Former Top Biotech Booster, Tom Hoban, Gives Favorable Review to"The Future of Food" Documentary

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
March 8, 2005
------
What's perhaps surprising about this review of "The Future of Food" in the
journal Nature Biotechnology is that it was written by Tom Hoban, a man
once considered "Biotech's Leading Propagandist/Pollster in the USA" and someone
who is still listed by Prakash's AgBioWorld as one of its approved experts
for the media to contact.

For how much longer remains to be seen. While AgBioWorld's co-founder Greg
Conko asserts in today's AgBioView bulletin that current US regulatory
methodology is scientifically unsound, unnecessarily costly and inhibitory
in the strict demands it places on GMOs, Tom Hoban started signalling a
while back his increasing unease about the laxity of US regulation,
warning,
"The FDA practices of voluntary pre-market notification and substantial
equivalence are no longer valid."

While Conko's complaints are the top item on AgBioView today, Hoban's review
comes in last in what is in effect the "things you should be aware of..."
position.

EXCERPT: In the same vein as Super-size Me and Fahrenheit 9/11, The Future
of Food draws attention to critical questions about food production that need
more public debate.

As someone who has monitored the public debate about biotech for 15 years, I
welcome this film. The current Bush administration has let the government
regulatory system wither on the vine, making good on the 1992 Bush-Quayle
promise to "take the shackles off the industry." Such shortsighted policies
are, however, backfiring, as agbiotech increasingly struggles for
acceptance by Western consumers. ------ Fahrenheit Agbiotech

- Reviewed by: Thomas J Hoban, Nature Biotechnology v.23, p295 , March 2005;
www.nature.com/nbt

(Movie) "The Future of Food" Written and directed by Deborah Koons Garcia;
Lily Films, 2004; 89 minutes DVD and VHS, $20

Genetically modified (GM) crops have fallen far short of early expectations
in developed markets, and their future acceptance remains uncertain.
European opposition has solidified, and studies from Rutgers1 and others
have shown that US consumers are confused and concerned about GM
ingredients in their food.

Western consumers are increasingly choosing alternatives to 'industrial'
foods, as demonstrated by the rapid growth in the market for organic foods.
A recent documentary, The Future of Food, provides an excellent overview of
the key questions raised by consumers as they become aware of GM food. It
also is an unabashed attack on the agbiotech industry and its initial products.

The film's writer/director, Deborah Koons Garcia, the widow of Grateful Dead
guitarist Jerry Garcia, is a prominent figure in the increasingly vocal
antibiotech movement in California. Her film integrates vintage footage
(e.g., from the 1973 Asilomar conference) with profiles and personal
stories from critics of agbiotech. Agricultural policy expert Charles Benbrook,
activist Andrew Kimbrell, and others appear as the film's heroes in a
struggle against the release of GM crops into the environment.

The chief villain of the piece is none other than Monsanto, the world's
leading producer of GM crops, which is singled out from the rest of the
industry. The company's lawsuit against Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser is
roundly criticized, along with the broader issues of gene patenting and
corporate control of the food supply. One segment highlights the political
connections between Monsanto and the highest levels of US government,
including former George W. Bush cabinet members Anne Veneman and John
Ashcroft. The film indicts Monsanto for excessive influence over government
regulation, by virtue of political appointments of key corporate executives
at the highest levels of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
Environmental Protection Agency and US Department of Agriculture. Monsanto
refused Garcia's requests for interviews for the film.

Some of the most disturbing issues raised involve cracks in the regulatory
and scientific foundations on which the agbiotech industry rests. Criticism
is aimed at the FDA policy of "substantial equivalence" of GM to non-GM
crops. The film argues that we don't know enough about the long-term
effects of GM crops on human health and the environment. This will be particularly
evident as genetic transformations become more complex (i.e., stacked
genes) and the foods become functionally non-equivalent (i.e., nutraceuticals.)
The infamous Starlink and Prodigene incidents are highlighted as instances of
regulatory problems. The film makes a case for consumer choice through
labeling, industry opposition to which further alienates and confuses
consumers. Consumers are already choosing non-GM food by buying more pricey
organic products.

The film also surveys the key social, economic and ethical issues associated
with GM food crops. As most US consumers have little connection with
agriculture or the food production system, Garcia contends that many people
do not even realize that GM crops end up in our food supply. Much of the
European rejection of GM crops is due to the fact that food is more
significant to their culture, so they care more about how their food is
produced.

Finally, The Future of Food levels important charges against the public
land-grant university system, highlighting concerns that have arisen as
universities increasingly trade their independence for corporate
contributions. Our universities are supposed to ask tough questions, but
now there is limited tolerance for dissenting views within the system. The film
describes the struggles over tenure between Ignacio Chapela and the
University of California, Berkeley, over his outspoken criticism of the
university's ties to the biotech industry. Citizens expect universities to
serve the public interest; in return, academia is expected to pursue
intellectual diversity through a truly objective perspective.

As an alternative to GM crops, Garcia presents the case for less
industrialized forms of agriculture, such as organic farming-which now
represents the 'gold standard' for many Western consumers. The film also
documents a need for locally grown produce to conserve resources, benefit
local farmers and ensure better quality, part of a movement known as
Community Supported Agriculture.

Those who argue that GM crops are necessary to feed the world should realize
that most Western consumers are not convinced. Research demonstrates that
people prefer organic food for a wide array of ethical, emotional and
environmental reasons2. In fact, major food companies have acquired organic
brands so they can cater to this upscale market. The agbiotech industry has
been warned that food processors and retailers could effectively hamper or
even shut down the food biotechnology enterprise if consumer rejection
keeps growing.

Though the film unapologetically presents only one side of the issues
addressed, Garcia's goal is always clear: to raise consumers' awareness by
telling the story of modern, industrial food production and the increasing
presence of GM content in our food supply. In the same vein as Super-size
Me and Fahrenheit 9/11, The Future of Food draws attention to critical
questions about food production that need more public debate.

As someone who has monitored the public debate about biotech for 15 years, I
welcome this film. The current Bush administration has let the government
regulatory system wither on the vine, making good on the 1992 Bush-Quayle
promise to "take the shackles off the industry." Such shortsighted policies
are, however, backfiring, as agbiotech increasingly struggles for
acceptance by Western consumers.

References

1. Hallman, W.K. et al. Americans and GM food: knowledge, opinion and
interest in 2004 (Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers-The State
University of New Jersey; 2004).

2. Organic shoppers may not be who you think they are. Food Marketing
Institute (Washington, DC; 2001).