Ag Interests Back Biotech Foods, Consumer Groups Oppose

November 19, 1999

Agricultural and food interests expressed their support for biotech foods at a Chicago Food and Drug Administration hearing Thursday, but consumer advocates called for their removal from the market and tight regulation.

American Farm Bureau Federation Vice President Carl Loop told the session that farmers long have understood the benefits of biotechnology in food production. But until the world's consumers share that understanding and acceptance, the potential of biotech foods never will be realized. Loop says U.S. consumers have confidence in biotech foods; the challenge is convincing the rest of the world.

"It is important that all stakeholders have confidence in the system," says Loop. "Seed companies and producers need to know what will be expected of them. Otherwise, no one -- consumers or farmers -- will gain the potential benefits offered by biotechnology."

American Soybean Association board member Scott Fritz of Winamac, IN, notes that the absence of sound scientific evidence to support "false and misleading claims about the safety of biotech products" gives every reason to support the technology. Biotechnology is a tool to produce safer, more nutritious crops more efficiently and more abundantly.

"U.S. soybean producers have worked hard to establish the quality reputation soybeans enjoy with consumers in this country and around the world," says Fritz. "If there was any legitimate basis for questioning the safety of varieties derived through biotechnology for animal or human consumption or to the environment, we would be the first to raise concerns."

The Grocery Manufacturers of America focused on labeling. The FDA's current food biotechnology labeling policy "provides a comprehensive framework for consumer protection and choice and clearly serves the public interest," says GMA's Director of Scientific and Nutrition Policy Lisa Katic. Labeling of biotech foods and ingredients is required when there is a significant compositional change in the product, when the food is nutritionally different from its traditional counterpart or when a potential allergen has been introduced.

However, Charles Margulis of the Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign disagreed. A REUTERS report from Chicago quotes Margulis saying, "One of our concerns is that the FDA sometimes seems more interested in promoting biotechnology rather than scrutinizing the risk."

He says genetically modified crops pose ecological risks with laboratory tests showing how insects and microorganisms are harmed. FDA should remove the foods from the market and begin regulating them because of safety concerns, says Margulis.

Separately, a front-page article in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reports growing disillusionment among some farmers, who are beginning to lose faith in biotech crops.