Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Genetically Modified Food

There has been much controversy over the consumption of genetically modified (GM) foods, whether they harm us or whether they are perfectly safe to eat. An article by EUFIC found on their website makes clear what their view on GM food is, 'we have been consuming genes ever since we first evolved and there is no evidence that they can enter human cells from the food we eat. Even if they could, there is nothing to suggest that they would do us any harm. There is no reason to believe things are any different for any genes in genetically modified (GM) food. Even though certain changes are introduced to the genes, the building blocks of the DNA are exactly the same.'

Lendman (2008), however, states the potential health risks of GM foods in his article 'Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods'. Throughout the article he discusses the health risks to adults and how these risks are magnified for children. 'GM food additives also pose health risks, and their use has proliferated in processed foods. Potential harm to adults is magnified for children. Another concern is that pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger their offspring by harming normal fatal development and altering gene expression that's then passed to future generations.'

Dean and Armstrong (2009) of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) also highly discredit the use of GM foods as, 'because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.' Their article goes further to describe the areas of health GM foods can harm, 'GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health'. Dean and Armstrong state that due to the health risks GM foods could pose and since they are 'without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.' This means they support the banning of GM foods as according to 'the most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."'

It would seem that EUFIC's aim for the safety of foods for humans also stretches to safety for the environment. This is illustrated in one of their articles 'A Look into the Future of Nutrition Research' located on their main website. The article states their approval in future research which may provide 'foods that are safer and more nutritious, new medical treatments and novel ways to help save the environment'

A second article from EUFIC, 'Genetically Modified Foods - the Debate Moves Ahead', further outlines their stance on GM foods saying that there has been much debate over the use of GM foods. The article summarises that 'with much of the discussion cantered on whether or not these foods are safe to eat. Thanks to scientific research, improved understanding of the technology and new regulations, most parties involved in the GM debate now agree that the food and food ingredients derived from currently available genetically modified crops are not likely to present a risk for human health'

An article published in 2008 by Greenpeace stated that, ‘over the last decade, Monsanto aggressively bought up over 50 seed companies around the globe. Seeds are the source of all food. Whoever owns the seeds, owns the food. The process of genetic engineering allows companies, such as Monsanto, to claim patent rights over seeds. Ninety percent of all GE seeds planted in the world are patented by Monsanto and hence controlled by them.’ This is of significance as ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute) is funded by Monsanto and Ronald Walker worked for ILSI as well as EUFIC. This further stresses the intertwined nature of transnational corporations/institutions and the influences that may be at play within them.

Conclusion

It may be the case that as EUFIC receives funding from various companies that use genetically modified ingredients that it is in EUFIC’s interest to discount any research suggesting that they are harmful in any way. This directly goes against EUFIC’s stated purpose as this would mean they are putting the interests of the foods and drinks industry before the interests of the consumers they claim to be representing.