article

A genetically modified food is a food product derived in whole or part from a genetically modified organism (GMO) such as a crop plant, animal or microbe such as yeast. Genetically modified foods have been available since the 1990s. The principal ingredients of GM foods currently available are derived from genetically modified soybean, maize and canola.

Some governments have a very strong mutual disagreement over the labelling and traceability requirements for GM food products. For example the European Union and Japan require labelling and traceability while regulatory agencies in the United States do not believe these requirements are necessary.

Development and application

The origins of genetic engineering represent a series of sequential scientific advances from the Nobel prize-winning discovery of DNA to the production of the first recombinant E .coli bacteria producing human insulin in 1978. The general principle of producing a GMO flows from the axiom, first postulated by Francis Crick, known as the "Central Dogma". The Central Dogma states that genetic information only flows one way, from genes to proteins, and that one gene controls for the encoding of one specific protein. Contemporary science has revealed that in actuality, the genome action is a multi-layered context dependent process where some genes could possibly produce many different proteins. The implications of these findings have produced a high degree of uncertainty among environmentalists over safety of GMOs in its commercial application to food production.

The first commercially grown genetically modified food crop was a tomato created by Calgene called the FlavrSavr. Calgene submitted it to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for assessment in 1992; the agency determined that the FlavrSavr was in fact a tomato, did not constitute a health hazard, and did not need special labeling. Calgene released it into the market in 1994, where it was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of standard tomatoes. However, production problems, and competition from a conventionally bred Long-Shelf-Life (LSL) variety prevented the product from becoming profitable, and Calgene was bought by Monsanto in 1995. A variant of the FlavrSavr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. Its labelling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment which proved that, at the time, European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods. This attitude would be drastically changed after outbreaks of Mad cow disease weakened consumer trust in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto's Roundup-Ready soybeans. (see Trade war over genetically modified food)

Transgenic crops are grown commercially or in field trials in over 40 countries and on 6 continents. In 2000, about 109.2 million acres (442,000 km²) were planted with transgenic crops, the principal ones being herbicide- and insecticide-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. Other crops grown commercially or field-tested are a sweet potato resistant to a US strain of a virus that affects one out of the more than 89 different varieties of sweet potato grown in Africa, rice with increased iron and vitamins such as golden rice, and a variety of plants able to survive extreme growing conditions, such as high-salinity soils or hot weather.

Between 1996 and 2001, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 30, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 520,000 km² (128 million acres). The value for 2002 was 145 million acres (587,000 km²) and for 2003 was 167 million acres (676,000 km²). Soybean crop represented 63% of total surface in 2001, maize 19%, cotton 13% and canola 5%. In 2004, the value was about 200 million acres (809,000 km²) of which 2/3 were in the United States.

Four countries represent 99% of total GM surface in 2001: United States (68%), Argentina (22%), Canada (6%) and China (3%). It is estimated that 70% of products on U.S. grocery shelves include GM-derived ingredients. In particular, Bt corn, which produces the the pesticide within the plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These consitute "input-traits" that financially benefit the producers, yet have questionable benefits to consumers.

The US Agriculture Department estimated that 38 percent of the 79 million acres (320,000 km²) of corn planted in 2003 will be genetically engineered varieties as well as 80% of the 73.2 million acres (296,000 km²) soybeans. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. While their practability or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development.

Bloomberg News 5/21/04 DuPont creates new gene trait for corn By Jack Kaskey
"The DuPont Co…has developed a genetic trait that would compete with technology from rival Monsanto Co….Researchers found corn modified with the trait flourished in fields sprayed with six times the usual dose of glyphosate…to compete with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready seed technology" "…Repeated applications of glyphosate can lower crop yields of Monsanto's seeds as the herbicide builds up in the plant. Monsanto has developed newer traits to overcome this", company spokesman Bryan Hurley said. *

Benefits and risks

The majority of commercially available crops have an agronomic advantage like herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. These traits offer major benefits to the farmer. However, there are indirect benefits to the consumer from these traits: GM crops have shown to contribute to significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 1.8 billion liters in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced ploughing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 10 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. PG Economics

Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.

Controversies over risks

Although no major health hazards have come to light since GM food was introduced 12 years ago, consumer rights groups such as the Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace fear for the long term health risks which GM could pose, or that the risks of GM have not yet been adequately investigated [http://www.truefoodnow.org/index.html.

Toxic GM-potatoes?
In August 1998 widespread concern, especially in Europe, was sparked by remarks by nutrition researcher, Dr Arpad Pusztai, regarding some of his research into the safety of GM foods.

Pusztai claimed his experiments showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically engineered to express a lectin from snowdrop had suffered serious damage to their immune systems and shown stunted growth. The lectin expressed by the genetically modified potatoes is toxic to insects and nematodes and is allegedly toxic to mammals. He was criticized by leading British politicians, the majority of scientific peers with expertise in the area and by the GM companies because the announcement of his results in a television interview, preceded the scientific publication of his results. When his studies were finally published in The Lancet Stanley WB Ewen and Arpad Pusztai: "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine", The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187, October 16, 1999, Pages 1353-1354 Link, no evidence of stunted growth or damage to immunue system was substantiated.

The British Royal Society sent Pustztai data to six independent reviewers whose expertise included statistics, clinical trials, physiology, nutrition, quantitative genetics, growth and development, and immunology. Royal Society Report The reviewers regarded the data as not adequate to suport the conclusions because of

  • poor experimental design, possibly exacerbated by lack of ‘blind’ measurements resulting in unintentionally biased results;
  • uncertainty about the differences in chemical composition between strains of non-GM
and GM potatoes;
  • possible dietary differences due to non-systematic dietary enrichment to meet Home Office and other requirements;
  • the small sample numbers used in experiments testing several diets (all of which were non-standard diets for the animals used) and which resulted in multiple comparisons;
  • application of inappropriate statistical techniques in the analysis of results;
  • lack of consistency of findings within and between experiments.

Nonetheless controversy about the misrepresentation of Pusztai's results by Rowett Research Institute still lingers and the issue does not seem resolved.http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/Pusztaitcbh.htm Research protocols were sent by Pusztai to 24 independent scientists in different countries (including experts in psysiology, medicine, toxic pathology, nutrition, microbiology and biochemistry)MEMORANDUM PUBLISHED ON 12 FEBRUARY 1999 by Edilbert van Driessche and Thorkild C. Bøg-Hansen. These turned down the conclusions of the review committee and found that his research was of good quality and justified his conclusions. Among 'casualties' in these events was Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition and former top scientist at the Rowett Institute which was sacked for publicly defending Pusztai's research.

Various reports concerning the politicisation of the peer review process and deliberate misrepresentation of Pusztai's results were voiced by newspapers and some scientists.*

Safety testing
Supporters of genetically modified foods contend that in the USA the Food and Drug Administration regulates the safety GM food using the same standards and requirements as under U.S. food law generally. Substances added to food that do not meet the statutory definition of "generally recognized as safe," and that are not pesticides, are classified as food or color additives and must be pre-approved before they may be marketed.

However, opponents of genetically modified foods claim that the FDA's oversight of the safety of genetically modified foods is woefully inadequate. A legislative policy of "substantial equivalence" was introduced by Monsanto's lobbist/attorney Michael Taylor. This permits the GMO's to qualify as traditional or GRAS foods if their nutritional composition is essentially the same. The manufacturers vouchsafe the products. These are not rigorous reviews as the biotech industry suggests. Consider the two quotes below from the two authorities.

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food.... Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." -- Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communications, Monsanto, quoted in the New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998

"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety." -- FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties", (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 22991

Supporters of genetically modified foods hold that manufacturers of GM foods are held responsible for the safety of their products under both general US law and general provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In addition prior to marketing these GM foods manufacturers are required to submit to FDA documentation demonstrating their safety and await approval for their use United States Food Safety System, FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture..

Some people raise concerns that the safety of these novel food forms relies on the veracity of the manufacturers doing the testing. Defenders of the regulatory model point out that such a model has served the public well for many years with respect to non-GM food, drugs and food additives. They further point out that manufacturers data is subject to close scrutiny and that the law protects the consumers from manufactures of dangerous foods. It is thus in the manufactures best interests to ensure that the safety testing of GM foods is done adequately.

Many believe regulatory models fail to protect consumers and are subject to pressure and influence by industry. In addition many FDA approved drugs have been recalled in the wake of unreported side effects or suppressed findings.

Dangerous corn?
Another controversy recently arose around biotech company Monsanto's data on a 90-Day Rat Feeding Study on a strain of GM corn. In May 2005, critics of GM foods pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences called into question the regulatory doctrine of substantial equivalence - that GM food with similar proteins and toxins is deemed no different from conventional food, without further investigation of the effects of any other differences. Some argued that this study suggested human health might be affected by eating GM food.

However, the EU regulatory authorities that examined the Monsanto data concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats. Thus, the experts concluded that there were no effects on the functioning of kidneys in rats fed a diet of GM corn Rat study, European Food Safety Authority..

New allergens?
GMOs that induce allergies have been produced in the laboratory. In 1993 Pioneer Hi-Bred International developed a soybean variety with an added gene from the Brazil nut Biotech Soybeans and Brazil Nut Protein, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.. This gene increased the levels of methionine, a nutrient commonly added to poultry feed, in the GM soybean. However, a preliminary Pioneer funded study by the University of Nebraska indicated that the added gene could cause allergic reactions in humans. The completed study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, later confirmed the preliminary results. Pioneer discontinued further development of the GM soybean and had all material related to the modified soybeans destroyed. While this study indicates the possible risks of GM foods, some point out it establishes the commitment the developmental community has toward consumer safety as well as the competence of current safeguards. A similar result was published in November 2005, when a pest resistant field pea developed by the Australian CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice. The immunologist who tested the pea noted that the episode illustrated the need for each new GM food to be very carefully evaluated for potential health effects GM pea causes allergic damage in mice, NewScientist.com..

Environmental and ecological impacts
As discussed above there is some evidence for positive impacts of the planting of GM crops on reduced green house gas emmisions and pesticide loads in the environment. However, there has been controversy over the results of a farm-scale trial in the United Kingdom comparing the impact of GM crops and conventional crops on farmland biodiversity. Some claimed that the results showed that GM crops had a significant negative impact on wildlife Damning verdict on GM crop, Guardian..

Others pointed out that the studies showed that using herbicide resistant GM crops allowed better weed control and that under such conditions there were fewer weeds and fewer weed seeds. This result was then extrapolated to suggest that GM crops would have significant impact on the wildlife that might rely on farm weeds. In July 2005 the same British scientists showed that transfer of a herbicide-resistance gene from GM oilseed rape to a wild cousin, charlock, and wild turnips was possible Oilseed gene leak 'unsurprising', BBC News..

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone
Main article: Bovine somatotropin

Monsanto developed a recombinant version of the bovine growth hormone Somatotropin(rbST or rbGH), which goes by the brand name Posilac®. Injected into dairy cattle, the product can increase milk production from 10% up to 40%. This hormone is used in the USA but is banned in Europe where health concerns for consumers are cited as reasons for the ban. The FDA has stated that there is no test which can detect the presence of the hormone in milk, and that there is no evidence for adverse health effects.

Public perception

Research by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology has shown that in 2005 Americans' knowledge of genetically modified foods and animals continues to remain low, and their opinions reflect that they are particularly uncomfortable with animal cloning. The Pew survey also showed that despite continuing concerns about GM foods, American consumers do not support banning new uses of the technology, but rather seek an active role from regulators to ensure that new products are safe Public Sentiments About Genetically Modified Food, The Pew Initiative..

Interestingly, about 550 Amish farmers in Pennsylvania have adopted GM crops, because they allow for less intensive farming (less pesticides, etc.), are more productive (under these specific conditions), and do not conflict with the Amish lifestyle Amish Farmers Grow Biotech Tobacco, Potatoes, Council for Biotechnology Information..

Opponents of genetically modified food often refer to it as "Frankenfood", after Mary Shelley's character in her novel Frankenstein. The term was coined in 1992 by Paul Lewis, an English professor at Boston College who used the word in a letter he wrote to the New York Times in response to the decision of the US Food and Drug Administration to allow companies to market genetically modified food. The term "Frankenfood" has become a battle cry of the European side in the US-EU agricultural trade war.

The authors of The Frankenfood Myth provide some support for genetically modified food:

Intellectual Property

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Main article: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

Enforcement of Patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of the occurrence of Gene flow . In 1998, 95-98% of about 1000 hectares planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready® gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto. The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power polesFederal court of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser Date: 20010329 Docket: T-1593-98 Retrieved 26-Mar-2006..

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew roundup-ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor. The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and gylphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety.

In response to this sort of criticism, Monsanto Canada's director of public affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident," ..."Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, Sept. 9, 2002

Other Enforcement Cases
Critics of genetically modified foods claim that
Schmeiser's case is in no way unique. In a 2005 report titled "Monsanto vs. US Farmers," the Center for Food Safety documented numerous cases of farmers that have been harassed, bullied and sued by Monsanto after their crops had been contaminated with GE seeds and/or pollen.*
The Nelson Family Farm in North Dakota has a website to track what they see as their plight and battle for their farm in what opponents of genetically modified foods term "the Frankenfood Fight".*

"Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm," warns the CFS. "The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed... Since the introduction of genetically engineered crops, farming for thousands of America's farmers has been fundamentally altered; they have been forced into dangerous and uncharted territory and have found they are the worse for it."Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers Report *

Policy around the world

In 2000, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (68%), Argentina (23%), Canada (7%), and China (1%). This figure has changed, in the year 2003, to USA (63%), Argentina (21%), Canada (6%), Brazil (4%), China (4%) and South Africa (1%). Although growth is expected to plateau in industrialized countries, it is increasing in developing countries.

There are two policy areas surrounding GM food:

  • The standards and regulation of testing for food safety and;
  • The requirements for labelling and tracibility of GM products in the food chain.
Countries vary on their approach to both these points.

United States

In the United States, genetically modified food is widely available. The left-wing environmental movement has attempted to challenge the adoption of gm crops by attacking the biotech industry and the limited governmental intervention in food processing and packaging. Efforts to force fear driven mandatory labeling and have been met with industry, consumer, and government indifference.

Testing
The Food and Drug Administration regulates the safety of all foods sold including the safety of GM foods. Under these regulations FDA Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, Food and Drug Administration., substances added to food that do not meet the statutory definition of generally recognized as safe, and that are not pesticides Note: Pesticidal proteins in foods are regulated by the EPA , are classified as food or color additives and must be pre-approved before they may be marketed. Prior to marketing food additives, manufacturers are required to submit to FDA documentation demonstrating their safety and await approval for their use Premarket Notice Concerning Bioengineered Foods, Food and Drug Administration.. For a list of the GM foods that have been regulated in this way see FDA's List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods, Food and Drug Administration..

Section 402(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act covers unintentional introduction of unsafe toxicants into foods. Producers of the foods are legally responsible to ensure that no substance occurs in the food that "may render" the food injurious to health . In order to comply with this part of the act GM companies subject new GM foods to safety testing in animal models.

Some people raise concerns that the safety of these novel food forms relies on the effectiveness of testing by food manufacturers. Defenders of the regulatory model point out that such a model has served the public well for many years with respect to non-GM food, drugs and food additives. They further point out that manufacturers data is subject to close scrutiny and that the law protects the consumers from manufactures of dangerous foods. It is thus in the manufacturers' best interests to ensure that the safety testing of GM foods is done adequately.

Labeling
Section 403(i) of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that a producer of a food product must reveal on a label "all facts that are material with respect to consequences which may result from use".

Under the act a consumer must be informed by labeling if a food derived from a new plant variety differes from its traditional counterpart with respect to a safety or usage issue. The FDA takes the view that the method of production of the new plant variety is not "material" to whether a food needs to be labeled under the act. The FDA's policy is that foods be considered on case by case basis and that labeling would be required on individual GM food products if these GM foods were materially different .

European Union

See also Trade war over genetically modified food

In Europe, a series of unrelated food crises during the 1990s (for example, the BSE (or 'mad cow' disease) outbreaks and foot and mouth disease) have created consumer apprehension about food safety in general, and eroded the public trust in government oversight of the food industry. This has further fueled widespread public concern about GMOs, in terms of environmental protection (in particular biodiversity), health and safety of consumers and the right to make an informed choice. The apprehension might also be due to the novelty of GM foods, as well as cultural factors relating to food. The mishandling of the BSE crisis has left some consumers unwilling to consider "science" to be a guarantee of quality.

European consumers are demanding that their "right to know" the content and origin of the food they consume be respected. In a context of local food surplus where current GM food has little added nutritional value, many European consumers are wondering why any risk should be taken. However, as a result of the high quantity of GMO crops, the presence of GM in imported food products (shipments of grain for food, feed and processing for example), is now thought inevitable and largely unavoidable, and usually not mentioned.

EU regulation
For these reasons, the marketing of GM food is regulated in a manner that helps to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. At the beginning of the 2000s, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the technology. These new regulations required strict labelling and traceability of all food and animal feed containing more than 0.5% GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the precautionary principle. (see also Tax, tariff and trade).

One of the features of the European system is a comprehensive pre-market risk assessment, a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate information and labelling. This traceability is a means to implement post-market measures such as monitoring and withdrawals (recalls). This system is not only limited to GMO products but should encompass any food product ultimately.

The original EU rules for labeling of GM products were limited to products where transformed DNA and/or transformed protein are detectable, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins. New rules for tracebility and labelling which came into force in 2004 also require labelling of highly refined products made from GM ingredients like oil and corn syrup, even though that the presence of recombinant DNA or protein cannot be proven. The labelling rules do not apply to products of microbial genetic engineering, so the cheese made with the help of GM-chymosin does not have to be labelled. Officials stress that while traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure.

In April 1998, a 5 year ban was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, European Union environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 25-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a DNA code bar) identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. (see Mandatory labelling).

See Trade war over genetically modified food for more details on disputes and more recent developments between the United States and the EU arising from EU position on genetically modified organisms.

Japan

Japan, like Europe, maintains labelling standards for GM food products. Japanese demand and assistance has led to a small effort to set up separate processing facility for non-GM soybeans in the U.S.

Canada

Labelling is currently not required for GM food products sold in Canada. A mandatory labelling scheme was announced by the liberal government in 2004. However, one year later, not one product had been labelled accordingly. In 2005, a standing committee began work in the province of Prince Edward Island to assess a proposal to ban the production of GM foods within the province.

China and other developing countries

China is currently a producer of GM cotton. Research published in Science claims that Chinese farmers growing GM cotton use significantly less pesticides, reducing costs and improving farmer health. The Chinese government has also released safety certificates following field and laboratory testing allowing the cultivation of GM tomato, pimiento and a species of morning glory. Development of new GM crops for food is an active field of research in Chinese institutions.

In March 2002, China introduced biosafety rules that demanded strict labelling, extensive documentation and government approval for food shipments. Under these new rules, all soybean shipments from the United States were briefly interrupted until interim safety certificates could be acquired.

In 2004 the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture announced its intention to assess the safety of GM rice lines developed by Chinese institutions for insect, disease and herbicide resistance. With government approval the crops may be planted as soon as spring 2006.

Agriculture officials from developing and other economically disadvantaged nations are receiving training courses on GMO at the American Agriculture Department, with instruction in the WTO rules on GM products and benefits of biotechnology. U.S. industry groups are also providing "technical assistance" to fund initiatives that promote "science-based and transparent biotechnology regulations" in countries such as China.

When, for instance, the U.S. Trade Repesentative launched a WTO case against the European Union over its moratorium on GM product approvals, he was flanked not by the heads of the U.S. corporations that stood to benefit from the hoped for improvement in market penetration, but by scientists who came, at least originally, from India and Kenya and by a 'small farmer' from South Africa .

There is good reason for scepticism about some of the pro-industry 'faces' being flown in from the global South. In some cases 'small farmers' supposedly leading a 'hand-to-mouth existence' in Asia or Africa have turned out not to be subsistence farmers at all. Some have been groomed by Monsanto and appear to be reading carefully scripted statements.

'Independent' scientists, websites and lobby groups claiming to represent those in developing countries can also prove not to be as independent or representative as they claim.

see TJ Buthelezi, Chengal Reddy, CS Prakash, Foodsecurity.net, AfricaBio, ISAAA, Nuffield and the article Trade Wars and Media Campaigns*

See also

References

  • Huang, J. et al. 2002. Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 295:674-677.
  • Niu, 2003. Caution in China over GM Crops. Science 299: 1013
  • Lei, W. 2004. China Could Be First Nation to Approve Sale of GM Rice. Science 306:1458-1459.
  • Robert Ali Brac De La PerriFre and Franck Seuret (2001), Brave New Seeds: The Threat of GM Crops to Farmers, Zed Books
  • Stephen Nottingham (2003), Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is Entering Our Diet, Zed Books
  • http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml

External links

  • GM Watch *
Fake Persuaders CFFAR, Andura Smetacek, Mary Murphy, Paul Ohm
  • Center For Food and Agricultural Research (CFFAR)*
  • Andura Smetacek *
  • Mary Murphy *
  • Paul Ohm*

Center for Food Safety. "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers," 2005.*

ETC Group. "Canadian Supreme Court Tramples Farmers‚ Rights," May 21, 2004.*

ETC Group. "Oligopoly Inc., 2005," December 16, 2005.*

Freese, W. & Schubert, D. "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods." Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 21, November 2004.

Independent Science Panel. The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World,"2003.*

Pusztai, A. "Pusztai Answers His Critics,"2005.*

Pusztai, A. "National Regulations Should Reflect Risks of GE Crops," 2006.*

Ribeiro, S. "Las Ratas de Monsanto." La Jornada (México), June 11, 2005.

Shiva, V. Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply, South End Press, 2000.

Smith, J. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating. Yes! Books/Chelsea Green Publishing.*

Smith, J. "Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice," 2005.*

Smith, J. "Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food," 2006.*

TexPIRG Education Fund. "Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," 2005.

Tokar, B.(ed.) Redesigning Life? Zed Books, 2001.

Union of Concerned Scientists. "Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply, 2004.*

Anti-globalization | Biotechnology | Food industry | Genetic engineering | Genetically modified organisms

Gentechnisch verändertes Lebensmittel | Alimento transgénico | Genmodifierade livsmedel

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Genetically modified food".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world