|
||||
|
The
GM debate For consumers, habits are difficult to alter and this the food industry is finding out the hard way. Their latest tactic - urging people to shift to GM food from organic food - is virtually conceding that what "we said earlier was not absolutely right." Robert Streiffer, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, says the food industry that convinced people that natural food is good is now changing its tune."The biotech companies on the other hand have done a poor job in promoting GM food and its benefits. We need to find the right balance and put forward proper perspectives to the public on the benefits of GM," he said. That's a very tough thing to do. Millions of
consumers including Sri Lankan-born residents in the US are still
doubtful of GM food products, suspecting there are unknown dangers
lurking with long-term effects. "We avoid this food,"
said a Sri Lankan employee at a multilateral agency. Perhaps the biggest problem confronting the GM industry is the common belief that scientists are playing the role of God. "That is the biggest problem we have in trying to counter opposing views," said one scientist. While half
the US population accepts BT (biotech) food, the other half has
doubts particularly because BT could be contained in any food without
one even knowing it. Ironically,
while listening last month to a range of US scientists beat the
drums in favour of GM food and GMOs (GM organisms), British scientists
released a much-awaited study saying that genetically modified crops
could harm the environment. One British newspaper said however that the study off field-scale crop trials found that some GM crops were good for wildlife. The findings showed that some insets such as bees in beet crops and butterflies in beet and spring oilseed rape were recorded more often in and around conventional crops that herbicide-tolerant GM varieties because there were more weeds to provide food and cover. After two weeks of listening to more of the "pros" of GMF and GMOs and less of the "cons" from a variety of US scientists, I am left with a better understanding of GM food but nagging questions still persist in my mind as to whether it is safe or not or how safe is it?For example how does one analyse the common US scientific viewpoint that no food is 100 percent safe and all food have risks and that GM foods should be viewed in this context? One of the first rules of journalism is … when in doubt, leave it out - meaning if a particular part of a story cannot be understood by the writer, then your reader would find it more difficult to ascertain what it means. So the best choice probably for consumers is better to be safe than sorry and avoid such foods - if that is possible because the Sri Lankan marketplace is already swamped with GM food products. My Sri Lankan scientist colleague for instance reminded me after our return from the US, that we had been consuming GM food and not even knowing it! There are thousands of products in the market and as explained in earlier articles tracing the food supply chain is virtually impossible even in the US. There is also the price factor. GM food being cheaper than conventional food attracts price-conscious consumers. One US scientist acknowledged that it is difficult to convince the majority of US consumers that GM food is as safe as any other conventional food. "If we can't convince the majority of consumers here that GM food is safe despite our having access to the most advanced communication methods, it would be much more difficult to convince consumers in developing countries on the benefits," he said. When I first received this invitation to join a group of scientists and journalists to study GM technology in the US, my gut reaction was "Ah … this is a brainwashing exercise - US style."Part of that is true. I was however pleasantly surprised when some US scientists reflected their uncertainty about the technology. In a way it was a representative section that we met. It may have not provided a completely balanced picture because we couldn't meet advocacy groups and consumers but having access to some independent scientists gave somewhat of a comprehensive picture, however small it was. Brent McConn, a biotechnologist, said he did have some concerns in a broader sense over GM food. " I am scared when MNCs (multinational corporations) control my food without being transparent. The fear is that they are not responsible to any country and can do what they like," he said. Prof Will Hueston, Director at the University Centre for Animal Health and Food Safety, had a few tips for US scientists who abhor advocacy groups and opponents of GM food and GM crops."We should not dismiss these groups. One needs to understand them. The moment you give them a hearing they become non-confrontational and then both sides are able to sit down as rational adults and discuss. Because of my understanding of these issues and a willingness to listen - not reject outright their views - advocacy groups are willing to sit down and listen to my views too," he said. Dr Susan Harlander, biotechnologist and head of BIOrational Consultants Inc, has a harsher view of advocacy groups opposing GM."Greenpeace (one of the biggest environmental NGOs) has ideological beliefs on this. No amount of science will convince them that this is as safe as any other conventional food. They don't believe science," she said. "I don't waste my time on agencies like this." At the end of the day, it's a case of the media reporting the complete picture in GMF and GMOs with sufficient analysis to help consumers make an educated choice. That's how I see this controversial technology reaching the people who should be given choices on the kind of food they eat. On the other hand choices are also limited for the poor particularly in drought-affected parts of India for example where people die of starvation. Like one Indian journalist in our group said, "can we stop free food gifted by the US or China for the starving millions because it is perceived unsafe? Do we have the right? Can we make those choices on behalf of the poor who would die if they don't get food?" Thankfully in Sri Lanka we don't have to make those choices because we are yet to see people dying of starvation. Ethics Here are some of his comments on ethical issues arising from agriculture biotechnology: * We have a moral duty to show proper respect for nature. We have a moral duty to respect the rights of animals and to take their welfare into account. We have a moral right to preserve and protect the environment. We have a moral right to avoid activities with unjust social consequences. * Modified crops could become a weed, negatively effecting natural ecosystems * Transgenes could spread to nearby relatives, negatively effecting natural ecosystems * Some of the socio economic issues is that increasing yields in regions where there is already a surplus can push down prices and hurt farmers *The most important stakeholders in this whole debate are those who are suffering from food shortages. Some 80,000 infants dies every two days from the effects of malnutrition * It is estimated
that by 2020, farmers will have to produce 40 percent more grain
than they do now despite little room for expanding agriculture onto
new land. Samath was among a group of senior journalists and scientists from South and Central Asia who spent two weeks in October in the United States discussing biotechnology and its connected issues at three universities there with advanced agriculture faculties. In this article he also provides the Sri Lankan viewpoint. The
Sri Lankan scenario: The government is now considering labelling options but long delays have triggered accusations from environmental groups that the authorities are under pressure from interested parties to abandon the proposal. The Environmental Foundation Ltd (EFL) says scientific investigations show that genetically modified foods are associated with toxins, allergies and reduction of immunity sometime leading to death. Precaution
advocated in GMFs Here is the
full text of its statement: These regulations also required that certain other foods commonly known to be GMFs (such as soy products, tomato products, cheese and potatoes) be certified by an accredited authority as being GM free before they could be allowed into the country. These regulations were gazetted in May 2001. However, the regulations were later suspended till September 2001 because the World Trade Organisation indicated that Sri Lanka had to give at least 60 days notice before it could implement such regulations. This was to
give exporting countries time to act in keeping with the regulations. These regulations were drafted by the Ministry's own officers and also highly recommended as being necessary for Sri Lanka. Instead, a three-member committee from the research, academic and government sectors was appointed to look into and report on the issue of genetically modified foods. After several months, the committee submitted a report, which recommended stringent regulations in relation to the importation of GMFs and the exploration of the possibility of mandatory labelling.However, no action has been taken on this report. While promoters of GM foods in the U.S. (the US is the largest producer of GMFs) assures us that there is no evidence that GMFs are unsafe for consumption, it is a fact that the European Union has required mandatory labelling for GMFs. Many of its citizens rejected GMFs outright. Consumers in Sri Lanka should realise the full importance of what is meant by 'genetic modification' (GM). These are modifications, which cannot take place in nature through natural evolutionary processes. These are 'modifications'
which have been done through human-directed bioscience. PILF believes that Sri Lanka should therefore proceed with caution in relation to such foods. While there is no conclusive evidence that the food is unsafe, neither is there evidence beyond reproach to prove that such foods are safe. Under currently existing trade agreements, developing countries have the right to impose public health measures in order to protect their citizens' health and safety, even where there is not enough scientific evidence to justify the imposition of such standards. This approach, an acceptance of what is known as the "precautionary approach" should be followed in Sri Lanka. Consumers' safety and protection is of utmost concern and must be addressed. Dangers
of GM food and crops The resistance is also raising concerns for bio agriculture firms like Monsanto, the seed multinational, that the huge costs involved in experimenting and field trials of news crops sometimes around $50 million per product may not be recoverable from commercial production and hence tests should not be undertaken. Here is a sample of concerns and GM issues across the world: -Public interests groups on November 12 filed a lawsuit to force the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to safely regulate biopharm crops--plants that have been genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals. -The groups say Monsanto, DuPont, ProdiGene, Dow and others have conducted hundreds of field tests of crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. Experimental genetically engineered plants have produced a blood clotting agent, a blood thinner, blood proteins, experimental animal vaccines, industrial enzymes, antibodies, and a potent abortion-inducing compound once considered for use as an AIDS drug. -Greenpeace and Friends-of-the-Earth believe GM labelling would benefit consumers and give them the choice of whether or not to buy these products. -Wallace E Huffman, a US agriculture professor, says that information by both biotech companies and environmental groups could be tainted by self-interest. He says communications by GM opponents may exaggerate the potential harm to the environment and distract from other issues while agriculture biotech companies may under-emphasise potential future environmental harm of GM crops and over-emphasise the production cost saving. - US journalist Alan Braunholtz says the debate is interesting with pro-GM industry casting themselves as the "altruistic food savers of the world and the anti-GM brigade running around shrieking about Frankenstein foods." He said neither side is being particularly honest and each GM application needs to be assessed on its own. "So far, I've yet to read of any trial that demonstrated health risks or of any application of GM crops that is an obvious 'must have' for the world," he said in a recent article. - A reader on the Internet rejects the view that without GMFs the world will starve in 20 years. He says the world produces more than enough food today to feed everyone and yet millions are undernourished. "The issue is not food production capacity per se, but distribution networks, markets, purchasing power, and the ways these function within various states and societies," he said. Sri
Lankan scientist says: With GMOs we cannot categorically say they are like fire as we do not know the real danger as in the case of fire. All we have is uncertainty. Sri Lanka being rich in biodiversity we have to be cautious about introducing GMOs which can be invasive. Again, a weedicide tolerant plant can get crossed with a weed and weed can become a superweed. However, these are all possibilities. That is why
we need biosafety regulations. The Ministry of Environment has a
project ongoing to establish biosafety framework for Sri Lanka which
is funded by GEF-UNEP. Hopefully within an year we will have the
framework. However in the case of GMF which USA, China and India,
can we isolate ourselves saying no import of food from these countries?
Besides there had been no proof to say GMF is harmful for human
beings. There had been isolated cases which have been subsequently
proved to be safe. If there is a disaster such as floods and victims
need food, can we refuse donations from these three countries?” |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |
