The Boston Globe / September 26, 2000 / By David L. Chandler, Globe staff
To supporters, the new seeds are a revolution in the field, yielding
bigger crops that require fewer hazardous chemicals to grow. The way
biotechnology company officials tell it, the world's best chance to feed
the hungry lies in creating better seeds in the genetics lab.
But, to critics, the new seeds are a dangerous tampering with nature,
threatening both health and the environment. Only last week, Kraft Foods
had to recall taco shells made with a type of genetically engineered corn
that may cause allergic reactions in some people.
Caught in the middle are American farmers, who have rushed to plant the
biotech corn, soy and other crops in the last four years. To many of them,
genetic engineering increasingly is just a big fat headache.
US farms are ground zero in perhaps the biggest change in the food supply
in a generation, where technicians transfer genes from one plant or animal
to another in the quest for crops that resist pests, survive weedkillers
or contain extra nutrients. In just four years, with hardly a label to let
consumers know, these genetically altered crops have found their way into
vast numbers of processed foods at the grocery store.
Now, what seems clearest of all in the great morass of conflicting views
over the new seeds is that the farmer's razor-thin profit margins are
profoundly at risk.
That's why, this year, farmers across the land have been voting with their
fields, cutting back on their planting of genetically modified seeds for
the first time since those seeds hit the market in 1996. In particular,
farmers planted at least 20 percent less genetically engineered corn this
year than last.
And the trend is likely to continue. Far from dying down, the controversies
and resistance to the crops seem to be growing. Japan - the biggest foreign
customer for US corn - is set to join some European nations next year in
prohibiting the import of genetically modified crops.
Virtually everyone agrees that sensationalistic stories about
"Frankenfoods" that might pose dire risks to people who eat them are
exaggerated - at least in reference to any of the products now on the market.
But scientists also acknowledge that genetically modified foods do have the
potential to contain toxins or allergens that do not exist in their
non-engineered conterparts. That's why the US Food and Drug Administration
requires testing before introduction of newly engineered varieties to make
sure no such compounds are present in food intended for human consumption.
And that's where Kraft, maker of the Taco Bell brand of taco shells, fell
afoul of the rules. The shells contained traces of a kind of engineered
corn that does contain a bacteria-derived protein not found in other kinds
of corn, and that might cause allergic reactions. For that reason, it has
been approved only for use in animal feed. But the FDA does no testing; it
was only because of testing carried out by a coalition of environmental
groups that the taco problem came to light.
But, in truth, it isn't easy to keep the genetically altered foods
separated from the conventional ones. The operators of grain elevators -
the huge structures that gather grain from the growers and then ship it out
by railroad or truck - have never before had to deal with crops that must
be so vigilantly kept apart, requiring constant dismantling and cleaning of
equipment.
And that's not the only problem. Research at Iowa State University has
shown that pollen from one crop can travel as much as six miles on the
wind. That means that a farmer producing a crop of organic, non-engineered
corn can have his whole crop contaminated by windblown pollen from a
neighbor's field of genetically engineered corn. Some farmers have already
stopped growing the modified corn for fear of lawsuits over such
contamination.
Moreover, the biotech seed companies' relentless advocacy of their products
despite a rising global tide of resistance is causing a growing backlash
among the nation's growers.
"Instead of addressing the real concerns of production agriculture," said
Gary Goldberg, head of the American Corn Growers Foundation, "these
industry-funded spokesmen believe it is important to tell us what they
think about these issues. The real important question is what do foreign
and domestic markets think about" genetically modified foods? "After all,
they are our customers, and the customer is always right."
On the one hand, growers face the danger that, with strict new rules
already enacted by many of the world's corn and soybean importing nations -
especially in Europe - they will be unable to find markets for their
genetically modified crops.
On the other hand, they face the grim reality that even where markets are
available and accessible, if they realize the promised 10-percent gains in
yield from the biotech seeds, the bumper crop might just drive down the
already-low prices for their surplus product.
So, they have planted about 20 to 24 percent less (according to different
estimates) of the engineered corn this year than last, and one corn
growers' association has even been lobbying in favor of federally-mandated
labelling of genetically-modified foods. Makers of the biotech seeds
strongly oppose labelling, arguing that their products are perfectly safe
and should not be stigmatized.
So far, the farmers' lobbying has had little effect. The 14,000-member
association last spring proposed to the US Department of Agriculture a list
of 17 rules they would like to see enacted; the agency has not replied.
"The USDA has been very unresponsive to any concerns, suggestions or ideas
from farmers when it comes to GMOs," or genetically modified organisms,
said Goldberg. "They made a decision up front that they would support
biotechnology at all costs, and that's what they're doing."
And so, Goldberg said, "the farmer is stuck in the middle, and doesn't know
whether to support the biotechnology or not."
The taco recall just adds to the pressures. Dan McGuire of the American
Corn Growers Association points out that this case is likely to add to
consumer pressure for mandatory labelling of genetically-modified foods -
something that some recent polls indicated is already favored by 80 percent
or more of the US public. And labelling, in turn, means the need for
farmers and processors to keep the supplies separate.
"The increased cost for segregating GMO corn from non-GMO varieties will
add another serious level of financial stress" to an industry that is
already hurting, McGuire said.
Farmers, of course, are a varied and independant group, and opinions about
the new seeds are as divided in that community as in the public at large. A
rival group, the National Corn Growers Association - which, unlike the
ACGA, does accept some funding from the big biotech companies - takes a
more positive stand on the technology, as does the American Soybean
Association.
Since 90 percent of the soybean crop is used for animal feed anyway, there
has been far less resistance to the genetically-engineered versions of that
crop, said Marc Curtis, chairman of that group. Even though a higher
percentage of US soybeans are genetically engineered than any other crop,
he said, "the total volume of exports this year was a record high." The
controversy over genetic engineering "may affect where exports go, but it
hasn't affected the total amount," he said.
Still, Curtis concedes that that may change as other nations add
restrictive regulations. "It will become more of a problem," he said.
Federal regulators, at this point, are not even considering mandatory
labelling. Instead, they are working on rules that would allow products to
be labelled if they do not contain genetically modified ingredients. The
agency now requires "consultation" by the companies before introducing a
new genetically engineered crop, but the actual testing is up to the
companies themselves. There is no plan at this time for any requirement for
independent testing.
Similarly, long-term testing for environmental effects is not required.
Those effects are complex, and still not well understood. Thomas Lovejoy, a
specialist in environmentally sustainable development with the Smithsonian
Institution and the World Bank, stresses that genetically modified crops do
affect the environment, "sometimes adversely, sometimes in a positive way.
It's a complex subject."
For example, plants that produce their own pesticides, such as the widely
planted Bt corn and soybeans, reduce the need for pesticide spraying and
therefore can reduce contamination of the soil and water supplies. But they
may lead to an uncontrolled buildup of pesticide-resistant "superbugs" that
require new pesticides to kill.
An even more serious concern is exemplified by the widely-publicized
research showing that corn that contains a gene to produce the Bt pesticide
might harm monarch butterflies, and another that shows harm to swallowtail
butterflies. While those experiments remain controversial, the potential
consequences are far deeper than just damage to a pretty insect: by some
estimates, 80 percent of all the world's food crops depend on insects,
primarily bees and butterflies, for their pollination. No bugs, no crop.
"They've created something novel there: toxic pollen," Lovejoy said. "It
seems almost a biological oxymoron: You don't want to poison your
pollinator."
Such questions, he said, "should move way up on the research agenda." But,
he stressed, such concerns should not be used as a reason to back away from
the development of genetically modified crops, which could have the
potential to bring significant food production to vast areas of the world
that are too dry, too salty or otherwise presently unsuitable for
agriculture.
"It's a mixed picture about possible effects, pro and con," he said.
Even the activists fighting the present proliferation of genetically
engineered crops agree on the need for active research. Matt Rand,
co-director of Genetically Engineered Food Alert, the coalition whose
testing uncovered the unapproved corn in taco shells, emphasized that what
is really needed is a lot more testing.
"We need to step back for the moment," he said, "and let the science catch
up to the technology."
