The last point in my
letter to the department of the environment
that:
"Research into GMMs and GMOs for agricultural purposes provides 'free' R&D for biological warfare."may seem to be the most 'off the walls' of the six points I raised. However, there is a logic to it:
Biological weapons are characterised as being "The Poor Nation's Nuclear Weapon". They can be cheaper to manufacture and are potentially more devastating than nuclear ones. As well as being of interest to poor nations, biological weapons must be of interest to the richer military nations too. Biological weapons have the potential to achieve specific military objectives - such as destroying food crops and vegetation or selectively killing enemy and not protected troops.
On September 17, 1954, Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, then Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission stated:
"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy in their homes too cheap to meter."Nuclear power has in fact proved costly as a source of electricity, but the research has helped nuclear weapons programs, at little cost to the military.
Biological weapons are the next generation.
Development of GMOs for civilian purposes takes the place of development of civilian nuclear power. Both have potential environmental dangers. Both have potential military spin offs. We are now hearing promises that genetically modified crops will provide food in abundance for the future. Food too cheap to meter?
Why make the military point at all? My letter was to put on paper some reasons why Ireland should not promote GMOs, even if the EU embraces them. Our military neutrality is still something many people believe in and would hope to preserve. The military link is relevant to Ireland, just as it was relevant with nuclear power.
Other points in my letter stressed the commercial impact on Ireland. Point five which was about possible impact of GMMs on the Irish milk industry (from commercialisation of vaccines being developed at Cambridge University) was a direct appeal to Irelands self interest. It had a second reason.
Whilst nearly all the discussion is now centring on genetically modified foods, and even narrowing to the single issue of food safety, the remit of the discussion document is very significantly wider. The discussion document covers genetically modified organisms, including microorganisms, whether for food or whether for some other purpose. Some of these other issues are being passed over. Yet legislation will affect them.
Modifying harmless bacteria to carry vaccines could have unintended effects that go well beyond the unintended effects of conventional vaccines.
With vaccinations the concept of an 'adjuvant', a substance that 'iritates' the immune system and so makes it more responsive to the vaccination is already well established. The principle that introducing foreign substances together will promote reactions by the immune system against those substances is therefore not a novel one. In this context the harmless bacteria themselves could be expected to become at least partial targets of the immune system. This in turn should be expected to cause a shift in the composition of the gut flora, with an effect on what we can eat.
Unlike conventional vaccines, genetically engineered vaccines raise a possibility that parents might no longer be able to choose for their children to 'opt out' of vaccination. If genetically modified bacteria are used as live vectors, as is planned, it is difficult to see how 'escape' into the world at large of these vaccines would be prevented. A similar problem arises with vaccines engineered into widely used foodstuffs, for it is not practical for a parent to make sure that their child NEVER eats a certain kind of food, whether in school dinners, or at a friend's.
The conventional vaccine for scarlet fever has well publicised, rare but extreme side effects. Other conventional vaccines, sucha as the MMR vaccine, also have question marks around their overall safety, particularly with regards symptoms later in life.
The right to choose to opt out of receiving a vaccine could be a right worth preserving. Engineering vaccines into foodstufs and non-harmful bacteria could take that right away.
Given that there is research into GMMs, legislation about genetic modification is not just 'about' new food crops.
I have recently (May
'99) started building up links to GMO sites. Here's what I've got so
far: