Junk Science, Corporate Ideology, and Genetically Modified Food: An Interview with Ann Clark

A researcher in Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph, Ann Clark has been a vocal critic of the biotech industry and its influence over research agendas, especially genetic modification (recombinant DNA). Many anti-GM activists have found it necessary to restrict their objections to GMOs isolated examples of damage done. Clark, however, continues to question the fundamental basis for biotech research by raising more fundamental concerns, and addressing them with specific science: Do we really understand recombinant DNA well enough to release GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) into the ecology upon which we depend for sustenance? If something goes wrong, who pays for it?

Clark, funds her research on GMOs by consulting in addition to her teaching position at University of Guelph, has published widely, criticizing current biotech research, all available on her web site. The issues Clark addresses range from the externalized costs of GMOs, to advice for farmers considering GM crops, to questions of toxicity and allergenicity in modified crops.

Clark generously answered these questions about GMOs and the nature of biotech via email.

What are some of the consequences of increasing corporate-directed research and funding in public institutions?

The credibility of academia in general, scientists in particular, and indeed, the very role of publicly funded universities in contemporary society is being compromised by the uncritical adoption of industry agendas by academia. Tolerating or indeed contributing to the fevered momentum which is promoting GM crops in the absence of meaningful risk assessment is scientifically unsound. To do so in the face of widespread and growing consumer concern -- that is, by the people who are paying our salaries -- is incomprehensible, arrogant, and reprehensible.

Do you consider this uncritical promotion an ideological application of science?

This is not science. This is technology in advance of science, profit-driven applications of commercial technology unfettered by scientific understanding of basic physiology and gene function, and real world implications for society and the environment. This is a solution in search of a problem.

What are the main risks of using recombinant DNA to engineer crops?

Unintended side effects, caused by the randomness of transgene insertion. I have recently completed a chapter commissioned by Environment Canada for a new book on globalization and biodiversity. My chapter is ``Potential effects of GM on biodiversity''. It includes about 100 references, most of which are refereed, documenting potential -- unacknowledged -- impacts of known as well as unknown traits. The closest parallel to GMOs is exotic invaders, which usually cause no harm at all, but when they do, can be catastrophic.

The central concern is that GMOs are alive, can transmit genes to other organisms, and can change unpredictably themselves -- specifically because of transgene insertion.

Are most biotechnology researchers aware of the risks posed by their research?

No. They discount, discredit, and bypass anything that challenges the continued flow of money, power, and prestige to their labs. This observation should not be construed to mean that most researchers are acting maliciously or dishonestly, just that they are enormously excited about their research, and don't want to lose the cash cow that is enabling them to do what they want to do. Further, the questions they are able to ask are determined by the funding source, which typically has little or no interest in assessing or monitoring risk.

Is there any proof that genetically modified crops on the market today provide tangible benefits to farmers?

Some farmers benefit some of the time, in terms of yield; most do not. Evidence of profitability benefit is scarce to non-existent. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops yield less than isogenic or other best non-GM counterparts in all circumstances except when weeds are so burdensome that alternative weed control options are ineffective or expensive. In this case, one may ask how the production system in place has generated so wide a niche as to allow such a weed problem to develop in the first place, and if growing an HT crop is the best or only solution.

Are there avenues of research in biotechnology potentially more beneficial than those currently being pursued?

Not until we know a great deal more about how genes actually function, and how genes regulate physiological pathways, and how genes interact with environment. Until then, release of GM crops into the environment is premature, externalizing costs involuntarily onto society and the environment.

So why are they not being followed up?

Directions for commercial application are based on exactly that: potential for commercial success, and have nothing to do with societal benefit.

Is organic farming a viable alternative to extensive industrial farming on a large scale?

Yes, unquestionably.

What kind of institutional support would be necessary to make organic farming viable on a larger scale?

Good question. They seem to be progressing rather well despite a complete vacuum of institutional support in most settings. Much of what passes for organic or sustainable agriculture research today is simply replacing synthetic inputs with biologicals -- which misses the whole point. Organic systems are designed to capture positive synergies in time and space, and in so doing, to avoid problems. Conventional agriculture is designed in such a way as to create ecological problems (pests; nutrient management; animal health) and then solve them with purchased inputs. Fundamentally different contexts need fundamentally different approaches.

Institutional resources need to start from the premise "first do no harm". Any resource allocations should be based on rigorous stakeholder consultation, both to identify and prioritize research/extension needs, and to conduct research that addresses meaningful questions -- whether for real world farmers or for decision/policymakers whose actions so pivotally influence producer success.

Does ownership of genetic material have any scientific basis?

Ownership of individual genes is a ludicrous proposition, because genes -- per se -- do not act alone. They act in concert with other genes, as moderated by environment and other factors. Indeed, one of the positive outcomes of the current obsession with "things genetic" may well be to demonstrate the fallacy of this outdated notion of gene function. The harm from gene patenting vastly outweighs any conceivable benefit, because like everything else, using the genes will come at a cost, and one which many of those in need will not be able to afford. Consider the current situation with AIDS drugs in Africa as a portent of things to come from gene-based pharmaceuticals.

Now that Aventis' StarLink and Monsanto Roundup Ready GM corn, not approved for human consumption, have gotten into the human food supply, is there any hope of ever getting them out?

I am unaware that RR corn is not approved for human consumption. My understanding is that only StarLink was approved for livestock but not human consumption. Can it be gotten out of the food system? Sure -- with enough money, anything is possible. How much money does Aventis have? And how much American taxpayer money is going down the toilet to bail them out?

Is there a scientific basis for the FDA's approval or rejection of StarLink or Roundup Ready corn?

No more so than for the approval of any GM crop. The process of assessing risk of allergenicity (the specific issue for StarLink) is dubious at best. As there is reportedly no actual test for allergenicity, government judges based on indirect indices. For all the other Bt proteins which have been approved (about 15 different crops, if memory serves), the target Bt Cry protein did not have characteristics associated with allergens. In other words, they broke down rapidly in simulated digestion studies, and were heat unstable. The DNA and amino acid sequences of the gene and protein did not show homology with known allergens -- hence -- safe. Now, along comes a Bt Cry protein (Cry 9C) which does show characteristics of known allergens. It does not breakdown readily, and is heat stable. So, if they approve it anyway, they will have to acknowledge the meaninglessness of the entire approval process (as pertains to food safety risk).

This is not to say that Cry 9C is actually allergenic, toxic, or otherwise harmful. I do not know this to be true. Just that the method by which they are making this judgment is very weakly founded.