Conscious Choice: Genetically Engineered Foods Breakdown

March 2001

Genetically Engineered Foods Breakdown

by Ben Lilliston

When an unapproved genetically engineered corn contaminated the U.S. food supply last fall, the debate over this highly controversial new technology shifted sharply. Suddenly, many of the issues that biotech critics had been warning about for nearly a decade were at the forefront. The once solid front of biotech support from nearly all sectors of the food production system began to peel away.

Genetically engineered StarLink corn was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1997, and first planted in the U.S. in 1998. The StarLink registration required the company’s manufacturer — at that time AgrEvo — to restrict the corn’s use to animal feed. EPA scientists were still concerned that StarLink might cause allergic reactions in humans. In the fall of 2000 GE Food Alert, a coalition of consumer, environmental, and farm groups, discovered StarLink in Taco Bell taco shells bought at the supermarket.

The StarLink discovery in the food supply raised a host of troubling questions about genetically engineered (GE) foods in general, including the reliability of allergy testing, genetic contamination, the adequacy of regulatory oversight, legal liability, and losses of important export markets. In the wake of StarLink, many within the strong coalition of biotech supporters — including conservative farm organizations, food companies, supermarket chains, and grain processors — began to ask the obvious question: just what do we get out of this deal?

Inserted within StarLink corn is a unique protein, Cry9c, that acts as an insecticide designed to combat the corn borer. The Cry9c protein has never before entered the food supply and it has several characteristics consistent with known food allergens. Specifically, it is stable at extremely high temperatures and survives gastric juices that exist in the human gut.

In 1998, StarLink was grown on approximately 10,000 acres, in 1999 approximately 250,000 acres, and on 340,908 acres in 2000. When the StarLink disaster broke, it quickly became clear that many farmers had not been informed by seed dealers and StarLink maker Aventis (which had bought AgrEvo) that it was restricted to animal feed. Additionally, the EPA’s registration required farmers growing StarLink to establish a 660-foot buffer zone to ensure that pollen from the StarLink corn did not drift and contaminate additional corn that might end up in the food supply. But many farmers were unaware of the 660-foot buffer zone requirement.

As Aventis desperately attempted to limit StarLink’s presence in the food supply, it became clear that the contamination was much more widespread than expected. The contamination was occurring because of some inherent difficulties controlling genetically engineered crops. Pollen from genetically engineered StarLink had drifted to neighboring farms whose growers had no idea their crop was contaminated. And StarLink corn had been mixed with other corn, either in farm storage bins or at the local grain elevator. So even a small amount of StarLink could contaminate large amounts of corn. Last fall, it was estimated that nearly half of Iowa’s corn was contaminated with StarLink.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in charge of ensuring food safety, the agency had not been monitoring StarLink’s presence in the food supply. Following the discovery of StarLink by the GE Food Alert coalition, the FDA began testing food products and ultimately requested the recall of over 300 food products. At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control began investigating more than forty complaints by people reporting allergic reactions after eating products that had tested positive for StarLink — primarily taco shells. The agency has yet to reach any conclusions.

The difficulty determining the allergenicity of StarLink points out one of the major health concerns relative to all genetically engineered foods. Nearly all genetically engineered foods currently on the market contain proteins that have not been in the food supply before. Many scientists, including the British Medical Association, have questioned the potential allergy risks these new proteins may pose — particularly because we do not have a surefire set of tests to determine whether a new protein is an allergen for humans.

Hardest hit by the StarLink disaster was the agriculture community. Farmers, grain elevators, and grain processors all paid an immediate and heavy price. Farmers had to worry about whether their corn was contaminated by StarLink through pollen drift. Grain elevators had to worry about whether they were buying StarLink-contaminated corn, and whether the shipments they were selling to food processors Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) were contaminated. And those companies began an extensive system of testing, routinely rejecting shipments, to ensure their product was StarLink-free. While it is difficult to assess these immediate direct costs, most estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Other key export markets, particularly the European Union and Japan, immediately raised questions about the integrity of U.S. corn — could we keep the StarLink out of export shipments? When StarLink was found in U.S. shipments to Japan in November and South Korea in January, corn exports dropped almost immediately by 2 percent, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates. With economic losses mounting, two class action lawsuits were filed against Aventis, requesting damages associated with lost export markets.

StarLink raised the red flag many farm activists had been hoisting about genetically engineered crops. As long as genetically engineered crops are not universally approved by some of our key export partners, they are going to cost U.S. farmers exports, particularly when a solid system of segregating GE from non-GE crops is not in place.

Many of the problems associated with StarLink, and genetically engineered foods in general, lie at the feet of a U.S. regulatory system which has generally allowed biotech companies to regulate themselves — without any enforcement mechanisms in place. The EPA’s approval of StarLink reflected a naïve faith that Aventis would act responsibly to ensure the biotech corn never reached the human food supply. The FDA did not test for StarLink based on that same belief that it would not enter the food supply. Since this modified disaster, the USDA has continued its aggressive support of biotechnology, even going so far as to ask the EPA to retroactively approve StarLink — clearing the way for it to enter the food supply, and limiting Aventis’ legal liability.

The StarLink fiasco has changed the landscape of the discussion over GE crops. The next year will likely see continued friction and controversy on several fronts. Here are a few critical areas of engagement:

Regulatory Battles

In 1992, then Vice-President Dan Quayle’s Council on Competitiveness announced the FDA’s policy for genetically engineered foods, declaring that they were substantially equivalent to conventional crops. This FDA policy, which does not require labeling or mandatory safety testing, has been harshly criticized in the U.S. and abroad and came under particularly strong criticism in late 1999 and early 2000, when a series of public hearings produced large protests in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.

Responding to the extensive criticism, the FDA proposed revised rules on regulating genetically engineered food in January 2001. The new rules followed nearly word for word the recommendations of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Biotech companies would be required to "consult" with the FDA and a "voluntary" system of labeling would be put in place. The two mild modifications did nothing to address the primary criticisms of the U.S. regulatory system, and have done nothing to ensure consumer confidence either in the U.S. or abroad.

The EPA and USDA have also come under criticism for their handling of GE crops, which was largely responsible for the StarLink disaster. The agency has yet to guard against pest resistance for genetically engineered Bt crops; ensure the safety of beneficial insects such as the Monarch butterfly, or guard against pollen drift. In fact, the USDA has been a long-time cheerleader for biotech. The agency has itself developed several biotech crops, including the Terminator technology that renders crops sterile.

In the coming year, several bills will be introduced at the federal level regarding genetically engineered crops. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who introduced legislation last year on GE foods, will likely introduce legislation requiring labeling for GE crops and toughening up safety testing requirements. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) is expected to introduce legislation which consolidates responsibility for overseeing biotech crops into one inter-agency task force, instead of splitting responsibility between the three agencies.

At the state level, legislative activity will be even more frenetic. Last year, bills calling for labeling, a moratorium on the planting of GE crops, and establishing legal liability all were introduced. Massachusetts and a Colorado county have already introduced similar bills this year, and at least another dozen states are expected to follow in 2001.

Farmers Lose

StarLink was a cold shower for many farmers. It had an immediate impact by restricting foreign markets, particularly Japan. It re-emphasized the critical need for segregating crops. It raised awareness of cross pollination (now it is important for farmers to know what their neighbor is planting). And it began the difficult discussion of "liability." The unique challenges genetically engineered crops pose for farmers can no longer be ignored.

Conservative farm organizations like the National Corn Producers Association and the American Farm Bureau have asked that the federal government not approve any more genetically engineered crops for animal feed that have not been approved for human consumption. Additionally, they have begun to educate their membership about which crops were not approved for export to Japan and Europe. More progressive farm organizations, like the National Family Farm Coalition and the American Corn Growers Association, have called for a halt to the planting of GE crops because they hurt farmers economically. Those groups, along with the Illinois Stewardship Alliance and other family farm groups, have kicked off a "Farmer to Farmer" campaign designed to educate farmers directly about the risks of planting GE crops.

The year 2000 signaled the first year in which there was a decline, albeit tiny, in the planting of GE crops in the U.S. It is expected that there will a much more significant drop in 2001. With more opportunities to get premium prices with non-GE crops, and grain companies like ADM and Staley actually warning farmers about the need to export to foreign markets, it is expected that many farmers will decline to plant GE crops this year. Even the Illinois Department of Agriculture sent a letter in January to seed dealers warning them about planting crops that have yet to be approved in Europe.

Several states, including Minnesota and Nebraska, are expected to introduce legislation establishing liability on the part of the patent holder — not the farmer — for economic damages associated with genetically engineered crops. Liability legislation will likely also be introduced at the national level. The biotech industry is expected to fight each of these bills vigorously.

In addition to potential economic losses, new questions about the effectiveness of GE crops are arising. University of Nebraska researchers found last year that Roundup Ready Soybeans experienced lower yields than non-GE crops. Roundup Ready Soybeans are engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. University of Missouri recently associated this brand of soybean with a fungus that has been killing off soybeans. The cotton industry is concerned that genetically engineered Bt cotton may be of inferior quality; it is having trouble running Bt cotton through processing machines. And the impacts of genetically engineered Bt (an otherwise naturally occurring bacterium often used by organic farmers) in the soil and in pollen are still being studied — particularly their impacts on non-target species like the Monarch butterfly.

Trade

Perhaps the most important barrier to widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops around the world, was that consumers outside the U.S. were largely rejecting the technology. Opposition in Europe to genetically engineered foods has created increasing tension between U.S. and European trade representatives. Greater scrutiny and opposition to genetically engineered foods in Japan, South Korea, and India have also created tensions.

Genetically engineered foods present some difficult challenges in the trade realm. The U.S. has challenged Europe’s ability to ban U.S. beef treated with growth hormones in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. has hesitated to challenge other nation’s policies regarding genetically engineered crops at the WTO, for fear of a global backlash. But such a challenge may still be coming. The BioSafety Protocol, an international treaty agreed upon under the 1992 U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, established the right of national governments to adopt their own regulations on GE crops. The U.S. has yet to ratify the treaty. Yet to be decided is whether a WTO decision would overrule the Biosafety Protocol. Another international body looking at genetically engineered foods is the Codex Alimentarious — part of the United Nations — which establishes food safety and consumer information rules. The Codex will be meeting several times throughout 2001 while working toward establishing international standards for these foods.

How genetically engineered foods are treated on the international stage will go a long way toward determining their acceptance. Will countries be allowed to reject genetically engineered crops based on their own concerns, be they scientific or moral and ethical? Will countries be able to demand labeling? Will they be able to set regulatory standards tougher than ours?

The Marketplace Rules

Ultimately, acceptance of genetically engineered foods will likely be decided in the marketplace. Consumer demand for non-GE foods has driven the market in Europe and Asia. The organic and natural food market in the U.S. is making efforts to avoid genetically engineered crops. And even larger U.S. food companies such as Frito-Lay, Procter and Gamble, Gerber, and even McDonald’s are trying to buy non-genetically engineered foods.

The FDA’s proposed rules for voluntary labeling will likely have some impact on companies loudly touting their GE-free products. The next wave of GE foods, long promised by the biotech industry, would include traits that would be desirable for consumers, such as better taste, nutrition, and appearance. Of course, if those GE foods enter the marketplace — most estimates are anywhere from five to ten years from now — they will likely be labeled. Until then, the biotech and food industry is gambling on holding opposition off by keeping consumers in the dark.

Battles on all of these fronts will be influenced greatly by science. The December 15 issue of the journal Science published an important evaluation of the current scientific literature on genetically engineered crops. The analysis by two U.S. government scientists (one with the EPA, the other the State Department) found that the risks and benefits of GE crops are not certain; our capacity to predict ecological impacts is limited; additional risks could emerge; and the ecological consequences of cross-pollination "largely remain unstudied."

The lack of substantial scientific study on the risks of genetically engineered crops and foods is alarming. As the research continues in an imperfect, piecemeal fashion, it is likely we’ll find out more about the human health and environmental challenges this technology poses. And we’ll in turn have to confront the legal, economic, regulatory, and moral challenges as well.

Ben Lilliston is the Communications Coordinator at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and the co-author of the book Genetically Engineered Foods: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers (Marlowe & Co. 2000).

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: