SOURCE: MICHAEL FERNANDEZ
Molecular biologist Michael Fernandez has worked himself out of a job. This spring, the Pew Charitable Trust declared victory and shut down its 6-year-old Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that he directed. The program provided objective information on genetically modified plants and animals and focused attention on the U.S. regulatory system.
Q: Who won the debate over agbiotech?
I'm not sure I want to talk about winners and losers. Public opinion hasn't changed very much over these 6 years. A relatively small proportion of U.S. consumers are opposed, and the vast majority are somewhere in the middle. We've had big increases in the acreage planted, [and] farmers clearly see a benefit to insect- and herbicide-resistant crops.
Q: How good is our regulatory system?
It's a mixed bag. For products with incremental changes, the system works pretty well. When you start to get into products that don't fit neatly into a category, like plant-made pharmaceuticals, there are questions about whether the system is adequate.
Q: What's coming down the pike?
[Bioengineered] animals are something that we will have to deal with, including moral and ethical issues. The U.S. will have to figure out how to deal with imports of products that we've never seen before. It's in our best interest to have a regulatory system that is flexible enough and has the tools to assess the risks so that we can all get the benefits.
