Food Safety Magazine - June/July 2013

genetically modified foods
technology and its application, is often
lacking. Interestingly, food safety is not
a particularly prominent concern and
is somewhat lost in a range of issues.
Perhaps the most common anti-GMO
refrain is a visceral dislike for Monsanto,
starting with the misconceived view that
farmers are being forced to use their
products in addition to such irrelevant
facts as the company’s involvement
with Agent Orange in Vietnam. Others
cite hypothetical environmental
concerns while ignoring
the very real
sustainability benefits.
The ethics of asking
farmers to purchase
their seed every year is
another cause, which
ignores the fact that
they are perfectly free
to grow conventional
crops but prefer GM
technology. None of
these factors has anything
to do with the
inherent safety of the
product.
The main thrust on food safety
was captured with the “precautionary
principle” or “release it only after it is
proven to be safe” argument. This was
a serious topic of peer-reviewed articles
on GM foods a decade ago, but serious
discussion appears to have fallen off, as
no negative safety-related issues have
emerged for the hundreds of millions
of North Americans and others who
have had a regular diet of GM foods for
nearly two decades. A parallel might be
tomatoes, which were considered a poisonous
member of the nightshade family
in the early 19th century, and while
there has been no rigorous scientific
initiative to demonstrate otherwise, this
fruit seems to be no longer surrounded
by negative controversy. Indeed, even
GMO-skeptic Europeans recently completed
a $425 million meta-analysis
paid for by the European Commission
entitled A Decade of EU Funded GMO
Research and summarized their findings
as follows: “The main conclusions to
be drawn from the 130 research projects
“...the global farming
community has
enthusiastically
embraced genetically
modified (GM)
technologies...”
and involving more than 500 independent
research groups is that biotechnology
and particularly GMOs are not, per
se, more risky than e.g. conventional
plant breeding.” Unfortunately, this major
piece of research has been ignored
by the popular media, and relatively few
are aware of its existence and profound
conclusions.
The Industry-Consumer Interface
While there is a GMO good news
story to be told, the
technology providers,
the agriculture industry,
government and
food processors in the
U.S. and elsewhere
have been, understandably,
relatively
quiet on the subject.
There is little to be
gained by entering
into a debate that not
only would be difficult
to win but also would
draw more attention
to the topic and further
ratchet up the level of sensationalism
in the media. Unfortunately, relative
silence from those involved in the
food chain plays into the hands of the
opposition, which maintains that this
perceived cloak of relative silence signifies
some sort of coverup.
However, despite the best efforts of
the anti-GMO movement, it seems as
if the majority of consumers do not
actually care if they are eating food with
such ingredients. Aside from the recent
rejection by California voters of Proposition
37 that would have required food
products containing GMO ingredients
to be labeled accordingly, a more telling
indication of consumer apathy comes
the same study quoted above. It concluded
that “most people do not actively
avoid GM food, suggesting that they
are not concerned with the GM issue.”
Thus, where GMO labeling has been in
place for years, consumers appear content
with the “right to know” but do not
act on the information provided.
If further evidence is needed regarding
public apathy toward the consumption
of GM foods, the organic movement
already provides such a product,
as engaged farmers must, to gain certification,
grow crops without any genetic
modification. Yet according to USDA,
only about 1 percent of all farmers and
the same for total farmland in the U.S.
are certified organic. Despite lower
yields for organically grown crops, there
seem to be ample supplies in most food
outlets. This supposedly well-known,
readily available avenue to non-GMO
foods seems to be a path infrequently
traveled by the bulk of consumers.
At the commodity level, wheat
makes an interesting case study that the
processed food industry might draw
upon. In 2002, Monsanto applied for
certification of GM wheat for Canada
and the U.S., only to find that the
wheat industry in both countries did
not want it introduced for fear of market
loss in Europe and Asia. A decade
later, while no GM wheat is grown commercially
anywhere in the world, North
American wheat farmers observed the
financial and agronomic benefits of
sister GM crops and realized that the
noise from those against the technology
actually had little impact on consumers
and thus its advantages would outweigh
any resistance in the marketplace. The
earlier GMO-avoidance position has
been reversed by the wheat industry,
and now they urge technology providers
and regulatory agencies to deliver for
them as well.
GMO Regulations
I predicted that had Proposition 37
passed in California, it would not have
made a lot of difference. Assuming that
the GMO labeling requirements would
be yet another modestly presented
piece of consumer information like
that on hormone-free milk containers,
most consumers would still probably
be guided by brand recognition, price,
quality or whatever else leads them to
place an item in the grocery cart. The
above-mentioned European experience
supports this hypothesis.
(continued on page 74)
J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 3 27