Geneically Engineered foods- Dangerous or Sensible?

February 2, 2001

I received this copy of son's article on The benefits or

possible benefits of genetcally altered foods fro Mitchel Cohen a very

knowledgeable and hard working activist leader of the No Spray Coalition

opposing the spraying of New York City with dangerous pesticides supposedly

to kill mosquitos transmitting the West Nile Virus. Mitch was also very

active in the Green Party Nader campaign and political demonstratoins

opposing the Democrats and the Republicans. He asked for a response to this

article which I sent below the original.

son and his organization have also been consumer activist

leaders supportive of FDA's tight restrictions on claims for dietary

supplements. I was tempted to also address this issue, but since it is

really a reply to his article, I did not want to destroy my credibility in

oppsing son on this issue by muddying the waters with another issue I

have against him and his organization. That will have to wait for another

time.

Common Sense on Biotechnology

By F. son(*)

<http://www.cspinet.org/new/biotechnology.html>

My organization, the Center for Science in the Public

Interest, has waged many campaigns over the last three

decades to improve the nutritional quality and safety of

our food. From advocating nutrition labeling to

attacking olestra and sulfites, we know how to publicize

problems. Predictably, we've been vilified more than

once on this page [The Wall Street Journal editorial

page -- Moderator.

But the campaign we have not joined is the one aimed at

halting agricultural biotechnology and genetically

engineered foods. While biotechnology is not a panacea

for every nutritional and agricultural problem, it is a

powerful tool to increase food production, protect the

environment, improve the healthfulness of foods, and

produce valuable pharmaceuticals. It should not be

rejected cavalierly.

Too many biotech critics have resorted to alarming the

public about purported environmental and food risks. For

example, one environmental group has stated: " If deadly

toxins that kill butterflies are being introduced into

our food supply, what effect are these toxins having on

you and your family? Is it possible that these toxins

will build up over time in our systems? If so, what

effect will they have? The scary answer is that no one

really knows. " Actually, we do know: The Environmental

Protection Agency and others have concluded that the

" toxins " approved for human consumption have no adverse

effect on health.

While current biotech crops have not been shown to cause

any health problem and only minor environmental

disturbances, they have begun to yield major benefits.

Biotech cotton, for instance, has reduced insecticide

usage by more than two million pounds a year. That saves

a lot of beneficial insects (not just butterflies) and

reduces farmers' exposure to dangerous chemicals.

Biotech cotton also has meant higher profits for

farmers.

Likewise, soybeans engineered with immunity to certain

herbicides have allowed farmers to replace more-toxic

herbicides, which pollute water, with relatively benign

ones and to reduce soil erosion. And in Hawaii, biotech

papayas resistant to a devastating virus are saving that

industry.

In developing countries, biotechnology will protect

sweet potatoes from viruses, increase yields of rice,

and reduce contamination in corn from mold-produced

carcinogens. Some critics complain that biotechnology's

promise has not yet been widely fulfilled in those

nations. That however, does not constitute a compelling

indictment of this emerging technology. Who would have

predicted the Internet from the meager beginnings of

home computers?

Of course, not all the fruits of biotechnology deserve a

place on the dinner table. Used injudiciously,

biotechnology could wreak havoc: weeds resistant to

herbicides, novel toxins or allergens in foods,

pesticide-bearing crops that kill beneficial insects,

and loss of genetic diversity. And in developing nations

it could jeopardize the livelihoods of small farmers.

D. , co-discoverer of the structure of DNA,

makes a telling point: " [N]ever put off doing something

useful for fear of evil that may never arrive. " Instead

of worrying about every remotely imaginable problem -

and suffering with today's known problems caused by

conventional agriculture - we need a coherent system to

reap the benefits and avoid any problems. Regulatory

improvements are essential to building public confidence

in biotechnology - a goal that industry on its own has

been unable to attain.

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration took a

useful step forward by proposing a mandatory review

system. While mandatory approvals would bolster public

confidence more than reviews, the agency says it doesn't

have the authority to require that. Ironically, the

biotech and processed-food industries oppose formal

approvals for FDA-regulated foods, even though they

manage fine at the EPA, which has just such a system for

plants engineered to produce pesticides.

The National Academy of Sciences and others have found

that significant gaps abound in EPA's system. Even so,

the basic structures are there and need only to be

strengthened by the agency or, where necessary, by

Congress. But the FDA's statutes were written long

before genetic engineering was developed and need to be

updated.

The FDA also proposed guidelines for making voluntary

label claims like " made without genetic engineering. "

That won't satisfy critics' demand that labels of

engineered foods declare " contains genetically

engineered ingredients, " a statement that few companies

would agree to put on their products. It would, however,

help consumers choose non-engineered foods. Later,

labels could be required for engineered foods

themselves, provided they would not significantly

increase costs or convey inferiority.

For both humanitarian and selfish reasons, the biotech

industry should join with others to support the sound

measures that would help rescue the technology from

doubt and controversy.

For starters, Congress should give the FDA a legal

mandate to review safety data on biotech foods, provide

opportunities for public comment, and explain its

decisions in the Federal Register. Also, Congress should

invest more heavily in biotechnology research and

development to bring more beneficial products and

methods into the public domain. We need to develop

better pre-approval testing methods and to conduct post-

approval monitoring of products. And, biotechnology

aside, to help farmers survive, we should encourage

organic and sustainable methods, which are

environmentally and socially sound and, unlike much

farming, often highly profitable.

Furthermore, the United States - and the biotech

industry - must provide generous assistance to the

developing world, where the need for food is greatest.

We should help scientists develop locally appropriate

products that benefit consumers, the environment, and

small farmers, as well as help governments strengthen

their oversight agencies.

Sensible reform would overcome the extremism of both

industry and its critics in a way most beneficial to the

public interest.

* F. son, Ph.D., is the executive director

of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a

nonprofit consumer-advocacy group funded by its members

and foundations.

" This opinion piece originally appeared in the Wall

Street Journal on January 25, 2001. "

son's article on sensible evaluation of Genetically Engineered

foods leaves much unsaid. I was introduced to consumer activism by the

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) when I first realized our

food supply was not always the most nutritious. In those early years the

pace of " technological advances " and dissemination of alternative

information was not as rapid, and CSPI

was considered to be one of the good guys I felt was on my side.

As the pace of technology incresesed and I learned more and more about what

constituted superior nutrition CSPI began to look closer and closer to a

more consumer oriented conveyer of Food and Drug Administration Policy, even

making it look more credible than it really was.

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) not only not required labellong og

genetically enginered foodsb but it has even made it illegal for

NON-GENETICALLY emgineered competing foods to claim they are NOT genetically

altered, except if it is organic-our last refuge-but higher priced. When

the Brazil nut gene was added to soybeans, it induced many allergies in

susceptible people. So much so it had to be removed from the market.This

never makes the news when people tell us to calm down and be sensible.The

Klebsiella bacteria of the soil was once engineered to produce ethanol out

of wood chips and corn stalks to help solve the last energy crisis. It

escaped into the adjacent soil and poisoned a wheat field.It speads on its

own-hopefully it will not now be resuscitated to deal with this energy

crisis. The bovine growth hormone, rBGH makes the cows sick, with moastitis

and bone disease, but FDA wants us to believe sick cows give healthy

milk.Milk from cows injected with rBGH have higher level if Insulin -like

growth factor IGF-1 that is not bound to proteins in the milk, for infants

this can be even more dangerous to a developing body.IGF-1 may increase

breast cancer rates. Even the American Medical Assn Council on Scientific

Affairs wrote to FDA that " Further studies will be required to determine

whether ingestion the ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of

Bovine of Bovine insulin-like growth factor is safe for children,

adolescents and adults " . The very opposite of releasing unlabelled milk,

some of which contains milk from rBGH treated cows to the public. These

sound hard scientific results of use of genetically engineered foods have

been kept out of the press in order to promote sales of major advertisers in

the media. It is indeed sad that I cannot count on CSPI to join the consumer

activists who are asking for much more testing AND labelling of foods that

are Genetically engineered. The canard that the biotechnology industry will

somehow help " feed the world " is false on its face. The industry predicates

its expansion on the right to patent and own the seed of life forms that

poor countries need to plant their crops. To these companies the farmer will

have another cost of seed, not having a " right " to use that from last years

crop, but they have to pay royalties to the biotechnology companies for a

variant of the natural seed. The trait of pesticide resistance is considered

a PLUS to the biotechnology industry. Not so to the consumer who wants LESS

pesticide used, not a food that by its new nature can tolerate more

dangerous chemical residues. Not to the farmer who has the danger of mor

pesticide in his environment and even leaching into his water supply.

That is not even to speak of the genetically engineered form of

L-Tryptophane that was imported from Japan causing eosinophilia-myalgia

syndrome causing over 30 deaths and over a thousand illnesses as reported in

The New England Journal of Medicine. FDA used this as an excuse to remove

the otherwise safe aid to sleep

L-tryptophane from the market with the support of CSPI.

Just on the merits of biotechnologies proven past record in food alone,

genetically engineered foods are not an improvement for most of us, it is

another hazzaed that we have to be aware of. The government agencies FDA an

US Dept of Agricuture have not been much help-more of a hazzard. I would not

trust this agency to at this late date become a protector of consumer

health.

My Reply to this article follows: