Food Bullies: What is Genetically Modified (GM) Food and How Does it Effect the World?

The Bush administration decided to sue the European Union, over it's five-year moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods. A campaign targeted at prying open a major potential market. However, the suit before the World Trade Organization (WTO) may be aimed less at the European Union than at developing nations, which are far more vulnerable to strong-arm tactics. This is being done to fight the war against hunger and all those opposed are considered terrorist in fighting the war against world hunger by the Bush administration.

The reasons that this should be of interest and should be further examined, is that there is much at stake in this fight over biotechnology, and it has nothing to do with alleviating hunger or famine. The "Big Five" biotech companies Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Dow Chemical, and Aventis, have invested billions of dollars in research and development. Out of 1085 biotech patents, the Big Five control 937.

The United States argues that the GM crops will allow countries to feed the growing world's population. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's own Economic Research Service found that GM crops yields were no higher than they are for regular (fertile) crops, and GM crops can be trickier to grow. GM seeds are sterile or non self-sustaining, cost more and few poor farmers have the cash to pay for sterile seeds annually. They have been dependant for millions of years on harvesting their fertile self-sustaining (open pollinating, non-hybrid or heritage) seeds to plant their next year's crops. Should this right be taken away from them?

Many African's are suspicious and see the spread of GM crops as creating a kind of "bioserfdom." They feel that GM crops will actually make Africa, even more dependant on big US seed companies for their food.

Egypt had originally joined suit with the U.S., along with Argentina and Canada in the suit against the European Union's five-year moratorium, however, in the face of a domestic backlash as to the safety of GM food crops Egypt withdrew.

The Egyptians were nervous over the confrontational tone of the United State's suit. The way the complaint was announced sounded like a war with the European Union. One Egyptian trade official told the "Financial Times" "We can't go to war with the European Union, it is 40% of our trade.

Avoiding war with the E.U. landed Egypt in a shootout with the Americans. Reacting with fury, the U.S. accused the Egyptian's of breaking their word and cancelled free trade talks.

The Whitehouse was banking on Egypt to represent the need for GM crops in "developing countries," in particular Africa. GM crops, as a solution to the African famine is one of the major arguments the Bush administration has used against the European Union ban. The Bush administration seems to be applying it's "for us or against us" anti-terrorism formula to trade policy, particularly if the country is a developing one. When the Croatia and Thailand raised health objections to GM crops the United States threatened trade sanctions and both countries backed down.

The conclusion is that the European Parliament has already decided to phase out the moratorium against GM crops, although it will demand strict labeling. Any product containing 0.09% GM products will be flagged, and GM food will have to be segregated from non-GM food in production and harvesting. The U.S. however refuses to accept labeling, while consumer choice has "supported" this information be non-prejudicial in presentation and feasible for producers to provide," according to the United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. Adding that the labeling plan "does not meet this standard." The feasible in Zoellick's statement refers to the expense involved in segregating GM crops and products from non-GM crops and products. Also the administration is nervous that if European's get labeling, then American's might demand the same. Three-fourths, of the food on U.S. shelves, contain un-labeled GM products, and a recent study by the biotech firm Novartis found that 92% of American's approve of labeling.

The prize here in this fight is not the European Union, which only absorbs 10% of American agriculture exports. The prize is the developing world, where regulations are lax, profits higher, and resistance may carry a very high price.

As an organic gardener I find it appalling that these big biotech companies want to control our food from seed to shelf and dictate the quality of what we eat without proper testing of GM products.

I found it even more disturbing that at the 2002 World Food Summit in Rome, the United States stood alone among all the nations of the world in blocking further discussion of the draft text of the declaration that governments will sign at the World Food Summit. The United States wanted all references to "food as a human right" to be deleted, in fact the US opposed the right to food in any form. They finally accepted this version, which is a) not mandatory and b) not immediate. Apart from that the declaration is a disaster as far as ending hunger goes, and repeats the flaws of the Summit in 1996, which failed to meet hunger reduction goals, and an endorsement of free trade. The United States wanted strong language added in the declaration, that GM crops are key to ending world hunger. No other nation felt strongly that GM crops should receive such prominence.

In some additional research, I found that the United Nations has in place, an International Seed Treaty that protects the right for countries to ban GM products and maintain their self-sustaining crops. I also found, a 136, page report, put together by the ISP or Independent Science Panel, who had the opportunity to review extensive scientific evidence on genetic engineering over the past decades. Many are among the 600 scientists from 72 countries who have signed a World Scientist Open Letter initiated in 1999, which called for a moratorium on the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMO'S), a ban on patents on living process, organisms, seeds, cell lines, genes, and a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security. Basically it is full of evidence on why GM crops are not a viable option for a sustainable future. The report presented much evidence on the successes and benefits of sustainable agriculture practices.

The United States clearly over looked all this information in their statements at the World Food Summit. The Bush administration is not looking to end world hunger. It is clearly promoting big U.S. biotech companies. Which will just cause world hunger to become more of a problem. I feel that GM products need to be labeled and regulated. I agree with the scientists, that there needs to be an International Center to regulate, register, and keep GM products from entering countries which ban them. This all has to start with labeling, and the campaign to enforce it is underway, as is the legal battle in making the "Big Five" legally responsible for damages to organic crops due to cross-contamination.

By now, millions of acres of genetically engineered crops have been planted, and nearly two-thirds of the products on our supermarket shelves contain GE ingredients. GE foods remain poorly studied; scientists simply can't say with any authority that they are absolutely safe for human consumption. In fact, many questions persist. Essentially, we've been subjected to a massive experiment on human health. What will the results of this experiment be? Stay tuned.

Some reasons this topic should be of interest to us, is that very few studies have been conducted to determine, whether genetically engineered foods are harmful to human health. Genetic engineering may trigger allergies in people. It may create new toxins harmful to human health, and may also lead to antibiotic resistance.

Genetic engineering may be linked with a resurgence of infectious diseases. Many known and unknown threats to the environment include, plants being so toxic that they kill birds and valuable insects. It will create an increase in pesticide pollution. Many of the new GE crops, such as Roundup Ready soybeans, are designed to allow farmers to spray heavier doses of pesticides on their land. These pesticides inevitably will find their way into our water and food supply, endangering humans and wildlife.

When biotech corporations boast that genetic engineering can do wonders for the environment, we would do well to consider the source. After all, some of these companies are the same ones that have invented such deadly pesticides such as DDT and Agent Orange. These pesticides, it was promised, would help the environment; instead, they turned into environmental disasters. Genetic contamination of the environment is something the entire world should be concerned about. This would include GM plants and animals (sterile species) breeding or cross-pollinating with fertile plants and animals and creating a sterile mutant species that cannot procreate.

GM genes can jump species barrier, and nobody is looking at the risk of horizontal gene transfer. We are playing about with genetic structures that existed for millions of years and the experiment is running out of control.

Herbicide resistance and fears of the rise of super weeds are also an issue. Nature magazine reported in 1996, for example, that herbicide-resistant GE oilseed rape, released in Europe, has spread to several wild relatives. Which then creates a risk to biodiversity. Scientists estimate that by the year 2000, the world will have lost 95 percent of the genetic diversity present in agriculture 100 years earlier.

Scientists are concerned that genetically mutated crops may damage the soil. Researchers fear that beneficial soil organisms also may be killed, and that

some insects, may become resistant to the toxins. Which increases the speculation that these crops are harming beneficial organisms.

Professor Andrew Watkinson and colleagues from the University of East Anglia in Norwich found that bird populations could decline as much as 90 percent in some areas where herbicide-tolerant crops have been sown.

The conclusion is that Biotech firms assure us there's nothing to worry about. Genetically engineered foods, they say, will save the environment.

However, it's a story that we've all heard before.

In the mid-1900s, giant agribusinesses took the biological and chemical weapons from two world wars and turned them into pesticides and herbicides. They promised a wondrous new agricultural era of bigger yields and bug-free produce. It was only decades afterwards that scientists began to realize the scope of the environmental devastation wrought by the explosive growth of the pesticide industry. If biotech companies continue with their massive experiment, what will our scientists tell us 50 years from now?

Why weren't we the consumer's, educated about GM products? Why aren't they labeled in grocery stores? Don't we have the right to know what we are eating? What does this mean for the organic farmer? This is like some really bad sci-fi flick, but it's really happening! If we are all eating scientific experiments just what does that make us? Scientific experiments also? Do we the consumers get any additional compensation for playing such a key role in this experiment?

I found it very disturbing that the USDA, FDA, and the EPA, rely on the companies making the genetically modified food to do their own testing. These are companies that used left over chemicals produced for chemical warfare during WWII! Why are we being threatened by our government, with the fear of chemical warfare from other countries, when our own country is promoting business's right here in the US, to use untested chemicals and DNA mutations to become our own food source?
Research has found many reasons to hold back GM products as a food source until they have enough evidence to prove it is safe to consume and release into our environment. Why are we the consumers made to become the testing grounds for such studies? I feel that we should be given a choice, and all patented GM products should be separated, labeled, registered, and regulated.

Genetically modified products do have benefits and risks involved in their usage. I feel that when it comes to medicine, vaccines, and treatments there is a need for GM products. Even though studies dating back to 1999 have linked childhood vaccines and the mercury they contain, with autism (which is another subject). However, I feel that with food products, there needs to be more extensive testing of the effects on the consumers and the environment. When consumers use medications or treatments, they first have to see a doctor and get a prescription for the medication, or sign a release form for any treatment. There is no justification for altering our food sources and claiming that, "we see it as oa neccessity when it comes to medicine," so why not food? I just don't see any comparison there. Labeling needs to be a first priority for the consumer's choice, and consumer education needs to begin! I discussed this topic with quite a few people about this topic, and I found that most everyone I spoke to either didn't know anything about GM products, or they have heard the term used, but didn't have any idea that they probably have been eating GM products on a daily basis for years now. Many of our main staples come from the GM crops, soy, rice, wheat, dairy products, cheese, meat, have all been tampered with in a GM way.

I feel that the ability for independent and organic farmers to grow self-sustaining crops should be upheld. Destruction of organic crops by the GM crops, due to contamination, needs to be addressed, and the "Big Five" companies need to be held legally accountable for all damages. Maybe if they are legally made to separate and label GM products, and are held accountable for any damages, then perhaps, these big U.S. seed companies, will find, that there are less expensive and safer ways to grow food. Ways that have been used for centuries, that don't risk the future of many diverse fertile crops or the health of the consumers. This could also pave the way for the Bush administration to back off from developing countries and to stop creating more conflict and hunger in the world. If we think positively of ourselves and the world around us, we will be more apt to care about what goes into our bodies and what goes on in our world. Perhaps then, we would choose higher standards in our means of survival.