http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37992-2004Nov9.html
U.S. Genetically Modified Corn Is Assailed
NAFTA Report Calls Grain a Threat to Mexico; Administration Disputes Study

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 10, 2004; Page A02

A scientific panel of international experts has concluded that the
unintended spread of U.S. genetically modified corn in Mexico -- where the
species originated and modified plants are not allowed -- poses a
potential threat that should be limited or stopped. But the United States
yesterday attacked the report and its conclusions as unscientific, and
made clear it did not intend to accept the recommendations.

The report, written by a group convened under the North American Free
Trade Agreement, rejected the U.S. position that the modified corn is, in
effect, no different than conventionally bred corn hybrids. It said that
because the Mexican government has never examined or approved the use of
transgenic crops, their presence in the country is an inherent problem.

"How would Americans feel if we started getting living transgenic seeds
that had been judged to be safe by the Cuban government but not the
American government?" asked Norman C. Ellstrand, a University of
California at Riverside geneticist and member of the NAFTA-appointed
panel. "We would be outraged, and so are many Mexicans. Like us, they have
the right to make up their own minds about genetically modified crops."

The Mexican government embraced the NAFTA report and said it expected to
implement many of its recommendations.

The report, only the fifth in the treaty organization's history, was
requested by Mexican farmers and officials in 2002 after researchers found
that some forms of genetically modified corn were present in Mexico and
were being naturally spread by cross-pollination. One variety contained
genetically modified bacteria that protect the plant from certain insects,
and another protects the plant if a particular kind of otherwise deadly
weed killer is used on the fields.

Although it remains uncertain how the modified corn got into Mexican
fields, the report concluded that the large-scale importation of U.S. corn
was the likely cause. The Mexican government distributes massive amounts
of U.S. corn for grinding into cornmeal and flour, but some farmers are
believed to have planted the corn instead. Once planted, the genetically
modified corn spread naturally in fields over the seasons.

Genetically modified corn can be legally used as food in Mexico but cannot
be planted and grown, except in small test plots recently approved by the
government.

The NAFTA report concluded that the modified corn does not pose a health
risk, but it did say that the environmental consequences are less well
understood. It also raised the possibility of the spread of potentially
more hazardous types of modified corn -- such as varieties grown in the
United States to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial products.

"If those types of corn ever made it to Mexico and got planted, then yes,
there would be a health and safety problem that would be very hard to
solve," Ellstrand said.

The U.S. rejection of the NAFTA report was broad and pointed.

"This report is fundamentally flawed and unscientific; key recommendations
are not based on sound science and are contradicted by the report's own
scientific findings," the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Trade Representative said in a joint statement. "Implementing many of the
report's recommendations would cause economic harm to farmers and
consumers of all NAFTA countries and restrict international trade."

The U.S. statement specifically criticized one recommendation -- that all
U.S. corn coming into Mexico be milled at or near the border so it cannot
be planted. That practice, it says, "would increase the cost of U.S. corn
significantly, negatively affecting Mexico's livestock producers and
consumers."

The NAFTA report and the U.S. response are also far apart on what
constitutes a scientific assessment of the issue. The report included
information about the attitudes of Mexican farmers to the genetically
modified corn, saying many find it frightening and a threat to their
staple food, while American officials said those views have no place in a
scientific study.

In support of their formal critique, the U.S. agencies cited the report's
conclusion that "scientific investigations and analyses over the past 25
years have shown that the process of transferring a gene from one organism
to another does not pose any intrinsic threat over the short or long term,
either to health, biodiversity or the environment."

The NAFTA report went on, however, to conclude that the specific
characteristics of any newly created organism need to be examined --
making the case that the benefits and dangers of any genetically modified
plant can be determined only by testing in the locales where it will be
used. In the United States, the EPA, the Agriculture Department and
sometimes the Food and Drug Administration must approve genetically
modified plants before they can be introduced.

The National Corn Growers Association also sharply criticized the panel's
conclusions. "The report needlessly raises concerns where there are none
about a technology that is proven safe and already greatly benefits the
environment and farmers around the world," NCGA President Leon Corzine
said.

A copy of the NAFTA report was leaked last month to the environmental
group Greenpeace, which distributed it in Mexico. The report was released
Monday.

After the initial release, Mexico's equivalent of the EPA, Semarnat, said
in a statement: "There is no doubt that the recommendations in the
official document will be beneficial for Mexico and its environment. . . .
Semarnat is awaiting the official publication of this report and is
confident that the majority of the recommendations made will be
implemented."

Reply via email to