Biotech Foods. . .Safe, Tested And Ready For The World
December 17, 1999
The Real Risk Is Starvation In Poor Countries, Not Genetically Engineered Food
CHURCHVILLE,Va.–When environmental protesters took over Seattle to rail against the World Trade Organization, they held a seminar on the evils of biotechnology in food production.
They hope to make it legal for World Trade Organization members to ban the import of genetically engineered crops, even though no human or environmental hazards from such crops have been documented.
The first speaker was David Dryer of Oxfam, an international organization long noted for helping the poor and hungry. Dryer called genetically modified foods a “dangerous diversion” from the job of feeding the hungry.
Yet Dryer failed to mention the new golden rice, which could prevent 2 billion Third World women and children from suffering severe malnutrition.
He did not mention the new virus-free sweet potatoes and bananas that offer the direct promise of 50 percent higher yields for small African farmers. Nor did he bring up the acid-tolerant crop varieties that could should double yields for farmers in the tropics.
The second speaker was Mae-wan Ho, the leading scientific voice of the anti-biotechnology opponents.
Ho, an instructor at the Open University of the United Kingdom, claimed genetically modified genes can transfer themselves horizontally, in effect, jumping out of biotech crops, through the soil and air, into other organisms.
If that is true, then the natural carcinogens in our broccoli and mushrooms must have been jumping into our cells for thousands of years!
Ho claimed biotech crops do not produce higher yields. However, U.S. farmers have reported higher yields for both biotech cotton and corn, along with a reduction in chemical spraying. While herbicide-tolerant soybeans were not designed to produce higher yields, they do reduce weed- control costs.
Ho also argued consumers want “poetry” back in their foods. Instead of farmers using chemicals and tractors, she apparently believes people want their food crops weeded by farmers working on their hands and knees.
One scientist who spoke in favor of biotech foods was Margarita McGoughlin of the University of California-Davis. McGoughlin actually grew up on an Irish potato farm, weeding fields by hand. She has no intention of returning to that harsh lifestyle in the 21st century.
The biotech opponents panel included Vandana Shiva, who lectures to packed auditoriums in Europe and the United States on the “violence of the Green Revolution.”
She says fighting over hybrid seeds has caused more than 15,000 recent deaths in her native India–but she’s counting the deaths in the long religious war between Sikhs and Hindus in the state of Punjab in northern India.
David Byrne, the Commissioner of Health from the European Union, told us over and over about the need to use the “precautionary principle” before embracing biotechnology.
But how logical is it to adopt the precautionary principle before all of the world’s children are fed and its wildlife protected from Third World slash-and-burn farming?
The panel of biotech opponents was chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio. He said Congress and the public aren’t yet ready for a complete ban on biotech foods.
He recommended the movement settle in the near term for a requirement that biotech foods be labeled (so they could be better demonized, perhaps?).
Meanwhile, the basic claim of biotech opponents, that genetically- modified foods are poorly regulated, was refuted by M.J. Gasson of the British Institute of Food Research.
Writing in the Nov. 18 edition of the scientific journal Nature, Gasson outlined the rigorous safety evaluation undergone by genetically modified soybeans.
The soybeans contain one introduced gene, which codes for a natural protein. Detailed molecular analysis authenticated the new protein, and its stability was demonstrated by growing several generations of plants.
An acute toxicity study in mice showed the introduced natural protein was nontoxic. Other tests showed it was destroyed by normal soy processing, and that the protein was readily digested if people managed to actually eat it.
Researchers compared the chemical composition and nutritional content for the modified and conventional soybeans.
Unprocessed soybeans contain natural proteins that are allergenic to humans, and these were found to be unchanged in the new soybeans. Someday, genetic engineering may give us allergen-free soybeans.
Gasson also noted the massive changes conventional foods are subjected to by established plant-breeding methods. Yet, he noted, environmentalists aren’t demanding conventionally bred plants undergo the kind of intensive analysis genetically engineered plants are now receiving.
Conventional plant breeders once produced an insect-resistant potato, but it had so much natural toxin it made people nauseous. The variety was discontinued.
The First World and its science establishment is now presented with a stark choice. It must decide whether to follow the precautionary principle or seek greater security for the malnourished people and endangered wildlands of the Third World through genetic engineering.
DENNIS T. AVERY is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis. His views are not necessarily those of Bridge News, whose ventures include the Internet site www.bridge.com.
OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.
Dennis T. Avery is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis.
Posted in Commentary |