The Frito Bandito fired off a shot at farmers and biotechnology this week, but he got hit by the ricochet. Meanwhile the biotech stagecoach has cleared a rough pass and is rolling on ahead.
Frito-Lay, fearing an ambush from scare-mongering varmints, told their contract farmers not to plant any biotech corn, crops that have had genes carefully selected from other organisms and transferred into them.
Apparently the company would rather have corn that has been treated with chemical insecticides than corn that has built-in protection against worms. They got kudos from activist groups, and probably from some crop-eating insects. But playing politics with food is a risky venture. You never know what might be hiding behind the rocks up ahead.
A couple of days later, Fritos' former spokesman, Jay Leno, not one to let hypocrisy go unchallenged, popped up and fired a shot at them. He wondered in front of an audience of millions if the company would next be removing the "BRIGHT ORANGE DYE" from their Cheetos.
Biotechnology offers great benefits to farmers today through higher yields and less pesticide use. In the near future, it will bring tremendous food and nutritional benefits, such as snack chips that absorb less fat when cooked. The fat that is used will also be better for cholesterol and other health concerns.
Biotech foods are carefully reviewed by three federal agencies the FDA, the USDA, and the EPA and there is no scientifically justifiable reason to oppose them. So the Frito incident, which may affect public perception, is unfortunate for both farmers and consumers.
But it's merely a little rut in the road. Two other much more important events during the same week may help smooth the way for continued growth of the technology.
The first event was the unanimous approval of an international Biosafety Protocol in Montreal on Jan. 29. The Protocol, approved by delegates from 133 nations, marks the first global affirmation of the potential and value of biotechnology.
It provides a framework international trade for biotech crops, and it establishes a clearinghouse for science-based information so countries can make decisions based more on facts and less on groundless fears about the importance of importing biotechnology.
With such ready access to sound information, countries may be likelier to adopt the benefits of the technology for their farmers, consumers, and the environment. American farmers can be more confident they will not lose markets because of wild shots fired off by black-hatted fearslingers.
That was confirmed by the other salient event of the week, a pro-biotech reversal by Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., one of the nation's largest purchasers and exporters of grain. ADM, which upset many farmers last fall by telling them they had to segregate conventional and biotech grain, will no longer make that requirement.
ADM Chairman G. Allen Andreas told the Chicago Tribune that "the pendulum is beginning to turn back" on the controversy surrounding the crops. He added that less than 5 percent of ADM's sales were to customers who cared if the crops were genetically modified.
Most customers want grain that is produced in the most efficient (read: cheapest) way. Needless segregation is neither efficient nor cheap. ADM and other grain handlers are wisely recognizing that there is no future in creating needless costs to satisfy the unfounded concerns of a small if vociferous minority.
That would include former activist Tom Hayden and other California politicians, who are trying to force both segregation and labeling of biotech foods.
Even the Los Angeles Times no industry sycophant noted in an editorial that products from biotechnology have been in foods for nearly a decade with no adverse effect on public health. "The Food and Drug Administration already requires the labeling of genetically modified [biotech] food that may differ in some way from its conventional counterpart. But regulators consider the vast majority of GM food no different from conventional food." Thus "The labeling proposals [in California] would only confuse a simple process," said the Times.
A few companies have made headlines by asking for non-biotech grain, fearing a customer backlash. So have some store chains catering to yuppies with overstuffed wallets.
But a recent Roper Starch Worldwide poll says industry may be overestimating public concerns. The poll found that 73 percent of adult consumers surveyed would accept biotechnology as a tradeoff for not using chemicals.
The survey also showed consumers to be open-minded. They just need facts. Recent developments show that just maybe those facts are getting out.
Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. where he specializes in health and safety issues and is writing a book on advances in biotechnology.
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.