 | |||
 | |||
| HOME • POETRY AND PHOTOS • ESSAYS • WRITING EXCERPTS • FREE CONCERTS • LINKS • 2005 EXTRAS | |||
| |||
|
2005 ESSAYS << June 2004 ESSAYS << Part I
(June/July) 2003 ESSAYS |
2005 Essays - June
Photographs courtesy of the USDA, Agricultural Research Service. See below for credits. "GOLDEN RICE, YELLOW MAIZE AND AMBER WAVES OF GRAIN: A 2005 UPDATE ON THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS DEBATE" Few of today's technologies have as great a potential to impact human existence as biotechnology. Whether through new medical treatments, pharmaceuticals or new or improved foods, advances in the field have begun reshaping some of the plains of the past into the frontiers of the future. The debate over genetically modified (GM) foods is one segment of the broader debate over biotechnology. It is a debate, however, which touches an important part of daily life -- the foods which fill cupboards and feed families both here and around the world. It is also a debate which goes well beyond the basic science of creating a genetically modified seed to include aspects of law, science, custom, culture, religion, industry, government, international trade and more. Much of this was discussed in the 2004 three-part essay series. The June 2005 essay will be the last on the subject. It is a short update covering some significant developments in the field as well as a status update on some of the materials covered last summer. The 2004 essays began with a trip to the grocery store. This year will be the same, but instead of the produce section, the first stop will be the snack food aisles . . . As it was last summer, the article will be interactive in the sense that the reader can go back and forth between the essay text and the links embedded within it. By clicking a link you can read more about the particular topic being discussed, then return to the essay by clicking your browser's "back" arrow. (The links are included for information purposes only. No guarantees are made as to the accuracy of the materials presented on the sites, although every effort has been made to search out reliable and respected sources of information.) Footnotes, bibliography and a list of internal links are also included at the end. The materials represented here are only a small fraction of what is available on this very complicated issue. The glossary link below has been provided as a reference for use as needed. If your browser does not allow you to see text in the box, click here to reach the glossary.* America is a nation that loves its snack foods. Candies, cookies, crackers, pastries, chips, baked goods and the like can fill shelf upon shelf along grocery store aisles with gooey, crunchy, sweet and chewy delights. Unfortunately, some of these products also are high in trans fats. Trans fats, like saturated fats and dietary cholesterol, can raise LDL (or "bad") cholesterol levels which can lead to an increased risk for coronary heart disease. Back in 1994, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (http://cspinet.org/) petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to have the country's food labels amended to include trans fats in addition to saturated fats to more adequately reflect the amounts of "heart-unhealthy" fats in foods. This process culminated with a final ruling by the FDA in July of 2003 requiring mandatory labeling for products containing .5 grams of trans fats or more. Although some manufacturers of food products have already begun including the notation on their labels, all manufacturers are required to do so by January 1, 2006. [More details on the process leading to this outcome can be found in the Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 133, Friday July 11, 2003, beginning on page 41434.] What exactly is a trans fat and what does it have to do with GM foods? In an FDA consumer website explaining the trans fat labeling it is stated that "the majority of trans fats [are] formed when liquid oils are made into solid fats like shortening and hard margarine. . . Essentially a trans fat is made when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil -- a process called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing those fats, of which "approximately 80% are from soybean oil" (n1). [The FDA site materials are available in both English and Spanish and can be reached by clicking here.] Among the topics covered last summer was a "next generation" of genetically modified products carrying benefits not only for farmers but also for consumers. One such product has arrived this year with Monsanto's introduction of its new VISTIVE soybeans. According to information available on the Monsanto company website (http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/layout/pub/news_media/09-01-04.asp), the VISTIVE soybeans "contain less than 3% linolenic acid, compared to 8% for traditional soybeans, resulting in a more stable soybean oil with a better flavor profile and less need for hydrogenation. Because soybeans with less linolenic acid reduce or eliminate the need for partial hydrogenation, trans fats in processed soybean oil can be reduced or eliminated." (n2) This, presumably, could lead to "healthier" or lower-fat foods for consumers. What is interesting about the low-linolenic trait, however,
was that is was developed through traditional means. "The low-linolenic
trait was created using conventional breeding, and the resulting plants
were cross-bred with herbicide-resistant GM soya to produce the new
variety," (n3)
which is a Roundup-Ready plant (for a further explanation of this GM
trait, please see Part I of the 2004 series.). If this new soybean is a
success, the future could bring other products currently in the Monsanto
pipeline such as soybeans yielding oils free of saturated fats and trans
fats, and ones enriched with higher levels of heart-healty Omega-3 fatty
acids. (n4).
A "Growing" Trend These developments are all part of the growing global shift
toward genetically modified crops, particularly soy, corn, cotton and
canola. In the U.S., annual acreage reports for 2003 - 2004 indicate that
45% of all corn, 76% of all upland cotton, and 85% of all soybeans were
grown from GM seeds, each up a few percentage points from the prior year.
(n5) Globally,
transgenic crops were grown "by approximately 8.25 million farmers in 17
countries." (n6) These
countries include (in order of acres sown): The U.S.A., Argentina, Canada,
Brazil, China, Paraguay, India, South Africa, Uruguay, Australia, Romania,
Mexico, Spain and the Phillipines." (n7)
Despite the extent to which
genetically modified crops have spread globally, reports of problems
associated with them have been scattered. Some, like the StarLink incident
in which genes from a variety of GM corn not approved for human
consumption were found in items on grocery store shelves, were discussed
last summer. Other issues which have emerged in the press since that time,
as cited in the journal Nature Biotechnology, have included: 1) Sygenta's accidental distribution of unapproved
corn (April 2005, p. 395). Between 2001 - 2004, the Swiss company
Syngenta mistakenly distributed small amounts of an unapproved GM corn
containing an ampicillin resistance marker gene. The company paid a fine
to the USDA and agreed to abide by certain other terms. (See both Aphis/USDA and
syngenta.com.) 2) A market for illegal cotton seeds (November 2004, p. 1333). In India, "agriculture minister Sharad Pawar admitted 'there is a flourishing illegal market in GM cotton seeds.'" It is estimated that "80% of all Bt (GM) cotton growing in India [is from] nameless unapproved varieties and not from one of the four government-approved varieties carrying the proprietary Monsanto insect-resistance gene." 3) Accidental release of GM grass seed in Oregon (January 2005, p. 6). USDA officials "have been investigating an accidental release from a test plot in Oregon of seeds of a GM grass (Roundup-Ready creeping bentgrass, a type of grass frequently used on golf courses). Critics of the grass (which is not yet deregulated and available to the public) claim that "the species spread aggressively and is likely to transmit herbicide-resistant genes to wild and weedy (plant) relatives." (See also wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/orb/RRGrass.htm.) 4) Gene flow to organic papayas (November 2004, p. 1333). In Hawaii, transgenic papaya virtually saved the state's papaya crop from a devastating virus. Now, organic papaya growers "have increasingly found their trees to have transgenes that confer resistance to [the] ringspot virus." To date, there have been no confirmed reports of harm to human health attributed to GM foods. More of a concern, as illustrated above, is containment, or preventing the uncontrolled spread of the genes of transgenic plants either to other GM or non-GM crops or to the general environment. This can occur in a number of ways, most commonly through cross pollination. Although GM crops are usually grown within specified buffer zones, wind, birds or animals can carry pollen from one plant to another where fertilization can occur. Seeds can also "wander" in the sense that "they can persist in the soil seed bank. They can mix in the nooks and crannies of harvesting equipment. They can bounce out of vehicles transporting them and germinate on roadsides . . . [all of] which can frustrate attempts at containment." (n8). In the case of transgenes found in corn in Mexico (see last section of essay below), the New York Times reported that the "wandering" genes "probably came from American food imports distributed in government stores for the poor and planted by curious farmers." (n9) This is an issue of concern not only for the genetically modified crops in existence, but also for the next generation of plants which will be modified to produce pharmaceuticals or specialty chemicals. (For a more in-depth explanation of the subject, visit http://www.plantpharma.org/ or The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology's "Pharming the Fields" conference page and report.) From Courts to the Court of Public Opinion When the first transgenic crops began to be sown, it was not uncommon to find entire fields vandalized or burned to the ground by opponents of genetic modification technologies. Now, opponents as well as proponents of agricultural biotechnology are increasingly turning to courts, legislatures and voters to plead their cases. Hawaii is a good example of a state in which all the issues mentioned above are coming into play. According to the information available from the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, the state's "fertile land and year-round growing season provide an attractive economic and geographic climate for companies engaged in the development, production and commercialization of new crops. Those advantages, in combination with its remote location, are in large part why more applications for field trials of GM crops include Hawaii as a site than any other state in the nation." (n10) The state is home to one of the major success stories in GM food, the papaya (see Part II of the 2004 essays), and in 2003 - 2004 its state legislators introduced more bills dealing with agricultural biotechnology than in any other state in the nation. (n11) Hawaii has also become a growing ground for trials of next-generation "pharm" crops, the exact locations of which generally were never revealed. This year the federal government was forced for the first time to disclose the locations of field tests for some of those GM crops. In a recent decision in Center For Food Safety v. Veneman (Westlaw #WL831379, soon to be indexed in FSupp2nd), the USDA was ordered by District Judge David Ezra to reveal locations of the growing sites of certain "pharm" crops in Hawaii. Although the information was given to the plaintiffs, a decision is still due as to whether that information will be available to the general public. (See also http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press_release2.8.05.cfm) In California, foes and proponents of genetically modified crops and foods have taken their cases to the voters in several parts of the state. Last summer news of Mendocino County's March 2004 measure banning GM organisms was included in Part I of the essay series. In November of 2004, similar measures were on the ballot in Butte, Humboldt, Marin and San Luis Obispo Counties. (Direct links to all county websites can be found at http://www.ca.gov/ on the right side of the home page.) While only the measure in Marin County passed, "anti-GMO measures are in the works in 12 more counties in the state." (n12) [The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology maintains a full database of state and federal legislation dealing with agricultural biotechnology. Click here to view the database.] Wheat, Corn and Rice: Staples in the U.S., Mexico and Asia "Consumer acceptance and the readiness of commercial markets are as important as food and environmental safety for biotech crops these days." (n13) Although there are many more aspects
of the GM foods debate that could be discussed, the series will close with
a brief look at one of the major hurdles still facing the industry:
consumer acceptance of GM staple food items like wheat (in the U.S. and
Europe), corn (in Mexico), and rice (in Asia).
Despite the extent to which soybeans
dominate much of the GM crop market, many consumers may associate dietary
soy with "tofu," soy milk, and other similar food items. However, the edible
uses and industrial
uses of soy go well beyond those basic products. Still, for most
people soy is not a dietary staple, at least not in the way that wheat,
corn and rice are in places like the U.S., Mexico and Asia. Wheat After many years of development, Monsanto announced last
year that it was temporarily shelving its efforts to introduce "the
world's first genetically engineered wheat, bowing to the concerns of
American farmers that the crop would endanger billions of dollars of
exports." (n14) Although
the company didn't abandon the wheat project, Monsanto representative said
"it might introduce the wheat perhaps in 4 - 8 years when other
genetically-engineered wheat might be ready for the market." (n15) While it is unknown what the reaction of Americans might
be to the genetic modification of the ingredients of their "daily bread"
might be, there are also other reasons that the genetic modification of
the grain has lagged behind soy and corn. "Wheat genetics are more
complex; wheat is a smaller crop; exports are of greater relative
importance; import country regulations are less well defined; and
competition among exporting countries is more intense." (n16) American
farmers, generally accepting of other GM crops, did not appear ready to
risk ceding any portion of overseas sales which "account for half the
nation's crop" (n17) by planting
GM wheat. Maize and
Mexico In the Zapotec Indian region around Oaxaca, Mexico, an
alarm was raised in 2001 when strains of transgenic corn were found in the
area along with native varieties. Why? According to the New York Times,
the area is "the birthplace of maize, where people took thousands of years
to domesticate its wild ancestor, where pre-Hispanic myths describe it as
a gift from the gods, and where cooks prepare it in dozens of ways to be
served at every meal . . . [The] . . . discovery of genetically modified
corn in the tiny plots [there] set off a national furor over what many . .
. [saw] as an assault by American agribusiness on the crop that is at the
core of Mexico's identity . . . [something] . . . sacred." (n18) Shortly after the finding, a coalition of Mexican
organizations requested "a study of the effects of GM corn on native maize
and related plants such as teosinte." (n19) The results
of the study were published last year by the Commission on Environmental
Cooperation, an organization established under one of the offshoots of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Among the recommendations contained in the report
(available at www.cec.org/maize,
were calls "for enforcing the current de facto moratorium on commercial
planting of GM corn in Mexico and for milling corn that is imported for
feed to keep it from being planted as acceptable ways for preserving the
integrity of the wild races of corn and teosinte, which are deemed of
special importance . . ." (n20). Findings
also stressed the importance of cultural as well as scientific
considerations in bringing GM corn into the country. The report was called
"fundamentally flawed . . . [with] recommendations [which] did not flow
from the panel's own scientific conclusions" (n21) by the U.S.
government and in conflict with U.S. policies. Since the report's publication, Mexican legislators
have passed laws regulating GM crops and biosecurity, but "the ban on
commercial planting of GM corn is still in effect." (n22)
Rice and
Asia As
a part of last summer's series, the idea of genetic modification being
used to adapt crops to combat hunger and malnutrition in the poorest
regions of the world was touched on briefly. One crop designed exclusively
to meet such goals was Golden, or proVitamin A-enriched rice. Critics of
the rice claimed, among other things, that proVitamin-A levels in the rice
were not sufficient to meet daily requirements in a standard
diet. Earlier this year, Swiss company Syngenta announced that
it had created a new variety of Golden Rice, Syngenta GR2, which contains
"37 micrograms of proVitamin A per gram, 23 times as much as the first
variety." (n23) According
to statements on the company's website, Syngenta has no plans to develop
the rice commercially. Instead, it has donated the rice to the Golden Rice
Humanitarian Board to make it accessible to some of the world's poorest
farmers. (Go to http://www.syngenta.com/en/media/position_inv.aspx
for more details.) On a broader scale, the ISAAA says in their Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM
Crops 2004 report that "the one single event that is likely to
have the greatest impact (globally) is the approval and adoption of Bt
rice in China . . . probably in 2005. The adoption of biotech rice by
China not only involves the most important food crop in the world but
[also] the culture of Asia." (n24) As with
corn in Mexico, rice is part of the fabric of rural existence and vital to
the culture of many countries within Asia. Some believe that opening the
door to GM rice - and other products - may very well determine the future
of GM food globally. (To read an article on the subject by Stanford
scholar John Feffer, click
here.) * * * The
debate on genetically modified food will undoubtedly continue for years to
come, especially as new generations of products move from the lab to the
market. The material here has been presented with the hope of sparking
interest in this complex but important subject, and readers are encouraged
to continue to learn more about the subject on their own. Please visit the
"Essays" section again in July when a new topic will be introduced: "Gas
Wars, Green Cars and The Road Ahead: A Clear Future?" Photo credits: Lemont Rice by
David Nance, US Long Grain Rice by Keith Weller, Healthy Wheat Field
(Nebraska) by Stephen Ausmus, and Corn by Doug Wilson. All from the United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service. LIST OF LINKS INCLUDED IN
ESSAY Glossary:
www.fao.org/biotech/index-glossary.asp Center for Science in the
Public Interest: http://cspinet.org FDA TransFat Page:
www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/transfat.html Monsanto VISTIVE
Soybeans:
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/layout/pub/news_media/09-01-04.asp Aphis/USDA
Compliance: www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/compliance12.html Syngenta/Bt10 Media
Release:
www.syngenta.com/en/media/article.aspx?pr=040805&lang=en Creeping Bentgrass:
wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/orb/RRGrass.htm Plant
Pharmaceuticals: www.plantpharma.org Pew Initiative on Food
and Biotechnology/"Pharming the Fields":
http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0717 Center for Food Safety
Press Release: www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press_release2.8.05.cfm
State of CA County
Links: www.ca.gov Legislative Database, Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology:
http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/legislation Edible Uses of Soy:
www.soystats.com/2004/edibleuses.htm Industrial Uses of
Soy: www.soystats.com/2004/industrialuses.htm CEC Maize in Mexico
Report: www.cec.org/maize Syngenta/Golden Rice:
www.syngenta.com/en/media/position_inv.aspx ISAAA
Report: www.isaaa.org (Click ISAAA Brief 32-2004) Feffer Article "Asia to
Determine the Future of GM Food":
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4956 FOOTNOTES - The
following are the footnotes indicated in the text in parentheses with the
letter "n" and a number. If you click the asterisk at the end of the
footnote, it will take you back to the paragraph where you left
off. n1 - "VISTIVE
Low-Linolenic Soybeans - Consumer Benefits." Available online at
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/layout/enhanced_value/vistive/consumer_benefits.asp.
Viewed 5/12/2005. (*) n2 - "Monsanto
Launches VISTIVE Soybeans; Will Provide a Trans Fats Solution for the Food
Industry." Available online at
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/04/09-01-04.asp. Viewed 5/12/2005.
(*) n3 - "A
Question of Breeding," New Scientist, Vol. 185, No. 2491, 19 March
2005, p. 5. (*) n4 - Monsanto
Company, "A Clear Focus: 2003 Annual Report." St. Louis: Monsanto
Company, November 2003, p. 13. (*) n5 - United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS), Acreage Report, Washington D.C., June 2004, pp.
24-25(*) n6 - James,
Dr. Clive, ISAAA, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:
2004, Executive Summary. ISAAA Publication 32-2004. Ithaca, New York:
ISAAA, 2004, p. 3.(*) n8 -
Ellstrand, Norman, "Going to Great Lengths to Prevent the Escape of Genes
That Produce Specialty Chemicals," reprint from Plant Physiology,
Vol. 132, Aug. 2003, pp. 1770 - 1774, p. 2. (*) n9 - Malkin,
Elisabeth, "Science and Culture Clash in a Mexican Staple: Corn," New
York Times, March 27, 2005, p. A10. (*) n10 - "State
Legislative and Local Activities Related to Agricultural Biotechnology
Continue to Grow in 2003 - 2004," Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology, online Factsheet. Available at
http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/legislation/factsheet.php.
View May and June 2005. (*) n12 -
Meadows, Robin, "Three of Four County Anti-GMO Measures Fail,"
California Agriculture, Vol. 59, No. 1, January - March 2005, p. 6.
(*) n13 - Jaffe,
Gregory, as quoted in "Monsanto Shelves Plans for Modified Wheat," New
York Times, May 11, 2004, p. C1. (*) n14 -
Pollack, Andrew, "Monsanto Shelves Plan for Modified Wheat," New York
Times, May 11, 2004, p. C1. (*) n16 - Wilson,
William W., Janzen, Edward L., and Dahl, Bruce L. "Issues in the
Development and Adoption of Genetically Modified (GM) Wheat,"
AgBioForum 6 (3) 2003, p. 101. (*) n23 - "News
In Perspective - Trials of Rice," New Scientist, Vol. 186, No. 493,
April 2005, p. 7(*) BIBLIOGRAPHY "A Question of Breeding," New
Scientist, Vol. 185, No. 2491, March 19, 2005, p. 5 Bouchie, Aaron, and KSJ,
"GM Containment Problems Around the Globe," Nature Biotechnology,
Vol. 22, No. 11, November 2004, p. 1333 Center for Food Safety,
"Government Forced to Disclose Locations of Test Sites of
Biopharmaceutical Crops," on-line news release available at
www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press_release2.8.05.cfm. Viewed
5/12/2005. Ellstrand, Norman, personal
interview, May 2005 Ellstrand, Norman, "Going
to 'Great Lengths' to Prevent the Escape of Genes that Produce Specialty
Chemicals," Plant Physiology, Vol. 132, August 2003, pp. 1770 -
1774 Federal Register, "Food
Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling, Nutrient Content
Claims, and Health Claims." Final Rule. Vol 68, No. 133, Friday July 11,
2003, pp. 41434 - 41466+. Fox, Jeffrey, "USDA
Scrutinizes GM Organism Regulations," Nature Biotechnology, Vol.
23, No. 1, January 2005, p. 6 James, Dr. Clive,
Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004. Ithaca, New
York: ISAAA, 2004 Laurence, Stacy, "Agbio
Keeps on Growing," Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 23, No. 3, March
2005, p. 281 Malkin, Elisabeth.
"Science and Culture Clash in a Mexican Staple: Corn," New York
Times, March 27, 2005, p. A10 Meadows, Robin, "Three of
Four County Anti-GMO Measures Fail," California Agriculture, Vol.
59, No. 1, January - March 2005, p. 6 Monsanto Company, A
Clear Focus: 2003 Annual Report. St. Louis: Monsanto Company, November
2003 Monsanto Company, "VISTIVE
Low-linoleic Soybeans - Consumer Benefits." On-line document at Monsanto
Company website:
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/layout/enhanced_value/vistive/consumer_benefits.asp.
Viewed May 12, 2005. Monsanto Company,
"Monsanto launches VISTIVE Soybeans; Will Provide a Trans Fat Solution for
the Food Industry." On-line document at Monsanto Company website:
www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/04/09-01-04.asp. Viewed May 12,
2005. "News in Perspective - Trials of
Rice," New Scientist, Vol. 186, No. 493, April 2005, p.
7 Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology, "Factsheet: State Legislative and Local Activities
Related to Agricultural Biotechnology Continue to Grow in 2003 - 2004."
On-line document available at
http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/legislation/factsheet.php.
Viewed May and June 2005. Pollack, Andrew. "Monsanto
Shelves Plans for Modified Wheat," New York Times, May 11, 2004, p.
C1 and C8 Postman, Neil.
Technolopoly. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. "Reburnishing Golden Rice,"
Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 23, No. 4, April 2005, p. 395 Sanchez, Cory, telephone
interview with Florigene representative, May 2005 United States Code, Title
36, Section 187 (Public Law 99-449, October 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 1128),
"National Floral Emblem." United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics Service, Acreage Report.
Washington D.C.: USDA, June 2004 Wilson, William, Janzen,
Edward L. and Dahl, Bruce L. "Issues in Development and Adoption of
Genetically Modified (GM) Wheats," AgBioForum 6 (3) 2003, pp. 101 -
112 Click here to
return to the "Essay Archives" page |
||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
|
Comments? Questions? Send an e-mail to mailto:4dorothyb@dorothyswebsite.org | |||
