Food For Thought - controversy over genetically modified agriculture - Brief Article

The war over genetically modified agriculture

Once again a genetics fight has broken out. Three years or so ago it was human cloning, next stem-cell research, and now it is genetically modified (G.M.) food. All of these struggles have a common thread: how should we respond to actual or potential genetic developments when the evidence for their benefit or harm is nonexistent or unclear? And once again, the United States has shown a far greater willingness to run the possible risks than, say, the Western European countries. Those countries were quick to ban cloning, and the enthusiasm about stem-cell research has been muted.

Their greatest hostility, however, has been reserved for G.M. food, subject to bans, boycotts, and public hostility, much to the dismay of American agribusiness and the Clinton administration. G.M. foods, especially soybeans and corn, are widely grown in the United States and are a major export product; the refusal of many countries to buy them is a significant threat to American agriculture.

No less important, American companies-particularly Monsanto-have been in the lead in developing pest-resistant plants by genetic modification and pesticides that will kill weeds but not food plants. They have been badly hurt by the growing international resistance, even if part of it has been their own fault. American biotechnology companies were fierce opponents of labeling G.M. products, arguing that, since there are no proven health threats, the public has no need to know about the genetic modifications. That stance was a political disaster, irritating the Europeans to the point of bans on the import of such foods. Monsanto's push for what they called a "terminator" seed-which once planted would not produce further seeds and thus threaten poor farmers who depend on gaining seed from their own crops for one generation of crops after another-was another political disaster.

The American companies have now relented. They have agreed to labeling, and Monsanto has terminated the "terminator" seeds. Yet they may have acted too late. While the Europeans have been vocal and effective in their opposition to G.M. food, it was hardly noticed in the United States until the past year. The debate in other countries, fed by the media and some serious food scares (such as mad-cow disease in Britain), has finally arrived here. A growing number of American high- class restaurants are refusing to serve any G.M. food, and various environmental groups have begun to target those foods for attack. The "organic" food movement, not much noticed in the recent past except in relatively upscale stores, has found a new momentum.

Two serious problems persist, one bearing on the pertinent risk-benefit analysis, the other on the needs of developing countries. Not only is there little evidence either supporting or refuting the worry about long-term genetic harm, but it will also be hard to gain that knowledge in any quick or definitive way. Here and there can be found hints of possible harm, but that's about it. The only two ways to gain decisive knowledge would be careful field trials-expensive and time-consuming and not necessarily decisive for resolving safety debates-or simply plunging ahead and seeing what happens. For Europeans, what they call the "precautionary principle" has been influential: go slowly and be careful. The American style might be described as "go for it." The American style also has another feature of importance: it is far more valuable for farmers and agribusiness than for consumers, improving the productivity and profit of the former without corresponding benefits for the latter.

If that were the end of the story, G.M. food might just as well disappear with nobody much the worse for it. Hardly anyone seems to doubt that the Western developed countries could get along well without it. Yet there is a strong argument, advanced by the Rockefeller Foundation and others, that the developing countries have a serious need for G.M. food. Over the next twenty years or so, the world will add 1.5 billion people, and G.M. seeds, food, and other agricultural products offer the best way of feeding them. The Rockefeller Foundation brings some credibility to its contention. It led "the green revolution" in many developing countries through its research efforts, greatly increasing the yield of rice crops in particular. It now says a second revolution is needed, to raise the flagging yields from the first revolution and to increase the nutrient and vitamin content of various crops. Pest-resistant crops, pesticides that kill weeds but not food crops, and foods with enhanced nutrients would be a blessing if safely and equitably achieved.

To this contention there has been a response, mainly from the Left. For one thing, most malnutrition and starvation come from a maldistribution of food, not an absolute shortage. Corrupt political regimes, disorganization, and inequitable distribution underlie food shortages. For another, a reliance on G.M. food will put small farmers, responsible for local food needs, at the mercy of large multinational corporations, whose aim is profit and exportable cash crops rather than food for the poor. The potential ecological threat of G.M. crops enhances the opposition argument.

There is surely something to this response, but it rests on speculation no less than the sometimes overwrought claims about the likely bounty that G.M. food will bring. How should we proceed in the face of this uncertainty? My vote is for the precautionary principle but understood to include careful research and field trials of G.M. food. The Rockefeller Foundation is, moreover, working hard to overcome the patenting problems that give the large agribusiness companies their hold over G.M. It aims to negotiate free licensing agreements between those companies and developing countries, and that campaign has met with some success. If there is an appropriate bias here, it is that the benefit of any doubt, which there will always be, should be given to the needs of developing countries, and that means a careful pressing forward with G.M. food research.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Commonweal Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group