The furor over genetically modified foods

[Henk Elegeert]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/laura-h-kahn/the-furor-over-genetically-modified-foods

"
The furor over genetically modified foods
By Laura H. Kahn | 14 May 2008

The United Nations estimates that world population will top 9 billion
people by 2050. Combined with the anticipated consequences of global
warming such as drought, this could lead to devastating food
shortages. (See "Global Warming Will Strike Developing Nations the
Hardest, UN Says.") Already, the world is experiencing riots over food
shortages. Therefore, crops genetically modified to withstand drought,
pests, and disease could mitigate the effects of global climate
change, which is why the companies developing such crops have strongly
promoted them.

But what about the safety of genetically modified foods? While the
Grocery Manufacturers of America estimates that around 70 percent of
all processed foods purchased in U.S. grocery stores are produced with
ingredients from genetically modified crops, the European Union has
reservations PDF about using genetically modified foods, citing food
safety and trade issues. Yet, long ago, people began manipulating wild
plants such as wheat to keep the plant's grains from dispersing--a
positive for the plant's future as it could self-propagate, but a
negative for a farmer's yield. Indeed, the domesticated grains that
many people assume grow naturally (rice, wheat, and barley) are
genetically modified from the wild grass species.
In theory, genetically modified foods would help mitigate the effects
of global warming, but in reality, the lack of global trust in the
companies that produce them will hinder efforts to use them."

It's unclear if sophisticated genetic manipulation could achieve
similar benefits. For example, consider "Bt corn," in which a gene of
the microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis has been inserted into corn
DNA to produce a natural insecticide that helps farmers use less
chemical insecticides to protect their crops. Evidence suggests that
the toxin is safe for humans and animals. But the environmental impact
of Bt corn isn't completely understood, and some have suggested that
it might unintentionally harm insects such as monarch
butterflies--despite a study to the contrary. There's also the issue
of whether the introduced genes could move by cross-pollination to
native maize, affecting biodiversity and potentially destroying
unaltered native germplasm--particularly worrisome in Mexico.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has held two
meetings PDF to address growing concerns about genetically modified
foods. The first, in 1999, focused on consumer concerns such as the
need for transparency in risk assessment. The 50 nongovernmental
organizations present stressed that to achieve legitimacy with the
public, producers of genetically modified foods had to provide
scientific results. They wanted to see governments--not
industries--set mandatory safety regulations with rigorous enforcement
to ensure that genetically modified foods don't harm human, animal,
and environmental health. They also wanted mandatory labels on foods
produced with genetically modified crops.

A year later, the second meeting reviewed different approaches to
assessing the risks and benefits of genetically modified food.
Building trust between governments, industry, scientists, and the
public was a significant issue, but there wasn't consensus on how to
do it. There also wasn't agreement on which agency would decide the
risks and benefits of genetically modified foods or even how to
conduct such an assessment. But participants did agree that
approaching the challenges in an international forum was the proper
way to move forward.

In May 2002, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a
review PDF of the safety regimen of evaluating genetically modified
foods. The report stated that all foods, including those from
genetically modified crops, can pose human health risks such as
allergic or toxic reactions. It considered genetically modified foods
generally safe for consumption if analyses showed them to be
comparable to conventional foods in their composition of allergens,
toxins, and/or anti-nutrients.

In the United States, three federal agencies regulate genetically
modified plants-- the Department of Agriculture, FDA, and EPA. In
1992, the FDA, which assesses the safety of foods, published
guidelines for safety testing of foods developed through genetic
engineering. It began assisting companies to meet its mandatory safety
standards two years later. Currently, labeling to identify genetically
engineered foods is voluntary and limited to foods that are uniquely
different from conventional foods such as bioengineered tomatoes,
cornmeal, and high oleic acid soybean oil. This policy hasn't
reassured some people, who are actively campaigning on making labeling
mandatory.

In July 2003, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization body that oversees
international food standards, adopted the FDA's safety-testing
approach and developed principles for the health-risk analysis of
genetically modified foods. (See "Current Official Standards.") The
next year, the National Academy of Sciences published a report
assessing the safety of genetically engineered foods. The report
acknowledged that the ability to interpret the results and predict
possible health effects is limited despite the availability of highly
developed analytic techniques. It also made a number of additional
recommendations, including developing a framework for assessing the
nutrient levels and internal compositions of genetically modified
foods.

Genetically modified food is typically compared to the nonmodified
food from which it was derived. Analyses include animal studies and
post-marketing surveillance studies that look for effects from
potential toxins, allergens, or other compounds. Post-marketing
surveillance is commonly done with pharmaceuticals already on the
market, with the goal of identifying rare adverse events that weren't
detected in pre-marketing studies. Such after-the-fact assessment
should be an important component of food-safety monitoring.

But assessing the long-term safety of any food is difficult because
the effects might not be seen for years or decades after consumption.
Both genetically modified foods and conventional foods can cause
acute, short-term adverse effects such as allergic or toxic reactions.
And because everyone reacts to foods differently, food effects would
depend as much on the consumer's bodily constitution as on the food
itself.

Meanwhile, the trade of genetically modified food is an equally
contentious issue. Selling genetically modified seeds became a
lucrative prospect on June 16, 1980, when the U.S. Supreme Court
decided in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 that
laboratory-derived life-forms could be patented. The case involved
bacteria genetically engineered to breakdown crude oil, but it has
been interpreted to include essentially all laboratory-derived
life-forms. The decision created the incentive to develop patentable
genetically engineered plants for agriculture. In 1982, scientists
from the chemical company Monsanto genetically modified plant cells,
and in 1987, began field trials using plants with biotechnologically
introduced traits. In 1994, a genetically modified tomato became the
first whole product to be put on the market. Less than a decade later,
100 million acres of genetically modified corn, cotton, and soybeans
were planted on U.S. soil.

Other countries have been less enthusiastic. During the 1992 Earth
Summit, participants agreed on a comprehensive strategy for
"sustainable development" and established a Convention on Biological
Diversity. World leaders subsequently met in 2000 to adopt an
agreement known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which seeks to
protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by
genetically modified organisms. Among other things, the protocol helps
countries make informed decisions before agreeing to import
genetically modified organisms. It entered into force on September 11,
2003, and includes 103 signatures, although not the United States.

In 1998, the European Union imposed a moratorium on genetically
modified crops even though it insisted that it wasn't concerned about
health and safety issues. The Clinton administration and agrochemical
companies brought the case before the World Trade Organization, which
ruled that the ban was illegal. Even with the ban, in 2001, the
European Union passed Directive 2001/18/EC, placing stringent
requirements on the production and sale of genetically modified foods.

Today, the trade battle continues, with Monsanto arguably having the
most at stake. (See "French Court Says Ban on Gene-Altered Corn Seed
Will Remain, Pending Study.") Founded in 1901, Monsanto once produced
chemicals such as the herbicide dioxin used in "Agent Orange," a
defoliant used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. In 1984,
Vietnam vets sued Monsanto for the adverse health effects they
experienced after exposure to Agent Orange; they eventually settled
for $130 million, although some veterans decided to appeal.) In 2000,
Monsanto merged with Pharmacia, before spinning off again into a "new"
Monsanto that focuses on developing genetically modified crops instead
of chemicals.

But although the company has a substantial market share in the
genetically modified seed business, it can't escape its past. For
example, for decades, Monsanto dumped millions of pounds of dangerous
polychlorinated biphenyls, which are used as lubricants and coolants,
into landfills and toxic waste in Alabama creeks and elsewhere,
resulting in illnesses and deaths. (See "Monsanto Hid Decades of
Pollution" and "Superfund's Shell Game.") And as a new biotech
company, Monsanto allegedly conducts its business in an extremely
belligerent way; its aggressive business practices and disregard for
human and environmental health generating antagonistic grassroots
websites such as Monsanto Watch and the Organic Consumers Association.

Thus, the real problem: In theory, genetically modified foods would
help mitigate the effects of global warming, but in reality, the lack
of global trust in the companies that produce them (a la Monsanto)
will hinder efforts to use them. It's hard to imagine this problem
turning around until these companies demonstrate that they genuinely
care about the health of people and the environment more than profit
margins.

They could start by accepting responsibility for their past actions,
paying the medical bills of those injured by their products and
cleaning up the environmental disasters they created. And instead of
strong-arming farmers into using their products and seeds, they could
offer farmers both conventional seeds and genetically modified seeds.
They could even offer mixes that consist of different fractions of
conventional and genetically modified seeds, which farmers who are
reluctant to commit their entire acreage to genetically modified crops
might find more palatable.

In an ideal future, farmers would be able to choose from different
vendors offering a wide variety of seeds that would best meet the
needs of industry and consumers. In developing countries, local seed
cooperatives could sell seeds and work with the farmers in deciding
what to plant. Nothing should be presented as an ultimatum.
Cooperation and biodiversity will be critical strategies for the
foreseeable future, as without either, feeding the estimated 9 billion
people who will inhabit our planet by 2050 will be nearly impossible.
"

Hoe staat het met onze voedselveiligheid en diversiteit van de gewassen?

Henk Elegeert

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********