Genetically engineered food

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Your column on genetically engineered food included some important critical insights. However, your overall analysis seems to be that there’s nothing wrong with genetic engineering per se, but only with some of the attendant evils of industrial agriculture. In reality, though, genetic engineering is providing transnational corporations like Monsanto the technology essential to consolidate their control over agriculture and the food supply. The most outrageous example is the “Terminator technology” for sterilizing second-generation seeds, and which was made possible by genetic engineering. With Terminator, Monsanto and other biotech companies can insure that farmers must return to them to buy seed each year. Currently, over 1.4 billion farmers rely on saved seed for their livelihoods and food security.

Moreover, contrary to your loosening a screw in a car analogy, by genetically engineering living species, scientists change not only the engineered organism but, when released into the environment, also change the organism’s interactions in nature. For example, Bt crops (which produce an insecticide, not an herbicide, as you stated) have been shown to adversely effect soil ecology (see Stotsky, et al., Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: pp 463-70, 1998) and beneficial insects (see Hillbeck et al, Environmental Entomology vol 27, #2, April, 1998 in ways not previously seen with Bt spray formulas. Sure, when you crash and burn from your loose screw you might take a few others with you, but that would be the end of it. The downstream effects of these crops, on the other hand, could be permanent, uncontrollable and irreversible.

If it were as easy to control and anticipate the harmful effects of this technology as you suggest, why is it that 18,000 acres of Bt cotton planted in Texas in 1996 failed to control the very insects it was supposed to kill (NY Times, November 19, 1997). When more than 50 farmers sued Monsanto for Roundup ready cotton that unexpectedly started dropping its bolls in 1997, the company blamed the weather. The arbitrator found otherwise, and ordered Monsanto to pay compensation (Union of Concerned Scientists Gene Exchange, Summer, 1998). Last year farmers who planted Roundup Ready soybeans in 8 states found decreased yields, despite the industry’s claims that these varieties will help increase the food production essential to feed a growing population (Oplinger, et al, “Performance of Transgenic Soybeans - Northern US,” Dept of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison). Such examples are just a few of the more widely reported unexpected failures of the technology. Once genetically engineered crops are grown in even more disparate environments around the globe, we can only expect more and potentially devastating ecological effects.

As you mentioned, we already have a hard time dealing with exotic species, which are the second-leading cause (after habitat loss) of endangered species. According to the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1993 study, summarized in Mellon and Rissler, Ecological Risks of Emngineered Crops, p. 29-30), all genetically engineered organisms should be considered non-indigenous species, with the potential to add to the already costly toll of disruption from such plants.

In short, scientists, farmers, consumers and others have serious and valid concerns about genetic engineering. Some of these concerns justifiably fall under your “friggin Monsanto” category, since this company has been not only the the leading propagandist for the technology but has also acted aggressively to stifle public debate. But the broad international rejection of the technology is based on the uncertainty of the safety of these new species that have not been tested for their long-term impact in our food supply or our environment.

Thanks for taking up this important issue. I enjoy your column very much, and look forward to hearing from you.

Peace,

Charles Margulis
Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign

2

To reply to your points in the order you raised them:

  1. Interesting you should bring up so-called terminator seed. I wrote about this seed in an early draft of the column but deleted it at the last minute. Terminator seed (which is not yet available commercially) will produce a viable crop, but the seed produced by this crop is sterile. To replant you must buy new seed. The sole purpose of this genetically engineered stunt is to enhance the profits of the manufacturer.

This struck me as a perfect example of a potentially useful technology (I mean gene splicing in general, not terminator seed in particular) being put to dubious corporate ends. I said as much to several people in the field, two in academia, one in industry. They replied that (a) there is nothing inherently wrong with preventing a manufactured product from being duplicated - it’s the same as copy protection on a music recording; (b) most North American farmers do not save their seed from year to year but rather plant new seed no matter what; © non-engineered hybrid crops, which are widely planted, produce seed that is of poor quality if not sterile - not because of any fiendish plot, but because that’s the way hybrids are; and (d) nobody will be forced to use this stuff - if somebody wants to continue using traditional seed that reproduces itself from year to year, no problem.

Fine, I said, but consider the ethics of the thing. This is a new technology that carries certain risks. With other engineered crops, the risks are balanced against social benefits - a superior crop, more food for the hungry, etc. Here the only benefit is to the manufacturer’s bottom line. What if this self-sterilizing property is inadvertently spread to other species? Whoops, sorry, we’ve destroyed the world’s plant life!

Not likely, came the reply. Terminator seed by definition is self-limiting. It’s not going to propagate itself. The whole idea is that it not propagate itself.

Well, what if the stuff mutates, I said, and the terminator feature doesn’t kick in until a few generations of fertile seed have been produced? The stuff spreads, then dies out.

Just so, I was told. It dies out. You can do the math. Terminator seed is not a real threat.

At that point I was obliged to conclude that terminator seed did not offer a very potent argument for corporate iniquity, and dropped the discussion from the column. (I also happened to be out of space.) Terminator seed is like many aspects of genetic engineering - it seems less scary on examination than it does at first glance.

  1. I made it clear that I felt use of Bt crops was problematic. I also cheerfully concede that genetically engineered crops may interact with the environment in ways not seen with traditional agricultural practices. This could be said of almost any industrial process. Such processes must be closely scrutinized to avoid environmental damage. Nonetheless the mere possibility that damage may occur does not strike me as sufficient reason to abandon the technology.

You’re right, by the way, that I wrote “herbicide” when I should have said “pesticide.” Sorry, spaced out.

  1. You talk about the “harmful effects” of this technology, citing Bt cotton, which failed to control pests. This is a weak example. The problem with Bt cotton was not that it was too toxic, but that it was not toxic enough. While the farmers suffered economic harm, I am not aware of any “devastating ecological effects.” The stuff just didn’t work as advertised. So what? Your argument is that because a product caused problems for the USER, it might someday cause problems for the WORLD. This strikes me as an unwarranted logical leap.

  2. Do engineered crops constitute “non-indigenous species”? What if they do? Truth is, most of our current food crops aren’t indigenous to North America. Soybeans, to cite a recent example, are from China. The important thing is not indigenous vs. non-indigenous but whether the introduction of a new or altered species is conducted under adequately controlled conditions. Many environmental disasters of the past - kudzu, starlings, etc. - were the result of reckless introductions of species by people who had no idea what they were doing. Genetic engineering, whatever else may be said for it, is a much more carefully considered process.

  3. You talked about Monsanto moving “aggressively to stifle public debate.” I didn’t have space to address this in my column but agree this is a serious concern. Monsanto sued the Ben & Jerry ice cream company to prevent it from advertising that its products did not involve use of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Whatever one may think of BGH, attempting to suppress public awareness of it is reprehensible. It underscores the point I made in my column, namely that the real threat isn’t genetic engineering, it’s the big companies that use it.

3

Hello,

My response to your response – mine in ALL CAPS, point by point, below yours (hope this format isn’t too annoying…)

Peace,
Charles Margulis
Greenpeace
Cecil Adams
Administrator posted 04-08-99 10:56 PM

To reply to your points in the order you raised them:

  1. Interesting you should bring up so-called terminator seed. I wrote about this seed in an early draft of the column but deleted it at the last minute. Terminator seed (which is not yet available commercially) will produce a viable crop, but the seed produced by this crop is sterile. To replant you must buy new seed. The sole purpose of this genetically engineered stunt is to enhance the profits of the manufacturer.

This struck me as a perfect example of a potentially useful technology (I mean gene splicing in general, not terminator seed in particular) being put to dubious corporate ends. I said as much to several people in the field, two in academia, one in industry. They replied that (a) there is nothing inherently wrong with preventing a manufactured product from being duplicated - it’s the same as copy protection on a music recording; (b) most North American farmers do not save their seed from year to year but rather plant new seed no matter what; © non-engineered hybrid crops, which are widely planted, produce seed that is of poor quality if not sterile - not because of any fiendish plot, but because that’s the way hybrids are; and (d) nobody will be forced to use this stuff - if somebody wants to continue using traditional seed that reproduces itself from year to year, no problem.

Fine, I said, but consider the ethics of the thing. This is a new technology that carries certain risks. With other engineered crops, the risks are balanced against social benefits - a superior crop, more food for the hungry, etc. Here the only benefit is to the manufacturer’s bottom line. What if this self-sterilizing property is inadvertently spread to other species? Whoops, sorry, we’ve destroyed the world’s plant life!

Not likely, came the reply. Terminator seed by definition is self-limiting. It’s not going to propagate itself. The whole idea is that it not propagate itself.

Well, what if the stuff mutates, I said, and the terminator feature doesn’t kick in until a few generations of fertile seed have been produced? The stuff spreads, then dies out.

Just so, I was told. It dies out. You can do the math. Terminator seed is not a real threat.

At that point I was obliged to conclude that terminator seed did not offer a very potent argument for corporate iniquity, and dropped the discussion from the column. (I also happened to be out of space.) Terminator seed is like many aspects of genetic engineering - it seems less scary on examination than it does at first glance.

OR MORE SCARY, IF YOU’RE NOT BLINDED BY SUAVE INDUSTRY REASSURANCES. IN REVERSE ORDER: AS YOU SAY, “THE STUFF SPREADS, THEN DIES OFF.” THIS MAY BE TRUE, OR NOT, AS SOME GENETICISTS WARN THAT THE TRAIT COULD ALSO MOVE THROUGH PLANT COMMUNITIES LIKE A RECESSIVE GENE, NEVER DESTROYING THE ENTIRE POPULATION BUT ALWAYS RETAINING THE POTENTIAL TO UNEXPECTEDLY EFFECT INDIVIDUALS. BUT LET’S SAY IT IS SO: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE NEIGHBORING FARMER WHOSE CROP IS CONTAMINATED AND MYSTERIOUSLY PRODUCES STERILE SEED? WHEN THIS SAVED SEED IS PLANTED, AN ENTIRE YEAR’S CROP CAN BE LOST. NOT A THREAT TO THE WORLD’S PLANT LIFE (SOMETHING I DID NOT ARGUE, BY THE WAY), BUT CERTAINLY A THREAT TO FARMERS AND THOSE WHO RELY ON THEIR PRODUCTION TO STAVE OFF STARVATION.

BUT FARMERS IN THE US DON’T GENERALLY SAVE SEED, YOU SAY. INDUSTRY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGIES (THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO DOZEN IN DEVELOPMENT) ARE TARGETED TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD, THEY ADMIT TO PATENT APPLICATIONS IN AT LEAST 89 COUNTRIES. IN THE US, MONSANTO USES PINKERTON DETECTIVES AND AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT LAWS TO PROTECT “THEIR GENES.” THEY FEAR THAT THEIR LONG ARM WON’T REACH AS STRONGLY I THE THIRD WORLD, HENCE THE NEED FOR TERMINATOR. FARMERS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD NOT ONLY SAVE SEED FOR REPLANTING (FOR VITAL SUBSISTENCE FOOD PRODUCTION), BUT USE HYBRID SEED FOR BREEDING STOCK – SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE WITH TERMINATED SEED.

THE FINAL INDUSTRY INSULT, THAT NO ONE HAS TO BUY THEIR JUNK, OBVIATES THE REAL-WORLD AGRO-ECONOMICS THEY USE TO PREY ON FARMERS. ASK RURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD HOW GREEN REVOLUTION HYBRIDS GAINED PRIMACY IN THEIR COUNTRIES: CREDIT AND LOAN TERMS, MARKET MANIPULATION AND OTHER “ASSISTANCE” FAVORED THOSE WHO TOOK UP THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND PUSHED TRADITIONAL FARMERS OFF THE LAND (WHICH IS ONE REASON FOR THE FLIGHT TO URBAN AREAS IN MUCH OF THE SOUTH TODAY). THESE SAME DYNAMICS WILL DRIVE THE “SECOND GREEN REVOLUTION” PROMISED BY BIOTECH, WITH EQUALLY DIRE RESULTS.

LASTLY, A NOTE ON PATENTS: MOST OF THE WORLD’S FOOD CROPS EXIST IN THEIR MODERN FORM BECAUSE OF GENERATIONS OF PLANT STEWARDSHIP BY THE PEOPLE OF THE DEVELOPING WORLD, WHO ARE NOW THE TARGETS OF TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGIES. CRITICS OF BIOTECH FROM THE SOUTH ARGUE THAT THE BIOTECH COMPANIES HAVE UNDULY APPROPRIATED AND PATENTED THIS GENETIC MATERIAL WITHOUT COMPENSATING THE TRUE DEVELOPERS. THIS “BIO-PIRACY” ROBS THIRD WORLD FARMERS COMING AND GOING, SINCE THEIR CONTRIBUTION IS DENIED OUT AND THEIR SYSTEMS FOR ASSURING CONTINUED LOCAL “R&D” ARE DISRUPTED.

  1. I made it clear that I felt use of Bt crops was problematic. I also cheerfully concede that genetically engineered crops may interact with the environment in ways not seen with traditional agricultural practices. This could be said of almost any industrial process. Such processes must be closely scrutinized to avoid environmental damage. Nonetheless the mere possibility that damage may occur does not strike me as sufficient reason to abandon the technology.

IT STRIKES ME THAT THIS HAS BEEN THE EXCUSE FOR DEVELOPING NUCLEAR POWER OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS, WITH THE RESULT THAT WE NOW HAVE HUGE STOCKPILES OF NUCLEAR WASTE WITH NO REALISTIC PLAN FOR SAFELY MANAGING THAT WASTE. WHEN WILL WE LEARN TO PUT OUR SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS TO PROJECTS THAT TRULY HAVE FEW ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS, EG, SOLAR-BASED ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ORGANIC, AGROECOLOGICAL FARMING. YOUR “SUCH PROCESSES MUST BE CLOSELY SCRUTINIZED…” IS NAÏVE. WHO DO YOU THINK DOES ALL THE “TESTING” OF GE CROPS? THE COMPANIES THAT STAND TO PROFIT! LOOK AT UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS REVIEW OF DOZENS OF GE FIELD TRAILS. THEY FOUND THAT IN ALMOST EVERY CASE, THE IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS WEREN’T EVEN ASKED, MUCH LESS CLOSELY SCRUTINIZED. RATHER THAN POSING WEAK RATIONALIZATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGIES THAT ONLY SERVE TO BOLSTER CORPORATE PROFITS, WE SHOULD BE DEMANDING PUBLIC POLICY THAT SUPPORTS TRULY SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE.

You’re right, by the way, that I wrote “herbicide” when I should have said “pesticide.” Sorry, spaced out.

  1. You talk about the “harmful effects” of this technology, citing Bt cotton, which failed to control pests. This is a weak example. The problem with Bt cotton was not that it was too toxic, but that it was not toxic enough. While the farmers suffered economic harm, I am not aware of any “devastating ecological effects.” The stuff just didn’t work as advertised. So what? Your argument is that because a product caused problems for the USER, it might someday cause problems for the WORLD. This strikes me as an unwarranted logical leap.

NO, MY ARGUMENT WAS THAT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS PREDICTABLE AND EASILY MANAGED DOES NOT JIBE WITH THE REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE. I CITED THREE EXAMPLES, HERE’S ANOTHER: FARMERS IN WESTERN CANADA ARE FINDING THAT SO-CALLED “VOLUNTEER” CANOLA (RAPESEED) IS APPEARING IN THEIR FIELDS AS AN UNCONTROLLABLE WEED. IT SEEMS THAT MONSANTO’S ROUNDUP READY VARIETY IS HARDIER THAN PLANNED, LEADING TO PROBLEMS IN NEARBY FIELDS – NOT PROBLEMS JUST FOR THE USER. SIMILARLY, POLLEN FLOW FROM GE CROPS INTO NEIGHBORING FIELDS AND THE DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS (SOIL ECOLOGY, BENEFICIAL INSECTS,

4

Hello

Yes, I know the devil’s in the details, but I am not going to go point by point (Yes that format was VERY annoying). I think the larger issue is more important.

Every argument you made in response to Cecil’s basically boiled down to: The technology is bad because the Companies are bad.

The technology itself is not inherrently evil. The same techniques developed to gene splice mutated crops are allowing us to use e-coli to produce hemoglobin in the production of synthetic blood substitutes. Btw, it was first done with pigs, but people thought that that was just too weird. Anyway, I don’t have a bug up my butt for e-coli (sorry, couldn’t resist) I just thought it was a good example of how this technology can be used for good. Unless, of course, you think the world is overpopulated. In which case, let em bleed to death.

It is important to keep an eye on corporations who deal in new technologies and ensure that they take the necessary steps to ensure their product is safe. However, stifling knowledge or impeding the devolpement of technology is not the way to go.

If it is your firm belief that technology is evil, then be careful. You may end up in a cabin somewhere in Montanna writing your manifesto and sending letter bombs to Monsanto.

Jesse Miller
Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology
University of Illinois

5

Hello Jesse -

To clarify my position: no, I do not believe that the technology is BAD, but neither do I believe that the only problem is that the companies are bad. Downstream effects like the impact on soil ecology, on beneficial insects, on nearby related plants are not the fault of the biotech companies, they are inherent in the way nature works. These are among the arguments I made in response to Mr. Adams, and I stand by them.

Furthermore, because nature does not work the way the biotech industry would like it to work, the technology is inherently unstable. This doesn’t mean it will certainly be dangerous, it just increases the uncertainty. Despite what Monsanto tells you about how “precise” the techniques are, the reality is that the gene-environment relationship is incerdibly complex, not to mention the plant-soil-insect-microorganism-animal-human relationship.

Finally, if you believe that any new technology is a good technology, you may end up living in a world with increasingly unjust distribution of food and natural resources that are increasingly squandered for the benefit of companies that care only for their short term profits. I prefer to choose appropriate technologies, which is why I continue to ask why we are spending so much of our scientific resources on a risky technology that will benefit the few when we could be placing the emphasis on ecologically modern, hi-tech, sustainable, ORGANIC production!
Peace,
Charles Margulis
Greenpeace

6

I really don’t want to get drawn into a debate on the merits of industrialized agriculture. People write books about stuff like that. I will say that, much as I sympathize with the small-is-beautiful idea, the corporate approach does strike me as having a certain inevitability, and I think we’re best off accepting that and trying to deal with it as best we can. No doubt Greenpeace does not concur. Fine, let’s agree to disagree about that.

I have to reiterate that the problem is not genetic engineering per se, it’s the misuse of it. A lot of people in GE research are shaking their heads over Bt crops, which carry the very real risk of destroying the usefulness of one of the organic farmer’s most important tools. There are also concerns over the development of “superweeds” - if you develop a herbicide-resistant crop to permit higher doses of weedkiller, what if said crop crosspollinates with its weedy relatives? Bingo, herbicide-resistant weeds! (I believe this is the issue with canola.)

My sense is that the real fear among GE experts is that corporate knuckleheads are going to take the technology over a cliff. Most of the major problems with GE crops - this is key - were predicted well in advance. The companies went ahead anyway. I would not be surprised if much more stringent regulation of GE crops, akin to the drug approval process, was imposed soon. I just hope it doesn’t happen after some major corporate screwup.

Which brings me to a final issue, the use of GE crops in the Third World. The kinds of controls I’ve been talking about that make genetic engineering relatively safe - vigorous scientific review, a well-developed regulatory apparatus - are most apparent in the developed world. Developing countries are nowhere near as well equipped to assess the risks of this stuff or see that it is used properly. I think Greenpeace raises legitimate concerns in this respect.

My hope, however, is that environmental organizations make a nuanced argument, rather than claim genetic engineering is inherently evil. I’m not pointing any fingers at Charles Margulis, but a lot of anti-GE stuff is pretty shrill. The risk of that approach is double-edged - either environmentalists may get themselves dismissed as nuts, or they may stir up such a panic that genetic engineering is banned. Either outcome would be unfortunate.

7

Hello Cecil,

You state, “I would not be surprised if much more stringent regulation of GE crops, akin to the drug approval process, was imposed soon.” Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite is happening. In the March 25, 1999, Pesticide Toxic Chemical News, Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-Ill), chairman of a House
Agriculture subcommittee, said "We must be sure that regulatory excess does not
suffocate"the biotech industry, and demanded that EPA back down on its already weak regulation of Bt crops – so weak, in fact, that Greenpeace brought over 70 co-plaintiffs together to sue the agency in February (see http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/).

EPA has already agreed to change the Bt “plant pesticide” program to the “plant-expressed protectant” program, in response to biotech companies’ desire to avoid the word “pesticide,” which obviously causes them public relations problems (“yes, this potato that you are eating IS a pesticide” somehow hasn’t sold real well). Reminds me of when sewer sludge suddenly became known as “biosolids,” after an industry lobbying effort that included $300,000 of taxpayer money from EPA’s “education” budget.

As far as shrillness goes, thanks for the nod to “present company excepted.” I’m actually more concerned that reasoned criticism and precaution will be minimized in the face of a “can’t stand in the way of progress” mentality that assumes we have no options when DEFINING progress (progress for who? to what ends? etc). There are already several countries that have appropriately banned certain uses of the technology, and others that have moratoria until further testing assures safety. Such policies are welcome to prevent the truly “unfortunate outcomes” that we agree could be the result of continuing corporate screw-ups.

Peace,
CM

8

I’m a chemical engineer, so let me throw in my $0.02 on this issue. I see great potential in this technology, but I share cmargulis’ concerns that it is being used in a very reckless way. All major companies exist to make money, but certain companies are known as being especially profit-driven.
The crap that has been described above is why I got into polymer technology instead of biotech.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

9

Hi. As a college student about to graduate with a B.S. in Environmental Biology, I thought I’d put in my $0.02 as well. Although genetic engineering is an amazing technology and has many wonderful benefits, I think that the agricultural industry has been reckless in its application. The problem with genetically engineering organisms which will be released into the environment is that these are living creatures. Unlike machines, plants and animals do not just tamely do what we expect or desire–they spread seeds, breed, mutate, etc. And to believe that biology is advanced to the point where we can accurately predict the interactions of introduced organisms (whether genetically engineered or exotics) with the environment beforehand is simply naive. We can’t. We only have to look at the long history of deliberately-introduced exotics which were supposed to do one thing, and did something else entirely, to realize this. So although genetic engineering has done wonders in the area of medicine, I don’t feel that we are ready yet to apply it in the area of agriculture without a having a much better idea of what the consequences might reasonably be.

Also, I just wanted to add that I think that the loose bolt on the car is a faulty analogy. Changing a single base-pair in a gene sequence can have truly profound effects. For example, sickle-cell anemia, a deadly disease, is caused by a single alteration of a single base-pair in a single gene locus, and yet the effects for the people who have it are enormous.

Elaine C

10

Hi,

This is completely off the topic of the discussion you guys are having, but I figured it was good group to put this question to.

Can plants be genetically engineered to gigantic proportions? I have seen the idea in numerous television shows (admittedly, one of those was the Simpsons), and was wondering if it could actually be done.

If it is possible, why hasn’t it been done? (At least in the scope of my limited knowledge it hasn’t been done…) Wouldn’t this be a good wat to help alleviate world hunger and all that bad stuff?

Just wondering.

11

It seems like the main problem of the crops spreading out of control is that they should have used the Terminator gene on all the new crops, just in case. Thud. No problem. This has its own, relatively minor problems, yes, but as a precaution, it’s invaluable.

12

RE: Gigantic plants

To a certain degree, larger plants are possible (and have, in fact, been produced), but there’s no known ‘magic’ gene that can be inserted that will make gigantic plants. Even if there were, you’d get the square-cube problems of the plants collapsing under their own weight among other sticky issues.

13

This has been the most enlightened and enlightening discussion of these topics I’ve encountered (I know, no gushing; moving right along). I’d just like to express a few humble thoughts:
“Will the stuff hurt people too? Obvious problem, obvious solution: test and find out. Answer: no.” Depends on what you consider testing. The possible bad effects of anything, be it aspartame, acetaminophen, or any other product of industrial technology don’t generally show up until twenty years after they’re certified safe. You may suppose from this remark that I am anti-technology on principle. Not so; I merely happen to believe in measurable risk. A pretty good source told me some time back that McDonald’s and Burger King now use (or were at that time about to begin using) Monsanto’s gene-spliced potatoes without informing the public of the change. A year ago or more, I wrote Cecil a letter, hoping for conclusive confirmation or negation of this statement, but no luck. “You want fries with that?” Not for a while, kid. Though I don’t especially think there’s likely to be anything unsafe about eating these foods, I know that these are the same folks who said thirty years ago that their carcinogenic pesticides were perfectly safe. Ironically, when I asked a Monsanto crop transformation biologist what benefits these crops would have apart from enriching Monsanto, the answer began by noting that farmers using Bt seed would no longer have to expose themselves to carcinogenic pesticides.
The fact that these specific products don’t perform as advertised in the field is rather different than it would be in other industries. When the scientists incorrectly predict the behavior of these organisms, even in a single instance, it casts grave doubt on their self-stated certainty that they know what they’re doing. That’s pretty scary when what they’re doing is tinkering with the building blocks of the biosphere. On the other hand, if the scientists know the crops won’t work or are unsafe and are powerless to make their concerns public in the face of statements to the contrary by corporate management, we have no reliable assurances whatsoever concerning the safety of releasing these experimental species into the environment. Either way, between the arrogance of the crop transformation biologists and the venality of their management, we can’t trust a thing they say.
From St. Louis, home of Monsanto, I have no idea what the press is like in other places, but the mainstream media here give us a story about biotechnology every three weeks or so, and never is heard a discouraging word. I won’t try to address the way Monsanto’s funding has co-opted the educational mission of the local Science Museum. Although the friggin Monsanto argument carries great weight with me personally, the average joe isn’t worried if he isn’t being taxed over it, and the environmental argument is both more serious that Cecil originally made out and unlikely to be understood by most people. Myself, I want to go to bed and pull the covers over my head 'til this bad thing goes away.

14

Not sure how to respond, nemo. Your argument seems to be that we should not proceed with this (or any) technology unless there is no conceivable danger whatsoever. As you say, this is pretty much an argument for staying in bed all day. Whatever, babe.

15

As an admirer of yours, this pains me, but I must respectfully disagree with your summary of my remarks. I’ll admit I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. While I do think testing standards for over-the-counter drugs and the like are not rigorous enough, I also don’t think we should huddle in caves afraid of fire. I understand about risk-benefit analysis (a cold-blooded business, you once said, but necessary) and I understand that excessive caution would deprive people of the potential, and sometimes much-needed, benefits of new technologies. I’m only saying that in the specific case of bioengineered crops 1) not enough is known to make reliable assessments, and 2) because the potential for harm from this particular technology may be vastly greater than is ordinarily the case, ordinary testing standards are perhaps not adequate to the job at hand. As for wanting to hide until it goes away, I was trying whimsically to say that I find this issue scary. Of course there are things one can do to try to make these concerns more public, and I’m grateful to you and Mr. Margulis for doing one of them. But because Monsanto and other biotech companies are so powerful, and have so successfully silenced public debate on these issues, I fear it’s possible that this may be something we’re just going to have to live with, whether there are reasonable assurances of safety or not.

16

[[The possible bad effects of anything, be it aspartame, acetaminophen, or any other product of industrial technology don’t generally show up until twenty years after they’re certified safe.]] Nemo

Can you give examples of this? Are you saying that this is true of the products you name, or are those just examples of products we can’t be sure of?

[[You may suppose from this remark that I am anti-technology on principle. Not so; I merely happen to believe in measurable risk. A pretty good source told me some time back that McDonald’s and Burger King now use (or were at that time about to begin using) Monsanto’s gene-spliced potatoes without informing the public of the change…“You want fries with that?” Not for a while, kid.]]

I haven’t seen any evidence that “gene-spliced potatoes” might possibly hurt your health, but my real question is, if you’re so health conscious, what are you doing eating at McDonalds?
JillGat
Yeah, I’ll have the Big Mac, but none a those techno-fries.

17

Ha! But Jill’s point is a good one. It’s well established that a diet high in saturated fat will lead to a multitude of health problems and may appreciably shorten your life. Yet you’re more concerned with genetic engineering - the dangers of which, insofar as the food supply is concerned, are purely speculative.

18

1: NPR (and also the commercial media, I think) reported within the past year that researchers have evidence of a link between the use of acetaminophen and an increased risk of liver damage in some individuals. As for aspartame, I defer to Cecil, who first wrote maybe twenty years ago that the stuff might not be perfectly benign. I won’t presume to paraphrase or interpret his words, and I’m not really up on current research, but I believe there have also been more recent reports that it may interfere with some aspects of brain function in some way. Sorry I can’t give you more specifics - maybe someone else can. Look, I’m not especially worried about these substances, and I’m not raving that we should have a moratorium on their use or development. I merely cite them as examples to make the point that not everything we’re told is safe is really safe. I also said that I don’t think gene-spliced potatoes or other foods are especially likely to be dangerous to eat, only that we shouldn’t necessarily believe that they’re harmless just because biotech companies say they are.

2: In fact, I haven’t eaten at McDonald’s in a number of years, since some time before I gave up eating beef for various reasons, including health and environmental concerns. Not that my health and/or other vices are in any way germane to this discussion. I assume you were trying to be funny rather than snotty, so I’m sorry to disappoint you.

Have a nice day.

19

Just a comment on terminator technology. This technology costs to incorporate which will limit it’s introduction to crops with a greater return than regular soybeans or cotton varieties (at least in the near future). The technology has been slotted for use in value added varieties with traits such as soybeans with a special oil or protein which can be contracted out to farmers generally for a premium. The technology necessary to develop these special traits is expensive and I believe the terminator gene concept was developed to protect these investments.

Crops grown in the U.S. include both self and cross pollinated crops. Corn, a cross pollinated crop, is generally grown as a hybrid and new seed is bought yearly. It is possible to save seed of hybrid corn and it will produce viable plants for generations but hybrids are grown because they yield significantly better than open pollinated varieties. Seed from self pollinated crops, such as soybean, cotton, wheat and rice can be grown year in year out without losing yield or traits from the 'parent' generation. Seed from these crops are generally saved by most growers and new seed is only bought when  new 'improved' varieties become available. It is legal to save seed of these varieties to plant on your farm even though they are protected under law. It is not legal to sell a protected variety's seed without compensating the company who develeped it. This is to protect the research investment a company incurrs to develop that variety, which is substantial. Recently, Pioneer discontinued it's hard red winter wheat research program as it found that it couldn't justify the cost for the return they were getting. It seems that farmers were planting one of their varieties on approximately 70% of the hard red wheat acrerage grown. Pioneer only sold less than 10% of that seed. So, in the short run farmers can save a buck or two by saving seed for replanting. In the long run, however, without breeding programs/research, improved varieties with improved disease/insect resistance and better yield potential won't be forthcoming.

Warren Cork
Agronomy/Inf. Tech.
U of MO

20

As a matter of fact, I can. Here’s my column on the subject. Fears of aspartame thus far have proven to be unfounded. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) is a different story; it’s been established that chronic alcohol users face the possibility of liver damage if they also use this drug.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Do you feel that, because Tylenol has been shown to cause problems for certain people under certain conditions, it should never have been introduced?