This article was published in the Comment section of The Financial Times
on May 18, 2004 with the headline: “America’s hypocrisy over modified
produce”.
(It is in UK spelling format.)
Tomorrow, the European Commission plans to end a de facto moratorium on
the approval of new genetically modified foods that has endured for six
years. One significant motivation for this action is concern about the
lawsuit the US has filed at the World Trade Organization against the
European Union’s restrictions on these products. However, despite this
major attempt at appeasement, the Bush Administration has indicated it
intends to vigorously press ahead with its suit. Such persistence has
surprised many Europeans.
But what should be even more surprising is the degree to which this suit
is cloaked in hypocrisy and driven by deception. It’s based on the
pretence that the precautionary principle – which prescribes the course of
caution when the evidence is inconclusive – cannot be legitimately applied
to GM food and that the US is free to resist it. In reality, US law
mandates a much stricter application of the principle than does EU law;
and the Bush administration is trying to quash EU regulations that are
looser than those it is legally required to implement itself – but has
assiduously avoided.
The US requirement to uphold the precautionary principle is neither new
nor nuanced. It’s unambiguous and has been on the books since 1958, when
Congress enacted an amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requiring
that any new additive to food be presumed unsafe until its safety has been
demonstrated through scientific procedures. An official Senate report
described its firm intent: “While Congress did not want to unnecessarily
stifle technological advances, it nevertheless intended that additives
created through new technologies be proven safe before they go to market.”
Although the term “precautionary principle” had not yet been coined, this
statute clearly instituted a precautionary approach. In fact, US law
mandates the strictest degree of precaution found in any food laws and
demands demonstration of “a reasonable certainty” of no harm.
The US statute clearly places the burden of proof on the manufacturer and
requires that foods containing new additives be presumed unsafe until
proven safe. But in the case of GM foods, the US has turned the law on its
head and insists they must be presumed safe until proven not to be.
Therefore, astounding as it seems, for years the US has been bullying the
EU to abandon a principle that forms the cornerstone of its own food
safety law – and the Europeans do not even seem to be aware of how
illegitimate and ludicrous the American position is. Nor, it appears, does
Mr. Bush. Based on statements by government officials, the New York Times
reported last year: “The Bush Administration believes the precautionary
principle is an unjustified constraint on business and does not even
recognize the existence of the doctrine.”
The White House’s ignorance has been abetted by officials at the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), who themselves know the law but are apparently
intent on keeping others confused about it – presumably in furtherance of
their admitted agenda “to foster” biotechnology. They have also
endeavoured to cover up the warnings of their own scientific experts about
the unique risks of GM foods. This was revealed when my organization
brought a lawsuit against the FDA that forced it to divulge its files,
which clearly show FDA’s scientists repeatedly cautioned that genetic
engineering could disrupt the organism in unpredictable ways and induce
production of unintended harmful substances that are difficult to detect.
The pervasiveness of concern within the FDA’s scientific staff is attested
by an internal memorandum in which an official reported: "The processes of
genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according
to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."
Because of the potential
for unexpected harmful effects, the FDA experts stated that every GM food
should undergo rigorous testing to screen for them. Further, FDA’s
Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged there is not a consensus about
safety among experts outside the FDA either.
Moreover, although US law mandates that foods containing new additives
(such as GM foods) be proven safe, FDA files confirm that such evidence is
sorely lacking; and eminent experts have issued declarations that no GM
food has been demonstrated safe.
By emphasizing these facts, the EU could highlight the US’s hypocrisy and
blunt the force of its lawsuit. Rather than withering under the US demand
for proof that GM foods are harmful, EU officials should turn the tables
and demand that the US honour its own laws by proving they are safe.
Steven M. Druker is a US
public interest attorney who directs the Alliance for Bio-Integrity.
Photocopies of 24 key FDA documents are at www.biointegrity.org along with
fuller explanations of US law.