Reuters | November 18, 1999 | By K.T. Arasu
CHICAGO - The global debate over the safety of genetically modified foods found a stage here at the first in a series of Food and Drug Administration public hearings over whether they are safe for the environment and for human consumption.
A biotechnology industry group and Greenpeace locked horns over the safety of crops modified to resist pests or withstand powerful herbicides. The crops and food made from them have come under scrutiny globally as consumers question whether scientists know enough about them to call them safe.
Charles Margulis of Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign told the session the FDA should take these foods off the market and begin regulating them because of safety concerns.
"One of our concerns is that the FDA sometimes seems more interested in promoting biotechnology rather than scrutinising the risk," he said.
He said genetically modified crops posed ecological risks, with laboratory tests showing how insects and microorganisms were harmed.
Biotechnology industry groups, however, contend the altered crops reduce pesticide and herbicide use, which is good for the environment.
"We see no evidence based on science ... experience for any requirements to change this process," he added. "Whatever risk issues there are, are of the same nature associated with foods derived from conventional breeding," said Val Giddings, vice-president with the Food and Agriculture Biotechnology Industry Organisation.
He said cases cited by Margulis were examples of instances not based on fact. He said risks in genetically altered crops were no more than those found in conventional varieties.
"We think the process being carried out today has done a highly praiseworthy job of ensuring that foods derived from improved biotechnology are at least as safe as if not safer than those we consume," Giddings said.
While U.S. farmers this year planted genetically modified seeds on more than half the U.S. soybean acres and nearly one-third of the corn crop, a firestorm of public hostility in Europe has erupted over what consumer groups attack as "Frankenstein" foods.
While emotions run high on both sides of the debate, today's hearing is part of what could be a long process of replacing fear with facts.
"Most consumers know little about biotechnology. However, increasingly partisan propaganda on all sides rapidly may replace ignorance with confusion," Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Centre for Science in Public Interest, said.
He said the government and the industry should build long-term public confidence by establishing rules that err on the side of caution in protecting the environment and consumers.
The public hearing in Chicago will be followed by two others. FDA commissioner Jane Henney said the hearings were "the beginning of the process of listening ... we will not reach a conclusion at the end of the day."
