5
The intensive farming of animals has increased the amount of meat, eggs and milk produced in Australia during the past 40 years. Likewise, new agricultural technologies have enabled Australian farmers to rapidly increase crop yields. New plant-breeding technologies and advances in the production of fertiliser and pesticides have helped too, while the use of genetically modified varieties of food plants is also showing great potential to significantly increase production into the future.
The genetic modification, manipulation or engineering of our food is not actually new. Farmers and scientists have altered food crops and animals through selective or cross-breeding programs for centuries. The plants and animals chosen to breed with are selected for their desirable characteristics, such as pest and disease resistance and higher yields. The Green Revolution of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s saw a dramatic increase in agricultural production largely brought on by new plant hybrids developed around the world. Combine this with synthetic fertilisers and agricultural chemicals and world food production doubled. However, traditional genetic modification worked slowly over many plant and animal generations and arose from naturally occurring variations.
Modern genetic engineering, also called ‘gene technology’ or ‘biotechnology’, provides new ways of transferring desirable characteristics within a species and even between species. Cells of a plant, animal or microbe can be copied in the laboratory and then inserted into another organism to give it a desired characteristic.[1] Because the genetic material has been altered in these organisms, they are known as ‘genetically modified’, or ‘GM’ for short. Food or food ingredients produced from these plants or animals are called GM food.
Traditional genetic engineering meant, for example, that a drought-resistant wheat crop could be effectively bred by crossing resistant varieties, selecting the best of these and then crossing them back. It took time. Modern genetic engineering means results can occur in one generation. Today the drought-resistant gene is identified and inserted directly into the plant. It is quicker, which fits with our modern need for speed.
Even though the technology is available however, very few GM crops are grown in Australia. To date, canola for cooking oil and cotton for fibre are permitted to be grown here. The blue carnation (a must-have, apparently) is the only other genetically modified plant developed, grown and sold in Australia.
Most GM plants on the market today are changed at the production level, usually to provide herbicide or pest resistance. Others, not yet available, are being developed to be salt-tolerant and to resist disease and spoilage. Researchers are even looking at a ‘tearless’ onion. GM foods commonly grown in other countries include soybeans, corn, potatoes and sugar beet. The sale and use of some GM food products grown in other countries is permitted in Australia. GM soy, corn, canola, cotton, potato and sugar beet used in processed foods from overseas can be found on Australian supermarket shelves today.
Many successful trials of genetically modified fruit and vegetables have taken place in Australia. A potato that does not go brown when cut or damaged has been developed, and while these GM potatoes aren’t grown in Australia, the technology is being further developed in the United States and Europe. The same technology is used on bananas in the United Kingdom, pineapples in Malaysia, and apples and pears in Canada. Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) owns the technology and is paid licence fees by organisations using it.
Supporters of GM technology in Australia say more GM food crops are not far away. Mainstream production of genetically modified wheat in Australia is anticipated within seven years according to grains industry experts, with research currently well advanced.[2] Research is also being conducted into GM Indian mustard, rice, sugar cane, white clover, grapevines, pineapples and papaya. A GM bovine herpes vaccine and a GM fowl adenovirus to boost the immune system of chickens are both under development. Oh, and the blue rose, of course.[3]
Genetic engineering raises many ethical questions. With every new technology come benefits and risks. Genetic modification allows farmers to increase crop yields by using pest-, disease- and drought-resistant varieties of plants. The soil-dwelling bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been used as a biological insecticide in cropping for many years, but in the 1990s the advent of GM technology allowed the Bt gene to be injected into corn, potatoes and cotton crops. The gene renders the plant poisonous to insects that feed upon the crop, thereby eliminating the need for broad-spectrum insecticides to be sprayed to kill the destructive cotton bollworm and other insect pests. So far Bt cotton is the only Bt crop permitted to be grown in Australia. Farmers say growing Bt cotton has reduced the amount of pesticides sprayed on these crops by about 80 per cent.[4] They claim the outcomes are better for the farmer—financially and health-wise—and for the environment. For this reason 90 per cent of cotton grown in Australia is now Bt cotton.
Given the right conditions, weeds can out-compete food crops for water and nutrients thus reducing yields. Today, some genetically modified crops have been engineered to withstand herbicide. This means farmers can spray the crop to kill competing weeds, but not kill the crop. Chemical giant Monsanto has produced Roundup Ready® soybeans and corn crops, which result in much better yields. For this reason, 80 per cent of the US soybean crop is now genetically modified.[5] Some of this product is imported into Australia as processed food ingredients or stockfeed.
Many Australian canola crops are genetically modified for herbicide resistance. This improved productivity means more food can be produced from less land. Theoretically, GM technology helps decrease the reliance on the cultivation of marginal land in Australia and is therefore good for our environment.
According to proponents, the GM future offers us new transgenic cultivars of food plants that will give better product quality. ‘Transgenic’ means the genes are transferred between species—including between plants and animals. For example, the gene from a fish that lives in cold seas has been inserted into a strawberry, allowing the fruit to become frost-tolerant.[6] Another example is the insertion of genes from an African frog into rhododendrons to enhance resistance to root rot in the plant.
It has also been proven that genetic engineering can increase the shelf life of fruit and vegetables, therefore reducing food waste—if the scientists can get the recipe right. The Flavr Savr® tomato was one of the world’s first commercially produced GM foods.[7] US company Calgene modified the tomato in 1994 with the aim to enhance flavour and create long shelf life. A gene present in tomatoes was blocked so that a normal protein involved in ripening was not produced. The tomato was supposed to last longer and taste better. But when produced commercially, Flavr Savr® bruised easily in transport and was expensive to buy. And after mixed taste-reviews, supply problems, concerns over the safety of GM food and Calgene’s financial troubles, Flavr Savr® was withdrawn from sale in 1997. Genetically modified tomatoes have been successfully developed since the Flavr Savr®, particularly for use as purée. Apples, raspberries and melons with delayed ripening have subsequently also been developed. None of these is commercially produced or available for sale in Australia.
Another potential benefit of GM food is the opportunities it offers for human health and wellbeing. Trials have shown genetic modification can be used to enhance the amount of nutrients in food crops. Research into this technique, called ‘nutritional enhancement’, is well advanced. Crops tipped to be commercially grown in the near future include ‘Golden Rice’.[8] This is a white rice crop which has had the vitamin A gene from a daffodil inserted into it, turning it yellow and enriching it with vitamin A. Golden Rice has been developed in the United States with backing from the Rockefeller Foundation as a means to address malnutrition in developing countries dependent on rice. Millions of children go blind in the developing world because of vitamin A deficiency.
Likewise, bananas genetically modified to improve their nutritional content are currently being trialled at South Johnstone in north Queensland. The bananas contain provitamin A. The trial, run by the Queensland University of Technology and supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, aims to address malnutrition in Africa, particularly Uganda where bananas are the staple diet.[9]
Genetic modification has also been used to reduce trans fats in soybeans, making them better for cardiovascular health. Trans fats are unsaturated fats found in meat, some milk products and as a product of oils and fats altered by industrial processes such as hydrogenation (the process of heating oil and passing hydrogen bubbles through it). Unlike ‘good’ unsaturated fats, found in fish and vegetable oils, trans fats are ‘bad’ unsaturated fats contributing to high cholesterol and related health problems in humans. Genetic modification has also been used to remove genes in food that cause allergies; for example, blocking the gene that produces the allergenic protein in peanuts.[10] Supporters say GM technology has the potential to remove the allergenic components of wheat and milk making gluten-and lactose intolerance a thing of the past.
Proponents of GM claim there is enormous potential for the use of genetic modification of plants for pharmaceutical production, or ‘pharming’ as it has been cleverly coined (not to be confused with a form of online fraud that goes by the same name). Edible vaccines to protect against bacterial or viral antigens are in the pipeline. Under investigation in the United States are two rice crops modified with synthetic human genes. One would treat iron deficiency, which causes anaemia, and the other would treat diarrhoea.[11] Other US biotechnology companies are said to be developing non-toxic anthrax vaccines through the transgenic modification of petunias. Yes, you eat the petunias. Getting a bit too kooky? Many of these products have been touted as future solutions to managing disease outbreaks in the developing world.
To date, animals genetically modified by modern gene technology have not been produced commercially for use as food anywhere in the world, but this may not be far away. Scientists have been experimenting with the technology on animals for decades.
The Canadian firm AquaBounty Technologies has grown a genetically modified Atlantic salmon which is awaiting approval for production and sale in Canada and in the United States.[12] The AquAdvantage® Salmon, as it is trademarked, was created by injecting the genes of an eel-like species called ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) into an Atlantic salmon. This unrelated fish has antifreeze properties in its blood, enabling it to survive in extremely cold conditions and grow year round. The AquAdvantage® Salmon, or ‘Frankenfish’ as it has been tagged by sceptics, also has a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon grafted onto it, providing the extra-fast-growing characteristics found in the Chinook. To maintain its growth rate, the AquAdvantage® Salmon eats continually. The females have been ‘masculinised’ to prevent them from breeding. This is done by a complicated cross-breeding sequence that includes oral administration of the female hormone oestradiol to juvenile males. In Atlantic salmon, this leads to complete sex reversal. Despite the clever technology, critics say studies show that up to three in 1000 fish can still reproduce, posing a risk of cross-breeding with wild fish populations.[13] To combat this risk, AquaBounty plans to fertilise the eggs at a site on Prince Edward Island, Canada, and then transport them to Panama to be grown out to market size. They will be farmed in inland tanks, eliminating contact with wild fish. Any fish that somehow did escape to the warm Panamanian waters would not survive anyway, providing an added environmental control. The salmon reared in warm climates such as that of Panama will need a cool source of water, as trout and salmon reared in warm waters have been known to develop physical defects and an undesirable mushy eating texture.
Under US guidelines, the genetic modification of animals—that is, the new gene and the protein it produces—is classed as a veterinary drug. Hence, it is the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) responsibility to assess the AquAdvantage® Salmon application and approve or reject it. Critics of the AquAdvantage® Salmon say not enough independent studies and assessments have been done to determine its safety. AquaBounty says this is rubbish; that twenty years of research have gone into designing the fish for human consumption and that it is safe.
The other genetically modified animal that may soon be appearing on the menu in some countries is the cleaner and greener Enviropig™. Animals, including pigs, have been genetically modified in overseas trials since the 1970s. Researchers at the University of Guelph in Canada have genetically modified a line of Yorkshire pigs, enabling them to digest plant phosphorus more efficiently than normal pigs.[14] Enviropig’s™ poo, therefore, contains less phosphorus than normal pig manure and in turn poses less risk to the environment. Phosphorus run-off fuels algal blooms in rivers, causing poor water quality and fish kills. Enviropigs™ have been designed to produce their own phytase in saliva—an enzyme that makes plant phosphorus digestible. The pig therefore absorbs more phosphorus from its food rather than excreting it. To make Enviropig™, scientists took a gene from an E. coli bacteria, combined it with a gene from a mouse and inserted it into the Yorkshire pig’s DNA (and people thought the platypus was made up of parts from other animals when it was first discovered!). An added advantage of Enviropig™ is that there is no need to supplement its diet with mineral phosphate or commercially produced phytase—a cost saving for farmers. Enviropig™ is currently awaiting approval for commercial production in the United States and Canada.
While technically not a genetically modified food, meat lovers of the future can also look forward to the ‘test-tube burger’.[15] Dutch scientists are currently experimenting with animal cells to create an artificial form of meat that will eliminate the need for livestock to be raised and slaughtered. The ‘in vitro meat’ tissue is made by feeding a pig’s stem cells with serum taken from a horse foetus. The 2-centimetrelong strips of tissue are stretched daily with a piece of Velcro to mimic muscle exercise. So far the ‘in vitro meat’ is tasteless and chewy (according to a Russian TV journalist who is the only person known to have eaten it after he swiped some from a petri dish and put it in his mouth during a lab visit) and expensive at 250,000 euros, or $AU330,468, per burger.[16] This demonstrates just where science and technology may take us.
What the general effects of GM foods on human health might be are as yet unknown. While GM food producers and regulators assure consumers that this food is safe, many people are still sceptical. It is very difficult to find any published studies that have investigated the effects of GM food on human health. It seems few feeding trials have been done on animals, which is the norm when trialling new pharmaceutical products. Clinical trials involving people actually eating GM food over a sustained period have never been done. There have been simulated trials in the laboratory, but none with real people. Yet the US population has been eating large amounts of genetically modified food for fifteen years. Supporters of GM say this is evidence enough that the food is safe. (I’m not so sure. Have you watched The Jerry Springer Show or Dr Phil lately?)
The principle of ‘substantial food equivalence’ is used by food regulators worldwide to determine if a food is safe to enter the market. If the food is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food, it is considered safe.[17] This method is also used by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) to determine food safety, as individual tests on every new food or food product would be impossible to fund or conduct.
This does not placate those opposed to the concept of GM foods. There are fears that genes of viruses used in genetic modification may inadvertently create new diseases, toxins or adverse conditions in the new organisms. Steven Druker, the founder of US lobby group Alliance for Bio-Integrity, says not enough is known about this process to guarantee long-term public safety.[18] He notes that genes transplanted into other organisms don’t function on their own. They need to be activated. Biotechnologists do this by taking the DNA of a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene to be inserted into an organism. This viral booster, or ‘promoter’, causes the transplanted gene to function like an invading virus. Without it, the genetic modification would not take place. What’s more, the foreign gene remains constantly in the active mode. This is a worry, according to Druker, who in a 2004 paper wrote, ‘consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce a substance that has never been in that species, it produces it in an essentially unregulated manner that is uncoordinated with the needs and natural functions of that organism’.[19]
Druker and others such as world-renowned geneticist Dr Mae-Wan Ho and Australian scientist and academic Dr Judy Carman say there is scientific evidence to show GM technology is harmful to humans and the environment, and that there is too much that people do not yet know about genetic engineering for it to be let loose. There is also a fear by some that antibiotic-resistant genes may develop if it is. Bioengineers sometimes insert a selectable ‘marker’ gene to help identify whether a new gene has been successfully introduced to the host DNA. One such marker gene is for resistance to particular antibiotics. If genes coded for such resistance enter the food chain and are taken up by human gut microflora, the effectiveness of antibiotics could be reduced and human infectious disease risk increased. Research has shown that the risk is very low; however, there is general agreement that the use of these markers should be phased out.
Likewise, the results of a study published in the British Journal of Nutrition showed transgenic DNA from GM soy and corn survived the acidic conditions of the human intestine and passed through intact.[20] This was in contrast to the DNA from traditionally bred soy and maize, which was completely broken down in the gut. These results show that it is possible that plant transgenes could be taken up by the microflora of the human gut, thereby posing safety risks as it is not known how this could affect human health. Some suggest it could lead to resistance to antibiotics or cause ill heath in the gut.
A number of American studies have suggested that the nutrient content in GM foods is lower than in conventionally produced food. The research looked at crops grown between 1950 and 1999 in the United States and concluded that nutrient decline in recent years was due to changes in cultivated varieties that sacrificed nutrients for higher yields.[21] Many of the new varieties from the late 1980s and ’90s grown in America were bred for high yield through genetic modification.
Some scientists and community groups fear that not only could GM food be less nutritious than conventionally produced food, but also that GM food could pose more health risks, such as inadvertently creating new allergens in food. Without clear labelling to guide them and an understanding of how a GM product was modified, allergy sufferers might be put at risk. This has already happened in the laboratory when a gene from the Brazil nut was introduced into soybeans.[22] It was found that people with allergies to Brazil nuts could be allergic to soybeans modified in this way. As a result, the research project was terminated. But the fear remains that allergy-producing genes may be inserted into unrelated foodstuffs and not labelled, harming unsuspecting buyers.
It is not only the health of individuals that might be affected by GM but also the health and functioning of society. The potential monopolisation of the world food market by a few large multinational companies that control the distribution of seed is a real risk. Multinational companies Syngenta, Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer CropScience own and control practically the entire GM seed market. They also produce most of the world’s pesticides. To purchase genetically modified seeds, a farmer must sign an intellectual property agreement which essentially states that he will not keep seeds to plant the next season. He has to buy new ones from the seed company instead. Farmers who have breached these agreements have been sued by the big companies. The corporations who own the patents of the seeds say they need product control to prevent seed piracy, fulfil financial obligations to shareholders and raise funds for further GM development. However, for centuries farmers have been keeping seed for the next year’s crop. Restrictions like this interfere with the farmer’s ancient practice of harvesting, saving and replanting seed and, in turn, his traditional role in society.
Anti-GM lobby groups such as Gene Ethics in Australia are also concerned that multinational companies are developing ‘Terminator’ or ‘suicide seed’ technologies that produce infertile seeds so they cannot be saved and replanted by farmers. This would give large corporations such as Monsanto permanent monopoly control of the world’s food and seed supplies. If permitted for use in Australia it would certainly affect Australian farmers, but its worldwide impact would be devastating, decimating the lives of 1.4 million people including peasant farmers who rely entirely on farm-saved seed.[23] Multinational seed companies already exert a disproportionate influence over gene technology. Any more power could be dangerous for food security and human health.
It should be noted that there have been occasions where these large companies have relaxed their patenting on products to allow development for humanitarian purposes. Syngenta permitted the licensing of some technologies used to produce Golden Rice to Bayer, Monsanto and a number of other large players free of charge. This made progression of the process possible. Syngenta’s reasoning was that it was in the interests of helping to address starvation and disease in the developing world.[24]
Despite proponents saying GM crops have the potential to alleviate world hunger, many sceptics believe that increasing the profits of the agrochemical industry is the main driver behind the development of GM crops. Critics also argue that GM food production could be disastrous for small-scale farmers as outlay costs are higher and farmers could risk falling into debt—GM seed is not cheap. And there is debate as to whether GM crops do in the end actually achieve higher yields for the farmer. Even if they do, critics say that the authorities would be better off addressing the underlying causes of hunger and poverty rather than pandering to big business by supporting unproven technology. People are hungry because they cannot afford to buy food, not because it is unavailable. Some argue we would be better off releasing funds to public sector agricultural research organisations to support farmer-led, sustainable and safe agriculture.[25] Could it be that peasant farmers are being exploited—and consumers have become human guinea pigs at the hands of the large, multinational biotech companies?
And what of the farmers who choose to say no to GM seed? The adverse effects of GM farming on non-GM farmers have already been keenly felt in Australia. Organic-certified food producers have had their crops accidently contaminated by GM crops. West Australian organic cereal crop grower Stephen Marsh had his organic certification withdrawn after his property was found to be contaminated by GM canola seed alleged to have come from the neighbour’s GM canola crop in 2010.[26] Organic certification does not permit the use of genetically modified products anywhere on a farm. Hundreds of hectares of the Marsh property were contaminated resulting in a 70 per cent loss of production. The Marsh family have begun legal proceedings against their neighbour, making it the first test case of its kind in Australia to decide who is responsible for costs in a GM contamination event.[27] Non-GM farmers claim they have the right to produce nonGM crops which enable them to reduce their farming costs and risk, keep independence in chemical selection, steer clear of an unproven technology, work towards a holistic farming approach rather than seeking a ‘silver bullet’, and importantly, give consumers what they want—non-GM food.
In the same way that many questions remain about the long-term impact of GM food technology on human health, we also don’t know exactly if or how GM plants and animals will impact on existing plants, animals and other organisms.
There is concern that genetically modified crops could upset the delicate balance of the natural ecosystem in several ways. Biodiversity is essential for the health of our natural environment. The development of monocrops, including monogenetic crops, poses considerable risk. For example, if we come to rely on just one variety of wheat or corn or soybean—a particular GM one, say, because it has become the highest yielding, easiest to grow and hence most profitable variety—and something catastrophic happens, we could be in trouble. The people of Ireland during the 1800s relied on just one major food crop, the potato. When a fungal disease wiped out the entire crop, a million people starved to death. There is nothing to say something of a similar magnitude could not happen today if we confine ourselves to a limited genetic base of food crops. Conventional plant and animal breeding has already led us some way down this path. Just as it is important to maintain a diversity of native flora and fauna in the landscape, it is important to keep a diversity of food crops, and varieties within these food crops, for the health of the food-producing system. It is a safeguard against the unknown.
Some also fear that accidental cross-breeding between GM crops and surrounding vegetation, including weeds, could result in herbicide-resistant weeds. Herbicide-resistant weeds are already proving difficult for Australian farmers, costing the national economy more than $4 billion a year.[28] Today’s conservation cropping systems are heavily reliant on spraying out weeds with herbicide rather than ploughing them out. Weeds compete with crops and pasture for water and nutrients. If let go in a crop, certain weeds can also contaminate produce and poison livestock. Conservation, or no-tillage farming, sees the next crop planted directly into the weed-free, undisturbed soil conserving the all-important soil moisture and maintaining protective ground cover left from the previous crop. Over time, like humans exposed to germs or indeed antibiotics, weeds develop a resistance to herbicides. Many weeds are now becoming resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup®, the most commonly used broad-spectrum agricultural chemical in the world. There is concern that accidental cross-breeding of common weeds and grasses with the likes of Roundup Ready® canola, soybeans or cotton could make matters worse for farmers already having difficulty controlling weeds.
It is also feared that insect-resistant GM crops could harm insects beneficial to crops, such as bees. Beneficial insects have an important part to play in the agricultural system, a fact often overlooked in our progressive, technology-obsessed world. Organic or biological farmers rely on the intricate natural processes facilitated by insects to manage pests and diseases in their crops rather than using chemicals. GM insect-resistant crops pose a threat to organic farmers because of this.
Another concern is that insects will build resistance to genetically modified insect-resistant crops. Not only would the plant crop no longer kill insects, but the chemical bred into the plant would no longer be effective, potentially also rendering traditional pesticide sprays ineffective. The cotton bollworm has already developed resistance to genetically modified Bt-resistant cotton crops in some parts of the United States and Australia. Studies are monitoring these developments and looking at strategies to combat resistance. Is your resistance to ‘resistance’ growing?
As for the impacts of genetically modified food plants on wildlife, the jury is still out.
The job of the regulator is to determine if GM food is safe for human health and the environment. The benefits of approving the production and sale of GM food, or any food for that matter, must outweigh the risks.
In Australia the Gene Technology Act 2000 is the Federal legislation that regulates the industry. A Gene Technology Regulator (GTR) and Ministerial Council appointed by the Federal government overseas this regulation, liaising with FSANZ, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). Guided by the Act’s principles, each state makes its own laws to control the market or trade of genetically modified organisms.
As far as food goes, FSANZ says GM food is safe for human consumption if all genetic material and proteins have been examined in detail; new genetic material stays the same when passed from generation to generation; new proteins are unlikely to be toxic or allergenic; the new genetic material is digested in the human gut without significant impact on human health; and the composition of the food, including naturally occurring toxins and allergens, is not significantly altered compared to the conventional counterpart. If there is any uncertainty around safety, regulators have agreed to apply the precautionary principle, which states that if the scientific basis is insufficient or some uncertainty exists, the product should not be approved for market. Many would argue that this principle has not been applied, particularly in the United States, in the rush to show off new technology and satisfy biotech companies who have invested millions of dollars in research. There, many GM food crops have been approved and are now widely grown; US farmers rush to plant the latest release of GM seeds. On the whole, Australia appears to have taken a slightly slower, more cautious approach to GM production, but research continues and promises to have new GM food varieties ready for the supermarket shelves in the next few years. The biotech companies developing GM foods assure us the science does stack up. It is up to the regulator to make the final call.
So just why are anti-GM lobby groups and many consumers so sceptical of GM food when the science says there is nothing to worry about? An international expert on risk perception, David Ropeik, says our perception of risk is made up of facts and feelings.[29] GM foods have characteristics that, according to research on the psychology of risk perception, make some things seem scarier than others. Even if the facts are clear, humans tend to distrust more if the product is human-made as opposed to natural. ‘Natural’, it seems, is more acceptable than ‘human-made’. Perhaps we know ourselves too well?
We are also more sceptical if there are things about a product we don’t understand or can’t detect with our own senses. We need to see it to believe it. This is certainly the case with GM food. The technology is mysterious to many of us, not something we can see, touch, taste, smell or easily comprehend.
We may be exposed to GM foods involuntarily, particularly if strict labelling is not enforced or we don’t think to read the label. This brings into play findings that we are more afraid of a risk if we feel we don’t have full control over it.
A lack of trust also engenders fear of risk. If we don’t trust the biotech companies or the government or the regulators to ensure the food is safe, we will have more trouble believing the food is safe. None of these feelings is completely rational but they may go some way to explaining our quite possibly irrational concerns about GM food.
While the United Kingdom and many European countries have resisted growing GM crops and food consumers there are wary of the technology, the United States and many Asian countries have wholeheartedly embraced GM. It is estimated that 65 per cent of all foods on US supermarket shelves contain some genetically modified ingredients. So why are US consumers apparently so open to GM technology? Social researchers in the United Kingdom think that anti-GM campaigners have had less of a reach into America’s population and thus less influence on consumers.[30] This is due to a largely decentralised media compared to that of the United Kingdom and Europe. The research suggests many Americans are therefore simply unaware of the controversy surrounding GM food. The fact that US farming is physically and psychologically removed from urban centres where most people live means many Americans are blissfully unaware of how their food is produced. Americans also tend to put more faith in science and academic sources of information and less trust in consumer and environmental groups.[31] Consumer surveys have also shown that Americans think GM must be safe because they have eaten it for many years and not become sick.
But what do Australians think of GM food? In Australia, since 2001 FSANZ has required all food products with GM ingredients to be labelled. A Food Standards Australia survey of Australian consumers has shown that 45 per cent of the public will accept GM foods but 93 per cent want all GM foods labelled.[32] This includes farmers.
In 2009, Australia’s largest grain handler, GrainCorp, told farmers it would store GM canola with conventional or unmodified grain. Traditional growers who rely on GM-free markets were told they would need to pay to have their produce certified GM-free. This caused dissent within the industry and among consumers so GrainCorp reversed its decision. Traditionally grown canola and GM canola continue to be stored separately. Whether you consider the new food-producing gene technology to be ethical or not, consumers have a right, at the very least, to choose what they eat. Clear food labelling enables this.
While consumers may be wary of GM food, the fact remains that many broadacre conventional farmers in Australia have embraced the concept. The pressures on farmers to increase yield, standardise quality and grow crops all year round have seen many adopt genetic engineering in all its forms. There is a belief that the modern method of genetic engineering is about to create the second Green Revolution.[33] Large companies such as Syngenta say that the challenge for the 21st century is to feed the 1 billion people who are currently malnourished. They claim GM technology is the way to do this.[34] People from well-fed Western countries have a social responsibility to starving people in the developing world to employ the technology despite reservations, they say. After all, these poor people are fighting to stay alive, not to win ethical debates.
Sceptics may call this a good marketing strategy. Either way, GM is not going away.