Political-science researchers at UCLA recently quantified political bias in a spectrum of media outlets. Not unexpectedly, almost all major outlets were found to tilt to the left. But there were some surprises. Public television and radio are more conservative than the rest of the mainstream media. And although the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal — even more liberal than those of the New York Times.

This latter revelation was brought home to me in a news article this summer by Journal reporter Debbie Carlson. The piece, “Drought-resistant Crops Face Hurdles,” managed to portray in a positive way virtually every aspect of activists’ Big Lie about gene-spliced, drought-resistant plants — namely, that they are untested, unsafe, unnecessary, and under-regulated. Carlson’s inclusion of comments primarily from intransigent, ideological, long-time opponents of agricultural biotechnology—instead of from bona fide experts on the technology and its regulation—represents either blatant bias or inexcusable reportorial carelessness.

The statements of the anti-biotech activists are predictably disingenuous. The claim of long-time anti-biotech campaigner Jane Rissler that the USDA is “not required to do an ecological/biological implications review” is simply wrong. And the touting of “marker-assisted selection” for genetic improvement of plants — an old technique of limited usefulness — is another attempt by activists to disparage the superior technique of gene-splicing, which is more precise, predictable, and safe, as well as far more versatile than older methods.

Carlson’s assertion that “laws regulating biotechnology will need to keep up with the work of scientists” is baseless. Regulation is already far ahead of the science, in the sense that it is excessive and performed on every gene-spliced plant variety that is to be field-tested — in defiance of the broad and long-standing scientific consensus that gene-splicing is essentially an extension, or refinement, of less precise and predictable genetic techniques. (Conventional genetic modification, discussed below, is essentially exempt from regulation.) Speculations by activists about the need for more regulation are merely a ploy to obstruct progress.

Carlson lacks perspective on the recent history of the genetic improvement of plants. If she had bothered to consult some experts, she would have discovered that a long-standing scientific consensus holds that gene-splicing is an extension, or refinement, of less precise, less predictable genetic techniques. One such older technique, in use since the 1950s, is induced-mutation breeding, which involves exposing seeds or cells to ionizing radiation or toxic chemicals to induce random, desirable genetic mutations. Thousands of mutation-bred crop varieties have been commercialized in North America and Europe, and since the 1930s plant breeders have performed “wide cross” hybridizations in which large numbers of “alien” genes are moved from one species or one genus to another to create plant varieties that cannot and do not exist in nature. Common commercial varieties derived from wide crosses include tomato, potato, oat, rice, wheat, and corn, among others.

Using these pre-gene-splicing technologies, plant breeders and food producers lack knowledge of the exact genetic changes that produce the desirable traits; and more important, they have no idea what other changes have occurred concomitantly in the plant, including those that could raise levels of toxins or alter the ability to cause allergic reactions. Greater precision is what makes gene-splicing superior.

Finally, Carlson is incorrect in stating that the commercialization of drought-resistant crops is “far away,” or that “it is too early to predict what regulatory trials will be required.” Their development is advanced, many are already in field testing, and their evaluation is, in fact, quite straightforward and not very different from the thousands of gene-spliced plant varieties with myriad new traits that have been reviewed and approved by regulators.

Whatever the motivation for activists’ opposition to gene-spliced plants — abetted by Carlson’s journalistic transgressions — it is cynical and destructive. Commercialized gene-spliced plants have been of monumental importance — not only to farmers’ bottom line, but also to occupational health and the natural environment. Enhanced pest resistance in plants has obviated the need for hundreds of millions of pounds of chemical pesticides (and thereby reduced environmental and occupational exposures), and herbicide tolerance has made possible a shift to more benign herbicides and to environment-friendly, no-till farming.

Enhanced drought-resistance in commercial crops will be an extraordinary advance. Fresh water is in increasingly short supply in much of the world. Irrigation for agriculture accounts for roughly 70 percent of the world’s fresh-water consumption — even more in areas of intensive farming and arid or semi-arid conditions — so the introduction of plants that grow with less water would allow much of that essential resource to be freed up for other uses. Especially during drought conditions — which currently plague much of Europe, Africa, Australia, and the United States — even a small percentage reduction in the use of water for irrigation could result in huge benefits, both economic and humanitarian.

Note to Ms. Carlson: You couldn’t have salvaged this article even with a few quotes from bona fide experts on biotechnology and agriculture; the activists’ outright lies make it irredeemable. All points of view on scientific and technological issues are not created equal. Good journalism is not served by creating a kind of moral equivalence between those who hold ideological, anti-technology views and those with supportable, legitimate viewpoints—not unlike equating creation theory with Darwinian theory.

The errors in Carlson’s piece aren’t subtle. Whatever the reasons for these shortcomings, is it too much to expect a reporter to learn a little about her subject and to find reputable and knowledgeable sources before writing a story?

Henry I. Miller, a physician, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He headed the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology from 1989-1993. Barron’s selected his most recent book, The Frankenfood Myth, one of the 25 Best Books of 2004.

This article is reproduced by permission of the author.

Sources:

1. Debbie Carlson. Drought-Resistant Crops Face Hurdles, Christian Science Monitor (31.8.06) (http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=6248)

2. Henry I. Miller. Uncomfortable Genes. The WSJ caved in to irrational opponents of biotechnology. National Review Online (2.10.06) (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzMwYjIxZjVkMzJiNjhiM2ViNDIwODkxOWMwZmNiMjU=)

<<<back