Gmos: a Transition Toward Sustainability

23

GMOs: A TRANSITION TOWARD

GMOs: A Transition Toward Sustainability

Colorado Technical University

Julia Gillette

December 11, 2013

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally, allowing selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another and between non-related species." The growing attention to sustainability science in recent years includes the need for more clarification on genetically modified organisms (GMO) and how they will shape the long-term trends and transitions that will provide directions for this century. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GMO foodswith no adverse effects. However, the United States has no GMO labeling and no epidemiological studies have beencarried out, therefore no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in thiscountry have anything to do with GMO foods, is available. Therefore, this claim has noscientific basis.

Central among this questioning is: How will GMOs provide a safe and secure food supply for the growing global population and contribute to the “transition toward sustainability”? (PNAS, 2007)

A Lack of a Sustainable Framework

Currently a sustainable framework for the management of risk associated with GMOs is absent from the food and beverage industry. A fraction of stakeholders such as non-profits, food activists and watchful consumers, universally agree that food and beverage companies need to embrace the concept of a transparent GMO sustainability plan. This is evidenced in the fact that nearly 26 states are working on laws that would require labeling of foods containing GMOs. Research on the management of GMOs within sustainable development theory provides limited guidance (Saunders, 2013).

Having considered a sustainability framework for the food and beverage industry it is also equally important to establish a definition for sustainability science within this context. Sustainability science is a framework of decision-making that uses two or more academic disciplines within a defined area to examine and solve problems related to the interrelationship of environment and economic development. The approach is neither pure science nor applied science. Sustainability science utilizes the best of science and stakeholder input to drive decisions.

Within the field of sustainability science the relationship between the need for sustainable development and the ethical foundations that support this need are critical connections. The aim of ethics within this discipline is the regulation of the power and the threats posed by harmful technological interventions that grow in an ethical void. Moreover, sustainability depends upon getting the science right. The debate over science and precautionary approaches in the management of technological risk is impeded by unwarranted restrictions. Precaution is seen as a

conflict with science based regulation, yet key elements of a precautionary approach are entirely consistent with sound scientific practice. “The acknowledgement of the precautionary approach may thus be seen as a more scientifically rigorous way of carrying forward the regulation of technological risk than would be their denial under a purely ‘risk-based’ approach” (Stirling, 2007).

Another significant factor is the traditional concept of a social contract as an ethical foundation, which crashes when an assurance of quality of life for future generations is proposed. Hans Jonas proposes to build an “ethical modernity” that limits the capacity of humans to be a destructive agent on the sustainability of life. From that perspective, sustainable development can be considered as a limit within the framework of an ethical modernity, and not only of a technical modernity. Therefore, the promotion of sustainable development requires not only insight and facts, but also the ability to provide technically valid and ethically advantageous solutions (Andersson et. al, 2008).

GMOs : Safe and Secure Food Supply

Several reasons are communicated to consumers as to why GMO products are currently favored by food producers and they include: 1) resistance to herbicides, 2) resistance to pesticides, 3) extending the shelf life of foods, 4) reducing hunger worldwide, 5) improving nutrition, and 6) facilitating social and environmental sustainability (Institute for Responsible Technology, 2013). Currently, the top 10 genetically modified food products include: sugar beets, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, squash, golden rice, soybean, oils (soy, canola, cottonseed), animal feed and soon to appear, salmon. Therefore, many of the GMO products currently on US

shelves that contribute to a large portion of GMOs in American diets include sugar made from GMO sugar beets, high fructose corn syrup from GMO corn and products made from GMO oils (Bocco, 2013).

Given the current high profile debate with regard to GMOs it is quite surprising that regardless of the bright future that technology promises, the food industry has not taken steps to establish a risk management sustainability plan to satisfy consumer apprehensions. For example, in 2001, the Los Angeles Times published an expose´ revealing that Monsanto’s own research had raised questions about the safety of their Round Up ready soy beans. Surprisingly the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) did not call for more testing before the soybeans hit the marketplace.

In addition, Tyson Foods has revealed that they “likely” use genetically grown grain to make chicken feed and as an ingredient in breading and flour, and go on to say, “But, the corn and soybeans we buy are safe to use, as noted by the World Health Organization,GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. (Tyson Foods, 2013). In short, the Federal Drug Administration who directly regulates the approval of GMOs does not conduct any tests, they simply encourage the developers of GMO plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products. It is the developer that produces safety assessments (FDA, 2013).

It is apparent from the above analysis that Monsanto has played an important role in the agricultural sciences, which has had a dramatic effect over the food people, mainly in the United States, have consumed over the last twenty years. Monsanto is one of the largest corporations in

the world and a gatekeeper to the global food supply. They began as a chemical company and produced, among other things, the food additive saccharin. In addition, the company developed and manufactured bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which has been banned in many places outside the U.S., including Japan, Canada, and the European Union. Monsanto is one of the most assertive forces pushing forGMOs. According to their website, “Monsanto of today is focused on agriculture and supporting farmers around the world in their mission to produce more while conserving more” (Monsanto “History”, 2013). According to Monsanto they were one of the founding members of The Sustainability Consortium, which claims to play a critical role in a scientific framework for the development of related analytical tools. The Sustainability Consortium is an organization of diverse global participants working to make the world more sustainable through better products, services and consumption (Monsanto “Sustainability Consortium”, 2013). As previously mentioned, the promotion of sustainable development requires not only wisdom and knowledge, but also the ability to provide technically justifiable and ethically desirable solutions (Andersson et. al, 2008). Therefore, if Monsanto takes the lead on a scientific framework, a group of voices with competing values must be part of the process.

As a result of GMO seeds being distributed to farmers in many of the supply chains in the United States, many companies currently use GMOs foods grown from these seeds in their food products. Monsanto offers farmers a wide range of corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, canola, sorghum and sugar cane seeds. Several large companies have affirmed in their websites to be using GMO products in their supply chain and include: Sunny Delight, Tyson Foods, Nestle´, and General Foods. The current claims made by food and beverage companies on GMO products are defined as policies. The basis of each policy is not only that GMOs are safe, but that they

provide many benefits to the people and the environment. Each company suggests that GMO technology is not a new technology and that they want to assist their consumers in the understanding that 70-80% of foods eaten by Americans already include GMO products and therefore they are safe. This is purely a “risk based” approach.

Since 1992, the United States has approved over 100 GMO plants to be used to feed people and animals. Today nearly all processed foods in the United States contain GMO ingredients (Vogel, 2012). Having considered GMO crops as a sustainable food source for the world, it is also reasonable to expect these crops to be a safe and nutritious part of the food supply. Since the definition for food security maintains that, “…food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy and active life” (World Food Summit, 1996).

Ironically, the sale of non-GMO foods globally is projected to reach $800 billion by 2017 and this projection mirrors the voice of the consumers loud and clear (Packaged Facts, 2013). Projections are that non-GMO sales will increase in all regions of the world, and at the same time GMO crops are being planted in territories previously banned throughout the world. After dropping their bid to approve GMO crops in Europe in July 2013, Monsanto commented, “We will no longer be pursuing approvals for cultivation of new biotech crops in Europe. Instead, we will focus on enabling imports of biotech crops into the EU and the growth of our current business there” – Monsanto Corporation (Walia, 2013). From a sustainable perspective, what is the structure of an ethical and responsible system for a global environment with regard GMOs?

Since normative goals and the questions asked play a prominent role in sustainability science, and at some point judgment must be made and problems solved, then the tradeoffs society is willing to make in terms of solving the problem must be established. The fact that GMOs were introduced into the US food supply 20 years ago unbeknownst to the people, and that an uncertainty of their safety is still present due to the integrity of developer testing, then the voices of a wide-range of stakeholders must be included when trying to solve this problem. Sustainability science is not about avoiding values, but instead immersing sustainability science into a pool of competing values (Andersson et. al, 2008).

Transitional Knowledge

The measuring, monitoring and managing of GMOs for food and beverage companies currently has very little support and guidance leading them towards responsible GMO business sustainability strategies. The current trend generally amounts to short policy statements posted on business websites that declare a company’s position on the safety of GMOs. The effective use of science-based evidence for GMOs and the resulting knowledge is increasingly a critical component to risk analysis. With the growing concerns over epistemology in risk management it is crucial to analyze the ways in which information is recognized and validated. Currently information disseminated from scientists is created and integrated into knowledge that will be used for policy development, public understandings of science, business understandings of science and risk analysis, yet the information is rationalized differently by each of the groups (Jamison, 1999).

While there is a lack of GMO sustainability planning and risk assessment there are a few who have made commitments to consumers to become non-GMO. For example, NOW Foods based out of Bloomingdale, Illinois has pledged to go non-GMO with its entire food line of over 170 products. NOW Foods (NOW) was founded by Elwood Richard in 1968 on the belief that natural is better, and the company has grown from a small family operation to a prominent well-respected manufacturer in the natural products industry, yet is still family owned. NOW offers more than 1,400 dietary supplements, foods, sports nutrition and personal care products. According to NOW they are committed to offering safe and affordable products of the highest quality to their consumers. They also maintain that they have a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in their headquarters in Bloomingdale, Ill., and engage in Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) having been certified in 2000. They also have in-house laboratory capabilities, which they claim are among the best in the industry.

NOW Foods claims they have always strived to use organic and non-GMO ingredients, since using these products supports “NOW’s 45 year old mission of empowering people to lead healthier lives” (NOW Foods, 2013). NOW’s position on GMO products in their supply chains is as follows, “Over the past two decades the number of crops that are grown in the United States and other countries using genetic engineering has been increasing” (NOW Foods, 2013). Genetic modification of foods and dietary supplements has become a polarizing topic, and this issue has far-reaching implications for current and future generations. While supporters of genetic engineering (GE) promise higher crop yields and other benefits, more research is needed to gauge the true long-term health and environmental impact of GE agricultural methods and the products produced with these methods. With the growing prevalence of genetically modified

ingredients in the food supply, NOW feels strongly that non-GMO sourcing aligns well with NOW Foods’ core value of producing and selling products that are as natural as possible”(NOW Foods, 2013).

In response to the non-GMO sourcing dilemma and as a way to manage their supply chains NOW has become a part of The Non-GMO Project Verification Program. Also, NOW hires scientific experts to serve on their technical advisory board, and supports national and uniform labeling of GMO foods. NOW actively engages in publicizing data showing that GMO crops can be inferior nutritionally and agriculturally as compared to their related conventionally grown strains, while working actively with ingredient suppliers and asking them to put more effort and resources into non-GMO sourcing and documentation. In addition, they also claim they will continue to expand Certified Organic and non-GMO verified (by The Non-GMO Project) offerings and work with various organizations to improve availability of non-GMO dietary ingredients (NOW Foods, 2013).