Also see:
Biotech Genie Unbottled

Biotech: Profits Outstrip Science, Regulations, and Public Understanding

Suggest an article on genetically engineered food, and your editor may react the same way EW’s editor did: with indifference and skepticism.

Why the lack of interest?

Because of the issue’s need for a catchy, cool label? Granted, the terms in this food fight are soporific: genetically altered, genetically engineered, genetically modified, biofoods, genetic pollution, or "Frankenfoods" (from Europe). Even the shortened "GM foods" gets readers confused about whether the story is about food, or American cars with meals included.

Why are so many editors hesitant to take on the issue?

Because of an initial association with activist Jeremy Rifkin, who first raised the biotechnology issue in the 1980s and is frequently referred to as a "self-promoting gadfly"? The Wall Street Journal may not be the only institution to recall "years of Rifkin-driven court cases against biotech," which bored consumers and resolved little.

Because the issue involves complex processes that used to be called gene splicing? Even Consumer Reports needed a big graphic detailing five steps to explain how to make biotech corn.

Genetic engineering refers to the process of splicing plant or animal genes with particular traits into the DNA of other organisms. In food crops, this action can produce a "Flavr Savr" tomato that has a longer shelf life, crops that resist frost, plants that produce their own pesticides, and a "terminator" gene that makes plants produce sterile seeds, which prevents farmers from saving and replanting seeds and forces them to buy new seed each year.

The miracle of genetic engineering is seen by many as better living through biology -- a way to feed the world, help farmers increase productivity, and produce a vegetable that will wash the dishes. It is seen by others as an insufficiently regulated scientific process with tremendous potential to go berserk and wreak inconceivable destruction on human health, the environment, and the agricultural economy.

Is it time to face genetically engineered food as a legitimate issue?

- "Consumer suspicion of the products is growing, especially after a Cornell University study earlier this year indicated that Monarch butterflies died after eating pollen from gene-altered corn plants that was supposed to be toxic only to certain caterpillar pests." (Gannett News Service, September 13, 1999)

- "Widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant seeds may lead to greater use of chemicals that kill weeds .... In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service has found that [herbicide] Roundup already threatens 74 endangered plant species. Biological pollution from genetically engineered organisms may be another problem .... Such ["terminator"] genes could unintentionally sterilize other plants." (New York Times op/ed piece by Peter Rosset, September 1, 1999)

- "Environmental lobby group Greenpeace is gearing up its international network to bring Canadian consumers into the fight against genetically modified food, which it says is dangerous for the environment and for people’s health .... The aim is to knock genetically modified food off the shelves, as Greenpeace and other environmentalists have done in the United Kingdom." (Toronto Globe and Mail, September 1, 1999)

- "The U.S. has been on a collision course with the European Union over genetically modified foods. E.U. regulations have prohibited imports of unapproved varieties of genetically engi-neered corn. U.S. corn exports to Europe have virtually stopped -- a $200 million loss." (Consumer Reports, September 1999)

- "Several years ago, a company developed a soybean with some genetic threads borrowed from the Brazil nut in an attempt to boost the bean’s amino-acid content. The soy began acting like the nut -- so much so that it churned out not just amino acids, but also chemicals that can trigger allergies in nut-sensitive consumers. The company quickly scrapped the product." (Time, September 13, 1999)

- "Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., in a move that could dent farmer interest in biotechnology, warned its grain suppliers to begin segregating genetically modified crops from conventional crops. The statement by one of America’s biggest millers, which is being faxed to grain elevators throughout the Midwest, is the clearest sign yet that the consumer backlash over genetically modified crops in Europe and Asia is rattling American exporters." (Wall Street Journal, September 2, 1999)

- "The trade issue -- which is sure to generate plenty of heat at the November World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle -- will be a tough one to resolve." (Newsweek, September 13, 1999)

When the story has been covered in the last few weeks, it has been covered big: for example, Consumer Reports devoted six pages to its "Seeds of Change" story, Time and Newsweek both gave their stories three full pages, and Gannett News Service distributed a story with a sidebar and graphics.

Here are some examples of how the genetically engineered food story has played in publications across the country:

Barron’s: "Despite the recent backlash against genetically engineered crops, companies such as DuPont, Novartis and Monsanto are likely to press ahead with their efforts in this area -- and wisely so. To date, such crops have garnered little public enthusiasm, in part because they provide few advantages to the public. Indeed, most of the advantages go to farmers, who like to use genetically altered seeds because they produce more crops per acre and require far less pesticide use than ordinary seeds do. The public perception could change, however, if further research produces genetically engineered crops that offer health benefits to consumers. This could come in the form of soybean oil with lower fat levels, for example, or grain with especially high amounts of vitamin E."

Boston Globe: "Because nearly 60 percent of all processed foods -- everything from pickles to peanut butter -- contain corn or soybeans that have been grown with genetically engineered seeds, Americans are already dining regularly on DNA-altered cuisine, probably without knowing it. The deception, if it can be called that, is intentional. Efforts to label foods with genetically altered components have largely failed out of a concern that illogical fears about scientifically-produced foods would unfairly harm a new and promising industry. Yet the speed with which that industry has taken off with no special regulatory oversight has even some scientists worried about what the future may bring as more and more gene-tinkered foods come to market."

Consumer Reports: "Our tests of everyday groceries show that genetically engineered foods are already on supermarket shelves -- in baby formulas, tortilla chips, drink mixes, taco shells, ‘veggie’ burgers, muffin mix -- and even in fast-food fare. There’s no evidence such foods on the market aren’t safe to eat .... In fact, U.S. consumers are largely unaware of the issue ....

"Concerns have been raised, for example, that the process of genetic engineering could inadvertently increase natural toxins or decrease nutrients in some foods .... Environmental issues are another concern. One problem is that pollen from a genetically engineered plant that is resistant to herbicides might hitch a ride with honeybees, or catch a breeze and ‘jump’ to other plants, perhaps spawning ‘superweeds.’ Such gene flow is more likely to pose a problem when genetically engineered plants have wild, weedy relatives nearby ....

"One problem is that the regulatory framework is fragmented. The USDA approves the ‘release’ in outdoor test plots of genetically engineered plants, and also approves crops for production. The FDA oversees the safety of genetically modified food -- but not of any pesticide it expresses. And the EPA regulates the pesticide expressed via genetic engineering -- but not the genetically modified food itself."

Gannett News Service: "In the months ahead, the issue could develop into a nasty international trade battle between the United States, which says science has proven gene-altered crops are safe, and countries in Europe that complain the technology was unwisely rushed to market by profit-hungry biotechnology firms. American farmers, particularly those who grow corn, already are losing more than $200 million in sales a year in Europe because France and other countries stopped imports from the United States .... For many farmers, the risk of selling into an uncertain market outweighs, at least in the short term, the boosts in crop yields and savings on pesticides that come from biotech farming."

Newsweek: "ADM [Archer Daniels Midland] had noticed something new sprouting under the bright, warm sun of economic interdependence: a strange hybrid of cultural and economic fears. So it decided to act before the problem got any bigger .... Now the protests and the tabloid headlines about ‘Frankenstein Foods’ have reached such a pitch that they’re reverberating across the Atlantic. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, a longtime backer of biotechnology, admitted as much in a key speech in July. So did Heinz and Gerber when they announced the same month that they’ll go to the considerable trouble of making their baby foods free of genetically modified organisms. Groups such as Greenpeace, which have long fought biotech on both continents, are crowing. U.S. trade officials, who face a tough fight keeping markets open for American agricultural products, are worrying. And U.S. consumers, who have never really thought much about genetically modified foods, are just plain confused."

New York Times: ("Eating Well" column) "When a field of genetically altered corn at the University of Maine was destroyed by protesters in mid-August, it was a rare hint that uneasiness over bioengineering in agriculture is growing among Americans .... One reason may be that most of them don’t have a clue that many foods are already being made with genetically engineered ingredients: no labeling is required in this country, nor is Government approval ....

"Because so few safety studies have been done, there is no evidence that genetically engineered food now on the market is unsafe to eat. But some scientists and consumer advocates worry about the potential for unknown allergens, an increase in natural toxic substances, a decrease in nutritional value and especially environmental damage. In addition, some religious groups are concerned about the possibility that genes from foods they are forbidden to eat will be put into other foods, like shellfish genes into a tomato....

"But the big issue, as Consumer Reports emphasized, is whether consumers should be informed when bioengineered ingredients are used, so they can decide whether to avoid them."

Time: "Around the world, people are taking a closer look at the genetic makeup of what they’re eating -- and growing uneasy with what they see. Over the past decade, genetically modified (GM) food has become an increasingly common phenomenon as scientists in the U.S. and elsewhere have rewoven the genes of countless fruits and vegetables, turning everyday crops into uber-crops able to resist frost, withstand herbicides and even produce their own pesticides. In all, more than 4,500 GM plants have been tested .... The European Union has blocked the importation of some GM crops, and since 1997 has required that foods that contain engineered DNA be labeled as such. Plenty of trade watchers in Washington see the European actions as one more tweak from an increasingly powerful E.U. no longer intimidated by U.S. economic might. While that may be, the fact remains that the U.S. Congress may address a labeling bill of its own this fall, and some private groups are threatening lawsuits to force the issue. Even without legal action, public opinion is turning a more skeptical eye on GM technology."

Wall Street Journal: "We guess the guy who came up with the name ‘terminator’ gene won’t be getting his bonus this year. It’s one of the reasons that a plague of plaintiffs lawyers is now descending on the agricultural biotech industry .... If that suppresses the development of this business, the losers will be the billions of people around the world for whom biotechnology promises a better life. Even in the developed world, after all, it wasn’t so long ago that food was scarce and expensive enough that ‘a chicken in every pot’ was actually a resonant political slogan."

Washington Post: (Front-page news story) "As the crucial fall harvest season approaches, many U.S. farmers and other agricultural workers are in a near panic because of escalating uncertainty over genetically engineered crops. Farmers planted millions of acres of the high-tech crops this year. But foreign buyers are rejecting them in droves, despite aggressive U.S. marketing efforts and assurances of their safety ....

"Twelve days ago those developments hit home for many farmers, when Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the big Illinois-based buyer and exporter of farm commodities, made the ominous recommendation that U.S. farmers segregate their gene-altered and non-altered crops at harvest because of heightened demand for conventional varieties both domestically and abroad.

"The announcement left many farmers feeling angry and betrayed."

Washington Post: (Editorial) "How to keep the politics of the issue and the probable ripple effects of choices like ADM’s -- which send the message that there’s something wrong with modified products -- from derailing biotechnology’s larger promise? This technology, after all, has been hailed as holding out hopes from lowering pesticide use to cutting Third World malnutrition. One important step is to distinguish the various criticisms being leveled at GM foods -- some of them thoroughly far-fetched, others worthy of additional testing that could calm consumer fears .... The proper balance of safety testing between companies and the government is a legitimate area for further debate. So are companies’ environmental safeguards. But the purpose of such debate should be to improve biotech research and enhance its acceptance, not stop it in its tracks."

Reuters Reverses Labeling Report

How confusing is the genetically modified food story? Ask Reuters, which had to reverse a story on a key issue within that debate.

Story #1: U.S. plans labels on genetically modified foods By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - U.S. government agencies have agreed to develop a labeling plan for food products made from genetically modified crops, a key demand of the biotech-wary European market, an industry consultant said on Friday.

Consultant Charles Benbrook said the decision was made earlier this week at a meeting between officials of the U.S. Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

"Things will move slowly, as they always do. But there definitely was a major breakthrough,’’ Benbrook, a consultant for Consumers Union and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told reporters.

But Isi Siddiqui, a trade adviser to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, told Reuters he had no knowledge of the agreement.

Story #2: U.S. denies any plan for biotech food labels By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Clinton administration officials on Friday quickly shot down a suggestion the United States will offer a proposal in upcoming world trade talks for labeling food products made from genetically modified crops.

"That is absolutely not the case," Peter Scher, special U.S. ambassador for agricultural trade, told Reuters in response to earlier comments made by an agriculture industry consultant. "We have no plans to bring a labeling proposal.’’

Genetically modified crops, such as new corn and soybean varieties planted in the United States since 1996, contain genes borrowed from other organisms to increase their resistance to herbicides and pests.

European consumers, in particular, have been wary of the new technology and want labels on foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rules [regulating] the crops and other GMOs are expected to be a hot topic at World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks that begin in Seattle in late November.

Charles Benbrook, a biotechnology consultant, ignited the rush of Clinton administration denials after he told reporters that officials from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department had agreed earlier this week to develop a labeling proposal.

"Things will move slowly, as they always do. But there definitely was a major breakthrough,’’ said Benbrook, who once headed an agriculture research panel for the National Academy of Sciences.

Genetically Engineered Foods: Key Contacts Journalists taking on the issue of genetically engineered foods will find as many points of view as there are points of controversy. Here’s a list of key contacts to get started.

- American Corn Growers Association, Gary Goldberg, CEO, Tulsa, OK, (918) 488-1829

- Biotechnology Industry Organization, Libby Mikesell, Communications Officer, Washington, DC, (202) 857-0244

- Environmental Defense Fund, Rebecca Goldburg, Senior Scientist, New York, NY, (212) 505-2100

- Greenpeace, Racine Tucker-Hamilton, Press Officer, Washington, DC, (202) 462-1177

- Grocery Manufacturers Association, Brian Sansoni, Communications Officer, Washington, DC, (202) 337-9400

- Union of Concerned Scientists, Margaret Mellon, Director, Agriculture and Biotechnology Project, and Jane Rissler, Senior Staff Scientist, Washington, DC, (202) 332-0900

- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Andy Solomon, Press Officer, Washington, DC, (202) 720-4623

- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ellen Kramer, Press Officer, Washington, DC., (202) 260-4376

- U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Ruth Welch and Judy Foulke, Press Officers, Food Division, Washington, DC., (202) 205-4144

Reprinted with permission. Published in Environment Writer newsletter, October 1999, by the National Safety Council's Environmental Health Center.

Archive | EW Home | Comments