Project Censored Updates

"Genetically engineered crops have been introduced in the U.S. in a quiet, almost stealthy manner. Most Americans know little about this radically new way of producing food, and even less about what type of risks these foods pose. Traditionally, U.S. regulatory agencies are some of the toughest in the world in protecting human health and the environment. But, as the article points out, genetically engineered foods have entered the marketplace almost entirely unregulated.

The story was published at the beginning of a turbulent year for the biotech industry. For the first time since engineered crops have been introduced, we saw a decline in the overall planting of GE crops in the U.S. In response to growing domestic and international criticism, the Food and Drug Administration announced it was drafting new rules for regulating these crops. Perhaps the most important event in the last year was the contamination of the food supply with the unapproved genetically engineered StarLink corn. The corn had been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for consumption by animals but not humans, because of concerns that it may cause allergic reactions. The StarLink discovery by a coalition of advocacy groups has resulted in approximately 300 food products recalled, mass litigation within the agriculture community, and drops in exports to key markets including Japan. StarLink has also raised questions about the U.S. regulatory system, and, at the end of 2000, several bills in Congress were proposing major changes in the way U.S. agencies regulate these crops.

The last year has seen dramatic changes within the agriculture community regarding GE crops. Farmers are now having to worry about liability, markets, and cross pollination. Grain elevators are facing increased expenses associated with testing and segregating genetically engineered and non-GE crops. And even giant grain processors like Archer Daniels Midland are warning farmers about growing genetically engineered crops. The entire food sector is wary of the impacts these crops are having on our ability to export.

The mainstream media has been consistently behind the ball on the story of genetically engineered crops -- particularly the regulatory angle. While they have been quick to cover the latest scientific breakthroughs by the industry, and report extensively on the promise of the technology, they have ignored the inability of U.S. regulatory agencies to keep up with the advances and unique risks of biotech foods. While the StarLink debacle has received considerable coverage, few reporters have identified the underlying cause, which is the overwhelmed, antiquated system that allowed it to happen.

Update by Karen Charman

Genetic technologies, like chemical and nuclear technologies before them, have the potential to alter in unforeseen and unwelcome ways all that we depend upon for our survival -- our environment, our food, and our health. Like the products of chemical and nuclear technologies, biotechnology products are being ushered out into the environment and onto the market for people to consume without fully considering, let alone understanding, either their long- or short-term impacts.

Through intellectual property patents, biotechnology grants private corporations ownership to previously unowned living things. The economics behind biotechnology are the technology's driving force, but discussion of life patents and their implications are absent from most media accounts and, consequently, public debate.

My story on media coverage of biotechnology for Extra! pointed out that scientific understanding of how genes work in organisms is in its infancy. The same is true for scientific understanding of ecology. Yet, without a thorough understanding of the web of life and how its different components interact with each other, it's impossible to know what the true impact of releasing these novel organisms will be or to assess whether we should be taking this genetic gamble.

Much less risky solutions exist to the problems biotech purports to solve. But they are not being presented in the mainstream media. Instead, most coverage continues to uncritically spread industry-promoted myths about biotechnology while failing to comprehensively and accurately report the technology's impacts, risks associated with biotechnology, and why it is being pushed so hard. Biotech food has become a flash point with consumers overseas and now that opposition is growing here on the home turf, biotech promoters are attempting to manage the public debate with sophisticated PR. Unfortunately, much of the PR continues to appear in the mainstream media.

A number of citizen groups are now doing excellent work on genetic engineering issues. The Organic Consumers Association www.purefood.org has a website with a tremendous amount of information and links to other sites covering genetic engineering. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy www.iatp.org has in- depth information on economics and trade issues related to agricultural biotechnology. The Ag BioTech InfoNet compiles scientific reports and technical analysis on biotechnology and genetic engineering in food production, processing and marketing.

In addition to becoming informed about genetically engineered food, people can take simple action on their own by buying and requesting organic food.

Update by Joel Bleifuss

The U.S. media has not covered the disturbing public health questions raised by Arpad Pusztai's research into genetically engineered potatoes. Genetic engineering continues to receive a clean bill of health by U.S. regulatory agencies despite the fact that no independent, government-supported research into the effects of genetically engineered foods on mammals has been or is being conducted. This is in large part because the biotech industry has a sophisticated PR apparatus in place that has so far successfully been able to spin the industry's line that genetically altered food is absolutely safe. Concerns raised by scientists like Pusztai or Michael Hansen at Consumers Union are all but ignored. As Hansen told me, "But for the folks that criticize it, Pusztai's study is still a much better-designed study than the industry-sponsored feeding studies I have seen in peer-reviewed literature. Pusztai's are the kinds of experiments that need to be done with engineered foods.