| Genetically Modified Food |
Article Index for Genetically Modified |
Shopping Genetically |
Website Links For Genetically Modified Food |
Information AboutGenetically Modified Food |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD | |
| biotechnology | |
| food industry | |
| genetic engineering | |
| genetically modified organisms | |
| anti-globalization | |
| opposition to genetically modified food | |
|
Genetically Modified (GM) foods are foodstuffs produced from , Corn , Canola and Cotton Seed Oil . 2002 ISAAA News Release: Report Shows GM Crops Generating Global Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and Environmental Safety , labelling and Consumer Choice , Intellectual Property rights, Ethics , Food Security , Poverty Reduction , and Environmental Conservation . See also: GM Food Controversy HISTORY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS The second commercially grown genetically modified food crop was the Flavr Savr tomato, which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene.1 Calgene was allowed to release tomato into the market in 1994 without any special labeling. FDA Consumer Letter (September 1994): First Biotech Tomato Marketed It was welcomed by consumers that purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. GEO-PIE Project - Cornell University[http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/crops/tomato.html] The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods. The attitude toward GM foods would be drastically changed after outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease weakened consumer trust in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto's "Roundup-Ready" soybeans. needed The next GM crops included insect-protected cottonA Cotton Conundrum, Perspectives on Line, North Carolina State University Update 2006, Western Australian Dept. of Agriculture and Food, page 6[http://cotton.pi.csiro.au/Assets/PDFFiles/NthNews/GMRsOrd.pdf and herbicide-tolerant soybeansHistory of Monsanto at Monsanto.com[http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/about_us/timeline/default.asp] both of which were commercially released in 1996. GM crops have been widely adopted in the United States. They have also been extensively planted in several other countries (Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) where agriculture is a major part of the total economy. Other GM crops include insect-protected maize and herbicide-tolerant maize, cotton, and rapeseed varieties. Abundance of GM crops Between 1996 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km&2 (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km&2 (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in the United States. Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (94,000 km&2 in 2005 versus 50,000 km&2 in 2004.) {Link without Title} There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in 2006/7 32,000 km&2 of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100 percent from the previous season). Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered was not well suited to the climate of India and failed. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented. Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India Comparing the Performance of Official and Unofficial Genetically Modified Cotton in India In 2003, countries that grew 99 percent of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63 percent), Argentina (21 percent), Canada (6 percent), Brazil (4 percent), China (4 percent), and South Africa (1 percent). Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75 percent of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient . In particular, Bt Corn , which produces the pesticide within the plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate Glyphosate herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers. In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83 percent of cotton, and 61 percent maize was genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the ''Bacillus thuringiensus'' Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. USDA ERS July 14, 2006 Future developments Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, Banana s that produce human Vaccine s against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B , metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Crops under development The following GM crops are in development
In the USA regulation of a genetically modified food is determined by the objective characteristics of the food and the intended use of the food, irrespective of the way it was developed. FDA policy states that a formal pre-market review by the FDA is to be taken when the objective characteristics of any substance added to the food raises safety issues. Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. Federal Register 57 104, 22984, May 29 1992 , FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture Prior to marketing a new GM food product, manufacturers are required to submit documentation to the FDA to demonstrate its safety and then await approval before selling it to consumers. United States Food Safety System , FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture The context for assessing safety of novel foods is the fact that existing foods often contain toxic components but are still able to be consumed safely. For instance, in 1993 as a criterion for identifying whether a novel food is at least as safe as the equivalent existing food. The US FDA takes a safety assessment approach that is consistent with this OECD concept in their regulation of novel foods (including those made by Recombinant DNA Methods ). This policy is outlined in an FDA statement. FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties", (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 22991 Critics of GM food believe this regulatory model fails to sufficiently protect consumers and claim that the FDA is subject to pressure and influence by industry. One concern voiced is that a novel crop may have unintended changes created during the insertion of new genetic material. On the other hand, plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops. Proteomic profiling and unintended effects in genetically modified crops, Sirpa O. Kärenlampi and Satu J. Lehesranta 2006 Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops, G S Catchpole and others PNAS October 4, 2005 vol. 102 no. 40 14458-14462 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser See Also: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor. The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant ''cells'', and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's director of public affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, Sept. 9, 2002 Currently Percy Schmeiser spends a large amount of his time traveling and speaking about how Monsanto ruined his career as a farmer. He also talks about the possible harms of genetically modified and why others in addition to himself should be protesting it. COEXISTENCE AND TRACEABILITY In many countries, and especially in the European Union, consumers demand the choice between foods of genetically modified, conventional or organic origins. This requires a labelling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain. Research has demonstrated, that Coexistence of GM crops can be realised by several agricultural measures, such as Isolation Distance s or Biological Containment strategies. For Traceability , the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved. This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing. Many countries have established labelling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra , SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability. BENEFITS AND CONTROVERSIES See GM Food Controversy . POLICY AROUND THE WORLD Some argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk. |
|
|