Farm dilemma: Should we be fooling Mother Nature?

Staff photo To go high-tech or not? Biotechnology can improve corn yields but some processors aren't interested in buying crops resulting from genetic engineering.

It's time to say goodbye to the ``Little House on the Prairie'' mentality of farming, according to proponents of biotechnology.

``Some people say don't fool around with Mother Nature,'' said Mary Chin, a registered dietitian and member of the American Dietetic Association.

``The truth is, we've been doing it for years. Most Americans are so far removed from the farm today they don't realize how things have changed because they don't see it.''

The biotech controversy focuses on the concern that specialized strains of corn, soybeans and other agricultural products may not be safe for human consumption because they utilize genetic manipulation rather than traditional cross-pollination methods.

Europe was the first to balk at buying altered grains, dubbed ``Frankenfood'' in some countries. For months, Japanese brewers have been turning down genetically modified grains and a Mexican tortilla maker is asking for non-genetically modified corn.

In the U.S., after a push by Greenpeace, an international ecology group, the Gerber company agreed not to use genetically modified grains in its baby food products, and the Heinz company followed suit. Recently, Frito-Lay did the same.

``Our position is that they not be released into the environment,'' said Craig Culp, Greenpeace USA's coordinator of media relations. ``We believe they should be approached on the precautionary principle instead of the risk base. Any risk is unacceptable. .|.|.Precaution should be the rule and we should not release them until we know there is no risk.''

The controversy also sparked grain giant Archer Daniels Midland to ask grain elevators to segregate genetically modified organisms (gmos) grains from non-gmos.

Corn is a prime example of years of manipulation, Ms. Chin said. People probably wouldn't recognize corn as it was grown 300 years ago. Stalks were short and the kernels were hard and all over the ear instead of in straight rows as they are today.

In recent years, biotechnology has improved the ways farmers around the world produce our food. Biotechnology provides a number of benefits. For consumers, enhanced food means improvements in nutrition, taste and quality.

For farmers, biotechnology means less disease, insect resistance and a reduction in the use of pesticides -- all of which improve crop yields.

Products currently improved through biotechnology include corn, soybeans, potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, and papayas. Biotech products that will soon be on the market include:

-- Healthier oils, such as corn, soybean and canola.

-- Smaller, seedless, single-serving melons.

-- Potatoes with higher starch, which reduces the amount of oil absorbed during the processing of foods like French fries or potato chips.

-- Fruits and vegetables fortified with, or containing, higher levels of vitamins C and E to protect against the risk of chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

-- Garlic cloves that produce more allicin, which helps lower cholesterol.

``We're going to see functional foods,'' Ms. Chin said. ``Tomatoes that have a higher level of lycopene that could help ward off prostrate cancer. If we can produce those things that might help you ward off certain diseases like cancer, stroke or heart disease, shouldn't we do it?''

In addition to developing plants that help prevent disease, there also are plants that contain natural pesticides.

Biotechnology not only addresses the body but the environment, Ms. Chin said. Not only would farmers use fewer pesticides, but less fuel since they would be making fewer trips across their field.

The potential problem, according to biotechnology opponents, is that biotech corn is not only hazardous to the corn borer, but other insects as well. It was feared that pollen containing crystalline endotoxin from the bacterium gene would light on other plants, like milkweed and be hazardous to monarch butterflies.

A study by the North American Butterfly Association says that 1999 was a good year for monarchs, and there appears to be a bumper crop.

``I think there are a lot more dire threats than that (Bt corn) to monarchs,'' Jeffrey Glassberg, president of the NABA said. ``In the Midwest, mowing roadsides and using herbicides is probably much more devastating actually.''

Another problem environmentalists have with gmos is how they affect other plants.

``When you start rapidly introducing gmos, it doesn't take long to completely disrupt the eco-system,'' Mr. Culp said. ``A small introduced non-indigenous species to go haywire in a magnificent way. The zebra mussel is an example of that...there is no biological organism to fight it.''

Seed companies say that's not possible. Corn pollen only can fertilize corn plants. Therefore genetically modifying anything other than corn plants is not possible, Jerry Harrington of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, said.

``What critics have said is that biotechnology is a benefit only to farmers,'' Mr. Harrington said. ``That's not true. Eventually, through biotechnology we can develop end use traits for particular benefits. The plants are developed in a method that is known. There's a far greater problem out in nature.''

The controversy has farmers rethinking planting plans. With a $10 to $15 a bag technology fee attached to each bag of gmo seed and the question of marketing gmo grain next year, the number of acres planted with the technology is likely to be down, according to Emerson Nafziger, University of Illinois crop specialist.