For public, it's a big harvest vs. safety and control issues
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER | November 23, 1999 | By TOM PAULSON, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
There is going to be a food fight at the World Trade Organization meeting next week.
Agriculture has become a major stumbling block at the trade talks, caused by a a U.S.-European split over genetically modified food and long-standing disputes on agricultural subsidies.
The subsidy debate at WTO will be mostly a matter of trade and economics. The debate over genetically modified foods, however, is an argument over matters of science and risk assessment.
The Europeans want more regulation of these foods based on concerns that genetically altered crops could wreak havoc on the environment and human health. French farmers recently demonstrated their distaste for American agri-biotech by dumping manure on the grounds of several McDonald's restaurants in France.
Curt Hennings is a Washington state farmer who thinks the European reaction to genetically modified foods is thinly disguised protectionism.
"There's been no evidence of real harm from any of these products," Hennings said. Agricultural biotechnology promises to reduce costs and improve yields, offering American farmers a significant competitive advantage. That's what's behind the fear-mongering, he said.
"I think this has a lot of potential as a new tool in food production," Hennings said. "Biotechnology will allow us to better compete internationally and not rely so much on pesticides and chemicals."
Amy Stilwell, spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington, D.C., said relaxing European restrictions on biotechnology is a primary goal at the WTO.
"We are concerned it amounts to protectionism," Stilwell said of European restrictions.
European loss of confidence in food safety, prompted by such incidents as the outbreak of "mad cow disease" in the United Kingdom, has contributed to concern over genetically modified foods, Stilwell said, even though the problem with tainted beef is unrelated.
But there may be more to European concerns.
Several studies have pointed to possible risks, including gastrointestinal and immune system problems in rats fed potatoes genetically modified to contain a natural pesticide known as Bt. Industry is taking European concerns seriously. Gerber Baby Foods announced it won't use genetically modified foods and agri-giant Archer Daniel Midlands recently told farmers it wants them to keep genetically modified grain separate from the regular harvest.
The United States, which is by far the largest producer of genetically modified crops, has been arguing against European trade barriers, contending there is no convincing evidence of harm. European officials, however, argue that not enough studies have been done and that lack of evidence of harm is not proof of safety.
But under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which is what led to the creation of the WTO), countries are not supposed to exclude agricultural products from their market unless there is scientific evidence of health or environmental risks.
The United States and the European Union disagree on what "genetically modified" means scientifically.
Gene transfer through traditional cross-breeding of related crops is a practice with thousands of years of experience. The new technology of genetic engineering allows scientists to specifically target single genes and trade genes between different species that don't naturally interbreed - even between animals and plants.
"I don't see what the big difference is," said farmer Hennings. "A gene is a gene."
For example, the winter wheat growing along the road that leads to Hennings' farm on the Columbia Plateau north of Washtucna is a genetic mutant of sorts. It was created by artificially introducing genes from goat grass, to fight fungal rot, and other useful genes from Japan and Turkey wheat varieties.
But these genetic modifications of winter wheat were accomplished many years ago through traditional hybrid breeding methods - not by the tools of modern biotechnology.
Phil Bereano, a University of Washington professor who studies technology and public policy, said the powerful tools of genetic engineering create far greater potential for damage.
Several studies have documented how potentially catastrophic genetic engineering can be, because it can accomplish powerful transformations by transferring genes from species to species, he said.
One widely cited example is a study reporting deaths of Monarch butterflies due to exposure to pollen from a genetically modified corn plant. The plant was modified to produce a natural pesticide that kills leaf-eating pests. In a lab study, a scientist showed pollen from the plants killed Monarch caterpillars.
Such "collateral damage" from genetically modified crops should be expected, Bereano said, which is why these plants should be treated differently.
Dr. James Cook, an expert on wheat and root disease at Washington State University, said it's either naive or dishonest for critics to point out the risks of biotechnology in agriculture in isolation from its benefits.
"Agriculture today is enormously disruptive to the environment," Cook said. Butterflies, worms and many other creatures are already being destroyed in massive amounts thanks to current farming methods, he said.
"Through genetic engineering, we should be able to make it so growers can move toward no-till farming and use less chemicals," Cook said.
Cook wants to insert a fungus-fighting gene into wheat and barley. The gene, found in some fungi, produces an enzyme that can dissolve fungal cell walls. Inserting it into wheat or barley could help protect crop roots.
Today, Cook said, farmers combat fungus root rot by fumigating and tilling the soil - a practice with severe environmental consequences due to chemical use and accompanying soil erosion and runoff. It is misleading to argue against biotechnology based on the belief that current practices are more natural and benign, he said.
Labeling is another sore point that may come up at WTO. Many European countries already label genetically modified foods. The United States has argued against it.
Jeffrey Bergau, a spokesman for Monsanto, said American consumers have more faith in their system of food safety than do many Europeans who lack the equivalent of an agency like the federal Food and Drug Administration. Labels could be misleading because this implies something is inherently different or unsafe about genetically modified foods even when there is no evidence of substantial difference or risk, Bergau said.
Bereano and others, however, note that consumer polls in the United States show strong support for such labels. Daniel Glickman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has said he believes consumers will eventually demand labels on GM food.
Rep. Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., is among a number of elected officials who believe consumers want labels. Earlier this month, Metcalf joined Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., in proposing legislation to label genetically modified food.
Much of the U.S. corn and soy crops, grown across about 50 million acres in the Midwest, are already genetically engineered. By some estimates, more than half the processed foods on the grocery store shelf likely would need to be labeled.
But how all this will play out at the trade talks in Seattle is up in the air, said Keith Rockwell, spokesman for the WTO in Geneva.
"These issues are still very much under discussion," Rockwell said.
Many say it's doubtful any of the issues will get resolved during the meeting, especially given previous international talks on the subject.
Last February in Cartagena, Colombia, the United Nations sponsored the Convention on Biological Diversity, otherwise known as the Biosafety Protocol. The U.N. talks, aimed at protecting indigenous plants and animals worldwide, never went anywhere.
"It was because of genetic engineering," said Beth Burrows, a participant in the talks and director of the Edmonds Institute, a local public interest research group devoted to ecosystem study.
The biodiversity talks stalled because Europeans wanted the UN treaty to regulate exchange of transgenic crops and plants. The United States opposed such regulation and the talks stalemated, Burrows said.
Having blocked those treaty talks, she said, the United States now wants to make the WTO's trade-oriented position on genetically modified foods take priority over all other treaties. So far, the WTO has issued no ruling on GM foods.
"The U.S. wants to do an end run around European concerns about the biological safety of GM products," Burrows said.
In addition to biodiversity concerns, there are also arguments over intellectual property.
That's code for "patenting seeds," noted Dr. Stephen Jones, director of WSU's winter wheat program. Corporations like Monsanto are patenting seed simply by adding a gene to crops that farmers worldwide have improved through selective breeding over thousands of years, Jones said.
"As a scientist, I'm not afraid of genetically modified foods," he said. "What I'm afraid of is how this technology lends itself to further concentrating corporate control over agriculture."
That is a concern shared by Henning. Even though he favors the use of biotechnology in agriculture, as a canola farmer he knows he may someday need to use Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready canola seed, which is resistant to a Monsanto-produced herbicide. The advantage is that the herbicide can be used with less danger of damaging the crop.
"Farmers are becoming beholden to just a few companies," Hennings said. He doesn't use the seed now because the weeds that plague his fields can be controlled with herbicides cheaper than Roundup. That could change, he says.
Roundup Ready canola is one of the first genetically modified crops to be introduced in Washington state, so far in very limited acreage. Roundup Ready canola was engineered to incorporate a gene from the petunia plant, which is resistant to the toxic effects of Roundup.
Hennings said Roundup Ready is a highly effective product. But Japan recently announced it will no longer buy any genetically modified canola and the few farmers who first tried it this year may get stuck with their harvest, he said.
If the public rejects genetically modified food in general and undermines development of biotech in agriculture, American farmers will likely continue to lose ground in the global marketplace, Hennings said. That translates into fewer farmers and more corporate control over agriculture as well, he added.
"What's at risk here isn't just about food safety or the environment. What's at risk is the way we farm, our independence, and the control of the food supply," Hennings said.
