The authors correctly recognized that the study was limited in applicability, and that field
tests would be required to determine the significance of this finding in an artificial environ-
ment. On publication, Dr. Losey was quoted as saying “We can’t forget that Bt-corn and
other transgenic crops have a huge potential for reducing pesticide use and increasing
yields. This study is just the first step, we need to do more research and then objectively
weigh the risks versus the benefits of this new technology” (http://www.news.cornell.
edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html).
Losey soon found that his results had transformed into mutant tales of killer corn and
sacred butterflies. The New York Timesled on the front-page with a story entitled,
“Altered Corn May Imperil Butterfly, Researchers Say” in which one researcher described
monarchs as the “Bambi of the insect world” (Kaesuk Yoon 1999). To this date,
Greenpeace demonstrators continue to dress in Monarch butterfly costumes and simul-
taneously drop dead at a prearranged time, usually for the convenience of television
cameras. Great street theater, lousy public policy.
15.5 How Many Benefits are Enough
In October 2000, the US Environmental Protection Agency stated in a comprehensive report
that corn, cotton, and potato crops genetically engineered to repel pests offered “significant
benefits” to farmers and few risks, even for Monarch butterflies, giving an overwhelming
stamp of approval to the technology as a way to boost yields, reduce farm chemicals, and
lessen groundwater contamination. The report found that in 1999 alone, US farmers
reduced pesticide costs by more than $100 million (www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/).
The question “Do you want fish genes if tomatoes?” has been used repeatedly by
Greenpeace and other activists in campaign literature and media accounts (Greenpeace
2001). Yet the actual experiment to transfer an antifreeze protein from cold-water flounder
to enhance the cold tolerance of field tomatoes was attempted only once in 1991 and was
unsuccessful (Powell http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/article-details.php?a¼1&C¼1&
Sc¼2&d¼40). Nevertheless, when asked which foods in the supermarket are GE, consu-
mers consistently cite vegetables, such as tomatoes, and fruit (IFIC 2002). While this is due
partly to the short availability of the Flavr Savr tomato, it also demonstrates how memorable
such evocative messages are to the public.
These are only a smattering of the dozens of examples of information intended to alarm
rather than inform. By fall 1999, this combination of scientific naivety, media hype, and
allegations of corporate conspiracy had come to characterize any and all public discussions
of the role of genetically engineered foods. So Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians,
two activist groups, hoping to build on the success in stigmatizing GE food in Europe, par-
ticularly the UK, held a public demonstration in front of a Loblaws supermarket in an afflu-
ent area of downtown Toronto, a Canadian beachhead into the United States (Fig. 15.1).
Typical of the statements was that of Jennifer Story, health protection campaigner for the
Council of Canadians, who asserted that “Genetically engineered foods have not been
proven safe for human health and the environment. As the largest grocery chain in
Canada, Loblaws has the obligation to take the lead, and take genetically engineered
food off the shelf.”
When public concern mounted in the UK and Europe in response to activist tactics, the
scientific community, political leaders and opinion leaders were largely silent. Even if they
had spoken out, the effects would have been marginalized by the fallout from the mad cow
350 WHYTRANSGENICPLANTS ARE SO CONTROVERSIAL