St. Louis Post-Dispatch / 03/22/99
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Webster Groves building contractor Steve Cassilly is strolling down the aisles of a natural foods store, checking out labels. His ritual is designed to avoid biologically engineered food additives and genetically altered vegetables.
Nearby, scientists at Monsanto, the world leader in genetic food technologies, spend endless hours and a lot of money researching and testing what they say are improved, safe methods of food production - which happen to be the very foods Mr. Cassilly is trying to avoid.
These two scenes are the extremes of the important international debate on the scientific, health, cultural and political implications of biotechnology.
Mr. Cassilly and the Monsanto scientists may have already staked out their positions in the this high-tech battle about the future of food. Mr. Cassilly is a spokesman for a citizens group that wants Congress to require labeling of biologically altered products. Monsanto insists that these products are safe.
But most of the public is starved for information. A new study by the National Academy of Sciences may help answer some of the questions posed by biotechnology.
So far, much of the public discussion has been based on fear rather than facts. That is partly because a great deal of the supporting science comes from the labs and researchers at biotechnology companies, like Monsanto. These companies stand to make big profits if their technologies are successful. Therefore, consumers have some reason to exercise skepticism.
But consumer decisions, government regulations and international trade agreements should be made on the basis of sound scientific studies. The National Academy of Sciences promises to be a rational, independent voice in the chorus of debate on biotechnology. No set of findings will be the final word on any scientific topic. But the National Academy of Sciences study will carry tremendous influence in shaping public policy.
Two signals from the Academy indicate the urgency for the information. First, the Academy is paying for the study from its endowment. Nine times out of 10, Academy studies are requested by, and funded by, Congress or some other government agency.
Second, most studies take at least 18 months. But the Academy has accelerated this study, hoping to complete it in six months.
The Academy also deserves credit for understanding that the implications of genetically engineered foods reach beyond labs and farm fields. Tampering with food supplies, and how they are grown, can affect everything from the social fabric of farm life in Southern Illinois and rural Missouri, to the political stability of agriculture-based economies overseas. The Academy's study will include a look at social and economic implications, as well as scientific questions of safety and health.
In an atmosphere where the public is starved of sound science, the National Academy of Sciences study could help move us past fear to facts.
