PHILLIP J. LONGMAN / US News and World Report 26jul99
In speeches and on his Web site, the Prince of Wales warns that he would never eat the stuff and proclaims that he won't stand for it being grown on his land. Former Beatle Paul McCartney, when he learned that traces could be found in his late wife Linda's vegetarian food line, reacted with the same fear and revulsion as do most Britons: He ordered the offending ingredient removed immediately. British newspapers now publish advice columns on how to avoid feeding the stuff accidentally to your pets, and protesters regularly vandalize farm fields where it is grown. Indeed, not only in Britain but throughout Europe, public fears are running so high that there is widespread resistance to any imported food–a situation that could provoke a major trade war with the United States.
Yet chances are, if you live on this side of the pond, you're only dimly aware of so-called genetically modified organisms, or "Frankenfood," as the British tabloids call it. And chances are, too, that you had some for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner. In the past five years, a revolution has occurred in the American diet. Since the last century, humans have crossbred plants to make them tastier or hardier or to give them some other desired quality. But with the advent of new gene-splicing technology researchers are now able to remove individual genes from one species and insert them into another. So, for example, a gene from a cat can be put into a dog, or a gene from a soil bacterium can be spliced into a tomato.
The ability to crossbreed diverse forms of life has had a profound impact on U.S. agriculture. The first genetically modified crop, the Flavr-Savr tomato, went into supermarkets five years ago. By 1998, 25 percent of corn, 38 percent of soybeans, and 45 percent of cotton grown in the United States were genetically altered, either to make the crops resistant to weedkillers or to produce their own pesticides.
And tofu, too. It is now virtually impossible for Americans to avoid eating genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, as they're often called. Bioengineered corn and soybeans in particular are used as ingredients in a wide range of processed food, from soft drinks and beer to breakfast cereal. They are also fed to farm animals. Even products found in health-food stores, such as tofu and canola oil, often contain genetically modified ingredients.
In many instances, food manufacturers themselves don't know which GMOs may lurk in their products. Pillsbury, for example, avers that its Green Giant brand sweet corn varieties are not genetically modified. But in a written statement, the company allows that "many of our products contain food ingredients derived from soy (soy oil, soy protein, soy sauce) and corn (corn starch, corn oil, high fructose corn syrup), all of which could have been produced using genetic modification. Since soy and corn are managed as commodity ingredients in the United States, it is possible that traditional and genetically modified products could become commingled during harvest, storage, and processing."
Some major food companies, such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, claim that any GMOs they use as raw material are eliminated in the production process. But that's open to dispute. John Fagan, chairman and chief scientific officer at Genetic ID, which does genetic testing for the food industry, is unequivocal when asked about the assertions made by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. "Their claim that they're removing all genetically engineered residues is not scientifically defensible," he says. "I'd be happy to stand up in court and say that."
Does it matter? The rapidly growing biotech industry, led by Monsanto, says that genetically modified food promises a new green revolution. Already, such crops have helped hold down the cost of food production, while also reducing farmers' need for pesticides and herbicides. Modified foods in the works include more nutritious, flavorful, and productive grains, salt- and drought-tolerant crops, and even plants that produce compounds ranging from industrial oils and plastics to drugs and vaccines.
But a growing chorus of critics warns of unintended consequences, ranging from threats to human health and environmental destruction to severe economic dislocations for the world's farmers. In May, Cornell University researchers reported that monarch butterfly caterpillars in the laboratory–fed pollen from a widely used form of genetically modified corn–died or developed abnormally. Though this may happen rarely in nature, the study reinforced the belief held by many scientists that the effects of GMOs on human health and the environment have not been sufficiently studied (box, Page 40). The study has already had a profound political impact overseas, strengthening the hand of environmental groups and foreign governments that want bans on genetically modified food imports.
The stakes for both food producers and consumers are high. During his recent confirmation hearings, Deputy Treasury Secretary-designate Stuart Eizenstat stated that "almost 100 percent of our agricultural exports in the next five years will be genetically modified or combined with bulk commodities that are genetically modified." The European Union's resistance to such crops, he added, "is the single greatest trade threat that we face." Last year, U.S. agriculture exports reached about $50 billion, or more than 7 percent of all American goods bought abroad.
President Clinton formally raised the issue in June with other world leaders at a summit in Cologne, Germany. France, which is Europe's biggest agricultural producer, advocated a new worldwide council to investigate the safety of genetically modified organisms. U.S. negotiators argued that such a move is not needed, suggesting instead that the Europeans form their own food safety and regulatory regime. A compromise was reached by tossing the issue to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
But the international politicking and intrigue continue. Led by France, the European Union imposed a de facto moratorium in late June on the import of all genetically modified materials not previously approved. Since then, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has spearheaded the administration's attempts to alternately bully and flatter the Europeans into eating what Washington wants to put on their plates. The bullying comes in the form of continuing threats to take the issue to the World Trade Organization, where the United States has had good luck recently in overturning European trade barriers against bananas and hormone-fed beef. The flattery is no less overt. After flying to Paris to consult with the French, Glickman alluded to Louis Pasteur having been the first great scientist to do significant work on food safety, in hopes of engaging the pride of the country's scientific establishment. It didn't work. Last week, in another effort to mollify the Europeans, Glickman said the United States will for the first time conduct its own long-term studies on the safety of genetically modified organisms.
That move is bound to startle Americans who have been, often unwittingly, eating the stuff for years. Though Americans place more faith than do Europeans in food regulators, there is widespread fear within the food industry that Americans, too, may become phobic about GMOs, especially now that the administration seems to be validating at least some concerns raised by critics of bioengineered food. The Food and Drug Administration requires no special testing of genetically modified foodstuffs, and there are no labeling requirements, either.
Fearing the backlash. The politics of this issue are complex and potentially explosive. Start with the American farmer. Nebraskan Roger Wehrbein is typical in his ambivalence. The entire soybean crop on his family's farm is engineered to resist a powerful weedkiller. A third of the corn crop is either resistant to the weedkiller or designed to repel pests. He'll save $2 to $3 an acre in reduced weedkiller costs and have fewer weeds in the harvested crop. But when he considers biotech's impact on farming, Wehrbein is more hesitant. Are the agribusiness giants that control genetically modified crops going to leave the small farmers and independent seed companies in the dust? "I don't want to say this is necessarily bad," he says, "but it must be done carefully, and we need public debate."
Many farmers believe that genetically altered beans and corn won't hurt humans, but they understand that in the end, regardless of what science may say, consumer taste rules. "We need to make sure we don't introduce new varieties into the marketplace before they receive necessary clearance," says Kirk Leeds, executive director of the Iowa Soybean Association. "In many cases technology is introduced before consumers are ready to accept it." At a time when U.S. farmers are facing declining commodity prices and falling income, U.S. corn exports to Europe have nearly stopped, ultimately because of consumer resistance to GMOs.
Public enemy No. 1. Farmers have to worry, too, about how American consumers will respond as trade frictions and new scientific findings increasingly put genetically modified organisms in the news. It's a threat that probably can't be contained by mere public relations. The British experience suggests that the more effort big biotech companies like Monsanto put into "educating" consumers about GMOs, the more consumers grow wary and resentful. For example, a series of pro-GMO advertisements Monsanto ran a year ago in Britain were criticized as patronizing, and public resistance to genetically modified food actually increased after the campaign. Notes John Vidal, environmental editor of the British newspaper the Guardian: "It has become a Monsanto-hate thing. It isn't anti-American; it is anti-overzealous corporations." Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament Norman Baker earlier this year called Monsanto "public enemy No. 1."
Americans may be culturally more inclined to embrace new technology than are Europeans. But this country also has a strong environmental movement that is already beginning to rally against genetically modified food. In February, plaintiffs including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that it unlawfully approved genetically modified crops. Mothers for Natural Law, an environmental activist group, has collected nearly a half million signatures on a petition calling for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food.
In the end, the fight over genetically modified food may be much more than a trade war. It could become a domestic donnybrook as well, rivaling the revolt against that other once bright and promising new industry: nuclear power.
With Thomas K. Grose in London, Mindy Charski, Jack Egan, Penny Loeb, Margaret Loftus, and Laura Tangley
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |