This document provides an overview of transgenic crops, including: 1) A brief history of transgenic crop development and the governing policies surrounding the technology. 2) A summary of the main agricultural crops that have been genetically modified, their expressed characteristics, and their market roles. 3) A discussion of unintended consequences, economic considerations, safety concerns, and implications of transgenic crops for sustainable agriculture.

1. ATTRA Transgenic Crops
A Publication of ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service • 1-800-346-9140 • www.attra.ncat.org
By 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 overview
NCAT Program of the main agricultural crops that have been genetically modified, the characteristics they express, and
Specialists 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.
Contents
Introduction ..................... 1
What Are Transgenic
Crops? ................................. 3
Unintended Effects........ 5
Commercial Transgenic
Crops and Their Traits ... 6
Issues Facing Farmers
and Ranchers ................... 9
Crop Yield, Costs, and
Profitability ........................13
Organic Industry .......... 17
Influence on Public
Research .......................... 17
Industry Concentration To increase the genetic diversity of U.S. corn, the Germplasm Enhancement for Maize (GEM) project seeks to
and Farmers’ Right to combine exotic germplasm, such as this unusually colored and shaped maize from Latin America, with domestic
Save Seed ........................ 18 corn lines. Photo by Keith Weller, USDA ARS.
Regulation of Transgenic
Crops and Apportion-
ment of Liability ........... 19
Conclusion ...................... 22 Introduction researchers, and certain nonprofit organi-
References ...................... 23 zations. Particularly vocal are groups that
The ability to transfer genetic material
Appendices .................... 26 represent the interests of civil society.
between two unlike species for agricul-
tural 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, which
ATTRA—National Sustainable broader technological movement to modify some supporters of transgenic crops write off
Agriculture Information Service
is managed by the National Cen- organisms for economic, medical, military, as a defense of cultural artifacts. Yet the
ter for Appropriate Technology
(NCAT) and is funded under a
and other general human ends. new capacities brought about by transgenic
grant from the United States foods in particular reveal a general lack of
Implications surrounding the modification
Department 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 Policy
agriculture projects. government agencies, business consortia, (ESCOP) and the Extension Committee on

2. 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 the
Publications 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 organic
Variety Development Transgenic upland cotton was 79 percent production in order to avoid World Trade
for Organic Systems (up from 76 percent in 2004). No acre- Organization (WTO) sanctions against trade
Organic Crops
age was reported for transgenic varieties barriers. India is conducting field trials of
Workbook
Biodiesel: Table 1.
The Sustainability Acreage planted to transgenic varieties, as percentage of total corn, soybeans, cotton acreage
Dimensions 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 79
Page 2 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

3. 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 of
crop), sugarcane (ethanol production), sor- biological sciences to develop products—
ghum (ethanol and animal feed), pigeon- conventional plant and animal breeding
pea, chickpea, rice (staple food grain), techniques, conducted since the dawn of
tomato, brinjal (eggplant or aubergine), civilization—fall under biotechnology. In
banana, papaya, soybean, and medici- the popular press, biotechnology generally
nal 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.) Crop
tional Service for the Acquisition of Agro- 49.8/723.0 Soybean, maize (corn), cotton,
1 USA
Biotech Applications (ISAAA) were the canola, squash, papaya
United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, 2 Argentina 17.1/42.2 soybean, maize, cotton
and China. (See Table 2.) Fourteen coun- 3 Brazil 9.4/23.2 soybean
tries were ranked in the fi rst tier as major 4 Canada 5.8/14.3 canola, maize, soybean
adopters of the technology. (ISAAA, 2006) 5 China 3.3/8.2 cotton
A checklist to aid prospective U.S. growers 6 Paraguay 1.8/4.4 soybean
of transgenic crops in interpreting condi- 7 India 1.3/3.2 cotton
tions imposed by the agribusiness licensee, 8 So. Africa 0.5/1.2 maize, soybean, cotton
including company technology agree- 9 Uruguay 0.3/.7 soybean, maize, cotton
ments, is published online by RAFI-USA 10 Australia 0.3/.7 cotton
(www.rafiusa.org). (Moeller and Sligh, 11 Mexico 0.1/.2 cotton, soybean
Farmers’ Guide, 2004) 12 Romania 0.1/.2 soybean
13 Philippines 0.1/.2 maize
What Are Transgenic Crops? 14 Spain 0.1/.2 maize
No uniformly accepted defi nition of bio- 15 Colombia <0.1/.2 cotton
technology exists, according to the National 16 Iran <0.1/.2 rice
Center for Agricultural Law Research and 17 Honduras <0.1/.2 maize
Information (NCALRI ) (www.aglawcenter.
18 Portugal <0.1/.2 maize
org). 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

4. 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

5. The whole process can be illustrated by from being able to precisely control the
its application in the engineering of trans- traits the host plant will express and to
genic rice, using electroporation. guarantee genetic stability in subsequent
generations. (Ryan and Ho, 2001) This
With the advent of genetic engineering of
potential for instability can lead to unpre-
plants around 1983, it appeared that trans-
dictable and undesirable effects, examples
genic 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 counters
problems in the management of agricultural
that since genes from no known allergens
crops, provide new possibilities to improve
are incorporated, adequate care has been
human 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 and
industrial crops. (ESCOP/ECOP, 2000) Transgenetic engineers who rely on the sim-
ple model of gene expression—the position
P
Potential environmental benefits included
that one gene equals one effect—harbor otential for
reduced 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 understanding
thermore, the new technology promised unpredictable and
that one gene may control multiple traits
increased 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 desirable
would insure that seed could not be saved trait may in fact control multiple traits in a
over for planting the next year. The develop- variety of ways. Pleitrophy is common, and
er’s intellectual property rights were thereby the interactions of genes with each other
protected, which offered the potential to and with the environment add complex-
increase profits and theoretically garner a ity. To accurately predict the effects of new
monopoly over the transgenic seed supply. genetic combinations is nearly impossible.
The introduction of a novel life form into an
Unintended Effects ecology can trigger effects perhaps too great
to be understood during our time. While it
Current methods of gene transfer are not
is true most mutations don’t survive, those
precise. While scientists can control with
that do can profoundly affect human and
relative exactness the “trait gene” (or its
other life forms.
synthesized analog) to be inserted into a
host plant genome, they cannot entirely For instance, transgenic soy strains appear
control 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 University
the expression of biological traits, just of Missouri (UM press release, 2001)
as genes themselves do. Also, inserted noted physiological problems affecting
DNA frequently contains multiple stacked yields. Research published by Univer-
genes for different traits (eight in the New sity of Arkansas scientists in 2000 noted
Leaf potato), increasing chances of unde- that glysophate disrupts the nitrogen
sirable interactions. fi xation process in Roundup Ready soy.
(King et al., 2001)
A common and unpredictable occurrence
is “silencing” of either the inserted genetic The current marker and promoter genes of
material or adjacent native genes. Pres- choice also may create new hazards. The
ent scientific knowledge is still a long way antibiotic-resistant marker genes carry the
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 5

6. 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 have
trols ripening to give better flavor and shelf-life. policies and procedures.” been altered to withstand being sprayed
Photo by Jack Dykinga, USDA ARS. This approach allows for with broad-spectrum herbicides, with the
Page 6 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

7. idea that one application will take care of One other large-acreage North American
most types of weeds without killing the crop. transgenic crop is canola (a low erucic acid
Insecticidal crops contain genes of the soil form of European rapeseed). Canola is
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These a major oilseed crop in Canada, but only
Bt genes cause the plants to produce a a minor crop in the U.S. However, until
chemical toxic to the European corn borer, recently, it was thought that acreage of
the 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 biodiesel
As of 2005, about 87 percent of world trans-
from Asian palm oil, thus bypassing the
genic acreage was in the U.S. (See Table
“seed crushing hassles” of canola/rapeseed.
2.) Herbicide-tolerant crops accounted for
(Montana Department of Environmental
about three quarters of the acreage planted,
Quality, 2006)
worldwide, to genetically engineered crops
in 2005. Pesticidal crops, or a combination Proposals to plant substantial acreages of
of pesticidal and herbicide-tolerant crops, canola and rapeseed (Brassica napus, B.
accounted for most of the remaining acre- rapa)—much of it transgenic varieties—in
age. Acreage devoted to crops with stacked Oregon’s Willamette Valley to produce raw
genes intended to express a variety of traits material for biodiesel production caused
is increasing. (USDA/NASS, 2005) considerable concern among small-acre-
age 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 for
transgenic versions, seed for conventional
gene flow between B. napus canola and
varieties 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 rapeseed
ditional seed scarcity can affect farmers
holds the potential for gene flow with its
who wish to return to non-transgenic corn,
closely related vegetable crops (Chinese
soya, or cotton. (Holden, 2002) Cotton seed
cabbage, pai-tsai, mizuna, Chinese mus-
is controlled by two large suppliers work-
tard, broccoli raab, and turnip). Potential
ing with a large public research institution.
for crossbreeding between the two oilseed
Development of the non-transgenic organic/
crop types was rated high, as well. Poten-
specialty cotton sector, which accounts for
tial of crossbreeding with wild (Raphanus
the 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. More
pered by concerns about cross-pollination
study was called for regarding outcrossing
and 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 34
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 7

8. 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.html
Page 8 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

9. commercial release. Transgenic fruits for
which field trials are currently underway
(some in the U.S.) are apples, cherries, Unresolved Issues of Concern
cranberries, grapefruit, kiwi, pears, per- Unresolved issues in transgenic agriculture:
simmons, pineapple, plum, and strawber-
ries. Transgenic papaya, raised in Hawaii, • Food safety
has been commercialized for several • Farm management
years, and plum has recently been dereg-
• Crop yield, costs, and profitability
ulated by APHIS. (Plum is, of course, the
source of prunes.) • Marketing and trade
One variety of transgenic f lax was • Organic industry impacts
approved in the U.S. in 1999, but trans- • Influence on public research
genic fl ax is reportedly not being grown • Industry concentration and farmers’ right to save seed
because of consumer resistance and mar-
ket rejection. Flax seed oil and fl ax seed • Regulation of transgenic crops and apportionment
of liability
are popular nutraceutical products. (www.
truefoodnow.org/crop/pipeline_rdfruit.html)
Transgenic rice trials in Missouri were halted commercial transgenic crops and their
by public protests. So far Iran is the only traits, see the APHIS list (Appendix 1).
known country producing transgenic rice for
Many disturbing unanswered questions
human consumption. (See Table 2.)
remain about transgenic crops and their
Despite indications in 2002 that lack of potential benefits, costs, and risks. In
public 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’s
rations have changed tactics—conducting Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural
trials overseas, keeping U.S. trials strictly and Environmental Policy, “The varieties
secret (perhaps even from regulatory over- and uses of genetically altered crops have
sight by APHIS). The companies also grown much more rapidly than our ability
lobby industry groups, such as the wheat to understand them.” This study reveals
boards, 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 to
ingredients. Transgenic processing aids— environmental assessment. (Wallace Center
enzymes and ingredients used to improve Report, 2001)
the color, fl avor, texture, and aroma of It should also be noted that there is even
manufactured 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 currently
being derived from transgenic corn or soy.
(Non-GMO Source, 2002)
Issues Facing Farmers
and Ranchers
The industry currently takes the position Since 2001 ecological risks of transgenic
that the public has been consuming highly crops have become evident.
processed, transgenic foods for several
years and that this large-scale experiment
with the American food supply has been a Flow to Neighboring Crops and
success. Corn, oilseeds, cotton, and wheat to Related Wild Species
are 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 plants
more complete list of current and future has occurred. This issue is of special
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 9

10. Pharmacrops
After the year 2000, reorganizations crops engineered for biopharmaceuti- exact figure is not known because
in the agrichemical/pharmaceuti- cal 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 tri- als 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 forest
Page 10 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

11. 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 field
Antibiotic Resistance is a matter of further study. Second,
As described in the earlier section on because the insecticidal properties of
how gene transfer is accomplished, the Bt crops function even in the absence of
use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes an economic threshold of pests, Bt crops
for the delivery of a gene package into potentially can reduce pest populations to
a 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 Diversity
Research is needed on antibiotic resis- As fewer and larger fi rms dominate the
tance management in transgenic crops. rapidly merging seed and biotechnology
(ESCOP/ECOP, 2000) The European market, transgenic crops may continue the
T
Commission’s new rules governing trans- trend toward simplifi cation of cropping ransgenic
genic crops stipulated phasing out anti-
systems by reducing the number and type crops may
biotic-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 cropping
done to determine the conditions under tionally practiced by a majority of farmers
has been heavily restricted through reg- systems by reducing
which gene fl ow from transgenic plants
is likely to be significant. By the end of istration requirements and subsidy pay- the number and type
2005 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 held
on transgenic crops. The ruling is certain uncertifi able (and effectively outlawed by
to be appealed. (Kiplinger, 2006) billings for royalties and denial of subsidy
payments) by being declared insufficiently
Effects on Beneficial Organisms distinct from a variety described in the
EU Catalogue of Common Varieties. In an
Evidence continues to increase that trans- interview, Nancy Arrowsmith, founder of
genic crops—either directly or through
Arche Noah, (Arrowsmith, 1987) noted
practices linked to production—are det-
that traditional European landraces and
rimental to beneficial organisms. New
seed-saving practices are being squeezed
studies show that Bt crops exude Bt in
out in Common Market countries.
concentrations high enough to be toxic
to some benefi cial soil organisms. Uni- Seed legislation is quite restrictive. In order
versity 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 fee
and nitrogen fi xation” in Roundup-Ready
is quite high. [Germany, Switzerland,] and
soy. (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 the
plant 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 it
ways. First, the Bt in transgenic insecticidal will say that these cannot be reproduced in
crops has been shown in some laboratory any way.
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 11

12. 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 com-
plete regulations for organic handling at
Food safety issues, except as they impact
www.ams.usda.gov/NOP.
domestic marketing and exports, are beyond
T
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 around
from transgenic to
Food safety concerns include: transgenic fields. Different transgenic crops
adjacent conven- require different buffer widths. Because the
• Possibility of toxins in food
tional 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 the
of conventional vari- • Introduction of human allergens
buffer strips must be handled and marketed
eties 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 on
Page 12 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

13. the rest of the crop. In a no-till system that separate sections below. Liability is
relies on the same broad-spectrum herbi- discussed under regulation.
cide that the volunteer plants are resistant
to, these plants will contaminate the har- Crop Yield, Costs, and Profitability
vest of a following conventional variety of Some farmers will get higher yields with a
the same crop—a situation farmers tend particular transgenic crop variety than with
to avoid for two reasons. First, the con- their conventional varieties, and some will
tamination means a following conventional get lower yields. Yield variability is related
crop 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 any
crop for which they do not have a technol- one feature impacts yield. Costs of various
ogy agreement and did not pay royalty fees, inputs are also constantly changing; and
they may face aggressive collection by the the ability of farmers to adjust to changing
company that owns the transgenic variety. costs, particularly rapid changes, is limited
Hundreds of U.S. farmers have already and affects profitability.
F
been charged with “theft” of a company’s armers
patented seed as a result of contamination However, some yield, cost, and profit-
ability trends do appear to be emerging growing
in the field. (Altieri, 2000)
from the growing body of research data for transgenic
Farmers 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 their
to predict and may not warrant the plant- were designed simply to resist a particular
ing 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 fields
ance against the threat of insect damage. from reduced pest pressure. (Wallace and to ensure
(Hillyer, 1999) Center, 2001) that buffers are
Farmers growing transgenic crops need to adequate.
communicate with their neighbors to avoid Yield: Herbicide Tolerant Crops—
contaminating neighboring fields and to Soybeans, Cotton, Canola
ensure that buffers are adequate. In Maine,
Herbicide-tolerant soybeans appear to
farmers 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 farms
agriculture department, to help identify
this tendency of Roundup Ready soybean
possible sources of cross-contamination
varieties to yield less than their compara-
when it occurs. The law also “requires man-
ble, conventional counterparts varies, but
ufacturers or seed dealers of genetically
overall, they appear to average yields that
engineered plants, plant parts, or seeds to
are five to ten percent lower per acre. As
provide written instructions to all growers
described earlier, impaired root develop-
on how to plant, grow, and harvest the crops
ment, nodulation, and nitrogen fi xation
to minimize potential cross-contamination
likely account for this yield drag. Drought
of 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 apparently
all transgenic crops include yield, cost, sensitive to both Roundup and drought.
price, profitability, management flexibil- University of Missouri scientists reported
ity, sustainability, market acceptance, and problems with germination of Roundup
liability. 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

14. 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 conven-
tional 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 avail-
able 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 soy-
beans 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

15. The Wallace Center report emphasizes the Marketing and Trade
importance of ongoing monitoring of pes-
Buyer acceptance is a significant marketing
ticide use data. If farmers abandon inte-
issue for farmers raising transgenic crops.
grated pest management, which utilizes a Farmers need to know before they plant
variety of pesticide and cultural control what their particular markets will or won’t
methods, in favor of the simplified control accept. Since most grain handlers can-
offered by herbicide-resistant and insec- not effectively segregate transgenic from
ticidal transgenic crops, then early fi nd- non-transgenic crops in the same facility,
ings of reduced pesticide quantities and many companies are channeling transgenic
toxicity may not hold over the long run. crops into particular warehouses. Farmers
Refer to chapter one of the Wallace Center need to know which ones and how far away
report (Wallace Center, 2001) for USDA those are.
pesticide use data comparisons between
t ransgenic and convent iona l crops, Many foreign markets have tended to be
broken down by crop. more leery of transgenic products than
domestic markets, although this may
change. World Trade Organization (WTO)
B
Profitability
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 a
tor can tell the whole story. Transgenic crop and China
special case, as authority to accept or reject
seeds 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 countries
tial 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 to
costs 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 top
some 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—are
Farmers 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 seeds
fi nd their way into conventional transpor- Eighty-six countries and the European
tation, storage, and processing steams, Union have agreed on implementation steps
these 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 September
in fact truly free of engineered genes. 2003. A rigorous system for handling, trans-
Future availability of conventional seed porting, packing, and identifying transgenic
is another issue. Once farmers try trans- crops was part of the agreement. All bulk
genic crops, they have reported becom- shipments of genetically engineered crops
ing 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 transgenic
coming up in a conventional planting the
crops, including Canada, Argentina, and
next year is important to farmers. Trans-
the U.S., did not sign the protocol. (Agence
genic seed suppliers aggressively pursue
France Presse, 2004)
legal cases against any farmer using
transgenic seed without having a signed Trade in transgenic livestock feed is more
technology agreement. liberal than trade in transgenic human food.
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 15

16. 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 to
I
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 from
the 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 from
U.S. does not require introduction of the fi rst transgenic wheat,
GMOs have to be labeled and, in the case
traceability or label- originally slated for 2003, now on hold.
of processed goods, records have to be kept
The Japanese milling industry has made it
ing 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 recently
Page 16 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

17. relaxed, since 1997 the European Union agricultural products fell below imports, for
ban 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 Research
tural 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 institutions
and 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 in
tion, 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 research
tional systems. (Callahan, 2001) New tech- agenda? Are corporations directing public
nologies can reliably detect minute amounts research in socially questionable directions
of transgenic material. (See Seed testing, while research on, for instance, sustainable
below.) 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 equitable
2004) European export markets organic across the food and agricultural sectors? Is
farmers might have enjoyed, and those that equity even a consideration of our public
producers 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/6542
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 17

18. 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 intel-
lectual 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 cre-
ate 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

19. be for farmers? This question takes on government has determined that the commer-
added gravity as an increasing number cial products of agricultural biotechnology
of seed varieties become proprietary and are “substantially equivalent” to their
seed production, especially for gardeners, conventional counterparts and that there-
is pushed out of California and Oregon fore no new regulatory process or structure
into 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 the
purchase 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 Animal
sign 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 Protection
ogy fee, or royalty.
Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Food and Drug
The anticipated commercial introduction Administration (FDA).
of transgenic wheat represents a dramatic
USDA–APHIS: APHIS looks at how a
shift in an industry in which farmers still
transgenic plant behaves in comparison
widely save their own seed. As non-trans-
with its unmodified counterpart. Is it as
T
genic varieties become contaminated with
safe to grow? The data it uses are supplied he adoption
transgenic ones, even those farmers who
largely by the companies seeking a permit of transgenic
choose to stick with conventional varieties
for release of the new crop. Under “fast-
will lose the right to replant their own seed. crop varieties
This loss has already occurred in Canada’s track” approval, a process in place since
has brought with it
canola industry, with Monsanto winning its 1997, companies introducing a crop simi-
lar to a previously approved version need an increasing prev-
court case against farmer Percy Schmeiser
for replanting his own canola variety that give only 30 days’ advance notice prior to alence of contract
had 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 estimate
Ann Clark, Plant Agriculture, University that by 2000, 95 to 98 percent of field tests
of Guelph, Ontario, at www.plant.uoguelph. were taking place under simple notification
ca/faculty/eclark) rules rather than through permitting. (Wal-
lace Center, 2001) The Office of Inspector
The adoption of transgenic crop varieties General (OIG) report has called for much
has brought with it an increasing preva- stricter tracking—in light of the industry
lence of contract production. While con- shift to industrial and pharmacrops.
tract production can lead to increased
value and reduced risk for growers, farm- EPA: The EPA regulates the pesticides
ers are justified in their concern about produced by transgenic crops, such as the
their 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. In
ciated with contract production of trans- contrast with its regulation of conventional
genic crops must be considered within the pesticides, the EPA has set no tolerance
broader context of a sustainable agricul- limits for the amount of Bt that transgenic
ture to include ownership, control, and corn, cotton, and potatoes may contain.
social equity. (Wallace Center, 2001)
FDA: The FDA focuses on the human health
Regulation of Transgenic risks of transgenic crops. However, its rules
do not require mandatory pre-market safety
Crops and Apportionment testing or mandatory labeling of trans-
of Liability genic foods. Initially, the U.S. regulatory
Much of the controversy over transgenic process for transgenic food crops required
crops, 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, new
regulates transgenic crops. The federal products can be approved based on the
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 19

20. 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

21. time, all farmers in areas of transgenic crop companies, grain handlers, processors, and
production are at risk. Insurance, the most retailers is needed before farmers can rest
common recourse for minimizing potential assured that transgenic crops won’t result
losses because of liability, is not available in lawsuits against them. For farmers who
to the nation’s farmers for this risk because have adopted transgenic technology—and
insurance companies do not have enough for those who have not—in the words of
experience 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 proprietary
transgenic varieties have paid fi nes to the In essence, farmers who grow transgenic
companies rather than go to court to defend crops on some of their fields, and farmers
themselves. One Canadian grower of non- who grow none, risk bearing tremendous
transgenic canola, Percy Schmeiser, did go liability. This situation won’t change until
to court against Monsanto, and lost. The farmers either gain legal protection or stop
initial ruling required him to pay Monsanto growing transgenic crops entirely.
T
the approximately U.S. $85,000 value of his
his crop and $13,000 in punitive damages.
“
Implications for Sustainable technology
The amount was eventually reduced, upon
appeal. This farmer’s case has implications
Agriculture does not
for other farmers, especially those who tra- In contrast to the ecological approach of sus- respect property
ditionally 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 to
corn, 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 in
organic tortilla chips. Only after the prod- the long run because pests will successfully
uct 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 processor
had 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 problems
the organic farmer, but could have. (Shadid, in agriculture that genetic engineers are
2001) The retailer, in turn, apparently did working on, though there are areas in which
not sue the processor. Had it done so, the lia- genetic engineering can enhance traditional
bility for the retailer’s loss could have fallen plant breeding. Armed with the map of an
on both the processor and the farmer. organism’s genetic code, scientists can test
which genes are in a plant to select more
Until laws or legal precedent clarify the easily which ones to cross-breed. “Before
extent of farmer liability, farmers would we knew where the genes were, we were still
do well to avoid making assumptions or breeding in the dark,” according to Steven
claims about the purity of their non-trans- Briggs, head of genomics for Syngenta, a
genic products. (Some export crops, as well Swiss biotechnology giant, as quoted in the
as Identity Preserved crops, are now being New York Times. (Pollack, 2001)
tested before shipping.) Furthermore, pro-
ducers of transgenic crops need to take all
possible precautions against spreading pol-
Gauging a Technology’s Impact
len and seed to their own and others’ non- on Agricultural Sustainability
transgenic 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 from
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 21

22. 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 sup-
port 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

23. References
Advisory Committee on Biotechnology & 21st Century Benbrook, C. 2005. Harvest at risk? Impacts of
Agriculture (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.org
mary_ june03.html
Bernstein, I. et al., 1999. Immune responses in farm
AgBioTech 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.org
Agence 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.html
www.tradeobservatory.org/showFile.php?id=12731 Callahan, Patricia. 2001. Genetic draft affects more
Alexander, 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 from
transgenic crops on agroecosystem health. Ecosystem biotechnology? American Seed Trade Association
Health. 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. Herbicide
Barrett, 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 the
Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research Ervin, David E., Sandra S. Batie, Chantal Line
and 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 Biotechnology
Bt 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 gene
Benbrook, C. 2004. Excerpt: Executive Summary:
labels, tracing. Reuters. July 24.
Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in
the United States: The First Nine Years. October 25. ESCOP, ECOP (Experiment Station and Extension
www.biotech-info.net Committees on Organization and Policy). 2000.
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 23

24. Agricultural Biotechnology: Critical Issues and Recom- Feb. 10. www.rachel.org
mended 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 Sligh
Fox 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.org
Fulton, 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 to
Grains 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: The
www.grain.org/publications/delusion-en-cfin Sustainability Dimensions.
Guebert, Alan. 2001. Supreme Court blesses plant Moore, Tam. 2005. Monsanto fee doubles cost
patents: 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 for
flowers. What’s on the market. Seed World. February. Brassica Species and Implciations for Vegetable
p. 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.pdf
Holden, Patrick. 2002. Report: Seeds of Doubt: NCALRI. 2000. Biotechnology: Overview. The
North American farmers’ experiences of GM Crops. National Center for Agricultural Law Research and
Soil Association, Bristol, UK. p. 58. Information. Fayetteville, Arkansas. www.national
Hord, Bill. 2001. Wheat industry is cautious on aglawcenter.org/readingrooms/biotechnology
biotech introduction. World Herald. May 29. New Scientist. 1999. Splitting headache. November
www.AgriBiz.com 20, No. 2213.
International Service for the Acuisition on Agro-Bio- Non-GMO Source
tech Applications (ISAAA) , ISAAA AmericCenter. 2002. Manufacturers face GMO challenges with
417 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 scores
growth 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 in
J. Vol. 93. p. 179–186. Abstract: www.biotech-info.net/
U.S. October. p. 12.
king_abstract.pdf
Osborn, Andrew. 2001. GM multinationals are thrown
Kiplinger editors. 2006. WTO ruling will help
a lifeline with new regulations. The Guardian
exports. The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter. February
(Britain). Feb. 15.
17. p. 2.
Pest Management at the Crossroads
Kirschenmann, Fred. 2001. A common ground to dis-
www.pmac.net/ge.htm
cuss genetics. Leopold Letter. Vol. 13, No. 2. Summer.
See for more information on Bt effects on beneficial
p. 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 Service
Rachel’s Environment and Health News. No. 686, (BCS) for biointensive Integrated Pest Management.
Page 24 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

25. Pollack, Andrew. 2001. Mapping genes may help
breed better food, bypassing genetic engineering.
New York Times. March 7.
Ryan, Angela, and Mae-Wan Ho. 2001. Europe’s
New Rules Could Sink All GMOs. A report from the
Institute of Science in Society. London. August 28.
www.i-sis.org.uk/EU_Directive.php
Schrade, Ann, and Steve Raabe. 2001. States join
global fight over biotech labeling. Denver Post. May 29.
Shadid, Anthony. 2001. Genetic drift affects more
than biology; U.S. farmers stand to lose millions.
Boston Globe. April 4.
Sheldon, Albert (FDA microbiologist) to James
Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator. 1993.
Internal memo: Use of Kanamycin resistance markets
in tomatoes. March 30. www.biointegrity.org
Stierle, 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/bulletin35
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2000. Biotechnology
and Sustainable Agriculture. www.ucsusa.org
United States Department of Agriculture,
Office of Inspector General (Southwest Region)(USDA/
OIG-A/506-8-Te). 2005. Audit Report: Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] Controls
Over Issuance of Genetically Engineered Organism
Release 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/grain
USDA/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.txt
University of Missouri press release. 2001. Bad news
beans—A year of challenges confronts soybean grow-
ers. July 27. http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/queries/
showcur.idc?story_num+1272&iln=419
Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmen-
tal Policy. Winrock International. 2001. Transgenic
Crops: An Environmental Assessment. Policy Studies
Report No. 15. p. 52.
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 25

26. Appendices
Appendix 1
Petitions of Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending
by APHIS as of 3 February 2006
www.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 virus
Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted
Applicant 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_fr
93-258-01p 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 polygalacturonase
94-290-01p Tomato B, Da, F 94-290-01p 94-290-01p 94-290-01p_com
Petoseed level decreased
94-308-01p Monsanto Cotton Lepidopteran resistant 531, 757, 1076 94-308-01p 94-308-01p 94-308-01p_com
94-319-01p Ciba Seeds Corn Lepidopteran resistant Event 176 94-319-01p 94-319-01p 94-319-01p_com
94-357-01p 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 lines
95-045-01p Monsanto Cotton Glyphosate tolerant 1445, 1698 95-045-01p_com
95-053-01p Monsanto Tomato Fruit ripening altered 8338 95-053-01p_com
95-093-01p Monsanto Corn Lepidopteran resistant MON 80100 95-093-01p_com
95-145-01p 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 Borer
95-195-01p Northrup King Corn Bt11 95-195-01p_com
resistant
Plant Genetic
95-228-01p Corn Male sterile MS3 95-228-01p_com
Systems
95-256-01p Du Pont Cotton Sulfonylurea tolerant 19-51a 95-256-01p_com
95-324-01p 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, -36
Page 26 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

27. Continued: Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted
Applicant 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, WMV2
95-352-01p 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 MON810
96-051-01p 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 additional
96-248-01p 92-196-01p Calgene Tomato Fruit ripening altered 96-248-01p_com
FLAVRSAVR line
European Corn Borer
96-291-01p DeKalb Corn DBT418 96-291-01p_com
resistant
Glyphosate tolerant & ECB
96-317-01p 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 31808
97-099-01p 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
RBMT21-350
97-205-01p AgrEvo Rapeseed Phosphinothricin tolerant T45 97-205-01p_com
Phosphinothricin tolerant
97-265-01p AgrEvo Corn CBH-351 97-265-01p_com
& Lep. resistant
97-287-01p Monsanto Tomato Lepidopteran resistant 5345 97-287-01p_com
97-336-01p 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
Novartis
98-173-01p Seeds & Beet Glyphosate tolerant GTSB77 98-173-01p_com
Monsanto
98-216-01p Monsanto Rapeseed Glyphosate tolerant RT73 98-216-01p_com
98-238-01p AgrEvo Soybean Phosphinothricin tolerant GU262 98-238-01p_com
Phosphinothricin tolerant
98-278-01p 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 of
98-335-01p Flax CDC Triffid 98-335-01p_com
katchewan sulfonyl urea herbicide
Phosphinothricin tolerant
98-349-01p 95-228-01p AgrEvo Corn MS6 98-349-01p_com
and Male sterile
99-173-01p 97-204-01p Monsanto Potato PLRV & CPB resistant RBMT22-82 99-173-01p_com
00-011-01p 97-099-01p Monsanto Corn Glyphosate tolerant NK603 00-011-01p_com
Mycogen c/o
Lepidopteran resistant
00-136-01p Dow & Corn Line 1507 00-136-01p_com
phosphinothricin tolerant
Pioneer
Cotton Event
00-342-01p Monsanto Cotton Lepidopteran resistant 00-342-01p_com
15985
01-121-01p Vector Tobacco Reduced nicotine Vector 21-41 01-121-01p_com
01-137-01p Monsanto Corn Corn Rootworm Resistant MON 863 01-137-01p_com
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 27

28. 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 to
of 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 that
degregulated article.
Page 28 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

29. Appendix 2 • about the validity of industry claims that genet-
Excerpt: Agricultural Biotechnology: Critical Issues and ically engineered varieties can help improve
Recommended Responses from the Land-Grant Univer- environmental quality by reducing the use of
sities—A report to the Experiment Station Committee chemical pesticides.
on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) and the Extension
• that the development of resistance to introduced
Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) January
genetic material will undermine the efficacy of
21, 2000. www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/agbiotec.pdf
widely used pest control products; and
Environment (p. 8)
Public discussions have raised a number of concerns • that the use of marker genes will accelerate the
about potential environmental effects of the use of spread of antibiotic resistance.
crops derived from agricultural biotechnology. Among The Land-Grant University (LGU) system can help
the 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.
Notes
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 29

30. Notes
Page 30 ATTRA Transgenic Crops

31. Notes
www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 31

32. 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 121506
Page 32 ATTRA