Turn Down Heat in Food Feud
Genetically modified food had a relatively easy voyage from the laboratory to the fields to the silos. But something happened on the way to the market. The Europeans, who call it Frankenstein food, won’t touch it. Some so-called GM crops sold in Europe have to be labeled and others can’t be sold at all. Japan, South Korea, Australia and other countries are following suit. The fear of food altered in the laboratory has reached America’s shores as well, and whether well founded or not it is forcing producers, farmers and even government regulators to take another look. Addressing some of the concerns raised about GM food, rather than dismissing critics as a bunch of kooks or trade protectionists, is a welcome change.
The benefits of genetically altered crops are many, and most of them are acknowledged even by groups opposed to their cultivation. Corn containing proteins of a bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) kills insects that can’t be controlled by pesticides. GM crops improve nutritional content, increase yields, make plants resistant to weeds, reduce pesticide use and even make recycling easier.
The U.S. government has tested such crops extensively and found GM food to be as good as any food. Right now, there are 50 “tried and tested” GM plant varieties approved by the Agriculture Department, including cotton, corn, soybeans and rapeseed. Nearly one-half of soybeans and over one-third of corn grown in the United States last year was genetically altered.
But the Europeans, subjected to a handful of food scares unrelated to biotechnology in recent years, have balked. Environmentalists plunder test fields of Bt corn, daily headlines in Britain whip up public hysteria about Frankenfood, and Italian consumers pelt visiting U.S. agricultural officials with Bt soybeans. The European Union reacted to the consumer uproar by requiring labels on some GM crop imports and imposing a moratorium on the imports of others. Washington responded by threatening to embroil Europe--its biggest trading partner--in a food fight that could dwarf the spaghetti, banana and beef trade wars of recent times.
The issue has now spread to Asia, and new scientific and commercial concerns are taking root in the United States as well. In a laboratory study, pollen from Bt corn killed monarch butterfly larvae, and soybeans containing a gene from Brazil nuts were found to trigger allergic reactions. The Bt corn tests were not duplicated in field tests, and the modified soybean never made it to the market. But doubts were raised, and now even the regulators are worried.
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has acknowledged that there are many questions--scientific and economic--that “haven’t been thought of, much less answered.” While he and producers of GM seeds blame much of the problem on poor public relations, they are beginning to concede the opponents’ concerns as legitimate. He promised to alter his department’s decades-old regulatory procedure to give it greater independence from industry and broaden scientific review to include long-term effects of various processes. He even conceded that “some type of information labeling is likely to happen.”
Clearly, what’s needed now is for both sides of this issue to stop hurling accusations and threatening retribution and start talking. Independent scientists, environmentalists and consumers must be included in the regulatory review. U.S. and European regulators should get together and seek a solution acceptable to both sides. After all, what’s at stake is a science that all agree has huge benefits to offer.
