Some dangers inherent in the production of
genetically modified organisms...
In 1999,
Cornell entomologist John Losey reported that the pollen of corn plants, which had been
genetically engineered to produce an
insecticidal toxin, was harmful towards
monarch butterfly larvae
1. While
any but the most benign reading Losey’s article would have revealed a highly suspect
scientific method- it is quite possible that the
caterpillars in the study died at a higher rate because they ate less, and ate less because they recognized their only food source as toxic- the article’s
headline confidently declared that “
Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae” and that was the conclusion internalized by an already suspicious public, triggering a condemnatory
backlash by
scientists with a vested interest in promoting their
research and portraying the organisms that they engineer as safe
2. This was unfortunate, because there are a number of valid potential dangers inherent in GMOs, which deserve extensive consideration before
policy decisions concerning research regulations,
FDA approval protocols, and
food labelling are made.
Losey’s study focused on the risk of
bioaccumulation. Much as the pesticide
DDT makes its way from the leaves of plants into the shells of
predatory birds, he proposed that the genetic material of the bacterium
Bacillus thuringiensis could make its way from the corn
genome into corn pollen, from there on the wind onto
milkweed leaves, and into caterpillars. This is not as convoluted a path as it sounds. In fact, the corn toxin has been found to persist in other aspects of its
ecosystem, and may be able to pass through corn roots and into the
soil3.
Agriculturists need to acknowledge that there is no inherent benefit in engineering plants to produce their own insecticides, as opposed to spraying artificial
chemicals. Both are foreign introductions into an ecosystem (or a farm’s pale simulacrum thereof), and should at least have their
biochemical properties, such as rates of
decomposition in soil and
water, and
poisonous effect on target and
non-target organisms, thoroughly understood before their
commercial release.
Another relevant property of any GMO plant or animal is its capacity for survival outside of
cultivation. Much of our previous manipulation of species has consisted of
domestication, creating
artificial selection pressures to drive species towards producing more of their respective product via an
allocation of resources that neglected
resource collection or
defense. As a result we created crops and animals that were less
hardy than their ancestors, and stood close to no chance of establishing
wild populations because they needed humans to proving limiting resources or protection. While not productive per se, the mass-produced
immunologically nude mice manufactured for research use today are an extreme example of this trend.
On the other hand, current genetic modification often focuses not on yield but instead on crop hardiness, inserting genes to confer specific
immunities and defenses, so as to maximize agricultural
profits by minimizing the
cost chemical protective measures. The organisms so produced have an advantage over the
predators and
competitors that they confront, having evolved
adaptations on an accelerated laboratory timescale, instead of through the steady
arms race of
co-evolution, within which organisms in an ecosystem remain equally matched in their offensive and defensive capacities. And these organisms do not only stand a chance of escaping cultivation themselves. Agricultural crops, genetically modified or not, have the capability to
disperse their pollen, which in the case of hybridization with related species, followed by an unpredictable but historically common
polyploidy event, can produce fertile offspring. Unfortunately
agribusiness seems unlikely to protect uncultivated habitats from such an invasion, as an adequate strategy would involve strictly quarantining GMOs and their places of production.
GMOs call for detailed scientific research into both their properties and the composition and
interaction of the ecosystems adjoining their places of cultivation, to enable scientists to model their potential effects. Even more important, though, is an acknowledgement that some effects are
unpredictable, and any GMO whose use we adopt will always pose a potential danger. The commercial popularity of these organisms is evidence that
policy makers care more about agricultural profitability than about preserving ecosystems, and there is no reason for those in power to even feign interest.
1Losey, J.E., L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214
2Shelton, A.M. and R. Roush. 1999. False reports and the ears of men. Nature Biotechnology 17: 832
3Wolfenbarger, L.L. and P.R. Phifer. 2000. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered organisms. Science 290: 2088-2093.