Biotech on the Rise

Genetically-modified foods have been historically treated with caution in the U.S. and subjected to heavy regulations in Europe. But a new Ernst & Young report reveals a 17 percent jump in biotechnology sales worldwide last year, with totals exceeding $54 billion. In particular, American purchases increased 19.2 percent, accounting for 80 percent of global sales.

Months before Ernst & Young reported investment and sales highs in genetically-altered foods, TAE laid out the benefits of biotechnology in its March 2004 issue. In “How Much Should We Worry About Biotech?” Tony Gilland writes, “The whole character of these regulations is informed by the unwillingness of those in authority to challenge the risk-averse mood of our times.”

When U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and U.S. Special Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced in May 2003 that the U.S. would file a case at the World Trade Organization against the European Union's moratorium on the approval of new genetically modified (G.M.) food products, the U.S. agriculture industry no doubt found itself asking, "What took you so long?" After all, the E.U.'s approach to the assessment of the health and environmental impact of G.M. foods has been based on shaky scientific foundations from the start.

Newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic cast the U.S. challenge in terms of a brewing trade war. Commentators noted that the Europeans are trying to protect their over-subsidized farmers from the pressures of international competition, and that opposition to G.M. foods is part of this anti-free-trade strategy. While there may be important trade aspects to the rift between Europe and the U.S. over genetically modified foods, the issues at stake in this debate are more profound and complex. We appear to be witnessing not just a trade war, but a culture war.

On issues of science and technology these days, Europe is often guided by the idea that innovation should only proceed when there is a guarantee that the outcome will not be harmful. Europe isn't alone in this regard; heightened preoccupation with risk has become a global phenomenon, and is by no means confined to issues such as genetically modified organisms. Alongside every debate over global warming, biodiversity, waste disposal, nuclear power, sustainable development, electromagnetic fields, human genetics, and, more recently, nanotechnology, lie fundamental questions about the dynamism of science and technology, man's relationship with nature, and the role of corporations.

We should view the issue of G.M. crops and food in this context. Operating within a "precautionary principle" that demands proof that life will improve before changes are allowed in the status quo, scientists, politicians, and industrialists favorable to genetic engineering have found themselves poorly equipped to make a positive case for its implementation. Hypothetical worstcase scenarios, often with little theoretical plausibility, are combined with claims of minimal benefits for consumers. Why should we accept even the most minimal of risks? Too often, the response of authority figures to these challenges has been to implement increasingly restrictive regulatory controls, and to commission yet more research in a vain attempt to assuage the unassuageable demand that there be no unforeseen adverse consequences from new technologies.

The bumbling way in which policy makers have handled the issue of G.M. foods, particularly within Europe, has established worrying precedents for the way that modern societies relate to science, technology, and innovation generally. Technical and regulatory responses to public concerns about health and environmental issues have not worked in Europe; emotional and psychological appeals have often carried the day.

Of course sensible regulations should be employed when genuine issues of safety or adverse consequences are at stake. But this is not what the E.U.'s regulatory approach to G.M. foods has been about. Working first of all in anticipation of potential negative public reactions to biotechnology, then in response to pressure from interest groups and media campaigns, and eventually in concert with food retailing interests, the E.U. has introduced tighter and tighter regulations against G.M. technology.

The clear aim of these controls has been to cater to public perceptions, rather than scientific questions of health or environmental safety. Consequently, the regulations inevitably end up embodying exaggerated, if not spurious, concerns in an attempt to reassure the public that everything is being done to protect them. Public worries, rather than being properly addressed, challenged, and put into perspective, are thus validated and institutionalized. Once governments and regulatory bodies have demonstrated their willingness to regulate the hypothetical in this way, the door is opened to further demands for controls based on other equally emotional or hypothetical concerns.

In May 2003, on the same day that the U.S. filed its case against Europe's moratorium on imports of genetically modified food, E.U. Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallstrom proclaimed, "We should not be deflected or distracted from pursuing the right policy for the E.U." The key phrase here is "the right policy for the E.U. "Wallstrom is arguing that a scientific assessment of the health and environmental impact of G.M. crops and food is not a universal reality, but something specific to the culture of E.U. member states. She asserts that bowing to these cultural winds is the responsible approach.

The E.U. suggests that its proposed complex system requiring labeling of any food produced from a G.M. organism, regardless of the presence or absence of novel genetic material, combined with stringent and voluminous "traceability" requirements throughout the food system, will allow the moratorium on all gene engineering to be lifted without a politically frightening public outcry. Wallstrom criticized the timing of the U.S. filing of its WTO case for threatening the efforts of the E.U. to get this far.

Yet the outcome of the E.U.'s approach will only be to exacerbate unfounded fears. The whole character of these regulations is informed by the unwillingness of those in authority to challenge the risk-averse mood of our times. Instead, a system of regulation is being established that (1) reinforces the idea that something might go wrong and cause us to be poisoned; and (2) tells the consumer that the decision over the safety of the food he purchases is his responsibility, not something for scientists and experts to judge.

Emblazoning markers on G.M. foods constitutes a huge abdication of responsibility on the part of the E.U. and member state governments. What is the point of having an army of scientific experts across Europe investigating every aspect of this technology if they are not allowed to give us the benefit of their expertise? (As it happens, scientists are not alarmed by G.M. technology.) Rather than tell us what it really thinks, and therefore take responsibility for a decision, the E.U. would rather cover its back and demand that consumers, who in all honesty cannot be expected to be well informed on all safety aspects of G.M. food, take responsibility for making the decision.

The E.U. may well eventually approve new biotech products and commercial uses of G.M. crops within Europe--simply because it is difficult to hold out against the use of technology on irrational grounds indefinitely. But this will not be thanks to the continent's regulators. And given the experience to date in my homeland of Britain, the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out that Europeans will just let the biotechnology train pass them by. Indeed, the more Europe moves down the route of defining its own "culturally acceptable" approach to dealing with scientific risk--rather than confronting the climate of fear--the more that this is likely to be the case.

There are numerous potential candidates to blame for the G.M. debacle in Europe. National governments have vacillated; the media have scaremongered against the technology; activist groups often exaggerate even the slightest concerns; and retailers deserve some of the blame for the speed with which they have dumped G.M. products when they caught a whiff of controversy. To apportion blame in this way, however, would be to gloss over the more profound social processes that shaped the G.M. debate--processes that may also endanger many other technologies.

The way the G.M. issue has been handled in Europe indicates just how quailingly risk-averse many modern people have become. At every stage, the scientific issue of the risks and benefits of G.M. crops was subsumed beneath an overreaching psycho-political insistence on holding back, lest something-- anything!--should go wrong. That an important and potentially beneficial technology such as this could be retarded "just in case" indicates a fundamental value shift within contemporary society.

This has practical consequences for how science and technology will unfold in the future. We are shifting from the belief that progress is a social good, and that science and technology should be developed for the benefit of humanity, toward a new distrust of the consequences of progress. That could result in a severe overreaction, restricting science and technology even when the potential rewards greatly eclipse the potential risks.

Why has this shift in values and priorities taken place? Not because life has become more dangerous. We live healthier, wealthier, and safer lives than at any time in history.

It is also clear that reactions against certain new technologies have very little to do with the technologies themselves. Despite the fearful focus on G.M. crops and food in the U.K. and Europe, and the never-ending process of testing and monitoring this technology, there remains no scientific evidence that G.M. crops will acutely harm humanity or the environment.

Rather, the resistance to agricultural biotechnology reflects a growing distrust of political authority and scientific expertise. Combined with an increasingly individualized and consumerist society, this has led to a situation in which unfounded fears can take hold very rapidly, spread by unofficial sources such as the media, campaign groups, and maverick scientists. Rather than attempting to counter these scares directly, the official approach has been to bend over backwards to take such fears, no matter how exaggerated, into account--thereby implicitly endorsing them.

In this way, unfounded fears give rise to unfounded bans and controls. Which, in turn, create the basis for yet more fear. And thus encourage even more stifling regulation of the human impulse to explore, discover, and improve the world around us.

Tony Gilland is science and society director at the Institute of Ideas in London.

Unlike Europeans, most Americans are not strongly opposed to agricultural biotechnology. But that doesn't mean they are enchanted by it. Polls show that Americans have never been enthusiastic about gene-altered foods, and their willingness to purchase genetically altered foods appears to be waning. While American consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for a decade now, farmers, the biotechnology industry, food processors, and government regulators ignore possible future consumer discomfort their own peril. The next generation of genetically modified products will be much more visible to consumers, spurring active opposition. The question is whether industry and government will act to make sure concern doesn't turn to outright rejection.

The agricultural biotechnology industry and some government regulators argue that we should stop worrying and learn to love genetically modified food because the current products are based on "sound" science, are good for farmers, safe for consumers, and often beneficial for the environment. But this ignores the powerful cultural and personal attachments that most of us have to our food. From the apple in the Garden of Eden to the Golden Arches, food--what, how, and in what quantity we eat-- has played a central role in our lives. We eat to live but we also live to eat. Food is more than fuel for the body. Since what we eat literally becomes part of our bodies, food is the source of some of our greatest pleasures and, not surprisingly, greatest fears.

Throughout history, people and cultures have been distinguished by what they are obligated or forbidden to eat. Jewish and Muslim dietary laws prohibit eating pork. Hindus abstain from beef. Christians may forego certain foods during Lent. Beans were a forbidden food in the ancient Pythagorean cult to which Plato belonged. Many believers would go hungry before violating these proscriptions.

Historically, people connected "purity" with "safety," and these notions were factored into early food safety requirements. Today, modern science defines safety solely in terms of toxicology, microbiology, and nutrition, but people have not relinquished their quest for purity and wholesomeness. "Organic" and "free range" foods are attractive to consumers precisely because they respond to that yearning.

Psychologists who specialize in risk perception tell us that people fear most those risks they perceive as unknown, uncontrollable, and potentially catastrophic. It should not be surprising that many consumers are uneasy about genetically modified food. Even though there is no evidence anyone has gotten sick from eating G.M. foods, survey data show acceptance of G.M. foods has declined over the past several years. There were somewhat fewer Americans willing to purchase genetically modified food in 2003 than there were in 1999. The number of respondents who found it unacceptable to use biotechnology to protect crops from insects rose from 18 percent in 1992 to 27 percent in 2000. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that consumers were willing to pay an average of 14 percent more for food that appeared to be free of genetically modified ingredients. "Consumers' willingness to pay for food products decreases when the food label indicates that a food product is produced with the aid of modern biotechnology," the USDA reported. Events such as the "Starlink" contamination, in which corn that had been approved only for animal feed got into breakfast cereal and chips, result in less support for biotech food.

There are a number of possible explanations for the existence of public skepticism about food biotechnology:

Our current biotech products were developed for growers, not eaters. So far, biotech companies have focused on seeds and crops, not foods. When they think of customers, they see farmers, not supermarket shoppers. When they imagine benefits, they see lowered input costs, not lower retail prices. Reducing the price of producing corn is good for farmers, but does not necessarily translate to lower prices at the store. Moreover, the current biotech crops have not resulted in food that is more nutritious or better tasting. The food industry and the U.S. government have urged people to accept G.M. foods now because someday there will be new products that have direct consumer benefits. But this lacks immediate appeal. One argument for G.M. products that is likely to appeal to consumers is the fact that the technology has reduced reliance on the most toxic pesticides. Given public concern about pesticide residues, it is surprising that supporters haven't emphasized this benefit more.

The food biotechnology industry suffers from self-inflicted wounds. The refusal to label genetically modified food products almost surely contributes to public suspicion that there is something wrong with these products. It is human nature to suspect that, if you act covertly, you must have something to hide. The opposition to mandatory labeling, despite a plethora of polls showing consumers overwhelmingly want this information, impairs the credibility not just of biotech producers, but of food processors and government regulators as well.

Whether genetically modified animals become part of our food supply raises moral, ethical, and cultural questions which industry and government cannot ignore. People relate differently to animals than to plants. When the first biotech corn hit the market, no one thought to name it Bt Betty and flash photos on television, but the birth of Dolly, the first cloned sheep, touched off media frenzy. Her placid face stared out from newspapers and television sets around the world. Polls show greater reservations about transgenic and cloned animals than about crop biotechnology.

The current regulatory system is convoluted and illogical. Most of the laws were written before food biotechnology was developed or even dreamed of. Three agencies and ten statutes overlap. The FDA, the nation's primary food safety agency, does not examine and declare plant products safe for human consumption before they are allowed on the market. It is illegal to market a genetically modified plant without USDA approval that the plant will not harm other plants, or to market a genetically modified pest-protected plant without EPA approval that the plant will not harm the environment. Only the process for determining human safety is voluntary. The FDA regulates animals rigorously.

The FDA must find that the product is both safe and effective before it is sold. But the entire process for approving these animals is secret, with no public participation. The FDA does not announce when new applications are filed, does not provide information about the application to the public, does not solicit comments from the public, does not issue a public statement to justify approval of the product, and does not inform the public of the data on which the decision was based.

It is understandable for the food biotechnology industry to fear that a more rigorous and wide-open regulatory system will increase the time and costs of bringing products to market. But since any adverse event involving food biotechnology causes consumers to react negatively to all G.M. products, it benefits all producers to avoid incidents and the resulting negative publicity.

Reasonable people should be able to find a way to enjoy the benefits of food biotechnology while avoiding unintended negative consequences. If government and industry are willing to take steps to address public concerns, most Americans can be persuaded to embrace this new technology. The federal government needs to strengthen the regulatory system. Making necessary reforms now, before there is any serious mishap, will protect both public health and the industry's future.

The food industry also needs to re-evaluate its role. Rather than treating skepticism as an attack on the very existence of the technology, companies should realize that not only safety issues, but also psychological reservations must be addressed. No, the science itself doesn't require food biotechnology firms, food processing companies, or the federal government to take any of these steps. But common sense and commercial self preservation do.

Carol Tucker Foreman is director of The Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America.

IG, I'm not a farmer, health nut or a organic food buyer but my picture on this is.

Agrochemical company Monsanto Co. (MON) is the worlds largest supplier of GM seeds.

Monsanto's bread and butter for years has been its Roundup family of herbicides. But the patent on the chief ingredient expired in the U.S. four years ago, and the company has been attempting to shift its business focus to seeds and biotechnology traits for corn, soybeans, and other crops.

Monsanto is throwing in the towel in Europe. Canadian farmers are campaigning against licensing Monsanto's GM wheat, the company is also facing severe resistance in North America.

I will not be one to shed a tear for their difficulties because I don't like the idea of one company holding everyone by the neck.

Before GM seeds, farmers could grow a crop, keeping some seeds from the current crop for next years planting. With GM seeds, farmers are not permitted to keep their own seeds, the result is farmers have to buy new seeds from Monsanto for next years spring planting, thus guarenteeing MON a good spring sale. Basically, you need a license to plant GM seeds.

Kem Ralph of Covington, Tennessee is believed to be the first farmer to have gone to jail for saving and replanting Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy seed in 1998. Ralph spent four months behind bars and must also pay the company 1.8 million dollars in penalties.GM seeds have been genetically engineered (GE) to kill bugs and resist ill-effects from the herbicide glyphosate. (Roundup).

Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company.

In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.

The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.

North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."

So why don't farmers just buy non-GE seed? North Dakota farmer Rodney Nelson says there is actually very little conventional seed left to buy anymore because seed dealers don't make nearly as much money from them.

Monsanto charges technology use fees ranging from 6.25 dollars per bag for soy to an average of 230 dollars for cotton -- more than three times the cost of conventional cotton seed. The company argues these fees are necessary to recoup its research investment.

I think it is wrong for any corporation to have this much power over our food supply. What if China decided to come and bid for Monsato, who is going to admit that they aren't the friend the Senate believes them to be? What could you or I do to prevent the sale if an appointed three member board of foreigners for Free Trade decided that our courts rulings were too restrictive and therefore unjustified?

America once stood for individual Independence, I'm sad to say, not any more.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.