Need for GM Food is Not a Mystery
Today I read this article in which the AquaBounty corporation addresses public questions about their new genetically engineered salmon. In September, the FDA opened a 60 day public comment period about whether the salmon should be labeled or not. Here is my response:
There is not enough information about genetically modified food to determine whether it is safe in the long-term or not. However, there is plenty of information to suggest that producing genetically modified plants and animals is profitable. For example, Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, makes an estimated 90% of GE seed supply and was named company of the year by Forbes magazine in 2010, grossing around $5.1 billion for seeds alone in 2009. As another example, the widely successful Morningstar Farms uses genetically modified soybean in their products according to several websites including wikipedia. However, this deters few consumers due to lack of information, hence lack of awareness. It is thought that labeling GM foods might confuse the consumer and make them think that genetically modified foods are hazardous for the health when in fact there is little public information to say either way. Ultimately, labeling GM foods would hurt the profits of many large corporations, and it would also open the door for lawsuits which GM food producing corporations now avoid because the public is not aware when they are eating GM foods.
The information that we do have is that genetically modified food has threatened the well-being of many farmers and countries around the world. For more details, please see the documentary The Future of Food or this article about farmer suicides in India. However, this is simply a symptom of a larger problem--corporate control over global markets. Corporations entering other countries to sell certain products and using tactics which lead to their eventual domination of the market is a pattern which has been observed since global corporatism's genesis.
Masking genetically engineered food as a way to "save the world" is an advertising tactic used time and again to gain approval from the public. There are many people starving on this earth, but the reason they are starving is not from a diminishing global food supply; it is that certain local food supplies are insufficient. Producing more food will not help this problem, because it is a problem of access. Food is wasted on a daily basis in countries such as the US, though this food could be used to help feed the world. Instead, corporations are capitalizing on the fact that there are starving people in the world and could care less if there is a surplus of food as long as they sell it. This pattern of waste has become profitable, and so corporations have no incentive to change. Besides, accountability for the safety of GM foods falls on the FDA, which is a government agency and as such cannot be sued for introducing unsafe products into the food supply. Since corporations are large groups of people acting with little accountability, and since FDA and other government officials often play musical chairs with powerful corporate officials, those in power have developed a perfect recipe for making money with little regard for public safety and concerns.
What I'm arguing here is again nothing new. Corporations, by their very nature, are designed to make profits for shareholders. For decades now, the safety, concerns, and needs of the public have been secondary to the needs of corporations, i.e., profits. The main concern now is keeping consumers in the dark enough not to complain about corporate-government actions or convincing consumers that what the corporation wants is also what is best for the consumer or at the least the world on a grand scale. This is exactly what AquaBounty is doing. Thus, the "need" for GM foods is really greed for greater profits and is masked as a charitable endeavor to gain public approval.
In reality, GM food has been proven to contaminate crops and foods, despite attempts to keep them out. In 1999, Thailand banned GM seeds when they found that a shipment of wheat from the US contained genetically modified corn and soybean. Genetically modified wheat had not been approved for the market, but the wheat was still contaminated by other GM foods. In addition, the Monsanto Corporation has sued and won many court battles against farmers in the US for using Monsanto's patented seeds without purchasing them, even though many of these farmers willing cooperated with Monsanto's investigations and say they have saved their own seed for decades. Courts have ruled time and again in Monsanto's favor, saying that it is irrelevant how Monsanto's seeds entered farmer's crops-whether it be from wind, contamination from other methods of seed transport and cross-pollination, use of Monsanto pesticides which can cause mutation, etc.-if a plant has Monsanto's patented gene, it is the property of Monsanto and if the farmer did not purchase the seed, then the farmer is violating Monsanto's patent. Furthermore, as genetically engineered seeds are infecting other seed supplies, biodiversity is threatened. It is impossible to tell GE seed from other seed without destroying the natural plants, so more and more farmers are having to destroy natural time-tested strains of seed to rid their seeds of contamination from GE seeds. As biodiversity decreases, populations are left at greater risk of famines such as the Irish Potato Farmine of 1845-1852. These examples illustrate that introducing GM foods creates global issues, since many countries, such as Thailand, European Union countries, etc. are uncomfortable with the use of GM foods. If other countries are unwilling to accept GM foods, then it seems that FDA approval of GM foods will either force these countries to accept the foods due to their infectious nature, or introducing GM foods might only exacerbate access to food due to restrictions placed by other countries to help protect indigenous food supplies. In other words, introducing GM foods will either violate human rights or make worse the problem which companies propose it should help alleviate.
I do not advocate the approval or patenting of GM organisms, particularly this new salmon. However, whenever GM foods are approved, I advocate labeling them to allow consumers to have a choice. Whether motivated by concerns for safety or political issues, the people of the United States and of the world have the right to a decision in this matter.
There is not enough information about genetically modified food to determine whether it is safe in the long-term or not. However, there is plenty of information to suggest that producing genetically modified plants and animals is profitable. For example, Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, makes an estimated 90% of GE seed supply and was named company of the year by Forbes magazine in 2010, grossing around $5.1 billion for seeds alone in 2009. As another example, the widely successful Morningstar Farms uses genetically modified soybean in their products according to several websites including wikipedia. However, this deters few consumers due to lack of information, hence lack of awareness. It is thought that labeling GM foods might confuse the consumer and make them think that genetically modified foods are hazardous for the health when in fact there is little public information to say either way. Ultimately, labeling GM foods would hurt the profits of many large corporations, and it would also open the door for lawsuits which GM food producing corporations now avoid because the public is not aware when they are eating GM foods.
The information that we do have is that genetically modified food has threatened the well-being of many farmers and countries around the world. For more details, please see the documentary The Future of Food or this article about farmer suicides in India. However, this is simply a symptom of a larger problem--corporate control over global markets. Corporations entering other countries to sell certain products and using tactics which lead to their eventual domination of the market is a pattern which has been observed since global corporatism's genesis.
Masking genetically engineered food as a way to "save the world" is an advertising tactic used time and again to gain approval from the public. There are many people starving on this earth, but the reason they are starving is not from a diminishing global food supply; it is that certain local food supplies are insufficient. Producing more food will not help this problem, because it is a problem of access. Food is wasted on a daily basis in countries such as the US, though this food could be used to help feed the world. Instead, corporations are capitalizing on the fact that there are starving people in the world and could care less if there is a surplus of food as long as they sell it. This pattern of waste has become profitable, and so corporations have no incentive to change. Besides, accountability for the safety of GM foods falls on the FDA, which is a government agency and as such cannot be sued for introducing unsafe products into the food supply. Since corporations are large groups of people acting with little accountability, and since FDA and other government officials often play musical chairs with powerful corporate officials, those in power have developed a perfect recipe for making money with little regard for public safety and concerns.
What I'm arguing here is again nothing new. Corporations, by their very nature, are designed to make profits for shareholders. For decades now, the safety, concerns, and needs of the public have been secondary to the needs of corporations, i.e., profits. The main concern now is keeping consumers in the dark enough not to complain about corporate-government actions or convincing consumers that what the corporation wants is also what is best for the consumer or at the least the world on a grand scale. This is exactly what AquaBounty is doing. Thus, the "need" for GM foods is really greed for greater profits and is masked as a charitable endeavor to gain public approval.
In reality, GM food has been proven to contaminate crops and foods, despite attempts to keep them out. In 1999, Thailand banned GM seeds when they found that a shipment of wheat from the US contained genetically modified corn and soybean. Genetically modified wheat had not been approved for the market, but the wheat was still contaminated by other GM foods. In addition, the Monsanto Corporation has sued and won many court battles against farmers in the US for using Monsanto's patented seeds without purchasing them, even though many of these farmers willing cooperated with Monsanto's investigations and say they have saved their own seed for decades. Courts have ruled time and again in Monsanto's favor, saying that it is irrelevant how Monsanto's seeds entered farmer's crops-whether it be from wind, contamination from other methods of seed transport and cross-pollination, use of Monsanto pesticides which can cause mutation, etc.-if a plant has Monsanto's patented gene, it is the property of Monsanto and if the farmer did not purchase the seed, then the farmer is violating Monsanto's patent. Furthermore, as genetically engineered seeds are infecting other seed supplies, biodiversity is threatened. It is impossible to tell GE seed from other seed without destroying the natural plants, so more and more farmers are having to destroy natural time-tested strains of seed to rid their seeds of contamination from GE seeds. As biodiversity decreases, populations are left at greater risk of famines such as the Irish Potato Farmine of 1845-1852. These examples illustrate that introducing GM foods creates global issues, since many countries, such as Thailand, European Union countries, etc. are uncomfortable with the use of GM foods. If other countries are unwilling to accept GM foods, then it seems that FDA approval of GM foods will either force these countries to accept the foods due to their infectious nature, or introducing GM foods might only exacerbate access to food due to restrictions placed by other countries to help protect indigenous food supplies. In other words, introducing GM foods will either violate human rights or make worse the problem which companies propose it should help alleviate.
I do not advocate the approval or patenting of GM organisms, particularly this new salmon. However, whenever GM foods are approved, I advocate labeling them to allow consumers to have a choice. Whether motivated by concerns for safety or political issues, the people of the United States and of the world have the right to a decision in this matter.