Page One

Most of the two dozen or so people gathered at the Ecology Center Tuesday evening for the teach-in/stratedy session on genetically-engineered foods agreed: genetically altered foods may be unsafe. 

A few at the event sponsored by the San Francisco chapter of Organic Consumers Association disagreed, however. 

Organizers from the OCA, which is dedicated to the promotion of organic and sustainable agriculture, said they were a little surprised to find people in the audience who argued in favor of genetically altered foods. 

“We’ve had these things in Santa Cruz and San Francisco and never had any opposition,” said Simon Harris, west coast field organizer for the organization. 

Proponents of genetically engineered crops argued that this new food supply may be the saving grace for the planet’s growing population. 

Petra Frey, a postdoctoral fellow in Plant and Microbial Biology at UC Berkeley, was among those who argued for the altered food. 

“The main issue is to produce more food on less land,” she said.  

Frey said she once worked for the biotech company Englepotrykus in Zurich, Switzerland, which developed “Golden Rice,” a genetically engineered grain high in Vitamin A. 

“They have developed a rice with a 35-percent higher yield,” she said. “And they are also trying to develop plants that replete soils that have been polluted by aluminum, or mercury.” 

Though these arguments are compelling, opponents call the products “Frankenfoods” and say science has no gauge as to the ripple effect that the genetic finagling may cause. 

They point, for example, to the bio-tech company Monsanto which has developed a “terminator” seed that produces bountiful harvests, but the seeds produced by the fruit are sterile. It’s a legal way of making sure farmers buy their super-seeds for the next planting, opponents argue. 

They are concerned that pollen from the altered crop could drift with the wind to cross with ordinary crops and wild plants, and spread from species to species until all plants become sterile.  

Because spliced genes – like any other genes – can be picked up by a wild species, that could tip the balance of nature, Harris said. 

“We need specific tests as to how these genes interact,” he said. 

Some people noted that the Food and Drug Administration has performed tests on genetically engineered foods and given their OK. They argued that the FDA had caved in to corporate pressure. 

“Take a look at asbestos and tobacco,” one man said.  

Nonetheless, speakers said it appears that biotechnology may have a firm foothold in the U.S. They pointed to a Department of Agriculture report which says that one-third of the corn and more than half of the cotton and soybeans grown in the U.S. are the product of biotechnology. 

More than 65 million acres of genetically modified crops will be planted in the U.S. this year, the report says. 

Though there is already a large percentage of genetically engineered foods being grown worldwide, several countries have begun to move away from them, Harris said. 

An article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune says that Japanese importers are almost certain to distance themselves from genetically engineered crops when Japan instituetes labelling of genetically engineered products. 

OCA members also said the government of Sri Lanka formally banned the import of genetically engineered foods and crops on April 23. 

In the U.S., groups like OCA have gone on-line to fight Monsanto and the Terminator seed by urging their visitors to write letters to the Department of Agriculture. 

Over 4,000 people from 62 countries have responded according to a OCA newsletter, which also notes that since July, 1999 several food giants such as Gerber, Heinz and Frito-Lay have announced that they will no longer use genetically-engineered foods. 

Frey and several others say that it ultimately must come down to consumer choice, and producers must label foods that are genetically engineered. 

She further noted that genetically engineered foods continue to sell in her native Switzerland where labelling is mandatory. 

She added that while there is popular resistance to genetic engineering, companies are working to prevent the problems it may create.  

“People should ask ‘Do we have other solutions?’” Frey said. “Well we’re trying to solve them.”