Genetically modified foods

The rapid acceleration of technology combined with intense business rivalry has improved the lifestyles of consumers tremendously. But the introduction of genetic modification in the food industry has raised serious political, social, economic, and ethical questions. And having been brought up with the notion that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, I find myself wondering if this is still the case.

Genetic modification

The transfer of genetic information from one organism, such as a plant, to another is called genetic modification, and this can lead to plants with more vitamins or plants that are more resistant to herbicides. Initially, genetic manipulation enabled farmers to use alternative solutions to pesticides and to delay ripening.

In subsequent years the technology enabled foods with lower fat content to be produced. The nutritional value and the absence of potentially toxic herbicides, in the short term, is perceived to be beneficial to the consumer.^w1 The technology for genetic modification is evolving, and it will become used more in animals and fish.^{w2 w3}

The importance of agriculture

Arguably, the economic benefits offered by pursuing such technologies are tremendous: genetic modification “could determine the competitiveness of Europe in agricultural and food processing,” said Philippe Busquin, the European commissioner for research.^w4 The agriculture and the food industry is Europe’s leading industry and has an annual turnover of €600bn (£480bn; $950bn). It is also Europe’s third largest employer, providing 2.6 million jobs.

“Holding back the use of genetic modification could have massive economical implications as other parts of the world are investing heavily in it,” Mr Busquin thinks.^w4 Politically, “the science of biotechnology” is “likely to be to the first half of the 21st century what the computer was to the second half of the 20th century.”^w5 The UK government has pledged more investment.

The UK legislation that governs genetic modification, regulated by the Food Standards Authority, ensures that before foods are marketed they are subject to a rigorous risk assessment determined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.^w6 This framework involves a risk analysis of the safety and nutritional aspects of foods.

The market

Genetic modification has been readily adopted by organisations in mainstream markets because it provides them with several opportunities, such as longer shelf lives. Puree made from tomatoes genetically modified to delay ripening was introduced in UK supermarkets in 1996.^w8 This has since been withdrawn because of consumer pressure.^w9

But the technology is still widely used. For instance, some products, such as chocolate, mayonnaise, tomato sauce, and bread, may contain genetically modified vegetable oils, soya, and maize derivatives.^w10 Also widespread is the application of technology in the form of chemical manipulation, in which fresh fruit such as apples can be stored for a year before they reach the supermarket shelves.^w11 After a year in storage the term “fresh” seems inappropriate.

Consumer choice

The benefits of genetic modification are apparent for some groups—for example, farmers. But what about its impact on consumers? Thirty years ago going to your local supermarket or greengrocer with the intention of buying an apple involved a simple decision. The choice was either a red or a green apple, which were mostly home grown produce. Nowadays consumers may have far more questions to consider, from the basic, to buy a granny smith or a pink lady variety, to the more complex, perhaps involving a consideration of the genetic make up of the apple, something only scientifically trained people can fully comprehend.

What about value for money? Consumers need to decide whether to pay an extra £1.50 for funny looking organic oranges from a different section of the supermarket or to save a bit of money by sticking to the rounder and tastier looking ones in the main aisles. Environmentalists also highlight the global environmental cost in terms of the transporting of food, referred to as “food miles.”^{w14 w23} Local produce may cost less to transport.

Inadequate labelling

Today’s consumers value being able to evaluate accurate and appropriate product information. The prime function of labelling, therefore, is to provide factual information to consumers. However, evidence indicates that from the consumers’ point of view, there are gaps in their understanding about genetically modified foods and the technology behind it.^w13 As a result of which consumers have misperceptions about genetically modified foods, particularly in terms of possible associated health risks.^w14

The UK government and businesses that have been quick to adopt and promote genetically modified foods also bear responsibility for the dissemination of information relating to this science, which is new to consumers. As of 2004 mandatory labelling has been introduced on all foods that have been genetically modified, with the exception of those that contain very small amounts of genetically modified ingredients (0.09%) in the approved varieties and 0.05% in the foods where it is inadvertently present.^{w1 w7} But determining the most effective labelling system has been contentious^w15 because neither the government nor businesses are fully trusted by the average citizen.^{w16 w17}

Prioritising profit?

It is impossible for businesses to be categorical about the extent of contamination of the non-genetically modified foods, referred to as “outcrossing,” as acknowledged by the Food Standards Agency. Businesses have only made mediocre attempts to modify their labels. For instance, a study shows that organisations use misleading labels, and as a result consumers make inappropriate choices.^{w18 w19}

Inconsistencies in existing labelling procedures may exist. Many supermarkets have entire aisles dedicated to heavily labelled organic foods. The cynic wonders whether all foods sold in other aisles have elements of genetic modification. If so, why aren’t they as clearly labelled as the organic foods? Research commissioned on behalf of the consumer magazine Which? found that of 32 everyday products investigated only eight could be categorically considered to be free from genetic modification. The rest may have contained genetically modified ingredients but were not labelled accordingly.^{w20 w21}

The government needs to proactively communicate published research on the potential harm associated with genetically modified foods to customers. The point of purchase may be appropriate for this, enabling us to make informed decisions. The Foods Standards Agency is moving in this direction in considering an improved signposting system to provide information “at a glance.”^w22

Health effects

The debate as to whether genetically modified foods are healthy and good for us in the short term is relevant, but more crucial are the longer term effects, of which as yet there are few data to study. The long term effect of genetically modified foods needs further research to identify consumer groups for which it may hold a greater risk to health.

Investigations show that a host of demographic variables play important roles in the decision to buy genetically modified foods. Among other factors, age and college education are highly related to the level of acceptance of genetically modified foods.^{w24 w25} Arguably, young college educated people are capable of comprehending the debate surrounding genetic modification and evaluating relevant information. So why are they buying genetically modified food? Another study indicates that young people are less health conscious than people older than 35, who are more likely to opt for organic alternatives?^w26 This explanation may be too simplistic.

Some views forwarded by students at Durham in the debate led by the Food Standards Agency may be indicative of the reason for their ready acceptance of genetically modified food. They cited, for example, that the lack of evidence of harm attributable to the consumption of genetically modified foods; that the advantages outweigh disadvantages; that the non-use of pesticides makes genetically modified food more environmentally friendly; and that they are inexpensive alternatives to organic produce.^w27

Consumer no longer king

Are we unknowingly exposing ourselves to potentially harmful substances? We do not know. Until longer term research into the impact of genetically modified food on the younger generation is conducted, the adage ought to read “a genetically modified apple a day might bring the doctor your way.” The increasing prevalence of genetically modified foods means that consumers may soon have less choice. But improving the availability of information will at least enable consumers to make the most of the choice that remains.

1. www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20 questions/en/. World Health Organisation. 3rd September 2006.
2. Sang H. Genetically Modified Livestock and Poultry and Their Potential Effects on Human Health and Nutrition in: Genetically Modified Foods for Human Health and Nutrition: The Scientific Basis for Benefit/Risk assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2003;14:253-263.
3. Maclean N. Genetically modified Fish and their Effects on Food Quality and Human Health in: Genetically Modified Foods for Human Health and Nutrition: The Scientific Basis for Benefit/Risk assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2003;14: 242-252.
4. Busquin P. European Comissioner for Research. Plants for the Future: 2025. A European Vision for Plant Genomics and Biotechnology, 2004.
5. Blair T. European Bioscience Conference, 2000.
6. Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology, www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10007/cxg_044e.pdf. 3rd September 2006.
7. Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence based study. www.worldfoodscience.org/pdf/biotech World Health Organisation, 23rd June 2005.
8. BBC News. First GM Food Goes on Sale in UK, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390 5th February 1996.
9. BBC News. Sainsbury’s Phase out GM Food, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/298229.stm 17th March 1999.
10. Mercola J, Droege R. How Do You Know if Your Food is Modified. http://www.mercola.com/2004/jan/24/gm- foods.htm. 3rd September 2006.
11. Ungood J, Swinford S. Fresh Apples only Stored for One Year. The Sunday Times December 11 2005 Ed:1GN pp:News 11.
12. Millward D. Any Car You Like as Long as It’s Green. Transport Correspondent. www.telegraph.co.uk 22th June 2006.
13. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, Boy D, De Cheveigne S, Fjaestad B et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 2000;18(9):935-938.
14. Cellan-Jones R. Organic Butchers ‘Breaking Law’. BBC News 19th July 2006.
15. Fletcher R. Food Giants Revolt Against Blair’s Traffic Light’ Labelling. The Sunday Times 3rd September 2006. Business section pg 1.
16. Macintyre S, Reilly J, Miller D, Eldridge J. Food Choices, Food Scares, and Health: the Role of the Media. In Murcott, A., The Nation’s Diet: The Social Science of Food Choice. pp. 228-249. London: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998.
17. Moses V. Biotechnology Products and European Consumers. Biotechnology advances. 1999;17(8):647-678.
18. Elliott V. Shoppers do not believe their eyes. The Times London. February 12 2004. home news:11.
19. Uhlig R Farmhouse Fresh? - It’s More Likely to Have Been Produced on an Industrial Estate. www.Telegraph.co.uk, February 12 2004.
20. BBC News. UK Consumers Demand GM Food Label Reforms. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/289031.stm 2nd March 1999.
21. Davies D. GM found in Organic Foods. Western Mail. February 4 2004
22. http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/signposting. 9th April 2006
23. Finnigan K. Let’s be Fair. Life and Culture. The green page. The Independent 27th February 2006, pp 44-45.
24. Hossain, F, Onyango B, Adelaja A, Schilling B, Hallman W. Consumer Acceptance of Food Biotechnology: Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified Food Products. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2002;31:260.
25. Hallman K, Hebden WC, Aquino HL, Cuite CL, Lang JT. Public perception of genetically modified food: A national study of American knowledge and opinion, publication number RR-1003-004. New bruswick, New Jersey; Food Policy Institute Cook College, October 2003.
26. Mintel. Health Food Retailing, Consumer shopping. Retail Intelligence – UK Report January 2002, pp37.
27. Food Standards Agency. Young people debate GM. 27th march 2003.
28. Templeton S. A Choc a Day Keeps the Doctor Away. The Sunday Times. April 9 2006 Ed:4GN pp:News1

       

 Printable version     Download PDF    E-mail this to a friend    Respond to this article