An Argument about

Genetically Modified Seedstock

 Martin Harris

Martin Harris lives in Brandon, VT. He is an architect, and a property rights and education advocate.

Ten years is a long time for a columnist to wait before finding information which is factual rather than speculative on a controversial subject, but it’s been at least that long since the two sides of the argument over genetically modified agricultural seedstock began hollering at each other. The argument is about commercial use of common seedstock--corn and wheat, for example--which is now quite uncommon in that a number of companies (Monsanto, primarily, here in the U.S.) have commercialized laboratory methods of altering the individual seeds by adding proteins they normally wouldn’t carry to their genetic base, and have quite successfully been selling the seed to commercial farmers. The re-designed seeds are called GMO, for Genetically Modified Organism. Opposed to the basic idea of such floral embryo-modification are nervous urbanite foodshoppers, organic farmers, environmentalists, and sustainable-ag advocates in particular, accompanied in general by those of Galbraithian economic views, who argue that government, not industry, should regulate, control, and preferably prohibit such innovation coming out of the private sector. In favor of GMO technology are price-conscious foodshoppers, commercial grain farmers, agricultural-innovation scientists, corporations like Monsanto, and now obstetricians, as explained below.

The anti’s claim (no actual happening, to date) that such tampering with Nature makes possible a global environmental disaster, as modified-seed plants escape from managed agriculture to invade, dominate, and destroy the ecology of the planet, in a scenario somewhat comparable to the USDA’s introduction of the African kudzu vine to the South, back in the ‘20s, to control soil erosion: kudzu escaped from that limited task and is now close to becoming the plant that ate North Carolina, although the only casualties have been a few trees which became solar-access ladders for a few too many vines.

The pro’s claim that such genetic innovation is just like the Mendelian cross-breeding experiments in the l9th century and the Pioneer Seed (yes, Henry Wallace of FDR fame) commercialization of the research findings in the 20th: good for improving plant characteristics, agricultural productivity, and consumer food costs. To what extent has corn-seed hybridization made food less expensive, thereby helping food buyers by squeezing food growers, is hard to quantify, but, no doubt about it, food costs as a percent of income were pushed down by such innovations.

Until now, neither side had any hard facts: an ecological disaster (that hasn’t yet happened) can be argued by both sides. Now, finally, there’s some epidemiological fact to consider: pregnant women who consume GMO corn have fewer embryonic birth defects than those who don’t. The problem is Neural Tube Defect, or NTD. “Bio-Tech Corn Reduces Serious Birth Defects, Study Shows” is the headline of a report that can be found in the pages of Environment & Climate News. The explanation is that lower levels of a common corn mold infestation, toxic fumonisin, are found in GMO corn because its genome includes the protein for the bacillus thurigiensis (BT) bactericide. The population studied in the research was Mexican women along the Texas border, some of whom had been eating corn tortillas back in their native country and some of whom had been shopping at U.S. supermarkets. The author of the study is Professor Bruce Chassy of the Bio-Technology Center of the University of Illinois/Urbana Champaign.

Will this study, (the first, to my knowledge to quantify the GMO argument) make any difference? Probably not. Anti-GMO’ers won’t so easily be dissuaded, and pro-GMO’ers will just keep on using the product. In its final, consumer, form, should GMO- or no-GMO corn be labeled? Sure. It would be nice to put product fumonisim levels on the labels, as well.     *

“The leaders were spending most of their time, thought and energy in trying to get into office, or in trying to stay there after they were in.” –Booker T. Washington