Making Progress against Genetically Tampered Food
By Jane Lampman
The Christian Science Monitor, August 2, 2001

Whether it's the result of global protesters, well-publicized mistakes slipping into the food chain, or a sudden awareness of the speed with which bioengineered foods are filling the supermarkets, Americans' support for genetically modified foods is eroding.

Although the biotechnology industry has mounted an advertising campaign and points out that no evidence exists that anyone has been harmed by bioengineered foods, unease seems to be spreading over safety, potential environmental impacts, and concerns that freedom of choice are being undermined.

Several polls capture the shifting mood. A June survey of adults nationwide by ABCNews.com found 52 percent saying such foods are "not safe to eat," and only 35 percent expressing confidence. One year earlier, a Gallup poll had found the reverse, with 51 percent seeing no health hazard. The ABC poll also found that 93 percent wanted the federal government to mandate the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

For many, ethical issues are as important as safety concerns, and last week The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology released a nationwide survey of attitudes based on religious faith.

While the majority of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims surveyed believe that "humans have been empowered by God to use such knowledge to improve human life," only among Jews did a majority favor moving genes from one organism or species to another (see below).

In a Pew-sponsored panel discussion July 26, religious leaders and ethicists identified concerns about potential harm to nature, and issues of freedom and control posed by the way GM foods have been introduced.

Are there ethical questions raised by modifying salmon to grow three to five times faster? Or modifying cats so they don't produce a protein that makes humans allergic to them? The use for which a change is made does matter morally, the panel agreed, and it calls for risk-benefit analysis, said Rabbi Avram Reiser of Baltimore Hebrew University.

They weren't impressed with the case for the cat, which would be pursued for human convenience. It's a question of animal welfare, offered David Magnus, a bioethicist from the University of Pennsylvania. "Would it cause other harms, and does the cat get any benefit?"

"Abraham Lincoln said he didn't trust any religion that didn't make a person treat a dog or cat better," added Jaydee Hanson, of the United Methodist Church. "Making the cat affect me less doesn't help the cat much."

In the salmon case, one key issue is environment impact, suggested Robert Gronski, of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. "The ecological impact would be disastrous, [given] the way thousands of cultivated fish escape from aquaculture these days," Dr. Magnus agreed. "It's too soon to introduce it."

A real-life instance of the salmon story is occurring on the eastern coast of Canada, where a US company, Aqua Bounty, has experimental facilities for transgenic salmon that it wants to sell commercially. According to the Toronto Star, two recent Canadian reports warn that federal regulations are inadequate to ensure environmental safety, and that even a few transgenic fish "could wipe out wild populations if they escape from rearing pens." According to the Star, lab tests with other fish have found that offspring from interbreeding between transgenic and wild fish produced offspring that did not survive to maturity as often as normal fish. The company has said it would introduce only sterile female salmon to avert that problem.

The industry says that speeding the growth of animals and foods will help feed the developing world. Panelists agreed that some GM products are a boon, but also that people have a right to technologies that they can control. In the Pew survey, called "Genetically Modifying Food: Playing God or Doing God's Work?" the definition chosen most often for "playing God" involved "who controls the technology and who is exposed to its risks."

One concern is the rapidity with which croplands are going to bioengineered production. Questions people have as they become more aware of the global food system, Mr. Gronski says, include: "Who is deciding what type of food we are eating?" and "How can we have some local control?"

"People need to have the option to make informed choices, and to opt out of the system," Magnus says. "If all foods are genetically modified, the option doesn't exist."

All agreed on the ethical responsibility to inform, a prime issue of debate in the US. "The FDA says it's safe, and therefore the consumer doesn't need to know; but in a democratic society, people have a right to know," says Rabbi Reiser.

The Food and Drug Administration is now modifying regulations on GM foods, but the proposed changes fall far short of the hopes of some consumer groups, which are seeking mandatory labeling and more safety research. The FDA is requiring companies to notify it 120 days before introducing products on the market and to provide information that demonstrates safety. No requirements are made for pre-market testing or for labeling.

In contrast, in the European Union, more stringent rules were proposed this week that would establish a system to trace organisms from farm to supermarket and require all GM foods to be labeled. EU governments and the European Parliament still must approve them.