Food fight

The grassroots movement against genetic engineering is growing in America. In a couple of days, it hits Boston.

by Ben Geman

A gigantic monarch butterfly wearing a gas mask could stalk the Back Bay this weekend -- and it may not be the weirdest sight in the neighborhood. That honor could go to an unholy union between a fish and a tomato that will be protesting in Copley Square on Sunday afternoon.

Sounds goofy, and it is goofy. But whoever is inside these and similar costumes will bear a serious message: the genetic engineering of food crops is dangerous stuff. This Friday marks the opening of Biodevastation 2000, a week of educational forums, protests, and street theater by activists concerned with the ethical, environmental, and public-health implications of this emerging technology.

Biodevastation is meant largely as a response to the annual conference of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), which opens this weekend at the Hynes Convention Center. The BIO conference, the industry's premier event, draws thousands of scientists and industry officials to discuss various dimensions of the growing industry, with seminars on topics that include financing, research, and regulation. Senator Ted Kennedy will be there. So will Christopher Reeve.

Biodevastation 2000, meanwhile, will open with a "counter-conference" March 24 at Northeastern University and will meet the industry conference head-on two days later, with a Copley Square rally and a parade to the Hynes. Organizers hope to draw 1000 people for the conference, and more for the rally and other events throughout the week. Organizers include Northeast Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, MassPIRG, and the Toxics Action Center.

Biodevastation activists want decisions about biotech to be more democratic. Their demands include ending commerce in genetically engineered products; holding corporations liable for any "negative consequences" of genetically engineered products already on the market; abolishing ownership of life forms, including the patenting of seeds, genes, animals, plants, and cell lines; strengthening public regulation of "potentially dangerous technologies"; and ending "corporate control of food and health" through institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.

The Biodevastation protest may be one of the bigger demonstrations that Boston has seen in years, excepting, of course, some of the larger annual events such as the gay and lesbian pride march and the hemp rally. The week's demonstrations will probably involve the "direct action" techniques -- like hanging banners from buildings -- that were visible at last year's demonstrations against the World Trade Organization in Seattle. Activists are also training in nonviolent civil disobedience, so arrests are a possibility.

It's not clear how many people will show up at Biodevastation, but organizers do think they're tapping into growing public awareness. The issue of engineering food "has just exploded in the last couple of months," says Heather Albert-Knopp, one of the event's planners. And that may affect turnout.

---

Police are taking the event seriously. A few weeks ago, editors and reporters were invited to a press conference and lunch at Boston Police Department headquarters to listen to the police explain their preparations for Biodevastation. Police officials say they want to be ready for the direct-action techniques that demonstrators used in Seattle. "The type of tactics used there were tactics I don't think that law enforcement has seen in this country," says Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans.

Police have pledged to respect protesters' First Amendment rights and will show tolerance for nonviolent civil disobedience. "If we can avoid confrontation, we do avoid confrontation," Evans says. But they seem to be readying themselves for it. Police have asked the publishers of newspapers including the Boston Phoenix, the Boston Globe, and the Boston Herald to remove newspaper boxes from Back Bay and parts of downtown in anticipation of the event. "They could be used for anything -- to tip over, to stand on, to smash windows," says police spokesperson Kevin Jones, who adds that police also asked companies to remove the boxes for the most recent First Night celebration and the Boston Marathon.

Although organizers aren't trying to control the protests' scope from the top down, they've called for an event free from violence, drugs, alcohol, and property destruction. "We are not here to disrupt the lives or property of the people of Boston," says Albert-Knopp, an organizer with Vermont's Institute for Social Ecology. "We have told people we are here to highlight the issues, and any actions undertaken should highlight the unethical practices of the industry."

---

Biotechnology is a powerful science that, among other things, allows researchers to manipulate genetic structures -- the essence of life. It's also a big and growing business, boasting more than $18 billion in revenues last year (up from $10 billion five years earlier). All told, almost $100 billion is tied up in the industry. The Boston area, with firms such as Genzyme and Biogen, is a major hub.

Although medical biotechnology is the field's largest sector, it's the agricultural applications that are most controversial right now. Proponents see particular promise in that area; they pledge that science can lead to greater crop yields, less pesticide use, and, eventually, more-
nutritious foods. Basically, genetic engineering in agriculture means deliberately crossing genetic barriers in order to produce a desired trait. It's taken hold and grown in the past half-decade. Last year, farmers worldwide -- though mostly in the US and Canada -- planted more than 90 million acres of genetically modified crops, up from about eight million in 1996, according to the Consumers Union.

Already, much of the soybean and corn grown in the United States is planted with seeds from Monsanto and other firms that are heavily involved in biotech. Last year almost half the US corn crop and about 37 percent of the US soybean crop were genetically modified. Much of that produce is used for animal feed, but odds are you've eaten genetically modified plants yourself. Tortillas, cereals, and soy burgers are just some of the foods that already contain them.

The 411 Biodevastation 2000, a week of educational events and protests against the biotechnology industry, kicks off this Friday, March 24. The educational component will be held at Northeastern University. Registration begins at 8 a.m. in Frost Lounge. Biodevastation organizers have also scheduled a rally and parade beginning at 1 p.m. on March 26 in Copley Square to coincide with the first day of the Biotechnology Industry Organization's annual conference at the Hynes Convention Center. Call (617) 236-0671 or (877) 9RESIST, or visit www.biodev.org. The Biotechnology Industry Organization's annual conference begins on March 26. Call (202) 857-0244 or visit www.bio.org. -- Ben Geman

Activists call genetically engineered foods a radical break with the past, and they say the technology is creating new and poorly understood threats to public and environmental health. They warn that crops engineered to contain pest-killing toxins will inevitably spread their genes to other plants through insect pollination -- and kill unintended, or "non-target," species.

Critics also fear that creating herbicide-resistant crops could end up encouraging farmers to use more herbicide on the weeds found in their fields. And if that genetic material finds its way into weeds, activists warn, it could yield new strains of "superweeds." What's more, skeptics worry that genetic engineering could affect human health by subjecting people to allergens not found in unmodified foods.

"We want to launch a public-awareness campaign to get this issue into the mainstream so people can understand they have been eating these things for five years . . . and they have potential risks that could dismantle entire ecosystems," says Mark Pelletier, an organizer of Biodevastation.

The concerns are dribbling beyond the realm of theory, too. Last year, Cornell University scientists showed that pollen from corn genetically engineered to produce a toxin called Bt -- which kills corn borers -- kills monarch-butterfly caterpillars as well. For activists, the Bt study is the proverbial canary in the coal mine, evidence that genetically modified foods may ultimately harm more than just the intended pests.

"There are major uncertainties that are inherent in the science of genetic engineering," says Jessica Hayes, another Biodevastation planner. "We don't know the long-term effects, and we don't know the short-term effects, and that study really revealed that."

Resistance to genetically engineered foods has been a huge issue in Europe, where the European Union requires such products to be labeled. Protesters have destroyed crops, and consumers have largely rejected modified foods. But most Americans don't even know they're eating them. The US Food and Drug Administration doesn't require labeling, and the industry wants to keep it that way, fearing the same rejection faced overseas.

Activists, of course, are hoping for the opposite. And concern over genetically modified foods is becoming bigger news in the United States, though the issue hardly rivals gun control or health care. Grassroots groups have increased their activity, newspapers and magazines have begun writing more about the issue, and a recent Wall Street Journal article showed that some high-end restaurants are rebelling -- the paper reported that Alice Waters, owner of Berkeley's Chez Panisse, won't use genetically modified foods.

"There's been . . . more interest from the press, consumers, and government officials in what's going on, largely because Europe has said no to our [country's] food," says Rebecca Goldburg, a biologist with Environmental Defense. "It makes consumers question if this food is good for them."

Already, several American food companies, including Gerber and Heinz, have said "Thanks, but no thanks" to genetically modified foods for some products. Congress, too, is emerging as a staging ground for the fight over what's for dinner. Both Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have introduced legislation that would require labeling of genetically modified foods, and Kucinich is also sponsoring a bill to increase FDA testing of modified foods. "The bills . . . are a strong vehicle for introducing the issue in the United States, for heightening awareness, for developing support for labeling and safety standards," he says.

---

Facing an American backlash, supporters of genetically modified crops have done what many industries do to win public and media support: they've formed a front group. The Alliance for Better Foods sprang up last fall as part of the campaign by certain food-industry groups to help ensure that what happened in Europe doesn't happen here. The group is run out of the Washington, DC, offices of public-relations powerhouse BSMG Worldwide, the same firm that represents the BIO.

And there's more to come. According to O'Dwyer's Washington Report, a newsletter that tracks the PR and lobbying industry, several biotech companies, including Monsanto and Novartis, are about to launch a $50 million drive touting genetically modified foods. "One of the [industry's] biggest fears is that the issue is actually going to become even 20 percent as big [here] as it is in Europe," says Kevin McCauley, the newsletter's editor.

Profit may motivate the push for better public relations, but the industry's boosters also say that activists' fears are misinformed and misleading. While activists talk of "superweeds" and allergens, proponents say that biotechnology can increase crop yields and make foods more nutritious. And engineering crops to incorporate certain toxins, they say, would allow plants to repel pests so that farmers could use fewer pesticides -- an environmental plus.

"The upside is that this is a valuable tool that will enable us to feed billions of people the demographers tell us will be in the world in 50 years," says Gene Grabowski, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America. "It also offers the promise in both the developing and the developed world for greater variations of food and greater nutrition."

"I think it is fair to say the industry needs to do more to educate the public and the ordinary consumer," adds Carl Feldbaum, the BIO's president. "Frankly, a lot of the criticisms leveled against the agricultural applications are just plain misinformed." And, he says, the industry is hardly blind to the power of the science it promotes. "Everyone is concerned that there not be any negative impact on environmental health or human safety," he says.

But the Biodevastation organizers aren't buying it. Some will call for stronger government oversight; others will call for an outright ban on genetically modified foods. And though the future of food is probably the largest concern -- and certainly the hottest issue right now -- Biodevastation organizers are also driven by long-standing fears about abuses of the genetic knowledge scientists already possess. Organizers are concerned with the ethics of gene manipulation, the prospect of using genetic knowledge for eugenic ends, and the dangers present in medical applications, such as transplanting animal organs into humans.

All told, when Biodevastation is over, activists hope that the industry and the public will be looking at their concerns as carefully as the police are examining their plans for the upcoming week. "That's why we are doing all this," says Albert-Knopp. "To raise the level of public awareness and debate, to let the biotech industry know there is opposition, and to let the public understand why the opposition exists. That's critical."

Ben Geman can be reached at bgeman[a]phx.com.