Genetically Modified Grain
Thesis: Genetically Modified Grain has many benefits and problems which have become very controversial. While these problems need to be addressed, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. GMO grain should be grown and foods containing them should not be required to bare a label.
I. What is GMO Grain?
II. Benefits of GMO Grain
A. Increased Yields
B. Decreased Environment Strain
C. Improve Farmer Economics
D. Health Advantages
III. Problems of GMO
Grain
A. Unknown Health Outcome
B. Identity Preservation
C. Terminator Technology
IV. Societal Views
A. Press Responsibility
B. Some Companies won't buy GMO grain
C. Novartis Fights Back
V. Conclusion
Genetically improved crops are not a new phenomenon.
Plants have been selectively crossbred for centuries to develop
heartier and more productive hybrids. Now, Biotechnology offers
us the ability to transfer desired traits into plants much faster
and more selectively by merely transplanting the desired gene
into the grain. Genetically Modified Grain (GMO grain) is now
available to the public. It has the potential to revolutionize
the agriculture industry by giving us the potential to substantially
increase yield, lessen the strain on the environment, improve
economics for farmers, and help meet incredible demand for food
that will come as the population nearly doubles in forthcoming
decades (Knutson, 1999). However, GMO grain
also has its drawbacks. It has been extensively tested, but ultimately,
the long-term health outcome to humans and animals is unknown.
GMO grain is highly technical and expensive to research and develop.
There is the possibility that larger companies will form a monopoly.
Also, there are many ethical issues to consider including the
development of terminator technology-a gene inserted into seeds
that causes the next generation of seeds to be sterile.
One example of a genetically modified seed
that is commonly used today is Bt Corn. The Bt gene that is used
comes from bacteria-Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.). It has
been used in sprays and powder form for years. Recently, this
gene was isolated and successfully incorporated it into the DNA
of the corn. The corn then goes on to produce a protein that is
deadly to insects, and corn borers specifically. This protein
is not toxic to humans; it is broken down in the digestive system.
Bt corn does not completely eliminate the need for insecticides,
but greatly helps.
In 1997, 4.5 million acres were planted to
Bt. hybrids (Beeler, 1998). Today, 30 to
40% of corn and 50% of soybeans are GMO crops (Hein,
1999). This is quite a substantial percentage of our crops
considering that many consider the existence of GMO crops to still
be controversial. More than thirty genetically engineered plants
are permitted for sale by law world wide (Hein,
1999).
Knutson, Texas A&M professor, estimates
that we will not be able to feed the global population in the
next 50 years unless we continue to increase crop production.
In fact, we must triple farm output over the next 50 years to
meet growing demands for food (American...1999).
Biotechnology offers farmers capability to significantly increase
yields without sacrificing huge tracts of forests and wetlands
to low-yield crops and pasture.
We can not significantly increase yields without
the helping hand of technology. Without the use of pesticides
we could not have met global food demands for the past 50 years.
Before pesticide introduction rice yields were down by 57% and
corn was down 32% (Knutson, 1999). Insect-protected
corn allows American farmers to increase their yields between
5 and 20% (Gallivan, 1999). With GMO seeds,
anyone who can plant a seed can have insect protection. This widens
the domain of potential growers to include the illiterate and
those in developing countries that may or may not have the capacity
to understand complicated insecticide instructions.
There is an economic advantage to farmers using
GMO grain. Enhanced seeds carry built in protection. This technology
minimizes or completely eliminates the cost of fuel and labor
for repeated application of powder and spray forms of insecticide.
In Europe, up to $1 billion in lost yields was saved from the
European corn borer by using GMO corn (Gallivan,
1999).
A three-year study in North Carolina found
that, on average, Bt. fields used insecticides 0.7 times while
conventional fields used them 2.7 times (Knutson,
1999). In 1998, the National Agriculture Statistics Service
reported that 2 million fewer pounds of insecticide were used
to control bollworm and budworm than in 1995, before Bt. cotton
was introduced (Knutson, 1999). These numbers
seem quite convincing.
There are also health advantages to genetically
enhanced crops. Bt. corn has less bug damage to the ear, which
means there are fewer mycotoxins, which pose a human health risk
(Hein, 1999). Bt. corn nutrient levels-fats,
proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals-remain the same
as non-biotech products. And the levels of toxins and allergens
are often lower than conventional grain (Novartis,
1999). Additionally, genetically enhanced food can be engineered
to contain higher nutrient levels, taste better, and be healthier
at a lower cost (American...1999). There
are currently corn and soybeans that will produce cooking oil
that is lower in saturated fats (Hein, 1999).
Finally, 400 million people worldwide suffer from vitamin A deficiency.
Additionally, iron deficiency is common in people with rice based
diets-nearly 4 billion which is 2/3 of the world population. There
is now genetically engineered rice that is enriched with beta-carotene
(a vitamin A precursor) and extra iron (American...1999).
This new golden rice offers improved nutrition for billions whose
staple food is rice in developing countries.
Unfortunately, there are also problems with
GMO grain. Critics of biotechnology claim that science is not
advanced enough to guarantee the safety of the new bioengineered
food. "We don't know what the products will prove to be in
the long run. To say we know is an expression of faith, not knowledge,"
says Mark Silbergeld, representative of the Consumers Union.
Three agencies regulate GMO crops ad Foods:
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), and the Agriculture Department (Brasher,
1999). "Our regulatory system is based on the most rigorous
scientific information available, is credible, is defensible,
and will serve to protect the environment and public health,"
says Jan Anderson, an official from the EPA (Novartis,
1999).
Novartis Seed, Inc. is a leading agriculture
and biotechnology research organization that develops genetics
and value-added products, and produces and sells corn, soybean,
alfalfa, sunflower, sorghum, wheat, sugarbeet, vegetable, and
flower seeds. They released the statement, "We know-and the
most stringent review processes from government agencies around
the world confirm-our products are safe for humans, animals, and
non-target insects" (Gallivan, 1999).
All Novartis seeds: NK brand Bt corn hybrid and Round Ready soybean
varieties have received full regulatory clearance for all uses
in the U.S. This process included reviews by the FDA, United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the EPA (Bernens,
1999). Novartis Bt corn products meet every environmental
requirement set by the US government (Gallivan,
1999). Grain and Soybeans produced from NK Brand seeds have
moved freely into commerce since their release in 1996 and 1997
(Novartis, 1999). All Novartis varieties
have been approved for import into the European Union (E.U.) countries
(Novartis, 1999). Thirty scientific committees
worldwide have agreed Novartis seeds NK Brand Bt corn hybrids
and Round Ready soybean varieties are as safe and wholesome as
conventional products (Bernens, 1999).
GMO grain and other plant material are approved exports to Canada,
E.U., Japan, and several other countries without regard to identity
preservation.
Biotech ingredients, primarily from corn and
soybeans are used in everything from tortilla chips to soda and
baby formula (Brasher, 1999). Does this
take away the consumers right to choose? The consumers never really
had the choice. Products containing GMO ingredients were never
labeled in the United States. However, even if they were, what
that means is debatable.
Identity Preservation is very difficult to
establish do to cross-pollination. A GMO crop may cross-pollinate
a conventional crop via insects or wind. Absolute Identity Preservation
is nearly impossible due to physical and technical difficulties.
There may be residues of GMO grain or beans in machinery, storage
bins, augers, or trucks that will mix with conventional crops
(Bernens, 1999). Threshold standards for
biotech traits have not yet been established for non-GMO products
(Bernens, 1999). If a farmer is selling
to a non-GMO market, they must establish a pure identity. To establish
identity, one must have precise field maps and records certifying
which variety of seed produced grain and variety bred using conventional
techniques and a strict isolation protocol.
Another disadvantage is a technology that Monsanto, a huge, international seed company, is incorporating into their seeds. This technology has been dubbed-Terminator technology. This technology was invented in cooperation with USDA researchers (www.new). It works by attaching a promoter from a gene called Late Embryogenesis Abundant (LEA) to a gene that stops germination and then inserting this gene into a seed. When the seed grows into a plant, the promoter triggers the terminator gene, thus sterilizing the plants maturing seeds (www.new). This doesn't allow people to keep seeds from their last crop to plant the next year.
1.4 billion people worldwide depend on keeping
their own seeds for next the year's crop (www.ft/comm).
In fact, 15-20% of the world's food is grown by farmers who cannot
afford to buy seeds every year (www.gaia).
Closer to home, 20-30% of all soybeans fields in the US Midwest
are planted with farm-saved seed (www.gaia).
The argument then arises that if the farmer
wants to keep his seeds, then he can choose to use a different
brand of seeds. This is not entirely correct. Farmers who don't
purchase Monsanto seeds with the terminator technology may find
their saved seeds sterile. Terminator genes may be transferred
by pollen, which may cause mutations that could spread to other
plants, including surrounding wild plants (www.ft/comm).
Additionally, seed companies, national governments, and banks
offer credit only to those farmers who agree to plant selected
varieties (www.gaia). These varieties may
include those with terminator technology.
Many people have become outraged by the existence
of this technology. "The terminator technology is a recipe
for exacerbating and greatly increasing the problem of world hunger,"
-LoriAnn Thrupp, Director of Sustainable Agriculture at the World
Resources Institute (www.gaia). "The
sole purpose is to facilitate monopoly control, and the sole beneficiary
is agribusiness," -Camila Montecinos of Chile's Center for
Education and Technology (www.gaia).
One fact that contributes to the outrage is
the fact that public funds were used to develop terminator technology
that has no agronomic benefit to farmers and no benefit to consumers.
(This technology was developed, in part, by the USDA.)
In their own defense, Monsanto says that the "Terminator's enormous profitability will motivate seed companies to intensify research and the whole world will benefit" (www.gaia). But, the seed industry has never developed seeds adapted to the needs of small and substance farmers on marginal lands who will be affected the most by this technology. The USDA argues that the technique will benefit poor farmers because it will let companies protect their intellectual property while marketing a wider variety of genetically engineered seeds to suit many growing conditions (www.new). Melvin Oliver, an USDA molecular biologist and primary inventor of the technology said, "My main interest is protection of American technology. Our mission is to protect US agriculture, and to make us competitive in the face of foreign competition. Without this, there is no way of protecting the technology [patented seed]." So the USDA admits that its goal is to "increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in second and third world countries" (www.gaia). However, is it ethical to profit so profusely from these markets? It seems to me that this is another case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. But how does the general public feel about GMO crops?
In a study conducted by the Wirthlin Group which was commissioned
by the International Food Information Council, they found that
1 in 3 Americans admits to knowing little to nothing about biotechnology
(Minnichsoffer, 1999). This lays great responsibility
on the media to get out accurate information. So has the media
risen to the challenge?
The University of Arizona did a study that
suggested that there was the potential for bollworms to develop
a resistance to genetically modified cotton. Cornell University
did a study suggesting GM corn could wipe out the Monarch butterfly.
Both studies were summarized in Nature. Both led one to believe
Science had made oversights in reviewing the potential risks of
biotechnology (Foster, 1999). However, upon
peer review, these articles didn't fair so well. Reviewers pointed
out problems with these studies. For example, the Monarch butterfly
study had not been done in a field environment (Gallivan,
1999). So how do these "questionable" articles get
into scientific journals?
"Journals, seeking to make a name for
themselves, want to publish the little studies because they are
interesting. And research authors get around the fact that the
studies are misleading with wiggle words like 'this is only a
laboratory study and it makes no conclusions about what would
happen in a natural environment'" (Foster,
1999).
Professor Mick Crawley had this response to
the bollworm article: "these little studies are interesting
because they show the things that could happen, but they don't
resolve the problems because they don't consider the effect over
the whole life cycle (of the insect)…What people are doing
with these little snippets are fanning the flames" (Foster,
1999).
Is this their motive for publishing these types
of articles? John Foster, professor at the University of Nebraska,
believes so. "Some scientists don't accept the general consensus
of the safety of GMO grain by the Scientific community and are
willing to use questionable methods to take their case to the
front line…The quickest way to get attention is to conduct
a laboratory study knowing what the outcome will be and then find
accomplices to make a big deal out of it" (Foster,
1999).
These types of articles have contributed to
much confusion in the general public and allowing people to forget
that the USDA, FDA, and EPA have tested GMO products for at least
a decade (Hein, 1999). Novartis' Bt corn in
particular has been tested not only by these three government
agencies, but also by thirty scientific communities around the
world and all have concluded Bt. corn is as safe as conventional
corn (American...1999). However, these
types of reassurances have not quieted activist groups such as
Green Peace. There are some Scientists that have some things to
say about that as well.
"The activists are using the same types
of tactics that they have used for years in opposition to chemical
pesticides. Now, when scientists have developed a non-chemical
control by inserting a single gene into a plant, the activists
oppose that" (Knutson, 1999). A prime
example of this is Bt. corn. Again, Bt stands for Bacillus
thuringiensis-a bacteria. This bacterium has been used in
spray and powder form for years. Chemical pesticide opponents
have endorsed these sprays and powders because they are effective
against target insects and harmless to birds, mammals, and beneficial
insects (Knutson, 1999). But now that a
way has been developed that has eliminated the need to apply the
powder or spray, there is much opposition.
"[Activists]. . .want to minimize the
potential risks associated with the use of pesticides… I
am puzzled when the same people oppose a technology that would
accomplish this very goal. They obviously do not know what it
takes to produce a crop on a large scale" (Knutson,
1999).
This mass suspicion also exists in Europe.
The European public is crying out for labeling of any food that
contains GMO crops despite the reassurances of their regulatory
government agencies. However, there may be some validity for their
mistrust, which seems to stem from the recent health issues in
Europe such as mad cow disease and dioxin poisoning, not necessarily
the GMO grain itself (Hein, 1999).
There are companies who have responded to this
scare and are taking a non-GMO policy. It is not terribly difficult
to find various lists of these companies on the Internet. One
such company is Gerber. What makes this interesting is that Gerber
and Novartis are owned by the same company. Gerber decided to
reduce their use of genetically enhanced ingredients in its baby-foods.
However, they released the statement that this was done not because
of safety concerns, rather consumer preferences stating that parents
with young children are often very selective of foods they feed
their babies (American...1999).
GMO grain companies are fighting back. Novartis
Seeds and Novartis Crop Protection started a public education
and awareness program. It has done this because "The Company
believes that openness will play an important role in the acceptance
of biotechnology, and is committed to providing complete and accurate
information about its products."-Jack T. Bernens, company
official (Bernens, 1999).
So what exactly is Novartis doing? Novartis
has worked in conjunction with the Chicago Museum of Science and
Industry to open a 4000 square foot exhibit. This exhibit will
educate people on modern food production and how the use of technology
improves the quality and quantity of food and fiber. Novartis
has invested $300,000 in this project (Shonsey,
1999). Novartis also helps fund Your World an educational
magazine that is distributed to middle schools and high schools
for use in their Science classes. Novartis has invested $150,
000 for the purposes of educating children in the area of biotechnology
(Shonsey, 1999).
Novartis is not trying to eliminate all other methods of farming, but rather to gain acceptance of their farming technology. Novartis realizes that there is a separate market for conventional and organically grown food. "Some producers-in the US and Abroad-may be willing to pay for the added cost of producing crops developed without the use of agricultural biotechnology. And that may open new markets for some producers. But for most farmers, biotechnology is critical to their future success in producing the world's most affordable high quality food."-Ed Shonsey, President and CEO of Novartis (Shonsey, 1999).
GMO grain offers many benefits and a few
drawbacks. It seems to me that the current benefits far outweigh
the drawbacks. However, it is important to consider both these
aspects carefully. Ultimately, we don't know what the future overall
health outcome will be for humans or animals. However, there is
no concrete reason to believe that GMO grain will be any worse
for our bodies than conventionally grown grain. In fact, GMO grain
has the potential to be healthier for us due to decreased pesticide
use and it's ability to make the grain healthier. I believe that
further education of the general public is required and that the
press needs to assume more responsibility for the accurate reporting
of current facts. Perhaps Ronald Krutson, professor of agriculture
economics at Texas A&M and director of the Agriculture and
Food Policy Center sums it up best, "Such a technology deserves
to be embraced-if not with open arms, at least with an open mind"
(Knutson, 1999).
Works Cited
American Council on Science and Health. "Biotechnology Makes Rice Even More Healthful." Sept. 7, 1999.
Beeler, Amy. News Release, "European Union Finalizes Approval of NK Brand Yieldgard Hybrids." June 11, 1998.
Bernens, Jack. Novartis Seeds Company Letter. Oct. 4, 1999.
Brasher, Philip. Associated Press, "Biotech Crops, Foods receive EPA's support." Oct. 8, 1999.
Foster, John E. The Washington Times, "Butterflies Bearing Grenades." Sept. 20, 1999.
Gallivan, Karen Park. Novartis Company Letter. May 19, 1999.
Hein, Pam and Weinzierl, Kathy. The Pentograph, "Do American Consumers Accept Genetically Altered Foods?" Sept. 27, 1999.
Knutson, Ronald. Omaha.com. "Genetic Crops Protect Environment." Sept. 15, 1999.
Minnichsoffer, Tony. Novartis Media Release, "Novartis Commits $450,000 to Public Science Education to Expand Ag Biotech Awareness." Sept. 1999.
Novartis Seed Publication. "Biotechnology Talk Points." Oct. 1999.
Shonsey, Ed. Novartis Company Letter. Sept. 1999.
www.tt/comm.com/ensign/terminator/terminator.html available: Nov. 4, 1999.
Edwards, Rob. "Devilish seed" [Archive:Oct. 10, 1998]. available: Nov. 4, 1999. www.newscientist.com/ns/981010/nseed.html
" 'Terminator' Technology Threatens World Food Security." March 1999. available: Nov. 4, 1999. www.gaiabooks.co.uk/environment/terminatorseed.html