Anti-Biotech Not on CSPI Agenda

February 1, 2001

Michael F. Jacobson, who heads the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a major consumer advocacy group, says his organization has not joined the anti-biotech campaign to halt agricultural biotechnology because "it is a powerful tool to increase food production, protect the environment, improve the healthfulness of foods, and produce valuable pharmaceuticals. It should not be rejected cavalierly."

In a position statement first appearing in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Jacobson said biotechnology "is not a panacea for every nutritional and agricultural problem" but is not worthy of the type of alarms that have been sounded by the anti-biotech forces.

"Too many biotech critics have resorted to alarming the public about purported environmental and food risks," says Jacobson. One environmental group has stated, "If deadly toxins that kill butterflies are being introduced into our food supply, what effect are these toxins having on you and your family? Is it possible that these toxins will build up over time in our systems? If so, what effect will they have? The scary answer is that no one really knows."

Actually, adds Jacobson, "we do know: The Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the `toxins' approved for human consumption have no adverse effect on health."

And while current biotech crops have not been shown to cause any health problem and only minor environmental disturbances, they have begun to yield major benefits. Biotech cotton, for instance, has reduced insecticide usage by more than two million pounds a year. "That saves a lot of beneficial insects (not just butterflies) and reduces farmers' exposure to dangerous chemicals," Jacobson notes. Biotech cotton also has meant higher profits for farmers.

"Likewise, soybeans engineered with immunity to certain herbicides have allowed farmers to replace more-toxic herbicides, which pollute water, with relatively benign ones and to reduce soil erosion. And in Hawaii, biotech papayas resistant to a devastating virus are saving that industry," he adds.

In developing countries, biotechnology will protect sweet potatoes from viruses, increase yields of rice, and reduce contamination in corn from mold-produced carcinogens. "Some critics complain that biotechnology's promise has not yet been widely fulfilled in those nations. That however, does not constitute a compelling indictment of this emerging technology. Who would have predicted the Internet from the meager beginnings of home computers?"

Jacobson continues, "Of course, not all the fruits of biotechnology deserve a place on the dinner table. Used injudiciously, biotechnology could wreak havoc: weeds resistant to herbicides, novel toxins or allergens in foods, pesticide-bearing crops that kill beneficial insects, and loss of genetic diversity. And in developing nations it could jeopardize the livelihoods of small farmers."

For both humanitarian and selfish reasons, the biotech industry should join with others to support the sound measures that would help rescue the technology from doubt and controversy, according to Jacobson. "For starters, Congress should give the Food and Drug Administration a legal mandate to review safety data on biotech foods, provide opportunities for public comment, and explain its decisions in the Federal Register," he says.

Also, Congress should invest more heavily in biotechnology research and development to bring more beneficial products and methods into the public domain. "We need to develop better pre-approval testing methods and to conduct post-approval monitoring of products. And, biotechnology aside, to help farmers survive, we should encourage organic and sustainable methods, which are environmentally and socially sound and, unlike much farming, often highly profitable," Jacobson says.