Interview: Bruce Chassy – Gm Foods Are Safer

  • Soybeans were among the first genetically engineered crops. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of USDA)

Critics of genetically engineered foods question the safety of using genes from different species to alter the behavior of plants. But the supporters of bio-engineered crops say the plants are rigorously tested before they’re allowed on the market. In the second of two interviews on the subject, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with Bruce Chassy. Chassy is with the University of Illinois’ biotechnology center. Graham asked why the agriculture industry is pushing genetically engineered crops:

Transcript

Critics of genetically engineered foods question the safety of using genes from different species
to alter the behavior of plants. But the supporters of bio-engineered crops say the plants are
rigorously tested before they’re allowed on the market. In the second of two interviews on the
subject, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with Bruce Chassy. Chassy is
with the University of Illinois’ biotechnology center. Graham asked why the agriculture industry
is pushing genetically engineered crops:


Chassy: “They’re much more environmentally friendly than regular crops. They allow us to move
away from using chemicals in agriculture. They allow us to use no-till agriculture in many cases
which is much better for the soil, stop soil erosion. We get better water quality because we’re
using less chemicals. A whole variety of environmental gains. Plus, in some cases, they’re
actually safer as foods. One of the problems with the controversy about bio-tech is that it gets our
mind off what are the real food safety concerns that consumers ought to have in their minds.
There are toxins in our food, but they’re natural toxins and toxins that things like molds put on
them. I’m sure you’ve heard of aflatoxins or microtoxins. These are really, really deadly toxins
that nature puts on our foods. And bio-tech corn, for example, has a lot less of them because the
insects don’t eat them and they don’t get fungus in their wounds and they don’t make microtoxins,
so you can get a safer crop because it’s bio-tech. And safer for another reason. Most of the
conventional foods we have on the market have never been safety tested by the FDA. In fact,
bio-tech foods at least have gone through a rigorous safety test.”


LG: “Well, most of the foods on the market have been through centuries of human testing.”


Chassy: “That’s true and it’s not true. It’s true in the sense that humans have been eating food for
an awfully long time, but most of the varieties of the foods we eat are only recently developed.
We do an awful lot of plant breeding. And, you know, when you say a ‘tomato,’ you’re talking
about 2500 different varieties of things. When you say ‘wheat,’ you’re talking about hundreds of
varieties of wheat. And all of them have been subjected to genetic manipulation by plant
breeders.”


LG: “We’ve gotten along with hybridization and different kinds of cross-breeding of genetically
like plants for centuries and have increased production and increased quality of food. Why isn’t
that cross-breeding enough?”


Chassy: “Well, simply because there are certain kind of traits that you’d like to introduce into
plants that you can’t introduce through cross-breeding because plants that are close enough to do
cross-breeding with don’t have those traits. They’re not in the family of things that would cross-
breed. By being able to move a gene from one place to another, you can, for example, take a
gene out of a bacteria – which is exactly what they do – and put it into a plant and make it
herbicide tolerant or to make it insect resistant. The other point about this that really needs to be
said is that too much has been made of this technology in a way. It’s probably not as powerful as
it’s made out to be, although it’s very powerful. It’s certainly not as dangerous as it’s made out to
be. But, to the plant breeder, it’s simply another tool in the tool kit. It’s a way of doing a specific
thing and that’s moving a trait around. But, we still have plant breeders that are doing classical
plant breeding. It’s a very useful kind of activity. So, think of this as not the replacement for all
plant breeding, but rather just one more implement that helps a plant breeder produce plants that
are more productive and more environmentally friendly and maybe someday more nutritious or
healthier for us.”


LG: “If that’s the case, then why don’t the industry and the government say ‘Fine. Look these
things are safe. You shouldn’t be concerned about them, but for those of you who are concerned,
we’ll make sure there are labels put on those foods that are using bio-engineered crops or foods.’
That way you can make up your own mind.”


Chassy: “We have a labeling law in the United States that the FDA enforces which simply says
when food is materially changed, when it’s changed in such a way that it affects its health or
safety for the consumer, it must be labeled. If you ask people do they want something labeled,
they will always say ‘Yes.’ And then they will tell you they won’t buy it if it’s got a label on it
because people interpret that label as a safety warning. And, that’s why the manufacturers and the
FDA don’t want to put that label on there, because there is no safety concern. The problem is that
consumers have been misled about whether there should be safety concerns or not. They haven’t
really heard the whole story about these. So, why would you put a negative label on something
that offers a positive good?”


HOST TAG: Bruce Chassy, speaking with Lester Graham. Chassy works with various
organizations to promote using genetic engineering to alter the behavior of crops. He’s a
professor of food microbiology at the University of Illinois.

Related Links