More than 250 people attended the two-day "Informing the Dialogue about Agricultural Biotechnology" conference at Cornell's Biotechnology Building, Nov. 15 and 16, listening to more than 30 speakers with almost as many points-of-view on the topic.
|
| Dr. Susan M. Koehler, a biotechnologist with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, discusses what is required in the United States to register biotech crops and what the key issues are, Nov. 15, during the two-day conference in the Biotechnology Building. Charles Harrington/University Photography |
The conference, hosted by Cornell's New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), included town-hall style discussions between panelists and the audience, as it covered a wide variety of agricultural biotechnology issues, including food safety, the environment and food systems. Also featured were discussions on agricultural biotechnology in the developing world and the challenge of communicating information on the subject.
CALS Dean Susan A. Henry said on the official conference web site that the meeting would bring together scientists, government representatives, consumer advocates and other experts to discuss these issues. "Our goals are the same: feeding the world's population safely and efficiently," said Henry. "The question is, how will we be able to achieve this goal? In presenting this forum for thoughtful and open discussion we hope to inform the dialogue in order to help find some answers."
Conference organizer Anthony M. Shelton, Cornell professor of entomology, said that agricultural biotechnology, including the use of genetically engineered organisms, is the most important issue in agriculture today.
During the two-day meeting, Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology commented on proposed food labeling: "Engineered food could benefit the farms, consumers and the environment. However, if it is misused, biotechnology could cause great harm We can't use food labeling as a surrogate for food safety."
Several speakers brought new ideas to the forum, including an informal proposal to develop a new federal agency to oversee food safety. Bruce Chassy, a professor of food science at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, said that the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have jurisdiction over parts of agricultural biotechnology. "[As scientists] we're seeking a reasonable certainty of no harm Do we need to devote an entire new agency to food safety, rather than have the myriad of agencies we have now?"
Tony Del Plato of the Ithaca Safe Food Campaign and an owner of Ithaca's Moosewood Restaurant, had a more severe view of food biotechnology and its applications. "What are we doing?" he asked. "The technologies for food are hyped at the outset, then it turns out the technologies have fallen flat. The marketing and selling of food biotechnology is outpacing the science. The biotechnology industry should be severely labeled, because the current risk of biotechnology is unacceptable."
Echoing Del Plato's concerns, Doreen Stabinsky, science adviser to the Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign, said, "The Greenpeace position is the synthesis of the scientific and the ethical," ultimately suggesting that science take a "precautionary principle" approach. That principle suggests, she said, that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used to postpone cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Providing some social science perspective, Leland L Glenna, Cornell instructor in rural sociology, explained that despite an oversupply of food around the world, hunger still exists. Poor people, he explained, need money to get food. But if biotechnology saves labor costs, then biotechnology is costing agricultural workers their jobs. He quipped, "Solving the problem of agriculture and biotechnology is like bailing out a sinking ship by drilling holes in the ship's bottom."
Harvey Glick, a scientist from Monsanto, said that 25 years ago companies were either heavily into developing agricultural chemicals or just beginning work on biotechnology. "At Monsanto, we knew the chemicals very well, but we did not know the biotechnology then. We could have chosen the status quo, but we chose a different path Today's American farmers are the most sophisticated and toughest customers [and they know that] biotechnology can reduce pesticide use and protect the land. We need to listen, we need to listen again, and we believe this technology holds astonishing promise ... at Monsanto, we want to put safety first and listen to the stakeholders."
Stephen Strauss, an editorial writer for the Toronto Globe and Mail, said that all sides of the arguments surrounding biotechnology have points that need to be well taken, but sometimes messages are getting lost in definitions. He said, "... the central problem with reporting on biotechnology in general, but agricultural biotechnology in particular, is that everyone seems right, and that can't be so And I would further argue that the reason for the confusion is that nobody is clear what they are talking about when they are talking about agricultural biotechnology."
Strauss continued, "Journalists can't tell whether ag biotech is a half failure about to become a big success or a half success about to remain a half success. They can't tell because nobody else is completely sure."
The writer concluded: "Maybe the next step will be vitamin A enriched golden rice, or vaccines in bananas or non-allergenic peanuts. When we get to those, or maybe don't, maybe reporters will know where it is we are headed. Somebody is telling us where the bull's-eye is supposed to be and someone else is telling us how to shoot the arrow, and we just wish we were somewhere else reporting on something much simpler and much more definitive -- like who won the U.S. presidential election."
| Cornell Chronicle Front Page | | Table of Contents | | Cornell News Service Home Page |