Commentary on “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research” by Andrew Pollack NYT 20 Feb 2009.
This New York Times article found that biotechnology seed companies are preventing scientists from conducting research on genetically modified crops. Apparently, these companies require that buyers of the genetically modified seeds sign an agreement that is supposed to honor the company patent rights. However, it also prohibits the growth of crops for research. [i] Without third party testing and research of genetically modified products, information on the effectiveness, environmental impact, and safety of these foods is severely limited.
I do not doubt that biotechnology companies like Monsant, DuPont, Syngenta, etc., have and will continue to benefit us in the future. The advantages of genetically engineered foods are undeniable. Genetically modified crops can decrease the amount of chemical pesticide sprayings and environmental damage since most today contain pesticide or are resistant to herbicides. For example, in India, cotton containing Bt pesticide reduced the overall chemical pesticide use and poisonings, leading to a doubling of cotton production between 2002-2007.
[ii] The increased yields per acre of GM goods is not only economically beneficial, but it will also help sustain the next Green Revolution, helping to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050”[iii] In addition, GM foods that treat allergies, deliver vaccines, and reduce malnutrition are in development and could help thousands of individuals.[iv]
But, as the aforementioned article indicates, biotechnology companies may possess too much unregulated power. Scientists wishing to conduct research on genetically engineered seeds now must seek permission from companies. Dr. Ken Ostlie at the University of Minnesota was forced to halt a study on insect resistant corn varieties because Syngenta withdrew permission.[v] He pointed out that “If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research.”[vi]
This limiting approach to independent studies is somewhat similar to that of the pharmaceutical industry. In her book Side Effects, Allison Bass describes how some of the big players of the pharmaceutical industry, such as Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, suppressed negative data concerning their drugs and paid off individuals in the FDA and independent researchers. Biotechnology crop companies, like drug companies, are few in number yet each holds great power, giving them much potential to both help the public and make huge profits. While it would be untrue to say that the biotechnology companies are being purposefully misleading, the unwillingness to allow for open experimentation of their products is bad for their reputations. It allows for potential distortion of information and gives critics of biotech crops more ammunition over the safety and environmental friendliness of the crops. The unpopularity of GM foods can only increase from such an arrangement.
It is not as if the scientists wishing to conduct research on the GM crops are against genetic engineering. The group of scientists that came forward said that “the chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to farmers about best to grow the crops.”[vii] Allowing more freedom for independent researchers could help the industry further increase crop yields, or even increase competition between seed companies if a study found one GM seed more effective than another. This can lead to better designed crops in the future.
The Obama administration supports GM crops, accompanied by “stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice." [viii] But overall genetically modified foods have not been a large part of healthcare debates, since currently the U.S. government does not distinguish between GM crops and non-modified ones, believing that there is no significant difference in terms of safety.[ix] This is indeed the view held by most of the scientific community. Government regulation of GM crops is actually quite complex, where “the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat.”[x] The FDA has come under criticism for being underfunded and unable to fully assess the safety of food, thanks to recent contaminated food outbreaks, but Obama has not addressed possible reforms.
Greater openness in GM food research would not only benefit the biotech industry’s reputation but can also possibly increase the quality of GM crops.
[i] Andrew Pollack, “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research” NYTimes 20 Feb 2009.
[ii] Michael F. Jacobson, “Biotech: Scourge or Savior?”
[iii] Claudia Parsons. “The fight over the future of food.” Reuters 10 Nov 2009.
[iv] Andy Coghlan, “GM rice makes allergies easy to stomach” New Scientist 3 July 2009.
Andy Coghlan, “Killer tomatoes attack human diseases” New Scientist 29 June 2009.
[v] Andrew Pollack, “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research” NYTimes 20 Feb 2009.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] .Maria Gabriela Cruz “Great Expectations for Obama,” Forbes, 04/02/09 <http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/02/farming-gm-obama-opinions-contributors-europe_print.html>.
[ix]Deborah Whitman, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Healthy?” Proquest and CSA April 2000
[x] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment