The Benefits and Politics of Biotechnology
(Senate - January 26, 2000)
[Congressional Record: January 26, 2000 (Senate)]
Mr. BOND: Madam President, as we move into this next century, we face a great opportunity and great challenge. We need only to look backward to help contemplate the immense change and innovation that is in front of us. While positive change is to the long-term benefit of all, it typically results in short-term difficulties, anxiety, and fear for some. How we cope with those difficulties defines our vision and tests our courage. In the last century we saw the industrial age and the computer age. We experienced fits of fear regarding everything from aviation, penicillin, industrialization, computerization and most recently, the non-calamity, fortunately, known as Y2K.
Remarkably, plant technology in this half-century has helped make it possible for the U.S. farmer, who in 1940 fed 19 people, to feed 129 today.
Meanwhile, worldwide population grows and farmland shrinks. Policymakers, farmers, doctors, business leaders, scientists, and others look ahead and search for critical tools to meet the increasing demands of a growing and changing world.
Nobel prizewinning chemist Robert F. Curl of Rice University said that 'it is clear that the 21st will be the century of biology.'
Scientists, medical doctors, Government officials, farmers, and others have testified before the Congress and elsewhere to the benefits of this new generation of technology, which may offer the sustainable production of safer and more abundant food sources, new vaccines and medicines, as well as biodegradable plastics and cleaner energy alternatives.
Senator Mack hosted a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee in September entitled 'Putting a Human Face on Biotechnology' where Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong testified about his personal experience using biotechnology and will to overcome cancer. Senators Lugar and Harkin held 2 days of hearings in October with a diverse number of distinguished witnesses to discuss the science and regulation of biotechnology.
Bipartisan members including Senators Kerry, Durbin, Hagel, Craig, Frist, Conrad, Lugar, Gorton, Grassley, Ashcroft, Robb, Burns, Grams, Gordon Smith, Baucus, Helms, Hutchison, Roberts, Bayh, Brownback, Crapo, and Coverdell have joined me in expressing to the President our bipartisan commitment to biotechnology.
We urge the administration and the State Department to be firm in their negotiations in Montreal, to say that the phyto sanitary agreements are adequate in all we need to regulate biotechnology.
As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee which funds public research activities at the National Science Foundation, I have worked with my partner, Senator Mikulski, to win congressional approval of $150 million in the last 3 years for the Plant Genome Initiative at the National Science Foundation to study the structure, organization, and function of genomes of significant plants important to improving human health and the environment.
Recently, I received a letter signed by over 500 scientists revealing the exceptionally strong scientific consensus endorsing biotechnology. These are public- and private-sector scientists, the majority of whom are from academic institutions representing nearly every State, a number of foreign countries, the National Academy of Sciences, private foundations, Federal research agencies, and our National Labs. Here is some of what they told me about biotechnology:
The ultimate beneficiaries of technological innovation have always been consumers, both in the United States and abroad. In developing countries, biotechnological advances will provide means to overcome vitamin deficiencies, to supply vaccines for killer diseases like cholera and malaria, to increase production and protect fragile natural resources, and to grow crops under normally unfavorable conditions.
We recognize that no technology is without risks. At the same time, we have confidence in the current U.S. regulatory system provided by the USDA, EPA, and FDA. The U.S. system has worked well and continues to evolve as scientific advancements are achieved.
They strongly endorse the U.S. regulatory multiagency approval system, which they say works well.
The American Medical Association is supportive also. In policy H-480.985, `Biotechnology and the American Agricultural Industry' they say the following:
It is the policy of the AMA to (1) endorse or implement programs that will convince the public and government officials that genetic manipulation is not inherently hazardous and that the health and economic benefits of recombinant DNA technology greatly exceed any risk posed to society; (2) where necessary, urge Congress and federal regulatory agencies to develop appropriate guidelines which will not impede the progress of agricultural biotechnology, yet will ensure that adequate safety precautions are enforced; (3) encourage and assist state medical societies to coordinate programs which will educate physicians in recombinant DNA technology as it applies to public health, such that the physician may respond to patient query and concern; (4) encourage physicians, through their state medical societies, to be public spokespersons for those agricultural biotechnologies that will benefit public health; and (5) actively participate in the development of national programs to educate the public about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology.
Remarkably, however, we find ourselves at a crossroads as a strange mixture of forces endeavor not to ensure that biotechnology is safe--which is and should be our collective purpose--but to discredit and eliminate biotechnology. Opposition has been motivated variously by protectionist sentiment, by political intimidation, by competing business, and by scientifically unsubstantiated fear of technology. Activists and protectionists in Europe have conspired with a level of success that is stunning. Their goal is to stroke fear and use intimidation to frustrate and undermine biotechnology.
Just this week, it was reported by the Detroit News that:
A visiting Michigan State University associate professor whose office was the target of a fire set by radical environmentalists on New Year's Eve said Sunday that she heads a project aimed at increasing food production and making food more nutritious.
The purpose of her work was to ensure that we use agricultural knowledge and tools to address those problems.
Catherine Ives, director of the Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity, which is based at Michigan State University, said, `The whole point of the project is to make land more productive so we don't have to damage the environment.' The paper reported, `The goal of the project is to develop long-term solutions for food security in the developing world, where undernourishment is an epidemic.' `We know that there are 840 million people in the world who don't have enough to eat,' Ives said. `The use of agricultural knowledge and tools will help in addressing that problem.'
Dr. Martina McGloughlin, Director of Biotechnology at the University of California at Davis, in a November 1, 1999, column in the Los Angeles Times reinforced the dilemma of population growth coupled with the finite quantity of arable land:
Dr. McGloughlin continued:
The most cost-effective and environmentally sound general method for controlling pests and disease is the use of DNA.
This approach has led to a reduction in the use of sprayed chemical insecticides. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2 million fewer pounds of insecticide were used in 1998 to control bollworm than were used in 1995, before `Bt' cotton was introduced. And the Bt gene--introduced into the crop plant, not sprayed into the atmosphere--is present in minute amounts and spares beneficial insects.
It should be mentioned that her students at Cal Davis were also victimized by law-breakers who vandalized their research testing plots. Clearly, if the radicals were as interested in understanding as they are in intimidation, eliminating research is the last thing they would consider.
In an Op-Ed in the New York Times entitled 'Who's Afraid of Genetic Engineering?' former President Jimmy Carter outlined the sad irony. He said:
If imports . . . are regulated unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing nations. Instead of reaping the benefits of decades of discovery and research, people from Africa and Southeast Asia will remain prisoners of outdated technology. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial that they reject the propaganda of extremists groups before it is too late.
Renowned scientists have dedicated their lives to understanding biotechnology and using it to the benefit of mankind to solve problems of hunger, disease and environmental degradation.
These problems are considerable now, but will grow in magnitudes in the years ahead. In the tabloid press, however, a teenager dressed up as a corn cob will get as much attention and is attributed the same credibility as leading scientists, whose work is subjected to rigorous peer review.
We need to be clear about several issues. First, our Government and its citizens are second to none in our collective commitment to food safety. We have a rigorous multi-agency approval process that has stood the test of time since 1938. It is based not on politics but on scientific consensus. It is supported by bipartisan Members of each body who have the strongest commitment to food safety and environmental protection. None of us are advocates for unfettered technology. As with any technology, there are limits that will be and must be subjected to law, not to mention common sense.
Second, we need to realize that there are strong elements in the European Union who are more than happy to exploit fears--fears that they helped create--to provide short-term protection to their farmers from imports. In a sentence, fear and hysteria, without scientific basis, is being used by some to limit the productivity of foreign farmers--period. Meanwhile, opportunistic food companies such as ADM and Novartis are knowingly undermining our scientists and trade negotiators to placate the Luddites and protectionists.
Finally, let me emphasize this critical point. The issue of risk is not one-dimensional. Yes, we must understand and evaluate the relative risk to a Monarch Butterfly larvae. Additional research has answered already many of those questions. But there is another risk. That risk is that naysayers and the protectionists succeed in their goals to kill biotechnology and condemn the world's children to unnecessary blindness, malnutrition, sickness and environmental degradation.
Dr. C.S. Prakash directs the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala, said the following in a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Anti-technology activists accuse corporations of `playing God' by genetically improving crops, but it is these so-called environmentalists who are really playing God, not with genes but with the lives of poor and hungry people.
Dr. Prakash just released a petition signed by more than 600 scientists declaring support of agricultural biotechnology. In his press release he noted, `We in the scientific community felt it necessary to counteract the baseless attacks so often being made on biotechnology and genetically modified foods. Biotechnology is a potent and valuable tool that can help make foods more productive and nutritious. And, contrary to anti-biotech activists, they can even advance environmental goals such as biodiversity.'
Not content to live with their own brand of ludditism, European activists have shifted the battleground and they are now looking to export--not answers or solutions or constructive proposals--but fear, hysteria and unworkable restrictions to Asia, South America and even the United States. Many have stayed out of this debate thinking the controversy will blow over as it does with most regulated technologies. Many, particularly those who understand the science of the issue, had been silent, thinking, possibly that people would understand and that the technology would sell itself.
I have said from the beginning that we could not take it for granted that people would embrace the technology because it is complex. I have said from the beginning that American consumers would want information. Consumers who know the facts--who know the benefits this technology will provide--will endorse it. American consumers demand food safety, but they also embrace technology and progress. They are not satisfied to say what we are doing is good enough. And finally, they want to base their decisions on science not fiction and it is the open discussion of facts that the vandals, the protectionists, and the luddites fear the most.
President Clinton outlined what is at stake last week in proclaiming January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month:
The impact of biotechnology is far-reaching. Bio-remediation technologies are cleaning our environment by removing toxic substances from contaminated soils and ground water. Agricultural biotechnology reduces our dependence on pesticides. Manufacturing processes based on biotechnology make it possible to produce paper and chemicals with less energy, less pollution, and less waste. Forensic technologies based on our growing knowledge of DNA help us exonerate the innocent and bring criminals to justice.
A question is whether we want to continue with a fixed number of agricultural uses or if we want to expand them to provide farmers and consumers new options and new opportunities. A question for some is whether we want to be more pro-environment and pro-health and nutrition than we are anti-corporate.
Like many of my colleagues here in the Senate, I have consulted scores of scientists in the academic world, in the public sector and in the private sector. I have consulted medical professionals, and farmers for their practical experience regarding biotechnology. But let me finish by reading you a quote from a December 25, 1999, interview in 'New Scientist' and you consider for yourself who might be the source:
The source is not a corporate leader, a Senator, or a university scientist. It is an ecologist with a Ph.D.
That ecologist is Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace and a veteran of the frontline against everything from whaling to nuclear waste since the 1970s.
The scientific consensus amongst government and academic scientists in the U.S. is extraordinary. The scientific community in Europe, some of whom I have met with agree, but have been intimidated and silenced. Please give the scientific and medical communities the opportunity to speak to these complex issues before you are swayed by the tabloids in Europe, those who may have their head burried in the flat earth, and the vandals and extremists who have been condemned even by some of their very own.
We have a system in the U.S. to identify and evaluate relative risk, and, if necessary, mitigate those risks. The focus of international leaders should be on working constructively to identify and evaluate relative risk so that our people may have safely the options of biotechnology available to them. The development of this technology is not recreational. It is to solve real world problems and the possibilities are truly breathtaking. There is too much at stake for those who know better to remain passive.
In 1921, Missouri's renowned plant scientist, George Washington Carver said: `I wanted to know the name of every stone and flower and insect and bird and beast. I wanted to know where it got its color, where it got its life--but there was no one to tell me.' He added that: `No individual has any right to come into the world and go out of it without leaving behind him distinct and legitimate reasons for having passed through it.' This issue will be a test of our collective vision, discipline, and courage.
Madam President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record materials from President Clinton, President Carter, Drs. Prakash and McGlaughlin, New Scientist, and the 500 scientists' letter.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
National Biotechnology Month, 2000
of Genetic Engineering?
Foes of Biotechnology Ignore Global Hunger
Without Biotechnology, We'll Starve: Genetic Engineering
Scientists Petition in Favor of Biotechnology