Companies Block GM Sugar Beets, But For the Wrong Reasons

There are plenty of good reasons to avoid the genetically modified sugar beets that were harvested for the first time last fall.

First of all, the plants are loaded with pesticides. The entire point of the Roundup Ready sugar beets is that the plants are resistant to Roundup, the Monsanto pesticide, so farmers can drown their crops in the chemical and the beets will survive while all the weeds around them die. The bad news is, those crops are then covered in Roundup. In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency upped the allowed amount of Roundup residue by 5,000 percent.

Furthermore, opponents to the new beets argue, while there’s no proof these modified sugar beets are dangerous, there’s also insufficient proof that they’re safe, and it’s better to err on the side of caution rather than discover problems after the crops are already irreversibly integrated into the food supply.

But, despite making these claims to reporters, it seems that many of the companies that signed onto the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry are opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in general, across the board, regardless of the circumstances.

“Please do not introduce more genetically modified crops to our healthy and fertile soils,” says one company listed on the registry. “We do not, nor will we ever, use any genetically modified ingredients in our products,” says another.

This to me is silly. Humans have been modifying plants since the dawn of agriculture. The problem isn’t modification itself — the problem is how and why plants are being modified. Are we aiming for the most nutritious foods that can be grown with the smallest negative impact on the environment? Are we sufficiently monitoring the effects on public health and the environment? Or are companies recklessly pursuing their own profits without regard for the consequences? Those are the questions companies should be asking, rather than dubbing all genetic modification a fundamental tool of Satan.

Unfortunately, companies supporting GMOs don’t always make it easy to make these determinations. A group of scientists recently released a statement complaining that companies were using their patents to block research on GMOs.

…while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say.

There are a lot of potential problems with GMOs, and the issues should be carefully examined. It’s hard to contain the crops and keep them from cross-pollinating with neighboring crops that are not supposed to be genetically modified. A November report from the Government Accountability Office called for more oversight of genetically engineered crops. There are regulations in place, of course, but the U.S. food safety regulation system doesn’t exactly have a lot of credibility right now.

But that doesn’t mean all GM crops should be banned. Slate ran a piece last month about scientists who are working on GMOs that promote sustainability.

Even the EU has approved some genetically modified crops. Europe has stubbornly continued to block GM imports even after the World Trade Organization deemed the ban illegal and gave the United States permission to levy tariffs on EU products in retaliation. But about 20 genetically modified crops have been approved in the the EU. There is a mechanism for approval of GMOs in Europe; it’s simply more rigorous than the model used in the United States.