www.czu.cz ; www.usab-tm.ro ; www.raupp.info

Gonzales-area farmer Brian Fink puts little stock in the complaints of those
who view genetically altered crops as frightful "Frankenfoods" that could
devastate the environment and even threaten human health, September 2005 by
William Pack.

Corn that was genetically modified to withstand spraying by the commercial
weed killer Roundup is actually easier and less costly to grow, Fink said.
It may even help the environment, he said, because fewer weed killer
applications are needed.

"We've gotten good results," said Fink, who has converted all 1,400 acres of
his corn to the Roundup Ready variety.

He believes the vast majority of his neighbors have planted the same variety
of corn, which would place Gonzales-area farmers in the middle of a debate
over a young, expanding and controversial industry.

Proponents believe that through the bioengineering of plants, farmers can
become more efficient, more nutritional foods can be produced, and cheaper
pharmaceutical ingredients can be developed.

To critics, however, the now-$5 billion industry has grown too rapidly
without a full understanding of the problems bioengineered plants pose to
human health and the environment. The dangers will only grow, they say, if
crops are widely used as incubators of miracle drugs.

"People instinctively understand that's a bad idea," said Craig Culp,
spokesman for the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit organization that
advocates "sustainable" food production techniques.

Farmers have vigorously embraced the new products. The amount of worldwide
acreage devoted to biotech crops has grown from 7 million in 1996, when such
crops were introduced, to about 200 million last year.

U.S. farmers have been on the cutting edge. An International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications study said American farmers planted
more than 117 million acres of biotech crops in 2004, or 59 percent of the
global total.

"We've seen super-rapid adoption of this technology," said Andy Vestal, an
associate professor with the Texas Cooperative Extension Service at Texas
A&M University. "It's unprecedented, even compared to the adoption of hybrid
corn" in the 1930s.

Corn, cotton, soybeans and to a lesser extent canola have been affected
most, officials say. Estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
demonstrate how far the wave has reached since 2000:


The nation's genetically altered soybean crop has grown from 54 percent of
the total to 87 percent today.
Altered corn seeds have expanded from 25 percent to 52 percent of the crop.
Upland cotton plantings have gone from 61 percent to 79 percent. In Texas,
the share has swelled from 46 percent to 63 percent.


Biotech crops have not produced substantially higher yields, but they have
reduced production costs, said Travis Miller, extension program leader for
soil and crop sciences at Texas A&M University. The average South Texas
grower saves $30 to $35 an acre, he said, because the modified plants do not
require as much weed or pest control as the original plants.

So far, about a dozen plants have been cleared for gene implants that are
intended largely to improve farming and crop yields. Officials said the
current generation of bioengineered plants consists almost entirely of crops
that were given genes that made them resistant to pests or herbicides.

Though much of the genetically altered crop total is grown as feed for
animals, a portion also enters the human food chain, particularly in
processed foods. Surveys estimate that 60 percent to 70 percent of the food
on grocery shelves contains at least a portion of a crop that has been
genetically modified.

As a result, the biotech crop industry is concerned that consumers accept
their products.

In Europe, Japan and some other countries, public opposition to genetically
engineered crops has restricted markets to U.S. exports. Foreign populations
generally are better-informed about the reach of the modified food products
and probably trust their regulatory agencies less, officials said.

U.S. food manufacturers, in most instances, are not required to list on
ingredient labels that a portion of the product came from a genetically
altered crop. That's because those ingredients are considered substantially
similar to the unaltered products.

The biggest threat is the possibility of serious allergic reactions to the
new gene implants.

Numerous observers are calling for greater public inquiry and debate as
corporations move toward developing pharmaceutical products and other
nonfood items through bioengineered crops.

Reggie James, director of the Consumers Union Southwest office, said his
organization contends that those types of chemicals should not be produced
in crops used for food.

Nonfood crops could be used for such purposes, he said, but only if they are
grown indoors where cross-pollination of other crops is not possible.

"We know there will be an accident," James said.

A&M's Miller said he agrees the new generation of bioengineered crops must
be closely monitored and well-isolated from other crops. But given the
lessons learned from contamination incidents in the past, he expects
regulatory agencies will proceed cautiously.

[www.mysanantonio.com]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail