Sarah Hake's husband, Don Murch, at Gospel Flats, his organic farm in Marin County.
Opponents of the precautionary principle point out that the principle can limit any technology because there are possible negative effects associated with any new advancement in science. The principle ignores any possible benefits of GMOs. Gutterson claims, “our society would never have gained wheels if it had been for the precautionary principle.”
Something that both sides of the GMO debate agree on is that the general voting public should not directly decide how to regulate GMOs. Rather, scientists and legislators should work together to create these laws. As Gutierrez states, “I don’t think the public is sufficiently informed on the issues.” Gutterson agrees, saying, “it’s an act of democracy, so you can’t argue with that, but you need a more expert, informed view. The voters can be misguided.” Instead, he thinks “we look to the federal government to regulate complex issues and I think that’s the right place to go. The USDA and FDA need to be given a mandate.”
The gene's out of the bottle
The granules of GM sorghum tissue in this petri dish will be treated with hormones and develop into full-grown plants.
Another major concern surrounding GMOs is the possibility that they will genetically contaminate other crops, be they organic plants grown in a nearby field or wild relatives of a genetically modified species (see sidebar “Blowin’ in the wind”). Contamination could occur if a genetically engineered plant pollinated a non-GMO plant, thereby creating fruit or grain containing a genetically engineered gene. This process is known as “gene flow.” Contaminated fruits or grains would be grown and shipped as non-genetically engineered foods, and without complex biological tests, consumers would be none the wiser. Understandably, this makes many farmers uneasy, especially those who farm organically. With even the possibility of this contamination happening, organic farmers stand to lose value in US and European organic markets.
The threat to wild relatives may be even more serious. Wild relatives of cultivated plants are considered unlimited reservoirs of genetic diversity that can be bred into contemporary crop lines. Genes stored in natural relatives can confer traits such as increased flavor or enhanced disease resistance to a new pest. Farmers have resorted to these wild relative gene reservoirs during the entire history of agriculture, and they continue to do so today.
Ignacio Chapela was one of the first scientists to address concerns over gene flow. Chapela believed that pollen from illegally grown GM plants imported from the US could contaminate indigenous plant lines in Central America, where many varieties of corn are grown on small family farms. These plant lines, known as landraces, are genetic warehouses for traits that could be classically bred into US corn lines to confer desired characteristics. After random sampling in the maize fields in Central America, Chapela discovered that genetically engineered traits had already found their way into Mexican landraces.
Although Chapela’s scientific methods have been extensively criticized, few scientists would dispute his conclusion that contamination of the land races in Mexico has already occurred. The extent of the contamination, whether it can be stopped, and how to eliminate the genetic pollution that exists, are all areas that require further study.
Closer to home
The city of Berkeley, located in Alameda County, includes UC Berkeley as well as a large number of private biotechnology companies that may be affected by new laws regulating genetically modified organisms. Berkeley residents do not grow genetically modified crops and most are fairly liberal in their political leanings; the culture in this county has more in common with Marin than with Fresno. This may be why groups such as GMO-Free Alameda are taking hold here.
The main goal of GMO-Free Alameda is to “protect the county’s agriculture, environment, and private property from genetic contamination and to safeguard residents’ health and the economy from the ill effects of genetically modified organisms." GMO-Free Alameda plans to start just as Mendocino and Marin Counties did, with a ballot measure supported by a collected list of supportive voters. Sonoma, a neighboring county, has already collected the necessary number of signatures to put it on the next ballot, and Alameda County may soon follow.
These county-based initiatives would not directly affect research at UC Berkeley, but the effects on private companies and farmers in northern California would still be felt at the university. Peggy Lemaux conducts research on genetically modified grains, and some of her research is done through contract with local farmers. If the farmers were prohibited from growing genetically modified organisms, this research couldn’t be done and, says Lemaux, “[I] couldn’t assess the impact of GMOs because I couldn’t do the experiment[s].”
Rajvinder Kavr, assistant specialist, and Erica Moehler, undergraduate, work with GM sorghum in Peggy Lemaux’s lab.
Biotech businesses like Neal Gutterson’s Mendel fear that local legislation against GMOs may limit or even reduce the financial stake the government and private companies have in the biotech industry and university research in California. Currently, California has a large biotechnology sector in both the public and private arenas, and a majority of cotton farmers in California also grow genetically modified plants. However, all of these industries could easily decline if California’s legislative climate discouraged the research or use of GMOs.
It’s a good sign that activist groups have shifted tactics from guerrilla warfare to working within the legal system — introducing ballot initiatives is a far more civilized way to work change. However, good democracy requires informed voters, and the GMO debate is too complex to be reduced to a simple yes or no vote by a public generally uneducated in science, agriculture, economics, or technology. The people we elect, Hollywood action heroes or otherwise, should appoint qualified scientists and legislators to introduce state or federal laws — laws that exercise proper caution, while still allowing farmers the advantages of technology. These scientists and legislators need to understand both the risks involved with gene flow and the social cost of patenting farmers’ seeds, while at the same time taking into account the tremendous benefits this new science promises.
References
USDA-NASS Censuses; Pew Initiative on Food andBiotechnology Study, 2004.
Hammond, B. G., et al., “The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish, and dairy cattle is not alteredby genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance,” J.Nutrition 126, pp. 717-727 (1996).
Hammond, B. G., et al., “Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn,” Food and Chemical Toxicity 42, pp. 1003-1014 (2004)
This article is part of the Fall 2001 issue.
