Environmental hazards of biotech, patents

By Hira P. Jhamtani

JAKARTA (JP): Biotechnology is essentially technology that utilizes life forms (organisms) which are engineered to provide goods and services for human beings. This is an age-old technology that is used to produce alcoholic beverages, fermented foods such as tofu and cheese, and antibiotics.

Today, biotechnology employs genetic engineering through the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid -- the building blocks of genes) recombinant technique. With this technique, the DNA of one living organism can be isolated and transferred to another individual of the same or different species. For instance, human genes are inserted into pigs to produce meat with less fat, fish genes are inserted into tomatoes to produce fruit which is resistant to freezing. In other words, modern biotechnology can create genetically engineered organisms (GEO).

Mellon and Rissler, two researchers at the U.S. based Union of Concerned Scientists, define transgenic plants as "crops that have been genetically engineered to contain traits (genes) from unrelated organisms." Transgenic crops, and other biotechnological products for that matter, are life forms that do not occur naturally on Earth.

Biotechnologists and corporations promoting biotech products claim that genetic engineering will solve hunger, disease, and even environmental crisis and biodiversity erosion.

Environmentalists and a number of scientists think otherwise.

The release of GEOs into nature has potential negative impacts on biological diversity and the environment as a whole, argues Dr. Hartiko, a biotechnologist from Gadjah Mada University. He explained that the release of GEO constitutes a drastic change, whereby the interaction between organisms and the environment may kilter and wipe out organisms in an ecosystem.

Biotech proponents argue that new species are introduced in nature through evolution even without human intervention.

But Hartiko said that species development was a slow process based on a balance of environmental pressures and genotype variability over thousands of years. Genotype changes naturally though combination of reproductive cells and the new gene structures and sequences are spread over the population. Some of the combinations adapt to the environment and survive, while others perish. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, produces new genotypes which have not been planned naturally to adapt to the population dynamics in the environment, but designed to suit the needs of biotechnology. This is why, according to Hartiko, biotechnology which is geared to fulfill human needs and to gain profits poses threats to the environment and life itself.

The application of genetically engineered animals and plants in agriculture will most probably also cause genetic erosion because it will displace the existing cultivated species which are future sources of genes. Hartiko, who is also an expert staff member at Konphalindo, an environmental non-government organization, warned that without proper and rigid safety procedures both in the laboratory and in the field, GEOs may have serious impacts if they fall into the hands of the "wrong people", such as terrorists and criminals.

Transgenic agricultural crops are still being tested in the field but some products have even been marketed in the U.S.

Greenpeace reported that all of the world's major food crops have been genetically engineered including corn, wheat and rice. These three corps together form 50 percent of the world's food intake. Field trials of transgenic corps, according to Greenpeace, have taken place in at least 18 developed countries and are expected to take place shortly in about 35 developing countries.

Rissler and Mellen stated that four possible environmental impacts arise from the release of transgenic crops. First, transgenic corps themselves will become weeds which will flood farm lands and wild ecosystems. Second, transgenic plants will serve as a conduit through which new genes are transferred to wild plants, which could then become weed. This is especially serious in rich biodiversity areas in the developing countries. Third, transgenic plants containing virus genes will facilitate creation of new viruses which may affect economically important plants. Fourth, plants engineered to contain toxic substances such as drugs and pesticides will present risks to non-target organisms such as birds and other animals.

The most serious threat is towards plant populations in centers of biological diversity. This will result both from competition from transgenic crops and also from the transfer of new genes in the transgenic crops to wild relatives through pollen transfer which is often termed as "biological pollution".

Patents

The large investment and efforts spent on biotechnology led to the concept of patents for life forms. Granting patents for life forms -- plants, animals, microorganisms and their genes -- essentially provides human beings dominion and control over other creatures. It reduces biological diversity, particularly at the species and genetic level, to raw materials to be owned, manipulated and traded as part of the global economy.

Although biotechnologists do not actually create life -- they merely shuffle genes -- GEOs are called "biotechnological inventions" to justify the applications for patent. Dr. Vandana Shiva, an Indian ecologist, says that the term is used to make patenting of life forms appear less controversial. Yet it is controversial, because it implies monopoly over agricultural products by translational biotechnological companies.

For instance, a company was granted one patent that covers any genetically engineered soybean and another that covers any variety of genetically engineered cotton. This implies an extraordinary control over cotton production for the company, which may have an adverse economic impact upon cotton producing countries, particularly in the third world.

At home

Indonesia is one center of mega-biodiversity and therefore is vulnerable to field trials of transgenic organisms. As communities in industrialized countries reject field testing or transgenic organisms, many field tests are conducted illegally by companies, or without prior informed consent from host countries, in the developing world. Indonesia needs to quickly develop a set of laws and regulations against the kind of testing which may cause the biological pollution of its biodiversity.

Republika daily (Aug. 7, 1994) reported that Indonesia planned to cooperate with Australia to test an Australian transgenic peanut plant. This will be a large scale trial and hopefully Indonesia will be able to own one of the transgenic seeds. Greenpeace also reported that there are also research projects on transgenic rice (for male sterility) and oilpalm (for an unknown trait) in Indonesia. There seems to be no in-depth information about the implications of both projects.

Indonesia needs to develop an environmentally friendly biotechnology which can solve pollution problem and does not pose a risk to biodiversity. Hartiko suggests Indonesia reject the privatization and patenting of life forms. But, at the same time, we need to develop a means to protect the innovations of the traditional communities in developing crop varieties, medicinal plants and other creations for the benefit of the entire society. This is important since many companies appropriate community knowledge on the use of biodiversity to produce biotechnological products and other substances for commercial use.

Careful consideration must be taken in the application of biotechnology, especially since it is essentially tampering with life on Earth.

Hira P. Jhamtani is the executive director of the National Consortium on Nature and Forest Conservation in Indonesia (Konphalindo), a not-for-profit organization in environmental research and information dissemination.