McFarlane Valentine BioConsulting is the premier Scottish biology and public policy consulting boutique. We specialise in advising legislators and administrators formulating public policy in the fields of biomedicine and agricultural biotechnology.
Novartis recently modified their Gerber Baby food products so that they no longer contain genetically-engineered corn or soybeans. This is derided as a premature over-reaction to 'European food phobia' crossing the Atlantic. Greenpeace is criticized for the self-serving nature of their stand against genetic modification of foods - 'as with all of Greenpeace's most highly publicized quests this one is purely quixotic'. Concern about genetically modified (GM) foods is apparently misplaced since already large amounts are in the supply chain and 'no-one has sprouted wings'. The problem with the European view of food technology is apparently that 'confusion and hysteria have displaced reason and economics, with incalculable costs to those who are trying to bring new and beneficial innovations to market'. This last statement brings out, without elaboration, a most important point. Beneficial to whom? Consumers in Europe view GM foods as having few features attractive to them, but the potential to swell agribusiness profits. Why, consumers ask, should they take the chance on a unproven technology with potential ecological and health drawbacks? Until we know for sure whether the health (unlikely) and, perhaps more pertinently, environmental diffusion issues are real problems it is hard to be convincingly reassuring.
The article correctly outlines the stark terms in which the GM foods issue is viewed by Washington. To the US it is a case of economic protectionism, arising from the same bogus health claims that have seen hormone-enhanced US beef banned from Europe. But to the EU, GM foods are viewed as a health and environmental issue. Prince Charles and Lord Melchett (director of Greenpeace) are criticized for their irresponsible interventions. Destruction of the test sites (Melchett) and prevention of land being used for tests (Charles) does not help discover the real ecological costs of farming GM crops. Since public-acknowledged test sites have been torched 'the British government is ruefully considering conducting future tests at secret sites'. Such retreat from openness is likely to be counter-productive. Large swathes of the populace donít believe that the government are to be trusted to make decisions in secret, although the situation isn't quite as bad as the WSJ suppose. They claim that Europe is suffering a 'breakdown in public order and government authority' arising from previous food related scandals, such as mad cow disease. Governments are accused of being impotent: 'on matters of trade and technology the mob has been running the show for a while.' However, European governments are in general cautiously promoting agbiotech as they strive to build 'the knowledge economy' in Europe's green and pleasant lands.
The attack continues, spotlighting supermarket bosses who claim, as Malcolm Walker of Iceland recently did, that they are defending consumer choice when they insist on clear labelling of GM foods and products containing them. When Monsanto decided not to segregate GM soybeans from the old-fashioned sort some European grocery chains decided not to carry any US soybean products. It is true that the supermarkets' decisions are 'good marketing' but to suggest they promote 'public distrust and lawlessness' is putting the argument backwards. Originally some supermarkets resisted public pressure for labelling. However they found that if they did not label clearly the consumer would not buy there. 'Food paranoia and vigilantism' are dangerous but, in business, customer concerns must be addressed and Monsanto's apparently patronizing attitude to public opinion has cost them big bucks.
The reasons why Americans view their farmers as 'high-tech business people' whereas the Europeans see theirs as 'zoo exhibits' are left unspoken, whereas those imbuing 'Americans with relatively greater confidence in government' are apparently as simple as 'Alan Greenspan and low unemployment'. Perhaps the relative geographical separation of agriculture and urban areas in the US compared with Europe has allowed the consumer to become more detached from how food is produced in the US than her cousin in Europe. The confidence in the US government may be misplaced. Maybe the reason Monsanto failed to appreciate the European sensitivities is that regulation of agricultural biotech in the US, particularly in terms of releases to the environment, is less stringent than in Europe.
Finally, the extent of the WSJ's mis-comprehension of the debate on these matters in Europe is revealed by the notion that 'the best lesson we could learn from Europe is the foolishness of allowing food technology and safety to become politicized merely for the benefit of fund raising by the fringe.' GM foods is of prime concern to politicians in Europe as well as to pressure groups because the citizens are concerned and the science, as yet, uncertain and incomplete. Surely that is democracy and not merely protectionism.
| To comment please contact Alastair Valentine Philp. Last revised on 28 October 1999 |
|---|