In July, an unapporoved GMO rice variety was found in rice bins in Arkansas and Missouri. LLRICE601, a BayerCropScience GMO strain, has apparently slipped the chains of the research fields and made its way into the main Arkansas crop, leading Japan to ban all imports of American long-grain rice and causing the EU to threaten the same. Rice in Arkansas is worth $1.55 billion dollars to its economy.
Bayer has said it has no plans to market LLRICE 601, which is engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Liberty Link. It was experimentally grown in the US from 1998 to 2001. However, it will now seek approval for this rice since it has been found in the food supply. Until this was found, there was no GMO rice being grown commercially in the US.
It interests me that I would find this story not in my newspaper, not in my state farm newspaper, but instead in
The Economist.
Federal officials stress there are no "health, food safety, or environmental concerns", and the secretary of agriculture, Mike Johanns, has admitted that 70% of all processed foods currently on grocery shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.
Uh, wow... 70%? I seem to have missed that press release too. Yikes.
This is from a USDA transcript of a telephone press conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, 8/18/2006:
In terms of your question about was this off a shelf, or something like that, let me again point something out here. It's very, very important because I don't want to read too much into your question, but it implies to me something that quite honestly I find concerning in your question.
The genetically engineered products in the United States are very, very common, have been for many, many years. We estimate that about 70 percent of the processed food in the United States would have some genetic engineering component, some background to it. In other words, it's just not an unusual phenomena here. In fact it is a very, very common phenomena.
The protein that was used in this rice was a protein that is identical to two other lines of rice that would have gone through our entire process, could be commercialized here, absolutely have met the requirements that are out there and satisfied those requirements.
REPORTER: But if it's not unusual, why are we having --
SEC. JOHANNS: I guess what I would say to you is this. I'm not exactly certain where the sample came from, but I didn't want anything about your question to imply to people that there's a safety concern here because based upon all the information we see -- and we took the time to look at it -- we don't see that.
Now again, as the doctor indicated, if we got any indication to the contrary we would get that information out there just as quickly as we possibly could.
REPORTER: But you haven't answered the question --
So, nothing to see here. Why, didn't you realize that the majority of food sold in the US is genetically modified already? And you can see how healthy our populace is today. GMOs are keeping our children herbicide resistant.
The second thing I would tell you is that they, "they" being Bayer, will petition for the deregulation of this rice line. Keep in mind that two rice lines that have the same protein have been deregulated. They could be used. I can also tell you that this line, a pretty significant amount of work had been done on this line when Bayer decided it was not going to commercialize it and did not pursue it to a final result.
But I can tell you that the risk assessment that we have done to date indicates that this rice from the USDA standpoint is environmentally safe.
Now let me emphasize something very strongly. This process will involve public comment. We will invite the scientific community, the public, whoever, to offer their thoughts. And we will give them the opportunity to do that and that will be very, very carefully reviewed as we review all of that information in a regulatory process. And based upon all of that and the work that has been done and will be done by APHIS, a decision will be made as to whether this should continue to be regulated or whether it should be deregulated.
So, we're going to make this all better by simply approving the runaway rice. And rest assured, we'll only do so on the basis of what's right for consumers. The fact that it is already in the food supply will not be a factor in any way.
(Now, if only we could figure out how to reassure those pesky distrustful Japanese.)
MODERATOR: And our final question today comes from Christopher Dohring of Reuters. Christopher, go ahead, please.
REPORTER: Yes. Thank you for taking my question. I'm just curious to know if anything -- I know you've had other instances in the past where crops have been contaminated between biotech and traditional crops. Is this the first time this has happened as far as rice is concerned?
SEC. JOHANNS: Let me ask -- I believe it is. But let me have somebody else answer that.
MS. SMITH: That's correct. This is the first issue that's come up with respect to rice because this was a crop that actually while it was approved previously to be marketed the company had not yet brought it to market. We've not had any other situations involving rice.
So, if you're like me and you've had people tell you that GMO crops are well contained and have never escaped the laboratory, keep this quote handy.
Back to the Economist:
It would all be a fuss about nothing, then, were it not for the reaction of the EU and the Japanese. The American rice crop this year could be valued at $1.88 billion. Half of that is exported, according to the Department of Agriculture, and about 80% of those exports are long-grain varieties. American growers account for about 12% of the world rice trade.
Because Mike Johanns is the beacon of absolute truth, after all. He couldn't possibly be mistaken or interested in maintaining a particular talking point. Why won't those foreigners play ball?
The Arkansas legislature will probably take up the matter in January, and will presumably back the farmers' demands for a clean-up. But once genetically modified foods are out in the environment it is pretty hard to recall them, regardless of what politicians would like.
That is for sure, and exactly the argument of people who have been fighting GMO agriculture. Here we have a variety that has not been tested or evaluated for its effects on humans or the environment (or the economy) by any third party, and "oops".
The farmers are suing Bayer, for their lost crop and for failure to notify the farmers sooner, when they might have changed their crop over to something different. And rice prices are falling:
CHICAGO, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Rice prices on Tuesday tumbled 5 percent to the lowest level in nearly two months, amid fears that exports could suffer after the discovery of U.S. rice supplies tainted with unapproved genetically modified rice.
Japan has already banned imports of U.S. long grain rice after U.S. government officials announced on Friday that GMO rice was found in commercial supplies.
"The saga continues, and it's still the psychological fear element that is driving the market," said Neauman Coleman, analyst and rice broker from Brinkley, Arkansas.
Rice futures at the Chicago Board of Trade fell by the daily trading limit of 50 cents per hundredweight, or more than 5 percent, the sharpest one-day decline in years.
So, Johanns' job here is all about protecting the sales of rice overseas. Not about making sure that GMO crops stay where they belong, and not about making sure consumers are safe, but protecting a large industry that generates billions of dollars. I don't object to that being someone's job, but I wish that it was a different someone than the person who was making the safety judgement.
Contrary to what you might think after reading my words, I am not knee-jerk anti-GMO. The concept does have merit, and I once was quite favorably inclined to it, even considered genetic engineering as a career. Why don't any of the seed giants experiment with traits that would benefit consumers, like more nutrition, better fatty acid profile, and the like? Why are all the commercial GMOs about selling herbicide? Farmers aren't making any more money, consumers aren't saving money; all that's happening is a little higher yield covers the premium for the GMO seeds and the guaranteed brand-name herbicide (which you must purchase along with the seed whether it turns out you need it or not). Why must corporations insist on using it evilly? People might pay more for wheat with enhanced Omega-3 fatty acids.
But I am opposed, deeply and firmly, to GMO products being slipped in under the radar, as they apparently have been in processed foods. I don't buy many processed foods anyway, so maybe I'm not affected, but I was quite disturbed to realize how prevalent GMO products are. Maybe it's all via corn, I would believe that. HFCS is not just concentrated sweet, it's genetically modified concentrated sweet. And it's in nearly everything.
I also think it's important that GMO foods be kept separate from the food supply, and be tightly controlled so that they don't spread unwittingly onto neighboring farms. So far, Monsanto et al do not seem to be sufficiently motivated to keep their intellecual property off private property. I don't want GMO plants drifting into my field.
I guess for me this will be yet another reason to buy organic, because organic grains are kept in separate bins and are less likely to be contaminated. I hope.