¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

Earlier this year Britain became the first country in the world to approve
a genetically engineered food, a yeast whose genes were modified to produce
carbon dioxide more quickly, and so made bread rise faster. No bakeries
are using the yeast, almost certainly because they fear the public is not
yet ready to welcome such food into its diet.

In Britain, no one is obliged to tell the government’s scientific advisers
that they plan to use genetically engineered organisms to produce food,
unless the organisms stay active in the food or might be released into the
environment during the manufacturing process. And the process by which those
foodstuffs put forward are passed as safe takes place behind closed doors.

Certainly the furore that the approval of the yeast caused did little
to win over the consumer to the idea of genetically engineered food. To
many it was an object lesson in how not to allay public fears over this
relatively new technology.

Those involved in the yeast saga jump at the chance to blame government
officials for failing to keep the public properly informed. The government
did not reveal that its food safety advisers were even considering a proposal
from the manufacturer of the yeast, Gist Brocades. Once it had been deemed
safe to use, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) put
out only a three-sentence press release. Britain’s tabloid newspapers had
a field day with stores under banner headlines such as ‘Bionic bread sales
wrapped in secrecy’ and ‘Are boffins taking the rise out of bread?’

The style of the government’s public statement angered environmental
and consumer groups, who accused MAFF of trying to avoid public debate of
its plans to allow the new yeast into the food chain. The scientific experts
who examined the possible risks and benefits associated with the yeast were
also dismayed by the government’s approach.

But the process taught everybody a lesson. All those involved say they
now recognise the need to get the public on their side if they hope to persuade
the consumer that what they are buying is safe. There is little doubt that
the future of a potentially lucrative new industry hangs in the balance.
Predictions of the size of the worldwide market for biotechnology in agriculture
and food processing products range from $10 billion (about 5 million Pounds)
to $100 billion by the year 2000.

There is also no argument that there is a difference between those adapted
foods that are today’s products of biotechnology and Gist Brocades’ yeast,
which ushers in a new era in modified food. The biotechnology industry argues
that the difference is a small one, and in the case of the yeast this may
be right. The yeast has undergone an ‘intraspecies’ manipulation. It contains
extra genetic material, but taken only from another strain of yeast.

But other changes to the food we eat will be more extreme, as plants
and animals are adapted to produce food more efficiently, and food is made
to taste better or to be more nutritious. The biotechnology industry is
already contemplating ‘designing’ cows and pigs with extra genes to code
for hormones that produce a higher ratio of lean meat to fat, and plants
that produce useful oils.

In Britain, it is the responsibility of an independent committee of
scientists, called the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP),
to advise the government on the nutritional and safety aspects of genetically
adapted foods.

Gist Brocades volunteered its yeast for examination. The committee was
satisfied that the yeast produces no toxic by-products, and will not transfer
its genetic material to the microflora that inhabit the human gut, where
it could interfere with their natural functions, or provoke a dangerous
immune response.

Nevertheless, Derek Burke, vice chancellor of the University of East
Anglia and chairman of the ACNFP, believes the ‘yeast experience’ demonstrated
the need to draw more people into the committee’s decision-making process.
Last month, the committee held a closed workshop at which scientists serving
on other advisory committees, industrialists, philosophers, representatives
from consumer groups, MAFF, the church and even the Cabinet Office, aired
their views on public concerns over genetically modified food.

Environmental scientists at the workshop argued that people will trust
a new technology only if they trust the people regulating it. ‘The public
want to be part of a process that is frank about the uncertainties, encourages
public understanding and contribution, and is open about the information
available,’ said Tim O’Riordan of the School of Environmental Studies at
the University of East Anglia.

The need to include a wider range of people on the committee is now
acknowledged by all sides. The Food Consumer Panel, set up by the government
following scares over the safety of eggs and cheese, is expected soon to
be allowed to send ‘confidential observers’ to monitor certain governmental
advisory committees, including the ACNFP. Burke says this is a step in the
right direction, but is pushing for full membership for non-experts.

He concedes that people do not ‘perceive’ his committee to be sufficiently
open. ‘We have to move to a system that is seen to be more transparent.
The perception is that we are in the pockets of the big manufacturers, that
we are not interested in consumer attitudes. The only way to show that this
is false is to have people there.’ Ministers at MAFF are reticent towards
the idea of allowing non-experts onto the committee, although Burke is ‘tolerably
optimistic’ that they will soon agree with his arguments.

Biotechnology has already spawned a number of ‘artificial’ foods. One
that has just gone on sale in Britain is Quorn, a mycoprotein produced after
more than 20 years of R&D by its developer, Ranks Hovis McDougall. The
marketing strategy for Quorn took some eight years to complete.

A group of Europe’s largest biotechnology companies are being equally
careful about projecting a suitable image to the public. They are planning
a major advertising campaign designed to persuade consumers that genetic
engineering is ‘good for you’, that it is healthy, modern and economically
sound.

Britain’s Agriculture and Food Research Council is also seeking funds
of around 100,000 Pounds a year to support a three-year study of consumer
attitudes to biotechnology and food, and the factors that influence consumers
as they form these attitudes.

Hal MacFie, head of the council’s recently established ‘Department of
Food Acceptability’, says this is a new approach within the AFRC. ‘Consumer
perceptions and attitudes are probably going to be one of the crucial determinants
of food choice and the way agriculture is conducted over the next few years,’
he says.

MacFie wants the same scientific rigour that is applied to analysing
food safety used to assess consumer attitudes to genetic engineering and
food. He accepts he may be accused of trying to pre-empt consumer attitudes:
‘The idea is not to manipulate public opinion. It is our responsibility
to understand concerned opinion, in order to direct our research and to
enable the ministry to have the facts before them.’

He stresses the need for the results of his department’s research to
be made public. At the same time he believes its research should put ministers
in a better position to ‘deal with’ a hostile media. ‘You can’t blame politicians
for wanting to think about how a technology will be presented,’ he says.

The ACNFP has been in existence for just over a year, and produced its
first annual report this summer. It publishes agendas before meetings and
will provide copies of the advice it gives to ministers. The committee deposits
data from its toxicological and other safety studies with the British Library,
and ‘encourages’ companies to do the same: it cannot force them to do so.
Until the Food Safety Act becomes law (probably not for at least another
two years) it also cannot force companies to tell it of any plans to use
genetic manipulation in food.

In weighing up proposals, the committee must be convinced that genetic
alterations in foods are stable, and that the extra genetic material will
not be transferred to humans.

If the genetic manipulation involves deleting a gene, then those proposing
the new food must show that their techniques are specific enough that they
will not delete other vital genes. The committee must also be sure that
a genetic change to a plant or animal does not wipe out its usual nutritional
properties, such as vitamin content.

Companies must show that genes are expressed only as planned. A cow
with extra genes to make it produce blood-clotting factor in its milk must
not produce the protein anywhere other than in its mammary gland. A plant
engineered to produce a toxin that acts against pests must not produce that
toxin in its fruit.

Britain is ahead of the rest of Europe and the US in regulating genetic
engineering in food. The European Commission is developing a draft regulation
on novel foods and foods made by novel processes which it is expected to
publish in the next few months. This is likely to be heavily influenced
by British thinking on how to regulate the area.

Britain is also unusual within Europe in its use of an independent committee
of scientific advisers. Most other European governments seek advice from
only one or two individual consultants. The European Commission is considering
using its Scientific Committee for Food as an umbrella advisory committee,
operating as a European version of Britain’s ACNFP.

There has been only one approval of a genetically engineered foodstuff
in the US. This is chymosin, the enzyme used by the food industry to ‘set’
cheese. The enzyme, currently derived from calves’ stomachs, is produced
by Pfizer, the multinational pharmaceuticals company, using Escherichia
coli bacteria with extra genes.

Food developers in the US can apply for genetically engineered food
to be approved on the grounds that it is ‘generally regarded as safe’, or
GRAS. Otherwise the food must be passed as an additive, which can be a lengthy
legislative process.

Approvals are conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unless
it calls in outside experts in a particular field of science. There is little
scope for non-experts to take part in the process, although the Recombinant
DNA Committee at the National Institutes of Health, will look into wider
ethical, moral and ecological questions surrounding biotechnology.

The FDA has no specific committee to deal with recombinant DNA in food.
Genetically engineered enzymes for food are handled by the same process
that handles all other enzymes. Transgenic animals and plants are examined
by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), within the US
Department of Agriculture.

During its first year, Britain’s ACNFP began discussing the issues surrounding
foods derived from transgenic animals. One problem is what to do with the
90 per cent of animals involved in transgenic experiments which fail to
take up the novel genes. Should these be used as food for humans?

Extra genes may not function properly even in those animals in which
the genes are successfully incorporated. Burke’s personal view is that such
animals should not enter the food chain. The seemingly defunct gene may
be activated unexpectedly, or behave in a way that was not predicted, he
says.

The committee is also considering the vexed question of the labelling
of genetically engineered foods. The US authorities have no plans to label
genetically engineered foods. In Britain, it looks unlikely that bread made
from genetically engineered yeast will be labelled as such.

Britain’s Food Advisory Committee, which looks into wider consumer concerns
over food, believes there is no need to alert consumers to two categories
of manipulation. One is ‘intraspecies’ changes, such as the yeast, the other
is foods whose manufacturing process involves genetic engineering, but which
are identical to the same food when it is produced by nature. Chymosin is
one example.

Julie Hill, parliamentary officer with the Green Alliance, the environmental
pressure group, disagrees. She does not accept that legislators who decide
the public has a right to know that its food has been genetically engineered
should exclude some manipulated foods in this way.

Burke is aware that questions such as labelling bound on ‘socioeconomic’,
rather than purely scientific, issues. But he believes his committee has
a duty to gauge public concerns and advise ministers on the best way to
face them. To do this, Burke needs to open up his committee.

If he succeeds, Burke will also help to keep in check those who balk
at slowing the march of any new technology, in the name of a free market,
or the need to expand consumer choice. It might also hand people the political
choice to say no if they find their freedom to consume threatens their health,
the health of animals or the environment.