Click for next page ( 48


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 47
ll BIOTECHNOLOGY: FOOD SAFETY AND NEW ROLES FOR TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS

OCR for page 47

OCR for page 47
POTENTIAL FOOD SAFETY PROBLEMS RELATED TO NEW USES OF BIOTECHNOLOGY Jack Doyle In a recent edition of Business Weeks it was reported that a 35-year-old plant geneticist named Brent Tisserat, working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a basement laboratory in Pasadena, California, produced orange juice from test-tube cultures of orange cells. In this Pasadena laboratory, the juice-sac cells from oranges are surgically removed from mature fruit and placed in a tissue culture medium, where they remain alive for as long as ~ months, approaching the size of cells found in tree-ripened fruit. The juice that has been extracted from the orange cells in this cell-cul- ture system is "chemically similar to what is squeezed from tree-grown fruits (Flynn, 1986~. Tisserat has also succeeded in culturing juice-producing vesicles from lemons and citrons. In addition to these citrus cultures, there are also thousands of miniature spinach, carrot, ant! other crops being grown in test tubes in Tisserat's laboratory. Tisserat's tissue culture work has attracted the attention of the citrus industry and has been studied by Coca-Cola officials from the company's Minute Maid subsidiary. Allen V. Clark, manager of citrus research and development for Coca-Cola Company Foods, which markets Minute Maid orange juice, says he is awed by Tisserat's accomplishment. In the near term, culturing citrus-juice sacs in the laboratory could advance trait selection work in the nurseries and speed up varietal development. 49

OCR for page 47
Dan A. Kimball, director of research for California's Citrus Producers, Inc., says that the culturing of citrus juice sacs could help "standardize the entire citrus-juice industry." Others are more sanguine about the prospect of laboratory-produced juice, saying that it may take 15 to 25 years before it is commercially feasible on a large scale (Flynn, 1986~. Nevertheless, such work is moving forward, and others are culturing cocoa and cotton cells in the laboratory (Associated Press, 1985) and cloning all sorts of plants and tree crops for food, fiber, and oil. These develop- ments will change the way food is produced and, conceivably, the way food looks, tastes, and provides nutrients. BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE PRODUCTION COMMAND IN AGRICULTURE Biotechnology is revolutionary for agriculture and the food system, because it places control over food production In the genes. Food production, of course, has always been empowered by genes, but we haven't been able to see them, precisely select them, or move them across traditional species barriers. Now we can. And day by day we are learning which traits in crops and livestock are controlled by individual genes, how to turn those genes on and off, how to splice then, into the organisms, and how to amplify gene products. So first, we have an awesome new technology that operates at the genetic level of the food system--the most fundamental level of food characterization. This means that the production and quality commands in the food system begin with the genes and, most importantly, with those who hold the genes and wield the new genetic tech- nologies. Second, coupled with the new genetic technologies is the legal power to own genes. Those who have been following the legal developments in the biological realm over the last 6 years or so know that genes can now be patented, as can certain techniques used in genetic manipulation (U.S. Supreme Court, 1980~. This means that an inventor or commercial interest can have a property right in genetic material. In economic terms, that means having an 50

OCR for page 47
exclusive marketing right--a limited monopoly for 17 years or more--on genetic "inventions" and certain genetic techniques. Third, in the realm of food and agriculture, there are quite obviously a lot of genes. There are genes that control yield in corn, stalk strength in barley, protein levels in wheat, and the efficiency of photosynthesis in soybeans. In livestock, there are genes that have to do with fat content, lactation rates, feed-to-meat conversion rates, growth, and disease resistance. In fact, it is possible to imagine a classification system of sought-after traits, including, for example, agronomic traits such as those for higher yield or harvestability in crop production; food-orocessin~ traits such as those governing less water or more solids in certain fruits and vegetables; food Duality traits such as those controlling higher protein levels in crops or lower fat content in livestock; and traits pursued for their public health or nvironmental benefits such as genetic alterations to crops and livestock that would dispense with the need to use pesticides or antibiotics in the agricultural environment. But which traits will be pursued first? Can all traits be pursued simultaneously? And what does this mean for food quality and food safety? FOOD QUALITY AND FOOD SAFETY Biotechnology in agricultural production and food processing may affect tine quality and safety of food in several direct and indirect ways: (1) by displacing or altering the genes that control the nutritional consti- tuents of food crops and livestock; (2) by altering the genes that affect the levels of naturally occurring toxins in food crops, livestock, or fish; and (3) by extending certain agricultural production practices, such as the use of pesticides, that lead to chemical residues in food and water. Biotechnology and the Genes of Nutrition Today, there is much talk about the nutritional improvement of crops with the help c, biotechnology and . genetic engineering. 51

OCR for page 47
As stated by the Kellogg Company in 1981, "Through the advances afforded by genetic engineering, grains will become more widely accepted because of improvements in taste, texture, form, and total nutritional profile" (Kellogg Co., 1981, p. 2~. In a brochure entitled "Genetic Engineering: A Natural Science," the Monsanto Company lists "food plants with enhanced nutritional value" as one of the possible results of biotechnological research now under way (Monsanto Co., 1984, p. 11~. Writing in the November 1985 issue of Science 'S5, Monsanto executive Howard Schneiderman explained that certain tropical root crops, such as cassava and tare, could be genetically engineered for more protein and less cyanide (Schneiderman, 1985~. The Rockefeller Foundation, in its continuing commitment to the genetics of rice improvement, has made major research grants to develop through genetic engi- neering a variety of yellow rice that would produce carotene in the grain to help fight vitamin A deficiency in developing countries where diets consist primarily of rice (Rockefeller Foundation, 1985~. In the United States, several corporate and university laboratories are focusing on the genetics of nutrition. For example, Phy~cgen, a biotechnology subsidiary of J.G. Boswell Co., orate of the nation's largest farms, is attempting to 'increase the nutritional quality of the protein" in the russets Burbank potato with recombinant DNA techniques (Anderson, 1984, p. 6~. At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), researchers have been working to unearth the genetic mechanisms governing the seed storage protein in soybeans and other crops, which are deficient in some amino acids essential to human nutrition. Some nutritionists are opposed to genetic engineering for nutritional improvement, fearing that such tampering with the genes of nutrition might cause a great fluctu- ation in nutrient levels in commercial cultivars and create a kind of nutritional havoc within the national food system. In fact, some nutritionists would rather we be vigilant about nutritional erosion that might be taking 52

OCR for page 47
place in raw food crops due to genetic engineering for other purposes, e.g., to obtain certain food processing traits or to achieve higher crop yields. In fact, do we really know what is happening to the nutritional integrity of food crops that are being altered for these purposes? We know from experience in classical plant breeding that some tomato varieties bred for mechanical harvesting in California during the late 1960s suffered a 15% reduction in vitamin C content (Spiher, 1975~. In this case, the genes that were desirable t~or mechanical harvesting were inversely related to those needed for maintaining high vitamin C levels. Similarly, in Europe, the nutrient levels of some potato varieties have been altered because of farm production and food processing demands. In the United Kingdom, for example, the nutrient levels of some potato varieties are considerably tower than those stated in the U.K. Food Composition Tables--namely, 50% lower in riboflavin and niacin, 40% lower in potassium, and 20 to 30% lower in iron, copper, and zinc. On the other hand, thiamine and folic acid in some of these potato varieties were 2 to 3 times higher (Gormley et al., 1986~. So, the important questions here are: What will be improved? What does ~improve" mean? And who will make those decisions? INTEGRATING BACKWARD In a speech before the Industrial Biotechnology Association in October 1986 in San Francisco, Roger Salauist. Chief Executive Officer of the biotechnology of_ . . . . . ~ . . ~ _ _ company C:algene, asked his audience what names were brought to mind in association with agricultural biotechnology. "It's not necessarily the farmers," he said. "It's the Campbell Soup companies, the Kraft Food Company, the R.J. Reynolds Company" (Salquist, 1986, p. 2~. In his view, these are the interests that are investing in and will commercialize biotechnology in agriculture. According to Salquist, the major processing companies that used to buy their agricultural crops on the open commodity markets are going to stake out a proprietary 53

OCR for page 47
interest in those crops because they can command the genes in those crops for specific ends: Look at the major processors now; they all have their own breeding programs. In essence, they're not just going out and buying tomatoes on the market; they're creating their own tomatoes to have the specific traits they want to have for higher value. And, you're going to see that across the board--from brewing companies, to food companies, to tobacco companies. They're engineering products and integrating backwards (Salquist, 1986, p. 5~. Indeed, the Congressional Office of Technology Assess- ment is inclined to agree with Salquist on this last point, noting in its March 1986 report-"Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agricul- ture" that contracting and vertical integration in agriculture and food production are likely to increase with advances in biotechnology because of the control it offers over the genetic elements of production (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1985~. BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY Food processing companies have been among some of the earliest and, recently, most aggressive investors in biotechnology: In March 1982, the Campbell Soup Company began a contractual relationship with DNA Plant Technology Corporation to conduct research to determine the genetic basis for improving the solids content of tomatoes (Morris, 1982~. Heinz followed suit in December of that year in a research contract with the Atlantic Richfield Company's Plant Cell Research Institute. Every 1% increase in the solids content of tomatoes is worth about $80 million annually in processing savings (L. William Teweles & Co., 1983~. In June 1982, the Kellogg Company invested $10 million in Agrigenetics, an agricultural biotechnology company now owned by Lubrizol. At the time of Kellogg's investment in Agrigenetics, Kellogg chairman William 54

OCR for page 47
LaMothe said that it give his company access to "a field becoming increasingly important to Kellogg's long-term future" (Anonymous, 1982, p. S). Kellogg and Agri- genetics also agreed to conduct joint research on ways to increase the protein content of cereal grains, to arrest mold resistance in corn, and to develop new corn lines capable of producing higher yields of cornstarch. American Home Products is trying to develop a popcorn that is edible without salt and butter by genetically altering corn plants to produce a more flavorful kernel (Lewis, 1986~. General Foods has contracted with investigators to seek a low-caffeine coffee bean to reduce its decaffeination costs (Lewis, 1986~. Hershey Foods is seeking new varieties of cocoa trees that will produce a bean with lower levels of - the naturally occurring bitter flavors that must now be masked during processing (Lewis, 1986~. Nestle~is attempting to develop a genetic engineering system for soybeans in conjunction with Calgene, Inc., a California biotechnology company (Caigene, Inc., 1986~. Kraft, Inc., is producing and marketing a new line of carrot and celery vegetable snacks with the tradename VegiSnax. These vegetable products are developed in a tissue culture process known as soma- clonal variation, in which natural genetic variation produces mutants that can be selected for particular characteristics. VegiSnax have already been test- marketed as 100% natural, ready-to-eat, low-calorie vegetable sticks, said to be crisper, crunchier, and sweeter than those available in existing varieties. They will be sold in snack-size packages and priced to compete with products such as potato chips. Vegi- Snax also have one other important feature: added shelf life. They will retain their genetically selected crispness and crunch for up to 2 weel~s (DNA Plant Technology Corp., 1985~. s going on in the food processing While all this work is O ~ industry, who is watching out for inadvertent changes in the nutritional integrity of food crops or livestock? 55

OCR for page 47
NATURALLY OCCURRING TOXICANTS A second food safety issue involving the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering in food crops concerns naturally occurring toxins. Through bioengi- neering techniques, it may be possible to inadvertently turn on or magnify the background levels of certain naturally occurring toxins found in many food crops. Alternatively, it might also be possible, through the introduction or addition of genes from other plant species, to inadvertently introduce new toxins into agricultural crops. In 1967, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a new potato variety named Lenape, which the agency believed to be potentially valuable for making potato chips. In fact, its formal press release on the variety carried the following headline: "A New Potato Unusually High in Solids and Chipping Qualities." In the USDA announcement, the Wise Potato Chip Company of Pennsylvania was singled out by name for helping in evaluating and testing the Lenape. Within the next year or so, the variety was being planted for seed potatoes in the United States and Canada. But in 1969, two Canadians discovered quite by accident (one of them got sick after eating some Lenapes) that this particular variety had very high levels of glycoalkaloids--naturally occurring substances found in potatoes, eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes that at high concentrations can cause severe illness (Zitnak and Johnston, 1970~. In a few instances in Europe, high glycoalkaloid concentrations in potatoes have been associated with intestinal disorders and even death of humans and livestock (Doyle, 1985a). After a round of controversy and some resistance to pulling the variety off the market, the USDA and the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station issued a joint statement in February 1970 withdrawing the Lenape from further agricultural use. In its announcement, USDA noted that the Lenape was found to contain approximately twice the level of glycoalkaloids carried by commercial varieties of potatoes. "This variety is no longer recom- mended for planting," said the announcement, "and no basic seed stocks will be released in the future." In addition, USDA warned that "Lenape variety potatoes are not suited for boiling or baking." The consumption of whole Lenape 56

OCR for page 47
potatoes prepared this way, explained USDA, "might pro- duce discomfort or even illness." It was this possi- bility, said the agency in its announcement, that caused it to withdraw the variety (USDA, 1970, p. 1). Today, of course, we know that there are innumerable other examples of naturally occurring toxins in agri- cultural food crops, some of which are known carcinogens or mutagens. Rhubarb, spinach, cottonseed, black pepper, beets, celery, figs, parsley, parsnips, fava beans, and mustard seed are but a few of the crops that harbor some identified naturally occurring toxins of one kind or another (Ames, 198 3~. Although little is known about naturally occurring toxins in plants, most of the identified compounds are believed to be harmless at low levels, but could be a problem if elevated to higher levels, especially in raw food crops. As the Lenape potato incident makes plain, even with classical genetics we have been able to increase the levels of some naturally occurring toxins inadvertently. Now, with the faster pace of biotechnology and gene splicing and the ability to cross species barriers and move exotic germplasm and genes into commercial cultivars, we might find ourselves changing toxin levels, introducing totally new ones, or creating a secondary situation that invites the creation of a toxin. Bruce Ames, chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, noted that plant breeders have developed a new strain of "landless cotton with low levels of gossypol, a naturally occurring toxin in cottonseed. Gossypol is a suspected carcinogen and is reported to cause abnormal sperm and male sterility in rats and humans. However, seeds from the low-gossypol cotton variety are more susceptible to attack by the fungus that produces the potent carcinogen aflatoxin (Ames, 1983~. Similarly, plant breeders are now moving genes from a species of poisonous lettuce (Lactuca v~rosa) to com- mercial varieties of lettuce to increase insect resis- tance. The poisonous lettuce variety contains substances shown to be mutagenic (Ames, 1983~. 57

OCR for page 47
For naturally occurring compounds which are known to be a problem, analytical data should be obtained prior to the release of any new cultivar known to be a source of these products. For those toxicants which represent a problem or limitation to the use of current cultivars, plant breeders should be encouraged to explore their reduction through genetic means (p. 10~. Earlier in the report, the Task Force explained: There Is an urgent need for expert groups competent in nutrition and in toxicology to develop guidelines which will indicate to Plant breeders those changes In chemical composition of plants used for food or feed which are desirable, undesirable or of no Practical significance. These guidelines will need to be developed for each of the major food and feed crops since the relative biological significance of chemical changes will vary from one to another. For some nutrients, and many potentially toxic substances, there is insufficient information available to establish reliable goals or limits and analytical methods are often inadequate for their implementation (p. 5~. Unfortunately, the situation hasn't changed much in any of these data or analytical areas since this report was filed. But with biotechnology now upon us, the research called for by the 1973 Task Force is even more Agent than it was 14 years ago. Accordingly, I would urge the Academy to revisit this issue very soon, and consider launching a major review in this area. BIOTECHNOLOGY CONSUMERS AND THE FOOD QUALITY MOVEMENT How will consumers react to the changes in agriculture and food processing that will soon arrive with biotech- nology? It is clear that in the last 6 years or so, there has been growing consumer concern over food safety and increasing interest in food quality. In a January 1984 consumer survey conducted by the Food Marketing Institute 77% of those polled expressed concern over pesticide and 64

OCR for page 47
herbicide residues in food, indicating the problem to be a "serious hazard" (Hammonds, 1985~. Such concerns over food safety have also begun to penetrate the business community. On November 7, 1986, in the Wall Street Journal, for example, it was reported that the H.~. Heinz Company was planning to restrict the purchase of crops used in the manufacture of baby foods that had been treated with certain pesticides. Heinz listed 12 chemicals: ala- chlor, aldicarb, captan, captafol, carbofuran, carbon tetrachloride, cyanazine, daminozide, dinocap, ethylene oxide, linuron, and triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH). Heinz told farmers that it would probably test crops for the absence of these chemicals--all of which are still legal but under review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as possible health hazards (Meter, 1986~. On July 17, 1986, Safeway Stores, Inc., the nation's largest grocery chain, announced that it would stop buying apples treated with the chemical growth regulator Alar, despite EPA's decision in January to allow its use while further studies are done. In addition, the State of Maine proposed a nondetectable standard for daminozide, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has enacted regulation to reduce Alar in baby foods and heat-processed foods to a nondetectable level by 1988 (Anonymous, 1986~. In May 1986, United Farmworkers leader Cesar Chavez sent out a mass mailing appeal to Americans nationwide, announcing a new grape boycott aimed at eliminating five pesticides that endanger the health of farmworkers. In his appeal, Chavez asked consumers not to buy fresh California table grapes until growers agree to ban the five most dangerous pesticides used in grape production-- captan, dinoseb, parathion, phosbrin, and methyl bromide (Chavez, 1986~. Also in May 1986, the Center for Science in the Public Interest began a national campaign called "Americans for Safe Food." Included was a five-point plan of action urging consumers to: organize a grassroots movement of citizens who are concerned about the safety of the food supply; 65

OCR for page 47
encourage widespread availability of contaminant- free foods; fight for laws that require disclosure of pesti- cides, drugs, and other chemicals used in the produc- tion of foods; demand a ban on pesticides and animal drugs known to pose a serious risk to consumers, and press for national standards for "organic," "natural," and "pesticide-free" foods (Center for Science in the Public Interest, 1986~. In Europe, meanwhile, there is also a growing concern over food safety, as expressed in the recent ban on animal growth hormones (Dixon. 19861. In addition to the actions being taken on pesticides, increasing scientific attention has been focused on the association between diet and cancer and between diet and heart disease. In June 1982, the National Academy of Science released the report Diet. Nutrition. and Cancer, which emphasized the importance of eating fruits and vegetables high in vitamins C and A and noted that vegetables in the cabbage family contain natural cancer-inhibiting substances (NRC, 1982~. In February 1984, the American Cancer Society launched a national campaign for an anticancer diet, complete with dietary guidelines suggesting a reduction of total fat intake and an increase in the consumption of whole-grain cereals, fruits, and vegetables (Russell, 1984~. In May 1984, the American Heart Association offered its dietary plan to help Americans lower their blood fat levels, including recommendations for eating less red meat and more fruits and vegetables (Brody, 1984~. The national concern about diet, food safety, and food quality has not been lost on the new biotechnology com- panies. One such company is DNA Plant Technology Corporation of New Jersey, which offered the following statement in a March 1986 public offering prospectus distributed on Wall Street: The Company believes that changing lifestyles and a growing consciousness of the importance 66

OCR for page 47
of proper nutrition for overall health and fitness are changing eating habits in the United States and other developed countries. As people have become increasingly aware of the risks associated with too much cholesterol, sodium, fat, and calories in the diet, demand for 100% natural, healthful foods has increased. At the same time, the Company believes that changes in the work environment and family patterns have accelerated the public's need for convenience in eating (DNA Plant Technology Corp., 1986, p. 15~. Armed with this view of consumer needs, the company developed VegiSnax, a bioengineered snack food described earlier. Whatever the nutritional worth of this product may be, VegiSnax is also being billed as an example of how biotechnology might help food processors sell fruits and vegetables. "Once food processors can control the char- acterisitics of the fruits and vegetables they market," explains Adweek' "they can slap brands on them, as Kraft is doing with VegiSnax" (Shields, l9X5, p. 4~. In May 1986 at a meeting of stockholders, Richard Laster, president and CEO of DNA Plant Technology, said that he believes agricultural biotechnology creates an "opportunity to do to the aualitv . . . of the plant-based products we eat, what the first green revolution a few decades ago did to the quantity of food we have available" (Laster, 1986, p. 3~. We certainly hope that turns out to be the case. It is true, of course, that there is a lot of consumer and environmental agitation for safer food, as well as mounting scientific evidence and sentiment linking diet and cancer--all of which points to a growing trend toward quality and foot! safety. Yet these concerns and seeming clamor for a better food system with qualitatively improved practices and products do not automatically add up to carte Blanche for biotechnology in the food system. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE OR CONSUMER FEARS? Will the new products and farm production aids of agricultural biotechnology enlist consumer confidence, or will consumers be fearful of genetic products in the food and farm system? It's probably too early to answer this 67

OCR for page 47
question with any clear level of certainty, although some genetically manufactured additives, such as aspartame, are already in the food system. In at least one area--livestock hormones--we may see some consumer resistance. Given the increasing sensitivity of the general public to the use of hormones and antibiotics in food-producing farm animals, and the December 1985 ban in Europe of steroid hormones in animal husbandry, it is quite possible that consumers will object to, and resist, food products made from animals that have been given genetically engineered hormones. Four U.S. companies are proceeding with plans to market a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone in the U.S. dairy industry. Meanwhile, a coalition of consumer and dairy farmers in Wisconsin has threatened to conduct an international boycott of all dairy products made from cows treated with such hormones (Smith, 1986~. CONTROL IN THE FOOD SYSTEM Will biotechnology give consumers more or less control over the foods they eat, and will it give them more or less control over the way food is produced and processed? Again, the simple answer to this question is that biotech- nology will probably not give consumers more control over what they eat, and it will certainly not give them more control over the food system as a whole. One reason for this is that consumers will not have any tangible claim on the genes of food production or on the technologies of genetically based food production. Today, the genes of food production are articles of commerce and are eligible for patenting, as are the technologies--which are remote and inaccessible for the average person to begin with. Rather than giving consumers more control over food production, biotech- nology is thus more likely to give the food processing industry greater control over the field-to-table char- acteristics of food. A July 1986 prospectus for the Calgene Company, which was distributed on Wall Street and throughout the investment community, contains the following statements: The unit value of most crops that are grown for the food processing and related industries are 68

OCR for page 47
determined primarily by the crops' processing characterisitics, such as texture, flavor, color, protein and carbohydrate content, and shelf life. Food processors have traditionally purchased their plant raw materials, i.e., crops, in commodity markets, where all product is essentially undifferentiated [i.e., as to quality, performance, oil content, etch. Plant recombinant DNA technology, however, may provide an opportunity for food processors to gain a competitive advantage by allowing precise genetic modification. to develop proprietary crop varieties with enhanced processing characteristics, which can. then be patented and grown for their exclusive use (Calgene, Inc., 1986, p. 22~. In America today, roughly 32% of all farm sales are concluded under some form of contract or are vertically integrated by business. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, in its March 1986 study of agriculture and technology, made two very interesting points about the extent and expansion of contracting: (1) contracting. used to be limited to perishable products, but in.recent years has been extended to all commodities and (2) production contracting appears to be associated with commodities for which breeding and control of genetic factors play an important role in either productivity determination or quality control (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 19861. In the future, biotechnology may give food processors and shippers a greater power of specificity in contracting with, or buying from, farmers. And for those companies that supply farm inputs, gene-based products--whether in the form of seed, chemicals, or microorganisms--will certainly add a new dimension to their influence over agricultural productivity. HOW WILL BIOTECHNOLOGY BE APPLIED? With agricultural biotechnology, research scientists, biotechnology companies, and major food corporations will increasingly determine what is produced in the food system and how it is produced. These practitioners of biotech- nology will conduct their work almost exclusively . 69

OCR for page 47
from the confines of the laboratory and the far reaches of the gene. Given this powerful new technology--and the capitalization that will accompany commercially favored applications--some form of regulation and social accounta- bility will be absolutely critical in establishing con- sumer confidence as well as consumer protection. If it turns out that biotechnologists and food processors are only paying lip service to quality improvements, and are instead using biotechnology predominantly to save money in food processing or to increase their market share in the fruit and vegetable bin by way of biotech-made brands, consumers will have a reason to be wary of this technology and its side effects, just as they have been of other technologies that have come to the food industry in the past. At this frontier point in the use of genetic tech- nology in the food system, it would be important for a responsible industry to lend its support to government in evaluating the options that are possible for making the food system safer and qualitatively better in all respects, from field to table. Not the least important in this effort would be establishing a workable and reliable monitoring system and data base on nutritional constituents in our raw food resources as well as a good inventory of naturally occurring toxins. This would appear to be the minimum information base needed before all manner of interests go plunging headlong into a free-for-all genetic engineering of the food system. REFERENCES Alexander, M. 1985. Ecological consequences: Reducing the uncertainties. Issues Sci. Technol. 1:57-68. Ames, B.N. 1983. Dietary carcinogens and anticarcino gens. Science 221:1256- 1264. Anderson, D. 1984. Introduction to Phytogen. Phytogen, Pasadena, Calif. 7 pp. Anonymous. 1982. Kellogg buys stock in seed firm in Denver. Supermarket News, June 7, 1982, p. 8. Anonymous. 1986. Safeway won't buy apples treated with ripener Alar. Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1986, p. 31. Associated Press. 1985. Student grows cotton in tube. Journal of Commerce, November 5, 1985, p. 13B. Brody, J. 1984. Diet to prevent heart attacks aims to cut blood fat levels. New York Times, May 16, 1984, p. A16. 70

OCR for page 47
Calgene, Inc. 1986. Prospectus for Public Stock Offering, July 8, 1986. Underwriters: Hambrecht & Quist, Paine Webber, and Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood. Calgene, Inc., Davis, Calif. 59 pp. Center for Science in the Public Interest. 1986. Americans for Safe Food. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C. 4 pp. Chavez, C. 1986. Wrath of grapes campaign. Direct mail appeal, May 1986. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 1986a. Ciba-Geigy seeks approval to conduct small field test of genetically engineered plant. News Release, June IS, 1986. Agricultural Division, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, N.C. 4 pp. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 1986b. Summary of proposed field test of genetically engineered plants. Special Communication, June IS, 1986. Agricultural Division, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Greensboro, N.C. 2 pp. Cox, ~ 1982. A french-fry diary: From Idaho furrow to golden arches; for the potato that qualifies, McDonald's has a slicer, sprayer, drier - and ruler. Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1982, p. 1. Dixon, B. 1986. European steroid ban sparks contro- versy. Bio/Technol. 4:688. Doyle, I. 1985a. Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Gene- tics & the Fate of the WorId's Food Supply. Viking Penguin, New York. 512 pp. Doyle, I. 1985b. Biotechnology's harvest of herbicides. GeneWATCH 2:1-2, 14-20. Doyle, I. 1986. Biotechnology: More herbicides, but at least the crops won't be harmed. I. Pest.' Reform 6:26-3 1. DNA Plant Technology Corp. 1985. DNAP and Kraft Foods announce agreement to market new vegetable snack products. Press Release, July 19, 1985. Kekst & Co., New York. 2 pp. DNA Plant Technology Corp. 1986. Prospectus for Public Stock Offering, March 26, 1986. Underwriters: Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., and Kidder, Peabody & Co. DNA Plant Technology Corp., Cinnaminson, N.~. 32 pp. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1970. Food Additives: Eligibility of substances for classification as generally recognized as safe in food. Proposed rule. Fed. Regist. 35:18623-18624. 71

OCR for page 47
Flynn, J. 1986. Biotechnology: -Want some O.J.? It's fresh from the test tube. Bus. Week (2973~:160-162. Gabelman, W.H., J.C. Ayers, F. Haskins, H. Kramer, R.O. Nesheim, W.B. Robinson, N.S. Scrimshaw, and S.H. Wittwer. 1 ~ . . . 1973. Report of the Task Force on Genetic Alterations in Food and Feed Crops. Submitted to the Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources and the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. 16 pp. Gormley, T.R., G. Downey, and D. O'Beirne. 1986. Tech- nological Change in Agriculture and the Food Industry, and Public Policy in Relation to Food Production, Nutrition and Consumer Safety. Forecasting and Assess- ment in Science and Technology (FAST), Occasional Papers, No. 107, August 19S6. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. 327 pp. Hammonds, T. 1985. Public attitudes toward food safety. Agribusiness 1:33-43. Kellogg Co. 1981. Annual Report, 1981. Kellogg Com- pany, Battle Creek, Mich. 32 pp. L. William Teweles & Co. 1983. Improved tomatoes: Plant genetic engineering to bear fruit in the 1980s. News Release, December 7,19$3. L`. William Teweles & Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 4 pp. Laster, R. 1986. Remarks of Richard Laster, President and Chief Executive Officer, at DNA Plant Technology Corporation 1986 Annual Stockholders' Meeting, May 7, 1986. DNA Plant Technology Corp., Cinnaminson, N.J. 7 pp. Lewis, R. 1986. Building a better tomato. High Technol. 6:46-51, 53. Meter, B. 1986. Heinz to restrict the use in baby foods of crops treated with some chemicals. Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1986, p. 8. Monsanto Co. 1984. Genetic Engineering: -A Natural Science. Monsanto Company, St. Louis. 21 pp. Morris, B. 1982. Campbell Soup is looking for "super" tomato. Wall Street Journal, April 2, 1982, p. 25. NRC (National Research Council). 1982. Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer. Report of the Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, Assembly of Life Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 496 pp. Rockefeller Foundation. 1985. The President's Review and Annual Report. Rockefeller Foundation, New York. 145 pp. 72

OCR for page 47
Russell, C. 1984. Cancer society starts crusade on U.S. diet. Washington Post, February 11, 1984, p. Al. Satirist, R.H. 1986. The Future of Biotechnology in Agriculture. Presented at a press briefing sponsored by the Industrial Biotechnology Association (IBA), October 24, 1986, at the IBA Annual Meeting, Westin St. Francis Hotel, San Francisco, California. Industrial Biotech nology Association, Rockville, Md. 9 pp. Schmeck, H.M., Ir. 1986. Plants "vaccinated" against virus. New York Times, May 6, 1986, p. C1. Schneiderman, H.A. 1985. Altering the harvest: Biotech's cornucopia. Science 'S5 6:52, 54. Shields, M.J. 1985. "Designer" veg on cutting edge. Will "designer" vegetables find the market fertile? Adweek 26~40)National Marketing Edition: 1,4. Smith, K. 1986. Boycott: BGH milk. Agri-View, October 2, 1986, p. B-1. Spiher, A.T., Jr. 1975. The growing of GRAS (generally recognized as safe). HortScience 10:241-242. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1986. Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 380 pp. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1970. Notice to Growers of the Withdrawal of the Name of Potato Variety Lenape. Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. and The Agricultural Experiment Station of Pennsylvania, University Park, Pa. 2 pp. U.S. Supreme Court. 1980. Syllabus: Diamond, Commis- sioner of Patents and Trademarks, v. Chakrabarty, No. 79- 136. Argued March 17, 1980; decided June 16, 1980. 14 pp. Zitnak, A., and G.R. Johnston. 1970. Glycoalkaloid con- tent of B5141-6 potatoes. Am. Potato J. 47:256-260. 73

OCR for page 47