In 1982 scientists on the 4th floor of the Monsanto Company U Building successfully introduced a foreign gene into a plant cell for the first time in history. These plants were genetically modified: they continued to express the new gene while exhibiting normal plant physiology and producing normal offspring. This breakthrough spawned the field of genetically modified (GM) crop production. Since the discovery, however, the international response to GM crops has been mixed. Along with the tremendous potential that lies vested in this technology, there are many risks and uncertainties involved as well. Arguments have centered on the health implications and environmental impact of cultivating GM crops and have raised disputes over national interests, global policy, and corporate agendas. Although there are many sides to this debate, discussions on GM crop regulation should be held within the context of scientific evidence, coupled with a careful weighing of present and future agricultural prospects.

Benefits and Costs

The possibility of environmental benefits first spurred the development of GM crops. The environmental issues at stake can be illustrated by one example of a potent genetic modification, the introduction of an endotoxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a soil micro-organism used for decades by organic growers as an insecticide, into soybeans, corn, and cotton. These GM crops promise to reduce the need to spray large amounts of chemicals into a field’s ecosystem since the toxins are produced by the plants themselves. The Bt crops pose environmental risks, however, and could possibly harm other organisms. Bt corn was shown to harm monarch butterfly caterpillars in the laboratory, although later studies performed with more realistic farming conditions found this result conclusively only with Syngenta Company’s Bt maize, which expressed up to 40 percent more toxin than other brands. Another pertinent environmental issue is the possible evolution of Bt resistance in pests. Since the Bt toxin expressed by the crops is ubiquitous in the field, there is positive selection for resistance against it, which would quickly make Bt’s effect obsolete. Experimentation has begun, however, that involves regulating the percentage of Bt crops in a field so that a balance can be achieved between high yields and survival of Bt-sensitive pests. Although there are still multiple layers of ecosystem complexity that need to be considered, careful scientific research can begin to address these questions.

Another potential area of risk that needs to be analyzed is the effect of GM crops on human health. A possible consequence of Bt expression in crops is the development of allergic reactions in farmers since the toxin is more highly concentrated in the crops than in the field. Furthermore, the method used to insert foreign genes into GM crops always risks manipulation of unknown genes in the plant, resulting in unforeseen consequences. The effects of GM crops on humans therefore must be tested rigorously. Fortunately, no solid evidence yet exists for adverse physiological reactions to GM crops in humans, and some scientists argue that these same genetic-modification techniques are also currently being used in the development of pharmaceutical and industrial products.

A prevailing theme in the GM debate is that when discrepancies between scientific consensus and government policy result in unwanted consequences, the blame is often placed directly on GM crop technology itself. In 2000 about 300,000 acres of StarLink corn, a Bt crop produced by Aventis CropScience, were being cultivated in the United States. Since the US Environmental Protection Agency had declared its uncertainty over the allergenic potential of StarLink, the crops were grown with the understanding that they would be used solely as animal feed. Later that year news broke that StarLink corn had found its way into numerous taco food products around the world. This incident received wide press coverage and brought instant attention to the debate over GM crop safety. More at issue, though, were the United States’ lax policies of GM crop approval and regulation. For nearly a decade, the US government made no distinction between GM crops and organically grown crops, and allergenicity safety tests were not mandatory. Only recently has the US Food and Drug Administration begun to reconsider its policies.

Canada is another leading producer of GM crops, with regulatory policies similar to those of the United States. Recent controversy surrounding Canada’s cultivation of GM rapeseed, or canola, brought attention to another major environmental risk of GM crops. Unlike wheat and soybeans, which can self-pollinate to reproduce, the pollen of rapeseed plants spreads up to 800 meters beyond the field. There have been concerns in Ottawa over the government’s refusal to reveal the location of ongoing GM wheat testing by Monsanto, resulting in fear of unwanted pollen spreading. This issue demonstrates one of the most potent risks of GM crops: uncontrolled breeding and the introduction of foreign genes into the natural ecosystem. An example of such an incident is Mexico’s discovery of transgenic genes in non-GM strains of maize, although this result is still under scrutiny. More measures must be tested to restrain these possibilities. Current research on introducing the foreign genes into chloroplasts, which are only carried in the maternal line and not in pollen, offers a promising example.

Europe’s policy toward GM crops lies on the opposite end of the spectrum. In 1996 Europe approved the import of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans and in 1997 authorized the cultivation of GM corn from Novartis. At around this time, however, there were rising concerns in Britain over BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), or mad cow disease, which was thought to have killed more than two dozen people and cost the country the equivalent of billions of US dollars. The public was enraged over what it believed was a failure of government regulation, and in 1998 the European Commission voted to ban the import and cultivation of new GM crops. Besides the disappointment of private GM corporations like Monsanto, the United States claims to have lost US$600 million in corn exports to the European Union. Recently, several European countries have considered lifting the ban contingent on the establishment of adequate labeling practices. The United States has complained to EU officials that labeling requirements discriminate against its agricultural exports, bringing the GM debate into the midst of a world trade dispute. In late January 2000, a tentative agreement was reached on the Montreal Biosafety Protocol in which the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile agreed to preliminary labeling of international exports and a precautionary principle allowing EU countries to reject imports if a scientific risk assessment of the imported crop is provided. This agreement, however, does not override decisions made by the World Trade Organization.