Statement for the Supreme
Court of
on the Writ Petition of Aruna Rodrigues
Introduction Genetic
manipulation (GM) or genetic engineering (GE) mean artificial transfer of
genes - pieces of DNA - to produce
a transgenic organism, e.g. jellyfish genes into sugarcane or human
genes into cows. The methods of artificially joining pieces of DNA from
different organisms' genes were invented as recently as the mid-1970s and are
collectively called recombinant-DNA technology.
General
Doubts One tawdry old
argument we have heard since 1974 and can expect to hear again is the claim
that gene transfers occur naturally so GM is only hastening them. This
line of talk is a smoke-screen designed to obscure the fact that GM usually
performs artificial transfers which are not known to occur in nature.
This fact is denied when possible harm is suggested, but is acknowledged,
indeed emphasised, for claims of benefit. It
is certainly true that no brinjal could arise in
nature containing modified versions of a Bt toxin in most or all of its
cells. If we change
the rates, or even worse the specificities, with which genes can jump around
in infectious manners, we may wreak biological havoc on a global scale.
Go back to Ovid's Metamorphoses to
glimpse what might go wrong. The
gene-manipulators claim they can foresee the evolutionary results of their
artificial transposings of human genes into sheep,
bovine genes into tomatoes, altered bacterial genes into eggplant,etc. But such claims are a reflection more
of arrogance than of scientific analysis. For instance:-
2. Synthetic genes are
routinely inserted which are deliberately different from actual genes.
An example in the present case is the 'Bt' genes that have been inserted into
GM-Brinjal; the 'Bt' toxin gene must be different
from that for any actual toxin produced in the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , in order for the plant to make the novel protein to any
useful extent.
3. It is routinely assumed
that the effects of genes inserted by radically unnatural methods are
predictable, when in fact they are known to be extremely variable (frequently
lethal). It is pretended that a cell surviving such
genes-insertion processes, and then selected on just one property
- resistance to an antibiotic - and then grown into a whole
organism, e.g. an eggplant, will have all properties at least as good
as those of a normal organism. On the contrary, insertional
mutation damages the target genome in unpredictable ways, rendering literally
unforeseeable the many properties of any surviving GM-cells. The unforeseeability is compounded by somaclonal
variation in the GM-progeny: plants grown from single cells, taking advantage
of what is called the 'totipotence' of some plant
cells, are known to exhibit much more variability than plants grown from
normal seed. How Much Harm; How Often?
In appraising
dangerous technologies, it is best to estimate the hazard - the scale of harm in the event of a major
mishap - as a separate question, and then analyse
if possible the risk - the probability that the major
mishap will occur. Much confusion between these two aspects of danger
has been created by language-tampering, even in such formal arenas as the
Journal of Risk Analysis. The hazard
certainly includes some mortality: a hundred or so people were killed, and a
few thousand maimed, in the 1980s by impurities in L-tryptophan
(a natural amino acid, sold as a dietary supplement) made by Showa Denko
using GM'd bacterial cultures. Showa Denko
has paid roughly U$2,000,000,000 in out-of-court settlements of suits
resulting from some of the approx. 80 - 120 deaths (possibly more) and
thousands continuing maimed. This actual damage by GM <http://www.connectotel.com/ > is one basis of the campaign for labelling
as such any GM'd foods which may be permitted. Having taught
on environmental health hazards for many years in science & medical
faculties, and having served as an adviser to successive Ministers of Health
in the first dozen years of the Toxic Substances Board, I know all too well
how overloaded government staff, even when backed by statutory powers, get
subverted by not only the specific claims but more importantly the whole
value-system of the industries which they are supposed to regulate. It
is therefore crucially important that a clearly defined agency conduct
scrutiny of GMOs before they are allowed into
field-trials. Furthermore, that agency must -
to be scientifically reliable - take due account of evidence
against a proposed field-trial. In the case of GM-brinjal,
the evidence summarised by the experts from whom
the Court has already heard on behalf of Mrs Rodrigues is, in my opinion, overwhelming. One aspect of
'Bt'-Brinjal which deserves more attention is the
persistent concern among experts that GM-'Bt' plants such as this will evoke
selection & proliferation of mutant insects resistant to Bacillus thuringiensis. The natural bacterium B. t.
is very important in advanced organic agriculture, so insects resistant to
this pesticide would be a serious threat to many types of agriculture on
which a country such as Conclusion
21-7-2006 -- L. R. B. Mann M.Sc Ph.D
http://www.kuratrading.com/ |