Humboldt County Ballot Initiative to Ban Genetically Modified Organisms

Mark S. Wilson, Humboldt State University, Department of Biology

comments at educational forum on GMOs,

Mark S. Wilson

Humboldt State University

Wharfinger Building, Eureka Ca

10-27-04

Hello, my nameπs Mark Wilson, and Iπm an assistant professor in the department of biology at Humboldt State University. My background is in microbiology, genetics and toxicology. The word professor implies that Iπm supposed to profess something or declare my faith in something, so Iπm going to do some of that during my time up here.

I respect and share many of the values and concerns that the Humboldt Green genes have. I have been thinking about these issues in collaboration with my students for quite awhile, so I am aware that the issues in agriculture and genetics have many sides. To that end, Iπd like to thank Milt Boyd, Rollin Richmond, and John Wooley for organizing this educational forum, and Iπd especially like to thank all of you who came tonight. Itπs important to keep listening and talking to one another. More than anything I believe that we can address this issue in a positive way as a community by engaging in a respectful open-minded dialogue. I'm proud to be a part of a community that is so engaged and progressive.

Iπd like to start by saying that I believe the primary and overriding concern needs to be protection of people and the environment. Our goal as community members should be ensuring a safe and nutritious and affordable food supply, produced in an environmentally respectful and sustainable manner. At the same time we must recognize that sustainability includes the ability of farm families to sustain themselves financially.

Itπs important to realize that these kinds of issues require us to weigh benefits against risks. To judge what is known and unknown and to acknowledge the risks and benefits of our current behaviors before we can fairly decide how to move forward. There are upsides and downsides that need to be taken into consideration. In a number of cases where we have chosen to use novel technologies,-- the use of vaccines, of antibiotics, of pasteurization and water chlorination or a marsh to treat our water-- weπve made the decision that even though there are safety concerns and unknown consequences, there are also benefits that in some situations outweigh the known costs and perceived risks. Put another way, you canπt decide on the proper balance if you focus on potential risks, and ignore potential benefits. Additionally...it is important to weigh available alternatives, and to analyze the costs and benefits of those alternatives as well.

Much of the local concern about agricultural technologies is motivated by a desire to support local organic farmers. Many people in our commmunity purchase locally-grown organic produce because they want to support local economies, and because they have concerns about the environmental and health effects of chemicals used in conventional agriculture. Personally, I support these goals, and I share the environmental concerns about the effects of agricultural chemicals. But, I think that all of us in this room probably have this in common, including the local farmers who are likely to experience the most direct effects of using toxic substances. Although many people mentally equate transgenic crops with multinational chemical agribusiness, the local farmers who grow round-up resistant corn say they are using these products to reduce herbicide use and switch to less persistent and less toxic chemicals, as well as convert to no-till and conservation tillage practices. I donπt think it is reasonable to dismiss their local concerns on the basis of an anti-corporate argument.

Farmers are also doing this because they can save on costs with reduced chemical expenses and less use of farm equipment. I think that itπs important to keep the economic realities of local families in mind. According to the most recent census, about 1000 of Eurekaπs 6000 families lives below the poverty line, and about 25,000 people in Humboldt County. Eurekaπs Food for People distributes food to about 1100 households in Eureka each month. These people are experiencing hunger and food insecurity. Ignoring the local economic costs of food is to ignore their needs.

Iπd now like to consider some of the costs and benefits of using genetics to attempt to improve crop varieties.

To begin, what are some of the potential risks?

Many of these issues relate to farming practices, organic agriculture, and economic concerns, but I will discuss some of the issues related to genetics, focusing on environmental concerns and human health concerns.

Some of the potential negative environmental effects that have been envisioned include:

The killing of nontarget species by Bt endotoxin; increased rather than decreased use of herbicides; an increase in herbicide and pesticide resistance among weed and insect populations; spread of terminator genes to non-GMO species; and unintended unspecified effects that havenπt been pre-envisioned.

Some of the potential negative effects that have been envisioned relating to human health include: increases in antibiotic resistance and emergence of resistant pathogens; and a set of concerns related to unintended consequences of adding a gene to a plant, which include: increases in allergens or toxins, and decreases in nutrition.

It is also necessary to evaluate whether some of these potential risks or costs are likely to occur. Focusing on genetic issues, some of the concerns seem to be valid and some donπt seem to be realistic. For example, concerns about antibiotic resistance spread and the terminator gene seem to be unfounded, while concerns about unintended effects in organisms have a more concrete basis.

With regards to the spread of antibiotic resistance. During construction of a new transgenic plant, genes that confer resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin are used as marker genes to select for plants that have taken up the introduced DNA.  Critics argue that planting the GMOs makes that resistance gene widely available in the environment for transfer to pathogenic bacteria.

The many problems with this argument include: so many pathogenic bacteria are resistant to kanamycin already that this antibiotic has almost no therapeutic or medicinal value; having the gene for kanamycin resistance does not make bacteria resistant to antibiotics that do have medicinal value; and the gene for kanamycin resistance is widely spread among soil bacteria already and is already available were there some selective pressure to increase its frequency. The rise of drug-resistant pathogens is a serious problem, but not one that has anything to do with GMOs.  Steps can be taken to reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance. Primarily, people need to stop demanding antibiotics from their doctors for treatment of viral infections, which do not respond to antibiotics. The use of antibiotics in animal production also needs to be closely regulated, and farmers need to be properly educated on their use.

With regards to the terminator gene technology. A number of approaches have been discussed that would allow for the production of transgenic plants that produced sterile seeds or non-viable pollen. From an intellectual property perspective, this would help ensure that patent rights for a product could be protected. More important to those of us in this room, this would obviate the concerns about pollen drift and transfer of seeds or pollen to adjacent farms. Thus, these approaches might largely address the concerns relating to organic farmers as well as concerns about the transfer of herbicide resistance genes to weedy species. However, some critics of this technology have raised concerns about the potential for these traits to spread into the natural environment, or onto organic farms. These concerns seem to be unfounded, because things that canπt reproduce canπt pass their traits on; in the unlikely scenario of a terminator gene being transferred to another plant, that plant wouldnπt be able to reproduce and so the trait would not be passed on or spread. Natural selection is a process whereby things that reproduce most effectively increase in frequency over time ≠non-reproductive forms do not spread or take over or persist.

I said that concerns related to unintended consequences of the transgenic process had a more concrete basis. The expression of our own genes is regulated internally in a complex process of interactions. Itπs entirely possible that the insertion of a gene into a crop might increase or decrease the production of some other protein, resulting in unintended consequences that affect the nutritional quality or allergenic properties of the crop. There are natural correlates to this - many viruses insert their genes into host organisms, and there are other genetic entities, such as transposons or åjumping genesπ that move around and insert into DNA. When this happens in nature, many times there donπt appear to be any consequences, and other times the consequences can be catastrophic for the host. It is these possible unintended consequences that have spurred nutritional and toxicity testing of GE crops.

Itπs important to realize that these same concerns apply to crops produced by other meansãwhen a farmer save seeds from a plant that produces more or bigger fruit, or that is resistant to a pest, he or she doesnπt know what the overall effects are of the mutations that produced that variety. These crops are assumed to be substantially equivalent even though they have been chosen specifically because they are different. One distinction is that GE crops are tested for undesired nutritional and toxic effects, and that we do know something about the genetic change that has taken place. Given that, it seems likely that this testing is not perfect, that some plants will be produced that have unintended effects.

Regarding testing, some people have called for a moratorium..... letπs hold off doing anything now, while we wait for more testing....I understand that calling for testing is calling for the use of restraint and caution, but I would like to say that I am somewhat skeptical of the moratorium concept, perhaps because it is exactly what President Bush and the big automakersπ and oil companies want to do regarding global warming....≤why donπt we wait on doing anything while we study this for a few more decades≤.. The goal really seems to be just hoping that the issue goes away, but while we are waiting and testing, more and more harm is done to the environment.

Similar to this argument are calls for labeling of processed foods that contain GMOs. I think that most people envision this as someone typing into a computer somewhere, so that a few words are added to a label. However, tracking products from field to store; and developing separate storage, transport, processing and packaging infrastructures is expensive ≠ a recent study in the British magazine The Economist estimated that a labeling law would increase the cost of packaged foods by 30%. If we are going to increase the cost of food by this amount, it should be in response to valid, documented health concerns ≠ and not to appease concerns that may be unfounded. Additionally, we already have a labeling system, -- anything labeled organic is not GMO.

These costs also need to be evaluated in terms of benefits.

As a short list, some of the benefits of first generation plants are: reduction in insecticide, herbicide and fungicide use; conversion to low-tillage and no-tillage systems; and control of viruses, for which there are currently no available alternatives. This last issue, control of viruses, results in a further reduction of pesticide use, because many of the viruses are spread by insects such as aphids and leafhoppers, and so the conventional approach to virus control involves using insecticides.

Some of the second generation crops, which are in development, include: crops that can grow in higher salt soils; crops with improved nutritional qualities; crops that are less allergenic than current varieties and crops that produce less toxins; crops with higher yields; and crops that can be used for industrial processes, such as plants that can concentrate heavy metals and salts, thus assisting in the cleanup of polluted sites. Future products might be more appropriate for use in making biodiesel or for conversion to ethanol.

Many people that oppose transgenic crops do so because they see no benefit for the consumer ≠ they think the only ones benefiting are large multinationals like Monsanto. I believe these individuals are judging this technology based solely on first-generation products, which means that they are passing judgement on an agenda that was largely set by Monsanto, before researchers and organizations with more humanitarian and altruistic goals have had a chance to make their case.

Other products are being developed specifically for use in the developing world. Rice and mustard that contain higher levels of beta-carotene are being developed to potentially help address vitamin A deficiencies, transgenic plant vaccines are being developed to help address diarrheal diseases and viral infections, and a male-sterile mosquito is being researched, to reduce the number of malaria-carrying mosquitos in areas where malaria is a serious problem. Millions of people are affected by each of the problems these GMOs might address. Also, plants are being developed that can tolerate soils with high concentrations of aluminum, which is particularly a problem in the tropics. If farmers can use these plants to improve yields or to farm already-cultivated lands longer, ultimately this means that more tropical forest will be preserved intact. Every acre of farmland kept in use may be equivalent to an acre of forest or grassland not cleared for cultivation.

When looking at potential benefits, it is of course necessary to evaluate whether or not those benefits can actually be achieved. In the case of first generation products, it seems that they are, for example massive reductions in pesticide use in cotton farming have been documented. The fact that so many farmers have embraced these products is testimony to the fact that they do indeed work. In the case of second-generation and future products, only time will tell, although of course if we choose to ban them, weπll never know.

In closing, we need to look at the costs and the benefits of these technologies. Locally, I think that the upside has been understated, while the costs have been exaggerated. Also, weπre evaluating these technologies based on first generation concepts, and we need to give the more altruistic individuals an opportunity to succeed. Conversely, a responsible course calls for balance, and there should be more testing, and particularly more independent third-party testing, to minimize negative consequences. Thank you.

Introductory Page