A new interpretation on GM foods-Will such window dressing impress the consumers?

The debate about the safety of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) foods never seems to end and in fact it is becoming more and more bitter and acrimonious day by day. The vacillating attitudes of government policy makers regarding making labeling mandatory for foods derived from raw materials raised by genetic modification are making the consumers more and more disturbing leading to world wide campaigns to ban such foods until their safety is established beyond a shadow of doubt. Massive consumer movements and multi pronged initiatives by consumer groups across the world demanding at least forcing the industry to declare on the label presence of GMO ingredients are gaining momentum and it is a question of time before the industry has to bow before such cascading consumer pressure. A simple question as to why the GMO industry is fighting tooth and nail to sabotage plans for making label declaration mandatory is- why are they doing it if GMO foods are absolutely safe? May be industry has a feeling that consumers will boycott such foods if they become aware of presence of GMO ingredients in such products. Added to this many products carrying declaration that they do not contain GMO ingredients provide a ready platform for consumers to go selectively for such "neat" foods as perceived by them, in preference to the GMO containing ones. Ultimately it boils down to the impact this will have on the bottom line of many GMO food peddlers! 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of USA whose dictats are followed by many countries across the world has been very circumspect in its interpretation and policy orchestration vis-a-vis GMO foods. For ages FDA has been maintaining that GMO foods are "almost" like natural foods and are safe to consume by human beings. Probably such a policy support to the GMO industry has created a situation in that country where more than 80% of the processed food products made and marketed contain one or more GMO ingredients without the innocent consumer ever knowing about it! Does this not amount to deception by a government supposed to be the most democratic in the world? Is this ethical? Of course in an over democratized country like the US every individual has the right to do what he or she wants and true to this "ideal" the elected representatives also practice their fundamental right to say and do what they feel is right. It is another matter that a majority of these law makers are obliged to the GMO lobby because their elections have been bank rolled by them and they feel it is not correct to let their clients down by siding with the citizens though they forget that they owe their power to the very same electorate! 

Here is a contradiction which is very difficult to explain away. In some of the states the proposal to make declaration of GMO ingredients mandatory failed ballot initiatives giving an impression that people are not too concerned about this issue. On the other hand surveys after surveys have shown that more than 80% of the citizens want to make such labeling compulsory! This has been attributed to the massive propaganda unleashed by the GMO lobby to "brainwash" the consumers through half "truths" and "no truths" about the safety of GMO foods. To an ordinary citizen it does not make any sense to adopt GMO foods because nature provides foods which have been found safe over centuries and why there should be attempts to tinker with nature. Hybridization technology practiced since long takes time to give desired results but the resultant hybrids generated due to natural gene mutations are stable and safe, consumed since time immemorial. Also not easily understood by the common man is the advantage of GMO foods for them or for the humanity as the claims of increased yield through GMO technology has never been proven any where so far. Of course traits like pest resistance and others are incorporated through GMO technology but here again net advantage is not undisputed. 

Why is that the issue of GMO foods became a debating point again? Recent attempts by FDA to stop use of the phrase " does not contain GMO ingredients" by those not using them has created another unwarranted controversy and many feel that such an attempt is tantamount to punishing the citizen through denial of information about the nature of food being purchased by them. FDA feels that no one should use such declaration because many foods created through biotechnological process do not use genetically modified organisms all the times and most products are at best genetically "engineered" or "bioengineered"and therefore industry must shun using GMO word unnecessarily to avoid confusing the consumer. It is similar to saying that "no protein is present in an edible oil pack". May be there is a point and FDA may be right in issuing such an advisory which industry can adopt as long as no one uses the word GMO in any context. As far as consumer is concerned all he is interested is to know whether the food he is buying is made from natural ingredients with proven credentials. Whether the new FDA advisory is acceptable to the industry remains to be seen.

Many major food companies using genetic engineered food ingredients are happy that FDA has stuck to its position that it is not required for the processors to disclose presence of genetically engineered ingredients, sticking to its position that such products are not materially different from non-engineered versions. After all industry's efforts to resist mandatory labeling, fearing that customers will be scared off by foods known to contain genetically engineered ingredients seem to be succeeding. However the specious plea by them that mandatory labeling will drive the cost of the food cannot be accepted. It is a good sign that many major food companies have already moved to voluntarily label products that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients, either simply stating that on their packaging or using a small butterfly seal to show that the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit that provides certification for food producers, has certified the absence of genetic engineered substances. Interestingly there is a genuine attempt by many manufacturers in the US to source non-GMO. ingredients which is a good sign as far as consumers are concerned. According to a recent report there are more than 30000 products in the US market carrying the label that they are free from GMO food ingredients and probably this sector may be worth about $ 13.5 billion which may be a fraction of the total retailed foods estimated at $ 638 billion last year.

The desire of the citizens for accessing clean and safe foods is reflected by efforts in the US in different states to mandate labeling of foods that do contain genetically engineered ingredients but they have largely failed by narrow margins, after heavy lobbying and campaign spending by the food and biotech industries. it is in this context that the law makers at the federal level passed a bill that would require food companies to reveal presence of genetically engineered ingredient in food products via a QR code, a pixelated square that can be scanned with a smartphone, on packaging that will reduce the chorus for hard printing the same on every label. Though it may be acceptable to many people who have adequate computing literacy to read the code before making a buying decision, a vast majority might not be able to decode to understand the nature of the product. In such a situation FDA also wants to differentiate between genetically engineered and genetically modified to convey different things to the consumers. According to them genetically engineered product comes from the efforts of biotechnologists originating in a laboratory while genetic modification happens by natural process as in hybridization process. Thus we have three technical terms which include Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), Genetically Engineered (GE) and Genetically Modified (GM). Of the three GMO is the most dreaded because genes from another species find their way into a particular food, though in small quantities. This means GM foods are analogous to natural foods while GE foods are similar but created in the lab with some distinct advantages. 

Consumer is still left confused to make out what each of this term means if industry starts using all three terms for declaring their products are free from them. Probably more positive approach could be to make those using food ingredients created through GE or GMO technology to declare the same unequivocally as a part of the transparency protocol which consumers are bound to appreciate. Whether industry will agree for such a transparent practice is some what uncertain at this point of time because of monetary implications. Efforts of many manufacturers to source raw materials not tainted by GE or GMO will get rewarded only if declaration of presence or absence of lab created food ingredients on the label of each pack..

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Science and common man-Vested interest vs truthful facts vs human health

The world has not come to a consensus regarding the risks or advantages inherent in adopting genetically modified food crops. What is tragic is that there is a clear cut division between pro and anti GMO people whether consumers, scientists or policy makers on the safety of GMO foods. America is in the forefront in allowing unrestricted use of GMO technology and practically every food product in the market there is either based on GMO derived raw material or GMO ingredients. Their stand is that there is no substantial difference between natural and GMO derived foods and therefore no separate approval is necessary for using them as ingredients or as foods for consumption. Many other countries take a different stand and there is either a total ban or limited clearance for some of the GMO foods created by MNC giants like Monsanto through gene manipulation technologies. It is the unfortunate that the consumer is caught between the proverbial "deep sea and the devil", not knowing what is the truth?

There are three issues that confront policy makers before considering giving clearance to GM crops and a balanced decision is possible only when all facts and real truth are placed before them. Science is a truth chasing activity and scientists cannot be expected to say any thing but truth. Unfortunately it has been proved time and again that some scientists are "purchasable" at right prices! That is why there is a wide chasm in opinions within the scientific community itself. First consumer would like to know whether GM foods are safe to consume on a long term basis and whether the exiting knowledge is sufficient to make him accept these foods for himself as well as his family including kids. Second issue is whether there is really any advantage to the farmer in terms of economic gains so that the technology can be adopted in the field level. Finally the third stake holder viz the regulatory authorities need to know what advantages or dangers the country will have by switching over to GMO crops without any restriction or control, long term as well as short term duration.

What is the ground reality to day? First there is no unanimity among scientists that GM foods are as safe as they are made out to be and practically no human studies on a long term basis have ever been undertaken as of to day. What consequence consumption of diets predominated by GM foods will have for future generations is also a grey area. The contention that Americans have been eating GM foods since long is an argument that is not objective enough to pass a judgement on this issue. Second the claim of increased yield has not been conclusively demonstrated universally in any meaningful way though in some crops it might be true. Here again to claim that the net yield for the farmer would more because of reduced losses due to insects and other vectors probably will not be sufficient to convince any body. Third, the prevalent seed regeneration practices  which has been the traditional way of perpetuating agriculture in countries like India need to be replaced with a monopolistic seed supply system, makes the farmer captive slaves of international business corporates and this makes the farmers extremely vulnerable to price manipulations and expose him to a "siege" environment which is not a desirable change. 

Recently there was a massive meta analysis of data available in the public domain on GM crops and according to this study GM crops are good for developing countries, not for developed ones! Read the excerpts from this report below:

"The "pro" side in the debate over the benefit of genetically modified foods got a big boost from science this month, with an international study funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the European Union's Seventh Framework Program FOODSECURE concluding that GM crops are good for the economy and reduce the amount of pesticides used in agriculture.  The German study is the largest review ever conducted on the effect of GM crops on farming. It is a meta-analysis, meaning a rigorous study of the numbers inside past studies on the topic. The review included studies of GM crops conducted from 1995 to March 2014 that were published in English. Published Nov. 3 in PLOS ONE, the peer-reviewed, open-access publication for the Public Library of Science, the meta-analysis found that GM crops are a "promising technology." According to the authors, GM crops have reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops, they reported. And in a conclusion that contradicts those who've argued GM crops are not right for the developing world, the authors found that yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries. Authors Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klumper, both of Germany's Gottingen University, said they hope their research will help build public trust for GM technology. In a world that will be challenged to increased food production to meet future population growth, the study found GM crop yields can be increased by 14 percentage points more in the developing world than in the developed world. Pests and weeds are a bigger problem in developing nations, another reason GM technology brings bigger benefits there. Commercial GM crops include those that are modified to increase resistance to pests, to glyphosates or to herbicides used for weed control. The German study found that herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs, while insect-resistant ones do not. In that case, the need for less pesticide is offset by the higher seed prices, the study showed. 

The fact that this study had the blessings of European Union and the German government makes it a compelling report worth reading by every dispassionate denizen, curious about the subject of GM foods without being a party to the controversy. Whether this report satisfies the criteria enunciated by this Blogger above is subject o debate but one thing is certain that such periodic reports are no substitute to a world wide inter disciplinary scientific study involving some typical, more regularly consumed GM foods, without any controversy or difference of opinion, to conclusively establish whether GM foods are absolutely safe or  at least as safe as their natural counterparts or not. Till such time we have to live with such gimmicks going under the banner of scientific study!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FOOD LABELING -DOES THE CONSUMER UNDERSTAND IT?

Consumers world over are befuddled by the label declarations that appears on the front of a food pack, especially with reference to the dates printed by the manufacturer before releasing to the market. The labeling laws vary from country to country, though the intentions of the law makers are to help and guide the consumers to pick and choose products that are safe and good. The million dollar question is whether these laws are really helping the consumer or not while wading through the isles of a super market where thousands of products are displayed trying to attract the attention of the consumers and persuade them to buy their wares in preference to others. If reports from different parts of the world are to be believed, labeling creates more confusion and uncertainty among the consumers, most of them being ignorant of the implications of the date figures displayed on the label.

Why do the law makers insist on the industry to make label declarations on each and every pack of processed/packed foods that go out of the manufacturer's premises? There was a time during the evolution of food industry when consumers used to buy their foods based on appearance and touch as packing was not in vogue then. The world being a small place such a situation was normal with small communities with access to local markets where fresh foods were sold loose without tamper proof seals as that exists to day. Naturally number of food items to choose also was a minuscule of what is being offered in modern markets. It is only when centralized processing and distribution of the products over a wide geographical area started about 5 decades ago, the necessity was felt for uniform declaration mode that can communicate with the consumer regarding the nature of the content present inside the sealed packs. Over a period of time labeling regulations became more and more stringent and demanding because of the perceived helplessness of the consumer in choosing the right product of their expectation.

Food industry development in any country traditionally follows a route where processing forms a small part of the food landscape and with economic development the extent of processed foods in the every day diet starts climbing progressively. In many wealthy countries processed foods form as much as 80% of the daily diet of the population while in poorer ones it could be as low as 10%. The necessity for transparency between the industry and the consumer is some thing no nation will be prepared to compromise and therefore in keeping with the aspirations of the consumer, regulatory authorities tend to be more and more demanding from the industry to inform truth about their products. Thus labeling is a tool that is vital for creating confidence among the consumers regarding the quality and safety of manufactured food products. It is unfortunate that industry players in many parts of the world tend to focus too much on profitability ignoring the consumer concerns.

Most recent example of the industry trying to roughshod the interests of the consumer is the big fight now in view in the US for the consumer right to know whether industry products in the market contain genetically manipulated ingredients or not. While every one agrees that Genetically Modified (GM) foods are not natural measured by any standards, what is being disputed is the safety of foods in which GM food components are used, especially on long term use or their multigenerational consequences on the consumer.It is strange that the federal as well state governments in that country lack the courage to take a scientifically and ethically sound decision regarding the right of the consumer to know the presence of GM food ingredients in the foods they consume. In stead the so called ballot initiatives are organized where people are asked to decide whether they want GM food label declaration to be made mandatory! No wonder the GM food giants bankroll this referendum by pumping millions of dollars to brain wash the citizens that GM foods are absolutely safe and natural and need not be declared on the label. Safety activists are no match to these industry giants and most of the referendums end up in favor of the industry.    

Coming back to date marking in food labels. a recent survey by the public safety organization NSF International found that most people are confused by the label declarations made in thousands of products marketed even in an enlightened country like the US where literacy rates are considered high. More damaging is the assertion by this agency that food labeling causes more foods being thrown away by the consumers because of their perception that the food is unfit for consumption after the dates indicated on the label. The survey found one in four Americans do not throw away food past the expiration date while more than half throw out food based off the "best used by" date and another third discard food based on the "sell by" date. What is not realized is that the "sell by" and "best used by" dates are more for the sellers than the consumers and the products can often remain in good condition for a week or two after the marked date. 78 percent of people throw away most dairy products after the label date has passed without realizing the marked date is almost always a "sell by" date, a guideline for the stores. Similarly eggs are often still good after the date expiry and people can always crack one open to see if the yolk is flat, which would indicate it has gone bad. 

It is often not realized that the industry is invariably playing it safe when it comes to date marking in order to avoid any possible health hazards with a diverse consumer population base with different vulnerabilities and also to protect them selves from future litigation in the event of unexpected mishaps. An ideal solution to this Catch 24 situation is for the industry to declare on the label a definitive date beyond which the contents are not safe to consume. But it is it feasible? Probably not because of the massive data to be generated on each and every product through time consuming and costly scientific studies. Ultimately the buck stops at the consumer door and an educated consumer has to shoulder the responsibility to decide whether a date expired food is good, bad or dangerous to eat. Economic considerations are to be weighed against the safety or otherwise of date expired foods if to be consumed.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

              

HUNGER AND GM FOODS-A HIDDEN AGENDA!

Genetically modified foods (GM Foods) face enormous resistance when it comes to acceptance by majority of the consumers across the world. The million dollar question that begs for an answer vis-a-vis GM food is whether this unnatural version is absolutely safe beyond a shadow of doubt. It is unfortunate that a beautiful technology that can have many advantages when it comes to production of food and their conservation is mired in enormous controversy for which geneticists, agricultural scientists, policy makers, biotechnology industry and consumer activist organizations are equally responsible. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case as propounded by the antagonists as well as the protagonists, it is suffice to say that whole world is being held to ransom by these stakeholders because of their inability to reach a consensus!

There is no doubt that GM food production technology can provide enormous variety of crops with various traits and nutritional diversity but ultimately it is the consumer who is the sole arbitrator as to whether the final product churned out by GM technology is acceptable to him or not. For example, the famous Golden Rice developed two decades ago, through GMO, was supposed to be rich in Pro-vitamin A, a nutrient deficient in natural rice but why this has not become an instant success? While suspect safety may be one reason the main factor is the appearance of the cooked rice which is yellow, contrary to the white color consumer is used to. Thus any thing and every thing nutritionally better does not click in the market due to consumer inhibition.

According to figures put out by pro-GMO lobby there are 16 million farmers around the world using GM technology for a variety of crops including food crops, most widespread being soybean and maize. The area under cultivation reached a significant figure last year and over 170 million hectares are planted with GMO seeds. This is a trend which indicates that as far as the farmers are concerned GMO crops are more profitable for them compared to conventional agriculture. Should this be a real reflection of increased yield from GMO technology? Need not be as the increased profitability can be due to several factors such as lesser wastage due to vectors, lesser use of fertilizers, more efficient pesticide use etc. 

One of the major constraints for wide scale use of GM technology is its limitation vis-a-vis seed generation locally making the farmer eternally dependent on the commercial seed producers who have practically the monopoly in this business. The fear factor is that once the GMO technology is regularly used the seed producer can hold the farmer to ransom by continuously hiking the price frequently as the farmers have no alternate option to fall back on. This situation can be obviated to some extent if government agencies buy the rights to generate foundation seed technology and produce them in captive facilities to supply to the farmers at reasonable prices. This does not seem to be happening as the monopoly suppliers are not willing to part with the technology as their profitability comes from royalty from seed supplies. 

Coming to the safety aspects, one of the pioneers of GM technology recently cited the fact that more than 70-80% of corn and soybean produced in the US are GMO versions and almost 80% of food products in American market contain one or more of GMO ingredients. Obviously he must be referring to the absence of any major health hazards to the American population during the lat two decades by consuming GMO foods in such large quantities day in and day out. Of course this is a solid point worth keeping in mind while condemning GMO foods outright. Whether the ill effects of consuming GMO foods will manifest over long years and after multi generation elapse, one does not have the wherewithal to know now! 

It is interesting that there is a powerful movement world over to let the consumer know that he is eating GMO foods through transparent label declaration which the GMO food industry is desperately resisting. Why? If the GMO food is absolutely safe what is the harm in declaring its presence in the food marketed by the industry? This is giving rise to the suspicion that GMO food industry has some information raising doubts about the safety of GMO foods which they are suppressing fearing adverse impact on their business! The claim that there are 2000 scientific publications bringing out the safety of GMO foods cannot be the basis for blanket clearance of these products as even a single publication based on sound scientific study raising doubts about the safety cannot be brushed away as irrelevant. To brand all those opposing GMO foods as criminals does not speak well about the attitude of those relentlessly pushing GMO food technology!

Recent claim that world hunger problem can be solved if GMO technology is deployed world over is obviously an over simplification of the case. One may ask whether the hunger problem faced in some continents like Africa, Asia and South America is really due to food shortage? Obviously it is not. The low purchasing power among two billion people across the three continents does not give them adequate access to the food currently produced and added to this large scale diversion of food crops for animal feeds and renewable energy sources like alcohol is making the food dynamics some what skewed. To assume that increased production through GMO technology will rectify this situation in 2050 when population is estimated to touch the 9 billion mark, may be far fetched.    

     

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

WILL GM FOODS BE A NORM IN INDIA? SUPREME COURT ALLOWS GM TRIALS!

It is a sad day for India when the highest court in the country, contrary to the recommendations of its own technical expert committee (TEC) succumbed to the half truths and untenable claims put forward by the GOI and allowed to continue with trials involving genetically modified food crops. Of course one consolation is that the apex court did not hand out a total clearance for the trials but wanted its TEC to look into the governments claims and put before it for a decision in six weeks time. Those antagonists of GM food crops have been waging a war on GM crops convincingly claim that research in this area is fraught with many dangers which are difficult to anticipate with to day's limited knowledge. Two of the most contested claims of GM food lobbyists are that GM food crops are safe for human consumption and GM crop cultivation will not contaminate the environment leading to extinction of the original strains of plants on which mankind was depending heavily for survival. 

One of the most blatant lies uttered by the government attorney before the honorable court is that GM technology will increase yield of food crops dramatically and only with this technology the country can manage to meet the target for food production that is required to feed the nation adequately! No where in the history of agriculture so far any scientist has proved that GM technology can increase production and only losses due to pests can be minimized which in turn may reflect on the over all yield, that too marginally. Almost all countries in this planet who produce much more food than India with lesser acreage have achieved the same without recourse to GM technology. If India is stuck at the bottom of the list of land productivity the reason is not far to seek and the first Green Revolution which was hailed at that time turned out to be a game changer in destroying the soil health across the farm lands in this country using liberally chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The fact of the matter is that it may take ages to recondition the farm land health before productivity can be raised substantially.

At this juncture one must ask the most pertinent question as to why Government of India did not allow genetically modified Bt Brinjal into the country if it was so sure about its safety to the consumer and environment? It was done after extensive consultation by the then Minister for Environment who came to the conclusion that enough data was not available to clear the new GM Brinjal for country wide cultivation. Citing the example of the US where 80% of the products available in the market in that country contain one or more GM ingredients does not become relevant in India because American consumers are being fed these foods without them actually knowing about it! By now it is well established that the American government which is influenced in its every food policy decision by powerful GM crop lobby consisting of monolithic giants who have invested billions of dollars in developing most of the GM crops. The oft repeated claim that in spite of using GM foods and ingredients derived from them, Americans have not come to harm so far, is not sustainable when the ground reality is that more than two thirds of the population there are sick due to over weight, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other afflictions and till to day no one has been able to conclusively prove that massive consumption of GM food, day in and day out, has not contributed to this sorry situation.  

Coming to the contention of the attorney of the government before the honorable court, one can understand the extent of deception by listening to his sworn statement before the Supreme court which is reproduced below: "The government pleaded that recommendation of the apex court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) for banning field trials of the GM crops be rejected as the use of biotechnology in agriculture can bring second green revolution in the country. "Revolution have been saturated at the producer and consumer level and the methods of conventional breeding are showing very marginal increase in yield. Further, the use of inputs like fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation schemes is expensive and unsustainable. Hence biotechnology could bring in a second green revolution," the Centre said. Appearing before a bench headed by Justice Swatanter Kumar, Attorney General G E Vahanvati contended that field trial should be allowed to go on as the demand of food for growing population could be met only through the GM crops. "...Bearing in mind the far reaching implications of this matter on food security and the pressing requirement of continuation of the ongoing research on application of GM technology in improving agriculture productivity and production, it is humbly prayed that the proposed recommendation of the interim report of TEC to impose ban on field trials should be rejected outright," the Centre said in its affidavit". Opposing the TEC's recommendations, the Centre contended that genetic method is the only way for increasing the farm output to ensure food security in the country. "There is a need to increase food grain production from the current estimated supply of 257 million tonnes to 345 million tonnes by 2030. With no further possibility of increasing Net Sown Area, the only recourse left to meet the requirements of country's food security is through increase in productivity."

What is interesting in the above statement is that the government was trying to confuse the court by using the word "biotechnology" interchangeably with GM technology which is not ethical as GM technology is just one branch of biotechnology which is a marvelous tool in the hands of scientists to do hundred and one things for the benefit of mankind. If a government is bent on riding piggy back on American GM lobby without considering the vital interests of the Indian population by allowing the GM crop giants to set shop in the country, it will be a sad day for the country whose agricultural diversity is likely to be destroyed and the health of the people, most of them poor with sub-optimal health conditions, to be further jeopardized.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

   

THE GM LABELING "CAMPAIGN"-FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

The controversy surrounding Genetically Modified foods and food ingredients refuses to die down though activists opposing these foods based on safety and environmental considerations are being smothered by the money power of the GM lobby. GM foods derived through transgenic process is mired in disputes between those who feel they are safe and others taking the stand that sufficient scientific evidence does not exist guaranteeing its safety. As far as environmentalists are concerned there is a potential danger in cultivating GM crops which may cause cross contamination of normal crops thus destroying the traditional normal crops. It is a pity that these two warring groups cannot sit across a table and thrash out their differences to evolve a consensus on the issue.

There are many countries in the world where cultivation of GM crops are totally banned or restricted by local regulations. The US is the only country which has allowed a free run to the GM crop industry to produce foods which are tampered with genetically changing their original character. Some of the countries which permit GM crops have put restrictions on their cultivation under a strict regulatory regime. In Europe GM crops are allowed to a limited extent but the products containing GM food raw materials or ingredients derived from them will have to declare their presence on the label. One is reminded of irradiated foods which also require the label to declare the same. Why a country like the US does not regulate GM foods as in Europe is a big mystery. 

An incisive analysis of the US Food System brings about.the stranglehold the giant monopoly food companies have over the food and farming system in that country. In a scathing revelation recently, it was revealed that the GM lobby has financed the election of many senators and law makers of the country to retain policies which are subservient to the financial interest of the former, ignoring the welfare. of the citizens, considered a serious distortion of the essence of democracy. Unfortunately precious little has been done during the last two decades to set right this distortion and more than 80% of American foods offered by industry has one or more GM food ingredients forcing the consumer to eat the same without even knowing about it! It is true that during the last two decades the antagonists of GM foods have not been able to pinpoint any specific damage to the health of the population solely due to consumption of GM foods. But the million dollar question is whether GM foods have played any role at all in the transformation of American society into a predominantly obese population.

It is interesting to hear about the great march of thousands of people feeling strongly about the safety of GM foods from New York to Washington DC to impress upon their President the urgent need to introduce mandatory legislation to label GM foods to distinguish from normal, natural foods. No doubt such a move is most welcome which may resonate throughout that country, motivating more people to express their concerns in a peaceful manner. The US President must see the writing on the wall and bring out legislation in tune with the aspirations of common man. What is more interesting is the move now being initiated in California in the US to fight against GM foods and to force compulsory labeling. What will be the fate of the papers filed with the California Attorney General's office to place a citizen's initiative on the 2012 November ballot that would require labeling of genetically engineered food and ingredients derived from them, remains to be seen. One thing however is sure that if California voters pass the ballot initiative, it could likely be the beginning of the end for many companies engaged in genetically engineered food in the U.S. After 20 years of bullying by biotech companies and being fed unlabeled and "potentially" hazardous genetically modified foods, a critical mass of food and health activists have come forward start the the offensive against GM food perpetrators. Probably this fight over labeling genetically engineered food will have to be taken at the national level at Washington DC, where these powerful companies exercise vice-like grip on the government.  

Recent polls in the US show that 80 to 85 percent of the people want mandatory labeling. They point out that there are no genetically engineered foods or crops anywhere in Europe, while almost all foods in the U.S. supermarket contain GMOs. In Europe, genetically engineered foods and ingredients have to be labeled which is a distinct disincentive for the manufacturers considering the strong undercurrent of universal hostility towards GM foods. The GM food manufacturers are sure that such labeling provision could be a threat for their bottom line. If and when GM food labeling is made mandatory in the U.S., there is the potential for millions of consumers who will read these labels to react and shun them, switching over to foods that are organic or at least GMO-free. Once enough consumers start complaining about genetically engineered foods and ingredients, stores will stop selling them while farmers will have no more incentive to plant them.
 Also to be noted is that once the California voters pass the GMO labeling law in 2012, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma as to whether they could put labels on their branded food products in just one state, admitting those products contain genetically engineered ingredients and then withhold ingredient label information in other states. It worth watching the unfolding drama in this fight between GM food lobby and the consumer alliance that is spearheading the anti-GM movement.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

COMPLEXITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION-CONFUSING SCENARIO

World seemed to be divided regarding the current agricultural practices that account for the production of all foods. While the labor intensive traditional cultivation is more or less replaced by input intensive mechanized operations, the organic food sector presents a totally different picture. Added to this some of the people movements like the local foods, whole foods, farmers markets etc have added further confusion to the already complex food production system. The yearning for change is driven by concerns regarding the safety of foods raised by modern technologies involving intensive use of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, weedicides, growth regulators, etc which invariably leave residues on the foods and gain access to the stomach of humans capable of causing health damage, short as well as long term. Two of the most controversial changes that continue to influence to day's agriculture are the growing organic food production and genetically modified food production.

Mainstream agricultural practices themselves have changed beyond recognition with mono culture, no-til and minimum-till operations becoming industry standards. The great green revolution that saw quantum jump in food production in nineteen sixties and seventies is characterized by mono culture cultivation without any crop rotation and intensive use of chemical fertilizers and toxic crop protectants. Decades of such practices literally destroyed the soil health in many countries and crop yields are plateauing or actually declining raising concerns all around. This is happening at a juncture when the need of the hour is increasing the production rate at least to keep in tune with the population growth. It is any body's guess as to how many years it will take to rehabilitate the degraded soil to reclaim its original production potential.

Organic way of cultivation and crop rotation only can help if such an objective is to be achieved. There is always the question whether organic cultivation system can really help to increase food production to the extent needed to meet future world requirement. There is no consensus on this issue with protagonists and antagonists ranged against each other. GM foods which are touted as an answer to global food problem cannot achieve increased productivity though losses can be reduced in the field through use of lesser pesticides. Of course the safety of GM foods is a critical issue with sharp divergence of views among scientists and consumers and it is difficult to imagine how consumers can be forced to consume foods not acceptable to them. It is another matter that some countries are hiding the extensive use of GM foods by the processing industry which is unethical and undemocratic.

If organic food production system is as beautiful and lucrative as being claimed, the million dollar question that begs an answer is why more farmers are not jumping into the organic food wagon? It is supposed to be easy besides being remunerative to practice. One of the reasons could be lack of awareness about organic food cultivation among the vast majority of farmers. Similarly the specialized input material sourcing is highly cumbersome and uncertain posing tremendous logistical difficulties. Compost and cover crops are the two main nutrient sources of organic growers. The cost of buying compost and using in the farms can be significantly higher than chemical fertilizers. Similarly if the farms are not located near a city or a livestock operation, compost may not be an option.

Green manure, cover crops that fix nitrogen, though wonderful, may take time during the year to grow and there are costs associated with buying and planting the seed. More important and crucial is training of the farmers on efficient organic farming techniques which calls for an infrastructure that is just not available widely. Under these circumstances one can only expect highly motivated farmers to take the risk of entering the organic food movement.These factors may probably be the reason why GM food lobby is able to make considerable inroads into the farming sector with its astronomical resources for brain washing and seduction. There was a time when organic farms were small in number and size but to day there are large farms owning thousands of hectares of land devoted to organic food production. Probably realizing the inevitability of moving towards a scenario where present "toxic" farm production system will have to yield to newer system of organic food production, it is a question of time before the whole world embraces this safer regime.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

CONSENSUS ON LABELING OF GM FOODS-THE GROUND REALITIES

In a democratically governed country the people have a right to know what they are eating and it is wrong on the part of the government to give leeway to the industry to hide the true nature of food products sold by them. The whole philosophy of labeling is based on this concept. It was almost twenty years since there has been a controversy regarding the need to be transparent on the part of the industry regarding their use of genetically modified foods or ingredients in product formulation. Why some countries like Canada, the US and Australia, to mention a few, resisted the universal view that consumer has a right to know whether the products contain GM ingredients is some what intriguing and the only charitable explanation is that they want their food industry to grow providing large employment and deliver food at lower costs.

It is true that foods developed using genetic engineering has divided the world into two distinct groups, one fiercely against and the other willing to accept them. While antagonists see GM foods as unsafe to consume and injurious to the environment, protagonists are satisfied with the safety data generated on many of the GM foods, finding no reason to shun them. It is variously estimated that 70-80% of processed food products in the US and Canada contain one or more of GM ingredients and most consumers are not aware of such a situation, consuming these products under the impression they are "natural". There are suggestions that the current obesity epidemic in the country is growing parallel to the growth of GM foods and one cannot blame anybody if this association is taken as proof that GM foods are unhealthy.

While the debate about the safety or otherwise of GM foods may not end in the foreseeable future, the issue of declaring the presence of GM ingredients is mired in controversy with the industry fiercely opposing such a move due to their apprehension that such a move may impact on the growth of the sector because of possible consumer backlash. The weak argument that printing the label to contain the information about presence of GM ingredients would be expensive is nothing but hogwash! This is a war between the "right to know" segment of consumers and "right to do business" proponents in the industry. One is reminded of a similar instance in the past when irradiation technology was being used by the industry and it was agreed that irradiated foods must carry the information on the label. If irradiation process was found to be absolutely safe where is the need for special labeling? One cannot have dichotomy when it comes to consumer safety. Even to day irradiation technology is in a limbo because of this inconsistency in labeling policies.

It is interesting as to how debates on such an important issue can be vitiated by illogical arguments as put forward by the main stream food industry. According to the GM food lobby, labeling is not necessary because consumers have a choice in Organic Foods if they do not want to eat GM foods! Though many countries wanted clear labeling of GM foods to respect the consumer rights, there has been stiff resistance to this move from the US, Canada and Australia and it is a tribute to the persuasive ability of rest of the world that enabled the Codex Alimentarius Commission which is an association of 100 food safety agencies in different UN members to evolve a consensus agreement on voluntary labeling without any possible conflict with WTO charter. Of course this is unlikely to make the pro-GM food countries introduce the transparent labeling in their countries. At best this only means that they would not challenge if other countries start compulsory labeling of such unnatural foods. What effect this move will have on world trade is not certain now. .

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

LABELING "WAR"-CODEX TO FACE THE HEAT!

How commercial interests can influence global food policies is illustrated by the manipulations and maneuvering going on at the Codex level to prevent mandatory labeling of GM foods. The stakes are high since Codex standards are bench mark parameters used to day to settle trade disputes amongst WTO member countries. Many countries have already put in place such mandatory label declaration so that the consumer can make an informed choice while scouting for purchase of foods in the market. Since GM foods are still under a cloud regarding their absolute safety, consumer has fundamental right to be informed whether a product being purchased has GM food ingredients or not. It is immoral for a country like the US to brow beat international community to toe its line viz labeling should be only voluntary, not mandatory.

A number of consumer groups, concerned scientists, progressive farming organizations and food processors are opposing the U.S. proposal that could forbid mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods in other countries. An influential coalition of organizations that includes the Consumers Union, The Organic Trade Association, Food and Water Watch and the Union of Concerned Scientists had earlier appealed to the US authorities to reconsider their decision to oppose compulsory labeling at the Codex Committee on Food Labeling meeting in Canada. The Codex Committee is a crucial technical body of the United Nations Organization that evolves food safety and labeling standards which are used to settle international differences in export-import business.

The paradox of the situation is that the current US position could potentially create significant problems for food producers within the US itself who want to indicate on the labels that their products contain no GE ingredients, including in organic food, where genetic engineering is a prohibited method. The FDA and USDA oppose allowing individual countries to adopt policies on mandatory labeling probably because it could be misleading, implying that GM/GE foods are not different from other foods. This is contrary to the belief of a vast majority of consumers that GE foods are definitely different from normal ones. The US position seems to be dictated by the apprehension that consumers in other countries may reject GM/GE foods from the US and it is reprehensible to force bodies like Codex to adopt the view of one country, how ever mighty it may be, that there are no differences between GM/GE foods and other foods. It is conveniently ignored that such a stand is contrary to scientific fact, USDA organic rules and existing FDA policy allowing for voluntary labeling.

The efforts of the US government are orchestrated by the GM food lobby in that country which, probably is concerned about the fate of GM foods from the country when exported to other countries where they are not considered safe. As most of the foods manufactured in the US contain one or the other ingredient originating from a GM food source, there could be real danger of the food industry losing its preeminent position in the country. If the US is able to get its way at the Codex level, other countries must join together to advice their food industry to insert a declaration in the label of all foods manufactured by them stating that they do not contain GM food ingredients. Sure no one should have any objection to this practice which will serve the same purpose.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

AN "AUTHORITY" FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY-"STIFLING" OF DEMOCRACY

Biotechnology has made tremendous strides during the last two decades, the impact being greatest in pharmaceutical industry. Of course in the area of food also, Biotechnological approach has given rise to genetically modified products which are under consideration for adoption in many countries including India. How ever some countries like the US have gone ahead with massive adoption of all types of GM foods without adequately assessing the adverse impact associated with genetic manipulation of natural foods on long term food safety, environmental hazards and farm economy.

The recent Bt Brinjal debate in India was able to focus the attention of people on the consequences of GM foods under the Indian environment and against substantial opposition from scientific, farming and consumer communities government retreated in grace abandoning, for the time being, the earlier plans for introduction of Bt Brinjal, developed by the global GM seed giant, Monsanto, for commercial cultivation. The much discredited Genetic Engineering Clearance Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment, chaired by a bureaucrat with no knowledge about Biotechnology, and staffed by some "yes" scientists, whose credentials were questioned even by the Supreme Court in the country, gave its "approval" for regular cultivation
of Bt Brinjal. It is another story that the Environment Minister had the good sense to overturn the irresponsible action of GEAC. With such a background, what will be the future of GM crops in India, is a relevant question.

With two powerful Ministers in the Union Cabinet unabashedly canvassing for GM foods, Prime Minister also seems to be sympathetic to the GM lobby for reasons not yet clear, all under the pretext or illusion that GM technology only can "augment" food supply in future and prevent large scale starvation!. Even the perpetrators of GM food myth do not claim any genuine increase in crop yield but assert that loss due to pests could be less thereby increasing the harvest volume. Now that the much ridiculed GEAC is discredited, GOI seems to be in a hurry to replace it with an "Authority" under the statute for which necessary legislation is being drafted. Probably with the majority UPA has in the Parliament, the proposed "Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India" (BRAI) may become a reality soon, if good sense does not prevail on the MPs during discussion of the legislation. Why the opposition for the proposed BRAI?

If one goes by the experience during the setting up of "Food Standards and Safety Authority of India" earlier, BRAI is also not going to be different. There will be intense lobbying amongst retired bureaucrats with practically no exposure to Biotechnology or related areas of science, to occupy the "Chair" and the country will have to witness this "game of musical chairs" pretty soon. BRAI is a bureaucrat's dream because of the draconian power sought to be vested with it and a cursory look at some of the provisions in the draft bill will convince any one that a police bureaucrat may be more suitable to "administer" the Authority. Most disgusting provision in the bill is to provide for jail term up to one year and a fine of Rs 2 lakh for any one who without evidence or scientific record misleads public about the safety of the products and the organisms used. Adding insult to injury the information about GM products has been kept out of the purview of RTI Act, clearly showing the intention of GOI to push the GM products down the throat of the people with great secrecy. Further the sole responsibility for clearing all GM crops has been given to BRAI with no role for other ministries like those for food, agriculture, environment, health, consumer welfare etc. Is this compatible with democratic credentials of this country?

India seems to be aping the US, at least in promotion of GM crops and BRAI is a pre-requisite for repeating the US experience where GM crops are cleared with executive authority rather than through scientific and democratic route. Unless major changes are made in the proposed Bill, Parliament should not accord approval to this devious strategy of GOI.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com