...Although genetically engineered crops have only been a reality since the mid-1980s, they already account for approximately one third of the US corn crop, more than half of the soybeans, and almost half of the cotton crop, with approximately 50 more crops approved by the United States Department of Agriculture.

And, industry claims to the contrary, genetic engineering is indeed revolutionary.  Unlike traditional crop selection and breeding--practiced for the whole of human history--genetic engineering of agricultural crops circumvents the boundaries that normally govern genetic recombination. Genese from unrelated species, even other kingdoms of organisms, can be directly inserted into a plant's DNA.  For all its pretensions to precision, thje actual insertion process is poorly controlled, resulting in random insertions, multiple copies of genes, and unpredictable disruptions of existing gene sequences.

Because of this imprecision, genes frequently affect several different traits.  Because a gene's physical position influences how those traits are expressed, the full consequences of insertion are impossible to predict.  The potential hazards of such crops include injury or death of non-target insects and beneficial species that contact plants engineered to produce their own pesticides and the promotion of pesticide resistance in insects and weeds: toxicity and allergenicity of food crops as a result of foreign genes being inserted and existing genes reshuffled during the insertion process; promotion of antibiotic resistance when resistant bacteria are used in the insertion process; and increased pesticide residues in crops designed to be resistant to herbicides. In time, this could lead to decreased biodiversity and stability of our food production system with the market dominance of a limited number of patented seeds.

These risks loom all the larger because, unlike other forms of environmental pollution. genetic engineering deals with the stuff of life--living entities and reproductive bodies that ha e the capacity to spread, cross-pollinate, and otherwise perpetuate their traits, whether beneficial or deleterious. Once released into the environment, they are truly beyond control.

In answer, genetic engineering proponents trumpet the technology's hypothetical ability to increase yields, reduce chemical use, or improve nutrition.  The majority of genetically engineered varieties now in commerce are designed to be resistant to specific herbicides--a strategy that actually allows for more spraying and potential residues--or to produce their own pesticies.  There is no consistent track record of these premium-priced drops increasing yields or reducing the overall use of pesticides.  In contrast.there have been several spectacular crop failures when genetically engineered crops did not perform as intended.

The current regulatory system is entirely inadequate to the the task of evaluating and controlling genetically engineered crops.  In general, the Food and Drug Administration does not treat genetically engineered crops as different as different from conventional crops, despite strong objections from some of the agency's own scientists.  Health effects are assessed on a voluntary basis.

Ecological effects have been given equally short shrift, a fact highlighted last year when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new restrictions on on planting corn that produces its own pesticide (bacillus thuringiensis) to avoid the growing problem of insect resistance.  That restrictions were instituted years after such crops had been widely planted points to how little the risks were understood.  SPA's recent reforms are as much an indictment of the system as an improvement to it.

Even when adverse effects are suspected, these crops cannot be managed once let out into the marketplace.  The recent debacle of Starlink corn highlights this problem.  Starlink corn has not been approved for human consumption because of potential allergenic effects, yet it turned up in processed food both here and in Europe.

Worldwide opposition to thes crops has cut into markets for US produce.  It puts New York's farmers on economically tenuous footing, both those who intentionally plant genetically modified crops and knowingly accept the marketplace risk and those who plant conventional crops that can be, and have been, contaminated by genetically engineered pollen from other fields.

The practice of genetic engineering has stealthily transformed food production in this nation over the past decade in ways that affect farmers and consumers, alike.  A moratorium would allow New York to step back and examine this new path--one most people did not even realize we were treading--and choose for ourselves whether and how to move forward from here.

This article, written in support of proposed state legislation fot a 5-year moratorium on genetically-engineered crops, appeared in the December issue Vol 19 #3 of Albany Report  The address for Environmental Advocates is:
353 Hamilton Street, Albany NY 12210  Tel 518-462-5526  Fax 518-427-0381

Back to genetic engineering index         
Previous GE article                            Subsequent GE article