Biotech food fight pits U.S., China vs. Europe, environmentalists

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 12mar00

EDINBURGH, Scotland -- While the West is slowing development of genetically modified foods because of public apprehension over the new technology's safety, China is wholeheartedly embracing it.

There already are 1.2 million to 2.4 million acres of biotech crops planted in China. Within five to 10 years, half of the country's fields will be planted with genetically modified (GM) rice, potatoes and other crops, according to Prof. Zhangliang Chen, a vice-president of Beijing University.

Chen was among the most enthusiastic supporters of biotech foods -- called "Frankenfoods" by skeptics -- at a major international conference on the subject that wrapped up here in Edinburgh the other day.

Scientists create biotech crops by inserting into plants genetic material from other organisms to make the original bigger, hardier or tastier. Biotech corn, for instance, can produce a natural pesticide that kills the European corn borer.

On the eve of the forum, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose government has been one of the few in Europe actually supporting GM foods, suddenly changed tack and declared that along with its benefits, the new technology might harm humans and the environment. Blair's announcement came as GM crop trials due to start in Britain were postponed because too few farmers were willing to provide their fields.

Many schools and food suppliers in England, France and other North European countries have banned GM foods. Several cities in France have declared themselves "GM-free." Wales is discussing whether to join them. Heinz Inc. and other major food companies have announced they no longer will sell GM foods in Europe.

Even in America, where people have gladly eaten GM food for years, consumers and environmental groups are now mobilizing against the new technology.

In China, though, the push for GM products is unstoppable, according to Chen. China has 23 percent of the world's population but only 7 percent of its arable land. Without the increased yields and added nutritional value from GM crops, China won't be able to feed its people, he said.

Other delegates from the developing world say GM food technology is no solution for world hunger.

Suman Sahai of the Gene Campaign in India said a third of her country's harvest is lost to poor storage facilities and mice. Better storage would be more useful than biotech crops, she said, because most such crops are sterile, producing no seeds for re-planting, and poor farmers cannot afford to purchase new seeds each year from multinational monopolies.

The three-day conference drew 400 scientists, along with representatives of activist organizations, industry and policymakers from 29 countries. They tried to untangle the myriad issues involved in the GM debate and separate scientific fact from areas of uncertainty. The conference's final report will be presented at the July summit of the leading industrialized countries in Okinawa, Japan.

Not surprisingly, many issues -- including whether GM food could or should feed the growing world's population and whether GM technology is just a new way to breed plants or a radical departure into an unknowable future -- remained unresolved. But on the crucial issue of health safety, participants generally agreed that hundreds of millions of people in the United States, China and other parts of the world have consumed GM foods for 10 years with no apparent ill effects. Tests on toxicity and allergenicity have so far shown no harm.

The experts also stressed the need to be vigilant because subtle and long-term effects remain unknown. "When you put an engineered piece of DNA in a plant cell, you will have different types of effects," says Prof. Hans Gunter Gassen of Darmstadt Technical University in Germany. "I am not saying it's dangerous but that we should be careful and always expect that we are confronted with the unexpected."

Sharing Gassen's caution, the conference called for continued testing of GM varieties and long-term monitoring of people who eat them. Test methods need to be continually updated, stressed conference chairman Sir John Krebs, professor of Zoology at Oxford University. Krebs said recommendations in the final report should include the use of animal testing for toxicology and a review of the principle of "substantial equivalence", which has been used since 1993 to assess the safety of GM foods but has come under fire from environmental groups and several scientists.

This concept holds that if GM and natural plants are found to be substantially similar across a limited range of variables -- such as composition of proteins and minerals -- they can be presumed substantially equivalent in all other aspects.

Environmental groups have rejected most of the conference's draft conclusions. They consider GM products unnecessary and harmful, and are seeking a worldwide moratorium. "If we are wrong, what can we do about it?" asked Benedikt Haerlin of Greenpeace International. "The release of genetic pollution is irreversible."

Participants did agree that the GM debate largely centers on balancing benefit and risk, with different calculations made by different regions and peoples.

Consumers in Western countries might reject GM foods because, being well fed, they see no benefit, only potential risks, said Prof. Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation. But in the developing world, benefits might seem more apparent as biotech foods, such as "golden" rice with added vitamin A or protein-rich sweet potatoes, promise to help alleviate malnutrition and disease.