Film: The Future of Food/Biotech food debate spices up scientist meeting

[Guest guest]

" Zeus Information " <info

Film: The Future of Food/Biotech food debate spices up

scientist meeting

Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:50:01 +0100

 

Film: The Future of Food

 

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

 

Fahrenheit agbiotech

Reviewed by: Thomas J Hoban

Thomas J. Hoban is at North Carolina State University.

 

Genetically modified (GM) crops have fallen far short of early

expectations in developed markets, and their future acceptance remains

uncertain. European opposition has solidified, and studies from

Rutgers1 and others have shown that US consumers are confused and

concerned about GM ingredients in their food. Western consumers are

increasingly choosing alternatives to 'industrial' foods, as

demonstrated by the rapid growth in the market for organic foods. A

recent documentary, The Future of Food, provides an excellent overview

of the key questions raised by consumers as they become aware of GM

food. It also is an unabashed attack on the agbiotech industry and its

initial products.

 

The film's writer/director, Deborah Koons Garcia, the widow of

Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia, is a prominent figure in the

increasingly vocal antibiotech movement in California. Her film

integrates vintage footage (e.g., from the 1973 Asilomar conference)

with profiles and personal stories from critics of agbiotech.

Agricultural policy expert Charles Benbrook, activist Andrew Kimbrell,

and others appear as the film's heroes in a struggle against the

release of GM crops into the environment.

 

The chief villain of the piece is none other than Monsanto, the

world's leading producer of GM crops, which is singled out from the

rest of the industry. The company's lawsuit against Canadian farmer

Percy Schmeiser is roundly criticized, along with the broader issues

of gene patenting and corporate control of the food supply. One

segment highlights the political connections between Monsanto and the

highest levels of US government, including former George W. Bush

cabinet members Anne

Veneman and John Ashcroft. The film indicts Monsanto for excessive

influence over government regulation, by virtue of political

appointments of key corporate executives at the highest levels of the

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency

and US Department of Agriculture. Monsanto refused Garcia's requests

for interviews for the film.

 

Some of the most disturbing issues raised involve cracks in the

regulatory and scientific foundations on which the agbiotech industry

rests. Criticism is aimed at the FDA policy of " substantial

equivalence " of GM to non-GM crops. The film argues that we don't know

enough about the long-term effects of GM crops on human health and the

environment. This will be particularly evident as genetic

transformations become more complex (i.e., stacked genes) and the

foods become functionally non-equivalent (i.e., nutraceuticals.) The

infamous Starlink and Prodigene incidents are highlighted as instances

of regulatory problems. The film makes a case for consumer choice through

labeling, industry opposition to which further alienates and confuses

consumers. Consumers are already choosing non-GM food by buying more

pricey organic products.

 

The film also surveys the key social, economic and ethical issues

associated with GM food crops. As most US consumers have little

connection with agriculture or the food production system, Garcia

contends that many people do not even realize that GM crops end up in

our food supply. Much of the European rejection of GM crops is due to

the fact that food is more significant to their culture, so they care

more about how their food is produced.

 

Finally, The Future of Food levels important charges against the

public land-grant university system, highlighting concerns that have

arisen as universities increasingly trade their independence for

corporate contributions. Our universities are supposed to ask tough

questions, but now there is limited tolerance for dissenting views

within the system. The film describes the struggles over tenure

between Ignacio Chapela and the University of California, Berkeley,

over his outspoken criticism of the university's ties to the biotech

industry. Citizens expect universities to serve the public interest;

in return, academia is expected to pursue intellectual diversity

through a truly objective perspective.

 

As an alternative to GM crops, Garcia presents the case for less

industrialized forms of agriculture, such as organic farming ­which

now represents the 'gold standard' for many Western consumers. The

film also documents a need for locally grown produce to conserve

resources, benefit local farmers and ensure better quality, part of a

movement known as Community Supported Agriculture.

 

Those who argue that GM crops are necessary to feed the world should

realize that most Western consumers are not convinced. Research

demonstrates that people prefer organic food for a wide array of

ethical, emotional and environmental reasons2. In fact, major food

companies have acquired organic brands so they can cater to this

upscale market. The agbiotech industry has been warned that food

processors and retailers could effectively hamper or even shut down

the food biotechnology enterprise if consumer rejection keeps growing.

 

Though the film unapologetically presents only one side of the issues

addressed, Garcia's goal is always clear: to raise consumers'

awareness by telling the story of modern, industrial food production

and the increasing presence of GM content in our food supply. In the

same vein as Super-size Me and Fahrenheit 9/11, The Future of Food

draws attention to critical questions about food production that need

more public debate.

 

As someone who has monitored the public debate about biotech for 15

years, I welcome this film. The current Bush administration has let

the government regulatory system wither on the vine, making good on

the 1992 Bush-Quayle promise to " take the shackles off the industry. "

Such shortsighted policies are, however, backfiring, as agbiotech

increasingly struggles for acceptance by Western consumers.

 

 

REFERENCES

1. Hallman, W.K. et al. Americans and GM food: knowledge, opinion and

interest in 2004 (Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers-The

State University of New Jersey; 2004).

2. Organic shoppers may not be who you think they are. Food Marketing

Institute (Washington, DC; 2001).

_

 

Biotech food debate spices up scientist meeting

Thu May 26, 2005 05:10 PM ET

 

By Carey Gillam

 

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Critics of biotech foods spoke of stomach

lesions and dead lab rats while backers of the technology cited

increased crop production and hopes for healthier foods in a debate

before a group of U.S. scientists on Thursday.

 

" We believe that the current version of genetically modified crops are

unsafe... they should be banned, " Jeffrey Smith, director of the

Institute for Responsible Technology, told members of the Association

of Official Analytical Communities (AOAC).

 

U.S. government and academic representatives were among those at the

meeting of the AOAC, a group of scientists that works on testing

issues with U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors and others in

the government.

 

Smith, who is on an international tour calling for extensive testing

of all biotech foods, said independent evaluations of genetically

modified food crops has shown numerous indications of health problems.

He cited stomach lesions in rats, false pregnancies in cows, excessive

cell growth and damage to animal immune systems.

 

Smith said the U.S. government has approved biotech products based on

company research. He said scientists have been fired, and otherwise

penalized for raising red flags about the technology.

 

" We don't know what will happen, " Smith said. " We need long-term testing. "

 

Proponents of biotech downplayed safety issues, saying gene

modification and transfer occurs naturally in nature and is not

dangerous. They said government oversight is adequate and they

outlined a range of benefits farmers enjoy from biotech crops such as

increased production.

 

Risks of toxicity and increased allergens that may be present in

biotech foods may also exist in conventional foods, said Gregory

Conko, director of food safety policy at the Competitive Enterprise

Institute, an organization aimed at advancing free enterprise and

limited government

 

" A lot of these risks are in fact present... but they are also present

in conventional breeding technology, " Conko said. " There are pretty

good ways of determining if a plant is safe enough to be put on the

market. "

 

The debate in Kansas City is part of the global sparring underway over

the issue of genetically modified crops, which are pervasive in

America but largely shunned in Europe and many countries.

 

Earlier this week Monsanto Co., the leading U.S. developer of biotech

soybeans and corn, came under attack in European press reports over

internal company research that found possibly detrimental health

changes in rats fed Monsanto's biotech corn.

 

Monsanto said the results of the study, which found that rats fed the

biotech corn had smaller kidneys and blood composition different from

rats not fed the biotech corn, could be explained by statistical

variations and was not evidence of any negative health impacts

associated with its corn.

 

A Monsanto representative at the meeting declined to comment further

on concerns raised about biotech food.

 

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

All information, data and material contained, presented or provided

herein is for general information purposes only and is not to be

construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information

Service.

Subscribe Free/Un:info

Feel free to forward far and wide...