Consumer Fear Cancels European GM Research

Erica P. Johnson A new Eurobarometer, surveying attitudes about science among citizens of the ten countries that recently entered the European Union, suggests that genetically modified (GM) organisms are only slightly more tolerable to these "new Europeans" than to their peers on the rest of the continent. Seventy-nine percent of the 12,247 people surveyed in 13 countries by the Gallup Organization in Hungary say GM foods should be introduced only if proven safe, compared with 86% of the 16,029 surveyed in 15 member states in December 2001.1, 2 Opposition to GM crops reached a peak during the mid-1990s in response to public pressure, and in 1998, the European Union introduced a de facto moratorium on the import and production of GM foods. In March, the European Commission decided to uphold the de facto moratorium, and it is also standing firm that any food containing more than 0.9% of a GM product would carry a label. Though the US trade representative views such measures as trade barriers, in Europe the regulation is viewed as opening the way for legalization of GM foods. Nevertheless, the moratorium pits scientists, government officials, and industrial lobbies against environmentalists and consumer activists. "All of the Europeans are more keen on talking about precaution than the Americans are," says Erik Millstone of the Science and Technology Policy Research Department at Sussex University. MISSED CHANCES The introduction of GM food to the US market took place relatively quickly, before any significant consumer resistance could build. In Europe, however, consumer response not only led to the adoption of the moratorium, but it also persuaded food distributors and supermarkets to impose bans on GM Foods. Lobbying by anti-GM groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, has been more successful in Europe because the groups receive more media attention than in the United States, says Michael Antoniou, a Kings College London geneticist. "Grass roots opposition has forced Europe into this position," Antoniou explains. Dirk Inzé, scientific director of the plant systems biology department at the University of Ghent, regrets the influence that groups opposing GM products have exerted on the public. "We have terms such as 'Frankenfood' and pictures of an ear of corn equipped with the pin of a hand grenade," he says. "This has negatively impacted on research." Adeline Farrelly, communications manager at the European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio), a Brussels-based organization that promotes biotechnology, reports that 61% of the 61 private-sector institutions surveyed by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre have canceled GM research projects since 1998.3 The Centre attributes the cancellations to the blocking of GM food approvals in Europe. The moratorium also had the same effect on field trials, which have dropped by 76% since 1998, causing a further setback to European biotechnology. Researchers reported a total of 1687 field trials in 2002; only 61 were GM trials. "There is a direct correlation between the surface [area] of the test plantations, and investment and numbers of biotechnology researchers in Europe," says Philippe Busquin, EU research commissioner. Courtesy of the Audiovisual Library of the European Commission Philippe Busquin Busquin says the GM ban also affects the general level of biotech expertise that Europe could develop to help the Third World, and warns that the fixation of the public on agricultural products damages research in other areas, such as pharmacological products and vaccines. Inzé says GM research could help produce plant sources for energy production: "Genetic modification is definitely an option for the future." TRUST AND TECHNOLOGY The first results of European farm trials that are examining the ecological effects of GM crops are only just becoming available. Despite this, the general public heeds a vocal group of scientists that warns against the potential negative consequences of GM foods. "The public trusts more the critical scientists," says Jürgen Hampel, a researcher at the Center of Technology Assessment in Baden- Württemberg, Germany. These outspoken scientists claim that Europe is not ready for the introduction of these foods, because the long-term ecological and health effects are not known. They also advise against looking to the United States, because there are no US research programs that have studied the effects of GM foods on people. US WARNS ABOUT GM BAN The Bush administration contends there is no legal basis for the EU ban on genetically modified food and has threatened to file suit with the World Trade Organization. European officials admit that they would probably lose in court. But, they contend, suspicions over food safety are so strong that European consumers and environmentalists will never accept genetically modified (GM) products. "The European infection of illegality is spreading, including to some of the most vulnerable populations in the world, in Africa, and to other nations," says Robert B. Zoellick, US trade representative. Zambia, for instance, has refused to distribute US food aid to its starving people because of fears over GM foods. Uganda and Zimbabwe are refusing to adopt GM crops, because the governments fear that their other food exports to Europe will be jeopardized, US officials allege. The de facto European moratorium on GM foods "is about a global campaign against a technology that can play a vital role in ending starvation, in addressing malnutrition, and in food security worldwide," said Josette Shiner, associate US trade representative. The moratorium has exacerbated a brain drain of biotech scientists from Europe to the United States, according to Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan administration official who is now president of the Economic Strategy Institute. "Scientists and technical people who are interested in doing GM research are finding it's harder to do in Europe and are coming to the US," he says. "The US is the immediate beneficiary of the European moratorium." In the United States, concerns over GM food have had no effect on research into creating pharmaceuticals and therapeutics in plants, says Lisa Dry, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington. In fact, this research is increasing. "There are sufficient regulations in place and we are awaiting additional guidance from USDA," Dry says, referring to an expected tightening of rules governing such things as how far GM crops must be planted from other fields. "We've seen no uncertainty. Our companies are fully committed to biotech research involving GM food." --Ted Agres (tedagres@lycos.com) Some scientists also criticize the methodology used for checking the safety of GM foods. Until recently, a GM food was considered safe for human consumption if its chemical composition was found to be equivalent to its natural antecedent. This concept, called substantial equivalence, is based on relatively easy and cheap tests and is still used in the United States. Millstone argues that because such tests do not include all biological, toxicological, and immunological aspects of GM food, they cannot be used for declaring it safe. He reports that in recent years a subtle shift has taken place in Europe. "Some member states have made it clear that they cannot use the concept of substantial equivalence at all," he observes. "Others propose to continue to use it, but even those who propose to continue to use it, such as the British, have quietly decided to change their interpretation of the concept and not to use it in the way they previously did. A subtle change concealed behind linguistic continuity." According to Millstone, indications suggest the United States is now also moving towards more stringent testing. However, the food products that have been approved by substantial equivalence methods will probably remain on the market, because the more extensive tests are lengthy and expensive and fall out of the range of consumer groups, Millstone asserts. "Only the industry can afford to do that. The government can afford to do that, but they choose to not do it." In Europe, scientists have experienced difficulties in securing funding for research in the possible health effects of transgenic food crops. "The main problem is that there hasn't been extensive, serious enough research either before marketing or after release of the products into the market to assess their safety," Antoniou says. He counters the argument that in the United States consumption of GM crops has not revealed any adverse health effects. "Nobody has looked to see if there have been any problems," Antoniou says. The two main GM food crops are maize and soy, and they are used as animal feed. "A very small fraction of it ends up directly eaten by the public." Some scientists argue that there are reasons for concern. Research at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne has shown that genes inserted in GM soy survived digestion and were incorporated into human intestinal bacteria. Genes with undesirable effects, such as resistance to anti-biotics, could in such cases be transferred to these bacteria. Antoniou finds this result worrisome: "Even though these people were only fed one meal, within a few hours they found the GM material intact in the intestines." An earlier result, the 1999 finding by Árpád Pusztai that GM potatoes damaged organs and the immune system in rats, also caused a stir in the United Kingdom. After he mentioned these results on television, efforts by the Royal Society and others to suppress the publication of these results contributed to increased public wariness.4 Pusztai's findings were finally published in The Lancet,5 and although the Society called for follow-up studies, none have taken place, reports Antoniou. Sir Robert May, president of the Royal Society, has criticized Pusztai's work as "garbage," and opposed an "arbitrary moratorium" of GM. Nevertheless, May has said that the release of GM foods would be contingent on the completion of scientific study. "We are not going to give permission for commercial release until we are thoroughly satisfied and until all the appropriate field tests have been done," he told the BBC May 20, 1999. Despite a general lack of investment and encouragement, even (as some scientists think) an active opposition to developing GM testing, a positive response emanates from some quarters in the European Commission. The EU Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection in Ispra, Italy, coordinates a network of laboratories for the development of tests and the certification of GM products. "In order to develop a European system of standards for the tracing and labeling system, we need to develop equivalent and solid control methods," says Fabio Fabbi, European Research spokesperson at the European Commission in Brussels. Courtesy of the Audiovisual Library of the European Commission Offices of the European Commission in Brussels Developing standards is a move in the right direction, says Doug Parr, chief scientist for Greenpeace in the United Kingdom: "But where I would differ is to assume that all the political, socioethical, economic issues that are associated with GM crops are to be resolved through scientific and technical means." Alexander Hellemans (hellemans@nasw.org) is a freelance writer in Italy. References 1. European Commission, "Candidate Countries Eurobarometer. Public opinion in the countries applying for European Union membership: On science and technology," CC-EB 2002.3, Gallup Organization, Hungary, April 2003; available online at europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2003/pdf/cc-report_en.pdf 2. European Commission, "Europeans, science and technology," Eurobarometer 55.2, 2001; available online at europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/pr0612en-report.pdf 3. K. lheureux et al., "Review of GMOs in research, development and in the pipeline in Europe," Joint Research Centre, European Commission, March 21, 2003. 4. The Royal Society, "Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes," 1999; available online at www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-29.pdf 5. S.W. Ewen, A. Pusztai, "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine," Lancet, 354:1353-4, 1999. EUROPE ACCOMODATES FEARS Experts in Europe argue that more research into the health and ecological effects of genetically modified (GM) food is necessary, but many are also convinced that the lifting of the moratorium will not increase American exports to Europe. "While it would be lawful to introduce these crops, it wouldn't be economic because of the lack of demand, and the requirement of labor, and the policies of the supermarkets towards consumers and processors," says Erik Millstone of the Science and Technology Policy Research Department at Sussex University. "There isn't a market for the stuff." Erica P. Johnson As to food labeling, American fears are largely domestic, argues Millstone. "It seems to me more likely that US citizens will demand labeling in the USA than European citizens will give up the right to have the information on the label .... I believe that if Europe had to choose taking away labeling rights and leaving the World Trade Organization, the political pressure to leave the WTO would be overwhelming." Árpád Pusztai, who as a senior scientist at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, was force to retire, authored a study on the negative effects of GM foods on animals, published in The Lancet. He says that Americans and Europeans alike should be able to choose between GM and non-GM foods. "A basic human right is to know what you eat," says Pusztai. He questions US companies' objections to labeling. "This only tells me, by using simple logic, that they are not very confident in their products," Pusztai says. Moreover, the requirement that farmers have to buy the GM crops in combination with herbicides or pesticides manufactured by the same company is not viewed favorably in Europe. "Crops like the Bt crops are not designed with the consumer in mind; they are of major benefit to the companies, they may even be beneficial to the farmers ... [but] it doesn't benefit the land, and it doesn't benefit us," says Pusztai. --Alexander Hellemans function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

Consumer Fear Cancels European GM Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of