[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S58-S63]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE BENEFITS AND POLITICS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, as we move into this next century, we face 
a great opportunity and great challenge. We need only to look backward 
to help contemplate the immense change and innovation that is in front 
of us. While positive change is to the long-term benefit of all, it 
typically results in short-term difficulties, anxiety, and fear for 
some. How we cope with those difficulties defines our vision and tests 
our courage. In the last century we saw the industrial age and the 
computer age. We experienced fits of fear regarding everything from 
aviation, penicillin, industrialization, computerization and most 
recently, the non-calamity, fortunately, known as Y2K.
  Remarkably, plant technology in this half-century has helped make it 
possible for the U.S. farmer, who in 1940 fed 19 people, to fee 129 
today.
  Meanwhile, worldwide population grows and farmland shrinks, 
Policymakers, farmers, doctors, business leaders, scientists, and 
others look ahead and search for critical tools to meet the increasing 
demands of a growing and changing world.
  Nobel prizewinning chemist Robert F. Curl of Rice University said 
that ``it is clear that the 21st will be the century of biology.''
  Scientists, medical doctors, Government officials, farmers, and 
others have testified before the Congress and elsewhere to the benefits 
of this new generation of technology, which may offer the sustainable 
production of safer amd more abundant food sources, new vaccines and 
medicines, as well as biodegradable plastics and cleaner energy 
alternatives.
  Senator Mack hosted a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee in 
September entitled ``Putting a Human Face on Biotechnology'' where Tour 
de France winner Lance Armstrong testified about his personal 
experience using biotechnology and will to overcome cancer. Senators 
Lugar and Harkin held 2 days of hearings in October with a diverse 
number of distinguished witnesses to discuss the science and regulation 
of biotechnology.
  Bipartisan members including Senators Kerry, Durbin, Hagel, Craig, 
Frist, Conrad, Lugar, Gorton, Grassley, Ashcroft, Robb, Burns, Grams, 
Gordon Smith, Baucus, Helms, Hutchison, Roberts, Bayh, Brownback, 
Crapo, and Coverdell have joined me in expressing to the President our 
bipartisan commitment to biotechnology.
  We urge the administration and the State Department to be firm in 
their negotiations in Montreal, to say that the phyto sanitary 
agreements are adequate in all we need to regulate biotechnology.
  As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee which funds 
public research activities at the National Science Foundation, I have 
worked with my partner, Senator Mikulski, to win congressional approval 
of $150 million in the last 3 years for the Plant Genome Initiative at 
the National Science Foundation to study the structure, organization, 
and function of genomes of significant plants important to improving 
human health and the environment.
  Recently, I received a letter signed by over 500 scientists revealing 
the exceptionally strong scientific consensus endorsing biotechnology. 
These are public- and private-sector scientists, the majority of whom 
are from academic institutions representing nearly every State, a 
number of foreign countries, the National Academy of Sciences, private 
foundations, Federal research agencies, and our National Labs. Here is 
some of what they told me about biotechnology:

       The ultimate beneficiaries of technological innovation have 
     always been consumers, both in the United States and abroad. 
     In developing countries, biotechnological advances will 
     provide means to overcome vitamin deficiencies, to supply 
     vaccines for killer diseases like cholera and malaria, to 
     increase production and protect fragile natural resources, 
     and to grow crops under normally unfavorable conditions.

  They continued:

       We recognize that no technology is without risks. At the 
     same time, we have confidence in the current U.S. regulatory 
     system provided by the USDA, EPA, and FDA. The U.S. system 
     has worked well and continues to evolve as scientific 
     advancements are achieved.

  They strongly endorse the U.S. regulatory multiagency approval 
system, which they say works well.
  The American Medical Association is supportive also. In policy H-
480.985, ``Biotechnology and the American Agricultural Industry'' they 
say the following:

       It is the policy of the AMA to (1) endorse or implement 
     programs that will convince the public and government 
     officials that genetic manipulation is not inherently 
     hazardous and that the health and economic benefits of 
     recombinant DNA technology greatly exceed any risk posed to 
     society; (2) where necessary, urge Congress and federal 
     regulatory agencies to develop appropriate guidelines which 
     will not impede the progress of agricultural biotechnology, 
     yet will ensure that adequate safety precautions are 
     enforced; (3) encourage and assist state medical societies to 
     coordinate programs which will educate physicians in 
     recombinant DNA technology as it applies to public health, 
     such that the physician may respond to patient query and 
     concern; (4) encourage physicians, through their state 
     medical societies, to be public spokespersons for those 
     agricultural biotechnologies that will benefit public health; 
     and (5) actively participate in the development of national 
     programs to educate the public about the benefits of 
     agricultural biotechnology.

  Remarkably, however, we find ourselves at a crossroads as a strange 
mixture of forces endeavor not to ensure that biotechnology is safe--
which is and should be our collective purpose--but to discredit and 
eliminate biotechnology. Opposition has been motivated variously by 
protectionist sentiment, by political intimidation, by competing 
business, and by scientifically unsubstantiated fear of technology. 
Activists and protectionists in Europe have conspired with a level of 
success that is stunning. Their goal is to stroke fear and use 
intimidation to frustrate and undermine biotechnology.
  Just this week, it was reported by the Detroit News that:

       A visiting Michigan State University associate professor 
     whose office was the target of a fire set by radical 
     environmentalists on New Year's Eve said Sunday that she 
     heads a project aimed at increasing food production and 
     making food more nutritious.

  The purpose of her work was to ensure that we use agricultural 
knowledge and tools to address those problems.
  Catherine Ives, director of the Agricultural Biotechnology for 
Sustainable Productivity, which is based at Michigan State University, 
said, ``The whole point of the project is to make land more productive 
so we don't have to damage the environment.'' The paper reported, ``The 
goal of the project is to develop long-term solutions for food security 
in the developing world, where undernourishment is an epidemic.'' ``We 
know that there are 840 million people in the world who don't have 
enough to eat,'' Ives said. ``The use of agricultural knowledge and 
tools will help in addressing that problem.''
  Dr. Martina McGlaughlin, Director of Biotechnology at the University 
of California at Davis, in a November 1, 1999, column in the Los 
Angeles Times reinforced the dilemma of population growth coupled with 
the finite quantity of arable land:


[[Page S59]]


       [u]nless we will accept starvation or placing parks and the 
     Amazon Basin under the plow, there really is no alternative 
     to applying biotechnology to agriculture.

  Dr. McGlaughlin continued:

       The most cost-effective and environmentally sound general 
     method for controlling pests and disease is the use of DNA.
       This approach has led to a reduction in the use of sprayed 
     chemical insecticides. According to the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service, 2 million fewer pounds of insecticide 
     were used in 1998 to control bollworm than were used in 1995, 
     before ``Bt'' cotton was introduced. And the Bt gene--
     introduced into the crop plant, not sprayed into the 
     atmosphere--is present in minute amounts and spares 
     beneficial insects.

  She concluded:

       Millions of people have eaten the products of genetic 
     engineering and no adverse effects have been demonstrated. 
     The proper balance of safety testing between companies and 
     the government is a legitimate area for further debate. So 
     are environmental safeguards. But the purpose of such debate 
     should be to improve biotech research and enhance its 
     benefits to society, not stop it in its tracks.

  It should be mentioned that her students at Cal Davis were also 
victimized by law-breakers who vandalized their research testing plots. 
Clearly, if the radicals were as interested in understanding as they 
are in intimidation, eliminating research is the last thing they would 
consider.
  In an Op-Ed in the New York Times entitled ``Who's Afraid of Genetic 
Engineers?'' former President Jimmy Carter outlined the sad irony. He 
said:

       Imagine a country placing such rigid restrictions on 
     imports that people would not get vaccines and insulin. And 
     imagine those same restrictions being placed on food products 
     as well as on laundry detergent and paper. As far-fetched as 
     it sounds, many developing countries and some industrialized 
     on may do just that.

  He concluded:

       If imports . . . are regulated unnecessarily, the real 
     losers will be the developing nations. Instead of reaping the 
     benefits of decades of discovery and research, people from 
     Africa and Southeast Asia will remain prisoners of outdated 
     technology. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to 
     come. It is crucial that they reject the propaganda of 
     extremists groups before it is too late.

  Renowned scientists have dedicated their lives to understanding 
biotechnology and using it to the benefit of mankind to solve problems 
of hunger, disease and environmental degradation.
  These problems are considerable now, but will grow in magnitudes in 
the years ahead. In the tabloid press, however, a teenager dressed up 
as a corn cob will get as much attention and is attributed the same 
credibility as leading scientists, whose work is subjected to rigorous 
peer review.
  We need to be clear about several issues. First, our Government and 
its citizens are second to none in our collective commitment to food 
safety. We have a rigorous multi-agency approval process that has stood 
the test of time since 1938. It is based not on politics but on 
scientific consensus. It is supported by bipartisan Members of each 
body who have the strongest commitment to food safety and environmental 
protection. None of us are advocates for unfettered technology. As with 
any technology, there are limits that will be and must be subjected to 
law, not to mention common sense.
  Second, we need to realize that there are strong elements in the 
European Union who are more than happy to exploit fears--fears that 
they helped create--to provide short-term protection to their farmers 
from imports. In a sentence, fear and hysteria, without scientific 
basis, is being used by some to limit the productivity of foreign 
farmers--period. Meanwhile, opportunistic food companies such as ADM 
and Novartis are knowingly undermining our scientists and trade 
negotiators to placate the Luddites and protectionists.
  Finally, let me emphasize this critical point. The issue of risk is 
not one-dimensional. Yes, we must understand and evaluate the relative 
risk to a Monarch Butterfly larvae. Additional research has answered 
already many of those questions. But there is another risk. That risk 
is that naysayers and the protectionists succeed in their goals to kill 
biotechnology and condemn the world's children to unnecessary 
blindness, malnutrition, sickness and environmental degradation.
  Dr. C.S. Prakash directs the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research 
at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala, said the following in a column 
for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

       Anti-technology activists accuse corporations of ``playing 
     God'' by genetically improving crops, but it is these so-
     called environmentalists who are really playing God, not with 
     genes but with the lives of poor and hungry people.
       While activist organizations spend hundreds of thousands of 
     dollars to promote fear through anti-science newspaper ads, 
     1.3 billion people, who live on less than $1 a day, care only 
     about findings their next day's meal. Biotechnology is one of 
     the best hopes for solving their food needs today, when we 
     have 6 billion people, and certainly in the next 30 to 50 
     years, when there will be 9 billion on the globe.
       Those people, who battle weather, pests and plant disease 
     to try to raise enough for their families, can benefit 
     tremendously from biotechnology, and not just from products 
     created by big corporations. Public-sector institutions are 
     conducting work on high-yield rice, virus-resistant sweet 
     potato and more healthful strains for cassava, crops that are 
     staples in developing countries.
       The development of local and regional agriculture is the 
     key to addressing both hunger and low income. Genetically 
     improved food is ``scale neutral,'' in that a poor rice 
     farmer with one acre in Bangladesh can benefit as much as a 
     larger farmer in California. And he doesn't have to learn a 
     sophisticated new system; he only has to plant a seed. New 
     rice strains being developed through biotechnology can 
     increase yields by 30 to 40 percent. Another rice strain has 
     the potential to prevent blindness in millions of children 
     whose diets are deficient in Vitamin A.
       Edible vaccines, delivered in locally grown crops, could do 
     more to eliminate disease than the Red Cross, missionaries 
     and U.N. task forces combined, at a fraction of the cost. But 
     none of these benefits will be realized if Western-generated 
     fears about biotechnology halt research funding and close 
     borders to exported products.
       For the well-fed to spreadhead fear-based campaigns and 
     suppress research for ideological and pseudo-science reasons 
     is irresponsible and immoral.

  Dr. Prakash just released a petition signed by more than 600 
scientists declaring support of agricultural biotechnology. In his 
press release he noted, ``We in the scientific community felt it 
necessary to counteract the baseless attacks so often being made on 
biotechnology and genetically modified foods. Biotechnology is a potent 
and valuable tool that can help make foods more productive and 
nutritious. And, contrary to anti-biotech activists, they can even 
advance environmental goals such as biodiversity.''
  Not content to live with their own brand of ludditism, European 
activists have shifted the battleground and they are now looking to 
export--not answers or solutions or constructive proposals--but fear, 
hysteria and unworkable restrictions to Asia, South America and even 
the United States. Many have stayed out of this debate thinking the 
controversy will blow over as it does with most regulated technologies. 
Many, particularly those who understand the science of the issue, had 
been silent, thinking, possibly that people would understand and that 
the technology would sell itself.
  I have said from the beginning that we could not take it for granted 
that people would embrace the technology because it is complex. I have 
said from the beginning that American consumers would want information. 
Consumers who know the facts--who know the benefits this technology 
will provide--will endorse it. American consumers demand food safety, 
but they also embrace technology and progress. They are not satisfied 
to say what we are doing is good enough. And finally, they want to base 
their decisions on science not fiction and it is the open discussion of 
facts that the vandals, the protectionists, and the luddites fear the 
most.
  President Clinton outlined what is at stake last week in proclaiming 
January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month:

       Today, a third of all new medicines in development are 
     based on biotechnology. Designed to attack the underlying 
     cause of an illness, not just its symptoms, these medicines 
     have tremendous potential to provide not only more effective 
     treatments, but also cures. With improved understanding of 
     cellular and genetic processes, scientists have opened 
     exciting new avenues of research into treatments for 
     devastating diseases--like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, 
     diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, and cancer--that affect 
     millions of Americans. Biotechnology has also given us 
     several new vaccines, including one for rotavirus, now being 
     tested clinically, that could eradicate an illness 
     responsible for the deaths of more than 800,000 infants and 
     children each year.
       The impact of biotechnology is far-reaching. Bio-
     remediation technologies are cleaning our environment by 
     removing toxic substances from contaminated soils and ground

[[Page S60]]

     water. Agricultural biotechnology reduces our dependence on 
     pesticides. Manufacturing processes based on biotechnology 
     make it possible to produce paper and chemicals with less 
     energy, less pollution, and less waste. Forensic technologies 
     based on our growing knowledge of DNA help us exonerate the 
     innocent and bring criminals to justice.
  A question is whether we want to continue with a fixed number of 
agricultural uses or if we want to expand them to provide farmers and 
consumers new options and new opportunities. A question for some is 
whether we want to be more pro-environment and pro-health and nutrition 
than we are anti-corporate.
  Like many of my colleagues here in the Senate, I have consulted 
scores of scientists in the academic world, in the public sector and in 
the private sector. I have consulted medical professionals, and farmers 
for their practical experience regarding biotechnology. But let me 
finish by reading you a quote from a December 25, 1999, interview in 
``New Scientist'' and you consider for yourself who might be the 
source:

       I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs 
     and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and 
     forestry are both good examples where policy is being 
     influenced by arguments that have no basis in fact or logic.

  The source is not a corporate leader, a Senator, or a university 
scientist. It is an ecologist with a Ph.D.
  That ecologist is Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of 
Greenpeace and a veteran of the frontline against everything from 
whaling to nuclear waste since the 1970s.
  The scientific consensus amongst government and academic scientists 
in the U.S. is extraordinary. The scientific community in Europe, some 
of whom I have met with agree, but have been intimidated and silenced. 
Please give the scientific and medical communities the opportunity to 
speak to these complex issues before you are swayed by the tabloids in 
Europe, those who may have their head burried in the flat earth, and 
the vandals and extremists who have been condemned even by some of 
their very own.
  We have a system in the U.S. to identify and evaluate relative risk, 
and, if necessary, mitigate those risks. The focus of international 
leaders should be on working constructively to identify and evaluate 
relative risk so that our people may have safely the options of 
biotechnology available to them. The development of this technology is 
not recreational. It is to solve real world problems and the 
possibilities are truly breathtaking. There is too much at stake for 
those who know better to remain passive.
  In 1921, Missouri's renowned plant scientist, George Washington 
Carver said: ``I wanted to know the name of every stone and flower and 
insect and bird and beast. I wanted to know where it got its color, 
where it got its life--but there was no one to tell me.'' He added 
that: ``No individual has any right to come into the world and go out 
of it without leaving behind him distinct and legitimate reasons for 
having passed through it.'' This issue will be a test of our collective 
vision, discipline, and courage.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I ask unanimous 
consent to print in the Record materials from President Clinton, 
President Carter, Drs. Prakash and McGlaughlin, New Scientist, and the 
500 scientists' letter.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  [From the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Jan. 20, 2000]

                   National Biotechnology Month, 2000

   (By the President of the United States of America--A Proclamation)

       As we stand at the dawn of a new century, we recognize the 
     enormous potential that biotechnology holds for improving the 
     quality of life here in the United States and around the 
     world. These technologies, which draw on our understanding of 
     the life sciences to develop products and solve problems, are 
     progressing at an exponential rate and promise to make 
     unprecedented contributions to public health and safety, a 
     cleaner environment, and prosperity.
       Today, a third of all new medicines in development are 
     based on biotechnology. Designed to attack the underlying 
     cause of an illness, not just its symptoms, these medicines 
     have tremendous potential to provide not only more effective 
     treatments, but also cures. With improved understanding of 
     cellular and genetic processes, scientists have opened 
     exciting new avenues of research into treatment for 
     devastating diseases--like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, 
     diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, and cancer--that affect 
     millions of Americans. Biotechnology has also given us 
     several new vaccines, including one for rotavirus, now being 
     tested clinically, that could eradicate an illness 
     responsible for the deaths of more than 800,000 infants and 
     children each year.
       The impact of biotechnology is far-reaching. Bioremediation 
     technologies are cleaning our environment by removing toxic 
     substances from contaminated soils and ground water. 
     Agricultural biotechnology reduces our dependence on 
     pesticides. Manufacturing processes based on biotechnology 
     make it possible to produce paper and chemical with less 
     energy, less pollution, and less waste. Forensic technologies 
     based on our growing knowledge of DNA help us exonerate the 
     innocent and bring criminals to justice.
       The biotechnology industry is also improving lives through 
     its substantial economic impact. Biotechnology has stimulated 
     the creation and growth of small businesses, generated new 
     jobs, and encouraged agricultural and industrial innovation. 
     The industry currently employs more than 150,000 people and 
     invests nearly $10 billion a year on research and 
     development.
       Recognizing the extraordinary promise and benefits of this 
     enterprise, my Administration has pursued policies to foster 
     biotechnology innovations as expeditiously and prudently as 
     possible. We have supported steady increases in funding for 
     basic scientific research at the National Institutes of 
     Health and other science agencies; accelerated the process 
     for approving new medicines to make them available as quickly 
     and safely as possible; encouraged private-sector research 
     investment and small business development through tax 
     incentives and the Small Business Innovation Research 
     program; promoted intellectual property protection and open 
     international markets for biotechnology inventions and 
     products; and developed public databases that enable 
     scientists to coordinate their efforts in an enterprise that 
     has become one of the world's finest examples of partnership 
     among university-based researchers, government, and private 
     industry.
       Remarkable as its achievements have been, the biotechnology 
     enterprise is still in its infancy. We will reap even greater 
     benefits as long as we sustain the intellectual partnership 
     and public confidence that have moved biotechnology forward 
     thus far. We must strengthen our efforts to improve science 
     education for all Americans and preserve and promote the 
     freedom of scientific inquiry. We must protect patients from 
     the misuse or abuse of sensitive medical information and 
     provide Federal regulatory agencies with sufficient resources 
     to maintain sound, science-based review and regulation of 
     biotechnology products. And we must strive to ensure that 
     science-based regulatory program worldwide promote public 
     safety, earn public confidence, and guarantee fair and open 
     international markets.
       Now, therefore, I, William J. Clinton, President of the 
     United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested 
     in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do 
     hereby proclaim January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month. 
     I call upon the people of the United States to observe this 
     month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
       In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 
     nineteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two 
     thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of 
     America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Aug. 26, 1998]

                  Who's Afraid of Genetic Engineering?

                           (By Jimmy Carter)

       Imagine a country placing such rigid restrictions on 
     imports that people could not get vaccines and insulin. And 
     imagine those same restrictions being placed on food products 
     as well as on laundry detergent and paper.
       As far-fetched as it sounds, many developing countries and 
     some industrialized ones may do just that early next year. 
     They are being misled into thinking that genetically modified 
     organisms, everything from seeds to livestock, and products 
     made from them are potential threats to the public health and 
     the environment.
       The new import proposals are being drafted under the 
     auspices of the biodiversity treaty, an agreement signed by 
     168 nations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The 
     treaty's main goal is to protect plants and animals from 
     extinction.
       In 1996, nations ratifying the treaty asked an ad hoc team 
     to determine whether genetically modified organisms could 
     threaten biodiversity. Under pressure from environmentalists, 
     and with no supporting data, the team decided that any such 
     organism could potentially eliminate native plants and 
     animals.
       The team, whose members mainly come from environmental 
     agencies in more than 100 different governments, should 
     complete its work within six months and present its final 
     recommendation to all the nations (the United States is not 
     among them) that ratified the treaty. If approved, these 
     regulations would be included in a binding international 
     agreement early next year.
       But the team has exceeded its mandate. Instead of limiting 
     the agreement to genetic modifications that might threaten 
     biodiversity, the members are also pushing to regulate 
     shipments of all genetically modified organisms and the 
     products made from them.

[[Page S61]]

       This means that grain, fresh produce, vaccines, medicines, 
     breakfast cereals, wine, vitamins--the list is endless--would 
     require written approval by the importing nation before they 
     could leave the dock. This approval could take months. 
     Meanwhile, barge costs would mount and vaccines and food 
     would spoil.
       How could regulations intended to protect species and 
     conserve their genes have gotten so far off track? The main 
     cause is anti-biotechnology environmental groups that 
     exaggerate the risks of genetically modified organisms and 
     ignore their benefits.
       Anti-biotechnology activists argue that genetic engineering 
     is so new that its effects on the environment can't be 
     predicted. This is misleading. In fact, for hundreds of years 
     virtually all food has been improved genetically by plant 
     breeders. Genetically altered antibiotics, vaccines and 
     vitamins have improved our health, while enzyme-containing 
     detergents and oil-eating bacteria have helped to protect the 
     environment.
       In the past 40 years, farmers worldwide have genetically 
     modified crops to be more nutritious as well as resistant to 
     insects, diseases and herbicides. Scientific techniques 
     developed in the 1980's and commonly referred to as genetic 
     engineering allow us to give plants additional useful genes. 
     Genetically engineered cotton, corn and soybean seeds became 
     available in the United States in 1996, including those 
     planted on my family farm. This growing season, more than 
     one-third of American soybeans and one-fourth of our corn 
     will be genetically modified. The number of acres devoted to 
     genetically engineered crops in Argentina, Canada, Mexico and 
     Australia increased tenfold from 1996 to 1997.
       The risks of modern genetic engineering have been studied 
     by technical experts at the National Academy of Sciences and 
     World Bank. They concluded that we can predict the 
     environmental effects by reviewing past experiences with 
     those plants and animals produced through selective breeding. 
     None of these products of selective breeding have harmed 
     either the environment or biodiversity.
       And their benefits are legion. By increasing crop yields, 
     genetically modified organisms reduce the constant need to 
     clear more land for growing food. Seeds designed to resist 
     drought and pests are especially useful in tropical 
     countries, where crop losses are often severe. Already, 
     scientists in industrialized nations are working with 
     individuals by developing countries to increase yields of 
     staple crops, to improve the quality of current exports and 
     to diversify economies by creating exports like genetically 
     improved palm oil, which may someday replace gasoline.
       Other genetically modified organisms covered by the 
     proposed regulations are essential research tools in medical, 
     agricultural and environmental science.
       If imports like these are regulated unnecessarily, the real 
     losers will be the developing nations. Instead of reaping the 
     benefits of decades of discovery and research, people from 
     Africa and Southeast Asia will remain prisoners of outdated 
     technology. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to 
     come. It is crucial that they reject the propaganda of 
     extremist groups before it is too late.
                                  ____


         [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 5, 1999]

      Genetic Research: Foes of Biotechnology Ignore Global Hunger

                           (By C.S. Prakash)

       Anti-technology activists accuse corporations of ``playing 
     God'' by genetically improving crops, but it is these so-
     called environmentalists who are really playing God, not with 
     genes but with the lives of poor and hungry people.
       While activist organizations spend hundreds of thousands of 
     dollars to promote fear through anti-science newspaper ads, 
     1.3 billion people, who live on less than $1 a day, care only 
     about finding their next day's meal. Biotechnology is one of 
     the best hopes for solving their food needs today, when we 
     have 6 billion people, and certainly in the next 30 to 50 
     years, when there will be 9 billion on the globe.
       Those people, who battle weather, pests and plant disease 
     to try to raise enough for their families, can benefit 
     tremendously from biotechnology, and not just from products 
     created by big corporations. Public-sector institutions are 
     conducting work on high-yield rice, virus-resistant sweet 
     potato and more healthful strains of cassava, crops that are 
     staples in developing countries.
       But none of these benefits will be realized if Western-
     generated fears about biotechnology halt research funding and 
     close borders to exported products. Public perception is 
     being manipulated by fringe groups opposed to progress and 
     taken advantage of by politicians favoring trade 
     protectionism.
       There is no safety reason for this. Foods produced through 
     biotechnology are just as safe, if not safer, than 
     conventionally produced foods because they are rigorously 
     tested. David Aaron of the U.S. Commerce Department recently 
     told the Senate Finance Committee that ``13 years of U.S. 
     experience with biotech products have produced no evidence of 
     food safety risks; not one rash, not one cough, not one sore 
     throat, not one headache.''
       More recently, a panel of entomology experts has questioned 
     the only seemingly legitimate environmental issue raised to 
     date--the alleged threat to Monarch butterflies.
       Yet activists continue to look for a new cause, a new evil 
     in this technology. While these well-fed folks jet around the 
     world plotting ways to disrupt the technology, they cannot or 
     will not see the conditions of millions who are at grave risk 
     of starvation. Activists resist development of longer-lasting 
     fruits and vegetables, at the expense of Third World people 
     who have no refrigeration to preserve their foods.
       Critics of biotechnology invoke the trite argument that the 
     shortage of food is caused by unequal distribution. There's 
     plenty of food, they declare, we just need to distribute it 
     evenly. That's like saying there is plenty of money in the 
     world so let's just solve the problem of poverty in Ethiopia 
     by redistributing the wealth of Switzerland (or maybe the 
     United Kingdom, where the heir to the throne is particularly 
     opposed to companies ``playing God'' with biotechnology).
       The development of local and regional agriculture is the 
     key to addressing both hunger and low income. Genetically 
     improved food is ``scale neutral,'' in that a poor rice 
     farmer with one acre in Bangladesh can benefit as much as a 
     large farmer in California. And he doesn't have to learn a 
     sophisticated new system; he only has to plant a seed. New 
     rice strains being developed through biotechnology can 
     increase yields by 30 to 40 percent. Another rice strain has 
     the potential to prevent blindness in millions of children 
     whose diets are deficient in Vitamin A.
       Edible vaccines, delivered in locally grown crops, could do 
     more to eliminate disease than the Red Cross, missionaries 
     and U.N. task forces combined, at a fraction of the cost.
       These are some of the benefits that the Church of England 
     saw when church leaders recently issued a position statement 
     on ``playing God'' through biotechnology: ``Human discovery 
     and invention can be thought of as resulting from the 
     exercise of God-given powers of mind and reason; in this 
     respect, genetic engineering does not seem very different 
     from other forms of scientific advance.''
       More recently, the Vatican director on bioethics, Bishop 
     Elio Sgreccia, criticized the ``catastrophic sensationalism 
     with which the press reports on biotechnology'' and he 
     rejected the ``idea of conceiving scientific progress as 
     something that should be feared.''
       So, if scientists who are developing biotechnology are not 
     ``playing God'' in the eyes of these religious leaders, what 
     are we to think of self-appointed guardians who would deny 
     its benefits to those who need it most? We have the means to 
     end hunger on this planet and to feed the world's 6 billion--
     or even 9 billion--people. For the well-fed to spearhead 
     fear-based campaigns and suppress research for ideological 
     and pseudo-science reasons is irresponsible and immoral.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1999]

                        (By Martina McGloughlin)

 Commentary; Without Biotechnology, We'll Starve; Agriculture: Genetic 
Engineering Is Subject to More Safeguards Than Many Unaltered Foods We 
                                  Eat

       I agree with Greenpeace that we need to feed and clothe the 
     world's people while minimizing the impact of agriculture on 
     the environment. But the human population continues to grow, 
     while arable land is a finite quantity. So unless we will 
     accept starvation or placing parks and the Amazon Basin under 
     the plow, there really is no alternative to applying 
     biotechnology to agriculture.
       Today's biotechnology differs significantly from previous 
     agriculture technologies. Using genetic engineering, 
     scientists can enhance the nutritional content, vitamins, 
     minerals, antioxidants, texture, color, flavor, growing 
     season, yield, disease resistance and other properties of 
     production crops. Engineered microbes and enzymes produced 
     using recombinant DNA methods are used in many aspects of 
     food production. The cheese and bread you eat and the 
     detergent you use to clean your clothes all have used 
     engineered enzymes since the early part of this decade.
       By reducing dependency on chemicals and tillage through the 
     development of natural fertilizers and of pest-resistant 
     plants, biotechnology has the potential to conserve natural 
     resources, prevent soil erosion and improve environmental 
     quality. Strains of microorganisms could increase the 
     efficiency, capacity and variety of waste treatment. 
     Bioprocessing using engineered microbes offers new ways to 
     use renewable resources for materials and fuel.
       Biotechnology is, in fact, the low-risk alternative to 
     current practices. Take pest control. The economic and 
     environmental costs of using existing methods are well known. 
     But many of us are not aware of the potential costs of not 
     controlling pests. Not controlling fungal disease in plants, 
     for example, allows them to generate deadly toxins such as 
     aflatoxin and fumonisin, which have been found, among other 
     things, to cause brain tumors in horses and liver cancer in 
     children.
       The most cost-effective and environmentally sound general 
     method for controlling pests and disease is the use of DNA. 
     This approach already has led to a reduction in the use of 
     sprayed chemical insecticides. According to the National 
     Agricultural Statistics Service, 2 million fewer pounds of 
     insecticide were used in 1998 to control bollworm

[[Page S62]]

     and budworm than were used in 1995, before ``Bt'' cotton was 
     introduced. And the Bt gene--introduced into the crop plant, 
     not sprayed into the atmosphere--is present in minute amounts 
     and spares beneficial insects.
       There is no evidence that recombinant DNA techniques or 
     rDNA-modified organisms pose any unique or unforeseen 
     environmental or health hazards. In fact, a National Research 
     Council study found that ``as the molecular methods are more 
     specific, users of these methods will be more certain about 
     the traits they introduce into plants.'' Greater certainty 
     means greater precision and safety. The subtly altered 
     products on our plates have been put through more thorough 
     testing than any conventional food ever has been subjected 
     to. Many of our daily staples would be banned if subjected to 
     the same rigorous standards. Potatoes and tomatoes contain 
     toxic glycoalkaloids, which have been linked to spina bifida. 
     Kidney beans contain phytohaemagglutinin and are poisonous if 
     undercooked. Dozens of people die each year from cynaogenic 
     glycosides from peach seeds. Yet none of those are labled as 
     potentially dangerous.
       Million of people have eaten the products of genetic 
     engineering and no adverse effects have been demonstrated. 
     The proper balance of safety testing between companies and 
     the government is a legitimate area for further debate. So 
     are environmental safeguards. But the purpose of such debate 
     should be to improve biotech research and enhance its 
     benefits to society, not stop it in its tracks.
                                  ____


                [From the New Scientist, Dec. 25, 1999]

                                Dr Truth

                           (By Michael Bond)

       You come from a family of loggers. How did they take to you 
     becoming an environmentalist?
       My dad was one of our biggest supporters when we started 
     Greenpeace in the early 1970s. With the US nuclear tests in 
     Alaska there was a possibility that the hydrogen bombs would 
     trigger an earthquake that would, in turn, trigger a tsunami. 
     A very serious one during the Alaska earthquake of 1964 
     severely affected by father's business. Environmentalism then 
     did not involve bashing loggers. We were concerned about all-
     out nuclear war and it blows my mind sometimes to see the 
     movement behaving the same way about forestry that it did 
     about nuclear war. I think they've got their priorities a bit 
     mixed up.
       What were those early days of Greenpeace like?
       They were heady--there was huge camaraderie. We used to 
     sing all the time. We always had a couple of people with a 
     guitar. We were together for weeks on end on many of those 
     expeditions into the Pacific and out to Newfoundland. We 
     always had songs, such as: ``If mankind was created a step 
     below the angels, the whales I'm sure were somewhere in 
     between.'' They were wonderful songs. We really had a 
     wonderful time. We always thought that a revolution should be 
     a celebration. We tried to avoid the hair-shirt mentality 
     that tends to creep in with self-righteousness, dogmatism and 
     that short of thing.
       As an ecologist with a PhD in the subject, were you a rare 
     breed in the organization?
       I was somewhat rare and had to live with the fact 
     throughout my time in Greenpeace that there was a lot of 
     disrespect for my science. That is why they called me Dr 
     Truth. It was kind of a put-down.
       As Greenpeace became bigger, richer and more famous did its 
     priorities or principles change?
       The best thing is that Greenpeace has remained faithful to 
     the peaceful civil disobedience theme. In other words, the 
     ``peace'' in Greenpeace is still the main principle. I think 
     that's excellent. I do think though that they have 
     diversified into so many issues, many of which are 
     questionable in terms of priorities and some of which are 
     just plain wrong-headed. A case in point is GM foods. If they 
     are really so worried about human health, why don't they 
     tackle tobacco?
       Few scientists become radical environmental activists. What 
     lit the spark with you?
       It was partly my professors. The most important was 
     Vladimir Krajina, a Czech forest ecologist. I used to think 
     that science was just about technology. But after studying 
     with Krajina, the light suddenly went on and I realized that 
     the mystery of nature could be approached through science and 
     ecology. The political part came while I was writing my 
     thesis on pollution control in 1972. A very large copper-
     mining project was applying to dump its tailings into the 
     sea. It was very close to my boyhood home at Winter Harbour 
     in Vancouver Island, Canada. I chose to study not just the 
     environmental impact of the tailings disposal, but the system 
     that granted permits for the process. I soon learned that 
     this was immune to truth.
       Why after 15 years of activism did you start to become 
     disenchanted with the environmental movement?
       Partly it was the fact that foot soldiers often become 
     diplomats. I don't think anybody should be required to be in 
     confrontational environmental politics for their whole lives, 
     especially when they start a family. But it was partly the 
     movement's refusal to evolve. I'm in favour of civil 
     disobedience in order to bring about justice where something 
     really bad is going on such as nuclear testing or toxic 
     dumping. But I'm a Gandhian through and through--I believe 
     that peaceful civil disobedience and passive resistance 
     movements are great shapers of social change. But when 
     industry and government agree that the environment needs to 
     be taken into account in policy making, and when there are 
     ministries and vice-presidents of the environment, it seems 
     to me it would be a good idea to work with them. When a 
     majority of people decide to agree with you, it is time to 
     stop hitting them over the head.
       How has the environmental movement got it so wrong?
       The environmental movement abandoned science and logic 
     somewhere in the mid-1980s, just as mainstream society was 
     adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental 
     agenda. This was because many environmentalists couldn't make 
     the transition from confrontation to consensus, and could not 
     get out of adversarial politics. This particularly applies to 
     political activists who were using environmental rhetoric to 
     cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and 
     anti-corporatism than they did with the actual science of the 
     environment. To stay in an adversarial role, those people had 
     to adopt ever more extreme positions because all the 
     reasonable ones were being accepted.
       But hasn't environmentalism always been about opposing the 
     establishment?
       Environmentalism was always anti-establishment, but in the 
     early days of Greenpeace we did not characterize ourselves as 
     left wing. That happened after the fall of the Berlin wall 
     when a whole bunch of left wing activists, who no longer had 
     any role in the peace, women's or labour movements, joined 
     us. I would go to the Greenpeace Toronto office and there 
     would be an awful lot of young people wearing army fatigues 
     and red berets in there.
       Environmentalists recoil with horror when they hear you say 
     that harvesting trees for paper or fuel benefits plants and 
     wildlife. What's your evidence?
       The environmental movement is essentially anti-forestry. 
     Young people are being convinced to stop using trees to make 
     paper and use environmentally appropriate alternative fibres, 
     such as hemp and cotton. Now where are you going to grow 
     those exotic farm crops? You are going to grow them where you 
     have been growing trees for 20 years, where an environment 
     exists for bugs, birds, squirrels and other wildlife. That 
     environment will be destroyed if you clear a forest to grow a 
     farm crop.
       Does this mean that even clear-cutting is not as damaging 
     as we've been led to believe?
       Forests are resilient. They can grow back from total 
     volcanic destruction, ice ages, fires, storms, whatever. You 
     can take heavy equipment and bulldoze the soil right down to 
     bedrock over a huge area, and if you go away and come back 
     100 years later you will have a new forest starting to grow 
     back. Just logging the trees is not going to irreversibly 
     destroy the ecosystem. In addition, I believe it is possible 
     to sustain the biodiversity of a forest while removing large 
     quantities of timber.
       Surely you're not saying that logging has no impact on 
     biodiversity?
       Logging is never going to have zero impact. But its aim 
     should be to maintain viable populations of all those species 
     that were on that site to begin with. So you plan your 
     forestry in such a way to ensure that there is a suitable 
     habitat for every one of those species somewhere all of the 
     time. For example, when you clear-cut an area, you are going 
     to remove a lot of the shrubs, with means that shrub-nesting 
     birds not do well there for a while. But as long as you have 
     a place that was logged ten years ago somewhere hereby where 
     the shrub layer has been able to replace itself, the birds 
     will not mind if there are no trees.
       Green groups ware that logging is threatening some animals 
     with extinction. Are you telling me they're wrong?
       In 1996 the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) announced that 
     50,000 species are going extinct each year due to human 
     activity. And the main cause, they said, is commercial 
     logging. The story was carried around the world, and hundreds 
     of millions of people cam to believe that forestry is the 
     main cause of species extinction. During the past three years 
     I've asked the WWF on many occasions to provide me with a 
     list of some of the species that have supposedly become 
     extinct due to logging. They have not offered up a single 
     example as evidence. In fact, to the best of our scientific 
     knowledge, no species has become extinct in North America due 
     to forestry.
       You may disagree with the green groups, but would you still 
     describe yourself as an environmentalist?
       James Lovelock is my hero and I believe in the Gaia 
     hypothesis that all life is one living breathing being, I 
     don't see any reason to damage it more than necessary. I 
     believe in gardening the Earth, but there should be lots of 
     places left wild. The ``hands off'' attitude doesn't work 
     with 6 billion humans needing things from Earth every day.
       Why do you oppose the campaign against genetically modified 
     crops?
       I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs 
     and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and 
     forestry are both good examples where policy is being 
     influenced by arguments that have no basis in fact or logic. 
     Certainly, biotechnology needs to be done very carefully. But 
     GM crops are in the same category as oestrogen-mimicking 
     compounds and pesticide residues. They are seen as an 
     invisible force that will kill us all in our sleep or turn us 
     all into

[[Page S63]]

     mutants. It is preying on people's fear of the unknown.
       What does the future hold for the environmental movement?
       We need to get out of the adversarial approach. People who 
     base their opinion on science and reason and who are 
     politically centrist need to take the movement back from the 
     extremists who have hijacked it, often to further agendas 
     that have nothing to do with ecology. It is important to 
     remember that the environmental movement is only 30 years 
     old. All movements to go through some mucky periods. But 
     environmentalism has become codified to such an extent that 
     if you disagree with a single word, then you are apparently 
     not an environmentalist. Rational discord is being 
     discouraged. It has too many of the hallmarks of the Hitler 
     youth, or the religious right.
                                  ____

       Crops modified by molecular and cellular methods should 
     pose risks no different from those modified by classical 
     genetic methods for similar traits. As the molecular methods 
     are more specific, users of these methods will be more 
     certain about the traits they introduce into plants.--
     National Research Council.
       America leads the world in agricultural products developed 
     with biotechnology. These products hold great promise and 
     will unlock benefits for consumers, producers and the 
     environment at home and around the world. We are committed to 
     ensuring the safety of our food and environment through 
     strong and transparent science-based domestic regulatory 
     systems.--President William J. Clinton, statement on World 
     Trade Organization objectives October 13, 1999.
                                                 January 13, 2000.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: The undersigned scientists support the 
     use of biotechnology as a research tool in the development 
     and production of agricultural and food products. We also 
     strongly advocate the use of sound science as the basis for 
     regulatory and political decisions pertaining to 
     biotechnology.
       Biotechnology for agriculture and the food industry is 
     offering remarkable innovations--providing new tools for 
     growth and development. Biotechnology has a long history of 
     development. Its early applications produced better quality 
     medicines and improved industrial products. Recently, 
     products have been developed that allow farmers to reduce 
     their input costs and increase yields while providing 
     environmental benefits. In the near future, an ever-
     increasing number and variety of crops with traits beneficial 
     to consumers will reach the market. Such traits will include 
     improved nutritional values, healthier oils, increased 
     vitamin content, better flavor, and longer shelf life.
       The ultimate beneficiaries of technological innovation have 
     always been consumers, both in the United States and aboard. 
     In developing countries, biotechnological advances will 
     provide means to overcome vitamin deficiencies, to supply 
     vaccines for killer diseases like cholera and malaria, to 
     increase production and protect fragile natural resources, 
     and to grow crops under normally unfavorable conditions.
       We recognize that no technology is without risks. At the 
     same time, we have confidence in the current U.S. regulatory 
     system provided by the USDA, EPA, and FDA. The U.S. system 
     has worked well and continues to evolve as scientific 
     advancements are achieved.
       Considering the tremendous potential of this technology, we 
     urge policy makers to base their decisions on sound 
     scientific evidence.

                          ____________________