The Beef War
Moanin' over hormones
Hormonal politics
Nutty, dangerous genes
Guessing game?
Udder woes
Do these French fries contain a pesticide made by its genes? The label won't tell you.
Photo by Eric Zuelow and David Tenenbaum, © The Why Files.
Poisonous potatoes?
Other scientists think the claim is bunk. We promise that The Why Files is not qualified to resolve the dispute, and must agree with a commentator in the British medical journal The Lancet, who wrote, "Until more details are known about the work in Aberdeen, comment is impossible." (See "Keeping Watch..." and "Seeds of Discontent..." in the bibliography). In the meantime, a group of scientists have called for a moratorium on the use of genetically engineered crops in Europe.
In the debate over genetically engineered food, another stink has arisen. We'll try to make some sense of it even as scientists continue squabbling over the significance of the results. The issue arose in 1998 when Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Institute for Agriculture in Aberdeen, Scotland, told a television audience that rats fed a diet of genetically engineered potatoes had impaired immune systems. Although Pusztai was fired and his findings were repudiated by his bosses, the warning resonated throughout Europe where fear of genetically engineered foods is running strong.
Then other scientists, using the same data, claimed to see evidence for a much wider hazard from genetically engineered foods. They said the gene used to activate the transferred gene might have caused the abnormalities in the test animals.
Is ignorance bliss?
As foods, these potatoes -- which are already on the market -- are subject to FDA regulation. But the Bt pesticide they contain is not regulated by the FDA because it's a pesticide. "Even though a Bt potato is plainly a food," Pollan wrote, "for the purposes of federal regulation it is not a food but a pesticide and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]."
But the EPA told Pollan it had not tested the Bt potatoes, since potatoes are safe and Bt (at least when made by bacteria) is safe, and therefore potatoes + Bt are safe (even though a potato, not bacteria, is making the pesticide).
But if the potatoes contained pesticide, why didn't the label say they contained a pesticide? Because potatoes are foods, and the FDA cannot require pesticide labels on food. (Don't believe us? See "Playing God..." in the bibliography).
In general, there's little research about the effects of genetically engineered food. Margaret Mellon, a biotechnology watcher at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says the paucity of research reflects an "assumption that genetically engineered food will be just fine. There's not much interest in the scientific community at large in seeing whether that's valid. That means we are all betting that it's not a problem, but not basing that on much data."
Think we're done exploring genetically engineered food? Almost!
All told, there's little data available on the health effects of genetically engineered food. The transgenic foods on the U.S. market (primarily soybean, corn and potatoes) were approved on the grounds that they are "generally recognized as safe" because they resemble foods already eaten. But Michael Pollan, writing in The New York Times, found gaps in the regulation of potatoes containing genes that make Bt, a bacterial protein used by organic farmers to kill insects.
