BYLINE: Marie-Josee Kravis

Genetically modified food a looming threat to trade talks:
Europe blames U.S. for leading world 'Frankenfoods' trend

Until recently, GM was the leading car company in North America,
and it stirred few passions. Now it seems that GM stands for
potato chips made from beetle-resistant potatoes, or for tomatoes
treated with the gene of a flounder to prevent them from freezing.

How about ice cream and cookies made with soybeans injected with a
petunia gene? In our technology-driven world, GM stands for
genetically modified food and, to no one's amazement, it has
aroused emotions and controversy the world over.

Paradoxically, discoveries and breakthroughs of biotechnology seem
acceptable and welcome when they are applied to the development of
new drugs and better diagnostic techniques. Our longevity-crazed
world thinks nothing of ingesting diet pills, hormones such as
melatonin and DHEA, or Viagra and gingkoa. Nor does anyone seem to
object to organ transplants, skin grafts, hair transplants and
gene therapy for cancer.

The transformation of food is another matter. For some obscure
reason, food modification reeks of cloning, and portends danger.
In the words of Prince Charles, one of the staunchest adversaries
of genetically modified crops, "genetic modification takes man
into the realm of God and God alone," a path that will only lead
to Frankenfoods. Arguing just as forcefully are the proponents of
genetic modification who believe that food biotechnology can
improve nutrition, reduce the use of pesticides and actually cut
the cost of food and food distribution. They maintain that genetic
modification is safe for people and for the environment.

Scientific evidence falls somewhere in between.

Not surprisingly, the debate over genetic modification has
sharpened trade disputes between the United States and the
European Union. The U.S. is not the only convert to GM: Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Chile and Mexico practise genetic modification
on a large scale. Nevertheless, Europe has targeted the U.S. as
the main culprit, and the recent banana war and bans on
hormone-fed beef should be viewed as a mild tussle compared with
the tempest brewing over genetically modified food. According to
Stuart Eizenstadt, the U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary, the battle
about genetically modified food could be the greatest single trade
threat the United States will face with the European Union in the
next round of trade negotiations, dubbed the Millennium Round.
Many observers believe it could make or break the round.

What constitutes genetic modification? Though there isn't complete
agreement over that very question, one can say that GM occurs when
a gene from one living creature is isolated and spliced into the
DNA of another plant or animal -- the flounder and the tomato, the
soybean and the petunia. Hybrids and cross-pollination are not new
occurrences, but the thrust of modern food biotechnology in mixing
genes from totally diverse species has unleashed intense fear
amongst consumers, especially European ones.

For decades many Europeans have resisted some of the more modern
intensive farming practices, and have supported a common
agricultural policy designed to protect smaller agricultural
endeavours. Likewise, food regulation has been implemented largely
at the national and local levels, and the European Union members
have been reluctant to move toward an overarching regulatory
authority. Regulating genetic modification would require a
complete revamping of these policies and an international
agreement on food standards, or at least on agricultural
practices. A Europe-wide FDA (Food and Drug Administration) would
probably be required.

Besides these "turf" issues, there are real concerns about the
safety of the 50-plus genetically modified products now available.
Europe has a bad track record of dealing with "regular" food
scares. From deaths resulting from vacherin cheese to hysteria
about "mad cow disease" -- caused by feeding bovines the offal of
other animals, primarily sheep -- Europe has had more than its
share of food safety problems. A more recent food scare in Belgium
occurred because of cancer-causing dioxin found in poultry, pork
and beef. Europeans now argue that the unnatural practice of
genetically changing food would extend a health menace to almost
every category of agricultural produce. Besides, Europeans have
always touted themselves as having tastier, better-quality food,
and the thought of an invasion of genetically altered American
products in their markets is just unthinkable. The issue is
cultural as well as political, and thus far, American trade
negotiators have not displayed much sensitivity to this aspect of
the problem.

Add to this concerns about the environment, and fears that various
insects will develop an immunity to pesticides in general. Loss of
biodiversity is another fear, while some worry that genetically
modified crops will cross-pollinate or hybridize with other crops
and weeds, and transfer their altered properties. Super-weeds are
no one's idea of progress. Nor is the world prepared to abandon
the demand for organic, or more natural produce. The idea that
almost 100% of U.S. agricultural products could become genetically
modified is not particularly appealing. Nor is the thought that
bulk grain-handling could preclude the separation of non-modified
varieties from GM crops. Choice is a very precious commodity.

Hence the need for international agreements on agricultural trade
that will address these concerns. Negotiations on technical
standards and approval processes are an imperative. Likewise, an
agreement on labelling is highly desirable. Common scientific
research and exchange of information is to be encouraged to help
address scientific and emotional misgivings.

The problem at the moment is that both the U.S. and the EU are so
stubbornly entrenched in their respective positions that they are
putting broader trade negotiations at risk. That is an ominous
thought, and therein may lie the greatest danger of genetic
modification.