Environmental hazards of biotech, patents

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.