April 5, 2000 / Farm Gate
U.S. agribusiness must choose its words carefully when stepping into the
fray over biofoods.
Much like "pasteurization" is preferable over the menacing-sounding
"irradiation" to refer to a treatment to kill food bacteria, agribusiness
and farm groups should try to use "biotech" in place of "genetically
modified organisms," said David Schmidt, vice president of the International
Food Information Council.
"The treminology has been over looked - it really is important to consumers
how we refer to this."
Schmidt, who addressed the annual meeting of the National Grain and Feed
Assocation, said a series of recent public opinion surveys show that
Americans have not turned against gene-spliced corn, soybeans, tomatoes and
other foods the way European consumers have.
The European Union is requiring foods containing more than one percent of
genetically altered material to carry a prominent label so consumers know
what they are buying. Similar regulations are underway in Japan, South Korea
and other food-importing nations.
"There is still an opportunity to communicate to American consumers in the
right way," said Schmidt, whose group is funded by U.S. food and
agribusiness companies. The U.S. industry is preparing to launch a campaign
to educate the American public on the benefits of bioengineered foods and
try to counter critics who say not enough is known about their long-term
effects on health and the environment.
"Biotech foods should not be conveyed as a revolution to consumers because
that is not very reassuring to them," he said.
In recognition of that consumer view, the food council uses a reproduction
of a Cezanne painting of lush, attractive fruits on its information booklets
and
materials, rather than a an edgier graphic design of a super-sized cornstalk
and other crops that the group first commissioned, he said.
A chief concern to the industry is lobbying by environmental and consumer
groups for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to tighten regulation of
genetically altered foods and require labels on them. Labels are opposed by
industry as too costly and likely to convey there is something unsafe about
the food.
The FDA, which held a series of public hearings during the winter, is
expected to issue its policy findings in the next few weeks. The agency has
declared biofoods safe, based on rules it adopted in 1992.
"We don't expect the FDA to implement a mandatory labelling policy as Europe
has," Schmidt said.
Overseas demands for U.S. farm goods to clearly identify what contains
genetically modified organisms has raised uncertainty among American farmers
and food companies.
Earlier, the U.S. Agriculture Department said U.S. plantings of altered corn
would drop by 8 percent this year, cotton by 7 percent and soybeans by 5
percent from last year's levels. That will mark the first year of declining
plantings of gene-spliced crops by American farmers.
Uneasiness over the altered foods increased after a study last summer
indicated potential harm to the monarch butterfly from corn engineered to
resist a destructive pest.
"This is perhaps the biggest problem facing agriculture today," said
Representative Charles Stenholm of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the House
Agriculture Committee.
Stenholm also addressed the grain industry meeting, where much of the talk
was dominated by difficult issues of how elevators and shippers can
segregate
biocrops from conventional ones to meet overseas customers' demands.
"We went a little too far and we blew it in Europe," said Stenholm, who
endorses genetically altered food as a way to help feed the world's growing
population.
But American consumers are still willing to weigh the benefits of abundant,
cheap food against unproved risks, he said.
"God did not create a world that is totally safe," Stenholm said, adding
that some kind of risk is inherent in every food.
Schmidt said the food council's opinion surveys showed Americans were
especially likely to express support for biofoods when told that the plants
are
engineered to require fewer pesticides.
"Long term, we think the outlook for biotech foods is quite bright. Short
term,
there are going to be some bumps," he said.
A key issue is how food manufacturers respond over the next few months.
"You can't have too many more big companies being seen to run away from
biotech foods," Schmidt said.
Virtually all major British grocery store chains have stopped selling
genetically altered foods, and several big companies such as babyfood maker
Gerber have also announced they will not use altered ingredients.
(posted without permission)
