What are genetically modified foods?

Biotechnology covers a broad range of technological “advancements” in food. These include the production of herbicides and pesticides, the use of antibiotics in dairy and meat, and of course, genetically modified foods (Otero, 2008). Genetically modified food refers to food that has had its genetic structure altered in some way, such as by mixing genes of different organisms. Generally, this has been done to make a crop more efficient to produce, export and sell (Bakshi, 2003). Examples include making crops resistant to certain herbicides or pesticides, making food tougher and firmer to last during international shipping, and making crops that grow faster (Bakshi, 2003).

What’s wrong with GMOs?

Genetically modified food is shown to be very harmful. Increased serious food allergies (such as for soybeans and corn), heavy metal contamination, and antibiotic resistance are several examples of adverse health effects. Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s famous study determined that GM foods were toxic to mammals (see my article on the Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods). Mice that were fed a diet of GM foods became very ill (Bakshi, 2003). Interestingly, Pusztai’s research lost its funding from the British government (Bakshi, 2003). As well, GM foods are speculated to have less nutritional value than conventional, natural crops of the same kind (Bakshi, 2003). Lastly, most research that determined GM foods to be safe has been focused on one particular chemical at a time. That is, the combination of different chemicals (as they would appear in food) has mostly gone unexamined (Bakshi, 2003).

These are the health effects of biotechnology, although they have many more problems, including the loss of biodiversity, and patents on plants and animals. As Greenpeace states, “Life is not a commodity” (http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/). Additionally, the infamous terminator seeds are plants that are bioengineered to produce sterile seeds. This means that farmers cannot use the seeds to plant future crops in the upcoming years; new seeds must be purchased every year, leaving farmers dependent on biotechnology giants like Monsanto. Today, biotechnology corporations are some of the most powerful corporations in the world.

How to avoid GM foods:

The problem (as most of us know already) is that in North America, GMO foods are not labeled as genetically modified, as they are in Europe and other parts of the world. How, then, do we say “no” to GMO?

Look for Non-GMO Product Certifications

Since North American governments have failed to assure consumers about the safety of their food by labeling genetically modified products, individuals and organizations have taken it upon themselves to do this.

The North American non-profit organization Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org/) has made a commitment to identify and locate products and companies that do not use any genetically modified ingredients. These include Nature’s Path Foods, Barbara’s Bakery, Choice Teas and Tofurky (meat alternatives). However, as mentioned, not all non-organic food is genetically modified. Non-organic companies that are still non-genetically modified include Kettle Chips, Silk (soy beverages), and Bragg’s soy sauce.

The organization is relatively new, so the Non-GMO Project assures us that the certification will be available sometime this Fall. Better yet, the Project has named October as GMO-free month! In the meantime, check out their website and sign the consumer pledge (http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/consumer-pledge/) showing that you support their work and will purchase non-GMO products.

Look for Certified Organic

Generally, a good indicator of a GMO-free product is an organic certification. All products that are certified organic (meaning that it obeys the guidelines of a third party certifying body) must be non-genetically modified. Even this, however, can be difficult with multi-ingredient products. Tracking the sourcing of every ingredient can be tricky.

Look for common GM ingredients

When you’re in doubt, the most common genetically modified ingredients include corn, soy and canola. However, the situation becomes more difficult when these ingredients are hidden in other ingredients. Genetically modified corn, for instance, can be found in corn starch, high fructose corn syrup, and even maltodextrin. Because of these complexities, “it is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 80% of packaged products in the average U.S. or Canadian grocery store” (source: http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/about-gmos/).

Take action

Greenpeace’s website contains some excellent resources for consumers to take action against genetically modified food. Locate it here: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/Get-involved/ and send letters to political representatives explaining your concerns and urging them to take action.

Contact the Company

A possible way to find out if your favourite food contains genetically modified ingredients is by contacting the company directly. The only problem with this is that the one who answers the emails may not be the one who sees the food production firsthand.

From my own experience, I have received several responses that explain that it is difficult to track the production of the product, and therefore they don’t know for sure if biotechnology has been used. Is this an excuse to cover up known genetically modified ingredients? Is it a real example of how, when a company gets so large and decentralized, they no longer have full knowledge of the production process? Either way, it’s not ideal for the consumer.   

Your best bet? Buy certified organic, buy products labeled as non-genetically modified, support genetically-modified labeling initiatives by donating, and contact your political representatives to send them a message.

Penn Jillette and Teller, from the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! TV show, calls in the latest episode organic food for “bullshit” (see video below). Penn and Teller’s main point why organic food is “bullshit” is simply because it “might mean you’re getting your food from giant corporations or China.”

But what Penn and Teller fail to mention is that the so called “Food Policy Analyst Expert”, Alex Avery, is paid by the Hudson Institute. The Hudson Institute is an American conservative, religious and free market think tank. Simply put, they are corporate lobbyists. And the prestigious-sounding Hudson Institute is funded by giant corporations such as Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) food.

You also shouldn’t forget that Penn and Teller are members of the Cato Institute, which is another libertarian corporate think tank funded by such fine corporations as ExxonMobil. The Cato Institute is known for spreading and funding anti-scientific climate denialism and misinformation.

But this is not the first time Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit!” show receives criticism, and especially not when they cover environmental topics. In season one, aired 2003, Penn and Teller claims that the global warming crisis was created by “hysterical hippies and environmentalists”. Their biased and misinformed global warming episode has since then been criticized and debunked. Logical Science has listed and debunked the claims Penn and Teller made in the episode:

“In Episode 13, season 1 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! they try to prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists. This is why the episode is titled “Environmental Hysteria”.  We would just like to point out that Penn Jillette is a research fellow of the ExxonMobil and Industry funded CATO institute which has strong minarchist leanings. This gives Penn Jillete a conflict of interest when it comes to any topic that might require government regulation. During the show he puts Tobacco and Oil funded lobbyists against hippie college protesters.  If a fair match was their intent they should have those lawyers up against any of the scientists on this massive list. Granted the show was officially about “hysteria” and not science itself but that doesn’t excuse them for grossly misrepresenting a very strong scientific consensus and providing facts thats are demonstrably false.  The following is a quoted, sourced, and time stamped point by point analysis of their show. It will focus on the facts presented by Penn & Teller’s “experts”"

Another debunked claim by Penn and Teller is that recycling paper would pollute more than making new paper. This is a false claim:

“Recycling also helps prevent pollution. For example, recycling paper instead of making it from new material generates 74 percent less air pollution and uses 50 percent less water.

Simply put: Don’t trust a magician!

As early as 1998, the dangers of genetically modified food (GMOs) have been recognized by numerous scientific studies. Yet, no mainstream media included stories warning of these studies. Even today, the general North American public remains ignorant of their daily food’s dangers due to the mainstream press’s continual disregard of the topic.

The media research group Project Censored brought this issue to light by admitting it in its 2007 database. Annually, the American media research organization Project Censored records the twenty-five most underreported stories of the year, in hopes of exposing significant (and ignored) stories to the public and informing them on key issues that would not otherwise be brought to their attention. Underreported stories submitted must be reliable and of major significance to the population.

This article tracks the coverage GM food’s dangers since its induction into Project Censored’s database, searching in American mainstream press, Canadian and foreign mainstream press.

In 1998,  Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s examination of  laboratory rats concluded that rats fed a diet of GM food became sickly, had malformed organs, and had abnormal blood composition, while the rats fed a non-GMO diet had no such problems (Lean, 2005). Consequently, questions were raised about the long term health risks of GM foods for humans. This study was covered in the British article “Revealed: ‘Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food’” by Geoffrey Lean.

In 2005, the Organic Consumers Association website also documented Pusztai’s report with the article “Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy”. This article, like Lean’s, tells of how authorities required Pusztai to sign a confidentiality agreement before examining the secret study. Lean further exposed the dangers of GM foods in his article “GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed”. The study, by Russian scientists, found GM-fed laboratory rats much more likely to give birth to offspring who died before they were three weeks old and were severely underweight.

Finally, Herve Kempf’s article “New Suspicions About GMOs” was featured in Le Monde and Truthout in 2006. Kempf summarized Australian researchers’ findings that mice fed GM peas suffered an allergic reaction. In the same article, Kempf also remarks on studies by an Italian team of researchers who fed GM soy to laboratory mice. The mice experienced misshapen liver cells, which returned to normal after the GM diet was terminated.

Since the induction into Project Censored’s 2007 database, American (and Canadian) mainstream coverage since 2007 on genetically modified foods has been substantial, but lacking in reporting the health concerns. For instance, in contrast to the independent studies Project Censored refers to, the recent New York times article puts a positive spin on the issue, reassuring consumers that  ”new guidelines should allow engineered animal foods to be introduced safely. Producers will have to show that the inserted genes do not harm the animal’s health and that any food from a genetically engineered animal is safe to eat” (“Coming to a Plate Near You”, 2008, para. 2).

Surprisingly, foreign mainstream coverage is not very different. Some European articles align with the American view. For example, The Observer’s Robin McKie denies all concrete evidence for the dangers of GMOs, and argues instead that their “potential to improve human health is considerable” (McKie, 2008, para.3). However, other European articles criticize GM foods. For example, the British “Observer” addresses the American viewpoint that “in America, where more than 90 per cent of all soya is now GM, people have been eating the stuff for years, with no adverse effects. ‘That … is only because nobody is looking at what the effects might be.’ In short, GM [is] a risk because nobody knows what it might be doing” (Rayner, 2008, para. 16).

In a search for articles referring to the specific studies, there was extensive press coverage in mainstream Australian and English newspapers. Some articles, such as Steve Dube’s, even covered Dr Pusztai’s research in detail (Dube, 2008). Some local Canadian newspapers also picked up on the stories. For example, a local daily from Duncan, BC tells of lab rats’ offspring dying (Riley, 2008). However, there was no mention of the specific studies in any mainstream American or Canadian press. Usually, when the mainstream press did mention GMO dangers, they cited “recent studies”, not mentioning the researchers or universities. It is safe to say that the public is more familiar with the idea of genetically modified foods, but there is no consensus of their dangers.

The most probable reason that the story was underreported was because it challenges the profitable business of large corporations. Project Censored (2007) explains that “the vast majority of toxicological studies are conducted by those companies producing and promoting consumption of GMOs”. Clearly, this has the potential to cause many problems, including the suppression of important findings. This could not be more true than in the case of Dr. Pusztai’s work. Monsanto, being such a wealthy corporation and a worldwide producer of GMOs, has the power to stop negative press. As previously noted, Pusztai was “forced by the German authorities to sign a ‘declaration of secrecy’” (Project Censored, 2007).

It should be noted that Europe has banned the import of GM foods and has strict labelling requirements (Project Censored, 2007). The American and Canadian public consume genetically modified food (such as the soy and corn tested on the lab rats) on a daily basis, and currently, there are no mandatory labelling regulations (Project Censored, 2007).  

Therefore, although the dangers of genetically modified foods may have been confirmed, they have yet to be confirmed by mainstream news. Although it is almost certain that further scientific studies will reveal dangers of genetically modified foods, it remains unclear whether these dangers will become known to the general public.

Reference List

Coming to a Plate Near You. (2008, October 4). New York Times, p. A18. Retrieved October 10, lexisnex2008 from LexisNexis database. 

Dube, S. (2008, August 17). Food Fight. Wales on Sunday, p.26. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database. 

GM Free Cymru. (2005, June 2). Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from Organic Consumers Association website: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm 

Kempf, H.  (2006, February 9). New Suspicions About GMOs. Le Monde and Truthout. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2005, May 22). Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2006, January 8). GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

McKie, R. (2008, October 5). Science and food: Scare stories have drowned out the good that GM could do. The Observer, p. 29. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Project Censored (2008). #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from Project Censored website: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/12.html

Rayner, J. (2008, October 5). Science and food: The war over GM is back. Is the truth any clearer? The Observer, p. 28. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Riley. J. (2008, July 4). How to avoid the genetically modified. Cowichan Valley Citizen, pg. 26 Retrieved October 10, 2008 from Canadian NewsStand database.

Photo credit: Matt Callow