March 19, 2000 / Nando Media / MICHAEL DOYLE, Nando Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Mark Ryan and Chuck Atwood, two San Joaquin Valley farmers, according to this story, on opposite strands of the biotech revolution. Ryan's family grows genetically engineered cotton on 2,000 acres in Fresno County, while Atwood grows lemons, olives and oranges on 52 organically tended acres in Tulare County.
Ryan was cited as saying biotech holds the eventual promise of fewer pesticide sprayings and lower labor costs, adding, "It's really incredible what Monsanto has done. Each year, more varieties are coming out. Eventually, most farmers will be planting (genetically engineered) cotton."
Ryan was cited as acknowledging that the steep prices charged by biotech companies seeking to recoup their hefty research investments have slowed purchases of genetically engineered cotton, but he expects that this economic disadvantage will fade with time.
Atwood was cited as saying biotechnology represents a dangerous genie that's sliding out of the bottle. He stopped spraying chemical pesticides several years ago, and he's now questioning the health and environmental risks associated with the quickly evolving world of agricultural biotech, adding, "We're all a little bit leery of buying genetically engineered stuff. I know the Europeans sure are."
The story says that the differences between Ryan and Atwood, and the respective camps they represent, are now being played out in multiple arenas. In federal courthouses, on Capitol Hill, in international negotiations and along bureaucratic corridors, the future of biotech farming is being diced, spliced and remade. Scientists are chasing breakthroughs, companies are chasing profits and lawmakers are trying with only sporadic success to keep up with the market.
The story says that legislation newly introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, would require labeling on such foods but in the three weeks since she introduced the bill, Boxer hasn't secured any co-sponsors. Martina McGloughlin, director of the biotechnology program at the University of California, Davis was quoted as saying, "Over-regulation in the form of compulsory labeling could change the course of future research and development. Labeling raises costs, which discourages producers and consumers and destroys markets for new products."
Still, the labeling proposal strikes a chord among groups like Consumers Union, and a comparable labeling bill has claimed 47 supporters in the House.
The story says biotech lobbyists are doing their best to squelch the labeling bill and in other ways monitor the legislative front. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which more than doubled its reported lobbying expenses from $1.2 million in 1997 to $3.7 million in 1998, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. This augments individual company efforts. Monsanto, which makes genetically engineered Roundup Ready cotton and NewLeaf insect-protected potatoes, spent $4 million on its own lobbying efforts in 1998. DuPont, another major biotech player whose products include genetically engineered soybeans and cotton, spent a reported $1.8 million on lobbying. But the industry and the lobbyists also must cope with questions beyond the predictable political, scientific and regulatory worlds they know so well.:
