Landslide
What genetic food engineering has to do with graduating or the Coast Guard I have no idea, but the President took a moment to address the countries of the European Union (EU), blaming their ban on GM food for discouraging third-world nations from using GM technology. The President feels that efforts to end hunger in Africa could go forward unimpeded if the EU would be as open-minded as American farmers are in accepting what he calls “high-yield bio-crops.”
I regularly receive questions from HSI members about GM crops and the safety of consuming foods that contain GM ingredients. So this seems like a good opportunity to share some of the key points I’ve come across about this important subject. Especially because a major new report on GM food has just been released by an independent team of scientists in the U.K.
I don’t blame them. There are plenty of examples in the history of technology where a new innovation was rushed into use, only to find out later that it wasn’t safe. Fluoridation of public water supplies, for instance, has been widely accepted in the U.S. as a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay. However, recent studies have shown that this industrial byproduct has virtually no positive effect on dental health, but may increase the risk of developing osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease.
GM foods have been around for less than a decade, so their long-term effects on our health won’t be known for years. Meanwhile, the limited amount of research that has been conducted has produced conflicting conclusions. Companies that develop GM foods say their studies on lab animals show no adverse effects on health. But a few independent studies contain worrying results, such as damaged kidneys and other organs.
According to the New York Times, this point is a problem for Europeans who are demanding that GM foods be clearly labeled. But American food producers resist the idea, fearing that such labels would discourage sales. Which is sort of like saying, We don’t want to put seat belts in cars because people will think cars are dangerous and won’t buy them.
The way for food producers to address this problem is simple (not easy, but simple). If there’s a perception that GM foods may be unsafe, then change that perception by offering more than just reassurances. Give us irrefutable studies demonstrating safety. I expect that most people wouldn’t mind eating GM food EXCLUSIVELY if you prove to them it’s 100 percent safe and nutritious.
The fact that nature is large and messy and won’t necessarily cooperate with the best laid plans of genetic engineers is most troubling when considering the branch of GM agriculture known as “pharming.” For many years, huge agri-corporations like Monsanto (which is owned by the drug giant Pharmacia) have been developing food crops that contain drugs as an alternate way to deliver vaccines and other medications. This raises a whole new set of GM fears. What happens to the local environment when birds, animals and insects eat medicated crops from a field in your community? And when pharm crops cross-pollinate, will you be getting a dose of an unwanted medication in that fresh corn you buy at a roadside stand?
As with standard GM crops, these questions haven’t been answered yet. But you can be sure that wherever GM agriculture and products are allowed, pharming will not be far behind.
A number of prominent scientists in the U.K. have established the Independent Science Panel (ISP) to refute the breezy assurances that GM food is perfectly safe and should be embraced worldwide. The ISP recently issued a report titled “The Case for a GM Free Sustainable World” in which they call for a ban on GM crops. With this report they hope to balance the GM agriculture debate, which they say is unfairly biased toward the pro-GM forces within the UK government. (Their report is available online at the ISP web site: i-sis.org.uk.)
The ISP report makes the point that third-world hunger is much more the result of economic and political factors than inadequate food production. They cite estimates by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization that there is enough food produced by conventional crops to feed the entire world. Add to that the fact that GM agriculture technology is not even designed to increase yields, and serious doubts are raised that starving nations would benefit in any way by the adoption of GM farming in Europe.
Like President Bush, I strongly support efforts to end hunger in Africa, but I think we should look for safe ways to address that problem without assuming the best or only way is modifying the genes of the food we eat.
Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute
Sources:
“Bush Links Europe’s Ban on Bio-Crops With Hunger” David E. Sanger, The New York Times, 5/22/03, nytimes.com
“GMO Crops Are An Accident Waiting to Happen” Dr. Joseph Mercola, 6/2/01, mercola.com
“Farmers Grow a Field of Dilemma” Justin Gillis, The Washington Post, 12/22/02, washingtonpost.com
“Prominent Scientists Form Group to Counter GM Food” Dr. Joseph Mercola, 5/21/03, mercola.com
“The Case for a GM Free Sustainable World” Independent Science Panel, 5/10/03, i-sis.org.uk
