Rice Industry: Keep Genetically Engineered Varieties in the Lab

[Guest guest]

Spilling the Beans, October 2006

 

--

 

Subscribe to e-newsletter Spilling the Beans

 

Dear friend,

 

Consider passing this article on to those in the food and agricultural

industries. It provides a reasonable, if not urgent, strategy for them to

protect

their markets, while protecting our health and environment at the same time.

 

Jeffrey

 

 

--

 

Rice Industry: Keep Genetically Engineered Varieties in the Lab

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=755

By Jeffrey M. Smith

 

The US rice industry can take a lesson from Hawaiian coffee growers. In 2004,

the University of Hawaii and others were getting dangerously close to

conducting outdoor trials of genetically modified (GM) coffee—plants whose DNA

had

been artificially inserted with genes from other species. Growers throughout the

state knew if their premium coffee became contaminated with GM varieties, it

would threaten their markets.

 

The growers rejected claims that small buffer zones around GM fields would

protect them. Bees carry pollen for miles. GM crops can get mixed up by human

error. And everyone on the islands knows that seeds naturally travel. (Consider

Hawaii’s conversion from lava rock to a lush paradise.)

 

They extracted a promise from the University to discontinue studies that

could lead to outdoor GM coffee trials, saving their farms from contamination.

Not

so for the rice industry, which just saw world markets close and prices

plummet after unapproved GM rice escaped from field trials, contaminating US

stocks. Japan stopped buying long grain US rice, products were taken off shelves

in

Europe and the industry may lose $150 million or more.

 

Amid the lawsuits and rejected shipments, the rice industry must now decide

whether to belatedly follow the coffee growers’ example. They can tell the

government and five multinational GM crop companies, “No more GM rice

trials!†Or

they can continue to risk costly episodes of contamination. And for what? To

share the fate of soybean and corn growers?

 

In 1996, biotech companies introduced GM soy and corn varieties that could

either withstand herbicide or produce pesticides in every cell. Although the new

technology was largely hidden from American shoppers, the European press did

extensive coverage and consumers there were not pleased. In a single week in

April 1999, food companies throughout the continent responded by vowing to

remove GM ingredients from their European brands. Japanese companies followed

suit

and American agriculture has yet to recover.

 

The corn industry lost their $300 million European market; US soy sales also

plunged. The government poured an extra $2-3 billion per year in price support

subsidies. And many non-GM growers were forced to pay for costly segregation

programs just to keep their customers. The promise of higher yields, lower

chemical use and weed-free living through GM crops turned into slightly lower

average yields, significantly higher herbicide use and the emergence of

superweeds that resist weed killer. Many who were once enthusiastic about GM

technology

are saying “Come back in 50 to 100 years when you’ve done your homework.â€

 

The Biotech PR firms want the rice industry and others to believe that gene

inserted crops are catching on around the world. In reality, studies show that

the more people learn about GM food, the less they want to put it in their

mouth. The main reason why most US consumers are complacent is that they don’t

know about the issue. Sixty percent say they have never eaten a GM food in their

lives. In truth, most eat it everyday—usually in the form of soy and corn

derivatives in processed foods.

 

When Americans find out that they have been eating GM ingredients, they

usually assume that the FDA has tested it and proven it safe. Not true.

Documents

made public from a lawsuit revealed that FDA scientists had repeatedly warned

their superiors that GM foods might create unpredictable, hard-to-detect

allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. They urged political

appointees to require long-term safety studies. But the person in charge of FDA

policy was the former attorney (and later vice president) of biotech giant

Monsanto. And the agency was under orders from the White House to promote GM

crops.

The policy that was adopted in 1992, and still stands, is that no safety tests

whatsoever are required by the FDA. Thus, varieties that had never been

rigorously safety tested with animals, and probably never even fed to humans,

were

approved for sale.

 

Evidence of adverse reactions is mounting. From the tiny number of safety

studies that have been conducted, animals treated with GM crops show stunted

growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, potentially precancerous

cell

growth, damaged and misshapen cells, inflamed kidneys, smaller brains and

testicles, enlarged intestines, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar,

inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher offspring mortality, to

name a few. Reports from the field are less encouraging. Two dozen US farmers

say that sterility in pigs or cows is related to GM corn varieties. Seventy-one

Indian shepherds report that 25% of their sheep died from grazing on GM cotton

plants. Filipinos in at least 5 villages fell sick when nearby GM corn was

pollinating. And hundreds of laborers in India developed allergic reactions

after handling GM cotton. Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK soon after

GM

soy was introduced. And in the 1980s, a GM food supplement killed about 100

Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000.

 

If this information makes you uneasy, consider what will happen when millions

of US consumers learn that high-risk GM foods are in their baby’s formula and

kids’ breakfast cereal. The reaction may force US food manufacturers to

repeat the vows of their European counterparts. The corn and soy growers would

surely be hit even harder than before.

 

How will the rice industry fare? That depends on what they choose now. But

the choice is not just with rice growers. What about those who deal in lettuce,

barley, sunflowers and plums? Most vegetables, fruits and grains have GM

counterparts in some stage of development. And behind that variety stands a

biotech

company, more than willing to grow it in field trials and risk the food indust

ry’s markets. Even the US wheat growers remain in danger. They had forced

Monsanto to abandon plans to introduce GM wheat in May 2004, but unlike

Hawaii’s

coffee growers, they can still be contaminated from outdoor field trials.

 

It is time that US producers take charge and say to the biotech industry, “

You can grow your GM crops only when we are ready to take that risk. Until then,

keep it in the lab.â€

 

 

 

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world’s bestselling

book on GM foods. His forthcoming book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than

60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and

demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect

consumers from

the dangers. He is available for media at info.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at

www.responsibletechnology.org

 

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of

Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at

column to let us know who you are and what your circulation

is, so we can keep

track.

 

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic

engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly

welcome your donations and support.