Co-op Topics

On September 19, the "Educated Eater: Know What You Eat" series presented a panel discussion on biotechnology and food. "Genetically Engineered Food: Making Informed Choices" was co-sponsored by the Co-op’s Education Department and DHMC’s Center for Continuing Education Community Health Program.

The panel included two scientists/educators and two farmers, each with a professional interest in genetic engineering of the human food supply. While all of the speakers acknowledged real risks and real benefits from GE foods, one farmer and one educator each spoke in opposition to the new technology and one each in favor of it. The goal of this event was to present both sides of the issue using knowledgeable sources with experience grounded here in the Upper Valley.

Why Use Genetically Engineered Crops?
Moderator Steve Taylor, New Hampshire Commissioner of Agriculture, presented four reasons why farmers consider growing genetically engineered crops:

to facilitate crop production;
to facilitate harvest and long-distance transport;
to enhance consumer perception of value through changes in taste, shelf life, or product appearance; and
to impart health benefits, such as increased nutritional content.

With this background information, each speaker made his or her presentation.

Benefits, Risks
Vern Grubinger, Director of the University of Vermont’s Center for Sustainable Agriculture, urged the audience to ask two questions when assessing genetically engineered crops and food: "Who benefits?" and "Who bears the risks?"

Genetic engineering gives human beings the ability to move genes across species that cannot reproduce with each other in nature. Because this technology goes beyond the boundaries of the natural world, its creations are not subject to nature’s safeguards. Dr. Grubinger is concerned about the application of GE technology to agriculture, where unknown elements are released into the environment and the food chain creating a potential risk of unprecedented proportions.

He spoke of the learning curve that is involved with any new technology. Grubinger recalled the introduction of DDT and the great optimism with which it was received. It took decades for scientists and farmers to understand the added effects of DDT which went beyond the purpose for which it was intended. "We’ve had a fifty-year learning curve with petroleum-based pesticides," he said. "To introduce GE crops and assume that everything’s going to be fine ignores what happened last time around."

Grubinger feels strongly that the clear labeling of GE seeds is the first link in a chain of informed consumers. He has received calls from farmers alarmed that they had unwittingly planted a GE variety of zucchini. "They knew that they had planted ‘Dividend’ or ‘Revenue,’ but from the catalog information, they didn’t know that it was genetically engineered," he recounted.

Seventy-five percent of the productive acreage in America is growing GE crops. The issue of labeling seeds becomes more pressing as more GE varieties come onto the market. The FDA has approved thirty-eight varieties of vegetables, with GE lettuce, broccoli, and chicory, as well as strawberries, expected to be for sale next summer. Until the grower has clear and accurate information, the farmer, farming neighbors, food processors, and consumers have no way to protect themselves from GE crops if they want to.

The unknown ecological impact of GE crops also concerns Grubinger. Genes function in a network, though they may be selected for GE applications based on a single trait. Grubinger cautions that unanticipated and undesired qualities may be transferred or created, as is the case with allergens. Further, he is concerned about the pollen flow from GE crops to their weedy relatives, and changes in the insects that feed on crop foliage and roots. "The Earth is pretty resilient, and we’ve been getting away with our experiments. Maybe we’ll continue to. It’s the ‘maybe’ that worries me," he said.

Grubinger sees research funds and intellectual capacity being applied to biotechnology to the detriment of research into sustainable farming practices. There are profits to be made from the promotion of GE, unlike the financial rewards of researching organic farming methods that do not involve the sale of products. Many researchers are drawn to GE, in part because it is so fascinating. This trend poses a double threat: increasing numbers of GE crops could have a negative impact on the organic grower (for example, loss of Bt as an effective organic pesticide) at the same time that the shift in research means fewer sustainable alternatives to GE are explored. Both of these factors would contribute to a narrowing of options for the farmer who chooses not to grow GE crops.

More Control Over Traditional Breeding
Estelle Hrabak, Associate Professor of Plant Biology at the University of New Hampshire, feels cautiously optimistic about the potential of genetic engineering. In her evaluation, the technique is more accurate and subject to closer regulation than classical breeding methods. The technology of genetic engineering enables scientists to select and move one or a few genes. This stands in contrast to normal reproduction, in which fifty percent of the genetic material — both the good and the bad — comes from each parent. Hrabak also noted that the results of genetic engineering are reviewed by the EPA and the FDA, but the work of classical breeding is not. While genetic engineering has created some unintended allergens, Hrabak pointed out that this is not unique to GE. Classical breeding has resulted in toxic results that were not detected in advance. She has confidence that the federal regulatory process will catch GE-created toxins when the product is in the developmental stage.

Hrabak went on to explain what scientists are seeking with genetic engineering. Introduction of new genetic material (DNA) creates the ability to produce a protein the plant could not produce previously. This new protein may be the desired end product of the GE process, or, it may function as an enzyme to catalyze the production of something else.

An example of this latter process would be an enzyme that synthesizes healthier fats in corn oil. In this instance, the corn oil that is expressed is almost completely devoid of both the protein and the modified DNA that produced it. Therefore, an individual who is concerned about exposure to bio-engineered DNA or protein can eat non-protein products like oil without being "exposed." This also raises the question of whether the oil should be labeled as genetically engineered, since the altered DNA and its protein are no longer present, she said.

Hrabak has some concerns about genetic engineering. "We can’t stamp the whole new technology as safe. We need to give individual assessment to each new development," she said. But she also challenged the audience to approach GE with an open mind, saying that we can’t feed the world without it. She acknowledged that it takes some effort to understand how genetic engineering works, but encouraged people to take the time to educate themselves. She feels that the media does not probe the scientific information behind the potential headlines. Hrabak urged the audience to become informed consumers by going deeper than media coverage.

Progressive Farming
"This is one of the most exciting times to be in agriculture," remarked Jamie Robertson of Bohanan Farm in Contoocook, NH. He describes his high input/high output farming techniques as "progressive." He recalled riding on a tractor earlier that week with his wife’s grandfather, who remembered watching horses running a treadmill to mill grain. The two men marveled at the developments in agriculture and embrace them enthusiastically, including biotech crops.

Robertson’s diversified dairy farm operates twenty-two hours a day with the help of four family members and three employees. He planted Round-Up Ready field corn in 1999. This type of corn is genetically engineered to withstand applications of the herbicide Round-Up. "We planted it as an insurance policy against weeds that season," he explained. He did not plant it in 2000 because it didn’t seem warranted. "We have good soil and good weed control on our farm, so we didn’t need to repeat it."

Robertson feels that GE has great agricultural potential. He urged the audience to keep the benefits in mind and not lose sight of them amid the concerns. He believes that farmers should be registered to use GE crops, but with that precaution, they should be allowed to move ahead. Robertson encouraged the audience not to be excessively cautious, saying that of course some mistakes would be made, but that they could be learned from and corrected. "If we had focused just on the number of people who would have been killed in car accidents, would we have gone ahead with the development of the automobile?" he asked. "And yet would one of us be opposed to having a car today?"

Organic Farming
Tom Honigford is a certified organic vegetable grower from South Royalton, Vermont. He grows thirty-five types of vegetables on two acres. This scale is too large for picking pest insects off the plants by hand, a practice that is common to organic gardeners. Tom controls Colorado potato beetle larvae on his farm by applying Bt, an organically approved pesticide, to the plants’ leaves.

He waits until the larvae reach a critical mass before he applies the pesticide. "It causes bugs to lose their appetite, stop feeding, and die," he explained. Not all Colorado potato beetles in his field encounter the pesticide. Due to human error, some plants are not treated. In addition, rain neutralizes Bt, so that any larvae that hatch after a rainstorm are not exposed to its toxic effects. As a result, susceptible beetles remain in the population to mate with resistant bugs and dilute the resistant genes.

Through genetic engineering, scientists have created varieties of corn and potato that contain the Bt in every cell of every plant. This means that every Colorado potato beetle in a patch of Bt potatoes encounters the pesticide. However, not all of them die from it, because some of them have a natural resistance to the toxin. These Bt-resistant insects become the only beetles that live to reproduce. Their offspring inherit their parent’s Bt resistance. Honigford, like other organic farmers, is very concerned at this prospect. Scientists predicts that within just a few successive years of growing genetically engineered Bt potatoes, all Colorado potato beetles will be Bt resistant. Predictions estimate that Bt will become ineffective in potato beetle control in as little as five to ten years.

"As an organic farmer, I’m threatened by this whole thing," said Honigford. "I don’t have a lot of options within the acceptable practices for organic certification. Rotenone is the only other pesticide that is approved for organic farmers. But Rotonone kills beneficial insects, like bees and ladybugs, in addition to Colorado potato beetles." The introduction of Bt crops reduces his options as an organic farmer, as well as the viability of organic farming as a whole.

Honigford spoke of the success that he has as an organic farmer. Though it is more labor intensive than other types of farming, there is public demand for organic produce, and customers are willing to pay a higher price for it. Organic farming is an effective form of agriculture. "If we don’t need genetic engineering to feed ourselves, and if consumers are wary of GE crops, why are we going in that direction so vigorously?" he asked.

At Evening’s End
The evening was notable for its candid and respectful exchange of information on a topic that Vern Grubinger characterized as being "of enormous importance that can really press people’s buttons." Jamie Robertson reflected that "it’s your core beliefs that come out when you sit down and talk like this." Some believe that science can save the world. Some believe that nature has an integrity that shouldn’t be violated. For all who attended, the event provided food for thought.

Elizabeth Ferry is the Co-op’s Member and Community Outreach Coordinator.