RECIPE FOR DISASTER

[Guest guest]

RECIPE FOR DISASTER

http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=135

JOEL BLEIFUSS

 

Agribusiness corporations have long hoped to make GMOs (genetically

modified organisms) a permanent, and inescapable, feature of our

daily diet. But to get to that point, chemical giants such as the

St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. and the Swiss company Ciba-Geigy AG

will have to overcome consumer, environmental and public health

organizations that fear this pell-mell rush to a geneticallymodified

future. And they'll have to somehow get past the roadblocks Mother

Nature has put in their way.

 

 

 

Three of Monsanto's bioengineered marvels are in the process of

going bust. The company's artificial bovine growth hormone (rBGH),

introduced in February 1994, has not lived up to its promise.

 

Although the drug does increase milk production, the resultant

health problems in cattle outweigh the benefits from the extra milk

produced, as critics warned they would. In April, Business Week

reported that Wall Street insiders were predicting that rBGH would

be pulled off the market by the end of the year. Furthermore, the

Pure Food Campaign obtained a letter, signed by 10 scientists who

have done rBGH research for Monsanto, that reveals a 55 percent drop

in sales of the wonder drug between February 1995 and

February 1996.

 

After two years in stores, the Flavr Savr tomato, which was

developed by a company in which Monsanto has a half stake, had been

genetically engineered to taste like a home-grown tomato yet be

sturdy enough to ship across country.

 

Now, Monsanto's genetically engineered cotton, Bollgard, is proving

a failure. The cotton, which accounts for 13 percent of the nation's

annual crop this year, had been altered to produce a substance that

acts

as a natural pesticide to three insects that eat cotton. But the

Bollgard cotton is not working as planned. As James Wilbur, an

analyst with Smith Barney, told the Wall Street Journal, " if genetic

technology doesn't work on a product like this, it calls into

question the whole long-term strategy of the company. "

 

Monsanto had sold the Bollgard seeds to farmers with brochures that

pictured a bollworm and advised: " You'll see these in your cotton

and that's okay. Don't spray. Just relax. Bollgard will protect your

cotton. " But a heavy bollworm infestation this summer, combined with

the failure of Bollgard to perform as expected, forced the company

to change course. Monsanto began telling farmers that spraying might

be necessary to save their crops. In fact, Abbot Laboratories

marketed its DiPel

insecticide, " which contains a blend of five or more toxins, " as the

chemical solution for growers who planted Monsanto's Bollgard.

 

In theory, Bollgard cotton works because it has been genetically

engineered to contain genes from the bacterium Bacillus

thuringiensis

(Bt), which is harmless to humans but in high enough doses kills

insects. Yet the long-term implications are frightening. Bt, a

natural

substance, is a key weapon in organic farmers' battle with pests. By

making this natural pesticide an integral part of cotton and other

crops

such as soybeans and corn, Monsanto and other biotech firms will

hasten

the evolution of Bt-resistant insects. Indeed, Monsanto itself

admits

that it is only a matter of time before the bugs develop a

resistance to

Bollgard.

 

Earlier this year Monsanto introduced another genetically altered

product likely to turn out as ill-advised as rBGH, Bollgard and the

Flavr Savr tomato: the Roundup Ready soybean. Roundup Ready has been

altered to include a gene from a bacterium that makes the plant

resistant to Glyphosate, the key toxin in Monsanto's Roundup

herbicide.

Farmers who plant Roundup Ready beans will he able to spray the

herbicide on their fields without killing their soybeans.

 

Ciba-Geigy has similar plans for Maximizer, a corn hybrid loaded

with

three altered genes, which the company introduced last spring. Like

Monsanto's cotton, Ciba-Geigy's corn contains a Bt gene that makes

the

corn toxic to pests, in this case the corn-borer larvae. Like

Roundup

Ready, Maximizer is also built to resist an herbicide, in this case

glufosinate, manufactured under the brand name Basta by Hoechst.

 

Maximizer has been approved for sale in Canada and the United

States,

but European countries, in particular Britain, Sweden, Austria and

Denmark, balked. But the European Union finally approved the corn

for

import. The impasse could escalate into a trade war between the

United

States and Europe.

 

Europeans are concerned that Ciba-Geigy's corn will lead to the

development of Bt-resistant corn borers. They also fear that the

genes

that make Roundup Ready soybeans and Maximizer corn resistant to the

Monsanto and Ciba-Geigy herbicides could transfer to weeds, making

those

weeds impervious to the herbicides. Such resistance has already been

observed in Denmark, where rapeseed, a native European plant used to

make vegetable oil, was genetically altered to resist a pesticide.

That

resistance then jumped from the rapeseed plant to neighboring weeds.

 

Finally, some European scientists are worried about a bacterium gene

in

Ciba-Geigy's corn that conveys resistance to the antibiotic

ampicillin.

Ciba- Geigy claims that this gene serves no purpose other than as a

handy marker for scientists to determine which plants have the added

genes. Some scientists, however, fear that the gene could be passed

to

the cattle who eat the corn, and from there, spread to people who

eat

the cattle. Both animals and humans would then become resistant to

ampicillin, an antibiotic doctors and veterinarians commonly use to

fight infections. For this reason the British government's Advisory

Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has sought to ban the

doctored

corn.

 

On top of all this, some genetically modified foodstuffs have proved

dangerous to people who suffer from allergies. For example, Pioneer

Hi-Bred International, a Des Moines based seed company, developed a

genetically modified soybean using genes from Brazil nuts. But the

company had to abandon the product before it hit the market because

people with nut allergies, which occasionally are fatal, were found

to

be allergic to the new soybeans.

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that genetically

modified

organisms derived from products to which many people are allergic be

tested and labeled. But an editorial in the New England Journal of

Medicine last March argued that the policy did not go far enough:

" Because FDA requirements do not apply to foods that are rarely

allergenic or to donor organisms of unknown allergenicity, the

policy

would appear to favor industry over consumer protection. " The

editorial

called for the labeling of all foods containing genetically altered

organisms, concluding that industry benefits when the public is

convinced that transgenic foods are safe, and stronger federal

regulations would encourage such public confidence.

 

Europeans seem to share this sentiment. According to recent surveys,

85

percent of Europeans would choose not to eat genetically modified

foods

if given the choice. This mistrust of bioengineered foods has put

U.S.

soybean growers—who export 40 percent of their crop to Europe—in a

precarious position. Even though the European Union approved

Monsanto's

Roundup Ready soybeans earlier this year, EuroCommerce, the Union's

major trade association, has demanded that genetically altered

soybeans

be labeled and separated from regular soybeans.

 

In October, 1996, the German unit of the Anglo-Dutch food giant

Unilever

canceled all 1996 orders for U.S. soybeans, totaling 650,000 metric

tons, unless they could be guaranteed " Roundup Ready soybean-free. "

A

Unilever spokesperson explained, " We are a consumer-driven company

and

we have to take their wishes into account. " Even though Roundup

Ready

makes up only 2 percent of the U.S. soybean crop, U.S. soybean

suppliers

cannot comply with the demand of Unilever's German unit because the

Roundup Ready beans are not separated from the traditional

varieties.

 

A similar consumer backlash may be brewing in the United

States. " Where

agribusiness has miscalculated is in thinking that you can operate

in

today's global economy under the rules of the consumer be damned, "

says

Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Pure Food Campaign,

which

is spearheading the opposition to bioengineered foods in this

country.

His group is calling for a global boycott of 10 processed foods that

will soon contain Roundup Ready soybeans and Maximizer corn,

including

Coca-Cola, Fritos corn chips, Kraft salad dressings, Similac infant

formula and McDonald's french fries.

 

The U.S. government, however, shows no sign of abandoning its

support of

bioengineering. Campaigning last month in Iowa, Agriculture

Secretary

Dan Glickman said the United States will stand behind its

genetically

altered produce and oppose any European labeling requirements as a

trade

violation. " We've got to make sure that sound science prevails, not

what

I call historic culture, which is not based on sound science, " he

said.

" Europe has a much greater sensitivity to the culture of food, as

opposed to the science of food. But in the modern world, we just

have to

keep the pressure on the science. Good science must prevail in these

decisions. "

 

But in supporting Monsanto's right to grow and export genetically

engineered food crops, Glickman appears interested less in " good

science " than in making sure " corporate science " prevails—the kind

of

science that historically has guaranteed short-term profits for

corporate America and long-term problems for the rest of us.

 

 

 

Source:

 

This article appeared first in the magazine IN THESE TIMES (Chicago,

Illinois) on NOVEMBER 11, 1996. GRAIN has reprinted this article

with the kind permission of the editors.

 

 

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets