|
Researched and written by Jean Halloran and Michael Hansen, Ph.D.
Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union, USA.
Overview
Food is different from other consumer products. It’s something we literally take inside ourselves, it’s necessary on a daily basis for growth and life, and bound up in our cultures and traditions, so we care about it intensely. Consumers, therefore, have a fundamental right to know what they are eating, and that it is safe. Most developed countries have adopted laws that reflect this view, requiring labelling, to show ingredients (e.g. broccoli, beef), processing (e.g. frozen, homogenized, irradiated), conformance to standards of identity (e.g. peanut butter must be made from peanuts), and additives (e.g. sulfites, preservatives). Some countries require fat, protein, carbohydrate and vitamin content of food to be labeled as well.
All of this labelling serves the consumer's right to know, and is above and beyond underlying national programs to assure the safety of food from such things as hazardous pesticides residues and additives, and disease-causing bacteria.
Consumers want to know what they are eating both as a matter of taste and preference, and for many health-related reasons. They may want to eat fish to improve their chances of avoiding heart disease, or avoid fish because they are concerned about depletion of certain species in the oceans or about mercury contamination. They may seek out carbohydrates because they are training for a marathon, or avoid them because they want to lose weight. They may eat bananas because they want a good source of potassium, or may avoid bananas because even one bite causes them to go into anaphylactic shock (as is the case with some people with severe food allergies). Body builders may want red meat, vegetarians will avoid it, and Muslims will avoid pork but not lamb. A mother may look for apple juice for her child because it is a natural drink, or avoid it because it gives the child a stomach ache. Every day, millions of consumers world-wide read millions of food labels and make millions of decisions like this for themselves and their families.
Consumers also have a right to know if food is genetically engineered. In this case too, it may be for taste and preference, or for important health related reasons. Some food producers claim that genetically engineered food is basically the same (‘substantially equivalent’ is the description used) as conventionally produced food. But this is not the case; some individuals can have unpredictable mild to severe allergic reactions; it can have unanticipated toxic effects; and it can change the nutrition in food. In addition consumers express a wide variety of religious, ethical and environmental preferences in their food choices, and they cannot do this without comprehensive labelling.
The countries of the European Union have recognized this, and have introduced regulations requiring labelling of all genetically engineered food. In the United States, where genetically engineered corn, soybeans and potatoes are being grown commercially, repeated public opinion surveys show consumers overwhelmingly want labelling, but thus far the government has failed to require it. In 1997, a survey sponsored by Novartis found that more than 90 per cent of Americans want labelling (Feder, 1997). Most countries have not considered the issue yet. Of the large chemical/biotechnology companies that are developing these foods, some, like Novartis, support labelling, but most, like Monsanto and other major developers, oppose it.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, an agency of the United Nations World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, has been considering whether to adopt a guideline recommending that all countries require labelling of genetically engineered food. Codex guidelines are not binding, but are often adopted by developing countries and can be used to settle trade disputes (if a country adopts a Codex standard, that standard cannot be challenged as protectionist). Consumers International is urging the Codex Alimentarius to recommend full mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods. This paper discusses eight important reasons why.
1. Genetically Engineered Food is Different
A strawberry can be given a flounder gene that makes it frost resistant, a bacterial gene that confers antibiotic resistance, and a virus gene that "turns on" the other added genes. Under normal circumstances, a strawberry can only acquire genetic material from other strawberries--that is, plants of the same or closely related species. With genetic engineering, however, scientists can give strawberries genetic material from trees, bacteria, fish, pigs, even humans if they chose to. Consumers International believes that any plant or animal food to which genes have been added from a source other than the species to which the food belongs, should be required to be labeled, to tell the consumer that this has been done.
Some people, mostly scientists and corporations involved in the development of genetically engineered food, argue that the strawberry with the foreign genes is not really different but "substantially equivalent" in the language Codex and international regulation and therefore needs no label.
Consumers, however, through their organizations, through comments to regulators, and through opinion surveys, have repeatedly expressed the view that this strawberry, and all other genetically engineered foods, are not "substantially equivalent," but sufficiently different that, like irradiated foods, and foods containing additives, they should be labeled. Since labelling laws are created to meet consumer needs, consumer opinion should be respected.
2. Genetically Engineered Food Can Cause Toxic Effects
The fact that genetic engineering can go seriously wrong was shown by one of the very first products introduced into the market. An amino acid (a protein building block) called tryptophan is sold in a number of countries including the United States as a dietary supplement. In the late 1980s, the Showa Denko company of Japan began making tryptophan by a new process, using genetically engineered bacteria, and selling it in the United States.
Within months thousands of people who had taken the supplement began to suffer from eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, which included neurological problems. Eventually at least 1500 were permanently disabled and 37 died (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).
As doctors encountered this syndrome, they gradually noticed that it seemed linked to patients taking tryptophan produced by Showa Denko. However, it took months before this was taken off the market. Had it been labeled as genetically engineered, it might have accelerated the identification of the source of the problem.
Showa Denko refused to cooperate in any U.S. government efforts to investigate the cause of the problem. However, the tryptophan that caused the problem was determined to contain a toxic contaminant which appears to have been a by-product of the increased tryptophan production of the genetically engineered bacteria (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).
There are many ways besides this in which genetic engineering could go awry and result in hazardous toxins in food. Many common plant foods such as tomatoes and potatoes produce highly toxic chemicals in their leaves, for example. Any responsible company working with such plants would check for changes in toxin levels. But not all companies are equally responsible, and as the Showa Denko example shows, and a serious hazard can be missed.
Government agencies cannot be counted on to prevent unexpected problems. World-wide, government premarket safety reviews of genetically engineered products range from relatively thorough in the European Union to no review at all in much of the world. In the United States, premarket safety reviews are voluntary.
We can expect that in the future genetically engineered food will be developed and grown in many countries with no premarket safety reviews. Unless all such products are labeled, it will be difficult to determine the source of any toxin problems originating in such food.
3. Genetically Engineered Food Can Cause Allergic Reactions
In the United States, about a quarter of all people report that they have an adverse reaction to some food (Sloan and Powers, 1986). Studies have shown that 2 percent of adults and 8 percent of children have true food allergies, mediated by immunoglobin E (IgE) (Bock, 1987; Sampson et al., 1992).
People with IgE mediated allergies have an immediate reaction to certain proteins, ranging from itching to potentially fatal anaphylactic shock. The most common allergies are to peanuts, other nuts and shellfish.
Genetic engineering can transfer allergies from foods to which people know they are allergic, to foods that they think is safe. In March 1996, researchers at the University of Nebraska in the United States confirmed that an allergen from Brazil nuts had been transferred into soybeans. The Pioneer Hi-Bred International seed company had put a Brazil nut gene into soybeans to improve their protein content for animal feed. In an in-vitro and a skin prick test, the engineered soybeans reacted with the IgE of individuals with a Brazil nut allergy in a way that indicated that the individuals would have had an adverse, potentially fatal reaction to the soybeans (Nordlee et al., 1996).
This case has a happy ending. As Marion Nestle, the head of the Nutrition Department at New York University summarized in an editorial in the respected New England Journal of Medicine "In the special case of transgenic soybeans, the donor species was known to be allergenic, serum samples from persons allergic to the donor species were available for testing and the product was withdrawn" (Nestle, 1996: 726). However, for virtually every food, there is someone allergic to it. Proteins are what cause allergic reactions, and virtually every gene transfer in crops results in some protein production. Proteins will be coming into food crops not just from known sources of common allergens, like peanuts, shellfish and dairy, but from plants of all kinds, bacteria and viruses, whose potential allergenicity is uncommon or unknown. Furthermore, there are no fool-proof ways to determine whether a given protein will be an allergen, except tests involving serum from individuals allergic to the given protein. Nestle continues, "The next case could be less ideal, and the public less fortunate. It is in everyone’s best interest to develop regulatory policies for transgenic foods that include premarketing notification and labelling" (Nestle, 1996: 727).
To protect consumer health from the effects of unrecognized or uncommon allergens, all genetically engineered food must be labeled. Otherwise there will be no way for sensitive individuals to distinguish foods that cause them problems from ones that do not. This need is particularly urgent, since one of the potential consequences is sudden death, and children are the part of the population most at risk.
4. Genetic Engineering Can Increase Antibiotic Resistance
Despite the precise sound of its name, genetic engineering, is actually a messy process, and most attempts end in failure. While the gene to be transferred can be identified fairly precisely, the process of inserting it in the new host can be very imprecise. Genes are often moved with something that is the molecular equivalent of a shotgun. Scientists coat tiny particles with genetic material and then "shoot" these into thousands of cells in a petri dish before they get one where the desired trait "takes" and is expressed.
Because the transferred trait, such as ability to produce an insecticide in the leaves of the plant, is often not immediately apparent, scientists generally also insert a "marker gene" along with the desired gene into the new plant. The most commonly used marker is a bacterial gene for antibiotic resistance. Most genetically engineered plant food contains such a gene.
Widespread use of antibiotic resistance marker genes could contribute to the problem of antibiotic resistance. The genes may move from a crop into bacteria in the environment, and since bacteria readily exchange antibiotic resistance genes, move into disease-causing bacteria and make them resistant too. Antibiotic resistance genes could even be transferred in the digestive tract to bacteria. An example of this is the genetically engineered Bt maize plant from Novartis which includes an ampicillin-resistance gene. Ampicillin is a valuable antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections in people and animals. A number of European countries, including Britain, have refused to permit the Novartis Bt corn to be grown, because of concern that the ampicillin resistance gene could move from the corn into bacteria in the food chain, making ampicillin a less effective weapon against bacterial infections.
But there are already foods in the market made using plants with antibiotic resistance marker genes. Without labelling, consumers cannot choose not to buy them.
5. Genetic Engineering Can Alter Nutritional Value
Genetic engineering can alter nutritional value of foods in positive ways. For example, canola oil has been engineered to have a different profile of fatty acids, so that they contain less of the fat molecules that tend to build up in people's arteries. Scientists are also working on increasing the vitamin C content in some foods. However, it is also possible that nutritional content could be reduced as an unexpected side effect of some other genetic engineering. Labelling is needed to make sure consumers are properly informed.
6. Genetically Engineered Food Can Create Environmental Risk
The most widely grown genetically engineered crops, accounting for 99 percent of the land under transgenic cultivation world-wide, are engineered for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and virus resistance (James, 1997). Each of these poses environmental risks.
Herbicide-tolerant crops are varieties on which herbicides can be used to kill weeds, without killing the crop itself. These varieties encourage farmers to use more herbicides, which frequently pollute groundwater and can cause various other forms of ecological damage.
Insect-resistant crops almost all contain a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which causes the plant to produce an endotoxin throughout the plant, including leaves and fruit. Bt corn, cotton, potatoes tomatoes and rice are all being grown in various parts of the world.
While Bt crops at first glance appear to be ecologically sound, because they need less chemical pesticides, they have serious drawbacks. Crops that continuously produce Bt endotoxin quickly speed up the process of the spread of resistance to the Bt endotoxin among the pests feeding on the crops.
A recent computer model developed by a scientist at the University of Illinois in the U.S. predicted that if all U.S. farmers grew Bt corn, resistance would develop in a single year! Scientists at the University of North Carolina in the U.S. have already found Bt resistance genes in wild populations of a moth pest that feeds on corn. (Gloud et. al, 1997)
The Bt endotoxin, produced by the Bt bacteria, is a staple of organic farming since it is a relatively harmless natural pesticide. It is also widely used by conventional farmers who use integrated pest management to minimize the use of more toxic chemicals. Scientists predict that Bt will become less and less useful, however, within a few years of widespread planting of Bt crops.
The Bt crops may also be toxic to beneficial insects. Researchers from Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture found, for example, over 60% mortality of green lacewings, that ate moth larvae that had fed on Bt corn.
Virus-resistant crops almost all contain genes that can mix with genes from other viruses that naturally infect the plant to create new gene combinations, some of which can give rise to new or deadlier viruses. US and Canadian work has shown that wild viruses can hijack genes from engineered crops at rates far higher than previously suspected. The concern was great enough that the U.S. Department of Agriculture held a meeting in October, 1997 to discuss possible restrictions aimed at reducing the risk of creating harmful new plant viruses due to the use of virus-resistant crops (Kleiner, 1997).
Another serious concern is "gene pollution". If the gene for herbicide tolerance escapes into wild relatives of crop plants that are weeds, it could result in a new generation of herbicide-tolerant superweeds. In fact, researchers in both Norway (Jorgensen and Andersen, 1995) and the United States (Hileman, 1995) have already demonstrated that the gene for herbicide tolerance moved from cultivated canola to close relatives in nearby fields, such as wild mustard.
If the gene for the production of the Bt endotoxin moves into wild plants, they could become resistant to butterfly, moth and beetle pests, just like the Bt crops. This could upset established ecological balances by either causing the wild plant to flourish excessively and become a plant pest, or by reducing the butterfly or moth population that previously fed on the newly toxic plant.
Gene pollution would be especially problematic in many developing countries where the center of origin for many crops is.
In these areas, traditional crop varieties could become "polluted" with genes from the genetically engineered crops and biological diversity will suffer. The rate of gene flow between genetically engineered plants and their wild relatives may be higher than previously thought. Researchers in the southern United States demonstrated that more than 50% of the wild strawberries growing within 50 meters of a strawberry field contained marker genes from the cultivated strawberries.
Researchers in central U.S. found that after ten years more than a quarter of the wild sunflowers growing near fields of cultivated sunflowers had a marker gene from the cultivated sunflowers. (Kling, 1996)
These problems illustrate the need for great caution in introducing and using genetically modified plants. But even with this, consumers have a right to know about the environmental impact of the foods they buy so that, if they wish they can exercise their own preferences and avoid - or choose to buy - food that has been produced in a particular way.
7. Genetic Engineering Can Affect Dietary Preferences
Consumers make decisions about what they eat for a wide variety of religious, ethical, philosophical and emotional reasons. Most major world religions have some rules or traditions as to food. Jews and Muslims do not eat pork; Christians often avoid meat on Fridays or during Lent, many Buddhists are vegetarians.
Many other individuals have food preferences that are not related to an organized religion but which reflect deeply held personal beliefs, such as wanting to protect the environment.
Consumers International supports labelling of genetically engineered food in order to allow consumers the opportunity to exercise their religious and ethical preferences. For example, some people will want to avoid lamb which contains pig genes (a product which is not yet on the market, but is well within the current capabilities of science). For this, labelling would be essential.
8. Science is Fallible
When a new technology of food production emerges, all the problems it may cause may not be foreseen. When pesticides were first synthesized and used widely in the 1950s, they were heralded as a miracle cure for pest problems. Only later did we discover that some of them could also cause birds to lay eggs with shells that collapsed, humans to get cancer, and insects to become resistant to them.
Genetic engineering is shuffling the deck of genes in ways that are entirely new, and creating living things that have never before existed. Consumers International believes consumers have a right to be cautious about using these, if they wish. The right to choose can be exercised only if proper information is provided — on labels or the food itself.
References
