|
KEY QUOTE ...And, absent a regulatory scheme that suits them, the
food companies will have to decide whether to try to kill particular
biotech crops, such as genetically altered wheat, that they fear
could cost them sales in foreign markets resistant to the idea of
genetic engineering. They might do that by refusing to buy biotech
crops, something a few food companies have already done on a small
scale...
The Washington Post May 30, 2003
No Deal on Biotech Food; Industry, Opponents Fail to Agree on
Recommendation for Regulation
BY Justin Gillis, Washington Post Staff Writer
An elaborate, secretive effort in Washington over the past two
years to negotiate a truce between the agricultural biotechnology
industry and its critics has ended in failure, with the parties
unable to agree on a plan to strengthen biotech regulations in this
country. The talks foundered in recent weeks amid a dispute over
whether to seek legislation from Congress that would have given
the Food and Drug Administration strong power to judge the safety
of foods containing biotech ingredients, according to people with
knowledge of the discussions.
The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a foundation-funded
group in Washington that sponsored the attempt at compromise, is
scheduled to issue a final report today that describes the effort
but not the core dispute that killed it. About 20 people and organizations
took part in the initiative, ranging from Monsanto Co. of St. Louis,
which controls most of the world market for agricultural biotech
products, to Washington consumer and public interest groups that
have long complained of what they consider to be poor federal regulation
of the industry.
The failure to agree means, in the near term, that the groups won't
be able to go to Capitol Hill or to regulatory agencies to present
a united front in favor of tighter rules, as they had hoped to do.
That will leave intact a status quo widely perceived as favoring
the biotech industry. Longer term, the collapse of talks raises
serious new issues for the American food industry, which has lately
grown nervous about agricultural biotechnology.
Food companies could respond to the breakdown by lobbying Congress
for tighter regulations without Monsanto's consent, essentially
trying to out-politic the biotech industry. And, absent a regulatory
scheme that suits them, the food companies will have to decide whether
to try to kill particular biotech crops, such as genetically altered
wheat, that they fear could cost them sales in foreign markets resistant
to the idea of genetic engineering. They might do that by refusing
to buy biotech crops, something a few food companies have already
done on a small scale.
The Pew Initiative spent some $ 2 million on the effort to reach
compromise, sponsoring 60 meetings and conference calls of agricultural
biotech "stakeholders," commissioning reports, polls and studies.
It is by far the most elaborate attempt anyone has made at a master
compromise on the issues swirling around the genetic manipulation
of plants and animals. Several participants in the discussions said
they were deeply disappointed at the failure to reach a deal, but
they also emphasized that they had accomplished some important goals
nonetheless.
Warring parties built new relationships with one another that may
yet lead to compromise agreements on piecemeal issues, they said.
And the group has agreed to reconvene in a year or 18 months to
see if positions have shifted enough that a compromise might be
possible then. The Pew effort is a window into a central but little-known
aspect of how Washington works. It is common for the factions in
a dispute, often with prodding from Capitol Hill, to meet privately
to see if they can reach a consensus. When they do, legislation
will often sail through Congress as if by magic, with lawmakers
relieved of the burden of having to mediate the conflict. When the
parties can't agree, Congress is often paralyzed. Participants in
the Pew discussion would not say publicly what issues foiled their
attempt at compromise.
But speaking on condition of anonymity, several people knowledgeable
about the talks said the core issue was whether to go to Capitol
Hill to get legislation to prohibit the introduction of new biotech
foods without detailed FDA certification that they are safe. Consumer
and environmental groups and several academics who took part in
the discussion felt that was the way to go and pushed the group
to agree to new federal legislation, the people said. At least some
food companies, though usually wary of too much federal oversight,
took that position.
But Monsanto, in particular, strongly resisted the idea of a new
law and favored what would amount to a tweaking of the patchwork
regulatory system already in place to oversee biotech foods, the
people said. "It's not our view to always go to the Hill," said
Linda A. Strachan, Monsanto's representative in the Pew talks. The
two factions attempted a compromise that would have called for an
initial attempt to get a stronger regulatory system through administrative
changes, to be followed -- if that failed -- by a unanimous appeal
to Capitol Hill for legislation, the sources said. But the Monsanto-led
faction would not agree to the legislative proposal in sufficient
detail to satisfy consumer and environmental groups, which would
not agree to go forward without detailed commitments, the people
said.
One reason the biotech industry was so resistant, knowledgeable
people said, was that the Bush administration just filed suit in
the World Trade Organization to overturn a ban on many gene-altered
crops in European countries. As part of that case, the administration
will take the position that the current American regulatory system
is fine. European consumer and environmental groups consider it
to be egregiously inadequate. As the Pew discussions unfolded, the
biotech industry grew wary of endorsing any compromise that would
appear to support the European view and thus undermine the Bush
legal case, the knowledgeable people said. "Timing counts for a
lot, and our timing was atrocious," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director
of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America.
The FDA reviews biotech foods for safety, and the agency's action
on a new biotech crop is often characterized in press accounts as
approval. But legally, it isn't. The FDA operates a voluntary system
under which biotech companies decide on their own how to test the
safety of their products, submit summaries of their data -- not
the full data -- to the FDA, and win a letter that says, in so many
words, that the agency has reviewed the company's conclusion that
its new products are safe and has no further questions.
In most cases, the data on which the safety conclusion is based
remain secret. It is a much less rigorous system than the FDA procedures
for reviewing new drugs or food additives, in which the agency will
spend months if not years going over company claims in detail. Gene-altered
corn and soybeans, mostly from Monsanto, have been planted widely
on American farms in recent years. They have been tweaked in a way
that allows the crops to resist insects or better tolerate weed
killers.
The crops are mostly fed to animals, but some processed ingredients,
particularly oil and lecithin from altered soybeans, appear in the
majority of products on American grocery shelves. In general, most
scientists consider the current generation of biotech products safe
to eat. The industry, noting that hundreds of millions of people
have eaten genetically altered ingredients, argues that there has
never been a convincing case of harm. Most environmental groups
acknowledge that to be true, but counter that there have been few
long-term studies of the effects.
They also argue that the products pose at least theoretical environmental
risks that haven't been studied thoroughly. Consumer groups are
tactically allied with the environmentalists, supporting the technology
in principle but wanting a tougher regulatory system that answers
safety and environmental questions more thoroughly before a new
crop is commercialized. Complicating matters further, companies
are developing not just biotech plants, but also genetically altered
animals, such as a salmon that grows twice as fast as its natural
counterparts.
Many biotech companies are tweaking food crops like corn to get
them to produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals that aren't
meant for human consumption. The Pew discussions deliberately excluded
environmental groups that think biotechnology is inherently immoral
or dangerous, as well as libertarian groups that think the only
problem is too much federal regulation. Participants had to accept
the premises that biotechnology is here to stay and that it has
to be regulated properly.
That still left a wide range of opinion.Several participants said
that while the Pew discussions deadlocked, sentiment could change
rapidly if a biotech-related disaster were to occur, such as scientific
evidence that the new foods are harming people. "My view is that
the American public is generally comfortable with biotech crops
and animals, but they don't know a lot about them," said Gregory
Jaffe, director of biotechnology issues at the Center for Science
in the Public Interest and a participant in the Pew discussions.
"If a crisis were to occur, there could be a very swift and strong
backlash against the technology."
|
