Too much caution in using new technologies will condemn millions
Sterling Burnett and Wess Mitchell
Knight Ridder Tribune
Issue date: 9/17/01 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
DALLAS - Many environmentalists, citing the adage “better safe than sorry,” argue that the “precautionary principle” should govern policymaking. By this, they mean that technology should not be used until it is shown to pose no threat to humans or the environment.
While the principle may sound reasonable in theory, it would be disastrous in practice. One cannot prove a negative. Every food, product and tool poses some risk of harm. Without the use of fire, automobiles, antibiotics - just to cite a few examples - human life would be, in the words of Thomas Hobbes, “nasty, poor, brutish and short.” Yet none of these would pass the standard set by the precautionary principle.
Most recently, environmental activists have proposed using the principle to target genetic engineering and biotechnology techniques aimed at producing hardier, disease- and pest-resistant crops. They argue that by altering crops researchers are “playing God” - tampering with things beyond human understanding with the potential to cause catastrophic changes to the environment.
Yet there is little evidence to suggest that bioengineered crops pose a threat to humans or the environment. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there are “no health issues at stake in the consumption of (genetically modified) crops.”
Similarly, the National Research Council concluded the potential health risks of eating genetically modified crops are the same as those of eating crops that have undergone traditional non-genetic crossbreeding or cell-culture techniques.
Almost every major scientific organization in the nation, including the American Medical Association, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration have confirmed the safety and utility of genetically modified food.
While the evidence of such foods causing harm cannot be found, the benefits are far from invisible. Farmers around the world are already using agricultural biotechnology to improve lives.
While the principle may sound reasonable in theory, it would be disastrous in practice. One cannot prove a negative. Every food, product and tool poses some risk of harm. Without the use of fire, automobiles, antibiotics - just to cite a few examples - human life would be, in the words of Thomas Hobbes, “nasty, poor, brutish and short.” Yet none of these would pass the standard set by the precautionary principle.
Most recently, environmental activists have proposed using the principle to target genetic engineering and biotechnology techniques aimed at producing hardier, disease- and pest-resistant crops. They argue that by altering crops researchers are “playing God” - tampering with things beyond human understanding with the potential to cause catastrophic changes to the environment.
Yet there is little evidence to suggest that bioengineered crops pose a threat to humans or the environment. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there are “no health issues at stake in the consumption of (genetically modified) crops.”
Similarly, the National Research Council concluded the potential health risks of eating genetically modified crops are the same as those of eating crops that have undergone traditional non-genetic crossbreeding or cell-culture techniques.
Almost every major scientific organization in the nation, including the American Medical Association, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration have confirmed the safety and utility of genetically modified food.
While the evidence of such foods causing harm cannot be found, the benefits are far from invisible. Farmers around the world are already using agricultural biotechnology to improve lives.