GM Corn Protest Based on Bio-Fraud

Environmental and consumer groups staged protests and held news conferences across the country in April to call attention to their claim, as one news release put it, that “the genetic contamination of Mexican native corn varieties threatens not only the genetic integrity of corn, one of the world’s most important basic crops, but the food security for millions in the Americas.”

The statement is false ... and even its author knew it was false at the time it was written. The protest was based on claims that have been debunked by the scientific community. It aimed at exploiting the ignorance of citizens and policymakers. It is an example of bio-fraud, an all-too-common tactic of radical environmental groups.

Junk Science

In a letter to the editors of Nature published last November, a scientist with a history of anti- technology advocacy and his assistant claimed to have tested samples of corn grown on farms in Southern Mexico. They reported that by using genetic tests, they had found the local corn was “contaminated” by genetically modified corn.

Three groups of university-based scientists, working independently, examined the research data and found it to be erroneous. Each group submitted formal letters to Nature challenging the letter’s validity. In addition, the editors of the Transgenic Research Journal examined the data and determined it to be “fundamentally flawed.” On March 1, a petition signed by nearly one hundred prominent scientists was released, calling for greater scrutiny of the report.

In a comprehensive review of the controversy published in the February issue of the Transgenic Research Journal, the Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat in Mexico stated, “no credible scientific evidence is presented in the paper to support claims made by the authors that gene flow between transgenic maize and traditional maize landraces [strains] has taken place.” The reviewers found it “most frustrating” that the authors failed to use more reliable techniques to determine the presence of the transgenes.

An editorial note in the late March edition of Nature officially ended the scam: “Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper.”

Spreading the Lie

Even as the claim at the base of the controversy was being debunked, environmental groups were spreading the lie to media outlets around the world. Hundreds of newspapers carried the false report. Few are ever likely to print retractions.

Using the false data, Greenpeace and other activist groups persuaded the Mexican Interior Ministry in February to consider modifying the existing Federal Penal Code to severely penalize anyone engaged in the introduction, commercialization, transportation, storage, or release into the environment of any genetically modified organism. Punishment would include imprisonment for one to nine years and a fine from 300 to 3,000 times the minimum daily wage of those convicted of such an offense.

The economic implications for America’s farmers and agribusinesses are considerable. The U.S. exports to Mexico over $600 million worth of corn and about $100 million worth of processed corn products, such as high fructose corn syrup, annually. Markets in other countries where biotech is an issue are also being affected.

In addition, environmental groups used the faked study to kick off April’s “Continental Campaign and Protest Against Genetically Engineered Corn,” described at the beginning of this essay. Hundreds of people marched in streets and chanted slogans, all in the service of claims their organizers know to be lies.

Lessons Learned?

The allegations of DNA contamination of Mexican maize is another example—as if another one was needed—of the use of bio-fraud by radical environmental groups. A highly regarded scientific journal was duped into publishing a letter to the editor containing false data; anti-technology advocates cynically promoted it to the news media, which unwittingly spread the lie to millions of readers and listeners. In mid-April, in the ultimate insult to our intelligence and their own, hundreds of people marched in the streets repeating the lie.

The lessons this time are quite clear. Environmental advocacy groups cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Their alarmist rhetoric damages the scientific process and costs badly needed jobs and export income. Those who would march in the street in support of such lies deserve our pity, not our respect.

What Biotech Food Can Do for the Consumer Most of us are aware of only those technologies with which we, as individuals, have experience. That is no less true of the technologies supporting our food supply. (Consumers’ Research, January 2002, 4pp.)

request PolicyBot document #0468115