|
Weighing
biotech foods' pros and cons
October 21, 04
Suzanne Havala Hobbs
What do you get when you cross a salmon with a tomato?
Trouble, some folks think. Others see a way to protect the
environment and help provide more food for the world’s
hungry people.
Whatever the truth, polls show public acceptance of food biotechnology
is declining, says Carol Tucker Foreman, director of Consumer
Federation of America’s Food Policy Institute. Foreman
was one of several speakers who addressed the topic of food
biotechnology at a meeting of food journalists I attended
this month in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Biotech foods are also called genetically modified –
GMO – or genetically engineered – GE – foods.
An even more precise term is transgenic foods. The terms refer
to a process that removes genes from a plant, animal, or microbe
and places them into another organism. The transferred genes
work as codes for the production of proteins. If all goes
as planned, the genes confer desirable qualities to the other
organism.
For example, a transferred gene may cause a plant to produce
its own pesticide, reducing the amount or strength of pesticides
farmers need to apply to crops. That can save money, reduce
contamination of the environment, and increase crop yields.
The transfer of genes from one living thing to another is
an everyday occurrence in nature. There’s nothing inherently
risky about eating foods that have been altered this way,
according to Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project
at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer
advocacy group. Bees, for instance, carry pollen from one
flower to another, enabling the genetic material from one
plant to be crossed with another.
On the other hand, fish don’t naturally breed with cucumbers.
So when humans engineer gene transfers that wouldn’t
occur naturally, some people have concerns.
What are they?
According to Jaffe:
* Allergies. A new gene or protein introduced to a food may
cause an allergic reaction in some people. For instance, an
allergen from brazil nuts was once transferred to soybeans.
The problem was caught before the soybeans entered the food
supply.
* Toxicity. A GE food may have a toxic effect on the humans
who eat it or on other plants or animals. For instance, a
pesticide-producing plant might also harm insects that were
not meant to be targets.
* Other unintended effects. Other toxins or antinutrients
could be created. There may also be environmental repercussions,
such as insect resistance, and social or ethical issues to
consider, such as the potential for a few large, multinational
companies to gain control over the world’s food supply
and the need for independent agencies to determine whether
or not foods are safe.
Today there are no direct benefits to consumers from GE foods,
Foreman and Jaffe said. The benefits are indirect ñ
fewer pesticides in our environment, and potentially greater
crop yields in parts of the world where food supplies are
low. Food biotechnology ñ also referred to as “food
Bt” – primarily benefits industry and has not
translated into lower food costs for consumers.
But conference speakers, including Foreman, Tucker and two
others representing government, industry, and researchers,
agreed that Bt foods now on the market in the U.S. are safe.
The concern is with what will happen in the future.
Right now, our regulatory process is flawed. According to
Foreman and Jaffe, Canada and every country in Europe producing
GE foods have a mandatory approval process. Only in the United
States is the process secretive and voluntary.
That leaves consumers suspicious of GE foods. It also increases
the risk that research oversights could result in products
that harm humans or the environment.
The U.S. needs meaningful regulatory controls in place to
govern the food industry’s use of gene science so that
the world can enjoy its benefits while minimizing its risks.
|
