The Frito Bandito fired off a shot at farmers and biotechnology this week, but he got hit by the ricochet.
Fearing an ambush from scare-mongering varmints, Frito-Lay has told its contract farmers not to plant any biotech corn. Apparently the company would rather have corn that has been treated with chemical insecticides than corn with built-in protection against worms.
Naturally, Frito-Lay got kudos from flaky activists, and maybe even some from some crop-eating insects. But a couple of days later, Fritos former spokesman, Jay Leno, never one to let hypocrisy go unchallenged, mocked the company. He wondered in front of an audience of millions if the company would next be removing the "bright orange dye" from its fabled Cheetos.
Biotech or not? Only your insect pests know for sure
Biotech foods are carefully reviewed by three federal agencies — the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency — so there is no scientifically justifiable reason to oppose them.
The Frito incident, which may affect public perception of biotech, is unfortunate for farmers and consumers. But its merely a little rut in the road.
Two other recent events may help smooth the way for continued growth of biotechnology.
Consider the unanimous approval of an international Biosafety Protocol in Montreal on Jan. 29. The protocol, approved by delegates from 133 nations, marks the first global affirmation of the potential and value of biotechnology. It provides a framework international trade for biotech crops, and it establishes a clearinghouse for hard scientific information so countries can make decisions based more on facts, not groundless fears.
Sound InformationWith such ready access to sound information, countries may be likelier to adopt the benefits of the technology for their farmers, consumers, and the environment. American farmers benefit from this from this information in particular, as it increases their confidence in not losing markets because of scattershots fired off by black-hatted fearslingers.
The pro-biotech reversal by Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., one of the nations largest purchasers and exporters of grain, is also a significant development. ADM, which upset many farmers last fall by telling them they had to segregate conventional and biotech grain, has dropped that requirement.
ADM Chairman G. Allen Andreas told the Chicago Tribune that "the pendulum is beginning to turn back" on the biotech controversy, adding that less than 5% of ADMs sales were to customers who objected to genetically modified foods.
Most normal customers want grain that is produced in the most efficient — that is, cheapest — way. Needless segregation is neither efficient nor cheap. ADM and other grain handlers are wisely recognizing that there is no future in creating superfluous costs to quell the yelps of the environmentalist banditos.
Public HealthEven the Los Angeles Times, no biotech industry sycophant, noted in an editorial that products from biotechnology have been in foods for nearly a decade with no adverse effect on public health. "The Food and Drug Administration already requires the labeling of genetically modified [biotech] food that may differ in some way from its conventional counterpart. But regulators consider the vast majority of GM food no different from conventional food," it said.
Thus "the labeling proposals [in California] would only confuse a simple process," said the Times, adverting to anti-biotech proposals in California.
A few companies have made headlines by asking for non-biotech grain. So have some store chains catering to yuppies with overstuffed wallets and a burning desire to join the chic anti-biotech cause
But a recent Roper Starch Worldwide poll says industry is probably overestimating public concerns. The poll found that 73 percent of adult consumers surveyed would accept biotechnology as a tradeoff for not using chemicals, suggesting that the Frito Bandito will soon be shooting blanks.