Editorial BIOTECHNOLOGY The sound of science
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Posted: Monday, March 22, 1999 | 4:35 a.m.
Webster Groves building contractor Steve Cassilly is strolling down
the aisles of a natural foods store, checking out labels. His ritual is
designed to avoid biologically engineered food additives and
genetically altered vegetables.
Nearby, scientists at Monsanto, the world leader in genetic food
technologies, spend endless hours and a lot of money researching
and testing what they say are improved, safe methods of food
production - which happen to be the very foods Mr. Cassilly is
trying to avoid.
These two scenes are the extremes of the important international
debate on the scientific, health, cultural and political implications of
biotechnology.
Mr. Cassilly and the Monsanto scientists may have already staked
out their positions in the this high-tech battle about the future of
food. Mr. Cassilly is a spokesman for a citizens group that wants
Congress to require labeling of biologically altered products.
Monsanto insists that these products are safe.
But most of the public is starved for information. A new study by
the National Academy of Sciences may help answer some of the
questions posed by biotechnology.
So far, much of the public discussion has been based on fear
rather than facts. That is partly because a great deal of the
supporting science comes from the labs and researchers at
biotechnology companies, like Monsanto. These companies stand to
make big profits if their technologies are successful. Therefore,
consumers have some reason to exercise skepticism.
But consumer decisions, government regulations and international
trade agreements should be made on the basis of sound scientific
studies. The National Academy of Sciences promises to be a
rational, independent voice in the chorus of debate on
biotechnology. No set of findings will be the final word on any
scientific topic. But the National Academy of Sciences study will
carry tremendous influence in shaping public policy.
Two signals from the Academy indicate the urgency for the
information. First, the Academy is paying for the study from its
endowment. Nine times out of 10, Academy studies are requested
by, and funded by, Congress or some other government agency.
Second, most studies take at least 18 months. But the Academy has
accelerated this study, hoping to complete it in six months.
The Academy also deserves credit for understanding that the
implications of genetically engineered foods reach beyond labs and
farm fields. Tampering with food supplies, and how they are
grown, can affect everything from the social fabric of farm life in
Southern Illinois and rural Missouri, to the political stability of
agriculture-based economies overseas. The Academy's study will
include a look at social and economic implications, as well as
scientific questions of safety and health.
In an atmosphere where the public is starved of sound science, the
National Academy of Sciences study could help move us past fear
to facts.
stlnet.com |
