IN DEFENSE OF GM FOODS-WHERE LIES THE TRUTH?

Genetically Engineered (GM) food is a highly controversial subject with no unanimity among the scientists regarding its safety. Tons of reports have been written for as well as against the safety or desirability of this modern scientific marvel. Depending on who is talking GM food can be a catastrophy if permitted world wide or it can be a boon to augment food supply to meet future food needs. What is forgotten in this highly emotional debate is the freedom that is an inherent right of every denizen to decide what he or she wants to eat. It may be true that almost 80% of processed foods eaten in the US contain one or more ingredient derived from a GM crop but the sad part of it is that the consumer never knows about it because of the skewed labeling policy in force in that country. Interestingly the dichotomy of the US Food Laws is brought out by the stipulation laid down for compulsory declaration on the label of foods processed with irradiation technology! The protagonists of GM technology, mostly industry supported, talk only about the safety of the foods derived from GM materials ignoring the right of the consumer to determine for himself whether he wants to consume such foods! It is a shame to call the act of the industry "capitulation" because industry knows what is to be offered to the consumer based on their preferences and reservations. Here is a gist of the arguments from GM supporters which does not make any sense at all. 

"During the late 1990's, a singular phenomenon appeared in countries around the world. One after another, food and beverage companies capitulated to activists opposed to a promising new technology: the genetic engineering of plants to produce ingredients. They are still capitulating to this day. The Japanese brewer Kirin and the Danish brewer Carlsberg eliminated genetically engineered ingredients from their beers. In the United States, the fast-food giant McDonald's banned them from its menu; food manufacturers Heinz and Gerber (then a division of Switzerland-based Novartis) dropped them from their baby-food lines; and Frito-Lay demanded that its growers stop planting corn engineered to contain a bacterial protein that confers resistance to insect predation. These measures were rationalized in various ways, but the reality is that by yielding to the demands of a minuscule number of disingenuous activists, the companies opted to offer less safe products to consumers, thereby exposing themselves to legal jeopardy. Every year, innumerable packaged-food products worldwide are withheld or recalled from the market due to the presence of "all natural" contaminants like insect parts, toxic molds, bacteria, and viruses. Because farming takes place outdoors and in dirt, such contamination is a fact of life. Over the centuries, the main culprit in mass food poisoning often has been contamination of unprocessed crops by fungal toxins – a risk that is exacerbated when insects attack food crops, opening wounds that allow fungi (molds) to get a foothold. For example, fumonisin and some other fungal toxins are highly toxic, causing esophageal cancer in humans and fatal diseases in livestock that eat infected corn. Fumonisin also interferes with the cellular uptake of folic acid, a vitamin that reduces the risk of neural tube defects in developing fetuses, and thus can cause folic acid deficiency – and defects such as spina bifida – even when one's diet contains what otherwise would be sufficient amounts of the vitamin. Many regulatory agencies have therefore established recommended maximum fumonisin levels permitted in food and feed products made from corn. The conventional way to meet those standards and prevent the consumption of fungal toxins is simply to test unprocessed and processed grains and discard those found to be contaminated – an approach that is both wasteful and failure-prone. But modern technology – specifically, the genetic engineering of plants using recombinant DNA technology (also known as food biotechnology or genetic modification) – offers a way to prevent the problem. Contrary to the claims of food-biotech critics, who insist that genetically modified crops pose risks (none of which has actually occurred) of new allergens or toxins in the food supply, such products offer the food industry a proven and practical means of tackling the fungal contamination at its source".

There may be many good features associated with GM technology but unless there is economic or health or safety advantages consumers can never be expected to patronize such products and GM foods fall far short of these yardsticks. There is no point in blaming those industry players who shun GM foods as "capitulationists", just because they are not toeing the lines of GM lobbyists. No industry will dare to force the consumer to eat a product not acceptable to the latter, no matter how good it is from industry perspectives. Same applies to irradiated foods also where there is near unanimity regarding the safety of these foods. Still industry does not want to use the technology for fear of consumer backlash. After introducing mandatory labeling of GM foods, if consumers still want to use them industry will be justified in continuing with them.  

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