By Lisa Y. Lefferts, Consultant on Food and Environmental Health
"Survey after survey around the world shows that while consumers are generally not opposed to genetically modified foods, they are against allowing such foods to be sold without adequate labeling," says food consultant Lisa Lefferts, who frequently represents Consumers International, a global consumer group with over 230 member organizations in more than 100 countries, at meetings of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. "Genetically engineered foods per se do not worry many consumers as much as the covert manner by which they have crept into the marketplace."
Genetically engineered (GE) foods and food ingredients are widespread in our diet -- from infant formula to corn-muffin mix to McDonald's McVeggie Burgers, according to testing in the United States by the publication Consumer Reports. Meanwhile, news reports worldwide tell of consumers, farmers, and activists dumping milk, suing governments, destroying GE crops, and persuading supermarket chains and companies to shun GE ingredients.
Why all the fuss? In part, it's fueled by attitudes among regulators and manufacturers that dismiss unanswered questions about the technology; ignore ethical and societal issues, pretending that only science matters; insist that GE foods are "equivalent" to conventional foods, when consumers can and do make distinctions between them; and bully consumers or farmers (for example, through lawsuits designed to stop dairies from disclosing that their cows are not treated with BGH/BST, a genetically engineered hormone).
Sharing power with those affected by biotechnology and addressing their legitimate concerns would help diffuse the controversy; making the risks more voluntary would make them seem smaller.
CONSUMER CONCERNS
Here are some of the issues that matter to consumers.
Allergenicity: Allergic reactions to foods are hard to predict, but they can be life-threatening. Once sensitized, individuals may react more strongly to subsequent exposures to the same allergen. According to the report of a joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety in 1996, more than 160 foods are associated with sporadic allergic reactions, with children at greater risk than adults.
Genetic engineering can introduce unknown allergens into food. Virtually every gene transfer in crops results in some protein production, and proteins are what trigger allergic reactions. Biotechnology can introduce new proteins into food crops not just from known sources of such common allergens as peanuts and shellfish, but from plants of all kinds, animals, bacteria, and viruses whose allergenicity is largely unknown.
If someone has an allergic reaction to a conventional food, he or she can check the food label, which typically identifies all the ingredients precisely enough that the person can avoid future re-exposure to the allergen. However, if one has a reaction to an allergen in a food on account of a genetic modification, and the label does not disclose the presence of the GE food, one has little clue as to what to avoid in the future. This could very well increase the risk of subsequent exposures to the allergen. Or it could to lead to people needlessly avoiding foods that are actually safe for them.
Environmental Risks: In a study conducted by researchers at Cornell University in the United States, pollen from corn genetically engineered to contain Bt toxin (a toxin from a soil bacterium that kills insect pests) can kill monarch butterfly caterpillars, at least in the laboratory. This recent finding adds to other studies suggesting adverse effects on beneficial insects from genetically engineered plants. This has boosted environmental concerns over genetic engineering, inasmuch as insects, among their multiple roles in living systems, are key pollinators of many plants.
Genetically engineered genes might also accidentally cross over to non-target plants. For example, "terminator" genes might cross over and cause plants to produce sterile seeds, resulting in a significant loss of food and diversity. Similarly, genes from plants engineered to be herbicide resistant could cross over to other plants, creating "superweeds." Studies in Norway and the United States have already demonstrated that the gene for herbicide resistance can move from cultivated canola to wild relatives.
Ethical/Religious Considerations: Some people find genetically engineered foods unacceptable for ethical or religious reasons. Rabbis, ministers, vegetarians, and others can be found on both sides of the debate regarding foods engineered to contain genes from animals or species that are proscribed by certain religions. Labeling allows those consumers to choose according to their conscience without imposing that view on others.
Social/Economic Justice Issues: Many consumers are suspicious of who is controlling a technology that promises to revolutionize agriculture. Biotechnology enables agricultural production to become more vertically integrated, consolidated, and centralized, largely in the hands of multinational corporations. As author and professor Joan Gussow says, "Someone is going to produce and subsequently manipulate the materials out of which each of us is made. Are we really prepared to trust that responsibility to Phillip Morris?"
Probably no GE product has generated as much controversy as the so-called terminator technology, which makes plants produce sterile seeds. Particularly in a country such as India, where farmers routinely save and replant seeds, the prospect of being forced to buy seeds each year from large-scale corporations has generated considerable outrage, leading groups of farmers to burn plots where the seeds were being studied.
Unanticipated Consequences: No technology, no matter how beneficial, is risk free. And with any new technology, there may be unanticipated consequences. The recent revelation that pollen from plants genetically engineered to contain Bt may harm monarch butterflies is a case in point.
Genetic engineering could also bite back by exacerbating the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. Most genetically engineered plants contain a gene for antibiotic resistance as an easily identifiable marker. Hypothetically, antibiotic resistance genes may move from a crop into bacteria in the environment and -- since bacteria readily exchange antibiotic resistance genes -- move into disease-causing bacteria. In September 1998, the British Royal Society called for ending the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in engineered food products.
Many consumers know nothing about antibiotic resistance genes used in GE foods, but they do understand the unpredictability of complex systems. Genetically engineering a plant to have a particular trait can have unexpected ripple effects on the ecosystem that cradles it. It is consumers' grasp of this fundamental phenomenon that underlies much of the concern over biotechnology.
MISPERCEPTIONS OF CONSUMER REACTION
GE foods per se do not worry many consumers as much as the covert manner by which they have crept into the marketplace. Here are some common misperceptions I frequently encounter.
Misperception No. 1: Most consumer organizations are anti-technology and oppose all genetically engineered foods. In fact, many independent consumer organizations recognize the potential benefits of biotechnology. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and the largest and oldest consumer organization in the United States, recognizes that, with proper safeguards, genetic engineering offers the possibility of foods that could benefit consumers. Consumers International, a federation of over 230 consumer organizations from some 100 countries, is pro-labeling, not anti-biotechnology.
The problem is that while consumers have been promised foods that taste better, are healthier, and will help "feed the world," the applications of the technology to date have fallen flat in delivering consumer benefits. BGH/BST, a genetically engineered drug that makes cows produce more milk, has not translated into lower prices. The main benefit of Roundup Ready soybeans and cotton has been to expand the market for Roundup. Bt corn, cotton, and potatoes are spreading pest resistance to this natural and safe insecticide, as well as threatening beneficial wild insects. And most consumers know that there is no such thing as a "magic bullet" solution to the complex problem of world hunger, which has less to do with agricultural production capacity than with political priorities and the distribution of economic resources.
Misperception No. 2: Labels on genetically engineered foods will be viewed by consumers as warning labels. The argument that labeling will stigmatize GE foods in the consumers' eyes as potentially unsafe assumes that only science matters, and that the public is too ignorant to understand the data. Consumers need labeling to make an informed choice based on whatever criteria they wish to use. Labeling with full disclosure would be a positive step toward a more informed citizenry and a way to increase consumers' familiarity with this new technology.
Misperception No. 3: U.S. consumers, unlike consumers in Europe and many other countries, are comfortable with GE foods and don't think labeling is necessary. Actually, only about one-third of Americans interviewed were aware that GE foods are available in the supermarket, according to a recent survey by the International Food Information Council. But many of those who are informed are not going along quietly. Earlier this year, a coalition sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to block the use of a dozen GE crops as an "imminent" threat to the environment. Last year, a coalition of scientists, religious leaders, health professionals, and chefs filed a lawsuit against the FDA, claiming that the failure to label violates the agency's mandate to protect the public's health and provide consumers with relevant information about the food they eat.
RIGHT TO KNOW, RIGHT TO BE INFORMED, RIGHT TO CHOOSE
The fundamental purpose of ingredient labeling is to tell consumers what is in the foods they buy. For people subject to food allergies, that information is essential to their health.
In the United States, regulators argue that the method by which a plant is developed is not "material" information in the sense of the law. Consumer organizations object that this narrow interpretation gives no weight to material facts that consumers consider important, and that it substitutes the value judgments of regulators for those of consumers. They don't agree with the "it's the product, not the process, that matters" argument. Surely, it would be considered "material" if experimentation on living human subjects was part of the development of crashworthy sports cars.
Survey after survey around the world shows that while consumers are generally not opposed to genetically modified foods, they are against allowing such foods to be sold without adequate labeling. Let the success of biotechnology depend on whether informed consumers vote for it in the marketplace.
----------
Note: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies
of the U.S. government.