and soil insects will be exposed to a range of genetically engineered
> drugs, vaccines, industrial enzymes, plastics, and hundreds of other
> foreign substances for the first time, with untold consequences.
>
> Over the next 10 years, life science companies plan on introducing
> thousands of laboratory-conceived transgenic plants over millions of
> acres of farmland around the world. Ecologists tell us that the risks in
> releasing these novel crops into the biosphere are similar to those
> we've encountered in introducing exotic organisms into North America.
> While many of these nonnative creatures have adapted to the North
> American ecosystems without severe dislocations, a small percentage of
> them have wreaked havoc on the flora and fauna of the continent.
>
> Whenever a genetically engineered organism is released, there is always
> a small chance that it too will run amok because, like nonindigenous
> species, it has been artificially introduced into a complex environment
> that has developed a web of highly integrated relationships over long
> periods of evolutionary history.
>
> Much of the current effort in agricultural biotechnology is centered on
> the creation of herbicide-tolerant plants. To increase their share of
> the growing global market for herbicides, life-science companies like
> Monsanto and Novartis have created transgenic crops that tolerate their
> own herbicides. Monsanto's new herbicide-resistant patented seeds, for
> example, are resistant to its best-selling chemical herbicide, Roundup.
>
> The companies hope to convince farmers that the new herbicide-tolerant
> crops will allow for a more efficient eradication of weeds. Farmers will
> be able to spray at any time during the growing season, killing weeds
> without killing their crops. Critics warn that with new
> herbicide-tolerant crops planted in the fields, farmers are likely to
> use even greater quantities of herbicides to control weeks, as there
> will be less fear of damaging their crops in the process of spraying.
> The increased use of herbicides, in turn, raises the possibility of
> weeds developing resistance, forcing an even greater use of herbicides
> to control the more resistant strains.
>
> New pest-resistant transgenic crops, such as Bt corn, are also being
> introduced for the first time. Monsanto and Novartis are marketing
> transgenic crops that produce insecticide in every cell of each plant. A
> growing body of scientific evidence points to the likelihood of creating
> "super bugs" resistant to the effects of the new pesticide-producing
> genetic crops.
>
> Some ecologists warn of the danger of what they call "gene flow"--the
> transfer of transgenic genes from crops to weedy relatives by way of
> cross-pollination. New studies have shown that transgenic genes for
> herbicide tolerance and pest and viral resistance can spread by way of
> pollen and insert themselves into the genomes of relatives, creating
> weeds that are resistant to herbicides, pests and viruses.
>
> The insurance industry has quietly let it be known that while it will
> provide coverage for negligence and short-term damage resulting from the
> introduction of genetically engineered crops into the environment, it
> will not offer liability coverage for long-term catastrophic
> environmental damage because the industry lacks a risk assessment
> science--a predictive ecology--with which to judge the risks.
>
> The industry understands the Kafkaesque implications of a government
> regime claiming to regulate the new field of biotechnology in the
> absence of clear scientific knowledge of how genetically modified
> organisms interact once introduced into the environment. Who, then, will
> be held liable for losses if a transgenic plant introduction were to
> trigger genetic pollution over an extended terrain for an indefinite
> period of time? The life science companies? The government?
>
> The introduction of novel genetically engineered organisms also raises a
> number of serious human health issues that have yet to be resolved. Most
> of these new crops contain genes from non-food-source organisms. With 2
> percent of adults and 8 percent of children having allergic responses to
> commonly eaten foods, consumer advocates argue that all novel
> gene-spliced foods need to be properly labeled so that consumers can
> avoid health risks.
>
> The British Medical Association has become so concerned about the
> potential health effects of consuming genetically modified foods that it
> has just called for an open-ended moratorium on the commercial planting
> of genetically engineered food crops until a scientific consensus
> emerges on their safety. And the European Commission recently announced
> a freeze on licenses for genetically engineered plants after learning
> about the monarch butterfly study.
>
> A worldwide moratorium should be declared now on releasing genetically
> engineered food crops and other gene-spliced organisms into the
> environment pending further study of the potential environmental and
> health risks and liability issues at stake. It would be irresponsible
> and foolish to continue seeding farmland with genetically engineered
> food crops when we have yet to develop even a rudimentary risk
> assessment science by which to regulate these new agricultural products.
> --
> Rob Raisch CTO - RivalWorks, Inc. <http://www.rivalworks.com>
> Who do you want to play today?