|
You might think that the U.S. government would do everything
in its power to ensure that genetically engineered foods are
safe for consumers and the environment. After all, the government
is supposed to protect its citizens. However, this thought
would be naive.
In the case of biotechnology, the U.S.
government is acting more on behalf of wealthy and powerful
special interests than for the common citizen. Here's what
is going on:
1. Federal
agencies have passed the buck, creating bureaucratic confusion
and mediocrity.
Consider the government's handling of Monsanto's New
Leaf Superior potato--or, as we like to call it, the "pesticidal
potato"--as reported in the New York Times Sunday
Magazine in October, 1998. It's a textbook case of bureaucratic
bungling.
Three agencies share responsibility for
overseeing GE foods such as the pesticidal potato: the Department
of Agriculture (USDA),  Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
In what surely must be a first, the New
Leaf Superior potato itself is legally registered with the
EPA as a pesticide. It has been genetically engineered to
contain the pesticide bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) in every
cell. Bt is deadly to the Colorado copper beetle, a common
potato pest.
Today, millions of pesticidal potatoes
are on the market. They are unlabeled, so unless you buy organic,
there's no way to be sure you're not eating these scary Frankenfoods.
EPA has the responsibility for licensing
pesticides. The agency says that the pesticidal potato is
safe for human beings, and cites a study in which pure Bt
was fed to mice without harming them. EPA officials reason
that if potatoes are safe for humans, and non-harmful pesticides
are added to them, they will remain safe for humans.
Yet, the Times reports, "some
geneticists believe this reasoning is flawed, contending that
the process of genetic engineering itself may cause subtle,
as yet unrecognized changes in a food."
The FDA is responsible for food labeling.
The labels on Monsanto's pesticidal potatoes detail all  the
nutrients and micronutrients (even the amount of copper) in
the potatoes, but fail to reveal that the potatoes are genetically
engineered or that they contain a pesticide in every cell.
The FDA told the New York Times
that the agency does not have the authority to label pesticides;
that responsibility, the agency says, falls on the EPA.
Pesticides approved by the EPA usually
contain a warning label. Bottles of pure Bt bear a label warning
people not to inhale the substance and to avoid getting it
in open wounds. However, since the Monsanto pesticidal potato
is a food, the EPA says the responsibility for labeling falls
on the FDA.
The FDA, in turn, says that it requires
labels for GE foods only if they contain allergens or have
been "materially changed"; the agency believes the
pesticidal potatoes are materially the same as non-pesticidal
ones.
Meanwhile, Phil Angell, Monsanto's director
of corporate communications, was candid enough to reveal to
the New York Times that "Monsanto should not have
to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is selling
as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's
job."
Is it any wonder people are left to question,
who's minding this shop?
2. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture has acted like a cheerleader
supporting Frankenfoods.
The USDA, under the Federal Plant Pest Act (FPPA),
has the responsibility of overseeing genetically engineered
crops. Companies that want to commercialize crops must petition
the  USDA.
But many critics believe that USDA's oversight is insufficient,
and that risky GE crops are going to market without sufficiently
rigorous safety testing..
Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture
under the Clinton Administration, often came across as one
of biotech's biggest fans...instead of an unbiased protector
of the people. For example, he called the European Union's
resistance to GE foods "culturally biased" and "scientifically
unfounded," and has urged the EU to recognize the legitimacy
of the "Second Green Revolution."
President Bush's new agriculture secretary,
Ann Veneman, once served on the board of Calgene, a company
owned by Monsanto. Shortly after President Bush took office,
The Guardian, a British paper, reported that the ties between
his cabinet and Monsanto were even greater than the Clinton
administration's legendary connections with the biotech industry.
"The secretaries of defense, health
and agriculture, the attorney general and the chairman of
the House agriculture committee all have links with the firm
or the wider industry," according to the article.
3. The
FDA ignored warnings about the safety of GE foods from their
own scientists.
The FDA has consistently maintained that GE foods are
safe, even though many scientists disagree. In June 1999,
the Alliance for Bio-Integrity--one of the parties in a lawsuit
against the FDA to force the agency to label GE foods-- received
internal FDA documents that show that some of the FDA's own
scientists have doubts about the safety of GE foods.
According to the Alliance, "so strong
was the FDA's motivation to promote the biotech industry that
it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists
about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed
them and took a public position that was the opposite."
"The FDA's records reveal," the
Alliance adds, "it declared genetically engineered foods
to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all
the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported
its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency
scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through
recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do
their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this
input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered
foods the same as natural ones."
Previous
Next
|
