The script for this week's Edinburgh conference on genetically modified food was written in advance. We even had a peek in British Prime Minister Tony Blair's essay on the issue in a newspaper Sunday. A number of respected, renowned and distinguished scientists from around the world gathering to look at foods derived from biotechnology will state that they are rigorously tested and as safe as any other food. And a number of very vocal, very emotional and perhaps very sincere opponents of this technology will say that science has not proven that genetically modified (GM) foods will never cause a problem. Both groups will be right.
It will be the job of emissaries from 29 nations comprising the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to sort through the testimony and reach conclusions about the safety and importance of GM foods. The challenge for these people will be staying focused on "what is" rather than "what if?" It won't be an easy task because those imponderable "what if?" scenarios so beloved of environmentalists play on human emotion and fear, whereas dry, factual science can only be based on "what is."
Take what the Prime Minister wrote for Britain's Independent newspaper. "There is no doubt that there is potential for harm, both in terms of human safety and in the diversity of our environment, from GM foods and crops. It's why the protection of the public and the environment is, and will remain, the government's overriding priority."
Then again, "there is no doubt either that this new technology could bring benefits for mankind. Some of the benefits from biotechnology are already being seen in related areas such as the production of life-saving medicines."
Why is Mr. Blair, whose government previously was among the very few in the world with courage enough to support GM food, now waffling on this? Most probably it looks like the scaremongers are winning the day right now, and the Prime Minister might have been worried about aggravating the environmentalists.
Scientists know that it is impossible to prove something won't happen. They can only point to scientific findings and experience and, with the aid of statistics, project a degree of certainty. When determining a course of future action that has tremendous importance for the world, one must weigh risks vs. benefits and one must determine if there is enough sound science to be reasonably certain that concerns will not be realized. Skepticism is understandable, even healthy, but science must be the final determinant.
The three-day Edinburgh meeting is the first international summit after the signing of the landmark Biosafety Protocol, which was a warning signal that the international community might be siding with the proponents of scary if implausible "what if" scenarios. The international community has a choice: Will humanity be permitted to advance, or will the future be governed by the so-called "precautionary principle?" This standard, which is contained in the Biosafety Protocol, basically counsels governments to ban all products or processes as long as there is a doubt about their future impact. The decision of the OECD is important in determining not only how the global community will regulate and trade in GM foods, but how science is to be interpreted on all matters of importance to international trade.
With agricultural biotechnology, there is more than enough sound science and experience to justify going forward, with proper oversight. Since 1983, more than 25,000 closely monitored field trials, involving billions of individual GM plants, have taken place. Since 1996, GM crops have been grown on a wide scale and last year were planted on nearly 75 million acres. In all of these field trials and commercial crops, no predicted or unpredicted health or environmental hazards have occurred. Foods containing genetically modified grains have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people with absolutely no adverse effect.
The pre-market testing of GM products gives a high degree of certainty that problems will not occur. Agricultural biotechnology involves inserting new genetic material into a plant to convey some specific improvement, such as >resistance to pests. The material to be inserted is thoroughly studied. A high dose is fed to rodents to determine if there is any acute toxicity. Digestibility studies examine whether the newly expressed protein is rapidly digested like other dietary proteins. Assessments determine that the protein is neither an allergen nor similar to an allergenic protein.
But "what if" the inserted material reacts within the plant to do something unexpected? Studies are done to examine all aspects of the improved plant -- height, color, leaf orientation, susceptibility to disease, shape, root strength, vigor, fruit or grain size, yield, etc. All nutritional facets of the GM plant are compared with those of the conventional counterpart -- protein, fat, fiber, starch, amino acids, fatty acids, ash, sugar and key minerals.
Studies also examine whether naturally occurring toxins occur at higher levels. If the new protein or gene does not cause a change in any of the numerous parameters examined, regulators are able confidently to conclude that the food is substantially equivalent, and hence, "as safe as" food from other plant varieties. Extensive environmental assessments also are conducted.
Do the studies with GM foods prove that the food will never be a problem? No. But they demonstrate that there is no scientifically supportable reason to believe foods that pass these screens will become a problem. And they give confidence that governments around the globe should move forward to ensure their citizens have the benefits of the technology. This is especially important in developing nations. GM foods hold promise to greatly reduce malnutrition by increasing levels of vitamin A and iron. Hundreds of millions of children in developing nations are at risk of becoming blind because of vitamin A deficiency, and iron-deficient women suffer greatly in childbirth. Of course, GM plants are not in themselves the only answer to the developing world's food and nutrition problems; freeing up agricultural markets is far more important. But they can be a big part of the solution.
But the "First" World also has concerns at stake. One is with allergies to staple foods, such as peanuts and wheat. Biotech research is demonstrating that it may soon be possible to reduce the allergenicity of these foods, freeing millions of people from restrictive diets. Today, GM products are removing millions of pounds of pesticide from the environment and helping to improve yields. Higher yields mean that lands set aside for wildlife will not have to be converted to farming to feed the burgeoning global population.
With reasonable certainty that these products can be developed safely, it would be a travesty to delay their adoption around the world. OECD representatives get the next chance to stand up for science.
Mr. Morris is a Fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London and co-editor of Fearing Food (Butterworth-Heinemann).
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.