This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthere (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 30 April 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:58, 30 April 2003 by Anthere (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Genetically modified food is food produced from genetically modified organism.
The phrase genetically modified food is a misnomer, as it is not the food itself that has been modified but the ingredients that went into the food.
Between 1996 and 2002, surfaces cultivated with GMOs have been multiplied by 30. At the end of 2001, total surface was about 52 millions hectares against 1.7 million in 1996. Soybean crop represented 63% of total surface in 2001, corn 19%, cotton 13% and rape 5%.
Four countries represent 99% of total surface : United States (68% in 2001), Argentina (22% surface in 2001), Canada (6%) and China (3%).
The issue of whether genetically modified food is safe of not, and of the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GM in conventional food products is a major issue at the beginning of the XXI century.
Genetically modified food in Europe
As a result of the high surfaces of GMO crops, the adventitious presence of GM in imported food products (shipments of grain for food, feed and processing for example), is now thought inevitable and largely unavoidable.
In Europe, a series of food crises at the end of the 90ies such as the mad cow disease outbreaks, in addition to the way the biotechnology industry has handled the issue, have created consumer apprehension about food safety. There is a widespread public concern about GMOs, in terms of environmental protection (in particular biodiversity), health and safety of consumers and right to make an informed choice.
The apprehension might also be due to the novel nature of GM foods, as well as cultural factors relating to food.
Moreover, serious scientific mistakes were made (scientists said the "mad cow" could not jump the species barrier, which was later proven wrong), and consequently, science is no longer a quality label any more in Europe.
Although some claim genetically modified foods may even be safer than
conventional products, many european consumers are nevertheless demanding that be respected their "right to know" the content and origin of the food they consume. Besides, in a context of food surplus where current GM food has little added value, the european consumer is wondering why any risk should be taken.
For these reasons, the marketing of GMO food is regulated in a manner that help to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. Beginning of the 2000ies, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the technology. These new regulations required strict labeling and traceability of all food and animal feed containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the precautionary principle.
One of the features of the european system is a comprehensive pre-market risk assessment, a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate information and labelling. This traceability is a means to implement post-market measures such as monitoring and withdrawals.
This system is not only limited to GMO products but should englobe any food product ultimately.
In GMO products, traceability is usually limited to products where transformed DNA and/or transformed protein are detectables, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins.
Officials stress out that whilst traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure.
In 1999, a 4 years ban was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, European Union environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 15-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a DNA code bar) identifing the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain if problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data.
The proposal adopted by the European Parliament's Environment Committee has deep cultural roots, which are difficult to understand for the US agricultural community.
European Union and United States trade "war" on GM food
The European Union and United States are in strong disagreement over the EU's ban on most genetically modified foods. The ban over agricultural biotechnology commodities is said by some americans to breach World Trade Organisation rules. However, beginning of 2003, the Bush administration decided to postpone any suing action. However, Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, indicated the european position toward GMO was thought as being "immoral", since leading to starvation in the developng world
The value of agricultural trade existing between the US and the European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of XXI century, and some in the U.S. farmers and food manufacturers are concerned that the new proposal by the European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade. The EU proposal, adopted by the European Commission (EC) in summer 2002 and expected to be implemented in 2003, requires that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically modified organisms be labeled and any GM ingredients in food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing biotechnological products through each step of the grain handling and food production processes.
The new European proposal would particularly concern US corn gluten and soybean exports, as a lot of these crops are genetically modified in the USA (about 25 percent of US corn and 65 percent of soybeans are genetically modified in 2002).
The U.S. grow about three quarters of all GM crops grown worldwide, and export mostly corn, cotton and soybeans -- large percentages of which are genetically modified.
The ultimate resolution of this case is widely thought as resting on labeling rather than food aid. Many European consumers are asking food regulation (demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified), while the American agricultural industry is arguing for free trade (and is strongly opposed to labeling, saying it gives the food a negative connotation).
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Watch indicates that american agricultural industry is "using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules." because they fear that "by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different than those the European promotes,".
The American Agricultural Department officials answer that since the United States do not require labelling, the Europe should not require labelling either. They claim mandatory labelling could imply there is something wrong with genetically modified food, which would be also a trade barrier. Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labeled or traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops pose any unique risks over conventional food. Europe answers that the labelling and traceability requirements are not only limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods.
The american agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling.
See also Biosafety Protocol, conventional food, organic food, pre-market risk assessment, food monitoring, food withdrawal
External links