The second in a series of six articles on genetic engineering biotechnology
2 - Turning toads into princes
Robert Anderson BSc(Hons) PhD
4 February 1942 to 5 December 2008
Changing our toad into a prince is not quite as easy as in the fairy tale story, but nevertheless feasible. In fact, it is claimed that almost anything is possible in the world of biotechnology. This is why scientists find it so exciting and why, like any of us, they are more likely to overlook the risks which may accrue.
When we splice genes into a plant we often produce more than just the desired characteristic.
There is a special name for these odd biotechnology changes which occur in plants and animals. They are known as pleiotropisms. Pleiotropism comes from the Greek pleion meaning ‘more’.
Even the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have admitted that: “Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically engineered plants ... at frequencies up to 30% ... some undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants may escape breeders’ attention.” Toxicants is a nice word for poisons.
FDA decisions, even of proven, suspect test results, are accepted by New Zealand’s authorities. The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and the Australia and New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) rely almost entirely on FDA approval. No independent testing exists in NZ.
However, instead of listening to the warnings of its scientific staff, the FDA issued biotech food rules that assume no pleiotropic effects will occur, therefore no safety testing is required.
So how dangerous can these ‘pleiotropic’ effects be?
One of the worst cases we have seen to date is the tryptophan disaster. By the end of the 1980s, some millions of Americans were supplementing their diet with L-tryptophan, an essential amino-acid present in the proteins of any normal diet. Amino-acids such as tryptophan are routinely produced in industry using genetically engineering micro-organisms - ‘bugs’ to the uninitiated. A Japanese firm, Showa Denko, genetically engineered a bacterial species to increase its production of tryptophan. By late 1989, some 5000 North Americans fell ill with a highly unusual illness - eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS). Within months, 39 people were dead and some 1500 maimed. Today, thousands continue to suffer permanent effects and the number of related deaths continues to rise. Even though denying it was genetic engineering that caused it, Showa Denko paid out over US$2 billion to keep the resulting damages suits out of court.
You may say that because EMS is rare we need not worry, a comment often used by the protagonists themselves. Wrong! Only because EMS is rare was it noticed.
In the same way, if thalidomide had happened to cause a common birth defect, say deafness or harelip, we would possibly have overlooked the results. Pregnant women would have kept on taking thalidomide for its undoubted benefits. Fortunately, the damage was of a kind that most doctors would never see in a whole career, drastic malformations of limbs. Although the numbers were relatively small, the cause was immediately traceable to the thalidomide. If tryptophan had caused delayed harm, say 10-15 years later, there would have been no way of tracing the cause.
I have given this case detail to show why extreme caution is paramount in dealing with food alterations. We should all be vigilant as biotech corporations rush to market these GE foods. Labelling would not be wrong, but it is no substitute for the careful and lengthy testing needed before any engineered food be approved for human consumption. The Showa Denko disaster is crucial in understanding the GE food issue.
If a single chemical - such as the natural amino-acid tryptophan, claimed as 98.5% pure - can kill dozens and cripple thousands, how would we test a potato containing a gene from the African long clawed toad? To be strictly correct this toad gene is, we are assured, a synthetic or 'improved' copy, not from a real toad. Scientists have not quite made a prince yet, but they are trying hard.
Without doubt the most menacing forms of biotechnology are genetically engineered foods and other unconfined GE organisms. But some other forms of biotechnology entail serious threats to public health and are under even less control than poisons.
It is possible to splice genes into animals as well as plants. A recent genetic experiment which splices a human gene into sheep has been allowed to take place in New Zealand on the excuse that the protein produced in a sheep’s milk may cure cystic fibrosis in children. This claim has never been verified by any scientific community. It is a cruel claim, raising hopes for sufferers. Further, the protein - alpha-1 antitrypsin or AAT for short - is really of little use. There is no market, for genuine human AAT let alone the engineered variety, which is a by-product of our blood banks and is more often than not thrown down the drain.
So why do it? As with most of the biotechnology ventures, money. The sheep involved are worth a claimed $100 000 per ewe. .
So what have we to concern ourselves about if only money is involved?
When ground up offal was fed to cattle in the UK to increase the protein in their diets nothing was thought of it. As any school kid knows cattle are herbivores, not omnivores; they eat grass. But we humans know better than mother nature. We felt they needed more protein. Some years after this idea prevailed, first cattle, then people, began dying of a horrifying disease in which their brains turn into a sponge. The culprit was not a virus or bacteria, but a new-comer to the scene called a prion.
A strange little creature is the prion. It is really just a bit of protein, but is almost impossible to kill. A prion was the cause of BSE, or Mad Cow Disease as its commonly called.
We have in New Zealand one of the world’s specialists in prion research, Dr Peter Wills of the University of Auckland. Even though Dr Wills warned ERMA that the protein AAT could possibly become a new prion - in fact not only a new prion, but also a scrapie prion - ERMA allowed the trials to continue. This experimentation could easily result in a menace like that of BSE and its apparent human derivative CJD.
Such concerns as these should suffice to kill the experiments. However, ERMA has proved itself nothing more than a rather cynical and expensive rubber stamp, which we as tax payers fund. I understand they are now allowing an increase of the flock number to 10 000.
The genetic engineering experimentation being introduced by narrow-sighted supporters pushing the biotechnology barrow gives rise to grave fears. The potential disasters are very real. When their decisions effect us all, should we not have a say?
The next article will ask, Who owns our genes?
Robert Anderson BSc(Hons) PhD
Robert Anderson was a Quaker, teacher and writer. He was a Trustee of Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (www.psgr.org.nz), a member of Amnesty International, a Theosophist, and a campaigner for peace and disarmament. He believed everyone has the right to equality and respect, freedom of speech and religion He lectured on many subjects to meet the public's right to be independently informed on issues of science, the environment and social justice. He was passionate about making this world a better place for the generations to come. He authored eleven books and regularly wrote for a number of periodicals.
Enquiries about books written by Robert Anderson should be addressed to naturesstar@xtra.co.nz
For further information see:
GE Free New Zealand in food and environment www.gefree.org.nz/
GE Free Northland in food and environment http://web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/
Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility www.psgr.org.nz
Sustainability Council of New Zealand http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/
The Soil & Health Association / Organic New Zealand http://organicnz.org.nz/
1. L-Tryptophan Puzzle Takes New Twist, Science 249 988, 31 August 1990
2. EMS and Tryptophan Production: A Cautionary Tale, TIBTECH 12 346-352, September 1994.