PRESIDENT'S LETTER

Genetically Engineered Plants and Ballot Measures: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Roger Hangarter

The Good—Reports continue to appear at an increasing rate that demonstrate novel uses of genetic engineering offering promise for healthier and safer foods, reduction of pesticide use, less disease, and the development of novel crops. Moreover, the same technologies used to create genetically engineered (GE) plants are at the core of the basic research that has been driving, at an ever-increasing pace, a revolution in our knowledge of plant biology.

The Bad—No technology is risk-free, and the introduction of any new process or product can easily lead to fear and mistrust. In spite of a large number of studies indicating that GE plants are not harmful to our health and do not appear to represent significant risk to the environment, there is always the risk of abuse or negligence in the application. This risk, although very small, provides activists with a thread on which they can promote fear campaigns against the use of genetic engineering and the introduction of GE organisms.

The Ugly—Many in the general public lack the scientific understanding of basic plant biology and genetics necessary to reach an informed assessment of the different sides of the GE plant issue. Indeed, as urbanization continues, an increasingly larger percentage of the population is losing an appreciation for the vital role of plants for life on Earth. Combine the fear, the mistrust, and in many cases the drive to beat a competitor in the market, and we have an ugly brew for activists to exploit. Add in some misleading, distorted, and scientifically inaccurate information and we have some truly Ugly campaigns against genetic engineering. Also, because some major sponsors of anti-biotech campaigns grow products that compete with lower-priced modified crops in the marketplace, competition is another factor adding to the mix. Our 2004 elections saw the Ugly taken to a new level when activists in several California counties were able to include on the ballots, referenda to create laws that would ban growing any GE plant. For example, based on scientifically inaccurate reasoning, the referendum in Humboldt County would, under penalty of imprisonment, have made it “unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to propagate, cultivate, raise or grow genetically modified organisms” in the county. Obviously, this measure would not only have affected farmers; it would also have made outlaws and potentially jailed convicts of many plant scientists. (Who ever thought that studying plant biology in graduate school could make us fugitives from justice?)

So, what should ASPB be doing to enhance the Good and minimize the Ugly? On behalf of ASPB, the Committee on Public Affairs works to explain the interests of plant science to the U.S. Congress, Executive Branch, and the public. One of the major objectives of the committee is to develop strategies and objectives for support of basic plant science. Because nearly all areas of plant research are depending more and more on the same molecular technologies and resources that are necessary for the development of GE crops, the ASPB leadership and the Committee on Public Affairs felt it was important to become engaged and attempt to block ill-conceived politics that threaten basic plant research. As such, we sent letters and issued press releases in those counties that sought to outlaw growing GE plants (http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/).

Our actions are not and should not be perceived as a wholesale promotion of GE crops or biotech companies. Biotech companies tend to have similar opposition to ballot measures calling for the jailing of farmers and scientists for growing GE crops, but that should not preclude ASPB’s opposition to such measures. I’ve participated in the development of ASPB position letters and am convinced that the position of ASPB is taken to reflect the science-based knowledge we have today. As articulated in the ASPB Statement on Genetic Modification of Plants Using Biotechnology (http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/aspb_statement_on_genetic_modifi.cfm), we were acting in support of “the continued, responsible use of new technologies, such as recombinant DNA technology, which can add effective tools to those needed to combat hunger and maintain a healthy environment.”

Fortunately, as a result of efforts by ASPB, local plant scientists, and local farmers, the measures were defeated in three out of four of the California counties. The one county that passed the referendum (Marin) does not have a significant agricultural base or any research university.

With well-funded budgets and messages that are artfully designed to confuse the public, anti-biotech activist groups will continue to threaten basic plant research. I believe that it is a responsible course of action for ASPB to provide science-based findings to public officials and the public on measures concerning GE plants. There will always be some potential for the Bad with technological innovation, but when there is significant potential for the Good combined with reasonable assurances of safety, it is essential for ASPB and its members to attempt to ward off the Ugly. Plant science and the public both stand to benefit—as will Humboldt State College grads like ASPB members Dan Bush, Roger Innes, Richard Sayre, and others, who can still return to reunions there without fear of facing plant propagation charges.

Roger P. Hangarter
rhangart@indiana.edu