Explosive Article Explains Why
GE Is Inherently Dangerous

Reuters | AP | ABCNEWS.com | U.S. Newswire

New Report Challenges Fundamentals of Genetic Engineering
Jan 15, 2001

A study released today reveals a critical, long-overlooked flaw in the
science behind the multi-billion dollar genetic engineering industry,
raising serious questions about the safety of genetically engineered foods.

In a new review of scientific literature reported in the February issue of
Harper's Magazine, Dr. Barry Commoner, a prominent biologist demonstrates
that the bioengineering industry, which now accounts for 25-50 percent of
the U.S. corn and soybean crop, relies on a 40-year-old theory that DNA
genes are in total control of inheritance in all forms of life. According to this
theory -- the "central dogma" -- the outcome of transferring a gene from one
organism to another is always "specific, precise and predictable," and therefore
safe.

Taking issue with this view, Commoner summarizes a series of scientific
reports that directly contradict the established theory. For example, last
year the $3 billion Human Genome Project found there are too few human
genes to account for the vast inherited differences between people and
lower animals or plants, indicating that agents other than DNA must
contribute to genetic complexity.

The central dogma claims a one-to-one correspondence between a gene's
chemical composition and the structure of the particular protein that
engenders an inherited trait. But Dr. Commoner notes that under the
influence of specialized proteins that carry out "alternative splicing," a
single gene can give rise to a variety of different proteins, resulting in
more than a single inherited trait per gene. As a result, the gene's
effect on inheritance cannot be predicted simply from its chemical
composition -- frustrating one of the main purposes of both the Human
Genome Project and biotechnology.

Commoner's research sounds a public alarm concerning the processes by
which agricultural biotechnology companies genetically modify food crops.
Scientists simply assume the genes they insert into these plants always
produce only the desired effect with no other impact on the plant's
genetics. However, recent studies show that the plant's own genes can be
disrupted in transgenic plants. Such outcomes are undetected because there
is little or no governmental regulation of the industry.

"Genetically engineered crops represent a huge uncontrolled experiment
whose outcome is inherently unpredictable," Commoner concludes. "The
results could be catastrophic."

Dr. Commoner cites a number of recent studies that have broken the DNA
gene's exclusive franchise on the molecular explanation of inheritance. He
warns that "experimental data, shorn of dogmatic theories, point to the
irreducible complexity of the living cell, which suggests that any
artificially altered genetic system must sooner or later give rise to
unintended, potentially disastrous consequences."

Commoner charges that the central dogma, a seductively simple explanation
of heredity, has led most molecular geneticists to believe it was "too
good not to be true." As a result, the central dogma has been immune to the
revisions called for by the growing array of contradictory data, allowing
the biotechnology industry to unwittingly impose massive, scientifically
unsound practices on agriculture.