Pioneer Press | February 20, 2000 | Lee Egerstrom
Genetically altered crops are, according to this story, all the rage these days.
The story says that scientists in giant agribusiness companies have been creating new products by transfering genetic material from one organism to another. The modified organisms or a rice crop higher in vitamins enhance their nutritional value.
Nearly half the major farm field crops grown by U.S. farmers last year came from genetically modified seeds. The yields of those crops were used to make such consumer products as vegetable oil, margarine, meats, milk and candies, and major medicines that include insulin for diabetics.
The trouble is, "all the rage" has taken on a literal meaning for people who don't want these crops in the food chain.
People concerned about the safe use of technology worry that genetically modified organisms (known as GMOs) may create health problems for humans and animals, and that these plants may cause other vegetation to mutate or create other ecological damage. Within the last nine months, they have lashed out against governments, universities and companies around world.
The story notes that a few days ago, a group calling itself the Earth Liberation Front broke into a laboratory at the University of Minnesota and destroyed pots containing oats plants that had been genetically modified to resist disease. Protesters have hit research plots at the Univeristy of California at Davis, damaged sites in New England and at Michigan State University. In October, a corn crop near Northfield owned by Novartis Seeds was trampled and destroyed.
Groups in the European Union and Asia are offering political opposition to bioengineered foods. Protests against GMOs have prompted France, the United Kingdom and Belgium to take steps blocking imports of grain that might contain GMO matter. And a few days ago Germany's health minister, Andrea Fischer, said that farmers in her country would be barred from planting genetically modified corn until the European Union examines the corn.
In the United States, Frito-Lay says it doesn't want GMO grains, and Seagram, the Canadian distiller, said it won't buy genetically modified corn beginning with the coming fall harvest.
The story says that concern reached a peak last spring when scientists at Cornell University found that pollen from a GMO corn plant would kill butterflies if the pollen drifted over to milkweed, the favorite food of the Monarch breed. (Scientists have since found that corn pollen doesn't stray far from the fields and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued guidelines for genetically modified corn plants.)
The story adds that while there is no current scientific evidence to support fears of GMOs, opponents of biotechnology and cautious scientists worry that mutations may cause "superbugs" and "superweed" that are resistant to chemicals and farm practices used to control insects and noxious weeds.
John Freivalds, an international business consultant, was quoted as saying, "I don't think we've seen this much concern over science since medical researchers found ways to transplant organs and perform blood transfusions."
Interpreting science can be tricky when it's filled with caveats, qualifiers and spin. Mix in global politics and, suddenly, determining the safety of genetically altered crops gets even less clear.
C. Ford Runge, an economist and international trade expert at the University of Minnesota, was cited as saying he believes consumers' attitudes will be shaped by whose scientists and governments they trust.
For example, it's a given that European consumers won't trust North American scientists and regulators, he said. And Asian consumers aren't likely to trust North Americans or Europeans. "It appears we are seeing a rise in 'scientific nationalism,' if I may coin a phrase," said Runge.
Indeed, while European Union agencies have cleared most U.S.-produced biotech crops and food products, individual countries have erected trade barriers or are demanding labels that state whether the shipment is "GMO-free" or "may contain GMOs."
A key issue, of course, is whether biotechnology is properly tested and regulated.
The U.S. gives a say to the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture before biotech products can be commericalized. The European Union said in early February that it needs a food safety agency to prevent its 15 member states from having separate science regulations and creating artificial trade barriers.
U.S. farmers are, the story says, suspicious that European groups are creating barriers that would allow it to work its way through stockpiles of surplus feed grain barley.
Burle Gengenbach, head of the U's Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, was quoted as saying, "In some cases, ulterior motives may come into play. And in some cases, I think the concerns being raised are fully warranted."
The Minnesota Corn Growers Association was cited as saying a higher percentage of Minnesota farmers may be using the so-called Bt corn seed that was introduced by Novartis Seeds three years ago.
Jerry Louwagie, a farmer and seed sales representative for two seed companies owned by Monsanto in southwestern Minnesota, said new genetics have produced record high yields the last two growing seasons while allowing farmers to cut back on using farm chemicals.
Farmers pay more for the new seeds, but they spend less on chemicals and fuel to work the fields. Ed Shonsey, president of Novartis Seeds, tells farm audiences that use of GMO seeds is a trade off that benefits farmers so far, but not the life sciences and chemical companies producing the seeds.
Farmers are taking about $3 billion they formerly spent on chemicals and are using it to buy the higher priced seeds, he said.
