By Debra Wirth
Genetic engineering and biotechnology, although still referred to as new sciences, are already being applied in a number of areas, including agriculture and food production, which affect us all. Public control of this process, which has the potential to change the world in barely imaginable ways, is virtually non-existent.
The full implications of changing the genetic make-up of species, or of creating new species, through biotechnology are simply not known, not even to the "experts". Yet there are only vague legal guidelines about how these technologies can be used, and researchers who discover new ways of manipulating plants and animals are not subject to any outside monitoring.
Bob Phelps of the Australian Conservation Foundation is one of many people concerned about the use of this technology. According to Phelps, who is a specialist in the field, there are no "safe" levels at which this technology can be applied because the necessary research has not been done.
This has not stopped the companies which have discovered how biotechnology can be applied to increase productivity and profitability.
Phelps cites the example of hormones used on animals. In the case of pigs, the hormone makes them reach maturity sooner than they would naturally.
There is also a hormone given to dairy cows to increase their milk output. According to Phelps, there are a large number of potential animal health problems that have not been dealt with that could result from the use of hormones. Neither have researchers concerned themselves with the quality of the produce, including its nutritional value, or the possible risks to human health that could result from the consumption of food produced with these hormones.
There is not yet widespread concern — or even awareness — about these potential problems in Australia, but the ethics and possible harmful effects of genetic engineering and biotechnology are the subject of a heated debate throughout Europe and in the United States. In Europe there is currently a two-year moratorium on the use of growth hormones, presumably to give scientists the chance to research effects that could be associated with their use.
In a number of US states, the hormones have been banned, and in other states some stores have refused to sell milk which has come from hormone-treated cows. Some argue that it should be labelled, warning consumers that the hormone has been used in its production. According to Phelps, if the drugs were used here, there is not yet any legislation which would require the milk to be labelled.
The issue of community control is important also because of the likely Melbourne environmentalist Garry Walters points out that genetic engineering offers big companies the prospect of producing new genetic strains, particularly of food crops, more competitively than others who do not have access to the technology. These big companies would then have the right to patent these strains and monopolise the industry.
The likely upshot, says Walters, is that these new genetic strains would be more reliant on the use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides as they become less able to cope with natural background diseases and pests. Biotechnology, operated on the basis of immediate profit concerns, could increase, rather than decrease, dependence on the use of toxic chemicals.
Then there is the problem of disposing of unwanted micro-organisms created by biotechnology. Phelps points out that, as new micro-organisms become available, companies are setting up factories to produce drugs and food products. The Gene Manipulation Advisory Committee has recently set up guidelines which allow these factories, on a case by case basis, to release micro-organisms as waste. That is, into the sewerage system.
The guidelines require some research into what impacts the releasing of the micro-organisms would have. They also set a limit to the number of micro-organisms contained in the waste released. However, even if these guidelines are adequate, the waste different industries churn out is rarely monitored, and there is the possibility that more than the legal amounts could be released.
Phelps believes that the number of people in Australia concerned about the use of genetic engineering and biotechnology is increasing. A new network is being set up to discuss the ethics of the technology. Phelps says it is early days in the application of the technology in Australia, and he thinks the network has a chance of stopping the worst excesses.
The network will be called Genethics, after similar groups in Europe. Anyone interested in the environmental and human impacts of genetic engineering and biotechnology is invited to contact the Australian Conservation Foundation's national office in Melbourne at 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy 3065. Ph: (03) 416 1455.