MICHAEL HANSEN - JEAN HALLORAN -EARLY ADVOCATES FOR LABELING GMOs
Synthesis/Regeneration 18 (Winter 1999)
Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food
by Michael Hansen, Ph.D. & Jean Halloran, Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union
Food is fundamentally different from other consumer products. As
something we literally take inside ourselves, that is necessary on a
daily basis for growth and life, and that is bound up in our cultures
and traditions, we care about it intensely. Consumers feel they have a
fundamental right to know what they are eating, and that it is safe.
Most developed countries have adopted laws that reflect this view,
requiring ingredient labeling, labeling as to any processing (e.g.,
frozen, homogenized, irradiated), conformance to standards of identity
(e.g. peanut butter must be made from peanuts), and indicating presence
of any additives (e.g. sulfites, preservatives). Some countries require
labeling as to the fat, protein, carbohydrate and vitamin content of
food as well.
Consumers want to know what they are eating both as a pure matter of
taste and preference, and for many health-related reasons. They may
want to eat fish to improve their chances of avoiding heart disease, or
avoid fish because they are concerned about depletion of certain species
in the oceans or about mercury contamination. Body builders may seek
out red meat, vegetarians will avoid it, and Muslims will avoid pork but
not lamb. Mothers may look for apple juice for their children because
it is a natural drink, or avoid it because it gives their child a
stomach ache. Every day, millions of consumers worldwide read millions
of food labels and make millions of decisions like this for themselves
and their families.
The countries of the European Union have recognized this, and have
instituted regulations requiring labeling of all genetically engineered
food, although many consumer and environmental groups think the labeling
requirements do not go far enough. In the United States, where
genetically engineered corn, soybeans and potatoes are being grown
commercially, repeated public opinion surveys show consumers
overwhelmingly want labeling, but thus far the government has failed to
require it. Most countries have not considered the issue yet. Of the
large chemical/biotechnology companies that are developing these foods,
some, like Novartis, support labeling, but most, like Monsanto and other
major developers, oppose it.
Consumers feel they have a fundamental right to know what they are eating, and that it is safe.
The Codex Alimentarius, an agency of the United Nations World Health
Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, is considering
whether to adopt a guideline recommending that all countries require
labeling of genetically engineered food. Codex guidelines are not
binding, but are often adopted by developing countries and can be used
to settle trade disputes (if a country adopts a Codex standard, that
standard cannot be challenged as protectionist).
Consumers want and have a right to labeling of all genetically
engineered food, because it is not "substantially equivalent" to
conventional food, because some individuals can have unpredictable mild
to severe allergic reactions, because it can have unanticipated toxic
effects, because it can change the nutrition in food, because it can
cause dramatic environmental effects and because consumers presently use
food labeling to express a wide variety of religious, ethical and
environmental preferences.
Genetically Engineered Food is Different
Some people-mostly scientists and corporations involved in the
development of genetically engineered food-argue that the strawberry
with the foreign genes is not really different-it is "substantially
equivalent" in the language Codex and international regulation, and
therefore needs no label. Consumers, however, through their
organizations, through comments to regulators, and through opinion
surveys, have repeatedly expressed the view that this strawberry, and
all other genetically engineered foods, are not "substantially
equivalent," but are sufficiently different that, like irradiated foods,
and foods containing additives, they should be labeled. Since labeling
laws are created to meet consumer needs, it is consumer opinion which
should be relevant in this regard.
A range of consumer and other civil society organizations worldwide
argue that any plant or animal food to which genes have been added from a
source other than the species to which the food belongs, should be
required to be labeled as genetically engineered, because it is
different from conventional food; in the language of Codex, it is not
"substantially equivalent" to unengineered food.
Genetically Engineered Food Can Cause Toxic Effects
The fact that genetic engineering can go seriously wrong was shown by
one of the very first products introduced into the market. An amino
acid called tryptophan was sold in a number of countries including the
United States as a dietary supplement. In the late 1980s, the Showa
Denko company of Japan began making tryptophan by a new process, using
genetically engineered bacteria, and selling it in the United States.
Within a period of months, thousands of people who had taken the
supplement began to suffer from eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, which
included neurological problems. Eventually at least 1500 people were
permanently disabled and 37 died (Mayeno & Gleich, 1994).
As doctors encountered this syndrome, they gradually noticed that it
seemed linked to patients taking tryptophan produced by Showa Denko.
However, it took months before it was taken off the market. Had it been
labeled as genetically engineered, it might have accelerated the
identification of the source of the problem.
Showa Denko refused to cooperate in any US government efforts to
investigate the cause of the problem. However, the Showa Denko
tryptophan that caused the problem was determined to contain a toxic
contaminant which appears to have been a byproduct of the increased
tryptophan production of the genetically engineered bacteria (Mayeno
& Gleich, 1994).
There are many ways besides this in which genetic engineering could go
awry and result in hazardous toxins in food. Many common plant foods
such as tomatoes and potatoes produce highly toxic chemicals in their
leaves, for example. Any responsible company working with such plants
would check for any changes in toxin levels. But not all companies are
equally responsible, as the Showa Denko example shows, and a serious
hazard can be missed.
Government agencies also cannot be counted on to prevent unexpected
problems. Worldwide, government premarket safety reviews of genetically
engineered products currently ranges from relatively thorough in the
European Union, to no review at all in much of the world. In the United
States, the government only conducts premarket safety reviews if
requested to by the company.
Allergens can be transferred from foods to which people know they are
allergic, to food that they think is safe, via genetic engineering.
We can expect that in the future genetically engineered food will be
developed and grown in many countries, many of them with no premarket
safety reviews. Consumers want labeling of genetically engineered food
because unless all such products are labeled, it will be extremely
difficult to determine the source of any toxin problems originating in
such food.
Genetically Engineered Food Can Cause Allergic Reactions
In the United States, about a quarter of all people say they have an
adverse reaction to some food (Sloan & Powers, 1986). Studies have
shown that 2% of adults and 8% of children have true food allergies,
mediated by immunoglobin E (IgE) (Bock, 1987; Sampson et al., 1992).
People with IgE mediated allergies have an immediate reaction to certain
proteins that ranges from itching to potentially fatal anaphylactic
shock. The most common allergies are to peanuts, other nuts and
shellfish.
...for virtually every food, allergists will tell you, there is someone allergic to it.
Allergens can be transferred from foods to which people know they are
allergic, to food that they think is safe, via genetic engineering. In
March 1996, researchers at the University of Nebraska in the United
States confirmed that an allergen from Brazil nuts had been transferred
into soybeans. The Pioneer Hi-Bred International seed company had put a
Brazil nut gene that codes for a seed protein into soybeans to improve
their protein content for animal feed. In an in-vitro and a skin prick
test, the engineered soybeans reacted with the IgE of individuals with a
Brazil nut allergy in a way that indicated that the individuals would
have had an adverse, potentially fatal reaction to the soybeans (Nordlee
et al., 1996).
This case had a happy ending. As Marion Nestle, the head of the
Nutrition Department at New York University, summarized in an editorial
in the respected New England Journal of Medicine, "In the special case
of transgenic soybeans, the donor species was known to be allergenic,
serum samples from persons allergic to the donor species were available
for testing and the product was withdrawn." (Nestle, 1996: 726)
However, for virtually every food, allergists will tell you, there is
someone allergic to it. Proteins are what cause allergic reactions, and
virtually every gene transfer in crops results in some protein
production. Genetic engineering will bring proteins into food crops not
just from known sources of common allergens, like peanuts, shellfish
and dairy, but from plants of all kinds, bacteria and viruses, whose
potential allergenicity is largely uncommon or unknown. Furthermore,
there are no fool-proof ways to determine whether a given protein will
be an allergen, short of tests involving serum from individuals allergic
to the given protein. This point is strongly driven home in the the
case of the transgenic soybean containing a Brazil nut gene, where
animal tests had suggested that the transfered Brazil nut seed storage
protein was not an allergen (Nordlee et al., 1996). Had the results of
the animal tests been relied on and the soybeans approved, the results
could have been disastrous.
However, most biotechnology companies increasingly use microorganisms
rather then food plants as gene donors or are designing proteins
themselves, even though the allergenic potential of these proteins is
unpredictable and untestable. Consequently, Nestle continues, "The next
case could be less ideal, and the public less fortunate. It is in
everyone's best interest to develop regulatory policies for transgenic
foods that include premarketing notification and labeling." (Nestle,
1996: 727)
To adequately protect consumer health from the effects of unrecognized
or uncommon allergens, all genetically engineered food must be labeled.
Otherwise there will be no way for sensitive individuals to distinguish
foods that cause them problems from ones that do not. This need is
particularly urgent, since one of the potential consequences is sudden
death, and the most affected population is children.
To adequately protect consumer health from the effects of unrecognized
or uncommon allergens, all genetically engineered food must be labeled.
Genetic Engineering Can Increase Antibiotic Resistance
Genetic engineering, despite the precise sound of its name, is actually a
very messy process, and most attempts end in failure. While the gene
to be transferred can be identified fairly precisely, the process of
inserting it in the new host is often very imprecise. Genes are often
moved with something that is the molecular equivalent of a shotgun.
Scientists coat tiny particles with genetic material and then "shoot"
these gene into thousands of cells in a petri dish before they get one
where the desired trait "takes" and is expressed. Because the
transferred trait, such as ability to produce an insecticide in the
leaves of the plant, is often not immediately apparent, scientists
generally also must insert a "marker gene" along with the desired gene
into the new plant. The most commonly used marker gene is a bacterial
gene for antibiotic resistance. Most genetically engineered plant food
contains such a gene.
Widespread use of antibiotic resistance marker genes could contribute to
the problem of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance genes may
move from a crop into bacteria in the environment. Since bacteria
readily exchange antibiotic resistance genes, such genes could
eventually move into disease-causing bacteria and make them resistant to
a given antibiotic and therefore harder to control. It is already
known that naked DNA can be taken up by bacteria in a suitable
environment, so antibiotic resistance genes could theoretically be
transferred in the digestive tract to bacteria. A genetically
engineered Bt maize plant from Novartis includes an
ampicillin-resistance gene. Ampicillin is a valuable antibiotic used to
treat a variety of infections in people and animals. A number of
European countries, including Britain, have refused to permit the
Novartis Bt corn to be grown, over health concern that the ampicillin
resistance gene could move from the corn into bacteria in the food
chain, making ampicillin a far less effective weapon against bacterial
infections. The fact that the ampicillin resistance gene is connected
to a bacterial promoter (a genetic "on" switch) rather than a plant
promoter in the Novartis Bt corn could improve the chances that it if
the gene moved into bacteria it could be readily expressed. In
September, 1998, the British Royal Society put out a report on genetic
engineering that called for the ending the use of antibiotic resistance
marker genes in engineered food products (Anonymous, 1998).
Some consumers may wish to avoid plants with antibiotic resistance marker genes.
Genetic Engineering Can Alter Nutritional Value
Genetic engineering can alter nutritional value of foods in positive
ways. For example, canola oil has been engineered to have a different
profile of fatty acids, which means that they contain less of the fat
molecules that tend to build up in people's arteries and give them heart
attacks. Scientists are also working on increasing the vitamin C
content in some foods.
It is also possible that nutritional content could be reduced as an
unexpected side effect of some other genetic engineering effort.
Consumers need labeling of genetically engineered food so that they can
educate themselves about any nutritional changes in the product.
Since bacteria readily exchange antibiotic resistance genes, such genes
could eventually move into disease-causing bacteria and make them
resistant to a given antibiotic and therefore harder to control.
References
Anonymous. (1998). Call for UK genetic food watchdog. Nature online service. Sept. 3
Bock, S.A. (1987). Prospective appraial of
complaints of adverse reactions to foods in children during the first
three years of life. Pediatrics, 79: 683-688.
Mayeno, A.N. & Gleich, G.J. (1994).
Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a cautionary
tale. TIBTECH, 12:346-352.
Nestle, M. (1996). Allergies to transgenic foods-Questions of policy. The New England Journal of Medicine , 334(11): 726-727.
Nordlee, J.A., Taylor, S.L., Townsend,
J.A., Thomas, L.A. & Bush, R.K. (1996). Identification of a
brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New England Journal of
Medicine , 334(11): 688-692.
Sampson, H.A., Mendelson, L. and J.P.
Rosen. 1992. Fatal and near-fatal anaphylactic reactions to food in
children and adolescents. The New England Journal of Medicine , 327:
380-384.
Sloan, A.E. & Powers, M.E. (1986). A
perspective on popular perspections of adverse reactions to foods.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 78: 127-133.
No comments:
Post a Comment