What is genetic modification (GM) and what are the pros and cons of it?
The objective is to improve the resistance of crops to weed-killer, disease and rot by transferring to them genetic material (DNA) from another unrelated plant or animal. The practice is widespread in the US, where it has aroused little political or public protest. The main GM crop is soya beans followed by maize, oilseed rape, potatoes and tomatoes. Supporters of GM says it represents the only way to increase global food productivity and tackle world starvation. It will allow farmers to grow crops in poor conditions and lessen the use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and water.
Go deeper with GlobalData
It will mean that food stays fresh longer and is easier to handle. No government or official agency has yet declared flatly that GM foods are unsafe. Opponents say that antibiotic genes could pass into humans, increasing susceptibility to disease, including cancer and meningitis. GM crops may release spores that will affect conventionally grown crops, damaging the environment and destroying wildlife.
How has the global food processing sector reacted to GM foods?
There are sharp differences of opinion ranging from almost unqualified acceptance of GM foods in the US to deep-rooted scepticism in most European Union countries. The British government has been far more sympathetic to GM food than those of other European countries though Prince Charles has spoken out strongly and repeatedly against it. The splits seemed to widen further at the Group of Eight summit in Okinawa, Japan, in July when UK prime minister Tony Blair and US president Bill Clinton agreed jointly that future biotechnology decisions should be based on “science rather than prejudice.”
Their stand angered France, Germany and Italy which said the scientific case was not proven and pressed for adoption of a “precautionary principle” under which GM food would only be sold after all doubts about it safety had been removed. Mr Clinton said the issue was to get the best food to the greatest number of people at the lowest price provided it was safe. “All the evidence I have seen convinces me that it’s safe but every country has to deal with that,” he said. Mr Blair said that biotechnology “is perhaps going to be for then first half of the 21st century what information technology was to the last half of the 20th century. It is particularly important for a country like Britain which is a leader in science and biotechnology that we proceed according to the facts and the science.”
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataThe US, which dominates the biotechnology industry, accounts for 70% of the world’s GM crops, Argentina 14% and Canada 9%. In 1999, 53% of GM crops were soybeans, 27% corn, 9% cotton, 8% rapeseed, 2% tobacco and 0.1% potatoes.
Over half of US and almost three quarters of Argentinean soybeans are GM crops. Segregation of GM from non-GM crops is still limited in the US and effectively non-existent in Argentina. So it’s almost certain that soya imported by the EU from these countries contains GMOs and it can be assumed that most chicken and pigs in the EU have already been fed GMOs.
Codex Alimentarius, which sets world food standards, has established a task force to develop standards, guidelines or recommendations for GMO foods.
Japan hosts the task force which met for the first time in March 2000. Work is expected to take three years and the full report to be finalised in 2003.
What’s happened in the retail sector?
The tide of feeling against GM crops began in Europe, especially Britain, about two years ago and was a classic example of retailers reacting to consumer pressure. Big food retailers like Iceland, Sainsburys, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer began by labelling foods that contained GM ingredients, like tomato paste, but were eventually forced by falling demand to remove them from supermarket shelves. A 1997 EU poll found that 74% of European consumers favoured a clear labelling of GM food and 53% said they would pay more for non-GM food. That same year a poll by Novartis found that only 25% of Americans “would be likely to avoid labelled GE foods.” However, two years later a Time magazine survey indicated that 58% of American consumers “would avoid purchasing” GM food. This suggests that while US suspicions have been growing, European consumers remain more sceptical. Responding to pressure from supermarkets, European traders began collectively organising non-GM soybean supply chains for animal feed.
Although North American retailers took a “wait and see” approach, US and Canadian farmers were sufficiently alarmed by the fall in exports to start segregating GM from non-GM crops.
How easy is it to detect GM ingredients in manufactured food?
Laboratory tests can reliably determine GM in strengths down to one per cent but the problem has been to detect its presence in highly processed foods where the manufacturing process tends to degrade the genetic material. A test developed by RHM Technology, part of the Rank Hovis McDougall group, is said to have determined the level of modification in a loaf of bread spiked with 13 thousandths of a per cent GM-soya flour by weight.
How long has genetic modification of food been going on?
Research by the giant American chemical company Monsanto began in 1983 but the market has only really taken off in the past three years with the involvement of other companies like Novartis, AgrEvo and the British firm Zeneca. But it seems that as far back as 7,500 years ago farmers were effectively improving on nature. A study by a team at the University of Minnesota says there’s evidence that Neolithic farmers in North America selected strains of a Mexican wild grass to create maize, which is not a natural plant.
What is the EU’s regulatory stance?
The EU has operated an effective moratorium on the production and sale of new GM products since 1998 following concerns expressed by environment ministers of the 15 member countries. Under earlier authorisations, 18 GM products were approved and another 14 are at present being considered. Five member countries have banned some of the GM products previously approved.
The European Commission has recently (note to subs – July 14th 00) shocked environmentalists but delighted the biotechnology industry by announcing plans to end the present moratorium. Brussels says it aims to resume GM authorisations after tighter licensing laws have been approved by member governments later this year. Although the legislation will not come into effect for another two years the Commission is pressing for the right to make new GM authorisations as soon as the directive is agreed. The Commission said the time had come to accept that GM food did not pose a serious threat to public health and that new types of GM food should be approved. It maintains that the new directive on GM food is stronger than previously and will include provisions on the labelling and traceability of any new food approved. However the measure will have to be approved by both the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers and both are likely to insist on substantial changes. At present the EU’s Novel Foods Regulation specifies that food products which contain 1 per cent or more of GMOs must be labelled as such. A further regulation lays down specific labelling requirements for foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings derived from GMOs.
How does the EU approach differ from that of the USA?
Just as the EU is moving away from its moratorium, the US is tightening its procedures for GM approvals in response to growing consumer resistance at home and in America’s export markets. Under new regulations announced this spring, companies will be forced to submit detailed research results and information on new GM products to the Food and Drug Administration while the Department of Agriculture will oversee new tests to detect the presence of GM ingredients in food. The FDA has been given six months to devise a system for labelling GM-free food though without suggesting that GM food is in any way unsafe. These changes will extend the official scrutiny of GM food in the US which until now has been shared by a number of different agencies giving widespread opportunities for evasion. However the belief that GM food is harmless remains at the heart of the American approach and there is no suggestion as yet that GM foods should be identified on their labels. If GM authorisations are resumed in the EU, a potentially dangerous legal clash with the US may be averted. One reason for the Commission’s decision to try and end the moratorium is the threat of lawsuits by American companies.
Margot Wallstrom, the environment commissioner, said recently that the moratorium was “illegal and unjustified” and companies could take the Commission to court for failing to undertake its responsibilities. She said further delay could also hold back the development of the industry in Europe.
How far are GM foods covered by rules laid down by the World Trade
Organisation?
There is no provision for the specific handling of GM food disputes in the WTO. Food safety and animal and plant health are covered by the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement which entered into force on January 1st 1995. The basic aim of the SPS Agreement is “to maintain the sovereign right of any government to provide the level of health protection it deems appropriate, but to ensure that these sovereign rights are not misused for protectionist purposes and do not result in unnecessary barriers to international trade.” There is no mention of GMOs in the text. The US has recently submitted a paper calling for a study of GMOs but there has been little follow-up. WTO officials say that none of its members has registered a complaint about GMOs and none has sought to set out its views on the issue.
What about developing countries?
While the West is split over GM food, there was nevertheless agreement at the G8 meeting in July that developing nations should be helped with the necessary technology. An estimated 40% of the world’s food production is lost each year to weed growth, pests and diseases. With increasing desertification and urbanisation diminishing the amount of available agricultural land, the GM companies argue that their technology is the only realistic solution to the shortfall in food supplies that arising from world population growth. Many developing countries accept this argument but are wary about introducing full-scale GM plantings while there are still doubts.
This is particularly, and understandably, true of those countries with big European export markets such as Brazil. There are also longer-term concerns over the higher costs of GM crops and the dependence of local farmers on a handful of American bio-tech companies. The charity Christian Aid says “the false promise of genetic modification is that it will benefit small farmers.
The reality is that high-tech farming may make them more vulnerable.”
Increasingly however GM crops seem to be on the march. This year twelve countries are growing them compared to eight last year. Global sales in 1999 were twice as high as in 1998. The American bio-tech companies, supported by the US Department of Agriculture, are actively trying to convince developing countries to adopt GM foods and crops without carrying out time-consuming tests and trials which in most cases merely duplicate those already conducted in the west. China has taken to GM crops with such enthusiasm that the country has almost overnight become the world’s fourth largest producer.
Last year the introduction of Monsanto’s Bollgard cotton to resist the boll worm provided growers with a 25% yield advantage over conventional growers.
Some 300,000 hectares have been planted and government scientists are now talking about all China’s food being genetically modified within 15 years.
Opposition to GM products in China is practically non existent and the country’s biotech laboratories are now developing GM grains and vegetables.
GM tomatoes and sweet peppers are already on sale to consumers and GM rice is expected to be on the market in two years’ time. GM is generally unpopular with farmers and the public in India but Monsanto has recently been granted permission to hold field trials of Bollgard at 40 sites.
Approval has also been given for field trials in that country for GM mustard, rapeseed and vegetables like brinjal. Anti-GM sentiment runs high in Japan, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand but Bollgard cotton has been successful in South Africa where plantings rose by 62 per cent in 1999 and the GM strain delivered yield benefits to both small and large growers.
Tests are being conducted in other African countries such as Zimbabwe,
Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya and Egypt but there is no evidence as yet of commercial plantings getting underway.
By Alan Osborn
