Genetically modified food: safety concerns and corporate controversy

Genetic Engineering of Food

"Protagonists argue that genetic engineering entails a more controlled transfer of genes because the transfer is limited to a single gene, or just a few selected genes, whereas traditional breeding risks transferring unwanted genes together with the desired ones. Against that advantage, antagonists argue that the side effects in terms of potentially adverse impacts on the environment and human health are unknown…" (Neilsen, et al., 2000)

Genetically Modified food (GM) has been controversial since it first appeared on the agricultural scene several decades ago. While the corporations that produce GM seeds and foods -- notably Monsanto, the giant international corporation -- assert through myriad public relations strategies and studies that these genetically manipulated products are safe, serious questions remain. Monsanto, in fact, has vigorously resisted allowing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use "GM" on food product labels, along with fat, sodium, and the other ingredients. "The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don't differ from non-GM crops," products don't need labels (Monsanto, 2011). Monsanto is very aware that millions of people around the world do not wholly trust genetically engineered products. Meanwhile, this paper reviews and critiques the myriad aspects linked to GM products, to the international agencies (like the WTO) that supposedly are overseeing the safety of these products, and to the need for food in areas of frequent famines like Africa.

What is Genetically Engineered Food?

Genetic engineering involves the "…excision of individual genes or sections of chromosomes from a particular genome" (Kollek, 1995, p. 95). Those chromosome sections are then transferred into a different cell, and hence a new and different genomic background has been built, professor Kollek explains. Through this mechanical manipulation of genes -- quite in contrast to natural evolution -- practically any number and type of changes in the relationship between genes is made possible, Kollek continues on page 98. In addition, exchanging genes between different species -- in the sense of qualitative and quantitative characteristics -- "…goes far beyond what is observed within the framework of natural mechanisms," according to Kollek. professor of human procreation at the University of Hamburg, Germany.

What is at stake for transnational corporations?

In the interest of securing its place in the market as the world's top producer of seeds, including of course GM seeds, Monsanto in 1998 paid $1.9 billion for a patent from Delta & Pine Land, which means Monsanto took ownership of the so-called "terminator" system. The terminator seed patent covers plants and seeds of a number of species, and basically the way it works is that farmers plant the seeds, harvest the crops, but those farmers cannot use the seeds from the harvest to plant another crop the following year (Shand, 1998). Hence, it forces the farmers "to return to the commercial seed market every year," Shand explains on page 2.

How do scientists produce seeds that prohibit "seed saving" by farmers, and why would this process be helpful, especially to agriculture in developing countries? Prior to sale, the seeds are soaked in "…a common antibiotic, tetracycline, a chemical process that activates a molecular switch in one of the bacterial genes" (Shand, 2). When the farmer plants the seeds, and produces a crop, just as the seed is completing its maturation process "…the gene then produces a toxic protein that kills the seed embryo in late states of development" (Shand, 2).

Harry Collins with Delta & Pine Land asserts that "protection systems" (the terminator seed) will "…help farmers in all areas of the world gain access to the most technologically advanced tools and products" allowing them to produce "more profitable crops" (Shand, 3). Collins goes on to insist that "traditional farming practices" -- using saved seeds to plant next season's crops -- brings "a gross disadvantage to Third World farmers" because they get "locked into obsolete varieties" (Shand, 4). However, Shand explains that farmers that are "resource-poor" are unlikely to buy terminator seeds and yet they may well wind up with "sterile seed after exchanging or buying seed from better-off farm neighbors." Neth Dano of the Southeast Asian Institute for Community Education (SEARICE) believes that these revolutionary seeds "…could drive millions of farmers out of plant breeding and, since no one else will breed for their needs, out of agriculture altogether" (Shand, 5).

Defending & questioning genetically engineered seeds and crops

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) seems on the side of GM seed expansion -- with some qualifications -- in general, and asserts that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are "here to stay" (Fresco, 2001, p. 1). That said, Fresco adds that while scientists in the private and public sectors see GMOs as "a major new set of tools" and industry views an "opportunity for increased profits" -- the public in many parts of the world "distrusts GMOs" and views them as part of "globalization and privatization" (Fresco, 1). Moreover, citizens and conservationists approach GMOs as being "anti-democratic" and they see the GMO movement as "meddling with evolution," Fresco explains on page 1. In addition, many governments have not as yet developed and put in place regulatory infrastructures, the author goes on.

At the time of this report (2001, eleven years ago) the number of hectares that had been planted in GM crops was 44.2 million (up from 11 million hectares in 1998). The FAO believes that there is a need to "guarantee access" to farmers and breeders in the developing world. Too few challenges vis-a-vis GM seeds have been addressed in developing worlds, Fresco continues. Also, the FAO states that genetic modification "is not a good in itself," but rather it is a "tool integrated into a wider research agenda" (Fresco, 2).

How will Third World countries benefit or be harmed by GM food?

How do the policies of the WTO support the transnational corporations' grip on the food market? An article in the Third World Quarterly takes the position that because developing countries have not engaged in deep research in the area of biotechnology, and hence these Third World countries have "had no need to introduce domestic legislation to allow the patentability of life forms" (Plahe, 2003, p. 31). And so the fate of developing countries with regards to their ability to protect their plant genetic resources and their right "…to control and enjoy the benefits of their traditional knowledge" will be in the hands of the World Trade Organization, Plahe explains. There is another glaring example of how poor countries are being stepped on in the entire GMO milieu and it is a result of actions by the International Union of the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) -- the group that "harmonises international standards on plant-breeders' rights (PBRS) (Plahe, 32). The UPOV grants "exclusive rights to plant breeders to produce, offer for sale, and market propagated material of a new variety" (Plahe, 32).

There are however numerous food rights and farmers groups in developing countries that believe the UPOV convention "…has been a lobbying vehicle used by rich countries" in order to shove down the throats of poor countries the adoption of "patent like" exclusive rights over new plant varieties. In fact the UPOV has not "generally been endorsed by developing countries," Plahe continues, because Third World nations believe the UPOV -- through the introduction of "private property rights" -- would introduce legal and economic restrictions on the livelihoods of poor farmers in their countries (32). In addition, the developing nations' view is that in any event, small farmers "would be the last to benefit from a private system of rights," which would only assure exclusive rights to those farmers (think corporate-owned farms) that could produce a "stable, distinct and uniform variety" (Plahe, 32).

Still on the subject of GM food and the poor, Ian Scoones writes that due to exploding populations, urban sprawl, and rising incomes, by the year 2020, there will be "a 40% escalation of demand for cereals" (Scoones, 2002, p. 115). If this scenario is valid, that means there must be a "doubling of imports of grains to the developing world," especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where people are "least able to deal with the consequences of declining yield growth," Scoones explains (115). Will the pro-GM food production organizations and corporations be able to provide adequate supplies of safe, nutritious foods to the sub-Saharan African nations? This question could not be more pertinent to contemporary problems in Africa, because according to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald "Up to 13 million people are at risk of starvation in Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Djibouti" today because of the worst drought in 60 years (Gartrell, 2011).

The CEO of World Vision, Tim Costello, is quoted in the Gartrell piece saying "Two million children are said to be malnourished and at the risk of death." "This is the worst humanitarian disaster on the planet today," said Australia's Africa-based representative Scott Martin (Gartrell, 1). Costello witnessed the "world's biggest refugee camp" (in Kenya) that was built to providing shelter for 90,000 people but today it is home to about 400,000 people. "There's this huge tent and mudbrick city the size of Canberra, with 400,000 people. That shocks you," Costello remarked (Garetrell, 1).

Meanwhile, Scoones asks the questions that are on the minds of millions of people: will technological solutions "deliver real benefits to the poor, and so eliminate hunger and famine? Is the science up to it? Are the political and economic conditions right?" (115). On page 116 Scoones outlines the ten "key assumptions" that pro-GM food advocates put forward vis-a-vis providing Third World countries with adequate food from the emerging biotechnologies. The ten (paraphrased and shortened) are: a) priorities for fighting food insecurity should start with "focused technological transfer" (not through "broader institutional reforms"); b) famine is caused by declining yield growth in the major food crops; c) modern biotechnology is "drought tolerant" and can deliver solutions; d) farmers will accept GM seeds through public education and through the "improved returns"; e) biotechnology is cost-effective and sustainable and investing money (even in tight economic times) will "pay dividends in the longer run"; f) funds will be available from international public research organizations and scientists will also be available to establish labs in the developing world; g) private corporations (think Monsanto) with "proprietary rights over key genes or processes" will give up exclusive rights for the "public good"; h) count on the private sector to help deliver the needed biotech solutions; i) producing crops through GM technologies won't be any different than "traditional plant breeding" so there should be little resistance from poor farmers; and j) as to regulatory issues, they will be "dealt with throughout the world by international 'capacity building' efforts" (Scoones, 116).

While some of these ten assumptions are probably reasonable, others are based on wild speculation and faith in corporations, which is an enormous stretch of credulity. For example, projecting that corporations like Monsanto will "give up exclusive rights for the public good" is truly pie-in-the-sky idealism. And assuming that the private sector will willingly come forward with money and technical support is totally without substantiation. Still, the very fact that journalists and other authors are thinking along the lines of helping developing countries can't be all bad, in fact, raising issues for debate is a healthy approach notwithstanding the realism therein.

Erik Millstone and Patrick van Zwanenberg explain that one big problem in terms of regulatory policy-making on GM crops and food that there is "the extreme difficulty in reliably forecasting the ways in which the technologies will evolve" and how the evolution of those biotech products will "impact food security" and the very structure of agricultural economies in developing countries (Millstone, et al., 2003, p. 655). When the developing nations go about setting standards for the GM seeds and crops that will be used in their countries, they may fear that the same standards used by the producers of the GM seeds will be forced upon them, Millstone continues.

In any event, developing nations and fully developed industrial nations alike will be beholding to some degree on WTO and CPBS (the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-Safety) rules, notwithstanding whatever local rules are put in place in those countries that use GM products. Article 2.2 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) states that members "…shall ensure that any sanitary or physosanitary measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, is based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence…" (italics added by this writer) (Millstone, 657). What does that really mean in plain-spoken English?

Millstone asserts that if the WTO determines that standards established by countries or agencies that are more strict than the WTO standards then those countries and agencies better be prepared to "provide a WTO Dispute Panel and Appellate Body with sufficient scientific evidence to justify" the "tighter standards" (657). That having been said, in Article 5.7 of the SPS agreement allows the "adoption of standards… 'where the relevant scientific evidence is insufficient…' but only on a provisional basis whilst the member in question obtains additional scientific information" (Millstone, 658).

It doesn't take a wordsmith or a highly-placed publishing editor to grasp the tone of that Article 5.7; indeed, it is basically saying, if your standards are too rigid, you'll have to come before our court and plead your case; but if your standards lack "relevant scientific evidence" hey, go ahead and sew those seeds and you can straighten it all out later.

Meanwhile, Corie Hammers from the University of Oklahoma echoes Shiva's viewpoint that was reviewed earlier in this paper: "Once a novel entity is created (e.g., seed from this terminator technology) it becomes the property of its creators… [and] as a result, corporate ownership now extends into the reproduction of life itself" (Hammers, 2002, p. 69). The fact that companies like Monsanto purchase patents on seeds and foods, means the "…exchange of information" with reference to GM seeds "is illegal and exclusive" (Hammers, 69). That situation is what Hammers calls "intellectual closure" which in effects adds distance between citizens and the scientific community.

Hammers (69) alludes to "intellectual" and "social" closure as basically handing the corporate elite ownership of "knowledge" -- which assures that corporate control extends "across the globe" and is by way of becoming a kind of "agricultural imperialism." In the process of reviewing the book Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food and the Environment, Hammers puts the United States into the same negative category as the World Bank -- because the U.S. is a "primary participant" -- and attacks the World Bank's "intense agro-export strategy" (69). That strategy -- focusing on "rapid production" in the Third World at the expense of "environmental health and sustainable development -- according to Hammers, has been reinforced by GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). Hammers' view of the GATT policy is that it has produced "economic liberalization via free trade and deregulation (which strengthens capital control)" (69).

The policy of promoting "non-sustainable production" around the globe has led to the "degradation of land, which in turn hinders future productivity" in the view of Hammers (69). Moreover, in critiquing Hungry for Profit Hammers asserts that the book calls for "a transformation of agriculture, a radical departure from the status quo" with an effort towards sustainable production through environmental "sound practices" (69). Hungry for Profit posits that if the world community has input into agricultural policies interested citizens would no longer be "blind" to practices that presently are "risky" and indeed "compromise the public welfare" (69).

Can biotechnology help the African farmer?

"For many, under-nutrition and malnutrition lead to death, not necessarily through starvation, although this may happen in famine situations, but because a poor diet reduces the capacity to fight disease… [throughout the world] seventeen million children under five die each year and malnourishment contributes to at least one-third of these deaths" (Conway, 1997, p. 3).

A report produced by the Michigan State University Department of Agricultural Economics claims that "…agricultural biotechnology has the potential to help African smallholders" and the report stresses that biotechnology can be beneficial to the environment and to the health of farmers and those that work in the fields in Africa (Eicher, et al., 2005, p. 3). The study includes a window of time that spans the years between 1990 and 2005, and based on that research, the authors believe it will take between 15 years or longer to "develop GM crops, create regulatory systems and field test, and deliver GM cultivars to smallholders" (Eicher, 3).

The seven crops already grown in Africa that the Michigan State University researchers investigated are as follows. In Kenya, the sweet potato has a "feathery mottle virus" -- and the maize (corn) has "Maize Stem Borers" -- and the time it will take for GM sweet potatoes and maize to begin harvestable status is "4 to 8 years." In Egypt and South Africa, the potato has an infestation of "Potato Tuber Moth" and it will be 4 or more years prior to successful GM harvesting. In Uganda the banana crop is plagued with "Banana Weevil and Diseases" according to the researchers; it will be 7 or more years before GM products are ready to be harvested. In West Africa the cowpea suffers from "Pod Borer" bugs and it will take 8 years for GM crops can take hold. In Kenya, Nigeria, and Malawi, the cassava plant is stricken with Cassava Mosaic Virus; in 8 or more years GM crops could be thriving in place of the infected ones. And in "major cotton growing countries" of Africa the cotton bollworms are a big problem; the researchers estimate it will be five years prior to GM products making a positive change in those countries (Eicher, 2).

The Michigan State University group warns readers that while there are "a growing number of optimistic scenarios" of the potential growth of GM crops, the predictions in many cases are based on a "small sample" of African farmers and only two or three years of research went into those studies. Moreover, since Africa's population grows at just under 3% per year, implying a doubling of the continent's population every 25 years, the question that arises is, can African governments and private seed companies work together to ensure GM crops are safe and will yield enough cereal products to feed the continent?

Conclusion

The world is changing rapidly -- due to ongoing political, cultural, economic, and environmental dynamics -- but one important fact seems to continue to be salient throughout the changes. That is the pivotal importance of food security for developing nations. This paper reviews points pro and con with reference to genetically engineered seeds and food products. There is no consensus of opinion as regards the ultimate success and safety of growing crops that have been genetically manipulated. But there is the forecasted hope that GM products, if they are to truly make a difference, will be available and safe for developing nations like Africa and other Third World countries. When Simon Maxwell and Stephen Devereux wrote their book Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa, they asserted that "Food insecurity is no longer seen simply as a problem of agriculture and a failure of food production at the national level"; food insecurity they insisted is a "…failure of livelihoods to guarantee access to sufficient food at the household level" (Maxwell, et al., 2001). Actually, if those authors were writing their book today, they wouldn't be including passages like the one referenced here. They would be talking about the political, economic, and ethical issues surrounding GM products as those issues relate to feeding a hungry world.