Transgenic Crops

ATTRA Transgenic Crops A Publication of ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service • 1-800-346-9140 • www.attra.ncat.orgBy Jeff Schahczenski Transgenic Crops describes the basics of genetic modification for agricultural purposes and a brief his-and Katherine Adam tory of the technology and the governing policies surrounding it. This publication offers a brief overviewNCAT Program of the main agricultural crops that have been genetically modified, the characteristics they express, andSpecialists the market roles they play. Unintended consequences, economic considerations, and safety concerns© 2006 NCAT surrounding the cultivation and dissemination of transgenic crops are also discussed. Biopharmaceuti- cal aspects of transgenic crops are also briefly addressed. Economic, legal, and management concerns associated with these types of crops are addressed, as well as political and regulatory aspects. Implica- tions of transgenic technologies for sustainable agriculture are briefly addressed along with concluding remarks. References and resources follow the narrative.ContentsIntroduction ..................... 1What Are TransgenicCrops? ................................. 3Unintended Effects........ 5Commercial TransgenicCrops and Their Traits ... 6Issues Facing Farmersand Ranchers ................... 9Crop Yield, Costs, andProfitability ........................13Organic Industry .......... 17Influence on PublicResearch .......................... 17Industry Concentration To increase the genetic diversity of U.S. corn, the Germplasm Enhancement for Maize (GEM) project seeks toand Farmers’ Right to combine exotic germplasm, such as this unusually colored and shaped maize from Latin America, with domesticSave Seed ........................ 18 corn lines. Photo by Keith Weller, USDA ARS.Regulation of TransgenicCrops and Apportion-ment of Liability ........... 19Conclusion ...................... 22 Introduction researchers, and certain nonprofit organi-References ...................... 23 zations. Particularly vocal are groups that The ability to transfer genetic materialAppendices .................... 26 represent the interests of civil society. between two unlike species for agricultural purposes and crop production is the The quantifiable facts surrounding geneti- subject of this publication. Development of cally modified foods seem less in dispute than the science and methods to produce trans- the growing number of implications. These genic crops began around 1983 as part of a often take form in ethical arguments, whichATTRA—National Sustainable broader technological movement to modify some supporters of transgenic crops write offAgriculture Information Serviceis managed by the National Cen- organisms for economic, medical, military, as a defense of cultural artifacts. Yet theter for Appropriate Technology(NCAT) and is funded under a and other general human ends. new capacities brought about by transgenicgrant from the United States foods in particular reveal a general lack of Implications surrounding the modificationDepartment of Agriculture’s research into these many implications.Rural Business-Cooperative Ser-vice. Visit the NCAT Web site of life carry significant and complex ethi-(www.ncat.org/agri. cal issues. The capacity to produce trans- For instance, in 2001, the Experiment Sta-html) for more informa-tion on our sustainable genic crops causes great controversy among tion Committee on Organization and Policyagriculture projects. government agencies, business consortia, (ESCOP) and the Extension Committee on

Organization and Policy (ECOP) published of other U.S. crops. (USDA/NASS, 2005) a report on critical issues in agricultural (See Table 1.) biotechnology and recommended responses. Three types of transgenic produce have While calling for education of the public in been commercialized—sweet corn, win- regard to transgenic technologies, the report ter squash, and papaya. As of January 6, also called for land-grant research on trans- 2006, the following fruit and vegetable genic crops to address four substantive con- crops have been granted deregulated sta- cerns raised by the environmental commu- tus by the USDA Animal and Plant Health nity. (See Appendix 2.) To date, little of this Inspection Service (APHIS): papaya (two type of research has been conducted, since varieties), potato, squash, sugar beet, sweet it has never been adequately funded. corn, and tomato. Except for papaya and As of June 30, 2005, the U.S. Department a small amount of sweet corn, transgenic of Agriculture and the National Agriculture fresh produce is currently unavailable to Statistics Service (USDA/NASS) reported American consumers. Fruits and vegeta- that transgenic varieties comprised 87 per- bles for processing may be available very cent of all soybean acreage planted in the soon—perhaps by fall 2006—as seed has United States (up from 60 percent in 2001, been released to contract growers. (Hagen,Related ATTRA and 85 percent in 2004). As of the same 2006) The European Union is debating thePublications date, transgenic corn acreage planted was question of permitting transgenic crop pro-Seed Production and 52 percent (up from 47 percent in 2004). duction alongside its well-established organicVariety Development Transgenic upland cotton was 79 percent production in order to avoid World Tradefor Organic Systems (up from 76 percent in 2004). No acre- Organization (WTO) sanctions against tradeOrganic Crops age was reported for transgenic varieties barriers. India is conducting ﬁeld trials ofWorkbookBiodiesel: Table 1.The Sustainability Acreage planted to transgenic varieties, as percentage of total corn, soybeans, cotton acreageDimensions by state. USDA/NASS, June 30, 2005. Corn Soybeans Cotton Arkansas 92 96 California 53 Georgia 95 Illinois 36 81 Indiana 26 89 Iowa 60 91 Kansas 63 90 Louisiana 95 Michigan 40 76 Minnesota 66 83 Mississippi 96 96 Missouri 55 89 Nebraska 60 91 North Carolina 95 Ohio 18 77 South Dakota 83 95 Texas 63 Wisconsin 46 84 Other states 52 84 91 US 52 87 79Page 2 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

The Benbrook Report: Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: 1996–2004 The major genetically engineered (GE) tions of herbicides, or so-called “herbi- ket in 1972, by Monsanto. crop varieties commercialized since cide-tolerant” crops (HT), account for the largest share of GE acres. About Corn and cotton have been geneti- 1996 in the United States have been 487 million acres have been planted cally engineered to express the bac- designed to help control a damaging since 1996, or 73 percent of total GE terial toxin Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. class of insects and simplify herbicide- crop acres. Herbicide-tolerant soy- This transgenic trait allows plants to based weed management systems. beans are the most widely planted GE manufacture within their cells a crys- Over the first nine years of commercial crop technology and account for more talline protein that is toxic to most use, 670 million acres of crops express- than half the total acres planted to GE Lepidopteran insects (moths and ing GE traits have been planted, or varieties since 1996. The vast majority butterflies). Some 183 million acres about 23 percent of the total 2,970 mil- of HT crops are engineered to tolerate of Bt transgenic corn and cotton have lion acres of crops harvested across the glyphosate (trade name “Roundup,” been planted since 1996, represent- country during this period. or referred to as “Roundup Ready”), ing 27 percent of total GE crop acre- Crops engineered to tolerate applica- the herbicide introduced to the mar- age. (Benbrook, 2004)transgenic maize (corn), mustard (oilseed Under the broadest defi nition, the use ofcrop), sugarcane (ethanol production), sor- biological sciences to develop products—ghum (ethanol and animal feed), pigeon- conventional plant and animal breedingpea, chickpea, rice (staple food grain), techniques, conducted since the dawn oftomato, brinjal (eggplant or aubergine), civilization—fall under biotechnology. Inbanana, papaya, soybean, and medici- the popular press, biotechnology generallynal plants. China anticipates commercial- refers to newly-developed scientific meth-izing transgenic rice varieties by 2008. ods used to create products by altering the(Dansby, 2006) Table 2.The top five countries growing transgenic Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops. 2005.crops in 2005, according to The Interna- Rank Country Area (mil. Ha/A.) Croptional Service for the Acquisition of Agro- 49.8/723.0 Soybean, maize (corn), cotton, 1 USABiotech Applications (ISAAA) were the canola, squash, papayaUnited States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, 2 Argentina 17.1/42.2 soybean, maize, cottonand China. (See Table 2.) Fourteen coun- 3 Brazil 9.4/23.2 soybeantries were ranked in the fi rst tier as major 4 Canada 5.8/14.3 canola, maize, soybeanadopters of the technology. (ISAAA, 2006) 5 China 3.3/8.2 cottonA checklist to aid prospective U.S. growers 6 Paraguay 1.8/4.4 soybeanof transgenic crops in interpreting condi- 7 India 1.3/3.2 cottontions imposed by the agribusiness licensee, 8 So. Africa 0.5/1.2 maize, soybean, cottonincluding company technology agree- 9 Uruguay 0.3/.7 soybean, maize, cottonments, is published online by RAFI-USA 10 Australia 0.3/.7 cotton(www.rafiusa.org). (Moeller and Sligh, 11 Mexico 0.1/.2 cotton, soybeanFarmers’ Guide, 2004) 12 Romania 0.1/.2 soybean 13 Philippines 0.1/.2 maizeWhat Are Transgenic Crops? 14 Spain 0.1/.2 maizeNo uniformly accepted defi nition of bio- 15 Colombia <0.1/.2 cottontechnology exists, according to the National 16 Iran <0.1/.2 riceCenter for Agricultural Law Research and 17 Honduras <0.1/.2 maizeInformation (NCALRI ) (www.aglawcenter. 18 Portugal <0.1/.2 maizeorg). The center provides several defi ni- 1 ha = 2.47 a. (results rounded to .0)tions and commentary.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 3

genetic makeup of organisms and produc- genes from one species—an animal, plant, ing unique individuals or traits that are bacterium, or virus—and inserting them not easily obtained through conventional into another species, such as an agricul- breeding techniques. These products are tural crop plant. An intermediate organism often referred to as transgenic, bioengi- or virus can be used to “infect” the host neered, or genetically modified because DNA with the desired genetic material. they contain foreign genetic material. Agri- Microparticle bombardment technology culture is one of the fi rst industries radi- is also widely used to deliver exogenous cally affected by this new technology on nucleic acids (DNA from another spe- both a fundamental production level and a cies) into plant cells. The desired genetic legal level. (NCALRI, 2000) material is precipitated onto micron-sized metal particles and placed within one of The focus of this publication is on crop a variety of devices designed to acceler- varieties created through transgenic modi- ate these “microcarriers” to velocities fication, or genetic modification (GM). The required to penetrate the plant cell wall. products of transgenetic engineering are In this manner, transgenes can be deliv- often called genetically modified organ- ered into the cell’s genome. New DNA can isms, or GMOs. All these terms refer to also be inserted into a host cell using elec- methods by which biologists splice genes troporation, in which a jolt of electricity is from one or more species into the DNA of applied to cells to create openings in the crop plants in an attempt to transfer cho- plasma membrane that surrounds a cell. A sen genetic traits. The method is known as (typically antibiotic-resistant) marker gene recombinant DNA technology. is included in the package to verify degree Genes are segments of DNA that contain of effectiveness in introducing the foreign information that in part determines the end DNA. Gene stacking is becoming more function of a living organism. Genetic engi- common, adding a whole array of traits at neers manipulate DNA, typically by taking once into the host organism. (Stierle, 2006) Steps in electroporation and other methods of gene transfer Steps in electroporation and other method to amplify DNA and produce rary pores, the donor gene’s DNA methods of gene transfer: a workable amount of the gene. is injected. The DNA is injected in the form of transfer plasmids that 1) The DNA sequence for the gene 4) Once acquired, there are several migrate to the chromosome and that will be altered is identified and ways to transfer the donor gene into become incorporated in the plant’s obtained from a donor organism the cells of the target organism. In DNA. Shortly after the charge (bacterium). This can be done by rice, a somewhat advanced process is and injection, the cell membrane referring to known information per- utilized. This process is electropora- reforms. The cell wall also reforms taining to the sequence of the gene tion, wherein special wall-denatur- in a reverse process. which is to be selected, followed by ing enzymes remove the plant cell the removal of the gene from the wall. The cells become protoplasts, 5) The newly altered cells are then donor organism. which are plant cells stripped of the placed in a culture to reproduce cell wall but still encapsulated in the the unique cell types that compose 2) The desired gene is removed from cellular membrane. In the next step the organism. the donor organism through the use of electroporation, a very high volt- of site-specific enzymes known as age electric charge is sent through 6) The resulting cells are then restriction enzymes. the protoplast-containing solution. transferred to a regular growth envi- This charge causes the membrane ronment where the newly incor- 3) The desired gene is then subject to temporarily deteriorate, forming porated gene will be expressed. to polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a small pores. Through these tempo- (Bromley, no date)Page 4 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

The whole process can be illustrated by from being able to precisely control theits application in the engineering of trans- traits the host plant will express and togenic rice, using electroporation. guarantee genetic stability in subsequent generations. (Ryan and Ho, 2001) ThisWith the advent of genetic engineering of potential for instability can lead to unpre-plants around 1983, it appeared that trans- dictable and undesirable effects, examplesgenic manipulation might benefit and even of which include plant infertility, produc-revolutionize agriculture. The transfer of tion of toxins and allergens, and reduc-desirable genetic traits across species bar- tions in yield and plant fitness. The trans-riers offered potential promises to solve genic seed industry consistently countersproblems in the management of agricultural that since genes from no known allergenscrops, provide new possibilities to improve are incorporated, adequate care has beenhuman and animal health, and provide a taken to guard against this contingency.new revenue stream for farmers through (USDA/OIG, 2005)contract production of pharmaceutical andindustrial crops. (ESCOP/ECOP, 2000) Transgenetic engineers who rely on the simple model of gene expression—the position PPotential environmental benefits included that one gene equals one effect—harbor otential forreduced toxic pesticide use, improved an outdated interpretation of genetic the-weed control resulting in less tillage and instability ory, and one that could have serious impli-soil erosion, and water conservation. Fur- can lead to cations. Pleiotrophy is the understandingthermore, the new technology promised unpredictable and that one gene may control multiple traitsincreased yields. in an organism. Pleiotrophy multiplies the undesirable effects.Transgenic crops were also patentable. uncertainty surrounding transgenic crops.Technology agreements or engineering A gene identified as controlling a desirablewould insure that seed could not be saved trait may in fact control multiple traits in aover for planting the next year. The develop- variety of ways. Pleitrophy is common, ander’s intellectual property rights were thereby the interactions of genes with each otherprotected, which offered the potential to and with the environment add complex-increase profits and theoretically garner a ity. To accurately predict the effects of newmonopoly over the transgenic seed supply. genetic combinations is nearly impossible. The introduction of a novel life form into anUnintended Effects ecology can trigger effects perhaps too great to be understood during our time. While itCurrent methods of gene transfer are not is true most mutations don’t survive, thoseprecise. While scientists can control with that do can profoundly affect human andrelative exactness the “trait gene” (or its other life forms.synthesized analog) to be inserted into ahost plant genome, they cannot entirely For instance, transgenic soy strains appearcontrol its location, nor the number of cop- to exhibit unintended effects. Field obser-ies that get inserted. Location of genetic vations reported to the University of Geor-material is important because it controls gia (New Scientist, 1999) and Universitythe expression of biological traits, just of Missouri (UM press release, 2001)as genes themselves do. Also, inserted noted physiological problems affectingDNA frequently contains multiple stacked yields. Research published by Univer-genes for different traits (eight in the New sity of Arkansas scientists in 2000 notedLeaf potato), increasing chances of unde- that glysophate disrupts the nitrogensirable interactions. fi xation process in Roundup Ready soy. (King et al., 2001)A common and unpredictable occurrenceis “silencing” of either the inserted genetic The current marker and promoter genes ofmaterial or adjacent native genes. Pres- choice also may create new hazards. Theent scientific knowledge is still a long way antibiotic-resistant marker genes carry thewww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 5

potential to increase the variety of bacteria an acceptable level of possible collateral dam- resistant to antibiotics. (Sheldon, 1993) The age, as long as it is far enough down the road. viral promoter genes could combine with (USDA/OIG, 2005) other infecting viruses, or be scrambled by the plant, to create new viral proteins. Each piece of the inserted gene package described above carries with it the poten- The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) is a tial to disrupt non-target portions of the very powerful promoter and is commonly host plant’s DNA, to create instability in used. The CaMV can potentially cause the the new genetic construct, or to result in inserted DNA package to be expressed out unpredictable combinations that can create of proportion with the rest of the genetic new substances, viruses, or bacteria. What code. When inserted with a particle gun, this adds up to is the possibility, again, of the CaMV promoter can jump out of the unintended effects—particularly in subse- DNA package and land somewhere else quent generations of the engineered plant. in the host genome, causing disruption. To date, no known replicated studies have The bacterial and viral vector genes could been conducted that confi rm or disprove recombine to form active pathogens—either potential long-term effects on human health. new ones, or old ones with renewed viru- No known mechanism was proposed or lence, or with broader host specificity. included to identify undesirable side effects (Stierle, 2006) of the engineering process. The ESCOP and ECOP report mentioned A December 2005 USDA assessment in the Introduction, while advocating and of APHIS protocols for monitoring GE offering specific advice for an extensive trial crops criticized oversight lapses. education campaign in support of biotech- APHIS countered that it was relying on nology, at the same time called for research an accepted risk/benefit assessment pro- studies to be carried out on several key cess, while USDA took the position that safety issues raised by the public. An 18- oversight should be strengthened, on the member Biotechnology Implementation assumption there is significant risk—until Task Force convened and issued an update the new technology has been proven safe in July 2001. However, nothing more has beyond doubt. been heard from this committee. (ESCOP/ ECOP, 2000) (See full text of the initial report at www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/ Commercial Transgenic Crops agbiotech.edu.) and Their Traits While increased yields and improved nutri- A ma i n reg u lat i ng tional value are among the promised ben- agency for transgenic efits of transgenic crops, most now planted technology in the U.S. worldwide are designed either 1) to survive is the Animal and Plant exposure to certain herbicides (called her- Health Inspection Ser- bicide-tolerant, or HT), or 2) to kill certain vice (APHIS), a division insect pests (called pesticidal or insecti- within the Department of cidal). The transgenic tomato was designed Agriculture. Rather than for long shelf life. It is unclear whether conduct safety studies, the increased beta-carotene in transgenic APHIS appears to accept “Golden Rice” (derived from the daffodil) risk-management tools is in a usable form for human nutrition, such as “performance- especially in the absence of dietary fats and based regulatory stan- proteins. (Grains of Delusion, 2001) dards” and “science-A retooled gene in Endless Summer tomatoes con- based risk assessment Transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops havetrols ripening to give better flavor and shelf-life. policies and procedures.” been altered to withstand being sprayedPhoto by Jack Dykinga, USDA ARS. This approach allows for with broad-spectrum herbicides, with thePage 6 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

idea that one application will take care of One other large-acreage North Americanmost types of weeds without killing the crop. transgenic crop is canola (a low erucic acidInsecticidal crops contain genes of the soil form of European rapeseed). Canola isbacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These a major oilseed crop in Canada, but onlyBt genes cause the plants to produce a a minor crop in the U.S. However, untilchemical toxic to the European corn borer, recently, it was thought that acreage ofthe cotton bollworm, and other caterpillars. both canola and rapeseed would increase(Caterpillars are the larvae of insects in the in the near future in the Pacific Northwest.Lepidoptera order, which includes moths On May 9, 2006, a proposed large produc-and butterfl ies.) tion facility at Gray’s Harbor, Washington, announced that it would produce biodieselAs of 2005, about 87 percent of world trans- from Asian palm oil, thus bypassing thegenic acreage was in the U.S. (See Table “seed crushing hassles” of canola/rapeseed.2.) Herbicide-tolerant crops accounted for (Montana Department of Environmentalabout three quarters of the acreage planted, Quality, 2006)worldwide, to genetically engineered cropsin 2005. Pesticidal crops, or a combination Proposals to plant substantial acreages ofof pesticidal and herbicide-tolerant crops, canola and rapeseed (Brassica napus, B.accounted for most of the remaining acre- rapa)—much of it transgenic varieties—inage. Acreage devoted to crops with stacked Oregon’s Willamette Valley to produce rawgenes intended to express a variety of traits material for biodiesel production causedis increasing. (USDA/NASS, 2005) considerable concern among small-acreage vegetable seed producers. A prelimi-With an overwhelming amount of U.S. com- nary 2006 Oregon State University Exten-modity program crop acreage devoted to sion study predicted a high potential fortransgenic versions, seed for conventional gene flow between B. napus canola andvarieties is becoming scarce for those who other B. napus crops (rutabaga and Sibe-choose not to plant transgenic crops. Tra- rian kale). Likewise, B. rapa rapeseedditional seed scarcity can affect farmers holds the potential for gene flow with itswho wish to return to non-transgenic corn, closely related vegetable crops (Chinesesoya, or cotton. (Holden, 2002) Cotton seed cabbage, pai-tsai, mizuna, Chinese mus-is controlled by two large suppliers work- tard, broccoli raab, and turnip). Potentialing with a large public research institution. for crossbreeding between the two oilseedDevelopment of the non-transgenic organic/ crop types was rated high, as well. Poten-specialty cotton sector, which accounts for tial of crossbreeding with wild (Raphanusthe 37 percent non-transgenic cotton acre- raphanistrum) and cultivated (R. sativum)age in Texas (Table 1), has been ham- forms of radish was considered low. Morepered by concerns about cross-pollination study was called for regarding outcrossingand boll-weevil control. Soybeans and corn of canola with B. oleracea vegetables (cab-(often planted in rotation in the Upper Mid- bage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, kohl-west) cover the most transgenic acres. There rabi, collards, and kale).may be some new evidence that field work-ers working with Bt cotton are developing Oregon Extension concluded that “genet-allergic reactions. (Bernstein et al., 1999) ically modified canola [and rapeseed] Table 3. Percentages of U.S. 2005 crop acreage planted to insecticidal, herbicidal, and stacked-gene varieties. Insect resistant Herbicide resistant Stacked-gene Soy 0 87 0 Corn 26 17 9 Cotton 18 27 34www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 7

present the greatest risk to vegetable cruci- Other traits engineered into commercial fer seed crops…. The presence of the gene transgenic varieties include disease resis- would make the seed crop unsuitable for tance, high pH tolerance, and several nutri- markets that have strict tolerance on GMO tional, taste, texture, and shelf-life charac- contamination”—i.e., organic, identity pre- teristics (BIO, 2000)—primarily through served (IP), and European exports. Fur- gene stacking. thermore, “transgenes are relatively easy to detect at very low levels, so it is likely that In the absence of transgenic labeling, the their presence could be detected even if average U.S. consumer may not realize that only a few interspecific hybrids were found ingredients derived from transgenic corn, in a vegetable seed lot.” (Myers, 2006) soya, and oilseed are in 70 percent of the foods found in U.S. retail food outlets. Most While acknowledging the risks to the pro- prevalent is high-fructose corn syrup, which ducers of the nation’s garden seed crops is replacing other sweeteners in a wide vari- located in the Willamette Valley, researchers ety of mass-produced food products. The suggested that the vegetable seed producers Biotech Industry Organization agrees that could pack up and move. (Myers, 2006) transgenic oils and ingredients derived from Most transgenic cotton is herbicide toler- corn and soya are pervasive in conventional ant, though some varieties have the Bt trait; processed foods. Now that transgenic horti- transgenic canola is herbicide-tolerant. The cultural crops are in the marketplace, no one first transgenic wheat, initially planned will know for sure—in the absence of label- for commercial introduction in 2003, is ing—whether fresh produce or processed Roundup-tolerant. On May 10, 2004, Mon- shelf products contain engineered crops. santo announced that it was discontinu- Five years ago introduction of transgenic ing all research and field trial activities on fresh produce appeared imminent. Winter Roundup-Ready wheat. After seven years of squash and a limited amount of sweet corn development, the release said, efforts to win are now being retailed. However, after the over farmers and the international wheat Flavr-Savr® tomato was withdrawn and market had failed. Starlink® feed corn caused a recall of taco A 2005 study published by the Western shells, the subsequent paths of crops such Resource Council showed that introduc- as tomatoes, potatoes, sunfl owers, pea- tion of genetically modified wheat would nuts, and sweet peppers diverged. Field lower income for wheat growers and the trials were conducted from 1993–2001 on wheat industry. The report projects costs transgenic peanuts, all in the U.S. Field per bushel and per acre for farmers adopt- trials were conducted from 1993–2002 on ing Roundup-Ready wheat and for non- sunflowers—in Australia, three European adopters under best-case and worst-case countries, and the U.S. Sweet bell peppers scenarios. Either way, farmers were pro- have been joined by rice, alfalfa, cabbage, jected to lose money from introduction carrots, cauliflower, sweet corn, cucumber, and use of the Roundup-Ready wheat. lettuce, mustard—and most recently, egg- (Benbrook, 2005) plant—on the list under development for Transgenic Potato in the U.S. More than 700 field trials of transgenic Bt potatoes were Large fast food chains, snack food manufacturers, and conducted in the U.S. from 1989–2002 by a single com- potato processing conglomerates eliminated transgenic pany. In 1996 Bt potatoes were made available to com- potatoes from their products. There are no other types of mercial growers, but after 2000 the Bt potato program transgenic potatoes currently approved for sale in the U.S. was abandoned due to lack of consumer acceptance. www.truefoodnow.org/crop/pipeline_rdfruit.htmlPage 8 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

commercial release. Transgenic fruits forwhich field trials are currently underway(some in the U.S.) are apples, cherries, Unresolved Issues of Concerncranberries, grapefruit, kiwi, pears, per- Unresolved issues in transgenic agriculture:simmons, pineapple, plum, and strawber-ries. Transgenic papaya, raised in Hawaii, • Food safetyhas been commercialized for several • Farm managementyears, and plum has recently been dereg- • Crop yield, costs, and profitabilityulated by APHIS. (Plum is, of course, thesource of prunes.) • Marketing and tradeOne variety of transgenic f lax was • Organic industry impactsapproved in the U.S. in 1999, but trans- • Influence on public researchgenic fl ax is reportedly not being grown • Industry concentration and farmers’ right to save seedbecause of consumer resistance and mar-ket rejection. Flax seed oil and fl ax seed • Regulation of transgenic crops and apportionment of liabilityare popular nutraceutical products. (www.truefoodnow.org/crop/pipeline_rdfruit.html)Transgenic rice trials in Missouri were halted commercial transgenic crops and theirby public protests. So far Iran is the only traits, see the APHIS list (Appendix 1).known country producing transgenic rice for Many disturbing unanswered questionshuman consumption. (See Table 2.) remain about transgenic crops and theirDespite indications in 2002 that lack of potential benefits, costs, and risks. Inpublic acceptance of transgenic food would fact, according to an independent sur-cause transgenic fi rms to change course, vey of research data on transgenic crops,it has turned out that transnational corpo- conducted by the Winrock Foundation’srations have changed tactics—conducting Henry A. Wallace Center for Agriculturaltrials overseas, keeping U.S. trials strictly and Environmental Policy, “The varietiessecret (perhaps even from regulatory over- and uses of genetically altered crops havesight by APHIS). The companies also grown much more rapidly than our abilitylobby industry groups, such as the wheat to understand them.” This study revealsboards, and seek to develop indirect mar- that only four percent of total federal agri-kets such as processing aids and minor cultural biotech funding is dedicated toingredients. Transgenic processing aids— environmental assessment. (Wallace Centerenzymes and ingredients used to improve Report, 2001)the color, fl avor, texture, and aroma of It should also be noted that there is evenmanufactured foods—and preservatives, less research dedicated to human and ani-stabilizers, vitamin additives, and a vast mal health impacts of the technology.number of minor ingredients are currentlybeing derived from transgenic corn or soy.(Non-GMO Source, 2002) Issues Facing Farmers and RanchersThe industry currently takes the position Since 2001 ecological risks of transgenicthat the public has been consuming highly crops have become evident.processed, transgenic foods for severalyears and that this large-scale experimentwith the American food supply has been a Flow to Neighboring Crops andsuccess. Corn, oilseeds, cotton, and wheat to Related Wild Speciesare the North American crops with the Gene flow from transgenic fields into con-most acreage and profit potential. For a ventional crops and related wild plantsmore complete list of current and future has occurred. This issue is of specialwww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 9

Pharmacrops After the year 2000, reorganizations crops engineered for biopharmaceuti- exact figure is not known because in the agrichemical/pharmaceutical production include soybeans, rice, the USDA classifies these field trials cal industry led to a new emphasis barley, wheat, canola, and tobacco. as “confidential business informa- on development of bioengineered tion.” The December 2005 Office of products for enhancement of human Kentucky farmers report that trans- Inspector General (OIG) report criti- and animal health. Between 1999 genic tobacco has become the long- cized the regulatory agency charged and 2002, 315 trials of pharmaceuti- sought replacement crop after the with monitoring company field tri- cal crops were conducted in the U.S., tobacco buyout. Some was being trials for lax reporting and inadequate and such trials are ongoing. Corn is aled as a source of an AIDS medica- monitoring, especially of “high-risk by far the most popular pharmacrop, tion. As of 2001, biopharm field trials pharmaceutical and industrial crops” accounting for more than two-thirds had been conducted on at least 900 and called for “science-based risk of the biopharm plantings. Other acres, probably closer to 1,600. The assessment.” (USDA/OIG, 2005) concern to farmers because of the potential The Biotechnology Industry counters that to cause herbicide resistance. For example, resistant weeds can be controlled by “other in western Canada, three different herbi- herbicides.” Research done at Iowa State cide-resistant canola varieties have cross- University’s Leopold Center found that pollinated to create canola plants that are the increased cost negates any advantage resistant to all three types of herbicide. to the farmer of using transgenic seed. This new triple resistance has turned (Benbrook, 2001) volunteer canola into a significant weed Because of potential effects on pest man- problem. (Ellstrand, 2001) agement, crop marketability, and liability, Gene flow from transgenic crops to wild rel- more research needs to be done to deter- atives causes wild plants to acquire traits mine the conditions under which gene that improve their fitness, turning them flow from transgenic plants is likely to be into “super weeds.” For example, jointed significant. goatgrass—a weedy relative of wheat— can acquire the herbicide-tolerant trait of Pesticide Resistance in Roundup Ready wheat, and can therefore Insect Pests thrive in crop fields unless applications of Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, has been other herbicides are made. Frank Young widely used as a microbial spray because and his colleagues at Washington State it is toxic only to caterpillars. In fact, it is a University found that imidazolone-resistant pest management tool that organic farmers wheat (not a transgenic variety) outcrossed partially depend on—one of the few insec- to goatgrass in one season. (Stierle, 2006) ticides acceptable under organic rules. Other traits that wild plants could acquire Unlike the commercial insecticide spray, from transgenic plants that will increase the Bt engineered into transgenic crop their weediness are insect and virus resis- plants is reproduced in all, or nearly all, the tance. (Ervin et al., 2001) Alfalfa, a popu- cells of every plant, not just applied on the lar hay crop, can easily cross with black plant surface for a temporary toxic effect. medic, an invasive species prevalent in As a result, the possibility that transgenic the western U.S. The Federal Register of Bt crops will accelerate development of June 27, 2005, announced that genetically pest resistance to Bt is of serious concern. modified alfalfa was unrestricted and that Such resistance would remove this valuable seed has been released for sale to farmers. and environmentally benign tool from the (Moore, 2005; Non-GMO Source, 2005) pest control toolbox of farmers and forestPage 10 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

managers. For more on Bt pest resistance, studies to be toxic to ladybird beetles,see Pest Management at the Crossroads, lacewings, and monarch butterf lies.www.pmac.net/ge.htm. (Ervin et al., 2001) The extent to which these beneficials are affected in the fieldAntibiotic Resistance is a matter of further study. Second,As described in the earlier section on because the insecticidal properties ofhow gene transfer is accomplished, the Bt crops function even in the absence ofuse of antibiotic-resistant marker genes an economic threshold of pests, Bt cropsfor the delivery of a gene package into potentially can reduce pest populations toa recipient plant carries the danger of the point that predator species are nega-spreading antibiotic-resistant bacteria. tively affected. (www.pmac.net/ge.htm)The implications for creation of antibi-otic-resistant diseases are disturbing. Reduced Crop Genetic DiversityResearch is needed on antibiotic resis- As fewer and larger fi rms dominate thetance management in transgenic crops. rapidly merging seed and biotechnology(ESCOP/ECOP, 2000) The European market, transgenic crops may continue the TCommission’s new rules governing trans- trend toward simplifi cation of cropping ransgenicgenic crops stipulated phasing out anti- systems by reducing the number and type crops maybiotic-resistant marker genes by the end of crops planted. In addition, seed-saving,of 2004. Because of potential effects on continue the which promotes genetic diversity, is dis-pest management, crop marketability, trend toward simpli- couraged. In Europe, seed-saving tradi-and liability, more research needs to be fication of croppingdone to determine the conditions under tionally practiced by a majority of farmers has been heavily restricted through reg- systems by reducingwhich gene fl ow from transgenic plantsis likely to be significant. By the end of istration requirements and subsidy pay- the number and type2005 no such research was underway and ments. To be certified, seed must exhibit of crops planted.implementation of the EU rule has been “distinctiveness, uniformity, and stabil-complicated by imminent publication of a ity,” called “DUS registration.” (Toledo,WTO ruling against EU trade restrictions 2002) A traditional landrace can be heldon transgenic crops. The ruling is certain uncertifi able (and effectively outlawed byto be appealed. (Kiplinger, 2006) billings for royalties and denial of subsidy payments) by being declared insufficientlyEffects on Beneficial Organisms distinct from a variety described in the EU Catalogue of Common Varieties. In anEvidence continues to increase that trans- interview, Nancy Arrowsmith, founder ofgenic crops—either directly or through Arche Noah, (Arrowsmith, 1987) notedpractices linked to production—are det- that traditional European landraces andrimental to beneficial organisms. New seed-saving practices are being squeezedstudies show that Bt crops exude Bt in out in Common Market countries.concentrations high enough to be toxicto some benefi cial soil organisms. Uni- Seed legislation is quite restrictive. In orderversity of Arkansas agronomists found to be distributed, seeds have to be regis-impaired “root development, nodulation, tered. There has to be extensive testing— up to seven years—and the registration feeand nitrogen fi xation” in Roundup-Ready is quite high. [Germany, Switzerland,] andsoy. (King et al., 2001) Disruption of ben- all of the countries that belong to the Com-efi cial soil organisms can interfere with mon Market have adopted what they call theplant uptake of phosphorus, an essential Common Catalogue. Only the vegetable vari-plant nutrient. (Massey, 2000) Benefi - eties listed in this Catalogue can be sold.cial insects that prey on insect pests can In Austria [Arrowsmith’s home] many vari-be affected by insecticidal crops in two eties are protected. … In the catalogue itways. First, the Bt in transgenic insecticidal will say that these cannot be reproduced incrops has been shown in some laboratory any way.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 11

Outlawing landraces by legislative fi at the need to apply pesticides for caterpillar (most recently in Iraq) was thwarted in pests like the European corn borer or the the U.S. by organizations like the Seed cotton bollworm, though they still have to Savers Exchange, which mobilized sup- contend with other crop pests. port for strong protection of the rights of While these crops offer simplified pest seed savers in Plant Variety Patent leg- control features, they may complicate islation passed in the late 1980s. Tradi- other areas of farm management. Farm- tional open-pollinated varieties are still ers who grow both transgenic and conven- vulnerable to genetic contamination by tional varieties of the same crop will need cross-pollination. to segregate the two during all produc- Following is a brief discussion of some of tion, harvesting, storage, and transporta- the remaining risk issues. tion phases if they sell into differentiated markets or plan to save their own seed Food Safety from the conventional crops. See the complete regulations for organic handling at Food safety issues, except as they impact www.ams.usda.gov/NOP. domestic marketing and exports, are beyondT o minimize the scope of this publication. Five years ago To minimize the risk of gene flow from the risk of the major publicized concerns were environ- transgenic to adjacent conventional crop gene flow mental. Since then, the environmental com- fields, federal regulations require buf- munity has stalled some transgenic crops. fer strips of conventional varieties aroundfrom transgenic to Food safety concerns include: transgenic fields. Different transgenic cropsadjacent conven- require different buffer widths. Because the • Possibility of toxins in foodtional crop fields, buffer strips must be managed convention-federal regulations • Possibility of new pathogens ally, producers have to be willing to main-require buffer strips • Reduced nutritional value tain two different farming systems on their transgenic fields. Crops harvested from theof conventional vari- • Introduction of human allergens buffer strips must be handled and marketedeties around trans- • Transfer of antibiotic resistance as though they are transgenic.genic fields. to humans Planted refuges—where pest species can • Unexpected immune-system and live outside fields of insecticidal and her- genetic effects from the introduc- bicide-tolerant transgenic crops—are also tion of novel compounds required to slow the development of weed It is in part because of these concerns that and insect pest resistance to Bt and broad- domestic consumer demand for organically spectrum herbicides. These refuges allow grown crops continues to increase. There are some individuals in the pest population to other marketing problems that reflect reli- survive and carry on the traits of pesticide gious dietary and general religious (some- susceptibility. Requirements governing the times dismissed as “cultural”) sensibilities, size of refuges differ according to the type as well as ethical/philosophical concerns. of transgenic crop grown, but a 2006 report in AgBioForum, based on a survey of Indi- Farm Management Issues ana farmers, states the requirements are misunderstood by farmers and routinely The most widely planted transgenic crops ignored. For some crops they are unwork- on the market today can simplify short-term able. (Alexander and Van Melior, 2005) pest management for farmers and ranchers. In the case of herbicide-tolerant crops, ini- Farmers growing herbicide-tolerant crops tially farmers hoped to use a single broad- need to be aware that volunteer crop plants spectrum herbicide for all their crop weeds. the following year will be herbicide resistant. It has turned out that they need more than Such resistance makes no-till or direct-seed one application in most seasons. By planting systems difficult because volunteers can’t be insecticidal crops, farmers can eliminate controlled with the same herbicide used onPage 12 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

the rest of the crop. In a no-till system that separate sections below. Liability isrelies on the same broad-spectrum herbi- discussed under regulation.cide that the volunteer plants are resistantto, these plants will contaminate the har- Crop Yield, Costs, and Profitabilityvest of a following conventional variety of Some farmers will get higher yields with athe same crop—a situation farmers tend particular transgenic crop variety than withto avoid for two reasons. First, the con- their conventional varieties, and some willtamination means a following conventional get lower yields. Yield variability is relatedcrop will have to be sold on the transgenic to many factors, including choice of the con-market. This leads to the second reason. ventional analog of the transgenic variety,If farmers grow and market a transgenic making it very difficult to analyze how anycrop for which they do not have a technol- one feature impacts yield. Costs of variousogy agreement and did not pay royalty fees, inputs are also constantly changing; andthey may face aggressive collection by the the ability of farmers to adjust to changingcompany that owns the transgenic variety. costs, particularly rapid changes, is limitedHundreds of U.S. farmers have already and affects profitability. Fbeen charged with “theft” of a company’s armerspatented seed as a result of contamination However, some yield, cost, and profitability trends do appear to be emerging growingin the field. (Altieri, 2000) from the growing body of research data for transgenicFarmers growing insecticidal crops need to transgenic crops. As noted in the Wallace crops need to com-recognize that insect pressure is difficult Center report, Roundup Ready soybeans municate with theirto predict and may not warrant the plant- were designed simply to resist a particularing of an insecticidal variety every year. neighbors to avoid chemical herbicide, not to increase yields.In a year when pest pressure is low, the contaminating In contrast, Bt corn and cotton, by resist-transgenic seed becomes expensive insur- ing insect pests, may result in higher yields neighboring fieldsance against the threat of insect damage. from reduced pest pressure. (Wallace and to ensure(Hillyer, 1999) Center, 2001) that buffers areFarmers growing transgenic crops need to adequate.communicate with their neighbors to avoid Yield: Herbicide Tolerant Crops—contaminating neighboring fields and to Soybeans, Cotton, Canolaensure that buffers are adequate. In Maine, Herbicide-tolerant soybeans appear tofarmers growing transgenic crops are now suffer what’s referred to as “yield drag.”required by law to be listed with the state Again, in some areas and on some farmsagriculture department, to help identify this tendency of Roundup Ready soybeanpossible sources of cross-contamination varieties to yield less than their compara-when it occurs. The law also “requires man- ble, conventional counterparts varies, butufacturers or seed dealers of genetically overall, they appear to average yields thatengineered plants, plant parts, or seeds to are five to ten percent lower per acre. Asprovide written instructions to all growers described earlier, impaired root develop-on how to plant, grow, and harvest the crops ment, nodulation, and nitrogen fi xationto minimize potential cross-contamination likely account for this yield drag. Droughtof non-genetically engineered crops or wild conditions worsen the effects. The bacte-plant populations.” (AgBioTech, 2001) rium that facilitates nodulation and nitro-Farm management issues common to gen fi xation in the root zone is apparentlyall transgenic crops include yield, cost, sensitive to both Roundup and drought.price, profitability, management flexibil- University of Missouri scientists reportedity, sustainability, market acceptance, and problems with germination of Roundupliability. Yield and profitability, as well Ready soybeans in the 2001 crop year.as market acceptance, are discussed in (UM press release, 2001)www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 13

Yields of herbicide-tolerant cotton are resulting from the buildup of resistance to reportedly not significantly different from heavily used herbicides is a long-term con- those of conventional cotton. (Benbrook, cern (Ervin et al., 2001) acknowledged by 2001; Wallace Center 2001, summarizing the transgenic crop industry. Pesticide use research by Klotz-Ingram et al., 1999) depends on the crop and its specific traits; weather, severity of pest infestations; farm Herbicide-resistant transgenic canola vari- management; geographic location of the eties yield less on average than conventional canola varieties. Transgenic canola farm; and other variables. As a result, con- costs less than conventional canola to pro- clusions drawn by various studies analyzing duce, but because of its higher yields, con- pesticide use on transgenic crops remain ventional canola returns more profit per controversial. According to the Wallace acre. (Fulton and Keyowski, 1999) Center report, in a review of the data available up through 2000, crops engineered to contain Bt appear to have decreased the Yield: Insecticidal Crops— overall use of insecticides slightly, while the Corn, Cotton use of herbicide-resistant crops has resulted Insecticidal Bt corn and cotton gener- in variable changes in overall herbicide use, ally yield higher “in most years for some with increases in use of some herbicides regions” according to USDA Economic in some places and decreases in others. Research Service data from 1996 to 1998. (Wallace Center, 2001) Bt cotton, especially, outpaces yields of The crop for which studies are showing the conventional cotton by as much as 9 to 26 largest decrease in pesticide use is Bt cot- percent in some cases, though not at all in ton, with Bt corn resulting in only small others. Yield increases for Bt corn have not changes. Herbicide-tolerant cotton has also been as dramatic. (Fulton and Keyowski, resulted in little change in herbicide use. 1999) Time will tell whether farmers can (Ervin et al., 2001) expect yield increases or decreases in the long run with these and other transgenic The data for herbicide-tolerant soybeans crop varieties. seems harder to interpret. A recent study of herbicide use data on Roundup Ready soybeans by Charles Benbrook, PhD, former Changes in Chemical Pesticide Use executive director of the National Academy One of the promises of transgenic tech- of Sciences Committee on Agriculture and nology is that it will now with the Northwest Science and Envi- reduce pesticide use ronmental Policy Center, concludes that the and thereby provide use of herbicides has actually increased environmental benefits because the weeds have become resis- while reducing farmers’ tant to Roundup. (Benbrook, 2004) While costs. The herbicide-tol- another recent study by scientists in The erant and insecticidal Netherlands shows a decrease in herbicide varieties are designed use on transgenic soybeans, it is clear that speci f ica l ly to meet weed resistance to Roundup may lead to these goals. increased herbicide use and to the need to Studies estimate a two to shift to more toxic compounds in the future three percent decrease (Ervin et al., 2001), and this is acknowl- in U.S. pesticide use, edged by the industry. American Soybean but the effects var y Association president Tony Anderson agrees widely by crop, region, that the developing resistance of weeds to and year. Increased herbicides such as Roundup is a problem. future pesticide use (Environmental News Service, 2001)Page 14 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

The Wallace Center report emphasizes the Marketing and Tradeimportance of ongoing monitoring of pes- Buyer acceptance is a significant marketingticide use data. If farmers abandon inte- issue for farmers raising transgenic crops.grated pest management, which utilizes a Farmers need to know before they plantvariety of pesticide and cultural control what their particular markets will or won’tmethods, in favor of the simplified control accept. Since most grain handlers can-offered by herbicide-resistant and insec- not effectively segregate transgenic fromticidal transgenic crops, then early fi nd- non-transgenic crops in the same facility,ings of reduced pesticide quantities and many companies are channeling transgenictoxicity may not hold over the long run. crops into particular warehouses. FarmersRefer to chapter one of the Wallace Center need to know which ones and how far awayreport (Wallace Center, 2001) for USDA those are.pesticide use data comparisons betweent ransgenic and convent iona l crops, Many foreign markets have tended to bebroken down by crop. more leery of transgenic products than domestic markets, although this may change. World Trade Organization (WTO) BProfitability directives can force dropping of trade bar- razil,Farmers need to consider all the factors riers, but consumer acceptance cannot be Argentina,that determine profitability. No single fac- forced (when choice is possible). Africa is ator can tell the whole story. Transgenic crop and China special case, as authority to accept or rejectseeds tend to be more costly, and farm- rank among the transgenic products was retained by gov-ers have the added expense of a substan- ernments, and several have banned GMOs top five countriestial per-acre fee charged by the owners of in any form—even relief grain shipments. in acreage of trans-transgenic varieties. These costs have to be India has now developed its own transgenic genic soybeans.considered along with input cost changes— industry and is producing transgenic cotton,whether herbicide or insecticide use and while actively resisting attempts by others tocosts go down, go up, or stay the same. patent its indigenous crop genetics. Brazil,Market price is another factor. Prices for Argentina, and China rank among the topsome transgenic crops in some markets are five countries in acreage of transgenic soy-lower than prices for comparable conven- beans, maize, and cotton. Even two Euro-tional crops, though rarely they are higher. pean countries—Spain and Romania—areFarmers need to watch the markets. Some producing transgenic crops for animal feed.buyers will pay a premium for a non-trans- (See Table 2.)genic product, though as transgenic seedsfi nd their way into conventional transpor- Eighty-six countries and the Europeantation, storage, and processing steams, Union have agreed on implementation stepsthese premiums may disappear along with for the UN’s Cartagena Protocol on Bio-confidence that “GMO-free” products are safety, which came into force in Septemberin fact truly free of engineered genes. 2003. A rigorous system for handling, trans-Future availability of conventional seed porting, packing, and identifying transgenicis another issue. Once farmers try trans- crops was part of the agreement. All bulkgenic crops, they have reported becom- shipments of genetically engineered cropsing locked into the technology, as alternate intended for food, animal feed, or process-conventional seed supplies dry up. Also ing are to be labeled “May Contain LMOs,”the potential liability of transgenic plants (Living Modified Organisms) according to the UNEP. Major producers of transgeniccoming up in a conventional planting the crops, including Canada, Argentina, andnext year is important to farmers. Trans- the U.S., did not sign the protocol. (Agencegenic seed suppliers aggressively pursue France Presse, 2004)legal cases against any farmer usingtransgenic seed without having a signed Trade in transgenic livestock feed is moretechnology agreement. liberal than trade in transgenic human food.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 15

The rapid and widespread dissemination of conventional crop varieties, it is impossible the Cry9C Bt transgene (StarLink), which for them and the farmers that supply them is not approved for human consumption to serve these food markets. but was detected in tacos, shows how eas- Twenty percent of corn and 35 percent ily transgenic material can spread from of soybeans produced in the U.S. are animal feed to human food products. The exported (USDA/AMS, 2006), and more widespread publicity has resulted in even than 80 percent of these crops are used further resistance on the part of buyers to in animal feed. Few, if any, animal feed- purchasing transgenic products for human ing trials were carried out before trans- food. According to a report in Britain’s The genic crops were released. In 2005, grain Guardian, “No new transgenic crops have exports were down 5 percent overall from been approved by the European Union (EU) the previous year and 26 percent at Gulf since April 1998, and a defacto moratorium Coast ports (due to the hurricanes). on further approvals has been in place since June 1999.” (Osborn, 2001) However, trials In contrast, in a dramatic increase of food crops already approved continued, from 2001, 45 percent of U.S. wheat is and the European Union ofﬁcially lifted exported. (USDA/AMS, 2006) Exports toI f approved, the its moratorium on the introduction of new countries that are resistant to buying trans- new regulations transgenic crops in 2004, although dur- genic food—particularly Japan and Euro- will complicate ing the debate over labeling and traceabil- pean nations—are dropping, but being ity regulations the moratorium remained in supplanted by increased demand fromthe export of U.S. effect. (Evans, 2001) Nigeria and Iraq. (USDA/AMS, 2006)farm products to Because wheat producers are so dependent Under the proposed new EU requirements,the EU because the on exports, they have vigorously resisted “all foods and animal feed derived fromU.S. does not require introduction of the ﬁ rst transgenic wheat, GMOs have to be labeled and, in the casetraceability or label- originally slated for 2003, now on hold. of processed goods, records have to be kept The Japanese milling industry has made iting of transgenic throughout the production chain allowing clear that it does not want transgenic prod-crops. the GMO to be traced back to the farm.” ucts. As a result, Monsanto promised not (Evans, 2001) If approved, the new regula- to introduce Roundup Ready wheat until tions will complicate the export of U.S. farm Japan gave its approval. (Hord, 2001) products to the EU because the U.S. does North Dakota and Montana considered not require traceability or labeling of trans- legislation that would place a state mora- genic crops. Spain and Romania rank in torium on the introduction of transgenic the top 14 countries growing biotech crops. wheat. Recent federal regulation, under Both grow transgenic animal feed crops. the Homeland Security Act, would nullify Portugal, Germany, France, and the Czech any such local or state food laws. Republic grow small amounts of feed corn (maize)—less than 10,000 hectares (24,700 In addition to national and international acres), probably much less. policies on the use and importation of transgenic crops, processors and retail- While the U.S. does not require manda- ers in many countries have set their own tory labeling of processed food containing corporate policies. Major retail chains in transgenic ingredients, the EU, Russia, Europe and the U.S. have declared their Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, commitment to avoiding the purchase of New Zealand, and Ecuador do have such transgenic products, both feed and food. requirements, as of 2001. (Schrade and But, in the absence of labeling, most have Raabe, 2001) The degree to which the been willing to accept a pervasive pres- Cartagena protocol (Agence France Presse, ence of transgenic corn, soy, and canola in 2004) will be implemented by other signato- processed products. ries (see above) is unknown. Because many domestic merchandisers of agricultural com- Although European Union rules effectively modities do not segregate transgenic from barring U.S. corn imports have been recentlyPage 16 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

relaxed, since 1997 the European Union agricultural products fell below imports, forban has cost American farmers access to a the fi rst time in 20 years.$200 million annual market (Shadid, 2001)and the U.S. government billions in agricul- Influence on Public Researchtural price supports. While transgenic crop varieties are gener- ally the property of private corporations,Organic Industry those corporations often contract with pub-Organic farmers face even bigger marketing lic-sector agricultural research institutionsand trade risks, since their buyers expect for some of their development work. In fact,no transgenic contamination. Currently, private investment in agricultural research,organic production is process-oriented, not including germplasm development, has sur-testing oriented—except for exports. The passed public investment in recent years.organic industry has a system for segrega- (ESCOP/ECOP, 2000) With this shift intion, but recent tests for transgenic material funding priorities, the following ques-in organic products demonstrate that it is tions become important: Is the private sec-not immune to contamination from conven- tor unduly influencing the public researchtional systems. (Callahan, 2001) New tech- agenda? Are corporations directing publicnologies can reliably detect minute amounts research in socially questionable directionsof transgenic material. (See Seed testing, while research on, for instance, sustainablebelow.) Published reports from Europe and agriculture wanes? Are the outcomes of cor-the U.S. confi rm a high degree of accuracy porate-funded transgenic research and devel-for detection methods. (Non-GMO Source, opment by our public institutions equitable2004) European export markets organic across the food and agricultural sectors? Isfarmers might have enjoyed, and those that equity even a consideration of our publicproducers of non-GE conventional crops institutions when they accept this work?could have built upon, have proven unsta- When intellectual property rights (pat-ble in the presence of possible transgenic ents) apply to living organisms, mak-contamination. In 2005 U.S. exports of ing them private property, the free flow of Seed testing for genetically modified traits Selecting the appropriate test for seed will ultimately fulfill your needs. Five years ago, the Society of Commercial depend on the end use of the results. Are you looking for Seed Technologists (SCST) created an accreditation pro- the absence or presence of a trait, or do you need quanti- gram for technologists in these four areas. The program tative data? The best approach to testing for genetically ensures that the technologist is proficient in both the the- modified traits is to understand the ultimate use of the ory and practical application of the genetic purity tests tests and then to talk with the laboratory or technologist currently utilized by the seed industry. Using a laboratory that will be performing the test. The technologist will be with a certified or registered genetic technologist ensures able to describe the four types of tests commonly used that GM tests are conducted by an experienced person. The by the seed industry to test for traits: SCST Genetic Technology Committee and working groups are extremely active in providing training and education • Herbicide bioassay to keep members up-to-date in this rapidly evolving area • Immunoassay (ELISA, lateral flow strips) of seed testing. • Electrophoresis (PAGE, IEF, starch-gel) Hall, Anita, executive director, Society of Commercial Seed • Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Technologists, Inc. www.seedworld.com/sw/index.cfm/ powergrid/rfah=|cfap=/CFID/4091662/CFTOKEN/68435952/ The technologist can help you select the test that will best fuseaction/showArticle/articleID/6542www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 17

scientific information that has histori- products that can be commercialized by cally characterized public agricultural large agribusiness or agri-chemical inter- research is inhibited. What are the impli- ests and that farmers must purchase every cations for the future of agriculture and year. This research orientation only perpet- society of the secrecy that now surrounds uates the cost-price squeeze that continues so much of what was formerly shared pub- to drive so many out of farming. lic knowledge? For a brief history of intellectual property rights as they apply to Industry Concentration and living organisms, see: www.escop.msstate.edu/ committee/agbiotec.pdf Farmers’ Right to Save Seed The broadening of intellectual property These and other questions need to be rights in 1980 to cover living organisms, addressed by citizens and their public insti- including genes, has resulted in a flurry of tutions. These issues are of particular con- mergers and acquisitions in the seed and cern to farmers and consumers who would biotech industries. According to the Wal- benefit from research into alternative tech- lace Center report, “Relatively few fi rms nologies that are less costly (in every way), control the vast majority of commercial less risky, and more equitable. Equity transgenic crop technologies.” requires that the economic benefits and risks of technology be fairly distributed These fi rms have strategically developed among technology providers, farmers, mer- linkages among the biotechnology, seed, chants, and consumers. and agri-chemical sectors to capture as much market value as possible. However, For long-term sustainability, farmers need these tightly controlled linkages of prod- research that focuses on farms as systems, uct sectors raise serious issues of market with internal elements whose relationships access, product innovation, and the flow can be adjusted to achieve farm manage- of public benefits from transgenic crops. ment goals. (Union of Concerned Scientists, (Wallace Center, 2001) 2000) In contrast, transgenic crop research so far has focused on products that com- Unlike Plant Variety Protection—which plement toxic chemical approaches to con- does not allow for the patenting of individ- trol of individual pest species. These are ual genes, but only of crop varieties—Intel- lectual Property Rights prohibit farmers from saving seed and undertaking their own breeding programs, and prohibit plant breeders from using the material to create new generations of varieties adapted to specific regions or growing conditions. (Guebert, 2001) The Intellectual Prop- erty Rights have recently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which relied on a 1795 General Patents statute. By 2000, agri-chemical giants DuPont and Monsanto together owned 73 percent of the corn seed producers in the U.S. (Massey, 2000) Although some have recently been divested, this kind of corporate control and concentration raises the question of whether there remains enough compe- tition in the seed industry for seed pric- ing to remain competitive. As additional concentration occurs, how affordable will seed—all seed, not just transgenic seed—Page 18 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

be for farmers? This question takes on government has determined that the commer-added gravity as an increasing number cial products of agricultural biotechnologyof seed varieties become proprietary and are “substantially equivalent” to theirseed production, especially for gardeners, conventional counterparts and that there-is pushed out of California and Oregon fore no new regulatory process or structureinto Nevada and Idaho. Farmers can’t save is needed for their review and approval.proprietary seed for planting and so must Currently, three federal agencies regulate thepurchase new seed every year. In addition, release of transgenic food crops in the U.S.:farmers choosing transgenic varieties must the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animalsign a contract with the owner of the vari- and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA–ety and pay a substantial per-acre technol- APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protectionogy fee, or royalty. Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Food and DrugThe anticipated commercial introduction Administration (FDA).of transgenic wheat represents a dramatic USDA–APHIS: APHIS looks at how ashift in an industry in which farmers still transgenic plant behaves in comparisonwidely save their own seed. As non-trans- with its unmodified counterpart. Is it as Tgenic varieties become contaminated with safe to grow? The data it uses are supplied he adoptiontransgenic ones, even those farmers who largely by the companies seeking a permit of transgenicchoose to stick with conventional varieties for release of the new crop. Under “fast-will lose the right to replant their own seed. crop varietiesThis loss has already occurred in Canada’s track” approval, a process in place since has brought with itcanola industry, with Monsanto winning its 1997, companies introducing a crop similar to a previously approved version need an increasing prev-court case against farmer Percy Schmeiserfor replanting his own canola variety that give only 30 days’ advance notice prior to alence of contracthad become contaminated with Monsanto’s releasing it on the market. According to the production.Roundup Ready canola. (See article by E. Wallace Center report, APHIS staff estimateAnn Clark, Plant Agriculture, University that by 2000, 95 to 98 percent of field testsof Guelph, Ontario, at www.plant.uoguelph. were taking place under simple notificationca/faculty/eclark) rules rather than through permitting. (Wal- lace Center, 2001) The Office of InspectorThe adoption of transgenic crop varieties General (OIG) report has called for muchhas brought with it an increasing preva- stricter tracking—in light of the industrylence of contract production. While con- shift to industrial and pharmacrops.tract production can lead to increasedvalue and reduced risk for growers, farm- EPA: The EPA regulates the pesticidesers are justified in their concern about produced by transgenic crops, such as thetheir loss of control when they sign a con- Bt in Bt corn and cotton. It does not reg-tract with a private company. Issues asso- ulate the transgenic crops themselves. Inciated with contract production of trans- contrast with its regulation of conventionalgenic crops must be considered within the pesticides, the EPA has set no tolerancebroader context of a sustainable agricul- limits for the amount of Bt that transgenicture to include ownership, control, and corn, cotton, and potatoes may contain.social equity. (Wallace Center, 2001) FDA: The FDA focuses on the human healthRegulation of Transgenic risks of transgenic crops. However, its rules do not require mandatory pre-market safetyCrops and Apportionment testing or mandatory labeling of trans-of Liability genic foods. Initially, the U.S. regulatoryMuch of the controversy over transgenic process for transgenic food crops requiredcrops, both internationally and in the product-by-product reviews. Now, however,U.S., is in part a result of how the U.S. to simplify and speed up the process, newregulates transgenic crops. The federal products can be approved based on thewww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 19

experience gained in reviewing earlier prod- product may carry significant risk until it ucts. According to the Wallace Center report, can be proven safe. The science used by the the implication is that “some crops might be two approaches is not fundamentally differ- approved, or disapproved, without actual ent. The difference is in the level of risk the field testing.” (Wallace Center, 2001) The different societies and political systems are regulatory process, in fact, may not answer willing to accept. (ESCOP/ECOP, 2000) most questions about the environmental and human health risks of commercial production Liability of these crops. (Advisory on Committee on Farmers who choose not to grow transgenic Biotechnology, 2003) varieties risk fi nding transgenic plants in Central to the policy of substantial equiva- their fields anyway, as a result of cross-pol- lence is the assumption that only the end lination via wind, insects, and birds bring- product of transgenic technology is of con- ing in pollen from transgenic crops planted cern—not the process of genetic modi- miles away. Besides pollen, sources of con- fication. Canada has adopted a similar tamination include contaminated seed and approach. Europe and other U.S. trading seed brought in by passing trucks or wild- partners, however, have taken a more con- life. Those farmers whose conventional or servative approach. They focus on the pro- organic crops are contaminated, regard- cess of genetic modification—the source less of the route, risk lawsuits fi led against of many of the environmental and human them by the companies that own the pro- health risks of greatest concern. prietary rights to seed the farmer didn’t buy. Likewise, farmers who grow trans- How these different approaches play out in genic crops risk being sued by neighbors reality can be summed up simply. The U.S. and buyers whose non-transgenic crops and Canada assume a product is safe until become contaminated. it is proven to carry significant risk; the European Union, which follows the “pre- Because contamination by transgenic mate- cautionary principle,” assumes the same rial has become so prevalent in such a short Precautionary Principle The principle of precaution was devel- the 2000 international Cartagena Bio- 3. Recognize the limits of scientific oped specifically for issues involv- safety Protocol on the transfer of ‘liv- knowledge and don’t expect a full and ing ethics and risk. It is described by ing modified organisms’] … There is conclusive understanding of potential Katherine Barrett, project director growing consensus that the precau- consequences before taking precau- with the Science and Environmental tionary principle has reached the sta- tionary action, especially when the Health Network, as: “… a process for tus of international customary law.” potential consequences are long- decision-making under conditions of (Barrett, 2000) term, unconfined, and broad-scale. uncertainty. The principle states that when there is reason to believe that The primary elements of the precau- 4. Shift the burden of proof to the our actions will result in significant tionary principle are identified by developers of potentially hazardous harm, we should take active mea- Barrett as: technologies. sures to prevent such harm, even if cause-and-effect relationships have 1. Avoid harms to the environment not been proven conclusively…. It has that are “irreversible, persistent, bioac- 5. Finally, some versions of the pre- been invoked in many international cumulative, or otherwise serious.” cautionary principle include analysis laws, treaties, and declarations on a of the costs and benefits of precau- range of environmental issues includ- 2. “Anticipate and prevent potential tionary action, though cost-benefit ing climate change, marine dump- harms at the source,” rather than rely- analysis “is not a sufficiently robust ing of pollutants, and general efforts ing on reactive measures of mitiga- decisionmaking framework to stand towards sustainability—[including tion, clean-up, or compensation. alone.” (Barrett, 2000)Page 20 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

time, all farmers in areas of transgenic crop companies, grain handlers, processors, andproduction are at risk. Insurance, the most retailers is needed before farmers can restcommon recourse for minimizing potential assured that transgenic crops won’t resultlosses because of liability, is not available in lawsuits against them. For farmers whoto the nation’s farmers for this risk because have adopted transgenic technology—andinsurance companies do not have enough for those who have not—in the words ofexperience for gauging potential losses. Brian Leahy, executive director of Califor- nia Certified Organic Farmers, “This tech-Most of the farmers who have been accused nology does not respect property rights.”by transgenic seed companies of illegally (Shadid, 2001)growing and harvesting their proprietarytransgenic varieties have paid fi nes to the In essence, farmers who grow transgeniccompanies rather than go to court to defend crops on some of their fields, and farmersthemselves. One Canadian grower of non- who grow none, risk bearing tremendoustransgenic canola, Percy Schmeiser, did go liability. This situation won’t change untilto court against Monsanto, and lost. The farmers either gain legal protection or stopinitial ruling required him to pay Monsanto growing transgenic crops entirely. Tthe approximately U.S. $85,000 value of hishis crop and $13,000 in punitive damages. “ Implications for Sustainable technologyThe amount was eventually reduced, uponappeal. This farmer’s case has implications Agriculture does notfor other farmers, especially those who tra- In contrast to the ecological approach of sus- respect propertyditionally save their own seed for planting tainable agriculture, “the current generation rights.”the next year’s crop. of transgenic crops follows a pest management –Brian Leahy, CCOF model like that employed for chemical pesti-In another example, a Texas organic farm’s cides—through interventions that are toxic tocorn, assumed to be GE-free, was pur- pests,” the Wallace Center report points out.chased by a processor who made it into This “single-tool” approach is likely to fail inorganic tortilla chips. Only after the prod- the long run because pests will successfullyuct had been sold and shipped to European develop resistance that allows them to thrive.retailers was it discovered to be contami- (Wallace Center, 2001)nated with transgenic corn. The processorhad to recall its product at a cost of over Standard plant-breeding methods can$150,000. The processor chose not to sue potentially solve many of the same problemsthe organic farmer, but could have. (Shadid, in agriculture that genetic engineers are2001) The retailer, in turn, apparently did working on, though there are areas in whichnot sue the processor. Had it done so, the lia- genetic engineering can enhance traditionalbility for the retailer’s loss could have fallen plant breeding. Armed with the map of anon both the processor and the farmer. organism’s genetic code, scientists can test which genes are in a plant to select moreUntil laws or legal precedent clarify the easily which ones to cross-breed. “Beforeextent of farmer liability, farmers would we knew where the genes were, we were stilldo well to avoid making assumptions or breeding in the dark,” according to Stevenclaims about the purity of their non-trans- Briggs, head of genomics for Syngenta, agenic products. (Some export crops, as well Swiss biotechnology giant, as quoted in theas Identity Preserved crops, are now being New York Times. (Pollack, 2001)tested before shipping.) Furthermore, pro-ducers of transgenic crops need to take allpossible precautions against spreading pol- Gauging a Technology’s Impactlen and seed to their own and others’ non- on Agricultural Sustainabilitytransgenic fields and markets. A full risk The sustainability of any agricultural tech-assessment and legal clarification of the dis- nology can be gauged in part by answer-tribution of liability among farmers, seed ing a series of questions that emerge fromwww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 21

the principles of sustainable agriculture. For almost fi fty years, we lulled ourselves into Farmers and ranchers can ask themselves believing that, in discovering the molecular these questions in the context of their own basis of genetic information, we had found the “secret of life”; we were confident that if operations to help determine whether adop- we could only decode the message in DNA’s tion of the technology will move them away sequence of nucleotides, we would under- from, or toward, increased sustainability. stand the “program” that makes an organism what it is. 1. Does the technology increase genetic diversity? Recent scientific discoveries no longer support this theory. Outdated as it has become, 2. Does it maintain a positive balance of the view that each genetic message comes pests and predators? from a distinct gene continues to drive 3. Does it protect or enhance soil biota? promises of feeding the world and curing incurable diseases—a view Keller calls a 4. Does it decrease the quantity or con- now “utterly fantastic premise.” Keller, a centration of toxins released into the professor of History and Philosophy of Sci- environment? ence at Massachusetts Institute of Technol- 5. Does it decrease soil erosion? ogy, insists that the most recent scientific understanding of genetics has more to tell 6. Does it protect non-target organisms? us about biological organization than about 7. Does it help protect natural habitats? how to modify individual traits. In fact, the new leading-edge biotechnology will strive 8. Does it reduce pest populations and to capture the benefits of genetic engineer- viability? ing without the costs, risks, and potential 9. Does it increase farmers’ yields? genetic instability. Decrease farmers’ costs? Molecular biologists and breeders are 10. Does it increase farmers’ market con- beginning to utilize the emerging knowledge trol? Management flexibility? Time? of gene location and function to guide them in the application of conventional and inno- 11. Does it provide benefits to consumers? vative breeding techniques that do not rely Will consumers accept it? on a transgene with promoter and marker 12. Does it help citizens globally gain genes. (AgBioTech, 2001) This is good news better access to food? for sustainable agriculture, which is based on understanding how natural systems work 13. Does it protect the public’s access to in order to fit human enterprises into them. information and improve public trust According to Fred Kirschenmann, organic in agriculture? farmer and former director of Iowa State If the answer to any of the above questions University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable is no, a cautious approach to the adoption Agriculture, “The real benefit of genetics of the technology in question would seem in seems to be derived not from the manipula- the interest of agricultural sustainability. tion of a few genes, but from our enhanced understanding of how nature works.” Conclusion (Kirschenmann, 2001) Evelyn Fox Keller, author of The Century Regardless of the future direction of trans- of the Gene (Fox, Keller, 2000) describes genic technology, one thing remains certain: the scientific understanding of genetics that Many of the unresolved issues for farmers, originated with the discovery of DNA in ranchers, and the general public will not 1953, and on which the current generation be settled through the use of biological or of transgenic crops is still based: natural sciences alone.Page 22 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

ReferencesAdvisory Committee on Biotechnology & 21st Century Benbrook, C. 2005. Harvest at risk? Impacts ofAgriculture (AC21). 2003. Summary: First Plenary Roundup Ready Wheat in the Northern Great Plains.Meeting of AC21. June 16–17. 21 p. www.usda.gov/ Western Organization of Resource Councils.agencies/biotech/nc21/meetings/mtg_ june03/mtgsum- www.worc.orgmary_ june03.html Bernstein, I. et al., 1999. Immune responses in farmAgBioTech InfoNet. 2001. Maine GE cross contamina- workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesti-tion bill signed into law. June 4. www.biotech-info.net cides. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 107. p.and www.biotech-info.net/new_era.html 575–582. AgBioTech InfoNet is a Web site that covers all aspects of the application of biotechnology and Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). 2000. genetic engineering in agricultural production, food, Guide to Biotechnology Ag Produce on the Market, processing, and marketing. AgBioTech is sponsored and On the Market in 6 Years. www.bio.org/aboutbio/ by a consortium of scientific, environmental, and guide2000/guide_agproducts.html consumer organizations. Also, 2006, www.bio.orgAgence France Presse. 2004. Victory over US claimed Bromley, Mike. No date. Genetically Modified Rice.as rules agreed on GM exports. February 27. www.geocities.com/xhcaulfieldx.Method.htmlwww.tradeobservatory.org/showFile.php?id=12731 Callahan, Patricia. 2001. Genetic draft affects moreAlexander, Corinne E., and Thuy Van Melior. 2005. than biology: US farmers stand to lose millions.Determinants of corn rootworm resistant corn adoption Boston Globe. April 4.in Indiana. AgBioForum. Vol. 8, No. 4., p. 9–10. Dansby, Angela. 2006. China & India: The next seed Includes extensive references. super powers? Seed World. February.Altieri, Miguel A. 2000. The ecological impacts of Duffy, Michael. 2001. Who benefits fromtransgenic crops on agroecosystem health. Ecosystem biotechnology? American Seed Trade AssociationHealth. Vol. 6. p. 13–23. Meeting. December.Arrowsmith, Nancy. 1987. Nancy Arrowsmith— Ellstrand, Norman C. 2001. When transgenes wander,personal interview [by Kent Whealey] at Heritage should we worry? Plant Physiology. Vol. 125.Farm, Decorah, IA. July 31. Harvest Edition. Seed p. 1543–1545.Savers Exchange. p. 79–92 (quotation, p. 85). Environment News Service (ENS). 2001. HerbicideBarrett, Katherine. 2000. Risk and precaution in resistant weeds spring up in bioengineered soy fields.agricultural biotechnology: A role for science and May 4.scientists. Inquiry in Action, the newsletter of theConsortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research Ervin, David E., Sandra S. Batie, Chantal Lineand Education. No. 4647. Spring–Summer. p. 16–19. Carpentier, and Rick Welsh. 2001. Public research Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University for U.S. biosafety regulation of transgenic crops. Paper of Wisconsin–Madison, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, prepared for Biotechnology, Science and Modern Agri- WI 53706. culture: A New Industry at the Dawn of the Century. 5th International Conference organized by the Inter-Benbrook, Charles. 2001. When does it pay to plant national Consortium on Agricultural BiotechnologyBt corn? Farm-level economic impacts of Bt corn, Research (ICABR), Ravello, Italy, June 15–18. p. 1.1996–2001. www.iatp.org Evans, David. 2001. EU presents tough rules on geneBenbrook, C. 2004. Excerpt: Executive Summary: labels, tracing. Reuters. July 24.Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use inthe United States: The First Nine Years. October 25. ESCOP, ECOP (Experiment Station and Extensionwww.biotech-info.net Committees on Organization and Policy). 2000.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 23

Agricultural Biotechnology: Critical Issues and Recom- Feb. 10. www.rachel.orgmended Responses from the Land-Grant Universities. Environmental Research Foundation, Annapolis, MD.20 p. www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/agbiotec.pdf Moeller, David E. (FLAG), and Michael SlighFox Keller, Evelyn. 2000. The Century of the Gene. (RAFI-USA). Karen R. Krub (FLAG) (ed.). 2004.Harvard University Press. 192 p. Farmers’ Guide to GMOs. 51 p. www.rafiusa.orgFulton, M., and L. Keyowski. 1999. The producer See especially p. 5–6.benefits of herbicide-resistant canola. University of Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2006.Saskatchewan. AgBioForum. Vol. 2, No. 2. p. 85–93. Biodiesel production in the Northwest. Staff e-mail toGrains of Delusion. 2001. Jointly published by NCAT program staff. May 6.BIOTHAI (Thailand)f; CEDAC (Cambodia), DRCSC Note: Oil Palm(Elaeis guineensis) produces(India), GRAIN< MASIPAG (Philippines), PAN- 610 gal/acre; Rapeseed/canola (Brassica napus),Indonesia, and UBINIG (Bangladesh). February. 122 gal/acre. Source: ATTRA’s Biodiesel: Thewww.grain.org/publications/delusion-en-cfin Sustainability Dimensions.Guebert, Alan. 2001. Supreme Court blesses plant Moore, Tam. 2005. Monsanto fee doubles costpatents: Bye-bye bin-run seed. The Land (Minnesota). of alfalfa seed. Capital Press [agriculture weekly].December 21. p. 3. Salem, Oegon. August 5. p. 5.Hagen, Katie. 2006. Biotech fruits, vegetables and Myers, James R. 2006. Outcrossing Potential forflowers. What’s on the market. Seed World. February. Brassica Species and Implciations for Vegetablep. 12. Crucifer Seed Crops of Growing Oilseed Brassicas in the Willamette Valley. Special Report 1064. January.Hillyer, Gregg. 1999. Biotechnology offers U.S. Oregon State University Extension, Corvallis, OR.farmers promises and problems. AgBioForum. Vol. 2, www.pacificbiomass.org/documents/OilSeed/No. 2. p. 99–102. BrassicaOutcrossingPotentialOR.pdfHolden, Patrick. 2002. Report: Seeds of Doubt: NCALRI. 2000. Biotechnology: Overview. TheNorth American farmers’ experiences of GM Crops. National Center for Agricultural Law Research andSoil Association, Bristol, UK. p. 58. Information. Fayetteville, Arkansas. www.nationalHord, Bill. 2001. Wheat industry is cautious on aglawcenter.org/readingrooms/biotechnologybiotech introduction. World Herald. May 29. New Scientist. 1999. Splitting headache. Novemberwww.AgriBiz.com 20, No. 2213.International Service for the Acuisition on Agro-Bio- Non-GMO Sourcetech Applications (ISAAA) , ISAAA AmericCenter. 2002. Manufacturers face GMO challenges with417 Bradfield Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY minor ingredients. September. (Ken Roseboro).King, C., L. Purcell, and E. Vories. 2001. Plant 2004. Genetic ID Augsburg receives perfect scoresgrowth and nitrogenase activity of glyphosate-tolerant in ISTA proficiency test.August. p. 15.soybeans in response to foliar application. Agronomy 2005. GMO news: GM alfalfa seed now on sale inJ. Vol. 93. p. 179–186. Abstract: www.biotech-info.net/ U.S. October. p. 12.king_abstract.pdf Osborn, Andrew. 2001. GM multinationals are thrownKiplinger editors. 2006. WTO ruling will help a lifeline with new regulations. The Guardianexports. The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter. February (Britain). Feb. 15.17. p. 2. Pest Management at the CrossroadsKirschenmann, Fred. 2001. A common ground to dis- www.pmac.net/ge.htmcuss genetics. Leopold Letter. Vol. 13, No. 2. Summer. See for more information on Bt effects on beneficialp. 6. www.leopold.iastate.edu insects and on pest resistance. This site is sponsored,Massey, Rachel. 2000. Sustainability and ag biotech. designed, and managed by Benbrook Consulting ServiceRachel’s Environment and Health News. No. 686, (BCS) for biointensive Integrated Pest Management.Page 24 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

Pollack, Andrew. 2001. Mapping genes may helpbreed better food, bypassing genetic engineering.New York Times. March 7.Ryan, Angela, and Mae-Wan Ho. 2001. Europe’sNew Rules Could Sink All GMOs. A report from theInstitute of Science in Society. London. August 28.www.i-sis.org.uk/EU_Directive.phpSchrade, Ann, and Steve Raabe. 2001. States joinglobal fight over biotech labeling. Denver Post. May 29.Shadid, Anthony. 2001. Genetic drift affects morethan biology; U.S. farmers stand to lose millions.Boston Globe. April 4.Sheldon, Albert (FDA microbiologist) to JamesMaryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator. 1993.Internal memo: Use of Kanamycin resistance marketsin tomatoes. March 30. www.biointegrity.orgStierle, Andrea. Personal communication.May 9, 2006.Toledo, Alvaro. 2002. Excerpt: Saving the seed:Europe’s challenge. South Bulletin. No. 35. May 15.p. 17–20; p. 18.www.southcentre.org/info/southbulletin/bulletin35Union of Concerned Scientists. 2000. Biotechnologyand Sustainable Agriculture. www.ucsusa.orgUnited States Department of Agriculture,Office of Inspector General (Southwest Region)(USDA/OIG-A/506-8-Te). 2005. Audit Report: Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] ControlsOver Issuance of Genetically Engineered OrganismRelease Permits. Audit 50601-B-Te. December.Washington, DC. 63 p. See p. 56.USDA/AMS. 2006. Grain Transportation Report.Feb. 2. p. 1, 13. www.ams.usda.gov/tmdtsh/grainUSDA/NASS. 2005. Biotechnology varieties.Acreage, 06.30.05. USDA, p. 22–24 (of 46).http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba.acrg0605.txtUniversity of Missouri press release. 2001. Bad newsbeans—A year of challenges confronts soybean grow-ers. July 27. http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/queries/showcur.idc?story_num+1272&iln=419Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmen-tal Policy. Winrock International. 2001. TransgenicCrops: An Environmental Assessment. Policy StudiesReport No. 15. p. 52.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 25

AppendicesAppendix 1Petitions of Nonregulated Status Granted or Pendingby APHIS as of 3 February 2006www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html Abbreviations: PRSV-papaya ringspot virus CMV-cucumber mosaic virus PVY-potato virus Y CPB-colorado potato beetle WMV2- watermelon mosaic virus 2 PLRV- potato leafroll virus ZYMV-zucchini yellow mosaic virusPetitions for Nonregulated Status GrantedApplicant Documents APHIS Documents Extension Regulated Transformation Preliminary Risk Final EA &Petition of Petition Institution Transgenic Phenotype FR Notice Article Event or Line EA **** Asses. Determination No.*** 92-196-92-196-01p Calgene Tomato Fruit ripening altered FLAVR SAVR 92-196-01p_ea 92-196-01p_com 01p_fr 92-204-92-204-01p Upjohn Squash WMV2 & ZYMV resistant ZW-20 92-204-01p_ea 92-204-01p_com 01p_fr 93-196-93-196-01p Calgene Cotton Bromoxynil tolerant BXN 93-196-01p 93-196-01p_com 01p_fr93-258-01p Monsanto Soybean Glyphosate tolerant 40-3-2 93-258-01p 93-258-01p 93-258-01p_com pCGN3828-94-090-01p Calgene Rapeseed Oil proﬁle altered 94-090-01p 94-090-01p 94-090-01p_com 212/86- 18 & 23 94-227-94-227-01p 92-196-01p Calgene Tomato Fruit ripening altered Line N73 1436-111 94-227-01p 94-227-01p_com 01p_fr DNA Plant 94-228-94-228-01p Tomato Fruit ripening altered 1345-4 94-228-01p_ea 94-228-01p_com Tech 01p_fr 9 additional FLA-94-230-01p 92-196-01p Calgene Tomato Fruit ripening altered 94-230-01p 94-230-01p 94-230-01p_com VRSAVR lines BT6, BT10, BT12, 94-257-94-257-01p Monsanto Potato Coleopteran resistant BT16, BT17, BT18, 94-257-01p_ea 94-257-01p_com 01p_fr BT23 Zeneca & Fruit polygalacturonase94-290-01p Tomato B, Da, F 94-290-01p 94-290-01p 94-290-01p_com Petoseed level decreased94-308-01p Monsanto Cotton Lepidopteran resistant 531, 757, 1076 94-308-01p 94-308-01p 94-308-01p_com94-319-01p Ciba Seeds Corn Lepidopteran resistant Event 176 94-319-01p 94-319-01p 94-319-01p_com94-357-01p AgrEvo Corn Phosphinothricin tolerant T14, T25 94-357-01p 94-357-01p 94-357-01p_com 20 additional FLA-95-030-01p 92-196-01p Calgene Tomato Fruit ripening altered 95-030-01p 95-030-01p 95-030-01p_com VRSAVR lines95-045-01p Monsanto Cotton Glyphosate tolerant 1445, 1698 95-045-01p_com95-053-01p Monsanto Tomato Fruit ripening altered 8338 95-053-01p_com95-093-01p Monsanto Corn Lepidopteran resistant MON 80100 95-093-01p_com95-145-01p DeKalb Corn Phosphinothricin tolerant B16 95-145-01p_com 2 additional FLA-95-179-01p 92-196-01p Calgene Tomato Fruit ripening altered 95-179-01p_com VRSAVR lines European Corn Borer95-195-01p Northrup King Corn Bt11 95-195-01p_com resistant Plant Genetic95-228-01p Corn Male sterile MS3 95-228-01p_com Systems95-256-01p Du Pont Cotton Sulfonylurea tolerant 19-51a 95-256-01p_com95-324-01p Agritope Tomato Fruit ripening altered 35 1 N 95-324-01p_com SBT02-5 & -7,95-338-01p Monsanto Potato CPB resistant ATBT04-6 &-27, 95-338-01p_com -30, -31, -36Page 26 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

Continued: Petitions for Nonregulated Status GrantedApplicant Documents APHIS Documents Extension Regulated Transformation Preliminary Risk Final EA &Petition of Petition Institution Transgenic Phenotype FR Notice Article Event or Line EA **** Asses. Determination No.*** CMV, ZYMV, WMV295-352-01p Asgrow Squash CZW-3 95-352-01p_com resistant European Corn Borer MON809 &96-017-01p 95-093-01p Monsanto Corn 96-017-01p_com resistant MON81096-051-01p Cornell U Papaya PRSV resistant 55-1, 63-1 96-051-01p_com W62, W98, A2704-96-068-01p AgrEvo Soybean Phosphinothricin tolerant 12, A2704-21, 96-068-01p_com A5547-35 1 additional96-248-01p 92-196-01p Calgene Tomato Fruit ripening altered 96-248-01p_com FLAVRSAVR line European Corn Borer96-291-01p DeKalb Corn DBT418 96-291-01p_com resistant Glyphosate tolerant & ECB96-317-01p Monsanto Corn MON802 96-317-01p_com resistant G94-1, G94-19,97-008-01p Du Pont Soybean Oil proﬁle altered 97-008-01p_com G-168 Bromoxynil tolerant & Events 31807 &97-013-01p Calgene Cotton 97-013-01p_com Lepidopteran resistant 3180897-099-01p Monsanto Corn Glyphosate tolerant GA21 97-099-01p_com Cichorium RM3-3, RM3-4,97-148-01p Bejo Male sterile 97-148-01p_com intybus RM3-6 RBMT21-129 &97-204-01p Monsanto Potato CPB & PLRV resistant 97-204-01p_com RBMT21-35097-205-01p AgrEvo Rapeseed Phosphinothricin tolerant T45 97-205-01p_com Phosphinothricin tolerant97-265-01p AgrEvo Corn CBH-351 97-265-01p_com & Lep. resistant97-287-01p Monsanto Tomato Lepidopteran resistant 5345 97-287-01p_com97-336-01p AgrEvo Beet Phosphinothricin tolerant T-120-7 97-336-01p_com RBMT15-101,97-339-01p Monsanto Potato CPB & PVY resistant SEMT15-02, 97-339-01p_com SEMT15-15 Male sterile & Phosphi-97-342-01p Pioneer Corn 676, 678, 680 97-342-01p_com nothricin tolerant 96-068-98-014-01p AgrEvo Soybean Phosphinothricin tolerant A5547-127 98-014-01p_com 01p Novartis98-173-01p Seeds & Beet Glyphosate tolerant GTSB77 98-173-01p_com Monsanto98-216-01p Monsanto Rapeseed Glyphosate tolerant RT73 98-216-01p_com98-238-01p AgrEvo Soybean Phosphinothricin tolerant GU262 98-238-01p_com Phosphinothricin tolerant98-278-01p AgrEvo Rapeseed MS8 & RF3 98-278-01p_com & Pollination control LLRICE06,98-329-01p AgrEvo Rice Phosphinothricin tolerant 98-329-01p_com LLRICE62 U. of Sas- Tolerant to soil residues of98-335-01p Flax CDC Triﬃd 98-335-01p_com katchewan sulfonyl urea herbicide Phosphinothricin tolerant98-349-01p 95-228-01p AgrEvo Corn MS6 98-349-01p_com and Male sterile99-173-01p 97-204-01p Monsanto Potato PLRV & CPB resistant RBMT22-82 99-173-01p_com00-011-01p 97-099-01p Monsanto Corn Glyphosate tolerant NK603 00-011-01p_com Mycogen c/o Lepidopteran resistant00-136-01p Dow & Corn Line 1507 00-136-01p_com phosphinothricin tolerant Pioneer Cotton Event00-342-01p Monsanto Cotton Lepidopteran resistant 00-342-01p_com 1598501-121-01p Vector Tobacco Reduced nicotine Vector 21-41 01-121-01p_com01-137-01p Monsanto Corn Corn Rootworm Resistant MON 863 01-137-01p_comwww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 27

Continued: Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted Applicant Documents APHIS Documents Extension Regulated Transformation Preliminary EA Risk Final EA & Petition of Petition Institution Transgenic Phenotype FR Notice Article Event or Line **** Asses. Determination No.*** Phosphinothricin tolerant 01-206-01p 98-278-01p Aventis Rapeseed MS1 & RF1/RF2 01-206-01p_com & pollination control 01-206-02p 97-205-01p Aventis Rapeseed Phosphinothricin tolerant Topas 19/2 01-206-02p_com 01-324-01p 98-216-01p Monsanto Rapeseed Glyphosate tolerant RT200 01-324-01p_com 02-042-01p Aventis Cotton Phosphinothericin tolerant LLCotton25 02-042-01p_com Mycogen/ 03-036-01p 03-036-01p Cotton Lepidopteran Resistant 281-24-236 03-036-01p_pea 03-036-01p_com Dow _fr_pc_pet Mycogen/ 03-036-02p 03-036-02p Cotton Lepidopteran Resistant 3006-210-23 03-036-02p_pea 03-036-02p_com Dow _fr_pc_pet 03-155-01p_ 03-155-01p Syngenta Cotton Lepidopteran Resistant COT 102 03-155-01p_pea 03-155-01p_com fr_pc_pet 03- Glufosinate Tol- 03-181-01p_ 181- 03-181-01p 00-136-01p Dow Corn Lepidopteran Resistant TC-6275 03-181-01p_com erant pea 01p_fr_ pc_pet Sugar 03-323-01p_ 03-323-01p Monsanto Glyphosate Tolerant H7-1 03-323-01p_pea 03-323-01p_com Beet fr_pc_pet 03-353-01p_ 03-353-01p Dow Corn Corn Rootworm Resistant 59122 03-353-01p_pea 03-353-01p_com fr_pc_pet 04-086-01p 04-086-01p Monsanto Cotton Glyphosate Tolerant MON 88913 04-086-01p_pea 04-086-01p_com fr_pc_pet Monsanto & 04-110-01p 04-110-01p Forage Genet- Alfalfa Glyphosate Tolerant J101, J163 04-110-01p_pea 04-110-01p_com _fr2_pc_pet ics 04-125-01p 04-125-01p Monsanto Corn Corn Rootworm Resistant 88017 04-125-01p_pea 04-125-01p_com _fr_pc_pet 04-229-01p 04-229-01p Monsanto Corn High Lysine LY038 04-229-01p_pea 04-229-01p_com _fr_pc_pet Petitions for Nonregulated Status Pending Applicant Documents APHIS Documents Extension Regulated Transformation Preliminary Final EA & Petition of Petition Institution Transgenic Phenotype FR Notice Risk Asses. Article Event or Line EA **** Determination No.*** Monsanto Creeping 03-104-01p_fr_ 03-104-01p Glyphosate Tolerant ASR368 03-104-01p_ra & Scotts bentgrass pc_pet 04-264-01p ARS Plum Plum Pox Resistant C5 92-204-01p_fr University Papaya Ringspot Virus 04-337-01p Papaya X17-2 93-196-01p_fr of Florida Resistant 04-362-01p Syngenta Corn Corn Rootworm Protected MIR604 93-258-01p Thermostable alpha- 05-280-01p Syngenta Corn 3272 94-090-01p amylase*** Extension of Petition Number: **** Preliminary EA:Under 7CFR 340.6(e) a person may request that APHIS extend a determination The Environmental Assessment initially available for Public comment prior toof non-regulated status to other organisms based on their similarity of the previ- ﬁnalization.ously deregulated article. This column lists the previously granted petition of thatdegregulated article.Page 28 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

Appendix 2 • about the validity of industry claims that genet-Excerpt: Agricultural Biotechnology: Critical Issues and ically engineered varieties can help improveRecommended Responses from the Land-Grant Univer- environmental quality by reducing the use ofsities—A report to the Experiment Station Committee chemical pesticides.on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) and the Extension • that the development of resistance to introducedCommittee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) January genetic material will undermine the efficacy of21, 2000. www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/agbiotec.pdf widely used pest control products; andEnvironment (p. 8)Public discussions have raised a number of concerns • that the use of marker genes will accelerate theabout potential environmental effects of the use of spread of antibiotic resistance.crops derived from agricultural biotechnology. Among The Land-Grant University (LGU) system can helpthe most prominent are concerns inform discussions of these issues through research • that the flow of genetic material from genetically and education. In particular, research is sorely engineered crops to weed species will improve needed on all these topics because the current weed fitness. information base is inadequate.Noteswww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 29

NotesPage 30 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

Noteswww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 31

Transgenic Crops By Jeﬀ Schahczenski and Katherine Adam NCAT Program Specialists © 2006 NCAT Paul Driscoll, Editor Amy Smith, Production This publication is available on the Web at: www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/geneticeng.html or www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/geneticeng.pdf IP189 Slot 172 Version 121506Page 32 ATTRA

Transgenic Crops

by ElisaMendelsohn on Oct 06, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Transgenic Crops Document Transcript