Feeding the poor with GM food

Minnesota, USA - When the University of Minnesota's Centre for Gene Technology began construction two years ago, opponents of biotechnology attacked the construction site forcing authorities to double the guards and intensify security.

Ron Philips, director of the sophisticated, partly-privately funded Centre for Microbial and Plant Genomics, said the site was firebombed by activists from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETRA).

That was two years ago. Construction has been completed and in August most of the staff moved into the spanking, glass panelled open corridors' building which Philips said - while guiding a group of visiting scientists and journalists from South and Central Asia around - is meant to show "we are not doing anything secret."

"The building has high glass panels making it see-through from the outside. We don't do any secret research," Philips said. The building was built at a cost of $20 million, equally borne by a donation from Cargill, the multinational agriculture and food conglomerate, and the state government. It is called the Cargill Centre for Gene Technology.

A Cargill spokesman said the money was gifted to the university with no strings attached nor any hidden agenda. "We don't control their research nor do we know what they do. It's philanthropy and for the benefit of mankind," noted Douglas Cameron, Cargill's director of Biotechnology.

Prof Charles Muscoplat from the university also speaks of anti-biotech advocacy groups being spoilers to the biotech research programmes on the campus "Four times in the past few years there have been vandalism. We have increased police protection. We have cameras in our labs," he said reiterating that the university doesn't undertake any secret research projects.

This kind of opposition from GM opponents towards GM research and development is not uncommon across the United States particularly when GM is still a technology that conjures mystery and somewhat, unknown fears. During a visit to three university faculties in the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, the group of Asian scientists and journalists was given a comprehensive overview of the issues confronting GM scientists and researchers, and its benefits (which is the focus of today's feature article).

The majority of US scientists support the technology and believe it is the only way to feed the world's poor as agricultural land shrinks and demand grows to increase output in a smaller land space. Dr Susan Harlander, biotechnologist and head of BIOrational Consultants Inc, says there are many challenges to agriculture particularly meeting the food needs of a growing global population.

She said 800 million people face malnutrition while the majority of population growth takes place in developing countries. Some 40 percent of the world's land used for agriculture is seriously degraded at a time when world cereal production must rise by 40 percent by 2020 to meet global food needs.

Dr Harlander said because GM crops don't need labelling in the US, they have made their way through commodity distribution channels into thousands of ingredients used in processed food. More than 70 percent of processed food contain at least one or more ingredient derived from GM soy or corn land like soybean oil, corn oil, corn starch, soy protein isolates, corn flour, corn syrup, mono-glycerides, dextrose and high fructose corn syrup.

"It would be extremely difficult for food companies to determine whether corn and soy-derived ingredients in their products were from GM foods," she said, adding that the food supply chain was a relatively complex web with grain changing hands 14 to 17 times during the conversion of raw grain to ingredients to processed food making trace back very challenging and expensive.

"For example a medium-sized food company manufactures over 6,000 processed products from over 8,000 ingredients obtained from more than 1,000 suppliers. Products are manufactured in 30 to 40 plants and shipped to 50 or more countries." She said the nutritional benefits in the biotech pipeline are seen in seedless tomatoes that have properties which could prevent prostrate cancer, vegetables with properties that prevent macular degeneration, healthy oils that prevent heart disease, and enhanced iron in grains and vegetable to tackle anaemia. Scientific organisations around the world agree that GM crops currently in use are not "inherently less safe than conventional food; the types of risks are of the same nature and extensive safety assessments provide equal or greater assurance of safety," she said, adding that all types of food over the ages were not 100 percent risk free.

"So far 400 million acres in the world contain GM crops and that's a good track record as there hasn't been any problems so far," she argued listing out the benefits. Phil Pardey, Prof. of Science at the University's Dept. of Applied Economics, said GM food was essential to feed a 50 percent rise in world population by 2050, an increase of three billion people.

He said by then there would be less new land that comes under agriculture and less investment in agriculture research and development. GM would substantially increase food output. Ben Senaur, a food industry specialist, said many of the trends in the US in relation to concern about GM food were being seen in developing countries. "No one can say food is essentially safe.

There is nothing called '100 percent safe food'." He said according to some of the current trends in the food industry people want ready to eat meat and not having to cook it. The expected time to prepare a meal has come down to 15 minutes in the 1990s from 30 minutes in 1970, 60 minutes in 1950 and 150 minutes in 1930. In the US, people are more concerned about how food is handled than pesticide resistance products. (Next week - consumer concerns and ethical issues)

Mandatory labelling of food products
Mandatory labelling of food products is not required in the US unlike in Europe. However some companies have decided to voluntarily label their products as non-genetically modified.

The US Food & Drug Administration has published draft guidelines on the voluntary labelling of foods containing or not containing GM ingredients. The authority says that mandatory labelling is not required for bio-engineered food unless the food is "materially different."

Dr. Susan Harlander quotes the FDA as saying labels have to be truthful and properly substantiated. It doesn't recommend the use of the words "genetically modified" because this term is not technically accurate, as all food has been genetically modified through conventional plant breeding.

Officials say that some companies are overtly labelling their products as GMO-free or non-GM food. On April 5, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that 16 of the 20 products labelled as non-GM or GMO-free tested positive for the presence of GM corn or soy.

Harlander says labels are inaccurate and misleading to consumers and even under best-case scenarios it is very difficult to guarantee that the non-GM label is truthful.However another US expert report notes that labels are a valuable source of information for consumers.

It said general consumer research has shown that label statements should be clear and not misleading and should provide salient facts to the consumer. It should also be in laymen's terms, use consistent terminology and follow a standard format, the report said. Labelling, on the other hand, may not work the way it should.

In one instance in Europe, when GM-food was labelled, international NGOs strongly demonstrated against stores where they were sold, consumer demand dropped sharply and store managers pulled out GM-labelled products from the shelves. "This is an example of the 'good' driving out the 'bad' but not an example of providing consumers with a broader set of choices," said another US scientist in a report.

In the halls of a food multinational
At the door to the main building at Cargill headquarters in a wooded part of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a sign "Cargill bans guns in these premises."
This may not be unusual in the US except for the fact that this giant agriculture and food processing company which employs 90,000 people in 57 countries is itself seen as a secretive company and doesn't always allow visitors, particularly journalists into its off-the-beaten-track headquarters.

Purnendu C. Vasavada, Professor of Food Science at the University of Wisconsin, who coordinated the entire programme for the visiting group, in fact pulled off a rare feat - being able to convince Cargill's management to allow journalists and scientists from Asia visit the facility where biotech research is conducted for food purposes.
The Cargill headquarters is surrounded by a sprawling green and dozens of giant trees. Journalists are rarely allowed into the building and on this occasion too, though it was a rare visit, we were only allowed into the conference room for a briefing and later, the large restaurant for lunch.

Access to the research rooms and lab was not permitted. Cargill is a leader in biotech research and hence draws a lot of flak from environmental groups. Douglas C Cameron, Cargill's director of biotechnology, told the visiting group that the vision of the organisation - the largest private company in the world - is to be the global leader in nourishing people.

He said while biotech is used to make a product or as a service or tool, Cargill also values food safety being a large food company. Cargill pursues both large and small volume applications of BT and is exploring both biological and chemical transfers.

The company is involved in international marketing, a processor and distributor of agricultural, food, financial and industrial products and services and has on its list of customers like McDonald's, Kraft, Nestle, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Wal-Mart (the biggest supermarket chain in the US) and Unilever.

The company has stirred controversy over its GM-based products but has not attracted as much negative attention as Monsanto, a US seed company. Cargill, once in the seed business, sold its global seed business to Monsanto about 10 years ago. It retained the US part of the operation but sold it later to Dow Chemicals Ltd.

Back to Top

Back to Business

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.