Heather Dowling
Like most endeavours, genetically modified food has its advantages. Unfortunately, it also has risks. What may come as a surprise, is that those risks are not just to do with food safety and the environment.
Unpack the issues...
With all the technology we have available today, it is not surprising that our food is being altered in a science lab. People who support genetically modified food claim that it could help solve many of our farming issues, such as drought and insects. But people who are against it say it is far too dangerous to mess with the unknown.
According to CSIRO, the three types of genetically modified (GM) crops which are approved for growing in Australia are carnations, cotton and canola. However, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) — who approves the growing of new GM crops in Australia — have recently put out an invitation for comments on controlled releases of GM sugarcane for research, in Queensland.
Genetic modification, or gene technology, in food is achieved when a gene of a certain characteristic (usually from a plant) is copied and inserted into another gene to change it in some way. For example, corn can be inserted with a gene which will repel certain insects, meaning the farmer uses less pesticide.
There are many GM foods that may have been imported to Australia from overseas and are approved for consumption by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). This list also includes corn, potatoes, sugar beet and soybean and it can be found on the website for the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. These products are found in processed foods which must be labelled as containing genetically modified ingredients (although there are exceptions such as highly processed foods and restaurant food).
Both CSIRO and FSANZ claim that the approved GM food and crops are safe for Australians. However, organisations such as Greenpeace, Gene Ethics and the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) do not agree.
Greenpeace writes on their website that, “Genetically engineered (GE) organisms should not be released into the environment because there is inadequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.”
There are other concerns also.
Julie Newman, national spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers believes that as safety testing is not done by a regulatory body, it cannot be trusted. She writes in her article 10 main NCF Concerns, that “although considered to be the world’s leader, our regulatory system does little to address health concerns when neither the OGTR or FSANZ does their own testing. They rely on the GM industry themselves to provide information of health testing.”
FSANZ admits on their website that they do not commission their own “scientific studies”. While they write: “To date, we have identified no safety concerns with any of the GM foods that we have assessed,” they also write, “It is the responsibility of companies that have developed GM foods to demonstrate the safety of that food and to supply FSANZ with the raw data from scientific studies to prove this.”
Safety issues aside, GM food is a huge industry which has the potential to take over the whole market.
Mac Forsyth is a resource worker for the Lighthouse Church in Geraldton, WA, who has experience supporting Australian farmers in times of drought. An ex-farmer himself (he used to farm grains and sheep), Mac believes the biggest problem with GM foods is the large companies which create the GM product.
“The potential for extortion is what bothers me the most,” he said. “People who produce grain stock are at a disadvantage.”
“[GM] canola is going to cross contaminate with non GM grain. Pollen will fly 20 kms, so it can cross pollinate a crop a long way away. In other countries, like Canada, farmers have been prosecuted for growing GM grains that they didn’t sow, but has been cross pollinated.”
Companies such as Monsanto which create the GM product, also patent it. This means that when a farmer’s non GM crop has been cross-contaminated with a GM one they may be liable to pay the company which created it, even though they did not want it.
There is virtually no stopping cross pollination. Once it has happened you cannot return to growing non GM crops and you have to buy more GM seed from the manufacturer. The crops can then no longer be marketed as GM free or organic.
Mac continued, saying that, “The potential for unethical behaviour happens in every field of endeavour [but] the main issue is the motive of the people behind the big companies. If you get enough people with the same motives together they can make a bigger mess.”
While, as consumers, we may not be worried about the effects of GM food on our own health or even on the environment, it seems that — once again — big business has threatened the little guys.
Unpack the issues...
If you knew a product contained GM ingredients, would you eat it?
Do you even read the ingredients list?
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator www.ogtr.gov.au.
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand www.foodstandards.gov.au
Network of Concerned Farmers www.non-gm-farmers.com
Greenpeace www.greenpeace.org/australia
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Paul Smith , November 19, 2009
The last point is the one that worries me the most. Corporations will exterminate not only the diversity of plant stock, but the diversity of the economy as well. We shall become an economic monoculture as small business models are forced out of existence - and you know what happens to monocultures. It is already happening. Big grocery chains; big fast food chains - it's been big automobile behemoths for decades. (Note to myself: big behemoths is a tautology.)
The diversity of manufacturing declined because we, the people, preferred cheap and convenient, and still do. And here's the clincher that will take GM into the very cells of our bodies by our own active choice. Did you see the program on ABC1 on Thursday 19 November 2009 about the gene that protects people from seriously infectious disease such as plague and HIV? When it comes on the market, are you going to refuse it? (This question is NOT directed at the author of the article above but to every reader.) I certainly won't - even though I am acutely aware of the problem to which I will be contributing.
I console myself with this thought: If our ancestors, during the two thousand year transition from hunter gathering, beginning at the end of the last ice age, to the first proto-cities, could have seen what lay ahead would they have said "NO way!"? Well, actually, one very small obscure group of clans did see, not the future, but what was happening all around them and resisted getting themselves a king until their survival depended on it. I'm sure you know whom I mean, and what happened as a result. They messed things up, but retained the strong sense that despite everything, including exile - the very thing a unified state was supposed to prevent - God never abandoned them. They couldn't understand why he didn't save them, but they knew he was with them through it all, and look what that totally messed up culture gave the world!
Is there an implication in that for us as we, who do not want GM, but will accept it anyway, face an uncertain future? I can't help remembering the rainbow at the end of the flood - not that I believe there was a flood, but you know what I mean - the profound insight contained in the myth: It's going to be OK. And despite the potential horrors of the things that can go wrong, humanity will continue to mature spiritually. God will continue to be with us, even if we survive long enough as a species to be incinerated by the sun as it explodes in some millions of years - or is it billions? Even then, the Creator shall be with us , and -oh! wash my mouth out, but I can't help thinking about someone called Shiva doing the Nataraja. He some dancer. Eh?
Go jollily,
Paul
Show/Hide comment form
