Is Our Food Safe? Genetically Engineered Crops Are
Here -- Whether We Like It Or Not
by
Karen Charman
Dissident Voice
February 23, 2003
Americans
are continually told we have the safest food supply in the world. But recent
revelations about genetically engineered food crops -- specifically ones that
grow pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals in their plant tissue --
raise serious questions about the safety and future of our food. The practice
in question is called biopharming. It is being touted as the agricultural
biotech industry's next bonanza, the savior that will bring chronically broke
commodity grain farmers not only desperately needed profits, but riches. And in
today's harsh rural landscape of bankruptcies and broken dreams, promises of
generating $2 million an acre -- the figure commonly bandied about in the farm
belt -- are enticing indeed.
"Widespread consumer
rejection of genetically engineered food in foreign markets has already cost American
grain farmers dearly."
This particular dream,
however, is more likely to turn into a nightmare -- for both farmers and the
eating public. Biopharming may even be the proverbial straw that breaks the
back of American farming. Why? Because crop plants and farm fields are not
closed units. As biological entities that exist in an open environment, plants
evolved to spread their traits and mix with, or "contaminate," other
crops. It's in their nature.
So, if the government allows
biotech companies to test and grow experimental drug- and chemical-producing
food crops in the open environment, we better get used to the idea of eating
those pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals in our food. As Dirk Maier, a
professor of agricultural and biological engineering points out in a Purdue
University fact sheet: "Whenever new genetic material is introduced into
the agricultural crop mix, trace contamination of non-target crops is unavoidable.
This fact is common knowledge in the seed industry."
What foods are we actually
talking about? At this point, mainly corn, the biopharmers' crop of choice. But
biopharm companies are also tinkering with soybeans, canola, rice, barley,
tomatoes, potatoes, lettuce, wheat and sugarcane.
Widespread consumer
rejection of genetically engineered food in foreign markets has already cost
American grain farmers dearly. European officials have said Europe would
prohibit American grain exports if transgenic crops producing pharmaceutical or
industrial compounds are planted because of health concerns about
pharma-tainted food crops.
Too Late?
U.S. Department of
Agriculture records show that more than 300 experimental pharma plots have been
grown in the open environment in 36 states since 1991, most in the farm belt in
the last three years.
In November 2002, the
Texas-based biotech company, ProdiGene, was busted in Nebraska for
contaminating 500,000 bushels of soybeans with pharmaceutical corn the company
had grown in the same field the previous year. The tainted soybeans were
confiscated at a grain elevator in Aurora, Neb. -- but not before they were
mixed in with 500,000 bushels that had been destined for the food supply.
Two months before, ProdiGene
was ordered to burn 155 acres of a neighbor's corn crop in Iowa that USDA
inspectors said may have had been contaminated by the company's experimental
test plots.
At the moment, federal
regulations don't permit pharma crops to contaminate food crops. However, the
biotech industry and some of its promoters would like to change that, because,
as Prof. Maier's comment above reveals, it won't be possible to keep them out
of our food.
Grain handlers and
processors -- those who collect, clean and store commodity grain -- learned
this lesson in 2000 when StarLink, an unapproved biotech corn, ended up in more
than 300 food products. StarLink contamination prompted massive food recalls and
a quagmire of lawsuits. Now this segment of the grain industry is demanding
that federal regulators set threshholds that allow measurable quantities of
pharma crop contamination.
"Federal agencies are
now grappling with the question of how to cope with pharma crops -- largely
outside the public's gaze."
Grain industry
representatives aren't the only ones pushing to allow these substances into our
food. So are some biotech researchers at leading agricultural universities.
According to The Washington Post, even the consumer group, Center for Science
in the Public Interest, is arguing that trace amounts of pharma crops should be
permitted if the substances undergo early safety tests.
Food manufacturers have been
enthusiastic supporters of biotech food. But they are understandably mortified
at the prospect of expensive recalls and the potential to damage consumer
confidence in their products. They have come out strongly against using food
crops for biopharming.
But after speaking with John
Cady, president of the National Food Processors Association, my hunch is that
if the government set tolerance levels and deemed those levels safe, the food
manufacturing sector's concern would diminish. "As long as the rules are
the way they are, there has to be zero tolerance," Cady said.
Downplaying Health Risks
Federal agencies are now
grappling with the question of how to cope with pharma crops -- largely outside
the public's gaze. Instead of raising the alarm, some media reports are
downplaying the risks. Both The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times recently
reported that in most cases, the bioengineered industrial or pharmaceutical
proteins would not be harmful, because as Los Angeles Times reporter Stephanie
Simon put it, they would "dissolve harmlessly in the gut."
Michael Hansen, a scientist
with Consumer's Union, says that blanket assumption can't be made. Many of
these compounds may break down in the gut, but to know for sure, each one would
have to be tested for digestibility in a form it is likely to be ingested.
"We don't know if those tests are being required, because this is all
confidential," Hansen said. "Right now we're talking in a data
vaccuum."
As with all biotech food
crops, safety testing of bioengineered crops that produce industrial compounds
is currently voluntary. If the crop produces a drug, it must undergo safety
tests.
"We are not designed to
ingest industrial compounds."
But the testing procedures
typically used are inadequate. They don't examine either the whole food or even
the biopharmaceutical actually produced in the plant. Instead, standard
practice is to use a surrogate version of the inserted protein that is produced
in bacteria. This method may be cheaper and easier for companies. But plants
and bacteria process genes very differently, so testing a bioengineered protein
in bacteria can't detect whether the protein creates toxic or allergenic
substances in the plant.
We are not designed to
ingest industrial compounds. Pharmaceuticals -- which often have unpleasant and
sometimes dangerous side effects -- are generally prescribed in specific doses
for specific illnesses. They don't belong in our food. But if these substances
are grown in food crops, they will undoubtedly end up in our kitchens and on
our plates -- whether we want them there or not.
Karen Charman is an investigative journalist
specializing in agriculture, health and the environment. This article first
appeared in TomPaine.com (www.tompaine.com)