Debbie Cotton Ad.Dip.Nat – CNM Lecturer
With the introduction of the first genetically modified tomato to the commercial market in 1994, there has been great debate over the use of GM foods in our community.
The argument for these foods has been put to us from the companies that have created them, scientists and some farmers, and the argument against these foods comes from environmentalists, health care professionals and the concerned consumer at the end of the chain. Research for and against the safety of these foods is varied and the results seem relative to the view of the people creating the research. The long term effects of these foods on the health of animals and human consumers, and on the health or our environment, are yet to be established.
GM foods were originally created to bypass the relatively slow process that farmers and horticulturists were using to cross breed different strains of plants. Scientists soon realised that through gene therapy, they could bypass the breeding stage, and create plants with the qualities that they wanted in them. This is done by removing or adding specific genes in the DNA sequence of plants. This then switches on specific qualities in a plant or switches off undesired ones. As consumers and farmers we were told that these new breeds would reduce pesticide use, and increase yield due to the creation of strains that would be more disease and weather resistant. We were told that the larger yields would contribute to a greater abundance of food therefore creating less poverty and hunger. We were told that these foods would be perfectly safe and that they would not affect our health or the health of the environment. That was the marketing ploy behind a huge company that has profit as their motivation. In truth, GM foods are a booming business that earns the creators of these seeds trillions of dollars in profits a year. The aims of these companies are to create an ongoing increase in revenue to their pockets. But what cost is that to us as health consumers and the environment?
With the introduction of GM foods, the truth of the matter started to become more apparent. Crops could be created that meant they do not self-seed again for the next season. This then creates a market for repeat buying of the GM seed as the farmers have to buy the seed again for the next year, instead of using their own harvest. This may be perfectly acceptable in some large farming communities, but what does that pose morally, ethically and environmentally for nations that are hardly affording to grow the first crop? Is the creation of a super-breed then good for the health of the community or good for the wallets of the company that created the strain of plant?
The company behind the GM push
Monsanto is the worlds largest agricultural provider of GM seeds and also is the biggest seller of weed killer. They currently dominate the work market for sales of both these products. GM genes are ending up in a large proportion farming practices, and its a big business.
Monsanto was the original creator of the artificial sweetener saccharin and has also been involved in the creation of the first nuclear weapons, Agent Orange and other chemicals such as PCBs and dioxins. All of these chemicals were marketed to the public as beneficial to our health and lifestyles, but all of them have been shown to have serious health effects associated with them. The morals and ethics of a company that has introduced so many health causing chemicals and products into our lives may have to be questioned.
Monsanto states on their website that they have the health of the environment and the world as their primary focus. Can this be true when the company has already been shown to introduce so many environmental and health disasters in to the world? Stated in the Monsanto pledged is that they want to create an abundance of food. In Latin-America, Monsanto is currently trying to regain profits by claiming that any soy bean that has their patented round-up ready gene in it belongs to them, so in turn they want a cut of the harvest. Is this helping the world to create an abundance of food, or is helping the abundance of Monsantos profits?
Monsanto is also in the process of modifying foods so that they have certain nutritional characteristics. For example a soybean that creates a higher amount of omega 3 fatty acids is one of the products that will soon be available to the market. These new foods pose a very real threat to the eating habits of nations. These new plants with nutritional characteristics will be marketed as healthy alternatives to normal foods. But at what risk? There is no long term research in to the safety of these foods. The marketing behind these foods will also create further confusion in an already misled community on information on healthy eating practices.
GM plants may pose the threat of creating super-breeds of resistant pests, causing the normal farmers to have to use more chemicals. It may also mean the owners of the GM plants may have to use pesticides specific to the breed of plant. In 2005, six weeds have allegedly been reported resistant to the weed killer, roundup. This creates a market for new weed killers that are patented to work against these super weeds. Again is this ecologically sound for the environment and our health, or for the health of the companies that produce the seeds? This in turn may cause non-GM farmers to have to buy GM crop to be able to keep up with their neighbours in creating yields that are personally and economically viable.
Another strain of GM foods contains a marker gene that is antibiotic resistant. The gene in isolation has been tested for safety to the human digestive system, but not as a complete food, and not for long-term effects. There are fears that the use of these genes within food may lead to genetic mutations in bacteria, resulting in creation of antibiotic resistant super-bugs. There is also a fear that these antibiotic resistant genes within foods may affect the integrity of the gut mucosa and the health of the symbiotic relationship we have with the probiotic bacteria in the human intestinal system. In turn, this may lead to new and rare chronic diseases in the community.
Naturopathic Philosophy and GM foods
Nutritionally, there is very little concrete information on the affects of GM foods on the human body, especially over a long-term period of ingesting the whole food. We can not yet see if the body recognises and assimilates these GM proteins without any long term side effects. Testing to date has been done on singular altered proteins in a human digestive model. The proteins are broken down by enzymes in this model so we have been told that they are safe for human consumption. The final food product is only tested by a means of substantial equivalence. That is, the foods are tested to see if the GM product looks, smells, tastes, functions and nutritionally compares to a traditional product. On paper this may seem appropriate and safe for human consumption, but this does not take in to consideration the effect that the inclusion of a different gene in to an organism can affect the complete state of being for that organism. That in turn can effect how as humans, our bodies interact with that substance.
The logarithms of possible effects that introducing a new and unrecognisable protein in to the body is endless. For a person with perfect digestion, these products may never cause a problem. For someone that has impaired digestive processes, these new proteins may cause extra stress and energy use in an already under functioning system. The possibility of strange gut- mediated immune reactions is a real, especially with constant use of GM foods in a persons diet. If these altered proteins can some how get in to the blood stream, via leaky gut syndrome, the possibilities for chronic disease processes is also endless.
A Naturopath looks at the whole being of a person when treating an individual. The first principle of Naturopathy is to first, do no harm. In relation to GM foods, the harm or benefits of these foods have not yet been established. So in following philosophy, a naturopath may recommend removing GM foods from the diet, as there may be a possibility of harm to a person by constant ingestion. Another Naturopathic principle is that prevention is better than cure. So in line with philosophy, removal of these foods from the diet may prevent the onset of disease, as the long term safety of these foods are yet to be established.
How do we know if our food has been genetically modified?
The food labelling laws in the UK at the moment requires foods that are directly from GM material to be labelled on the packet. GM foods are not only on our supermarket shelves though, but they are also being fed to our livestock. The consequences of this on the health of livestock and the consequential health of the individuals that then consume these animals are still very widely unknown. Many theories are in place whether or not there will be any side effects from the use of GM food in to our food chains, and if this in turn will create side effects and new chronic and rare diseases of immunity that will affect human health.
So how do we as consumers choose not to eat GM foods? The first obvious choice is to eat organically wherever possible, as organic farming regulations do not permit the use of GM crops. Food labelling requirements currently in the UK states that foods that are sold from a plant origin have to be labelled, which is great for us as the consumer to make informed choice. On the other hand, meat and dairy products that have had genetically modified grains used as feed do not have to be labelled to contain genetically modified product. So unless your meat is organic or you trust the source, it is hard to know what your meat product has been fed.
The major food outlet chains in the UK can only confirm that certain brands of meat contain non-GM fed grain. Most supermarkets will only vouch for the organic products they sell, as they have their own regulating bodies. Marks and Spencer are the company leading the charge for making sure that the meats they sell in the store are from non-GM fed animals.
So the choice in the end lands with the informed consumer. There are many websites that can be found on line that both support and negate the debate for GM foods, and help the consumer to make an informed choice about how they feel about the ethics and the effects that GM foods have on our health and environment. Essentially, the responsibility for our health and our planet starts and ends with every one of us, so be informed in your food choices and make youre own health decisions.
Debbie Cotton Ad.Dip.Nat
Lecturer CNM
References and further links
Friends of the earth
http://www.foei.org/
Seeds of Dispute, Oliver Balch
Wednesday 22nd February 2006
Guardian unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Huppatz JL, Fitzgerald PA, Gentically Modified foods- safety and regulatory issues , The Medical Journal of Australia, MJA 2000 172, 170-173
Monsanto vs Schmeiser
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
