Describing himself as an "organic farmer," Britain's Prince Charles recently raised his metaphorical pitchfork in the air to lead a popular revolt against the use of biotechnology in food production. In an article in the Daily Telegraph, he rejected the idea that genetic modification simply refines "traditional methods of plant breeding." He is convinced that such practices "belong to God, and to God alone." And if mere mortals persist, he contends, they should segregate and label "genetically modified products."
Prince Charles's fundamental misapprehension is that genetic engineering is new. Plants and microorganisms have long been genetically improved by mutation and selection and used to make biotechnology products as varied as yogurt, beer, cereal crops, antibiotics, vaccines and enzymes (for laundry detergents and food processing). For decades, genes have been transferred widely across natural breeding boundaries to yield common food plants including oats, rice, black currants, potatoes, tomatoes, wheat and corn. These "genetically engineered" plants are not those found in laboratories or test plots but are the very same fruits, vegetables, and grains that consumers buy at the local supermarket.
The techniques of the "new biotechnology"--gene splicing, tissue cultures, and the rest--speed up and target with greater precision genetic improvement that has long been carried out with other methods. New biotechnology, according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, lowers even further the already minimal risk associated with introducing new plant varieties into the food supply. The use of these sophisticated techniques makes the final product even safer, as it is now possible to introduce pieces of DNA that contain only one or a few well-characterized genes--making scientists more certain about the traits they introduce into the plants. In contrast, the older genetic techniques transfer a variable number of genes haphazardly.
Thousands of products from plant varieties engineered with older techniques have entered the marketplace in the last three or four decades. Only three products (two squash varieties and one potato type) had unsafe levels of toxins; one celery variety caused allergic skin reactions in some farm and supermarket workers. But today's more precise gene-splicing techniques mitigate against any repetition.
But even with this safety record, a few anti-technology advocacy groups--joined now by Prince Charles--have pushed for labels disclosing the use of genetic engineering techniques. Such labels would significantly increase costs of processed foods made from fresh fruits and vegetables. The precise costs will vary according to the product. But, for example, a company using a gene-spliced, higher-solids, less-watery tomato (which is more favorable for processing) would have the additional costs of segregating the product at all levels of planting, harvesting, shipping, processing and distribution.
The added costs are a particular disadvantage in this competitive, low profit-margin market. Unnecessary regulation constitutes a punitive "tax" on regulated products, which creates a disincentive to their development and use. Consumers would be better served by industry spending its resources on creating new, safer products.
Prince Charles's reservations about new biotechnology appear to arise from a lack of perspective on pedigree. Would he boycott or request special labeling for the genetic hybrid we call a tangelo, (a cross between a tangerine and a grapefruit)? Or the mutant peaches we call nectarines?
But regardless of the protests, time is on biotechnology's side: Virtually all of the tomato paste in the U.K. is derived from gene-spliced tomatoes, for example, and thousands of European processed foods will soon contain derivatives of gene-spliced soya or maize. In the U.S., gene-spliced crops already account for about half of this year's cultivation of cotton, 40% of soybean and 20% of corn.
But if the activists achieve some success in limiting or delaying the new biotechnology, the poor--for whom Prince Charles has campaigned in the past--would suffer most. With food products making up a disproportionally larger part of their budgets, those on lower incomes are hardest hit by high consumer prices, which more efficient biotech production processes could reduce.
The controversy over biotechnology is not a mere intellectual exercise but a real-life struggle for the availability of products that will prolong and enrich lives. It is the fear of biotechnology--not the process itself--that threatens to harm us.
Mr. Miller is a senior research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View" (R.G. Landes Co., 1997).
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.
Copyright © 1998 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved on original material. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.