|
|
 
|
U.S. consumers challenge spread of biotech food (Friday, Oct. 4, 2002 -- CropChoice news) --
Carey Gillam, Reuters, 10/03/2002: Tomato genes crossed with fish.
Vegetables that glow in the dark.
Much of the modern-day lore surrounding genetic modifications to food has
the ring of science fiction. But with real-life genetic alterations now
embedded in a myriad of commonplace food products from produce to potato
chips, Americans are starting to sit up and take their supper seriously.
>From the West Coast to the East, grass roots consumer groups are lining up
alongside a mix of scientists and environmentalists, challenging corporate
giants to answer questions about what is happening to the food they eat.
"We don't necessarily know what we're doing," said Ignacio Chapela, a
microbial ecology professor at the University of California at Berkeley and
a member of a national committee of scientists studying the environmental
impact of commercialized transgenic crops.
"We're making major transformations of the environment," Chapela said. "This
simply calls for regulation."
SANDWICHES AND SALADS
In a landmark move, Oregon citizens are seeking to do just that, placing on
their November ballot a measure that would require all foods containing at
least one-tenth of 1 percent of genetically modified material to be labeled
as such.
The measure extends to dairy and meat products derived from animals that
have eaten genetically modified corn or other substances.
Opponents of the measure say it would create costly and complicated red
tape, and would force senseless situations such as requiring deli operators
and restaurants to label the sandwiches and salads they serve up.
"It is meaningless information that would come at a high cost for
consumers," said Shannon Troughton, a spokeswoman for Monsanto Co.
Monsanto, a leading U.S. developer of transgenic corn, soybeans and other
crops, including a transgenic wheat ready to be rolled out, is a staunch
opponent of the proposed law.
The company is working with a group of other biotechnology companies and
food industry giants such as General Mills Inc.
The chief supporters of the bill have raised less than $85,000. Despite the
powerful opposition, several other states, including California, Colorado
and Vermont, are pursuing similar initiatives.
Oregon ballot organizer Katelyn Lord said opponents were exaggerating the
law's complications. She said there were many reasons genetically modified
food should be clearly identified, including a basic right of consumers to
know what they are eating. Other worries include health and environmental
concerns tied to biotech, as well as a philosophical unease about tinkering
with nature.
"There are as many reasons as there are people," said Lord. "We label sugar,
salt, calories ... and I don't think anybody questions whether or not we
need to know that."
SCIENTIFIC UNKNOWNS
The United States leads the world in the production of genetically
engineered food and has generally provided a safe haven for biotech crops,
even as more than two dozen other countries have placed tight restrictions
on genetically modified plants and food products.
With no established scientific evidence that genetically modified foods harm
human health, U.S. regulatory agencies have approved a wide array of
products, and federal law currently has no mandatory labeling requirements
for genetically modified foods. Food industry experts estimate 70 percent of
the products found on U.S. grocery shelves contain genetically modified
ingredients.
St. Louis-based Monsanto has commercialized biotech seeds, particularly
crops resistant to pests and weed-killing chemicals, so successfully that
the company's genetic modifications are embedded in crops that cover
millions of acres of U.S. farmland and make their way into both human food
products and animal feed.
Farmers like the biotech crops because they make it easier to control weeds
and bugs. Ongoing research is developing a variety of potentially beneficial
plants, including drought-resistant crops and plants that contain vaccines.
Yet both supporters and opponents of biotech say that over time, containing
and controlling the genetic modifications introduced into the environment
are likely to become difficult, if not impossible, and their long-term
impact is unknown. Among the likely scenarios, they say, are weeds that
become resistant to herbicides and insects that develop resistance to
pesticides.
More research is needed, many argue, but this has been hard to come by as a
lack of government funding plagues independent research efforts, and
research at public universities in many cases is compromised by large
monetary contributions made to the schools by the very corporations
marketing biotech products.
"It's become a huge problem," said Jeanne Merrill, a representative of
Greenpeace, an avid opponent of genetic engineering of food. "Universities
are to benefit the public interest, not corporate profits and corporate
patents."
PROMISES YET TO BE KEPT
While much work is under way, the healthful benefits from genetically
modified plants are still largely seen only in the lab, and organizations
working to feed hungry people around the world say the solutions involve
improving economics for farmers and their communities, not delivering
biotech seeds.
Debate over the issue was heated at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg in August, and conflicts among and within
countries continue, with many world leaders and noted scientists seeing
biotech foods as a way to get nutritious food to starving people.
Some 800 million people go to bed hungry, according to the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Anuradha Mittal, co-director of the Institute for Food and Development
Policy think tank, said the for-profit corporate push for biotech food
acceptance is overshadowing efforts to explore other solutions to world
hunger as well as research efforts into the safety of biotech foods.
"There might be potential benefits (to biotech)," Mittal said. "My concern
is that all the focus on ending hunger has gone to the technological
solution. This is really about precautionary principles. We need to err on
the side of safety. In a civilized society you would hope to do so." | |
