Frequently Asked Questions about GE

What would a ban on GE mean if it became law?

The proposed ordinance states “It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to propagate, cultivate, raise, or grow genetically engineered organisms in San Luis Obispo County.”  The intent is to prohibit the growing of GE crops and animals within SLO agriculture.

The ordinance does not apply to city or state lands within the county.  As a result, Cal Poly would be exempt as would any biotech corporations using GE for research purposes. 

The ordinance also explicitly exempts for scientific research conducted in a University environment on County lands.

Isn’t it standing in the way of progress to oppose GE crops?

Genetic engineering isn’t the path to progress. Techniques that use genetics and biotechnology, like marker-assisted breeding, can solve real problems like Pierce’s Disease, drought tolerance and increased nutrition without the risks of GE.

Many people feel that unknown threats to our economy, liability problems, health concerns, and the patenting of living organisms as ‘corporate inventions’ do not constitute progress.

It would be real progress to not follow in the path of the Midwest and protect our land, our farming, our economy and our food supply in San Luis Obispo County from GE crops.

Wouldn’t this harm the SLO economy?

On the contrary. Our U.S. and international trading partners are demanding GE free crops.  Having pure crops will ensure a market advantage for our county’s $529 million agricultural economy.

The American Farm Bureau estimates that U.S. exporters have lost about $300 million per year because of GE corn.  The local Farm Bureau is, for some reason, opposed to Q.

Would a ban lead to an increase in taxes?

NO. Only San Luis Obispo County voters can authorize an increase in taxes.

How would farmers in SLO County be affected if GE crops were allowed?

If GE crops (GMOs) were grown in San Luis Obispo County:

• Farmers could have their crops contaminated with DNA from genetically engineered sources
• Farmers would suffer losses in sales and in the well-earned trust of the purity of crops grown in this county
• Farmers would no longer have the economic advantage in international and national markets of guaranteed GE-free produce.
• SLO residents would also lose the right to buy locally grown produce that was free of contamination by DNA from genetically engineered crops.

The industry often suggests that this kind of thing doesn’t happen. One industry executive testifying in a lawsuit said that she thought “you would be more likely to get pregnant from a toilet seat than for a genetically engineered crop to contaminate a neighboring farm.” Obviously she chose to ignore basic biological facts, as well as the experience of contamination over the past 7 years across North America, where weeds have now taken on DNA from up to 3 different types of genetically engineered crops.

How could genetic contamination happen?

Genetic contamination happens in one of three ways:

1. Through cross-pollination – wind or insects can carry pollen over large distances. E.g. genetically engineered corn could contaminate corn being grown on farms or in backyard gardens.
2. Mechanical contamination – through mixing of crops in the silo, plant material left on farm equipment etc
3. Through the passing of DNA from plant material into the soil where it can be picked up by soil bacteria

Don’t genetically engineered crops have higher yields?

NO.  A number of other studies contradict industry claims that crops have higher yields. Ed Oplinger, for example, Professor of Agronomy at the University of Wisconsin, has been conducting performance trials for soybean varieties for the past 25 years. His comparison of yields in the 12 states that grow 80 per cent of the soybeans in the United States show that, on average, the yields of genetically engineered soybeans were 4 per cent lower than conventional varieties.

Quote by Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition: “...we found GMO seed actually produces a lower yield because of the varieties that had been altered. The acceptance of GMO’s by the US farmer is predicated by the fact that farmers are hard pressed to survive financially, and have become acclimated to the idea that new technology is good technology.”

Won’t this ordinance lead to more intrusion into our private life?

This ordinance does not mean there will be snooping around on people’s land. Plants and animals will be inspected as they enter the county.

One thing that we can be sure of if this ordinance does not pass is that there will be intrusion by the industry into our private lives. Pinkerton private detective agency has been hired by Monsanto to check that farmers across North America are not saving seeds. Saving seeds is forbidden under the ‘Technology Use Agreement’, which also allows the company to access farmers’ land to take plant samples during a three-year period after the genetically engineered seed has been purchased.

A free phone hotline was set up to encourage farmers to tell on their neighbors for seed saving.

By late 1998, more than 475 farmers in the United States and Canada had already been sued by Monsanto or are awaiting lawsuits for allegedly breaking their contracts – including farmers who state that they have never grown genetically engineered crops and that their crops were contaminated by neighboring farms. It was also company policy to broadcast radio advertisements in which they name farmers who have been caught saving seed.

What is DNA?

Every plant and animal is made of cells, each of which has a nucleus. Inside every nucleus there are strings of DNA, and these strings of DNA are organised into structures called chromosomes.

What is a gene?

Genes are sequences of DNA, inherited blueprints for the thousands of proteins that form the building blocks of all life, from bacteria to humans. Proteins make enzymes, which carry out all the bodily processes, like digestion of food, that keep us alive.

Quote by Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist who specializes in the clinical applications of genetic engineering: “Genes are arranged along the DNA in groups or ‘families’. The function of a given gene in a group is dependent on all the other genes that are present within the same family. Furthermore, the genetic activity in one family of genes can affect the function of genes in other groups of genes. It is also clear that genes and the proteins that they give rise to, have co-evolved together to form an extremely intricate, interconnected network of finely balanced functions, the complexities of which we are only just beginning to understand and appreciate.”

What is Genetic Engineering?

Genetic engineering usually involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to transfer a desired trait or character. An example would be selecting a gene that leads to the production of a chemical with antifreeze properties from an arctic fish, and splicing it into a potato or tomato in an attempt to make it frost-resistant.

Haven’t we been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years?

The industry likes to say this in order to confuse people. The fact is that traditional breeding and hybridization are completely different to genetic engineering (also called genetic modification). In traditional breeding it is possible to cross a rose with another rose to get a new variety, but it is not possible to cross a rose with a potato or a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in breeding, the offspring are usually infertile—a horse, for example, can mate with a donkey, but the offspring (a mule) is sterile.

Genetic Engineering or genetic modification, on the other hand, refers to a new set of molecular techniques that have only really been developed over the last 20 or 30 years. (The first ever field-testing of a genetically engineered plant was in 1983). With these molecular techniques, scientists are able to take DNA from any species – bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans, and engineer them into another organism.

• Example: Biotech company  Nexia has been engineering goats with a gene from a spider that leads to the production of the spider silk protein (the stuff that spiders’ webs are made of – of interest to the industry because it is so strong). The genetically engineered goats can then be milked for this spider protein.
• Example: Biotech company Epicyte has been conducting field trials of corn engineered with genes taken from humans, so that the corn contains a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. The idea is to develop the corn as a plant-gel contraceptive that kills sperm on contact.

Is genetic engineering precise?

The industry likes to suggest that genetic engineering is very precise.  However, by their own statistics only 1 in 20,000 proposed crops make it to the field.  The fact is that the technology of genetic engineering is currently very crude. It is not possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, and the gene transfer may disrupt the tightly controlled network of DNA in an organism.

Current understanding of the way in which genes are regulated is extremely limited, and any change to the DNA of an organism at any point can have side effects that are impossible to predict or control. The new gene could, for example, alter chemical reactions within the cell or disturb cell functions. This could lead to instability, the creation of new toxins or allergens, and changes in nutritional value.

Isn’t genetically engineered food safety tested?

There is no long-term safety testing of genetically engineered food. Short-term animal feeding trials are conducted in some cases. The biotech companies themselves do the research. No evidence from human trials for either toxicity or allergy testing is required. No independent checks of the company’s claims are required.

These regulatory guidelines for the testing of GE food are based on the theory of 'substantial equivalence'. According to this principle, selected chemical characteristics are compared between a GE product and any variety within the same species. If the two are grossly similar, the GE product does not need to be rigorously tested on the assumption that it is no more dangerous than the non-GE equivalent.

Quote from the scientific body ‘The Royal Society of Canada’: “Substantial equivalence does not function as a scientific basis for the application of a safety standard, but rather as a decision procedure for facilitating the passage of new products, GM and non-GM, through the regulatory process.”

Quote by Phil Angell, the director of corporate communications at Monsanto: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.”

But no one’s fallen over dead from eating genetically engineered food, right?

Proponents of genetic engineering often make comments such as: “We’ve been eating genetically engineered food for years in the United States and there have been no problems, not even a sniffle”. Well – how on earth would we know? Without any scientific studies, without any epidemiological testing being done (e.g. following people who’ve eaten genetically engineered food over years, comparing them with a control group of people who have not eaten GE food, taking blood samples etc) how would we know if people are being affected? Many scientists feel that we would need to study the cumulative effects of eating genetically engineered food over years to know if we are being affected.

Quote from British Medical Association “Antibiotic resistance, the threat of new allergic reactions and the unknown hazards of transgenic DNA mean that on health grounds alone the impact of GMO’s must be fully assessed before they are released. The environmental implications and the long term effects on human health cannot be safely predicted at this stage and caution must therefore prevail.”

Hasn’t the FDA said that genetically engineered food is safe?

In 1992, the US Food and Drug Administration published a policy statement on genetically engineered foods, which stated that it “is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”

It determined, therefore, that most of the foods produced by genetic engineering should be regarded and regulated as if they were foods produced by traditional methods. This means that, except in certain cases, such as when there are major changes in nutrient composition or incorporation of specific proteins known to cause allergic reactions, genetically engineered foods in the US do not require a pre-market approval process, public notification, or labeling. The industry decides when and whether to consult with the FDA, and it is they who conduct safety tests for their own products, notifying the FDA only if they suspect a problem. Thus it is the very companies who stand to profit who decide whether or not these products are hazardous.

It has become clear, however, as a result of thousands of pages of internal documents that were released during a lawsuit filed by a number of public interest groups against the FDA, that this policy is in fact inconsistent with the views of many of the FDA's own scientists.

FDA microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl: “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering...” Similarly, Dr. E.J. Matthews of the FDA's Toxicology Group warned that “... genetically modified plants could ... contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants...” and cautioned that some of these toxicants could be unexpected and could “...be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants.”

Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer: She protested that the FDA was “... trying to fit a square peg into a round hole . . . [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices.  … The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different,” she declared, “and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”

Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist: “This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.”

What are the GMO foods on the market in the US?

The following genetically engineered plants are approved for sale in the US: herbicide-resistant canola, radicchio, corn, cotton, and soybeans; insect-resistant corn, cotton and potatoes; virus-resistant papaya, potato and squash; canola designed to produce high concentrations of lauric acid; and tomatoes engineered to delay their ripening, or have thicker skins.

The most common genetically engineered crops are corn, soybeans, cotton and canola. There is also a genetically engineered hormone, BGH, which is commonly injected into dairy cows in the United States.

Why isn’t genetically engineered food labeled in the US?

Examples from around the world show that when genetically engineered food is labeled, people vote with their wallets and boycott food containing genetically engineered ingredients. The industry has lobbied hard to prevent labeling in the US, spending $6 million to defeat a citizens labeling initiative in Oregon.

Countries around the world with labeling include Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, China, the Czech Republic, all 15 countries of the EU, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Taiwan and Thailand.

Dr Vyvyan Howard: expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology: “Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children.”

How could genetic contamination affect land prices in SLO County?

This is unknown, the only information that we know of that is relevant to this question comes from the UK, where in a report to the British government, the Royal Institute of Chartered said that the growing of genetically engineered crops could reduce the value of agricultural land and potentially leave farmers open to legal action. The institute also said that the presence of transgenic crops could become as relevant to purchasing a piece of land as any past chemical contamination, or a history of crop disease.

Wouldn’t we be protected by liability if anything went wrong with a GMO?

One of the reasons there is so little trust in the industry assertions that genetic engineering is absolutely safe, is that the biotech companies have lobbied hard against liability provisions when countries around the world have tried to introduce it. If the industry is so sure that these products are safe, then why are they not happy to take full liability if anything goes wrong?

There is case after case of this kind of double standard by the industry. For example, when it comes to the safety testing or labelling of genetically engineered food, the biotech companies say that genetically engineered food is the same as food produces by any other breeding method. Yet when it comes to patenting, biotech companies say that GMO’s are unique, they’re different, and that’s why they have the right to patent them as their own inventions.

Quote by the world’s second largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re: “For the insurance industry, genetic engineering is potentially one of the most exposed technologies of the future . . . The risk profile of genetic engineering is extremely diversified and very difficult to anticipate. There is no clear conception of the risks accepted, so how can genetic engineering be insured? . . . Today we must accept that the one-sided acceptance of incalculable risks means that any participants in this insurance market run the risk of not only suffering heavy losses, but also of losing control over their exposure.”

But don’t we have a responsibility to grow GMO’s to feed the world?

We are already producing one and a half times the amount of food needed to provide everyone in the world with an adequate and nutritious diet; yet one in seven people is suffering from hunger. Every day 25,000 people die from hunger. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that if we are producing enough food, then there are social and political reasons why people are suffering from hunger. In order to feed the world the poor need access to inexpensive, sustainable agricultural technologies that can provide them with a diverse and varied diet. The last thing they need is increased corporate control of the food supply, expensive fertilizers and chemicals, ecological hazards and patented seeds that they are not allowed to save for the following year.

Statement signed by 24 delegates to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation from 18 African countries: “We . . . strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.”