Genetically engineered foods debate sows seeds of discontent

The Lancet V.352, N.9125 1aug98

The issue of genetically engineered foods has given way to heated debates globally over scientific ethics, health and environmental dangers, and labelling laws. And now added to an already morally loaded discussion is the issue of freedom of speech. At a recent public information session on genetic food engineering presented in Ottawa, Canada, attendants were incensed to find that the federal government agency Health Canada had forbidden one of its outspoken scientists, Shiv Chopra, to speak at the event.

Richard Wolfson, event organisor and leader of the Consumer Right To Know Campaign in Ottawa, called the action a "gag order". Not only is the public being denied consumer choice regarding unlabelled "mutant foods", he said, but also denied is "access to critical information from scientists with an insider's perspective on genetic engineering and its implications". The general suspicion is that the order comes in the wake of Chopra's last public appearance on a television news show, after which he was reprimanded for commenting that money belied government approval of substances such as bovine growth hormone and that biotech companies held both the purse and the puppet strings.

Controversial EU food-additive additions

The European Parliament has failed to block some of the more controversial additions to the list of food additives authorised for use in the European Union. Strasbourg's suggested changes to the European Commission proposals fell foul of a technicality on July 15. Of particular concern were proposals to extend the foods in which sulphur compounds can be used to preserve colour and for their antimicrobial effect. Arthur Rogers

But the gag order is only a drop in the deluge of accusations about corporate tyranny. In the USA, two investigative reporters accused Fox Television of succumbing to pressures from the biotech company Monsanto after it lobbied to pull or heavily edit a story about bovine growth hormone. After refusing hush money and being fired last December, one of the reporters, Steve Wilson, wrote in The Nation, "We believe that what happened to us should raise concern not only about the rapidly decreasing number of companies that control our media but also about the true character and motivation of those who seek to use the public airwaves to enhance their corporate bottom lines".

Among scientists, many question how rigorous governments are in their testing requirements for biotech products. Margaret Mellon, director of agriculture and biotechnology for the Union of Concerned Scientists warned in a recent issue of Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News that agricultural biotechnology is "not a miracle technology. It's had lots of mistakes. It's an expensive technology that's problematic".

Besides, who can possibly predict long-term effects? Byron P Rigby, president of the Australian Association of Ayurvedic Medicine, recently wrote in the Australian newspaper, Living Now, that biotechnology makes Chernobyl, "mad-cow" disease, and cane toads pale in comparison, given its "completely imponderable effects". Now the question remains, how much are countries willing to gamble for a softer bread crust or a firmer tomato?

Amanda Pirisi

If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org