Our genetically modified future: an interview with Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Union - Interview

Nutrition Health Review, Winter, 2002

Q. What is a genetically modified food?

A. A common food product or crop into which foreign proteins have been gene-spliced.

Q. What is the difference between a food labeled "natural" and a food labeled "organic?"

A. Organic production prohibits the use of toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, or any type of animal drug.

Q. Have there been any tests to determine whether genetically engineered foods are safe?

A. There have been few tests, but the tests that have been carried out have been very troublesome. For example, some of the products that have been pulled off of the market have been very frightening.

In 1989, L-tryptophan killed 37 Americans and injured 1,500 others. In 1996, a soybean spliced with Brazil nuts by Pioneer Hybrid was pulled from commercialization shortly before it was supposed to be planted. That would have set off life-threatening allergies in people who are allergic to Brazil nuts. In 1995, a soil bacterium that was genetically engineered was pulled from commercialization.

Most recently, there was contamination of food crops by pharmaceutical drugs that were spliced into corn in September and October of 2002. Starlink corn in 2000 (Editor's Note: see page 8) was pulled off the market after it contaminated the food supply. It had been intended for animal feed, but the problem is that the technology cannot contain this stuff in the environment. Once you grow it in the open environment, it contaminates food crops as well.

Q. Would the modified corn be dangerous to the animals?

A. There's mounting evidence that it harms the animals as well. These biotech (BT) crops are designed to kill insects that prey on corn, cotton, and potatoes, but there is evidence that the animals are being harmed. The recent incident in Iowa, where the pigs became sterile when BT corn was used, is still under investigation, but this is not a good sign.

The one full-blown human health study, initiated in England in the mid to late 1990's by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, showed major damage to laboratory animals that had been fed genetically engineered potatoes. The compound that was troublesome--this lecithin compound that was gene-spliced into potatoes--is the same compound family as the BT corn. It is disconcerting that this stuff has gone out there on such a large scale with no real testing.

Q. Is there a danger that pesticides will become useless after a while?

A. Yes, it is already starting to happen. One of the reasons that Monsanto's stock has fallen so dramatically is the resistance that is developing to Round-Up[R] herbicide. The two most commonly engineered crops are Round-Up[R]-ready crops, which are herbicide-resistant, and the BT-splice. The BT tests are already starting to show resistance by bol worms and blood worms.

Q. Are any pesticides fit for human or animal consumption?

A. Yes, the biological pesticides are natural pesticides that are used by organic farmers. They are harmless to humans, and they decompose quickly; this is why they are allowed in organic Production. I think the consensus is that this 50-year experiment with heavy use of pesticides and herbicides was a bad idea. We need to recover the traditional sustainable organic practices and use only harmless natural pesticides, if we are going to use them at all. An organic farmer uses a bio-pesticide only if it is absolutely necessary and in the smallest dosage possible.

Q. Are there proposals to engineer foods with antibiotics?

A. Yes, all of the genetically engineered food, up until now, contains antibiotic-resistant material. This is because of the haphazard nature of gene splicing. Scientists cannot tell whether they have successfully Spliced a foreign protein into a common food unless they also insert an antibiotic-resistant marker gene. Then they dose what they hope is the gene-spliced product in antibiotics; if the food dies, that means that the gene-splicing did not take.

This is troublesome because scientists are in the very early, crude stages of this new technology and are in a rush to commercialize it. They had to use a production aid that the medical establishment says should not be in there.

The antibiotic-resistant material in genetically engineered foods is getting into the gut of animals and humans and can cause bacterial diseases that are resistant to antibiotic treatment. The British Medical Association and the World Health Organization (WHO) have said that these antibiotic-resistant marker genes should not be in foods and should be phased out as quickly as possible.

Q. With livestock also being injected with antibiotics as a growth hormone, do we run the risk of developing an immunity to antibiotics?

A. We are very close to that, yes. Seventy percent of all antibiotics in America are fed to animals to make them grow faster and to enable them to survive intensive confinement. We are finding in the recent tests of chicken and poultry that are sold in supermarkets--the nonorganic ones--that most of these animals are riddled not only with bacteria but also with bacteria that resist commonly used antibiotics. That is why Europeans have banned the use of putting antibiotics in animal feed, and that is why we should be doing the same thing in the U.S. Our government is still listening more to the drag companies and corporate agribusiness than to public health authorities.