LONDON, JAN. 27, 2001 (ZENIT.org).- Are genetically modified food products safe to eat? Although public attention is more focused these days on mad cow disease, GM crops continue to provoke arguments between scientists, food companies and ecological groups.

Until recently, GM food had entered U.S. supermarkets without much controversy. But toward the end of last year the withdrawal of taco shells found to contain traces of GM products showed that doubts are growing in America. Public opinion in Europe, meanwhile, continues to be swayed by activist groups who condemn GM food.

False scares
In not a few cases, fears over GM crops have been raised as a result of partial truths. The Times of London on Dec. 14 revealed how the much-publicized threat to butterflies from GM corn turned out to be exaggerated. The monarch butterfly migrates each year from Mexico to the Corn Belt of the United States and Canada. Some groups claimed that a 1999 study showed that these butterflies could be killed by the pollen of a form of GM corn that has been altered by adding a gene enabling the corn to produce its own pesticide.

This allegation helped set off popular protests in Europe against GM food, according to The Times. However, it turns out that the fears were unjustified. But the retractions about the dangers to butterflies have received only a fraction of the media attention devoted to the original stories.

In the experiments that caused the panic over GM, corn butterfly larvae were fed leaves dusted with high concentrations of pollen. The larvae had to eat the toxic pollen, or not eat at all. Moreover, the doses of pollen were eight times the level likely to be found in the wild.

Later on, in separate experiments conducted in cornfields in Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan and Ontario, researchers from different universities found no significant differences between butterfly survival in areas planted with GM corn, and those planted with conventional crops.

The Minnesota study showed that monarchs were more plentiful at the edges of one GM cornfield than in a nearby wooded area. And an experiment at the University of Maryland found that monarchs did much better in fields of GM corn, which are not sprayed with pesticide, than in conventional fields, which are.

Arguments in favor of GM food
Writing in the January issue of U.S. Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey points out that many benefits come from the new crops. For example, there is "golden rice," a crop that could prevent blindness in a half-million to 3 million poor children a year and alleviate vitamin A deficiency in 250 million people in the developing world. By inserting three genes, two from daffodils and one from a bacterium, scientists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology created a variety of rice that produces the nutrient beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A.

Another promising development, reported by the Financial Times on Nov. 4, is a genetically modified sweet potato soon to commence field trials. The sweet potatoes have been bioengineered by scientists by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, with the support of Monsanto, private foundations and the U.S. government, to resist the feathery mottle virus, a disease that can destroy up to 80% of any crop. Studies suggest the gains from this development could be worth $500 million a year to Africa.

In spite of such benefits, Bailey described how the campaign against GM food has had notable successes. Several leading food companies, including Gerber and Frito-Lay, have declared they will not use genetically improved crops in their products. Since 1997, the European Union has all but outlawed the growing and importing of biotech crops and food. Last May some 60 countries signed the Biosafety Protocol, which mandates special labels for biotech foods and requires strict notification, documentation, and risk assessment procedures for biotech crops.

The campaigns against GM food have caused a decline in the rate of increase in plantings. The United States has taken the lead in commercializing the new crops and by 1999 transgenic varieties accounted for 33% of corn acreage, 50% of soybean acreage, and 55% of cotton acreage in the United States. However, the area sown worldwide with GM soybean, maize, rape plant, cotton and potato grew only 11% in the year 2000 to 109.2 million acres, according to the Dec. 21 Financial Times. That compared with a 44% increase the previous year and 150% in 1998.

To counter doubts about the safety of transgenic food, Bailey cited a National Research Council panel report from last April that emphasized it could not find "any evidence suggesting that foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification." Meanwhile, "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture," a report issued in July that was prepared under the auspices of seven scientific academies, strongly endorsed crop biotechnology, especially for poor farmers in the developing world.

Another defender of GM crops is Norman Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace prize for his accomplishments in agriculture. In a Dec. 6 article for The Wall Street Journal, Borlaug noted how protesters claim that genetic engineering decreases biodiversity and degrades the environment.

Borlaug observed, however, that GM crops pose no greater threat to health than conventional harvests. He pointed out that, while activists criticize introducing a gene from one plant or one species into another, they fail to note that conventional breeders have been doing just that for many years.

The only change now, the article said, is that in the past plant breeders were forced to bring unwanted genes along with desirable ones when incorporating insect or disease resistance in a new crop variety. The extra genes often had negative effects, and it took years of crossbreeding and selection to eliminate them.

Borlaug also asserted that GM crops provide a good way to protect wildlife habitat by ensuring marginal lands are not pressed into agricultural service in an attempt to feed burgeoning populations. In 1960, U.S. production of the 17 most important food, feed and fiber crops was 252 million tons. By 1999 it had increased to 700 million tons, on 10 million fewer acres than in 1960.

Qualified approval
Even if biotech crops cause no significant damage to the environment or consumers, companies have been guilty of trying to introduce them without an adequate explanation. There has also been a lack of information about their presence in products already on sale. While an irrational rejection of new technology should be avoided, blind confidence in scientific progress is not desirable either.

And while legitimate commercial rewards to the companies that have developed these new crops are reasonable, grounds for concern exist over whether patents on the new seeds will lead to domination of the market by a small number of firms, to the detriment of farmers and Third World countries.

Therefore, while rejecting alarmist and pseudoscientific claims about dangers from biotechnology, further debate on this issue is desirable so the world can benefit from a new agricultural revolution, while avoiding possible drawbacks.