- Anyone who complains about GM food and owns a dog like a Chihuahua needs a reality check. They are nasty mutants that pollute the environment.
- We have been doing it (GM) for millenia, it's just now we can do it in test-tube rather than our neighbour's pig.
- Transgenic isn't as scarey as all that once you remember the gene doesn't know it is transgenic... think about this one...
- Anyone involved with an animal-rights group needs to investigate them; there are a few groups that actually in all seriousness support MASSIVE depopulation. Just 'cause they like animals doesn't mean they like humans too.
- Anyone that thinks there isn't enough food to go round has not researched the subject.
- Anyone who wants to start wide-scale use of DDT again can kiss a lot of speices of birds goodbye.
- Anyone who titles a thread "How Greepeace loves to kill millions of innocent people..." when the information in their post in no way supports that information (the shipment was going to Turkey, it's part of Europe, there are no famines and pit robably has LESS poor people than the USA) is being sloppy or sensationalist.
- Anyone who thinks that we are not indebted to environmental groups for a variety of things doesn't know dick.
- Anyone who believes the press-releases of a company saying their stuff never hurt anyone (or such) without making sure of it is credulous.
- Anyone who believes all the adverse consequences claimed by environmental groups is equally credulous.
- Anyone who characterises Greenpeace as "violent" hasn't seen the handiwork of government agents tasked to stop them (and knows so little about Greenpeace they're best ignored).
- Anyone who doesn't realise that a dollar given in subsidies to uncompetitve farmers will often take a dollar away from the competitive farmers who are thus denied a market, just hasn't thought about it.
- Anyone who doesn't realise that many GM crops are intentionally made infertle so the farmers have to buy expensive seeds again each year doesn't understand how modern agribusiness works.
- Anyone who reads a press-release by an agribusiness talking about saving lives and doesn't immediately wonder how much money they are making and why they are talking about saving lives when their business is making money is doing exactly what the PR department hoped they'd do. They made them to make money. Everything else is a side issue.
- Anyone who thinks companies are always honest and always put the interests of the consumer/environment before that of their shareholders is just plain silly.
- Anyone who doesn't support really really heavy fines and imprisonment of top executives for companies that pursue profit at the cost of human life or environmental mayhem is probably working for one.
That's what I know off the top of my head. If people are interested, below are a couple of interesting items, but from the look of it both the PR departments of the agribusinesses AND the PR departments of the environmental groups are working flat out, and people are just choosing what version to believe in.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Ten-Reasons-Why-Not.htm
Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure Food Security,
Protect The Environment And Reduce Poverty In The Developing World
Miguel A. Altieri & Peter Rosset 1999
University of California, Berkeley & Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Advocates of biotechnology affirm that the application of genetic engineering to develop transgenic crops will increase world agricultural productivity, enhance food security, and move agriculture away from a dependence on chemical inputs helping to reduce environmental problems. This paper challenges such assertions by first demystifying the Malthusian view that hunger is due to a gap between food production and human population growth. Second, we expose the fact that current bio-engineered crops are not designed to increase yields or for poor small farmers, so that they may not benefit from them. In addition, transgenic crops pose serious environmental risks, continuously underplayed by the biotechnology industry. Finally, it is concluded that there are many other agro-ecological alternatives that can solve the agricultural problems that biotechnology aims at solving, but in a much more socially equitable manner and in a more environmentally harmonious way.
Key words: biotechnology; transgenic crops; developing countries; Malthusian view; environmental risks
Biotechnology companies often claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- specifically genetically altered seeds -- are essential scientific breakthroughs needed to feed the world, protect the environment, and reduce poverty in developing countries. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its constellation of international centers around the world charged with research to enhance food security in the developing world echo this view, which rests on two critical assumptions. The first is that hunger is due to a gap between food production and human population density or growth rate. The second is that genetic engineering is the only or best way to increase agricultural production and, thus, meet future food needs.
Our objective is to challenge the notion of biotechnology as a magic bullet solution to all of agriculture's ills, by clarifying misconceptions concerning these underlying assumptions.
1. There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a sparsely populated and hungry nation like Brazil and Indonesia. The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough food is available to provide 4.3 pounds for every person everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access to food and land. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves (Lappe, Collins & Rosset 1998).
2. Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits (Busch et al., l990). This is illustrated by reviewing the principle technologies on the market today: (1) herbicide resistant crops, such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybeans, seeds that are tolerant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and (2) "Bt" (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops which are engineered to produce their own insecticide. In the first instance, the goal is to win a greater herbicide market-share for a proprietary product and, in the second, to boost seed sales at the cost of damaging the usefulness of a key pest management product (the Bacillus thuringiensis based microbial insecticide) relied upon by many farmers, including most organic farmers, as a powerful alternative to insecticides . These technologies respond to the need of biotechnology companies to intensify farmers' dependence upon seeds protected by so-called "intellectual property rights" which conflict directly with the age-old rights of farmers to reproduce, share or store seeds (Hobbelink, l991). Whenever possible corporations will require farmers to buy a company's brand of inputs and will forbid farmers from keeping or selling seed. By controlling germplasm from seed to sale, and by forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are determined to extract the most profit from their investment (Krimsky & Wrubel, l996).
3. The integration of the seed and chemical industries appears destined to accelerate increases in per acre expenditures for seeds plus chemicals, delivering significantly lower returns to growers. Companies developing herbicide tolerant crops are trying to shift as much per acre cost as possible from the herbicide onto the seed via seed costs and technology charges. Increasingly price reductions for herbicides will be limited to growers purchasing technology packages. In Illinois, the adoption of herbicide resistant crops makes for the most expensive soybean seed-plus-weed management system in modern history -- between $40.00 and $60.00 per acre depending on fee rates, weed pressure, and so on. Three years ago, the average seed-plus-weed control costs on Illinois farms was $26 per acre, and represented 23% of variable costs; today they represent 35-40% (Benbrook, l999). Many farmers are willing to pay for the simplicity and robustness of the new weed management system, but such advantages may be short-lived as ecological problems arise.
4. Recent experimental trials have shown that genetically engineered seeds do not increase the yield of crops. A recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different in engineered versus non-engineered crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations where Bt crops or herbicide tolerant crops (HTCs) fared better, they exhibited increased yields between 5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in another study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar conventionally bred varieties (USDA, l999).
5. Many scientists claim that the ingestion of genetically engineered food is harmless. Recent evidence, however, shows that there are potential risks of eating such foods as the new proteins produced in such foods could: (1) act themselves as allergens or toxins; (2) alter the metabolism of the food producing plant or animal, causing it to produce new allergens or toxins; or (3) reduce its nutritional quality or value. In the case of (3), herbicide resistant soybeans can contain less isoflavones, an important phytoestrogen present in soybeans, believed to protect women from a number of cancers. At present, developing countries are importing soybean and corn from the United States, Argentina, and Brazil. Genetically engineered foods are beginning to flood the markets in the importing countries, yet no one can predict all their health effects on consumers, who are unaware that they are eating such food. Because genetically engineered food remains unlabeled, consumers cannot discriminate between genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE food, and should serious health problems arise, it will be extremely difficult to trace them to their source. Lack of labeling also helps to shield the corporations that could be potentially responsible from liability (Lappe & Bailey, l998).
6. Transgenic plants which produce their own insecticides, closely follow the pesticide paradigm, which is itself rapidly failing due to pest resistance to insecticides. Instead of the failed "one pest-one chemical" model, genetic engineering emphasizes a "one pest-one gene" approach, shown over and over again in laboratory trials to fail, as pest species rapidly adapt and develop resistance to the insecticide present in the plant (Alstad & Andow, l995). Not only will the new varieties fail over the short-to-medium term, despite so-called voluntary resistance management schemes (Mallet & Porter, l992), but in the process may render useless the natural Bt-pesticide which is relied upon by organic farmers and others desiring to reduce chemical dependence. Bt crops violate the basic and widely accepted principle of integrated pest management (IPM), which is that reliance on any single pest management technology tends to trigger shifts in pest species or the evolution of resistance through one or more mechanisms (NRC, l996). In general, the greater the selection pressure across time and space, the quicker and more profound the pests evolutionary response. An obvious reason for adopting this principle is that it reduces pest exposure to pesticides, retarding the evolution of resistance. But when the product is engineered into the plant itself, pest exposure leaps from minimal and occasional to massive and continuous exposure, dramatically accelerating resistance (Gould, l994). Bacillus thuringiensis will rapidly become useless, both as a feature of the new seeds and as an old standby sprayed when needed by farmers that want out of the pesticide treadmill (Pimentel et al., l989).
7. The global fight for market share is leading companies to massively deploy transgenic crops around the world (more than 30 million hectares in l998) without proper advance testing of short- or long-term impacts on human health and ecosystems. In the United States, private sector pressure led the White House to decree "no substantial difference" between altered and normal seeds, thus evading normal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing. Confidential documents made public in an on-going class action lawsuit have revealed that the FDAâs own scientists do not agree with this determination. One reason is that many scientists are concerned that the large scale use of transgenic crops poses a series of environmental risks that threaten the sustainability of agriculture (Goldberg, l992; Paoletti & Pimentel, l996; Snow & Moran, l997; Rissler & Mellon, l996; Kendall et al., l997; Royal Society, l998). These risk areas are as follows:
- The trend to create broad international markets for single products, is simplifying cropping systems and creating genetic uniformity in rural landscapes. History has shown that a huge area planted to a single crop variety is very vulnerable to new matching strains of pathogens or insect pests. Furthermore, the widespread use of homogeneous transgenic varieties will unavoidably lead to "genetic erosion," as the local varieties used by thousands of farmers in the developing world are replaced by the new seeds (Robinson, l996).
- The use of herbicide resistant crops undermines the possibilities of crop diversification, thus, reducing agrobiodiversity in time and space (Altieri, l994).
- The potential transfer through gene flow of genes from herbicide resistant crops to wild or semidomesticated relatives can lead to the creation of superweeds (Lutman, l999).
- There is potential for herbicide resistant varieties to become serious weeds in other crops (Duke l996; Holt & Le Baron, l990).
- Massive use of Bt crops affects non-target organisms and ecological processes. Recent evidence shows that the Bt toxin can affect beneficial insect predators that feed on insect pests present on Bt crops (Hilbeck et al., l998). In addition, windblown pollen from Bt crops, found on natural vegetation surrounding transgenic fields, can kill non-target insects such as the monarch butterfly (Losey et al., l999). Moreover, Bt toxin present in crop foliage plowed under after harvest can adhere to soil colloids for up to 3 months, negatively affecting the soil invertebrate populations that break down organic matter and play other ecological roles (Donnegan et al., l995; Palm et al. l996).
- There is potential for vector recombination to generate new virulent strains of viruses, especially in transgenic plants engineered for viral resistance with viral genes. In plants containing coat protein genes, there is a possibility that such genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses infecting the plant. In such situations, the foreign gene changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer properties, such as changed method of transmission between plants. The second potential risk is that recombination between RNA virus and a viral RNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more severe disease problems. Some researchers have shown that recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain conditions it produces a new viral strain with altered host range (Steinbrecher, l996).
Ecological theory predicts that the large-scale landscape homogenization with transgenic crops will exacerbate the ecological problems already associated with monoculture agriculture. Unquestioned expansion of this technology into developing countries may not be wise or desirable. There is strength in the agricultural diversity of many of these countries, and it should not be inhibited or reduced by extensive monoculture, especially when consequences of doing so results in serious social and environmental problems (Altieri, l996).
Although the ecological risks issue has received some discussion in government, international, and scientific circles, discussions have often been pursued from a narrow perspective that has downplayed the seriousness of the risks (Kendall et al., 1997; Royal Society, 1998). In fact, methods for risk assessment of transgenic crops are not well developed (Kjellsson & Simmsen, 1994) and there is justifiable concern that current field biosafety tests tell little about potential environmental risks associated with commercial-scale production of transgenic crops. A main concern is that international pressures to gain markets and profits is resulting in companies releasing transgenic crops too fast, without proper consideration for the long-term impacts on people or the ecosystem.
8. There are many unanswered ecological questions regarding the impact of transgenic crops. Many environmental groups have argued for the creation of suitable regulation to mediate the testing and release of transgenic crops to offset environmental risks and demand a much better assessment and understanding of ecological issues associated with genetic engineering. This is crucial, as many results emerging from the environmental performance of released transgenic crops suggest that in the development of resistant crops not only is there a need to test direct effects on the target insect or weed, but the indirect effects on the plant. Plant growth, nutrient content, metabolic changes, and effects on the soil and non-target organisms should all be examined. Unfortunately, funds for research on environmental risk assessment are very limited. For example, the USDA spends only 1% of the funds allocated to biotechnology research on risk assessment, about $1-2 million per year. Given the current level of deployment of genetically engineered plants, such resources are not enough to even discover the "tip of the iceberg". It is a tragedy-in-the-making that so many millions of hectares have been planted without proper biosafety standards. Worldwide such acreage expanded considerably in 1998 with transgenic cotton reaching 6.3 million acres, transgenic corn reaching 20.8 million acres, and transgenic soybean 36.3 million acres. This expansion has been helped along by marketing and distribution agreements entered into by corporations and marketers (i.e., Ciba Seeds with Growmark and Mycogen Plant Sciences with Cargill), and in the absence of regulations in many developing countries. Genetic pollution, unlike oil spills, cannot be controlled by throwing a boom around it.
9. As the private sector has exerted more and more dominance in advancing new biotechnologies, the public sector has had to invest a growing share of its scarce resources in enhancing biotechnological capacities in public institutions, including the CGIAR, and in evaluating and responding to the challenges posed by incorporating private sector technologies into existing farming systems. Such funds would be much better used to expand support for ecologically based agricultural research, as all the biological problems that biotechnology aims at can be solved using agroecological approaches. The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping on crop health and productivity, as well as of the use of biological control agents on pest regulation have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. The problem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflects the interests of private funders at the expense of public good research, such as biological control, organic production systems and general agroecological techniques. Civil society must request for more research on alternatives to biotechnology by universities and other public organizations (Krimsky & Wrubel, l996). There is also an urgent need to challenge the patent system and intellectual property rights intrinsic to the World Trade Organization (WTO) which not only provide multinational corporations with the right to seize and patent genetic resources, but will also accelerate the rate at which market forces already encourage monocultural cropping with genetically uniform transgenic varieties. Based on history and ecological theory, it is not difficult to predict the negative impacts of such environmental simplification on the health of modern agriculture (Altieri, l996).
10. Much of the needed food can be produced by small farmers located throughout the world using agroecological technologies (Uphoff & Altieri , l999). In fact, new rural development approaches and low-input technologies spearheaded by farmers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world are already making a significant contribution to food security at the household, national, and regional levels in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Pretty, l995). Yield increases are being achieved by using technological approaches, based on agroecological principles that emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that emphasize community participation and empowerment (Rosset, l999). When such features are optimized, yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, as well as a series of ecological services such conservation of biodiversity, soil and water restoration and conservation, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, and so on (Altieri et al., 1998). These results are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental preservation in the developing world, but their potential and further spread depends on investments, policies, institutional support, and attitude changes on the part of policy makers and the scientific community; especially the CGIAR who should devote much of its efforts to the 320 million poor farmers living in marginal environments. Failure to promote such people-centered agricultural research and development due to the diversion of funds and expertise towards biotechnology will forego an historical opportunity to raise agricultural productivity in economically viable, environmentally benign, and socially uplifting ways.
http://www.feedback.nildram.co.uk/richardebbs/essays/jeans.htm#geneticengineeringfailures
Genetic Engineering: Failures And Unexpected Results This is what a leading financial commentator had to say in 1997 about the biotech industry's lack of tangible success:
"overall the industry has been so consistently disappointing that laymen should stay away lest they get fleeced ... and until the gene-bending gods can separate the hype from the glory, they're not getting any of my savings" Danial Kadlec: Time Magazine. 10/03/1997.
Since the biotech industry began promising the public (and investors) great things thirty years ago, many genetically engineered organisms have been introduced with a good deal of fanfare, only to be quietly withdrawn a short time later when problems have become apparent. Perhaps if the biotech industry and it's salespeople did not cling to such a reductionist, over-simplified view of what goes on, then they would be far more cautious about making rash claims in the first place. Also, how convenient it is, that after massive lobbying, generally the biotech companies can not be held liable for any claim for damages resulting from adverse effects on human health or the environment of their products. Here is a small list of 'unexpected' consequences discovered since 1989 that may help to explain this reluctance to take responsibility. 
In 1989 a Japanese biotech company used a transgenic microorganism to produce quantities of the amino-acid trypophan. Later, it was realised that trace contaminants in the tryptophan were implicated in the outbreak of a mysterious illness that killed 37 people. A further 2,000 were permanently disabled or afflicted with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), before it was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration. This product was manufactured by Showa Denko, Japan's third largest chemical company, who in 1988-89 had for the first time used GE bacteria to produce an over-the-counter supplement. It is believed that the bacteria somehow became contaminated during the recombinant DNA process. Showa Denko has already paid out over $2 billion in damages to EMS victims.
In mid-1996 Calgene's much-proclaimed "Flavr Savr" tomato, that among other things had a gene to delay ripening spliced into it, was taken off the market. Serious problems were experienced with attempts to grow a commercial crop of this 'product'. The main reason seems to be that the organism turned out to be far more sensitive to the variables of location than had been suspected when it was under development. (The same also turned out to be true of Monsanto's Bt-cotton, see below). Another less-reported but perhaps equally significant verdict on the Flavr Savr tomato comes from rodents: Scientist Roger Salquist, who was involved in creating the Flavr Savr, said 'you can be Chef Boyardee [some famous chef, I guess? Ed] and mice are still not going to like them.' Calgene tried force-feeding the animals through gastric tubes and stomach washes. This only made the rodents sick, revealing nothing about the tomato's safety. (And despite all of these things the American Food and Drug Administration still granted approval to the Flavr Savr). See the Washington Post report 15 Aug 1999.
Prior to this, the DNAP corporation's bio-engineered "Endless Summer" tomato didn't even make it through its test marketing phase.
After selling 60,000 bags of canola seed containing transgenic varieties, in Canada in 1997, Monsanto withdrew the product from the market after testing had (somewhat belatedly) revealed an 'unexpected' gene.
Soya beans engineered to contain a gene taken from brazil nuts were subsequently found to cause brazil nut allergy in people allergic to brazil nuts. For people with a nut allergy, this can be a life and death issue.
A transgenic soil bacterium that was considered to be harmless turned out to drastically inhibit the growth of wheat seedlings.
A study by the UK's York Nutritional Laboratory (specialists on food sensitivity) found that health complaints caused by soya increased by 50% in 1998. In the 1990s more and more GM soya form the US was mixed with non-GM soya, this pretty much 'behind the backs' of the European public (until EU consumers finally said 'no way' in 1999, much to the chagrin of the US government and the US GM lobby -ha!). The researchers at the YNL said their findings provided real evidence that GE food could well have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body, since this is the first time in 17 years of testing that soya has crept into the laboratory's top 10 foods responsible for causing allergic reaction in consumers. (Souce: UK Daily Express, 12 March 1999). There is increasing concern that GM substances may be responsible for triggering many more allergies in human beings than had hitherto been suspected. If true, the likelihood is that the altered genes in the GM substances appear 'alien' to the human immune system, and intuitively this would appear make sense since part of 'the point' from a biotechnological perspective is to jigsaw genes together in ways that do not appear naturally. For more information on this see Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999.
Dolly the sheep was produced after more than 275 other attempts ended in miscarriage. While on the subject of Dolly it is worth pointing out that although Dolly was cloned in July of 1996, the public didn't hear about this work until October of 1997, as the scientists who 'created' her wanted to be sure they had secured patents before they went public. Such patents would of course mean that (potentially a lot of) money could be made from other people using these techniques. Similarly, the genetically engineered 'super pigs' that are 'in development' are sick animals. They are given an artificial form of human growth hormone (to 'fatten them up') and must endure crippling arthritis as well as visual impairments caused by the human growth genes they have which make them cross-eyed. Besides all of the other arguments made here, do we have the right to deliberately inflict this kind of suffering on animals?
Scientists in Oregon found that a genetically engineered soil microorganism, Klebsiella planticola, completely killed essential soil nutrients. Staff at the Environmental Protection Agency in the UK issued similar warnings in 1997 when they questioned UK government approval for a GE soil bacterium called Rhizobium melitoli.
Researchers at the University of Arkansas found in 1997 that net income from land in Arkansas planted with Bt cotton (genetically engineered to produce its own pest-killing toxin) was often less than the net income from land planted with conventional cotton. According to their research, the cultivation of non-Bt cotton was more profitable by an average of $25 per acre. (Source: PANUPS Pesticide Action Network of North America Updates Service. April 24, 1998). If that was not enough, up to a million acres (or 50%) of Monsanto's Bt Cotton crop in the U.S. were attacked by bollworms in 1996, prompting outrage (and lawsuits) by cotton growers who claim that Monsanto had effectively defrauded them.
Similarly, American Cyanamid, a U.S. multi-national agrochemical company (and one of Monsanto's main competitors, it has to be said) carried out a 1997 study that found that farmers could experience yield losses up to $43 per acre when planting Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans (genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's "Roundup" glyphosate herbicide) relative to unmodified crops. Monsanto disputes these findings.
Seed crops of Monsanto's Bt-spliced "NatureGuard" potatoes suffered from severe plant virus damage in 1996.
Research is under way to determine whether soybean plants sprayed with Roundup may have disruptive effects on the human endocrine system. The concern follows the finding that dairy cows eating "Roundup Ready" soybeans are producing milk with different chemical characteristics (in particular, higher fat levels) than cows who are eating regular soybeans.
Irish authorities have made U.S. EPA documents public in which it is revealed that Monsanto's "Roundup-resistant" sugar beet plants were dying in alarming numbers after having been sprayed with the chemical.
Here is some of the anecdotal evidence that clearly suggests animals reject the notion of substantial equivalence. One farmer reported that his hogs would not eat their feed when GMO crops were included. Another farmer said 'if you want your cattle to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO silage.' The cattle of another farmer would not touch the Roundup Ready corn in the field they had been herded into: they then broke through an old fence to get at the non-GMO varieties. One farmer reported that the weight-gain of his cattle fell off when he switched them to GM feed. An organic farmer who had a problem with wild deer eating his soybeans, said that one night when he drove out into the fields 40 deer were eating non-GE tofu beans while across the road not one of the animals had touched the Roundup Readies. Similarly raccoons have been seen to go for organic maize in the way that they always did, while not touching fields of Bt-maize. This is emphatically not a bonus, by the way. It is an enexpected result which flies in the face of industry claims and which suggests that we should NOT blithely accept the idea that genetically modified varieties in human food appear to be exactly the same, to us humans, as the non-GE varieties. It suggests that there could quite easily be problems with these things: we just don't know yet. See also the paragraph on the Flavr Savr tomoto, above, the Washington Post report 15 Aug 1999. and the excellent online discussion paper The Genetic Engineering Debate compiled by Roberto Verzola for more information on this and other related issues.
In March 1998 a a letter to the UK's Farmers Weekly reported that livestock on farms from Nebraska to Iowa were not grazing in fields of Bt corn, as they were expected to do, having grazed non-Bt-corn fields prior to that. Unpalatability of the Bt stalks was suspected. The issues raised here cut deep. The industry frequently attempts to justify it's products, and have them accepted by both the public and the regulators, by claiming 'substantial equivalence' between their genetically-altered materials and the preexistent unaltered, non-GE ones. Such an argument can only hold water, however, if the people and animals for whom these new products have been designed react in exactly the same way to both the GE and non-GE versions. There is widespread anecdotal evidence that animals, at least can tell the difference. -So why has this not led to a plethora of scientific studies to look into the notion of "substantial equivalence"? Because firstly the industry is reluctant to do the proper science when it is suspected that the results may compromise the claims of the advertising people, and secondly, because governments and regulators tend to have insufficient teeth, insufficient funds, and insufficient scepticism regarding what the industry tells them. Indeed, in the States one has to ask whether government and the regulators have sufficient independence from the companies they are supposed to regulate, considering the massive contributions made to the political parties by these compainies. Who was it who described American government as 'the best democracy that money can buy'..?
Furthermore, one of the most important 'morals' that can be drawn from the 'unforeseen problems' encountered in these examples, and one of the most important morals that can be drawn from the disjunction between the hyped-up claims of the industry and the reality in general, would seem to be that we must be very careful to avoid making predictions based on reductionist views of genetics. Put another way, all of these 'failures' would seem to underline the need to think in holistic terms. But once we start to do that, the chances are that sooner or later we will start to question the need for such things as monoculture, genetically engineered agriculture (etc) in the first place. (See, for instance, the rice yield figures in the section on biodiversity here...).
In 1989 a Japanese biotech company used a transgenic microorganism to produce quantities of the amino-acid trypophan. Later, it was realised that trace contaminants in the tryptophan were implicated in the outbreak of a mysterious illness that killed 37 people. A further 2,000 were permanently disabled or afflicted with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), before it was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration. This product was manufactured by Showa Denko, Japan's third largest chemical company, who in 1988-89 had for the first time used GE bacteria to produce an over-the-counter supplement. It is believed that the bacteria somehow became contaminated during the recombinant DNA process. Showa Denko has already paid out over $2 billion in damages to EMS victims.