Conscious Choice: A World View of Genetically-Engineered Foods

September 2000

A World View of Genetically-Engineered Foods

by Liane C. Casten

"The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." — Dr. Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology, London

On Sunday, July 9, 2000, the highly-rated TV show "Sunday Morning," with Charles Osgood broke ground with a lead story on GMOs. The show liberally quoted U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dan Glickman promoting GMOs as a major trade issue. Val Giddings, spokesperson for the industry, actually said he knew of no studies that indicated a problem with GMOs. The major thrust of the fifteen-minute segment was that the problems with the industry can be laid at the feet of European and other countries outside the States that have become close to irrational in their rejection of this "cutting edge" technology. And yes, the experts agreed: if the "irrational" European position catches on in the U.S. (where products have entered the marketplace without labels or discussion) there may be problems ahead for the whole industry.

In fact, independent science has already identified a number of troubling problems with GMOs. According to the Center for Food Safety, human toxicity, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immuno-suppression, cancer, loss of nutrition, and diabetes are documented effects of various GMOs. While the mainstream press may periodically report on some of these problems, the same mainstream press has been remarkably silent on the major controversies going on outside the United States. That’s why the real drama over GMOs is being played out across the ocean.

"[European] coverage continues to be more subtle, richer, and much greater in quantity as well as quality than in the U.S.," states Phil Bereano, a professor at the department of technical communication, University of Washington, Seattle. At times, the GMO discussion in Europe, Japan, and India becomes a debate on democracy, corporate arrogance, patenting of life forms, and the dangers of this technology. A media trip around the world can elucidate some of what’s really going on.

In January, 2000, 130 nations, including the U.S., signed an international biosafety agreement that requires exporters of genetically engineered foods and seeds to identify them and permits countries to refuse to import them. An early requirement that GMO exports must be labeled by type of variety was changed to "may contain" GMOs. The change in language came as a result of both U.S. and Canadian government protests.

Resistance Builds

Consumers and activists worldwide appear consistently adversarial toward laissez-faire government organizations and scientific groups with corporate sympathies. Thus, during 1999, European Union (E.U.) resistance began with a number of crop uprootings and citizen protests. Leading the action have been French farmers and British, Irish, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Austrian, Swiss, and Scandinavian consumer and environmental groups who have taken it upon themselves to protest government decisions. By the end of 1999, almost no U.S. corn or Canadian canola (rape seed) oil had been exported to the E.U. — thanks to consumer resistance.

In addition, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other groups initiated a September, 1999, "mopping up" campaign to drive GMO-contaminated meat and animal feeds completely off the E.U. market. Fifty percent of all genetically-modified (GM) crops worldwide are incorporated into animal feed, so the next large question looming for the E.U. countries is the issue of whether people know that their chicken, for example, is produced using GMOs.

No new strains of GMOs have been approved for use in the E.U. since mid-1998, but the E.U. is under pressure from the U.S. to remove the de facto moratorium on approvals for new GMOs. And it appears to be caving. In July, the E.U. said its current moratorium on new GM crops was illegal and proposed kick-starting its stalled approval process. Citing "a threat by the United States government to take the E.U. to the World Trade Organization over delays in approvals of genetically modified crops," Greenpeace accused the E.U. of preparing the ground for a fast-track approval of these products, some of which are made by American companies.

What’s new in the E.U.

Perhaps because of trade issues, Switzerland is actively pursuing compliance with the GMO bullies. Swiss Health and Agriculture Ministries said they decided to allow Monsanto maize on the market because it constituted "no danger to human health." The country has so far approved Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans and other GM products. Still, the country draws a line when it comes to labeling. Products containing the Monsanto product must be clearly labeled.

France, ever independent, is one of the leaders of GMO resistance. France is on the forefront of demanding the E.U. continue to block authorization of new GM crops. The E.U. has offered a discussion document for the maximum level of GM content to be set at 0.5 percent. In June, however, when farmers discovered they may be planting material with trace levels of GM material, there was a huge outcry — even when the seeds in question contained less than one percent of GMO material. Angry farmers demanded the government take the responsibility for any consequences for the contaminated maize, corn, rape seed, and soy seeds. Currently, France is getting non-GM seeds from Brazil, though these seeds cost more. Apparently, the price does not matter since many food manufacturers and retailers have established guaranteed non-GMO brands.

In Germany, the government is leading the resistance to GMOs. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called on German agri-business not to grow GM plants until 2003, so the government can investigate their impact on the environment. This action comes none too soon; the German government-funded consumer protection body, Stiftung Warentest, found GM material in 31 of 82 common German supermarket products as of July, 2000. This included Bisquick pancake mix and Tofutti frozen dessert imported products.

Italy, so far, is all talk — but the talk is interesting. Back in May, thousands of Italian protesters joined together to protest against GM crops at an international biotech conference in the city of Genova. European Affairs Minister Gianni Mattioli has stated that he does not believe GM crops should be classified as "substantially equivalent," to GMO-free crops, as promoted by the U.S. The country’s farm minister, Alfonso Scanio said that Italy needs to market GMO-free foods in order to succeed on the world market. However, he said grain traders had warned that GM animal feed imports were unavoidable. Italy’s biggest farm group has urged labeling of GM animal feed and said the best way for farmers to guarantee safety and traceability of feed was to produce it themselves.

The Greek government also is taking a precautionary approach toward GMOs. After Greek farmers unknowingly planted about 2.7 percent of their cotton fields with GM seeds, activists demanded that Greek officials turn under the affected fields. The government agreed to destroy GM cotton crops and compensate farmers after conducting tests to determine the extent of GMO contamination. After tests discovered traces of GMOs in Greek cotton, the government demanded that the E.U. tighten controls on companies involved in seed imports.

The Dutch are pursuing the most interesting avenue of all. In May, the Dutch Parliament began a debate on whether to allow patents on life. Some critics consider patents an act of biopiracy — or the effort by corporations developing GMOs to patent the new form of seed. Creating corporate ownership of intellectual property on traditional knowledge —which many say rightfully belongs to the indigenous people — has become a hot topic. If farmers buy the GM seed, they will no longer be able to save, use, or exchange their own seeds. Seed saving is a longstanding tradition in sustainable farming.

In and Around the United Kingdom

In the U.K., the whirlwind of activity surrounding GMOs hasn’t stopped for at least two years. Prince Charles has come out firmly against any GMOs while his sister Anne has come down in favor of them. True to both sides, Prime Minister Tony Blair has indicated a desire to resist GMOs — and then has supported business as usual.

Advanta Seeds UK recently sold rape-seed with GM material: it was grown on Canadian prairies contaminated by GM crops some 800 meters away. The same Advanta seed had been planted unknowingly in Scotland, Germany, France, and Sweden — in breach of national prohibitions. Advanta agreed to pay for farmers to pull up their contaminated crops. The government, for its part, admitted that "it is false to pretend that there is any distance which is going to prevent some contamination."

The citizens, however, insist on "pretending." Activists around the U.K. continue to rip up crops whenever they discover another GMO "Farm Scale Trial." They call the trials "a major cause of GMO pollution." A group of twenty-five dairy farmers has revealed plans to build the first factory to specialize in GMO-free milk. And the growth of organic products in the UK has been extraordinary — five times as much as in 1996 — all in reaction to the import of GMOs.

The British supermarket chain known as Iceland has said all their food will be organic — at no additional cost to the customer. Iceland also will be removing meat and poultry reared on GM food. The Sainsbury chain has bought sites on Caribbean islands to guarantee organic supplies, but as of June, 2000 the chain announced they are supporting the development of GM vegetables. (Activists have called for a boycott.)

When it comes to GMOs in Scotland, leadership emanates from local authorities and grassroots groups. Twenty-five Scottish school councils already have banned GMOs from the menu of school meals. Many have set up campaigning groups or joined the call for a five-year moratorium on commercially grown GM crops. The councils state they were not prepared to take risks with the environment or the health of children.

The Edinburgh Council has become the first Scottish local authority to open a laboratory dedicated to testing for GM food. The goal is to enable customers to make informed choices about GM produce. The idea behind it all is that customers are "entitled to the choice."

Ireland’s Minister for Agriculture, Joe Walsh, is launching an Irish Food Board report on organic food markets. Despite threats of trade sanctions from the U.S., Walsh notes that the organic sector is one of the fastest growing segments of the European food market.

Asia Pushes Back

Monsanto has long been selling Roundup Ready products in India, but the company’s bids to introduce terminator technology (plants that produce sterile seed) in India were squashed by the agricultural community and the government. Outspoken critic of GMOs Vandana Shiva sent out an alert in 2000 when it appeared that the U.N. Development Program was attempting to hold a meeting entitled "The Role of Business Partnership in Promoting Trade and Sustainable Development." According to Shiva, there was an attempt to promote biotechnology as "organic." The effort failed (as it did in the U.S.), thanks to protests by thousands of organic farmers and consumers.

Shortly after farmers uprooted Monsanto’s GM field trials in December of 1998, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology, New Delhi, filed a case in the Indian Supreme Court to stop field trials, since they violated biosafety regulations. But federal Agriculture Minister Sundar Lal Patwa announced this year that India would conduct initial trials on GM crops. Patwa said India would look at other countries first before introducing them. High import duties now serve to protect India’s farmers, whose "interests are first," according to Patwa. The minister claims that he wants to promote organic farming, which he states, "can raise the yields of many crops."

In this ambivalent climate, Monsanto shut down its R&D unit at the Indian Institute of Science, terminating seventy scientists. Thus, the future of GMOs in India is far from certain.

Japanese consumers are distinctly wary of GM foods. Back in 1999, Japan’s largest maker of soybean protein food products, Fuji Oil Co, Ltd., said the group would stop using GM soybeans by the next year. Then, in early 2000, the Health and Welfare Ministry declared that processed food manufacturers were to label their products containing any amount of ingredients liable to cause allergic reactions. Since Japan had already approved twenty-two varieties of six GM crops — soybeans, corn, rape seed, potatoes, cotton, and tomatoes — these also would have to be labeled. By June, one of Japan’s leading snack makers announced it would stop using corn sweeteners, citing concerns about GMO rejection.

The South Korean government has declared that all GM potatoes must be labeled by March, 2002. Those found guilty of false labeling will be subject to fines and imprisonment. Soybeans seem to be taking care of themselves. This spring, Pulmuone, Korea’s largest maker of tofu and soybean products, announced it would stop using GM beans as of July 29, 2000. This move is probably a response to a significant drop in sales after the Korea Consumer Protection Board disclosed last year that the company used GM beans in the majority of its tofu products.

Down Under

At latest count, 93 percent of Australians support labeling of GM foods "to enable customers to make informed choices." Luckily for them, their desires are being heard. Both Australian and New Zealand health ministers agreed to a mandatory system of labeling for all food that is modified. The ministers even rejected an Australian government call for a general 1.0 percent threshold for GM content before a food is to be labeled. It is estimated that both Australia and New Zealand could expect labels on GMOs by mid-2001.

In April, 2000, New Zealand also began a voluntary moratorium of GM crops. The pause will prevent any new applications for field trials, but existing experiments will be allowed to continue.

Closer to Home

Mexican interest in biotechnology is high. Many of its research institutions and post graduate programs work on biotech subjects — from waste water treatment and pharmaceuticals to diary products. Yet, in April a bill was passed requiring labels on GM foods. However, some 20 percent of corn Mexico imports each year from the U.S. consists of GM grain — that’s 20 percent of five million metric tons. Currently, the GM corn is simply mixed with conventional corn. Labels become difficult at this point.

Brazil is the one state that has unilaterally declared war on GMOs. The world’s second largest soybean producer, it is presently the only GMO-free country in the western hemisphere. In addition, Brazilian port authorities have so far in 2000 turned away two shipments of GM corn from Argentina. Foreign corn that has made it into the country has been held in silos pending lab tests to determine whether it was genetically modified.

At the very least, Brazilians want to see the import crops segregated: GMOs on one hand and conventional crops on the other. But Brazil is not settling for the very least. In response to challenges by Monsanto, Brazilian courts have upheld a complete ban on GM soybeans. GM crop research at one of four local units of Monsanto was been halted in July, thus prohibiting the institution from conducting any research in Brazil.

In Canada, the battle over GMOs looms large. Some Canadian officials have taken a positive position regarding GMOs. Dr. George Paterson, past Director-General of the Food Directorate of the Health Protection Branch of Health Canada, reportedly put enormous pressure on Health Canada scientists to approve not only bovine growth hormones but other drugs of questionable safety. (Eventually, Canada said no to rBGH.) Dr. Paterson has lately migrated to Scotland, where he will be the food safety watchdog for the Foods Standards Agency.

In June, Greenpeace Canada released a seventy-page report in which it reviewed five laboratory studies on the effects of Novartis Bt corn on beneficial organisms. The study had been prepared for the U.S. EPA and European regulatory officials. The Greenpeace report exposed the "junk science" behind approvals of GM crops; it also renewed its call for cereal giant Kellogg to withdraw GMOs from its products.

Monsanto has found a new market in Cuba, which may be one reason for the recent government push to relax trade restrictions. The U.S. Congress has voted to sell surplus American GMOs to Cuba, and apparently Castro could not be happier. The World Policy Institute has estimated that the U.S. will export more than $400 million in food and agricultural products to Cuba. Cuba has no money to pay for the food, so the question remains: Who will pay for Monsanto’s windfall?

Conclusion

A major worldwide research study on consumers’ awareness of GMOs was released in June, 2000. The conclusion: "The more North American consumers hear about GM foods, the less they like them." Two thousand adult consumers from the U.S. and Canada were surveyed, as were another 3,000 from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, and the U.K.

The global backlash against GMOs and the weak U.S. farm economy are already taking their toll on U.S. export sales. Some analysts believe the consumer backlash will get worse and spread to North America — despite the $50 million dollar advertising campaign launched this year to prevent this from happening. If consumer resistance is not contained, CEOs who have put their corporate lives on the line for this inadequately-tested technology could very well pay a huge price for their arrogance.

If worldwide developments are any indication, however, public relations in the world will not obscure the risks of GMOs. Eventually U.S. consumers will develop the awareness regarding this corporate boondoggle. It’s just a question of time.

The Phil Bereano quote came from the story, "Media Coverage of Genetically Modified Food Differs in Europe," by Ivona Lerman, which was published in EJ News (Spring, 2000, Vol 4, No. 1), the newsletter of the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism, Michigan State University School of Journalism.

Farmers Grow Suspicious of GMOs

Considering the growing antagonism toward GMOs it’s no wonder farmers across the U.S have become leery about them. Far fewer acres than expected have been planted with GMOs this year. While some farmers are finding the genetically-modified (GM) crops do not work as promised and are giving up in disgust or disappointment, many more are concerned their markets are drying up. The American Corn Growers Association conducted a scientific, randomly selected, statistically valid "unbiased, honest, and objective" survey of 500 corn farmers in fifteen states. The group found:

• 66 percent say they are concerned that the responsibility for segregating GM corn from traditional non-GM corn will rest with them.

• 64.2 percent say that their decision to plant more or fewer acres of GM corn in the future will be influenced if grain elevators, grain processors and grain exporters require segregation.

• 76.3 percent say they will plant fewer acres of GM corn if the grain industry requires segregation.

• 62.6 percent say they are currently able to segregate GM from non-GM corn with their existing on-farm storage system.

• 53.2 percent expressed concern that farmers will be held liable for contaminating traditional, non-GM cornfields with GM corn through cross-pollination.

• 81.8 percent of the nation’s corn producers said that foreign export customers should have the right to choose between buying traditional, non-GM corn or GM corn.

"The survey reinforces the view that the issues of on-farm segregation, legal liability for cross-pollination, and supplying the customer the products they desire are the paramount issues impacting farmer concerns," said Gary Goldbert, CEO of the ACGA. The E.U. and Japan have already banned some gene-spliced varieties of U.S. corn, cotton, and soybeans. And U.S. corn growers are no longer able to sell certain types of corn to Spain and Portugal, two traditional markets.

In response to overseas customers who have indicated that they only want to purchase traditional wheat, the U.S. wheat industry promised in July of this year that genetically engineered wheat would be segregated from traditional wheat. Monsanto may want a trade war; American farmers only want to sell their crops. — LC

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: