Genetically Modified Organisms - Human Triumph or Nemesis? (Second of a 2-part Series)

Once a company or a scientist has a GE organism to introduce and market in the U.S., there are up to three agencies that participate in the approval process: EPA, FDA, and USDA. Who's involved depends on the GE organism. For instance, the USDA determines what can be grown and how. The EPA is involved for products designed for pest control, like Roundup(R)-ready soybeans and cotton, or Bt corn. The FDA's current participation is mandated only under certain conditions, such as when a GE organism may produce human allergens. Potential problems arise because each agency relies on the applying company's pre-market data and because there's no set, standardized method for determining whether to approve a GE organism or not. Relying on company-supplied data may be questionable for a couple of reasons: first, the company may deliberately falsify data about the GE organism. So far, this has never been reported, presumably because the stakes for deliberately falsified data are too high. The second issue with pre-market data is the inevitable lack of completeness. Ethics and scientific caution dictate that the GE organism's testing has been limited in scale - a few plots of plantings, a handful of ponds, and so on. Also, the FDA does not require pre-market safety testing of the GE organisms for which it shares responsibility. For these reasons of built-in uncertainty, the approval process is where GE crops and animals meet their first serious contention. Let's turn now to some of the real and potential consequences of GE organisms.

Ethical testing of GE crops requires that their test planting (or introduction, in the case of animals) be limited in scale. Roundup-ready soybeans marketed in Minnesota have been field-tested for safety, meaning there are no adverse effects on soil, the environment, or the plants and birds that live near the test plots. There exist rules and guidelines for how Roundup-ready soybeans, and other GE crops, should be planted and harvested. By all accounts, farmers adhere to these guidelines responsibly. Nonetheless, there can be unanticipated consequences when over three-quarters of the Minnesota acreage in soybeans this year is planted in Roundup-ready soybeans. The Wedge Editor reported in the February/March 2003 edition of the newsletter about such an unanticipated consequence, where some weeds were developing evolved resistance to Roundup. Bt corn, developed to produce a naturally occurring toxin fatal to European corn borers, was fatal also to Monarch butterfly larvae under some - but not all - conditions. GE crops that are generally developed to resist pests (weeds or insects) may end up creating an evolutionary bottleneck, with just a few pests escaping toxicity. That handful of pests that do escape can potentially escape further toxicity of the same GE crops, potentially resulting in so-called "superbugs."

Animals present their own set of concerns. If the animal expresses a gene that makes it grow bigger faster, it may out-compete its smaller, wild brothers and sisters, or eat a food that its cousins did not, changing the food web structure. The GE animal may then be considered something of an invasive species, also with unintended but irreversible consequences.

GE crops like Roundup-ready soybeans and Bt corn can be grown and produced for less money than unmodified crops because pesticides are often as significant a growing expense as the seeds themselves. However, their use is favored in developed countries like the U.S. because seed stocks can be expensive and must be replaced each year (rather than replanted from the previous year's crops, a common practice in developing countries). The economic benefits, therefore, may favor developed countries. Seed companies and developers have also been accused of ignoring the developing countries' cropland condition and needs in choosing which crops to investigate for GE development. For example, overuse of agricultural land can lead to soil nutrient loss or salinization, common problems in developing countries. Until quite recently, agricultural developers wouldn't consider investigating potential crops for GE because the potential profits weren't high. Under increasing pressure from developing countries, companies are beginning to develop crops, like strains of tomatoes that grow in highly saline soil, that benefit growers and consumers of those regions and countries.

So far I've tried to give you an idea of potential issues with GE crops and animals, and no doubt many of you agree (or even think I haven't gone far enough!). But just for a moment, let's look at this from the angle of potential benefits of GE crops and animals.

Six billion people call this planet home. In the next 50 years, that number will increase to 9 billion people.

A 1999 study suggested that, with the same trends in improvement in crop productivity, the amount of land needed to produce food for those 9 billion people would have to increase by almost 40% of the remaining temperate land. That means 40% less land for biodiversity preservation, recreation, or habitation by people, not to mention the fundamental and largely irreversible transformation of land from one purpose to another. Secondary consequences of this include a real risk of the acceleration of global warming, further loss and degradation of clean water, and loss of other ecosystem services such as plant pollination and flood control.

Now suppose we could make use of already-transformed but unused land - land that had been farmed too intensively and was now too saline to support crops or forage. Suppose we could develop crops like the tomatoes I already mentioned, or wheat that could thrive in unusually hot and dry conditions, or corn that resisted pests that otherwise claim about a third of the Mexican crop? If this were wisely executed, could it not be a human victory?

More fundamentally, human diseases, especially in developing or tropical countries, still claim millions of lives each year. Ironically, high death rates from disease may contribute to human overpopulation, arguably at the root of so many of the earth's plagues. When diseases like malaria, cholera, typhus, or vitamin-A deficiency blindness can be treated (or inoculated) by GE crops, don't we potentially risk being accused of arrogant over-generalization when we claim that all GE crops are bad?

Of many of the currently existing GE crops, after-market research shows that potential environmental and market consequences can be minimized or prevented altogether. Recent research from Japan and right here in Minnesota shows that planting just 6-10% of the corn crop as Bt corn, in a shifting patchwork pattern, both controls the destructive pest and does not cause evolution of resistance. And although Bt corn is toxic to Monarch larvae, the mass destruction of the world's Monarchs hasn't happened.

At least one reason seems to be that Monarchs disfavor eating pollen from Bt corn in the field. As a scientist, I'll be the first to agree that after-market research on short- and long-term environmental, human health, and economic consequences must be vigorous and fearless.

My purpose in these last two articles was to give you the basic facts on which to build your own knowledge base. There's just no way I could cover all of the facts and issues about GE crops and animals. I also said I'd give you some resources to check on your own (and I'm glad to provide references for any of the facts I've given you). I've chosen some web sites that give balanced, non-hysterical information that, where appropriate, is linked to scientific studies or findings. Universities are often good sources of information because their grant proposals and results are peer-reviewed, meaning anyone should be able to replicate results, and if the proposal is too far-fetched or poorly conceived, it won't be funded. Seed companies and agricultural "Supermarkets to the World" have a different agenda, as do the Organic Guerillas. Wishing away GE crops and animals with labels and bans is, I think, futile. Ultimately, perhaps our responsibility, as owners of a cooperative who shop and eat consciously and responsibly, is to educate ourselves and (where necessary) vote with our food dollars.

Anne-Marie Hoskinson is a Wedge member and a doctoral candidate in conservation biology at the U of MN.

A good place to start: www.aces.uiuc.edu/~asap/expanded/gmo/gmo.html

As you read through the responses to each question, you'll find links to the New York Times, articles from Science, and MIT's Technology Review, all of which are excellent sources of information.

For a balanced but distinctly European point of view: http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/food_under_the_microscope/ 280396.stm