Instead of asking what’s for dinner, it may be time to ask what’s in your dinner
Mike likes to eat healthy, so for lunch he munches on a sandwich made with whole wheat bread and tofu-based “cheese.” He snacks on multi-grain crackers and a bowl of yogurt. When he’s feeling adventurous, he drinks an iced tea to wash it down.
Despite his healthy choices, Mike is actually eating what the British call “Frankenfood.” Every morsel he puts in his mouth is made with corn syrup — one of the most popular genetically modified organisms (GMOs). And although the battle to stem the GMO tide lost favour with the media, the debate is still alive.
The fight for Mike’s grub begins with two crops widely used in food production, which are also widely genetically modified. In the U.S. (the leading GMO-producing country), 85 per cent of soybeans and nearly half the corn planted last year were Superman varieties whose genes had been manipulated in a laboratory. Many other edible crops — from papayas to tomatoes to wheat to squash — are scientifically altered to produce higher yields or to better resist herbicides, pests or drought. A gene from one plant that is heat-resistant, for example, can be extracted and injected into wheat or apples grown in the South.
It sounds like a farmer’s dream but the anti-GMO protest song has been loud. Organic growers complain that GM pollens can be dispersed by wind and spread to their crops. Agriculture experts predict GM wheat could cost U.S. farmers more than $100 million (US) in lost income thanks to consumer resistance. Food safety advocates say little is known about what GMOs do to the human body.
Opposition around the world prompted Europe to pass legislation to label GM ingredients in food products, unlike Canada and the U.S. And in North America, biotech companies such as Monsanto and Ventria have shelved plans to unveil GM rice or wheat. They were further bruised by the resolve of Mendocino County, California, which became the first county in the U.S. to ban GMO production.
Agricultural consultant Dr. Charles Benbrook claims GMOs contain fungi and microtoxins that sicken livestock (most modified soybeans are used as cattle feed) and are then passed on to people through meat and milk. “[Biotech] companies have to answer to Wall Street but they misread how this was all going to play out,” he says.
But don’t say goodbye to GMOs just yet. Pro-biotech states have passed laws that ban local regulation of GM crops, and new technology is dictating what goes on our dinner plates: sweet, seedless tomatoes are being developed by cross-breeding them with other fruit; Ventria is planting genetically enhanced rice with synthetic human genes, hoping to refine them for medicinal use; food scientists are looking for ways to suppress allergens in peanuts, soybeans and wheat; and a Monsanto technical development manager recently called drought resistance the “golden egg” for biotech research.
Joining the already crowded bandwagon is the bastard cousin of GMOs, minus the media frenzy: “Nanofood” refers to scientific manipulations at the nanoscale, one millionth of a millimetre. These foods are embedded with nanoparticles that protect against spoilage or smuggle nutrients into junk food, as Kraft is researching. The nanofood market is expected to grow to $20 billion (US) by 2010, according to consultant Helmut Kaiser.
Apart from giving the public a fresh controversy to chew on, nanofoods hope to overhaul how people grow and process food. Farmers may one day sprinkle their crops with “smart dust,” tiny microsensors to gather information about the best soil or nutrients needed. Later down the line, food packaging can be lined with “oxygen scavengers” that reduce oxygen in easily spoiled items like sliced meat.
It’s all speculative right now, and even the safety concerns aren’t conclusive — no one knows if nanoparticles gather in human tissue or the ecosystem. What the future of food does hold is a question everyone, even a health nut like Mike, must answer eventually: Am I eating what I think I’m eating?
A FARMER’S PERSPECTIVE
There is a great tradition of political activism among farmers in North America, and Todd Peake of North Dakota is keeping it alive. A farmer who follows the biotech debate closely, Peake spoke to Digital Journal about what should concern you.
Digital Journal: What is the future of GMOs?
Peake: Many biotech companies are saying the same thing: “Since it takes millions of dollars to bring an idea to conception, let’s look at possible returns before we engage in developing a gene-crop.”
Digital Journal:How has the role of the farmer changed since GM crops have spread across the continent?
Peake: Our situation is very tenuous now. Once gene-crops are released, it’s impossible to remove them from the seed stock and they’re impossible to control without any assurance they can be removed. It’s not like recalling herbicide.
Digital Journal:What should the public know about their food?
Peake: Every year, more and more GM products are deregulated. I’m concerned because they’re not clinically tested — new genes make a novel protein and while the European Union requires testing of novel proteins, the U.S. and Canada don’t. All countries should legislate mandatory food labelling so the marketplace can determine what works. But labelling will never be voluntary because biotech companies don’t want consumers to know what’s inside their food.
