http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/10/columns/fl.miller.genesplice.10.13/#1
Counterpoint to anti-GMO arguments
Tired of hearing genetically modified organisms getting slammed in
the media? CNN is running an article by Henry Miller, a fellow at the
Hoover Institution and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, that is worth reading. Miller, who was an FDA
official from 1979 to 1994, calls the EPA's policy on gene-spliced
food illogical. He says the EPA and other governmental agencies hold
gene-spliced foods to a higher standard than similar foods,
increasing the chance companies producing these foods will
occasionally trip up. He also says the higher standard does not
improve consumer safety at all. Read the report here. 10/23/2000
07:53 a.m.CDT
In defense of gene-spliced corn
by Henry I. Miller, M.D.
FindLaw Contributor
Special to CNN Interactive
October 13, 2000 Web posted at: 10:46 a.m. EDT (1446 GMT)
(FindLaw) -- On September 18, a coalition of environmental groups
reported that tests of Kraft Foods' Taco Bell Originals taco shells
had detected genetically engineered corn containing a protein called
Cry9C. This bacterial protein, introduced into corn with
gene-splicing techniques, has not been approved for human consumption
only because of a theoretical possibility that it could cause an
allergic reaction in humans. Accordingly, after the report was
issued, Kraft Foods recalled the taco shells from markets.
Kraft's voluntary recall was appropriate damage control by a company
that may be in violation of approval granted by a regulatory agency,
in this case the Environmental Protection Agency. But there's more to
the story.
The taco shells are actually far less likely than thousands of other
products on the market to cause allergy or any other health problem.
For example, occasionally peanuts -- a known, potent allergen for
some people -- contaminate a product that is supposed to be
"peanut-free." In contrast, no allergenicity, toxicity, or any other
problem has been demonstrated with Cry9c or any similar substance.
Nevertheless, the EPA's policy is to consider such molecules guilty
until proven innocent. That policy makes little sense.
The EPA's illogical policy on gene-spliced foods
The underlying problem is that the EPA and other government agencies
hold gene-spliced foods to a much higher standard than other, similar
foods, making it more likely that companies producing these foods
will occasionally trip up. But the imposition of this higher standard
on a superior, highly priced technology makes little sense, because
it does not improve consumer safety at all.
The EPA policy in question requires the testing and review, as if
they were pesticides, of gene-spliced crop and garden plants such as
corn, cotton, wheat, and marigolds, that have been modified for
enhanced pest or disease resistance. The policy fails to recognize
that there is a difference between spraying synthetic, toxic
chemicals and applying genetic approaches to enhancing plants'
natural pest and disease resistance.
EPA's policy is so potentially damaging and outside scientific norms
that it has galvanized the scientific community.
Eleven major scientific societies, representing more than 80,000
biologists and food professionals, published a report warning that
the EPA policy would:
* discourage the development of new pest-resistant crops and prolong
and increase the use of synthetic chemical pesticides; * increase the
regulatory burden for developers of pest-resistant crops; * limit the
use of biotechnology to larger developers who can pay the inflated
regulatory costs; * handicap the United States in competition for
international markets.
Consensus on the safety of gene-splicing
Scientists worldwide agree that adding genes to plants does not make
them less safe, either to the environment or to humans. Dozens of new
plant varieties produced through hybridization and other traditional
methods of genetic modification enter the marketplace each year,
without scientific review or special labeling.
Many such products are from "wide crosses'' -- that is,
hybridizations in which genes are moved from one species or one genus
to another to create a variety of plant that does not and cannot
exist in nature. While the changes may sound dramatic, the results
are as mundane as a tomato that is more resistant to disease or has a
thicker skin that won't be damaged during mechanical picking.
Gene-splicing is actually safer than hybridization, because its
results are more precise, circumscribed, and predictable, and because
it takes advantage of the subtleties of plant pathology.
The so-called ``Bt corn'' in the recalled taco shells is a good
example. It was made by splicing in a bacterial gene that produces a
protein that is toxic to corn borer pests, but not to people or other
mammals.
The gene-spliced corn not only repels pests, but it also is less
likely to contain Fusarium, a toxic fungus often carried into the
plants by the insects. This in turn reduces the levels of the fungal
toxin fumonisin, which is known to cause fatal diseases such as
esophageal cancer in humans. Thus, gene-spliced corn is not only
cheaper to produce but is a potential boon to public health.
Excessive, discriminatory regulation
The EPA and other government agencies have imposed upon gene-spliced
foods requirements that could not possibly be met by conventionally
bred crop plants. For example, commercial varieties of wheat used for
bread are bred to contain genes from several hardy wild grasses, in
order to make them resistant to certain fungi and also to increase
the amount of protein in the kernel.
Hundreds or thousands of genes have been transferred during these
crosses, with little characterization of their identity or function
possible, and with little probability of predicting obscure problems.
There is no way these conventionally produced foods could meet the
strictures imposed on gene-spliced plants. Nevertheless, these
conventional varieties of wheat routinely go into field trials and
onto our bread plates without any government scrutiny, screening,
testing, or labeling.
However, for the more precisely crafted -- and safer -- gene-spliced
crops, new varieties must be exhaustively, repeatedly, and
expensively reviewed before they go into the field or enter the food
supply. Meanwhile, the potentially more dangerous, "natural" products
undergo no review at all.
In other words, from a scientific vantage point, federal regulators
have the paradigm exactly backwards, ignoring a fundamental rule of
regulation: that the degree of scrutiny of a product or activity
should be commensurate with the risk.
Rather than punish Kraft for marketing taco shells that contain an
improved, insect resistant, low- fungal-toxin, potentially more
healthful corn, we should "craft" federal regulation so that
biotech's shackles are removed. Its regulation would then make more
sense, cost less, and maximize benefits to the consumer.
Henry Miller is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and an adjunct
scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He was an FDA
official from 1979 to 1994 and is the author of "To America's Health:
A Proposal to Reform the Food and Drug Administration." Henry Miller
is also a FindLaw contributor.
Copyright © 1994-2000 FindLaw. Printed with permission from FindLaw