Designer foods.

When I recently received material from an organization alerting me to the dangers of genetic alteration, I wondered, are these foods hazardous? I decided to investigate.

It occurred to me that many fresh fruits, vegetables, and commodities in grocery stores today have been genetically altered--that is, produced by breeding from parent stock of differing genetic backgrounds. We've been successful in producing hybrid corn, wheat, and tomatoes this way. Even tangelos come from stock as diverse as tangerines and grapefruit.

But it may take several generations to see results from traditional methods of breeding, and bad results may occur at least as often as good ones.

Do the new and controversial methods simply provide a more sure and direct insertion of genetic matter? Do they merely eliminate the risk of haphazard "crossing"? Or is there something sinister at worst and inferior at best about foods developed by them?

Biotech basics. The first step in the development of biotechnology was the identification of genetic material in the nuclei of plants and animals. The next thought of scientists? If a desirable characteristic could be associated with a specific part of the genetic material, a specific gene of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strand could be isolated. Once isolated, these genes could be duplicated or cloned and inserted into the cell to recombine with the existing DNA to make that cell have those specific desirable hereditary characteristics.

Technology has made that genetic leap possible without the long, tedious crossbreeding process that often transferred undesirable traits with the desirable ones.

Not everyone is gung-ho. Various groups such as the Pure Food Campaign, the National Wildlife Federation Biotechnology Policy Center, and the Environmental Defense Fund are not too enthusiastic about this new technology. Here are some of the risks they allege:

* New toxicants may be added.

* Nutritional quality of engineered food may be diminished.

* New substances may significantly alter the composition of food.

* New proteins that cause allergic reactions may enter the food supply.

* Antibiotic-resistant genes in genetically engineered food may diminish the effectiveness of some antibiotics in treating human and domestic animal diseases.

* Genetically engineered food may cause unexpected effects.

* The deletion of genes may have harmful side effects.

* Genetic engineering may produce "counterfeit freshness."

* Engineered food may pose risks to domestic animals.

* Genetically engineered food crops may harm wildife and change habitats.

* Uncharacterized genetic material and gene products may be added to foods.

Government response. However, government agencies responsible to the public should (and in most countries do) impose on genetically engineered foods the same tests applied to older breeding methods: visual analysis, chemical analysis, and taste testing. Here are some questions they require genesplicers to answer:

* Has the concentration of naturally occurring toxicants or allergens in the product changed?

* Have the levels of important nutrients changed?

* Could any alterations affect the product's digestibility?

* Have accepted, established scientific procedures been followed in the product's development?

* What are the enironmental effects of the product's growth and production?

* Does the genetically-modified plant have a history of safe use in food?

* Has the maker introduced into the product any substances that do not have a history of safe use in food?(*)

Scientists who are held ultimately responsible for the safety of food really are on our side. I know from experience that regulatory scientists find their work quite routine, until they catch some product out of compliance. Then they feel fulfilled that their tedious work has indeed prevented harm and helped consumers.

Why biotechnology? Wouldn't it be nice to purchase supermarket tomatoes that taste like those ripe off the vine? Biotechnology is making that possible. Read about it in the Lifelines section, on page 8. Crop plants resistant to viruses that can destroy entire harvests are also in the works. They include not only tomatoes but also potatoes, alfalfa, melons, soybeans, and strawberries. And with regard to strawberries, a new strain is being developed that has an increased level of ellagic acid, a cancer-protective agent normally present in strawberries at low levels. Biotechnology has the potential to produce such things as sterile rennet enzymes to make cheese, or fruit and vegetables higher in antioxidants, or the breeding of plants that need no nitrogen fertilizer. They even envision the production of organisms having the ability to clean up the environment. With just these few examples, we can be thankful science is finding ways to make pleasant eating, along with good nutrition at lower prices, available to all of us year-round.

Still, concerned individuals warn of ethical dilemmas of massive proportion. Could animal genes be placed in plants? Or plant genes placed in animals? Theoretically it could be done. But what would be the reason? The gene must impart some characteristic that is perceived as valuable to the consumer. At this time I don't know of any fruit or vegetable product that would be improved by the addition of an animal gene.

We must not overlook the ability of gene alteration to improve the quality of life or even save lives. Yet the controversy goes on. Caution, education, dialogue, and restraint will have to bear sway until consensus is reached.

(*)Federal Register 57 (104): 22984-23005, May 29, 1992.