Last month, a group of protesters labeling themselves the "Seeds of Resistance" destroyed a crop of genetically engineered corn at the University of Maine. About 1,000 stalks were destroyed in the middle of the night. A few days later, a farm in Vermont was also victimized, where a 50-foot section of corn was destroyed.
These events can be viewed in the context of it once being possible to learn everything that one needed to know in the first 20 or so years of life, permitting one to spend the rest of one's time on earth falling comfortably behind and facing an early death. The rapid pace of technology has fundamentally changed this, however, requiring all of us to stay abreast of new technology developments.
How ironic it is, then, that ignorance about technology is now revered in many quarters, as epitomized by these anarchic acts and the current debate over genetically modified foods.
For instance, in Europe, a ban now exists on the import of U.S. beef raised with growth hormones. United Kingdom law requires public disclosure of the sites where cross-pollenation of genetically modified ("GM") and non-GM crops (a necessary step to achieving regulatory approval for growing a GM crop) occurs, thereby providing an easy-to-find locale for protests and crop destruction. In Brazil, a federal judge has banned sales of Monsanto's Round Up Ready soybeans, which are genetically altered to resist fungi and weeds, thereby reducing the amount of pesticide which needs to be used.
Superstition and fear of technology is dangerous and expensive. Until recent decades, it affected health care as well as foods. Now, though, the most avid protesters against genetically modified food would probably not refuse a necessary artificial limb, bone marrow transplant, or perhaps a replacement heart or kidney. The same person might also welcome the use of a transplanted gene to facilitate blood vessel growth as a means of preventing heart disease, as was recently demonstrated at a Boston-area hospital.
There is understandably greater emotional baggage in Europe. Europeans have much lower levels of trust in their government agencies than do U.S. citizens, possibly due to Mad Cow Disease and, more recently, dioxin-polluted chicken in Belgium. Perhaps the sale in Europe today of a genetically modified American food is the modern-day equivalent of the deployment of American nuclear missiles of some years ago.
A recent London School of Economics survey found that Europeans were more likely than Americans to perceive a genetically modified food as dangerous based on scientifically inaccurate assumptions. This was in spite of the fact that surveys have also shown that Europeans are more scientifically literate than Americans.
The U.S., however, is not immune to these trends. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was sued by a group of rabbis, priests, and ministers (and a Buddhist for good measure), each alleging that the FDA¹s failure to require that genetically modified food be labeled as such made it impossible for these groups to adhere to their religious tenets.
Appropriately so, the FDA treats genetically modified food the same way as food derived from plants and animals as a result of traditional breeding techniques. Of course, U.S. Department of Agriculture laws are strict concerning adverse reactions or developments in food preparation, requiring a producer to report within 24 hours an adverse development in a field trial or in a commercial food product.
Foods derived from genetically modified plants and animals generally have improved nutritional content, are less vulnerable to fungal and viral pests (thereby requiring reduced use of pesticides or water) and generate higher yields.
No discernible harm has occurred in the United States to anyone from the ingestion of a genetically modified food, nor has any case been reported of bioengineered genes jumping from a cultivated to a wild plant.
Americans can now buy genetically modified corn, potatoes and papayas. These exhibit such useful qualities as higher resistance to pesticides, allow farmers to spray smaller amounts and harm only weeds (using a bacterial pesticide,bacillus thuringiensis).
Agricultural genomics companies, meanwhile, are racing to map the genomes of corn, rice and other vegetables, competing against national efforts organized in Japan and elsewhere. Locally, Monsanto provided more than $100 million in funding a few years ago to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a Cambridge biotechnology company, to help launch Monsanto's agricultural genomics effort. Genomic maps of plants will accelerate the pace at which the functions of the genes in such plants are identified, permitting the enhancement of commercially and nutritionally important traits.
Such genomic information can then be used to aid discovery efforts in larger target organisms, using a comparative genomics approach. For example, the rice genome is significantly smaller than the corn genome. Once the rice genome is mapped, much of the information will be of significant utility in commencing the mapping of corn. Genomics companies in the Boston area and elsewhere are all engaged in these large-scale sequencing, mapping, and functional genomics activities.
It would be tragic if society paid heed to the modern-day Luddites and thereby slowed the pace of the ongoing revolution in agricultural biotechnology; this temptation was successfully resisted during the Industrial Revolution many years ago and it has yielded the standards of living we enjoy today.
Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. Mass High Tech 1999.
The content of this article is general in nature and is not intended as legal advice related to individual situations. Counsel should be consulted for specific legal planning and advice.
