First, the term genetically modified food is not a term that best represents the products of biotechnology because as Joseph Hotchkiss, PhD, professor of food science and toxicology at Cornell, and Jim Maryanski, PhD, biotechnology coordinator at FDA believe, all crops have been subjected to some form of genetic modification. One of the most well known, besides natural selection, is cross-breeding. This is a natural process of crossing two plants to attain the traits desired, which can take a substantial amount of time considering all the genes within the two plants. It’s a process that is without the specific knowledge of the outcome. Martina McGloughlin, Ph.D, director of Biotechnology and Life Sciences Informatics Program at University of California, reveals that genetic engineering is not a new technology at all, by describing biotechnology as subsequent to many other technologies. She describes mutagenesis breeding and embryo rescue as “unnatural as biotechnology,” but “biotechnology is much more precise, much more predictable, and much more controlled.” Some opposition to genetic engineering suggests that it is unknown where the gene is being inserted, but she also described biotechnology as an “evolving” science and that “site selection” is starting to take form, which is the ability to “determine exactly where you’re going to be able to put the gene in,” which will “make it even more precise.” Thus, due to the differences between genetic modifications, genetically engineered food is a better term for describing products of biotechnology.
Another widely misunderstood term is “farmaceuticals”, which is jargon meant to describe plants producing pharmaceuticals. What a number people don’t realize, scientists and consumers alike, is the function of these products and the products themselves. Charles Arntzen, Ph.D, president emeritus of Boyce Thomson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell, describes a misconception of modern vaccines in respect to cost, proving the need for this new technology. The transfer of modern vaccines to developing countries is expensive initially, but refrigeration is usually a requirement, so the cost increases. With plant-based vaccines, he said that by simply being able to eat it “you don’t have to do any complex formulation; you don’t have to do purification; and you don’t have to deal with some of the other issues about toxicants or other materials that could get into the formulated vaccine,” which makes the process “less expensive and a more efficient and effective delivery system.” This is an advantage for the U.S. as well as an advantage for developing countries, which would be able to produce plant-based vaccines on their own. Opposing views suggest the idea that people will overdose on fruits and vegetables. Jane Rissler, Ph.D, senior staff scientist with Union of Concerned Scientists, used the examples of bananas and asked “how are you going to be sure that someone doesn’t overdose by eating too many bananas?” Mr. Arntzen emphasized the absurdity of this argument by saying, “We’re not trying to make the next V8 juice. We’re trying to make medicine.” He went on to describe how fruits and vegetables containing vaccines would be made into “dry powder” or “baby food puree” with correct dosage within containers. He also said, “I’ll tell you what I do not want to see: I don’t want to see a village banana tree with vaccines in it, where every one goes up and takes one when they want to.” This technology is about making vaccines affordable for developing countries and easy to reproduce on a local level, not killing two birds with one stone.
Pertaining to the issue of plant-based vaccines, the issue of poverty arises and the so-called intent of the United States to cure hunger worldwide. Jeremy Rifkin, President of Foundation on Economic Trends, brought up the issue by referring to how “one third of the food grown in this world is feed grain, which is consumed by animals,” so “if we would only find it in our hearts to move down the food chain” in order to “free up more land” we could have grain “grown for food grain” and “feed the world of today, tomorrow and many years in the future.” This argument was also brought forth by Charles Margulis, genetic engineering specialist with Greenpeace. The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t attack the intent of biotechnology. The true intent is to set up a cheaper, less complicated form of producing food and vaccines to “make developing countries less dependent upon philanthropy and big industry” as was said by Mr. Arntzen. Biotechnology is not planning to solve the problem of world hunger, but rather helping developing countries to become independent. This is important because a lot of food sources the U.S. has aren’t easily shipped. Grains, cereals, legumes may be shipped, but a balanced diet is the optimal goal. Thus, selling seeds that will fulfill the needs of a country’s desired crop far into the future is vital.
The question then asks who should distribute these seeds. The answer is complicated because just as Hugh Grant and Martina McGloughlin argue, “the technology is in the seed,” which means that selling seeds isn’t selling only food but also “information.” So Monsanto charges farmers annually to pay for a license fee because Monsanto owns the gene, which helps farmers’ production levels. Jeremy Rifkin discussed how “the ten largest antitrust law firms in the U.S. have gone into the federal courts charging Monsanto with creating a global conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws, to control the global market in seeds.” Biotechnology is no more about world power as it is about solving poverty. This technology is not a product that is easily sold because ownership is blurred between all the different foods that can be produced using this technology. Companies aren’t selling the process; they are selling the ongoing outcome.
The final issue within this subject that is concealed by a mass of broad information is labeling within the U.S. Just as the first point presented the problem of the term “genetically modified,” labeling is a problem as well. The question is to what extent are consumers desiring their foods to be labeled? The FDA tries to answer this question by examining what their law requires to be labeled. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, food additives are required to be approved by the FDA before being used in foods; exemptions for this approval are those additives that are Generally Recognized As Safe; the FDA has said that new substances can be put into foods as long as they are similar to those substances which have been consumed safely. FDA is also required to provide nutritional information and requires that all labels, optional or required, be truthful. Within specific laws that the FDA has to abide by, labeling of such extensive range is not required. If the consumers demand such labeling enough, they first have to decide by genetically modified means, or to what extent they desire labeling. Then, they have to be willing to pay that much more for their products.
To conclude, it is in hope that this information resets the biased conclusion that opposition has drawn about biotechnology. It is not a new technology flying through U.S. regulation agencies with no guarantee of safety. Not only have scientists been studying genetic modification for decades, but regulation agencies have been applying laws to regulate them within the market. There is nothing new about genetically modified foods within grocery stores. The only change is how these foods are modified, so to what extent does the consumer desire these foods to be labeled? As for now, simple education on the technology is necessary for the public to understand what they are eating. Providing “contains GMO” on a can of soup will not explain what part of the soup contains the GMO or what GMO really means. This lack of education is why the public misunderstands plant-based vaccines, the purpose of biotechnology, and its true intent.
« return.