The following op-ed piece by Braxton M. Alfred, 
Emeritus Professsor of Biological Anthropology
at University of  British Columbia
appeared in "The Vancouver Sun" May 24, 1999.                                                 

GENETIC MODIFICATION PERILOUS             (lightly edited)

Thank you for your piece on genetically modified organisms, ("GMOs
Genetic wizardry in food crops: who wants it?" May 17)  I'd like to make some additional comments, however.

As the focus of the piece was on human health, a very real and legitimate concern, it is not surprising that a discussion on the implications of GMOs for agriculture was not included.  As they are a profound threat, some mention should be made, however. 

One frequently cited problem is that the genes of transgenic crops will
"escape" and produce superweeds resistant to herbicides.  A transgenic crop of canola in Alberta was rendered indestructible by all herbicides and pesticides.  On inspection, it was found to contain genes from three neighboring transgenic fields, each of which produced reistance to a different toxin.  This has established "gene stacking".

In Saskatchewan, dog mustard, a weed, seems to be gaining resistance.  Owing to the well-known ability of pests to develop resistance, it seems
fundamentally stupid to present them with the opportunity to adapt.
Doctors are concerned, for example, about resistant forms of tuberculosis developing from overuse, and incorrect use, of antibiotics.  This happens in the field as well. 

Bollworms have destroyed transgenic cotton in Australia, and corn earworms have done the same to to cotton in Texas.  Bt corn kills monarch butterflies, and the corn borer, which it is supposed to
protect against, is becoming resistant. (The use of Bt in transgenic crops has organic farmers in a panic, because they use it very sparingly in order to maintain its effectiveness.)

By far the greatest danger comes from "terminator technology."  This is a gene that causes the activation of a suicide-gene sequence resulting in sterile seeds.  (Sterile seed will not germinate the next season.)  One of the more disgusting things the United States has ever done was to allow patents to be taken out on life forms.

This means that, terminator technology, incorporated with pest-resistance genes, are the property of the major players in this field.  Monsanto is just the best known; other patent holders are AstraZeneca, Novartis, DuPont, and Aventis (the result of a merger of Hoechst/Schering and Rhone Polenc).  So planting a resistant crop gets you sterile seed.  There is a diabolical extension of the terminator called "traitor".

This is a terminator gene that is activated by an external agent.  For
example, Monsanto has a "Roundup-Ready" soybean that allows the bean to survive an application of its herbicide Roundup.  The traitor causes the terminator gene to activate when Roundup is applied.  Traitors are known, but not yet on the market.

The use of these technologies will kill subistence farming around the
world, will eliminate biodiversity, will make farmers totally dependent on large corporations (or their government agents), will greatly increase the cost of farming by forcing farmers to buy new seed and pesticide every year.

And now to the errors:  Dean Vanderstoep needs to sit in on a course in
introductory genetics.  His claim that "genetic engineering is like the
breeding programs of old" displays an abysmal ignorance of genetics.  Such a claim could only be true if genes acted independently of each other.  This is absolutely not the case.

Epistatic interaction, theoretically expected since about 1920 and now
known, is the "cooperation" between and among structural genes.  Regulatory enes cause *structural gene complexes to switch on and off.

But even if there were complete intragenomic independence, which is
inconceivable, the breeding programs of old involved the incorporation of an entire haploid (half) set of genes from each parent.  These genes exist together as a consequence of long-term natural selection.

The default thinking now is that every gene affects every trait.  The
result of this is functional integration.  Removing one (or a few) genes
from this set and putting it into another organism places it into an
unfamiliar genetic environment where there are no constraints at all on its action.  It is impossible to know in advance the outcome.  It is near
criminal hubris to claim, without very good evidence, that it is safe for
humans.