Food fight

Dave Stockdale

Sustainability Honcho

San Francisco Chronicle

February 28 2010

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms whose genetic makeup has been altered so that they exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs through a process called genetic engineering (GE). In general, genes are copied from one organism with a desired trait and transferred into the genetic code of another organism. Currently, more than 100 million acres of transgenic corn and soybeans are planted in the United States and GMOs are found in more than 70% of processed food products. Since the commercialization of transgenic food crops in 1996, concerns about GE have run the gamut from potential human health risks, to environmental impacts, to food sovereignty issues. For those of interested in fostering a more sustainable food system, these are all important concerns.

In response, some local jurisdictions started introducing laws against GMOs. So, a few years ago the California legislature debated a bill that proposed to preempt those emerging county and city laws against GMOs. The bill would have amended California law so that all regulations related to seeds and nursery plants could be made only at the state level, preventing passage of further anti-GMO legislation by local jurisdictions. To the relief of those of us opposed to GMOs, that bill did not pass.

Then, in 2008, the state assembly passed the Food and Farm Protection Act, which established laws to shield farmers and consumers from some of the potential harms of GMOs in California agriculture. The bill requires growers to notify their county of GMO plantings, prohibits the open-field cultivation of transgenic food crops used to produce hormones and antibiotics, and establishes the right of farmers to compensation for economic losses due to contamination.

Yet despite what some of us see as progress, the debate continues, and the opposition is strong and well-funded. Opponents to GMOs (like me) point out that genetic engineering (GE) may pose numerous threats to our health, environment, and farmers. Summarizing examples from the Californians for GE-Free Agriculture website, these could include:

Food Allergies. GE increases the likelihood that new food allergens could be introduced into our food supply. Because humans have never consumed many of the novel proteins present in GE foods, we have no way to predict if they could cause an allergic reaction.

Novel Toxins in our Food Supply. There is mounting evidence that some GE foods may produce unexpected toxic effects, such as a 1999 British study which showed that GE potatoes caused damage to the immune systems and vital organs of rats. I prefer to not be put at risk, however slight that risk might be.

Resistance to Antibiotics. Genetic engineers commonly use antibiotic resistance marker genes in the process of gene splicing, and some doctors argue this could weaken the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating diseases.

Increased Pesticide Use. Although biotech companies claim that the use of GE crops results in the reduction of pesticide use, the data do not consistently show this to be true. USDA reports state that while reductions in some herbicides occur, there has also been a concurrent increase in the use of glyphosate (Roundup). A study from a former head of the National Academy of Sciences found that farmers who plant Monsanto's GE soybeans use two to five times more pesticides than their conventional counterparts. And of course, they just happen to be using Monsanto's Roundup. Hmm, what profit motive? What monopoly?

Loss of Biodiversity. Despite Mexico's recent ban on planting GE corn, it has been discovered that some native varieties (corn is native to Mexico) have been contaminated with GE corn from the US. Genetic contamination is impossible to recall, and can cross-pollinate with domestic and even wild plant relatives.

Harm to Insects and Other Wildlife. Several studies have demonstrated that GE crops are harming beneficial insects, earthworms and birds, including the 1999 Cornell study which revealed that GE corn was toxic to Monarch butterflies.

Loss of Markets. Because so many countries are refusing to accept GE crops, US farmers are losing export markets. Although our work at CUESA is focused on providing small farmers direct marketing opportunities to local consumers, I would not deny the opportunity to also export crops for those farmers who have chosen that business model.

Genetic Contamination. There are numerous examples now showing that pollution of non-GE crops by neighboring GE crops cannot be controlled. Unwanted genetic contamination can lead to the loss of markets that are GE-free (like the organic sector), and can lead to extra costs due to the need for testing and segregation. Our policy for the Ferry Plaza Farmers Market includes a ban on the "intentional use of GMOs", a statement we are forced to use since it may not be possible for farmers to avoid contamination, despite their earnest efforts.

Liability. Farmers are at risk of lawsuits from biotech companies for patent infringement if they knowingly or unknowingly violate any of the terms of the contracts accompanying GE seed purchases. Anyone who saw the movie Food, Inc. last year heard some of this saga. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, this case is surrounding a modified alfalfa seed that has been engineered to be immune to Roundup. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of nonprofits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. The CFS was victorious in this case, and has also won two subsequent appeals by Monsanto. Now, upon Monsanto's insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case starting in March this year.

Despite positive developments, anti-GMO activists are not resting. New GE crops are still being approved, while news about negative impacts of GE crops will undoubtedly continue to surface. The debate continues.

sfgate.com