| |
|
|
GreenMoney Journal - publishing since 1992
Fall 2010 issue
Socially Responsible Investing – Better Companies, Better Communities
|
| |
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
reprinted with permission from Green@Work (March/April 2001)
The great debate continues regarding genetically-modified food: is it a possible solution for
ending world hunger or a giant step toward agricultural and ecological ruin?
BY PIPER
SCHOLFIELD
Ingo Potrykus was in his 50s and beginning to think of retirement. But first
he wanted to complete one very important project. Potrykus, a full professor of plant sciences at
the ETH Zurich, wanted to create a type of rice he hoped would diminish world hunger. This rice, he
believed, could improve the lives of the poorest people of the world.
His new grain,
called golden rice because of its rare yellow color, was enriched with Vitamin A. As many as 100
million children suffer from vitamin A deficiency, a leading cause of blindness. A great many of
these people consume rice as a staple of their diet. This new rice, Potrykus hoped, could alleviate
much human suffering.
Potrykus was jubilant, although it had been a long journey. He had
overcome many obstacles in the creation of the golden rice. The initial plants were somewhat
finicky and refused to thrive in his greenhouses near the foothills of the Swiss Alps. By the time
success finally came, in 1999, Potrykus was 65.
Yet as he celebrated his success, he knew
the most difficult hurdles lay ahead because his creation, the golden rice, was a result of genetic
engineering: inside each of those vitamin A-laden grains lay bits of DNA borrowed from bacteria and
daffodils. Potrykus knew that inside his rice's genetic history lay a pandora's box of controversy.
In the short time since Potrykus and his collaborator, Peter Beyer of the University of
Freiburg in Germany, announced their finding, golden rice has become something of a poster child
for the increasingly polarized public debate over genetically-modified foods (GMFs). At the heart
of the debate is the question of what genetically-engineered crops represent. Are they a
technological leap forward in agriculture? Or do they represent the slide down a slippery slope
that will lead to ecological and agricultural ruin?
An Escalating Controversy
Golden rice has been hailed, by some, as a salvation for people in developing countries. In
many Asian countries where poor farming families eat rice at every meal, childhood blindness is a
major health problem. The World Health Organization estimates that in these countries half a
million new cases of irreversible blindness occur each year. But the success of golden rice in
these countries depends on its acceptance.
"If golden rice can be accepted by people in
countries that rely on rice as a staple of their diet, it could make huge inroads into addressing
the problem of vitamin A deficiency," said Ann Tutwiler, director of agribusiness policy for
Central Soya Co., a large food manufacturing company based in Indiana. Human nature makes people
skeptical of any new product, especially if it is one being introduced by foreigners, she said.
Tutwiler points to the success of vitamin-enriched foods in the United States as an
example of golden rice's potential in Asia. Adding Vitamin D to foods has virtually eliminated
rickets. Bread is fortified with vitamins, juice has extra Vitamin C and calcium to prevent scurvy
and osteoporosis. Many foods contain added folic acid in an attempt to eliminate birth defects.
The vehement debate regarding the acceptability of GMFs erupted as soon as
genetically-engineered crops made their commercial appearance in the mid-1990s. The controversy has
escalated ever since. European environmentalist and consumer groups were the first to launch
protests, and they were quickly followed by U.S. groups. The hostility is to be expected. Most of
the genetically-modified crops introduced so far fell into two camps: those designed for resistance
to insect pests and those resistant to herbicides used for weed control. While many farmers have
enthusiastically embraced the genetically-engineered crops such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready
soybeans, with their engineered resistance to Monsanto's Roundup-brand herbicide, allowing them to
spray weed killer without damaging crops, consumers have viewed this new technology with mounting
suspicion. DDT was once viewed as a wonderful innovation, they contend, and remember how that
turned out! Why resort to new technology that might irreparably harm the ecosystem when the
benefits do not seem magnificent? U.S. consumers especially may have trouble appreciating the
benefits of the engineered crops because for them food is cheap and bountiful.
Until
recently the benefits did seem small-until the advent of golden rice and a whole host of other
GMFs, cleverly known as "frankenfood." Never before, since we moved from hunting and gathering to
cultivation, has there been such potential for increased production and nutrition. Even though the
idea of using science to alter a plant's characteristics has been around for about 100 years-Gregor
Mendel realized in the 1800s that he could alter plant traits through artificial selection-it has
been within the last 10 years that genetically-engineered crops have become very much a part of our
lives. In fact, GMFs are so much a part of our everyday lives that they are likely to appear on
your dinner plate tonight, with or without your knowledge. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, a third of the corn and more than half of the soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S.
last year were the product of biotechnology. More than 65 million acres of genetically-modified
crops will be planted in the U.S. this year. More than 60 percent of all foods purchased by U.S.
consumers are manufactured with genetically-engineered ingredients.
Many environmentalist
argue that world hunger is not a result of food shortages, but rather caused by supply problems.
The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. But too many people are too
poor to buy the food that is available (but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and
resources to grow it themselves.
"In many countries where malnutrition is a problem, the
food that is being grown is used to sell as exports. Then in turn, the people are having to
purchase food to eat. They are consequently unable to procure enough food either because they can't
afford it or it is unavailable," said Katherine DiMatteo, president of the Organic Trade
Association. "If we want to solve world hunger we need to get to the real underlying problems
rather than seeking a magic bullet." Dimatteo said that while the new biotechnology promises vast
potential, scientists should err on the side of caution in its development and implementation. "It
is arrogance to think that we can control nature," she added.
The Sierra Club adopted a
skeptical position toward the development of genetically-engineered crops, regarding this new
technology as environmentally hazardous. A report by the Sierra Club's Biotechnology Task Force
cautions: "Genetic engineering may actually lead to more food insecurity and hunger because in poor
countries it will lead to the planting of monoculture crops, highly vulnerable to disease and
pests, in place of a resilient, diverse range of crops. It will make farmers dependent on
corporations that will demand payment for basic inputs such as seed, chemicals and fertilizers." As
Indian writer and activist Vandana Shiva summarized: "Millions of farmers in third world countries
want to breed and grow the crop varieties that adapt to their diverse ecosystems. Plant
biodiversity is essential for a balanced diet. Yet numerous crops are pushed to extinction with the
introduction of genetically-engineered crops." A lack of extensive testing and labeling puts both
environmental and individual health at stake, argues the report.
Expansion of Genetic
Engineering
From the time in the early 1970s when advances in molecular biology led to the
development of the techniques we call genetic engineering, until the mid 1990s, the organisms
produced by genetic engineering were nearly all confined to laboratories or controlled factory
settings. During this time there were almost no releases of genetically-engineered organisms to the
environment, as genetic engineering was used in basic research and to produce medically useful
substances such as insulin. The unrestrained expansion of genetic engineering into agriculture
during the past four years changed all that. Now genetically engineered crops are planted across
the U.S., which means massive releases of GEOs to the environment now are taking place.
Consequently, genetic engineering could represent a very grave threat to the natural environment.
In 1999, Cornell entomologist John Losey and his colleagues reported that pollen from corn
made pest-resistant by the addition of bacterial genes could spell trouble for monarch butterflies.
Approved by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency in 1996, the genetically-altered corn, Bt corn,
has become enormously popular with farmers and now accounts for as much as 25 percent of the U.S.
corn crop. By splicing DNA from the common soil bacterium bacillus thuringiensis into the corn's
own genes, scientists created a plant that can produce toxins lethal to the corn borer, a bug which
costs corn growers more than $1 billion annually. The bacterium has been shown to be harmless to
humans and beneficial insects such as ladybugs and bees.
In his experiments, Losey
scattered pollen from the genetically-altered corn onto milkweed-the butterfly's only food during
the larval or caterpillar stage. The scientists then watched to see what would happen. Most of the
caterpillars that ate the tainted milkweed leaves either died or were developmentally stunted. The
Cornell studies inflamed conservationists over what they saw as a threat to the survival of the
monarchs. The flashy orange and black aerialists were already being threatened by logging in the
mountains west of Mexico City and by pesticide use in their cornbelt breeding grounds. Is it worth
a relatively small agricultural advantage when so much is at stake? If the genetically-engineered
corn proved toxic to the monarchs, what other unforeseen environmental havoc might it wreak?
"Once these engineered organisms are in the environment, there's no way to control them-and
there's no way to know for sure what detrimental impact they could have," said DiMatteo. Corn is a
very active pollinator-its pollen can be spread through the wind or by birds. It would be very
difficult or even impossible to ensure that genetically-engineered corn didn't pollinate outside
its own growing fields.
Of course, agritech companies aren't eager to concede glitches in
their newly-discovered crops. Millions of dollars are at stake. But even proponents of the
engineered crops admit that spliced genes, like any other genes, can be picked by wild species. The
fear is that the newly combined plant species could become ecologically destructive and hard to
control. This actually happened in France when genetically-engineered sugar beets crossed with a
wild relative and became a sort of "superweed."
Frankenfish for Dinner?
It is
not only the fear of genetically-altered plants mixing with wild plant species that alarms
environmentalist and consumer advocacy groups, but also the threat of genetically-modified
livestock wreaking havoc on the biosphere. Very soon genetically-altered salmon could appear on
your plate. While farm-raised salmon now accounts for more than 50 percent of all salmon sold in
the U.S., gene splicers have produced genetically-modified salmon that grow much larger, much
faster and are disease resistant. Additionally, these super salmon seem to be able to outmate
non-genetically-modified competitors.
Compared to other GMFs these new fish were
discovered almost accidentally. Nearly two decades ago, a Newfoundland researcher found that even
though his saltwater fish tank had frozen, the flounder in it survived. These frost-resistant
flounder were found to possess a gene, also known to exist in other polar fish, that produces an
anti-freeze protein. While these scientists were trying to splice this gene into salmon so that it
could be grown in colder waters, scientists made a second accidental discovery. They found that
although the new genetically-altered salmon weren't frost free, the supplemental genetic material
did cause the fish to grow up to five or six times as fast in the early months of life and about
twice as fast overall. The scientists quickly patented their frankenfish and now have thousands of
them swimming in tanks in Canada. They hope that they will be able to expand into New Zealand,
Chile and U.S. consumer fish markets. Because the fish converts food into body mass so much more
efficiently than ordinary salmon, the scientists' hope is that fish farmers could double production
without doubling costs. Possibly this would mean more fish for more people at a lower cost.
Opponents are especially concerned about the impact the genetically modified fish may have on
the gene pool. What would happen if the fish were accidentally released into the wild? Critics note
that domestic fish frequently escape from flood susceptible pens into the wild and mate with the
native stock. It is hard to predict what might be the result of breeding between the
genetically-altered salmon and wild strains. Supporters of the new fish reply that risks could be
lowered almost to zero by raising the genetically-modified fish in closed tanks rather than storm
exposed pens. Another tactic under consideration is the shocking of the fertilized eggs so that
they create fish that are sterile. But do not expect to dine on this super fish any time soon, it
has yet to be approved for the U.S. and it is not known for sure when it will be available to
consumers.
Public Transparency
For many, the most disturbing aspect of the
genetically-modified foods is that GMFs can appear almost anywhere and the consumer has no way of
knowing. Golden rice has a distinctive appearance, but most GMFs are indistinguishable by the
consumer. Lack of labeling and incidents such as the starlink scare, where corn not approved for
human consumption ended up in supermarket products, have caused a plunge in consumer confidence in
GMFs. Many consumers have responded by purchasing only food labeled as organic. Organic food sales
in the U.S. have skyrocketed. Forty-two percent of all U.S. grocery stores currently stock organic
products.
Responding to consumer and environmental activist protests, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) published industry guidelines for the labeling of bio-engineered foods in
January 2001. The new guidelines state that if a bio-engineered food is significantly different
from its traditional counterpart such that the common or usual name no longer adequately describes
the new food, the name must be changed to describe the difference. If an issue exists for the food
or a constituent of the food regarding how the food is used or the consequences of its use, a
statement must be made on the label to describe the issue. Any bio-engineered food which has a
significantly different nutritional property must reflect the difference on its label. If a new
food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the
food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.
Additionally, the FDA
issued a proposed rule requiring food developers to notify the FDA at least 120 days in advance of
their intent to market a food or animal feed developed through biotechnology and to provide
information to demonstrate that the product is as safe as its conventional counterpart. The FDA
also proposes to clarify the agency's review process for such foods.
"These initiatives
will further assure that all food products developed through biotechnology are known to the Food
and Drug Administration, so that FDA can continue to examine these products before they reach the
market," said Jane E. Henney, M.D., commissioner of Food and Drugs. "These measures will permit the
review process to be more transparent to the public, one of the primary concerns voiced during
FDA's public hearings on this issue."
While GMFs are not likely to disappear from
supermarket shelves, labeling will at least provide purchasers with the ability to choose what they
feed their families. Consumers can influence agritech companies through their purchasing power,
boycotting brands which refuse to address environmental concerns. This economic influence, combined
with vocal environmental watchdog agencies, may provide the restraint companies need to proceed
cautiously. Until there is some measure of public confidence, food companies will have the
incentive to follow the model of Frito-Lay, who declared the company GMF-free.
Farmers
are already responding to public distrust of genetically-modified crops and worrying about having a
market for their GMO crops. Many are choosing not to plant GMOs at all because they have no
confidence that they will be able to sell the crop. Some canceled all GMO seed orders so they could
assure buyers that they weren't delivering any GMO crops. Farmers are thinking more about what
their customers want to buy, rather than what they want to grow. GMO-free crops, on the other hand,
are bringing a premium on the market.
Consumers should have the right to decide for
themselves whether they wish to consume GMOs. Despite the best scientific scrutiny, some may
continue to have safety concerns and this should be respected. But there may be other reasons why
consumers resist GMFs and they should have the right to make that choice whether is it is based on
true science or not. The right to determine one's own diet, for some, is deeply rooted in spiritual
and ethical beliefs, and only when people are informed can they freely choose.
|
|
|
Home | Archives
| Sponsors |
Links | Calendar
| Contact Us |
Advertising
| SRI News
MISSION
STATEMENT
The GreenMoney Journal encour-ages and promotes the awareness of socially
& environmentally responsible business, investing and consumer
resources in publications & online.
Our goal is to educate and empower individuals and businesses to make
informed financial decisions through aligning their personal, corporate
and financial principles.
“Responsibility from the Supermarket to the Stockmarket.”
The material presented in this news letter is for educational and
informa-tional purposes only. The GreenMoney Journal does not endorse
or recommend firms, products, funds or advertisers.
GreenMoney is a registered trademark.
Copyright 1995-2010 by the
GreenMoneyJournal ®
Green Money is a Registrated Trademark
of The GreenMoney Journal / Cliff Feigenbaum
|
|
|
|
