This is the email I wrote to the Illinois Agriculture and Conservation Subcommittee on Food Labeling yesterday, following the public hearing. I wrote it because the opposition emphasized that the genes inserted into transgenic plants are genes that we commonly consume otherwise, thus implying that there is no harm in eating them in GMO crops. I have sent the email already, but would still really appreciate feedback. I will likely be writing more emails of this nature and hope to get better at it with your help.
Chairman Koehler,
Thank you for sponsoring SB1666 on the labeling of GMO foods. I attended the hearing this morning in Normal out of a strong personal concern for the future of our food supply.
I have a background in technology, having received a Master of Science degree from DePaul in Telecommunications, and a Bachelor of Science degree from UIC in Computer Engineering. I have been a software developer for the past 18 years. A few years ago I experienced some health issues, and launched myself into what I call the "Mother Nature" diet. I emptied my cupboards of processed foods and extracts, preferring to use food in its most natural, whole form. Over time, my body responded to the dietary changes, and with the positive improvements in my health, my interest in nutrition increased. This interest led me to research organic farming methods, and the impact industrial farming has on our ecosystem. Learning about the sources of our food supply led to a deep concern, to the point that I resolved to become involved at a level beyond my own personal interests. I left the world of software behind to return to school, and am now a full time student once again at UIC, working on a Master of Public Health degree in Environmental and Occupational Sciences.
The GMO issue has been especially interesting to me, because of my technical background. In fact, there's a side of me that really hopes that the biotech engineers will one day find success. Although the food industry would like us to believe otherwise, however, success is not yet assured. While the results of independent studies are not conclusive, they do raise sufficient concern over the potential health risks of GMO foods to warrant further study. Unfortunately, long-term impartial studies are not available, leaving consumers, like me, to rely on their own research to make their own judgments for their own health.
I would like to share a few things that I've learned about GMOs that were not addressed in the hearing this morning:
1. The transgene itself is, for me, not the issue of concern; it is rather the process of insertion that poses the greatest risk. While the industry would like us to believe that the insertion of a gene into a new species is a precise operation, it is not. The process most commonly used is called "Transfection by Agrobacterium tumefaciens", and leverages the ability of the bacterium to inject DNA into a cell. The gene is incorporated into the cell's genome at a semi-random location. The resulting location and its ultimate impact on the GM plant are not fully known, even by the technologists supervising the process. Success is declared when the plant expresses the desired trait, but unpredictable side-effects can also result from mutations caused by the insertion, that produce a variety of potentially harmful proteins.
2. The GE technology was initially developed when scientists assumed a one-to-one correspondence between genes and proteins, but we have since learned this is not the case. The DNA "protocol" is very intricate and complex, making the random insertion of a transgene very risky. If the process were equated to software, it would be akin to dropping a small sequence of code randomly into an existing software application. Theoretically, the new portion of code might indeed be useful, but depending on its placement in the application, it could also create havoc, resulting in bugs that might not be realized until much later.
3. Once the insertion is completed, the plant cells are treated with antibiotics to kill off the Agrobacteria before being propagated to crops. Not all are successfully removed, however; some remain on the GM plant to be passed on to future generations; these Agrobacteria can potentially extend the gene insertion to animal cells, or to fungi and yeast, vital parts of the soil ecosystem.
4. The gene is not inserted alone into the plant genome; a stretch of DNA called the "Cauliflower Mosaic Virus" (CaMV 35S) promoter is inserted along with it. This powerful promoter is used to "turn on" the new gene, allowing it to be expressed. This promoter, however, also has the ability and potential to turn on other genes besides the new transgene. It can activate host genes elsewhere in the genome, even on other chromosomes, driving expression of genes in the wrong cells at the wrong time. The insertion of this promoter is of major concern to many scientists.
We are walking a very dangerous line here. Despite the lack of hard evidence against GMOs, many are responding to anecdotal evidence and common sense to steer clear of genetically modified food to protect their own health, as well they should. The lack of transparency by the industry and resistance to disclosure of GMO products adds to the perception of stealth that surrounds the controversy. I do not buy the claims that labeling would increase costs significantly. If GMOs truly add value as they claim, the food industry should be proud to boast about them on their labels.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my perspective. I urge the committee to support SB1666. Labeling of GMO products will help us as consumers to vote for or against this technology, with our food purchases. Labeling will help restore the power of choice to those of us who care about our health and our future.
Respectfully,
Mary Gelder
Westmont, IL 60559
