IFT | September 9, 1999 | Joyce A. Nettleton
It's been a shameful few weeks for food science. At first it looked as though the British, skittish from their skirmishes with food safety, were simply being prudent in bowing to environmentalists pressure to eliminate genetically modified foods (GMO) from grocery shelves. After leading the way by showing brisk sales of tomato paste sporting politically and environmentally correct GMO labels, Sainsbury's, a leading British food retailer, declared it would no longer sell GMO foods. Consider this experiment in labeling GMO foods evidence that the cry for labeling GMO foods is hollow. The anti-biotechnology pressure groups really don't want labeling: they want no GMOs.
The masks are off. Savoring victory in the world press and from the capitulation of high profile food corporations and retailers, anti-biotechnology groups have stopped posing as concerned consumers (or scientists), defenders of the environment, or thorns in the conscience of corporations, and exposed themselves as flag-bearers of shoddy science and discredited research.
Their virulent opposition to agricultural biotechnology reveals a hostility to more widespread use of safer pesticides and herbicides, largely because they are manufactured by powerful multinational corporations. Opponents are averse to risk and science-based government oversight allegedly because it doesn't go far enough. In fact, the current regulatory system is so burdensome and extensive, its costs can be borne only by companies with deep pockets, a situation that stifles innovation by small start-up companies and public research institutions.
Though challenging to devise, oversight that has risk and science at its core requires that risk be weighed with benefit, knowledge guide the assessment of hazard and exposure, and cautionary safety measures be included. It considers the risk of not using the technology and of alternative methods. Products of biotechnology are far more rigorously scrutinized than plants developed using traditional methods.
In one of history s most famous repudiations of evidence, the 17th Century Pope, Urban VIII, sent Galileo to prison for his support of the Copernican theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe. Today, those eschewing the evidence and advancing their own political and social agendas summon the news media and simply rewrite or distort what is known.
The fact that complex, worthy questions remain unanswered is made to look sinister; minuscule risks are exaggerated; hypothetical risks are dressed up as looming dangers; speculation masquerades as probability; and the diverse goals of agricultural biotechnology are declared unethical, manipulative and oppressive. How did this genie out of the bottle?
The power of the what if scenario appears boundless. Merely speculating on a plausible or improbable outcome, reminding people that we just don't know enough about biotechnology to be sure something nasty doesn't happen, and then suggesting that we must answer all hypothetical questions before allowing biotechnology to move forward, is a perfect recipe to create public doubt and fear. It creates the impression that unbridled technology is being covertly unleashed by nefarious corporations upon an innocent and unwilling public without public scrutiny. Reinforce the doubt by enlisting ten-second sound bytes of reputable scientists raising legitimate questions about what remains to be learned. Throw in some opinion polls purporting to reflect public anxiety and misgivings about existing safety procedures. The formula is fail-proof.
Big name food companies, sensing public concern from the biotechnology mayhem, sought to head off boycotts and demonstrate their sensitivity to their customers alleged worries by disavowing GMOs. Clearly, they want to protect their brands and markets. They chose to do so by capitulating to emotional extortion, demonstrations, and write-in campaigns.
Stage it and the media will come. Now, as food retailers like Sainsbury's, cereal and grain processors like Archer Daniels Midland, and food companies like Gerber and Heinz and brewers like Kirin and Sapporo ban or segregate GMOs from their products, they are, in fact, retreating from science. In effect, these companies have said, We don't trust the science either. The risks outweigh the benefits. Their decisions imply that GMO foods are not safe.
The truth, of course, is these same companies build their entire product safety assurance systems on science. They conduct research, develop new technologies, and evaluate new products based on science. They use science to conduct market research to determine their customers views. They know the underlying science and twenty year safe track record of GMOs is sound.
Most of us know the GMO debate is not about facts; it's about fear. It's not about feeding people; it's about feeding agendas (social and political).
It's not about safety; it's about hypothetical risks. It's not about environmentally friendly pesticides; it's about politically correct pesticides.
It's not about biodiversity; it's about bioterrorism. It's not about consumer benefits; it's about a lost agricultural era. Contained in each of these paradoxes are nuggets of unknowns, valid questions for which we seldom have answers regardless of the technology or practices being contested.
Reaching the common ground that effectively addresses social and political issues, safety and environmental concerns, scientific questions, and regulatory needs will, I believe, be the only satisfactory exit from the current mess.
All sectors of the public need more effective and balanced communication about why scientists and others believe biotechnology is justified and should be encouraged, what the real or probable safety and environmental risks are, how best to assess and manage various risks, what the social and economic costs of adopting or shunning biotechnology are likely to be, what constitutes appropriate but not stifling oversight, and what the most pressing research questions are.
It is not easy but more can be done:
1) scientific societies must take to the air waves with media-savvy spokespeople;
2) many more government officials must be empowered and encouraged to explain how the regulatory system works and how it has been effective, even if it is imperfect;
3) scientists in both the public and private sector must simplify and demystify the science, rationale, risks and benefits of biotechnology; and
4) private biotechnology corporations must be more forthcoming and less disingenuous about their work and product safety measures.
How welcome it would be to see meaningful restraint in their insatiable appetite for control. Surely it's not too late.
