Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
that GM regulations were the product of intense lobbying by
Monsanto and a revolving-door system where the regulators
are former and/or future employees of the company being reg-
ulated (note that some argue Monsanto wanted excess regula-
tions to keep out competitors, but that is not Robin's story). It
is not hard to imagine a company rewarding lenient regula-
tors with a nice job, and food activists have websites listing
powerful government officials and their relation to Monsanto
and other corporations. If this sounds like a conspiracy theory
(a term not meant as a euphemism), it is.
Consider the 2001 PBS special
Harvest of Fear
, where a rep-
resentative of Greenpeace claims that the FDA scientists actu-
ally advised mandatory labels for GM foods, but that the FDA
administrators made a political decision not to. This argu-
ment appeared again on a 2013 episode of
Stossel
, where it was
clear that the pro-GM side used the credibility of scientific
organizations to bolster its case, while the anti-GM side told
a political-conspiracy story. With one side telling a scientific
story and the other side telling a story of political conspiracy,
it's little wonder that the GMO controversy has persevered
through decades of debate.
Lusk: All selection is playing around with genes....In
fact, . . . traditional plant breeding is involving many thou-
sands of genes, and we often don't know what's going
to happen. Modern biotechnology is picking one or two
genes . . . so it's actually much more precise than our tradi-
tional plant-breeding techniques.
Stossel: So that should make it safer. Jeffrey [Smith], what
about that?
Smith: Well, the FDA scientists were absolutely clear in the
memo made public from a lawsuit. They said that the
process of genetic engineering is different and leads to
new and different risks. Like new allerg[e]ns, toxins, and
new diseases. They repeatedly urged their superiors to
require [more] study, but the person in charge of policy at
