According to Rolling Stone, "She’s Tina Turner, Bessie Smith, Janis Joplin, and Robert Plant all rolled up into a tiny but explosive package.” Don't miss a special evening with Austin singer/songwriter Patrice Pike. Click here for details! 

Despite warnings from their own experts, the FDA sailed on with the approval of GE foods without requirement for pre-market testing.

Resistance to herbicides and pesticides could likely develop over time and result in “superweeds” and “superpests”. These would require stronger and stronger chemicals to eliminate them. Some seeds must be soaked in chemicals (and even antibiotics) or sprayed in order to germinate.

Genetically Engineered Food and the Right to Choose

by Colleen Gavan

Genetically engineered (GE) food is a hot topic these days. In July, the European parliament passed plans to require that all genetically modified foods be clearly labeled. Thirty-five countries around the globe are following suit and have or are in the process of developing similar regulations. Meanwhile, here in the U.S. it is estimated that up to 60 percent of our processed food has genetically modified content. With no label requirements, we consumers have no simple way of choosing to avoid these products.

The effects of GE crops on human and environmental health are yet undetermined, though the risks are many. Introducing foreign genes into plants is not a precise process. Scientists attach antibiotic-resistant marker genes to the injected material so that they are able to confirm that the genes are functioning as desired. An ample amount of antibiotic-resistant genes in our food supply may result in widespread human resistance to various antibiotics.

In the early 1990s, FDA scientists warned of various risks of GE foods, including potential toxicity resulting from the reaction of the new gene (and the molecules accompanying it) with existing genetic make-up. FDA scientists also warned of increased allergies due to the introduction of plant or animal proteins that were never part of the human diet. People may also have an allergic reaction to the gene that is introduced into the existing product. For example, people allergic to nuts had reactions to GE soybeans which (unbeknownst to the consumers) contained a gene from the Brazil nut.

Despite warnings from their own experts, the FDA sailed on with the approval of GE foods without requirement for pre-market testing.

Environmental concerns are also plentiful. The majority of GE crops are developed for herbicide-resistance. For example, Monsanto’s Round-up Ready soybean crops are sprayed with Round-up to kill all the surrounding weeds, and the soybean survives. From a marketing perspective this is ingenious—Monsanto sells seeds that require the use of a chemical that it also manufactures. The growers then become dependent upon the company for both. One of the many downfalls of this plan is that herbicide resistant GE crops may be cross-pollinated with nearby plant life resulting in “superweeds”.  This has been reported with rapeseed plants (canola) contaminating nearby wild mustard.

Non-GE crops could be contaminated with “gene-flow” from neighboring GE crops. Among many other cases, the soybean crop of an organic farmer in Odebolt, Iowa recently tested positive for genetic contamination. Nature Biotechonology, a prestigious biotech journal, asserted the need to address the problem of gene flow in its June 2002 issue.

And then there’s the issue of chemical dependency. Resistance to herbicides and pesticides could likely develop over time and result in the “superweeds” mentioned above as well as “superpests”. These would require stronger and stronger chemicals to eliminate them. Some seeds must be soaked in chemicals (and even antibiotics) or sprayed in order to germinate.

And perhaps most alarming is the loss of biodiversity. As chemically dependent monocultures of GE crops replace the sustainable farm practices across the globe, we lose the wisdom of these practices and the diverse plant and animal populations that are essential components of our living system. Aside from being extremely boring, monocultures are simply not good for the ecosystem. Nature just doesn’t work that way. A diverse farm is a more resilient farm, not likely to be wiped out completely by a pest infestation or disease.

The handful of corporations that dominate the GE seed industry have spent big bucks with ad campaigns to convince Americans that they are saving the world’s famished population with increased productivity, but in fact they’re only saving their own profit. The majority of the world’s GE crops are soybeans and corn that feed the cattle of the rich, not the world’s poor. And as it turns out, they’re not producing higher yields than traditional varieties and do require incredible amounts of chemical and energy input.

The world’s food security is being placed in the hands of a few corporations who are now permitted to patent seeds globally (thanks to TRIPs—Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property rights, put into effect by the WTO in 1995). Six corporations own 69 percent of the patents, which total just over 900 and include staple foods such as rice, maize, wheat, soy and sorghum. Corporations are genetically creating and patenting seeds that have been developed through centuries of breeding in undeveloped countries, and claiming all rights to them. Farmers who buy seed from companies like Monsanto must sign a contract stating that they will not save seed and replant—or will pay royalties if they do. Hired detectives literally police the land to bust farmers who reuse seed.

There are 1.4 billion people dependant on seed saving and exchange, a centuries-old agricultural practice that allows farmers to select and develop crops that are specifically adapted to their plot of land. To take away a farmer’s right to save seed is to take away food security. Seed legislation requires farmers to use registered varieties of seed, yet the cost of registration is beyond the purse of a small farmer. This, along with enormous advertising and governmental pressure forces farmers in undeveloped countries to become dependent on the seed industry.

This is what they call feeding the world’s hungry?

The issue is overwhelming, and there’s so much more to it, but let’s get to something we can do here, now. The campaign in Europe that led to the labeling of GE foods was based on grassroots pressure on key supermarkets and major food producers to stop selling them. Some food companies have already responded, including Gerber baby food, Trader Joe’s, and Whole Foods. We can stop purchasing foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) altogether, demanding that there be a moratorium on selling GE foods until there has been more time to consider and test the effects. A few states (Maine, Colorado, Massachusetts and Oregon) already have labeling legislation in the works.

Most importantly, we need to educate ourselves and open up the public discussion of genetic engineering. We have the capability to initiate change, simply by making informed decisions about what we eat.

From E.F. Schumacher, author of the book Small is Beautiful

“I have no doubt that a callous attitude to the land and to the animals thereon is connected with, and symptomatic of, a great many other attitudes, such as those producing a fanaticism of rapid change and a fascination with novelties—technical, organizational, chemical, biological, and so forth—which insists on their application long before their long-term consequences are even remotely understood.”

Resources

Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the global food supply. Vandana Shiva. South End Press. 2000.

Seed Savers 2002 Summer Edition. Seed Savers Exchange, Inc.

Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of industrial agriculture. Editor: Andrew Kimbrell. Island Press. 2002.

“Crops and Robbers.” Editors: J. Madley, A. Wijeraha. www.actionaid.org.

For more information

www.gefoodalert.org

www.organicconsumers.org

CONTACT US