Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

USDA Hides Another Biotech Disaster

By Megan Tady, The NewStandard. Posted August 30, 2006.


Bayer CropScience kept it a secret that its genetically modified rice contaminated public food supplies. The government was only too happy to help.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Megan Tady

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that U.S. commercial long-grain rice supplies are contaminated with "trace amounts" of genetically engineered rice unapproved for human consumption.

The genetically engineered (G.E.) rice is known as Liberty Link (LL) 601. Its genetic code has been modified to provide resistance to herbicides and is illegal for marketing to humans because it has not undergone environmental and health impact reviews by the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). LL601 was field-tested from 1998 to 2001 under permits granted by the USDA, but Bayer Corp Science, the developer of the experimental rice, did not seek commercial approval for it.

The contamination was only disclosed after Bayer notified the USDA itself. Currently, the government relies on self-reporting from food companies to determine genetically engineered (G.E.) contamination, rather than a federal testing system. The USDA dismissed concerns that companies may not always "self-report" or even be aware of their mistakes, which would lead to further undetected contamination of unapproved G.E. food.

It appears a separate company first detected the contamination in January of this year and that Bayer may have known about the contamination since May. But the government was not notified until July 31. It took another 18 days for the USDA to tell the public.

At a press conference, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns would not divulge how the contamination had happened, or how far it had spread. It was unclear whether he even knew. Jim Rogers, a USDA spokesperson, told The NewStandard the contaminated rice was detected in barrels sent to Missouri and Arizona.

"But the rice could have come from anywhere [in the U.S.]," Rogers said.

Riceland, a farmer-owned cooperative that markets rice produced by Southern farmers, issued a press release on August 18, saying it first discovered the contamination in January. Riceland conducted its own tests from several grain-storage locations and found: "A significant number tested positive for the Bayer trait. The positive results were geographically dispersed and random throughout the rice-growing area."

Riceland notified Bayer of the contamination in May, but did not notify the public or the government.

Johanns indicated that an economic motive was behind the government’s delay of nearly three weeks before informing the public about the contamination, as the government anticipated foreign rice importers might reject the product. The Secretary said the USDA spent the time preparing tests for rice importers to check the product for contamination. The U.S. constitutes about 12 percent of the world’s rice trade.

There are currently no plans to destroy or recall the rice, and Rogers is unsure if Bayer will be fined. While the government "validates" its tests for the rice, Johanns directed people to Bayer’s website, saying the company "has made arrangements with private laboratories to run tests" on the rice.

Although the field tests for LL601 ended in 2001, the contamination appeared in a 2005 harvest, leaving some food-safety advocates to worry that the contamination has been present for several years and suggesting that genetically modified strains can persist in the environment well after they have been discontinued in experiments.

Two other varieties of rice with the same gene and from the same company have already been approved for human consumption, though never marketed. There is currently no known, intentional commercial U.S. production of genetically engineered rice.

Johanns said that based on "available scientific data" provided by Bayer, the USDA and the FDA have concluded "that there are no human-health, food-safety or environmental concerns associated with this G.E. rice."

When pressed about the health implications of the contaminated rice, Rogers noted that foods from pesticide- and herbicide-resistant crops are already on the market. In fact, according to the USDA, 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Rogers dismissed concern that, because the government relies on companies’ self-reporting, there could be widespread contamination of unapproved G.E. ingredients in the U.S. food supply. He said the government did not have plans to begin testing food itself.

But this is not the first time unapproved genetic material has escaped detection in the food supply. In 2004, the company Syngenta admitted that for four years, it had sold unapproved G.E. maize in the U.S..

In response to the Bayer revelation, Greenpeace has called for a worldwide ban on imports of U.S. rice. Already, Japan has suspended U.S. rice imports.

The Center for Food Safety, a public-interest organization, is also calling for a moratorium on all new permits for open-air field testing of G.E. crops. The Center is concerned that open-air testing allows G.E. crops to cross pollinate with neighboring non-GE crops.

"We see this as an opportunity to get out the message that this is a radically new technology," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center. "These foods have not been tested, and we don’t know if they’re safe."

Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Concern would be in order
Posted by: talkville on Aug 30, 2006 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Private ownership of the means of production is one thing; of the means of survival?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

crap
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 30, 2006 2:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This crap is what happens when greedy people control both industry and government which causes defacto deregulation. Toss all the greedy criminals out of government and replace them with regulators who want to help the people instead of poison them for profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your story went to press too soon. Latest developments are...
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Aug 30, 2006 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that Arkansas rice farmers have joined with rice farmers in 2 other states and filed a class-action suit against both Riceland and Bayer Corp.

After years of drought and other problems, the rice growers of AR were set to have a bumper crop year, a chance to recoup their losses and get ahead. Instead, all the work they did to produce the huge harvest is now completely undermined by the precipitous drop in prices resulting from the GM contamination.

Europe won't buy our Genetically Modified "Frankenfood" and neither with Asia. Arkansas long grain rice has traditionally been in great demand in both those markets. Now, the farmers are left to bear the brunt of Bayer's mad-scientist adventurism gone awry!

At least this case is not unfolding like a similar one in Canada. A corn farmer there discovered that his crop was "contaminated" with a GM strain being raised in his neighbor's fields. Although HE was the injured party, Monsanto filed suit against HIM, claiming he was violating THEIR patent by raising GM corn without paying them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Canadian Monsanto court case
Posted by: Rod from Canada on Aug 30, 2006 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The case with the Canadian farmer actually involved canola, not corn. And the final judgement was not a clear cut victory for Monsanto at all - very much a split decision of a sort. As for this latest rice fiasco, well it is just another product (American rice) that I will not be going near with a barge pole. If enough consumers around the world behave like this eventually the message will sink in to the mental midgets in charge of agribusiness and the biotech sector, and in the government regulatory agencies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Poison, Alfalfa is next all untested independently
Posted by: ecoalex on Aug 30, 2006 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In independent tests, animals fed potatoes, corn, soy, gmo exclusively had health problems and mortality, Controls did not..Notice no government agency tests gmo grain etc. What dummies believe the corps data ? There are spray drift laws, why not pollen from gmos?Ah.. strange new times, the corps have bought law. We're F'd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good search Posted by: Rod from Canada
Well isn't this great!
Posted by: vangogh69 on Aug 30, 2006 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess we can add rice to the growing list of things the FDA/USDA has sat on while the rest of us developed "mysterious illnesses." Add rice to the benzene, bovine growth hormone, aspartame, etc. lists of things the gov has known may cause humans to die but ruled the profit motive important above all else. I am glad the farmers are suing, though.

There's a website (a gov site I believe) which lists food recalls by date and company (sorry I don't have the link). It puts to the fire the lie that the gov has our best interests at heart (not that I ever believed that one).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is just great
Posted by: popsicle67 on Aug 31, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You ninnies should all build your own little town so you can sit and pontificate about subjects that you know dick about with others who will celebrate your profundity. If I didn't know for sure that mass media was driving this fear of engineered products I would be tempted to track down all of the various crybabies who are jumping aroung and spouting these ludicrous "contamination" statements like a tape recorder with OCD and bathe them in bovine growth hormone with the hopes of rekindling the formation of brain tissue that was ob-
viously truncated at the point which a person can both breath regularly and still vote democrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is just great Posted by: Gma1
GM crops
Posted by: dkm on Aug 31, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all the to-do about "contaminated" GM crops, I have yet to see anyone explain WHY these crops are worse than the fresh fruits and vegetables that we have been buying daily for decades. For instance, you can't use the outside leaves on a head of lettuce to maintain a laboratory colony of grasshoppers because there is enough pesticide to kill them. Consumer Reports has documented that if you eat two items from the fresh produce section, at least one of them will contain detectable levels of pesticides.

Now we have people hopping up and down about "foreign genes" in our food. Where do people think the cultivated varieties we grow came from? Everyone of them is a cross between a variety of strains in order to isolate some desirable trait or another. These are foreign genes. When we want disease resistance in potatoes, wheat, oats, etc., we cross with wild plants and hope that some of the offspring will be disease resistant. Then we selectively grow those particular plants. How is this any different at the biochemical level than directly inserting the gene we want instead of inserting the gene we want plus thousands of others that we don't know about as is done with traditional breeding, which is completely unregulated?

A gene is a stretch of DNA and it doesn't come with labels as to what organism it belongs to. A particular gene will function the same whether it is introduced by crossbreeding, GM techniques or on a viral or bacterial genome. To get upset about GM is evidence of a lack of critical thinking. What you need to consider is what the particular gene will do, not where it came from. If it is harmful, it will be harmful no matter how it got into the plant genome. If it is beneficial, it will be beneficial no matter how it got there. If you feel that GM techniques will result in harm and require regulation, then normal breeding needs to be regulated much more because instead of inserting a single gene, thousands of genes are inserted.

Remember that using the term "Frankenfood" is indicative of the way the original Frankenstein's monster was treated. He was a beneficial, caring individual who could have benefited the local peasantry, but instead, because of superstitious, uneducated people, he was chased onto the Arctic ice. And the locals continued living their wretched existence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GM crops Posted by: mwildfire
"Contamination"
Posted by: Allison on Aug 31, 2006 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the statements here about "Frankenfood", "mysterious illnesses", "poison" and so on trouble me. How many of you actually understand what genetic modification IS? You will not get poisonous genes going into your body and making you herbicide-resistant, in fact what would get into your body is the same once your stomach finishes breaking down much of the protein and nucleic acids, including the transgenic gene and gene product.

While cases like this clearly show the need to carefully separate GM and non-GM crop streams (because most people want them separated), there's no indication that there was ever any real danger to anybody. Basically, while this is a "disaster" for biotech PR, it is hardly a human health disaster.

The real problems with biotech are the IP issues surrounding it, as well as the corporate monopolization of the food supply. Also, because of negative consumer perceptions of GM, modifications are restricted to grower-end traits, not things that actually benefit the consumer. Frankly it's partly YOUR* fault we don't have more beneficial GMO's, because YOU won't eat anything that's "frankenfood". So the only traits worth researching are things like herbicide- or pesticide-resistance, which only serve to increase the usage of herbicides and pesticides.

* "you" here refers to much of Europe, as well as some so-called progressives who often closely resemble Luddites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How silly Posted by: vangogh69
» Did you even read my post? Posted by: Allison
» RE: "Contamination" Posted by: roscoe
someone is missing the point about genetic engineering
Posted by: redgreenbrown on Sep 5, 2006 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the posts by alison, popsicle97 and alison all show just how misinformed those who think GM is okay really are.
I have studied this issue for years and the evidence is in that our present form of genetic engineering is dangerous simply because it operates using an outdated paradigm - that of genetic determinism. This is where one claims that one gene provides one function.
We now know this is patently untrue. some genes code for one protein, others for dozens. But what is more relevant is not so much what the genes do but what our interference in the genetic repatterning of life holds for us. Put plainly we do not know what we are doing, despite the hubris of those such as popsicle, who clearly are ignorant of the relevance of our interference with the fundamental code of life.
GM is totally different to any type of breeding we have previously practiced, be it hybridisation or radiation bombardment. Our practice of inserting foreign gentic material from bacteria, viruses and artificial sources have completely unknown effects over the short, medium and long term.
There is a simple solution to this. Those who want to eat GM food are welcome, but they must insist it is labelled so that they can make thier choices, just as those of who who do not wish to have thier families eat them have an equal right to do so. After all whats different about kosher or halaal food? Its only a matter of choice.
As far as contamination goes, those who own the gentic patents, who go so far as to sue unsuspecting farmers like Percy Schmeiser, must take responsibilty for thier products spreading into places where it is not welcome. Like in my food. Simple.
If there are so many who have been hoodwinked by the PR of the GM industry and who wish to eat food, let them. Those of us who do not want this junk food in thier diet have an equal right to refuse it and not have our diet contaminated by foods, like this rice, that has never been assessed by any single food authority around the world.
The intolerance exhibited by those supportive of GM on this list is indicative of a wider malaise - that of intolerance. Tolerate my choice to not eat GM and i will tolerate your right to eat as much as you want of it.
There are many beneficial aspects to biotechnology, such as marker assisted breeding, where useful traits are identified and then bred into plants, using molecular markers. These do not inordinately interfere in natural processes. Genetic engineering is a poorly understood science (recent GM cassava bred for virus resistance lost its resistance after a few generations, for instance) and is little more than an uncontrolled experiment on both the public and on agricultural production. If the US is happy to lose its rice export market to the same extent that it has lost its corn export market, then thats fine. But dont expect the rest of the world to accept strangers bearing gifts of questionable origin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Labelling is insufficient Posted by: lessbread