Summary: Behind The Veil

Behind the Veil
Many controversies surround the use of genetically modified organisms in the production of food and crops in the United States and around the world. Although biotechnology has been around for centuries, in the last fifty years scientists have made innovations in the creation of new biotechnologies. Scientists have developed ways of genetically engineering the DNA of plants through genetic modification. Adjustments are made to the development, structure and composition by introducing precise DNA strings either from the same species or that of a variety of other plants (Halford). They modify certain DNA strings to produce desirable traits. We have spent billions of U.S. dollars on research, development and regulation of genetically
modified crops. However, safety concerns have been raised around the use of genetically modified food. The Rodale Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to revolutionizing organic farming through research, organization and promotion. They say, “even in the face of a rising global population, organic techniques provide a more secure, more stable and more sustainable food system whether in African villages, Iowan cornfields or suburban backyards” (Kimble-Evans).
Originally farmers saved seeds from previous crops to produce future crops. They selected and bred the best-suited crops with the highest yields to produce enough food to sustain the population; currently the global population is over seven billion (Census). As crops became increasingly large and difficult to maintain, it was discovered that specific organisms and their by-products could effectively fertilize soil, restore nitrogen, and control pests. Before genetic engineering of seeds, the process took much longer to develop the desired traits. One of the benefits of using genetically modified organisms, in the production of food and agriculture, is plant resistant to disease. Pests cause some of the most common maize (corn) diseases. They eat the corn and leave the plant vulnerable to bacteria in the air and potential loss in crop yield. Scientists worked to find solutions to these problems by genetically engineering the plants. Due to the disease causing pests, farmers use pesticides and herbicides to control their crops. The amount of herbicide and pesticide used would decrease if the plants were genetically modified to be resistant to the insects. This would help with the cost of production because the farmers would require less fuel to run the trucks that distribute the chemicals, which would aid in the production of food by wasting fewer resources that would otherwise be needed to control crops. Reducing the cost of production and helping improve crop yields are desirable, however, studies show that the amounts of pesticides and herbicides being used have not been significant enough to validate these claims (OSGTA 31).
On average our local grocery store will contain forty-seven thousand different products; with a large portion of the food containing genetically modified ingredients.
With the amount of genetically modified foods in our supermarkets, the research and development of these products should be extensive. On the contrary, there is a shortage of adequate research on the issue of genetically modified foods being safe for human consumption. In a court proceeding against Monsanto, the reason for a general lack of evidence is that they require agreements between the seed growers and the seed producers concerning certain stipulations against outside scientists doing the necessary research. These agreements allow the research to be done only by the company’s scientists, whose salaries are paid by the company. “As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology” (Tollefson 55). We have a right to know what we are eating and how our government is making decisions about what kinds of food stores and companies are selling us. This information could only benefit the public health; we are being kept in the
dark.
The issues surrounding the legitimacy of approving genetically modified crops for public use are being questioned around the world. Japan, Germany, France and Australia all have prohibitions and severe restrictions on the use of genetically modified crops. In the U.S we have some municipalities with restrictions, but none on a state level. However, California had the issue of labeling genetically modified ingredients on the ballot for November 2012, maintaining that consumers have a “right to know” what kinds of food they are eating (Alston). Unfortunately the proposition did not pass. In addition, comparable labeling laws have been unsuccessful in nineteen other states. Barbara Kowalcyk, a lobbyist interviewed in the film Food, Inc., described the food industry as having different requirements than other industries do. Medicine and treatment innovations go through rigorous pre-trials and post-trials before being approved for human consumption. “[On] average, [it] takes 15 years of R&D and costs more than $1 billion” for a new drug to be approved (Teicher). The same standards are not respected by U.S. regulatory systems when they approve genetically modified crops for public consumption. The amount of genetically engineered (GE) foods in the U.S. farming industry is substantial; “farmers in 29 countries grew nearly 400 million acres of commercial GE crops in 2011, an 8% increase from the previous year. An estimated 60–70% of processed foods in the United States contain GE ingredients, and GE corn and soybeans make up the majority of the U.S. crop” (Dahl 359).
With the addition of so many new GM crops, the safety inspections of these crops should increase so that the effects could be monitored closely. However, the Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) only conducted 9,164 safety inspections in 2006, which is a dramatic change from the approximately 50,000 inspections done in 1972 (Food Inc.). These numbers are alarming given that the research needed to prove these foods are safe is incomplete. In the film Food, Inc., they shared that thirty percent of the land in America is used for growing corn. They reported that we can find gm corn in products such as: ketchup, cheese, Twinkies, batteries, peanut butter, Cheeze-its, Kool-Aid, salad dressing, Sweet n Low, Coca Cola, jelly, syrup, juice, charcoal, diapers, Motrin, and more—the list was radically long. Due to the fact that these huge corporations are able “to produce corn below the cost of production,” corn is an extremely popular ingredient in processed foods and makes for very cheap livestock feed (Food, Inc.). The genetically modified feed transfers into the animal through digestion, which then would be transferred into any byproducts of those animals and can be consumed by humans. Since the research on the relative safety of the use of GM foods is incomplete, the effects of consuming those foods, animals and animal byproducts, are unpredictable and potentially dangerous.
With consideration of GM technology in terms of the benefits to agriculture and the prospective benefits to future generations, support and investments are not given liberally. However, the United State’s regulations and requirements for the use of GM crops are not as stringent as other countries are; in particular “the U.S. government provides very little post-market oversight of biotech foods” (Mellon). The main concern of seed production corporations in the U.S. is that of making sure the patent laws are followed so that they make money. In the United Kingdom, their governing bodies and the scientist make sure to introduce these new technologies carefully so not to disturb the natural environment without certainty of the outcome. Even in contained conditions the approval must be acquired from their version of our USDA. The general public is mainly concerned with the repercussions using GM products could have on human health, which have yet to be extensively researched. “In the late 1990’s, reports that a Bt-corn variety (StarLink) containing a potential allergen had illegally entered the food supply [which] set off a tidal wave of controversy that ultimately reduced corn exports, frightened the food industry, and created widespread doubts about the strength of the U.S. regulatory framework” (Mellon). The use of this corn variety had not been approved for human consumption; it had only been approved for use in feed for animals. “Two years later a coalition of public-interest groups tested products on retail food shelves and found StarLink corn in taco shells” (Mellon). Afterward many other products were found to contain the illegal corn product “forcing recalls and mill closures, halts in exports, and buybacks of contaminated corn” (Mellon).
The U.S. regulatory system is still dealing with the repercussions of their tarnished reputation, which “continues to haunt farmers, food processors, and biotech companies” (Mellon). Furthermore, “it has been suggested that the consumption of GM foods could lead to increases in toxicity and allergenicity” (Halford). During the modification of some plants, scientists insert protective proteins into the organism’s DNA in order to transmit a trait that protects the plant against pests and pathogens. This added toxin is then transmitted to humans creating dangerous levels of toxins and new allergens within foods that sensitive individuals would otherwise avoid. Since there are no label laws in the U.S. thus far, these people would unknowingly consume products that agitate their allergies. Genetic engineering routinely moves proteins into the food supplies that have never been consumed as food (Halford). Some of these proteins could be food allergies, since virtually all known food allergens are proteins. Another major allergy includes tree nuts. Brazil nuts contain a gene known to improve soybean crop’s nutritional quality. “It was found that people with allergies to Brazil nuts could also be allergic to soybeans that had been genetically modified in this way and so the project ceased” (Genetically Modified Foods).
Another major public sector concern involves corporate control of the food supply. The majority of production of our food controlled by these major corporations, the decisions about how it’s produced and how it is distributed could be an issue. Monsanto Corporation is the world’s leading manufacturer of genetically modified organisms (GMO). They legally own the rights to the seeds because of the patent laws; therefore, they can choose to do whatever it is they want with the food those seeds produce, including raising the price of food. The Rodale Institute states that companies “stand to profit from a chaotic rush to growing more food faster in the short term [and] are doing so at the expense of the very earth, air and water on which our food depends” (Kimble-Evans).
A rather disturbing fact is that many of the previous high-ranking administrators of Monsanto are now employed by the U.S. regulatory system. According to Food, Inc., “in the last twenty-five years our government has been dominated by the industries that it was meant to be regulating” (Food, Inc.). Food, Inc. points out a “revolving door” scenario that occurs between Monsanto’s corporate offices and our regulatory and justice systems, which make key decisions in the changes occurring in our food system. For example, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, one of Monsanto’s attorneys from 1976 to 1979, later went onto write the “majority opinion” on a case that began the whole seed saving issue. This case allowed companies like Monsanto to forbid farmers from saving their own seeds if they used any of the patented GM seeds (Food, Inc.). Another example of this “revolving door” is Michael Taylor. From 1984 to 1991 he worked for a law firm that represented Monsanto. He advised Monsanto about the issues they would face if labeling of GM foods became law. Then he went on to work for the FDA as the Deputy Commissioner of Policy where he supervised the FDA’s decision not to label GM foods. Furthermore, he went back to work for Monsanto as the vice president for public policy from 1998 to 2000 (Food, Inc.). These are just a few of the correlations that occur between the corporations that are supposed to be being monitored by systems that they are meant to be regulating. The food movement debate remains, the arguments are mounting, and the evidence is accumulating on the levels of regulation needed for genetically modified products.
In the U.S., the money trail seems to be more important than the health and wellbeing of its citizens; however, we have the right to choose how our money is spent. Therefore, we have a say in where our food comes from and how it is produced. “The lack of required labeling for GMOs in the United States evokes particular concern as an ethical matter because consumers have no way of knowing what products contain GM ingredients and thus are deprived of the rights of choice and informed consent”(Strauss). The choice is made at the supermarket by spending our money on specific products. That dollar spent on vegetables produced organically or simply non—GMO vegetables provides a vote for the latter products. This sends the message to the grocer, the food distributors, the farmers, the state, and inevitably the government regulatory system. Those choices of how and what we spend our money on send the message rather clearly. If we don’t want to buy certain products, the grocer won’t carry them. If the grocer is not buying them from the distributors, they won’t buy them from the farmer. If the farmer has no demand for those kinds of foods, they won’t grow them, and when the money is to be made by growing organic and sustainable foods, then the government will pay attention to what “we the people” have requested. Therefore, even though politicians and corporations want to do what they want to do without regard to what the consumer wants, they would have no choice but to listen to our choice of healthier, safer, more sustainable food production.
The intentions of genetically modified crops could be beneficial to today’s agriculture; however, without enough research, the unknown risks seem premature for use on a wide scale and approval for human consumption. The U.S. has a tarnished record for having a weak regulatory system and a centralized power issue. We have reason to move the controversy of genetically modified foods to a more concerned audience such as the Supreme Court. Brian Halwell, a senior researcher at the worldwatch institute, an organization that “works to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world that meets human needs”, reports that a “fair number of agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological scientists, and international agriculture experts believe that a large-scale shift to organic farming would not only increase the world 's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger” (Halwell). There is hope and a growing amount of research that proves we can overcome this science experiment and we can feed the world in a way that nourishes the soil and in turn nourishes our soul.

Works Cited
Alston, Julian M., and Daniel A. Sumner. "Proposition 37–California Food Labeling Initiative: Economic Implications for Farmers and the Food Industry if the Proposed Initiative were Adopted." (2012): Web. 22 Oct. 2012.
Dahl, Richard. "To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods." Environmental Health Perspectives 120.9 (2012): 359-61. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.
Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Perf. Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, and Gary Hirshberg. Magnolia Pictures, 2010. Film.
“Genetically Modified Foods.” Better Health Channel. Deakin U., Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
Halford, Nigel G., and Shewry, Peter R. “Genetically Modified Crops: Methodology, Benefits, Regulation and Public Concerns.” British Medical Bulletin. The British Council. 56.1 (2000): 62-73. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.
Halwell, Brian. “Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?” World Watch Magazine 19.3 (2006): Web. 8 Nov 2012.
Kimble-Evans, Amanda. “The strength to feed the world.” The Rodale Institue. Web. 8 Nov 2012.
Mellon, Margaret, and Jane Rissler.
“Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Food Crops—Recent Experiences.” Food & Agriculture. Union of Concerned Scientists. n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2012.
Olson, Erik D. "Protecting Food Safety: More Needs To Be Done To Keep Pace With Scientific Advances And The Changing Food Supply." Health Affairs 30.5 (2011): 915-923. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, v. Monsanto Company. No. 11 CIV 2163. United States District Ct Southern District of New York. 29 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2012
Strauss, Debra M. "Achieving The Food Safety Mandate: Bringing The USDA To The Table." Hamline Journal Of Public Law & Policy 33.1 (2011): 1-48. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.
Teicher, Beverly A., and Paul A. Andrews. Anticancer drug development guide: preclinical screening, clinical trials, and approval. Vol. 1. Humana Pr Inc, 2004. Web. 10 Nov 2012.
Tollefson, Jon J., et al. "Conducting Public-Sector Research On Commercialized Transgenic Seed: In Search Of A Paradigm That Works." GM Crops 1.2 (2010): 55-58. MEDLINE. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.
U.S. Census Bureau. “U.S. & World Population Clocks.” U.S. Department of Commerce. Web. 30 Nov.
2012.