Modifying the market

By making the modest concession that consumers worried about the effects of genetically modified food are not necessarily kooks, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman recently opened an opportunity to discuss an issue the Clinton administration previously considered closed. The impetus for the secretary’s observation, however, may have had less to do with the concerns of consumers and more with the desire of agri-business to remain profitable.

Mr. Glickman, a big booster of technology on the farm, talked to the National Press Club earlier this month about genetically modified crops, noting that, “The promise and potential are enormous, but so, too, are the questions, many of which are completely legitimate.” The legitimate questions he is referring to include, “Which federal agency with oversight responsibility for genetic foods actually tests them?” or “What are the long-term environmental effects of modified crops?” or “What is Europe so excited about, anyway?”

The European Union does not like genetically modified (GM) foods; at the very least, it wants them labeled. What makes many Europeans queasy is that GM food is produced by adding the genes of one species of animal or plant into the code of another. The genetic change can ward off insects, prevent freezing and increase shelf life, etc.

But, naturally or, in this case, unnaturally, that may not be all it does. Without confidence in the producers of this food, the European Union has sworn off new genetically altered products, costing, for instance, corn growers here more than $200 million a year in lost sales. Some U.S. companies, such as McDonald’s, KFC and Burger King already have responded to these concerns by announcing that they will not sell GM food in Europe. Unfortunately for U.S. farmers, whether or not they accepted the advice of the Agriculture Department and spent a lot of money buying and growing the altered seed, the policy in the United States has been to mix altered and unaltered crops. Europe has responded by saying it doesn’t want any of it.

Even Mr. Glickman admits that no long-term health studies have been done on GM foods, so the threat from the United States for Europe to take the food or suffer trade consequences looks more like bullying than an insistence on fair practices. The secretary’s acknowledgement of this problem was important, and he sensibly suggested that such a study be undertaken. His request that agri-business voluntarily label its GM foods, however, will only be taken seriously if he follows up with a firmer stance.

If U.S. agriculture is going to live by science, it cannot do it in half measures. The Food and Drug Administration has lengthy rules for introducing new medicines — new deserve the same scrutiny. That places the risk with producers, rather than in the mouths of consumers.