U.S. Genetically Modified Corn Is Assailed

NAFTA Report Calls Grain a Threat to Mexico;
Administration Disputes Study 

MARC KAUFMAN / Washington Post 10nov04

 

Mindfully.org note:  Massive USAID shipments of GM corn were delivered to Mexico and transported to many villages. It was to be used exclusively for food. However, the farmers were not told to abstain from planting it. They had absolutely no idea they were getting GMO corn. But the federal government did know.  Most farmers in the world save seed for planting the next year. This is normal practice for real farmers. Some of the USAID corn was planted and it grew into tall plants. Pollen from those GMO plants then flowed blew and wide. It pollinated the natural varieties of maize (corn), which in turn sent pollen many more miles to pollinate still more maize. The was a letter published in the scientific journal Nature that explained the discovery of GM-contaminated maize in Oaxaca. A recent article by Andrew Pollack in the New York Times, was about pollen from GM grass blowing 13 miles away. But this is not the extent to which it can blow.  We do not know the limit to how far it can travel because 13 miles is about the extent of the tests that were done to find out.  If the right kind of study were designed and carried out, we can be nearly sure that GM pollen would be found no matter how far out it is looked for.  The only people who think it doesn't are industry scientists. Farmers have known this for a very long time. This is a dire situation for poor Mexican farmers because there are very few countries in the world that will import GMO-polluted maize. The US is almost unable to export its corn because of GM contamination. Ask almost any US corn farmer. And as far as that goes, ask the canola and cotton farmers the same question.

A scientific panel of international experts has concluded that the unintended spread of U.S. genetically modified corn in Mexico — where the species originated and modified plants are not allowed — poses a potential threat that should be limited or stopped. But the United States yesterday attacked the report and its conclusions as unscientific, and made clear it did not intend to accept the recommendations.

The report, written by a group convened under the North American Free Trade Agreement, rejected the U.S. position that the modified corn is, in effect, no different than conventionally bred corn hybrids. It said that because the Mexican government has never examined or approved the use of transgenic crops, their presence in the country is an inherent problem.

"How would Americans feel if we started getting living transgenic seeds that had been judged to be safe by the Cuban government but not the American government?" asked Norman C. Ellstrand, a University of California at Riverside geneticist and member of the NAFTA-appointed panel. "We would be outraged, and so are many Mexicans. Like us, they have the right to make up their own minds about genetically modified crops."

The Mexican government embraced the NAFTA report and said it expected to implement many of its recommendations.

The report, only the fifth in the treaty organization's history, was requested by Mexican farmers and officials in 2002 after researchers found that some forms of genetically modified corn were present in Mexico and were being naturally spread by cross-pollination. One variety contained genetically modified bacteria that protect the plant from certain insects, and another protects the plant if a particular kind of otherwise deadly weed killer is used on the fields.

Although it remains uncertain how the modified corn got into Mexican fields, the report concluded that the large-scale importation of U.S. corn was the likely cause. The Mexican government distributes massive amounts of U.S. corn for grinding into cornmeal and flour, but some farmers are believed to have planted the corn instead. Once planted, the genetically modified corn spread naturally in fields over the seasons.

Genetically modified corn can be legally used as food in Mexico but cannot be planted and grown, except in small test plots recently approved by the government.

The NAFTA report concluded that the modified corn does not pose a health risk, but it did say that the environmental consequences are less well understood. It also raised the possibility of the spread of potentially more hazardous types of modified corn — such as varieties grown in the United States to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial products.

"If those types of corn ever made it to Mexico and got planted, then yes, there would be a health and safety problem that would be very hard to solve," Ellstrand said.

The U.S. rejection of the NAFTA report was broad and pointed.

"This report is fundamentally flawed and unscientific; key recommendations are not based on sound science and are contradicted by the report's own scientific findings," the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Trade Representative said in a joint statement. "Implementing many of the report's recommendations would cause economic harm to farmers and consumers of all NAFTA countries and restrict international trade."

The U.S. statement specifically criticized one recommendation — that all U.S. corn coming into Mexico be milled at or near the border so it cannot be planted. That practice, it says, "would increase the cost of U.S. corn significantly, negatively affecting Mexico's livestock producers and consumers."

The NAFTA report and the U.S. response are also far apart on what constitutes a scientific assessment of the issue. The report included information about the attitudes of Mexican farmers to the genetically modified corn, saying many find it frightening and a threat to their staple food, while American officials said those views have no place in a scientific study.

In support of their formal critique, the U.S. agencies cited the report's conclusion that "scientific investigations and analyses over the past 25 years have shown that the process of transferring a gene from one organism to another does not pose any intrinsic threat over the short or long term, either to health, biodiversity or the environment."

The NAFTA report went on, however, to conclude that the specific characteristics of any newly created organism need to be examined — making the case that the benefits and dangers of any genetically modified plant can be determined only by testing in the locales where it will be used. In the United States, the EPA, the Agriculture Department and sometimes the Food and Drug Administration must approve genetically modified plants before they can be introduced.

The National Corn Growers Association also sharply criticized the panel's conclusions. "The report needlessly raises concerns where there are none about a technology that is proven safe and already greatly benefits the environment and farmers around the world," NCGA President Leon Corzine said.

A copy of the NAFTA report was leaked last month to the environmental group Greenpeace, which distributed it in Mexico. The report was released Monday.

After the initial release, Mexico's equivalent of the EPA, Semarnat, said in a statement: "There is no doubt that the recommendations in the official document will be beneficial for Mexico and its environment. . . . Semarnat is awaiting the official publication of this report and is confident that the majority of the recommendations made will be implemented."

Page A02

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37992-2004Nov9?language=printer 11nov04

To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org Please see our Fair Use Notice