A Call for Global Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

A Call for Global Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

By Karen Saura

copyright 2003 Karen T. Saura

“We are confronted with what is undoubtedly the single most potent technology the world has ever known - more powerful even that atomic energy. Yet it is being released throughout our environment and deployed with superficial or no risk assessments - as if no one needs to worry an iota about its unparalleled powers to harm life as we know it - and for all future generations to come” (Batalion, 2000, para. 1).

The debate over the release of genetically modified (GM) foods has raged relentlessly since the first discussions to introduce GM foods into the food chain via the introduction of genetically modified “super seeds” to farmers to test the new strains of plants out in the real world. Supporters lauded the miraculous possibilities waiting to be realized as the vast applications of GM foods are explored and implemented into our society. They claim that this new technology promises to solve many of the current global problems including starvation, malnutrition, and chemical poisoning of the environment. Opponents of the technology warn of the unforeseen natural disasters posed for release into the ecosystem via the “Trojan horse” of GM foods. They fear ominous dangers ranging from new health issues which will develop from the introduction of these alien creations into our bodies, disruption of the fragile ecosystem, future farming disasters, terminator seeds unleashed, and anirretrievable loss of biodiversity on planet earth.

Genetically modified foods have become a part of our world and like it or not they are here to stay. Over the last twenty years, these new foods have quietly and irretrievable been introduced into the open market, escalating the debate surrounding health and safety concerns to a new level involving a heated struggle for control over the rules which will govern the role of GM foods in the global marketplace. Who is to choose which ones are safe? How much information does the public need? Who is to control the global food supply, previously a non-patented, natural resource, provided for by the planet we live on. In the US and many other countries, GM foods are already sold in the marketplace without full disclosure and informed labeling. Consumers have a right to know what is in their food. A global labeling system for GM foods needs to be established that informs consumers about the presence of genetically modified ingredients in their foods. GM foods should be labeled because theglobal consumer has the right to know whether or not the food he may be putting into his body has been genetically modified allowing consumers to choose whether or not to support this new technology through their purchases.

What exactly are genetically modified foods? The Convention on Biological Diversity defines biotechnology as: “any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use” (FAO, 2000, para. 3). With regard to foods, it specifically refers to the new DNA techniques, molecular biology and reproductive technological applications including a range of different technologies such as gene manipulation and gene transfer, DNA typing and cloning of plants and animals. These new organisms are then termed genetically modified organisms.

If we examine history, people have been altering their food for thousands of years. Humans first started cultivating edible crops over 7,000 years ago. Evidence of early agricultural practices such as plant grafting has been found in the ruins of ancient civilizations, proof that agricultural manipulation has been around for a long time. Modern bioengineering practices find their humble beginnings in these earliest attempts to modify crops and livestock. There are ample traces in the most ancient historical records of our ancestors practicing hybridization, the crossbreeding of animals and the crossing of two different plant strains to create new varieties with a combination of traits. Hybridizations are limited by natural barriers between the species. Some combinations absolutely will not take. Genetic engineering allows the scientist to bypass these natural barriers by using technology which literally inserts the genetic material from one organism into an otherwise incompatible host organism. We now have creations blending types of genetic material which could never before be combined. This creates all sorts of new health, safety and environmental concerns, and daunting practical issues to encounter surrounding fair and clear food labeling.

The current status of the humble tomato will well illustrate the extent to which the labeling parameters need to be mapped if they are to be true to their intentions and serve every consumer, including those who choose to completely avoid GM foods in any form whatsoever. In the 1990’s, a new variety of tomato was introduced, the Flavr-Savr ™ tomato. It had been genetically modified to enhance flavor and shelf life. If we are to label the GM Flavr-Savr ™ tomatoes, how is this to be done? Does every individual tomato wear a GM sticker? Or, does the grocer place a sign over the bin in the store? If imperfect and bruised Flavr-Savr ™ tomatoes are purchased to be made into tomato paste with other tomatoes from other sources, does the manufacturer label the product as “may contain”? This would directly apply to affordable and generic brands that often mix lots of produce as they buy for price in order to keep costs down. And how do we handle products created with ingredients from “morethan one country”? The labeling system must be global in order to have a universal compliance and standard if the GM label is to be trusted by the consumer. Should food products derived from GM plants be labeled? Corn meal, for example, and flour, or starch from GM potatoes? How about vegetable oil which comes from plants of possible GM origin? (McHughen, 2000, p. 213).

The FDA has been unable to clearly take a stand on GM foods, fair labeling and public health. Genetic engineering manipulates an organism at the very source of its uniqueness and changes it – fundamentally and essentially. DNA is nature’s blueprint for creating the individuality of an organism. Although it may appear to be essentially the same as its natural predecessor, what if the gene inserted was a gene from a food that could cause an allergic reaction? The FDA’s official position on foods known to cause allergic reactions is clear. Laura Tarantino is the head of FDA’s biotechnology branch. She states, “The food will have to be labeled so everyone will know it contains an allergen, unless the developer can show scientifically that the allergenicity has not been transferred...this is one case where we would clearly insist on labeling” (Ticciati, 1998, pp. 12-13). But adding a gene and creating a new hybrid GM organism may create novel, unpredictable allergens, novel andunprecedented health conditions. Yet, the FDA considers these new GM foods to be safe for the consumer, effectively ignoring potential health consequences to the consumer which may result from the genetic modifications. These GM foods are not labeled in the US.

The consumer should have the information available to choose if they wish to participate in this national bio-tech food experiment, not forced to participate through nondisclosure. How can the FDA justify not labeling foods as such? The FDA has taken the position that, according to their research, at least some of the GM foods already on the market show no “tangible difference” when compared to their natural counterparts, therefore, in their opinion, no such difference exists. They have also taken the position that too much information might confuse rather than enlighten the consumer. Because grasping the mechanics of biotechnology is beyond the technological reach and understanding of most laypersons it can seem unnatural and frightening even though it has been declared safe by the FDA (Hart, 2002, p.243). Yet, consumers have become accustomed to handling labeling information ranging from Kosher or non-Kosher, free-range or organic, saturated, unsaturated, expeller-pressed, #24 red,#45 yellow, msg, bht, and on and on… Consumers have learned how to read these labels and act on the information they provide. For the FDA to suggest that labeling GM foods and additives will mislead consumers is inconsistent with current labeling standards and underestimates the intelligence of consumers. GM foods should be labeled.

The rate at which these unlabeled GM products are hitting the market is growing exponentially by the day. A genetically modified hybrid is considered a new invention and can be patented and protected by intellectual copyright laws. Whoever owns the food patents owns the food chain. The corporate race is on to tweak and twist valuable natural commodities in order to claim intellectual ownership of and future profits generated by the GM foods. Over the past ten years, biotech companies have rapidly used patenting to gain control of staple crop seed stock. This has led to a near monopoly control of certain commodities which have been genetically modified, especially soy, corn and cotton. As a result, almost seventy-five percent of such processed foods contain some GM ingredients. Largely between 1997 and 1999, GM ingredients suddenly appeared in two-thirds of all US processed foods. This flurry of food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court decision Diamond vs. Chakrabartywhere the highest court decided that biological life could be legally patentable (McHughen, 2000, 245). Since then thousands of applications for experimental GM organisms have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. More and more of these unlabeled products are entering the US marketplace daily. It is becoming a very lucrative industry and is being pushed upon an uninformed US consumer. Countries that require GM foods to be labeled generally find their consumers to be very resistant to the introduction of these products into their marketplaces. This is resulting in a tremendous international debate over the labeling of GM products and a global economic war between companies positioning themselves to best profit in the exploding GM foods industry.

Because current labeling laws in the US do not require listing genetically modified ingredients, few consumers are aware that they are currently purchasing and consuming GM food products and that this has been going on for almost twenty years. Granted, you can look at labels and see exactly how much salt, fat and carbohydrates are in the foods you eat, but you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell in them had been genetically altered. The labeling laws have not kept pace with the explosion of GM creations. The products containing GM ingredients are currently not labeled in the US. Without labeling, few consumers in the US are aware of the pervasiveness of GM foods.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the international organization charged with creating a universal food labeling system to address the new health, public safety, and environmental issues emerging as these biotechnological advances hit the global marketplace. Formed in 1962, Codex’s mission is to protect the health and safety of global consumers and ensure fair practices in food trade through relevant standards. Over its 40-year history it has fulfilled its mandate by establishing some 4,000 standards, recommendations, and guidelines for individual foods, food labels, pesticide residues, food contaminants, food additives, hygiene practices, and other issues relevant to traded foodstuffs (Kalaitzandonakes & Phillips, 2000, p. 1). In 1993 Codex addressed the need to develop global labeling standards for GM foods. An Intergovernmental Task Force of Foods Derived from Biotechnologies was established to create the global set of standards, guidelines and recommendations for foods derived from biotechnologies or traits introduced into foods by biotechnological methods (FAO, 2000, para. 1). Over ten years have gone by and we still have no global labeling standard. Even basic elements of what is to be labeled and when a label is or isn’t necessary is still debated (Kalaitzandonakes & Phillips, 2000, p. 1). The explosion of GM products has created an entirely new paradigm of foods which has never before had to be worked into the parameters of the global society. The old way of thinking about foods, what they are, where they come from and how they are produced no longer applies. Our entire relationship to food and the environment has to be re-evaluated. Meanwhile, as the Codex discusses and debates the issues at hand,GM foods are rapidly infiltrating our food chain, our bodies and our ecosystem spread by the wind, birds and bees and the forces of global commerce.

To illustrate the complexity of addressing what and when to apply the GM label, let’s look at how the US handles the regulation of our food supply. The government agrees that there exists the responsibility to the public to inform and label GM foods. It is unclear, however, who is responsible for this, what food manufacturers should warn about, and who is the regulator. The FDA is responsible for the safety of domestic and imported foods except for red meat and poultry, which is regulated by the US Department of Agriculture. The Environmental Protection Agency is the primary regulator for pesticides, with help from the FDA (Singer, 2000). The FDA only labels if it has been demonstrated that the organism is sufficiently different. It is reasonable for the consumer to demand safe food. However, if the consumer wishes to be discerning, she must weigh the facts objectively. She must consider the pluses and minuses of GM products; those produced with pesticides, herbicides and/oradditives, and the fact that nature has a way of mixing it all up anyway. An ‘organic’ farm may not be as organic as we think. Cross-pollination and other mixing occurs. Nothing in FDA regulations states that GM foods are not organic, so some foods labeled “organic” may indeed be genetically modified (Deaton, 2003).

In the United States, the FDA is responsible for establishing food labeling guidelines. Internationally, each country establishes its own internal guidelines which the Codex is attempting to bridge into a global system. Foods are moved around the world daily via air, land, and sea. Take a look at the supermarket and you will see peaches from Chile, Australian lamb, and Mexican papayas. A huge national and international economy drives the daily movement of food around the world. A working labeling system must accommodate vastly different cultures, politics, economies and laws.

An examination of a time line of proposed legislation from various countries illustrates which countries have taken a firm position on the labeling of GM foods and further reveals to what degree the global public has become concerned about the presence of these GM foods in the marketplace in spite of corporate and governmental attempts to maintain the current status quo. The European Union (EU), China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Australia have already passed legislation requiring some form of labeling for GM products. On May 26, 1998, the EU adopted rules requiring mandatory labels for foods made from genetically engineered soybeans and corn which took effect immediately. August 1999, the Japanese government voted to require labeling of GM crops and foods containing GM ingredients. The Australian New Zealand Food Authority also ordered mandatory labels in August 1999. The Korean government approved mandatory labeling of GM corn, soybeans and bean sprouts, effective in March 2001.In May of 2001, China’s State Council passed a draft regulation requiring clear labeling of GM food products especially with regards to imports. Non-labeled imports were subsequently banned in China. The US responded with sharp criticism of their actions (Hart, 2002, pp. 193, 269).

There have been several attempts at some form of GM food labeling in the US, but to date, none has been approved. November 10, 1999, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act was presented in Congress. Although there was significant support for the act from many of members of congress, the legislation was withdrawn without a vote (Hart, 2002, p. 169). In January of 2000 the US participated in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity held with the intention of creating a global set of protocols on Biosafety. Over 130 countries voted in favor of the precautionary principle and regulations for movements of new GM foods. The US was one of the few countries that did not support the Biosafety Protocols, publicly voicing their opposition to and subverting the protocols (Hart, 2002, p. 193). Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill in the Senate in February of 2000 requiring that all genetically engineered foods be labeled. “The health and environmental effects of geneticallyengineered foods are not yet known,” she wrote in a press statement introducing the bill. “The bill authorizes long-term studies on the safety of these foods. Such studies simply do not exist today.” According to Boxer, over 92 percent of consumers favor mandatory labels on GM foods. In spite of the overwhelming public support, the bill did not pass (Hart, 2002, p. 233).

The battle over the labeling of GM foods is escalating. The US has recently openly attacked the EU’s ban on unlabeled GM foods. On August 17th, 2003 President Bush asked the World Trade Organization to force the EU to lift the ban on GM food products. The EU responded immediately by exercising its one opportunity to legally block the request. The EU insists that the five-year-ban on GM foods is necessary to provide the EU with time to finalize strict new rules on the authorization and labeling of these new products for their markets. Members of the EU feel that decisions about the food eaten in Europe should be made in Europe and not in the White House (Guardian Newspapers, August 18, 2003). To date, the ban has not been lifted in spite of the US’s efforts to open up the global marketplace to unlabeled GM products.

GM foods have entered the global food chain and global public policy is struggling to keep pace with its advance. There are distinct positions developing in the public debate. There are scientists doing what they’ve been trained to do, multi-national corporations competing to create, control, and profit from new markets, governments striving to serve the conflicting needs of the citizens, environmentalists struggling to maintain a balanced and sustainable ecosystem, and consumers demanding information on a universally shared basic necessity, the global food supply. The future relationship between people and food is what is truly at stake in this frantic struggle over how to label GM foods. Up to this point in human history the Earth has provided food for the people of the planet. If we as a global society allow for the food of the earth to be manipulated, patented, legislated, and sold back to us – especially without our knowledge of such - then we become nothing more than slaves onthe planet with no place to escape to. If this experiment with GM food turns out to be a bad experiment, what’s at stake here is the future sustainability of humans on the planet. The people have a right to know what is in their food supply and must be given the opportunity to choose whether or not to support this new genetically modified food industry through every individual food transaction and every bite of food eaten! Genetically modified foods throughout the world must be labeled.

Copyright 2003 by Karen T. Saura

Karen Saura MEd, MH, is a master herbalist, science teacher, and holistic nutritional counselor. She emphasizes the use of whole, organic foods, nutritive herbs and supplements to promote optimal health, prevent disease, manage chronic illness and to rediscover the joy of healthy eating. Phone consultations are available.
e-mail: ksaura@gmail.com .


ReferencesBatalion, N. (2000). 50 harmful effects of genetically modified foods. Oneonta, New York: Americans for Safe Food. Retrieved October 18, 2003, from "http://creativehealth.netfirms.com/50harm.shtml".
BBC News website. (2002). Famine and the GM debate [Electronic version]. BBC news, world edition, Thursday November 14, 2002. Retrieved November 24, 2003, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/.
Charles, D. (2001). Lords of the harvest: biotech, big money, and the future of food. Cambridge, MA: Purseus Publishing.
Deaton, S. (2003). Poison of Panacea? Paper for SCI4305 Nutrition and Behavior. Orinda, CA: JFKU.F.D.A. Website. (2003).
The food and drug administration website. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from http://www.fed.gov.
F.A.O. Website. (2000). FAO statement on biotechnology. United States: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States. Retrieved October 18, 2003 from www.fao.org/biotech/stat.asp.
G.E.Food Alert website. (2003). Antibiotic resistance and genetically engineered crops. The genetically engineered food alert website. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from www.GEFoodAlert.org.
Hart, K. (2002). Eating in the dark: America’s experiment with genetically engineered food. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Kalaitzandonakes, N. and Phillips, P. (2000). GM food labeling and the role of the Codex [Electronic version].
AgBioForum, 3(4), 188-191. Retrieved November 24, 2003, from http://www.agbioforum.org. McHughen, A. (2000). Pandora’s picnic basket: the potential and hazards of genetically modified foods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, D. (1998). Fooling with nature. Frontline online [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 20, 2003, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/disrupt/sspring.html.
Monsanto website. (2003). Science and technology pages, products and solutions pages, news and media pages. Retrieved November, 2003, from http://www.monsanto.com.
Morton, C. (2002). Report documents health effect of biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Medical, Dental & Public Health Schools. Retrieved October 15, 2003 from http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/Sept27_2002_/global_environment.html.
Much ado about gm food. (2003, June 30). The Washington Times. Retrieved October 13, 2003, from http://dynamic.washtimes.com/pring_story.cfm?StoryID=20030629-103833-7489r.
Pringle, P. (2003). Food, Inc.; Mendel to Monsanto- the promises and perils of the biotech harvest. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Ruiz-Marrero, C. (2002, April 5). Biotechnology’s Third Generation. Retrieved October 13, 2003, from http://biotech.cas.psu.edu/editorials.htm.
Singer, M. (2002). Food for thought: issues in agricultural biotechnology. [Electronic version]. Chicago Fed Letter, (149), pages 1-3.
Shiva, V. (2000). Tomorrow’s biodiversity. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, Inc.
Ticciati, L., Ticciati, R. (1998). Genetically engineered foods: are they safe? you decide. New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing.
US escalates gm food row with Europe. (2003, August 18). Guardian Newspapers Limited. Retrieved October 13, 2003, from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-18.