Health Publications

Last chance for biotech?

Nutrition Action Healthletter, July-August, 2004 by Michael F. Jacobson

Seen any ads for genetically engineered foods lately? Didn't think so.

The public isn't exactly clamoring for biotech foods, in part because the government hasn't established rules that would adequately protect our health and the environment. And that has contributed to the public's skittishness about biotech foods.

Unless Washington wakes up, riskier foods now on the drawing board could turn consumers here and abroad against all engineered foods for a long time. Though some might cheer that outcome, it would be a terrible shame, because if genetic engineering is used properly, it could be a boon to farmers, to the environment, and--especially in developing nations--to consumers.

Other countries require government approval before a biotech crop can be introduced into the food supply. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asks only that companies voluntarily show the agency a summary of safety data before new plant varieties come on the market.

And so far, it's unclear whether the FDA or any other federal agency will assess the risks of engineered food animals. Such minimal oversight undercuts consumer confidence (in the U.S. and overseas) that biotech foods are safe.

The biotechnology industry is still under the delusion that it can market products with minimal testing and government oversight. Monsanto got its comeuppance in May, when foreign governments essentially killed the company's new herbicide-resistant wheat by threatening to stop importing all U.S. wheat.

Farmers in the U.S. and several other countries are planting record acreages of biotech cotton, soybeans, and corn. Those crops have cut the use of dangerous pesticides and boosted farmers' income. What's more, the foods made from those crops are safe to eat.

But precious little research has studied the impact of genetically engineered organisms on the environment. As the industry contemplates products that may yield greater benefits--but also pose greater dangers--assessing and managing risks will become even more important. For example, fish engineered to grow extra fast could conceivably crowd out wild fish, and food plants engineered to produce industrial chemicals might contaminate the food supply.

One member of Congress is advocating a sensible measure to protect consumers, farmers, and even industry. In June, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Act (S.2546).

Under Durbin's bill, no engineered food crop could be marketed until the FDA had evaluated potential risks to human health and the environment and found that the food was safe. Also, the FDA would have to receive public comments before it approved engineered animals.

Sen. Durbin's important legislation won't end the biotech debates. But it would go a long way toward preventing harm and protecting the benefits from this powerful technology.

For more information about biotechnology, see www.cspinet.org/biotech.> Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D. Executive Director Center for Science in the Public Interest