As the nation debates the safety of genetically modified foods and crops, state legislators are calling for laws they believe will help protect the public and the environment from any potential harm.

Lawmakers have introduced three bills: one to place a five-year moratorium on planting genetically engineered crops in Massachusetts, another to set a higher standard of legal liability for any harm the crops or food products may cause, and a third to label genetically modified foods.

Proponents of the bills describe them as measures to safeguard the public and environment from any unforeseen consequences of a new and untested technology. The past, they say, is full of examples of products that were touted as ingenious inventions but wound up causing serious harm.

But opponents of the bills challenge their very premise. Genetically altered foods and crops undergo far greater scrutiny and testing than other food products, they say, and the industry has more than a decade's worth of experience with the products.

By all accounts, genetically modified ingredients are in more than half of America's grocery products. Supporters of the technology say it's improved food production by making hardier plants and helps protect the environment by reducing the use of chemical pesticides.

But worldwide protests have been galvanized. As Europe and Japan ban the products, some US food producers are backing away from them. National efforts are underway to require the labeling of genetically modified foods and to increase the regulatory review such products undergo. And legislators in several states, including New York, Montana, and Nebraska, are calling for measures similar to the Massachusetts bills.

"The scientific advances in recent years are, in large measure, wonderful," said Democratic Senator Brian A. Joyce of Milton. "By no stretch of imagination do I find fault with continuing the quest for scientific advances to meet the world's food needs. But such advances are not without the potential for unforeseen, negative consequences."

Joyce is sponsoring the bill to hold companies to a higher standard of accountabity," meaning companies could be held legally responsible for damages without regard to fault or negligence, Joyce said, the state would give companies an incentive to ensure the safety of their products.

Representative Rachel Kaprielian, a Democrat from Watertown, said she introduced the idea of the five-year moratorium to slow the spread of the technology and give researchers more time to evaluate its effect on people and the environment. While she is not wedded to the five-year time frame or other specifics in the bill, she believes the matter merits discussion.

"We don't know a lot about the long-term effect of genetically altered foods, and until we do, we ought to step carefully," Kaprielian said.

Representative Karyn Polito of Shrewsbury, a Republican, said she introduced the bill to require labeling of genetically modified foods in response to concerns voiced by some of her constituents. The motion, she said, is not about labeling genetically altered foods as either good or bad.

"If done correctly, biotechnology can be used in a productive way and to combat world hunger," Polito said. "It's just my feeling that consumers have a right to know what they are eating. If it's genetically modified, it should be labeled as such."

But advocates of agricultural biotechnology see such measures as an attack on an industry that is already well-regulated. Biotech products must pass muster with the US Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture before they can be planted or sold in grocery stores.

"The bills start with the assumption that we don't know very much about these products and, in fact, we know a great deal about them," said Janice Bourque, chief executive of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.

They are tested to make sure they are safe for people and the environment, Bourque said. Their nutritional content and composition are analyzed to make sure that they have not been altered. And they are required to smell, taste and look like the original food or crop before they are approved for use.

The subject also has been studied by a number of independent groups, including the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Science and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group, which have concluded biotech foods are safe for the public and the environment.

"Rather than doing great harm, these groups have recognized that biotechnology can do great good," Bourque said.

Between 1986 and 1997, 25,000 field trials were conducted on 60 crops in 45 countries involving 10 different genetically altered traits, and no adverse effects on food safety or the environment were found, said Leah Porter, executive director of the American Crop Protection Association.

And if a product did harm someone, she said, the government has the authority to remove it from the marketplace. "So why do we need additional regulation," Porter asked. "On what basis?"

The basis for these bills and others across the nation is fear, said Elliot Entis, president of Aqua Bounty Farms Inc., which produces genetically altered salmon. Its parent company is based in Waltham.

The fear has no basis in fact, he said.

Studies show the risk of illness associated with organic foods is greater than with biotech foods, Entis said. And by creating hardier plants, biotechnology is expected to reduce pesticide use by more than 70 percent by 2009, he said.

Every new biotech product should be carefully studied, tested and evaluated by regulators, Entis said. But attacking the science of genetic engineering will cause more harm than good, he maintained, because the science has tremendous potential to benefit people, the environment, and society.

"The net effect of these bills is to try and put cold water over these technologies to stop [their] use," Entis said. "I find it interesting that here at the beginning of the 21st century, we have to defend the methods of science all over again."

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **