Transcript for "Twists in the Genetic Revolution", September 8th, 2000.
Digital West Show #131 - Aired on KQED
REBECCA ROBERTS, HOST, DIGITAL WEST: Scientists and policy makers, farmers
and consumers are hotly debating genetically modified food. Hear what U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and others involved in the
controversy have to say about the future of our food supply right now on
Digital West.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Hello and welcome to Digital West. I'm Rebecca Roberts.
Depending on your point of view genetically modified organisms, or GMOs,
are either an agricultural boon or an unpredictable environmental threat.
Tonight we'll ask the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture how the government
develops policies governing GMOs, and later in the program we'll talk to
experts on both sides of the issue. First we turn to science reporter
Lilah McCrae for an explanation about the science behind GM food.
DW REPORTER: The first breakthrough in genetically modified food came out
of UC-Davis in 1994. The Flavr-Savr tomato was developed to travel better,
be bruise resistant, and to last longer on supermarket shelves. While the
Flavr-Savr was developed to be more attractive to consumers, scientists
are also using biotechnology to create crops that are resistant to pests
or add nutritional value to common agricultural products. Some
experiments create seeds that become sterile after only one growing
season, requiring farmers to buy new seeds each year. But how is all this
genetic manipulation done? Scientists identify and extract one particular
gene, which is a strand of DNA that determines hereditary makeup. They
take that from one organism and insert it in another. The two organisms
don't even need to be similar species. For example, a bacterial gene that
makes bacteria resistant to certain pests can be inserted into a corn
plant making it pest resistant too. The result, farmers can plant fields
of corn that can fight off destructive pests without the use of chemical
pesticides. Since the introduction of this technology, farmers' use of
genetically altered seeds have skyrocketed. Current estimates show that
about one-third of US corn and one-half of US soybeans are genetically
modified. But recent protests claim theres not enough scientific data to
say conclusively that genetically altered food is safe. There are
concerns that pollen from genetically modified crops may spread to other
plants, and some worry that transplanted genetic material could trigger
unexpected allergic reactions. Protesters are also concerned that
consumers have no way of knowing that the food they buy in the grocery
stores could be genetically modified. That's because the FDA doesn't
require manufacturers to label genetically altered foods. These and other
consumer concerns are now causing farmers to think twice before planning
their next cycle of genetically altered crops.
REBECCA ROBERTS: As scientists continue to discuss the pros and cons of
GM food, many calling for political solutions. I recently had an
opportunity to ask US Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman about how the
government is approaching GM food from a policy perspective. Let's take a
look: Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, welcome to Digital West.
Thanks for being here.
DAN GLICKMAN: Thank you. Thank you.
REBECCA ROBERTS: We are discussing today genetically modified food or
genetically modified organisms, GMO. One of the reasons the debate has
gone on, there is a lack of US standards on GMO. Why aren't there US clear
standards?
DAN GLICKMAN: This is a fairly new technology as it is affecting foods.
Now, we have been modifying foods -- when I say "we" -- industry and
research has been modifying foods since, you know, probably for several
thousand years. But -- but only in the last decade or so have we looked
at the issue of doing genetic engineering on foods to give them certain
qualities; for example, resistance to certain pesticides or growing food
with less water or increasing vitamin or nutritional content or doing
other things. Its a fairly new phenomenon and we are, at the same time,
now improving our regulatory system to meet those new phenomenon.
REBECCA ROBERTS: One of the things that's been suggested is labeling.
Where does the US government stand on labeling these foods?
DAN GLICKMAN: I think it is important to understand the differences on the
government agencies on this thing. USDA is really not directly involved in
the labeling of food. That's an FDA issue because it relates to food
safety, but recently they have indicated some regulatory changes in the
whole issue of the labeling regime. We at USDA are largely involved in
regulating genetic engineering as it relates to other plants and other
animals so that theyre not harmfully affected by genetic engineering.
FDA does the food safety, and EPA deals with the issues relating to
pesticides. Genetic engineering would create an impact on pesticides. We
are in the process of looking at these labeling issues. We're seeing more
and more companies getting involved in the labeling of food products. I've
actually encouraged companies to do that. But at the current stage, it's
still on a voluntary basis and, by and large, not regulated by the
government.
REBECCA ROBERTS: One of the criticisms of labeling is that the
information in a vacuum would just scare consumers; that without enough
information then that wouldn't help them make a decision. Whose
responsibility is it to educate consumers?
DAN GLICKMAN: I think it's -- the government's responsibility is to have
a good solid, regulatory system arm's length from industry and is
science-based. For that reason, we have asked the National Academy of
Sciences to come in and look at our regulatory system at USDA to make sure
it is modern and the public has confidence in it. As long as the public
have confidence in our food safety system, they will not be scared and
they will make the decisions based on sound scientific judgment. But
ultimately, these are market decisions to make and these are decisions
that are going to have to be made by consumers and by the food companies.
That's why, by and large, if you have to err, I think you err on the side
of giving the public information, the kind of labeling that would be
useful to them. And we've done that with nutritional labeling, we do that
with an awful lot of other things, and I think ultimately you'll see more
and more of this in genetic engineering. But it is not the government's
responsibility to do anything other than to make sure that the foods are
safe and to have a regulatory system out there that gives people the
confidence foods are safe. After that, really it is up to the consumers
and the industry itself to work out whether they buy or sell these things
or not.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Of course, consumer confidence is sort of a moving
target. And, as more and more protests in Europe make the news here, are
you seeing a change in public opinion here about GM foods, and how do you
gauge public opinion?
DAN GLICKMAN: Let me say this, I think there is certainly more interest
in the whole issue of genetically engineered foods. We have found that at
USDA, as weve dealt with the issue of organic foods we are about ready
this year to issue national rules on organic certification because that is
a very rapidly growing market. We have made the decision, early on, that
genetically engineered foods would not -- could not be classified as
organic. And that was largely due to the public concern about what organic
foods are. It doesn't mean genetically engineered foods aren't safe; but
from the standpoint of organic, weve made the decision consumers do not
want GMO foods as part of the organic scenario. But, you know,
ultimately, I think consumers will be governed by issues of safety. And
they will then make choices based on safety and quality and price and as
long as we have the best science governing the regulatory system, then I
think that ultimately they will make their judgments based upon sound
scientific principles and a rational basis. There is some hysteria,
frankly, in Europe and other parts of the world and some of the concerns
about genetically engineered foods are not really based on science, at
least not on sound science but maybe political science or based on fears
or other kinds of things. But we can't just poo-poo that, we cant just say
that thats stupid. We have to understand there is some legitimate concern
out there by consumers that they are eating safe food. And we have a
responsibility, as a government, to have the best regulatory system we can
possibly have.
REBECCA ROBERTS: It's also not just a pro-science versus anti-science
debate, there are scientists on both sides of the issue.
DAN GLICKMAN: There are. But we have scientists on the sides of all sorts
of issues, and ultimately you have to come down with a public policy
decision based on this, you know, overwhelming preponderance of the
evidence. But you also have to understand -- I'm sure people out there
watching the show do -- that consumers have a lot of reasons why they buy
food, and that is one of the reasons why I think ultimately you're gonna
see more and more genetically engineered foods labeled. We've got to come
up with a good way of labeling and a way that gives people the kind of
information that they need so that labeling makes some sense. But I think
that people like to know what's in their food. I'm not sure the government
ought to be telling them at every stage what's in their food, but they
really do need to have a system to know what's in their foods.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Do you, I know it's an FDA issue, but do you see moving
from voluntary to mandatory labeling?
DAN GLICKMAN: I would say right now, I don't have any evidence to know
exactly how we would move to a mandatory system. Until such time as more
work is done on thresholds, for example, to know how you measure the level
of GM foods, and other kinds of issues like that, I think it's gonna be
tough to do that. But I do think probably that you're gonna see more and
more companies, probably, go down this road. And we in the government have
to make sure that we have the kind of systems in place so we can measure
GM foods so then people will then know what kind of standards to actually
meet if, in fact, foods are going be labeled. Let me say this: my own
judgment, my own belief that the foods that are out there that have been
approved in the marketplace are safe. I don't have any concern about
safety. I think that some of the issues here go beyond those issues of
safety to issues of choice. And people like to know what's in their foods,
and so I think we in the government are gonna continue to explore all the
ways that we could try to help this labeling issue out by providing the
kind of testing and criteria so we can label intelligently.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Secretary Glickman, thank you for being on Digital West.
Dan Glickman is the US Secretary of Agriculture.
There are two battles being fought over genetically modified food; one
about science, the other about policy. Head for our message board at
dw.kqed.org, and tell us who you think should ultimately make decisions
about introducing GM food to the environment and why. Then vote in our
online poll. Tonight's question - should manufacturers be required to
label foods containing GMOs? You'll also find complete transcripts of this
and all our other programs, links to additional online information and
more, all that at dw.kqed.org.
REBECCA ROBERTS: The battle over GM food involves more than scientists,
policy makers, and members of the public. Many American farmers find
themselves caught in the middle of conflicting demands. To see how this
debate looks from the fields, we visited a family farm in Yolo County
northeast of San Francisco.
BLAKE HARTMAN: My name is Blake Hartman, a fifth generation farmer here
in Woodlawn, California. I grow tomatoes, wheat, corn, alfalfa, rice, and
some other crops. If the economics were there for us to do well as is, you
wouldn't see the interest on the growers' side to adapt to GMO foods.
But when we budget for, let's just say, for example, a corn crop, we know
how many times we're going to have to go through a field, we know how much
nitrogen we need to put on, we know how much water we need to put on. When
we have an option to cut any of these operations, it's attractive to us.
We need to do it cheaper to -- to make money because we're struggling. The
agriculture industry is struggling very much right now with -- with the
margins we're working on. And when we see the option to use GMO products
and the advantages that they offer, we want to get them implemented
because in the system that we work in right now, we need help. I think, as
we come under more scrutiny and more regulations and more restrictions on
chemicals that we're allowed to use, the more that we're going to want to
plant GMO products. We've got some barriers to overcome in some foreign
trade issues and some domestic food quality concerns, as well. But I'm
optimistic that we can overcome some of these and allow GMO foods to be
produced. We've got the technology to adapt GMO into a lot of crops we
have, but we haven't convinced the public that they are safe yet. We can't
prove them safe, and we can't prove them unsafe. I'm hoping the
government's role is going to be one of assuring people that we're going
to do this right. Where we've lagged and where many of us think, the step
we need to take to have more consumer appeal and consumer demand for our
products is to develop traits in the plants we grow that consumer wants,
whether it be high vitamin C, high beta carotene, increased nutritional
aspects of any type. And only when we develop those traits into the plants
we grow that the consumer wants will we then be able to benefit from those
grower-friendly traits that we want right now. This is an ever-changing
business. The way we run our farms today is nothing like the way our
predecessors and my father and grandfather ran this place years ago. And,
you know, we're getting better and we've adapted to so many changes
already and this is, for me, it's just one more.
Panel Discussion
REBECCA ROBERTS: Here now to discuss the problems associated with
regulating genetically modified foods are Steven M. Druker, founder and
executive director of the Alliance for Bio-integrity, Henry Miller, Senior
Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Dr. Roger Wyse, former Dean
of Agricultural and my scientist at University of Wisconsin, now biotech
investor at Burrill & Company. Welcome to Digital West. Thank you for
being here. We had a previous episode on Digital West concentrating on the
science of genetic modification. For the purposes of this conversation,
we'd like to sort of talk about the regulatory environment. Steven
Druker, let's start with you. Do you think we know enough about the
science now to either make a decision about regulation or to make a
decision that enough regulation is already in place?
STEVEN DRUKER: Yes, we do. We know, from hundreds of well-credentialed
scientists who do not depend financially upon the biotech industry, that
genetic engineering is very different than traditional breeding and the
food it creates poses different risks, unique health risks, to the human
beings who eat them, to the environment. And we know, actually, that the
predominant opinion of the FDA's own scientists as expressed in the FDAs
own administrative record which my organization received through suing the
FDA, the predominant opinion of the FDAs own scientists is, or was
expressed, that these foods are different, they pose unique health risks,
that each one has to be carefully tested. So, the law requires in such a
circumstance that none of these foods be on the market unless each one has
been demonstrated safe. So, we know right now there's adequate regulation
if it were enforced. The law is that these foods shouldn't be on the
market because they pose unreasonable risks, and that is the sound
science.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Henry Miller, you are a former FDA scientist yourself.
Do you agree with Mr. Druker said?
HENRY MILLER: No, not at all. Neither the consensus of our scientists or
the data, the very extensive data that we have are consistent with Mr.
Druker's assertions. In fact, the scientific consensus says that the new
bio-tying/gene splicing is really an extension or a refinement or
improvement over the older, less precise kinds of genetic techniques that
we have.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Rather than a new technology, its simply an evolution of
older technology?
HENRY MILLER: It's an evolution. In automobile technology, we added disc
brakes, we added seat belts; we didn't create new regulatory paradigms to
regulate those cars that had improved safety. Nor did we put a lower speed
limit on these improved cars which, in effect, is what's being done now in
the regulation of biotech products.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Dr. Wyse, where do you fall on this?
DR. ROGER WYSE: I think this is clearly an evolution of technology but its
a very powerful technology therefore we need to proceed with due caution.
And that caution needs to be tempered with good science. Right now there
is no science that would suggest that these foods produced from
genetically modified plants by gene splicing are, indeed, any less safe
than the traditional foods we have been eating for many years.
STEVEN DRUKER: I would like to correct what Dr. Miller has said. People,
listeners are invited to look at our Web site, Bio-integrity.org, where
with photocopies of key FDA documents. You will see in document #1, Dr.
Linda Call, a compliance officer for the FDA whose job was to review the
input from the scientists. And to keep the FDA in compliance with the law
she wrote a scathing memo saying that the FDA was trying to fit a square
peg into a round hole by trying to force an ultimate conclusion that
genetic engineering is the same as traditional breeding. And then she
stated "the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are
different and, according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead
to different risks." That was Dr. Call not stating her personal opinion.
That was Dr. Call summarizing what anybody can see, if they read through
the file, these foods lead to different risks. The microbiologists, the
toxicologists, the Center For Veterinary Medicine are all on record as
saying that unique health hazards are posed by these foods. The FDA
political appointees overruled the scientists, they covered up the
warnings and they lied in public. They liked in public and continue to say
that they have no information showing these foods different in any
meaningful way. That is a scandal! The law says these foods need to be
proven safe when there is scientific disagreement, and there clearly is!
REBECCA ROBERTS: Henry Miller?
HENRY MILLER: None of that is true. The consensus that I alluded to comes
not only in the US from the National Academy of Sciences in a 1987 report
and the national research council in a 1989 report but from international
organizations, as well. The organization for economic cooperation and
development, which has studied the potential risks of these products, all
find that the risks are likely, if anything, to be lower because of the
much greater precision, much greater predictability of genetic engineering
using the new techniques. We've been doing engineering of a very
sophisticated and very dramatic kind for a long time, and that ranges from
genetic hybrids of a grapefruit and tangerine that we call a tangelo to
putting genes from wild grasses into wheat to make them more pest and
disease resistant; to creating the very important other cereals that gave
rise to "the green revolution." So genetic engineering of various kinds
has been around for a long time, but gene splicing is much more precise
moves only a few genes or at most a couple as opposed to these others
which move dozens or hundreds and introduce whole chromosomes --
STEVEN DRUKER: Dr. Miller, I have to say, you said that what I said
wasn't true. Are you saying that Linda Call did not state what I said she
stated? The memo was on our website for the world to see. When Dr. Miller
says these techniques are more precise, he is ignoring the fact that the
FDAs own scientists says they are less precise
DR. ROGER WYSE: That cannot be true, sir
STEVEN DRUKER: -- they are less precise when it comes to be able to
predict the effects on food safety--
REBECCA ROBERTS: Lets let Roger Wyse get in here.
DR. ROGER WYSE: But can you give us one specific example of a risk?
STEVEN DRUKER: Yes. There are risks of unexpected and novel toxins or
carcinogens produced in the food. This is clear. The FDA scientists said,
the scientists in our lawsuit have submitted sworn declarations to the
court that the process of gene splicing is so potentially disruptive to
the life processes of the organism that it could lead to new poisons or
carcinogens that have never before been in any of the species.
REBECCA ROBERTS: If we have, obviously, this much disagreement among the
three gentlemen at this table, there is obviously still disagreement in
the community along these lines. At what point is there a responsibility
to say enough; we need to make decisions here? Have we reached that point
yet?
DR. ROGER WYSE: No, absolutely not. I think good science has shown to
date that there are no risks. One could argue that theres a possibility
of putting a gene in that may be allergenic. Milk is allergenic to some
people who have a lactose intolerance, so this is very testable, one can
determine whether or not that is true. But in terms of doing genetic
crosses in potatoes, for example, some of the past varieties did have high
[solonaisee], high [solomin], its a toxin. So that what we see now is
something we have not, we have seen before and we know how to handle it.
We go through thorough testing before they come out.
REBECCA ROBERTS: And what about labeling? What about just allowing
consumers to make the decision by seeing what's in it?
HENRY MILLER: Well, I think voluntary labeling is an option at any time,
and that's the way that society and through the marketplace has provided
labeling for information that consumers want. So, for example, where
enough consumers desire to know whether a product is kosher or whether its
[holowed] or whether its organic, the market forces provide that.
REBECCA ROBERTS: But voluntarily, not mandatory?
HENRY MILLER: Mandatory labeling would be a mistake for a number of
reasons. It would impose a punitive tax on these products that, in fact,
would make them more costly and therefore unattainable by many consumers.
As you mentioned earlier, it would be likely perceived as a warning to
consumers about these products, where there shouldn't be --- where no
warning is warranted.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Do you agree with that?
DR. ROGER WYSE: I agree. I think mandatory labeling would put an undue
burden on those products. Insinuate that they were, in fact, unsafe and
the scientific evidence does not support that.
STEVEN DRUKER: Yes and labeling is, at minimum, required. But the first
requirement is only foods that are legally on the market and are
reasonably safe can be labeled. If a food poses unreasonable risks, it
shouldn't be on the market in the first place. And as I said and as
anybody can see by checking our website, the predominant opinion of the
FDA's own experts was these foods do pose unique risks; they are not as
predictable as these gentlemen would like you to believe. And I would
quote from one of the scientists in a lawsuit, Professor Phillip Regal
from the University of Minnesota, internationally renowned expert; he
said in a sworn declaration to the court, there are scientifically
justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods. Some
of them could be quite dangerous. He continued that because there has not
been adequate testing, we do not know which are dangerous and which are
not. The implication is we have to presume all of them are dangerous, and
that is the presumption required by law anyway.
HENRY MILLER: It simply is a myth that there is significant sentiment at
the FDA that believes there are enhanced risks to these products. It is a
myth. The -- +++ STEVEN DRUKER: Read the Web site!
HENRY MILLER: The FDA's official position was described in a Federal
Register notice, the official publication of the government in 1992; and
the FDA said very clearly that the risks of these products were perceived
to be no greater and that gene spliced foods would be regulated no
differently in essence.
REBECCA ROBERTS: Dr. Wyse, you've got the last word. We're almost out of
time.
DR. ROGER WYSE: I think we have a great technology that can, in fact, as
the farmer indicated, reduce costs and the impact to the environment and
allow us to feed the world in the future on half of the land that we do
today.
REBECCA ROBERTS: All right, were going to have to leave it there, were out
of time. Thank you gentlemen for being on Digital West. Next week we look
at yet another technologys unforeseen consequences when we explore the
phenomenon of computer hacking. We'll talk to [Kevin Poulsom], one of the
world's most notorious hackers, and a panel of his peers. Is the hacking
community threatening our well-being or revealing flaws that real enemies
could exploit? That's next week on Digital West. I'm Rebecca Roberts. Good
night!
Funding for Digital West is provided by the members of KQED, and by
Fenwick & West, a Silicon Valley original. Fenwick & West has been
providing a full range of legal services to the high technology community
for over 25 years. Fenwick & West lawyering for the information age.
And by C/Net. C/Net. Bringing the digital age into focus. C/Net.com, the
source for computers and technology. And by FamilyWonder.com, an online
store with ratings and reviews of kids' videos, music and toys.
FamilyWonder.com. The smarter way to shop for kids. A KQED television
production.
Copyright 2000 KQED, Inc.
======================
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the
source. ***
