| |
|
Published in Winter 2004
|
Americans and Canadians react to Mexico corn-troversy
|
| |
|
By Joshua Ostroff
|
| |
|
|
American and Canadian officials
remain undaunted by the discovery of genetically modified maize in Mexico,
despite a nationwide ban there on its planting, and have no immediate plans to increase current levels
of regulation.
The surprise discovery of
transgenes in traditional maize land races was first reported in 2001 and
immediately sparked a growing controversy among environmentalists, farmers and
scientists over its ramifications.
|
© Monsanto Company
The United States exports 20 percent of its maize crop, valued at about US$5 billion annually. |
"We've been breeding
different varieties since we first domesticated crops. These issues are not brand new—biotechnology is just
another dimension to it," says Dr. Philip Macdonald, of the Canadian government's
Plant Biosafety Office. "The whole assessment process is to determine that when
you authorize something for the environment, is it safe? And that's recognizing
the fact that those genes are going to go other places—crop to crop."
Though Canada and the United
States have been pushing forward with GM crops such as Bt corn—engineered
by biotechnology giant Monsanto to be insect-resistant—Mexico established
a moratorium in 1998 to prevent any potential adverse impact on the diversity
of its maize. Nevertheless, biologists discovered that genetically modified DNA
had gotten into native maize, raising questions about potential impacts on
health and biodiversity. Despite government declarations that the already
approved transgenes pose no safety threat, many on the anti-GM side believe
that we still don't know enough about the risks.
"Part
of the worry about releasing these organisms into the environment is that no
one knows what is going to happen as a result and no one knows how to unscrew
it if everything gets screwed up. Clearly that's a profound concern because
Mexico is the home of maize," says Raj Patel, an economist-sociologist and
policy analyst with the California-based nongovernmental organization, Food
First.
Patel claims the absence of
independent testing is a source of worry. "US and Canadian consumers are being
used as guinea pigs. The US Department of Agriculture and producers of these
crops say no one has yet fallen ill, but they say that out of ignorance.
There's no proof one way or the other. The reasons that Mexicans are concerned
are the same reasons that [Americans] and Canadians should be concerned—that
the science hasn't been done. They don't know what's going on."
The Canadian government,
which makes "science-based" assessments, is not preparing any vast policy
changes based on the transgenic maize discovery in Mexico. At the moment, if a
GM plant is approved for unconfined release there's no mitigation of gene flow
because the government has deemed the gene to be safe.
But Macdonald says they are
not ignoring the issue either. They've sponsored further risk-assessment
research, some of which centers around pollen flow and similar
biosecurity issues, and admit that just as unwanted DNA has snuck into Mexico,
the same could happen to Canada.
"It heightened the awareness
that none of us are invulnerable. The issues around unauthorized events
appearing in your environment are consistent wherever [they arise]. And it
moved that whole concept of 'adventitious presence' [the accidental co-mingling
of trace amounts of GMOs in non-GM crops] back to the top of the agenda."
Though Canada and the United
States have been pretty consistent in their processes, Macdonald says that
unapproved GM crops developing overseas will eventually reach commercialization
and could illegally enter Canada.
In the recent past,
genetically modified StarLink corn, which was not approved for human
consumption, made it into North American food products. Though contaminated
taco shells are more easily controlled than pollen or seeds with product
recalls and testing, a recent investigation have found that more than one
percent of American corn still contains traces of the StarLink protein.
"These issues are front and
center for us," Macdonald says, "how will we deal with the issues of things
coming across our borders that we don't want either? So that's our area of
policy development."
"I think we need to make sure we have pure non-GMO crops for those people who want them," says Nathan Danielson of the National Corn Growers Association. |
The US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) extended its approval of Bt corn for an additional
seven years in October 2001 and spokesperson Dave Deegan notes, "before the EPA
approves any of these corn varieties for commercial application, we do a very
comprehensive risk assessment evaluation, where we look for any potential
effects for human health and any potential ecological effects, so we have to
conclude it can be used safely before we allow it to be used."
He says they increased
buffer zones around Bt cornfields, but that their concern was not so much gene
flow as the fear of insects building Bt resistance. He adds they'll await the
results of CEC's study before reaching any conclusions on the Mexican maize
issue but that, thus far, "I'm not aware that there has been any change of
policy."
However, any regulatory
change is considered unlikely, given that the EPA concluded during their 2001
review: "the potential for gene transfer between corn (maize) and any receptive
plants within the US, its possessions and territories was of limited
probability and nearly risk free."
American farmers, however,
appear split on the issue.
Representing producers in
35 states, the American Corn Growers Association is largely anti-GM, due to
shrinking export markets and the inability to guarantee non-GM food crops due
to the possibility of gene flow—a situation the maize issue makes even
more problematic.
In its online brochure, the
association asks, "If a farmer plants GMOs that contaminate a neighbor's field,
who will be held liable? If a farmer plants, harvests and markets a crop he or
she believes to be non-GMO but that has become contaminated, who will be held
liable?"
The National Corn Growers
Association (NCGA), which boasts over 30,000 members from 48 states and has a
pro-GM position, is still displeased by the maize discovery. Its main concern
is also what uncontrollable gene flow might mean for farmers who choose not to
grow GM crops.
"I think it's terrible, it
gives the whole technology a black eye when this happens. We need to use the
technology wisely if we're going to use it at all," says Nathan Danielson, a
molecular biologist and NCGA head. "I hate to speculate about the ramifications
for a US or Canadian grower would be because of an accident or intentional
misplanting in Mexico. If people really believe that these are dangerous genes,
then there will be some impact. My feelings personally are that these genes
aren't dangerous and corn has been rearranging its genome since it was
created."
However, he adds, "I think
we need to make sure we have pure non-GMO crops for those people who want them,
and we need to safeguard the people growing those."
But Danielson feels that
his farmers have considered the potential repercussions and the third that are
growing GM corn have concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks.
"Long-time growers
understand that trading tomorrow's environmental health for today's profit is a
false economy and I think that's true with biotechnology, too. This is not a
decision many of them have made lightly. The growers I've met are very
skeptical people and the reason you see the adoption rates that you do is that
it makes economic sense—but they won't do it for short-term gain only. If
they don't have their land, they have nothing.
"But let's face it, we all
thought DDT was great for awhile too."
This is precisely the
concern of an increasing number of people around the globe. Europe and Asia
have restricted GM imports and certain African nations have refused GM food
aid. Meanwhile, nine out of 10 in a Consumers Association of Canada poll support
GM food labeling and an ABC News poll reported 93 percent of Americans feel the
same way, adding the majority would use the labels to avoid GM food.
This lack of consumer
confidence in GMOs is why, Food First believes, the US government is not going
to make any policy changes based on the Mexican maize discovery.
"Hell no, there's every
incentive for them not to do that," argues Raj Patel. "It legitimizes the
demand that GM food be labeled and that's something that the US government is
very strenuously resisting. It strengthens the legal justification for ending
the 'substantial equivalence' between GM and non-GM food."
"The reason genetically
modified food is so successful is that it's able to pass itself off as regular
food in the food system. The moment it gives up that privilege through
increased levels of regulation, then consumers may decide they don't want to
eat it."
|
Top
