2013

Richard Stockton College of New Jersey Jessica E Webster

[FARMER ASSURANCE PROVISION]

Short Term Benefits vs. Long Term Risks

Farmer Assurance Provision

The Farmer Assurance Provision provides short term economic satisfaction to

biotechnology corporations, farmers, and consumers while risking potential long term health and environmental effects. The provision provides temporary deregulation of genetically modified (GM) crops until the environmental assessment has been completed (H. R. 933, 2013). Allowing GM crops to be planted, grown, and harvested has a short term economic gain, which seems to be the reason for this appropriations rider. The legislation allows biotechnology corporations to continue to sell their products to farmers. This could allow farmers to save money on labor, pesticides, and herbicides, while maximizing profit yield; which could lead to a drop in consumer prices. These short term economic gains are beneficial to the overall economy of the country. However, the farmer assurance provision could lead to unintended health and environmental consequences. The potential health effect from the ingestion of GM food has not been documented well. Environmental changes have already begun to take place in parts of the country. It only takes one leak, one gene transfer, one plant, or one wind gust to pose a possible environmental threat. The driving force of this legislation came from the Supreme Court case Center of Food Safety vs. Vilsack. The conclusion of the case resulted in the banning of further planting of GM sugar beet crops because the US Department of Agriculture did not complete an adequate environmental assessment before approving the use of the GM sugar beet seeds. Multiple hearings were held regarding the assessment. During the final hearing in September 2010, Judge Jeffrey S. White banned the future planting of GM sugar beet crops. The USDA requested a nine month deregulation to prepare for interim measures; however, Judge White denied the request due to the amount of time that had already passed since the first hearing (CFS V TJV, 2010). Monsanto, the leading biotechnology corporation in the world, worked very closely with Missouris Republican Senator Roy Blunt to draft the political policy (Rogers, 2013). The new bill was an appropriations rider inserted into the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which needed to be passed in order for the countrys budget to pass (H.R. 933, 2013). Submitted anonymously, the legislation was passed without a question asked (Rogers, 2013).

Farmer Assurance Provision

Corporations that manufacture GM seeds hold a high financial stake in the policy making for GM foods. Corporations like Monsanto, Delagra, and Germanys Klein Wanzlebener Saatzucht (KWS) Saat Ag manufacture the modified seed technology and rely on the farmers to purchase and utilize the seeds. Genetics of high demand crops have undergone manipulation for multiple reasons over the decades. According to Leighton Jones (1999), the list includes but is not limited to: manipulating for drought and weather resistance, pest resistance, disease resistance, higher yields, larger produce, prolonged shelf life, reduction of allergens, altered physical characteristics and the creation of new species. All of these alterations can be summed up into one giant reason, economic efficiency. The Monsanto Corporation became well known in the 1970s with the marketing of Round Up, an herbicide containing glyphosate, which will allow farmers to spray on the crops to kill the surrounding weeds without compromising the crop. The company became the leading corporation in GM technology with the introduction of Round Up Ready crops, which allowed Round Up to be marketable. Crops treated with this are resistant to Round Up. This agricultural biotechnology allowed farmers to save time and money on weed killers and removers. Monsanto patents the seed technology and collects royalties when the products are sold. Without the consumers to drive the farmers sales, Monsanto and similar companies would fail due to lack of demand. In order to insure a hefty profit, farmers must be able to meet the demands of the population, while simultaneously cutting costs. Farmers utilize various environmental services to aid in the maturing of their crops reducing their overall economic input. Conventional crops rely largely on precipitation for irrigation. Rain will moisten the soil and provide the necessary water for the roots and leaves to grow. Soil chemistry is just as important as irrigation. The soil provides the nutrients necessary for the seed to germinate, grow, flower and fruit. The roots gather minerals in the soil to provide a nutrient transport to the vegetative parts of the plant (Hodson & Bryant, 2012). ). The downfall of relying on nature is that the weather has become increasingly more unpredictable with the changing climate. Farming has become a more unpredictable enterprise than usual. Farmers take a large economic risk by relying on natures processes to supply the necessities to grow their crops. Accounting for bad weather, farmers could supplement by other means.

Farmer Assurance Provision

However, these enhancements would lead to a much larger economic input, driving consumer

prices upward. With the ban lifted off of GM crops, farmers will be able to plant a GM crop and expect a sizable crop yield with variable weather, creating a wider profit margin. The bigger the profits, the more crops planted the more of a need for herbicides to protect the plants. Protected plants could lead to higher return of product and farmers are that much closer to consumer demand. Farmers have been worried whether there are enough conventional seeds to meet consumer demand (de Ponti, Rijk & Van Ittersum, 2012). The American population is growing at an exponential rate; the population increases by one half of a percent annually (Haub & Kaneda, 2013). A larger population calls for increased food production. Farmers struggle on an annual basis to meet consumer demands with the use of conventional seeds (de Ponti, et al., 2012). With demand for certain crops on the rise, high yield and crop assurance is a key factor when a farmer chooses which seeds to buy. With this in mind, farmers turn to GM seeds to guarantee a crop to meet increased demand. Farmers elect to pay more for seeds that will produce higher yields, require less chemical inputs, reduce labor, and shrink the environmental footprint of agriculture (Chassy, 2007). Crops that are modified for pest resistance are an economic gold mine for farmers. With deregulation of GM crops, prices may potentially decrease over time. One example of a crop high in demand is sugar. The need for sugar has been on the rise since the population was educated that high fructose corn syrup is bad for you. (Dohlman & Haley, 2009). Though farmers work hard to meet their finances, the farmers who have not met the demand are compensated through the farm bill. This bill aids farmers in meeting their budget so production can continue for another year (H.R. 2642, 2013). Farmers do not have the luxury of regulating the current supply of crops with the current demand. The economic market works by a balance of supply and demand. When a product is in high demand, suppliers try to achieve, through various measures, a way to meet this demand and can generally adjust accordingly. Farmers must anticipate the demand of a crop in order to meet their budget. Conventional farming is an extremely environmentally dependent practice, from soil chemistry to the hydrological cycle to the hands that farm. One element of change could cause a drastic

Farmer Assurance Provision

difference in crop yield. But, if a farmer were to use a seed that was modified to survive in drought, deter pests, and guarantee produce then the crop may be able to withstand several elemental changes and still produce a higher yield than a conventional crop. Monsanto has

manufactured a seed technology that is highly valuable to farmers because it is able to do all of these things. The federal government places large subsidies on food and agriculture for the consumers; which allow citizens to purchase food at a much lower price than what other countries charge for the crop and crop derivatives (Hossay, 2013). A study was done on the removal of GM soybeans from the economic system and it was showed that the removal of the GM crop did not affect the prices of the commodity (Parcell & Kalaitzandonakes, 2004). This was not the case with GM sugar beets. The sugar shortage from the ban of GM sugar beets in 2011 was estimated by the USDA to cost consumers 2.97 billion dollars (Reding, 2010). The price of the crop during a GM ban will depend on the purpose of the crop. Crops like corn and sugar that have multiple uses will rise in price if the GM crop were to be banned. The final component of the equation is the consumer. The United States governs as a risk society, while other governments take on the precautionary principle. The European Union and Mexico are more skeptical about the risks of GM foods. The American consumer will listen to multiple claims about genetically modified foods and choose to believe the claim from the organization they feel is most trustworthy based on their current attitude towards modified foods. However, the more consumers read about modified foods, the more wary they are about their food choices (Frewer, Scholderer & Bredahl, 2003). Genetically modified crops can only survive in the economy if there is a demand for them. Documentation of the immediate consequences of ingesting the GM crop is nonexistent due to the US Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) inadequate method for GM safety testing. The FDA has deemed genetically modified food as inherently safe or GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). The FDA is responsible for the safety regulation of foods to be consumed by a human or animal. Safety tests are performed on altered foods if it is significantly different from its natural counterpart (Kuiper & Kleter, 2001). If one were to look at a genetically modified ear of corn next to a conventional ear of corn, one would not be able to tell the

Farmer Assurance Provision

difference. The composition of the GM crop is analyzed and if it yields similar results to the

composition of the conventional crop, no further testing is done. The only physical difference is that the GM ear of corn may be slightly bigger than the conventional ear of corn. From this notion, the FDA rarely does safety tests on GM crops because there is no significant difference from the conventional crops. When the FDA does perform safety tests on the modified foods, it is over an observation period of ninety days (FDA, 2007). This can become problematic because it is not a proper assessment for long term exposure. Generation Y is the first generation of humans that can be used to study long term effects of genetically modified foods. Because of this, along with the absence of allocation of funds for research, evidence is lacking to support harmful effects of genetically altered food. As time progresses, hopefully more in depth research will be done on the matter of health. GM technology is still relatively new and there are certainly kinks that still need to be worked out. One link has already been made between the introduction of GM foods and the increasing trend in food allergies. The first genetically modified crop was grown in 1987. It was not until 1992 that the FDA ruled genetically modified organisms were not inherently dangerous. Two years later, in 1996, the first genetically modified food was made available to consumers (Brookes & Barfoot, 2005). Today, many of the products available to consumers contain unlabeled GMOs. Over the past twenty years, wheat has been altered for pest resistance and high yield producing the unintended consequence of an increased concentration of gluten (Baker, Hawkins, Ward, Napier, Shewry & Beale, 2006); The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDCP, reported an 18% increase of food allergies in children from 1997 to 2007 (CDCP, 2013). Later studies show food allergies on the rise. However, the correlation between the increase in allergies and the introduction of GM crops are merely speculative. Fear of genetic modification in foods continues to rise with the possibility of the creation of new allergens (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005). The rise of new diseases and pests resistant to current antibiotics from GM crops is low but still exists (Keese, 2008). The possibility of a crop designed for livestock accidentally being made available to consumers is an alarming concern as well.

Farmer Assurance Provision

The largest consumer of GMOs surprisingly is not humans, though they become the largest consumer indirectly causing potential health concerns. Genetic mutation is a possible long term side effect of GMO consumption. Farmers utilize GM feeds on their livestock. Livestock that ingest modified food that had been altered for a resistance against disease was

most likely altered by an antibiotic, which does not digest readily, but rather the modified gene stays inside the host and is absorbed into the body of the consumer (Sharma, Damgaard, Alexander, Dugan, Aalhus, Stanford & McAllister, 2006). Humans are unknowingly ingesting these modified genes in the meats made available to them. This could cause the introduction of a new antibiotic when it is not necessary. As a result, current bacterium and diseases could become resistant to the antibiotic used in the modified crop, creating super-diseases, or diseases that are unaffected by the presence of antibiotics (Keese 2008). Studies have been performed on several different animal species on the long term effects of ingesting GM feeds. The most notable study was performed on a group of pigs and sheep throughout their lifetime, from birth to slaughter. The animals were fed a diet that consisted of fifteen percent Roundup Ready Canola. Post-mortem, gastrointestinal cells were analyzed among others and compared with the cells of animals only fed non GMO feed. Modified DNA was not found in visceral organs but they were found throughout the intestinal tract (Sharma et al., 2006). Another study was done on four different groups of rats. One group was fed GM corn that can be found in foods for human consumption around the world, another group was fed a modified food for tolerance of the herbicide Roundup, while the third group ingested a feed that was modified for pest resistance. Each case was compared with the fourth group of rats that did not ingest GM feeds. The kidney and liver were the most affected organs. These are the organs that aid in toxicity filtration. The amount of toxicity was dependent on which type of corn the rat ingested. Other major organs such as the heart and spleen were also affected (de Vendomois, Roullier, Cellier & Seralini 2009). Physiological changes have been found in animals from the ingestion of foods with modified genes. Both tests were done in a time span of less than one year, giving rise to the possibility of increased harm with ingestion over time. The main ingredient in Round Up is glyphosate, which can be sprayed directly on crops modified to be Roundup-Ready. The produce received direct contact with the herbicide.

Farmer Assurance Provision

Without proper sanitation techniques, the herbicide can easily be ingested by an unsuspecting

individual. Research has shown that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. It can lead to a slow degradation of the internal human systems beginning at the cellular level (Ando & Khanna 2000). Other ingredients in Round Up can pose a harmful health threat when mixed with the main component glyphosate (Bradberry, Proudfoot, & Vale 2004). Cross breeding from the seed distribution from wind and pollinating insects has created super weeds that are drought resistant, pest resistant, and resistant to herbicides. Roundup Ready alfalfa has passed on mutated resistance traits to naturally occurring alfalfa. This change has been observed in multiple sites across the country. Plants that cross pollinate with each other to produce fruit like corn could cause the GM crop to cross pollinate with conventional crops. The possibility of the modified crop transferring the mutated gene to wild relatives through weed crop hybridization creating a super-weed has raised concerns (Ando et al., 2000). These superweeds, depending on what the GM crop was modified for, could be resistant to roundup. Along with super-weeds, super-pests cause considerable environmental concern. As history would unfold, life adapts and morphs when faced with a destructive roadblock. Adaptation and evolution occur at the rate of an organisms life cycle. Insects could have thousands of life cycles in one weeks time. With a short life span, the insect has a shorter time to adapt, thus within years crops altered for pest resistant will no longer be able to perform the desired task (Ando et al., 2000). The mutations have the possibility of harming the digestive tracts of the animals that feed off the organism and decrease biodiversity. Crops modified to deter pests could cause harm to bystander and beneficial insects. Insects such as the ladybugs and praying mantises are a valuable asset to the garden. Pollinators are necessary for fruit bearing crops. The crops modified gene cannot distinguish between a harmful insect and one that is to aid the growth of the plant (Ando et al., 2000). The potential for the spread of GM crops to the natural world could have detrimental effects on biodiversity. The dispersion into the natural world could label the GM crop as an invasive species and an agricultural weed (Connor, Glare & Nap 2003). This introduction of the GM weed could reduce plant biodiversity and cause harm to the animals that feed on those plants. GM alfalfa has already been caught outside cropland (Ando et al., 2000). GM crops as

Farmer Assurance Provision

invasive species can become problematic from the level of difficulty raised from eliminating the invader. If not removed properly, the nonnative plant will continue to invade and remove valuable nutrients from the soil in the process. Genetically modified crops and food are a controversial topic with heavily weighted economic benefits against potential detrimental health and environmental effects. The addition of GM crops has given farmers a fighting economic chance against pests of a changing environment. Biotechnology corporations benefit from the promotion and sale of their technology, while consumers are able to enjoy a variety of fruits and vegetables year round at a low premium. The benefits of the deregulation of GM crops are both economic and short term. Currently, the length of time used to test the safety of a GM crop for human and animal consumption is too short to yield any long term results. The long term effects of the cultivation of GM crops have slowly been becoming more prevalent. Correlations between the introduction of GMOs and the rise in allergies have been sited. Scientists have begun to see changes in internal organs of long term (90+ days) test subjects. Risks of Round Up and the main ingredient glyphosate are becoming more apparent as the substance is studied. The potential ecological devastation from the change in biodiversity with the addition of super-diseases, superweeds, and super-pests is alarming and could reduce the population of competitors. GM crops, if not contained, could become an invasive species and an agricultural weed adding to the declining biodiversity. The Farmer Assurance Provision has called for the deregulation of GM crops until the environmental assessment has been completed. The long term risk being taken by cultivating the GM crops without the knowledge of the possible health and environmental effects is an epidemic waiting to happen. However, the short term economic gains are merely for convenience. Farmers still meet their budget through the farm bill. Consumers may be inconvenienced with the unavailability of out of season products without GM crops. Biotechnology corporations are the only ones who would be more than inconvenienced if GM crops were to be banned. For the sake of the biotechnology corporations, human, animal, and environmental health is being put at risk through the passing of the Farmer Assurance Provision.

Farmer Assurance Provision

References Ando, A. W., and Khanna, M., (2000), Environmental Costs and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops, Implications in Regulatory Strategies. The American Behaviorial Scientist, 44.3, 435-63. Print.

Baker, J. M., Hawkins, N. D., Ward, J.L., Lovegrove, A., Napier, J.S., Shewry, P.R. and Beale, M. H., (2006), A Metabolomic Study of Substantial Equivalence of Field-Grown Genetically Modified Wheat. Plant Biotechnology Journa,l 4.4, 381-92. Print. Bradberry S.M., Proudfoot A.T., Vale J.A. (2004). Glyphosate Poisoning. Toxicological Reviews 23.3, 15967. Print Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2005). GM crops: The global economic and environmental impact the first nine years 1996-2004. AgBioForum, 8(2&3), 187-196. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Food Allergies in School. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Center For Food Safety Vs. Thomas J. Vilsack. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California. 13 Aug. 2010. Print. Chassy, B. M., (2007), The History and Future of GMOs in Food and Agriculture. Cereal Foods World 52.4, 169-72. Print. Conner, A.J. Glare, T.R. Nap, J. (2003), The release of genetically modied crops into the environment. Plant Journal, 33, 1946. De Ponti, T., Rijk, B. & Van Ittersum, M. K., (2012), The Crop Yield Gap between Organic and Conventional Agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 108, 1-9. Print. De Vendomois, J. S., Roullier, F., Cellier, D. & Seralini, G.-E., (2009), A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5.7: 706-26. Print. Haub, C. & Kaneda, T., (2013), 2013 World Population Datasheet. Population Reference Bureau. Population Reference Bureau, Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.

Hossay, P. (2013, November 21). Trade and the Environment. Environmental Policy and Law Class. Lecture conducted from Galloway, New Jersey.

Farmer Assurance Provision

10

Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J. & Bredahl, L., (2003), Communicating about the Risks and Benets of Genetically Modied Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust. Risk Analysis 23.6, 11171133. Print. H.R. 933, 113 Cong., 159 (2013) (enacted). Print. H.R. 2642, 113 Cong., House Committee on Agrictulure (2013) (enacted). Print. H.R. 5973, 112th Cong., 542 U.S. G.P.O. (2012) (enacted). Print. Hodson, M. J. & Bryant, J.A., (2012), Functional Biology of Plants. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Print. Jones, L., (1999), Science, Medicine, and the Future: Genetically Modified Foods. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 318.7183: 581-84. Web. Keese, P. (2008). Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environmental Biosafety Research, 7(3): 123-149. Kuiper, H. A., & Kleter, G. K., (2001), Assessment of the Food Safety Issues Related to Genetically Modified Foods. The Plant Journal, 27.6: 503-28. Print. Lehrer, S. B. and Bannon, G. A. (2005), Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality. Allergy, 60: 559564. Parcell, J. L. & Kalaitzandonakes, N. G., (2004), Do Agricultural Commodity Prices Respond to Bans Against Bioengineered Crops? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52: 201-09. Print. Rogers, D. (2013, March 25). Big Agriculture Flexes its Muscles. Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/big-agriculture-tom-vilsack-monsanto89268.html Sharma, R., Damgaard, D., Alexander, T. W., Dugan, M. E., Aalhus, J. L., Stanford, K., & McAllister, T. S., (2006), Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54.5: 1699-709. Print. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. (2011). Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG; Decision With Respect to the Petition for Partial Deregulation of Genetically Engineered Roundup Ready Sugar Beets. Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. (2010). Petition 03-323-0Ip for Non-Regulated Status, Roundup ReadV Sugarbeet -I; Event H7

Farmer Assurance Provision

Supplemcntal Regucst for "Partial Deregulation" or Similar Administrative Action. Washington D.C.: Reding, H. K.

11

U. S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service. (2009). Tight Supplies Expected to Sustain High U.S. Sugar Prices into 2009/10/1. Washington D.C.: Dohlman, E. & Haley, S. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Food and Drug Administration. (2007). Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders Toxicological Principles for The Safety Assessment of Food Ingredients.: Washington D.C. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services/Food and Drug Administration. Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. Washington D. C.: Kessler, D. A.