The highly political and often dubious activities of Britain's Prince
Charles, made public this week in a confidential memo from his former
deputy private secretary, is a reminder of the major disadvantage of a
monarchy: Unlike in a republic, the citizenry don't get to choose the
head of state. Or more to the point, they don't get to reject a pompous
git who, if he weren't a member of the royal family, would be selling
insurance or maybe working as a maitre d'.
According to the memo by Mark Bolland, made public as part of a lawsuit
filed by the Prince of Wales against a British newspaper, Charles
regards himself as a "dissident working against the prevailing political
consensus," and regularly presses his views on government ministers and
politicians, including his "vigorous campaign" against genetically
modified foods.
Not-so-bonnie Prince Charles has said that he rejects the idea that
genetic modification simply extends or refines "traditional methods of
plant breeding." He is convinced that such practices "belong to God,
and to God alone." (Maybe he has an inside track: His family motto is,
after all, "Dieu et Mon Droit.") And if mere mortals persist, he
contends, they should segregate and label "genetically modified
products."
Prince Charles knows little about the genetic engineering of plants,
among other things. For one thing, genetic modification not new.
Plants and microorganisms have long been genetically improved by
mutation and selection and used to make biotechnology products as varied
as yogurt, beer, cereal crops, antibiotics, vaccines and enzymes (for
laundry detergents and food processing).
For decades, using conventional techniques for genetic modification,
genes have been transferred widely across "natural breeding boundaries"
to yield common food plants including oats, rice, black currants,
pumpkins, potatoes, tomatoes, wheat, and corn. These plants, which are "genetically engineered" by any reasonable definition, are not merely
found in laboratories or test plots but are the very same fruits,
vegetables, and grains that consumers buy at the local supermarket,
greengrocer, or farm stand.
The techniques of the "new biotechnology" - gene splicing, tissue
cultures, and the rest - essentially speed up and target with greater
precision and predictability the kinds of genetic improvement that have
long been carried out with other methods. According to a worldwide
scientific consensus, the new biotechnology lowers even further the
already minimal risk associated with introducing new plant varieties
into the food supply - and reduces soil erosion and the use of
pesticides and increases yields in the bargain.
The use of these sophisticated techniques makes the final product even
safer, because it is possible to introduce pieces of DNA that contain
only one or a few well-characterized genes. In contrast, the older
genetic techniques transfer a variable number of genes haphazardly.
Users of the new techniques can be more certain about the traits they
introduce into the plants. Americans have consumed well over a trillion
servings of gene-spliced foods, and not a single person has been
injured, or an ecosystem disrupted. In contrast, five products
engineered with traditional techniques (two squash, two potato and one
celery variety) have had unsafe levels of toxins and caused injury or
death.
Even though the safety level is exemplary, a few anti-technology
advocacy groups - joined by Prince Charles - have pushed for labels
disclosing the use of gene-splicing techniques. Such labels would add
significantly to the costs of processed foods made from fresh fruits and
vegetables. The precise costs will vary according to the product. But,
for example, a company using a gene-spliced, higher-solids, less-watery
tomato (which is more favorable for processing) would have the
additional costs of segregating the product at all levels of planting,
harvesting, shipping, processing and distribution. Labels would have to
appear on vegetable soup, indicating the presence of gene-spliced
tomato, potato or other products.
The added production costs are a particular disadvantage to products in
this competitive, low profit-margin market. Unnecessary and arbitrary
regulation constitutes, in effect, a punitive "tax" on regulated
products or activities, which, in turn, creates a disincentive to their
development and use.
Consumers, whose prices would be raised and choices diminished by this
regulatory tax, would
be better served by industry spending its resources on research and
development to create new, safer products.
At the end of the day, Prince Charles's reservations about new
biotechnology are puzzling. They appear to arise from a lack of
perspective on pedigree (a subject that should be of no small interest
to someone whose only claim to distinction is his lineage). Would he
boycott or request special labeling for the genetic hybrid we call a
tangelo (a cross between a tangerine and grapefruit)? Or the mutant
peaches we call nectarines?
Biotech's opponents should also be aware that delays or limitations in
the use of gene-spliced products cause the poor to suffer most. Because
food purchases require a disproportionally larger part of their budgets,
those with lower incomes are hardest hit by high consumer prices, which
can be reduced by more efficient biotech production processes.
The controversy over biotechnology is not a mere intellectual exercise
but a real-life struggle for the availability of products that will
prolong and enrich lives, and for the ability of consumers to cast their
votes in the marketplace.
Technological innovation -- whether in the form of better tomatoes,
faster computers or more effective vaccines -- most often occurs in
small, almost imperceptible steps. If a new product's characteristics
are attractive, and the price is right, it succeeds in the marketplace,
stimulating still more innovation. Ironically, some of Prince Charles'
own organically-produced vegetables failed this test: so deformed and
repulsive to look at, they were not marketable and had to be given to
local schools.
Prince Charles should give the new biotechnology a try before he heaves
another tomato at it.
|
