Colorado State University Extension
SafeFood Rapid Response Network


SAFEFOOD NEWS - Spring 2000 - Vol 4 / No. 3

Go to Table of Contents for this issue

Food Biotechnology: A Look at the Issues

As might be expected with something so powerful as genetic engineering, there is much controversy regarding if and how it should be used, on what, by whom, and under what controls.

While simple forms of biotechnology have been used for centuries, such as selective and cross breeding, the new biotechnology is quite different. Using a process called recombinant DNA technology or genetic engineering, scientists have developed the ability to modify plants and animals in ways never thought possible. Genes found in animals, for example, can be isolated and inserted into plants and vice versa.

There have been many success stories related to the use of biotechnology to help solve problems in the medical world. Human insulin is a good example. In the food production area, progress with biotechnology has been a little slower and more rocky, partially because it's more difficult to work with living tissue, but also because of social, environmental, ethical and public health issues that have arisen.

The first application, the artificial production of chymosin, an enzyme needed for cheese making, was highly successful. The first genetically engineered whole food on the other hand, the Flavr Savr™ (Calgene, Inc.) tomato, was not so successful. Introduced in 1994, it was pulled off the market in 1997 due to low consumer appeal and is currently being re-designed.

Currently, the most popular use of bioengineering in the food production arena (and the use creating the most headlines) is the planting of crops genetically engineered with the traits for pest management. Since first approved for commercial use in the mid 1990s, the number of acres planted with genetically engineered crops, primarily insect-resistant corn and cotton and herbicide-resistant soybeans, has risen sharply, from 4 million acres in 1996 to approximately 100 million acres in 1999 (about 50 percent of the total production of these crops in the U.S.).

This high adoption rate has created a bit of a storm among environmentalists and others both in this country and abroad. Concerns became so intense this fall in Europe, that the European Union suspended both the introduction and the importation of new varieties of genetically engineered crops in Europe. Are these concerns justified or are they merely an outpouring of anti-technology emotion, based on fear of the unknown?

Given that not only the risks but also the most significant benefits of foods produced using genetic engineering are still mostly theoretical, no one knows for sure where the answers lie, probably somewhere in between. Understanding the issues surrounding the debate, however, is very important.

Proponents see genetic engineering as an extension of classic cross-breeding methods, more complex, but also more precise. They view it as a "method of organizing nature to bring out the best in nature." They stress the potential biotechnology has for reducing the need for agricultural chemicals, improving the productivity, efficiency and profitability of food production, and improving the quality, safety, cost and convenience of consumer food products. They tend to oppose special labeling, as long as the end product is substantially the same nutritionally and functionally as the original product. They see special labeling as unnecessary and potentially misleading.

Opponents focus on various issues. For some, ecological or environmental issues are the major concerns. Groups such as the Union for Concerned Scientists and the National Wildlife Federation raise concerns about "super bugs" or pesticide-resistant insects taking over agricultural fields. They express concern that bioengineering plants to resistant herbicides will increase our dependency on chemicals and take us further away from sustainable agriculture practices. They fear that transgenic crops will transfer their herbicide resistance to other weeds, become weeds themselves, cause damage to wildlife, and threaten global centers of crop diversity.

Some people are primarily concerned about food safety and allergenicity issues. They raise concerns about the potential transfer of unknown allergens into foods causing problems in unsuspecting persons. The ability of genes to transfer "known" allergens already has been shown.

Others are more concerned about social and ethical issues. Their view is that because most of the basic research and development on genetically engineered foods is being done by the private sector, profit will overpower good science and protection of public welfare.

Some consumers are concerned with "right to know" issues. They want to be able to express their choice in the market place regarding how their food was produced; thus, they want special labeling. For others, the greatest concern is that genetic engineering will lead to eugenics, that is, genetic modifications to the human race.

Agricultural biotechnology clearly has great potential to help solve agricultural production and food security challenges. But, first in Europe and more and more in this country, people are asking whether this promise is being realized. They're also asking who stands to benefit and who might end up bearing the costs and unintended consequences as agricultural biotechnology forges ahead? In the end, the public will be well served by a healthy mix of these two viewpoints, one that allows scientific progress, yet addresses safety and ecological issues and is responsive to social and ethical concerns.

Adapted from "Nutrition News" by Pat Kendall, Fort Collins Coloradoan, April 5 and 12, 2000.

Updated Monday, August 29, 2011