Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods
By Christopher Hollis
Notions toward some genetically modified foods (GM) leads some people to shy away from trying these technologically advanced products. Due to their preconceived notions to stay away from foods that are different, they may miss the benefits of GM foods, while at the same time, those same people might also find that GM foods do more harm than good. Several points can be made about foods that have been genetically modified in some form; some are better artificially, most are raised without harmful pesticides, and many may seem to be healthier than what could be referred to as their "non-modified substitute.” If the biotech industry is so convinced that these products are safe, why do they refuse to label GM foods, which would give the consumers the choice of which foods they wanted to buy?
On May 25, 2000, General Mills announced that "Total breakfast cereal will be the only food in the grocery store with 100 percent fortification of the bone-building mineral, calcium, in a single serving.” Total, which contains ten essential vitamins and minerals, is one of the healthiest cereal's on the market. With the announcement that it would contain 100 percent of the daily value of calcium, people looked to it as an important source of calcium. While a nationwide survey indicated that over two-thirds of the people in the United States believed they had enough calcium, USDA data showed that only one-fifth of the population actually get enough calcium. While calcium used to be associated with mostly milk, more people are learning that they can get as much or more calcium per serving than they can with milk. How can that be? Most food products are enriched with some kind of vitamin or nutrient. Foods like Total, contain many different vitamins that have been added to make it healthier, which means the food has been modified. It is easier to get all of one's daily vitamins in one food or in a multivitamin, rather than take everything separately. Products like Total are modified, by they are not genetically modified.
A basic distinction about modified foods (enriched) and genetically modified foods is that modified foods are enriched after the seed is created, grows, or the plant is harvested. A genetically altered food can produce the same nutrients or resistance to bacteria in a seed by itself, and pass it on to every subsequent generation of the plant.
In the example of Total above, this would be an enriched food. Foods like this have been around awhile, even though this food in particular started the 100 percent daily calcium amount recently. Although genetic modification of plants has been done for a while, it has never taken the path of where it is now. On a box of Total, many items can be found. Of these include ingredients and the amount of vitamins in the cereal. Products like Total are safe and proved to be healthy. Why does a product that is so healthy have so much labeling, while a product that is not known to be safe or harmful usually requires no such warnings?
A strawberry is a small red fruit that is grown in places like Florida. A strawberry grows in fields, is susceptible to disease, and might often be attacked by bugs. Farmers spray pesticides to get rid of these insects. Unfortunately, pesticides are not only harmful to the environment, but they are also harmful to humans. Pesticide residue may remain when consumers actually buy the product at a store. To solve this problem, farmers could stop the use of pesticide to kill the insects that harm the berry. In order to do this, experiments must be done in order to create a berry that resists bugs and even perhaps a berry that is also immune to diseases that berries could suffer from. The berry could also be bigger and redder than other berries that were not altered genetically. In order to create a berry that has these characteristics, a scientist must find what traits he or she wishes to add to it. By finding the traits that the berry should have, scientists must isolate these traits from the source of which projects the trait. By adding the sources trait to the berry, scientists can create a superior berry. The berry looks better, is bigger, and may even taste better. But is it healthier?
Are genetically modified (GM) foods, foods in which DNA has been removed, changed, or been added to, dangerous? The answer depends on who is asked. Many councils, companies, and scientists are proponents of biotechnology, and support GM foods. Several different biotechnology councils are trying to inform the consumer about biotechnology. Councils like the Council for Biotechnology Information, are not independent councils with independent researchers. This council in particular, was created by seven of the leading companies in the biotech industry, including Monsanto, the leader in GM foods.
In May of 2001, the New York Times reported how the increasing amount of agricultural patents are in the hands of private companies rather than public research institutions. In the article, Dr. William Folk, who is a professor at the University of Missouri, says that certain techniques "that have by and large been most useful are now inaccessible,” (Pollack) meaning that many public institutions are finding it more difficult to conduct research when there is the possibility of patent infringement on their part. For example, at the University of Costa Rica, scientists who "have genetically engineered rice to provide resistance to a virus that is a major problem in the tropics” (Pollack) cannot sell the modified seed to farmers because the University "must get clearance from holders of as many as 34 patents, said Dr. Ana Sittenfeld, an associate professor there.” (Pollack)
In order to understand more about GM foods, the public needs to know more. This trend of private companies becoming more in control of the GM research and development market is not helping. A lack of accessibility, even if small, can be detrimental to the development of GM foods. In order for the public to be more open to trying GM foods, more research needs to be done by independent researchers, which are ones not employed or influenced by a major biotech company, which is becoming more and more difficult.
In December of 2001, a group of independent European scientists backed four different types of genetically modified crops in Europe: maize, oilseed rape, soybeans and tomatoes. But such announcements, which are well publicized by leading biotech companies who conduct genetic research, are propaganda. The same such material, although with the exact opposite view, comes from the other side of the debate, from nutritionists, other scientists, activists, and consumers who are still unsure about GM foods.
Why are the leading biotech companies so against letting the consumer know about what GM products exist in consumer foods? Why would a company that is so willing to educate people about the safety of GM foods be so against labeling such foods? Such organizations such as The Campaign, are asking these types of questions, and as it would seem, in the right places.
On the labeling side of the argument, there are the people who say that GM foods are or might be a risk to the population. The Campaign's major focus however is to make labeling a requirement for every GM food. They also inform the consumer about GM foods by education, such as in the their "Take Action Packet,” a brochure that explains more about GM foods. The Campaign is in part responsible for two bills before Congress. The bill HR 3377 in the House was introduced by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the bill S 2080 in the Senate was introduced by California Senator Barbara Boxer. The bill in the House has 58 cosponsors according to the latest available information from the Thomas section of the Library of Congress. This group has worked along side many others to push for labels. According to The Campaign, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act will soon be updated and introduced to the 107th Congress.
Why is it that the only reason certain companies would label GM foods would be if it was required by law? If GM foods are not harmful, why do companies not want to label GM foods? Could they not say to the consumer that it is not harmful, or would they know they are lying? Or finally, do they simply not know enough to say anything either way, which could later turn out to be incriminating? They are so many questions that the biotech companies have not yet answered well enough to satisfy most people. The biotech industry has used the excuse that adding a GM product label might make consumers wary of buying that item. Yet, the industry still maintains that such products are safe. So why do they not inform the consumer through some form rather than not telling them what is in the product that they are buying. An ABC news poll in June revealed that 93% of Americans polled supported labeling according to The Campaign. Americans want it, but the biotech industry has not listened.
Are we eating GM foods right now? In several recent cases, GM foods have been unknowingly released into the consumer market. In November of 2001, scientists at the University of California Berkeley discovered that transgenic DNA had somehow made it into native corn in Mexico, according to the science journal Nature, which according to Reuters, such planting was banned in 1998. There are some that say that leading companies are already including GM foods. Although some may, it is probably not illegal. One might think that asking at a local grocery store might produce some results. In a recent visit to five grocery chains, a GM food was nowhere to be found. Are there no such foods at major supermarkets? Are they afraid of stocking such foods, or do they even know what they are carrying? The only mention of GM on a food label was on a few labels for organic soy beans, in which it stated that the product was not a genetically modified organism (GMO). In a conversation with a store manager at Publix, he could not say for sure whether GM foods were in fact present, but was not aware of any that currently sold at the store. He did mention one product that was recalled, taco shells, which had been contaminated by Starlink corn which was intended for animals instead of humans. Such a recall makes one wonder, although we do not hear about such contamination's of non GM foods with GM foods often, does that mean that such occurrences are rare to occur or are they rare to be caught? In this case, perhaps it was only publicized due to the fact that this type of GM food was not meant for human consumption. But such questions that cannot be answered, such as the amount of content of GM food in current foods, if any, make many in the environmental world want mandatory labels on all GM foods, so that such harmful exposures can be caught earlier by government testing, which would perhaps be brought about by the requirement of testing to see what a label would need to say about a particular food. Although such exposures could not be prevented, catching such exposures early or preventing some contamination's is more beneficial then having little regulation. If nothing else, it could be considered a good business practice for a company to tell consumers exactly what it is they are selling for people to eat.
Some organizations in the United States wonder why the FDA, USDA, and EPA have not done more to regulate genetically modified foods. Part of the FDA's guidelines, set in 1992, are extremely vague. According to a review by About and a policy statement of the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA says that GM foods should be labeled when they are different enough from the original, if it is a new type of food, if it causes allergies associated with it that the original did not, or if it is more harmful than the original food. The European Union says that there is a larger concern for GM foods in Europe, a reason why they have a more active role in law making. According to the EU, in a quick summary, the US tries to be the leader in all GM output, pushing everything it can through regulatory hurdles, while the EU cares more about quality and safety. According to the British Medical Journal, "The United Kingdom has led the world in developing systems for assessing the safety of genetically modified foods.” (Jones 583)
If GM foods are found to be safe, or at least the portion distributed are safe according to an overwhelming majority of scientists and governments, such foods can be extremely beneficial. Some say that the genetic engineering of foods could save millions of lives while saving millions of dollars. By producing a GMO that contains healthy nutrients, such nutrients could be dispersed to a widespread population in such places as Africa, where starvation and disease are some of the major causes of death. By adding nutrients and even antibiotics to food, the food that these people could grow from the modified seeds would need no more effort, and perhaps less due to the resistance of the seeds themselves to diseases that kill crops or insects, thus eliminating the need for pesticides. Such food with all the nutrients included would drastically reduce the need for dispersing vitamins and antibiotics to the population, since they would already have it. An advancement such as this would improve the lives of millions worldwide. So do the risks outweigh the benefits? The problem is that although we are realizing many of the benefits, we do not yet know the degree of risk, and therefore cannot compare the two to come to a decision as to if it is better to have GM foods or to do without them.
The biotech industry is still an emerging one. There are not a large amount of varieties of GM foods, mostly corn, soy beans, canola, tomatoes, potatoes, and cotton. But as GM foods become more widespread, something will have to be done to allay the fears of consumers. Until more definitive data is known and released about the effects of GM foods, the question as to its safety cannot be answered. The term "Frankenfoods,” which refers to the story of Frankenstein who was brought to life, is a way some describe GM foods. These people say that messing with nature is wrong and unethical. While this is their opinion, others might have a different opinion. In order to express their opinion, the public needs to be able to decide whether they want to try GM foods now or wait until there is more research. Putting GM products into foods without the consumer knowing it is wrong, since it does not give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves.
Sources and Credits
Hollis, Chris. Personal Field Study: Search for GM Foods At Four Supermarkets and One Retail Chain January 20, 2001
Pollack, Andrew. "The Green Revolution Yields to the Bottom Line.” New York Times 15 May 2001
Jones, Leighton. "Genetically modified foods.” British Medical Journal 318 (1999): 581-584
 Download the PDF version of this article (58kb)
|
You must have the free Adobe Reader to view the articles in PDF format.
|
