The Problem with Genetically Engineered Corn

MOFGA's Response to Dennis Bailey

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," (Harper's 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 touted 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.

An Additional Response

Editor
Portland Press Herald
Congress St.
Portland, ME

Dear Editor,

This is a belated inquiry in response to your February 10th article on genetically modified corn, "Misunderstood in Maine" by Dennis Bailey. It is belated because I have been waiting and hoping that you would print an article presenting the reasons why it is very appropriate for genetically modified corn to be banned. It seems to me that it would be very important to present your readership with both sides of the story on such a complex and far-reaching issue as genetically modified crops.

In speaking recently with Russell Libby, Executive Director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, organizers of the well-known Common Ground Fair in Unity, I was very disappointed to learn that his organization had contacted your paper not once but twice to have you print a response to Mr. Bailey’s article and that you refused them both times. I have read their response on their website, www.mofga.org, and it states several very compelling reasons for not allowing genetically engineered corn.

I would hope that on this and all such controversial topics the Portland Press Herald would sense an obligation to present both points of view allowing your readers to draw their own conclusions.

Sincerely,

--Cordelia Lane
Yarmouth
April 29, 2002