How to Turn a Chaotic Food Fight Into a Reasoned Discussion
In the past year, the international melee over genetically modified crops has begun to resemble a college-fraternity food fight, with tomatoes, chicken wings and mashed potatoes flying in all directions. Unfortunately, many participants have made lots of noise but little sense.
The debate has now come to the United States from Europe and is growing so tempestuous it threatens to forestall any hope of a reasoned approach to the problem. In March, more than 1,500 protesters descended on a biotechnology convention in Boston, further inflaming passions at a time when thoughtful dialogue is in desperately short supply.
Yet, that is just what we need at this critical juncture. While the genetic manipulation of food represents uncharted territory, and many unanswered questions remain, we will never find the answers we need if we take the Luddite approach and close our eyes. That’s the danger of excessive fear: It can yield paralysis.
To avoid this, we need to delve deeper into the issue to address the key questions. Are genetically engineered foods safe for human consumption? What are the environmental risks of introducing new genes into existing crops? And what risks do we face if we don’t take advantage of this new technology?
Bioengineering, like any ground-breaking technology, is not risk-free; but it isn’t necessarily a recipe for calamity, either. And the status quo presents certain risks, as well. For example, world hunger might worsen if we fail to develop hardier strains of crops. Hazardous pesticide use may increase if we halt the development of pest-resistant strains of corn. Ironically, Western Europe, the center of much opposition to such “unnatural” foods, has the world’s highest pesticide consumption.
To sort this out, additional research needs to be funded and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis must be performed so we don’t fly blind into the agricultural horizon. Though the evidence to date shows no indication that engineered foods are dangerous, further studies are needed to clarify the potential for such problems as allergic reactions to transgenic crops. Since genes encode proteins and proteins can cause allergies, the transfer of genes from one organism to another presents the risk of introducing allergenic substances into the food supply.
Once again, however, opposition to genetically modified foods is impeding the search for answers--because of the controversy, European scientists have had access to less research funding from governments and industry. This has led to a troublesome paradox: Their ability to study the health or environmental effects of transgenic foods has been hindered as a result of public fears and resistance.
But such fears should not be allowed to cloud the debate. The issue has already been subject to enough confusion and inconclusive research, such as a 1999 Cornell study that showed a possible adverse effect of transgenic crops on monarch butterflies. Studies like this fuel the controversy, but further research is needed to demonstrate whether butterflies are indeed being harmed.
Other research has triggered even more dissent--most notably a report on genetically modified potatoes that appeared last year in the Lancet, the British science journal. The report concluded that the potatoes caused adverse effects in the digestive tract of rats, but it was immediately criticized for multiple flaws, including a deficient experimental design and an insufficient number of animals studied.
Scientific advisors at the Lancet itself had mixed reactions to the paper, and some advised rejecting it before publication. But the prestigious journal ultimately decided to publish the study to promote further inquiry. Contrary to some newspaper reports, publication of the article was not meant to endorse the researchers’ claims.
The point here isn’t that the research was wrong--it was simply incomplete. So what’s needed now is more research, not more emotional hand-wringing.
It’s worth noting that so-called “natural” foods can be the product of genetic manipulation, too. Nectarines, as everyone knows, are really genetically altered peaches, and humans have been cultivating wheat to achieve better yields and disease resistance for centuries.
None of this means that new genetically engineered foods should be introduced without thorough safety and environmental-impact studies. The National Academy of Sciences, in fact, recently advocated stronger regulation of such foods as well as additional research to assess the safety of transgenic products consumed over extended periods of time.
Well-designed studies, along with careful regulation, could go a long way toward easing the public’s fears. But consideration of the issue must also take into account the other side of the equation: the potential benefits of biotechnology. This technology could enable us to reduce our dependence on chemical pesticides while improving both agricultural yields and nutritional value.
There’s another potential benefit as well. As new threats to existing crops emerge, biotechnology may play a crucial role in helping prevent deadly infectious outbreaks that could devastate agricultural production. The geminivirus provides a good illustration: In the past year, geminiviruses have become a major threat to crops all over the world, as standard control measures like insecticides have proven ineffective. But genetic engineers may eventually be able to endow plants with proteins that inhibit the virus, thereby protecting crops from infection--and people from starvation.
This kind of scientific advance would be analogous to new discoveries made in medicine--and be just as important. If we can search for new ways to fight viruses in humans, why not for plants? In both cases, the final goal is the same: to protect and enhance the quality of life.
At this stage, we need to conduct a careful inquiry into the risks and benefits of genetically modified food. But to succeed in this, we must be willing to conduct a level-headed--and open-minded--exploration. If rational voices can prevail, we may be able to pioneer some exciting advances in agricultural technology. But if we close our eyes to the future, we’ll simply be mired in the past.
