An Alternative to Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

Benefit of organic

Because U.S. national organic standards and industry practices do not allow the use of genetic engineering in the production and processing of organic products, organic agriculture gives consumers who wish to avoid genetically modified foods a choice in the marketplace.

Although genetic engineering (GE) proponents claim GE crops will cut pesticide use, this is not necessarily true. On the other hand, organic agriculture does reduce such exposure because it avoids the use of toxic and persistent pesticides.

• Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans "clearly require more herbicides than conventional soybeans, despite claims to the contrary," Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center has written, also citing data showing that "RR soybean cultivars produce 5 percent to 10 percent fewer bushels per acre in contrast to otherwise identical varieties grown under comparable field conditions."

Source: "Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success: Glyphosate Efficacy is Slipping and Unstable Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defenses and Yields," by Charles Benbrook, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper, Number 4, 2001, available at www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html.

• Genetically engineered (GE) crops do not necessarily reduce pesticide use, according to a World Wildlife Fund Canada report. The report notes that U.S. data show that farmers planting GE crops have often actually increased their use of herbicides and insecticides.

Source: "Do Genetically Engineered Crops Reduce Pesticide Use? The Evidence Says Not Likely," World Wildlife Foundation Canada, Toronto, Canada, March 2000.

• The use of genetically altered Bt corn should be handled with restraint and thoughtfulness, cautioned researchers John Obrycki of Iowa State University and colleagues (including John Losey at Cornell University) in an article, "Transgenic Insecticidal Corn: Beyond Insecticidal Toxicity to Ecological Complexity." "Unlike the use of transgenic potatoes and cotton, the use of transgenic corn will not significantly reduce insecticide use in most of the corn-growing areas of the Midwest," they concluded, adding that data suggest "that the Bt plantings (of corn) are not being used as a replacement for insecticides but in addition to them."

Source: "Transgenic Insecticidal Corn: Beyond Insecticidal Toxicity to Ecological Complexity," BioScience, May 2001.

• "Since the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate use has soared. It was applied on 20% of U.S. farm acreage in 1995; four years later, on 62%…Some farmers now plant Roundup Ready crops year-round, rotating corn and soybeans; they may apply glyphosate four to six times a year on a single field."
  Source: "Biotech Soybeans Plant Seed of Risky Revolution," by Stephanie Simon, latimes.com, July 1, 2001.

Scientists dispute that GE crops will solve hunger problems in the world:

• A crop science expert at the Institute for Food and Development Policy has rebutted the U.N. Development Program’s Human Development Report 2001 claims that genetically modified crops may provide an answer to cutting malnutrition in poor nations. Peter Rosset warned that GE crops are likely to do more harm than good in developing nations. The GE approach, for instance, is to produce single, genetically uniform varieties, which ignore the needs of farmers in complex habitats. "Hands-on participatory plant breeding, where farmers themselves take the lead, has been shown to be far more effective in producing the multiple crop varieties needed by poor farmers in marginal environments. Furthermore, the risks associated with GE crops are likely to impact poor farmers more than rich farmers." These risks include crop failures and pollen transfer to weed populations that could result in virus and insecticide resistance, superweeds, and new pathogen strains. Rosset added, "It is not a lack of technology which holds such farmers back, but rather pervasive injustices and inequities in access to resources, including land, credit, market access, and other anti-poor biases."

Source: "Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger, and Lagging Productivity?," by Peter Rosset, available at http://www.foodfirst.org/.

• There is already more than enough food to feed everyone; poverty and inadequate allocation of resources are the major hurdles. According to a U.N. Food an Agriculture Organization report, the world can produce enough food to meet global demand in the year 2030 without the use of GM crops.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Economic and Social Department, Agriculture towards 2015/30, Technical Interim Report, April 2000, Rome, Italy.

• "The notion of ‘feeding the world’ following the Northern industrialized model of agriculture is a simplistic, misleading cliché. What matters is access to food or to the means to produce or buy it. Achieving food security means eradicating poverty, which also hinges on the economic and political environment. Claims that the world’s hungry can be fed if the agribusiness giants of the North are allowed to provide genetically engineered crops are both hypocritical and cynical. Hypocritical because these claims are still far from practical implementation. Cynical because poor farmers are not in a position to buy expensive seeds and developing countries do not have the institutional means to deal with the considerable risks involved," according to a study commissioned jointly by Greenpeace and Bread for the World. Instead, the study found more than 200 examples of sustainable, productive agriculture resulting in genuine improvements in people’s livelihoods.

Source: Recipes Against Hunger—success stories for the future of agriculture, Greenpeace International, September 2001.

• Farmers in the Philippines have voiced fears that GE rice seeds introduced by the government will displace indigenous rice seeds traditionally used by farmers. Farmers in the Cordillera region reported that one GE variety required more chemical fertilizers and pesticides than native varieties, and another GE variety resulted in decreased yield.

Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 16, 2001, based on a study conducted by the Cordillera Women’s Education and Resource Center.

Meanwhile, there are concerns that GE crops can adversely affect the environment.

• The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research has warned that the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) disrupts the natural processes of evolution. In the report, the U.S. think tank argues that there is a serious gap in the understanding of how the entire genetic structure of a living being functions within an ecosystem.

Source: Ecology and Genetics: An Essay on the Nature of Life and the Problem of Genetic Engineering, by Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Apex Press, 2001.

• In a report released August 2000, Plant Research International BV at Wageningen University and Research Centre found "Controversies and knowledge gaps appear to be present at all levels of biological organization ranging from the levels of DNA and cellular metabolism to organism and ecosystem levels." The report was commissioned by Greenpeace International.

Source: "Crops of Uncertain Nature? Controversies and Knowledge Gaps Concerning Genetically Modified Crops, An Inventory," by A.J.C. de Visser, E.H. Nijhuis, J.D. van Elsas and T.A. Dueck, Plant Research International BV, Wageningen, August 2000, Report 12.

• The varieties and uses of genetically modified crops have grown much more rapidly than the ability to understand or appropriately regulate them, according to a report from the Wallace Center at Winrock International. The report recommends greater public research funding, revised research policies, and a better regulatory system to ensure that the development and use of genetically engineered crops deliver public environmental benefits and avoid ecological hazards. For instance, it urged greater attention to traits that are of potential long-term environmental benefits, such as crops with greater tolerance of pest damage rather than tolerance to pesticides, and crops with lower water and irrigation needs.

Source: "Transgenic Crops: An Environmental Assessment," Wallace Center at Winrock International, Arlington, VA, February 2001 (available at www.winrock.org/transgenic.pdf)

Already, researchers have noted ecological changes due to GE crops.

• A study at the Max Planck Institute for Soil Microbiology in Germany has shown that planting genetically modified potatoes changed the bacterial communities in soil. Although admitting the findings do not indicate whether the observed alterations will be detrimental to future plantings on the site, researchers urged that GM crops should be removed from field planting until the changes are evaluated. It is already known that subtle changes in microbial ecology can have devastating long-term effects on soil fertility, the availability of nutrients, and even on the promotion of pathogens such as nematodes, fungi, and harmful bacteria.

Source: "Use of the T-RFLP technique to assess spatial and temporal changes in the bacterial community structure within an agricultural soil planted with transgenic and non-transgenic potato plants," by Thomas Lukow, Peter F. Dunfield, and Werner Liesack, FEMS Microbiology Ecology, Vol. 32 (3), pages 241-247 (2000).

• A study by researchers at New York University and the Instituto Veenezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas in Venezuela has shown that plantings of Bt corn can result in the release of the Bt toxin into soil through the plant roots. They also found that the toxin persists in the soil for at least 234 days after the crop is harvested.

Source: "Transgenic plants, Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn," Nature 402, page 480 (Dec. 2, 1999), brief communications, by Deepak Saxena, Saul Flores, and G. Stotzky.

• A scientific study by a University of Bordeaux professor has found that sediment in the Richelieu River, a tributary of the St. Lawrence River in Canada surrounded by fields of genetically engineered Bt corn, contains concentrations of Bt that are five times higher than in nearby agricultural watersheds.

Source: Le Devoir, Dec. 18, 2001, Page 1, "Pollution par les OGM dans le fleuve Saint-Laurent: La toxine du maïs transgénique Bt a contaminé les sédiments fluviaux," by Pauline Gravel.

There are other potential risks.

• The common use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in Bt plants is a concern. The British Medical Association has stated, "There should be a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, as the risk to public health from antibiotic resistance developing in microorganisms is one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21^st century."

Source: British Medical Association, "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food, and Health, May 1999, London, U.K.

• The American Medical Association has also expressed concerns about antibiotic resistance market genes: "…the use of antibiotic markers that encode resistance to clinically important antibiotics should be avoided if possible."

Source: American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs, "Genetically Modified Crops and Foods," Chicago, IL, 2000.

There are already evidence of unwanted "surprises;"

• "Regardless of whether Bt corn has a serious impact on monarch butterfly populations or whether widespread use of herbicide-resistant crops would reduce bird biodiversity, …initial scientific studies make it clear than any blanket guarantees of eco-safety are dishonest. It is likely that we will be confronted by other similar ecological and evolutionary surprises that in hindsight seem so obvious."

Source: "Can Risk Analysis ‘Colorize’ the Black and White of Transgenic Crops?" by Michelle Marvier, Department of Biology and Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, feature story September 2001 on www.apsnet, peer-reviewed by Plant Health Progress.

• A tornado near Homefield, Canada, in late August 2001 picked up canola plants and blew their seeds into other canola fields up to eight kilometers away, raising concerns about the uncontrolled spread of genetically modified seed.

Source: "Canada: It’s Raining GM," Sept. 1, 2001, CBC.ca.

• The Mexican government during 2001 found that some of the country’s native corn varieties were contaminated with genetically engineered DNA even though genetically modified corn has not been approved for commercial planting in Mexico. The contaminated corn was found in 15 different localities. Researchers also reported that samples of native corn taken during 2000 contained a genetic "switch" commonly used in genetically engineered plants while others contained another DNA segment inserted by genetic engineers or a commonly inserted gene that prompts plants to produce a poison effective against the European corn borer. Source: Nature, Nov. 29, 2001.

• Friends of the Earth International in October 2001 released a report that presents evidence about the illegal transfer of genetically modified crops and reiterates the need for a mechanism for liability and redress.

Source: "GMO Contamination Around the World," Friends of the Earth International, October 2001 (a pdf version is available at http://www.foei.org/).

• Triple-resistant canola weeds have been found on a farm in northern Alberta, Canada, from inadvertent crossing of three different canola systems genetically engineered for the herbicides Roundup (glyphosate), Liberty (glufosinate-ammonium), and Pursuit (imazethapyr). Pollination via bees and wind between two fields was blamed for this occurrence.

Source: "Triple-resistant canola weeds found," by M. MacArthur, Western Producer, Feb. 10, 2000.

• In India, about 10,000 hectares of a genetically modified variety of cotton that had not been approved were illegally cultivated in Gujarat and had to be destroyed in 2001.

Source: Financial Times Information Limited, Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, Oct. 16, 2001, and Oct. 21, 2001.

• The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) has cautioned health authorities to consider the increased consumption of genetic modified foods as a possible explanation for the two- to ten-fold increase in food-related illnesses in the United States in 1999 compared to 1994. "Health authorities should be on the lookout for new viruses and bacteria that could evolve by the horizontal transfer and recombination of viral and bacterial genes in genetically engineered crops," ISIS warned, noting that unknown agents caused approximately 81 percent of food-borne illnesses and hospitalizations and 64 percent of food-borne deaths in the United State in 1999.

Source: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, Nov. 3, 2001, Institute of Science in Society.

• Distances between trials of genetically modified (GM) crops and organic farms should be extended to curtail the threat to organic crops, according to a report by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission in the United Kingdom. The report pointed out the need for detailed and effective public consultation over future trial sites and safeguarding organic farms from the threat of GM contamination.

Source: "Crops on Trial," Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, United Kingdom.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Oct. 16, 2001, approved the use of genetically engineered Bt corn for an additional seven years. However, EPA said that manufacturers must follow these safeguards: teach farmers to plant Bt corn to minimize insect resistance, compile data on how long Bt protein remains in the soil, study long-term effects on monarch butterflies, birds and insects, and file annual reports on insect-resistance plans and any signs of insects acquiring tolerance to Bt corn.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 16, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides).

• Feeding genetically engineered (GE) Bt corn to pigs has resulted in reports of sow breeding problems in Iowa, according to an article in the April 29, 2002, edition of the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman. The article noted that Shelby County, Iowa, farmer Jerry Rosman observed farrowing rates in his sow herd had plummeted nearly 80 percent. Upon further investigation, he learned that four other producers within a 15-mile radius of his farm had herds with nearly identical breeding problems. The common denominator: all of the operations fed their herds the same Bt corn hybrids. Laboratory tests revealed their corn contained high levels of Fusarium mold. One of the producers subsequently switched back to regular non-GE corn, and his herd no longer had the problem. A follow-up article on May 13 reported that shortly after the first story appeared, Rosman was flooded with phone calls from other producers with similar experiences.

Source: Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman, April 29, 2002, and May 13, 2002.

Meanwhile, many consumers would like genetically modified foods to be labeled.

• An ABCNews.com random poll of 1,024 adults conducted across the country during June 2001 showed that 93% favor mandatory labels on genetically modified foods, with 57% saying they’d be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified, and 5% saying they’d be more likely to purchase it. At the same time, 52% said they’d be more likely to buy food that is labeled as having been produced organically.

Source: ABCNEWS.com, June 2001.

• Seventy-five percent of Americans polled by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology want to know whether their food contains genetically engineered ingredients, according to a poll conducted in January 2001 and released during March. Of those polled, 46% did not know what to think about the safety of GM foods; of those with an opinion, half believed GM foods are safe, and half believed they are unsafe.

Source: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (posted at http://www.pewagbiotech.org/).

Organic Trade Association, July 2002.