Genetically Manipulated Food
by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor
Some opponents of genetically-manipulated organisms object because
they see this as interfering in the natural order or God's plan.
But it's way too late for this. Most crops world-wide have been
radically altered from their original ancestors, and human
civilization today is an artificial construct that outlaws nature.
What can be more natural than a mother breastfeeding her child, yet
this is considered indecent and taboo by many people. Most of the
food we put into our bodies is an artificial, unhealthy concoction.
The relevant moral questions for genetically-modified organisms
(GMOs) are the effect on health and the effect on the natural and
crop environment. On both fronts, there is great uncertainty about
the long-run effects. One of the problems is that when it comes to
retail goods, we have constitutional chaos. In some cases, the
government commands labeling; in others, government prohibits
some information (with beer, for example).
The basic law of goods should be that when a good is sold, the
legal presumption is that it is safe to eat and safe for the
environment, unless otherwise specified. If its cultivation and
manufacture is a danger to the environment, then there should be a
pollution tax on the producer, which the customer will end up
paying. If there is a risk to health, the adult customer should
have a free and informed choice about whether to take the risk.
So, given the possibility of long-term harm, all genetically-
manipulated food should be clearly labeled as such. That should
include food served by restaurants. The fact that the producers
have been unwilling to label foods made from plants grown with
recombinant DNA itself raises suspicion. According to Miriam
Schulman ("Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?" Santa Clara
Magazine, Summer 2000), "So far no medical harm to humans has
been traced to ingesting GMOs." But gene-spliced plants could
introduce allergies, and so the specific genetic origins should be
disclosed, both for health reasons and for moral reasons.
The environmental problems from genetic manipulation across species
is that the pollen will spread to wild plants and microbes and to
farms which don't use genetically manipulated crops. There is also
the possibility that beneficial insects and other animals may be
harmed by eating the enhanced crops. Human history is full of
disasters caused by introducing harmful exotic organisms.
But policy should always be a comparative analysis of the real
alternatives. It is not meaningful to compare recombinant crops
with utopia. The world's population is still growing, and it needs
to be fed. The expansion of the food supply will either come from
turning more natural forests and grasslands into farms, or by
increasing the yield of current farmland. Greatly enhanced yield
can come from ever more pesticides and other chemicals, or by
transgenic crops that can resist pests, drought, and frost, and
offer better nutrition. There is no utopian way to greatly
increase the food supply which has no damage at all.
So the genetic option should not be arbitrarily closed off. It
does require extensive testing, but the US government testing
policy is irrational. The policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency target techniques such as recombinant DNA rather than
focusing on the risks to health and the environment.
According to Professor Henry Miller of Stanford University (1999
paper), EPA policy conflicts with the recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, and
the National Biotechnology Policy Board. Miller says their
"recommendations are unequivocal and unanimous that regulation
should focus on risk-related characteristics of organisms, rather
than on the use of certain genetic techniques."
For example, under EPA proposals, a hybrid between a tomato and a
toxic, inedible member of the "deadly nightshade" family would not
be regulated, even though it poses a potential hazard. The EPA
would exempt hybrids created with traditional techniques, a policy
the scientific community agrees makes no sense. Miller concludes
that "regulation has stalled innovation but left the environment
unprotected."
Besides testing focused on environmental risks, the property rights
of farmers need to be clarified. Farmers whose crops become
transgenic because of drift from other farms should not be subject
to any forced payments to the companies that produced the GMOs. If
GMO food is produced, both the farmers buying the seeds and the GMO
producers should have the full financial responsibility for any
damages, local and global, and that implies posting huge bonds. If
that deters the introduction of genetically-manipulated food, so be
it. The market requires producers to be fully responsible for
external effects.
But the same policy should apply to traditional chemical pesticides
and fertilizers and hybrid crops. Damage from more conventional
techniques should be treated the same way. Then let the most
productive producers have at it, once the social costs have been
borne by the producers, not the public and consumers.
-- Fred Foldvary
Copyright 2000 by Fred E. Foldvary. All rights reserved. No part of this
material may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, which includes but is not limited to facsimile
transmission, photocopying, recording, rekeying, or using any information
storage or retrieval system, without giving full credit to Fred Foldvary
and The Progress Report.
|
|
