gmo article

8/12/2019 GMO Article

1/24

Genetically Modified FoodShould labels be required?

California voters will decide in November whether

foods produced with genetically modified ingredients

so-called GM foods should bear special labels.

The controversial measure reflects the uneven ac-

ceptance of genetically engineered crops since their rise in the

1990s. Organic farmers and other opponents of GM foods contend

they may pose health or environmental risks, despite widespread

scientific consensus that they are not inherently more risky than

other crops. Foes of the labeling referendum, including GM farmers

and seed producers, such as Monsanto, say that GM crops are more

productive, pest-resistant and environmentally friendly than conven-

tional crops and that the fast-growing organic industry and misguid-

ed consumer groups are to blame for confusion about the science

behind them. Even as GM crops have been embraced by U.S.

commodity growers, Europe remains skeptical. However, eight of

the 10 countries with the most acreage in biotech crops are now

in the developing world.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ....................719BACKGROUND ................726

CHRONOLOGY................727

CURRENT SITUATION ........732

AT ISSUE ........................733

OUTLOOK ......................735

BIBLIOGRAPHY................738

THE NEXT STEP ..............739

THISREPORT

Plant breeder Alamgir Hossain is developing GoldRice for Bangladesh. Supporters of the genetical

engineered variety say it could save the lives of up2.7 million children a year, but it has yet to be pla

commercially; the Philippines may approve it focultivation in 2013.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications,

www.cqresearcher.c

CQ Researcher Aug. 31, 2012 www.cqresearcher.com

Volume 22, Number 30 Pages 717-740

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR

EXCELLENCE AMERICAN BARASSOCIATION SILVERGAVELAWARD


2/24

718 CQ Researcher

THEISSUES

719 Were the benefits of

GM crops to consumersoversold? Have existing GM cropscaused environmental harm? Should GM foods belabeled?

BACKGROUND

726 Green RevolutionHigh-yield plants helpedspark a boom in agricul-tural production in the1960s.

730 The Roaring 90sU.S. farmers rapidly switchedto new GM varieties.

730 StarLink RecallContamination from GMcorn not for human con-sumption forced a foodrecall in 2000.

CURRENTSITUATION

732 In the PipelineDrought-resistant corn andsoybeans rich in heart-healthy oils are beingdeveloped.

734 Labeling BattleCalifornias controversialNov. 6 ballot referendumcalls for special labels onGM foods.

OUTLOOK

735 Conflict Ahead?Increasing friction betweenorganic farmers and thebio-tech industry overseed-production techniquesis seen.

SIDEBARS ANDGRAPHICS

720Soybeans and Corn Are

Among Biggest GM CropsCommodities, or crops soldon futures exchanges, accountfor 80 percent of GM cropfield trials in the developedworld.

721 Permits for GM Crop-Testing on RiseSix times as many were issuedin 2008 as in 1992.

722 Genetic Engineeringby the NumbersKey data about GM foods

and the industry.

723 Most Acreage Used forGM CropsMore than 90 percent of U.S.soybeans are herbicide tolerant.

724 U.S. Leads in BiotechAgricultureMore than 170 million acresof biotech crops are farmed.

727 ChronologyKey events since 1953.

728 Is Tampering With DNAInherently Wrong?Anti-GM foods ethicist JeremyRifkin launched the debate in1977.

733 At IssueShould foods containing ge-netically modified ingredientsbe labeled?

FORFURTHERRESEARCH

737

For More Information

Organizations to contact.

738 BibliographySelected sources used.

739 The Next StepAdditional articles.

739 Citing CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

GENETICALLYMODIFIED FOOD

Cover: International Rice Research Institute

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. Billitteri

[email protected] MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy Koch

[email protected]

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Thomas J. [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFFWRITER: Marcia Clemmitt

CONTRIBUTINGWRITERS: Peter Katel,Barbara Mantel, Jennifer Weeks

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa

FACT CHECKER: Michelle Harris

An Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.

VICE PRESIDENT AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR,HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP:

Michele Sordi

DIRECTOR, ONLINE PUBLISHING:Todd Baldwin

Copyright 2012 CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Pub-

lications, Inc. SAGE reserves all copyright and otherrights herein, unless previously specified in writing.

No part of this publication may be reproduced

electronically or otherwise, without prior written

permission. Unauthorized reproduction or transmis-

sion of SAGE copyrighted material is a violation of

federal law carrying civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional

Quarterly Inc.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Published weekly, except: (March wk. 5)

(May wk. 4) (July wk. 1) (Aug. wks. 3, 4) (Nov. wk.

4) and (Dec. wks. 3, 4). Published by SAGE Publica-

tions, Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

Annual full-service subscriptions start at $1,054. For

pricing, call 1-800-834-9020. To purchase a CQ Re-

searcher report in print or electronic format (PDF),

visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single

reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and

electronic-rights licensing are also available. Periodicals

postage paid at Thousand Oaks, California, and at

additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address

changes to CQ Researcher, 2300 N St., N.W., Suite 800,

Washington, DC 20037.

Aug. 31, 2012

Volume 22, Number 30

CQResearcher


3/24

Aug. 31, 2012 719www.cqresearcher.com

Genetically Modified Food

THEISSUES

When California vot-ers go to the pollsNov. 6, theyll be

walking straight into a mas-sive food fight.

On the ballot will be ahighly contentious proposalto require special labels onfoods produced with genet-ically modified ingredients so-called GM foods. The fed-eral government does not re-quire that GM foods be la-

beled unless they change thenutritional content or addtoxic or allergenic propertiesto food. Labeling advocateswant any GM food to be la-beled, as more than 40 coun-tries do, including all of Eu-rope, Japan and China.

Californias labeling refer-endum has strong supportfrom environmental and food-safety groups that say GM foods

made from crops that havehad genetic material insertedor deleted in a laboratory togive them specific advan-tages, such as resistance toherbicides may posehealth or environmental risks.

Also among the staunchestlabeling supporters are organicfarmers, who compete with GM foodproducers. People have a right to knowwhats in the food we eat and feed toour children, said Stacy Malkan, a spokes-

woman for California Right to Know, acoalition that has spearheaded the bal-lot measure. 1

But GM farming giants and otherreferendum foes argue that the healthand environmental concerns are un-founded, and that the labeling effortis an attempt to demonize a technol-ogy with enormous potential benefits.They note that after extensive re-

search, U.S. and international scientif-ic organizations ranging from the Na-tional Academy of Science to theWorld Health Organization have con-

cluded that GM crops dont inherent-ly pose more risk than their conven-tional counterparts. Whats more, theysay genetically modified crops are moreproductive, pest-resistant and envi-ronmentally friendly than convention-al crops and theyve been consumedby millions of people in the U.S. fornearly two decades without any docu-mented health consequences. 2

Do you give the same sci-entific weight to evolution andcreationism? asks Adrian

Dubock, director of the Gold-en Rice Project, which seeksto cut malnutrition and savemillions of lives in the devel-oping world through the useof GM rice varieties enrichedwith Vitamin A. Theres a pointwhere the scientific controver-sy is over.

On the contrary, the op-position seems to be growing,says Douglas Gurian-Sherman,a senior scientist with the Union

of Concerned Scientists, whichfavors labeling. There is clear-ly more interest and momen-tum behind it than there was10 years ago, he says.

Indeed, big agribusinessand biotechnology companiesthat engineer or produce GMcrops are pouring resourcesinto halting that momentum.By mid-August, Monsanto,Dupont Pioneer, Cargill and

others had contributed near-ly $25 million to defeat thestatewide initiative nearly10 times the amount raisedby supporters. 3

California is the nationsbiggest consumer market, andpassage of the referendumcould influence GM food poli-

cies nationwide. Labeling laws or bal-lot measures have been proposed in 20states in the past year, according to theBiotechnology Industry Organization

(BIO), a trade group. And more than amillion people signed a petition this yearurging the Food and Drug Administra-tion (FDA) to require labeling.

Californias referendum campaign ispart of a much bigger, two-decades-old debate about the safety, effective-ness and commercial viability of agri-cultural biotechnology. GM supportersargue that abundant peer-reviewed

BYJASONMCLURE

CaliforniaRighttoKnow

Boxes delivered to the Los Angeles County courthouse in

May hold nearly one mill ion signatures from Californiavoters calling for a ballot initiative in November

requiring labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods.Organic farmers and some consumer groups support the

initiative, contending GM foods may pose health orenvironmental risks. The GM farming industry notes that

scientific organizations ranging from the NationalAcademy of Science to the World Health Organization

say GM crops pose no more risk than conventional foods.


4/24

720 CQ Researcher

research shows GM crops are safe andthat uninformed pressure groups andthe organic-farming industry havethwarted GM progress. Opponentsargue that the jury is still out on thesafety and environmental effects of

GM crops and that, at the very least,growers should better inform the pub-lic about the use of gene-transferringtechniques in food.

The techniques, which have beenperfected in laboratories over the past40 years, include bombarding targetcells with heavy metals coated withthe gene to be transferred; using anaturally occurring bacterium to trans-fer genes into the host cell and usinga pulse of electricity to introducegenes into the targeted cell. 4

Two technologies currently domi-nate the GM farming industry:

Some crops have been modifiedto be able to survive the weed-killerglyphosate, commonly sold under Mon-santos Roundup brand. So-calledRoundup Ready crops decrease theneed to till before planting, saving farm-ers time and money and reducing ero-sion and loss of soil moisture. Glyphosate

is among the least toxic herbicides thatcan kill a broad spectrum of weeds,and thus is safer for farmworkers andless environmentally damaging than manychemical alternatives. 5

The introduction of genes from the

soil bacteriumBacillus thurengiensis(Bt)produces a substance toxic to manypests but harmless to humans, wildlifeand most beneficial insects, such asbees. While Bt has long been used byorganic farmers, scientists have producedGM crops that manufacture their ownBt in the part of the plant susceptibleto attack from pests such as corn-plant roots prone to root-worm attack.Bt has allowed many farmers to reducethe use of harmful insecticides. In Chinaalone, the use of Bt cotton has halved

pesticide use since the crop was intro-duced in 1997, and the population ofbeneficial pest-eating insects such asladybugs has increased, because theyare resistant to Bt. 6

The use of GM crops has becomewidespread among U.S. growers ofcommodities, or big crops sold on fu-tures exchanges. Eighty-eight percentof corn and 94 percent of cotton, for

example, came from GM strains in2012. 7 Because corn and soy are ubiq-uitous in processed foods in the Unit-ed States, from corn syrup-sweetened

Coca-Cola to crackers made with soy-bean oil, its likely that most Americansconsume a product containing a ge-netically modified ingredient every day.

Nonetheless, GM agriculture has madeuneven progress over the past twodecades. At the dawn of the GM foodrevolution in the mid-1990s, scientistsand industry officials predicted it wouldproduce healthier food that would beslower to rot, taste better and reduceagricultures impact on the environ-ment. But some GM crops have failed

to produce benefits, and some once-promising research has been abandoned.For instance, researchers have all butgiven up on developing GM fruits andother so-called specialty crops becausethe costs of gaining regulatory approvaldo not justify the potential economicrewards, plant scientists say.

They argue that valuable researchhas been hindered by consumer re-sistance to GM foods, due to eithermisunderstanding or confusion about

the safety of the crops. Twenty-onepercent of respondents to a 2010 Thom-son Reuters and NPR poll thought GMfood is safe, while 15 percent said itwas unsafe. Nearly two-thirds werentsure. 8 Some GM proponents contendthat opponents resist GM crops be-cause they oppose industrial farming,which is how most GM crops in theUnited States are grown.

Organic farmers, meanwhile, fearthat their non-GM crops could be con-taminated by the spread of genetically

modified traits by wind and insectcross-pollination. Once those traits arein the agricultural gene pool, they say,theres no way to remove them.

We believe that this technology does-nt make sense in the long run for thehuman species, says Bill Duesing, anorganic farmer in Oxford, Conn., andInterstate Council president of the5,000-member Northeast Organic Farm-


Genetically Modified Crop Field Trials

in Developed Countries, 2003-2008

Source: Jamie K. Miller and Kent J. Bradford, The Regulatory Bottleneck for Biotech

Specialty Crops, Nature Biotechnology, October 2010, p. 1014, www.nature.com/

nbt/journal/v28/n10/full/nbt1010-1012.html

Specialty crops

Forest tree products

Commodity crops

80%

5%

15%

Field Trials Focus on Corn and Other Big Crops

More than three-quarters of the crop field trials conducted by 24

developed countries (excluding China and India) from 2003-2008

were for big commodity crops, or crops bought and sold on futuresexchanges. Only 15 percent of the trials were for GM fruits,

vegetables, nuts and other specialty crops, which

biotech companies have largely abandoned

in favor of industrially grown commodities,

such as corn and cotton.


5/24


ing Association. This is pollution witha life of its own; it spreads forever.

Environmental groups such as theUnion of Concerned Scientists say the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)does not adequately examine the envi-ronmental impacts of introducing newfarming methods on millions of acres,such as possible resistance to Bt andRoundup by weeds and insects. In ad-dition, some scientists complain that biotechcompanies deny access to their patent-protected GM technology if they suspectresearchers may cast doubt on its effec-tiveness, a charge companies deny. 9

Meanwhile, some consumers and or-ganic farmers pose philosophical ob-jections to GM plant-breeding methods.Its the kind of breeding that wouldnever happen in the wild, Duesingsays. Resistance to genetic crop engi-neering ratcheted up a notch this sum-mer after the House passed a versionof a new farm bill that critics said wouldweaken the USDAs regulatory powerover the industry while cutting fundsfor more stringent Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) regulations. TheHouse bill would create multiple back-

door approval mechanisms that wouldallow for the premature commercial-ization of untested biotech traits toenter our food system, charged ColinONeil, a policy analyst at the Centerfor Food Safety, a Washington-basedadvocacy group. 10

But biotechnology researchers andindustry advocates argue that envi-ronmental and food-safety groups arecreating public confusion about GMfoods long after scientific studies haveestablished that the technology is safe.

Were seeing in the last couple yearsa vocal opposition to the technology,and food-labeling requirements are justone of the tactics being employed,says Cathleen Enright, vice presidentfor food and agriculture at the Biotech-nology Industry Organization.

Labeling initiatives, she says, are es-sentially meant not to inform consumersabout genetically engineered food but

rather to eliminate the technology fromagriculture in this country.

Ironically, for more than a decadesome vaccines and life-saving medi-cines have been genetically engineered

in the laboratory by creating new or-ganisms that would never be createdin nature some even made by mix-ing plant and animal genes. Yet oppo-sition to such products has been muchmore muted. Likewise, nongenetic en-gineered plant-breeding methods thatwould be impossible in nature, suchas bombarding plants with radiationor carcinogenic chemicals to inducegenetic change, have not attracted suchwidespread opposition.

Dubock says unfounded opposition

to GM foods has caused needless de-lays in technologies that would po-tentially save hundreds of thousandsof lives. Golden Rice was hailed onthe cover of Time magazine a dozenyears ago as having the potential tosave a million children a year. Thatsbecause the rice strain was genetical-ly modified to be rich in beta-carotene a vitamin A precursor that could

help stave off blindness, infections andother maladies among impoverishedchildren in countries like India andBangladesh. Current estimates say wide-spread use of the crop could save up

to 2.7 million children a year, accordingto Dubock, but it has not been com-mercially planted due to suspicionabout genetic engineering. That maychange soon the Philippines like-ly will permit cultivation in 2013.

The activists have been very suc-cessful in promulgating their view,Dubock asserts. We could have givenit to farmers everywhere. We are notable to because of international regu-lations that prevent us from puttingseeds in an envelope and mailing

them to people who could use them.As scientists, environmentalists, con-

sumer advocates and organic farmersdebate the effects of GM foods, hereare some of the questions being asked:

Were the consumer benefits of

GM crops oversold?

The future for genetically modifiedcrops envisioned by biotech advocates

Hundreds of Permits Issued for GM Crop Testing

Permits for U.S. field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops totaled

743 in 2008, more than six times the number in 1992. Most permits

were for soybeans, corn and other commodity crops, which are farlarger than specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables, and thus

are more profitable. Successful field trials help the government

decide whether to allow GM crops to be commercially produced.

Source: Jamie K. Miller and Kent J. Bradford, The Regulatory Bottleneck for Biotech

Specialty Crops, Nature Biotechnology, October 2010, p. 1014, www.nature.com/

nbt/journal/v28/n10/full/nbt1010-1012.html

Field Trial Permits for

Genetically Modified U.S. CropsNo. of permits

Specialty crop

Commodity crop

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

20082007200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995199419931992


6/24

722 CQ Researcher

in the 1990s looked substantially dif-ferent from the GM landscape today.

Developing countries without reliableenergy for refrigeration would have anadditional supply of food with no ad-ditional cost or environmental effect,Charles Gasser, a cellular biologist atthe University of California-Davis andformer Monsanto researcher, predictedoptimistically in 1994. Biotechnology

would provide such countries with slow-ripening fruits and vegetables with shelf

lives up to five times longer than reg-ular produce, he said. 11

Not only have such technologies notbeen commercialized, but the scale ofadoption of genetically modified cropshas not matched earlier predictions, suchas this one from Val Giddings, vice pres-ident for food and agriculture for theBiotechnology Industry Organization(BIO), who said in 1998: Within five

years and certainly within 10 some 90 to 95 percent of plant-derivedfood material in the United States willcome from genetically engineered tech-niques. Furthermore, he predicted, Itlltake a little bit longer for these tech-nologies to penetrate into the organicmarket, but it will. As the benefits be-come clearer, . . . opposition will bereplaced by understanding, and adop-tion will follow. 12

Instead, the organic foods industry

which rebuffed GM crops whenthey were first commercialized in themid-1990s has seen record growth,while GM crop research has slowedmarkedly. Biotech companies havelargely abandoned pursuing genetical-ly modified varieties of fruits, vegeta-bles, nuts and other specialty crops infavor of industrially grown commodi-ties, such as corn and cotton. Between

1994 and 1998, U.S. regulatory au-thorities approved 17 GM fruits andvegetables, which the USDA calls spe-cialty crops. Over the next decade they

approved only three, even though spe-cialty crops account for 40 percent ofU.S. agricultural revenues. 13

Commercialized in 1996, Bt insec-ticidal crops and so-called RoundupReady crops tolerant of herbicides be-came some of the most rapidly adopt-ed agricultural technologies in history.But 16 years later, the two modifica-tions are being used largely in onlythree row crops: corn, soybeans andcotton, which are grown on a largescale. The three commodities account

for 94 percent of the worlds acreageplanted in GM crops. 14

Critics of biotechnology say other GMvarieties havent been developed be-cause researchers havent been able todeliver the beneficial new products theypromised. This technology seems to meto be a fundamentally failed technolo-gy, because the science just didnt work,says Andrew Kimbrell, executive direc-tor of the Center for Food Safety, aWashington-based consumer group that

has opposed GM crops and helped or-ganize the labeling petition to the FDA.In other words, he explains, while

Roundup Ready and Bt insecticidal cropswere extremely popular with large-scalecommodity farmers, the crops haventprovided an identifiable benefit to con-sumers. In 30 years, weve yet to comeup with a single [genetic] trait thats ad-vantageous to the consumer, Kimbrelladds. Its not likely theyre going tosucceed in the near future.

Both opponents and supporters of

the technology agree that the decisionby biotech companies to first marketherbicide-resistant and insecticidal com-modity crops did not help to garnerpublic acceptance and may have low-ered perceptions of the potential con-sumer benefits of the technology.

Its easy for consumers to rejectGMOs [genetically modified organisms],because they dont taste better or smell


Sources: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Feb. 7,

2012; Biotechnology Industry Organization; United Nations; U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Genetic Engineering by the Numbers

400 million Acres worldwide planted in geneticallymodified crops in 2011.

170 million Acres of GM crops in U.S.

74.8 million GM acres planted in 2011 by Brazil, thesecond-largest biotech nation after the U.S.

25 million Dollars that companies that engineer or produceGM crops had contributed by mid-August to defeat the labeling

initiative in California nearly 10 times the amount raised by

supporters.

2.7 million Impoverished children in countries like Indiaand Bangladesh whose lives could be saved by genetically engi-

neered Golden Rice.1 million-plus People who signed a petition this yearurging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require labeling

of GM foods.

20 States in which labeling laws or ballot measures have beenproposed in the past year.

12 Percentage of the worlds arable land planted in GM crops.


7/24


any better, and theyre not noticeablycheaper, says Robert Paarlberg, a po-litical scientist at Wellesley Collegewho researches the debate over biotech

foods. Most of the economic gainsare not captured by the consumer butby the farmer and the biotech seedcompanies.

GM seed producer Monsanto tight-ly controls use of its product. Farmerswho buy Monsanto GM seeds while theyare covered by patents are barred fromsaving them from season to season asthey may do with conventional crops.

Some organic farmers, who shunpesticides and GM crops, say the ben-efits of biotechnology touted by

many scientists are illusory. Youkeep being told the same promisesor propaganda that you heard 20 yearsago: Its going to reduce pesticides,its going to be safer, its going toproduce more food, says Connecti-cut farmer Duesing.

But he says the way in which ge-netically engineered crops were de-veloped in the United States viamonoculture industrial farming hasmainly benefited the seed companies.

Nature works because of biodiversity,he says. Growing a single crop onthousands of acres is the absolute op-posite of biodiversity.

Others say the potential benefits ofbiotechnology to farmers in poor coun-tries have been exaggerated. Tech-nology is not going to solve the prob-lems of poor farmers, says RachelSchurman, a sociologist at the Uni-

versity of Minnesota. Farming practicesthat dramatically boosted agriculturaloutput during the Green Revolution

in the 1960s and 70s such as high-yield crop varieties, irrigation and heavyfertilizer and pesticide use still havenot trickled down to many of thepoorest farmers in the developingworld, she points out. If theyre goingto devote all of these resources, sheasks, does it make economic senseto devote them to expensive tech-nologies?

While supporters of biotechnologymay have overstated the possibilities ofbiotech foods, so too did opponents ex-aggerate the dangers, says Gregory Jaffe,biotechnology project director at the Cen-ter for Science in the Public Interest. Idont think weve seen a lot of detri-

mental impacts on the environment yet,he says. Similarly, we havent seen someof the huge benefits that the industryhad also suggested would happen.

Some biotech supporters blame theslow development of new GM vari-eties on opposition generated by foodand environmental groups such as theCenter for Food Safety and the Unionof Concerned Scientists. The failure isdirectly attributable to the peoplewho are claiming this as a failure ofbiotech, says UCs Gasser. The evi-

dence was we could do it.Others, like Harry Klee, a former

Monsanto scientist who is now at theUniversity of Florida, say progress indeveloping new crops especiallyspecialty crops like tomatoes is im-peded by high regulatory costs. Pro-viding research data to make a singlegenetic alteration in a tomato variety,he says, can cost up to $15 million.

Dubock of the Golden Rice Projectsays the cost of regulatory approvalhas kept GM crops out of the handsof all but the best-funded multinationalcorporations.

Do we want this technology to beonly ruled by multinationals, or do we

want it to be accessed by startups anddeveloping countries? he asks. Its re-ally a paradox that the attitudes pro-mulgated by the activists against thetechnology reinforce the status of GMcrops as row crops for the industrial-ized world.

Have existing GM crops caused

environmental harm?

Most of the environmental concernsinitially raised about biotech crops havenot materialized. However, one worry

that the large-scale adoption of GMcommodity crops would accelerate thenatural development of resistance tothe relatively safe Roundup herbicideand Bt insecticide appears to havebecome reality.

Researchers have documentedcases of resistance to Bt insecticide bythe corn borer and corn rootworm,the two main pests killed by Bt corn

Most Acreage Used for GM Crops

More than 90 percent of the farmland for soybeans in the United

States is dedicated to genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant

varieties. Most acreage for cotton and corn is also used forherbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant varieties, or both.

Source: Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S., U.S. Department of

Agriculture, July 2012, www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-

engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

U.S. Acreage Dedicated to GM Crops, 2012

Percentage of planted acreage

0

20

40

60

80

100%

Insect-

resistant

corn

Insect-

resistant

cotton

Herbicide-

tolerant

corn

Herbicide-

tolerant

cotton

Herbicide-

tolerant

soybeans

93%80%

73% 77%67%


8/24

724 CQ Researcher

and a Roundup-resistant strain ofa weed called waterhemp already hasspread to 10 states. 15

In 2011, we saw glyphosate-resistantwaterhemp explode across the Mid-west, said Dan Westberg, a technicalmarket manager at BASF, a maker ofpesticides and biotech seeds. It was atipping point for farmers and anothersign that we have to think beyondglyphosate alone for weed control. 16

Experts say Roundup and Bt have

become so widespread that resistantmutations have developed faster thanthey normally would in conventionalcrops because other types of controlsare absent, an outcome that some GMopponents predicted.

A coalition of environmental groupspublished a report in 1990 predict-ing the rise of resistant weeds. 17 Wenow know that inside the Trojan horse

of biotechnology are just more herbi-cides and stronger weeds, MargaretMellon, a biotechnology expert withthe Union of Concerned Scientists, wrotein May. 18

Farmers could have slowed the spreadof resistance by planting refuges, orsmall plots, of nonbiotech crops, whichwould allow some of the pests to sur-vive and breed without generating re-sistance. Yet farmers growing RoundupReady crops are not required by law to

provide refuges, and those growing Btcrops are supposed to provide refugesequivalent to 20 percent of their acreage(or 50 percent for some types of Btcotton). But a 2009 study found that upto 25 percent of corn farmers were notcomplying with refuge requirements. 19

Opponents of biotechnology pointout that resistance to existing GMproducts does not harm biotech multi-

nationals like Monsanto, which alreadyare developing crops resistant to other,more toxic pesticides. Its no coinci-dence, say the critics, that the new

products will be coming on the mar-ket just as the patents for RoundupReady crops expire, in 2014. When thepatents expire, other companies canproduce seed with the same technol-ogy, and farmers can legally plant seedharvested from Roundup Ready plants.

Its a chemical arms race goingbackwards, says Kimbrell of the Cen-ter for Food Safety. Now we have toclose our eyes and hope we do findthis magic, new herbicide. I dont thinkthats very good policy.

Many biotech supporters are equal-ly worried about resistance to Bt andRoundup. But they say the problem isnot biotechnology itself but American-style industrial farming, which allowsa single crop to be planted year afteryear over vast swathes of land, whichaccelerates resistance to pesticides.

If people had been smarter thefarmers, the companies and the U.S.Department of Agriculture they couldhave easily developed rotations and

minimal-use programs to avoid resis-tance, says Raoul Adamchak, the or-ganic farm coordinator at UC-Davisand co-author of Tomorrows Table:Organic Farming, Genetics and the

Future of Food. Those issues comeup with herbicides all the time. If youdevelop an integrated control strategy,you can put resistance off for manyyears, or possibly even indefinitely.

Biotech opponents also discount theenvironmental benefits of replacing moretoxic herbicides and pesticides with the

relatively safe Roundup and Bt.There are now Roundup-resistant

weeds on millions of acres that are cre-ating problems for farmers, says Jaffe,of the Center for Science in the PublicInterest. What does that mean? Thatjust means youre going back to otherforms of weed killers that are toxic. Butwe did get 20 years of using the less-toxic weed killer.


U.S Leads in Biotech Agriculture

More than 170 million acres of biotech crops are under cultivation

in the United States, more than twice Brazils acreage, which ranks

second. Experts credit faster technological advances, more lenient

regulations and expanding economic benefits for the U.S. lead.

Source: Clive James, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011,

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, 2011, p. 2,

www.isaaa.org/purchasepublications/itemdescription.asp?ItemType=BRIEFS&

Control=IB043-2011

Biotech Acreage by Country, 2011

Acres

Country (in millions) Biotech crops

United States 170.5 Corn, soybean, cotton, canola,

sugarbeet, alfalfa, papaya, squash

Brazil 74.9 Soybean, corn, cotton

Argentina 58.6 Soybean, corn, cotton

India 26.2 Cotton

Canada 25.7 Canola, corn, soybean, sugarbeetChina 9.6 Cotton, papaya, poplar, tomato,

sweet pepper

Paraguay 6.9 Soybean

Pakistan 6.4 Cotton

South Africa 5.7 Corn, soybean, cotton

Uruguay 3.2 Soybean, corn


9/24


The increasedproductivity provid-ed by biotech cropshas also slowed de-

forestation, say GMproponents. Thereduced environ-mental impact andabundance in foodsupply that is of-fered with geneti-cally engineeredseed help to pre-serve biodiversity,says Enright, of theBiotechnology In-dustry Organization.

Instead of chop-p ing down theAmazon or otherpools of diversity,lets see what wecan do on the landthat we have. 20

Roundup Ready crops also reducethe need for plowing to clear fieldsof weeds before planting, which savestopsoil. Bill Olthoff, who farms 1,800acres of corn and soybeans in Kanka-

kee, Ill., says that since switching toRoundup Ready soybeans he makesthree fewer plowing runs over his fieldper crop, which conserves topsoil andtractor fuel, and he uses less herbicide.Additionally, he says, by using Bt cornhe no longer has to use a more toxicinsecticide, which can disrupt humanand animal neurological systems.

Theres less use of fuel, less man-hours and less pesticide, says Olthoff. 21

Should GM foods be labeled?

GM opponents say consumers havea right to know what theyre eating andfeeding their children. Labeling is ob-vious there is a fundamental physi-cal change in the plants thats patent-ed, says Kimbrell of the Center for FoodSafety. There are novel proteins in theplants, never seen before in food.

The Just Label It campaign, whichsupports Californias referendum and

organized the labeling petition to theFDA, argues that U.S. consumers arebeing effectively used as guinea pigsin testing GM foods. The debate aboutthe benefits and risks of GE crops may

go on for a long time, says the groupswebsite, JustLabelIt.org. Meanwhile, anentire generation will have grown upconsuming them. We should all havea choice about whether we want toparticipate in this grand experimentwith our bodies and our environment.

A large majority of consumersagree, according to a poll of 1,000people commissioned earlier this yearby Just Label It. It found that 92 per-cent support mandatory labeling, a fig-ure that changed only slightly after re-

spondents heard arguments for andagainst labeling.

Cynthia LaPier, a mental health coun-selor in Massachusetts, feels she has aright to know whether her food con-tains genetically modified components.It just makes me nervous when youtake genetic matter from something elsethat wouldnt have been done in na-ture and put it into food, she told The

New York Times earlierthis year, having spent partof her morning furtivelyapplying stickers reading

Warning May ContainGMOs to cereal boxes ather local supermarket. 22

Just Label It argues thatsufficient testing has notyet been done on thetechnology. The Univer-sity of Minnesotas Schur-man argues that even ifthere is no specific sci-entific evidence that GMcrops are more harmfulthan conventional vari-

eties, there is a legitimatecase for labeling them.

I dont think scientif-ic concerns are the onlyreason we should be con-cerned about the impactof technology, she says.

We should be able to make decisionsabout the kind of society we live in, andwe cant make those decisions if wedont have information. Its a questionof democracy.

Gurian-Sherman, of the Union ofConcerned Scientists, says GM cropshave helped to push farming more to-ward industrial agriculture, and con-sumers who favor more sustainablemethods should be able to decide whichkinds of foods they want to buy.

Both Bt and herbicide tolerancework in simplified crop systems, saysGurian-Sherman. If your aim is to bemore and more efficient, you need tomake agriculture [simpler], with many,many acres of one crop that is har-

vested with one type of machineryand simple pest control. All of thosethings are bad for the environment ina number of different ways.

Biotechnology supporters say labelswill mislead consumers into believingthere is something harmful to humanhealth about GM foods. Thats beenthe case in Europe, where labelingcombined with public suspicion of

A Greenpeace activist campaigns against genetically modified eggplant(brinjal) at a farmers market in Hyderabad, India, on Jan. 19, 2010.

The potential commercialization of a GM variety of the popularvegetable has drawn support and criticism. Cotton is

currently the only GM crop permitted in India.

AFP/G

ettyImages/NoahSeelam


10/24

726 CQ Researcher


genetically engineered foods has keptproducts containing GM crops off gro-cery store shelves.

Gasser, the UC Davis researcher, likens

the debate to that over climate change,in which one side has overwhelmingresearch data on its side but opponentsare able to cast doubt on those find-ings with spurious arguments becausethe public has little understanding ofthe complex science involved.

Climate science is the perfect ex-ample, because the anti-biotech peo-ple are on the wrong side of the ar-gument both environmentally andscientifically, Gasser says.

He argues that since scientific re-

search over the past two decades hasvindicated genetic engineering in plantbreeding, opponents are really leftonly with a philosophical argumentabout the so-called mutagenic tech-niques used to manipulate plantgenes. Moreover, he says that GM op-ponents are hypocritical to single outgenetic engineering in food crops asunnatural. There are numerous con-ventional plant breeding methods thatdiffer radically from how plants re-

produce in the wild, including self-pollinating two different plant lines forseven or more generations and thencrossing them; and triggering muta-tions through gamma rays, irradiationand carcinogenic chemicals.

Thousands of products have beendeveloped using mutagenic tech-niques alone, according to the U.N.sFood and Agriculture Organization, in-cluding more than 800 varieties of riceand familiar fruits such as the Rio Redgrapefruit and a variety of the McIn-

tosh apple. 23 Proponents say that, aswith GM crops, there is no evidencethat crops developed with mutagenictechniques are inherently more harm-ful to people or the environment thanother crops.

The fact that youre arguing aboutthe one and not the other means yourargument is not about safety its aboutthis religious view you have about biotech,

says Gasser. Its only the people whodont understand it that are scared of it.Unfortunately thats most everyone.

Opponents of labeling also argue

that it is unfair to conflate argumentsagainst the environmental harmcaused by industrial agriculture witha lab technique for creating better seeds since farming is damaging to theenvironment no matter what kind ofseeds are used. If everyones goal isto have a more sustainable agriculture,to reduce pesticide use and to reduce[fertilizer] run-off, then this labelingcampaign doesnt make any improve-ments, says Adamchak, the UC-Davisorganic farmer. Id much rather see

people putting lots of energy into pro-moting sustainable agriculture.

BACKGROUND

Green Revolution

Humans began collecting seeds even

before they settled in farming vil-lages millennia ago in the Near East.Ancient governments often played

a major role in introducing new plantsto civilizations. An inscription fromMesopotamia tells of the ruler Sargonjourneying to Anatolia to collect figs,vines and roses to introduce to hiscountry in the 24th century B.C. In1495 B.C., Egypts Queen Hatshepsutsent a team to what is now Ethiopiaand Somalia to find the fragrant treethat produces frankincense. 24

For centuries farmers have selectedseeds and cross-bred plants to pro-duce crops that had little in commonwith wild species. Yet it was not until1856 that Gregor Johann Mendel, anAugustinian monk in Austria, beganhis famous study of garden peas thatled to the identification of the factorsthat control heredity. Mendels workushered in the study of genetics.

Among other benefits, it laid thegroundwork for the birth of modernagriculture in the early 20th century.In 1905 British researcher Roland Bif-

fen showed that a type of wheat re-sistant to rust fungus could pass thetrait on to future generations. Sincethen dozens of crops, from potatoesto parsnips, have been bred to resistdisease and insects. 25

Government investments in breed-ing and agricultural technologies helpedlead to rapid productivity increases inthe 20th century. For example, yieldsof English wheat took a thousandyears to increase from 0.5 to 2 met-ric tons per hectare,* but jumped from

2 to 6 metric tons in just 40 years dur-ing the period. 26

Beginning in the 1960s, higher yield-ing plant varieties, combined with in-creased use of fertilizer, pesticides andirrigation, led to a global boom in agri-cultural production especially in thedeveloping world known as theGreen Revolution.

In the early 1970s scientists firstlearned how to replicate DNA in thelab and then to introduce foreign ge-

netic material into living organisms,such as bacteria. Initially, concern thattransferring genes among organismscould create dangerous microbes ledscientists to establish a National Insti-tutes of Health committee to overseethe approval of biotech research. Itsoon became evident, however, thatgenetic engineering tended to weak-en bacteria rather than strengthen them.The NIH ended restrictions on genet-ic research in the 1980s, setting thestage for the commercialization of nu-

merous genetically engineered drugs,such as synthetic insulin for diabetics.

In 1992 the commercialization of ge-netically modified foods was accelerat-ed when limits were put on FDA over-sight of GM foods. The new policy meant

Continued on p. 728

* A hectare equals about 2.47 acres; a metric

ton equals about 2,200 pounds.


11/24


Chronology1950s-1960sScientists identify genes andbegin investigating the role of

DNA in plant development.

1953American biochemist James Watsonand British biophysicist FrancisCrick describe the structure ofDNA, setting the stage for mappingthe genetic code.

1967Lenape potato, a new variety bredfor making potato chips is with-drawn from experimental production

after high levels of toxins are found.

1970s-1980sScientists begin experimentingwith genetic transformation of

plants and animals.

1973Scientists create first genetically

engineered organism.

1983Researchers transfer new DNA intoplants, leading to the creation ofgenetically modified crops.

1989Calgene Inc. receives U.S. patentfor gene sequence in GM FlavrSavr tomato.

1990sBiotech foods aremarketed to the public despite en-vironmental and health concerns.

1992FDA decides not to require labelingof most GM foods, sparking mistrustof the technology.

1993FDA allows cows to be injectedwith bovine growth hormone(rBGH) made from genetically

modified bacteria, setting off con-sumer protests.

1994FDA approves Flavr Savr tomato,first GM food approved for sale toconsumers.

1996Monsanto introduces RoundupReady soybeans, first of severalpopular herbicide-tolerant or insec-ticide-producing crops.

1998European Union (EU) halts approvalsof new GM crops in what is termedan unofficial moratorium.

2000s Genetically engi-neered foods face continuedcriticism despite growing scien-

tific consensus that they do notpose greater safety risks thanconventional crops.

2000Bowing to international demands,U.S. officials agree to label GMcommodities for export. . . .Weeds resistant to Roundup dis-covered in Delaware. . . . Friendsof the Earth, a major environmen-tal group, reports that genes fromStarLink corn, a GM crop ap-proved only for animal consump-tion, have been discovered in tacoshells. The discovery prompts re-calls of corn products and law-suits, but researchers are unable todocument any human health ef-fects. . . . Centers for DiseaseControl study concludes StarLinkdid not cause allergic reactionsclaimed by 28 people.

2002National Center for Food and Agri-cultural Policy finds that GM cropsin the United States produced four

billion pounds of additional foodand fiber on the same acreage, im-proved farm income by $1.5 billionand reduced pesticide use by 46million pounds. . . . Monsanto an-nounces it will delay introductionof GM wheat amid concerns fromfarmers that it will harm exports.

2003Bollworms resistant to the Bt toxin,an insecticide produced by GMcotton, discovered in the South.

2004Under U.S. pressure, EU drops defacto ban on GM crops but insti-tutes mandatory labeling; manyEuropean stores wont stock GMfoods because of consumer fears.

2008Monsanto sells unit that producesrBGH, as major grocers includingWalmart, Publix and Kroger decline

to sell milk from cows treated withthe product.

2010After approving the sale of GMeggplant, Indias environment min-ister declares a moratorium on theproduct because of public outcry.

2011GM crops are grown on 395 millionacres of farmland globally, thoughmore than 90 percent is in just three

crops: soybeans, corn and cotton.

2012Anti-GMO groups file petitions con-taining more than 1 million signa-tures demanding that the FDA re-quire GM foods be labeled. . . .Californian vote scheduled for Nov. 6on ballot initiative requiring labelingfor GM foods.


12/24

728 CQ Researcher

the agency would give GM crops nomore scrutiny than it gave crops pro-duced through conventional breeding.

The FDAs resulting program of vol-untary consultation set off a controver-sy that endures today. Activist and econ-omist Jeremy Rifkin, founder and president

of the Foundation On Economic Trends,launched the Pure Food Movement, ar-guing that biotech crops were likely tobe harmful to human health and de-stroy the natural environment. 27 Theoutcry led biotech companies to uni-versally take part in the voluntaryprocess for reviewing new crops, in ad-dition to mandatory regulation by theDepartment of Agriculture and in some

cases the EPA. Many groups argued thatthe tests required by federal regulatorswere insufficient and too reliant on stud-ies supplied by the biotech industry.

Monsanto, a large, St. Louis-basedchemical manufacturer, was among thefirst companies to capitalize on biotech-nology for commercial farming. Its sci-

entists inserted cow DNA into bacteriathat then worked like millions of tinyfactories to produce synthetic bovinegrowth hormone, known as rBGH orrBST. The hormone was then adminis-tered to cows to induce greater milkproduction. In 1993, the FDA approvedthe hormone for dairy production afterthe American Medical Association, Na-tional Institutes of Health and American

Academy of Pediatrics concluded milkfrom cows treated with the product wasno different from other milk. 28

Meanwhile, California-based CalgeneInc. developed a tomato that containedan extra bit of tomato DNA that hadbeen altered in the lab. This new genehad been engineered to block produc-

tion of an enzyme that makes tomatoesgrow mushy and rot. Calgenes newFlavr Savr tomato was approved by fed-eral regulators in 1994 and became thefirst genetically engineered food to becommercialized in the United States. 29

But Flavr Savr turned out to be afailure. Activists wielding images of atomato grafted onto a fish head, a refer-ence to a different experimental tomato


Continued from p. 726

Many people recoil instinctively from the idea of tak-ing genes from one plant or animal and insertingthem into another especially if the process inserts

an animal gene into a plants DNA, for instance. Some viewthe creation of such new part-plant, part-animal organisms asplaying God or a violation of the natural order.

Several of these objections were first voiced by Jeremy Rifkin,a leading critic of genetic engineering, as early as 1977 whenhe published a book entitled Who Should Play God? The Arti-

ficial Creation of Life and What it Means for the Human Race.

Rifkin expanded on concerns voiced in that book with laterwritings on the implications of cloning animals and the cre-ation of plant and animal chimeras, or organisms with genes

from both kingdoms.The globalization of commerce and trade makes possible

the wholesale reseeding of the Earths biosphere with a labo-ratory-conceived second Genesis, an artificially produced bioin-dustrial nature designed to replace natures own evolutionaryscheme, Rifkin wrote. 1 A global life-science industry is al-ready beginning to wield unprecedented power over the vastbiological resources of the planet. Life-science fields rangingfrom agriculture to medicine are being consolidated under theumbrella of giant life companies in the emerging biotech mar-ketplace.

Ethics research into agricultural biotechnology focuses ontwo questions: whether the benefits of GM crops outweigh thedrawbacks, and whether genetic engineering is inherently

wrong. The tangible benefits and drawbacks of genetic engi-neering are often discussed in the media but the latter ques-tion is largely overlooked.

While Rifkin approaches the question from the secular per-spective of genetic engineering violating the dignity of nature,theologians have also argued against genetic engineering froma religious perspective. Paul Ramsey, a prominent Christian ethi-cist who taught at Princeton University in the 1970s and 80s,

was a leading advocate of the idea that genetic engineeringwas inherently unethical and that reducing people and otherbeings to a collection of genetic traits was a flawed concept.He also argued that since human beings are inherently fallible,they are poor custodians of the building blocks of life.

We should not play God before we have learned to bemen, and as we learn to be men we will not want to playGod, Ramsey wrote. 2

The technology also has implications for religious and dietarytraditions established long before the advent of molecular biol-ogy. For instance, some vegetarians have questioned whetherthey can eat a vegetable containing one or more genes takenfrom an animal.

The resulting vegetable is no longer a pure vegetable, butinstead a chimera with properties taken from the original plant,plus some additional characteristics from an animal, accordingto Marcus Williamson, a London-based vegetarian who writesfor the website www.gmfoodnews.com. 3

Likewise, the worlds 1 billion Hindus many of whomare vegetarians and all of whom revere cows as sacred might be concerned about eating a plant containing bovinegenes, just as a Jew or Muslim might be concerned about eat-ing a GM food containing pork genes.

Such alterations are potentially within the technologys reach:The use of jellyfish genes to create plant and animal organ-

Is Tampering With DNA Inherently Wrong?Ethicists and religious scholars have differing opinions.


13/24


developed by another company thatcontained a fish gene for cold resis-tance, portrayed the Calgene productas Frankenfood. The companys biggerproblem was that the Flavr Savr wasmore susceptible than other varieties topests in the main tomato-growing statesof Florida and California, and it could

still bruise and become unappealingeven without becoming mushy.30Whatsmore, many consumers concluded itdidnt taste good enough to justify thehigher price. By 1997 Flavr Savr wasoff the market.

rBGH was more successful com-mercially, though it too faced strongresistance. By 1999, both Canada andthe European Union had banned the

hormone, citing public opposition touse of hormones on dairy cows andgaps in research.

In the United States, more than afifth of dairy cows were being inject-ed with the synthetic hormone bi-weekly by 2002, with milk productionrising by about one gallon per day in

lactating cows. 31 But advocacy groupsopposed the hormone, pointing to stud-ies showing it increased bovine udderinfections and led to higher usage ofveterinary antibiotics, which potential-ly could lead to human resistance tothe drugs. Other research, includingsome sponsored by hormone pro-ducers, disputed the findings. 32

Resistance to rBGH helped propel

the organic dairy industrys rapidgrowth. The number of certified or-ganic dairy cows rose to 249,766 in2008 from zero in 1995, according tothe USDA. 33 Companies such asUnilevers Ben & Jerrys Ice Cream andOakhurst Dairy in Maine successfullymarketed their products as rGBH-free.

Meanwhile, rGBH use declined from22 percent of U.S. dairy cows in 2002to 17 percent in 2007, and major re-tailers such as Walmart, Kroger andPublix agreed to stop selling milkmade from rBGH-treated cows intheir private-label dairy products. Withbacklash against the hormone growing,Monsanto sold its rBGH division in2008 to Eli Lilly & Co. 34

isms that glow under UV light has been used as a methodof marking the transference of other genetic traits by re-searchers. 4

According to a review of the issue, as of 2008 there wasno consensus about biotechnology within the worlds threemain monotheistic faiths Islam, Judaism and Christianity on the ethical and moral issues surrounding GM foods. 5

Other ethicists see arguments questioning the inherent im-morality of genetic engineering as logically flawed. From a re-ligious perspective, those who argue that genetic engineeringis a violation of Gods creation must explain why genetic en-gineering is not also an expression of Gods will, since Godgave humans free will, including the ability to create tech-

nology, according to David Koepsell, a philosophy professorat Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. 6

Those who would argue that genetic engineering is a mis-use of free will are plagued by a lack of sacred writings sup-porting that conclusion, says Koepsell. The Bible, for example,says nothing about recombinant DNA.

They must also explain why altering DNA through geneticengineering is bad, but other forms of altering DNA throughother techniques are acceptable, given that it is arguably dis-tinct only as a method. The speed and predictability of thechanges brought about by genetic engineering do surpass thespeed and predictability of changes accomplished by selectivebreeding techniques, but that seems a poor argument for say-ing the former is contrary to Gods will, while the latter is ac-ceptable, Koepsell writes. Is it Gods will that modifying na-ture is acceptable, but only provided we proceed slowly andhaphazardly?

Likewise Koepsell contends that those who argue against ge-netic engineering from a secular perspective must explain whyother forms of genetic change, such as evolution, are not affrontsto the natural order of things. They also must show that thereis an inherent dignity to the current genetic makeup of any givenspecies and why that genetic makeup should only be changedby some forms of genetic alteration and not others.

Still, Koepsell and some other advocates of the technologyallow that its effects on our world over the long term are dif-ficult to predict and could yet prove harmful in unexpected

ways. In that respect biotechnology is hardly unique: few inthe 19th century would have foreseen that the invention of theinternal combustion engine would contribute to rising global

temperatures, melting polar ice caps and disappearing species100 years later.

Jason McLure

1Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking theWorld(1998), excerpted by The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rifkin-biotech.html.2 Paul Ramsey, Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control(1970), p. 151.3 Marcus Williamson, Genetically Modified Food Not Suitable for Vege-tarians, Connectotel.com, undated, www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gm260401.txt.4 Glowing Proteins A Guiding Star for Biochemistry, The Royal Swedish

Academy of Sciences, The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2008, Oct. 8, 2008,www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2008/press.html.5 Emmanuel Omobowale, Peter Singer and Abdallah Daar, The Three Monothe-istic Religions and GM Food Technology: An Overview of Perspectives, BMCInternational Health and Human Rights, 2009, www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/9/18.6 David Koepsell, The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, Center for Inquiry,

Aug. 28, 2007.


14/24

730 CQ Researcher

The Roaring 1990s

More significant than the Flavr Savr

or rBGH was Monsantos intro-duction in 1995 and 96 of geneticallyengineered soybeans, corn and cottonthat were either resistant to Roundupor contained Bt insecticide.

Many farmers rapidly switched to thenew crops. In 1996 genetically engi-neered crops were grown in six coun-tries on 4.2 million acres. By 2000 theywere being grown on 109.2 million acresin 13 countries, though 68 percent ofthat acreage was in the United States,according to the Council for Biotech-

nology Information, an industry group.While some food safety and envi-

ronmental groups in the United Statesresisted the rapid growth of geneti-cally modified foods, it set off a firestormof protest in Europe. The reaction wasdue in part to bad luck: The first ship-ments of genetically modified soybeansfrom the United States to the U.K. co-incided with a major outbreak of madcow disease in Britain. The outbreakundermined the credibility of British

food-safety officials, who had previ-ously assured Britons that they couldnot get bovine disease from eating in-fected beef. 35

The environmental organization Green-peace and other groups opposed to GMcrops found the European public re-ceptive to arguments that the technolo-gy had not been adequately tested andwas likely to be harmful in ways not yetunderstood. Mad cow disease was im-mediately used by the anti-biotech groups,says Jaffe, at the Center for Science in

the Public Interest. That was a big dis-advantage, to the detriment of biotech.They were able to raise this specter ofan unknown that could hurt you.

Emblematic of Europeans skepticalattitudes was the response to a genet-ically modified tomato created by Zeneca,a British multinational company. De-veloped for lower water content to makeit more suitable for tomato paste, it was

sold in the U.K. from 1996 to 1999.The tomatoes cost 20 percent less thanconventional ones used for tomatopaste and labeled as genetically engi-

neered. Initially they sold well, but de-mand collapsed following the airing ofa documentary in which a Hungarianresearcher said he had found that ge-netically modified potatoes led to bio-logical changes in rats research thathas since been called into question. 36

Surveys also indicated that the Euro-peans were skeptical of Monsanto, thecompany that led the charge to bringGM crops to Europe. To some, the com-pany was an agent of American cor-porate imperialism. Many Europeans

also perceived the technology as athreat to small farmers, who hold dis-proportionate political influence.

In Europe they made a huge mis-step by saying, Look, were going to givethis to you and youre going to accept itbecause America makes so much foodand if you dont want it youre going tohave to pay more for your food, saysKlee, the former Monsanto researcher.

Resistance may also have reflectedEuropean values about the role of farms

and nature, which Monsanto did littleto address. In Europe, which lacks largeforested areas, nature is more closelyassociated with agricultural land. 37

There was a bit of myopia in theindustry, says the University of Min-nesotas Schurman. On Monsantospart, they were so busy trying to getto the patent office that they didnt re-alize there were people organizingaround environmental implications.

Rising resistance to GM crops in Eu-rope led to adoption of the Cartagena

Protocol in 2000, a U.N. treaty that up-dated a 1992 accord on biosafety topermit the use of the so-called pre-cautionary principle in the regulationof biotech crops. That principle holdsthat when a technology has the po-tential to cause widespread harm topeople or the environment, policy-makers should delay approving it untilit has been definitively proven safe.

In the wake of the accord, the Unit-ed Nations Environmental Programbegan a $60 million training programfor governments in the developing

wor ld on assessing the risks ofbiotechnology. Largely funded by Eu-ropean nations skeptical of the tech-nology, the program promoted use ofthe precautionary principle. It alsocalled for each nation to set up itsown system of field trials of GM crops;rules on marketing, transport, pack-aging, labeling and disposal; and re-search on the crops effects on tradi-tional farming practices and implicationsfor cultural and religious interests. 38

StarLink Recall

A defining moment for GM cropscame in 2000, when Taco Belltaco shells were found to containtraces of a genetically engineered cornvariety not approved for human con-sumption, prompting recall of the shellsand other consumer products. 39

Developed by the French biotechcompany Aventis, the corn variety

known as StarLink had been ap-proved for animal consumption. Butpollen from the corn had drifted intofields with other types of corn. Becauseone of the proteins in Starlink had notbeen in the human diet before, it wasseen as a possible allergen.

I view it as a very poignant cau-tionary tale that our regulatory systemis not up to the task of preventing po-tential problems with genetically engi-neered food, Joseph Mendelson III, thenthe legal director of the Center for Food

Safety, told The New York Times. 40Fallout from the controversy led to

a temporary halt in U.S. corn exports,a recall of numerous corn productsand lawsuits by dozens of consumers some of whom reported having al-lergic reactions. However, medical stud-ies have since been unable to docu-ment any harms from the protein. 41

Similarly, in 2006 low levels of ge-



15/24


netic material from a herbicide-resistantGM rice known as LibertyLink, whichwas not approved for human consump-tion, appeared in other U.S. rice. Thatled to a plunge in rice prices and tem-porary bans on imports of U.S. rice byJapan and the EU. The following yearthe Department of Agriculture concluded

that LibertyLink posed no identifiableconcerns for human health and the en-vironment and approved it for humanconsumption, but farmers suffered ex-tensive economic damage. 42 In 2011,Bayer CropScience, which had devel-oped the rice, settled a class action suitwith farmers for $750 million. 43

Two other factors helped keepbiotech agriculture in the spotlight. Mon-santo, Dupont and Novartis threeof the biggest developers of biotechcrops all began buying up region-al seed companies, greatly increasingtheir ability to spread the technologybut also expanding their clout in the

In the Gulf of Mexico, a vast oxygen-depleted dead zoneas large as New Jersey forms annually due to algae bloomscaused by phosphorus and nitrogen run-off from farms in

the Midwest. Similar blooms occur in the Great Lakes, killingfish and spoiling scenery. Genetic engineering could help withthe problem, as Monsanto, DuPont and BASF are developingcorn varieties that are more efficient at utilizing nitrogen fer-tilizers. A more provocativeproduct is the Enviropig, agenetically modified York-shire pig developed inCanada that digests phos-

phorus more effectively andexcretes less polluting nu-trients.

The development of ge-netically modified animalspresents just one of a myr-iad number of ethical prob-lems that would have beenhard to fathom even 50 yearsago. From corporationspatenting genetic se-quences to inserting animalgenes into plants, biotech-nology has stretched into

areas that are the provinceof dystopic novels.

Evaluating the ethics of creations such as the Enviropig in-volves weighing environmental benefits such as a reductionin phosphorus in waterways against concerns over manip-ulating the genes of a large mammal that is closely related tohumans.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization argues that thereis no ethical difference between genetically modified animalsand genetically modified plants and that government regulatorsare wrong to delay approval of the first GM animal. The mar-ket should determine whether there is a market for genetical-ly modified animals, says Cathleen Enright, vice president forfood and agriculture at the group.

Yet most societies do treat animals, especially large mam-mals such as pigs, as different moral beings than plants. Nojurisdictions bar cruelty to soybeans. But as genetic engineer-ing pushes further into human health care, it is possible thatgenetic modification of animals will seem less strange. Insulinproduced by genetically engineered organisms has been usedfor diabetes patients since the early 1980s. Genetic engineer-

ing is expanding rapidly inhealth care, and people willlikely benefit from therapeuticcloning of skin cells, heart tis-sue and even bones. 1

U.S. consumers are unlike-ly to be eating genetically mod-ified animal products anytimesoon. The Enviropig project wasrecently terminated due to alack of commercial interest,and a salmon genetically engi-neered to grow nearly twice asfast as existing breeds is stillawaiting approval nearly two

years after the FDA reached apreliminary finding that it issafe for people and the envi-ronment. Yet some fear that

continued resistance will causethe United States to fall behind

other countries. Researchers in China are already studying trans-genic sheep that produce more wool, cows resistant to foot-and-mouth disease and pigs that contain healthy omega-3 fattyacids in their meat. 2

Jason McLure

1 The Value of Therapeutic Cloning, Biotechnology Industry Organization,May 25, 2010, www.bio.org/articles/value-therapeutic-cloning-patients.2 Andrew Pollack, An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically-ModifiedSalmon, The New York Times, May 21, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/business/kakha-bendukidze-holds-fate-of-gene-engineered-salmon.html?pagewanted=all.

Ethics and Genetically Modified AnimalsIs there a difference between GM plants and animals?

Genetically modified animals such as the Enviropig, aYorkshire developed in Canada that excretes less polluting

nutrients, raise perplexing scientific and ethical issues.

UniversityofGuelph


16/24

732 CQ Researcher


market. Their growingdominance raised con-cerns that a handful oflarge businesses would

gain too much controlover global agriculture.Also controversial has

been a decision by Mon-santo to sue its own cus-tomers over the use ofseeds gathered and savedfrom crops that original-ly were sown with thecompanys patented GMseeks. Saving and usingseeds from subsequentcrops violates contracts

that farmers sign withthe company.

To gather evidenceagainst the farmers, Mon-santo sent seed policeto gather samples fromfields that it suspectedillegally contained plantswith its patented genet-ic sequence. Since 1997,Monsanto says it hasfiled suit against 145 U.S.

farmers a relativelysmall number consider-ing the 250,000 Ameri-can farmers who buythe companys seed eachyear. 44 Monsanto seesitself as defending a technology it spenttens of millions of dollars to develop.

A spokesman for Monsanto declinedto be interviewed for this article. How-ever, on its website the company saysit sues to ensure a level playing fieldfor the vast majority of honest farm-

ers who abide by their agreements,and to discourage using technology il-legally to gain an unfair advantage.

But critics see a corporate Goliathbullying farmers.

Gary Rinehart, a Missouri farmersuspected by Monsanto of violating aseed contract, said their message was:Monsanto is big. You cant win. Wewill get you. You will pay. 45

CURRENTSITUATION

In the Pipeline

With patents for common GM seeds,such as Roundup Ready crops,expiring, biotechnology companies arefocusing on GMs next generation. Mon-santo has recently gained regulatory ap-proval for an early variety of drought-resistant corn, and both it and Syngentaare about five to seven years from com-

mercializing additionaldrought-resistant strains,which could potentially aidfarmers in the developing

world and help mitigate theeffects of increasingly fre-quent droughts linked to cli-mate change.

Duponts Pioneer Hi-Bred division and Monsantoalso anticipate marketing GMsoybean varieties rich inheart-healthy oils such asomega-3 fatty acids. Re-searchers also are in the ad-vanced stage of developingnew forms of Bt corn seed

that provide non-Bt refugesfor insects so as to slow thedevelopment of resistance.Virus-resistant strains of pota-toes and beans are also lessthan a decade away, ac-cording to the industrystrade association. 46

Other products couldpotentially be more envi-ronmentally damaging thantodays GM crops, analysts

say. These include corn andsoybean varieties being de-veloped by Dow Agro-Sciences that would be re-sistant to the herbicide2,4-D. The new crops are

being developed to provide farmersan alternative herbicide-resistant cropto battle Roundup-resistant weeds.

Yet 2,4-D is categorized as moder-ately hazardous by the World HealthOrganization, two steps more toxic thanRoundup, which is considered unlike-

ly to present acute hazard to people.Opponents of biotech note that thechemical was an ingredient in AgentOrange, a controversial defoliant usedby the U.S. military during the VietnamWar that caused significant health prob-lems including cancer and birth de-fects among Vietnamese villagersand U.S. soldiers exposed during the

Continued on p. 734

Monsanto soybean seeds are genetically modified to resist diseaseand provide more yield per bushel. In the mid-1990s, the St. Louis

agribusiness giant introduced GM soybeans, corn and cotton thatwere either resistant to Roundup or contained Bt insecticide.

Environmental groups say the Department of Agriculture does notadequately examine the potential impacts of introducing

GM farming methods on millions of acres, such asweed and insect resistance to Roundup and Bt.

Monsanto


17/24

no


At Issue:Should foods containing GM ingredients be labeled?yes

yes

GARY HIRSHBERGCHAIRMAN AND FOUNDING PARTNER,

JUSTLABELIT; CHAIRMAN ANDCO-FOUNDER, STONYFIELDFARM

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, AUGUST 2012

u nlike more than 40 other countries including all ofEurope, Japan and China the United States has nolaws requiring labeling of genetically engineered (GE)foods. Yet most polls show that the vast majority (90 percent)of Americans believe GE foods should be labeled. For 20 years,however, weve been denied that right.

Reasons for wanting to know whats in our food vary, butthe belief that its our right unifies us. Without labeling, wecant make informed choices about our food. The Just Label It(JLI) campaign, a national coalition of more than 500 diverseorganizations, was created to advocate for GE foods labeling.

Americans want labeling for many reasons, including health,safety, environmental and religious considerations, as well asthe belief that the right to know is a core American value.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires theFood and Drug Administration to prevent consumer deceptionby clarifying that a food label is misleading if it omits signifi-cant material information. In 1992 an FDA policy statement

defined material as the ability to be sensed by taste, smell orother senses. The FDA determined that GE foods were sub-stantially equivalent to conventional foods, so no labeling wasrequired.

Twenty years later, this outdated policy remains in effect.This means a GE salmon designed to continuously producehormones is not materially different from a non-GE salmonbecause it does not taste, smell or feel different, according tothe FDA.

Mounting demand for the right to make informed decisionsis responsible for the unprecedented success of Just Label It.In only 180 days, JLI generated more than 1.2 million commentson the FDAs labeling petition the most comments on afood petition in the agencys history.

Despite the overwhelming support for GE foods labeling,our elected officials in the greatest democracy on earth havechosen to deny this right for the very people they represent.People on all sides of the political spectrum are voicing con-cern and distrust with how government and companies aremaking decisions.

Were living in a new era of transparency, and governmentcan no longer justify keeping us in the dark. GE foods mustbe labeled so consumers can have the information they needto make informed decisions about the foods they eat and feedtheir families.no

PHILIP NELSONPRESIDENT, ILLINOISFARMBUREAU

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, AUGUST 2012

recently, theres been a lot of talk about the need to labelfoods that contain genetically modified organisms, orGMOs, as activist groups negatively label them. But why?After all, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides

science-based labeling guidelines for all food and drugs pro-

duced and sold in the United States.Thats why the Illinois Farm Bureau supports FDAs guidelines.

In particular, we support the fact that no special labeling is re-quired unless a food is significantly different than its traditionalcounterpart or where a specific component is altered.

We also support FDAs use of nutritional information on labels,particularly where health effects of an ingredient are medicallyproven, including, for example, information on salt, trans fat andcaffeine content and whether a food is calcium-enriched. More-over, we support voluntary use of special labeling for specificcharacteristics of a food product or when certain ingredients areused to preserve the characteristics of a product throughout pro-duction and distribution, as they are in USDA-certified organicfoods and even in some non-GMO foods.

The key is that we support voluntary labeling.FDA guidelines do not require labeling for products of

biotechnology so-called GMOs. One reason is that biotech-nology is not a product it is a process that speeds up plantbreeding. A second is that biotech products are not significantlydifferent from conventional counterparts, nor are they allergens,

which do require labeling. Biotech crops have been researched,grown and consumed for nearly 30 years. In that time, not asingle allergy, sickness or reaction has occurred. Whats more,thousands of scientists have attested to their safety.

The government determines how best to provide labels thatprotect consumers while also informing them. That is why de-tails on labels are science-based and why most companies haveadditional information on their websites or information hotlines.

Finally, the organic industry does not include biotech pro-duction methods in its certification. Therefore, if people donot want to eat anything that includes GMO foods, they canchoose organic products.

To start labeling for reasons other than science is a slipperyslope that will result in less useful information, greater confu-sion and higher prices. Moreover, mandatory labeling of GMproducts will reduce organic market share and potentially deci-mate a market that farmers and the food industry alike

worked to build.


18/24

734 CQ Researcher

war. The USDA recently received 365,000public comments opposing the approvalof 2,4-D-resistant crops. 47

Enright, of the Biotechnology Indus-try Organization, argues that such prod-ucts will extend the life of Roundup byridding fields of Roundup-resistant weedswith an herbicide sold under a varietyof brand names such as Orthos WeedB Gon Max. Now what were hearingis that farmers are going to be usingAgent Orange. Thats not true, says En-right. Is 2,4-D new to consumers? No,they put it on their lawns every day.

Enright said she did not have enoughinformation about 2,4-D to determine

whether it would be worse for the en-vironment if sprayed on the same scaleas Roundup.

Others, however, are concernedabout the prospect of a dramatic in-crease in 2,4-D spraying. 2,4-D is amuch more toxic material, says Adam-chak, the UC-Davis organic farm co-ordinator, who supports biotech re-search. If the next generation is 2,4-Dresistant, thats not making progress;thats going backwards.

Labeling Battle

T he frontlines of the current debateare now in California, where theNovember ballot measure would requirefoods containing biotech crops to be la-beled as Partially Produced with GeneticEngineering, or May Be Partially Pro-duced with Genetic Engineering. Shouldit pass, the measure could have a broadimpact nationwide if some food proces-

sors choose to stop using GM ingredi-ents in order to avoid the stigma of alabel in Americas most populous state.

Supporters of the measure havemomentum. It took them just 10weeks to gather 971,126 signatures toput the question before voters.

The supporters argue labeling willput California in line with other devel-oped nations. More than 40 other coun-

tries including all of Europe, Japanand even China already label ge-netically engineered food, said GrantLundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family

Farms, a large, organic rice grower andprocessor. Californians deserve to beable to make informed choices too. 48

Consumers Union, publisher of Con-sumer Reportsmagazine, also supportslabeling, arguing that there is uncertaintyabout the molecular characterization ofsome GM crops and researchers abili-ty to detect potential allergens. The issueis one of consumers ability to makechoices about their products and pro-tect themselves from potential harms,the group says.

If foods are not labeled, it wouldbe very difficult to even identify an un-expected health effect resulting from a[GM] food, Michael Hansen, a researcherwith the group, wrote to the AmericanMedical Association (AMA) this year. 49

The California ballot measure includesseveral assertions that are misleading orat odds with peer-reviewed scientific re-search. Government scientists have stat-ed that the artificial insertion of DNA intoplants, a technique unique to genetic

engineering, can cause a variety of sig-nificant problems with plant foods, theballot measure reads. Such genetic en-gineering can increase the levels ofknown toxicants in foods and introducenew toxicants and health concerns.

It also states that the FDA does notrequire safety studies of such food andargues that some consumers such asvegetarians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus can unknowingly violate their owndietary and religious restrictions by eat-ing genetically modified foods that

might be created using animal genes.Opponents of the measure point out

that it doesnt explain that the FDA,World Health Organization, numerousnational science academies and otherprestigious research organizations havedetermined that GM crops arent inher-ently less safe than other foods, whichalso arent required to go through safe-ty studies nor does it mention that

every product currently on the markethas gone through FDAs voluntary reg-ulatory process or that crops also arerequired to be approved by the USDA

and in some cases the EPA. They alsoquestion concerns about violating reli-gious dietary restrictions, given that noproducts on the market are made usinggenetic material from animals, nor havemajor Christian, Jewish or Muslim lead-ers raised significant opposition to thetechnology. 50

In June the AMA opposed labelingand called for the FDA to strengthenpre-market safety testing for new GMproducts. There is no scientific justi-fication for special labeling of bio-

engineered foods, as a class, and volun-tary labeling is without value unlessit is accompanied by focused consumereducation, the group said. 51

The labeling referendum is likely tocome down to a funding battle. Mon-santo and other multinationals, for in-stance, spent $5.5 million campaigningagainst a similar measure in Oregon in2002. Food processors and biotech giantshave already dwarfed that figure, raising$25 million through Aug. 15, including

seven-figure contributions from Monsanto,DuPont, PepsiCo., BASF Plant Scienceand Conagra Foods. This money is beinglargely spent on advertisements callingthe labeling proposal a costly and need-less burden on food companies.

Despite being outspent, labeling pro-ponents include some heavy hitters.Organic food sales in the United Statestopped $31.5 billion in 2011, 52 nearlythree times Monsantos $11.8 billion inglobal biotech sales in 2011. 53The boardof directors of Just Label It, which is

spearheading the California effort, in-cludes representatives of StonyfieldFarms, an organic yogurt companythat is majority-owned by GroupeDanon, the worlds largest dairy com-pany; Organic Valley, the largest U.S.organic dairy co-op with $715 millionin sales; and the Organic Trade As-sociation, a coalition of 6,500 organ-ic businesses.


Continued from p. 732


19/24


The growing political clout of the or-ganic industry rankles conventional farm-ers like Olthoff, who say labeling un-fairly demonizes GM crops. I believe

in testing; I want everything to be right,but I dont want people to bad-mouthbiotech just to make money, he says.

Proponents have crafted the Cali-fornia measure more narrowly thanOregons. The California initiative wouldallow several exemptions, including:

restaurants; meat from animals fed GM crops; milk from cows injected with rBGH; food unintentionally contaminated

with GM material; alcoholic beverages (such as

wine made with genetically modifiedyeast); and

cheeses and other foods madeusing genetically engineered enzymes.

Its cleverly crafted to exempt thoseinterests in California that could mostreadily influence consumers to rejectthe initiative, says Enright, of thebiotech industry trade group.

The effectiveness of the FDA label-ing petition, meanwhile, seems uncer-tain. Although organizers say more than

a million people have sent commentsand signed petitions to the agency, theFDA says it has only received 394 offi-cial comments. Even if thousands of peo-ple sign a form letter or a petition, theagency explains, their signatures are onlycounted as one person or comment.

After the March deadline to respondto the petition passed, the agency saidit needed more time to consider itsresponse.

OUTLOOK

Conflict Ahead?

S ome opponents of biotechnologyforesee a difficult future for theseed-development technique.

Duesing, of the Northeast OrganicFarming Association, predicts growingconflict between organic farmers andthe biotech industry, particularly as GM

alfalfa and sweet corn are grown inthe Northeast, where small farms areoften clustered closely together. ShouldGM varieties pollinate with nearby or-ganic fields, organic farmers could losetheir organic certification and thustheir price premium.

Duesing expects such situations totrigger an even stronger backlash againstbiotech companies, benefitting smallfarmers. Theyve got their vision forthe food system, he says. They wantcontrol, and they dont want any other

messy thing. Once we move awayfrom Monsantos technologies, peoplewill be breeding for local conditions.

The Center for Food Safetys Kim-brell foresees greater environmental dam-age from GM crops and the expandeduse of older and more toxic herbicidesto fight Roundup-resistant weeds.

I think the past is the future, hesays. You cant base good agricultureon bad science. That doesnt mean thecorporations . . . wont keep pushing it.

Others predict that biotechnologywill be able to achieve only modestgains in the near future as researchersstruggle with the scientific challengesof producing higher-yielding and moredrought-resistant crops. We think breed-ing will considerably outpace geneticengineering for five to 10 years, saysGurian-Sherman, of the Union of Con-cerned Scientists. For the foreseeablefuture I see genetic engineering beinguseful at the margins for society.

Some grain farmers disagree. As far

as weve come, I think well go fur-ther again, well double it, says Olthoff,the Illinois corn and soybean farmer.I know Monsanto is working ondrought-tolerant corn, which will be aboon for us and a boon for Africa.

Klee, the University of Florida mol-ecular biologist, predicts research intofruit and vegetable crops likely will re-main stymied for the foreseeable future

by consumer resistance even ascrops that are components of processedfoods are more widely adopted. Whensomeone picks up a GM fruit or vegetable

and someone points out to them thatthis is a genetically modified food, thereis a different attitude, says Klee.

The only exception is when spe-cialty crops face crises, as when ringspotvirus cut production by more than halfin Hawaiis papaya industry, says Klee.

In the late 1980s [the virus] tookover everybody, and we were chop-ping down trees, says Ken Kamiya, adirector of the Hawaii Papaya Indus-try Association. That led to the de-velopment of the Rainbow papaya,

bred to be virus resistant. WithoutG

gmo article

Documents