Genetically Modified: how the EU embraces “frankenstein foods”
Fri, Sep 7, 2007
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
Europe has been resistant to products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), insisting on the worlds toughest labelling regime and outraging the US who accuse them of violating free trade agreements over the products.
Now it is thought that EU ministers will approve a GMO sugar beet variety this month. Officials will also be discussing the licensing of 10 GMO products, including several forms of maize, cotton, soybeans and a high-starch potato, before the end of the year.
GMOs are a controversial and widely debated topic for the EU, but more than a dozen products have been licensed since 2004 in a covert manner: the member states of the EU frequently fail to come to agreement over these products, and under EU law, the executive arm, the European Commission, is able to grant a license to products which the member states have failed to approve or reject after a certain amount of time has elapsed.
Now a sugar beet developed jointly by a German company and US genetic modification giant Monsanto and known as “H7-1”, resistant to glyphosate-containing herbicides, is to be approved on the 18th of September. It will be EU justice ministers who will actually grant the authorisation, and there will be no vote.
GMO are treated with hostility in Europe, often dubbed “Frankenstein foods”, and so far such consumer pressure has been successful in preventing their widespread use. However, one EU diplomat stated that the anti-GM lobby feels its voice is not being heard: “The Austrians, and maybe other countries, will make a symbolic statement but it won’t alter things. I think we’re soon going to see more emphasis on cultivation dossiers.”
The companies responsible for developing these organisms insist that they are safe. America has long been accustomed to genetically modified ingredients: the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the US contain a GM ingredient. However, with such new technology, it is difficult to assess the safety or potential hazards of genetic modification; a report commissioned by the EU in 2006 told the World Trade Organisation that “There is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not.”
Once GM crops are planted, it is impossible to contain them: they are living organisms that spread pollen to reproduce. There is a high risk of contamination to other crop species in the area. Therefore, many environmentalists and EU representatives feel that the introduction of some GMOs makes a mockery of the labelling system and the consumer’s right to avoid genetically modified products.
Sources include: Greenpeace; Reuters; European Commission documents
If you find this information useful and would like to get daily updates, feel free to subscribe to our RSS feed.
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
1 Trackbacks For This Post
-
GM Crops only way for India to feed itself, say government » Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pm[...] week we reported on the potentially negative effects of using genetically modified crops. However, it seems that a large scale cultivation of transgenic crops may be the only solution to [...]
September 8th, 2007 at 1:51 am
I don’t see the problem with GM food; it’s not harmful, and I’ve never heard of one death caused by it.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:34 am
I think the problem is that people see it as unnatural. They also tend to go by the saying that you are what you eat. I think that in princuple it’s a good thing, however, I wouldn’t touch a GM vegetable with a bargepole! Good to have healthy debate anyway!
September 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I understand that people see it that way, but I don’t understand why. If you ate a genetically modified food and then a non-GM food, you probably wouldn’t even notice the difference.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
That’s true – I would certainly not notice the difference. Very good point and interesting you think that way. I think the way to change the perception that GM is unnatural and tampering is to have to have extensive scientific research (which takes time), backing up the safety of eating and growing such crops. If the vast majority of scientists reach a consensus, then the attitudes of people would probably (very slowly)change. Mine definitely.
September 8th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
It’s really nothing to do with the safety or otherwise of these crops. It’s to do with the sacrifice of biodiversity and the amount of control their use gives to the very powerful companies that manufacture them (ie Monsanto). For instance, they can arrange that crops are resistant to pesticides, but only the pesticides THEY sell. Corn with a “terminator gene”, that does not reproduce itself and has to be replanted from newly purchased seed every year, has been created and used in the US – clearly a ridiculous idea, and a way of forcing farmers to buy more seed from the company in question: potentially a disaster for poor countries.
Additionally, as I mentioned in the article, it’s impossible to control pollination once a crop has been planted. Breeds engineered to be stronger will eventually wipe out the naturally-occurring varieties, reducing diversity, which in turn makes crops vulnerable to being wiped out entirely by one disease or insect.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
good arguments chaps!
September 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I have three points stated below in relation to Mary King’s excellent article on very serious issues relating to Genetically Modified (GM) foods. But first I must strongly disagree with the patronising points put forward by Chris who refers to “a good argument chaps” and Simmons who claims that there is no evidence to say GM food is unsafe. The GM issue is very serious as it raises issues about human health, the access to ordinary non-GMO foods which have proved beneficial to human health as well as the detrimental impact on the environment, wildlife and ecology.
The three serious points are as follows:
GM foods are not ordinary foods and are therefore inherently different to what we have been eating. They are created in laboratories using genes which are synthetic versions of the originals.
GM foods are not safe and have been proven not to be so for by independent research scientists at the Institute of Science in Society. See url http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php
These scientists are not in the pay of organisations who are interested in a profit sector which leaves the control of food, the ecology in the hands of lab technicians.
GM companies are not being ensured for this experimentation on the environment, organic farming or on human health via their GM foods because no one is prepared to underwrite the risks.
I for one do not want to experiment with human health and am also not prepared to underwrite the risks taken by companies with track records like that of Monsanto. The European Union must take action to protect the citizen from the harmful impacts of a technology sector that is ripe for abuse and monopolisation of our food chain.