By Tracy Sorensen
When a rare frog is threatened by the destruction of tropical rainforest to make way for a resort hotel, the extinction of species due to human activity is clear. Less obvious, perhaps, is the threat to biodiversity in the complex area of genetic engineering and the patenting of living organisms.
At first glance, it might even appear that genetically engineered organisms — like blue roses, for example — would increase biodiversity by adding to the Earth's genetic stock.
In fact, genetic engineering as a business (and most of it is a business: even publicly funded research institutions operate with an eye to commercialisation) has the opposite effect. The private development, ownership and control of living organisms "invented" in laboratories — or simply "discovered" in someone else's rainforest — is an important threat to biodiversity.
An organism which outperforms (in economic terms) naturally occurring or traditionally bred ones tends to squeeze out its "inferior" relatives, as Third World farmers caught in the trap of buying high-yield seeds from transnational agribusiness companies have found. Some traditional rice and wheat strains have been wiped out altogether; others languish in little drawers in gene banks in the United States.
In Europe, the introduction of private rights to plant varieties in the 1960s made it illegal to buy or sell many traditional varieties. According to NSW Nature Conservation Council chairperson Dr Judy Messer, legislation introduced in some European countries stipulated that certain plants could not be grown in designated areas, because they might pollinate one of the patented varieties.
"The idea was that plants with plant variety rights (PVR) protection over them had to remain genetically stable", Messer told Green Left. "This is completely inconsistent with ecological principles where one seeks to encourage diversity and variability."
In France, traditional plants were dug up and virtually eliminated, before people realised they were losing bits of the country's genetic heritage. Like museum pieces, these plants ended up in specially created gardens.
In Australia, government policy has long supported the private ownership of genetic resources. Moves giving joy to the biotechnology industry — which includes agribusiness transnationals Cargill and Continental Grain — include the passage of plant variety rights legislation in 1987, and amendments to patent legislation to cover microbiological organisms.
According to the Australian Conservation Foundation's genethics helps, under Australian law genetic engineers can justify a patent on the basis of tiny genetic differences — the deletion of one gene from thousands, for example.
"The work of generations of traditional breeders and the natural biological resources of the world could be seized by private interests. Biological material will become a commodity, stored in gene banks and manipulated at will rather than a living, evolving and abundant reservoir in the environment."
A Sydney forum on genetic engineering sponsored by the Nature Conservation Council, the BioDiversity Protection Committee and the Australian Genethics Network is planned for August 1-2. For information, ring the NCC on (02) 247 2228.