Frankenstein in the fields

25/07/1998

Powerful and rich Western companies are pushing genetically modified crops. The long-term effects on the environment and human health remain uncertain and the disadvantages to poor farmers can be huge. A campaigner on justice and peace issues questions a development which is speeding ahead without full debate. TWO years ago this month, I was sitting in a traffic jam in central London when my mobile phone rang. It was a teacher from my youngest son?s nursery. She spoke abnormally slowly: Simon is having an allergic reaction to something he ate in his lunch a few minutes ago and he is on his way to Watford General Hospital with two staff. Did you administer the adrenalin and call an ambulance? I asked. No, he collapsed so quickly that we thought we should save time by putting him straight in the car. Simon, the youngest of my three sons, has a severe allergy to peanuts, and possibly all nuts.

It took me more than an hour to drive to Watford, half praying, half trying to contact my husband, Gerry. I was in such a state of agitation when I arrived that I couldn?t find the hospital. Then I couldn?t find a parking place. I eventually left the car on double yellow lines and dashed into the Accident and Emergency. Nothing mattered except reaching Simon and yet I dreaded finding him.

I soon caught sight of his red and blue T-shirt, which I had ironed that morning. He was lying in a cubicle bed but managed a smile and a mummy as he stretched out to reach me. Clearly, the crisis was over. The teachers said that as soon as Simon put a first spoonful of lunch into his mouth he spat it out and was violently sick. Within 10 seconds he was flushed and itching, within 20 seconds hives appeared all over his body, his mouth swelled and he had difficulty breathing. He screamed at first, but soon became drowsy and limp, probably due to a sudden drop in blood pressure. What had he been eating?, I asked. It was the obvious question.

Soya mince and vegetables, they answered. We don?t understand it. He?s had soya before, and you know how careful we are to have no nuts on the premises.

I had certainly trusted the precautions taken to date ? information about food ingredients was taped on to the kitchen walls ? but I wondered about contamination. Could Simon have been touched by anyone who had recently eaten peanuts elsewhere? They were adamant that the content of the meal itself was responsible and that there was no possibility of cross-contamination. The soya used that day was a different brand from the usual, but the questions were left unresolved. From then on, he took a tuck-box from home every day.

I began to read up on soya and about the presence of genetically modified soya in the food chain. I discovered that some experiments to alter the genetic structure of soya used brazil nuts. Could the explanation lie here? Checking the ingredients of all food consumed by Simon might be insufficient to protect him. I also found that anaphylaxis ? an acute allergic reaction which is life-threatening ? is on the increase. There is another severely allergic child in Simon?s school and, on average, every school in the country has two anaphylactic children.

Suddenly my family had a personal stake in finding out more about the biotechnology industry. Already it was causing concern to Christians monitoring food production and distribution in the Third World. For some years CAFOD, for example, has supported the Seeds Action Network and GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International), which monitor the impact of biotechnology on Third World agriculture. The Columban priest Sean McDonagh is among those missionaries sounding the alarm at the way the poor communities around them are abandoning traditional farming practice in favour of the green revolution package of seeds and chemicals. Now in the 1990s they are being told that they will have a better future with genetically modified crops.

Genetic engineering of food is controlled by transnational companies whose primary motivation is profit. In Europe, the biggest lobby of parliament ever conducted persuaded MEPs in May to adopt a new directive granting the biotech firms exclusive rights over genetic material: patents, in other words, on life.

All this is happening very quickly and, so far, with little public debate. The British Government is now considering a three-year moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically engineered crops, after an outcry by government wildlife agencies and tangible public concern. Yet already in Britain 320 sites are licensed for genetically modified crops and already eco-warriors are tearing up fields of such crops on sites in Britain and Scotland in the middle of the night. Until Prince Charles raised his voice in June, few were listening to organic farmers who could lose that status if cross-fertilisation were to occur with genetically modified crops in fields nearby.

The transnational agro-chemical company Monsanto, creator of the terminator seed, genetically altered so as to germinate only once, has also initiated a genetically engineered soya bean called the Roundup Ready Soyabean (RRS). Roundup is a weedkiller which is toxic to most plants, but the RRS has been genetically manipulated through the introduction of gene sequences of bacteria to withstand exposure to it. So when farmers spray Roundup directly on to the field, the RRS is unaffected but everything else is wiped out ? weeds, flowers, and probably the insects and birds that depend on them. Farmers who use the RRS are then dependent on Monsanto for the herbicide. Greenpeace believes that industrial agriculture is moving in a dangerous direction, adapting plants to chemical poisons.

Monsanto UK?s web-site tells us that they are excited about the potential for genetically modified food to contribute to a better environment and a sustainable, plentiful food supply, and that their potato, soya bean and corn seeds are far more rigorously tested than conventionally approved crops. It also says that regulatory agencies in 20 countries, including the United States and Britain, have all approved our seeds. It is perhaps relevant that in Britain, Friends of the Earth have just urged the Government to sack the panel advising it on genetic releases, alleging that some of its members have financial links to the biotech industry. Biotechnology firms are currently flexing powerful muscles to persuade the World Trade Organisation to forbid the labelling of genetically engineered food.

In the United States and Canada, genetically engineered potatoes and corn which produce their own pesticide are on the market. These crops contain a bacterial gene which creates a toxin in the plant to kill insects. The long-term effects for entire populations eating foods containing the insect toxin are unknown. The US Environmental Protection Agency has advised that such crops should be regulated like chemical pesticides, which require extensive safety tests. The biotechnology companies want to avoid the expense, and have convinced Washington that it should forego the long-term assessment, with the result that the crops are put on the market quickly as though they could be considered comparable to their non-genetically engineered counterparts.

Biotechnology officials claim that when these foods are eaten by humans or other mammals, the toxin is deactivated in the acidic environment of the stomach. But some health professionals are concerned about the possible long-term toxic or other adverse effects for people with low stomach acidity, such as the elderly, or individuals using antacid medications.

You might think that Monsanto would not dare to experiment with basic foodstuffs because of the fear of litigation if widespread harm occurred. In the United States, however, a 1993 court ruling for some Vietnam veterans against Monsanto and other companies set a precedent. At issue was another Monsanto product, Agent Orange, a defoliant sprayed by the American troops on the jungle hideouts of the Viet Cong. The court allowed the companies to settle with those plaintiffs for a fixed amount, with the stipulation that no future lawsuits could be brought against the Agent Orange manufacturers. The new legal doctrine appears to cut off the possibility of a series of suits against a company, protecting them from bankruptcy.

The voices of protest are tiny compared to the might of Monsanto?s ?1 million information programme in Britain. And what about the small farmers in the Third World who want a bit of land, access to credit and the age-old right to propagate their own seeds and farm in a sustainable way? They could do with some of the $100 million that Monsanto has given to the Monsanto Laboratory of the Life Sciences at Washington University. And if Monsanto is so concerned about feeding the world, why hasn?t it put some of the $2 billion spent on genetic engineering research and development since the 1970s into research on the plants that poor people have used for centuries ? sorghum, for example ? or the farming techniques which suit local soils and weather conditions, such as terracing or intercropping? Poor people starve because they lack access to natural resources and credit; it is not sophisticated technology that they need. According to the Indian ecologist, Vandhana Shiva, far from feeding the world, people are going to starve because of genetically engineered foods. More and more peasants will see their food crops substituted through biotechnology.

All of us, and especially the world?s poor, may be guinea pigs in a vast experiment. Christians who look to the long-term well-being and fruitfulness of all God?s creation must speak up on behalf of them and of the environment. Closer to home, food and drink are at the heart of our eucharistic celebration. What are the implications when the bread, wine and water are polluted? Would hosts with genetically-altered components be acceptable? Should we be using organic bread and wine? Are people who ask this kind of question being ridiculous? When Simon makes his first Holy Communion at the age of eight, the source and composition of the hosts will be checked in advance just as any other food substance that he touches.

I have plenty of time to reflect as I sit through children?s parties with Simon, checking the sandwiches and ice cream as politely as possible. I could not claim to have proof that genetically-engineered food is unsafe, but the onus must be on its advocates to prove that it is safe. This they have not done.