Of Rice, Human Genes And Human Error
By TAMMY HANSEN SNELL
March 23, 2007
Remember the joke, “I like you but I wouldn’t want to see you working with the human genome?”
The United States Department of Agriculture has “given a preliminary green light for the first commercial production of a food crop engineered to contain human genes.”
Yikes!
I’m not against science – that’s absolutely not the case.
This is an issue of trust. Absence of trust.
A Washington Post article, “USDA Backs Production of Rice With Human Genes,” sent chills through my bones; not because of the product in question, but because of the atmosphere in which it is being handled.
A company named Ventria Bioscience wants to grow “rice that produces human immune system proteins in its seeds.” Their plan is to “grow its rice commercially on as many as 3,200 acres in Geary County, [Kansas], starting with 450 acres this spring.” The company wants to manufacture rice which would be injected with a protein found in human mother's milk, tears and saliva.
Once they have the proteins from the rice crop they “are to be extracted for use as an anti-diarrhea medicine.” The company also says the pharmaceutical rice would be used in medicines to fight dehydration and other illnesses that kill millions of children in Third World nations. It also would be used in yogurt, energy drinks and granola bars.
Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine, has had doubts about the safety of this product for years, and they detail them on their website, www.consumersunion.org. (Use words like these to search: “Ventria Bioscience rice genetically engineered to express human lactoferrin.”)
Consumers Union worries that, among other things, human lactoferrin could cause allergic reactions.
USDA’s website notes the rice has more than one human protein, being “genetically engineered to express the human proteins lactoferrin, lysozyme, or serum albumin.” The seeds may also contain other genetic material for “marker genes.”
USDA’s announcement also points out, “There is currently no commercial rice production in Geary County or in any other location in the state of Kansas.” This is to lessen our worry that it will get lost in other, non-altered rice.
They have plans in place “designed to ensure that none of the subject rice plants persist in the environment after the crop is harvested.”
Here’s where they lose me.
USDA’s website has how-to tips on detecting “Cry9C protein in Hybrid Seed Corn” because things that weren’t supposed to escape their test area did escape. Namely StarLink, a genetically modified corn which caused disasters for some corn farmers when their harvest was rejected due to concerns the corn could cause allergic reactions.
The Washington Post article notes USDA “revealed that a type of rice seed in Arkansas had become contaminated with a different variety of genetically engineered rice, LL62, that was never released for marketing. The error was discovered in the course of an ongoing investigation into the widespread contamination of U.S. rice by yet another gene-altered variety, LL601, which has seriously disrupted rice exports.”
Want to comment? USDA says it “will consider all comments received on or before March 30, 2007.” They provide instructions: “Go to www.regulations.gov and, in the lower ‘Search Regulations and Federal Actions’ box, select ‘Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’ from the agency drop-down menu, and then click on ‘Submit.’ In the Docket ID column, select APHIS–2007–0006.”
USDA isn’t solely responsible for my lack of trust.
The March 4, 2007, Washington Post article, “FDA Rules Override Warnings About Drug,” tells how FDA, which approved the production of two fluoroquinolones for poultry in the 1990’s, only to ban them later, when “fluoroquinolone-resistant strains of campylobacter in patients hospitalized with severe diarrhea” were found, now intends to approve cefquinome for cattle, despite warnings it will “undermine the usefulness” of cefepime, “which is the only effective treatment for serious infections in cancer patients.”
What are they thinking?
I would love to believe there isn’t profiteering that places money over human beings, that there aren’t political games played where facts are hidden for the benefit of the powerful – but I don’t.
Maybe I’m just discouraged by the lack of common sense displayed elsewhere, an example being the fanatical bashing of Wyoming hunter Jim Zumbo, for daring to suggest the average hunter doesn’t need a machine gun. He’s exactly the type of gun enthusiast who will prevent a backlash against the right to own guns, by proving we don’t all want anti-aircraft weapons to shoot pop cans off of fence posts. But the Outdoor Channel is currently treating him with the distaste Frito-Lay has for corn with Cry9C.
I mean really, is this the best climate in which to put human genes in rice?
Only if there are leaders who will be honest about the risks, and truthful about the consequences.
Currently, my doubt about leaders operating under a system of ethics is enormous.
Logan Grosenick, a researcher in a study on fish using logic, summed it up best in his response to me about whether fish making reasonable deductions was a good sign human beings in charge would also be able to:
“I would not be so encouraged.”
________
Editor’s note: The press in nation’s where the pharmaceutical rice is supposed to do the most good has had mixed reactions to the project.
The Times of India editorialized in favor of the proposed product, concluding: “It’s appropriate to adopt safeguards, but the biotech revolution can’t be held back.” The expected good outweighs potential risks, the editorial said.
The Pambazuka News in Africa condemned the project. “Friends of the Earth Africa believes that our continent does not need genetically modified solutions to diarrhea and condemns the use of African children as a tool to promote the new GM rice produced by Ventria Bioscience. Diarrhea is an illness that has well-known causes, and proven, inexpensive solutions. Ventria’s GM rice is unproven, unnecessary, and a distraction from ongoing programmes to save children suffering from diarrhea on our continent.”
The conservative Canadian Free Press hailed pharmaceutical rice as having the potential for saving millions of lives. It condemned critics: Luddite radicals like the Center for Food Safety, Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace assert that this "Frankenstein" technology tampers with nature and could "contaminate" other crops. …. The European Union and organic food industries demand stringent, costly, unnecessary regulations that impose unconscionable delays and result in death for some of the world's most needy children.
How about the idea of "pharmaceutical" rice?
Post your feedback on this topic here
| Date | Subject | Posted by: |
|---|---|---|
| 03/26/2007 | Has it occurred to these folks that... | Alan Meyer |
