How Monsanto is Threatening Our Food Supply

Abstract

In this paper I attempt to show the development of genetically modified organisms or GMOs and how they have infiltrated agriculture and food production. With nearly seventy percent of food in your grocery store containing genetically modified, or GM ingredients, it is hard to avoid these products. The U.S. government does not require labeling of GMOs, so the average consumer has no idea whether what they are buying is (GM) or not. Has there been enough research? Do we know that these products are safe? I will discuss the history of Monsanto corporation and their rise to the top of the agricultural food chain. I cite a number of sources including ; The movies Food Inc., The World According to Monsanto, and David vs Monsanto

Genetically Modified Food

Genetically Modified or GM foods are making headlines once again. Recently the Whole Foods market chain previously known to be an oasis of organics has decided to carry products containing GM ingredients. There have been many protests demanding these products be labeled. One of the matters at the heart of this debate is the health effects of pollen from GM corn on Bees and Butterflies. Another concern is the impact on human health. Approximately seventy percent of the food in a U.S. super market contains a GM ingredient (food Inc. 2008). This combined with the fact that GM foods are not labeled in the U.S. makes it increasingly difficult for consumers to know if they are consuming GM products. Some would ask,

What are genetically modified organisms or GMOs? A GMO is any organism where the genetic material of the organism has been altered. GMOs have existed since the dawn of man. This could also be called selective breeding. Mans’ best friend the dog is a great example of genetic modification, or GM. Dogs have been selectively bred to exhibit desired characteristics. Depending who you ask this may have gone a bit too far resulting in breeds like the French Poodle and the Mexican Hairless. When you mention genetically modified organisms most people think of a laboratory and of scientific experiments when in reality it is just crossing two varieties of a species to obtain a desired characteristic in a new variety.

Another type of GM is genetic engineering. What most people call GMOs are actually genetically engineered organisms, or GEOs. These are very different from GMOs, and are actually scientifically engineered organisms that would never exist in nature. This is accomplished by taking DNA from a species with a desired characteristic, usually a resistance to either a pesticide, herbicide, draught, temperature, or frost, and implanting or inserting it into the DNA of a host in which you want that trait. This can be done across species barriers. One example of this is a Strawberry that was made frost resistant by taking DNA from a Flounder (yes a fish) and inserting it into the gene of a Strawberry. This technology enables scientist to mix and match genes from any species, animal or plant. The carrier, or method of transferring DNA from one organism to another is Viruses or bacterium, which are excellent at cell invasion. The E. Coli bacterium is commonly used to carry DNA to a targeted gene in creating GEOs.

Biotech

Biotechnology is a relatively new science. The first transgenetic organism was created in 1973 by scientist Herber Boyer and Stanley Cohen. They were successful in inserting antibiotic resistant genes into E. Coli bacterium. A year later in 1974, Rudolph Jannisch became the first to create a transgenetic species by adding DNA to a mouse embryo. Herbert Boyer then went on to form Genentech in 1976, giving birth to what we know now as the biotech industry. In this short period of time, from 1976 to present day, biotechnology has grown immensely. According to Fikes (2007) Genentech was valued at $ 90 billion in 2007. With earnings like this it is clear biotechnology is here to stay. What is not clear is what role it will play in our future. Like most rapidly growing industries the growth of the biotech industry has exceeded the drafting of legislation regulating this new technology.

There are many benefits to GMOs. Insulin can now be produced in a laboratory which is a great benefit to diabetics, and stem cell research may prove to provide the cure to many ailments in the future. Scientists even hope to be able to revolutionize organ transplant operations, by utilizing organs from cloned pigs. GMO bacteria has proved useful in the detoxification of contaminated soil through bioremediation. While it is evident that biotechnology has and will continue to lead to many scientific breakthroughs that will benefit humanity, it is not clear how incorporating this technology in agriculture will affect us.

Enter Monsanto

In 1996 the first GM food made its appearance on the U.S. Market. Branded the Flavr Savr, it is a tomato genetically engineered to delay ripening, making it more durable for transport, and giving it longer shelf life. The result was a tomato that lasts longer and has a better appearance, but is lacking in flavor. Since then the number of GMOs on the market has been increasing every year. One of, if not the biggest, and perhaps the most influential company involved in GM food production is Monsanto. Monsanto got its start in chemical production. When it comes to environmental and health concerns, they have what you could call an abominable record. Monsanto is known for developing or producing the following products, DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, Roundup, Aspartame, rBGH, two varieties of GM crops, and the Terminator Seed.

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT is a powerful insecticide that was used extensively from after World War Two until the 1970s, when it was banned. DDT is exceptionally harmful to wildlife and the environment and worked its way up the food chain due to the fact that it accumulates in fat cells. The Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and Brown Pelican all neared the brink of extinction as a result of one of DDTs side effects, a weakening of the shell strength of eggs. A large percentage of the eggs of birds that consumed DDT laden food sources could not support themselves and would break, lowering the hatch rate of offspring, greatly reducing the numbers of successive generations. Among humans DDT caused reproductive problems, miscarriages, and various cancers as well as damage to the nervous system.

Polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs are a synthetic chemical compound primarily used as an industrial coolant. PCBs were used extensively throughout the world from 1929 until they were banned due to toxicity in 1977. In 1935, Monsanto purchased the Swann Company that had invented PCBs and became the sole producer in the U.S.. PCBs are harmful to the reproductive system, impair neurological development of children, are an endocrine system disruptor, compromises the immune system, and may cause cancer. For forty years Monsanto dumped toxic waste into West Anniston creek and millions of pounds of PCBs into open pit landfills in Anniston Alabama. Internal documents with such warnings as ‘Confidential : Read and Destroy’ affirm that Monsanto hid information from the public and knowingly continued to endanger the health of local citizens and the environment. A study Funded by Monsanto showed fish exposed to the water of a nearby creek all died within three and a half minutes with their skin falling off as if dipped in acid. Even after having this information Monsanto did not cease dumping, but instead issued memos stating ‘we must begin to protect ourselves’ and ‘protect image of …the corporation’(Grunwald, 2002). Monsanto ended up paying a settlement of $700 million to the residents of Anniston (Robin, 2008).

Agent Orange is an herbicide and defoliant. It was used extensively in the Vietnam War to kill the forests eliminating hiding places for the enemy. Although it was not created by Monsanto, they did develop a formula that was 1,000 times stronger than their competitors. Agent Orange has had huge repercussions in Vietnam. The Vietnamese continue to suffer from tens of thousands birth defects and deformities caused by dioxins in Agent Orange each and every year. Monsanto still denies the toxicity of Agent Orange in order to avoid paying settlements to both Vietnamese civilians and U.S. veterans that were exposed (Robin, 2008).

Roundup

Roundup is the brand name for Monsantos’ flagship herbicide, which has been the best selling herbicide worldwide for the last thirty years. Initially Roundup was labeled as biodegradable. However, Monsanto was found guilty of false advertising in New York in 1996, after studies showed only two percent had broken down twenty eight days after application. Monsanto subsequently removed the biodegradable claim from their label (Robin, 2008). Not only is Roundup not biodegradable, but its main ingredient glyphosate has been found in rivers posing a much larger environmental concern than previously thought. Studies conclude Roundup is harmful to humans and mammals. It is shown to have a noticeable effect on human placental cells at one hundred times lower than levels recommended for agricultural use after only eighteen hours of exposure. What is interesting is Roundup is more toxic than its main ingredient by itself. The lethal dose for placental cells proved to be 1.8 times lower with Roundup than it was for glyphosate. This may be due to the adjuvants ability to facilitate cellular penetration. The studies show that glyphosate mixed with the ingredients in Roundup multiply its endocrine effect, and conclude that Roundup is a potential endocrine disruptor and can lead to reproductive problems (Richard, et al, 2005).

Governmental Influence

There is television news footage from 1987 of George Bush senior then Vice President touring a Monsanto research lab nine years before their Roundup Ready Soy hit the market. When one of the Monsanto executives states concern about the amount of time it will take for their new GM product Roundup Ready Soy to be approved, Bush says “ call me, we’re in the deregulation business”(Robin, 2008). Monsanto appears to have huge influence over governmental policy.

You might say how can this be? How is it, a product engineered by merging two organisms together through the use of bacteria and viruses is not categorized and regulated. Well this is where Monsanto comes into the picture.

There are two main types of GMO crops. The first is Roundup Ready technology, are plants which have been engineered by Monsanto to be resistant to their herbicide Roundup. This enables farmers to spray their entire field with herbicide, killing the targeted weeds, but leaving the food crop unaffected. The other is Bacterial Toxin, or Bt crops. Bt crops are engineered to contain biological toxins which act as an internal pesticide, eliminating the threat from targeted insect species. I will also discuss two other products, Recombinant Bovine growth Hormone, or rBGH and Terminal seed technology.

With the human population exploding at the rate it is, food production is becoming more and more important. We must find a sustainable way to feed this ever growing populous and some think that genetic engineering is the solution. The Pro GMO lobby and manufacturers of these products say that they can produce more food in a smaller footprint than with traditional farming, while conserving water and reducing chemical use.

Those opposed to GMOs state concerns over the safety of this technology. Among these many concerns are the impact on the health of humans and livestock, as well as the effects on the environment. Do we know the effects of cross pollination between GMO and non GMO crops? Are GMO crops safe for livestock to consume? What is the environmental impact of using more and more herbicide? How do Bt crops effect the food chain? These are all very important questions with serious ramifications.

The FDA

There has not been much in the way of regulation to deal with the rapid influx of Gm foods into the marketplace. As a matter of fact there are really no safety standards at all. There is more regulation governing adding food coloring to an existing food which is considered a food additive that there is when adding DNA to a food which alters its genetic makeup. This is because GM products are not considered additives. Pro organic activists would like to change this and have Gm products categorized and regulated as food additives. How can this be you say, surely the FDA (Food and Drug administration) Has imposed safety standards, right? Actually the FDA does not recognize the difference between crops created through genetic engineering and traditional farming methods. As a matter of fact Robin (2008) quotes the FDA stating, “foods derived from genetic modification are regulated within the existing framework that applied to foods developed by traditional plant breeding.” The standard in the industry has become known as the principal of substantial equivalence in which the FDA states “in most cases, the substances expected to become components of food as a result of genetic modification of a plant will be the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly found in food” (Robin, 2008).The former head of the FDAs biotechnology division James Maryanski admits that policy was based more on politics than science (Robin, 2008). Robin quotes author Jeffrey Smith as saying the only reason GM foods are here is deception has been initiated at the FDA stating these GM foods are no different than their conventionally bred counterparts. The FDA then labeled GM products under the umbrella of the term G.R.A.S. or Generally Recognized As Safe. However Smith points out, for something to meet the criteria of G.R.A.S., it must meet two standards. First there must be lots of published peer reviewed studies. Secondly” there must be an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community”. It is apparent that GM crops have met neither of these criteria, and therefore should not be considered Generally Recognized As Safe. The FDAs position is that even though GM foods have altered DNA, they are no different than non GM DNA, and because we have been consuming DNA for centuries, it is G.R.A.S. (Robin, 2008).

Jeremy Rifkin, president of The Foundation of Economic Trends states, among insiders and lobbyists the measure of substantial equivalence is a complete joke and was just a way for companies, “especially Monsanto” to get their products on the market faster. Enabling them to bypass governmental scrutiny which would add delays and costs associated with safety regulations. Rifkin states “I have never seen a situation where one company could have so much overwhelming influence at the highest levels of regulatory decision making as the example of Monsanto with its GM food policy and the government”(Robin, 2008)

Sustainability Is The Key

To understand the issue fully I think we need to pull back and look who the players are and at their history. Monsanto is the leader in the relatively new industry of genetically engineered agriculture. Monsantos’ mission statement is “producing more, conserving more, improving lives, that’s sustainable agriculture, and that’s what Monsanto is all about”. That sounds really nice and almost gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. However when we look into the history of this company, its not so warm and fuzzy. Started in 1901 Monsanto rose to become one of the largest chemical manufacturers. They produced such wonderful products as DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and Aspartame.

DDT was used as a chemical weapon in World War Two, then diluted into an agricultural pesticide for post war consumers. It is still perhaps the most widely recognized name in pesticides. So toxic is DDT that it worked its way into water supplies and eventually into the ocean. Due to its effect on the food chain predatory birds such as the Eagle, Falcon, and the Pelican were almost wiped out completely

Griffin, et al., state that by Brazil using GM crops they could “conserve the remaining rainforest, while provide jobs and sustainable economic growth”. She continues that GM crops will be beneficial in that they reduce the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and irrigation. While this may sound great there is not much science available to validate this claim. Studies on the effect of Roundup Ready crops actually reveal the opposite.

Just because something is possible does not mean that it should be attempted. We have all seen the movie Frankenstein, and that is a prime example that some experiments are best left undone. When speaking on the issue of GM foods, Prince Charles of Whales stated “there is a danger, especially in areas as sensitive as food, health and the long – term future of our environment, in putting our efforts into establishing what is technically possible without first stopping to ask it is something we should be doing”

I believe that studies clearly show that more research is needed before GM food products are so widely accepted. If these products are so safe, then why are they not labeled here in the U.S., as they are in other countries . Few things are as important to our health and vitality as our food source and water supplies. If these GM products are found to be safe, then shouldn’t consumers have a right to choose whether they want to consume them or not. It would seem apparent to me that any product or additive that effects the quality of our most vital resources must be thouroghly evaluated before being placed on the market. While it is true that we need to produce more food from a smaller footprint as the population grows, I am not sure that the use of chemicals offers a sustainable method to achieve this. The result of more and more acres of GM crops being planted each year is an ever increasing presence of herbicides and pesticides. This eliminates biodiversity and can have very dire consequences as we are seeing with the reduction of the bee population.

What we think of as weeds are in many cases native grasses and plants that are a crucial part of a balanced ecosystem. The key to a healthy ecosystem is to keep things in balance. Nature has a way of managing this as long as we let it. As soon as we start monocropping (planting only one crop) and eliminating “weeds” we are creating an environment that is out of balance. Another problem with prolonged and repeated use of an herbicide is that plants then grow resistant to that herbicide, as we are seeing with so called “super weeds” that have grown resistant to Roundup. Then you are forced to use a different herbicide. This cycle continues to no end, the result being more and more chemicals being added to our soil, aquifers, rivers, and the food we eat. As it is Cook points out today pesticides are found in seven out of every ten commercially grown fruits and vegetables sampled in the U.S.(EWG). It seems to me this is a perfect cycle for a corporation that manufactures chemicals, creating a need and a market for newer and stronger pesticides and herbicides, but is this how we want to grow our food.

In conclusion I think that we need to change the way we look at food and food production. We would do well to adopt the tradition of many native American cultures where they weighed the consequences of their actions based on the effects they might have on the next seven generations. It can never be good to spray chemicals on food. I think this brings up a question of morals. Is it “right” for mankind to try to improve upon nature, or is that just our arrogance and ignorance leading us to a fate unknown. Just because something is possible does not mean that it should be attempted. We have all seen the movie Frankenstein, and that is a prime example that some experiments are best left alone. When speaking on the issue of GM foods, Prince Charles of Whales stated “there is a danger, especially in areas as sensitive as food, health and the long – term future of our environment, in putting our efforts into establishing what is technically possible without first stopping to ask it is something we should be doing”

Write Articles and GET PAID !!!

Sign up for a free Hubpages account and make money with your writing. Sign up with link below.

http://hubpages.com/_23q36rjl6hqp5/user/new

 Refrences

References

Deeprose, j. You say tomato and I say GMO. Food Manufacture, 73(7), 24.

Elderkin, S., & wiles, R. (1995, February). Illegal Pesticides in the U.S. Food Supply. In Environmental Working Group. Retrieved March 14, 2011

Fikes, b. J. (2007, February 23). Genentech stock buffeted, but drug outlook remains strong. North County Times (Escondido CA). Retrieved March 14, 2011

Genetics and Genomics Timeline (n.d.). In Genome News Network. Retrieved March 14, 2011

Grunwald, M. (2002, January 1). Monsanto Hid decades Of Pollution. North County Times (Escondido CA), p. A01. Retrieved March 14, 2011

Kahn, J. P. (2007, January 23). Cloning pigs for parts. In CNN Health. Retrieved March 14, 2011

Kenner, R. (Director). pollan, M., Schlosser, E., & Hirshberg, G. (Actor). (2009). Food, Inc. [Motion picture]. USA: magnolia Pictures.

Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., & Seralini, E. G. (2005, June 1). Differential Effects of Glphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(6), 716-720. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from Academic search Premier.