Biotechnology: Deepening of the Agricultural Divide Farm Belt Fights Northeast-Backed Label Bill

Sue Kirchhoff Boston Globe 6dec00

WASHINGTON - Ever since presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis made his infamous suggestion that Iowa farmers rotate their corn with Belgian endive, it has been clear there is a split between the Northeast and the Midwest on agriculture.

The divide, largely a question of consumers vs. producers, may be deepening with the spread of biotechnology. Most of the Massachusetts delegation in the US House supports legislation to require labeling of genetically modified foods, an effort fought by the Farm Belt and manufacturers.

"By signing on to this bill, it doesn't mean I'm against biotech. . . . If this is done right, with the proper research and scientific backup, you could make some great progress in combating world hunger," said US Representative James P. McGovern, a Democrat from Worcester. "It's a consumer issue. It's the right to know."

Advocates of tougher regulation point to the recent forced recall of hundreds of brands of corn chips and taco shells tainted with StarLink corn, a biotech variety not approved for human consumption. Aventis CropScience, the maker of StarLink, has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to approve the corn temporarily for food use.

An EPA advisory panel said yesterday said there was a medium likelihood the corn caused allergic reactions but, given the minimal levels of the product in the US diet, a low chance it would affect people who ate it. The panel called for more study of the individuals who have claimed it made them ill, and of possible sensitivity in children. The EPA has yet to rule on the company's request. StarLink, which produces its own pesticide, contains a protein that is digested slowly.

Even with the StarLink scare, supporters and critics say there is not yet enough public support to move mandatory labeling through Congress. Still, they agree the controversy, at a minimum, has pushed the country closer to a two-tiered system for marketing genetically modified and conventional crops - and greater use of voluntary labeling.

"I don't see it yet [mandatory labeling], but I wonder if it's coming," said Julie A. Caswell, professor of resource economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She said there were several reasons the Northeast was more open to labeling. "Agriculture is not as important in Massachusetts. And people tend to be more interested in labeling issues the higher their income."

The Food and Drug Administration later this month will issue long-awaited guidelines for companies that choose to label. The Agriculture Department last week said it would consider tougher monitoring, including new definitions of biotech and conventional crops, improved testing and other efforts to help companies segregate genetically altered products.

"The ability to segregate is an important prerequisite to labeling," Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' food and environment program, said of the Agriculture Department proposal. "Once segregation is possible, that would negate one of industry's main arguments, and that is that it is too difficult."

Growers say they are able to separate gene-spliced crops from other varieties: They do it now for exports to Japan and the European Union, which have tight rules on biotech. In the massive US system crops routinely are commingled in storage and shipment.

But they add that segregating crops, including planting special fields, is expensive and not foolproof. Though some domestic companies have announced they won't buy biotech crops, lobbyists doubt mandatory labeling will happen unless consumer angst reaches the point where people are willing to pay more.

"If a food manufacturer wants to put a 'does not contain' label on a box of corn flakes, he is going to have to spend a lot of money to acquire the corn," said Susan Keith, senior director public policy at the National Corn Growers Association.

Behind the scenes, the industry is not so sanguine. The StarLink controversy has generated a ferocious lobbying battle in Washington. The livestock industry, worried about consumer reaction, initially balked at government plans to divert StarLink for animal feed. In the end, most of the industry came around. Corn exports to Japan and Korea have dropped, forcing officials to intervene.

Farmers feel caught in a Catch-22. They need improved testing and crop segregation to export. But the efforts make it easier for advocates to argue that labeling is practical - though Agriculture Department officials say they are far from the quick, reliable tests that would be needed nationwide.

Biotechnology has skyrocketed to point that it now accounts for a quarter of the nation's corn crop, half of its soybean production and more than 60 percent of cotton.

Supporters of biotechnology argue that introducing a specific gene or trait into a plant or animal is merely a refinement of traditional breeding techniques. They say the improved varieties, which must win goverment approval, have the potential to reduce pesticide use and increase yields and the nutrient value of plants, helping to feed the developing world.

Critics charge that splicing animal or human genes into other organisms could have unintended consequences for the environment and food supply. As with StarLink, there are concerns about possible allergic reactions - and the government's ability to monitor food safety.

Representative Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat and the sponsor of House legislation to require biotech labeling of foods, will reintroduce his bill next year. Of the 58 cosponsors this session, 10 are from the Northeast, including six from Massachusetts.

"We would not be opposed to labeling of nongenetically engineered soybeans, just like foods that are labeled organic," said Bob Callanan, communications director for the American Soybean Association. "But to arbitrarily put a label on something that says this is a biotech variety is bad. We do not support that. . . . It's like a skull and crossbones."