family tools
choose a tool resource directory
find a practitioner parenting toolbox product safety media reviews family fun guide send an e-card family astrology

community features choose a feature birth stories find a Mothering friend live chat mothers' writing group teen voices

	growing child food

Frankenstein Foods: The Case Against Genetic Engineering
By Laura Ticciati
Web Exclusive

I WON'T BEAT AROUND THE BUSH. AS A MOTHER, I AM instinctively opposed to genetically altering our food supply. Yet today, hundreds of biotechnology firms are splicing genes from one bacteria, virus, insect, hormone, or foreign plant into another plant's or livestock animal's DNA. The resulting plants and animals may be bigger, more resistant to disease, or able to avoid unsightly bruising on the way to the freezer section. But there is something viscerally frightening about the idea of altering the nature of the foods that should sustain us. There's also a growing body of science suggesting that genetic engineering contains the seeds of disaster. Consider:

The process is unpredictable. In 1989, a genetically altered form of the food supplement trytophan produced an unexpected protein that proved to be toxic. Thirty-seven people died, and 1,500 were permanently disabled. In a more recent case, a genetically engineered bacterium that was supposed to aid in the production of ethanol (a gasoline additive derived from corn) produced a rather undesirable side effect: New corn crops planted on the treated soil grew 3 inches tall, then fell over dead. (See "OSU Study Finds Genetic Altering of Bacterium Upsets Natural Order," The Oregonian, August 8, 1994.)

It increases pollution. Approximately 57 percent of the biotech research today involves developing plants that can tolerate larger amounts of herbicides. In the near future, this could triple the amount of herbicides used on crops. These chemicals appear, in turn, in our groundwater and our bodies. (See "Environmental Concerns with Herbicide-tolerant Plants," Weed Technology 6, 1994.)

It decreases the effectiveness of antibiotics. Antibiotic-resistant genes are incorporated into nearly every genetically engineered organism as markers to indicate that an organism has been successfully engineered. Scientists expect these genes and their enzyme products, which inactivate antibiotics, to be present in engineered foods. (See Food and Drug Administration publication 57, Federal Register 22988.)

It produces sick and suffering livestock. In an early experiment, human growth hormone spliced into pigs resulted in crippled, blind, and immuno-compromised animals. (For more on the effects of genetically engineered growth hormones on both cows and people, see "Boo for Moo?" page 31.)

It means faux freshness. Consumers rely on physical characteristics, like the color and firmness of fruits and vegetables, to indicate freshness, nutritional quality, and flavor. A luscious-looking tomato could be several weeks old and of little nutritional value, but we wouldn't know. With engineered traits we can't accurately judge the quality of the produce we buy.

It can kill. Corn and potatoes engineered to produce toxins that kill insects are now classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as pesticides, rather than vegetables. (See "EPA Approves Corn and Cotton with Conditions," The Gene Exchange, December, 1995)

The hazardous effects will continue for generations to come. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, gene pollution can never be cleaned up. New living organisms, bacteria, and viruses will be released into the environment to reproduce and mutate. They will transfer their genes to other organisms. And they can never be recalled or contained. The effects of genetic mistakes will be irreversible, irretrievable, and permanent.

Laura Ticciati, cofounder, Mothers for Natural Law