On the Application of the Precautionary Principle

By Marc Lappé

The precautionary principle encodes the hoary tradition of minimizing consequences through caution.  Prudence, a long-recognized virtue, involves more than simple caution.  It entails knowledgeably incorporating what is known, suspected and anticipated into action.

In this sense, genetic engineering is paradoxical.  By its very innovative newness, it creates a precautionary principle case ipso facto.  That is, it is the essence of a precautionary circumstance from the word "go." This is so because novel movements of genes are by nature uncertain in their long-term consequences, as are any evolutionary changes induced by say a burst of cosmic radiation, novel hybridization approaches, and so-called "wide crosses" where genes from distant species are commingled with the species at issue.

Hence, something much more sophisticated than merely "shut it down" is needed to justify targeting each and every genetic intervention for action.  The few instances where gene insertions have disturbed the universe, e.g., through affecting tap root production in cotton, stem-bursting in soybeans, or producing modestly toxic pollen are, in theory, small blips on the long-term impact radar screen.  If these accidents are indeed industry described "kinks" which will be worked out, then why the hoopla about genetic engineering generally?

Part of the reason for a high level of concern about genetic engineering. is the matter of "wise choices." Free market forces have already demonstrated that left alone, the industry will select options which feather its own nest in favor of those which serve the public interest.  There is no scientific rationale for each company choosing its patented herbicides to be the targets for tolerance gene insertions.  Nor is there any scientific rationale behind usurping the Bt genes for insecticide resistance in the assumption that "first come, first served" is a reasonable model for an evolving situation of insect resistance.

The second reason is that the scale of the genetic engineering intervention involves a great intensification of agricultural practices, centering on a few genetic seed types.  Such a move virtually assures that genetic systems will concentrate to a few monopolies, that economies of scale will take precedence over individual interests of assuring autonomy, collective benefits, and fair distribution of products.

A third reasons is that genes are being splashed all over the evolutionary landscape with no or little concern for long-term consequences, reduction in genetic diversity or ecological disturbance.  Because of the scale of the operation, there is a virtual assurance that weedy species related to the parent plants will pick up genetic variants.

A fourth is that no one is guarding the hen coop.  These developments are being made helter skelter to meet corporate agendas with an occasional nod to the public when the circumstances heat up: e.g., "golden rice" infused with vitamin A supplementation. Because there is no or little concern about genetic pollution or admixture, we are in a kind of wild west environment where the "fastest gene gun" wins.

A fifth reason for invoking the precautionary principle is that safety is being ignored. Public health protection, say from novel gene products in plants, is not being carefully considered.  Little attention to allergenicity is occurring, and no long-term toxicity testing is being planned. Such a testing regime, while expensive could be done on a "worst-case" basis where an independent body would design and oversee the testing.

A sixth reason for invoking the principle is simply because a significant number of consumers are afraid, some for good reason, that their food supply (and that of their infants and children) is being distorted without full knowledge and disclosure.  Not to take cognizance of the secondary effects of stress, uncertainty and anxiety is a risk in itself.

Finally, the precautionary principle need not function as a brake on innovation: all it asks is that representative models of the newest and most potentially hazardous situation be scoped out and proven safe prior to the introduction of the whole block of novelty.  Now, without the principle in operation, we have an open flood gate of invention, some highly creative and useful and others probably dangerous and risky, pouring into commerce.  Without labeling, controls on concentration and content of supplements, and safety testing, there is a disaster waiting to happen:  where? In our children and infants, partially through intrauterine exposure to novel plant products (e.g., phytoestrogens, mutagens or allergens) and partially through a subtle modification of the childhood diet, contributing in theory to new allergies and possibly, long term behavioral effects.

Caveat emptor will not do:  we need a full-scale investigation of the long-term implications of genetic engineering with the same force and imagination given to its present commercialization.