Although genetically modified foods could be used to fight malnutrition and improve lower yields in undeveloped countries, many environmentalists oppose their research, development and use, says the American Enterprise Institute.
G.M. technology is used in a variety of crops and has produced innovations, including:
Proponents insist there is no evidence that G.M. foods are harmful:
Anti-biotech groups have now turned to requiring a “precautionary principle” for use of G.M. foods, including mandatory labelling. Such labelling, however, would likely feed on the fears of those wary of science and result in a stigmatisation of such products. Michael Passoff of the group As You Sow, admits their goal in requiring labelling is to spook companies from carrying G.M. foods at all for fear of alienating customers.
Meanwhile, anti-G.M. activists have scared Zambia into refusing G.M. grain that could feed their population.
John Entine of the American Enterprise Institute agrees that there are issues over G.M. foods that need to be addressed, such as how much control G.M. companies should have over patents. What is lacking, he says, is a public discussion about the existing and potential benefits of biotechnology.
Source: John Entine, Let Them Eat Precaution, American Enterprise Institute, March 2004.
For article text http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17876/article_detail.asp
For more on Biotechnology and Food http://eteam.ncpa.org/policy/Biotechnology/Biotech_and_Food/
For more on the Precautionary Principle http://eteam.ncpa.org/policy/Biotechnology/Precautionary_Principle/
FMF Policy Bulletin\2 March 2004
