Posted on 21-1-2002

Challenges To Fundamentals Of GE
(Photo shows Dr. Barry Commoner)

NEW YORK, Jan. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- 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. "Dr. Commoner's work challenges the
legitimacy of the agricultural biotechnology industry," said Andrew
Kimbrell, Director of the Center on Food Safety. "For years, multibillion
dollar biotech companies have been selling the American people and our
government on the safety of their products. We now see their claims of
safety are based on faulty assumptions that don't hold up to rigorous
scientific review."

The study reported in Harper's Magazine is the initial publication of a new
initiative called The Critical Genetics Project directed by Dr. Commoner in
collaboration with molecular geneticist Dr. Andreas Athanasiou, at the
Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, City University
of New York.