Crop Busting

By Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey

The revolution of genetically engineered food crops was launched in the 1995-96 growing seasons with much hoopla and anticipation. Newly created herbicide tolerant crops were going to seed to make the first full-blown generation of transgenic crops. Nineteen ninety seven was to be the banner year for Monsanto's Roundup Ready™ cotton technology, with a first year commercial planting of 600,000 acres.

Only something did not go right. In August of 1997, Roundup Ready™ cotton crops began failing throughout the South. By October, 30,000 acres were in disarray, with malformed cotton bolls, in the shape of parrot beaks, falling to the ground. The crops had been engineered by Monsanto Company to withstand "over the top" application of their number one selling herbicide, Roundup®. Britt Bailey, research associate at the Center for Ethics and Toxics called State of Mississippi agricultural specialists, Monsanto Company, and the United States Department of Agriculture/ Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) (the agency in charge of transgenic crops) to find answers for this unprecedented crop failure. The most enlightening answers came from the state workers who saw the failures first hand. Several supplied reasonable, albeit theoretical, explanations why the crops failed. Given that only 1.4% of the total cotton acreage had been planted with genetically engineered cotton, they reassured us that the failures were only being seen in Roundup Ready™ varieties. As we cast about for an explanation for this near catastrophe, the most disturbing viewpoint came from the USDA/APHIS. Some three weeks after the first reports of the crop failure, Mr. John Payne, who is the Director of Biotechnology and Scientific Services (BSS), the USDA division that is in charge of bioengineered crops. To our astonishment, Mr. Payne was in his words "completely unaware of the problem." We promptly faxed Mr. Payne the August 1997 articles from the Memphis Commercial Appeal and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch which stated that the cotton crops were failing over some 4-5000 acres.

In early October, our office followed up with our fifth phone call to Mr. John Payne asking if the USDA was going to require an incident report from Monsanto. At least now, we reasoned, the public could learn the truth about the limitations of transgenic crops because the government report could then be made available through the Freedom of Information Act Office. Mr. Payne finally talked with us on October 6, 1997. He explained to us that the bioengineered Roundup Ready™ cotton was deregulated and therefore they would not require an incident report from Monsanto. He also explained to us that their office investigated the situation. In his view, there was nothing to be alarmed about because the symptoms being seen in the Roundup Ready™ crops were being noted in non-Roundup Ready™ varieties as well. He said that he spoke with Monsanto and that the problem was downplayed as simply a predcitable "environmental genetic reaction," having to do with conditions of weather and not the addition of the new gene. But no unusual weather patterns were evident in the Southeast United States. But was this explanation correct?

Such a weather scenario was remarkably similar to the reason Monsanto gave after the bioengineered Bt cotton failure in 1996. Who better to blame than Mother Nature? Mr. Payne assured us that information why the crops failed surely will be made to the extension agents that work directly with the farmers advising them about varieties to use and herbicide management. The Director of Biotachnology an Scientific Services not only explained to us that no government body was overseeing these crops, and that none would be overseeing these problems in the future. More critically, it appeared that our control agency was being fed misinformation. From what we learned in our direct conversations with field representatives, virtually no other varieties but those containing the Roundup Ready™ gene were showing the parrot beaked deformity. In spite of this data, our government official said he was convinced that some other factor besides the newly inserted gene is the culprit for the failing crops. Our contacts were called again: surely they were wrong and the problem was generic to cotton crops as a whole. Why would Mr. Payne tell us otherwise? But our respondents were adamant: only Roundup Ready™ varieties are failing. Though environmental and climatic factors may be exacerbating the genetic alterations, all four of our agricultural contacts from extension services have stated that only the Roundup Ready™ varieties are being affected. To find out why the crops are actually failing, we followed the advice of a contact in the field who said, "all roads lead back to Monsanto."

We spoke with a Roundup Ready™ cotton marketing representative, Ms. Sunny Jeter. We simply wanted to know if they knew yet why the crops had failed, what testing they were doing, and if the public would be privy to the information, after all this is about the food we eat. Cottonseed oil winds up in all kinds of processed foods that require vegetable oil including crackers, chips, and cookies. Ms. Sunny Jeter , a Monsanto cotton marketing representative, filled us with well rehearsed answers to each of our questions. In response to our questions she said, "I am sorry, that information is not available." When we asked if data would be available to the public, she answered, "Monsanto regularly holds press conferences." When we asked if in these "press conferences" data would be available, we heard, "I am not sure." After getting sugar glazed answers, we did get some important information. Ms. Jeter verified that the problems were only occurring in Roundup Ready™ varieties. Thus, the company's own statement differed significantly from Mr. Payne's statement just moments earlier that the deformities were being seen in other varieties as well.

Nobody seems to be taking responsibility for evaluating what may be largest and most significant problem to afflict genetically engineered crops to date. In downplaying our concerns, Mr. Payne of the USDA stated that it was in the interest of Monsanto to fix the problem, and that agricultural extension consultants would surely be informed of the reasons why these crops failed. When we spoke with Will McCarty, a Mississippi cotton specialist, he said that the only people in the entire nation capable of testing the crops to see why they failed was Monsanto. We asked if Monsanto would share their findings with the scientific community and he said, "Yea! but we would have to go through all sorts of court rigmarole to get it." Sounding very frustrated about the situation, he said, "We are supposed to be regulating these crops, but how can we regulate them without any sort of testing?" He explained that transgenic crops are highly protected because the creators are so afraid that the technology will be stolen. Hence, when problems such as this occur, he felt stymied: from his perspective, scientists such as himself simply cannot get any information. And since the product is deregulated, the government does not seem to feel it needs to examine the incident at all.

Clearly, we have found a case where the US government has deregulated a product prematurely. In our view, Roundup Ready™ technology is simply not ready to be commercialized. Monsanto is touting bioengineered crops as the answer to global food shortages. So, how can the government sit back and offer no direction or regulation? Who is in charge? Can we rely on Monsanto? To date, extension agents and agricultural scientists alike are being left in the dark, unable to acquire Monsanto data short of a frustrating court proceedings, our own government has washed its hands of the situation in the name of "deregulation" and as a result the public is left in the dark.

We in the public sector have been dismayed to discover that our food crops are being genetically manipulated, and that the majority of these crops are being grown, harvested, and now are failing behind closed doors. And our naïve assumption that such a revolutionary shift in our agricultural practices would be tracked and monitored closely by our own Food and Agriculture Department has proven simply wrong. In spite of all indications, if the cotton crop failure is related to the insertion of a new gene may never be known for sure. We continue to be told by Monsanto that because only Roundup Ready™ crops are failing and are doing so in an area known as the Delta, climatic conditions are to blame. Even if true, this news is hardly reassuring. It used to be that crops were domesticated for a certain environment. Crops became climatized, restructuring their own genome through natural selection to survive under specific climatic conditions. At the very least, it may be that nature is winning the genetic gamble taking place. Companies like Monsanto are releasing monocultures throughout regions in the country, irrespective of special climate conditions. Nature may be rejecting these transgenic monocultures simply because they are out of synch with the traditional environment. At this point, such speculation is all we have. Even as we and agricultural experts puzzle through this morass of conflicting claims, the absence of access to data leave us cold. We are increasingly appalled at our government's lack of concern for our staple food crops. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But without vigilance, laissez-faire economics may produce a genetic nightmare for our food.