GMO Food for Thought

Since more than two-thirds of the food produced for sale in the United States contains at least some amount of a crop or ingredient that has been genetically engineered, researchers at Cornell University wanted to know whether Americans consider genetically modified foods a benefit or a risk to their health. Their study found that Americans are split on the issue of genetically modified foods and have grown slightly more skeptical of the technology over the past three years.

The Cornell University researchers conducted four annual national surveys from 2003 to 2005, sampling about 750 respondents each year, and three annual surveys of individuals living in New York from 2003 to 2005, contacting about 850 respondents each year. The national survey measured the respondent’s support for genetically modified foods using a scale from 1 to 10, while the survey of New Yorkers used a similar scale to measure the perceived health risks of genetically engineered food. The mean response for support for biotechnology was 5.6 (on the 1 to 10 scale) during the first year of the surveys, but by 2005, the mean response declined slightly to 5.2. Similarly, the mean response regarding perceived risks of GMOs increased to 6.1 in 2005 from 5.4 during the first year.

The findings, presented earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, showed that generally women and minorities of both genders perceived a higher risk in using GMOs in food production than men and Caucasians of both genders. Republicans showed more overall support for genetically engineered foods than others questioned for the study and people who pay more attention to the news supported genetically engineered food more than those who don’t, according to the study.

James Shanahan, associate professor of communication at Cornell, co-director of Cornell’s Genetically Engineered Organisms public issues education project, and lead researcher on this study, said that overall research shows that genetically modified foods are safe and effective and the more that people are exposed to news about biotechnology, the more they become aware of it, and therefore, become more supportive of the technology.

I found this Cornell University study to be interesting, but not without its flaws. For example, what really influenced the participants’ opinions about biotechnology, especially those in New York who were asked about their views about the “possible health risks” that genetically modified foods may pose? Have the words “genetically modified” conjured up images of cloned sheep in the public’s eye and therefore, they think these foods are not real and harmful to them?

I think a great deal of individuals’ perceptions about biotechnology comes from misinformation presented by groups opposed to the technology as well as in the media. People need to remember that biotechnology simply uses what is found in nature to create better foods and to address vital needs in this world we live in. Plus too, there have been so many more surveys that clearly show that individuals believe in the benefits and advantages of genetically modified foods, including the April 2000 Texas A&M University survey that showed that 65 percent of individuals agreed that genetically modified foods will bring benefits to people and a 2005 Gallup Poll that stated that 54 percent of individuals rejected the idea that GM foods posed a “serious health hazard” to consumers. Certainly, people with doubts about GMOs can’t ignore the compelling facts these surveys present.

As scientists and researchers continue to develop more genetically modified foods, there will no doubt be more studies examining the public’s perceptions of these foods. It will be very interesting to see what people think about biotechnology over the next few years as advances are made and more GM crops become available to more consumers around the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the ten years since the first crop was introduced, biotechnology and genetically modified foods have been at the center of countless bans and protests around the world. Biotechnology has also been the center of many lawsuits, including the latest one in which a coalition of farmers, farm groups, consumers, and environmental activists sued the United States government over its approval of a genetically engineered alfalfa that critics say will spell “havoc for farmers and the environment.”

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, contends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is improperly allowing Monsanto to sell an herbicide-resistant alfalfa seed while failing to analyze the public health, environmental, and economic consequences regarding the releases of the GMO into the market. Monsanto received regulatory clearance to begin selling the biotech alfalfa during the summer of 2005.

The lawsuit also claims that the biotech alfalfa will likely contaminate conventionally grown alfalfa at a fast pace and would hurt the production of organic dairy and beef products, since alfalfa is a key cattle feed. Farmers also could lose export businesses, valued at an estimated $480 million per year according to the filing, because buyers in Japan and South Korea, two major importers of U.S. alfalfa, have indicated they would avoid buying U.S. alfalfa once the genetically engineered variety is released.

The Center for Food Safety, one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, called the USDA’s decision to approve the genetically modified alfalfa “arbitrary and capricious.” Joining the Center for Food Safety as plaintiffs in the suit are the Sierra Club, Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Beyond Pesticides, The Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, and two individual alfalfa seed producers.

The plaintiffs are asking the federal court in California to rescind the USDA’s decision regarding the sale of Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa until a full environmental review has been completed.

What strikes me as odd about this lawsuit is the lack of facts regarding biotechnology. This lawsuit is based solely on the fear that environmental and organic groups express constantly that food must be kept “natural.” As I stated in a previous blog, people seem to forget is that biotechnology uses what is found in nature (living organisms) to address the needs in this world.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that this biotech alfalfa “will likely” contaminate and that farmers “could” lose their export businesses. Why claim that something “will likely” or “could” happen without being definite in your assertions? In my opinion, there is not enough information on the part of the plaintiffs to justify their claims that this biotech alfalfa will bring problems for farmers and the environment.

While lawsuits over biotechnology and genetically modified foods are certainly going to continue, I hope that all involved in such litigation will remember that in order to make a solid decision, all of the facts need to be considered, including the benefits and advantages of biotechnology as well as any concerns. This will certainly benefit individuals, farmers, consumers, and organizations affected by their decisions around the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over the past few years, several U.S. states have taken on the issue of biotechnology and genetically modified foods. Some states have restricted the growing of genetically engineered crops in their cities and counties, while other states have passed legislation pre-empting similar measures in their own backyards. Now, legislators in New York are the latest to take on the biotech issue with proposed legislation.

Lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would require the labeling of all seeds that include genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Those involved say the proposed measure helps organic farmers, who fear their crops could be tainted by birds, insects, or wind that could transmit pollen from genetically modified crops, as well as consumers, who fear there isn’t enough information available on the long-range consequences of eating GM foods or the impact that these foods may have on the environment. Sponsors of the proposed measure also say that since genetically modified crops are patented, farmers also fear they could be sued for patent infringement.

Organizations backing the bill include the New York Farm Bureau and the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, who said they back the proposed measure because genetically modified foods are not “natural” and that at the very least, people “need to know what they are purchasing.”

One of the bill’s sponsors is also proposing legislation in New York that makes manufacturers of genetically engineered plants and seeds liable for damages caused as a result of cross-contaminating crops, seeds, or plants.

What surprises me about this proposed legislation in New York is the lack of factual information regarding biotechnology and the benefits of genetically modified foods can provide. Lawmakers are only relying on the fear tactics of the organic lobby who want to keep their crops “natural.” What they don’t seem to consider is the fact that biotechnology simply uses what is found in nature to address the vital needs we face in the world.

The lawmakers also seem to have ignored the countless number of studies that have repeatedly supported the advantages of genetically modified foods, including the 2005 World Health Organization report that said genetically modified foods currently available on the international market have “passed risk assessments and are not likely to, nor have been shown to, present risks for human health”, and the 2004 U.S. National Research Council report that called the fears of the critics of biotechnology and GMOs “scientifically unjustified.”

A 2004 study by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that state legislatures are increasingly debating issues surrounding biotechnology’s use in agriculture. While these debates will certainly continue, lawmakers need to know and consider all of the facts about biotechnology and genetically modified foods before making fair and impartial decisions on such legislation that could eventually impact the lives of individuals they represent, the companies and businesses in their state, and even themselves.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

A trade dispute closely watched for years by the biotechnology industry as well as by those who have voiced their support and opposition toward GM foods finally came to a decision earlier this week when the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favor of a complaint brought by the United States, Canada, and Argentina against the European Union’s (EU) ban on GMOs.

In what’s been called one of the longest and most complex rulings the commerce body has issued, the World Trade Organization ruled that the European Union broke international trade rules by imposing a “de facto” moratorium on agricultural biotechnology products. The panel’s preliminary report focused on six EU member countries – Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg – and their individual GMO bans, which violated those international trade rules.

This long standing dispute over the GMO ban dates back to 1998 when the moratorium was first imposed. The U.S., joined by Canada and Argentina, filed the complaint against the EU in 2003, claiming that the ban on approvals of genetically modified foods violated a food trade treaty that requires regulatory decisions to be made without “undue delay” and to be based on science. The EU countered that there was no moratorium and, in 2004, essentially ended its biotech ban when it allowed a genetically engineered strain of sweet corn, grown mainly in the US, to enter the European market.

Many U.S. biotechnology, food, and agricultural groups applauded the WTO’s preliminary finding. A statement issued by AgBioWorld Foundation said that the ruling now gives European farmers the option to use “safe, approved, and proven tools to grow food crops”. U.S. officials also supported the decision, including U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who said that the continuing adoption of agricultural biotechnology around the world is proof enough that “it provides tremendous benefits to farmers and rural communities.”

As usual, several environmental groups condemned the ruling, including Friends of the Earth, which said the decision pressures other countries, especially developing countries, to accept genetically modified foods “against their will.”

So, what does this decision mean? It means an opportunity to open European markets to American farmers and more U.S. businesses, thereby increasing world trade and, isn’t that the purpose of having an organization like the WTO in the first place? It means that university scientists and researchers, like those that I’ve sought funding for over the years, may have the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues in European nations to develop innovative products using biotechnology for the betterment of individuals around the world. It means that farmers in European countries potentially have the chance to increase their agricultural productivity wherever these GMO crops are planted, growing foods that are more nutritious and don’t rely so heavily on insecticides. More importantly, the World Trade Organization’s decision reinforces all that has been said in countless studies and by scientists, academics, and organizations for years – that genetically modified foods are safe.

Although the United States was victorious with this initial ruling, I believe this battle over biotech foods in Europe is far from over, given that the final WTO panel ruling is due in the next month or so and the appeals that certainly will follow over the next several months or perhaps years. Nevertheless, this decision is a crucial step in the acceptance of genetically modified foods around the world. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens next.

Posted by AC Baumer at 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)