Amanda Adams
Mae DesTroismaisons
Naomi Koliba
Controversies in Modern Genomics
November 10, 2013
Professor Tamara Williams
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SAFETY
LABELING
ECONOMY
INTRODUCTION
60-70% of America’s processed food contains at least one genetically engineered ingredient. “The most common GE crops in the US are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola.” (Byrne, 2012) The reason why this percentage is so high is because processed foods contain GE ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy protein. Essentially, GMOs are microorganisms, plants, or animals that have their genomes spliced with other species’ genes in order to create a specific characteristic that the parent species never had. Humans have been manipulating crops since prehistoric times. However, since James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, we have been able to develop gene-splicing technology. In the 1980 US Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Chakrabarty it was ruled that GMOs could be patented. Calgenes Flavr Savr tomato was the first USDA approved commercial GM food product in 1992. That same year, the FDA deemed GMOs “not inherently dangerous” and declared that special regulation for them is not required. (Biewen, 2000) GMO technology today extends beyond the realm of food into that of medicine and even art, when a glowing jellyfish’s genes were inserted into a rabbits for an art piece. (Cak, 2000) However, the scope of this report is focusing mainly on GM crops. The purpose of GM crops is to produce a higher crop yield, create foods with longer shelf life, reduce amount of pesticide use, develop plant made pharmaceuticals, and to potentially help feed people with vitamin deficiencies.
Although it would appear that GM crops are completely useful, there are many controversies that surround this technology that will be discussed in this report. These include: safety concerns (health, environmental, and global,) labeling policy, and the economic effects in the US and internationally.
Works Cited (Introduction)
Black RE et al. “Maternal and child under-nutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences.” The Lancet. (2008) p.253
Carman, J. Vlieger, H. Ver Steeg, L. Sneller, V. Robinson, G. Clinch-Jones, C. Haynes, J. & Edwards, J. “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.”Journal of Organic Systems. 8.1 (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.organicsystems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf>.
Dale, Philip, Belinda Clarke , and Eliana Fontes. “Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops.”Nature Biotechnology . (2002): n. page. Print. <http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n6/full/nbt0602-567.html>.
Dill, John. “The Dangers of GMOs: Know the Environmental Hazards.”NaturalNews (2010) <http://www.naturalnews.com/029869_GMOs_dangers.html>
Ewen, Stanley. FRCPath, Arpad, Pusztai. “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.” The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187, (1999), Pages 1353–1354 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7>
FDA. “Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties.” Federal Register 57 (1992). pp. 22984±23005. http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/bio1992.html.
Gillam, Carey. “Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed.” Reuters. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611>.
Sheffler, J.A. & Dale, P.J. “Opportunities for gene transfer from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) to related species.” (1994) Trans. Res. 3, 263–278.
WebMD. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” WebMd.com. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat>.
König, A. Cockburn, R.W.R. Crevel, E. Debruyne, R. Grafstroem, U. Hammerling, I. Kimber, I. Knudsen, H.A. Kuiper, A.A.C.M. Peijnenburg, A.H. Penninks, M. Poulsen, M. Schauzu, J.M. Wal “Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 42, Issue 7, (2004), Pages 1047–1088. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000432>
Whitman, Deborah. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Web. 3 Oct. 2013. <Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? .” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Print. .>.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Naomi Koliba
Are GM crops safe to eat? Are they safe to grow or are they detrimental to ecosystems? What about the global implications of GM crops and how they can be created to feed malnourished people? By all standards set by the EPA, USDA and FDA, GM crops are completely safe to grow and eat. (Whitman, 2000) The problems surrounding GM crops lie in the fact that they are consumed unknowingly by Americans and are created through what some people consider “unnatural processes” that they may or may not be educated about.
HEALTH SAFETY
Determining the safety of GM foods on a national level is based solely on how they are regulated. GM foods are regulated no differently than non-GM foods. (US FDA, 1992) If the safety tests pass four areas of regulation, they are deemed safe. These four include: understanding the Parent Crop in terms of background knowledge and it’s safety, then comparing that with the genetically modified crop to understand any differences. It is also important to test for the potential transfer of DNA between the GM food and the human tissue that is absorbing it. DNA is designed to replicate and mix with other DNA. If the GM food DNA and human DNA were to mix, this could cause mutations in human DNA that could be detrimental. DNA transfer is tested for by looking at the amino acid sequences and proteins that relate to GM foods and how these may negatively interact with human DNA. Similar to testing for regularly grown crops, GM foods are tested for allergenic and toxic reactions. For example, if a shellfish gene was used to create insecticide resistance in crops, people who are allergic to shellfish may react to the new crop. Based on the strict regulation of these four areas of interest, it would make sense for the FDA to deem them safe for human consumption.
Much research has been performed outside of the FDA’s reign to support and refute the safety of GM foods. One concern of GM foods has to do with the fact that they have contained antibiotic-resistant markers that are used in order to verify the presence of the altered gene. The issue has to do with the fact that people may build up antibiotic resistance and therefore may not be able to properly fight off bacterial infections with antibiotics. However, they were found to have no transfer effects on mammalian cells, but were found to have some small transfer effects with bacteria. This implies that the transfer effects are so small that they are not cause for antibiotic resistance in humans. (Goldstien et al. 2005) Many scientists are also testing whole-genetically modified foods and their affect on animals. Croplife International reported that there have been about 150 studies involving animals fed biotech foods, and all of these studies have either initially supported the safety of GM foods, or were refuted later on. (Gillam, 2013) A study performed in June of 2013 concluded that pigs that had only eaten GM grains showed greater stomach inflammation and heavier uteri than the pigs that hadn’t eaten the GM foods. However, there were extraneous variables that were not accounted for such as the fact that the GM and non-GM grains had not been grown in a controlled environment, therefore the quality could differ between them. (Andrews, 2013) Also, the study mentioned a better way to test for the effects of GM crops would have been to take blood samples in order to measure anemia from possible blood loss, as well as white blood cell count in order to measure inflammation. (Carman, et sal. 2013) Many studies like this one have been discredited due to confounding variables.
What about the cold, hard evidence that proves GMOs are safe? Mycotoxins are essentially a type of fungus that builds up in scars on plants that are caused by insects. If ingested by humans, mycotoxins are known to have carcinogenic effects. According to Felicia Wu (2004), mycotoxin levels are reduced in bt corn crops, which are a type of GM corn that creates its own insecticide. This is an example of an added benefit of GM crops. There have been many experiments that study the whole genetically modified food as well as the individual proteins that are expressed by GM crops. One such experiment led to the conclusion that chickens that were fed GM food pellets didn’t show any difference in body weight or health changes over a 38 day period. (Brake, 1998) Many of the studies like this compared the body weight of animals between the independent variables. The longest industry- study that was performed on GM foods lasted 90 days. This is long enough to account for acute effects of GM foods, but chronic effects have yet to be found.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
The next issue with GM foods lies in how they are grown and what effects they have on the environment. GM crops are designed to lessen the effects of pesticides due to the fact that they create their own pesticides. Because GM crops are designed to be resistant to herbicide, farmers are able to spray crops without having to worry about them dying, meaning herbicide use has increased. (Dill, 2010) There is also the concern of gene transfer between plants. If plants were to become insect-resistant by hybridizing with GM crops, they could become invasive. It is important to understand how far pollen will move from the GM crop and if pollination will properly occur between the two plants in order to determine the probability of whether this would be possible and/or detrimental (Dale et al. 2002) A study performed by Scheffler et al, found that GM rapeseed could breed with hoary mustard and wild radish. However, there were no effects of the hybridized plants to become invasive. This problem is solved be creating terminator seeds (seeds that cannot be reproduced.) Another potential issue lies in the fact that weeds could become resistant to herbicides through natural selection because of how much farmers spray their crops. However, even with non-GM crops, there has always been a struggle for farmers to keep up with the new growth of weeds. Concern has arisen in the past based on the effects GM crops have on insects in the wild. One such study examined the effects of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterflies and found that after two years of studying, the pollen had negligible effects on the butterflies. (Sears, 2001)
GLOBAL HEALTH
The global implications of GM crops seem to be some of the most promising. Engineering crops to produce a type of vitamin that is not normally present in the crop may help many malnourished people. So far, the only people who have benefitted from GM crops are farmers and Biotech seed companies. Many people in third world countries have yet to eat GM foods. This will hopefully change soon. Vitamin A deficiencies have been reported to be the cause of death of 670,000 children in the time span of five years. (Black, 2008) Golden rice is a GM crop that has undergone a few refinements in order to allow the most efficient vitamin A absorption in humans. However, there are many political and social boundaries that must be crossed before this rice is used widely. Many people in third world countries fear GMOs because they don’t understand them. Also, growing rice requires a large amount of water, for which many third world countries are lacking. Currently, research is being performed to understand the limitations of engineering foods high in iron, Vitamin B, and Zinc. (Årgång, 2008) This implies that these GM crops are created completely to benefit the consumer and that the innovation doesn’t end at fortifying foods. What if it were possible to grow plants in the arctic or in very dry conditions? In terms of considering the safety of these genetically fortified foods, it seems obvious that GM foods are better than no food at all.
In conclusion, GM crops are completely safe to consume and grow by all standards researched so far. As GM crops continue to flourish and grow in terms of new gene splicing techniques and added benefits, there must be further testing of GM crops for their safety. There shouldn’t be more testing per-say, but longer-term testing in order to determine the chronic effects of GM foods on humans. The effects of GM crops on the environment in the future have yet to be concluded, for the issues surrounding GM crops on the surrounding ecosystems and animals may be determined by years of use. It is also recommended that research be published from the contributing industrial companies supporting the evidence for the safety of GM crops, for it is important to inform consumers on the evidence supporting such claims.
Works Cited
Andrews, J. (2013) “Scientists Debate New Study on GMO-Fed Pigs” Food Safety. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/study-says-gmo-feed-may-harm-pigs/#.Un_SKJSxNV4
Brake, J. Vlachos, D. “Evaluation of transgenic event 176 “Bt” corn in broiler chickens.” (1998) Poultry Science. Volume. 77 Issue. 5, Pages 648-653 <http://ps.fass.org/content/77/5/648.short#
Carman, J. Vlieger, H. Ver Steeg, L. Sneller, V. Robinson, G. Clinch-Jones, C. Haynes, J.& Edwards, J. “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.”Journal of Organic Systems. 8.1 (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.organicsystems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf>.
Dale, Philip, Belinda Clarke , and Eliana Fontes. “Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops.”Nature Biotechnology . (2002): n. page. Print. <http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n6/full/nbt0602-567.html>.
Dill, John. “The Dangers of GMOs: Know the Environmental Hazards.” NaturalNews (2010) <http://www.naturalnews.com/029869_GMOs_dangers.html>
Gillam, Carey. “Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed.” Reuters. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611>.
Goldstein, D. Tinland, B. Gilbertson, L.A. Staub, J.M. Bannon G.A. Goodman, L. McCoy, R.L.Silvanovich, A. (2005) “Human safety and genetically modified plants: a review of antibiotic resistance markers and future transformation selection technologies.” Journal of Applied Microbiology. Vol. 99. Issue. 1. Pages: 7-23 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02595.x/full
Sears, M. Hellmich, R. Stanley-Horn, D. Oberhauser, K. Pleasants, J. Mattila, H. Siegfried, B. Dively, G. “Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment.” (2001) PNAS. Vol.98, no. 21 http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937
Wu, F. “Mycotoxin Risk Assessment for the Purpose of Setting International Regulatory Standards.” (2004) Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(15) Pages:4049-4055 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es035353n
Whitman, Deborah. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Web. 3 Oct. 2013. <Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? .” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Print. .>.
Argang, N. “Golden Rice.” (2008) Åke Barklund http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Bertebos_Conference_2008.pdf
LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Mae DesTroismaisons
INTRODUCTION
The significance of food differs throughout many cultures around the world, and often possesses societal, historical, and/or religious meaning. Because of the cultural importance of food, technological modification of it, specifically via genetic engineering, can evoke negative responses from consumers (World Health Organization). Many people argue that labeling of food produced using genetic modification should be mandatory, claiming that consumers have the right to know how the food they eat and feed to their families is produced. Others believe that genetically modified, or GM (AKA genetically engineered, or GE) food should not require an indication label because it has not been shown to cause adverse health effects, and labeling could potentially reduce sales to consumers who do not have much knowledge about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Pro-labeling grassroots groups are fighting to get GM labeling laws passed, while anti-labeling organizations are doing all they can to prevent them. The subject of GM food labeling is a controversial one that is too complicated to be solved with simple compromises.
The majority of U.S. consumers do want to know if food products contain GMOs, according to opinion polls from the early 2000s (Camille). Two states, Connecticut and Maine, have passed GM labeling laws; however, they will not go into effect until other states follow suit. Labeling initiatives in more than 25 states, including Washington and California, have been defeated (Center for Food Safety). There is no way to truly tell whether these types of laws would prove beneficial or harmful; although outside of the United States, where labeling laws are currently in effect, there have had both positive and negative outcomes.
CURRENT LABELING POLICIES FOR GE FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires genetically engineered foods to be labeled only if they are significantly different from non-GE foods—i.e. if they contain unexpected allergens such as a peanut protein in a soy product (Byrne). None of these types of foods are on the market at this time; therefore, no GE foods on the U.S. market must be labeled (Tegene, Huffman, Rousu, & Shogren). GE food labeling bills have been introduced in at least 26 states; at present, two states have enacted legislation that requires labels to be placed on foods that contain GMOs (Center for Food Safety). The most widely publicized defeated bills of this kind are Washington’s Initiative-522 and California’s Proposition-37. Vermont’s labeling bill, H-722, presently awaits a Senate vote.
Connecticut became the first state to enact such a law on June 3 of this year (Artz). Nine days later, Maine’s Senate passed LD 718 “An Act To Protect Maine Food Consumers’ Right To Know about Genetically Engineered Food and Seed Stock.” Neither of these laws can go into effect until four other states, including one border state, enact similar laws. If labeling does become mandatory, foods containing GMOs will longer be allowed to advertise their being “natural” (Coalition of States for GMO Labeling).
The “naturalness” of GE foods is an extremely controversial topic. According to Monsanto, GMOs are “plants and animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs” (Monsanto). The World Health Organization defines them as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally” (World Health Organization) In a Scientific Americanarticle, “Labels for GMOs Are A Bad Idea,” it is stated: “We have been tinkering with our food’s DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms’ genomes, turning a scraggly grass into a plump-kerneled corn, for example” (Scientific American).
On November 5, Washington’s Initiative-522 was defeated, and the state failed to become the first to require genetically engineered foods to be labeled. If passed, I-522 would not have allowed GE products to be labeled “natural.” Unlike the laws in Connecticut and Maine, Washington would not have had to wait for other states to enact similar laws in order for I-522 to take effect. The vote was 54.8% opposed to and 45.2% in favor of labeling. Corporations that utilize GM products like corn syrup were largely against I-522, while organizations like the Center for Food Safety in Washington D.C. supported it (Smith).
The No on 522 campaign raised $22 million, only $550 of which came from Washington residents. The remaining amount was donated by Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer CropScience, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. The GMA represents a number of food companies, including Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft, and General Mills (Weise). The GMA had donated $7.2 million to the anti-labeling campaign as of October 3 (Cummins). The companies that had their donations funneled through the GMA did so after enduring negative publicity when they publicly donated to defeat California’s similar labeling bill, Proposition 37, or the “Right to Know” initiative last year (Cummins). Opponents of Prop 37, who were mainly from industry and agriculture, raised upwards of $45 million dollars, while the organic industry and consumer group-backed Vote Yes campaign raised approximately $6.7 million (Sifferlin). Washington’s I-522 received about 30% of its funding from Washington state residents. However, the largest pro-labeling donations came from the Center for Food Safety and a California-based company, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps (Weise).
In Vermont, there is an ongoing political battle regarding H-722, the “VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” and Monsanto has threatened to sue the State of Vermont if the bill passes the House and Senate (Russia Today). H-722 would make it so that Monsanto could no longer label their products as “all natural,” “natural,” “naturally grown,” or “naturally made.” The bill passed the House on May 10, with 99 representatives in favor of and 42 opposed to it. H-722 has much public support, as one-third of Vermont’s legislators are cosponsors of the bill. The legislature will reconvene in January, when a Senate vote will take place.
Although the Vermont Grocers’ Association has not released a formal opinion on H-722, president Jim Harrison is reportedly, “concerned that it could adversely impact state retailers” (Seven Days), stating: “We believe that such labeling should be on a national, uniform basis, not based on a state-by-state labeling system. If other states adopt different standards, it gets very complicated for both food producers and retailers” (Seven Days). Alison Weinhagan of Burlington’s City Market relayed the Co-op’s views on labeling GE foods:
“City Market fundamentally believes in our member’s right to make educated choices about what they put into their bodies and into their children’s bodies. We share information about a variety of topics at the Co-op, including our dairy products, meat products, and bulk items. We’re not able to offer an appropriate level of information on GMO in foods because these products are currently not labeled. As a Co-op, we operate to serve the needs of our members; in a recent survey of our members and customers, an overwhelming 95% favored GMO labeling” (VPIRG).
Other groups in favor of the labeling of genetically engineered foods include Whole Foods, which has announced that it will require GE foods in its stores to be labeled within five years (Whole Foods), and Ben and Jerry’s, which is currently transitioning packaging so that by the end of 2014, “all of its products will be labeled with respect to GMO” (Ben & Jerry’s).
INTERNATIONAL LABELING POLICIES FOR GE FOODS
In 2000, at the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal, 130 countries approved the International Biosafety Protocol, which mandates labeling of GE crops. However, 50 countries still need to ratify the protocol before it can go into effect (American RadioWorks). Many nations have already established some form of mandatory labeling of GE foods. These include the European Union and at least 21 countries outside of it (Byrne). Different countries have different stipulations for labeling. Usually, a minimum threshold is established as a part of GMO labeling laws. This threshold is the percentage of DNA of protein in a product that results from genetic engineering, below which labeling is not legally mandatory (World Health Organization). For example, the EU countries were the first to adopt labeling laws in 1998, and they introduced a .9% minimum threshold, meaning that companies must label all food products and animal feed that have over .9% of ingredients derived by genetic engineering (Green America).
In 2001, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan also introduced labeling laws for GMOs. Australia and New Zealand use a 1% threshold, while Japan’s threshold is 5%. Japan’s laws are less comprehensive than other countries’, and only apply to a specific list of ingredients and foods that are known to sometimes contain GMOs. China, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea’s labeling laws took effect in 2002. At first, China’s laws were similar to Japan’s in that only certain foods were subject to labeling. In 2007, though, they were revised to include all GE foods, with no minimum threshold. Saudi Arabia uses the 1% threshold, but only for legally specified items. Additionally, restaurants are exempted from labeling practices. South Korea follows a 3% threshold, but for soy and corn products only. Thailand and Indonesia both have a minimum threshold of 5%, which they adopted in 2003. Thailand’s laws, however, only apply if one or more of the first three ingredients on a product have been genetically engineered. In both countries, animal feed is not subject to labeling. In 2004, Venezuela and Brazil both decided that all food for people and animals alike must be labeled. These two nations use a 1% threshold. A year later, Taiwan enacted a much more lax law, which only applies to corn and soy products and uses a 5% threshold. Russia adopted labeling laws in 2006, which, like those of the EU, have a .9% threshold. However, Russia exempts animal feed, whereas the EU does not allow GE animal feed to be sold without a label. In 2011, South Africa introduced labeling of all GE products, and uses a threshold of 5%. India’s “Draft Rule” is one of the world’s most stringent GMO labeling proposals, which if codified into law, will mandate labeling for all “primary or processed food, food ingredients, or food additives.” The “Draft Rule” was published in 2006, but the controversy surrounding it continues to delay its being passed (Green America).
LABELING METHODS
As is described in the previous section, regulations differ among countries with mandatory labeling in terms of coverage (which foods and ingredients require labels) and threshold level. Some countries such as the United States and Canada have what is called “voluntary labeling,” which means that manufacturers can voluntarily label foods to indicate whether or not bioengineered ingredients are present within them.
In 2001, a document entitled, Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering was published by the Food and Drug Administration. The main purpose of this publication is to provide suggestions for labeling that is informative and that is not misleading (Camille). Voluntary labeling does not require manufacturers to label bioengineered products, and so few companies choose to do so.
Included in the FDA’s guidelines for voluntary labeling, are some recommendations for wording on labels. Phrases such as “GMO free,” “Does not contain genetically modified organisms,” and “Not genetically modified” are not recommended because the word “free” implies absolutely zero content, which is practically impossible to verify, and “genetically modified” is not an appropriate term, for plant breeders have modified all varieties of crops over thousands of years of agricultural practice. Additionally, statements like, “This apple was not genetically engineered,” are somewhat misleading, for no apples are currently genetically engineered, and that statement implies that some are. Contrarily, statements and phrases such as, “This item does/does not contain ingredients that were produced using biotechnology,” and “Genetically engineered” are acceptable (Byrne).
Foods that are labeled “ USDA 100% Organic” cannot be produced via genetic engineering (USDA), although not all non-GE foods can be considered organic. Some companies like Annie’s, Blue Diamond, and Cedar’s Mediterranean Foods Inc., choose to place the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on their on their products (The NonGMO Project). There is some confusion regarding use of the term, “non-GMO,” and so, many foods remain unlabeled. For example, the grocery store chain Trader Joe’s states on their website: “We have yet to take the approach of labeling products as non-GMO because there are no guidelines from the U.S. governmental agencies covering food and beverage labeling.” Furthermore, they are “unable to confirm that animal products (meat, dairy and some farmed fish) sold under the Trader Joe’s label are raised on only non-GMO feed, due to the prevalence of GMOs in the commodity grain market, and the limited availability of non-GMO feed” (Trader Joe’s).
The Label It Yourself campaign is a guerilla labeling movement in which activists print their own GMO “warning” labels or order them online. They then place the labels on products that line the shelves of supermarkets. This labeling tactic misinforms customers and violates federal law; however, no labeling vigilantes have been prosecuted thus far (Miller).
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF LABELING GE FOOD IN THE U.S.
Consumers’ willingness to pay for GM labeled food decreased by approximately 14 percent, according to one study in the United States in which after being given one of six different information packets about biotechnology, subjects bid on food labeled “GM” at an auction. Of the six packets, one contained only anti-biotech statements from Greenpeace; one contained only pro-biotech statements from leading biotech companies; one contained scientific statements from professionals with no financial stake in agricultural biotechnology as well as the anti-biotech statements; one contained the scientific statements as well as the pro-biotech statements; one contained the scientific statements, the anti-biotech statements, and the pro-biotech statements; one contained both anti- and pro-biotech statements with no scientific statements. All sources of information were included in the packets. The information provided to participants was found to have a strong impact on their bidding (Tegene et al.).
In Washington, the GMO labeling initiative, I-522, if passed, would have cost the average family of four an additional $490 per year in groceries, according to a news article in the Washington State Wire. Because I-522 would have made Washington the first state to require labeling, special packaging would be necessary for the Washington market, and regulation would cost the state tens of millions of dollars (Smith).
Market data would provide the best indication of the attitudes of consumers regarding labeled GM foods. Unfortunately, information on price and actual quantities purchased does not exist because no (or very few) biotech foods are labeled in the U.S. At this point in time, analysts must rely on surveys and experimental market studies, as well as information from other countries in which genetically engineered foods are labeled as such (Tegene et al.).
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF GE FOOD LABELING IN THE EU, JAPAN, AND NEW ZEALAND
Genetically modified seeds result in larger yields than non-GM seeds. This should consequently lower food prices. However, the first GM foods introduced to the European market were not cheaper, had no increased shelf life, and were had no better taste than non-GM products (World Health Organization). In order to give consumers the knowledge of what was in the food being sold, the EU, Japan, and New Zealand instated mandatory labeling laws. Rather than improving consumer choice, though, retailers have responded by ceasing to carry genetically engineered products (Byrne). This is not beneficial for farmers who grow GM crops, but it is certainly a positive thing for organic farmers.
SUMMARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS
Food is an important aspect of many cultures worldwide, and the use of biotechnology in food production goes against some people’s ethics. In the United States, the majority of people think that GE foods should be labeled (Camille). Those in favor of the labeling of GE foods are primarily concerned with consumers’ right to know how the food that they buy is produced. Those in opposition to GE food labeling are mainly concerned with loss of profit due to the public assuming that a label signifies danger. In order to give consumers the right to know whether or not their food is produced by means of genetic engineering, foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must be labeled as such. Because of the limits dictated by the term “organic,” and the confusion regarding the term “non-GMO,” people cannot depend upon these labels to determine what foods have been produced via genetic engineering. Biotech companies can combat loss of sales by educating the public about their products, as it has been shown that access to information influences decision-making. The United States should implement national, uniform laws that require GE food and animal feed to be labeled as “genetically engineered” with a minimum threshold of 1%. In the meantime, corporations who are opposed to these laws should redirect their money from anti-labeling campaigns to education about biotechnology.
Works Cited
“20 questions on genetically modified foods.” WHO. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/>.
“A Collaborative Initiative Working to Ensure the Sustained Availability of Non-GMO Options.” The NonGMO Project . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/browse-products-by-brand/>.
Artz, Kenneth. “Connecticut, Maine Pass GMO Labeling Laws.”Heartlander Magazine. N.p., 12 July 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://news.heartland.org/newspaperarticle/2013/07/12/connecticut-maine-pass-gmo-labeling-laws>.
Byrne, P. “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Colorado State University Extension. Colorado State University, 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html>.
“GMO: Your Right to Know.” Whole Foods Market. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/gmo-your-right-know>.
“Glossary.” Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/glossary.aspx#g>.
Camille, Emma. “The Role of Government in the Labeling of GM Food.”Cornell. Cornell, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminateview=body&id=pdf_1&handle=dns.gfs/1284648729>.
Cummins, Ronnie & the Organic Consumers Association “$17.1 Million Worth of Lies.” Message to the author. 3 Oct. 2013.
Cummins, Ronnie & the Organic Consumers Association. “Moms Get Slapped, Monsanto Minions Get Awards.” Message to the author. 10 Oct. 2013.
Hirsch, Corin. “Vermont GMO-Labeling Bill Passes the House.” Seven Days: Vermont’s Independent Voice. N.p., 15 May 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.7dvt.com/2013vermont-gmo-labeling-bill-passes-house>.
“History of GMOS.” American RadioWorks. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/gmos_india/history.html>.
“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea.” Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea>.
“Labeling Organic Products.” United States Department of Agriculture. USDA, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo>.
“Maine.” Coalition of States for GMO Labeling. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.righttoknow-gmo.org/states/maine>.
Miller, Henry. “Vigilante “Label It Yourself” activists violate federal law.”Genetic Literacy Project. N.p., 3 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/01/03/vigilante-label-it-yourself-activists-violate-federal-law/#.Um120L-TOKs>.
“Our Position on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO).” Ben & Jerry’s. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.benjerry.com/activism/gmo>.
Reuters, Jason Lee. “Monsanto threatens to sue the entire state of Vermont .” RT. Russia Today, 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/>.
Sifferlin, Alexandra. “California fails to pass genetically modified foods labeling initiative.” CNN. Cable News Network, 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/health/california-gm-foods/index.html>.
Smith, Erik. “Won’t Cost a Dime? Average Family Food Bill Would Rise $490 a Year Under I-522, Says Opposition Report.” Washington State Wire – News of Capitol Importance. N.p., 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/wont-cost-a-dime-average-family-food-bill-would-rise-490-a-year-under-i-522-says-opposition-report/>.
“State Labeling Initiatives.” Center for Food Safety. Center for Food Safety, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives>.
Tegene, Abebayehu, Wallace E. Huffman, Matthew Rousu, and Jason F. Shogren. “Consumers React to Biotech Food Information.” ERS Research Briefs. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/33577/1/tb031903.pdf>.
“Trader Joe’s Products are Sourced from Non-GMO Ingredients.” Trader Joe’s. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates-responses.asp?i=4>.
“Vermont Co-ops Unanimously Support GMO Labeling Legislation.”Vermont Right to Know GMOs. Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), 16 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.vpirg.org/news/vermont-co-ops-unanimously-support-gmo-labeling-legislation/>.
Weise, Elizabeth . “Washington state voters reject labeling of GMO foods.” USA Today. Gannett, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/washington-state-voters-reject-gmo-labeing/3450705/>.
“Who Requires Labels?.” Green America. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.greenamerica.org/pubs/greenamerican/articles/AprilMay2012/Who-requires-GMO-labels.cfm>.
ECONOMICS OF GMOS
Amanda Adams
To the public the controversies of genetically modified foods lie in the safety of the product. To those in the agricultural sector, economic factors are in the middle of the GM crop debate. There are risks and benefits for farmers who use GM crops and others in the industry. Some benefits are obvious but some risks may not be apparent until years of plantings. Large biotech companies like Monsanto control most of the GM seed sales. They are an innovator in this field but also cause grief when farmers breach contracts. The production of food is a major part of any economy and GM crops can drastically change the profit both negatively and positively on a global scale.
BENEFITS FOR FARMERS
Genetically modified crops have benefits for farmers. They can increase a field’s harvest, reduce the amount of pesticide used and can increase profits. The seed companies advertise these benefits when selling genetically modified seeds. There is an expectation that genetically modified crops produce higher yields. There is scientific data to back this up, although there have been limited studies done to test this. According to a report by PSU, a study by Iowa State University found that in a sample of 377 fields, GM seed of fields yielded 160.4 bushels of Bt corn per field while non-GM seed fields yielded 147.7 per field (Kruft 2001). Pesticide and herbicide resistance can also reduce the amount of chemicals used on crops. Studies have found that chemical use decreased, but not significantly. In the case of the herbicide glysophate (Roundup), studies have found a significant increase in use (Kruft 2001). Currently research seems to indicate that there are increased profits overall. This could be due to increased yields, reduction of chemical use or a number of other factors. In a 1997 study, the Economic Research Service (ERS) found that in most instances there is a statistically significant increase in net profits from using GM seeds. (Kruft 2001). They found that GM soybeans received 17 more dollars on average per acre than non-GM seeds (Kruft 2001). These benefits are factors that farmers can measure on a yearly basis to see if they want to continue to use genetically modified seeds. However, some of the risks are not quantifiable so that farmers may not understand the impact of their choice to use GM seeds.
RISKS FOR FARMERS
Genetically modified plants have only been around for a few decades with few long-term studies done. This could be a cause for concern, as farmers do not know what negative effects GM crops could have on their fields. There is the possibility that the combination of herbicide resistant plants and increased use of Roundup could lead to the development of super weeds that are resistant to all agricultural chemicals. There is also the risk that GM crops could contaminate conventional non-GMO crops. Farmers who do not have or want GM crops could possibly have crops cross-pollinated by GM crops, thus transferring some of the modified genes. This can be a major problem for farmers who have organic or non-GM plants and who want to stay that way. The risks to farmers carry into the business world as they deal with monster seed companies that control the GM seed market.
There are also economic risks to farmers. Genetically modified seeds are not like other seeds. The major seed companies patent their designed genetic makeup. Genetic patents prevent others from using their genes without payment or consent on the company. In 1980, the US Supreme Court made its first ruling allowing patents on living things and ruled that organisms not found in nature that are “manufactured” and useful could be patented (Diamond V. Chakrabarty). This was the first court case that supported genetic patents. From here on the number of genetic patents has skyrocketed, although in the past year the US Supreme Court ruled that human genes could not be patented and rendered all previous patents void. The major biotech companies like Monsanto and more recently DuPont are major stakeholders in GM plant patents, but other groups are affected by GM plant patents in the industry. Investors could be less likely to invest if farmers planted previous generations of Monsanto’s seeds because there would be a smaller margin for profit in innovation. It also may slow the development of university research, laboratory instruments and crop improvements (Pollack 2013). Patents may help spur innovation in larger biotech companies but may hinder progress in smaller places that do not have the resources to pay large biotech companies for genetic licenses. There are groups out there that protest this patent ruling. It comes both from other seed companies and from farmers alike.
GENETIC PATENTS
Monsanto is the leading biotech company for GM seeds. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a division of DuPont started developing herbicide resistant plant seeds. The rivalry between the two companies has led to a string of lawsuits against each other. In 2009, Monsanto sued DuPont for copyright infringement of an herbicide resistant gene that DuPont combined with another resistant gene to a different chemical (Kilman 2009). The courts ruled in Monsanto’s favor saying that DuPont could not produce seeds with both genes (Neuman 2010). DuPont also made antitrust claims against Monsanto that the government is still investigating (Neuman 2010). DuPont fought back with a lawsuit against Monsanto claiming that Monsanto is using a patented process developed by 3 scientists from DuPont (DuPont sues Monsanto over Patents 2013). There is also backlash from the organic farmers who want nothing to do with GM crops. Organic farmers sued Monsanto over the validity of some patents and for protection from Monsanto for trace amounts of GM crops in their organic crops (Four Maine farmers head to D.C. to challenge Monsanto in court on patents 2013). Monsanto claims that the company would not sue for this reason and that the claims should be dismissed. The courts ruled in favor of Monsanto and dismissed the case (For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds 2013). This ruling affected farmers everywhere who deal with the biotech companies for all of their seed needs.
These plant patents affect the farmers financially. There are extra expenses associated with GM seeds. The seed companies own the rights to the seeds so the farmers are unable to plant the seeds after harvest, and must buy new seeds each year. If they want to save seeds from year to year, they must pay a technology fee so that they are not liable for patent infringement (Kruft 2001). Because there are few GM seed companies, they control the price. Monsanto distributes most of the GM seeds with the largest variety so that they have little competition to bring the prices of seeds down (Neuman 2010). In 2010 alone, the price of corn seed increased by 32 percent while soybeans increased by 24 percent (Neuman 2010). The USDA found that since 2001 the price of corn seed has increased by 135 percent and soybeans by 108 percent. Claims of monopoly were serious enough that they warranted an investigation of the Obama administration into antitrust claims against Monsanto (Neuman 2010). However, there is hope for the price of GM seeds. Monsanto’s patent of Roundup ready soybeans expires in 2014 (Neuman 2010). This opens the door for generic seeds that would be cheaper and could be saved from year to year. Monsanto is trying to block this by releasing a second-generation Roundup ready resistant soybean that would block generic GM soybean seeds from being used. If smaller companies had access to the gene, more progress could come out of the field. When farmers plant seeds harvested from these patented plants, biotech seed companies, primarily Monsanto take action against the farmers.
Monsanto is very protective of its intellectual rights to its GM plants. According to the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has brought 140 patent infringement lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses (Pollack 2013). On Monsanto’s website, they detail the investigation procedure for patent infringement. Monsanto contracts investigative firms to look into possible patent infringements (Monsanto 2013). They work off tips from sales centers and other farmers. They set up surveillance to see if farmers are replanting seeds. If they are, they then investigate them further by interviewing the farming, pulling seed records, and touring the farm (Monsanto 2013). If they find sufficient evidence, they then sue the farmer, co-op or business. They are willing to do this for every farmer who infringes upon their patents, no matter how small the damages.
RECOMMENDATIONS
National news covered a major lawsuit from Monsanto against a small Indiana farmer. He owns 300 acres of soybean fields and regularly bought and planted Monsanto’s Roundup ready soybeans. For second and third plantings in a small section of his field, he bought seeds from a grain elevator that were most likely Monsanto’s brand (For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds 2013). Monsanto was only suing for 84,000 dollars in damages but the Indiana farmer appealed his case to the US Supreme Court (Bravin 2013). The farmer argued that the seeds were protected under patent exhaustion that allows the purchaser to do what they please with the product. (Bravin 2013). Monsanto still argued that it was patent infringement because he knowingly planted seeds that were Monsanto’s Roundup ready soybeans. This was an important case because it looked at the rights of the farmer to plant seeds they harvest after purchase and the rights of the patent holder. The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Monsanto’s favor finding that the farmer did violate patent law by knowingly planting seeds that contained Monsanto’s genes and replanted them (Bravin 2013). This is one of many yearly cases Monsanto brings against farmers, but unlike most, the farmer appealed to case up to the US Supreme Court. Monsanto shows it stronghold on the industry each time it sues a farmer, and it appears that they will continue to sue as long as their patents are valid.
After careful review of the economic impacts of genetically modified crops, I have several recommendations. First, a regulation needs to be put in place to protect small farmers from the large biotech companies. There needs to be safeguards that protect them financially so that they are able to afford the seeds that are increasing in price yearly. I also recommend a group of lawyers that can explain patent law to farmers and help prevent and defend plant patent infringement with biotech companies. They also need to form a national group where farmers can discuss issues with GM crops where they can then make recommendations to congress. I also recommend that biotech companies like Monsanto be further investigated for controlling genetically modified seed prices and antitrust claims so that farmers are able to pay a fair price for the seed. Lastly, I strongly recommend that farmers and seed companies talk calmly about the patent issues. It may be possible to reach ground where Monsanto reduces the amount of lawsuits so that farmers do not have to fear being sued. I recommend revisiting this issue in the near future as the first GM crop patent is about to expire in less than a year.
Works Cited
Bravin, Jess. “Indiana Farmer Loses Fight Over Monsanto Seed Patent.” Wall Street Journal 14 May 2013. ProQuest Central. Web.
“BRIEF: Dupont sues Monsanto over patents.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO) 18 Oct. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
“Diamond V. Chakrabarty | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.” Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
“For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds.” All Things Considered (2013): n. pag. ProQuest Central. Web.
“Four Maine farmers head to D.C. to challenge Monsanto in court on patents.” Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME) 9 Jan. 2013. General OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
Kilman, Scott. “Corporate News: Monsanto Sues DuPont Over Biotech Patents.” Wall Street Journal 6 May 2009. ProQuest Central. Web.
Kruft, David. Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers. Carlisle, PA: The Dickinson School of Law and the Pennsylvania State University, 2001. Print.
Monsanto. “2014 Technology Use Guide.” Monsanto. 2013. Print.
Neuman, William. “Rapid Rise in Seed Prices Draws U.S. Scrutiny.” The New York Times 11 Mar. 2010. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
Pollack, Andrew. “Farmer’s Supreme Court Challenge Puts Monsanto Patents at Risk.” The New York Times 16 Feb. 2013 : B1(L). Print.
CONCLUSIONS
Issues regarding the health, labeling and economics of GM crops are complex issues that require deep consideration. We conclude that the current state of GM food production needs further improvement. In terms of safety, we believe that GM foods are safe to eat for now, for there has been no evidence of negative health effects. GM crop research must continue to be studied, for chronic health effects are certainly a relevant issue in the future. We recommend long-term human trials lasting a minimum of a year to be performed in order to determine any negative effects on over-all health and potential gene transfer in human gut linings. Engineering plants to have higher vitamin content is a technology that should be expanded upon, for this could be helpful in treating malnutrition in third world countries. In regards to the labeling controversy, we feel that laws should be enacted requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products. These laws should be uniform, and should take effect on the national level rather than on a state-by-state basis. Within these laws, a minimum threshold of 1 percent for DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification should be introduced, below which labeling should not be mandatory. Labels that indicate that a product does not contain genetically modified ingredients should be worded in a way that does not imply zero content, or implies that other similar products contain genetically modified ingredients when they do not. Furthermore, labels on products that do contain genetically modified ingredients should be phrased in a way that accurately describes the technology used, such as “genetically engineered.” In order to combat loss of sales due to labeling, we suggest that biotech companies spend money on educating the public about GMOs rather than on anti-labeling campaigns. For the economic sector of GM crops there needs to be regulations that protect small farmers from the large biotech companies like Monsanto. The government should also further investigate Monsanto for their antitrust claims so that farmers can pay a fair non-inflated price for seeds. We recommend visiting this issue in the near future as the first GM crop gene patent is about to expire.
Mae DesTroismaisons
Naomi Koliba
Controversies in Modern Genomics
November 10, 2013
Professor Tamara Williams
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SAFETY
- The FDA regulates if a plant is safe to eat, the USDA regulates if a plant is safe to grow, and the EPA evaluates for environmental safety.
- Regulations include: parent crop v. modified crop, gene transfer, and toxicitiy/allergency.
- Whole-genetically modified food testing on animals. Rat study and pig stomach inflammation study support the idea that GMOs are not safe.
- A lack of mycotoxins in bt corn could prevent carcinogens.
- Protein testing and gene testing support the safety of GMOs.
- Environmental concerns include gene transfer between neighboring plants, herbicide resistance, and ecosystem effects.
- Golden Rice may help reduce third world Vitamin A deficiencies.
- GM crops must be further studied in order to understand the implications of chronic health and environmental effects.
LABELING
- Food possesses societal, historical, and religious meaning and genetic engineering can evoke negative consumer responses.
- The majority of U.S. consumers would prefer to know if food is genetically engineered.
- In the U.S., no GE foods currently require labels.
- Labeling initiatives have failed in over 20 states, including Washington (I-522) and California (Prop 37).
- Connecticut and Maine have enacted labeling laws for GE foods that will take effect once other states do so as well.
- Monsanto threatens to sue the State of Vermont if H-722, the “VT Right to Know Genetically Modified Food Act,” passes in the House and Senate.
- The EU and at least 21 countries outside of it have mandatory labeling of GE foods.
- Regulations differ among countries with mandatory labeling in terms of coverage and threshold level.
- FDA guidelines for voluntary labeling recommend phrasing of labels that is informative and that is not misleading.
- There are limits of the term “organic” and there is confusion regarding the term “non-GMO.”
- The Label It Yourself campaign is a guerilla labeling movement in which activists place their own labels on GE foods in supermarkets.
- One study shows that consumers’ willingness to pay for foods labeled “GM” decreased, but information had a strong impact on decision-making.
- No market data for GE food exists in the United States.
- Retailers in the EU, Japan, and New Zealand have responded to labeling by ceasing to sell GE products.
- The United States should implement national, uniform laws that require GE food and animal feed to be labeled as “genetically engineered” with a minimum threshold of 1%.
- Corporations opposed to labeling laws should redirect their money from anti-labeling campaigns to education about biotechnology.
ECONOMY
- Genetically modified plants benefit farmers by increasing yields, decreasing operational costs, and decreasing chemical use.
- There are financial risks involved with farmers that are unique to genetically modified plants.
- Genetic patents are an important and protected aspect of the biotech industry.
- There needs to be regulations that protect farmers from the large biotech companies like Monsanto.
INTRODUCTION
60-70% of America’s processed food contains at least one genetically engineered ingredient. “The most common GE crops in the US are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola.” (Byrne, 2012) The reason why this percentage is so high is because processed foods contain GE ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy protein. Essentially, GMOs are microorganisms, plants, or animals that have their genomes spliced with other species’ genes in order to create a specific characteristic that the parent species never had. Humans have been manipulating crops since prehistoric times. However, since James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, we have been able to develop gene-splicing technology. In the 1980 US Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Chakrabarty it was ruled that GMOs could be patented. Calgenes Flavr Savr tomato was the first USDA approved commercial GM food product in 1992. That same year, the FDA deemed GMOs “not inherently dangerous” and declared that special regulation for them is not required. (Biewen, 2000) GMO technology today extends beyond the realm of food into that of medicine and even art, when a glowing jellyfish’s genes were inserted into a rabbits for an art piece. (Cak, 2000) However, the scope of this report is focusing mainly on GM crops. The purpose of GM crops is to produce a higher crop yield, create foods with longer shelf life, reduce amount of pesticide use, develop plant made pharmaceuticals, and to potentially help feed people with vitamin deficiencies.
Although it would appear that GM crops are completely useful, there are many controversies that surround this technology that will be discussed in this report. These include: safety concerns (health, environmental, and global,) labeling policy, and the economic effects in the US and internationally.
Works Cited (Introduction)
Black RE et al. “Maternal and child under-nutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences.” The Lancet. (2008) p.253
Carman, J. Vlieger, H. Ver Steeg, L. Sneller, V. Robinson, G. Clinch-Jones, C. Haynes, J. & Edwards, J. “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.”Journal of Organic Systems. 8.1 (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.organicsystems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf>.
Dale, Philip, Belinda Clarke , and Eliana Fontes. “Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops.”Nature Biotechnology . (2002): n. page. Print. <http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n6/full/nbt0602-567.html>.
Dill, John. “The Dangers of GMOs: Know the Environmental Hazards.”NaturalNews (2010) <http://www.naturalnews.com/029869_GMOs_dangers.html>
Ewen, Stanley. FRCPath, Arpad, Pusztai. “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.” The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187, (1999), Pages 1353–1354 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7>
FDA. “Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties.” Federal Register 57 (1992). pp. 22984±23005. http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/bio1992.html.
Gillam, Carey. “Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed.” Reuters. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611>.
Sheffler, J.A. & Dale, P.J. “Opportunities for gene transfer from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) to related species.” (1994) Trans. Res. 3, 263–278.
WebMD. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” WebMd.com. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat>.
König, A. Cockburn, R.W.R. Crevel, E. Debruyne, R. Grafstroem, U. Hammerling, I. Kimber, I. Knudsen, H.A. Kuiper, A.A.C.M. Peijnenburg, A.H. Penninks, M. Poulsen, M. Schauzu, J.M. Wal “Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 42, Issue 7, (2004), Pages 1047–1088. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000432>
Whitman, Deborah. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Web. 3 Oct. 2013. <Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? .” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Print. .>.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Naomi Koliba
Are GM crops safe to eat? Are they safe to grow or are they detrimental to ecosystems? What about the global implications of GM crops and how they can be created to feed malnourished people? By all standards set by the EPA, USDA and FDA, GM crops are completely safe to grow and eat. (Whitman, 2000) The problems surrounding GM crops lie in the fact that they are consumed unknowingly by Americans and are created through what some people consider “unnatural processes” that they may or may not be educated about.
HEALTH SAFETY
Determining the safety of GM foods on a national level is based solely on how they are regulated. GM foods are regulated no differently than non-GM foods. (US FDA, 1992) If the safety tests pass four areas of regulation, they are deemed safe. These four include: understanding the Parent Crop in terms of background knowledge and it’s safety, then comparing that with the genetically modified crop to understand any differences. It is also important to test for the potential transfer of DNA between the GM food and the human tissue that is absorbing it. DNA is designed to replicate and mix with other DNA. If the GM food DNA and human DNA were to mix, this could cause mutations in human DNA that could be detrimental. DNA transfer is tested for by looking at the amino acid sequences and proteins that relate to GM foods and how these may negatively interact with human DNA. Similar to testing for regularly grown crops, GM foods are tested for allergenic and toxic reactions. For example, if a shellfish gene was used to create insecticide resistance in crops, people who are allergic to shellfish may react to the new crop. Based on the strict regulation of these four areas of interest, it would make sense for the FDA to deem them safe for human consumption.
Much research has been performed outside of the FDA’s reign to support and refute the safety of GM foods. One concern of GM foods has to do with the fact that they have contained antibiotic-resistant markers that are used in order to verify the presence of the altered gene. The issue has to do with the fact that people may build up antibiotic resistance and therefore may not be able to properly fight off bacterial infections with antibiotics. However, they were found to have no transfer effects on mammalian cells, but were found to have some small transfer effects with bacteria. This implies that the transfer effects are so small that they are not cause for antibiotic resistance in humans. (Goldstien et al. 2005) Many scientists are also testing whole-genetically modified foods and their affect on animals. Croplife International reported that there have been about 150 studies involving animals fed biotech foods, and all of these studies have either initially supported the safety of GM foods, or were refuted later on. (Gillam, 2013) A study performed in June of 2013 concluded that pigs that had only eaten GM grains showed greater stomach inflammation and heavier uteri than the pigs that hadn’t eaten the GM foods. However, there were extraneous variables that were not accounted for such as the fact that the GM and non-GM grains had not been grown in a controlled environment, therefore the quality could differ between them. (Andrews, 2013) Also, the study mentioned a better way to test for the effects of GM crops would have been to take blood samples in order to measure anemia from possible blood loss, as well as white blood cell count in order to measure inflammation. (Carman, et sal. 2013) Many studies like this one have been discredited due to confounding variables.
What about the cold, hard evidence that proves GMOs are safe? Mycotoxins are essentially a type of fungus that builds up in scars on plants that are caused by insects. If ingested by humans, mycotoxins are known to have carcinogenic effects. According to Felicia Wu (2004), mycotoxin levels are reduced in bt corn crops, which are a type of GM corn that creates its own insecticide. This is an example of an added benefit of GM crops. There have been many experiments that study the whole genetically modified food as well as the individual proteins that are expressed by GM crops. One such experiment led to the conclusion that chickens that were fed GM food pellets didn’t show any difference in body weight or health changes over a 38 day period. (Brake, 1998) Many of the studies like this compared the body weight of animals between the independent variables. The longest industry- study that was performed on GM foods lasted 90 days. This is long enough to account for acute effects of GM foods, but chronic effects have yet to be found.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
The next issue with GM foods lies in how they are grown and what effects they have on the environment. GM crops are designed to lessen the effects of pesticides due to the fact that they create their own pesticides. Because GM crops are designed to be resistant to herbicide, farmers are able to spray crops without having to worry about them dying, meaning herbicide use has increased. (Dill, 2010) There is also the concern of gene transfer between plants. If plants were to become insect-resistant by hybridizing with GM crops, they could become invasive. It is important to understand how far pollen will move from the GM crop and if pollination will properly occur between the two plants in order to determine the probability of whether this would be possible and/or detrimental (Dale et al. 2002) A study performed by Scheffler et al, found that GM rapeseed could breed with hoary mustard and wild radish. However, there were no effects of the hybridized plants to become invasive. This problem is solved be creating terminator seeds (seeds that cannot be reproduced.) Another potential issue lies in the fact that weeds could become resistant to herbicides through natural selection because of how much farmers spray their crops. However, even with non-GM crops, there has always been a struggle for farmers to keep up with the new growth of weeds. Concern has arisen in the past based on the effects GM crops have on insects in the wild. One such study examined the effects of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterflies and found that after two years of studying, the pollen had negligible effects on the butterflies. (Sears, 2001)
GLOBAL HEALTH
The global implications of GM crops seem to be some of the most promising. Engineering crops to produce a type of vitamin that is not normally present in the crop may help many malnourished people. So far, the only people who have benefitted from GM crops are farmers and Biotech seed companies. Many people in third world countries have yet to eat GM foods. This will hopefully change soon. Vitamin A deficiencies have been reported to be the cause of death of 670,000 children in the time span of five years. (Black, 2008) Golden rice is a GM crop that has undergone a few refinements in order to allow the most efficient vitamin A absorption in humans. However, there are many political and social boundaries that must be crossed before this rice is used widely. Many people in third world countries fear GMOs because they don’t understand them. Also, growing rice requires a large amount of water, for which many third world countries are lacking. Currently, research is being performed to understand the limitations of engineering foods high in iron, Vitamin B, and Zinc. (Årgång, 2008) This implies that these GM crops are created completely to benefit the consumer and that the innovation doesn’t end at fortifying foods. What if it were possible to grow plants in the arctic or in very dry conditions? In terms of considering the safety of these genetically fortified foods, it seems obvious that GM foods are better than no food at all.
In conclusion, GM crops are completely safe to consume and grow by all standards researched so far. As GM crops continue to flourish and grow in terms of new gene splicing techniques and added benefits, there must be further testing of GM crops for their safety. There shouldn’t be more testing per-say, but longer-term testing in order to determine the chronic effects of GM foods on humans. The effects of GM crops on the environment in the future have yet to be concluded, for the issues surrounding GM crops on the surrounding ecosystems and animals may be determined by years of use. It is also recommended that research be published from the contributing industrial companies supporting the evidence for the safety of GM crops, for it is important to inform consumers on the evidence supporting such claims.
Works Cited
Andrews, J. (2013) “Scientists Debate New Study on GMO-Fed Pigs” Food Safety. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/study-says-gmo-feed-may-harm-pigs/#.Un_SKJSxNV4
Brake, J. Vlachos, D. “Evaluation of transgenic event 176 “Bt” corn in broiler chickens.” (1998) Poultry Science. Volume. 77 Issue. 5, Pages 648-653 <http://ps.fass.org/content/77/5/648.short#
Carman, J. Vlieger, H. Ver Steeg, L. Sneller, V. Robinson, G. Clinch-Jones, C. Haynes, J.& Edwards, J. “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.”Journal of Organic Systems. 8.1 (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.organicsystems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf>.
Dale, Philip, Belinda Clarke , and Eliana Fontes. “Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops.”Nature Biotechnology . (2002): n. page. Print. <http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n6/full/nbt0602-567.html>.
Dill, John. “The Dangers of GMOs: Know the Environmental Hazards.” NaturalNews (2010) <http://www.naturalnews.com/029869_GMOs_dangers.html>
Gillam, Carey. “Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed.” Reuters. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611>.
Goldstein, D. Tinland, B. Gilbertson, L.A. Staub, J.M. Bannon G.A. Goodman, L. McCoy, R.L.Silvanovich, A. (2005) “Human safety and genetically modified plants: a review of antibiotic resistance markers and future transformation selection technologies.” Journal of Applied Microbiology. Vol. 99. Issue. 1. Pages: 7-23 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02595.x/full
Sears, M. Hellmich, R. Stanley-Horn, D. Oberhauser, K. Pleasants, J. Mattila, H. Siegfried, B. Dively, G. “Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment.” (2001) PNAS. Vol.98, no. 21 http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937
Wu, F. “Mycotoxin Risk Assessment for the Purpose of Setting International Regulatory Standards.” (2004) Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(15) Pages:4049-4055 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es035353n
Whitman, Deborah. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Web. 3 Oct. 2013. <Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? .” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Print. .>.
Argang, N. “Golden Rice.” (2008) Åke Barklund http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Bertebos_Conference_2008.pdf
LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Mae DesTroismaisons
INTRODUCTION
The significance of food differs throughout many cultures around the world, and often possesses societal, historical, and/or religious meaning. Because of the cultural importance of food, technological modification of it, specifically via genetic engineering, can evoke negative responses from consumers (World Health Organization). Many people argue that labeling of food produced using genetic modification should be mandatory, claiming that consumers have the right to know how the food they eat and feed to their families is produced. Others believe that genetically modified, or GM (AKA genetically engineered, or GE) food should not require an indication label because it has not been shown to cause adverse health effects, and labeling could potentially reduce sales to consumers who do not have much knowledge about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Pro-labeling grassroots groups are fighting to get GM labeling laws passed, while anti-labeling organizations are doing all they can to prevent them. The subject of GM food labeling is a controversial one that is too complicated to be solved with simple compromises.
The majority of U.S. consumers do want to know if food products contain GMOs, according to opinion polls from the early 2000s (Camille). Two states, Connecticut and Maine, have passed GM labeling laws; however, they will not go into effect until other states follow suit. Labeling initiatives in more than 25 states, including Washington and California, have been defeated (Center for Food Safety). There is no way to truly tell whether these types of laws would prove beneficial or harmful; although outside of the United States, where labeling laws are currently in effect, there have had both positive and negative outcomes.
CURRENT LABELING POLICIES FOR GE FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires genetically engineered foods to be labeled only if they are significantly different from non-GE foods—i.e. if they contain unexpected allergens such as a peanut protein in a soy product (Byrne). None of these types of foods are on the market at this time; therefore, no GE foods on the U.S. market must be labeled (Tegene, Huffman, Rousu, & Shogren). GE food labeling bills have been introduced in at least 26 states; at present, two states have enacted legislation that requires labels to be placed on foods that contain GMOs (Center for Food Safety). The most widely publicized defeated bills of this kind are Washington’s Initiative-522 and California’s Proposition-37. Vermont’s labeling bill, H-722, presently awaits a Senate vote.
Connecticut became the first state to enact such a law on June 3 of this year (Artz). Nine days later, Maine’s Senate passed LD 718 “An Act To Protect Maine Food Consumers’ Right To Know about Genetically Engineered Food and Seed Stock.” Neither of these laws can go into effect until four other states, including one border state, enact similar laws. If labeling does become mandatory, foods containing GMOs will longer be allowed to advertise their being “natural” (Coalition of States for GMO Labeling).
The “naturalness” of GE foods is an extremely controversial topic. According to Monsanto, GMOs are “plants and animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs” (Monsanto). The World Health Organization defines them as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally” (World Health Organization) In a Scientific Americanarticle, “Labels for GMOs Are A Bad Idea,” it is stated: “We have been tinkering with our food’s DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms’ genomes, turning a scraggly grass into a plump-kerneled corn, for example” (Scientific American).
On November 5, Washington’s Initiative-522 was defeated, and the state failed to become the first to require genetically engineered foods to be labeled. If passed, I-522 would not have allowed GE products to be labeled “natural.” Unlike the laws in Connecticut and Maine, Washington would not have had to wait for other states to enact similar laws in order for I-522 to take effect. The vote was 54.8% opposed to and 45.2% in favor of labeling. Corporations that utilize GM products like corn syrup were largely against I-522, while organizations like the Center for Food Safety in Washington D.C. supported it (Smith).
The No on 522 campaign raised $22 million, only $550 of which came from Washington residents. The remaining amount was donated by Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer CropScience, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. The GMA represents a number of food companies, including Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft, and General Mills (Weise). The GMA had donated $7.2 million to the anti-labeling campaign as of October 3 (Cummins). The companies that had their donations funneled through the GMA did so after enduring negative publicity when they publicly donated to defeat California’s similar labeling bill, Proposition 37, or the “Right to Know” initiative last year (Cummins). Opponents of Prop 37, who were mainly from industry and agriculture, raised upwards of $45 million dollars, while the organic industry and consumer group-backed Vote Yes campaign raised approximately $6.7 million (Sifferlin). Washington’s I-522 received about 30% of its funding from Washington state residents. However, the largest pro-labeling donations came from the Center for Food Safety and a California-based company, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps (Weise).
In Vermont, there is an ongoing political battle regarding H-722, the “VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” and Monsanto has threatened to sue the State of Vermont if the bill passes the House and Senate (Russia Today). H-722 would make it so that Monsanto could no longer label their products as “all natural,” “natural,” “naturally grown,” or “naturally made.” The bill passed the House on May 10, with 99 representatives in favor of and 42 opposed to it. H-722 has much public support, as one-third of Vermont’s legislators are cosponsors of the bill. The legislature will reconvene in January, when a Senate vote will take place.
Although the Vermont Grocers’ Association has not released a formal opinion on H-722, president Jim Harrison is reportedly, “concerned that it could adversely impact state retailers” (Seven Days), stating: “We believe that such labeling should be on a national, uniform basis, not based on a state-by-state labeling system. If other states adopt different standards, it gets very complicated for both food producers and retailers” (Seven Days). Alison Weinhagan of Burlington’s City Market relayed the Co-op’s views on labeling GE foods:
“City Market fundamentally believes in our member’s right to make educated choices about what they put into their bodies and into their children’s bodies. We share information about a variety of topics at the Co-op, including our dairy products, meat products, and bulk items. We’re not able to offer an appropriate level of information on GMO in foods because these products are currently not labeled. As a Co-op, we operate to serve the needs of our members; in a recent survey of our members and customers, an overwhelming 95% favored GMO labeling” (VPIRG).
Other groups in favor of the labeling of genetically engineered foods include Whole Foods, which has announced that it will require GE foods in its stores to be labeled within five years (Whole Foods), and Ben and Jerry’s, which is currently transitioning packaging so that by the end of 2014, “all of its products will be labeled with respect to GMO” (Ben & Jerry’s).
INTERNATIONAL LABELING POLICIES FOR GE FOODS
In 2000, at the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal, 130 countries approved the International Biosafety Protocol, which mandates labeling of GE crops. However, 50 countries still need to ratify the protocol before it can go into effect (American RadioWorks). Many nations have already established some form of mandatory labeling of GE foods. These include the European Union and at least 21 countries outside of it (Byrne). Different countries have different stipulations for labeling. Usually, a minimum threshold is established as a part of GMO labeling laws. This threshold is the percentage of DNA of protein in a product that results from genetic engineering, below which labeling is not legally mandatory (World Health Organization). For example, the EU countries were the first to adopt labeling laws in 1998, and they introduced a .9% minimum threshold, meaning that companies must label all food products and animal feed that have over .9% of ingredients derived by genetic engineering (Green America).
In 2001, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan also introduced labeling laws for GMOs. Australia and New Zealand use a 1% threshold, while Japan’s threshold is 5%. Japan’s laws are less comprehensive than other countries’, and only apply to a specific list of ingredients and foods that are known to sometimes contain GMOs. China, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea’s labeling laws took effect in 2002. At first, China’s laws were similar to Japan’s in that only certain foods were subject to labeling. In 2007, though, they were revised to include all GE foods, with no minimum threshold. Saudi Arabia uses the 1% threshold, but only for legally specified items. Additionally, restaurants are exempted from labeling practices. South Korea follows a 3% threshold, but for soy and corn products only. Thailand and Indonesia both have a minimum threshold of 5%, which they adopted in 2003. Thailand’s laws, however, only apply if one or more of the first three ingredients on a product have been genetically engineered. In both countries, animal feed is not subject to labeling. In 2004, Venezuela and Brazil both decided that all food for people and animals alike must be labeled. These two nations use a 1% threshold. A year later, Taiwan enacted a much more lax law, which only applies to corn and soy products and uses a 5% threshold. Russia adopted labeling laws in 2006, which, like those of the EU, have a .9% threshold. However, Russia exempts animal feed, whereas the EU does not allow GE animal feed to be sold without a label. In 2011, South Africa introduced labeling of all GE products, and uses a threshold of 5%. India’s “Draft Rule” is one of the world’s most stringent GMO labeling proposals, which if codified into law, will mandate labeling for all “primary or processed food, food ingredients, or food additives.” The “Draft Rule” was published in 2006, but the controversy surrounding it continues to delay its being passed (Green America).
LABELING METHODS
As is described in the previous section, regulations differ among countries with mandatory labeling in terms of coverage (which foods and ingredients require labels) and threshold level. Some countries such as the United States and Canada have what is called “voluntary labeling,” which means that manufacturers can voluntarily label foods to indicate whether or not bioengineered ingredients are present within them.
In 2001, a document entitled, Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering was published by the Food and Drug Administration. The main purpose of this publication is to provide suggestions for labeling that is informative and that is not misleading (Camille). Voluntary labeling does not require manufacturers to label bioengineered products, and so few companies choose to do so.
Included in the FDA’s guidelines for voluntary labeling, are some recommendations for wording on labels. Phrases such as “GMO free,” “Does not contain genetically modified organisms,” and “Not genetically modified” are not recommended because the word “free” implies absolutely zero content, which is practically impossible to verify, and “genetically modified” is not an appropriate term, for plant breeders have modified all varieties of crops over thousands of years of agricultural practice. Additionally, statements like, “This apple was not genetically engineered,” are somewhat misleading, for no apples are currently genetically engineered, and that statement implies that some are. Contrarily, statements and phrases such as, “This item does/does not contain ingredients that were produced using biotechnology,” and “Genetically engineered” are acceptable (Byrne).
Foods that are labeled “ USDA 100% Organic” cannot be produced via genetic engineering (USDA), although not all non-GE foods can be considered organic. Some companies like Annie’s, Blue Diamond, and Cedar’s Mediterranean Foods Inc., choose to place the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on their on their products (The NonGMO Project). There is some confusion regarding use of the term, “non-GMO,” and so, many foods remain unlabeled. For example, the grocery store chain Trader Joe’s states on their website: “We have yet to take the approach of labeling products as non-GMO because there are no guidelines from the U.S. governmental agencies covering food and beverage labeling.” Furthermore, they are “unable to confirm that animal products (meat, dairy and some farmed fish) sold under the Trader Joe’s label are raised on only non-GMO feed, due to the prevalence of GMOs in the commodity grain market, and the limited availability of non-GMO feed” (Trader Joe’s).
The Label It Yourself campaign is a guerilla labeling movement in which activists print their own GMO “warning” labels or order them online. They then place the labels on products that line the shelves of supermarkets. This labeling tactic misinforms customers and violates federal law; however, no labeling vigilantes have been prosecuted thus far (Miller).
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF LABELING GE FOOD IN THE U.S.
Consumers’ willingness to pay for GM labeled food decreased by approximately 14 percent, according to one study in the United States in which after being given one of six different information packets about biotechnology, subjects bid on food labeled “GM” at an auction. Of the six packets, one contained only anti-biotech statements from Greenpeace; one contained only pro-biotech statements from leading biotech companies; one contained scientific statements from professionals with no financial stake in agricultural biotechnology as well as the anti-biotech statements; one contained the scientific statements as well as the pro-biotech statements; one contained the scientific statements, the anti-biotech statements, and the pro-biotech statements; one contained both anti- and pro-biotech statements with no scientific statements. All sources of information were included in the packets. The information provided to participants was found to have a strong impact on their bidding (Tegene et al.).
In Washington, the GMO labeling initiative, I-522, if passed, would have cost the average family of four an additional $490 per year in groceries, according to a news article in the Washington State Wire. Because I-522 would have made Washington the first state to require labeling, special packaging would be necessary for the Washington market, and regulation would cost the state tens of millions of dollars (Smith).
Market data would provide the best indication of the attitudes of consumers regarding labeled GM foods. Unfortunately, information on price and actual quantities purchased does not exist because no (or very few) biotech foods are labeled in the U.S. At this point in time, analysts must rely on surveys and experimental market studies, as well as information from other countries in which genetically engineered foods are labeled as such (Tegene et al.).
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF GE FOOD LABELING IN THE EU, JAPAN, AND NEW ZEALAND
Genetically modified seeds result in larger yields than non-GM seeds. This should consequently lower food prices. However, the first GM foods introduced to the European market were not cheaper, had no increased shelf life, and were had no better taste than non-GM products (World Health Organization). In order to give consumers the knowledge of what was in the food being sold, the EU, Japan, and New Zealand instated mandatory labeling laws. Rather than improving consumer choice, though, retailers have responded by ceasing to carry genetically engineered products (Byrne). This is not beneficial for farmers who grow GM crops, but it is certainly a positive thing for organic farmers.
SUMMARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS
Food is an important aspect of many cultures worldwide, and the use of biotechnology in food production goes against some people’s ethics. In the United States, the majority of people think that GE foods should be labeled (Camille). Those in favor of the labeling of GE foods are primarily concerned with consumers’ right to know how the food that they buy is produced. Those in opposition to GE food labeling are mainly concerned with loss of profit due to the public assuming that a label signifies danger. In order to give consumers the right to know whether or not their food is produced by means of genetic engineering, foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must be labeled as such. Because of the limits dictated by the term “organic,” and the confusion regarding the term “non-GMO,” people cannot depend upon these labels to determine what foods have been produced via genetic engineering. Biotech companies can combat loss of sales by educating the public about their products, as it has been shown that access to information influences decision-making. The United States should implement national, uniform laws that require GE food and animal feed to be labeled as “genetically engineered” with a minimum threshold of 1%. In the meantime, corporations who are opposed to these laws should redirect their money from anti-labeling campaigns to education about biotechnology.
Works Cited
“20 questions on genetically modified foods.” WHO. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/>.
“A Collaborative Initiative Working to Ensure the Sustained Availability of Non-GMO Options.” The NonGMO Project . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/browse-products-by-brand/>.
Artz, Kenneth. “Connecticut, Maine Pass GMO Labeling Laws.”Heartlander Magazine. N.p., 12 July 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://news.heartland.org/newspaperarticle/2013/07/12/connecticut-maine-pass-gmo-labeling-laws>.
Byrne, P. “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Colorado State University Extension. Colorado State University, 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html>.
“GMO: Your Right to Know.” Whole Foods Market. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/gmo-your-right-know>.
“Glossary.” Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/glossary.aspx#g>.
Camille, Emma. “The Role of Government in the Labeling of GM Food.”Cornell. Cornell, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminateview=body&id=pdf_1&handle=dns.gfs/1284648729>.
Cummins, Ronnie & the Organic Consumers Association “$17.1 Million Worth of Lies.” Message to the author. 3 Oct. 2013.
Cummins, Ronnie & the Organic Consumers Association. “Moms Get Slapped, Monsanto Minions Get Awards.” Message to the author. 10 Oct. 2013.
Hirsch, Corin. “Vermont GMO-Labeling Bill Passes the House.” Seven Days: Vermont’s Independent Voice. N.p., 15 May 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.7dvt.com/2013vermont-gmo-labeling-bill-passes-house>.
“History of GMOS.” American RadioWorks. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/gmos_india/history.html>.
“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea.” Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea>.
“Labeling Organic Products.” United States Department of Agriculture. USDA, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo>.
“Maine.” Coalition of States for GMO Labeling. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.righttoknow-gmo.org/states/maine>.
Miller, Henry. “Vigilante “Label It Yourself” activists violate federal law.”Genetic Literacy Project. N.p., 3 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/01/03/vigilante-label-it-yourself-activists-violate-federal-law/#.Um120L-TOKs>.
“Our Position on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO).” Ben & Jerry’s. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.benjerry.com/activism/gmo>.
Reuters, Jason Lee. “Monsanto threatens to sue the entire state of Vermont .” RT. Russia Today, 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/>.
Sifferlin, Alexandra. “California fails to pass genetically modified foods labeling initiative.” CNN. Cable News Network, 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/health/california-gm-foods/index.html>.
Smith, Erik. “Won’t Cost a Dime? Average Family Food Bill Would Rise $490 a Year Under I-522, Says Opposition Report.” Washington State Wire – News of Capitol Importance. N.p., 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/wont-cost-a-dime-average-family-food-bill-would-rise-490-a-year-under-i-522-says-opposition-report/>.
“State Labeling Initiatives.” Center for Food Safety. Center for Food Safety, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives>.
Tegene, Abebayehu, Wallace E. Huffman, Matthew Rousu, and Jason F. Shogren. “Consumers React to Biotech Food Information.” ERS Research Briefs. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/33577/1/tb031903.pdf>.
“Trader Joe’s Products are Sourced from Non-GMO Ingredients.” Trader Joe’s. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates-responses.asp?i=4>.
“Vermont Co-ops Unanimously Support GMO Labeling Legislation.”Vermont Right to Know GMOs. Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), 16 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.vpirg.org/news/vermont-co-ops-unanimously-support-gmo-labeling-legislation/>.
Weise, Elizabeth . “Washington state voters reject labeling of GMO foods.” USA Today. Gannett, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/washington-state-voters-reject-gmo-labeing/3450705/>.
“Who Requires Labels?.” Green America. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.greenamerica.org/pubs/greenamerican/articles/AprilMay2012/Who-requires-GMO-labels.cfm>.
ECONOMICS OF GMOS
Amanda Adams
To the public the controversies of genetically modified foods lie in the safety of the product. To those in the agricultural sector, economic factors are in the middle of the GM crop debate. There are risks and benefits for farmers who use GM crops and others in the industry. Some benefits are obvious but some risks may not be apparent until years of plantings. Large biotech companies like Monsanto control most of the GM seed sales. They are an innovator in this field but also cause grief when farmers breach contracts. The production of food is a major part of any economy and GM crops can drastically change the profit both negatively and positively on a global scale.
BENEFITS FOR FARMERS
Genetically modified crops have benefits for farmers. They can increase a field’s harvest, reduce the amount of pesticide used and can increase profits. The seed companies advertise these benefits when selling genetically modified seeds. There is an expectation that genetically modified crops produce higher yields. There is scientific data to back this up, although there have been limited studies done to test this. According to a report by PSU, a study by Iowa State University found that in a sample of 377 fields, GM seed of fields yielded 160.4 bushels of Bt corn per field while non-GM seed fields yielded 147.7 per field (Kruft 2001). Pesticide and herbicide resistance can also reduce the amount of chemicals used on crops. Studies have found that chemical use decreased, but not significantly. In the case of the herbicide glysophate (Roundup), studies have found a significant increase in use (Kruft 2001). Currently research seems to indicate that there are increased profits overall. This could be due to increased yields, reduction of chemical use or a number of other factors. In a 1997 study, the Economic Research Service (ERS) found that in most instances there is a statistically significant increase in net profits from using GM seeds. (Kruft 2001). They found that GM soybeans received 17 more dollars on average per acre than non-GM seeds (Kruft 2001). These benefits are factors that farmers can measure on a yearly basis to see if they want to continue to use genetically modified seeds. However, some of the risks are not quantifiable so that farmers may not understand the impact of their choice to use GM seeds.
RISKS FOR FARMERS
Genetically modified plants have only been around for a few decades with few long-term studies done. This could be a cause for concern, as farmers do not know what negative effects GM crops could have on their fields. There is the possibility that the combination of herbicide resistant plants and increased use of Roundup could lead to the development of super weeds that are resistant to all agricultural chemicals. There is also the risk that GM crops could contaminate conventional non-GMO crops. Farmers who do not have or want GM crops could possibly have crops cross-pollinated by GM crops, thus transferring some of the modified genes. This can be a major problem for farmers who have organic or non-GM plants and who want to stay that way. The risks to farmers carry into the business world as they deal with monster seed companies that control the GM seed market.
There are also economic risks to farmers. Genetically modified seeds are not like other seeds. The major seed companies patent their designed genetic makeup. Genetic patents prevent others from using their genes without payment or consent on the company. In 1980, the US Supreme Court made its first ruling allowing patents on living things and ruled that organisms not found in nature that are “manufactured” and useful could be patented (Diamond V. Chakrabarty). This was the first court case that supported genetic patents. From here on the number of genetic patents has skyrocketed, although in the past year the US Supreme Court ruled that human genes could not be patented and rendered all previous patents void. The major biotech companies like Monsanto and more recently DuPont are major stakeholders in GM plant patents, but other groups are affected by GM plant patents in the industry. Investors could be less likely to invest if farmers planted previous generations of Monsanto’s seeds because there would be a smaller margin for profit in innovation. It also may slow the development of university research, laboratory instruments and crop improvements (Pollack 2013). Patents may help spur innovation in larger biotech companies but may hinder progress in smaller places that do not have the resources to pay large biotech companies for genetic licenses. There are groups out there that protest this patent ruling. It comes both from other seed companies and from farmers alike.
GENETIC PATENTS
Monsanto is the leading biotech company for GM seeds. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a division of DuPont started developing herbicide resistant plant seeds. The rivalry between the two companies has led to a string of lawsuits against each other. In 2009, Monsanto sued DuPont for copyright infringement of an herbicide resistant gene that DuPont combined with another resistant gene to a different chemical (Kilman 2009). The courts ruled in Monsanto’s favor saying that DuPont could not produce seeds with both genes (Neuman 2010). DuPont also made antitrust claims against Monsanto that the government is still investigating (Neuman 2010). DuPont fought back with a lawsuit against Monsanto claiming that Monsanto is using a patented process developed by 3 scientists from DuPont (DuPont sues Monsanto over Patents 2013). There is also backlash from the organic farmers who want nothing to do with GM crops. Organic farmers sued Monsanto over the validity of some patents and for protection from Monsanto for trace amounts of GM crops in their organic crops (Four Maine farmers head to D.C. to challenge Monsanto in court on patents 2013). Monsanto claims that the company would not sue for this reason and that the claims should be dismissed. The courts ruled in favor of Monsanto and dismissed the case (For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds 2013). This ruling affected farmers everywhere who deal with the biotech companies for all of their seed needs.
These plant patents affect the farmers financially. There are extra expenses associated with GM seeds. The seed companies own the rights to the seeds so the farmers are unable to plant the seeds after harvest, and must buy new seeds each year. If they want to save seeds from year to year, they must pay a technology fee so that they are not liable for patent infringement (Kruft 2001). Because there are few GM seed companies, they control the price. Monsanto distributes most of the GM seeds with the largest variety so that they have little competition to bring the prices of seeds down (Neuman 2010). In 2010 alone, the price of corn seed increased by 32 percent while soybeans increased by 24 percent (Neuman 2010). The USDA found that since 2001 the price of corn seed has increased by 135 percent and soybeans by 108 percent. Claims of monopoly were serious enough that they warranted an investigation of the Obama administration into antitrust claims against Monsanto (Neuman 2010). However, there is hope for the price of GM seeds. Monsanto’s patent of Roundup ready soybeans expires in 2014 (Neuman 2010). This opens the door for generic seeds that would be cheaper and could be saved from year to year. Monsanto is trying to block this by releasing a second-generation Roundup ready resistant soybean that would block generic GM soybean seeds from being used. If smaller companies had access to the gene, more progress could come out of the field. When farmers plant seeds harvested from these patented plants, biotech seed companies, primarily Monsanto take action against the farmers.
Monsanto is very protective of its intellectual rights to its GM plants. According to the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has brought 140 patent infringement lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses (Pollack 2013). On Monsanto’s website, they detail the investigation procedure for patent infringement. Monsanto contracts investigative firms to look into possible patent infringements (Monsanto 2013). They work off tips from sales centers and other farmers. They set up surveillance to see if farmers are replanting seeds. If they are, they then investigate them further by interviewing the farming, pulling seed records, and touring the farm (Monsanto 2013). If they find sufficient evidence, they then sue the farmer, co-op or business. They are willing to do this for every farmer who infringes upon their patents, no matter how small the damages.
RECOMMENDATIONS
National news covered a major lawsuit from Monsanto against a small Indiana farmer. He owns 300 acres of soybean fields and regularly bought and planted Monsanto’s Roundup ready soybeans. For second and third plantings in a small section of his field, he bought seeds from a grain elevator that were most likely Monsanto’s brand (For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds 2013). Monsanto was only suing for 84,000 dollars in damages but the Indiana farmer appealed his case to the US Supreme Court (Bravin 2013). The farmer argued that the seeds were protected under patent exhaustion that allows the purchaser to do what they please with the product. (Bravin 2013). Monsanto still argued that it was patent infringement because he knowingly planted seeds that were Monsanto’s Roundup ready soybeans. This was an important case because it looked at the rights of the farmer to plant seeds they harvest after purchase and the rights of the patent holder. The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Monsanto’s favor finding that the farmer did violate patent law by knowingly planting seeds that contained Monsanto’s genes and replanted them (Bravin 2013). This is one of many yearly cases Monsanto brings against farmers, but unlike most, the farmer appealed to case up to the US Supreme Court. Monsanto shows it stronghold on the industry each time it sues a farmer, and it appears that they will continue to sue as long as their patents are valid.
After careful review of the economic impacts of genetically modified crops, I have several recommendations. First, a regulation needs to be put in place to protect small farmers from the large biotech companies. There needs to be safeguards that protect them financially so that they are able to afford the seeds that are increasing in price yearly. I also recommend a group of lawyers that can explain patent law to farmers and help prevent and defend plant patent infringement with biotech companies. They also need to form a national group where farmers can discuss issues with GM crops where they can then make recommendations to congress. I also recommend that biotech companies like Monsanto be further investigated for controlling genetically modified seed prices and antitrust claims so that farmers are able to pay a fair price for the seed. Lastly, I strongly recommend that farmers and seed companies talk calmly about the patent issues. It may be possible to reach ground where Monsanto reduces the amount of lawsuits so that farmers do not have to fear being sued. I recommend revisiting this issue in the near future as the first GM crop patent is about to expire in less than a year.
Works Cited
Bravin, Jess. “Indiana Farmer Loses Fight Over Monsanto Seed Patent.” Wall Street Journal 14 May 2013. ProQuest Central. Web.
“BRIEF: Dupont sues Monsanto over patents.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO) 18 Oct. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
“Diamond V. Chakrabarty | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.” Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
“For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds.” All Things Considered (2013): n. pag. ProQuest Central. Web.
“Four Maine farmers head to D.C. to challenge Monsanto in court on patents.” Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME) 9 Jan. 2013. General OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
Kilman, Scott. “Corporate News: Monsanto Sues DuPont Over Biotech Patents.” Wall Street Journal 6 May 2009. ProQuest Central. Web.
Kruft, David. Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers. Carlisle, PA: The Dickinson School of Law and the Pennsylvania State University, 2001. Print.
Monsanto. “2014 Technology Use Guide.” Monsanto. 2013. Print.
Neuman, William. “Rapid Rise in Seed Prices Draws U.S. Scrutiny.” The New York Times 11 Mar. 2010. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
Pollack, Andrew. “Farmer’s Supreme Court Challenge Puts Monsanto Patents at Risk.” The New York Times 16 Feb. 2013 : B1(L). Print.
CONCLUSIONS
Issues regarding the health, labeling and economics of GM crops are complex issues that require deep consideration. We conclude that the current state of GM food production needs further improvement. In terms of safety, we believe that GM foods are safe to eat for now, for there has been no evidence of negative health effects. GM crop research must continue to be studied, for chronic health effects are certainly a relevant issue in the future. We recommend long-term human trials lasting a minimum of a year to be performed in order to determine any negative effects on over-all health and potential gene transfer in human gut linings. Engineering plants to have higher vitamin content is a technology that should be expanded upon, for this could be helpful in treating malnutrition in third world countries. In regards to the labeling controversy, we feel that laws should be enacted requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products. These laws should be uniform, and should take effect on the national level rather than on a state-by-state basis. Within these laws, a minimum threshold of 1 percent for DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification should be introduced, below which labeling should not be mandatory. Labels that indicate that a product does not contain genetically modified ingredients should be worded in a way that does not imply zero content, or implies that other similar products contain genetically modified ingredients when they do not. Furthermore, labels on products that do contain genetically modified ingredients should be phrased in a way that accurately describes the technology used, such as “genetically engineered.” In order to combat loss of sales due to labeling, we suggest that biotech companies spend money on educating the public about GMOs rather than on anti-labeling campaigns. For the economic sector of GM crops there needs to be regulations that protect small farmers from the large biotech companies like Monsanto. The government should also further investigate Monsanto for their antitrust claims so that farmers can pay a fair non-inflated price for seeds. We recommend visiting this issue in the near future as the first GM crop gene patent is about to expire.