Times Argus | By TERRY J. ALLEN
The Europeans call them Frankenstein foods and have imposed import and labeling restrictions. But in Vermont and the rest of the US, where most genetically engineered food are developed and grown, few people imagine how much DNA-altered food they are eating. In fact, some 60 percent of food now in US grocery stores contains ingredients grown from genetically engineered seed.
The amount of land planted with these crops went from eight million acres in 1996 to more than 60 million acres in 1999. The dairy industry has embraced rBGH, a hormone engineered to increase milk production. And although there has been discussion of the economic impact and safety of that technology, no agency tracks rBGH use or monitors how many Vermont acres are planted with genetically engineered crops.
Last night in Montpelier, the Hunger Mountain Coop and Vermont Public Interest Group co-sponsored a panel discussion to highlight the dangers of what they claimed was an inadequately researched technology.
Panelist Anthony Pollina of Vermont Public Interest Research Group described the ability to combine species -- to insert genes of one plant into another, or of humans into pigs -- as an immense power. "It has intended, unintended, and unimagined consequences," he said. "There is no public input into and essentially no regulation of biotech foods."
Sonya Schmitz a molecular biologist, and former scientist at DuPont noted that "It's hard for consumers to even know" if the food they eat contains genetically manipulated material like corn syrup in their soda or soy oil baked goods. "When I was at Dupont, I heard that GE foods were going to feed the world." Instead she concluded that the technology is designed to feed the corporate bottom line rather than the world's poor. US agribusiness has indeed staked much of its future on genetic engineering , a technique used to alter or move genetic material (genes) of living cells. The industry has spawned such bizarre proposals as inserting the gene of arctic fish into tomatoes to increase frost resistance. Most of the developments, however, concentrate on producing crops with a builtin immunity to insects, viruses, or herbicides.
Farmers who plant Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy, for example, spray their fields with Roundup pesticide, also sold by Monsanto. The idea is that since the soy is genetically resistant to that particular herbicide, all the surrounding weeds will be killed while the crop remains unharmed.
Bt-corn, which is grown in Vermont, carries the inserted gene for the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium. Used even by organic farmers, Bt in its natural form is considered benign and short lived. When it is inserted into the molecular structure of the corn, however, the toxin remains in every bite. The effect, if any, of long-term exposure is not known.
Furthermore, the panelists pointed out, widespread dissemination of Bt in the environment may lead to insect resistence and rob organic farmers of a safe, useful tool.
Instead of doing good, said Schmitz, biotech crops "may end up creating superweeds and superbugs" resistant to currently available pesticides.
As with any new technology it is difficult to predict long-term effects. One unintended consequence that caught biotechnologists with their genes down was a die off of monarch butterfly larvae that had eaten pollen from Bt-corn.
The mathematical modeling of "chaos theory" holds that the interplay of natural events large and small is so complex and fundamentally unpredictable that the breeze from a butterfly fluttering its wings in Borneo can contribute to the formation of a hurricane on the other side of the globe. Opponents of genetic engineering see the monarch kill as just such an unpredictable ripple. In its literature, Monsanto calls the die off "a negative impact" and warns against overreaction.
Because of potential dangers such as killing beneficial insects and promoting resistance, farmers are required to plant a buffer field of traditional corn near Bt-crops. The Vermont Department of Agriculture, however, does not regulate, monitor, or even catalog the Bt-corn and Roundup Ready soy grown in the state. "I think that we need more information. There needs to be a central clearinghouse" on the federal level, said Phil Benedict director of plant industry. There are currently at least 10 federal agencies including USDA, FDA and EPA involved in regulating and monitoring the use of biotechnology for agriculture.
The state's only role now, said Benedict, is to require that manufacturers register the genetic material inserted crops. Currently, Bt-corn genes are registered and sequences used last year in potatoes were listed then.
They are officially designated and sold as pesticides rather than crops and regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency rather than the USDA. Roundup soy, however is considered a crop, deemed safe by USDA, and not regulated in any way by either state or federal agencies.
Benedict would like to see the state play a greater role in the future in this rapidly expanding technology. "The is research on genetic engineering going on on almost every crop out there,"
In addition to questions about human and environmental safety, some critics are calling for independent research into whether the crops actually deliver the yield increases they promise.
"There is no evidence that GE hocus pocus is helping in any way," said Fred Magdoff, a professor of plant and soil science at University of Vermont. "There are no good independent studies showing improved yield, and even if there were, it doesn't mean that conventional methods of good farming wouldn't work as well."
The University of Vermont is currently doing no research to assess the impact of GE crops on Vermont's economy, farmers or environment.
"Seeds used to be released to land grant institutions for testing before they were widely sold commercially so there would be evaluation, comparison," said Magdoff. "The seed producers stopped that with GE plants. Corporations are in such a rush to get them out, reap quick profit, and worry about other things later."
Newly appointed Dean of the College of Agriculture John Bramley agreed that it was "very important in biotech, that there should be independent research ... and mechanisms than ensure safety of food supply."
Helping farmers understand the implications of genetically engineered crops while supporting their efforts to make a living under difficult conditions was of utmost importance to Lindsey Ketchell, a marketing specialist at the Vermont Department of Agriculture who was on last night's panel. She warned the audience not to blame farmers and cautioned organic growers against elitist attitudes. Instead, she decried "the cheap food policy in the United States that forces farmers into techniques they feel uncomfortable with" just to meet the pressures of the marketplace.
"I don't trust the USDA," she said, "but we should engage farmers, not isolate them." She also advocated educating consumers and potential consumers in the schools. "If no one wants Bt-corn, farmers will stop growing it."
While opposition to GE foods is still a marginal issue in the US, it has become a mainstream demand in much of the world said Brian Tokar, an activist and author on the faculty of the Institute for Social Ecology. "In the last two years, outrage over genetically engineered food and corporate control of agriculture has become the fastest growing movement in the world. ... Last year in India, he said, a half million farmers demonstrated against international agribusiness, while activists in Europe have ripped up genetically engineered crops" either as open civil disobedience or under cover of night. U.S. consumers, on the other hand, "have been kept in the dark," he said citing a recent survey which found that half of the people polled did not know that genetically engineered products were on supermarket shelves.
Meanwhile, consumer pressure in Europe has forced British operations of McDonalds, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Domino pizza to declare that they will not use GE products.
Recently, Gerber baby foods in the United States made a similar commitment.
All this opposition came as a surprise to the biotechnology companies that "did not foresee the problem it turned out to be," said Dean Kleckner, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. He was referring to public outcry. But opponents would charge that the same holds true for environmental, ethical, and economic consequences of GE.
With very little hard science on either side, the issue boils down to a serious food fight between two competing approaches to consumer protection. The panelists at last night's forum supported applying the "precautionary principle" under which products that could cause serious or irreparable harm must be proven safe before approval.
Industry and much of the U.S. government, on the other hand, favor "science-based" decision-making. They argue that it is impossible to prove that something is 100 percent safe. Therefore, given the potential benefits to humanity as well as profits to U.S. industry, new products and technologies should be approved unless or until they can be proven dangerous.
