NOTE: Since publication of this article, this information has been updated. Go to the updated document.
Food biotechnology offers tremendous promise to the health of Americans, to feeding the world's population and to the environment. However, in recent months, this issue has been the focus of an international debate. Concerns about the safety of biotechnology have been the main focus of the argument. Many of the issues raised are based on speculation and emotion, rather than on sound science. The following seeks to shed some light and provide the science behind some of the key questions being asked about food biotechnology.
MYTH: The application of biotechnology to crops and food is very different from traditional agricultural methods.
FACT: Biotechnology is an evolution of traditional agricultural methods. In the past 10,000 years people have routinely used their knowledge of plants to improve food production. Biotechnology is simply the latest development in the evolution of agricultural methods. Farmers used to rely on plant breeding to add, or eliminate, specific genetic traits in a plant. For example, corn today looks nothing like it did one hundred years ago because of plant breeding. Although it typically took several growing seasons to produce a plant that expressed a desired trait, farmers were able to create crops that:
- were resistant to drought, insect pests and diseases;
- possessed stronger stalks and improved ability to withstand strong winds; and,
- produced higher yields.
Genetic enhancement, a key feature of modern agricultural biotechnology, is a more efficient and precise way to achieve the benefits of crop improvement. Using new technologies, scientists are now able to pinpoint the gene responsible for a particular trait, then extract, or add, that gene to a specific plant.
MYTH: Foods produced using biotechnology have not been established as safe nor are they adequately regulated.
FACT: Biotechnology is one of the most extensively researched and reviewed agricultural developments ever. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as individual state governments, work together to ensure that crops produced through biotechnology are safe to eat. In 1992, FDA determined that crops produced by biotechnology must meet the same rigorous standards as those created through traditional means. While there is no such thing as "zero risk" for any food, consumers can be confident that foods produced using biotechnology meet the government's stringent food safety standards. Years of research indicate the benefits of agricultural biotechnology far outweigh any risks.
Companies conduct advanced research and analyses on food developed using biotechnology. This adds an additional layer of safety. FDA recently applauded several companies for taking extra stepsto protect consumers and "doing far more extensive testing than has everbeen done…."
MYTH: The application of biotechnology to food only benefits food producers, not consumers.
FACT: Biotechnology benefits both producers and consumers. Products recently introduced to the market provide obvious consumer benefits such as enhancing flavor and freshness, boosting nutritional value and reducing saturated fat content. Biotechnology has additional indirect benefits for consumers including reduced use of pesticides and more sustainable tillage practices, which address costly environmental problems like water pollution. For developing countries, biotechnology can increase yields, thereby helping to address food shortages and hunger.
In time, biotechnology may produce: biodegradable packaging; alternatives to chemical pharmaceuticals; and more healthful food products (e.g. vegetables with increased quantities of antioxidants to reduce the risk of cancer; fruits as a delivery medium of vaccines for diseases that devastate Third World countries).
Research shows that U.S. consumers strongly support these products. According to a study conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) in October 1999, a clear majority of U.S. consumers were likely to buy produce modified to improve taste and freshness. Seventy-seven percent were likely to buy produce modified to protect against insects. Most important, consumers are optimistic about the potential of biotechnology. Nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed in October 1999, for a study conducted by IFIC, believe biotechnology will provide benefits to their family in the next five years.
MYTH: Without special labeling, consumers face unknown risks from food biotechnology.
FACT: The Food and Drug Administration's labeling policy for foods produced using biotechnology ensures that consumers are given important information about a change in the end product, not the process used to make the food. The FDA's guidelines were developed in the late '80s and early '90s.
The guidelines that FDA finalized in 1992 require foods grown using biotechnology, or foods containing ingredients that were derived from biotechnology, to have special labels if:
- a known food allergen has been introduced;
- the nutritional content of the food has been changed; or,
- the product's composition has been substantially changed. (There are no foods currently on the market containing allergens transferred via biotechnology.)
A study conducted by IFIC in October 1999, showed that more than two-thirds of Americans support FDA's policy.
MYTH: Crops produced using biotechnology will negatively impact the environment.
FACT: Biotechnology is a key element in sustainable agriculture that will benefit the environment. Benefits include reduced pesticide use, water and soil conservation and greater safety for workers and the ecosystem.
Many crops—including tomatoes, potatoes, corn and cotton—now have the internal ability to repel insects. Consequently, fewer applications of pesticide need to be applied to the plant. A certain type of corn used to feed hogs will reduce the phytic acid in animal waste that traditionally cause algae to grow in water supplies. Finally, the ability to obtain greater crop yield from existing land decreases the need to convert forests to farmland. All of these environmental benefits are possible because of biotechnology.
MYTH: The production of crops resistant to certain pests and weeds will lead to "Super Bugs" and/or "Super Weeds" immune to existing methods of pest and weed management.
FACT: There are no scientific studies suggesting this kind of scenario could occur as a result of crops developed through biotechnology. There are, however, many systems in place—including crop rotation, hybrid rotation and integrated pest management—as a precautionary measure to help prevent it from occurring. Insects and weeds already evolve and develop tolerance or resistance to their environment, so biotechnology can potentially better manage this evolution in resistance. The potential transfer of traits by pollen remains the same as ever.
MYTH: Genetically modified corn kills monarch butterflies.
FACT: In May 1999, Nature magazine published a letter from researchers at Cornell University that reported findings suggesting further research is needed into the relationship between pollen from select strains of Bt corn and the monarch caterpillar. Since that publication, many university researchers, including others at Cornell, have stepped forward to stress that the monarch study did not represent natural conditions and that extensive environmental research has confirmed the safety of Bt corn on non-target insects, such as the ladybird beetle, honeybee and the green lacewing, in the natural environment.
Dr. John Losey, the Cornell University entomology professor who conducted the research agreed with these researchers and noted, "Our study was conducted in the laboratory and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to monarch populations in the field based solely on these initial results."
As with any scientific issue, several studies are needed before conclusions can be made.
MYTH: Biotechnology cannot relieve world hunger.
FACT: Biotechnology can help alleviate hunger worldwide. In the next 50 years the global population is expected to double, reaching more than 8 billion people by 2050. Population growth and diet upgrading will require the food supply to increase by at least 250 percent from its current quantity. The amount of land currently committed to food production—approximately 36 percent of the earth's cumulative land mass—cannot yield the amount of food needed by this increased population. Although forests could be cleared to obtain needed acreage, a better approach is to find ways of getting greater crop yield from existing land. Biotechnology can increase the quantity of the harvest by addressing the factors that traditionally deplete crops: pests, weeds, drought and wind. Plants from biotechnology can deal with these hardships and dramatically increase the percentage of crops that survive and are harvested each year.
MYTH: The long-term effects of foods developed using biotechnology are unknown.
FACT: From years of research, we know that the benefits of food biotechnology are tremendous, with no additional risk. The scientific consensus is that the risks associated with food biotechnology products are fundamentally the same as for other foods. Current science shows that foods made from biotechnology are safe to consume, and safe for the environment. For this reason, FDA, USDA, EPA and a host of other regulatory agencies have determined that these products are safe to introduce into the food supply. While there is no such thing as "zero risk" for any food, consumers can be confident that foods produced using biotechnology meet the government's most stringent food safety standards. The future is never guaranteed, but years of research and the absence of harmful evidence indicates the benefits of agricultural biotechnology far outweigh any risks.
When asked about the "hysteria" surrounding the application of biotechnology to food in Europe, Dr. James Watson, the scientist who discovered the structure of DNA, likened the resistance to the initial ban placed on medical biotechnology. If that ban had continued, "it would have stopped us from understanding cancer and a whole host of things," he noted. "To argue that you don't know what is going to occur is true about everything in life. People wouldn't get married, have children, do anything…."
