Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Consequences of GM Crop Contamination 'Are Set to Worsen'
The consequences of contamination between GM crops and non-GM varieties will be much more serious with the next generation of GM crops, an influential group of US scientists has warned.
Mixing between GM and non-GM varieties has already caused serious economic losses for producers in lost sales and exports. But the consequences of mixing will be much more serious with new crops that are altered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, the scientists argue. The crops could harm human health and be toxic to wild animals.
"What would be the impact societally, economically if for example, cornflakes were contaminated by some sort of drug or chemical? I think it would be a vast impact economically," said Karen Perry Stillerman, senior food and environment programme analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"I think it's really hard to say [what impact contamination would have] because there is a variety of different drugs and chemicals that might be manufactured in plants this way," she added. "Our perception is that some of them might be toxic, but all of them would certainly cause tremendous economic upheaval."
The group presented its findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Boston.
Huge research effort
Up to now, commercial GM varieties have been restricted mainly to modifications for herbicide tolerance or resistance to pests. But a huge research effort is going into a new generation of crops that are genetically modified to produce drugs, hormones, vaccines and industrial chemicals such as the precursors of plastics.
Although public opinion in Britain and the rest of Europe remains firmly against GM crops in general, it is more favourable to crops with medical benefits. But the Union of Concerned Scientists said that these are precisely the crops that pose the greatest risks if they exchange genes with wild relatives or conventional versions of the same crop.
So-called "pharma crops" can offer advantages over current methods of drug manufacture. Vaccines produced this way could be grown cheaply in developing countries and simply given to patients in the food. That would remove the need for sterile needles and refrigerators to keep vaccine doses cold - a major obstacle for delivering therapies in poor countries.
Prof Paul Gepts, a plant geneticist at the University of California, Davis, said past experience suggests that "contamination" events cannot be avoided. "Gene flow is really a regular occurrence among plants. So if you put a gene out there it's going to escape. It's going to go to other varieties of the same crop or to its wild relatives," he said. "It's clear that zero contamination is impossible at present."
Major economic losses
There have been a handful of examples in the US and elsewhere of genes from GM varieties not cleared for human consumption getting into nearby food crops and hence the human food chain. This has led to major economic losses for producers in lost sales, exports and clean-up costs, but there have been no proven cases of damage to human health.
"With the products we are talking about, there's the potential for that to be much more serious than what we have seen so far," said Prof Robert Wisner at Iowa State University.
According to Gepts, most of the ideas for keeping crops apart are inadequate, because pollen and seed are carried on the wind, by animals and birds and on farm machinery. He said the only way to be sure that food crops would not be contaminated by drug genes or genes for industrial chemicals would be to use non-food crops such as tobacco.
Alternatively, GM food plants could be grown in greenhouses or underground to prevent pollen escaping, he said.
Call for ban
The Union of Concerned Scientists is calling on the US Department of Agriculture to ban the growth of GM pharma crops outdoors unless they are species that are not eaten by people or livestock.
The USDA is currently putting together new guidelines on GM that are expected to be completed by the end of the year. Currently, no GM crops that produce industrial chemicals or pharma crops are grown commercially, although there are some field trials under way in the US.
Similar issues will apply in the UK and Europe if pharma crops are approved. So far, though, only a handful of GM crop varieties are grown in Europe.
© 2008 The Guardian

17 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://www.edibleforestgardens.com/
City, suburb or rural - a facinating, readable all-in-one (well, two volumes) encyclopedia.
Old Goat,
Thanks for the reference. I confess, I'm not as informed on this issue as I should be. This looks like a good place to start.
This is a whole lot worse than this article portrays. GM pharma crops are already being grown in the US. In California, GM "Golden Rice" that produced some toxic chemical was banned for testing in CA by rice farmers and the public. So the GM company (Monsanto?) is now growing this toxic stuff in Kansas.
This is a VERY big deal. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the USDA is not going to be making any regs or rules that are in the food consumers' best interest!
Go to this link for more info on GM stuff and how to take action on this issue:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.cfm#America
Thanks, Rebel. I appreciate the website referral.
Thanks, Rebel for the great site referral!
Wait for GM crops to contain a tiny bit of THC. The NarcoFeds will fall all over them.
http://www.focusthenation.org/contactus.php
Focus the nation is working with tens of thousands of US schools on sustainability issues and getting good press coverage. The kids have got to have tools. This is a starter toolbox - by no way diminishing a major effort - just that this has potential to truely mature.
Another preemptive post for any pro-GM people who show up…
The burden of proof rests upon the proponent of any proposed action. Hocus-pocus claims to "substantial equivalence" are not adequate. So, please point us to 1) an independent animal feeding trial showing that whichever particular strain you are claiming is safe (or every single GMO commercially available, if you support them all) is indeed safe and most importantly 2) an independent double-blind, placebo-controlled human trial with a focus on vulnerable groups like children, the elderly and those suffering from HIV, hepatitis or the like showing that strain (or strains you support) is safe.
Thanks.
From the article: "The Union of Concerned Scientists is calling on the US Department of Agriculture to ban the growth of GM pharma crops outdoors unless they are species that are not eaten by people or livestock."
This proposed policy is absolutely inadequate! (1) What is grown indoors can be expected to find its way outdoors and into the gene pool -- and probably sooner than later. (2) The article mentions concern about wildlife -- i.e. the web of life -- yet this policy is concerned only about people and livestock (i.e. people food).
Congress should immediately enact a ban on this kind of research, as an emergency measure, with stiff penalties that will effectively prevent it from being conducted.
This a crime not only against humanity but against the web of life, and should be recognized as such.
L-Edwards,
I think you're right about this. What was that line from Jurassic Park? "Nature finds a way."
Control is an illusion. Nature abhors barriers.
"This is a whole lot worse than this article portrays. GM pharma crops are already being grown in the US. In California, GM "Golden Rice" that produced some toxic chemical was banned for testing in CA by rice farmers and the public. So the GM company (Monsanto?) is now growing this toxic stuff in Kansas."
Rebel farmer, Golden Rice is designed to produce high levels of beta-carotene, a vitamin A precursor to combat vitamin A deficiency. While too much vitamin A is toxic the precursor is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_A
so to claim the rice produces a toxic chemical is erroneous.
NB: I do however agree with the general thrust of the article.
The GM crops can be genetically modified so their pollen is unable to fertilize other variants of the species. In effect this is a creation of a new species and should be required by law. The cost of developing this hybrid-proof species should be reflected in the price of the end product, instead of externalized into the public expense pool. Typically, a number of technicians working in the the field will suggest such an idea, and find widespread agreement, and then the capitalists will chuck the idea into the garbage with no explanation and select the most intimidating/oppressive approach they think they can get away with. The capitalists have the full support of O'Bama/Hellary and the rest of our representatives in Washington.
It is part of a neo-malthusian plot to wipe out 80-90% of the population due to famine and/or disease. There is no other explanation.
The good news is they have mother natures seed stock all in a vault built into a mountain in the Arctic for when things go wrong. It was paid for by Monsanto, the Gates foundation and the Rockefeller foundation, so the elite will be able to plant the food after we leave. Once that ice melts from global warming, there will be a lot of virgin and uncontaminated land.
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/SeedVault.html
In India many farmers are commiting suicide. Monsanto conned farmers into believing they would get huge yields but forgot to tell them they needed huge amounts of herbicides and irrigation which were either not available or too expensive. The farmers used them for 1 harvest, harvest failed, and many went bankrupt and those that did not were required to buy the seeds from Monsanto due to the contract they signed, and so had to borrow money to arrange the required irrigation and buy the pesticides. Since 1997 166,000 have suicided.
This is happening elsewhere, and those countries trying to protect their agriculture by not allowing GM seeds are being taken to court under WTO TRIPS and forced to open up their markets to these seeds.
The food from these seeds have never been adequately tested. The argument was that they were substantially the same as the original seeds (so how come they could patent them) so it was safe to assume they were safe. However, when you genetically modify the seeds, you introduce a new gene taken from bacteria, which creates the desired protein, along with some unknown number of proteins which can have unpredictable effects which can only be determined by thorough chronic toxicity testing that may take years to perform, on rats and guineau pigs. You are a replacement for lab rats.
In 1999, the British did a study on a GM potato that was already being eaten by Americans. They found that rats being fed these potatos were suffering immune system damage and had smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles. Some showed atrophy of the liver. Eat up kiddies.
Fortunately, this GM potato is no longer being produced, perhaps as a result of this study (the British tried to suppress the release and the researcher blew the whistle, and got fired)
Seeds of deception by Jeffrey Smith and Seeds of Destruction by William Engdahl are essential reading.
I can just see with drugs being grown from crops along with food, that your kids corn flakes may contain hypertensives, steroids, even viagra. Madness,
Corporate group think is entirely too powerful. The answer lies in a strengthening of corporate law allowing the shifting of financial responsibility to those corporations and individuals within those corporations for damages done.
I didn't see it mentioned in this article, but I have heard that one characteristic built into many GM crops is a failure to "go to seed" at the end of the growth cycle. Traditionally, farmers would retain a portion of their crop in order to harvest the seed for the next year's planting. But, since the GM crops do not produce seed, farmers would instead be forced to purchase new seed every year.
Does anyone know if this is true?
What you are referring to are called "Terminator" seeds. And this technology was developed by by the U.S. government and a private company (Pine?)about 10 years ago. Somehow the seeds have never been allowed to be marketed. But they are still being patented by Monsanto who bought Pine. For more articles about this go to the link below:
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.organicconsumers.org&q=terminator+seeds&sa=Go&sitesearch=www.organicconsumers.org&client=pub-0405021158932910&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&flav=0000&sig=JZU_EKX0fKYQwbjk&cof=GALT%3A%23006666%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23669966%3BVLC%3A006666%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFCC%3BLBGC%3A669966%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A003333%3BGFNT%3A006666%3BGIMP%3A006666%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A750%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.organicconsumers.org%2Fimages%2FOCAbannerthin.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.organicconsumers.org%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en
The Terminator trait was not brought to market due to concerns that farmers could not save seed. However, those that grow GM crops must sign an agreement that they will not save seed, or else they must buy conventional seed and not use this patented technology. The arguments seem a bit convoluted. Should those who sell compact discs be prohibited from implementing software that prevents illegal copying? I guess that some want to protect criminals' rights to steal seeds?
With regards to pharma crops, there is a real risk here. Unlike agronomic traits like herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, these crops have not been shown to be safe. It seems like such crops need to be grown outside of the range of sexually compatible food or feed crops (like in the desert with irrigation) or else be restricted to non-food crop-compatible species. The risks of pharma crops are real and testable, unlike the phantom risks alleged for agronomic GM crops. Dougy seems to think that he is the judge of what he requires to show safety, but no testing of GM crops will satisfy him. I guess the voices in his head have given him a higher calling....