BST Is Not the ‘Andromeda Strain’ : Fear of biotechnology, not scientific evidence, is behind the opposition to bovine hormone.

A new chapter has been opened in the debate between self-styled environmental advocates and proponents of high-yield American agriculture. Only this time, the debate is more than academic. The environmental lobby’s actions pose a threat not only to American agriculture but also to one of our fastest-growing high-technology industries and to consumers. They also threaten the global environment.

The event signaling a new era in this decades-old debate was the decision by several of the nation’s largest food retailers to restrict sales of milk produced with the help of bovine somatotropin (BST), a genetically engineered hormone given to cows to increase their production of milk by 20% or more. Many of the large supermarket chains indicated that the pressure brought by environmental activists was a key element in their decision.

Environmentalists variously argue that BST poses a threat to human health, that it is an environmental hazard because it is genetically engineered and that it continues a pattern of overproduction of milk in the United States that hurts farmers and leads to environmental degradation.

One argument that can easily be disposed of is the central one of safety. The Food and Drug Administration has thoroughly investigated BST for more than 10 years. It has approved the growth hormone with no reservations, and a review of all known studies about BST recently completed by the federal government found “there is no evidence that BST poses a health threat to humans or animals.”

The opponents of BST see it as a test case for halting the broad use of genetically engineered products. With a vision inspired by movies like “Jurassic Park” and “The Andromeda Strain,” scientific evidence and experience plays no part in their opposition to BST.

In addition to the fact that BST poses no health threat to man or animals, the eleventh-hour attempt to restrict its use would have severe consequences for industry, consumers, the environment and the standard of living of billions of people.

The assault on one of the premier products of the modern biotechnology revolution has economic consequences for both consumers and producers. First, increasing milk production would lower prices in the United States, while allowing increased exports to dynamic new markets like Mexico. Countries such as India, which is increasing milk consumption at the rate of 2 million tons per year in order to increase protein intake, could also use the new technology or import products from the United States.

A more narrow concern is that the biotechnology industry is one of the most dynamic, successful and rapidly growing high-technology industries in the United States. We routinely create new products in health care and food technology that are exported around the world. Because of the debate over health-care reform, that industry is currently under siege. Entrepreneurs and investors are no longer sure that they will get their products approved and be able to make a profit sufficient to justify investment risks. In 1993, the biotechnology industry saw its market value fall by 40% and the value of new capital flowing to the industry fall by two-thirds.

BST has the promise to be one of the stars of the biotechnology industry. If the restrictions on BST by the supermarkets hold, then this product could just be another nail in the coffin of one of America’s most promising industries.

Finally, there is a consequence of the assault on BST and other high-technology products to enhance food production that should trouble any true friend of the environment. By increasing the efficiency of production, we can produce more food on less land. The promise of BST, genetically engineered plants like the new high-yielding rice strains or the longer-lasting tomato, is to produce more high quality food on less land in the future.

If all the world’s farmers switched to the organic methods favored by the enviro-Luddites, to feed the current population would require bringing forest and virgin lands the size of all of South America into production and suffering a degradation in the qualities of freshness and appearance in food that most American consumers have come to expect. Furthermore, only the United States, Argentina, Brazil and a few other countries could hope to be self-sufficient.

Deploying BST and other innovative biotechnology products is a major part of the answer to this dilemma. That is all the more reason to have a rational debate on its merits, one that is based on solid fact instead of destructive nostalgia.