Food Alert On US Soya Product Imports - A Can of (GM) Worms For India
by Aruna Rodrigues

This is wake-up time for India's trade laws on labelling of GM content in foods and seeds, or we will be overtaken by a potent combination of stealth, the GOI’s stated " helplessness" and the aggressive US policy in the WTO, on GMOs

DuPont, and US soy major Bunge, will soon be launching a new range of imported soy-based foods .  Dupont of course is the well known biotechnology and agrochemical company and a corporate partner of the American Soybean Association (ASA).  It was at the behest of the ASA that the US FDA (the self-confessed promoter and supporter of the bio-technology industry) agreed to new labelling arrangements for soy products: It is now legal in the US to label any kind of soy product genetically modified (GM) or otherwise, as beneficial for reducing heart disease risk and illegal to label it as GM. (htpp://www.oilseeds.org/partners.htm).

This is a self-evident two-in-one 'master stroke' for promoting GM soy as it is estimated that up to 40% of US-grown soybean is GM.  Furthermore, the now undisputed evidence of transgenic contamination of non-GM farms is a cold and serious reality.  This raises the spectre of genetic pollution  of organic and conventional farmlands on a significant scale, in the US and Canada.

The implications for US exports are catastrophic, unless the US can flex its very considerable muscle and force third world countries and the EU, into similarly polluting their own crops and foods.  This perversion of eco-sustainability is better termed the theory of equivalent GM pollution in order to safeguard US trade interests.  That it is blatant is evident from the fact that it has become the cornerstone of  official US  policy through the WTO, to promote GM foods by blocking laws that prohibit or  require foods to be labelled for GM content.

There are serious implications for India, for our trade, food security and health if we allow imports of soy products from Dupont or any other company, without safeguards; it will become a test case and open the floodgates for US and  Canadian imports of processed foods unlabelled for GM content. Fortunately, the CARTAGENA PROTOCOL on Biosafety (CPB: a protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity) has just come into force  Predictably, 4 countries have not ratified it, including the US and Canada.  The Protocol sets international standards for trade in living modified organisms (LMOs), essentially, genetically modified organisms such as seeds which are still living. While it does not address non-living GMOs such as those which may be contained in processed food, the protocol does provide entrenching of the Precautionary Principle in International trade that over-ride the WTO.

1. COMPETITION AND CONSUMER CHOICE

 India's 'Comparative Advantage' Is That Her foods Are GM-Free

India already has a law that bans imports of foods that contain GMOs (genetically modified organisms).  In order to make this law effective, there is an immediate need to legislate for strict labelling laws that certify that foods, including processed foods are free of GM content.  We cannot afford any ‘helplessness’ on the part of the Government.  The bad precedent of Gujarat, and now Madhya Pradesh, where farmers are illegally sowing their own ‘concoctions’ of GM cotton seeds, amply demonstrates the contrived and collective apathy of the State and Central Government agencies.  Gujarat  and MP put the Country at great risk.  They also threaten to erode our very real "comparative advantage" in being thus far uncontaminated by GMOs.  We must protect this advantage and competitive strength if for no other reason, than the sheer magnitude of the potential that exists for exports of GM-free food and organic foods to a World population that is increasingly hungry for them.  We must also acknowledge the expanding market for herbs and herbal medicine that our traditions of Ayurveda (and other schools of traditional healing practices) have fostered. These together constitute a combined market opportunity which is uniquely Indian and must be protected, preserved and fully exploited.  We must, therefore, urgently enact labelling laws for our domestic market as well as for export, that certify our agriculture and our foods as GM-free. Ironically, it is to a US population that we will find a ready market, as its own Government seriously undermines the health and safety of Americans because of its "no safety testing" and "no labelling" position on GM foods.

In the first official test of public opinion in the National GM Debate in the UK, 80% of Britons are opposed to GM crops and only 2% will eat GM food. (London Times, 25th Sept. 2003).  Worldwide, 90% of the world’s consumers are demanding mandatory labelling of GE foods; the logical conclusion we must reach from this is that people want to know so that they can avoid buying them.  Here is the proof for Indian policy makers, if it is needed. A telling point of this resistance to GMOs was in 2002 when Zambia refused GM maize in food aid despite the threat of famine.   As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star 7 years ago, (3/7/94) "if you put a label on a genetically engineered food,  you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it".

Genetic Pollution, Labelling and Trade Implications

Three countries produce  99% of all GE crops: The US  74%, Argentina 15% and Canada 10% and the export market for these crops is "growing smaller, month by month".   Principle GM- grown foods in the US include corn, cotton, soybeans, canola (rape) and therefore also include products that include these ingredients, which would be edible oils and a vast array of processed foods.  Genetic pollution is beyond disputing.  Many farmers in the US and Canada are reporting genetic pollution in organic and certified GMO-free soybeans and corn.

US trade representatives are in fact "working hard to engender a growing sense of fatalism regarding the ‘impossibility’  of growing GE-free soybeans, corn and canola and have told EU bureaucrats that it is ‘unreasonable and unworkable’ to expect anything less than 5% genetic contamination in non-GM grain exports"!   The thrust of US trade policy is very clear and is a pointer to the obvious-- that genetic pollution is creating a backlash and US policy is driven by a sense of impending disaster for US food exports.  As Jeremy Rifkin, well known critic says:

"They are hoping there is enough contamination so that it is a fait accompli.  But the liability will kill them. We are going to see lawsuits across the Farm Belt as conventional farmers and organic farmers find their product is contaminated."

Since GM crops were first made commercially available in 1996, US farm exports have fallen by 15% to %51 billion.  The US has lost $400 million/year in corn exports to the EU.  Canada has similarly suffered in canola exports.  US soy has been boycotted by major companies in Europe, Japan, Korea and other nations and major corporations have begun to remove all GE corn and soy from animal feed.  Now 25% of all EU animal feed is GM-free and this market  is growing.  Non-GM soy grew from zero to 25% in 2001(agjournal UK) with like increases forecast for the future.

On the other hand, Brazil, India, Australia and China are fast filling the vacuum created for GM-free grain, as globally  consumers and farmers are voting with their pockets against GE foods.

There are no labelling laws in the US requiring companies to label for GMO content.  However, it will be impossible for the Bush administration and the Agbiotech lobby to cock a snook  at world public opinion that is demanding mandatory labelling for GE foods so they know what not to buy.  Certainly, there is absolutely no reason for any other country to fall into this particular American pit.  We must say a firm NO.

It is crystal clear then, where India’s advantage lies.  Is our Government going to secure our health, our future trading advantage and our food security, or will it, under enormous pressure from the US and biotech companies, pollute this Country  for all time, by letting this trans-genie out of the bottle.

2. HEALTH HAZARDS OF GM SOY AND GM FOODS

 A Partial List Of Health Hazards

GM foods raise major safety concerns.  Contrary to the claims of its proponents, GM crops have not been proven safe. The regulatory framework was fatally flawed from the start.  It was based on an anti-precautionary approach designed to expedite product approval at the expense of safety considerations. The principle of 'substantial equivalence', on which risk assessment is based, is intended to be vague and ill-defined, thereby giving companies complete license in claiming transgenic products 'substantially equivalent' to non-transgenic products, and hence 'safe’.

Jeffery Smith in "Seeds of Deception" chronicles one of the most comprehensive lists of the dangers of GE foods that reads like some horror story and says that "Industry manipulation and political collusion, not sound science, allow dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods on the market.  Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. [77-83*] Scientists were threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted. FDA scientists warned that genetically modified (GM) foods could create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases; their superiors, including a former attorney for Monsanto, ignored their recommendations for long-term safety tests.[131-140] None are required.[146]

The only human feeding trial of GM food ever conducted confirmed that engineered genes, transferred from a soy Burger and soy milkshake to the Bacteria inside the digestive tract, after only one meal. The World Health Organisation and the British and American Medical Associations are concerned that if the "antibiotic resistant marker genes" used in GM foods transferred to gut Bacteria, it could create super-diseases-immune to antibiotics. [59-60] Scientists are also worried that the "promoter" used inside GM foods may transfer to Bacteria or internal organs. Promoters permanently turn genes on and might create unpredictable health effects, including the potentially pre-cancerous cell growth found in the animal feeding studies mentioned above. [37]". Although the Biotech industry says that millions have been eating GM foods without ill effect, this is misleading:

(a) About 100 people died and 5-10,000 fell seriously ill from a genetically modified food supplement L-tryptophan. [107-125]

(b) Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains an increased amount of the hormone IGF- 1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer. [94-97]

(c). Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, coinciding with the introduction of GM soy imports from the US [160-161].

There are only ten published animal feeding studies on GM foods: two are independent. One found damage to the immune system and vital organs, and a potentially pre-cancerous condition. [12-13] When the scientist tried to alert the public, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit. [18-20] Two other studies likewise showed evidence of a potentially pre-cancerous condition.37 And an unpublished study revealed that laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the forty died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests. [37, 137-140}

Industry studies appear rigged to avoid finding problems. With genetically engineered Bovine growth hormone (rBGH), for example, researchers injected cows with only one forty-seventh the normal dosage before reporting hormone residues in milk.[91-92] They heated the milk 120 times longer than standard, to report that pasteurization destroys the hormone.[93-94] They added cows to their study that were pregnant before treatment, to claim that rBGH didn't impede fertility".  And it goes on ---.

In the still only systematic investigation on GM food ever carried out in the world, 'growth factor-like' effects were found in the stomach and small intestine of young rats that were not fully accounted for by the transgene product, and were hence attributable to the transgenic process, or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food.  A growing number of scientists now believe that the "gene-splicing process itself in inherently unpredictable and haphazard" (Mercola).

CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer: Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter might be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, reactivation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses. This promoter is present in most GM crops being grown commercially today.

Dangerous gene products are incorporated into crops –   For example, Bt proteins, incorporated into 25 percent of all transgenic crops worldwide, have been found harmful to a range of non-target insects. Some of them are also potent immunogens and allergens. A team of scientists have cautioned against releasing Bt crops for human use.

Broad-spectrum herbicides are highly toxic to humans and other species.  In the United States, glyphosate-tolerant weeds are plaguing GM cotton and soy fields; and atrazine, one of the most toxic herbicides, has had to be used with glufosinate-tolerant GM maize.  Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate are used with the herbicide-tolerant transgenic crops that currently account for 75 percent of all transgenic crops worldwide.  Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to have a wide range of harmful effects, and these have been confirmed.

Genetic engineering creates super-viruses : By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics. This was highlighted in 2001 by the 'accidental' creation of a killer mouse virus in the course of an apparently innocent genetic engineering experiment.

There are no tests to guarantee that GM food is not allergenic. Although recommended international testing standards can minimise that possibility, GM corn on the market today would most certainly fail those tests.

The boot is therefore on the other foot as it will be virtually impossible for the gene lobby to prove that gene-altered foods are safe for human health and the environment.  It is time for the Indian Government to stop pursuing their curiously skewed and misguided approach to GMOs and act in the national interest which is their mandate and international interest which is a duty, especially as both interests converge.

The author, Aruna Rodrigues of Sunray Harvesters, India,  is an economist and Project Management consultant and works in the field of photovoltaics (PV); promoting its application and commercialisation in a developing economy. Sept. 2003  email: [email protected]

Acknowledgements
National Law Party, Wessex
Mercola.com
Independent Science Panel Report: June 2003
Others accredited in the text

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive