News
Seeds for biotech foods
are slipping into traditional stocks,
raising fears that experimental nonfood
seeds are there too
March 11
Christian Science Monitor
The food industry has already found
out the dangers - and costs - of letting
unauthorized biotech crops seep into
the food supply. Now, another threat
has emerged: seeds.
Traditional corn, soybeans, and canola
seeds available for sale to American
farmers have a tiny percentage of genetically
modified (GM) seeds mixed in with them,
a new study shows. The finding poses
immediate challenges for farmers and
nations trying to keep their crops GM-free.
It also raises key questions as GM
acreage continues to increase worldwide.
If the genie is out of the bottle for
GM seeds approved for human consumption,
what's to prevent other experimental
GM crops from moving into the food supply?
Do consumers want genes meant to produce
drugs, plastics, and vaccines hiding
in their corn flakes?
"There is no reason to believe
that the transgenes detected in this
study are the only ones moving into
the traditional seed supply," concludes
the study, released Feb. 23 by the Union
of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a watchdog
group based in Cambridge, Mass.
It also says GM crops not approved
for human consumption have been and
continue to be field tested, leaving
possible the contamination of traditional
varieties.
Not so fast, industry groups counter.
The UCS study found levels of GM seeds
varying from only 0.05 percent to 1
percent mixed with traditional seeds,
they point out. Shipments regularly
contain similar amounts of other "off
type" seed varieties that have
nothing to do with genetic modification.
Nor are there any indications that GM-modified
crops pose any health hazard, these
groups point out.
They add that as biotech crops become
commercialized, their seeds will naturally
find their way into traditional seed
lots - but at very small levels.
"It is expected they will be held
to reasonably low levels by the quality
assurance procedures," the American
Seed Trade Association (ASTA) said in
a statement.
In other words, "there are low
levels that are there, but they're allowed
under seed laws," says Christopher
Novak, a spokesman for Syngenta, a multinational
agribusiness that develops GM crops,
in a phone interview. "There's
not a question of safety because all
of these products have been approved
for food use."
And what about the GM crops being field
tested for pharmaceutical and industrial
purposes?
The conclusion that these crops will
comingle with traditional crops is not
supported "by science, law, or
practice," Mr. Novak says. Companies
like Syngenta have a self-interest not
to allow pharma and industrial biotech
crops into the food chain, he says,
if for no other reason than "because
of liability for us as a company."
Syngenta uses several methods to keep
experimental GM crops separate, including
growing them in locations away from
traditional crops. The GM crops also
may be planted at a different time,
meaning they wouldn't flower when traditional
crops do, making cross-pollination impossible.
Physical alterations, such as detassling
corn, can also be used to prevent the
spread of pollen.
But Jane Rissler, a scientist at the
UCS and coauthor of the study, says
these steps aren't enough. While she
concedes that experimental GM crops
are raised under tougher standards than
other crops, the standards were only
tightened recently.
"For many years they were not
grown under as strict requirements as
they are now, so in fact, contamination
could have occurred then," she
says in a phone interview. "And
I fear it still could occur now."
With corn, for example, the possibility
of gene flow from one variety to another
is high. "Corn pollen can travel
so far," Dr. Rissler says. The
insistence of seed companies that their
pharmaceutical and industrial farming
is safe "is not convincing to us
and frankly it's not convincing to the
food industry," which, she says,
has "suggested very, very strongly
that [only] nonfood crops be used to
produce pharmaceuticals."
StarLink story
The industry has already experienced
the costs of letting unapproved GM crops
enter the food supply.
In 2000, StarLink, a variety of GM
corn designed for livestock feed and
not approved for human consumption,
was found in taco shells and other grocery
items, causing a public fury.
StarLink was removed from the market
and its manufacturer, the French drugmaker
Aventis, was forced to pay millions
of dollars in legal settlements to corn
farmers and grain handlers whose businesses
were damaged by the controversy.
Not surprisingly, both seed producers
and critics agree that no GM crops designed
for nonfood use should enter the food
chain. But the tricky question, experts
suggest, is what level of GM seed deemed
safe by the United States should be
allowed in shipments labeled as non-GM
seed?
"There is no worldwide uniform
standard about what constitutes an appropriate
level of seed purity," says Michael
Fernandez of the Pew Initiative on Food
and Biotechnology, an independent think
tank. This fall, Pew plans to host a
conference that will look at ways to
set testing standards of GM crops and
seed purity.
In the US, producers are required to
reveal only how much "off-type"
seed is mixed in with the labeled seed,
along with any foreign substances, such
as weeds.
These are "marketplace standards,"
Mr. Fernandez says. "They're not
designed as safety standards."
GM seeds approved for consumption would
simply be listed as one of the other
varieties present, he says. "The
assumption is that no seed [on the market]
is 100 percent pure."
However, GM "contamination"
of traditional seed could become a problem
for trade with nations who are much
more skittish about GM foods, the UCS
report suggests.
The British government announced Tuesday
that it would allow the first commercial
GM crop, a type of corn, to be planted
there, despite howls of protest. The
British Medical Association reported
that GM foods were highly unlikely to
be a health hazard. But a recent poll
cited in the London Times showed that
only 4 percent of Britons strongly favored
GM food and would eat it, while 85 percent
said GM crops would have a negative
impact on the environment.
Skepticism also remains high in the
rest of the European Union and Africa.
Even in the US, Mendocino County in
northern California voted last week
to ban genetically engineered crops
and animals. Other local governments
are considering similar laws.
Last month, a meeting in Malaysia of
more than 80 countries that have signed
a UN protocol on biosafety agreed to
require detailed labeling on international
shipments of GM crops. (They did not
deal with the issue of standard seeds
that contain traces of GM seeds.) The
US disagreed with the labeling plan,
but because it has not signed the UN
protocol it could attend the meeting
only as an observer.
However, a report by the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications (ISAAA) shows "hope
for the future that biotech is continuing
to gain acceptance as people have more
understanding of the safety of these
products," Syngenta's Novak says.
Global acreage devoted to GM crops
grew by 15 percent to 167.3 million
acres between 2002 and 2003, according
to the ISAAA. Nearly 61 percent of that
acreage was in the US, and 99 percent
was grown in just six countries (US,
Canada, China, South Africa, Argentina,
and Brazil). In a boost for GM crops,
China just gave a green light for seven
varieties of foreign-grown GM crops
to enter its market.
What next?
The UCS report concludes that the mixing
of GM traits into traditional seed supplies
is "not entirely reversible,"
but argues that it can be "substantially
reduced." More and deeper studies
of GM "contamination" need
to be done, the UCS says.
The UCS also calls for the Department
of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct an
investigation and for the USDA, the
Food and Drug Administration, and the
Environmental Protection Agency to amend
regulations for GM pharmaceutical and
industrial crops "to ensure that
the seed supply for food and feed crops
is not contaminated at any level with
drugs, vaccines, plastics, or related
substances."
These government agencies have yet
to respond to the UCS study, Rissler
says.
