The Problem with Genetically Engineered Corn

Call & Response from The Maine Commons
Issue 5 — April-May 2002

Maine Commons Writers Respond to Criticism and Corporate Media — The first in this month’s Call & Response is a response by representatives of MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association) to an op/ed in a local Seattle Times-owned paper. On February 10, Dennis Bailey, a public relations consultant, published an op/ed piece in the Portland Press Herald (PPH) extolling the virtues of genetically engineered corn, and criticizing Mainers for not embracing the technology. It is interesting to note that Bailey failed to identify the corporate client who inspired and/or paid for his effort, and disturbing to note the number of errors in his presentation. Within a week of that publication, we had submitted a response to PPH on behalf of the Maine Organic Farmers and Growers Association. PPH has to date declined to print our response.

The Problem with Genetically Engineered Corn:
MOFGA’s Response to Dennis Bailey

In his February 10 commentary in the Portland Press Herald, Dennis Bailey argues that genetically engineered corn has been “misunderstood” — and wrongly banned — in Maine. While fairly representing the biotech industry's point of view, Bailey’s piece is replete with its own misunderstandings:

Contention: Bt corn “would eliminate the need for pesticides.”

Response: Instead of the conventional once- or twice-a-year application of Bt spray — an application that breaks down rapidly, Bt engineered corn has a gene built into it that produces a pesticide throughout the corn plant - including the kernels — and that persists for the duration of the plant’s life. Because the pesticide is available continuously to such pests as the European corn borer, scientists overwhelmingly predict that the proliferation of Bt-engineered crops will lead to pest resistance to the Bt toxin. In the long run, this will result in loss of effectiveness of Bt as a spray to all farmers, and the resort to more toxic chemical alternatives. Yes, the EPA promises to address this through “insect management plans” asking farmers to set aside refuges of non-Bt crops, but a biotechnology industry survey published in January 2001 showed that nearly 30% of farmers who grew Bt corn in 2000 did not follow the resistance management guidelines. As industry rep Jeff Stein conceded when he spoke to the Maine Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) in 1997, uniform enforcement of these plans is problematic, and many “knowledge gaps” exist relative to insect resistance, such as “insect growth, migration behavior, mating...”

Contention: Bt Corn “presents no risk to human health.”

Response: The fact is that scientists simply don’t know. Genetic engineering creates new proteins that humans have never before widely consumed. Proteins are the predominant trigger for allergenicity. New proteins, both unexpected and unidentified, may be created in GE foods. As Barry Commoner observed in his recent analysis of the “spurious foundation of genetic engineering,” (Harpers Magazine, Feb. 2002): “the biotechnology industry is not required to provide even the most basic information about the actual composition of the transgenic plants to the regulatory agencies.”

The 2000 report of the National Academy of Sciences on Bt crops concluded that “there is the potential for ... adverse health effects” and recommended that “priority should be given to the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens” in these crops.

That recommendation was reiterated in a report in July 2001 by the EPA’s own scientific advisory committee, including leading U.S. allergists. The EPA went ahead to reregister Bt corn before the recommended tests had been developed and carried out.

Contention: “Genetic engineering ... will enable us to create more food more cheaply.”

Response: This much-toutd promise certainly hasn’t been borne out with the crop in question, Bt corn. The December 13, 2001 report, “When Does It Pay to Plant Bt Corn?” by Dr. Charles Benbrook, former Executive Director of the National Academy of Sciences Board of Agriculture, found that from 1996-2001, American farmers paid at least $659 million in price premiums to plant Bt corn, while boosting their harvest by only 276 million bushels-worth some $567 million in economic gain. The bottom line for farmers was a net loss of $92 million-about $1.31 per acre. Benbrook observed that the “jump in per acre seed expenditures with Bt corn is by far the biggest in history linked to a single new trait.” Good news for Monsanto, bad news for farmers.

Contention: Bt corn is “banned” in Maine.

Response: Before any pesticide, including a genetically engineered “plant pesticide,” can be used in Maine, it must be registered by the BPC, which must find among other things, that a “need” exists, and that there are no “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” When Novartis and DEKALB submitted the first applications for Bt corn in 1997, they submitted no data whatsoever to suggest Bt field corn would improve farmers' yields under Maine growing conditions (a fact doubted by Cooperative Extension specialist Don Barry), and conceded that widespread use of Bt corn was likely to place “high selective pressure” on the European corn borer to become tolerant to the Bt toxin. (Jeff Stein, Novartis rep., Oct. 24, 1997 meeting). The BPC denied the applications. When, in December 1998, Monsanto submitted a new application for its Bt corn, the Board sent Monsanto a list of 13 questions related to need and environmental impact. Monsanto replied on January 6, asking that its application be “tabled indefinitely,” “pending our cost/benefit review of the additional data requirements.” The biotech industry has twice failed to comply with Maine statutes in seeking registration of its products here.

Bailey thinks Maine is missing an opportunity. We agree. Maine could be the first state to prohibit the planting of GE crops, thereby opening up opportunities for export that the rest of the country is busy surrendering by our wrong-headed policy of planting first and figuring out what happened later.

-- Sharon Tisher & Russell Libby / MOFGA

Excerpt from The Maine Commons
A publication of the Maine Independent Media Center
PO Box 1444, Waterville, Maine 04903
www.mainecommons.org

Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association MOFGA, formed in 1971, is the oldest & largest state organic organization in the country
P.O. Box 170, Unity, Maine 04988 (207.568.4142
E-Mail: mofga@mofga.org Web: www.mofga.org