Down on the farm
As controversy mounts, farmers second guess the rush to plant biotech crops
David L. Chandler / Boston Globe 26sep00
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.''
| If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |