Biotech Sanity in California

We are pleased when we are able to post the insights of Dr. Henry Miller, physician, molecular biologist, and fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of "The Frankenfood Myth." Dr. Miller headed the FDA's office of biotechnology from 1989 to 1993.   In this post, Dr. Miller describes recent proposed legislative action in California that would give genetically enhanced plant products and technologies a level playing field upon which to articulate their virtues. 

Dr. Miller's complete editorial follows.

Anatole France famously said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." That aphorism applies to politicians and voters who have, over the last few years, introduced and passed local ordinances in four California counties to ban the cultivation of plants improved with state-of-the-art genetic techniques. These actions in Trinity, Mendocino, Marin, and Santa Cruz counties represent democracy at its worst.

To begin with, the measures are unscientific and logically inconsistent, in that their restrictions are inversely related to risk:  They permit the use of microorganisms and plants that are crafted with less precise and predictable techniques but ban those made with more precise and predictable ones.

Further, vast numbers of gene-spliced and other bacteria are released routinely from ordinary, low-contaminant microbiology laboratories, such as those at UC Santa Cruz, without any harmful effects. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that for each technician in such labs, 50 million to one billion bacteria on average escape daily on lab coats, in hair, or just blowing out the door.

But there is a far more fundamental issue at stake:  The freedom of individuals and companies to pursue lawful activities unencumbered. All citizens should be concerned about the implications of subjecting safe, legitimate commercial products, in this case plants crafted with a proven, superior technology to surveillance, confiscation and destruction by local officials.

Fortunately, California legislators have introduced a bill, SB 1056, that would preempt local regulation of seeds and nursery stocks. It would ensure consistency of regulation throughout the state and obviate the need for farmers to navigate a county-by-county patchwork of restrictions and requirements. The bill has the support of virtually all major agricultural organizations, including the California Farm Bureau, Western United Dairymen, Western Growers Assn., the Wine Institute and more.

Outlawing the cultivation of insect-resistant crops developed with the assistance of modern biotechnology ensures the increased use of chemical persticides, the persistence of these chemicals in ground and surface water, and it will result in increased occupational exposures.

Most important, the county prohibitions block sophisticated genetic approaches to the eradication of blights that threaten a variety of crops and ornamental plants in California. Biotechnology's potential is not just theoretical. By inserting a single gene into squash and other crops, scientists have made them virus-resistant. Gene-spliced papaya varieties have resurrected Hawaii's $64 million-a-year industry, which was moribund a decade ago because of the predations of ringspot virus. And because gene splicing has enhanced the resistance of plants to pests and disease, we have been spared the use of millions of pounds of chemical pesticides.

The future holds out even greater hope. The technology makes it possible to remove dangerous allergens from wheat, peanuts, milk, and other commonly allergenic foods. Gene splicing will allow crop varieties to thrive in conditions of drought or near-drought.

For years, activists have relentlessly promoted the Big Lie about gene splicing; namely, that it is unproven, unwanted, untested, and unregulated. After more than 20 years, none of the hypothetical concerns about safety has been substantiated. Crops using gene-splicing techniques are grown by 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries annually. California farmers plant almost a million acres of gene-spliced crops annually. Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods that contain gene-spliced ingredients.

There is not a single documented case of injury to a person or disruption of an ecosystem. There is a broad consensus among scientists that gene-splicing techniques are essentially an extension, or refinement, of earlier ones, and that gene transfer or modification by molecular techniques does not, per se, confer risk.

Letting ideology and misguided activism trample science and common sense is antithetical to sound public policy. That's why we need SB 1056.