Now that food safety has become such a hot-button issue, biotech foods are getting a lot of heat. A growing number of consumers fear that genetically modified (GM) foods may have ill effects on their health, and retailers, such as grocery store chain Trader Joe's, are responding by limiting biotech foods.

Environmentalists also have a bone to pick with genetically altered foods. They assert that such foods could harm consumers, triggering allergic reactions, and damage the environment, eradicating native plant species. They say that bioengineered seeds will lead to a lack of biodiversity, possibly allowing a single plant disease or weed to devastate entire crops.

Even some farmers have been burned by GM foods. In 2000, an unapproved biotech product, StarLink corn, accidentally made its way to the food supply, popping up in taco shells and chips. Commercial corn farmers who didn't plant StarLink claimed that the mix-up set back the entire corn market and in a class action lawsuit, they sued the corn's creator and distributor. Last month, StarLink Logistics Inc. agreed to pay the farmers $110 million.

The fiasco also shook up consumers who unwittingly ate food products containing StarLink corn. Some of them reported allergic reactions, and their lawsuit resulted in a $9 million settlement last year.

And more lawsuits against biotech foods may germinate, especially if proposed legislation in North Dakota gets approved. The law, which senator Bill Bowman plans to introduce this year, would allow local wheat farmers to take legal action against nearby biotech grain producers for contamination.

Referring to biotech wheat, he said, "there is no question that this is going to cross-pollinate with our varieties of spring wheat. The company that makes the money off this should have some liability."

The law specifically targets biotech wheat, a grain that has yet to claim commercial traction in a state where GM corn, canola and soybeans are extensively grown and processed. In fact, more than half of North Dakota's corn and soybean crops exhibit genetically enhanced characteristics, said state seed commissioner Ken Bertsch in recent testimony to the state legislature.

If the law passes, it could become a blueprint for legislation against other crops in other states where GM agriculture is becoming widespread. While the proposed law may not represent an immediate threat to a booming industry, it could plant the seeds for more large-scale opposition of GM agriculture.

And there's a lot at stake. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, bioengineered seeds accounted for three-quarters of soybeans and more than a third of the corn crop in the U.S. in 2002, up from 54% of soybeans and 25% of corn two years ago. This growth spurt is supported by substantial research claiming that GM corn and soybeans are safe and by reduced seed costs resulting from increased production volumes.

Since their introduction in 1996, biotech corn and soybean seeds have claimed more and more acreage. Any interruption in the production of GM grains would deal a heavy blow to the economy.

Biotech has many avid supporters who rebuff any arguments that crops and foods resulting from biotechnology are unnatural. Proponents like CropGen, a consumer and media information initiative, say that the process of bioengineering seeds is no different from the conventional and centuries-old practice of selective breeding, in which desirable plant traits are reinforced.

"Even with biotechnology, nature is still in charge," claimed CropGen in a press release. "Genes can be inserted into plants successfully only if nature agrees. Otherwise the plant is unlikely to survive and certainly won't reproduce."

And consumer acceptance doesn't appear to be wilting, judging from the results of the November 2002 elections in Oregon. Voters were asked to say yea or nay to an initiative that would call for the mandatory labeling of all foods and ingredients developed through biotechnology. Their answer was a resounding no—by a margin of nearly three to one. The Grocery Manufacturers of America says the vote indicated that many consumers are satisfied with existing regulations. The failed initiative would have superseded federal regulations that currently do not mandate any special labeling.

As far as the Food and Drug Administration is concerned, biotech foods are safe. Even the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), which functions as the investigative arm of Congress, got into the fray amid safety concerns and eventually concluded that current GM food safety measures are sufficient. The office recommended, however, that the FDA not only evaluate the final data from companies attempting to take GM foods to market, but also to randomly review raw data.

To environmentalist claims that genetic manipulation could have long-term consequences, a GAO senior analyst responded, "While we did not focus our effort on the environmental concerns associated with genetic engineering, from a food safety standpoint we did find that experts considered long-term monitoring of GM foods to be unnecessary because there is no hypothesis of harm from these foods and it would be technically difficult to do such monitoring."

Indeed, it appears that GM foods possess hardy roots that will weather the controversy. But they still have to prepare for more adverse conditions arising from growing international sentiment against bioengineered foods and a burgeoning organic foods industry, which rejects the concept of genetic tampering. Indeed, GM foods may be controversial for years to come, but for now they represent a flourishing part of our agricultural system.

Sources: Coming Soon to a Plate Near You: Genetically Modified Foods
Shawn Proctor
ADVANCE for Nurses, Jan. 2003
http://www.advancefornurses.com/pastarticles/jan6_03feature3.html?printerfriendly

Biotech Foods Face New Obstacles
Pierce Hollingsworth
Food Technology, Dec. 2002
http://www.ift.org/publications/docshop/ft_shop/ftindex.shtml

Biotech Firms Pay $110M in StarLink Suit
Paul Elias
Associated Press, Feb. 6, 2003
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news

FASS Facts on Biotech Crops—Impact on Meat, Milk and Eggs
Federation of Animal Science Societies
http://www.fass.org