Bt Corn Unleashed in the Philippines

Transcription

1 Bt Corn Unleashed in the Philippines Decision to approve commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) corn is fundamentally flawed On Thursday, December 5, Monsanto, the US agro-chemical and genetic engineering giant, issued a press release announcing that "Yieldgard", its genetically modified or genetically engineered (GE) Bt corn variety, has been approved for commercial release in the Philippines. This is despite repeated calls by farmers, local government officials, scientists and NGOs for a moratorium on Bt corn field trials and the urgent need for public consultations on potential environmental risks, food safety concerns, and negative socio-economic impacts on farmers. In stark contrast, the government of the Philippines remained silent, failing to inform the public of this controversial decision. Only on December 7, Agricultural Department Secretary, Cito Lorenzo, confirmed that the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) had approved Monsanto s application for the commercial release of Bt corn on December 3 - four days earlier. The secrecy surrounding the decision shows the same lack of transparency and accountability that already characterized the conduction of Bt corn field trials in the past 3 years. Protests by farmers organizations and social coalitions, local government resolutions and legal actions (including a petition to the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the field trials) have all failed to halt Monsanto s collusion with key government agencies to commercialize Bt corn. The commercialization of Bt corn in the Philippines would entitle Monsanto to unleash its unpredictable and uncontrollable genetic experiment across the country. It would also be the first major GE food crop approved for commercial release in Asia. Ignoring the Risks When the decision was taken to commercialize Bt corn, the authorities involved deliberately ignored an extensive body of scientific research that indicates harmful ecological effects of Bt crops. It also raises fundamental questions regarding the long-term effects on the environment and human health, which presently remain unanswered. Bt corn is genetically engineered corn in which a synthetic version of a gene from the naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), is inserted so that the plant produces its own Bt toxins to kill pests such as the corn borer. However, the Bt gene produces a pesticide that is toxic to many species of insects, not just the corn borer. There has been a huge controversy in the United States and other countries over the use of Bt crops primarily because of the potential ecological impacts, which include harm to non-target organisms, such as the monarch butterfly or the green

2 lacewing, a beneficial predatory insect; and impacts on the soil ecology through exudates of Bt from corn roots. 1 The diverse ecological risks associated with Bt corn are troubling if one considers that contamination of the soil could be long-lasting. A 1999 study conducted by scientists at Cornell University showed that Bt toxin does not confine itself in the corn plant, but entered the soil and stayed there for 234 days. These findings and similar studies indicate that Bt crops have great potential to cause harm to the soil ecology. Soil is home to various beneficial insects and micro-organisms which are important for soil fertility. Soil ecosystems are the basis of any agricultural system. The costs associated with long-term damage to soil ecology cannot be underestimated. Out of control Unlike chemical and even nuclear pollution, biological pollution can reproduce. A few seeds introduced into the environment have the potential to multiply and disperse. It can be very difficult and sometimes impossible to recall living organisms once they are released into an environment. One of the major concerns associated with Bt corn is gene flow the contamination of non-bt corn plants as a result of cross-pollination. A study recently published by the European Environment Agency (EEA) surveys existing scientific studies of gene flow through pollen transfer and concludes that risk of GE corn cross-pollinating with non-ge corn presents a medium to high level risk. 2 The study observes that corn plants are wind pollinated and that an average corn plant yields between 4.5 and 25 million pollen grains over a period of 2 to 14 days. Even significant isolation distances between GE and non-ge corn plants cannot guarantee prevention of cross-pollination. These observations from the European context have even more serious ramifications for the Philippines, where the average farm size is only 1.5 hectares and neighboring farms are closely aligned. Hence the likelihood for Bt crops to contaminate non-bt cornfields is even higher. The scandal of the contamination of local corn varieties in Mexico, the home of corn (or maize), with GE varieties, by cross pollination 3, demonstrates how uncontrollable GE corn is. The high risk of contamination of non-bt corn crops by Bt corn as a result of crosspollination has significant implications for farmers. In effect the right of farmers to choose not to grow Bt corn is seriously undermined. 1 See Obrycki et al. (2001) for a thorough review of ecological concerns. Their review of the ecological risks led the authors to the conclusion that benefits associated with use of Bt corn may not outweigh the potential ecological and economic risks. 2 Eastham, K. and J. Sweet Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer. A review and interpretation of published literature and recent/current research from the ESF Assessing the Impact of GM Plants (AIGM) programme for the European Science Foundation and the European Environment Agency. The Environmental Issue Report No 28. Zurich: European Environment Agency (EEA). p Quist, D. & Chapela, I. H Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414, and communications arising in: Nature 416, , 11 th April 2002.

3 The question of long-term effects on human health is particularly critical for the Philippines where approximately 20% of the total population, or 17 million people, eat corn as staple food, especially in the Visayas and Mindanao. Even if the Bt corn being commercialized in the Philippines is yellow corn to be used in animal feed, the studies on cross-pollination cited above demonstrate very clearly that it is impossible to guarantee that non-ge corn varieties intended for human consumption will not be contaminated. The recent scandal around genetically engineered "Starlink" corn, which is suspected to have an allergenic potential and hence is not allowed for human consumption word-wide, shows that it is almost impossible to keep genetically engineered (GE) organisms out of the food chain once they are grown commercially. "Starlink" corn, which was supposed to be used only in animal feed, was found in tortilla chips and other corn products. A major product recall in the United States affected over 300 products and millions of tons of corn. According to Aventis (now Bayer), the company selling "Starlink", the damage to farmers, grain traders and food producers it will have to compensate amounts to just "below one billion dollar". While spending millions to withdraw "Starlink" form the domestic foodchain, the US government still cleared further exports of potentially "Starlink" contaminated corn from the USA. The variety is no longer approved and grown in the US now. Tried and tested? Approval for the commercial release Bt corn in the Philippines was welcomed by Monsanto as a sign that the safety of GE crops had been recognized by government regulators. 4 The reality is very different. Underlying the Philippine authorities acceptance of the safety of Bt corn in terms of the environment and human health was the fact that it is already approved in the US. Speaking at public meetings in the Philippines in April 2000 at the height of protests against the Bt corn field trials, Dr Doreen Stabinsky, a geneticist from the California State University at Sacramento pointed out: "Just because it is from the US doesn't mean it is safe." Dr Stabinsky added that in the US, "there has been no testing done for long term effects on human health or the environment." These observations remain as valid today as they were two years ago. Yet the government of the Philippines has chosen to ignore this warning. Monopolies and patents The transnational corporations (TNCs) that produce GE corn are the same companies that dominate seed and pesticide production and genetic engineering. In the Philippines Monsanto controls over 30% of the commercial corn seed market and DuPont/Pioneer over 60%. 5 Most of the global seed and pesticide market is already in the hands of just four giants: Monsanto, Syngenta (formerly Novartis), 4 Monsanto's Insect-Protected Corn Approved for Planting in the Philippines, Monsanto Press Release, December 5, Figures of 1999 from GRAIN: "Whose agenda? The corporate takeover of corn in SE Asia,"

4 DuPont/Pioneer and Bayer/Aventis. In 2000, GMOs developed by Monsanto and it's subsidiaries alone accounted for 91% of the total area sown to GE crops. Unlike conventional seeds, GE seeds are subject to exclusive patents, which grant their "inventors" complete control over the product. In its primer on Bt corn field trials in the Philippines, the Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE) points out that in Monsanto s technology-fee contracts with North American farmers: Monsanto states that it is not selling the seeds but is merely leasing these to farmers based on the following conditions: (1) farmers are not allowed to re-plant the offsprings produced from the seeds; (2) farmers are prohibited from exchanging or giving seeds to other farmers; (3) farmers will only use Monsanto s Roundup herbicide to control weeds surrounding the seeds; and (4) Monsanto is allowed to monitor the field of farmers at anytime within three years from the time of purchase of the seeds. 6 An estimated 600,000 small farming families depend on corn production in the country. 6 Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE). May What You Need to Know about the Bt Corn Field Trials in the Philippines. Manila: SEARICE.

5 No irreversible releases of Genetically Engineered Organisms into the environment No patents on life No Genetically Engineered Organisms in the food chain Greenpeace demands : 1. That the approval for commercialisation of Monsanto's Bt corn be revoked immediately 2. Full disclose of the decision and the risk assessment, as well as any other considerations and evaluation this decision is based upon 3. Full disclosure of the financial interests and affiliations of the persons involved in the decision making and risk assessment 4. Guaranteed, genuine public participation and transparency on all decisions regarding the introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms 5. Stringent scientific rules on any approval process which include the application of the precautionary principle in all cases of doubt and uncertainty 6. Disclosure of the available data and information regarding the economic risks and socio-economic impacts of an introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms, especially for small farmers December 13, 2002

6 References and related articles: Eastham, K. and J. Sweet Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer. A review and interpretation of published literature and recent/current research from the ESF Assessing the Impact of GM Plants (AIGM) programme for the European Science Foundation and the European Environment Agency. The Environmental Issue Report No 28. Zurich: European Environment Agency (EEA). EcoStrat GmbH Bt proteins in soils: Is enough known to assess the impact of Bt plants on soil ecosystems? Zurich: EcoStrat GmbH Ecological Technology Assessment & Environmental Consulting. Ellstrand, N.C When transgenes wander, should we worry? Plant Physiology 125: Ellstrand, N.C., H.C. Prentice, and J.F. Hancock Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: Emberlin, J., B. Adams-Groom, and J. Tidmarsh A report on the dispersal of maize pollen, commissioned by the Soil Association. Worcester, UK: National Pollen Research Unit. Genetic Resources Action International The biotech battle over the golden crop. Seedling 13(3): Goodman, M.M Maize. In Simmonds, N.W. (ed.), Evolution of Crop Plants. Essex, UK: Longman Scientific & Technical. Hall, L., K. Topinka, J. Huffman, L. Davis, and A. Good Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Science 48(6): Linder, C.R., I. Taha, G.J. Seiler, A.A. Snow, and L.H. Riesberg Long-term introgression of crop genes into wild sunflower populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 96: Mikkelsen, T.R., B. Andersen, and R.B. Jorgensen The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380: 31. Nigh, R., C. Benbrook, S. Brush, L. Garcia-Barrios, R. Ortega-Paczka, and H.R. Perales Transgenic crops: A cautionary tale. Science 287 (5460): Obrycki, J.J., J.E. Losey, O.R. Taylor, and L.C.H. Jesse Transgenic insecticidal corn: Beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51(5): Quist, D. & Chapela, I. H Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414, and communications arising in: Nature 416, , 11 th April Saxena, D., S.Flores, and G.Stotzky Bt toxin is released in root exudates from 12 transgenic corn hybrids representing three transformation events. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 34: