FREE ESSAY ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

The issue of genetic engineering has always been a very controversial one. The cloning of
"Dolly" the sheep was hailed as a revolutionary breakthrough by scientists while many
groups were sceptical about its repercussions. Only recently however has the topic of
genetically creating and modifying foods come to public attention. Despite the relative
youth of the issue, it has caused much debate among various groups worldwide. 
As of now, there is no legislation in Australia prohibiting the selling of genetically
modified or produced food. This is greatly due to the numerous and varied arguments in
favour of and against genetically modifying foods. There is however legislation
pertaining to GM foods by way of the Food Standards Code. 
The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) completed in 1998 its assessment of the
proposal to establish a standard to regulate food produced using gene technology. ANZFA
recommended to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) that it adopt
the standard into the Food Standards Code. In Australia, the standard (Standard A18) was
gazetted as Amendment #40 to the Food Standards Code published on the 13th of August
1998. This standard made it illegal to sell any food produced using gene technology
unless an application was made to the ANZFA and approval subsequently given by the
ANZFSC.
ANZFA had several reasons for recommending the standard. The main reason was that it felt
that the then regulatory framework was inadequate to ensure that foods produced using
gene technology underwent a safety assessment before they were released onto the market.
The standard also establishes a mechanism whereby consumers can be confident that the
safety of foods produced using gene technology would be fully assessed before they are
made available for sale. Industry would also be provided with a clear, regulatory pathway
for the assessment of food produced using gene technology. The final reason given by
ANZFA was that consumers would have access to accurate information, including labelling,
on foods produced using gene technology.
The standard prescribes mandatory labelling for foods that contain new and altered
genetic material and which are not substantially equivalent to their conventional
counterparts in a characteristic or property of the food. Where the standard specifies
that a food produced using gene technology must be labelled, the label must indicate the
biological origin and nature of the characteristic modified. This last regulation has
proved to be very controversial in Australia as much debate still surrounds the issue of
the mandatory labelling of GM foods.
The managing director of the ANZFA, Mr Ian Lindenmayer, said that he could see many
reasons why the mandatory labelling of GM foods could cause difficulties. He said
mandatory labelling would incur costs to manufacturers that would be necessarily passed
on to consumers. "Any price rises would impair poorer people's ability to by nutritious
food," he said. Despite these grievances, no authority on the issue is yet to make any
concerted effort to determine the cost of labelling. Nor have they asked manufacturers to
make any estimates on the cost impact of labelling. 
Many people believe however that if labelling is not enforced, people will not be able to
make informed choices about what they eat. It is therefore not surprising that groups
have attacked a food standards draft code that will drop the prescriptive standards for
food products. At the heart of consumer concerns are fears the planned changes could lead
to cat, dog and other animal meat being included with meat products. Though many have
rejected such claims as nonsense, the Australian Consumers Association (ACA) supports the
claim standards which only require meat to be "considered safe for human consumption"
would technically make it possible to include any form of meat. This could also lead to
such wonders as fruitless jam or sausages to be filled with offal and cooked prawns
instead of meat. ANZFA spokes man Michael Dack counters that the new code would provide
greater freedom of choice for manufacturers and consumers and that legislation covering
fair-trading and misleading advertising would be adequate to protect consumers. A
national survey of nine hundred and fifty people in April found that sixty-eight per cent
of adults were unhappy about eating GM foods. Ninety per cent of people surveyed felt
that foods containing any modified ingredients should be labelled accordingly. This gives
even more support to the case for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.
Whatever the merits of the arguments interpreting the standards, the message from this
and similar recent debates is that consumers demand transparency and clarity when it
comes to the content and origin of food and the way it is labelled. The hysteria which
has often dominated the GM foods debate should act as a warning signal for those
authorities determining food content standards. Ultimately further genetic modification
of food will almost certainly be necessary to allow the future global population to be
adequately fed. Still, this is not an excuse for people to be anything but fully informed
on what they are eating. Similarly, while there is nothing inherently wrong with altering
food standards, people must be informed enough when they set out to buy food to reject it
if they are concerned about its content, origin or quality.
There are many groups who believe that genetic modification and production of food is a
necessity if famine is to be stopped in developing nations. "Millions of people around
the world would starve if genetically modified foods were banned in Australia," according
to the New South Wales Agriculture Minister, Mr Pat McNamara. Mr McNamara believes that
Australian farmers will be unable to meet the international demand for food crops unless
they are permitted to increase yields through genetic modification. The Nuffield Council
on Bio-ethics report affirms this thought, "There is a compelling moral imperative to
make genetically modified foods readily available to developing countries who want them
to help combat world hunger and poverty." This report also predicts that the production
of foods genetically could help feed an extra 2.5 billion people in developing nations by
the year 2025. Proponents of GM foods say there are huge benefits in terms of higher
yields at lower costs and with less need of pesticides and fertilisers. Opponents however
believe that GM foods pose great risks to public health, biodiversity and the
independence of farmers. 
What is probably closer to the truth is that genetic modification will produce some good
results and some that are disturbing or of inconclusive benefit before there is agreement
on what is aesthetically acceptable, environmentally responsible and ethically
permissible in the application of this type of biotechnology. One thing is for sure;
knowledge, once learnt, can never be unlearnt. Once the technology has been harnessed, a
whole new argument about control, providing safeguards and responsibility begins.
Although labelling is one way to exercise control, provide safeguards and encourage
responsibility, it alone obviously does not solve all problems associated with GM foods.
Ultimately a balance must be struck not only between academic freedom, commercial
interest and the wellbeing of consumers, but also between human knowledge and human
wisdom.