Statements and Comments

Biotechnology

October 5, 2000

New York State Assembly Public Hearing on Genetically Modified Organisms, Rochester, New York

My name is Donald Wertman and I am President of Seedway, a company that produces and markets agricultural, vegetable, and turf seed to commercial producers throughout the eastern United States. Seedway is headquartered in Hall, New York, and owned by Agway Inc., a farmer owned cooperative based in Syracuse. I also represent the New York seed industry and the American Seed Trade Association as its Eastern Regional Vice President.

I have been personally involved with the production of crops, largely seed crops, for 34 years. Seedway has been involved in the testing, introduction, production, and sale of genetically enhanced crops since their inception. Furthermore, we have been instrumental in providing information to growers regarding improved technologies and farming practices related to the use of genetically enhanced seed varieties.

Based on my professional experience with and knowledge about agricultural biotechnology, I am strongly opposed to New York Senate Bill Number S6899, which proposes a five-year moratorium on the planting and growing of genetically modified crops.

Section 400 of the bill cites legislature findings that have no sources or scientific credibility. In contrast to these findings, the scientific community has been consistent and unequivocal in supporting the utilization of genetically enhanced crops. Most notably, the Institute of Food Technologists, a national society for food science and technology, recently released a 56-page report supporting the benefits and safety of food grown from plants produced by recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, otherwise known as genetically modified or enhanced. Within this report, the National Academy of Sciences 1987 white paper is quoted: “There is no evidence of the existence of unique hazards, either in the use of rDNA biotechnology techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms, and the risks associated with the introduction of rDNA biotechnology-derived organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods” (page 21). The report’s Human Food Safety Panel, comprised of 10 distinguished Ph.D. scientists, concluded that the “evaluation of food, food ingredients, and animal feed obtained from plants developed through newer biotechnology does not require a fundamental change in established principles of food safety [or] a different standard of safety” (page 23).

The entire report of the Institute of Food Technologists on biotechnology and foods is appended to this testimony. No legislation can in good conscience act on the proposed bill without reading this expert report, which unequivocally supports the use of genetically modified plants and foods derived therefrom. New York’s legislative findings are refuted throughout the report, which in its final conclusion (page 54), states that the use of food derived from genetically enhanced plants may provide many benefits, including:

- A more abundant and economical food supply for the world.

- Continued improvements in nutritional quality, including foods of unique composition for populations whose diets lack essential nutrients.

- Fresh fruits and vegetables with improved shelf life.

- Foods with reduced allergenicity.

- The development of functional foods, vaccines, and similar products that may provide health and medical benefits.

- Further improvements in production agriculture through more efficient production practices and increased yields.

- More environmentally friendly agricultural practices through improved pesticides and pesticide usage practices, less hazardous animal wastes, improved utilization of land and reduced need for ecologically sensitive land.

I can also witness and testify through personal experience to several of the benefits of modern biotechnology. Just a few years ago, New York producers cultivated a mere 50,000 acres of soybeans. Pesticide use was great and expensive. Weed control required extensive invasive tilling practices. The introduction of genetically enhanced soybeans, tolerant to glyphosate or RoundUp ReadyÒ herbicide, revolutionized soybean production in New York within five years. Today, over 250,000 acres of soybeans are grown and 85 percent of this acreage is genetically enhanced. Farmers use very little herbicide, practice conservation tillage, and grow better quality beans with significantly greater yields than was possible with traditional, non-enhanced soybeans. Average yield before RoundUp ReadyÒ could be used was about 30 bushels per acre. Today, yields of 50-60 bushels per acre are common. This experience is documented by leading New York State agronomists, such as Dr. William Pardee of Cornell University.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each play a role in assuring the safety and safe use of plants derived from modern biotechnology and their subsequent crops. The protocols are rigorous and consistent across all plant species and new varieties. For instance, the USDA requires new plant varieties to go through four steps of approval prior to being introduced into the marketplace: greenhouse approval, field trial authorization, authorization to transport trial seed and finally, permission to commercialize. It is not uncommon for these steps to take five or six years. The FDA, and in the case of pest-resistant plants, EPA, have similar requirements and their tests are conducted simultaneously with those of the USDA. No food products in the history of mankind have ever been more carefully tested and scrutinized by the most advanced scientific means than those produced by modern biotechnology.

Moreover, the U.S. government and seed industry have collaborated in designing environmental stewardship programs, often in the form of contractual agreements with growers, to prevent pollen drift with neighboring fields and reduce the risk of pests developing resistance to pest-resistant traits in genetically enhanced crops. To address the latter, growers are advised to plant a small percentage of unmodified (refuge) crops in or near a field of pest-resistant crops. Refuge sites help prevent pests from developing resistance to pest-resistant traits in crops by keeping the vulnerability trait in the gene pool of pests. Growers provide insect refuges of up to 20 percent of the total acreage planted with non-enhanced varieties, which can be treated by traditional means or left to the insects, insuring that the traditional insect population continues without minimal possibility of developing resistance to the controlling protein. As an example of industry guidelines, a copy of the Newleaf PlusÒ Potato Growing Protocol is attached to this testimony.

As a youth in the 1960s, I was involved in potato production. Lethal pesticides had to be used every seven days or after every rain to keep Colorado leaf beetles from destroying the crop. These chemicals killed every insect in sight. Savvy sprayer operators wore protective clothing and masks. Others did not, exposing themselves to toxic chemicals. However, spray drift occurred and nearby lawns, hay fields, and sometimes vegetables were affected. With modern biotechnology, the only pest controlled is the beetle trying to feed on the potato plant. Other benefits of genetically enhanced potatoes include improved processing quality, virus resistance, and seed quality.

Please look at these two corn plants. One is traditionally bred, the other genetically enhanced. The only difference between the two is that the genetically enhanced plant produces a single different protein than its traditional counterpart. Protein is a building block of life. Animals that eat this plant as silage or its grain as feed eat a wholesome, healthy plant. All the proteins in the plant, including the one introduced by modern biotechnology, is totally digested within 20 minutes. The unique and marvelous feature about the protein, however, is that it is not digestible by the corn borer larvae. When the larvae or worm starts eating its way into the plant, it cannot digest the material and it dies. The plant remains intact and healthy, without the open lesions that cause mold and rot, not to mention the manure left behind by borers as they eat their way through the plant. When seriously infected by the corn borer, plants collapse in the field. Corn ears fall to the ground, unharvestable, resulting in significant economic loss. The only alternative to planting pest-resistant plants is to spray non-selective, highly toxic pesticides at least twice per season for field corn and up to six times per season for sweet corn. These pesticides not only kill the corn borer, but all insects in the field. No consumer wants to find worms in their sweet corn, not do they like the idea of pesticide use. With genetically enhanced corn plants, no pesticide spraying is required to control these damaging pests.

Modern biotechnology has been widely embraced by scientific institutions around the world because it allows for transfer of desirable genetic material to crops in a much more precise and timely manner than traditional breeding methods. As a result, genetically enhanced crops are being utilized and sought throughout this country and the world. The European Union, for instance, has increased its importation of genetically enhanced soybeans each year since they became available with a 34 million bushel increase last year, now totaling 262 million bushels.

New York growers must not be regulated into second class farmers, deprived of the advances of modern science and marketing opportunities here and abroad. The long-term, negative implications of the proposed five-year moratorium are tremendous. It would be a devastating, and potentially fatal, blow to the state’s agricultural producers. Prohibiting the use of modern biotechnology for five years would revert New York growers to the agricultural practices of the 1980s and put them 15 years behind their competitors in surrounding states and countries.

Moreover, the proposed ban would preclude testing of new advancements within the state (if it were illegal to grow the plants, field trials cannot be conducted). If this were to happen, there would be no reason for the continuation of some of the most highly respected research institutions in the world, namely, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and Boyce Thompson Institute of Ithaca, New York, and the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva. All three institutions have been at the forefront of developing genetically enhanced plant varieties and improved growing practices that accompany their production. Were this ban implemented, New York’s world renowned plant scientists would quickly migrate out of the state and the world leadership positions of Cornell, Boyce Thompson, and the Experiment Station would be lost. Will this Assembly and Senate bear the responsibility for the demise of these institutions and deny New York’s citizens and the world the promise they bring through their research and development efforts?

New York legislative fact-finding related to the proposed bill is seriously flawed and scientifically indefensible. The conclusions drawn are misinformed, if not outright misrepresentations of fact. This legislature, before considering the bill, must study how it would negatively impact millions of acres of farm land, rural communities, and the infrastructure that supports them as well as the potential erosion of the tax base and overall state economy. Simply put, this legislature must not implement the proposed five-year ban on genetically enhanced plants, otherwise, it must bear responsibility for many negative consequences affecting New York’s agricultural and scientific communities, economy, and consumer welfare.