MS. SCHMITZ: My name is Sonja Schmitz. I'm a doctor candidate here at the University of Vermont. I'm also a former employee of Dupont, where I worked as a molecular biologist in their Agriculture Biotechnology Department. Today I'm representing a group of citizens and activists from the northeast states, as we call ourselves, New England Resistance against Genetic Engineering.

One of the U.S. goals for this round of the WTO trade negotiations is to address concerns of the emergent area of agricultural products created through scientific innovation. The basic principles of the WTO have a provision for ensuring food safety and protecting the health of people, animals and plants [Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, SPS]. We at New England Resistance against Genetic Engineering are concerned that current standards for the safety of agricultural crops do not include a provision for environmental safety of genetically engineered crops and that the environmental risks of growing transgenic crops at commercial scale have not been sufficiently determined. Since the WTO places great importance on substantiating risk on a scientific basis, my report documents the scientific literature on the environmental risks of releasing genetically engineered crops.

Forty-five to sixty million acres of genetically engineered crops were grown on U.S. farmland during 1988. These figures represent 50 percent of all cotton, 32 percent of all corn and 38 percent of all soybeans, much of which was intended for export to other countries. Since most of the transgenic crops grown are genetically engineered for either herbicide or insect resistance, my report is limited to the discussion of risks associated these two classes of transgenic crops. The risks include the contamination of natural plant populations with generically engineered pollen and the effects of genetically engineered insect resistant crops on beneficial insect predators, particularly those insects typically used in integrated pest management techniques.

In August 1996, the American institute of Biological Sciences held their annual botany meeting and dedicated an entire symposium to the subject of gene transfer to be crop species and their relatives. Scientists presented papers documenting the occurrence of gene flow between crops and wild species, raising serious concerns for the commercialization of transgenic crops. The potential for gene flow between transgenic crops and their wild relatives is substantial. 11/18 of the world's worst weeds are also grown as crops. To date gene flow from cultivated plants has been documented for 14 different crops. While the buffer zone required for field tests of genetically engineered plants is only 50 meters, crop genes have been detected in natural populations as far as four kilometers from cultivated stands. A recent study in sunflowers showed that crop genes not only escape but also persist in wild populations at modern frequencies. After ten years, 28 percent of wild sunflowers growing nearby harbored genes received from cultivated species. Finally, genetic engineering has the potential to alter the reproductive mechanisms of plants. Arabidopsis thaliana, normally a self-pollinating plant, became an out crossing-species when genetically engineered with a herbicide resistance gene.

Insect resistant Bt crops represent another category of genetically engineered plants under large scale cultivation in the U.S. Recent experiments have shown that plants engineered for insect resistance with Bt toxin or plant lectins are harmful to beneficial insects, such as monarch butterflys, lacewings and ladybugs. A recent study at Cornell found that Bt corn pollen deposited on milkweed leaves resulted in a 44 percent mortality rate for monarch butterfly larvae.

A group in Switzerland examined the effects of Bt fed corn borers on their natural predators. They found that developmental and reproductive fitness of lacewings is significantly reduced. Likewise, the fecundity, viability and longevity of the ladybugs that feed on aphids that consume potatoes genetically engineered with snowdrop lectin, GNA, are significantly reduced. Because some of these insects are often used as part of integrated pest management techniques in organic farming, these experiments highlight the importance of determining the safety of introducing transgenic crops genetically engineered for insect resistance.

In conclusion, agricultural exports from the U.S. should set the standard for the worldwide trade by offering chemical-free food that is not genetically engineered. We at New England Resistance against Genetic Engineering feel it appalling that the USDA and the WTO encourages an agricultural system that not only perpetuates chemical contamination but also threatens genetic contamination of ecosystems. It is time that the U.S. realizes agricultural systems do not operate in isolation of natural ecosystems and that the process of cultivation is as important as the agricultural products. At a time when organic farmers are making tremendous strides in providing chemical-free food, New England Resistance against Genetic Engineering calls for a ban on the genetically engineered crops in the United States.

Thank you.

MR. ACETO: I just wanted to ask a question, because at the listening session and at that session we were trying to have some farmers coming in, I guess -- so, some of the concerns you were mentioning regarding genetic modified crops, I was just wondering -- are you finding or are farmers expressing this concern -- (inaudible)

SPEAKER: I don't know what he said. Concerns here in the northeast on issues that relate --

MR. TOKAR: Well, there is very little information about the experience of people actually using genetically engineered crops here in this region. We do know from our experience in Vermont with bovine growth hormone several years ago, farmers were really in the forefront of the opposition to the approval by the FDA of bovine growth hormone. And even though Monsanto has been aggressively promoting this product to farmers here in Vermont, there are really very few who are actually using it.

On the current generation of engineered crops, I'm familiar with many of the studies, which I know -- which I'm sure you're familiar with as well. The one from the University of Wisconsin that demonstrated that yields are lower. Other evidence that rather than decreasing pesticide, pesticide use with the Bt crops is, as Sonja mentioned, is the same or higher.

MS. SCHMITZ: Another reason that the information on farmers using genetically engineered crops here in the northeast is difficult to come by is that the agricultural tech companies are not always explicit that the crops that they're selling farmers in this region are genetically engineered.

MR. SCHUMACHER: Let me -- you used to work for Dupont?

MS. SCHMITZ: If you look at the trade names these crops are sold under as seeds, they are not explicitly labeled as genetically engineered crops, so farmers are not always aware that that's what they are growing.

MS. SCHUMACHER: But you could you bring specific examples to my attention in Washington. I'm not -- usually these have to be labeled. I'm not a specialist but my understanding is seeds that are GMO's are interrelated. So, if you're finding evidence in the northeast that there may be some seeds that have been bioengineered that are not labeled, would you bring that to my attention?

MS. SCHMITZ: I'll be glad to do that.

MR. TOKAR: We have looked at some of the catalogs and advertisements and the various trade journals that -- all of our farmers, as you know, get lots of them in the mail every week. And these crops are advertised as herbicide tolerant and pest resistant, but nowhere in the text does it mention genetic engineering. And I have heard anecdotal accounts of farmers who have been -- have had salesmen come to them and attempt to sell these seeds without mentioning genetic engineering at all.

MR. SCHUMACHER: I need to get clarification. If you could bring me examples of what you feel -- seeds that are bio- engineered that are sold and labeled as seeds.

MR. TOKAR: Sure.

MR. CUMMINGS: Bob, I understand these sell at a premium in our market, particularly if they are going to enter export markets. So, we would appreciate some information on that.

MR. TOKAR: We are confident here in Vermont that the issue of genetic engineering in agriculture has had a high enough profile that were these seeds clearly labeled, nobody in Vermont would be growing genetically engineered crops.