Politically Modified Foods.

Once among the most outspoken proponents of genetically engineered crops east of the Atlantic Ocean, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair declared in a recent editorial in the Independent that "there's no doubt that there is potential for harm, both in terms of human safety and in the diversity of our environment, from GM [genetically modified] foods and crops." Such a strong statement contrasts with Mr. Blair's declaration only a year ago that he was so confident in the safety of engineered crops that he had "no hesitation" about eating them himself. In essence, the man who vouched for all things genetically modified has been politically modified.

This about-face comes--not surprisingly--as broader discourse about this technology has sparked public resistance around the globe. Already, farmers have scaled back their planting of transgenic crops, and the ag biotech industry--once the darling of Wall Street--is teetering on the brink of economic collapse. Government leaders, such as Blair, are beginning to point out the flaws and inadequacies of the current regulatory regimes for transgenics, in a roundabout admission that public safeguards are too often easily subverted by commercial pressure.

The landmark Biosafety Protocol signed by some 130 nations in February 2000 in Montreal represents an important step toward keeping such pressures at bay. The protocol appeared dead a year ago when the United States and a handful of other nations--together responsible for nearly all of the world's transgenic production--derailed negotiations. By stifling the protocol, the United States appeared set to export around the world its regulatory structure together with its GM crops. Fortunately, the U.S. strategy seems to have backfired.

In response to these heavy-handed tactics, nations rallied this year to craft a protocol that is a breakthrough in international law. The agreement places the onus on producers of a new technology--in this case genetically modified foods--to demonstrate it is safe before it is widely deployed. Prevailing U.S. domestic policy, in contrast, requires critics to prove that transgenics are potentially dangerous--a deploy-now-ask-questions-later approach which places industry aspirations above public interest and safety.

By allowing countries to ban the import of transgenic crops based on suspected health, ecological, or social risks, the protocol recognizes that nations will choose to approach transgenics at their own pace, whether that means gathering much-needed risk assessment data or foregoing transgenics altogether to pursue alternative food production systems that are less risky and more culturally appropriate.

The Biosafety protocol is not perfect, but it sets an important precedent for how we might avoid repeating past technological disasters. As an array of ethically challenging technologies--including human genetic engineering, biowarfare, and nanotechnology--approach widespread commercialization, protecting the inseparable entities of public health and ecological stability will depend on cautious, humble, and open evaluation.

Brian Halweil

Staff Researcher