In this website we have presented facts that demonstrate that genetic engineering is inherently unpredictable. Therefore, GE foods may contain unforeseen hazardous substances and may have unpredictable and potentially harmful environmental effects. We have shown that there is no need for them to feed the world.

For these reasons alone, it is neccessary to ban their use. But there are strong reasons to stop them even if they were safe. These reasons have so far not been considered in the debate:

1. Global warming

It has now been generally accepted by climate experts that Global Warming will bring about considerable climatic instability and extreme weather conditions, including heavy rains, storms as well as severe droughts.

Experience indicates that GE crops may be more delicate than conventional crops. In addition, accumulating evidence are demonstrating that they are less productive.

Fact box (This is a more advanced text that, for full understanding, needs the study of the article "How are genes engineered".) Circumstances that can make GE crops less hardy and less productive The insertion of a foreign gene constitutes a significant disturbance for several reasons. The so called promoter DNA, that is always inserted along with the "trait" gene, has the effect of forcing the cell to produce the "trait" protein all the time, 24 hrs a day (see footnote 1) . Normally, the protein production of the cell is finely attuned to the needs in every moment. In a GE cell this important energy saving function is overridden by the promoter. Saving of energy is a basic feature of biological life of vital importance for hardiness as well as for productivity. Indiscriminate energy expenditure of this kind is likely to make the plant less productive as well as more vulnerable to extreme weather conditions that cause nutritient deficiency. The same promoter DNA has the property of strongly stimulating the activity of genes. It may activate neighboring genes to produce undesired proteins 24 hours a day. Especially if this protein happens to be an enzyme, this may disturb the metabolism of the plant to a significant extent. This is because production of enzymes is one of the key regulatory mechanisms of normal metabolism (the amount of a certain enzyme decides how much is produced of the corresponding substance). Therefore an indiscriminate and abnormally large production of an enzyme can weaken a plant significantly. But even if it is not an enzyme, the abnormal accumulation of a protein, that normally is produced to a small extent only when needed, may disturb the normal functioning of the plant cells. Productivity as well as hardiness depend on an effective functioning of the cells, finely attuned to the needs in every moment. The inserted gene produces a protein that is foreign to the cell. Proteins that don't affect one organism may be a deadly poison to others (see footnote 2). Therefore, the foreign protein may disturb the metabolism and regulation of cellular functioning. Metabolic disturbance is a hallmark of genetic diseases. This is hardly compatible neither with hardiness nor productivity. In genetic engineering the foreign gene is inserted haphazardly, interrupting the normal sequence of DNA codes. The knowledge how genes function is very incomplete so it is not possible to fully evaluate the importance of this disturbance. But it is well known that even very small abnormalities in DNA is associated with increased vulnerability. So it cannot be excluded that this interruption of the normal DNA code sequnce may influence hardiness as well as productivity. Conclusion It is evident that genetic engineering causes abnormal functioning of the cell in different ways that are very likely to decrease its hardiness and productivity. This prediction has been confirmed by agricultural studies that report that genetically engineered plants are less productive as well more delicate and brittle than normal organisms. For a few examples, see footnote 3.

Therefore there may be an increased risk for GE crop failures due to the extreme weather conditions caused by Global Warming. If the GE food biotechology were allowed to expand in the way the Biotech Corporations want, so as to become the major source of food in the world, there may be an increased risk for large scale hunger catastrophes under extreme climatic conditions.

2. Imminent oil shortage predicted to bring about hunger crisis

The international energy agency (IEA) and other expert bodies have predicted that there is a risk for severe hunger catastrophes when oil shortage occurs. This is because conventional large scale, chemistry-based agricultural food production is heavily dependent on oil.

In addition, transportation will become expensive and in the worst case very limited. Industrial scale agriculture is closely tied to long distance transport of foods.

In the case of genetically engineered crops, the seeds are produced only in a few places and therefore require long distance, if not overseas transportation. This will make it very expensive to use such crops, and with severe oil shortage, it might become physically impossible.

With oil shortage, industrial agriculture, which presently produces the food to a large part of the world population may collapse. The situation is even worse for GE crops based agriculture for said reasons.

Recently an increasing number of experts have been warning that oil and gas shortage may occur earlier than believed so far (see for example "Get ready for oil supplies to dwindle, experts warn" (Vancoucer Sun, 27 Sept 2006), "From Peak Oil to Dark Age?" (Bussiness week June 25 2007) and for a more scientific source, Association for the study of Peak Oil & Gas.

The great problem is that the world is not prepared for oil shortage. The experts predict that it will take at best 10 years, but more probably 15-20 years to replace the oil-dependent technology with something else. At the same time, there is an increasing consensus among independent experts that oil shortage will come in less than ten years, and in the worst case within a few years.

The present large scale expansion of GE food production is a major threat

Even if Food Biotechnology had been safe in every way, for these reasons alone it is a dangerous way to go. It is highly disquieting that the Biotech corporations are now pressing for a rapid increase of GE-food production in the world, and thereby increasing heavily oil-dependent agriculture. When oil shortage comes, the intended large scale replacement of small scale farms with industrial agriculture will expose millions, if not hundreds of millions to the risk of hunger and death from starvation.

Already the expansion of food biotechnology in the third world is eradicating tens of thousands of small scale farming units with a low oil dependence, replacing them with highly oil dependent industrial farming.

In stead, great care should be taken to foster a development in the opposite direction, which would decrease the impact of an oil crisis on food production.

Conclusion

Expansion of the usage of GE crops significantly increase the risk for mass starvation in the future. This is brought about by a combination of:

• lower productivity and increased risk for crop failure caused by extreme climate conditions due to Global Warming and
• increased oil dependence in a time of imminent oil shortage.

Therefore, even if GE foods would have been safe, they have to be stopped.

However, this technology is inherently unsafe and has already spread genes with unpredicatable effects over wide areas. Consequently there is every reason to stop the release of GE genes into the environment including production of GE foods immediately.

September 3, 2007; Updated April 22, 2008.

Footnotes

1. To be able to insert a foreign gene and to make it work it has to be attached to a synthetic mixture of virus and bacterial genes. One is a promoter DNA taken from a virus, which ensures that the gene will produce the protein it codes in the new environment. Another is a commonly bacterial tumor gene that enables insertion of its DNA into foreign chromosomes. Both of the most commonly used ones are potentially hazardous to health. For more, see "How are genes engineered".

2. A concrete example out of many is the venom of the Australian Funnel Web spider (Atrax robustus). Its robustoxin is a lethal neurotoxin that has killed several people. Still, to its own cells this protein is harmless.

3. . Here are a few examples of documented decreased productivity and increased weather sensitivity:

• "Exposed: the great GM crops myth. Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent". The Independent, Sunday, 20 April 2008.
• GM Failures Continue. Reports about problems with GE crops, including decreased productivity.
• "Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy Beans Cracking Up". These widely used beans cracked up in soil temperatures over 40 degrees Celcius (104 F) and this has caused over 40% crop losses. (New Scientist 20nov99)
• Bt Corn hybrids development delayed under extreme weather. Under extreme weather conditions e.g. cool air temperature at planting and severe drought during the development, there was a significant delay of development. (Field Crops Research 93: 199-21, September 14, 2005)

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible
Application of Science and Technology
- A Global Network -