Diana McCaulay, Contributor
SOME 45 million acres of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been planted in the United States, mostly corn, potatoes, soybeans and cotton.
Although Americans (and others) are already eating genetically modified foods or animals fed by GM corn and soya, they are generally not aware of this because American biotech companies have steadfastly resisted labelling GM products. And they've been supported in this regard by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Last week's article pointed out that Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato has been genetically modified to produce its own insecticide by the introduction of a gene taken from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).
However, the FDA does not treat the Bt toxin as a food additive, so it is not subject to their labelling requirements. Ironically, GM potatoes carry exhaustive labels telling the consumer about all the nutrients they contain, but do not say the potato has been genetically engineered and contains an insecticide.
How come? In the kind of bureaucratic buck-shuffle which seems to characterise governments all over the world, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers the Bt potato a pesticide, not a food! And pesticides are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not the FDA.
So what's the EPA's position? If Bt potatoes contain an EPA-registered pesticide, and indeed are considered a pesticide themselves, why are they exempt from the kind of labelling that would be found on a spray can of Bt? Well - wait for it - it's because as far as the EPA is concerned, potatoes are a food, not a pesticide! And foods are governed by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which gives the FDA jurisdiction over labelling. This Act specifically bars the FDA from including information about pesticides on its food labels. (Does that bother you? It bothers me. Farmers spray their crops with highly toxic chemicals, which may or may not be correctly handled, and consumers have no right to know about these risks?)
So has the E PA at least tested BT potatoes for safety as a human food? "Not exactly," alleges Michael Pollan writing in the New York Times. "The EPA works from the assumption that if the original potato is safe, and the Bt protein added to it is safe, then the whole (New Leaf potato) is presumed to be safe." Many genetic scientists consider this an erroneous assumption, as the total effects of altering genes is as yet unknown.
The other aspect of genetic engineering which disturbs me immensely is the attempt by the biotechnology companies to control seeds. If you buy a bag of seed New Leaf potatoes, you will get a Grower Guide, which will tell you that you are now licensed to grow the potatoes - as if you have just bought computer software - but only for a single generation. The genes of the New Leaf potato belong to Monsanto, and if a farmer saves even one potato to plant next year, he breaks the law. Monsanto has cornered the "operating system" for those plants it has genetically modified.
Seeds have traditionally been considered the common heritage of mankind, with farmers saving seeds from their crops to plant next year. However, by altering the genes of a crop, biotech companies can patent the new variety and all future crops become theirs. Farmers must then buy new seeds every planting season.
The biotech companies wish to go further. Patents are pending for new technology called the "Terminator", a set of genes that will be introduced into plants, causing their seeds to be sterile.
I write those words with profound discomfort. Taken to its logical conclusion, the biotech companies will one day own nature. The concept of "Terminator" seeds offends both common and ethical sense.
Monsanto has faced mounting opposition to its GM crops and have now agreed to merge with Pharmacia and Upjohn, forming a US$50 billion company. Moreover, a group of biotech companies plan to launch a US$500 million advertising campaign to prevent consumer fears about GM foods taking root in the U.S. Obviously there are fortunes to be made by GM crops.
Given what is at stake, I offer some thoughts on how the biotech industry should be controlled. An international regulatory body should be convened, with representation from commercial, scientific, environmental, and ethical interests, including some ordinary human beings who may eat GMOs. Labelling should be mandatory. Growing or selling GMOs should be governed by a licensing regime, which should require companies to research (and publish) possible adverse effects. Registers detailing such effects should be established, so that citizens can have access to this information. And the fullest possible investigation should take place on the "Terminator" gene, before it is unleashed on this and all future generations
