Two biotech companies agreed last week to pay $110 million to corn farmers who
lost money because of consumer fears three years ago when some
genetically-modified StarLink corn, intended as animal feed, found its way into
the human food supply.
Reporters could easily spin this as a story in which farmers and consumers are
victims and the villains are the reckless Dr. Frankensteins of the biotech firms
- aided and abetted by lax EPA regulators. But it's worth pausing to
remember that no one was actually shown to be injured by StarLink. The lawsuits
that occurred at the time - from a handful of customers concerned
that they might be having allergic reactions to the corn - and the
subsequent financial losses suffered by the farmers were all fear-driven, not
the result of good science showing that stomach upset was any more likely among
(non-frightened, non-litigious) StarLink eaters than among ordinary taco shell
eaters. (ACSH pointed this out in a 2001, press release not long after the CDC
reported there was no evidence of harm from StarLink.)
When the anti-biotech activists - and even some people who are
ostensibly "neutral" about biotech - weigh the pro's and
con's of the new food science, the StarLink incident will probably be placed in
the con's category. But it's important to remember that so far, the only
"damage" - psychological or financial - done
by biotech is really a function of the panic activists have spread about it, not
a function of flawed science or industrial disasters. Absent the efforts of
Greenpeace and others to keep the public terrified about biotech, we might well
live in a world in which people say, "I ate some biotech corn -
but I feel fine, so who cares?" Then the biotech firms could put their $110
million to some more productive, innovative use than mopping up the fallout of
fear.
Reprinted from Healthfactsandfears.com, Feb 10, 2003
