In Biotech Safety Debate, Scientists Issue Mixed Reports

Study Finds Potential to Cause Food Allergies

Tina Hesman

It's a victory.

No. It's a setback.

The push-and-shove in this case isn't the legal and political wrangling over the presidential election, but a raging debate over the science and future of genetically engineered foods.

In the past 18 months, agricultural biotechnology has taken several punishing blows.

First was the revelation that the supposedly "green" technology could actually harm the environment by killing off monarch butterflies and other benign insects.

Then, in September, a variety of genetically altered corn not approved for human consumption was found in taco shells. That incident led to the temporary closing of some food manufacturing plants and recalls of more than 300 grocery and restaurant products containing corn.

Consumer confidence began to waver in both the safety of biotech foods and in the government regulatory process, and anti-biotech activists proclaimed that the end of genetically engineered crops was nigh.

Not so fast, said biotech supporters. As they have since the introduction of genetically engineered crops in the mid-1990s, industry advocates counted on science to save them from the fears of the public.

In mixed victories last week, scientists ruled on the safety of biotech crops for man and monarch.

Yet, lingering questions have many observers wondering if biotechnology will be the agricultural revolution of the 21st century or if fears about the new technology will sink genetically engineered crops for good.

The scientific view

Researchers gathered last week in Montreal for an entomology conference seemed convinced that science can save biotech. But they say that will happen only if the general public is educated about the benefits genetically engineered crops -- also called transgenic crops -- bring to the environment and the dinner table.

"We've just been doing a poor job of educating consumers about the benefits and the risks of transgenic crops," said Galen Dively, an entomologist at the University of Maryland in College Park.

Dively was one of a group of scientists that examined the effect of genetically engineered corn pollen on monarch butterflies this summer. Last year a study by Cornell University researchers suggested that monarchs could be killed if they ate milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from genetically engineered corn.

The corn contains a protein from a common soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis. The protein, called Bt toxin, kills the European corn borer, but it is also poisonous to other moths and butterflies.

Environmentalists and monarch lovers, stirred by publicity surrounding publication of the study in the prestigious British journal Nature, began to call for a ban on biotech crops.

But industry and academic scientists claimed that the experiment was flawed and set out to determine if the monarch was in danger from the genetically modified corn pollen.

At an informal conference Wednesday, scientists said the results from two summers of research indicate that the answer is a resounding "probably not."

But that finding was largely overshadowed by a report released the day before that found that the corn contaminating taco shells has the potential to cause food allergies in people. The report, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency's scientific advisory panel, said that a different form of Bt toxin in StarLink corn had "medium likelihood" of causing allergies. The panel also said so little of the protein, called Cry9C, is likely to be found in food that the chance of anyone actually developing such an allergy is low.

The panel called for further scientific study as both biotech proponents and critics claimed the report as a victory for their side.

The resistance question

Technology has always come under fire at its first adoption, scientists at the Montreal meeting said. "When hybrid corn came on the market, people opposed it because they thought it was a big conspiracy by industry," Divel y said.

Biotech crops are now getting the same treatment, he said.

Many scientists express frustration with arguments made against biotech crops. They say anti-biotech activists hold the plants to much higher standards than conventional agricultural products -- without much justification.

One argument against the use of plants engineered to contain the Bt toxin is that pest insects could develop resistance to the pesticide. Bt toxin is widely used by organic farmers, and if insects become resistant to it, the farmers will be robbed of one of their most important tools, critics say.

Some scientists say that argument is ludicrous.

"You don't say that we're not going to use an insecticide because someday pests will be resistant," said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson who is studying the pink bollworm's ability to become resistant to pesticide proteins engineered into cotton.

The average person can't see the benefits of the current class of biotech crops because there is no direct effect on their health, pocketbook or sense of taste, Dively said. He predicts that once prettier, tastier vegetables start showing up in produce bins at the local markets, most people will want the genetically engineered products.

Right now most genetically engineered crops carry traits that are useful for farmers -- built-in insecticide or resistance to herbicides that let farmers kill weeds without damaging their crops. What most people don't realize is that those properties also benefit consumers and butterflies by reducing the amount of pesticides used in growing the crops, Dively said.

On the farm

Many farmers have embraced biotech crops. Nearly a quarter of the corn, more than half the soybeans, and more than 60 percent of cotton grown in the United States is genetically engineered.

But some farmers have become disillusioned since the StarLink controversy.

"Farmers that bought into the hype are just outraged because all of the wonderful promises made about the future of these crops are not coming to fruition," said Bryce Oates of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, a group that opposes biotech crops on the ground that they are not economically sound for small family farmers.

Faced with high production costs and low market prices for their grain, farmers are an easy mark for the biotech industry's sales pitch, Oates said.

"They're going to be looking for a savior," he said. "Companies like Monsanto and Pioneer seize the opportunity to take advantage of that."

Farmers are not so easily duped, said Stuart Reeve of the National Corn Growers Association. "If a farmer doesn't make money on (a biotech crop) one year, he won't be back for it the next," he said.

Gerald E. Wilde, an entomologist from Kansas State University in Manhattan, said consumers must recognize the benefits of genetically engineered crops, such as how they help reduce the use of pesticides. One survey has estimated that pesticide use was reduced by 28 percent in 1998 because of Bt corn.

"If the public just keeps a halfway-open mind . . . hopefully the science will win out," Wilde said.

Scrutiny of industry

Keeping an open mind is difficult when biotech companies conceal the facts about biotech crops, said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He advocates stronger government regulation of biotech crops. Right now biotech products aren't subject to scrutiny beyond that given to conventionally grown crops, Durbin said.

Durbin is pushing for legislation that would require labeling and further safety testing before the products come to market.

"Some of the people in the industry don't want this to happen, but I think they're kidding themselves," Durbin said.

Some consumers agree. Audrey Burns, 69, of St. Louis, said she wants biotech foods to be labeled so she can avoid them.

"I'm not ready to buy anything like that because it hasn't been tested enough yet," Burns said.

Burns said she thinks the biotech companies don't support labeling because they have something to hide.

It's just that sort of perception that is likely to sink the biotech industry if it doesn't come out in favor of labeling and increased government regulation, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"Biotech is now reduced to rear-guard action to try to block further federal regulation," he said.

Kucinich is proposing House legislation similar to Durbin's Senate proposal. The more open companies are about what they are doing and why, the more confidence consumers will have in biotech products, Kucinich said.

That's a position with which Monsanto executives say they agree. The company has pledged to make more of its scientific data available to the public, said Hugh Grant, Monsanto's agriculture chief.

"This will become a prerequisite for doing business with these new technologies," he said.

Grant said that even in Europe where the animosity toward genetically engineered foods has been the greatest, science is beginning to allay consumer fears.

Monsanto doesn't see the need for labeling. It also doesn't see a need for further testing.

"These are products that have been more extensively tested than any food products in history," Grant said.

Still many people, including consumers, farmers and government officials, continue to press scientists for more definitive answers. "There are too many unanswered questions to eat, drink and be merry," Kucinich said.

As both biotech advocates and opponents are discovering, it may take a while for science -- always a work in progress -- to answer those questions.

NOTES:
BIOTECH SAFETY DEBATE To reach reporter Tina Hesman: E-mail: thesman@post-dispatch.com Phone: 314-862-2143

GRAPHIC: PHOTO (1) COLOR PHOTO by WENDI FITZGERALD / POST-DISPATCH - Inspector David Ayers lowers himself into a bin Friday to gather corn for testing for the presence of StarLink, a genetically engineered corn. Ayers, who is with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was on a farm owned by brothers Bernie and Steve Gordon in Rantoul, Ill. The Gordons recently learned that seed they purchased last spring contained StarLink, which is not approved for human consumption. (2) PHOTO by WENDI FITZGERALD / POST-DISPATCH - Farmer Bernie Gordon (top) watches as Maynard Birkey (right) and grain inspector David Ayers collect a sample of Gordon's corn crop from the grain bin near Rantoul, Ill. The corn will be tested for the presence of StarLink, a genetically engineered corn. Birkey works for Fisher Farmers Gran and Coal Co. of Dewey, Ill. Gordon's 150,000 bushel corn crop is tainted with StarLink. (3) PHOTO by WENDI FITZGERALD / POST-DISPATCH - At his office in Champaign, Ill., inspector David Ayers begins testing corn for the presence of StarLink, a genetically modified corn. A test will show a protein that is specific to StarLink.