What is Genetic Engineering?
Genetic engineering is essentially the direct transplantation or modification of genes. This
involves isolating and then moving genes within and between species with recombinant DNA
techniques and other manipulations of the genetic construct outside traditional practices
of sexual and asexual breeding, hybridization, fermentation, in vitro fertilization, and
tissue culture. Unlike traditional selective breeding techniques that have been used for
centuries, genetic engineering allows researchers to cross species boundaries. Never before
was it possible to transfer animal genes or synthetic genes into plants. These gene
changes permanently alter the genetic code of the recipients.
Genetic manipulation can be achieved by using a vector bacteria or virus to transfer
desirable genetic materials into a plant. It can also be done through "particle bombardment"
where genes are coated to form miniscule pellets that are fired into the cells of the
recipient organism. Cell fusion involves using chemicals to weaken cell walls so that
genetic material can combine artificially between dissimilar cells.
Recombinant DNA technology, cell fusion, micro-encapsulation, and macro-encapsulation are
"excluded methods" under the National Organic Program (NOP). The NOP defines "excluded
methods" as "a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their
growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes,
and are not considered compatible with organic production." Such methods do not include the
use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro
fertilization, or tissue culture."
Back to top
GMOs in Our Fields, Barns and Waters
Although biotechnologists have experimented with plants that have been modified for taste or
nutrition content, the most widely used genetically engineered crops have been engineered
for environmental factors such as resistance to herbicides or insects, or drought
tolerance.
Crops such as soy, oilseed rape (canola), cotton, and sugar beets have been engineered to be
resistant to herbicides. Monsanto has developed a line of crops that are now Roundup Ready,
meaning the crop is no longer inhibited by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
Approximately 70 percent of the GE crop acreage in the United States is of the "herbicide
tolerant" variety.
Other crops such as corn, potatoes, and cotton have been engineered to produce toxins that
kill certain pests. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacterium that accumulates high
levels of insecticidal proteins, affecting certain pests in their larval stage. Bt has been
used by both conventional and organic farmers as an insecticide since the early 1950s.
Biotechnologists have since incorporated Bt proteins into crops so that they produce
insecticidal proteins and kill the pests without requiring a Bt application. The toxin is
created in every cell of the plant throughout the entire growing season, including the parts
of the plant we eat.
Animal hormones have been genetically modified to influence animal growth and production.
Bovine growth hormone, or Bovine somatotropin (BST), is a naturally occurring hormone
produced by a cow's pituitary gland. This hormone is essential for muscle development,
growth, and milk production. rBST, the artificial version of BST, is sold under the name
Posilac and was officially approved by the FDA for sale in 1993. The introduction of rBST
has resulted in increased milk yields but also a multitude of other problems for dairies.
Recently, the FDA has been reviewing the first genetically modified animal ever considered
for commercial consumption. The AquAdvantage Salmon, produced by the biotech firm
AquaBounty, is said to grow twice as fast as their natural counterparts with the help of
additional growth hormone genes taken from ocean pout and Chinook salmon. The FDA is
currently in the process of determining whether or not the GE salmon will be "equivalent" to
a non-GE salmon, and what environmental problems might result from their approval to be
farm raised.
GMOs and GMO byproducts can also enter agriculture through crop production inputs. The Bt
organism itself can be strengthened by genetic engineering, and there are ongoing
experiments to artificially engineer the Rhizobium bacteria that help legumes fix nitrogen
from the air. Other input products such as fertilizers may be derived from corn or soy that
was genetically engineered. Additionally, a cow that received rBST and was fed GMO corn
produces manure that might be used on an organic farm.
Although organic farming does not allow any genetically engineered crops, GMOs have the
potential to contaminate crops in the field and food on the shelf. Pollen can drift from GE
corn and pollinate organic fields as it can travel great distances. Farm equipment such as
planters and combines could cause contamination if not thoroughly cleaned between a GE crop
and an organic one. Seed cleaning equipment also needs thorough cleaning or the seed can be
mixed with GE varieties. There can also be cross contamination if storage and milling
equipment is not sufficiently segregated and cleaned in postharvest handling.
Back to top
GMOs in Our Food System
Genetic engineering has the potential to affect every type of food that we eat. It has been
estimated recently that about 75 percent of processed foods contain one or more genetically
modified ingredients. The majority of our GMO intake comes from staple crops such as corn or
soy, which can be processed into ingredients and food additives in the forms of soy
protein, soy lecithin, corn flour, corn starch, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup,
ascorbic acid, citric acid, dextrose, glucose, lactic acid, monosodium glutamate (MSG),
xantham gum, and many more. It is estimated that 80 percent of all processed foods
contained derivatives from soy and corn (Non-GMO Project). According to the USDA's Economic
Research Service, in 2009, 93 percent of soy, 93 percent of cotton, and 86 percent of corn
grown in the United States were genetically modified (ERS, 2010). American consumers have
been ingesting foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients for the past ten
years while remaining largely unaware of their GMO content.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and
Environmental Protection Agency are supposed to oversee the regulation of genetic
engineering for food purposes. However, such regulation rarely occurs and it is unclear
which of the three agencies is responsible in certain areas. The FDA has jurisdiction over
food labeling and has decided not to label genetically engineered food. This has caused a
lot of controversy and resulted in efforts to label those foods that are not GMO.
Organic food by definition does not contain any GMOs that were put in intentionally.
Certifiers spend considerable time tracking the source of all seeds, ingredients, and
processing aids to ensure the integrity of organic food.
Back to top
Flaws Emerge With GMO Use
Besides the reality of GMOs in our food system as discussed above, there is the harsh
reality of corporate greed and politics involved in the GMO issue.
When chemical companies create crops that respond only to their products, like the herbicide
tolerant crops, it means that farmers are now obligated to these companies, paying annual
royalties for seed and herbicide use. Since the farmer cannot save and replant the seeds
the next year, the farmer becomes legally subject to the company. That farmer loses the
long-held right to save and replant seeds, a process followed by farmers for thousands of
years before genetic engineering became so prevalent.
Unanticipated problems are starting to emerge from the use of GE crops because no long-term
studies were done before their introduction. GE corn has contaminated the center of origin
of corn in Mexico, thus contaminating the original gene pool and making it more challenging
to breed new strains of corn to address future needs. "Super weeds" are now resistant to
herbicides and cannot be killed no matter how much Roundup is applied.
Traces of the Bt toxin have recently shown up in pregnant women and their fetuses in Quebec.
It is still unknown what toxicological effect this might have. "There is more than a casual
association between GMO foods and adverse health effects," says the Academy of
Environmental Medicine. However, these health effects are very hard to quantify because no
one would think of GMOs as a cause of allergies or unpredictable side effects if the food
is not labeled as containing GMOs.
Back to top
Organic Fights Back Against GMOs
People are trying to stop genetic engineering in every way possible. These strategies
include political action, the court system, strengthening organic regulations, laboratory
work, direct action, and education.
Political Efforts
Various communities have passed, or attempted to pass, ordinances that stop the spread of
genetic engineering in their community. These raise awareness but are generally not
influential. Bills are introduced from time to time at the state and federal levels calling
for mandatory labeling of GE, such as the proposed labeling of salmon and other fish in
California, and a GMO food labeling requirement in Oregon. These bills do a good job of
raising public awareness.
Regulators from the FDA and USDA have occasionally held listening sessions, or convened
expert panels on labeling or on how organics could "coexist" with biotechnology. In spite of
the fact that most public testimony received at these events is in favor of labeling and
regulation, the agencies have never heeded the public.
Court System
Two high profile lawsuits on GE alfalfa and sugar beets are moving through the court system
as the appeals process continues. For details on these lawsuits, please consult the Center
for Food Safety website.
A new lawsuit was filed by the Public Paten Foundation in May 2011 arguing that the patents
on GE varieties are not unique enough under patent law. This very interesting suit could be
precedent setting, but will be slow in developing over the next five years or more.
Strengthening Organic Regulation
The NOP issued a policy memorandum clarifying existing regulations regarding the use of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in organic production and handling on April 15, 2011.
Responding to recent questions on the topic, the NOP noted that compliance with organic
standards requires that operations have verifiable practices in place to avoid contact with
GMOs. The NOP added: "Since organic certification is process-based, the presence of
detectable GMO residues alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of the regulation.
The NOP relies on organic certifiers and producers to determine preventative practices that
most effectively avoid contact with GMOs on an organic operation."
CCOF believes that more work needs to be done by the NOP to clarify some of the issues
associated with GMOs being an "excluded method." Issues such as pollen drift, input chains,
and newer technologies all require more guidance from the NOP.
For instance, the Organic Materials
Review Institute (OMRI) uses a decision tree format to
determine how far back in the input chain to look at GMOs. OMRI looks at the source of all
inputs and their derivatives, determines if the GMO trait is expressed in the end product,
and evaluates how likely it is for contamination to occur.
Other regulatory efforts are aimed at the next Farm Bill, such as the National Organic
Coalition's
Seven Steps to Fair Farming, which includes recommendations to create a
compensation fund for farmers affected by pollen drift, and conduct thorough regulatory
assessment before releasing GMOs.
Laboratory Work
GMO testing is becoming very common in those crops that are most affected by GE: corn and
soybeans. Most buyers of these crops now require some amount of testing and seed companies
are offering varieties that have been tested to be as free as possible from GE
contamination. By setting a threshold that is above the lowest possible detection limit for
GE, however, implies that a certain level of GE is acceptable but a higher level is not.
This thinking is fraught with problems since no studies have been done to back up any
threshold over another, and accepting a threshold could reflect poorly on growers who have
little control over their contamination sources.
Therefore, GMO testing programs, such as that offered by the Non-GMO Project, are
controversial for organic growers. While some like the double assurance of being organic and
being tested for GMOs, others feel it is misleading and implies acceptance of a certain
threshold of contamination.
Direct Action
Occasions arise where direct action can be used to protest GMOs. CCOF participated in one
such an event during the USDA Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agriculture Science and
Technology in Sacramento in 2003. CCOF spoke at the protest rally outside the event and
joined several other organizations at a booth inside the event to show foreign agriculture
ministers the alternatives to genetically engineered food.
Education
Adopting the core principles of organic farming will be a more successful strategy to help
feed the world and counteract global warming than genetic engineering. The basic organic
tenets of biodiversity, agroecological resilience, nutrient cycling, and carbon
sequestration are going to withstand the challenges ahead better than the homogenous and
vulnerable genetically engineered crops.
Creating awareness of these techniques, educating the public about food choices, and
educating farmers about alternatives are crucial in creating a future without GE.
Back to top
CCOF Statement of GMO Opposition
For years, CCOF has opposed the commercialization of GE crops because of the threat they
pose to organic growers and consumers. CCOF played an instrumental role in ensuring that
GMOs were excluded from the NOP Final Rule when it was crafted and written into law in 2002.
CCOF supports continued efforts to keep genetic engineering out of our fields and products.
We believe in the necessity of adequate, accurate, peer-reviewed research assessing the
risks GE crops pose to wildlife, human health, and soil ecology before any further spread of
GMOs. We think there needs to be a better regulatory framework in place to protect organic
farmers and food processors from GE contamination at all stages of production. We support
consumers' right to know what is in their food through labeling of GE products.
More Information and Resources
EcoFarm Genetic Engineering Blog:
The EcoFarm Genetic Engineering Blog is produced by Thomas Wittman and EcoFarm, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.
Biotechnology Industry Organization – Biotechnology Timeline
A comprehensive timeline of the development and spread of biotechnology
Center for Food Safety
The Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the proliferation of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. The Center for Food Safety is also the lead organization for the lawsuits against new GE crops.
Genetic Engineering Action Network
A network of almost 100 organizations from across the US working to resist genetic engineering in agriculture.
Institute for Responsible Technology
"The most comprehensive source of GMO health risk information on the web."
National Organic Coalition – GMO Contamination Prevention
This document from the National Organic Coalition addresses the prevention of GMO contamination.
Non-GMO Project
The Non-GMO Project works to establish a third party certification system of foods that do not contain genetically modified additives.
Union of Concerned Scientists – Impacts of Genetic Engineering
An in depth introduction to the impacts of genetic engineering
USDA Biotechnology Glossary
A glossary of agricultural biotechnology terms from the USDA
USDA Economic Research Service Data on Adoption of GE Crops in the United States
A look at the adoption of GE crops in the United States
Back to top |
