Playing God with Potatoes: Consumers want to know when they're eating genetically altered food--but the subject of labeling is controversial.

The Vermont House Agriculture committee just wanted to pass a labeling law. It wanted dairy manufacturers to label products containing milk from cows that had been given a genetic growth hormone.

But a federal judge saw it differently and ruled that dairy manufacturers have a First Amendment right "not to speak." The Vermont law, according to the judge, takes no position on whether or not this genetic growth hormone is harmful to the public. The law simply sought to provide consumers with information on whether dairy products contain a genetically modified hormone. Therefore, the state lacked sufficient need to force manufacturers to speak, the judge ruled.

"The case had a chilling effect on laws related to biotechnology," says Vermont Legislative counsel Sam Burr, who is an organic farmer. "Legislative bills the public wants on biotechnology have languished."

Biotechnology refers to the transfer of genes from one species to another. Take the resistant qualities of one plant, such as a potato bacteria lethal to insects, and add it to the genes of another, such as corn, creating a new species: bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) corn. Such corn requires one-fifth less pesticides, meaning less chemical spraying and fewer health and environmental hazards.

But experiments have shown that Monarch butterfly caterpillars die after eating Bt corn pollen. Bioengineered corn approved for animal use slipped through regulatory protections and found its way into taco shells.

"Consumers want to know and should know what they are putting into their mouths," argues Senator John Nutting, a dairy farmer from Maine.

Do states have sufficient interest to regulate genetically modified organisms? Will this science harm species, like Monarch butterflies, if organisms escape into environments where they have no natural controls? Can they transfer their genetic traits to native plants and animals, thereby causing environmental or health problems? Will they serve as a source of new plant, animal or human diseases? Can there be unexpected or undesirable results altering ecosystems?

Or will these organisms increase crop yields, offer greater flexibility in growth, allow for less use of chemical pesticides and improve nutritional content of food? Is genetics the savior of agriculture or the apocalypse?

INTO THE UNKNOWN

"We are changing the future in ways that are irreparable," says Maryland Delegate Dan Morhaim, a doctor who advocates a precautionary approach to biotechnology. "Certain species, like potatoes and corn, are not meant to cross-pollinate. DNA is to life like splitting the atom is to physics."

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the molecular code that carries the information of life. Genes are the segments of DNA that carry the instruction for a single protein. By transferring the genes of one organism into another, science is manipulating life.

Genes from toads have been bioengineered into potatoes, fish genes into tomatoes, carp genes into trout. When scientists tried to enhance the protein content of soybeans with Brazil nuts, they discovered an unexpected consequence--some people allergic to nuts became allergic to the engineered soybean. But the scientists caught this, and the soybean never entered the market.

Biotechnology's successes greatly outweigh the failures. Two-thirds of processed food comes from genetically altered crops. Almost all the corn grown in the United States, and most of the soy and cotton, come from genetically-modified seeds. Consumers have eaten bio-engineered food for years without knowing it and without complaint.

WHO REGULATES WHAT

Contrary to popular myth, the federal government does regulate biotech foods, just not through a single law or agency. Rather, biotechnology is regulated by current plant and animal inspection laws, laws regulating pesticides and toxic substances, and food safety laws governed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

USDA oversees plant and animal safety concerns through the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service. Companies developing genetically modified plants or animals must show that the organism poses no risks as a plant pest and does not have any adverse human health or environmental effects.

The EPA defines and approves the uses for pesticides through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which includes the pesticidal benefits of biotechnology. In order to allow industry to market Bt corn, the EPA had to establish maximum tolerance levels for pesticide residues in foods. This meant that if the EPA found an adverse effect from Bt, none of the Bt gene could end up in food--or only at levels determined safe by EPA.

Also, new microorganisms, including bio-engineered Ones, must be registered under the Toxic Substance Control Act before being manufactured or imported.

Finally, the FDA ensures the safety of foods, including those genetically modified. Foods must be proved safe through tests before marketing, unless they are "generally recognized as safe." Potato chips are a food proven safe, therefore chips from genetically modified potatoes require no pre-approval from the FDA.

Biotech companies, however, must consult with the FDA to demonstrate that their genetically modified potato chip has not been "substantially altered," otherwise, the food must undergo FDA testing.

"But from our experiences with non-native plants and species, it takes maybe five to 20 years to determine the effect," adds Morhaim. "Genetically modified corn developed very rapidly, and we don't have the ability to predict what will happen with it."

LABELING LAWS

The FDA also covers food labeling, prohibits false and misleading labels and requires disclosure of material, including ingredients, nutritional information, and name and place of the manufacturer. But it doesn't require disclosure about whether any of the ingredients have been genetically modified. Manufacturers may voluntarily offer this, but it's not mandatory, leading many states to look into labeling.

Labeling laws have been the most popular biotech legislation in recent years, with legislatures from California to Minnesota to Maine considering bills to require labeling of genetically modified foods. None have passed. Iowa sought to require the labeling of seeds and New York looked at a law that would authorize the labeling of food products as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Nebraska lawmakers explored the difficulties in requiring labeling of bioengineered foods. New Hampshire considered labeling foods that contain any ingredients derived from plant seed modified to increase immunity to pesticides or herbicides. A failed Pennsylvania bill asked Congress to address labeling.

"If farmers want to increase their market then they need to provide more information about their product," says Senator Nutting, sponsor of a voluntary labeling bill in his state.

"The voluntary approach allows different consumers more options. The majority of Maine's consumers don't want dairy products from cows that have been injected with bioengineered growth hormones. Dairy farmers must do what their market wants," he adds.

But Chip Kunde from Grocery Manufactures of America supports the current FDA labeling laws. "If genetically modified foods pose a health or environmental risk, they already must be labeled. There is no need for mandatory labeling at the state or federal level."

And to some extent, Senator Nutting agrees. "Labeling from state to state can be very complicated for both the consumer and producer. Federal rules should be reasonably written to allow companies to use labels that say their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients."

Partially because of consumer demand, the FDA has revisited its stance on not requiring labeling of genetically modified foods. In proposed guidelines, offered instead of regulation, the agency sought to give direction to industry in labeling foods "bio-engineered" or "GM free." Current law authorizes the agency to prohibit false or misleading labeling, meaning if industry labels its products, it must do so honestly.

But these guidelines may not satisfy those consumers, who strongly support labeling, or Congress, which has introduced labeling bills. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts sponsored a mandatory labeling law for all foods with at least 1 percent genetically modified ingredients. "But even a 1 percent requirement won't satisfy some of the public," adds Burr.

PURE WHEAT AND FISH

No other animal has undergone more genetic modification than fish. Fish farm salmon, carp, trout and tilapia receive genes that make them grow six times faster than wild species. But breeding in open-water pens permits the possibility for some fish to escape, enabling them to interbreed with native species. And Delegate Morhaim is concerned.

"Maryland was the first state to enact a moratorium on transgenetic fish," says Morhaim, who sponsored the five-year ban. "We went to great lengths to protect the Chesapeake, and we don't want it irreparably damaged from biotech fish escaping into the bay."

North Dakota sought a moratorium on wheat, but not for ecological reasons. Lawmakers there were concerned about foreign markets.

"Japan, Italy and the European Union tell us they do not want genetically modified wheat. We raise 60 percent of the hard red spring wheat for foreign markets. If we introduce genetically modified organisms into our system, our market share will take a major hit," says Representative Philip Mueller, who sponsored a moratorium on genetically modified wheat.

Wheat remains the only major crop where a genetic version has not been marketed extensively. Mueller's original bill provided for a two-year moratorium on genetically modified wheat seed, but ended up as a resolution to study the issue. So North Dakota may not be able to claim its wheat crop is free of genetic engineering.

"I still would like to look into some type of restriction or control of genetically modified organisms," adds Mueller.

For farmers facing an international marketplace, being "pure" means more sales. The European Union has not approved any new agricultural biotech products since 1998. Developing countries, many of which lack the sophisticated regulatory systems of the United States, may seek simple bans of genetically modified organisms rather than to try to regulate such a complicated issue.

"The more international companies want GM-free products, the more producers will want to market GM-free foods," says Nutting.

Mueller farms not only wheat, but soybeans, mostly which are bio-engineered. "I have about 450 acres of GMO soybeans, so I understand the benefits of GMOs. But with me, it's the market and how it's affected.

"We have this wonderful new science and technology, but we didn't look at the big picture--is this going to contaminate our products, can we test genetically modified organisms adequately?" argues Mueller. "States need to make some value judgments on what the world is ready for as far as GMOs are concerned."

Doug Farquhar is NCSL's expert on agricultural issues in the Denver office. Crystal Biggerstaff is an NCSL intern.

RELATED ARTICLE: STARLINK CORN SLIPS THROUGH

In 2000, genetically modified corn fell afoul of the federal regulatory matrix. Starlink corn, genetically modified with a protein approved for livestock feed, found its way into taco shells, prompting its maker, Kraft Foods, to recall 2.5 million boxes of shells nationwide.

The presence of Starlink in these taco shells called into question the ability of current federal regulations to protect consumers from unapproved genetically modified crops. The corn came from a mill in Plainview, Texas, and was shipped for processing to Mexicali, Mexico, before being distributed to stores and markets nationally.

"Each of the federal agencies regulating genetically modified organisms do well within their jurisdiction, but the challenge is for them to look at the big picture nationally," says Maryland Delegate Dan Morhaim. Without a single agency or rule, genetically modified crops such as Starlink fall through the regulatory cracks.

The genetic protein in question, Cry9C, has not been shown to cause any allergic or other reactions in humans. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded it had no adverse human side effects.

Still, the psychological effects were real. Many consumers complained that the taco shells caused allergic reactions and other illnesses. Consequentially, McDonald's and Frito-Lay have begun to reduce their use of bioengineered crops, not for safety reasons, but from consumer fears.

"Starlink corn really stimulated consumer concerns," says Maine Senator John Nutting. "It made all the regulating entities, the FDA, EPA, USDA, even the states, look bad by letting something like Starlink slip through."