Agricultural Biotechnology:

August 2001

Imagine eating a dinner made with potatoes that have less starch to absorb less fat during frying, corn on the cob with high levels of essential amino acids, a tomato slice on the hamburger enriched with antioxidants, salad oil with less saturated fat, and bread that is enhanced to lower your cancer risk. If this meal sounds far-fetched, it isn’t. It may be coming soon to a meal near you thanks to a technique that alters the genetic makeup of these food sources, commonly known as biotechnology.

People have been modifying plants since agriculture was first adopted thousands of years ago. Over the years, various advanced techniques have been developed to improve plants and increase food options available to consumers and chefs. Using biotechnology, scientists are enhancing foods to offer better taste, more nutrition and extended freshness. And farmers can grow these improved varieties more efficiently and with less environmental impact.

However, some groups have raised concerns about the safety of modern biotechnology, stating that it represents a radical departure from traditional agriculture. While a healthy debate has developed, many myths have crept into the discussion. Using the latest available scientific information, this article will tackle some common biotechnology myths in the hope that the debate can shift back to the facts and away from hyperbole.

Exploding the myths
Myth: Modern biotechnology is inherently different from conventional breeding and poses greater risks.

Fact: Modern biotechnology is a refinement of techniques that have been used to improve plants for thousands of years. The main difference is that modern biotechnology is much more precise and the range of traits that can be imparted to improve plants is much broader than when using conventional breeding.

Many authoritative scientific bodies — including the National Academy of Sciences — have concluded uniformly that crops modified using modern biotechnology pose risks no greater than those posed by similar crops modified using classical breeding methods.

Because of advanced knowledge and greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies, biotech crops and foods may even be safer than their conventionally bred counterparts. Because the traits being transferred using modern biotechnology are fewer and more predictable than when hybridization is used, scientists have a better understanding of the changes being made and are in a better position to assess safety.

Myth: Having foods produced through biotechnology on grocery store shelves will not be a reality for many years.

Fact: Currently, at least 60% to 70% of the foods on grocery store shelves contain some level of ingredients derived from plants, such as corn, soy or canola, enhanced through biotechnology. These ingredients are substantially equivalent to ingredients derived from traditionally bred crops.

Myth: Foods derived from biotechnology are not regulated.

Fact: Plants and foods derived using biotechnology are regulated by as many as three agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA has broad pre- and post-market authority to regulate the safety and labeling of all foods (except meat, poultry and eggs, which are regulated by the USDA) and animal feed. Under federal law, the producer of a food — whether produced by traditional methods or modern biotechnology — has the legal obligation to ensure its safety to consumers. Foods found to be unsafe may be pulled from the market by the FDA.

In 1994, the FDA instituted a premarket review process for biotech foods. Although this review process currently is voluntary, companies seeking to commercialize new biotech foods have honored it without exception. The FDA has conducted more than 40 reviews of biotech foods, none of which raised safety concerns. New rules proposed by the FDA in 2001 will make premarket review of biotech foods mandatory.

Myth: Foods produced through biotechnology are not tested for safety.

Fact: Plants and foods produced using biotechnology are among the most stringently tested in history. Using FDA guidelines, biotech companies conduct a safety review of the new food that includes an assessment of toxicants, allergens and nutrient levels. If the original plant and the transferred trait have been consumed in the past without negative consequences, they are considered “GRAS,” or “generally recognized as safe,” by the FDA. However, if the original food or the transferred protein has not been consumed previously in the diet, or if the transferred protein was derived from a common allergen, extensive testing is required. Inclusion of a trait from a common allergen would require a special food label, as would a significant change in nutrient levels.

Myth: Foods developed using biotechnology do not have the same nutritional value of comparable foods developed using traditional breeding.

Fact: As part of its assessment of biotech foods, the FDA reviews data on the nutrient content. Significant changes in nutrient levels of a new biotech food, compared to its traditional counterpart, would trigger a formal FDA review and require labeling. To date, all biotech foods reviewed by the FDA have exhibited nutritional values within the normal range. Independent, peer-reviewed research also has shown that the composition of biotech foods is equivalent to that of conventional foods.

Myth: Biotech foods will introduce new allergens into the food supply, putting susceptible people at risk.

Fact: All known food allergens are proteins, but only a very small number of proteins are allergens. Common sources of food allergens include such widely consumed foods as milk, eggs, wheat, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts and soy.

Further, FDA regulations require that companies that use genes from a known allergenic source should assume that they will produce an allergen and perform allergenicity tests on the food product.
Researchers also are using biotechnology to remove allergens from foods. Experimental rice already has been modified through biotechnology to remove allergenic proteins, and work is underway to remove or neutralize allergenic proteins from other foods, such as peanuts. The future development of allergen-free foods may expand the choice of wholesome foods available to allergy sufferers.

Myth: StarLink corn has contaminated food supplies and poses a health threat to consumers.

Fact: StarLink corn is a variety of Bt corn that contains a protein, called Cry9C, which did not pass all EPA testing requirements for allergenicity. Specifically, the Cry9C protein did not readily break down in the presence of heat or the stomach’s digestive acids. Although Cry9C does not resemble any known allergens and is unlikely to be one, the EPA permitted its use for animal feed only.

Cry9C was detected in some foods after StarLink corn was commingled accidentally with other varieties of corn in the food distribution system. The FDA acted swiftly to recall the affected products and asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assess potential health effects of the protein. The EPA concluded that it is highly unlikely that infrequent consumption at the extremely low levels detected in the food supply would trigger a reaction. The CDC revealed test results in June 2001 indicating that reported allergic reactions that occurred after eating a meal that may have contained Cry9C could not be linked to the protein.

The producer of StarLink seeds voluntarily suspended sales, and the EPA later cancelled registration of the seeds, meaning StarLink can no longer be planted for either human food or animal feed. Although StarLink continues to surface in the food supply due to extensive commingling of the grain supply, Starlink’s maker continues to work to comply with food regulations under the watchful eyes of EPA and FDA regulators.

Myth: Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry fed biotech feed crops are not as safe as similar products from livestock and poultry fed conventionally produced feed.

Fact: Scientific evidence supports the safety of meat, milk and eggs derived from livestock raised on biotech feed. Recently, Jimmy Clark, Ph.D., a professor of animal sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, reported the results of a review of 23 research studies involving animals fed biotech crops. These independent studies found that feed crops developed using biotechnology are as safe as feed crops developed using conventional techniques. This study confirms an earlier review by the Federation of Animal Science Societies, which concluded that the nutritional value and safety of meat, milk and eggs from animals fed conventional or biotech feeds are the same.

Myth: People became ill from a dietary supplement, L-tryptophan, that had been produced from an organism produced using biotechnology.
Fact: This myth refers to a 1989 outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) that was linked to batches of the dietary supplement L-tryptophan produced by a Japanese manufacturer. Because an organism developed using biotechnology had been used to increase production of L-tryptophan, some activists blamed biotechnology as the cause of the EMS outbreak.

A September 2000 report by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), “IFT Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods,” examined this issue and found that EMS from consumption of this L-tryptophan “has been incorrectly attributed to the rDNA biotechnology-derived organism, rather than to a failure to perform standard purification to remove impurities. In three lawsuits, there was overwhelming evidence that the rDNA biotechnology derived organism was not responsible for the illnesses and deaths.”

Foods produced using biotechnology have been on supermarket shelves since 1994. Since that time, not one single case of illness has been linked to their consumption.

Myth: U.S. consumers are opposed to biotechnology in food production.

Fact: In a recent survey conducted for the International Food Information Council (IFIC), only 2% of respondents cited “altered/engineered food” as a food safety concern. The same survey revealed that large majorities (58% to 70%) would buy food enhanced for insect resistance or better taste. Also, 64% expect to gain benefits from the technology within the next five years. Polls suggesting opposition among the general public often use “loaded” questions and negative terminology, or they are conducted on the Internet, where the survey participants are not representative of the U.S. population.

Myth: Labeling of biotech foods is required to protect consumers.

Fact: Federal law provides labeling of a new food to inform consumers when there are significant changes in nutrition, safety or usage, or if the common name of the food no longer applies (e.g., broccolini or tangelo). In applying its labeling criteria, the FDA focuses on the characteristics of the food, not the method used to develop it.

Therefore, provided that a biotech food is substantially equivalent to similar varieties currently on the market, the FDA does not require special labeling, as labeling would not provide the consumer with useful information on the new food’s safety or nutritional value.

The FDA’s current policy of labeling biotech foods based on the final product, rather than the production process, has broad support in the scientific community. In December 2000, for example, the American Medical Association issued the following recommendation: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.”

Myth: Consumers want foods produced using biotechnology to be labeled.

Fact: Consumer survey results that are representative of the U.S. population show that when asked, unaided, to identify information currently not on food labels that they would like to see added, three out of four say “nothing” and only 2% mention “genetically altered” food. When the current labeling policy is presented to consumers, 70% support the FDA policy — this has been fairly steady from 1997 to 2001. Some consumers may have mixed feelings on the labeling issue — when given the critics’ desire to label all foods produced through biotechnology even if the safety and nutritional content are unchanged, more than half of consumers agree with them and just over one-third maintain the FDA position.

However, when consumers were presented with information resource alternatives to the food label in the next question, 75% affirm that information should be provided through toll-free numbers, brochures and websites, instead of labeling. Again, the results of Internet polls suggesting that consumers want labeling do not represent the attitudes of the general public. (Conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide for IFIC, January 2001).

Serious discussion of the issues raised by biotechnology’s critics is essential to informing the public. However, critics and proponents also have an obligation to communicate responsibly and with factual information. A thorough consideration of the science will allow consumers throughout the world to benefit from this exciting technology that, when used responsibly, holds such promise.

As program manager for food safety at IFIC, Cheryl Toner is responsible for developing and coordinating a variety of communications programs related to food and nutrition issues. International Food Information Council (IFIC) is a nonprofit organization that communicates sound science-based information on food safety and nutrition topics to health professionals, journalists, government officials and consumers. IFIC materials can be found online at http://ific.org.

3400 Dundee Rd. Suite #100
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: 847/559-0385
Fax: 847/559-0389
E-mail: contactus@foodproductdesign.com
Website: www.foodproductdesign.com