Genetically Modified Foods: A Crisis of Trust

Numerous reports have emphasised the need for major changes in the global food system (Godfray et al 2010 and Foley et al 2011). Projections for the world population provided by the United Nations show that by 2050, based on various assumptions, the human population will reach close to 9.2 billion by 2050 (Cribb 2010).

Agriculture must therefore meet the challenges of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimising its global environmental impacts (Seufert, Ramankutty & Foley 2012).

The Global Footprint Network (GFN) estimates that to support the average citizen in 2014, Planet Earth is required to supply 2.8 hectares of land and sea. This is 68 percent higher than what the planet can renew (GFN 2018). Based on GFN data calculated in 2003, by 2050 we will need two entire planets’ worth of resources to satisfy our food demand (Cribb 2010).

In the coming decades the greatest population growth will be in the worlds less developed regions, which by 2050 will be home to 85 percent (7.9 billion) of humanity’s 9.2 billion people. Life expectancy for the region will also average 10 years longer than it is today, prolonging the time during which the Earth has to carry a population of humans larger than its systems can support them without collapsing (Cribb 2010).

Organic farming is a system aimed at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals or humans and is often proposed as a solution. However, critics argue that organic agriculture may have lower yields and would therefore need more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, resulting in more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus undermining the environment benefits of organic practices (Seufert, Ramankutty & Foley 2012).

Frustratingly, there is no sense of congruity between the supporters and advocates of each side of the food supply debate, at the heart of which is the use of genetically modified (GM) food crops and related biotechnology in the form of pesticides and herbicides. It seems that the key players - being private companies, universities and government use whatever science they think supports their position and their messaging concerning safety, impacts on societal and environmental health and the ecological sustainability of the supply chain resulting in a lack of consumer trust in the organisations educating us on how to eat well and responsibly.

Genetically Modified Foods and the Industrial Food System

In present day Australia and in most developed countries around the world, many consumers find themselves sourcing their nutritional sustenance from a modern industrialised food system. A food system characterised by a diverse range of food options all year long as well as food products that have been processed and packaged to extend foods shelf life, convenience and aesthetic appeal (Trist, 2017).

In the traditional food systems typical of the early twentieth century, consumers relied on minimally processed seasonal foods, collected or produced for self-consumption or mainly sold through informal markets. Food supply chains were often short and local, thus access to perishable foods such as animal source foods or certain fruits and vegetables were limited or seasonal. Food environments were usually limited to one’s own production and informal markets that were daily or weekly and could be far from communities (HLPE 2017).

Whereas, in the Modern food systems most prominent of the second half of the twentieth century agriculture has become increasingly concentrated and intensive and the old practice whereby farmers grew a range of crops and sold much of what they produced locally gave way to single-crop farming. Trade was globalised and industrial processing became the norm (Flandrin & Montanari 1999 and Trist 2017).

Such productive and intensive agricultural practices meant that farms grew to enormous sizes, becoming focused on a few commodity crops and increasingly dependent of biotechnologies in the form of GM seeds, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides (UCS) in order to produce a lot of food, on a small amount of land at an affordable price.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) (as cited on their website) defines Genetically Modified Organisms as:

“… organisms (i.e. plants, animals or micro-organisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology or “gene engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to GM foods”.

To explain why GM foods are produced, the WHO provides the following information:

“GM fooods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers and have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food industry generally).

One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms is to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Resistance against insects is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that inherently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to disease caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used”

One of the key players in the GMO industry is Monsanto – a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in the USA. They are the world’s leading producer of Roundup, a herbicide with the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto is also the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds on the planet. In 1996, Monsanto introduced genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans that were resistant to Roundup, followed by Roundup Ready corn in 1998 (Delano, 2009). The advantage of Roundup Ready crops is that they significantly improved a farmer’s ability to control weeds, since glyphosate could be sprayed on their fields without affecting their crops.

Public debate surrounding GM foods

The use of GMO’s in agriculture and food production has resulted in public debate all over the world. Issues such as safety, social health, environmental impacts including biodiversity and crop protection, safety, intellectual property rights and patenting protection are some of the most viciously debated topics and strong arguments are presented by both sides.

In an article written by Megan Clark, Chief Executive Officer of the CSIRO, for the organisations online magazine ‘The Conversation” dated 29 August 2011 she states:

“Across the very extensive and prolonged use worldwide, there has been no evidence of harm to human health associated with the use of GM technology”.

While GM research has contributed greatly to our understanding of how plants function (Richards 2011), several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling and protein formation and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system (Dean & Armstrong 2009, Ewen & Pustzai,& Britti 2008, Malatesta, Boraldi & Annovi 2008 and Velimirov, Binter & Zentek 2008).

In respect of social heath impacts, issues of debate mostly concern consumption of GM ingredients through cheaper and unhealthy industrially produced foods and sugary drinks. In the USA, the Government spends billions of dollars each year to subsidise large scale growers of commodity crops such as corn and soybeans used to produce the very foods the USDA’s nutritional guidelines advise to eat less of (UCS).

According to data provided by Statista, in 2017, 94 percent of all soybeans and 92% of corn grown in the USA were genetically modified for herbicide tolerance. 77% of all corn grown was also genetically modified for stacked traits. These ingredients appear in 70% of processed foods which form a large part of the western diet and a growing body of research connects this diet to increases in obesity and other diet related diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, even among children (UCS).

Genetic uniformity has also been raised as a worrisome problem associated with the modern food system. According to the United Nations, food crops have lost 75% of their genetic diversity since the 1900’s. What’s more, even people in wealthy countries who have had access to more variety of foods, have come to eat a diet dominated by corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and potatoes (Mayer 2016).

In response, biotech companies argue that GM foods can be made healthier, giving lettuce a greater concentration of nutrients, reducing starch in potatoes or lowering the saturated-fat content of cooking oils and some studies suggest that new GM foods might be able to prevent cancer or heart disease. Improving the nutritional values of foods can be particularly significant in boosting diets for developing and impoverished countries (Renee, 2017).

Where GMO’s impact on the environment is concerned, the seems to be just as much data published about the environmental benefits of GMO technology as there are about the harmful consequences of it.

According to an article published by the CSIRO, there have been many environmental benefits from genetic modification. It is argued that GM technologies have massively reduced pesticide use in all circumstances where pests have been targets resulting in less greenhouse gas associated with lower diesel use; less pesticide run-off; less residual pesticides; more biodiversity and improvements in human safety. Furthermore, the article claims GM crops with inbuilt herbicide resistance have resulted in improved agricultural practices, more efficient water and light use, less soil degradation and improved yields for farmers (Richards, 2011).

It is also claimed by the CSIRO that Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has much lower environmental impact than alternative chemicals such as atrazine which is banned in the European Union. Glyphosate is relatively rapidly degraded in the soil and does not easily leach into water run-off into river basins (Roush and Tribe 2012).

Those not in favour of GMO’s claim they are a serious risk to the environment. According to the WHO, issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene once the GM crop has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms such as insects which are not pests, to the gene product; the stability of the gene, the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and the increased use of chemicals in agriculture.

Greenpeace claims that transnational companies, such as Monsanto, that produce genetically engineered crops are among the worst polluters of the 20th century (Delano 2015).

A fact often not raised in arguments by GMO advocates is the impact of growing GMO grains as feed for the industrial meat industry. In the late 20th century, meat production became dominated by large CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations). In a CAFO, animals are housed densely in giant sheds where they often do not have access to outside areas. Grazing and growing feed for livestock now occupies 70% of all agricultural land and 30% of the ice free land surface of the planet (Imhoff, 2010). These methods of producing animal fodder leave a host of problems in their wake. Runoff from chemical inputs and CAFO waste pollutes water and contributes to global warming; monoculture (the planting of a single crop over a large area year after year) depletes soil and reduces biodiversity; overuse of antibiotics in meat production threatens our ability to fight of human disease (UCS).

Among the many contentious issues already mentioned concerning GMO’s, legal issues concerning patent protection and intellectual property ownership have made quite a stir. In the documentary David versus Monsanto, released in 2009, a Canadian farmer was sued by Monsanto for property infringement when his land was contaminated by GMO seeds. Monsanto has since become notorious for allegedly abusing legal rights (Zhou 2015).

Which organisations develop protocols for GMO’s internationally and how is this regulated in Australia with regard to labelling?

For any new GM products to get through to commercialisation, they have to undergo significant research. This research is overseen by major regulatory agencies around the world. The principal framework is an organisation called Codex Alimentarius and this is run by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the WHO, who basically set international standards for quality control in food products.

In Australia, GMO technology comes under the responsibility of the Gene Technology Regulator, (the Regulator) who is an independent statutory office holder responsible for administering the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act) and corresponding state and territory laws and is appointed by the Governor General.

The Regulator is responsible for administering the national regulatory system for gene technology as set out in the Act. “In administering the gene technology regulatory system the Regulator has specific responsibility to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, by identifying risk posed by or as a result of gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with genetically modified organisms (GMO’s)” (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, 2016).

Each State and Territory has legislation equivalent to the Commonwealth Act to ensure all dealings with GMOs are covered by the scheme) (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2018).

GM foods labelling in Australia

In Australia, GM foods are regulated under section 1.5.2 of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code - Food produced using Gene Technology, an instrument under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991. The standard covers the sale and use of food and the labelling of food produced using gene technology.

Foods produced using gene technology are prohibited from sale in Australia and New Zealand unless they have undergone strenuous assessment and been approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The only GM foods which have been approved for sale in Australia after a case by case analysis are specific GM varieties of canola, corn, cotton, Lucerne, potato, rice, soybean and sugar beet” (Ng, 2014).

According to the code, GM food products on sale in Australia and New Zealand – either as a whole food or as an ingredient in a processed food – must have their GM status identified if introduced genetic material or proteins present in the final food. However, there are exceptions.

- Foods where GM ingredients are highly refined, such as cooking oils, margarine, sugars, starches, chocolate, baked goods. Many processed foods fall into this category.

- Foods made at bakeries, restaurants and takeaways.

- Foods from animals that are fed GM feed

- GM labelling laws allow companies to include up to one percent of GM organisms in food without labelling it GM, as long as the GM is there “unintentionally” or by accident.

In Australia, there are currently no approved GM fresh foods, such as fruit and vegetables. Should they ever be approved, FSANZ’s regulation states that they must be displayed with a tag disclosing their GM status.

Monsanto’s role in corporate social responsibility and the economic implications of meeting food security

Monsanto describes itself on its website as:

“An agricultural company, helping farmers large and small grow food more sustainably. From seed to software, to fibre and fuel, we’re developing tools to help growers protect natural resources while providing nourishment to the world. In the face of a changing climate and other environmental challenges, we’re helping to ensure our agricultural system continues to suit the needs of everyone.”

While Monsanto’s mission statement is not explicitly stated on its website, you would be forgiven for believing that it is to save the Earth from its own destruction and that it is succeeding.

For years, Monsanto has ignored critics of its agriculture products and business dealings, however in 2013 the biotech giant engaged in a public relations makeover (Hopkinson 2013).

Its website is now imbued with heart-warming stories, messages of gratitude and thanks from farmers world-wide and case studies of how Monsanto has worked towards a sustainable food system, is fighting climate change and protecting the natural environment, saving animals and their commitment to acting with integrity and transparency.

In Monsanto’s 2017 sustainability report (page 5), it details its commitments to produce up to 50% more food globally, double the food supply in the areas of greatest need and feed 2.5 billion more people using the same amount of farmland as today by the year 2050.

On page 54, Monsanto states that “in evaluations spanning four decades, the overwhelming conclusion of experts worldwide has been that glyphosate can be used safely; and it categorically states that “no regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate a carcinogen”.

Page 55 of the report details how Monsanto collaborates with academics and universities, and goes to great lengths to highlight the integrity of all research it that it commissions.

Based on the information provided by Monsanto on its website and in its annual report, it is easy to understand why consumers and the farming community would be at ease growing or eating food from GM seeds and glyphosate based pesticides and how such technology could potentially be the answer to the impending food shortage crisis.

As has been demonstrated several times during this essay, for seemingly every claim or statistic made in favour of GM food technology, there are also reports to prove the contrary. Such is the case with Monsanto’s claims that it can feed the world through production of higher crop yields.

A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise (Dean and Armstrong 2009). “The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialised major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn (Gurain-Sherman 2009). As with almost all studies I have read regarding the safety of GMO’s, this study also has its critics (Brazeau, 2016).

Despite all of Monsanto’s efforts to portray a squeaky clean image, trust is hard to build when the media is infiltrated with paradoxical and contrary information regarding issues of public and environmental health and the sustainability of the food system that supports us.

Newly-released documents (see website links in reference list under the title Monsanto Papers) comprising of 700 pages of secret communications, which include e-mails, correspondence, reports and texts which were obtained through court ordered discovery by the law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman.

According to their website, the firm is suing Monsanto on behalf of over 800 people who allege that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup caused them or family members to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.

The Monsanto Papers are being used as evidence in court and when read together, they detail how Monsanto ghost write science, have paid scientists to promote their interests while appearing to be independent, are sabotaging regulation and are creating attacks on independent scientists and bodies who claim their product causes harm (See Monsanto Papers in reference list). These documents suggest a direct contradiction to Monsanto’s claims about the safety of glyphosate and its corporate integrity.

For example, an email chain involving Monsanto officials, which attests to their successful efforts to have a landmark study retracted. The research, conducted by Professor G.E. Seralini, showed that glyphosate causes cancer in rats. The article was ultimately retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, in which it was originally published. Correspondence between Monsanto officials indicate that they urge fellow scientists to engage in a letter-writing campaign to have the article retracted – all without appearing to be directly involved. It is also important to note that the editor of the journal, Wallace Heyes, was on Monsanto’s payroll as a consultant (see Monsanto Papers).

In one email, Monsanto lead toxicologist Donna Farmer insists that the company “…cannot say Roundup is not a carcinogen” because “we have not done the necessary testing…to make that statement”.

According to the Baum, Hedlund website, it has sent copies of the material to the EPA’S Office of Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Jr., currently investigating whether illegal collusion took place between the EPA and Monsanto.

The law firm has also sent the material to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (recently sued by Monsanto for designating glyphosate as a known carcinogen). The implications of the documents are now reverberating throughout Europe, where regulators are trying to decide whether or not to reauthorise glyphosate (Alton 2017).

In conclusion, there does not seem to be much debate about the fact that immediate action needs to be taken to prevent or at least minimise the effects of an impending food shortage crisis as the Earth’s population approaches 9.2 billion people by the year 2050. Improvement’s to GM food technology may very well be the answer, however farmers will only grow food for which there is a demonstrated consumer demand. Based on the contradictory and inconsistent information and mixed messages being delivered to the public, it seems likely that consumers will remain sceptical of GM foods and the biotech industry as a whole until such time that there is clarity regarding their safety to human health, environmental health and their impacts on the sustainability of the food system.

Written by Charlene Trist

References

Alton, L. (2017) Just released: Monsanto secret documents expose scientific manipulation and collusion with corrupted EPA officials https://www.naturalhealth365.com/monsanto-glyphosate-2259.html (last accessed 27 April 2018)

Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman (2017), Monsanto Papers Secret Documents, https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/ (last accessed 17 April 2015)

Brazeau, M (2016) Organics v conventional v GMOs: Debate grows over farm yields and sustainability https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/15/organics-v-conventional-v-gmos-debate-grows-farm-yields-sustainability/ (Last accessed 28 April 2018).

Clark, M (2011) CSIRO: GM essential for health and food security https://theconversation.com/csiro-gm-essential-for-health-and-food-security-3080 (last viewed 27 April 2018).

Cribb, J (2010), The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Dean, A, Armstrong, J, Genetically Modified Foods (date unknown), American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

Delano, Melanie (2009), Roundup Ready Crops, Cash crop or third world saviour, http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

ETC Group (2018), News Release: Europe bows to Bayer-Monsanto…US may follow, http://etcgroup.org/content/news-release-four-farm-europe-and-us-regulators-may-bow-bayer-monsanto-and-basf (last accessed 17 April 2018)

Ewen S, Pustzai A, Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, Lancet, vol 354, p 1353 – 1354

Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice, JAgric, Food Chem, 56(23) p11533 – 11539.

Foley, J. et al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342

Global Footprint Network (2018), Has humanity’s Ecological Footprint reached it’s peak? https://www.footprintnetwork.org/2018/04/09/has_humanitys_ecological_footprint_reached_its_peak/

Godfray, H. C. et al. (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818

Gurain-Sherman, D (2009) Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops, Cambridge, Union of Concerned Scientists.

HLPE (2017) ‘Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Security, Rome.

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2015) Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. IARC Working Group. Lyon, 3-10/03/2015. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum Vol. 112:

Imhoff, D. (2010). The CAFO reader: the tragedy of industrial animal factories. [Healdsburg, Calif.], Watershed Media.

Loening Ulrich E (2015), A challenge to scientific integrity: a critique of the critics of the GMO rat study conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini et al (2012), Environmental Sciences EuropeBridging Science and Regulation at the Regional and European Level.

Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on genetically modified soybean: effects of liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol, p967-977

Mayer, A (2016) Seeds, Pesticides, Fertilizer: How Big Companies Harnessed The ‘Holy Trinity’ of Modern Agriculture http://harvestpublicmedia.org/post/seeds-pesticides-fertilizer-how-big-companies-harnessed-holy-trinity-modern-agriculture (last accessed 27 April 2018).

Ng, A (2014) Safety first – assessing the health risks of GM foods https://theconversation.com/safety-first-assessing-the-health-risks-of-gm-foods-26099 (last viewed 27 April 2018).

Renee, J, Benefits you get from a GMO https://www.livestrong.com/article/195435-benefits-you-get-from-a-gmo/ (last viewed 28 April 2018).

Richards, R (2011) Top five myths about genetic modification https://theconversation.com/top-five-myths-about-genetic-modification-2664 (last viewed 27 April 2018).

Roush, R and Tribe, D (2012) Calls for labelling GM food reveal attempts at market domination, https://theconversation.com/calls-for-labelling-gm-food-reveal-attempts-at-market-domination-9873 (last viewed 27 April 2018).

Seralini G.E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, et al. (2012), Long term tozicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Food Chem Tozicol, p4221-31

Seufert V, Ramankutty N & Foley J.A (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture, Nature, International journal of science

Smith, JM, (2007) Genetic Roulette, Fairfield, Yes Books, p10

Trist, C.M (2017) Connection through food: The impact of market and relational aesthetics on health, nutrition, environments, and wellbeing, essay for Southern Cross University, Aesthetics of Food and Wine.

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS),date unknown, Our failing food system, https://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture#.WuFRjkxuKHk (Last accessed 26/04/2018)

Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J (2008), Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603XMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth.

Woodhouse, P (2010) Beyond Industrial Agriculture? Some questions about farm size, productivity and sustainability, Journal of Agrarian Change, vol.10, p437 -442.

World Health Organisation (2015), Frequently Asked Questions on genetically modified foods, http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/, last accessed 17 April 2018

Young, C (2017). GM News, https://afsa.org.au/blog/2017/12/04/gm-news/

Zhou, W. (2015) The Patent Landscape of Genetically Modified Organisms

Websites:

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/genetic-modification/regulation-genetically-modified-crops-australia

http://etcgroup.org/conte nt/news-release-four-farm-europe-and-us-regulators-may-bow-bayer-monsanto-and-basf

https://www.gmoscience.org/healthy-food-healthy-children/

http://www.madge.org.au/are-gm-foods-labelled-australia

http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/about-regulator-1

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/factbox-gm-foods-in-australia

https://www.statista.com/statistics/217108/level-of-genetically-modified-crops-in-the-us/

Monsanto Papers – web links to each individual document (emails, text messages, reports, written correspondence).