Co-op Topics

by Elizabeth Ferry, Member and Outreach Coordinator.

In December, 1998, word of a new laboratory procedure that could create sterile seeds crept cautiously into the news. The concept was almost beyond the layperson’s imagination: humans intentionally curtailing the reproductive capacity of crops essential to their own diet.

As the public struggled to comprehend this new ability, its vast implications, and the possible motivations behind it, the federal government and the “life sciences” industry who had developed it assured us that this was “progress” which would “save farms” and “end hunger.”

Less than one year later, Monsanto, the first company to develop this “Terminator technology,” ceased its
efforts to bring the Terminator to market. An overwhelmingly negative public response, both here and abroad, had seriously eroding the company’s credibility , driving their stock prices down. But before concerned consumers, farmers, environmentalists and others could heave a sigh of relief, they were reminded that at least nineteen other companies were developing and seeking patents on similar technologies.
This was the public’s introduction to the complex topic of genetic engineering in the food supply. And now, barely one year later, genetic engineering is being discussed widely in the Upper Valley. The following article presents the high points of three forums that I attended in mid-February.

NOFA-VT Midwinter Conference
“Seeds of Change: A Community Response to Biotechnology” drew a crowd of nearly 600 organic farmers, gardeners, and concerned consumers to the Northeast Organic Farmers’ Association (NOFA) Midwinter Conference in Randolph Center, Vermont. The event included an array of workshops, including several that addressed biotechnology from an agricultural, environmental, economic, social, and activist perspective.

Shepherd Ogden was the keynote speaker. His list of qualifications include organic gardener, founder of the Cook’s Garden seed company, author of Straight Ahead Organic, philosopher, and poet. His opposition to gene-splicing technology can be summarized in the following advice: “Understand the language and the concepts behind this technology; don’t let the industry dictate their meaning.”

For example, GE proponents claim that this new technology is not significantly different from selective breeding which has been practiced for hundreds of years. This claim masks the fact that today’s laboratory scientists can splice genes across life forms, combining traits from species which could never breed naturally. This is undeniably different from the breeding techniques used by the monk Gregor Mendel in 19th century England, or from what occurs in nature, where a fish could never mate with a tomato. Ogden recommends adopting the term “transgenic” as a more precise name for today’s laboratory gene splicing.
Ogden also stressed that these newly created transgenic entities are alive and will reproduce. Neither the scientific nor agricultural community knows, not can predict what will happen when they do. Ogden urged the audience to keep this fact central to the debate about transgenic technology.

Proposed Vermont Legislation
On Wednesday, February 23rd, the Vermont Senate Agricultural Committee held a public hearing on S.295. This proposed legislation calls for a one-year moratorium on plants and seeds whose transgenic properties can be released to offspring, for labeling of such seed, and for the creation of a study committee. The proposed moratorium would go into effect in 2001. Exceptions could be granted by the Commissioner of Agriculture.

An estimated 150 people attended the public hearing, including seven I recognized as members of the Hanover Consumers Cooperative. Forty people testified during the two-hour meeting, speaking from a broad range of professional and personal experience. Thirty-eight of these spoke in support of S.295. Their statements were largely well-informed and articulate.

Farmers urged approval of the bill as a way to build
upon Vermont’s reputation as a clean source of
food and the ensure the future of organic farming.
Organic is the fastest growing sector of Vermont
agriculture. Organic farmers are concerned that
pollen drift from transgenic crops could result in
the loss of organic certification.

A lawyer stated that under Vermont law, citizens
have the right to know when they are part of an
experiment and the right to refuse to participate.
In her opinion, the lack of labeling seed and food
constitutes a widespread experiment on human
health. She considers this a violation of Vermont
law.

A carpenter and home gardener took a bottle of
the organic pesticide Bt from his pocket and noted
the warning that skin and respiratory protection
should be worn when the substance is applied to
crops. He reminded the Committee that one form
of transgenic corn has Bt genes spliced into its
genes. “So I want to know: what sort of protec-
tion I should wear when I eat Bt corn?,” he asked.

Two of the forty people who testified opposed S.295. One asserted that the American food supply was the envy of the world and that farmers should not be limited in what they can grow. The other, a spokesperson for the Farm Bureau, admitted that there were no statistics about the number of farmers who might be affected by this bill. He estimated that 15% of Vermont cropland was planted with transgenic varieties in 1999 and felt that the moratorium could hurt farmers who grow their own animal feed.

Despite the overwhelming support for S.295 expressed at this public hearing, members of the Committee noted that they were being vigorously lobbied by those who support transgenic engineering. At least one Senator predicted that it would be a difficult bill to pass. Concerned consumers should note that three members of the Senate Agricultural Committee represent areas of the Co-op community: Mark MacDonald, Ben Ptashnik, and Cheryl Rivers. They can be contacted through the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms in Montpelier.

Dartmouth Panel
“Genetically Modified Food Crops: Playing God or Feeding the World?” was the focus of a five-member panel discussion at Dartmouth College on February 24, 2000. Moderated by Ronald Green, Professor for the Study of Ethics and Human Values, the purpose of the discussion was “to create not heat, but to shed light” on the complex topic. Panelists came from Dartmouth and Swarthmore Colleges, Rural Vermont, and the Council for Responsible Genetics. A representative from Delta and Pine Land, co-developer of the Terminator technology, was unable to attend because of a broken foot.

Conversation focused primarily on the mechanics of transgenic manipulation and whether the crops live up to expectations. Do they produce increase yields, increase farmers’ profits, and feed the hungry people of the world? Is it worth the risk? Panelists from academia mostly defended the new technology, while those who work with farmers opposed it.

Dr. Mary Lou Guerinot of Dartmouth described her work to increase the amount of beta carotene in rice. She said that a lack of this nutrient contributes significantly to disease in India, and expressed a sense of moral obligation to develop this enhanced food staple. Speaking from his experience administering programs in developing countries, Martin Teitel of the Council for Responsible Genetics asserted that “people do not die of vitamin A deficiency; they die of the broad effects of poverty associated with inadequate food distribution and loss of land.” Donella Meadows, a member of the audience, questioned whether we were compounding “one moral failure with another” by attempting to address complex social problems with a technological fix. Perhaps fundamental changes in behavior were needed in developed and developing countries alike, she mused.

Dr. Colin Purrington, Assistant Professor of Biology at Swarthmore College, advised the audience, “Fasten your seat belts. These few uses we have been discussing are just the tip of the iceberg of what is in the works.”