(The following editorial is reprinted with permission from the
Winter 2000 issue of the University of Georgia’s Research Reporter).

In the age of the Internet, laser eye surgery and high-yielding
crops, most people would agree with scientists that basic
research and resulting technologies help society.

But through events in which technology has fallen short — from
Three Mile Island to mad cow disease – the public has come
face-to-face with science’s fallibility. No longer a passive
recipient of technology, the public increasingly demands a role
in deciding how new discoveries will be implemented.

No single development highlights this new public attitude more
than the stormy reception of genetically modified organisms, also
known as genetically engineered products. The potential benefits
of GMOs are enormous: not only increased crop yields, but also
reductions in pesticide use, ground water contamination and
mycotoxin levels.

‘Unsafe, Untested’?

Groups that oppose genetically engineered foods allege they’re
unsafe, untested and unregulated – notions that gain support from
high-profile publicity campaigns and imbalances in media
coverage.

Just as the scientific data began to accumulate on the benefits
of GMOs, companies like Gerber, Heinz, Seagram, McDonald’s and
Frito Lay began to avoid GMO ingredients. Now, the saga of
StarLink corn in taco shells has led GMO critics to assume their
worst fears have been realized.

GMOs are more highly regulated than any other food. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture regulates field-testing of GMO crops
and any hazards they may pose to agriculture. The Food and Drug
Administration determines whether GMO-derived products are
equivalent to those currently on the market (and thus not subject
to any extraordinary precautions) or are new products, which must
undergo further safety testing and be labeled.

New Products Being Developed

All genetically modified foods now on the market fall under the
first category, while several products under development fall
under the second. Foods derived using genes from known allergens
or from organisms outside the traditional human diet also are
subject to heightened scrutiny.

The Environmental Protection Agency also must approve plants
engineered with pesticidal properties, like StarLink corn. Erring
on the side of caution, the EPA approved StarLink for animal feed
only. Subsequently, it found no clear evidence that StarLink
poses a human hazard, yet found no clear proof that it didn’t.

The EPA wants conclusive results before clearing StarLink for
human consumption and forwarding it to the FDA for further
approval. The StarLink episode demonstrated that GMO
contamination of non-GMO products is inevitable. And while the
European Community allows 2 percent of GMOs in nonGMO products,
the United States lacks such a standard.

Outcry Surprised Scientists

The outcry against GMOs surprised most scientists, considering
the federal regulations imposed on the already rigorous
peer-review process that has always decided the validity of
science. Ironically, many scientists found themselves and their
motives attacked by organizations whose goals coincide with their
own: a safer, more stable and lower-cost food supply and
responsible stewardship of the environment.

The disagreements lie not in the goals, but the best ways to meet
them.

With high-profile spokesmen like Prince Charles, the anti-GMO
movement created widespread hysteria across Europe. As
misinformation spreads, many scientists feel they should stay out
of the controversy and remain objective purveyors of unbiased
information, safe within the Ivory Tower.

GMO Opponents Not Shy

GMO opponents haven’t been so shy. From protests to street
theater, from newspaper ads to shareholder meetings, anti-GMO
groups have pressed their message, using ecoterrorism and
sensationalist terms such as “frankenfoods.”

But today’s scientists must reach not only their peers but also
the public with objective information about the benefits and
consequences of their own work. They need to emulate the
“activist scientist” roles of Albert Einstein (who vocally
opposed militarism, Nazism, anti-Semitism and the careless use of
nuclear weapons), Stephen Jay Gould (who defends the teaching of
evolution) and Peter Raven and E.O. Wilson (who promote
conservation).

The fact that most agricultural scientists and anti-GMO groups
share a common set of goals would seem to be the foundation for a
partnership, if only they could agree on the best approach.
Genetic improvement has expanded agricultural production
dramatically to meet the needs of the world’s growing population.
But agricultural research now receives a smaller portion of
public research dollars than ever before.

‘Genetic Vulnerability’

The “genetic vulnerability” of many major crop gene pools and the
growing concentration of germ plasm ownership in the private
sector reflect this diminished public investment. A partnership
between activists and scientists might reassert these shared
goals as national and even international priorities – before they
are forced to the forefront by more widespread disasters such as
have befallen Ethiopia in recent years.

Yet, as long as anti-GMO groups totally rule out a role for
genetically modified crops, there may never be a consensus.

GMO technology is at a crossroads. Acceptance of GMO-derived
products and crops will motivate further progress toward safer
food, lower pesticide use, more sustainable agricultural
practices and improved human health through more nutritious
foods. Rejection of GMOs will likely exacerbate ecological
problems as our current agricultural systems struggle to feed a
growing world population.

The future of our food supply may well depend on who is most
vocal and most convincing: protesters or scientists.