Lugar Seeks 'Logic' and 'Balance' to Biotech Debate

October 7, 1999

Proponents of biotechnology have not informed the public sufficiently about the new technology or convinced consumers of the benefits from it; opponents have voiced fears without considering the advantages, says Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). "Informed, logical and balanced public discussion" is needed, he says.

At the first of two days of hearings on biotechnology issues, Ralph W.F. Hardy, president, National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, told the committee consumers do not see a direct benefit from agricultural biotechnology. "Some of this may be the failure to communicate the positive story to the consumer...Also the historic fact that improved agricultural technology initially provides economical benefits to the farmer but ultimately the consumer receives the major benefit in reduced prices of food staples."

Among the benefits of biotechnology is the fact that herbicide-tolerant crops allow the use of highly effective herbicides with a field activity duration of days compared to most traditional herbicides with a field activity of months and in some cases even years, Hardy said.

"Some of our major foods such as milk, wheat, peanuts, etc., have major allergenicity problems for a fraction of the US. population," he continued. But biotechnology is working to find ways to overcome food allergy problems and has made progress toward that goal.

"Biotechnology would seem in its ingenuity and logic, to hold enormous promise in terms of the potential range of applications to improve the human condition, in greatly increased efficiencies and in greatly lowering risks," says Lugar. "However, the technology is complex and not yet well understood by the public."

As a consequence, consumers are concerned whether the technology presents "any health or environmental risks that need to be addressed or has the potential to crate risks that cannot be presently discerned."

Already the public discussion has become "uselessly shrill and divisive," says Lugar.

Except for Iowa State University professor Neil Harl, yesterday's witnesses took a uniformly positive view of biotechnology. Harl said consumers will benefit from the new techniques but questioned whether farmers would because of growing concentration among input suppliers. Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), while saying he personally thought genetically modified foods are safe, said consumers are "voting" against the technology and will ultimately decide its fate.