Rejecting Genetically Modified Organisms & the Corporate Science Spin

by Eva Sirinathsinghji

April 18, 2018

​

Eva is a Biosafety Researcher based in the UK

 

Summary

The premise of genetically modified technologies (GMOs) is based on outdated Western scientific dogma, founded on a hierarchical philosophy of nature and a mechanistic understanding of life. The Caribbean and wider Americas are not exempt from the effects of the commercialisation of GMOs by profiteering transnational corporations, as they begin to focus on the genetic engineering of plant varieties that are culturally and nutritionally significant to the region. A call to action is made to resist and reject the basis for, and imposition of, GMOs in the global South.  

 

 

The current era of genetic modification, big data and synthetic biology is the latest profit quest of the biotech industry. It is rooted in the ideology of genetic determinism - that genes determine who we are in simplistic ways, passing down characteristics from one generation to the next, unaffected by our environment and life experiences.

 

Genetic determinism follows a long history of mechanistic, reductionist biology whereby the whole is viewed as no more than the sum of its parts, that cause and effect are simply related, and can be neatly isolated. This mechanistic understanding of nature, deriving from the European Enlightenment, also brought about the industrial revolution; and with it capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, world wars and industrialised, chemical, agricultural systems (1). This mechanistic view served to justify such exploitative practices, giving permission to endlessly manipulate nature and people for profit. Genetic determinism also gave rationale for those in power to claim a rightful place at the top, that they had won the Darwinian race in the struggle for survival of the fittest by possessing good genes, while those who were dispossessed and in poverty have only their bad genes to blame. Scientific racism, eugenics, and most recently modern genetics all flourished under this simplistic biological paradigm.  

 

If we are to look further back in history, Western biological philosophies have been argued to be heavily influenced by the Christian-Judeo philosophy towards nature, where humans exert complete dominion over nature (2). This hierarchy of life places men at the top, followed by women, children, animals, birds, fish, plants and lastly, microscopic organisms. In contrast, much of African, Asian and American religious conceptions, while obviously distinct in many ways, tend to view nature as an organic entity and humanity as only a part of an integral whole in a unified theory of life. Through this mindset, the idea of controlling, manipulating and owning life, gives rise to the current situation where genes are patented, seeds are owned, and genetic therapies are restricted by companies who ‘own’ rights to genetic screens for diseases such as cancers.

 

While genetic determinism still dominates the biotech industry, the field of genetics in the West has exposed the failings of this theory. Modern genetics is now aligning itself with more holistic paradigms, where concepts of the ‘holobiont’ and hologenome’, in which complex interactions occur between living organisms of different species live in intimate symbiosis, co-evolving together. We are also now seeing evidence that life experiences can be passed down the generations, including issues relating to diet (3,4,5), life-style (e.g. smoking) (6) stress and trauma (7). Nonetheless, we are in the midst of a biotech industry stuck in the outdated genetic deterministic paradigm, proclaiming that the latest in precision genetics and synthetic biology are the answer to our environmental, food security and health needs.

 

Genetically Modified Organisms

 

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms whose genetic material has been altered through biotechnological techniques, usually to carry genes from other species, or altered even without the introduction of genes from different species. While we were sold stories about how GMOs could be used to address major environmental and health concerns such as increased nutritional content, or reducing chemical use, these traits are yet to come to fruition. The most common are commodity crops such as maize and soybeans which have been manipulated to confer tolerance to chemical herbicides by those very companies who produce the herbicides, with around 85 % of all GMO crops being herbicide-tolerant, as of 2014 (8). The second most common trait are those that carry genes to confer insecticidal properties. These crops are now failing in many regions due to the evolution of resistance of weeds to the herbicides, and pests that no longer die when exposed to the insecticides, as would be predicted under basic evolutionary principles. Not only are they now becoming ineffective, there is a lack of scientific consensus over their safety to both people and planet (9). Further, herbicide tolerant crops are actually leading to increased use of herbicides (10,11), many of which are linked to cancers, birth defects and other serious adverse health effects, as noted by international agencies such as the World Health Organisation (12). To add to the problems, GMO seeds and the chemical inputs are more expensive than conventional seeds which farmers often freely exchange, a practice that cannot be done with patented, GMO seeds. Tragically, farmers in GMO cultivating regions such as India are succumbing to financial debt, and has exacerbated an epidemic of farmer suicides.

 

The latest GM crop being pushed under the guise of philanthropy, is a drought-tolerant maize variety. Data to back up claims of its effectivity are completely lacking in the scientific literature. The push for these crops onto the continent is considered by many as a ‘Trojan Horse’ (13), designed to push governments to weaken their biosafety laws to open the door to a flood of GMOs under the guise of ‘saving Africans’ from famine.  It is highly speculative that the single gene used, a bacterial gene that helps confer survival during cold-shock, actually improves drought-tolerance in maize, especially when it is estimated that at least 60 genes in maize are thought to mediate its survival under drought.

 

GM insects being released in the Caribbean

 

In addition to crops, genetically modified insects are being released in the environment, including in the Caribbean/Central American region, such as the Cayman Islands and Panama. These insects, in theory, are being released to reduce mosquito populations by producing offspring that do not survive in the wild. However, many concerns have been raised over their efficacy, and potential adverse effects to the environment and people (14), with very little assessment on their potential risks having been conducted to date, let alone by independent scientists. The next era of genetically modified mosquitoes being developed are using a gene technology known as a ‘gene drive’, a gene that is designed to spread rapidly through a population like a mutagenic chain reaction, with the intention to completely wipe out a population, or even a whole species. The consequences of releasing such organisms is hard to predict in a laboratory setting and has potentially huge ecological ramifications. There have been calls across the globe by civil society, environmental groups and public interest scientists for a global moratorium on the environmental release of these organisms (15).  Gene drives are also being developed in plant species including Amaranth, or callaloo, a highly nutritious plant widely grown in the Caribbean and Central America, but viewed by the agritech industry as a weed that grows widely in US maize fields. These extinction technologies have been described as stemming from a “militarised mind” (16); indeed the US military is reportedly the biggest funder of gene drive technologies.  

 

Next wave of GMOs

 

With limitations to the success of GMO crops to date and the widespread public scepticism that has limited their commercialisation in much of the world, we are now being sold the next generation of GMOs that are supposedly more technically precise, and synthetic biology products. Such products include artificial versions of ingredients and products being produced in microorganisms such as genetically modified algae. Artificial alternatives to various sought-after natural products such as shea and cocoa butter, vanilla, nutmeg are being developed (17). Technologies and big data are also being used to rapidly screen crops long revered for their nutritional and medicinal properties such as moringa (18), laying foundations for the patenting and stealing of genes developed under the stewardship of farmers across the world over centuries, often predominantly by women, whose contributions are unlikely to be acknowledged either intellectually, or financially.

 

The corporate push by transnational corporations and nations with large bioeconomy sectors is a huge battle, but one that has had important victories to date.  A strong anchoring in scientific and/or cultural paradigms that expose the outdated limitations of genetic determinism is needed to expose the warping of scientific truth in pursuit of endless profit.  

 

 

References

1. Ho MW. 2009. Science of the Organism & Sustainable Systems. Implications for Agricultural Policies. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SOSS.php

2. Mgbeoji I. 2006. Global Biopiracy. Patents, Plants, and Indigenous Knowledge. Ithaka, NY. Cornell University Press.

3.  Bygren, LO.; Tinghög, P.; Carstensen, J.; Edvinsson, S.; Kaati, G.; Pembrey, ME.; Sjöström, M. 2014. Change in paternal grandmothers' early food supply influenced cardiovascular mortality of the female grandchildren. BMC Genetics. 15, 12. 

4. Chen Q, Yan M, Cao Z, Li X, Zhang Y, Shi J, Feng GH, Peng H, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Qian J, Duan E, Zhai Q, Zhou Q. 2016. Sperm tsRNAs contribute to intergenerational inheritance of an acquired metabolic disorder. Science, 351, 397-400. doi: 10.1126/science.aad797

5. Sirinathsinghji E. 2016. Parents’ Eating Habits Can Affect the Health of Future Generations. Science in Society 69, 48.

6. Pembrey ME, Bygren LO, Kaati G, Edvinsson S, Northstone K, Sjöström M, Golding J; ALSPAC Study Team. 2006. Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006, 14, 159-66.

7. Kellermann NP. 2013. Epigenetic transmission of Holocaust trauma: can nightmares be inherited? Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci., 50, 33-9.

8. James, C. 2015. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:2014. ISAAA brief No. 49. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA): Ithaca, NY.

9. Hilbeck A, Binimelis R, Defarge N, Steinbrecher R, Székács A, Wickson F, Antoniou M, Bereano PL, Clark EA, Hansen M, Novotny E, Heinemann J, Meyer H, Shiva V, Wynne B. 2015. No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety. European Sciences Europe. 27, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

10. Perry E, Ciliberto F, Hennessy D, Moschini G. 2016. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans. Science 2, 8, e1600850. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600850

11. Ávila-Vázquez M. 2015. Devastating impacts of glyphosate use with GMO seeds in Argentina. Banishing Glyphosate. Special ISIS report. http://www.isis.org.uk/Banishing_Glyphosate.php.

12. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. International Agency for Research on Cancer World Health Organization 20 March 2015. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/ MonographVolume112.pdf

13.  African Centre for Biodiversity. 2018. A tale of neo-apartheid plans, dodgy dealings and corporate capture: Government support to South African smallholders. https://www.acbio.org.za/en/media-release/2018/tale-neo-apartheid-plans-dodgy-dealings-and-corporate-capture-government-support

14.  GeneWatch UK. 2017. Oxitec’s Genetically Modified Mosquitoes: Ready to Roll Out? http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/Oxitec_GWbrief_17_fin.pdf

15. Synbiowatch. 2016. Call for a Global Moratorium on Gene Drives. http://www.synbiowatch.org/gene-drives/gene-drives-moratorium/

16.  Shiva V. 2016. Biodiversity, GMOs, Gene Drives and the Militarised Mind. http://vandanashiva.com/?p=425

17.  ETC Group. 2016. Synthetic Biology, Biodiversity & Farmers. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/synthetic-biology-biodiversity-farmers

18. African Orphan Crops Consortium. http://africanorphancrops.org