Forget Tacos

I got a letter from the Sierra Club not long after the 2000 election, sandwiched between the usual bills. In an envelope ominously marked "priority," the granddaddy of environmental groups pleaded for "an emergency contribution of $75." Why the crisis? According to the Sierra Club, George W. Bush was going to "sacrifice our natural treasures, air, and water for the profits of special interests." The new regime in Washington was "very bad news for the environment." Sorry; while the administration does seem to be taking big steps backward on the environment, all the Sierra Club gets from me is a Bushian smirk—though I still support other environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy. I stopped feeding the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Environmental Defense when they targeted genetically modified crops in a war that looked more social and political than ecological. As part of an activist organization called The Turning Point Project, the Sierra Club took out full-page newspaper ads claiming that "biotechnology = hunger." According to Sierra's sages, GM crops will "...increase pollution of the soil, air, rivers and oceans." That kind of charge is not only inflammatory, it's uninformed and remarkably shortsighted, especially coming from people who supposedly value the long-term health of planet Earth and its inhabitants. Take Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn. By placing a bacterial gene encoding an insect-killing toxin into corn plants, scientists hoped to surgically kill chewing bugs, thereby saving farmers lots of money and at the same time reducing environmental damage from conventional chemical sprays. It's not rocket science. What will kill more insects, including good guys like ladybugs and monarch butterflies? Bt inside plants, or clouds of chemicals outside? Better to use a tweezers to remove a splinter than an axe. But that didn't stop environmental groups from making the monarch butterfly their poster child. The GM strategy seems to have worked—farmers are using a lot less pesticide, according to recent surveys. And despite a couple of yellow flags, most experts agree that Bt corn isn't killing hordes of baby monarchs. In fact, monarch populations rocketed last year, only to crash over the winter in Mexico because of severe weather. The Sierra Club should worry more about global warming and destruction of monarch habitat than biotechnology. While it's bad news for insect pests, there's no evidence Bt harms people. Nobody has ever been certifiably poisoned by GM foods. In fact, the Society of Toxicologists is about to give biotech its stamp of approval.1 Last year, an Environmental Protection Agency panel concluded that the danger of an allergic reaction to the minuscule amount of Bt in food is small. Compare that to the thousands of people poisoned each year from food contaminated with Escherichia coli and Salmonella. I'd sooner eat GM corn fritters—with maple syrup, please—than take any of the thousands of untested herbal remedies overflowing supermarket shelves, including ephedrine-laced diet aids. If Greenpeace really cares about the environment, it should think about feeding 8 billion people in 2030, many of them poor. Organic farming and vague allusions to better food distribution won't cut it. Without a more efficient agriculture, including GM crops, to improve yields and nutrition on existing acreage, starving people will put more pressure on precious resources. Says plant biologist Maarten Chrispeels of the University of California, San Diego, "Environmental issues of GM crops ... pale in comparison to the environmental impact of rural populations practicing low-yield agriculture on marginal lands."2 Unfortunately, anti-GM activists seem more concerned with 'what if' scenarios than hard reality, despite the fact that scientists are already at work on the next generation of biotech foods, including vitamin A-enriched rice and canola. The Luddite gloom and doom scenarios also include destruction of biodiversity due to transgene flow from biotech crops to wild relatives or land races. A recent, controversial report claimed evidence for transgene movement between corn varieties in Mexico (See "Corn Goes Pop, Then Kaboom,").3, 4 While few people doubt that genes move between closely related plants (it's been going on for millennia), many wonder if the process is significant from an agricultural or ecological standpoint. Still, activists want to drop GM crops because of it.5 Some think the anti-biotech battle is but one front in a war against modern biology. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth recently joined the Sierra Club and other activists in calling for a halt to cloning in humans and other animals. Once again, their motives may be more sociopolitical than altruistic. The group sent a letter to US Senators saying "it is no secret that the pursuit of cloning technology is being driven to a great extent by profit-driven firms and a very small number of scientists." The letter also invoked the precautionary principle, stating that "cloning ... would irrevocably turn human beings into artifacts." While the signatories say they support research into therapeutic uses of stem cells, they accuse "more than a few [of] irresponsibly dangling highly unrealistic visions of miracle cures before the American people." I wonder what my relatives with Parkinson disease and diabetes would say. Though the Bush administration may smile on biotechnology, it offers ecologists and environmentalists a lot more to worry about, including an energy policy geared toward satisfying demand rather than conservation (like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), weakening clean air and endangered species regulations, and increased exploitation of public lands. To its credit, the Natural Resources Defense Council is forcing the Bush administration to come clean about its energy policy. Environmental activists should forget Bt corn and stem cells—they have bigger tacos to fry. Barry A. Palevitz (palevitz@dogwood.botany.uga.edu) is a contributing editor. References 1. B.A. Palevitz, "Toxicologists label GM foods safe," The Scientist, 16[8]:22, April 15, 2002. 2. M.J. Chrispeels, "Biotechnology and the poor," Plant Physiology, 124:3-6, 2000. 3. D. Quist, I.H. Chapela, "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico," Nature, 414:541-3, Nov. 29, 2001. 4. In response to challenges to the original paper by Quist and Chapela, Nature admitted that it should not have published the original paper. (D. Quist, I.H. Chapela "Biodiversity [Communications arising (reply)]: Suspect evidence of transgenic contamination/Maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts [see editorial footnote]," Nature, 416:602, April 11, 2002.) 5. Greenpeace International, Sept. 27, 2001. www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/geneng/2001sep27.html

Forget Tacos

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of