April 25, 2000 / Journal of Commerce
The European Union is inching along toward removing one of the major
irritants in its trade with the United States: its opaque and politically
driven regulation of genetically engineered foods.
The European Parliament recently approved a set of proposed rules governing
licensing of new genetically modified (GM) products. With any luck, the new
regulations can be approved at the EU level by the end of this year, and
implemented by national governments by the end of next year.
This is progress, but it carries a caveat. In the EU, as elsewhere, rules
are only as good as the authorities' enforcement of them, and European
regulation of GM products has become extraordinarily politicized.
As a result, EU rules have been subverted by national governments, and
biotechnology companies have been denied due-process. Monsanto, for
example, has been waiting since 1995 for licensing of one of its oilseed
products, even though it has passed muster with EU scientific committees.
The blame for such delays rests with governments that have allowed
themselves to be swayed by self-appointed consumer advocates raising
unfounded fears of damage to human health and the environment. The hysteria
has been particularly acute in Britain, where the tabloid press has been in
full cry about "Frankenstein foods" grown unnaturally in laboratories rather
than in the full glory of nature, complete with chemical herbicides.
British newspapers also carried lurid stories about "killer weeds,"
allegedly caused by cross-pollination between insect and herbicide-resistant
GM crops and weeds in nearby fields. The fear is that cross-pollination
would make those weeds impossible to kill off; assurances that GM crops can
be designed to avoid such cross-breeding have made little difference.
The latest scare centers on "Trojan fish" - a variety of genetically
engineered
salmon that can grow up to 10 times faster than normal. Environmental
activists claim that these fish, although designed to be sterile, might
breed with wild fish and interrupt their migratory patterns, potentially
wiping out local populations of the species.
What lies behind these doomsday scenarios is actually quite benign: a
scientific process of enhancing certain traits - such as improving the taste
of a crop or resisting insects - by isolating the genes responsible for
those traits and
transferring them from one species to another.
This process of gene splicing has a long history, going back to the plant
cross-breeding experiments of a Central European monk named Gregor Mendel in
the mido19th century.
Today, of course, the cross-breeding of plants to improve taste, boost
yields or
decrease the need for herbicides has become a big business. In the United
States, the biotech industry produces billions of dollars worth of bulk
commodities such as soybeans and corn, fruits and vegetables, oils and
sweeteners. The foodoprocessing industry is a heavy user of these
ingredients.
As the industry's market reach has grown, so have the protests of its foes,
who fear, among other things, that U.S. agri-business will overwhelm the
less
technologically sophisticated farming business in the EU and elsewhere.
Yet their argument isn't stated in those terms. It is couched in
sensationalistic, headline-grabbing terms of environmental and food safety,
and it is aimed squarely at the biotechnology process itself. Last June the
European Union caved in, declaring a moratorium on plantings of new
varieties of GM seeds until new rules are in place.
The industry and its customers can only hope that the hysteria over GM foods
will have died down by the time new rules are in place. Happily, there are a
number of signs pointing in that direction.
First, in anticipation of new labeling rules that just took effect this
month, several foodoprocessing companies, particularly in the Netherlands,
have started labeling products as containing GM ingredients. There has been
no noticeable impact on sales. This suggests that in some countries, at
least, consumers are decidedly less worried about GM products than their
self-appointed guardians in the anti-GM lobby are.
Second, some independent organizations are gearing up a reasoned response
to the scare-mongering. An influential British scientific think tank, the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, concluded in a recent study that the new
technologies can help feed growing populations in poor countries, and that
rich countries have a moral obligation to develop them.
And third, Washington and Brussels recently launched a regular exchange of
scientific information and views on biotechnology. Over time, this could
help to persuade the EU and member states that biotechnology should be
regulated like any other industry - with an eye on the facts and not on
baseless fears.
(posted without permission)
