Wisconsin Public Television
Transcript: "Food Fight: Wisconsin's Biotech Crops"
Air Date: November, 2001
graphic:
Do you know what genetically engineered food is?
Man:
I have a fairly convoluted idea.
Woman:
I know they're doing that to soy.
graphic: It is also called genetically modified, GMO, or gene altered food.
Man:
Like, they've messed around with the genes or something.
Woman:
For instance, tomatoes mixed with protein genes, so the tomato has protein in it. And, yeah, is that right?
Narrator:
Many consumers have heard something about genetically engineered food, but don't know exactly what it is. Today, almost three-fourths of the food in the grocery store is genetically engineered. And the challenge for the consumer is, the experts don't agree on how genetic engineering may affect the environment and our health.
Michael Sussman:
I believe this technology has the capability to deliver food to people who currently don't have it.
Ronnie Cummins:
Genetic engineering is a radical new technology that alters the very blueprints of life.
Sandra Austin-Phillips:
I think, ultimately, the real benefit is going to be in the third world.
Jerry Bradley:
It's turning into a better yielder. I'm using less pesticides. And the bottom line is it's going to make me more money.
Jim Goodman:
I think that it's a lot wiser approach to do a more holistic farming method, rather than wait until
you've got a fire and then say, "Oh boy we've got to have this technology to put it out."
Narrator:
Genetically engineered food is a growing focus of debate around the world. In the next hour, we're going to hear from people in Wisconsin who have a stake in this discussion, from consumers, to scientists, to farmers.
The controversy about genetically engineered food can be confusing, but at this point one thing is clear, there's a food fight under way, and the public debate is just starting to heat up.
Consumers can't tell whether the food they're buying is genetically engineered, because it doesn't look or taste different than other food. And the fact that it's been genetically engineered doesn't appear on the label.
The list of foods that contain genetically engineered or modified organisms is long. They're in fresh fruits and vegetables. But more frequently, processed foods are made with genetically modified organisms, especially foods containing corn and soy. Corn, in the form of syrup, sweetens many of the things we eat and drink. And Soy, in some form, is in 60 percent of all processed food.
Michael Sussman:
There are some people who simply won't ever want to eat a food that's been tampered. Now, the problem with that, is that breeding is by it's nature tampering. Agriculture is a very intensive and environmentally bad thing, and we started doing that thousands of years ago. So, unless as a society, we want to go back to gathering and hunting our food, and all the discomfort that that probably entails, we use technology.
Narrator:
Starting about 10,000 years ago, the hunter-gatherer people took steps to secure a steady food supply. These first farmers domesticated wild plants by selecting seeds from plants they liked.
Bill Tracy:
This small ear, would have been larger than the early domesticated corns. But from these tiny ears, all of the variation that you see here, and much, much more was selected by Native Americans.
They might have had different characteristics. Some of them might have tasted better. Some of
them might have been taller or shorter. Some of them might have been easier to harvest. Then, later on, actually thousands of years later on, people deliberately began hybridizing or crossing plants.
Newsreel:
The development of hybrid corn across the broad lands of America is one of the greatest single advances in the whole long history of plant improvement.
Narrator:
Hybridized corn took over the fields starting in the late '30s. Hybridizing was a breakthrough because it created better and stronger plants.
Bill Tracy:
We hybridize, or cross?pollinate plants, we have to take the pollen from one plant, which is the male sex cells, and we have to put it on the female flowers. In corn, it's really easy to do. So, when we hybridize or cross?pollinate, we collect the pollen in brown bags like this, and then we
take this pollen and pour it onto the female flowers. Ad that's how we make a cross?pollination, or hybridize two different plants.
Newsreel:
The spectacular achievements of hybrid corn have been accomplished through fundamental research, which is the foundation stone of progress. Scientists are confident that still further advances may be expected in the future.
Narrator:
Scientists in the '30s knew there were many more crop breeding methods waiting to be discovered. One discovery was "tissue culture."
Bob Goodman:
Very often, in breeding, you can find a desirable trait in a wild relative of the crop species, and you can often make a cross between a wild relative and the cultivated species. But sometimes, that cross doesn't produce viable progeny. And so, the idea is that you can take the young embryo that's the result of a cross, put that into culture and rescue a viable individual.
Narrator:
In addition to tissue culture, breeders have learned still more ways to create new plants in the laboratory, crosses that couldn't happen in nature. Now, genetic engineers are manipulating plants in a way that's never been done before.
To genetically engineer a plant, scientists first identify a gene, like one that makes the plant resistant to insects. Then, they put this gene into a common soil bacterium, called Agrobacterium. Agrobacterium is used because it can transfer its dna into other plants.
Sandra Austin-Phillips:
So, in effect, all we've done is we've taken that organism and we're using it. We're just taking out
the genes that it would normally move, and we're replacing it with ours. So, in a way, we're not doing anything, sort of, that wasn't around in nature. It's just we're harnessing it, so we can move
specific genes that we want into plants.
Narrator:
Genetic engineering inserts just one gene into the new plant. In contrast, conventional breeding mixes thousands of genes each time a new plant is created.
Michael Sussman:
So, in genetic engineering, we basically take one gene, we introduce that into the plant. And we
use that single gene to either make it resistant to some pathogen, or help it survive in the cold
better, or for some other purpose. And I just find it much more pleasant to me, as a consumer, that I know exactly what gene has been added, as opposed to taking a wild potato and throwing in thousands of genes that we really don't know for sure what they'll do.
Narrator:
Perhaps the biggest change with genetic engineering is that now scientists can take a gene from any organism, from bacteria to animals to humans, and insert it into plants. This dramatic change allows breeders to cross what's called the 'species "barrier."
Ronnie Cummins:
People have been farming for 10,000 to14,000 years, and they've been crossing varieties of plants and animals to produce new breeds and varieties. They have NEVER been able to jump
species barriers. In other words, you have never been able to, before genetic engineering, put
human genetic material into a pig.
Narrator:
There are a number of reasons why crops are genetically engineered. For example, some crops have had a pesticide built in. And, in the future, crops may have extra nutrition added.
Sandra Austin-Phillips:
What we've been able to do is to move a gene, a little piece of DNA that makes a particular protein from one species to another.
It's not like you're making a whole new species, you're not going to make sort of some monster. All you're doing is moving one little piece of DNA from one species to another.
Michael Sussman:
There is so much identity between genes across species, that it's absolutely amazing. It turns out that only a 100 of the 35,000 genes in humans are not also in a mouse. So, even though you might worry about crossing a species barrier, in fact most proteins are working very similar.
Ronnie Cummins:
You couldn't do this in the real world. Humans can't breed with pigs. You've never found, in the
history of the world, genetically engineered bacteria or viruses being spliced into common food
products in the way that they're mixing and matching genes right now.
Narrator:
Crossing the species barrier is only one of many areas of debate about genetically engineered food. Some UW scientists feel there's no cause for concern, others have doubts.
Bob Goodman:
There's an inherent unpredictability of how a gene from a different organism will behave in-- when it's moved into a different environment, into a different genetic environment.
Warren Porter:
If I were to, for example, take somebody and fly them up into Alaska and put them down in an
Inuit Village, I'm transferring you out of your culture. I'm putting you in a new culture where the rules of operation may or may not be different, but you don't know the rules of that operation. You don't know that language. We're beginning to understand that when you transfer a single gene out of an organism, firstly, it has evolved in the context of the other genes in that organism. And what we have done prior to genetic engineering, is simply to take breeding, which means transferring whole chromosomes, the whole context, from one individual to another. Now, what we're doing is basically culture shock.
Heidi Kaeppler:
We've been stretching species barriers as plant breeders for decades now, by using certain crossing methods that normally in a wild plant's life cycle it wouldn't be able to cross with some of these other species.
However, we do have to be careful and think about the trait, what the impact of the trait is that we're moving. I think that most of the focus should be on the trait, not necessarily the barrier or where the trait came from, but what is this trait and what is it going to do in the organism that we are transferring it to?
Narrator:
One reason plant breeders use genetic engineering is time. Conventional breeding requires years of crosses, or generations, to solve a problem, and genetic engineering can cut that time significantly.
One crop problem where time has been a factor involves a disease called "oat rust." Wisconsin is the number one oat producing state the nation. And for many years, oat growers were plagued by the oat rust disease.
Heidi Kaeppler:
As an example, this program, prior to my coming here, my predecessor's predecessor began a
crossing program incorporating rust resistance into oat. In the whole process, it took about 20 years to get those rust resistance genes in and to get rid of all the negative traits from the wild oat. So, if we can do different things along the way to make that more efficient, then it's going to help, not only our program, but especially the growers out there, because we have to plan ahead now, 15 years from now what are the important traits the growers and the consumers are going to want and need.
Genetic engineering can never stand on its own. It's got to be coupled by traditional breeding. However, there are some traits, let's say, that cannot be fixed using our traditional breeding methods. We've come up against a number of walls. So, here's another tool. Just like the combine was another tool for us to use as we moved into harvesting field plats, the computers were another tool that we use to be more efficient in our breeding. Here's another tool in our toolbox that may help us to solve some of these problems.
Narrator:
Another important crop for Wisconsin is potatoes. Wisconsin is third in the nation for potato production. The most persistent problem is a disease called "late blight." Farmers across the country spend $200 million on fungicides annually. In Wisconsin alone, more than 1.5 million pounds of fungicides are sprayed on potatoes every year.
John Helgeson:
The disease that we're working with is the same disease that caused the Irish potato famine, and we'd like to solve it. And so, that when I say it's sort of a quest, it is sort of a quest.
Narrator:
Helgeson has been searching for a solution to late blight for over 20 years. He learned that a wild potato, growing in Mexico, has built-in resistance to late blight. The problem is the wild potato is only distantly related to the species of potatoes we eat. So, Helgeson had to lend a hand to create a cross.
John Helgeson:
It can't be done very well at all in nature, if there are two species that are quite distantly related. So the genetic cross?breeding can take place, but it just needs to be rescued.
Narrator:
Helgeson didn't use genetic engineering as the first step. Instead he's using an innovative breeding technique called "cell fusion" to cross the wild potato with a domesticated species. Cells from the leaves of the two plants are physically joined, or fused, using an enzyme in a test tube.
The next challenge is to get the resistance genes into the kind of potatoes that we like to eat, a process that could take up to 20 years with conventional breeding.
John Helgeson:
A potato is what they call a tetraploid, it has four sets of independently assorting chromosomes. Four chromosomes-- Each one of these chromosomes can do it's own thing and go its own way. So, when you cross that with another plant, you have all sorts of variation. So, it's literally a one-in-a-million deal to get the plant you want.
So, what we'd like to do, is take some of these things we like very much and be able to stick in a potato gene into the potato, and now give this trait of resistance.
Narrator:
After 20 years of searching and experimental breeding, Helgeson now plans to stick the resistance gene into potatoes grown in wisconsin, using genetic engineering. It's easier and faster than conventional breeding. For him ,it's all about reducing the use of fungicides in our fields and on our food.
John Helgeson:
If we can grow a resistant variety, then we won't have to put on this chemical or that chemical. And this is a goal that everyone would like to achieve.
Narrator:
Helgeson and kaeppler focus on crop solutions for the wisconsin farmers who grow our food. But some feel that their focus on the science of genetic engineering is too narrow.
Ingolf Vogeler:
Science is often good at trying to solve a particular problem. And to do that, it has to be increasingly focused, narrower and narrower. The problem is, that this always has a context. And so, if you figure out some solution, someone has to step back and see what other related issues and concerns there might be. And that's why you need kind of public policy and social sciences and philosophers to pull that back into context. How does it relate to the environment? How does it relate to people's health? How does it relate to consumer costs, short term and long term? How does it relate to agriculture?
Narrator:
Milk from cows injected with Bovine Growth Hormone, or BGH, was the first high?profile application of genetic engineering in the grocery store. Some consumers questioned the health of drinking milk from cows injected with BGH. Others questioned how it would affect struggling dairy farmers.
Ingolf Vogeler:
It isn't just about producing food, cheaper food, but how does it impact on ordinary people? The
way we have environmental impact statements, we should have, I think, social impact statements. So, you develop a technology, now what does that do? How many farmers are going to be put out of business? And then, we make some collective decision on whether that's really the direction in which we move. Because, if the technology is expensive, that will favor the large farmers. It's real clear. Everybody has equal access, but not everyone has equal income.
Narrator: In the year 2000, wisconsin saw the loss of over 1,600 dairy herds. Some farmers are selling their cattle and converting to cash crops like corn and soy.
Corn covers the largest acreage in our state, about 3.5 million acres. And farmers have adopted a genetically engineered variety on about 18% of that land. Jerry Bradley is one of those farmers.
Jerry Bradley:
I'm the fifth generation here. And my dad still is very much around here, watching over everything, watching his retirement I guess is the way to say it. We're cash grain farmers. We raise corn and soybeans, and 90% of it is no?till.
Narrator:
Bradley takes pride in farming with the environment in mind.
Jerry Bradley:
What we're seeing here is a no?till corn field. As you look, there's a lot of what we call trash, last year's crop, on the field. It stops wind erosion, water erosion. And it keeps the soil moist, and holds the moisture in the ground. And also, you don't cause compaction by working the ground so many times. This is no?till, a true no?till field. The one that was really potent was N67T4.
Narrator: Bradley is a firm believer in the benefits of genetically engineered crops, like corn and soy. But he didn't adopt them on faith alone. He did a test plot of what's called "Bt corn." He wanted to see if what the seed salesman said was true.
Jerry Bradley:
I remember the first year we tried, we put what I considered our top-rated variety, and put one of those right along side it. And it stayed right there. But when we looked at the bottom line, we didn't have to spray it, insects, we actually made more money by raising that GMO crop, because we didn't have to spray it.
Narrator:
The Bt in Bt corn stands for Bacillus Thuringiensis. It's a common soil bacterium, and has been applied to plants as an insecticide for over 30 years. Now Bt has been genetically engineered into a number of plants, including corn, to kill the European corn borer.
John Wedburg:
Well, the European corn borer is probably the number two insect pest of corn in the United States. We have two generations a year. First generation hits, oh, perhaps mid-to-late June, early July and it reduces potential yield. And then, later in the year, perhaps in August, you can also have a second generation that comes. And with the Bt corn, it expresses long enough to get both of them.
Narrator:
While Bradley says he saves money planting Bt corn, he says an added bonus is less aerial spraying close to urban sprawl.
Jerry Bradley:
Let's face it, we producers have to be cognizant of our neighbors, of what's going around us and be as good as neighbors as we can be. And that's one way also to be good neighbor is, don't put that plane in the air if you don't absolutely have to.
Narrator:
A highly emotional controversy about Bt corn has been dubbed the "Bambi Debate." A Cornell university study found that pollen from Bt corn killed monarch butterfly larvae on nearby milkweed plants. But the study has been criticized because it was done in a lab, not in the field.
John Wedburg:
As we begin to look at this in the field with the monarch butterfly, it's becoming more and more apparent that the risk is very, very small in the field. You need to remember we have pollen only for 10 to 14 days. We've found that very little pollen hangs onto the milkweed plant. And early on, when the larvae are the most susceptible, they feed on the bottoms of the leaves where the pollen isn't. And if we were applying an insecticide in these fields, we would get 98% control of monarchs, unfortunately.
Narrator: The environmental protection agency recently conducted a reassessment of Bt crops, including the impact on monarchs. It's conclusion was that, "...The available information indicates a very low probability of risk to monarchs..." The EPA also states that this research is preliminary, because several studies are ongoing.
The EPA reassessment studied newer varieties of Bt corn, because the older versions had a higher concentration of the insecticide in the pollen.
John Wedburg:
That variety trait has fallen by the wayside, and it's gone to another type where very little is expressed in the pollen. It's expressed in the plant tissue, which is zero hazard to the monarchs.
Narrator:
In addition to bt crops, which don't need to be sprayed for certain insects, other crops have been genetically engineered to survive, or resist spraying with a specific herbicide. That means that farmers can spray certain herbicides in their fields, even after the crop is growing, to get rid of weeds.
In Wisconsin, soybeans are planted on 1.7 millions acres, and about 63% are genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicide. These herbicide?resistant crops are popular, because they make it easier and cheaper for farmers like Bradley to control weeds.
Jerry Bradley:
We're finding we can plant that without doing anything. We go in and no?till it, plant, wait and see what's coming for weeds. And if we have very light weed pressure we can go on with a very light rate of Roundup, and save ourselves up to $25.00 an acre, possibly, by doing it that way. Maybe even more per acre. As that weed pressure increases, and we watch it as the crop grows, we might use a little higher rate, but again, a lot less than if they were non GMO products.
If I didn't use those GMO soybeans, I'd be using two different herbicides, at much higher labeled rates, and spraying twice instead of once.
Narrator:
Bradley has reduced pesticides on his farm by using genetically engineered crops. But there's debate over whether this new technology has reduced pesticide use across the nation.
Fred Kirschenmann:
It is probably true that in a specific crop, it is certainly true in potatoes, that the Bt potatoes have dramatically reduced the amount of pesticides used in potatoes. So, there are those isolated incidents. But in terms of the total pesticide load on the environment, I haven't seen any evidence that the genetically engineered crops have reduced it. And the other thing is that, especially with crops because it's such a convenience that a lot more farmers are using those than were using some of these pesticides before.
Narrator: Roundup is a brand name for the herbicide Glyphosate, the most widely used chemical on a variety of genetically engineered crops. Nationwide, in the year 2000, 54% of soybeans, and 61% of cotton was herbicide?resistant.
In Wisconsin, genetically engineered soybeans have gone from 51 % to 63% of the crop in the last year alone. Some UW scientists have concerns about the long-term health effects of using this herbicide.
Warren Porter:
That's a tremendous problem because the research that we have done on other mixtures of herbicides are showing that concentrations at those levels are sufficient to induce changes in the neurological, the endocrine, and the immune systems of the animals that we are studying. If that kind of thing is also happening when people consume these materials, then you have the process of very subtle long-term, low?level contamination of the entire population.
One of the difficult things here is that we understand now that there's somewhere between 30 and 40% of the population that seems to be more genetically at risk.
Narrator:
For farmers like Jerry Bradley, genetically engineered corn and soy provide a clear benefit, both for the environment and for his bottom line.
Jerry Bradley:
It's turning into a better yielder. I'm using less pesticides. And the bottom line is it's going to make me more money. Agriculture today is a business, and I've got to watch my bottom line. And that's going to make my bottom line the best, is by raising that particular variety of corn.
In my lifetime, I had never seen soybeans drop under $4.00-- Excuse me, under $5.00 a bushel, let alone $4.00. And right now, I believe new crop beans, as we speak today, is $3.88 in Cottage Grove, which is our closest market. And corn is probably in that $1.60 to $1.70 range. These are historical lows. I mean, you're looking at 15, 20-year lows for corn. You're looking at over 30-year lows for soybeans.
You've got to make sure you're getting every single nickel out of that acre you can possibly produce, every bushel. And your bottom line, you need to, you know, cut cost where you can, using the right product against the right weed that's out there, or the lowest amount of fertilizer to get that opportune crop. And you've got to put all those factors together.
Narrator:
Farmers like Bradley compare new technology to older methods of farming and see progress. But critics of genetic engineering say that agriculture needs to move in a different direction entirely.
Fred Kirschenmann: We know there are alternatives. If you create a more ecological environment in which to do the farming, which means looking for ways to create diversity in that system, ways to create some balance between pests and predators, then you start moving in the other direction.
Narrator:
Rebecca and Jim Goodman have taken this farming philosophy to heart. They run a certified organic dairy. But for the goodman's, it's about more than just the end product. It's about being sustainable.
Rebecca Goodman:
We like to describe sustainable as being-- sustaining the soil, sustaining our animals, who we feed from the soil, and sustaining our livelihood by allowing us to make a decent living off of that.
Jim Goodman:
The high yield, high-tech farming was getting too expensive, the returns were getting smaller. We wanted to stay in business without getting bigger. And we wanted to have something that we felt was a safe way of living.
Narrator:
Goodman and his brother are the fourth generation on their farm in sauk county. They feed their cattle in the summer by rotational grazing. And they plant a mix of small grains for winter feed. This diversity of small grains in their fields sets them apart from cash crop farmers, and allows them to avoid the use of synthetic chemicals.
Jim Goodman:
we don't need to use any chemical fertilizers. We have animals to utilize the pasture. We have their manure for fertilizer. Plus, we plant a big variety a crops where the conventional cash grain would mostly just be corn and soybeans, but we plant barley and oats and rye and alfalfa pasture. So, we try and keep a system of crops going that breaks up the pest cycles, that keeps the soil from eroding and keeps a better fertility program going.
Narrator:
The key to farming without chemical inputs is biodiversty.
Fred Kirschenmann:
Diversity is what gives nature it's stability. As soon as you try to narrow the gene pool, or narrow the number of species in particular environment, you create an environment for disaster. As soon as you add diversity into the system, then the various species and the various species and organisms within that diversity, they begin to find their balance. And then that provides the resilience. So, then if you have some kind of disease or other organism that comes into that, you have that resilience. It may effect one part of all of that diversity, but that's not going to effect all of it.
Jim Goodman: I think that the genetically engineered corn or soybeans can result in a loss of biodiversity, because they're going to pick the varieties that yield the best and then engineer whatever trait it is into those. I guess we see that as a threat, because as you lose species, you lose options. You lose plants that may have beneficial qualities.
Narrator:
Wisconsin has over 600 certified organic farms, making the state number two in the nation for number of organic farms and number of dairy herds.
New federal organic standards prohibit organic growers from using genetically engineered crops, but they can use the insecticide, Bt. It's the same Bt that's been genetically engineered into crops planted nationwide. And because insects are now exposed to a lot more of it, it's expected that some insects will develop resistance.
John Wedburg:
If we had every farmer using it fencerow to fencerow, we could soon develop resistance in the European corn borer population. The projections are they feel that this would work for 20, 25 years, but it's based on our experience with insecticide resistance managements in the past. It's based on models. We admit that. And it's something that we continually work on to make sure that we're right.
Narrator:
To slow down insect resistance, farmers who plant genetically engineered corn set aside 20% of their field for regular corn. When the insects in this set?aside area breed with survivors of the Bt, it slows down resistance.
John Wedburg:
What we want to do, is to make sure we have high enough numbers of corn borer, males and females, that had not been selected, you know killed with this technology to intermate with the few that do survive in the Bt part of the field.
Narrator:
A even more immediate problem than insect resistance is called "pollen drift."
Jim Goodman:
With pollen, we don't know how far that can go, some people say hundreds of yards, some people say miles. The threat to us would be if our organic corn got pollen drift from a neighbor's Bt corn, genetically engineered corn. If we were trying to sell organic corn that was contaminated with genetically engineered pollen, and it showed up on a test, we obviously wouldn't be able to sell it as organic. If it could be proved that we knew it was contaminated and tried to sell it anyway, we could lose our certification.
Narrator:
Farmers who want to prevent pollination from a neighbor's crop can set aside land between fields as a buffer. But it puts the onus on the farmer who didn't plant the genetically engineered crop.
Jim Goodman:
If, say, my neighbor had some nice registered Hereford cattle on his side of the fence, and I had a registered Holstein bull on this side and my bull jumped the fence, and bred his heifers, I'd be liable for his loss of income because he didn't have any heifers. But if the pollen drifts the fence, that's nobody's problem except whoever's got contaminated crops.
Chuck Walker on phone:
Have you heard anything back on the sunflower seed?
Narrator:
Organic farmers are not the only ones affected by pollen drift. It hit home at a small business in Hudson, Wisconsin. Terra prima makes organic apache tortilla chips, and was forced to recall 87,000 bags of chips due to contamination caused by pollen drift.
Chuck Walker:
In November of 1998, a small regional magazine in Germany, a publication, we don't actually know the name of it, decided to do a series of genetic tests on different foods in Germany. And one of the products happened to be our Apache Tortilla Chips. They tested it and found a very small trace of genetic material.
Narrator:
Organic food producers must document their food, from the field to the food plant. Terra prima gets some of it's corn from a texas farmer. And the paper trail pointed to that farm as the source of the contamination.
Chuck Walker:
What happened was, is that a small portion of this field, probably an acre maybe two acres, something like that, had been cross?pollinated from Bt corn, basically, from across the road.
Narrator:
The product recall added up to a heavy loss for Terra Prima.
Chuck Walker:
I would say $300,000-$400,000 at this point in direct sales losses. Pretty big for a little company like us. There is no protection for anybody like us. There's no tort law behind this. There's no insurance that we can get for this.
We were one of the very first that this hit. So, I don't know, maybe the silver lining in this cloud for us is that we were able to be part of raising this issue in the United states and having it become an issue for public discussion. Because that's what really needs to happen here. It's up for the public to decide whether they want this or not.
Narrator: Farmers and food processors who export their products know that other countries care about genetically engineered food. Wisconsin exports about 60% of it's corn. And Japan is the state's biggest customer.
Ron Doetch:
In other countries, it's a labeling issue. And Japan, as of April 1, has very stringent and new labeling laws on GMOs contained in grains.
Narrator:
Japan won't buy a type of genetically engineered corn called Starlink. It's also illegal to use Starlink corn in food in the united states. The problem today is that the nation's seed supply has been contaminated by pollen drift, so farmers may not know they're planting genetically engineered corn.
Sharon international, in southeastern Wisconsin, grows crops for japan. And because Starlink isn't allowed, Sharon even grows seed to supply their local farmers.
Ron Doetch:
We feel that the onus is on us to deliver the farmer a certificate that says here is our protocol. We've sourced this these parents, and we crossed these seed parents, and we produced them in an isolated environment. And then, we tested the seed on the inbound, and then we retested it on the outbound. And actually, serial number each bag of corn. And we have a paper trail and a lab test that will reflect how that corn tested on the outbound side. So, we feel that seed companies should be able to give the farmers a certificate that says as the seed company, we can assure you, that it has been produced in this manner, and that this seed stock contains this purity.
Narrator:
There are also concerns about what will happen when genetically engineered plants spread or self?replicate in the environment.
Fred Kirschenmann:
If these technologies are self?replicating as they are, and we make these modifications, and we make mistakes, the modifications go wrong. And as we all know, accidents are normal, not abnormal. And then we've let something loose in the environment that we can't pull back.
Narrator:
Some scientists think that the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on which traits would spread to the wild.
Heidi Kaeppler:
Let's say in the future, somebody's making a bio?medical compound in a crop so that they can produce a pharmaceutical compound and extract it. And you wouldn't really want that pharmaceutical compound in high doses spread out from the crop.
Narrator: On the other hand, if the trait simply makes the plant taste better, it may not cause concerns for human health by spreading. The other factor to consider with spreading is where the wild relatives of our food crops live, because the genetically engineered plants can only breed with these relatives. For example, corn and soybeans have no wild relatives in the United States.
Heidi Kaeppler:
However, if you take these crops to their native centers, let's say herbicide resistant soybean in China and Asia, then there are wild relatives of soybean there.
Narrator:
Genetically engineered wheat is ready for release in the united states. And it does have a wild relative growing close by. The projected problem is that this wild relative, called goat grass, won't be killed by the crop herbicide, and will become a more difficult weed to control. That's one reason sustainable farmers seek solutions in nature.
Jim Goodman:
I think that it's a lot wiser approach to do a more holistic farming method rather than wait until you've got a fire, and then say, "Oh boy, we gotta have this technology to put it out." Because invariably, when you get a technology to solve a problem, that technology itself creates the next problem for which you need a new technology. And that's one of the reasons that we've got into this big spiraling cost of farming, that you know, you have to buy this and then you've got to buy this, and then you have to buy that. I think we should start at the bottom and say let's look at this from a holistic approach and see what's the best way to farm without having to put a lot of inputs in.
Narrator:
While the future of genetically engineered crops is in debate, most people agree that consumers haven't seen any direct benefits yet, benefits like cheaper food, increased nutritional value or better taste. And, without these incentives, shoppers may be more critical of how eating genetically engineered food may affect their health.
Chuck Oehler:
And there's a lot of facts supporting the safety of biotech foods and the benefits of biotech foods. If you look at just taking the major science institutions in the world, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, their counterparts in other countries, and all of these groups, universally, have come out and said that biotech foods, the ones that currently are on the market, and the ones that are in development are safe.
Narrator:
The national academy of sciences is a non?profit institution that advises congress. Among the conclusions in it's report about pest?protected plants, they said they were, "not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to eat..."
In addition, the national academy recommended that, "...The government require more long?term research on human health and environmental impacts..."
The U.S. government divides oversight of genetically engineered crops among three agencies, the USDA, the EPA and the FDA. The FDA regulates food safety and set policy on genetically engineered food back in 1992, before most of the foods on the market today had been developed.
Lydia Zepeda:
The idea was that the technology for gene transfer was stated as being generally recognized as safe (GRAS), and because the technology was generally recognized as safe, it was presumed that any product then developed by genetic engineering would therefore be safe, and therefore not need to be reviewed by the FDA. At the same time in this policy document, the FDA outlined several potential risks.
Narrator:
One potential risk identified by the FDA was possibility of creating new foods that cause allergic reactions. It's a concern that's very real for many parents. Chris Schoepp is a former Wisconsin Public Televison employee, who now works full-time at home. Her son Tyler appears to be having allergy symptoms, but it's hard for her to know exactly what food causes problems.
Chris Schoepp:
Tyler seems to be allergic to dairy products, milk probably, we're waiting for the tests on that. The allergist also suspects that he has possibly other food allergies.
Narrator:
Her daughter, Brooke, has a longer list of allergies.
Chris Schoepp:
Can Brooke have milk? What do you drink? Soy milk. Brooke is allergic to milk, and like, ice cream, yogurt. She can have eggs. She's also allergic to peaches. She was earlier intolerant of wheat. She breaks out if she has tomatoes, chocolate or peanuts.
We pretty much avoid, you know, try to avoid it that she doesn't get anything. But it's really hard if you go somewhere, or now, even though she's just a little over two, she can get into the refrigerator and you have to be careful where you place things.
Narrator:
An estimated 30,000 Americans are admitted to emergency rooms annually for life?threatening allergic reactions. The most important piece of information is what caused it. That's why Schoepp reads labels carefully.
Chris Schoepp:
It sounds good in theory, but even with dairy products, there are so many things um that you just don't even think of when you look at the label. You know, there's like whey solids in it. You think there's no milk in there, but there is a dairy product in there.
Do you miss milk?
Tyler:
Yeah, a little, at snack time they always had chocolate milk.
Narrator:
The FDA doesn't actually run tests on new genetically engineered food. To date, the companies that developed this food have submitted their food research to the FDA on a voluntary basis.
Lydia Zepeda:
I do have qualms about that, because I think in a perfect world, we would hope that people would be responsible and do the necessary research and present it in a factual way. We hope that happens, but the whole purpose of regulation is to ensure that it does.
Chuck Oehler:
Again, if you just take it on a purely selfish business standpoint, the last thing you want, I mean if you're a restaurant, the last thing you want to do is get cited by the city health agency or have some kind of e-coli breakout from out of your store. And companies are the same way.
Narrator:
The companies that developed genetically engineered food attempt to predict food allergies by looking at three things: whether it can be digested easily, whether it's destroyed by heat and the size of the protein involved.
Michael Pariza:
We can't predict with 100% certainty whether something is going to be allergenic or not, but we know enough about it so that we can make some pretty darn good guesses as to what's likely to be allergenic. But there's still going to be a certain area where you just don't know. And you have to make the best educated guess you can.
Narrator:
UW Allergist, Robert Bush, was one of the key participants in a leading study about genetically engineered foods and allergies. The study tested a genetically engineered soybean that had a gene from a brazil nut spliced into it. And when a skin test was done on volunteers who were known to be allergic to brazil nuts, it came up positive, so the soybean wasn't marketed.
Robert Bush:
So, it showed that this is possible to transfer an allergen from one plant into another, and that we could detect that. So, there are tools to allow us to make those kinds of assessments, particularly where it's known that the product may cause allergy. Where the concern comes from is the fact that we're taking genes from products that we really don't know much about.
Narrator:
The FDA doesn't require pre?market testing for food created with conventional breeding or genetically engineered food. Some consumer advocates say genetically engineered food should be handled differently.
Ronnie Cummins: If you're going to put a new chemical additive into food in the United States, or if you're going to bring a new pharmaceutical drug onto the market, you can't just tell the FDA, well, this new pain killer is sort of similar to other pain killers out on the market and we're going to putting it out in drug stores next Wednesday. You can't do this.
Chuck Oehler:
If our companies and our government continue with the same approach that they've taken so far, I feel confident that we'll continue to be protected. Do we have to stay vigilant? No question.
Narrator:
The real issue for parents, like Chris Schoepp is the lack of labels on genetically engineered foods. Since new food allergies can't be predicted with 100 percent accuracy, without a label, parents can't keep track.
Chris Schoepp:
I need to know exactly what they have, and what they're-- Especially if they have more than one allergy, more than one food allergy, I need to know what it is that makes them sick, so that I can either avoid it or get a treatment for it.
Michael Pariza:
The FDA has a long-standing policy that there should be labeling where the information will be useful to a consumer. There's only so much room on a label and you can start cluttering it up with all kinds of nonsense. If there's a question about whether or not there is a safety issue, then obviously that should be on the label. But if there isn't a question of safety I don't know what consumers are going to do with the information.
Ronnie Cummins:
If you cut through all the rhetoric of industry and the government they're saying one thing. They're saying, Americans are stupid. They didn't study their science in school. They don't understand genetic engineering. If you label foods that have been genetically engineered American consumers will not buy them and this industry will collapse. So, therefore, for the good of this industry, for the good of the economy, we are not going to let Americans choose whether they eat genetic engineered foods or not.
Narrator:
Labeling legislation has been proposed, both at the federal level and in some state legislatures. In Wisconsin, a bill sponsored by rep. Marc Pocan is in the proposal stage.
While the labeling issue is being debated by legislators, changes in agriculture are already under way. UW scientists are researching more holistic approaches to farming. It's a science called agro?ecology.
Leslie Cooperband:
Agroecology is looking at agriculture systems, in terms of both plants and soils and how they interact.
Narrator:
Leslie Cooperband is conducting research on vegetable crops in central Wisconsin. She's adding organic amendments to the soil in the form of processed paper mill waste.
Leslie Cooperband:
What we're hoping is that having the organic amendment in the soil can reduce the need for commercial fertilizers, because you're improving nutrient use efficiency. And we're also hoping that it will reduce the use of pesticides, because we're getting disease control from the organic amendment itself.
Narrator:
Cooperband has seen positive changes after only two years of research.
Leslie Cooperband:
We've seen increases in water holding capacity of this soil. We have seen a suppression of certain crop diseases. We have seen reductions in what seems to be nutrient leeching. And we also seem to be seeing a more stable soil, so it's less likely to be picked up by the wind.
Narrator:
Alternative farming methods like agro?ecology build upon a foundation of basic research like soil microbiology. Bob Goodman is a UW plant pathologist who see's a world of possibilities beneath the surface of the earth.
Bob Goodman:
If we realize that on a plant root 95 percent of the microorganisms that are present are completely unknown, it's basic research that is going to be the first step in figuring out who those organisms are, what roles they play, how they interact with each other and with the healthy plant.
Narrator:
While Goodman now looks for solutions in the soil, in the late '80s, he was a key player in the development of the first genetically engineered tomato called the "Flavr Savr."
Bob Goodman:
What my colleagues at Calgene did, was to take the gene that's responsible for the softening and invert its sequence and put it back into the tomato genome. And that simple change dramatically slowed down the softening process.
Narrator:
Slowing the softening meant the tomatoes could develop more flavor on the vine and still hold their shape in shipping. Even though goodman once genetically engineered plants, he says that the technology has limitations. In genetic engineering, only one or two new genes can be added to plants. In contrast, conventional breeding mixes thousands of genes with each cross.
Bob Goodman:
Evolutionary principles predict/that when you use the approach of many genes of small effect, together you have a more durable or a more robust kind of resistance.
Narrator:
In other words, conventional breeding creates resistance to disease and insects that can be broader and last longer the than the solutions created with genetic engineering. Until now, the challenge for conventional breeders has been a lack of information about which genes were in the plants they crossed. That's beginning to change with the new science of genomic sequencing.
Bob Goodman:
What genomic sequencing gives us access to is that very detailed information. Every single nucleotide making up every gene in the organism.
Narrator:
The power of genomics will be felt when scientists learn what role each gene plays in crop plants.
Bob Goodman:
What we'll therefore be able to do is to base our decisions in breeding, for crop improvement, on knowledge about which genes are expressed in high yielding crops versus the lower yielding relatives; which genes are expressed in crops that are highly resistant to diseases versus susceptible to diseases; which are expressed when a plant is suffering from a pest, as opposed to being able to resist a pest.
Sandra Austin-Phillips:
We're sequencing whole genomes of plants. And in 10 or 15 years, we probably won't even have to do genetic engineering, because we will be able to improve our plants so much more easier by actually using conventional plant breeding, because we will know exactly what to look for, which piece of DNA to look for.
Narrator:
Genetic engineering is one solution for growing our food. The knowledge gained from research into agro?ecology and genomics promises many other options. In the end, consumers are left with the questions: are genetically engineered food safe to eat? Do they provide environmental benefits? Should they be labeled so consumers can choose? And ultimately, do the potential benefits outweigh the unknown risks?
Michael Sussman:
Ninety years ago when electricity was introduced into the households, I would imagine that there were great deal of discussion on the safety. I would wager to say that there are very few people that do not wish to see electricity in their houses. We like the comfort of being able to plug our appliances in. Again, there are risks with electricity, and we decided that benefits outweighed the risks. We have to go through a period where we analyze what the risks are and we have to decide, as a society, do the benefits outweigh them. And we're going through that now.
Ronnie Cummins: They can't contain this stuff once it's out of the laboratory, whether it's a fish, or whether its's an animal, or whether it's a plant. Until they can, it should stay in the labs, until it can be proven to be safe.
Heidi Kaeppler:
We don't know with a 100 percent assurance what the long?term impact will be. But scientists have been able to predict, based on models based on past experience with crops and cropping systems what the long-term affects should be, or can be, or most likely will be.
Sandra Austin-Phillips:
I think in any new technology it's difficult in the beginning to know which questions to ask, what questions do you need an answer to. And I think only more information that we gather will answer that question.
Ingolf Vogeler:
We always do the math on an individual basis, and yet we live in a community. We live collectively. We live with nature. We live with other people. And that is never factored in. So, it doesn't prove anything that it makes sense for you now, that it is good for all of us forever.
Michael Sussman:
I think Wisconsin is both very progressive state. It's also a very careful state. We believe in the quality of life. We believe in eating excellent, great nutritious food. We believe in agriculture. But I think we also believe in trying to minimize the environmental bad effects of that, so I think this is a state in which such a conversation can go on in a scholarly way, a careful way an objective way, but also listening to people's concerns either way.
Narrator:
These is no clear consensus in this debate, a debate that is sure to continue as new genetically engineered food becomes available. The challenge for consumers is to stay informed, and to vote where it counts the most, the marketplace.
|
