Iowa is playing center stage in a global debate over whether people
should be warned when the genetic makeup of their food has been altered. A
national advocacy group believes consumers would demand that genetically
modified foods be labeled if they knew just how much is being changed in
labs. The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods is pushing
presidential candidates to support making labeling the law - with some
success.
Leading Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards agree to the
organization's proposal, as do candidates Bill Richardson and Dennis
Kucinich. Top Republican candidates have not taken positions.

"We want to make food safety a defining issue of this election," said
Anne Dietrich, the Fairfield, Ia.-based executive director of the campaign.
"Once this becomes the law of the land, then Monsanto, Syngenta, Kraft and
Kellogg's will reformulate their products. Iowa is the best place to start."

But the group's efforts have met resistance from Iowa industry leaders
and global experts in genetic engineering. Many of them are gathered in Des
Moines this week for the World Food Prize, an event that honors innovations
in increasing the world's food supply.

While Dietrich and her supporters argue that genetically engineered
foods threaten human health and the environment, biotechnology leaders say
the foods are safe and vital to feeding the world, especially amid growing
demand for crop-based biofuels.

James Greenwood, a speaker at the event and president of the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, said opponents of genetic engineering
use scare tactics.

"They hope by using these scare tactics they can persuade policymakers
to alter labeling, and they can use the label to drive people away."

Although years of debate have yielded no public consensus on the
issue, one thing is certain: Genetic engineering or modification
increasingly affects Iowans at the supper table and in the field.
Ninety-four percent of soybeans and 78 percent of corn planted in Iowa are
genetically engineered varieties, according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

Those who modify the foods use DNA to take a trait from one species
and introduce it into the genes of another. The process can make a species
grow better, yield more or resist pests and disease.

Prior attempts in Congress by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich to pass
similar legislation requiring labels have failed. But supporters of labeling
believe this election year is different. Recent concerns about food safety
in the United States, they say, create an opportunity to inject genetic
engineering into the presidential debates and create consumer support.

Yet Greenwood cautioned candidates against trashing genetics in front
of farmers, who profit from genetically engineered crops.

"I wouldn't want to be a presidential candidate going into Iowa ...
and extolling the virtues of labeling their corn in a way that might make
consumers not want to buy it," he said.

Perhaps the worst biotech black eye in the United States happened in
2000, when Aventis' StarLink corn was found in taco shells. The incident
prompted a nationwide recall and caused farmers and others in the grain
industry to lose money.

The genetically engineered StarLink was allowed in animal feed, but it
was not approved for human food because of concerns it could trigger
allergic reactions. Federal regulators never proved that it did.

In fact, biotech leaders say no studies have ever shown their foods to
be dangerous to consumer health. The industry, they say, has stopped using
antibiotics in gene work because of concerns about people developing
immunity.

Opponents say studies have shown that genetically modified foods
expose people to new allergies and generate new toxins.

Fairfield attorney Steven Druker said the government allows
genetically modified food on the market without adequate testing to
determine its true risk. Druker sued the FDA to release files that he says
show how agency bureaucrats silenced government scientists who doubt genetic
engineering.

"These foods are not to be presumed safe," he said, adding they
shouldn't be on the market - with or without a label.

The two camps also wield dueling research in other related areas:

- Opponents blame genetic engineering for ruining habitat and killing
off certain animals and insects, including the monarch butterfly, and
robbing the soil of nutrients. Biotech leaders dispute those claims and say
genetically engineered crops actually help the environment because they
lessen the need for pesticides.

- Proponents say genetic engineering creates reliable crops that can
grow in parts of the Third World and other areas where it's difficult to
farm, and provide more suitable and nutritious food for impoverished
families. Opponents say that better distribution of food could help poor
families in other countries, and that the benefits of growing altered crops
don't outweigh the long-term risks.

A study war continues, with both sides alleging that existing research
is flawed, biased or incomplete.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed genetically
engineered foods safe.

According to its rules, "there must be something tangibly different
about the food product - not the process by which it's made - for the FDA to
require labeling."

Tom West, vice president in biotech affairs with Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, contends that genetically engineered foods are "the most
tested foods in the history of mankind."

"There's not a single documented case of an illness or allergic
reaction to a biotech food," he said.

Governments require labels in other parts of the world, including
Europe, where consumers are more opposed to genetically modified food.

Although genetically engineered foods in the United States lack
labels, some companies have chosen to market foods as "GMO-free." Consumers
also can look for the USDA "organic" label because genetic modification is
banned in organic food.

Leigha Bitz, a West Des Moines jewelry designer who blogs about buying
organic food for her two young children, believes genetically modifying food
robs it of its natural nourishment.

"God didn't make it that way," she said. "Everything we put in our
bodies gets broken down by our bodies in special ways. If you change its
molecular structure, it's not going to work as well."

About 60 percent of Americans don't believe they have eaten
genetically engineered food, even though almost every American has,
according to a study done last year by the Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology.

The same survey showed that 46 percent of respondents were opposed to
genetically engineered foods, which is down from a high of 58 percent in
2001 (following the StarLink incident). And 54 percent said they were
unlikely to eat foods that had been genetically modified.


[desmoinesregister.com]