Other Issues
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
Numerous scientists have raised concerns about the environmental and
human health risks posed by genetically engineered crops. Around the
globe, consumers and governments have reacted by rejecting genetically
engineered crops and strictly regulating this technology. The U.S.
government, however, has largely ignored the risks and consumer
concern. As a result, states and local governments are stepping in to
protect public health and the environment. Voters in Mendocino County,
California, for example, have banned genetically engineered agriculture
and inspired voters in seven other California counties to file
initiatives for the 2004 ballot to do the same. The biotechnology
industry is sure to devote significant money to fight these initiatives.
The technology of inserting genes from one organism into the DNA of
a foreign organism is unpredictable by nature and creates several
unintended
environmental and human health risks. Genetically modified foods can
cause severe allergic reactions and increase antibiotic resistance;
notwithstanding these risks, 60 percent of the food on supermarket
shelves already contains genetically modified ingredients. In the
field,
genetically engineered crops also can contaminate traditional crops and
create “superweeds” when crops genetically modified to be herbicide
resistant unintentionally cross-pollinate with related wild plants.
All of these risks have spurred significant resistance by consumers
around the world. Polls show that 70 percent of European Union
consumers reject genetically engineered food, leading the European
Union to engage in a de facto moratorium on genetically engineered
agriculture in 1998 that it recently ended. In 2001 Japan initiated
labeling and testing requirements on genetically engineered foods. Even
countries suffering from food shortages, such as Zambia, have refused
to distribute genetically engineered foods.
Despite the significant risks and international rejection of genetically
engineered foods, the U.S. continues to encourage agricultural
biotechnology and maintains a laissez faire approach to regulations.
The three agencies charged with ensuring the health and safety of
genetically engineered food maintain a regulatory structure that allows
the industry to regulate itself. The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the
Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) rely on manufacturer-run
field tests to determine safety; do not require premarket testing of
genetically engineered foods; and rely on manufacturers’ research to
determine safe levels of pesticide levels in genetically engineered
crops. The general approach of the U.S. government has been to treat
products of genetic engineering as if they would naturally occur in the
environment, even though the technology requires the extensive transfer
of genes across species.
Given the lack of sufficient federal regulation of genetically
engineered crops and foods, states and localities have taken the lead
in protecting public health and the environment. In the past three
years, the states have introduced 288 pieces of legislation related to
biotechnology. Voters in the State of Oregon qualified an initiative on
the 2002 ballot to require labeling of all foods containing genetically
engineered ingredients, losing after the biotechnology industry spent
$5.5 million to defeat the measure. Voters in Vermont were able to
convince legislators to require labeling and tracing of genetically
engineered seeds. Overall, with industry
opposition fierce, voters have an uphill battle to pass any regulation.
Voters in Mendocino County, California, however, were able to do
what no other locality or state it the U.S. has been able to do. In
March 2004, despite industry spending $700,000 in opposition, Mendocino
County passed Measure H, which makes it unlawful to cultivate or raise
any genetically engineered crops or animals. As a result of Mendocino
County’s success, seven other counties in California are poised to make
decisions to also prohibit genetically engineered agriculture this
fall. These initiatives are important for several reasons. First,
California is the largest agricultural state in the U.S., providing
food for consumers across the country. In addition, California accounts
for 12.2 percent of U.S. agricultural exports, which is significant in
that international markets are becoming wary of genetically engineered
food. Finally, California often has taken the lead in passing
progressive policies to protect consumers and the environment; if the
California initiatives succeed, other states and localities may move to
replicate the policies, creating a ripple effect across the nation.
For these reasons, the biotechnology industry, led by multi-national
giants such as Monsanto, are likely to vocally oppose each measure on
the ballot. Curiously, to date the industry has been rather silent. The
biotechnology companies may be waiting to pump large sums of money into
a media campaign within each county designed to persuade voters close
to the date of the vote. Alternative, the industry may be planning a
broader attack by seeking state or federal preemptive legislation or
challenging the constitutionality of the initiatives. Regardless,
industry likely realizes that the local initiatives will have effects
outside of the boundaries of those seven California counties and even
beyond the boundaries of the State of California.
|
