Fast Science

by Andrew Christie

When it comes to the perils of uttering a discouraging word about genetic
engineering and the $220 billion industry peddling it, Ignacio Chapela knows
whereof he speaks.

Three years ago, the UC Berkeley biotech researcher had the misfortune of
leading the team that discovered and first reported transgenic DNA pollution
in the maize of southern Mexico, the cradle of the world’s seed stock for
corn. Mexco’s multiple corn varieties overwhelmed by a genetically
engineered strain would be an international disaster for biodiversity and
food security, and Mexico had been assured by the backers of NAFTA that the
free-trade flood of GE corn from the US would not create that problem. Dr.
Chapela’s revelation therefore was keenly unwelcome in the halls of
corporate biotech and by those trying to sell the GE bounty elsewhere in the
world. His findings, published in the journal Nature, were instantly and
intensely attacked -- his data, methodology and conclusions were slipshod,
prejudiced, bad science, etc. Under industry pressure, Nature published an
unprecedented apology for publishing the paper. UC Berkeley, which had
signed a $25-million research & patents deal with Swiss biotech giant
Novartis, denied Chapela tenure. An investigation by The Guardian of London
later uncovered strong evidence that the attack on Chapela was orchestrated
by a p.r. firm that specializes in biotech industry clients.

Five subsequent studies have confirmed what Chapela reported in 2001:
Transgenic corn from the US is contaminating the native maize of Mexico. The
papers' authors have not been able to get them published anywhere.
When Dr. Chapela came to San Luis Obispo’s Unitarian Fellowship Center on
October 10 to speak in support of Measure Q, the ban on growing GE crops in
the county, he didn’t go into all the details above, but his
qualifications -- his resume spans the biotech industry, government and the
groves of academe -- were obvious as he laid out the problem: Genetically
engineered crops were perceived from the inception of the technology as a
huge cash cow waiting to be milked. In the rush to commercialize the
science, “we had to look the other way” in terms of the lack of data or risk
studies. Now, 25 years down the road, “the green light and blank check” that
was issued to biotech to get the product to market in a hurry means the data
we should have been collecting isn’t there; only about 10 studies on human
health and GMO’s have been performed, and half of those have discovered
reasons for concern -- including malformed organs, tumors, and early death
in lab rats.

In defense of their chosen field, two Cal Poly scientists on the panel --
clearly not yet having found themselves in a position to learn what Dr.
Chapela has learned about the world and the way it really works -- ignored
everything he had said and bravely trotted out their arguments opposed to
Measure Q.

Nothing Up My Sleeve

First, they tried a magic trick. Dr. Scott Steinmaus instructed audience
members who had each been given two ears of corn upon entering to partially
peel back the leaves on the ears marked with a minus sign. All discovered
the browned, dishevelled tips that are the hallmark of the corn ear worm.
Then -- reminding the audience that he had just picked these ears from Cal
Poly’s fields that morning, and, of course, couldn't say what they’d find --
Steinmaus asked the audience to semi-shuck the “+” -marked ears, from the
college’s GE field, which were all found to be be pearly yellow perfection
and corn ear worm free. He beamed. (As a kid, when I was assigned the task
of shucking and boiling the corn for Sunday dinner, I would flick off the
worm, if present, cut off the brown tip with a two-dollar paring knife and
drop the corn in the pot. Little did we know that we could one day
circumvent this lo-tech solution to this vegetable emergency thanks to a
$220 billion industry that would draft us into an experiment that may
bequeath to my descendants liver failure or congenital deformities.)

Then Dr. Dan Peterson tried the “don’t stop the march of progress” approach,
making the analogy to the early days of the automotive industry, with
dangerously unsafe vehicles that gradually improved, defects eliminated
through research. We didn’t ban cars; the technology was allowed to advance.
One of the audience members pointed out that a car cannot pass along the
characteritics of a bad muffler to other cars. She might well have added
that they also can’t pass bad-muffler traits to other species, or pass along
characteristics that go undetected for a generation or two before triggering
unforseen reactions in combination with viruses that have lain dormant for
millions of years, or cause problems that cannot be corrected -- say, a
legacy of birth defects or an unstoppable plague -- even if you recall every
defective vehicle you produced.

GE’s defenders at the table opined that they're just biologists, not trained
in the social sciences, and were having to learn how to deal with the
“emotionalities” around the GE debate. But as the questions from the
exceptionally well-behaved audience mounted, the scientists had no
opportunity to practice grappling with emotions; rather, they seemed to have
problems with the application of logic.

Dr. Peterson said he was sure corporations would never come to patent and
own all the seed stock used to grow the world’s food crops. When informed
that this is, in fact, Monsanto’s stated business plan, he said he didn’t
doubt the reality of a company _intending_ to do so, but doubted they could
ever actually achieve it. When pressed as to exactly what would stop a
transnational giant with billions of dollars in resources -- with which it
is rapidly buying up seed companies -- from achieving that goal, he said he
hoped corporations like Monsanto would also be selling non-GE seed from the
companies they purchased, even though the point of the exercise is to alter
one characteristic of a seed’s DNA, patent it, own it, and thereby charge
eternally for its use. He affirmed his faith in the marketplace, as many
people clearly prefer to buy organic non-GMOs rather than Big Ag’s
manipulated product, therefore consumer choice would thwart the coporate
plan for 100% penetration of genetically engineered foods. When asked what
role choice would have in the matter once GE crops had succeeded in
cross-pollinating and contaminating non-GE crops, extinguishing the organic
option, he held his hands up in front of his chest and said he was not going
to get into a discussion of Monsanto’s business plan because that wasn’t his
field.

Peterson and Steinmaus both affirmed that Measure Q was not the way to go
because it will not take food products containing genetically engineered
ingredients off grocery shelves, nor label them, nor fund more safety
testing. They urged concerned members of the public to instead “call their
Congressmen.”

On the other side of the table, Dr. Brian Rees gently pointed out that the
people of San Luis Obispo are not in a position to prod the FDA or the
federal government into an action it is not inclined to take, nor bring
about a national labeling program. “We cannot effect that,” but, he gently
suggested, “If you’ve got an oar and some water, you stick your oar in the
water and start to row. This is what you can do now.”

Before election day, go to www.slo-span.org find out when the October 10 "GE
crops Educational Forum" will be broadcast again. If it's not on the
schedule, call and request a re-broadcast. Then sit down and watch it. Note
the forces at play, the values expressed, the risks weighed. Mentally heft
the arguments on either side.

It’s a fast two hours. At the end of it, you will know how to vote on
Measure Q.
_____________
Andrew Christie is Chapter Coordinator for the Santa Lucia Chapter of the
Sierra Club