Starving For Security–American Outlook
July 28, 2000
Richard A. Halpern
From American Outlook–Summer 2000
The front page of the May 3 Washington Post reported that the Clinton administration wants to set standards for labeling foods as biotech-free. The administration also wants to develop tests to detect genetically altered ingredients, lest consumers be inadvertently exposed to the risks of ingesting biotech foods, or processors cheat the system. Both actions feed the notion that biotech foods pose risks against which consumers need federal-government protection—even though Clinton administration scientists know full well that such risks are nonexistent, and even say so openly. For example, Joe Levitt, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, told the Associated Press, “The scientific evidence does not show that these products are any different from a health and safety standpoint.”
The National Academy of Sciences and virtually every credible and responsible scientific source, including Nobel Prize laureate Norman Borlaug, have repeatedly assured anyone who would listen that biotech foods are safe for both humans and the environment. Henry I. Miller, senior research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, points out that genetic engineering is “actually safer than earlier techniques, like hybridization.” The improvements introduced by gene splicing are “more precise and predictable” and can “take advantage of the subtleties of plant pathology,” Miller wrote recently in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
A good example, Miller says, is “Bt corn,” which not only reduces pesticides in the environment but is also less likely to contain Fusarium. Less Fusarium means less fumonisin, a toxin that can cause esophageal cancer in humans. Baby-food maker Gerber, however, has banned Bt corn and announced that it will use mostly organic corn, which, according to Miller, “is especially prone to infestations of insects and bacteria, and is likely, therefore, to have greater amounts of fumonisin.” By rejecting biotech corn in favor of organically raised corn, Gerber is not helping babies or their families.
Agricultural biotechnology holds the promise of virtually eradicating malnutrition, preventing blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency, and inoculating children around the world against infectious diseases. It is difficult to arrive at charitable conclusions regarding anti-biotech terrorists who destroy test plots and seeds, nor even toward mainstream environmental groups that, sadly, appear genuinely deceived into believing that an ample, safe, and nutritious food supply would be so good for humans that it would be bad for Mother Earth.
In a legendary marketing coup from the early days of advertising, tuna companies that could not sell the dry, dense, relatively tasteless white albacore tuna meat that now brings premium prices, pushed it with the slogan “guaranteed not to turn pink in the can.” Dry and tasteless tuna, they argued, is better. Now we will have biotech-free products “guaranteed by the government not to protect against fumonisin and esophageal cancer.” Riskier, apparently, is safer. Amazingly, the Grocery Manufacturers of America and National Food Processors Association, representing major food companies, not only supported but recommended these steps to regulate their own, perfectly safe, food products. They will succeed only in legitimizing and institutionalizing unfounded fears hyped by anti-biotech zealots.
Appeasement of this sort has a bad track record. It only whets the appetite of the appeased. Nevertheless, in return for the hope that these measures will “boost consumer confidence in the food supply,” processors appear happy to accept the increased regulation and labeling. Absent any credible documented risks from biotech foods, however, and in the face of the unqualified confidence of the scientific and regulatory communities, giving in to know-nothing hysteria is more likely to diminish consumer confidence than enhance it. The presence in the marketplace of foods labeled “biotech-free” will clearly imply that there is something wrong with other foods. Otherwise, why the government-backed label? “It is wrong—and, in the end, futile—to try to mollify extremists,” Miller writes. “Anti-technology extremists want to control what research is performed and what products are brought to market,” he warns. “We cannot change their minds by making scientifically reasonable arguments, asserting the primacy of empirical evidence and the scientific method, or invoking the benefits to the public of new products and choices. They are not engaged in a good-faith effort to advance the public interest.”
Those in the food industry promoting the FDA proposal cannot expect the government to stop there. On May 4, in fact, Reuters reported that the Clinton administration’s initiative “is certain to be followed by other regulatory actions.” It even quoted U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman as saying, with chilling candor, “It is a good first step. I do not think it is the last step.”
Posted in Commentary |