Issue 5.

Issue 5.4 Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Banned? Meredith Tucker University of Houston

Issue 5.4 Issue 5.4 Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Banned?

When the questionability and safety of agbiotech came under fire, in 2005, Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko wrote in the defense of the science in Issues in Science and Technology. Miller and Conko believe in a need to re-evaluate current regulatory policies allowing privatization for a cost effective movement of the commodities into the market. A contrary position taken by Martin Teitel and Kimberly Wilson in You Are What You Eat is that consumers trust in the food supply and where it comes from is an overly extended privilege. As a fundamental requiremen,t a products labeling should be fully disclosed. At issue is species integrity a subject that is not well resolved as many research papers lack sufficient explanation and details to be admissible. The works cited above discuss the pros and cons of expansion of gmos and whether or not they should be introduced into the food supply.

In Issues in Science and Technology, Miller and Conko argue that over protective policy regulation has been punitive to the extent that it has slowed the development and introduction of gmo crops inhibiting the potential profitability of the industry as a whole. The two authors believe an approach that would lessen government regulation and allow for more of the decision making to be made by the developing companies is necessary. With restricted government oversight and regulation the ultimate result would be far better if governments and international organizations expended effort on perfecting such a [new] model instead of clinging to unscientific, palpably flawed regulatory regimes (Conko, 2005, p. 347).

Issue 5.4 Miller and Conko, addressing the issue of species integrity on behalf of the pro bioengineered organism community, take the position that it is the combination of phenotype and use that determines the risk of agricultural plants, not the process or breeding techniques used to develop them (Conko, 2005, p. 345). Genetic modification is naturally evident in classical techniques but agbiotech is nothing more than the innovation of a controlled science for genetic improvement. The fear of this miscommunication constitutes itself in obstructing innovation, development (r&d), and cause skyrocketing costs. Deregulation in the best interests of the companies would give them an easier opening to take over noncommodity crops, thus competing with sustenance famers and expanding internationally with a US stamp of approval.

What Miller and Conko call for is a science-proven risk based assessment to solidify conformity to the federal govts official policy (2005, p.346). With the Stanford University Project on Regulation of Agricultural Introductions Model, expert scientists would be able to categorized risk assessment on a case-by-case categorical basis without government regulatory supervision. If the US were to adopt the Stanford model, more divergent recombinant DNA would pass under less scrutiny and be brought to grocery store shelves at a faster pace.

The interests of large businesses can be highly motivating. Miller and Conko go so far as to say that the US government should cut off foreign aid to those countries unwilling to cooperate with this mandate. All science and economic attaches in every U.S. embassy and consulate around the world should have biotechnology policy indelibly

Issue 5.4

inscribed on their diplomatic agendas (2005, p.347), allowing for easier entry into foreign markets. This is a pretty steep threat with a hand in multiple pockets.

Chemical and agribusiness are powerful lobbyists but do they operate in the consumers best interests? Will artificially increasing our production to over stimulate our produce be a good thing? In 1970 the top 5 US beef packers in the US controlled 25% of the global market. Today the top 4 control over 80% of the market (Kenner, 2008). Where is the government regulation of these monopolies?

According to the documentary Food, Inc., research questions how healthy is it to be producing mass quantities of food, out of season, and in shorter time periods? In order to do this, increasing levels of pesticide use have turned plants resistant and by effect, now require more pesticide and chemicals each year to maintain this artificial level of production (Kenner, 2008). This has become todays traditional agriculture. The farm factory has created such a disproportionate competition between rural farmers that they are forced to accept this norm, thus driving the prices of organic options unequivocally. The nutritional value, taste, look and feel of our food has become altered and the cycle is hard to break.

In order to lift this curtain, Teitel and Wilson have found many studies linking allergies, nutritional deficiencies, pesticide and herbicide use and formation of cancer cells to genetically modified foods. However, due to questionable statistical correlations,

Issue 5.4 disease that develops slowly and short timelines, it has been difficult to hold the producers accountable.

A consumers biggest purchasing repetition relies on trust and their, Assumption that food is carefully monitored (Teitel, 2001, p. 335). The manipulation of food starts with enhanced proteins. Basically, if allergies are associated with introduced proteins and if genfood is by definition characterized by introduced genes that produce proteins, then we have a situation in which caution about allergies is justified (Teitel, 2001, p. 336). Nutritional Labeling is the only way in which to inform a consumer as to what they are ingesting into their bodies, although the FDA has, no requirement to say which gene has been inserted...( 2001, p. 337). The fear is that our options for healthier choices are dwindling. At least 60% of all prepared food sold in US stores are genetically modified (2001, p. 338). Consumers have no knowledge as to what fertilizer or herbicides were used in growth or conception. Consumers are willing to assume, based on trust, things that are not necessarily correct. Manufacturers may, in some cases, put their interests ahead of the consumers.

Currently the USs top 5 genetically modified crops are Corn, soybeans, and cotton averaging $32.2 billion in sales (Major Crops Grown, 2002). In a Research poll from the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers' Cook College found that only 52% of Americans realized that genetically modified foods are sold in grocery stores and only 26% believed that they have ever eaten genetically modified foods -- a modest 6% increase since 2001 (WebMD, Inc. , 2003).

Issue 5.4 The top Chemical companies that dominated the worlds food supply are Monsanto Co (owning a 90% share of genetically modified crops worldwide), Dow Chemical Company second, and last but not least, Syngenta AG (WebMD, Inc. , 2003).

The FDA, EPA, and USDA are the regulatory commissions responsible for fact checking the corporations but market approval is left open in our capitalist economy.

Many of the purveyors of genfood are companies that market the same agricultural chemicals. Engineering plants to require what a company already sells makes business sense to these corporations (Teitel, 2005, p. 339). Government accepted safety tests by Monsanto were conducted by the Monsanto Corporation themselves. The report lacked scientific validity due to a conflict of interest and a deceptive control group. The Soybeans used in the study were not the accurate representations of the same ones sold to consumers at grocery stores. The soybeans tested were without the use of round up, while the ones found available to consumers were genetically engineered to contain the herbicide at conception. (Teitel, 2005).

When the study was repeated by outside center CETOS and evaluated by a peer reviewed scientific journal, it found, ..a 12-14% decline in types of plant-based estrogens called phytoestrogens (Teitel, 2005, p. 338) These Estrogens correspond directly to prevention in osteoporosis, breast cancer, and heart disease. Heart Disease, the leading cause of death for both men and women, causes the US over $108.9 billion a year in health care services, medication and lost productivity ("Heart disease facts,"). As a result, Monsanto repeated their experiment to reprove their original findings as accurate,

Issue 5.4

but the results from the Monsanto test and CETOs were incomparable due to the different testing methods used.

Another rebuttal from a scientist working at the Rowett Research Institute (UK) tested genetically enhanced potatoes in rats diets. After only 10 days the animal suffered substantial health effects, including weakened immune systems and changes in the development of their hearts, livers, kidneys, and brains (Teitel, 2005 p. 340). Soon after this statement was released the scientist was fired from the institute and his research falsified by the company. Other reports surfaced of the same experiment yielding similar results, as well as enlarged stomach walls from the altered food.

Nonhodgkins lymphoma, ..one of the fastest-rising cancers in the western world, has been linked to common Herbicides containing glyphosate and MCPA (Teitel, 2005, p. 40). Exposure to these chemicals have resulted in a statistical increase in certain cancers, however, the exact causal agent has not been identified. In order to increase milk production Posilac, a Bovine growth hormone, was recalled after Monsanto falsified its safety ratings in order to pass (Teitel, 2005). Monsanto failed to report about the thyroid and prostates cysts, immune system and carcinogenic defects found in the rBGH-fed rats.

As plants have evolved from their recombinant DNA, the residual effects remaining in the decay has the potential to spread further contaminates (Kenner, 2008). Proponents of direct insemination claim it reduces over spraying. The EPA only tests for

Issue 5.4

bacterium outside of isolation, therefore, it ...assumes the toxin is safe to eat in crops and does not require testing for human health effects (Teitel, 2005, p. 339). The EPA does not require safety and routine regulatory review for new plant varieties to enter the market. If there were clearer distinctions of long term/short term data, than Teitel and Wilson feel they could prove the hazardous effects chemical companies have imposed on the community unwillingly.

Gregory Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in support of bioengineered food attests- our view is that there should be a mandatory, premarket approval process by the FDA before biotech foods go on the market; that the public is entitled to have the FDA determining that the food is safe and not relying on [companies such as] Monsanto telling us the food is safe" (WebMD, Inc., 2003).

Conko and Miller, as the voice of agbiotech, are determined to expand globally, supported by US approval into new and diverse markets. This would only be possible with less government regulation and decision making power given directly to the chemical companies. By defining appropriate regulatory policies to demystify the opposition to bioengineered organisms. Teitel and Wilson urge caution in evaluating food quality and the need for more concrete evidence in proving the safety of genetically modified food for human consumption.

Issue 5.4 References

Conko, G. & Henry, I. M. (2005). Agriculture Biotechnology: Overregulated and Underappreciated. In S. Ezell, M. Norwood, B. Stewart, K. Greenwood, C. Waight, P. Bishop, & H. Hutchins (Eds.), Human ecosystems and technological change (5th ed., pp. 6-12). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Teitel, M. & Wilson, A. K. (2001). You Are What You Eat. In S. Ezell, M. Norwood, B. Stewart, K. Greenwood, C. Waight, P. Bishop, & H. Hutchins (Eds.), Human ecosystems and technological change (5th ed., pp. 335-342). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Kenner, R. (Director) (2008). Food, Inc. [Theater]. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Disease and Stroke Prevention. (n.d.). Heart disease facts. Retrieved from website: U.S. Department of Agriculture , EPA. (2002). Major crops grown in the united states (AG101). Retrieved from Purdue Research Foundation website: http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html WebMD, Inc. (2003). Are biotech foods safe to eat?. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat

Issue 5.4

10