September 24, 2004
New York Times via As Reported
in the News, The Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
TOIVO LAHTI grows
papaya on the Big Island of Hawaii. Over the last few years, he
watched other growers start planting trees that were genetically
engineered to resist a devastating virus. But Mr. Lahti stuck to
conventional varieties for his organic orchard, and thought it
would remain free of biotechnology, which he opposes, reports
the New York Times.
Then, last spring, some of Mr. Lahti's fruit tested positive for
genetically modified seeds. ''I was really surprised,'' Mr.
Lahti said. ''I didn't really know what was happening.''
He cut down all 170 of his trees and is now replanting, without
any guarantee that the same problem -- pollen from modified
trees on other farms drifting on the wind to pollinate his trees
-- won't happen again.
From papayas in Hawaii, to corn in Mexico and canola in Canada,
the spread of pollen or seeds from genetically engineered plants
is evolving from an abstract scientific worry into a significant
practical problem.
Farmers, especially those raising organic crops, worry that they
will lose sales from what they call contamination.
Environmentalists worry that modified genes could escape from
crops into weeds, wreaking ecological havoc. And once a gene has
escaped, they say, there is no way to recall it.
Such concerns came to the fore last week when scientists at the
Environmental Protection Agency reported that a type of creeping
bentgrass modified to resist Roundup, a popular herbicide, could
pollinate conventional grass 13 miles away, much farther than
previous studies had shown. That raised fears that the new gene
could spread to wild grasses, creating weeds immune to the
world's most widely used weed-killer.
Bioengineered crops seem to have a way of turning up where they
are not wanted, through cross-pollination, intermingling of seed
or other routes. StarLink corn, approved for animal feed but not
for human consumption, ended up in taco shells and other
groceries in 2000, prompting big recalls. Tiny amounts of corn
engineered to produce a pharmaceutical got into 500,000 bushels
of Nebraska soybeans. And engineered genes have apparently been
detected in traditional varieties of corn growing in Mexico, the
ancestral home of the crop and site of its greatest diversity,
though the findings are disputed.
In light of these incidents, lawmakers, courts and the food
industry are starting to consider how to ensure co-existence or
determine liability. Even Senator John Kerry, the Democratic
presidential candidate, mentioned to Missouri farmers last month
that he was considering an insurance plan to protect organic
growers, according to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. ''If your
crop gets polluted by a G.M.O. crop, poof, you're gone,'' the
newspaper quoted Mr. Kerry as saying, using the abbreviation for
genetically modified organism.
Margaret Mellon, a biotechnology critic at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, said liability ''is like a huge slumbering
giant out there hovering over the industry.''
But the biotechnology industry and some scientists and lawyers
say that the flow of genes from modified crops to other plants,
while inevitable, will not be a big health, economic or legal
problem.
For one thing, they say, genes have flowed naturally from crop
to crop and from crop to weed for eons. ''Since pollen flow has
happened all along, you have to look and see if it's caused
problems in the past,'' said Drew L. Kershen, a law professor at
the University of Oklahoma. ''The answer is no.''
He and others cite the example of two close relatives: canola,
which is grown for vegetable oil, and oilseed rape, which is
grown for industrial lubricants and contains far higher levels
of substances that can be harmful to people. The two can readily
pollinate one another, but with proper buffers between them,
they can be grown safely without intermingling, Mr. Kershen
said.
Even if modified genes do flow between plants, some scientists
say, so what?
One frequently mentioned concern is that an engineered gene for
a trait like resistance to insects or drought will move from a
crop to a weedy relative, yielding a superweed that could spread
more widely. A herbicide-resistance gene is already known to
have crossed over from canola to a wild mustard weed in Canada.
But the effect of adding a single gene to an existing weed is
likely to be tiny compared with the effects of introducing a
species into a new environment, like the natural but troublesome
kudzu that has run amok in the South, according to C. Neal
Stewart Jr., professor of plant molecular genetics at the
University of Tennessee and author of ''Genetically Modified
Planet: Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered
Plants.''
Dr. Stewart said that in his experiments, crossing
insect-resistant bioengineered canola with weeds, the offspring
were typically less fit than other weeds, because along with the
insect resistance they also inherited other canola genes --
genes that are fine for the coddled life of a crop but
unsuitable for the harsher life of a weed. ''Gene flow is not
this juggernaut evolutionary force that some people might make
it out to be,'' he said.
Another concern relates to genes flowing from one crop to
another. That could potentially create health problems if, say,
corn engineered to produce pharmaceuticals turns up in
cornflakes, according to the New York Times.
So far, the new traits introduced into commercial crops have
mainly been insect or herbicide resistance, and have not been
shown to be harmful. Still, some countries and some food
companies do not accept them, whether because their safety has
not been adequately proved, as matter of principle, or out of
concern about consumer rejection. So farmers can lose sales from
contamination.
In a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation,
eight farmers reported losing organic certification from contact
with genetically modified crops, and many more said they had to
pay to test their crops.
But PG Economics, a British consulting firm, concluded in a
report this year that organic and biotech farmers coexist very
well. The report, financed partly by the biotechnology industry,
found that the planting of organic corn and soy in the Midwest
has surged since 1995, when bioengineered crops were introduced.
''Farmers need to cooperate with their neighbors, as they have
done over hundreds of years,'' said Peter Barfoot, co-director
of the consulting firm.
He and Mr. Kershen, the law professor, said that while organic
standards do not allow farmers to use genetically modified
plants, they allow room for accident. For instance, a crop can
still be sold as organic even if traces of pesticide have
drifted there from a nearby farm. Similarly, Mr. Barfoot and Mr.
Kershen argued, organic farmers should not lose certification if
some biotech pollen drifts over.
Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming
Research Foundation, said that while this might be true in
theory, the rules are unclear, and some farmers are losing sales
or certification because of even slight contamination.
Who should pay for damage or economic loss is in dispute. A
group of organic canola farmers in Saskatchewan, Canada, is
suing Monsanto and Bayer CropScience, saying that their
introduction of genetically modified canola made it all but
impossible to grow organic canola in the province. ''All the
organic farmers are doing is saying, take responsibility for
your property,'' said Terry Zakreski, the lawyer for the
farmers.
But Mr. Kershen said he thought the organic farmers would have
trouble winning such cases. Seed producers are responsible for
isolating their fields to protect the purity of their seed, he
said, and organic farmers should do the same.
It will not be long before the issue of gene flow becomes even
more complex. Researchers are working on genetically modified
fish and insects. Plants, at least, do not usually swim or fly
away, says the New York Times.
As Reported in
the News is a weekday feature that summarizes one of the most
interesting stories of the day, as reported by media from around
the world, and selected by Initiative staff from a scan of the
news wires. The Initiative is not a news organization and does
not have reporters on its staff: Posting of these stories should
not be interpreted as an endorsement of a particular viewpoint,
but merely as a summary of news reported by legitimate
news-gathering organizations or from press releases sent out by
other organizations. |