[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 25921-25922]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 25921]]

   GENETIC ENGINEERING: A TECHNOLOGY AHEAD OF THE SCIENCE AND PUBLIC 
                                POLICY?

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 1, 2000

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, genetically engineered (GE) food is and 
should be controversial. However, one voice has tended to dominate 
official discourse on the subject--that of the agri-business industry. 
These corporations and their paid public relations spokespersons have 
claimed: that GE food is identical to foods bred by selective 
(traditional) breeding; GE food is safe; GE food is associated with 
good environmental practices; and GE food will cure world hunger. 
Federal regulators have largely left these claims unchallenged, 
permitting the industry to introduce GE food rapidly and widely without 
producing scientific evidence to back their claims.
  The public is skeptical. There is a growing popular movement that is 
critical of GE food promises and suspicious of its industry proponents. 
In other countries, consumers have flatly rejected GE food, and 
opposition to GE food is growing in this country. I believe that GE 
food is an example of a radically new technology, the massive 
commercialization of which has out-paced science and public policy.
  In this article, I wish to examine the industry's claims and 
scrutinize federal actions. I will then present alternatives.


                 Is GE Food Just Like Traditional Food?

  There are significant and obvious differences between the genesis of 
traditional food and the manufacturing of GE food. Scientists note that 
conventional breeders rely on processes that occur in nature (such as 
sexual and asexual reproduction) to develop new plants. By contrast, 
genetic engineers use ``gene guns'' and bacteria among other methods to 
forcibly insert or ``smuggle'' foreign genetic material into a plant or 
animal. Genetic engineers also use genetic elements such as viruses 
which ``turn on'' the foreign genes in the new host organism as well as 
genes for antibiotic resistance that mark which cells have accepted the 
foreign genetic material.
  Conventional breeders are bound by species boundaries that allow them 
to transfer genetic material only between related or closely related 
species. By contrast, the very purpose of genetic engineering is to 
allow scientists to transfer genes from completely unrelated life 
forms, creating such concoctions as corn that exudes toxins found in 
soil bacteria or tobacco that glows due to the insertion into its 
genome or a firefly gene.
  Scientists warn that genetic engineers cannot always accurately 
predict the outcome of their experiments. Many scientists argue that 
the genetic engineering process is inherently unpredictable and that 
genetic engineers are operating with incomplete knowledge about how 
genes interact with each other and with their external environment. 
While genetic engineers can with some precision locate and isolate a 
trait or gene to be inserted, they cannot control with any precision 
where that gene will be inserted into the host plant or how it will 
interact with other genes in the host plant. The new gene may disrupt 
the function or regulation of a plant's existing genes.
  Field trials and lab research have documented the unpredictable 
nature of GE plants. In a 1990 study, scientists attempted to suppress 
the multiple colors of petunia flowers by turning off pigment genes in 
the plant. Researchers predicted that all the engineered flowers would 
be the same color. The flowers, however varied in terms of the amount 
of color in their flowers and in the pattern of color in individual 
flowers. Some flowers also changed color as the season changed.
  The unpredictability of GE crops was further highlighted in 1997, 
when farmers growing GE cotton reported that the plants had stunted 
growth, deformed root systems and produced malformed cotton bolls.


                            Is GE Food Safe?

  Despite endless reassurances by biotechnology companies and the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) that GE food is safe to eat, several 
concerns have arisen. Genetic engineering has the potential to 
introduce new alergens and toxins into food, increase levels of natural 
toxins, reduce the nutritional quality of food and increase the rate of 
antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Yet, our experience with GE crops is 
limited. They have only been growing on a wide scale for five years 
and, consequently, have only been part of the American diet for the 
same amount of time. The long-term consequences of a diet of GE food 
are therefore unknown. To date, not a single peer-reviewed study has 
been conducted on the long-term consequences for humans of eating a 
diet of GE food. Moreover, without segregation and labeling protections 
in place to inform consumers about what they are eating, it will be 
difficult to pinpoint and monitor whether the presence of GE material 
in food products is impacting human health.
  The lack of long-term safety studies has correctly led the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not approve Starlink corn for 
human consumption because of concerns with potential allergens. 
Unfortunately, this corn was found in Taco Bell taco shells found on 
our grocery stores. Kraft, the maker of these taco shells, recalled 2.5 
million boxes of these contaminated shells.


             Environmental Impacts Associated with GE Food

  Despite claims that GE crops will help the environment, to date, the 
main focus of biotechnology has been to generate herbicide resistant 
crops and pest and disease resistant crops--crops that encourage more 
intensive use of pesticides. The failure of GE to move agriculture in a 
more sustainable direction is a serious threat to the environment.
  Equally serious is the threat of genetic pollution which is 
potentially irreversible. Studies are revealing that predictions of 
gene flow, harm to beneficial insects, insect resistance, and the
  Numerous studies have shown the potential fallout of transgenic 
``insect-resistant'' crops on the environment. Both lab and field 
studies have confirmed that pollen from B.t. corn is lethal to monarch 
butterfly larvae. Swiss entomologists have found that lacewings and 
lady bugs are negatively impacted when they feed on organisms that have 
ingested the GE corn. Research undertaken at the New York University 
shows that contrary to expectation, B.t. toxins bind to soil particles 
and can persist in the soil for up to 250 days. These toxins have been 
shown to harm soil microorganisms that break down organic matter.
  Given that half of our cotton crop and nearly one-third of our corn 
crop are GE ``insect resistant'' varieties, it is alarming that such 
studies were not conducted earlier, underscoring the fact that the 
experiment with GE crops is taking place in farmers' fields and on 
consumer plates rather than in controlled, laboratory settings.
  Insect resistance to the B.t. toxin poses a serious threat for 
organic farmers who use the toxin in a natural spray as part of an 
integrated pest management scheme. A study published in Science found 
that a common pest of cotton was able to build up resistance to insect 
resistant varieties very quickly. If the toxin is rendered useless, 
organic farmers will be deprived of an essential tool.
  Not content with simply engineering food crops, biotechnology 
companies are introducing new test tube ``products.'' GE engineered 
salmon that are close to commercialization may be able to 
``outcompete'' wild salmon in reproduction and further deplete this 
endangered species. Genetically engineered trees are also in the 
product line and may introduce ecological threats to our national 
forests.


                      Can Biotech Feed the World?

  There is no question that the nations of the world must take action 
to stop global hunger. It is a travesty that 800 million people go 
hungry each day. Biotech proponents argue that genetic engineering is 
the solution to the problem because it will increase crop yields to 
feed a growing population. A techno-fix, however, ignores the root 
causes of hunger.
  Hunger persists today despite the fact that increases in food 
production during the past 35 years have outstripped the world's 
population growth by 16 percent. Indeed, the United Nations Food and 
Agriculture Organization recently stated that growth in agriculture 
will continue to outstrip world population growth. The Institute for 
Food Policy notes that there is no relationship between the prevalence 
of hunger in a given country and its population. The real causes of 
hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access. Too many people are 
too poor to buy the food that is available (but poorly distributed) or 
lack the land and resources to grow it themselves.
  The much heralded ``Green Revolution'' was an example of the failure 
of new technology applied to farming to reduce hunger. Using the 
technology, developing countries significantly increased crop yields, 
but they nevertheless failed to eliminate hunger, because they failed 
to address the root social and economic causes of hunger. Furthermore, 
the Green Revolution exacerbated poverty and social inequality. It 
favored larger, wealthier farmers who could afford the new high 
yielding crop varieties and the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and 
irrigation systems that accompanied them. Left behind were poorer 
farmers

[[Page 25922]]

unable to afford such inputs. In the meantime, the heavy use of 
chemical fertilizers and pesticides generated resistant pests and 
degraded the fertility of the soil, undermining the very basis for 
future production.
  The growing use of patents to ``protect'' biotechnology innovations 
also threatens subsistence farmers in the developing world and could 
exacerbate hunger. Patents have been taken out on plants, animals, 
bacteria as well as genes, cells and body parts. Sanctioned and imposed 
by the global trading system, this ``commodification of life'' has 
allowed multinational companies to patent staple crops in developing 
countries such as yellow beans in Mexico, South Asian basmati rice as 
well as medicinal herbs, livestock and marine species. Such a predatory 
system threatens to enable companies to maximize their control over 
farming processes and the world's food resources.
  Landmark studies are showing that traditional farming methods, 
including multi-cropping and small scale techniques are proving to be 
just as effective in producing high yields as conventional farming. 
Most recently, in one of the largest agricultural experiments ever, 
thousands of rice farmers in China were able to double the yields of 
their crops simply by planting a mixture of two different rices--a 
practice that did not require using chemical treatments or investing 
any new capital. Clearly, these types of farming methods are suited to 
local needs and ecosystems. They will protect the environment and 
increase an affordable food supply. Biotechnology, however, will likely 
repeat the failure of the Green Revolution's fertilizers and 
pesticides. Biotech will not solve the problem of world hunger but may 
exacerbate it.

                          ____________________