Common Threads.

Rural, typically abandoned farm structures are being used in the production of methamphetamine, according to a recent article in the North Carolina Farm Bureau Magazine. Commonly referred to as "meth" and "speed," this drug has established itself in today's culture in much the same manner as "moonshine" did during the days of Prohibition. Remote manufacturing locations, the extreme dangers of explosion and flammability, the use of agriculture-related ingredients, and contamination of the final product all are observations that an article from 70 years ago could have reported. Moonshine contaminated with lead from rust-filled radiator coils posed a serious public health threat, as does "meth" contaminated with lithium from standard flashlight batteries and with anhydrous ammonia from farmers' fertilizer tanks. The article also reminded farm owners of their responsibility for the cleanup of any hazardous waste spills that might result from the production of methamphetamine. Although it appeared in a publication seemingly unrelated to our profession, this article reminded me that practitioners of public and environmental health and protection have traditionally had a broad spectrum of responsibility and influence.

As a child growing up in Eastern Kentucky, I noted that local agricultural pursuits focused on raising basic food crops for the purpose of sustaining the family Somewhat contrary to the norm, my grandfather had an apple tree peculiar to the area. He had achieved this curiosity by successfully grafting four different varieties of apple trees onto one very hardy stock tree. Neighbors visited out of sheer curiosity, but also because they had questions about whether the apples my grandfather harvested were safe to eat and whether it was "right" for him to perform this operation. Their concerns still resonate today, even though such practices are now commonplace.

The evolution of plants and animals continues to be assisted through various widely accepted scientific processes, such as selective breeding, but none of these processes has raised such a multiplicity of questions as has genetic engineering. A genetically engineered food supply is perhaps another element in the broadening spectrum of our responsibilities. Issues raised by this particularly controversial practice touch on some of our most deep-seated hopes and values. It is particularly interesting that Dr. Michael W. Fox will address the issue of genetic engineering during this year's Annual Educational Conference (AEC). Dr. Fox addresses genetic engineering as a veterinarian and bioethicist. If you have not read his book, Beyond Evolution, I am sure that you will want to do so after you hear his keynote address. You may or may not leave in agreement with his views; however, you will leave thinking about the effect that bioengineering may have on your job, especially if that job involves food safety.

Genetic engineering has strong proponents as well as strong opposition, and it is only by analyzing the issues that we can determine our professional stance. Arguments regarding the use of genetically engineered foods stem from health, ethical, political, business, and environmental concerns. As members of the public become more aware of safety concerns about genetically engineered foods, they will have to decide if they will replace foods they consider safe with these unproven foods, if genetically engineered foods are "natural," and if they are even necessary. Another issue on which the public will have to make up its mind is the contention that special-interest genetic-engineering companies are gaining dominance over governmental bodies through international free-trade agreements that guarantee them the right to sell their products.

Genetic-engineering techniques used for food production once were viewed as a possible cure-all for worldwide starvation, and perhaps offered the hope that the elimination of crop diseases and therefore of the need for pesticides would enhance our environment. Now people argue that even though food production can be upgraded and food quality can be enhanced, it is dangerous to have the knowledge and ability to perform these tasks concentrated in the hands of a few multinational corporations who can control how and where their technology is used. The argument that genetic engineering can improve environmental conditions faces counterarguments that genetic engineering poses new and uncertain risks to agriculture, as well as to wildlife and human ecosystems. Some plants, for instance; have been genetically engineered to protect themselves from pests, thereby freeing the land from extensive application of pesticides; however, the argument now has arisen that genetic transfers to surrounding flora may occur and c ould possibly produce "superweeds" instead of "supercorn." Worldwide, proposals abound for a universal ban on or at least partial exclusions of genetically engineered foods. It is impossible to believe that environmental health professionals will not play a significant role in the controversies concerning the safety of such foods.

The ability to attract such a renowned expert as Dr. Fox reflects NEHA's desire to stay abreast of contemporary scientific and technological developments, to analyze trends associated with those developments and their possible effects upon our profession, and then to act on these issues. This ability also demonstrates NEHA's commitment to serve the ever-changing educational needs of our professional members.