Most Americans probably bring more genetically modified foods home from the grocery
store than they realize. Over the past decade, genetically modified crops have made their
way from the laboratory to our tables, with little fanfare or public attention. The Grocery
Manufacturers' Association estimates that 70% of the food found in grocery stores contains
genetically modified ingredients. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 74% of
the soybean crops, 71% of the cotton and 32% of the corn planted in the United States
last year were genetically modified. These figures are staggering, especially considering
the lack of attention being paid to the long-term effects such crops could have on human
health, the environment or the economy. Though various organizations test genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) for a variety of safety concerns, it is already too late
to “recall” the varieties being used, or to prevent them from having
unanticipated effects. Such concerns include cross-pollination with
non-GMO crops, increased allergenic potential and a reduction in
biodiversity.
|
What is genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering involves altering the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid, the molecule that encodes genetic information) of an organism by inserting genes from one species into another. This process, often referred to as recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, is being used in the food industry for a variety of purposes. For example, genetic scientists have introduced a particular gene from a fish that inhabits cold water into tomato DNA, causing the altered tomato plants to survive frost. Fish have been genetically enhanced with growth hormones to boost food production. Some farmers grow crops that produce insect-killing properties and others that tolerate increased use of herbicides to reduce the need for manual weeding. Researchers are developing new technologies to halt the spread of disease by mosquitoes or ticks, as well as technologies that enhance the effects of beneficial insects.
The first genetically altered food ingredient was government-approved in 1988. The enzyme called chymosin is made from genetically modified yeast or bacteria and used in cheese production. Since its certification as kosher and halal, the use of chymosin has all but replaced the use of rennet, an extract from the stomachs of cows that helps cheese to coagulate. Other genetically altered foods that have been approved for human or livestock consumption include corn, sugar beets, cotton, alfalfa, canola, rice, cantaloupe, soybeans, tomatoes, flax, potatoes, radicchio, squash and papaya.
For its positive potential, biotechnology companies hail genetic engineering as a way to end world hunger, which is of course an important mission. There is concern, however, that the science of genetic engineering is still very primitive, and the premature use of this technology in food production could be a danger to the food supply. Some scientists argue that because not enough is known about the role and behavior of each particular gene, it is impossible to predict adverse interactions with new species. Well-known author and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Jeremy Rifkin, even went so far as to describe the release of so many new genetically modified organisms into the environment as “spreading genetic pollution.”
Who is responsible for ensuring public safety?
In the United States, three governmental agencies keep tabs on food safety – the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each agency's mission determines its involvement in GMO safety. For example, the EPA is primarily concerned with the environmental impact of genetic modification and related pesticide usage. The FDA is charged with food safety, but does not generally require testing of GM foods before they reach the market. The FDA reviews data voluntarily provided by biotech companies, but would only mandate a review in a special circumstance such as a food that has increased allergenic potential or a food that contains genetically modified growth hormones, which are classified as drugs. The USDA compiles data about the use of genetically modified crops, pesticides and herbicides, and has been charged with regulating organic standards. Several USDA labels now exist to identify whether a food is completely organic or made with organic ingredients, but the meaning of these terms may be confusing to the public, and the consumer is not provided with all the information necessary to determine whether or not a food product contains genetically modified ingredients.
Despite the involvement of federal agencies in regulating GMOs, some experts are concerned that not enough is being done to protect the public and the environment. Claire Hope Cummings, a farmer, journalist and USDA attorney during the Carter administration, published an article in 2003 in which she describes many of the issues at the forefront of the GMO controversy. She describes an alliance between biotech companies and the policy makers whom they support. Her article also expresses concern about a reporting system that relies on the voluntary involvement of companies with financial interests that may conflict with scientific data from independent research, and the lack of follow-up evaluation after a crop has been released.
The European Union (EU) takes a much more cautious approach to concerns raised by biotechnology, and it has enacted much stricter guidelines in dealing with genetically modified foods. Much of this is due to an active interest on the part of the European public, which has demanded its governments take the issues surrounding genetic engineering seriously. In 2003, the EU passed mandatory labeling regulations and stringent pre-market testing of GMOs. Even non-governmental organizations that question the safety of GMOs are satisfied that the EU is protecting public well-being by requiring adequate assessment, stringent labeling guidelines and preventive measures from organic and non-GMO crop contamination.
How are farmers affected by GMOs?
The inconsistency between regulations in different countries causes considerable difficulty for American farmers who export goods to Europe. On a broader scale, farmers everywhere are experiencing the effects of genetic modification on their livelihood.
A major biotech firm has filed suit against dozens of American and Canadian farmers over what is being called patent infringement, and many more cases are being investigated. The corporation claims that the farmers have violated its technology rights by virtue of the fact that genetically modified crop varieties are found in their fields. The farmers, many of whom never planted any genetically modified seeds, assert that GMO varieties have cross-pollinated their standard crops, whether organically or conventionally grown. Genetically-modified, herbicide-tolerant canola has been found to cross-pollinate with great ease and has a tendency to spread – essentially becoming an uncontrollably troublesome weed. Many of the farmers accused of patent violations have decided to settle the claims out of court, paying damages that far exceed their profits, and have been forced as part of these settlements to agree not to speak about their cases. This constitutes a threat to free speech, in addition to the concerns it raises about property rights and patent laws.
Farmers are also finding that in many instances, genetically modified crops are difficult to grow, have smaller yields and place time-tested, indigenous and heirloom varieties at risk of extinction. It is likely that concerns over GMOs, coupled with corporate bullying tactics, will force even more small farmers – especially those who tend to embrace sustainable land management practices – out of business, further threatening long-term food security.
One of the primary benefits of genetic modification often touted by proponents of the technology is the potential to end world hunger. However, such claims do not hold up under scrutiny. In her 1998 book, World Hunger: Twelve Myths, Frances M. Lappe demonstrates that current food production levels would be more than adequate to feed everyone on the planet if it were not for problems with distribution and inequity in access. Farmers in poverty-stricken regions also face the expense incurred by using genetically altered seeds and the accompanying chemicals. Many of these farmers find that ecological farming practices offer greater benefit than high-tech approaches for feeding their families and communities.
Do genetically modified crops reduce pesticide use?
Each year billions of pounds of pesticides and herbicides are used for agricultural purposes. Many of these chemicals are neurotoxins that eventually wind up in groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams. Companies marketing genetically modified seeds to farmers have claimed their herbicide-tolerant products will require less chemical applications, thereby easing the work of the farmer and reducing environmental impact. Herbicides can be sprayed directly over the plants, most often corn, soybeans or cotton, without harming the crop itself.
A 2003 report titled “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years,” prepared by the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, examined data collected by the USDA and concluded that pesticide use has in fact increased noticeably since the 1996 introduction of these crops. Individual farmers may not apply as many different herbicides as before, but the total amount has risen. The chemicals used are often stronger, and this raises concerns about creating a downward spiral of developed resistance in the target weeds, resulting in the continuing need for stronger and more toxic chemicals in the future.
In addition to herbicide tolerant crops, plants are being engineered that produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a natural bacterial toxin that kills certain insects. Bt corn accounts for much of the corn grown in the U.S. today. The cells of the corn are constantly making this toxin, and it carries the risk of exposing non-harmful organisms that try to feed on the plant as well as the intended pests. Beneficial species of birds, worms, soil microorganisms and others are at risk, and the possible consequences can be anticipated in a ripple effect on interdependent life systems.
 |
How can consumers know if they're buying genetically modified food?
Since the U.S. government does not require foods that contain GMOs to be labeled as such, it can be difficult to know for sure. Quality Assurance International (QAI), a company that offers organic certification services, also provides a certified non-GMO label for products made without genetic engineer-ing, but many consumer rights advocates are calling for a label that would identify foods that do contain GMOs.
Numerous citizens’ groups have formed campaigns to encourage Congress to pass man-datory labeling require-ments in order to provide the public with the basic right to choose whether or not they want to buy foods that contain genetically engineered components. A 2001 ABC News poll found that 93% of respondents were in favor of labeling, and other polls have shown that about two-thirds of Americans have no idea that their food contains GMOs. Labeling would be par-ticularly helpful to people with food allergies, as some genetically engineered crops have an increased potential for allergenic effects. For many, this issue represents a basic human right to know what they are putting into their bodies.
While it is not a foolproof solution, buying food that is certified organically grown is currently the most effective way to avoid GMOs. When possible, shopping at farmers' markets offers both the opportunity to support the local economy while at the same time directly interacting with the people who grow the food, enabling the consumer to ask questions and build trusting relationships with the region's farmers.
Where do we go from here?
No one knows for sure what the long-term consequences of genetically altering our food will be – for humans or the environment. It can be concluded with certainty, however, that the security of the world's food supply rests on the ability to responsibly manage emerging technologies, balancing potential benefits with careful analysis of the risks. Decisions must be made in the absence of conflict of interest, with full disclosure, and with the intent to ensure global well-being.
Illustration by Jeff Faerber, www.jefffaerber.com.
