The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution

by Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko
Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, USA, 2004
269pp., illus. Trade, $39.95
ISBN: 0-275-97879-6.

Reviewed by Craig Hilton
Unitec, New Zealand,
Mt Albert, Auckland, New Zealand

HREF=mailto:chilton@unitec.ac.nz

They are absolutely right. Anyone who disagrees with them is responsible for grossly misleading the public with erroneous, misguided, outlandish arguments supported only by bad science from scientists who have a vested interest in discrediting any opposing idea.

Genetically-modified foods have stimulated a debate that sounds the same from all angles. It certainly does not represent a fluid discourse where compromise, conciliation, and comprehension are likely outcomes. Both sides are deeply entrenched in extreme opinions evident in the accompanying commentary that is primarily designed to manipulate rather than inform. This dysfunctional pattern is no less apparent in the responses to The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution. This recent publication by Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko has received many enthusiastic reviews. In similar fashion to the book itself, reviewers of the book unfortunately make no attempt to convince the unconverted; rather, they preach to the choir, joining Miller and Conko’s "crusade" as the CATO Institute’s Regulation magazine calls it. The Wall Street Journal congratulates the authors for showing how "foolish policies——premised on junk science . . . are choking off a wonder-technology". In The Washington Times; "anti-biotech zealots have caused tragic results", making "the world a poorer place" because "genetically modified foods are actually safer than their "natural" counterparts". In a similar tone, the Heartland Institute alleges that "people are starving because frightened, ignorant, self-centered people coined the word ‘Frankenfood.’" They urge the faithful to . . . "read the book, fight the power, and feed the people".

The strongly divisive language of the reviews only mirrors that used by the authors themselves. They accuse EU regulators and their "overfed, overcompensated chums at the UN" of "politically correct neo-colonialism" and deride the "near-superstitious hysteria" of anti-GM environmentalists calling them "consummate opportunists" and comparing them to advocates of creation biology or perpetual motion machines.

Rather than being persuasive, the authors merely seem intent on winning the argument. It then becomes too easy for opposing reviewers to sum up Miller and Conko as apologists for GM technology and dismiss anything useful that this book may contribute to the debate.

Miller and Conko, themselves, are certainly aware of this dichotomy. "To well-meaning colleagues who would attempt to propitiate or carry on meaningful dialogue with the anti-science, anti-biotechnology activists, we would counsel that it is fruitless . . . There is little common ground. One cannot have a reasoned debate with a mugger."

Although the name calling and other alienating language is perhaps what sticks out most about this work, this is not what the book is about. Immersed in exhaustive descriptions of the history of the regulation of GM food in the US and other countries, the authors do make a few notable points. Firstly, they allege that using recombinant DNA techniques to genetically modify food presents no new or special dangers and that gene modification has been used in agriculture for centuries. Moreover, they claim that these newer technologies are actually safer because they are more precise and less random than traditional techniques and may even improve the lives of many millions of people particularly of those in poorer countries. Ironically, this technology may also have the potential to provide more environmentally friendly forms of agriculture e.g. the genetic modification of crops so that they are less dependent on pesticides.

Secondly, and more importantly, the authors argue that rather than the process that is used to derive the product, it is the products themselves that should be regulated. In this regard, they criticise the application of the precautionary principle to the usage of recombinant DNA techniques in agriculture. The application of this "better safe than sorry" approach results in the prohibition or restriction of any process that is not absolutely known to be safe.

Miller and Conko point out that it is not possible to conclusively rule out all risk, and as a result the development of a potentially beneficial technology is being severely hindered. They argue that the benefits of this technology far exceed its risk while acknowledging that tradeoffs are inevitable. To date there is not a single documented case of an ill-health effect from the consumption of GM food. Regulatory structures are biased towards preventing "Type I errors" (where an unsafe product is released to consumers), while almost ignoring "Type II errors" (where a beneficial product is prevented from release). Type I errors are better fodder for news headlines, and thus it is these errors that regulatory agencies are most cautious about. The book finishes with some sensible suggestions for regulatory reform including making regulatory bodies more accountable for Type II errors.

Unfortunately, the technology itself is not discussed here beyond the often touted line "more precise therefore more safe". Others argue that DNA splicing techniques are more than the next step from selective breeding or random mutagenesis and that this technology most definitely marks a major change in the rate and scope of possibilities available.

The effect of inserting a transgene in a foreign genome is a complex problem with a number of poorly defined variables to take into consideration. Inherent in all complex situations is uncertainty, and it is on this that much of the debate centres. It is here that a contradiction exists in arguments such as those exercised by Miller and Conko. This epoch-defining technology is apparently powerful enough to save humankind from starvation, yet, they claim, not really different enough from older breeding technologies that it warrants any new or special attention from regulatory bodies.

Biotechnology may provide unique opportunities not just to alter or to introduce new or existing traits rapidly and precisely but also to produce more disparate phenotypes not previously possible or dreamt of by breeding alone. In other words, it could be argued that this process is indeed "special". We have at our fingertips, a potentially life-changing technology where both sides of this debate will agree that billions of dollars and billions of lives could be at stake. The benefits must be balanced against risks of unintended health and environmental consequences that may arise from this fundamentally invasive technology.

Despite some well articulated arguments from Miller and Conko, one would have hoped for a more critical dialogue, perhaps a more academic work. But this book unfortunately reeks of hidden and not-so hidden agendas and as such becomes yet another chapter in a highly polarised debate.

Given how high the stakes are, the breakdown of reasonable scientific debate is alarming. In what appears to be a critical stalemate, the discourse is dependent on perspective, and self-interest, and as such it becomes a serious issue of trust for those yet undecided. On one side, the excessive zeal, fear-mongering and repeated use of a few limited scientific studies decreases the trustworthiness of the anti-biotechnology lobby. On the other side, the overbearing arrogance and obvious self interest significantly diminishes the credibility of the corporations (and those representing them). The Frankenfood Myth leaks anti-regulation, small government and free market ideology diminishing its trustworthiness as an objective discussion of the regulation of GM technology.

Is there any hope for some sort of democratic discourse? In this climate it would be difficult for any reasoned voice to get a word in edgeways. This dysfunction pattern is also evident in other debates around global warming, stem cell research, or the pharmaceutical industry. So, who is to be trusted in these situations? Environmentalists, corporations, governments, or the scientists who dazzled us with these technologies to start with? Idealistically, the same scientific community that gave us biotechnology would also provide accurate information about the risks of applying this technology to food production. In this environment, the expectation that scientists can be trusted is crucial. Special interest groups quote or ignore science at will to win argument. In these situations the authenticity of the science community as a whole is jeopardised when individual scientists allow themselves to be used by various lobby groups to leverage media and gain attention, regardless of where the consensus of the real science on the subject lies. Scientific studies are pointless in isolation and often only after many years can any real and reliable conclusions be drawn.

The application of scientific findings will inevitably continue to provide technological advances. Miller and Conko remind us that technology is in itself not bad and therefore should not be feared. However, they also try and convince us that unfettered, this technology can only do us the world of good. The question of the usage of this and similar technologies is at the very heart of these debates. Technology does not make good or bad food any more than it makes good or bad movies.