ISSUES IN FOOD SAFETY Genetically engineered foods Bovine

ISSUES IN FOOD SAFETY Genetically engineered foods Bovine somatotropin Food irradiation Pesticide residues in foods Drinking water quality Restaurant food safety 1

Questions that must be answered during the review period are: • Has there been an increase in any naturally occurring toxins in the plant? • Has an allergen not commonly found in the plant been introduced? • Has there been a change in the levels of any important nutrients? • Have new substances that raise safety questions been introduced into the food? • Are there any negative environmental effects? • Have accepted, established scientific procedures been followed? 2

THE CASE AGAINST FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY Human Health Hazards Most food allergies are due to specific proteins found in foods. Some people are so sensitive to certain proteins that eating that protein could cause sudden death. Another area of concern is the potential decreased quality and nutrition of GE foods. 3

Environmental Hazards Opponents worry that wind, rain, insects, and birds will carry pollen from GE foods over to fields planted with traditional or organic crops, thereby “polluting” those fields. 4

Socioeconomic Hazards The promised benefits of increased crop yields from GE crops have not come about. They point to examples of large crop failures from GE crops for evidence that the plants don’t function as advertised. Bt cotton plant. Seed companies have started producing seeds that are genetically modified to make them infertile. This means that the seeds produced by the plants can’t be saved by farmers to plant the next year’s crop. This “terminator technology” forces farmers to buy new seed every year, which many cannot afford to do. 5

THE CASE IN FAVOR OF FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY Human Health Benefits- Examples of the benefits food biotechnology can bring to consumers, they cite: • Tomatoes with increased levels of the antioxidant lycopene, thought to reduce the risk of cancer. • Genetically enhanced soybeans that are lower in saturated fats. • Cooking oils that have a more healthful fat content • Peanuts and rice with improved protein content 6

• Fruits that are genetically engineered to produce vaccines for diseases. • Potatoes with a higher starch content, thereby reducing the amount of oil absorbed during production of french fries and potato chips. • Plants with reduced levels of natural toxins. • Fruits and vegetables fortified with higher levels of vitamins such as C and E. 7

Environmental Benefits include decreased pesticide and herbicide use, more efficient use of pesticides and fertilizer, and water and soil conservation. Another proposed advantage of genetic engineering is that it would increase the genetic variation in staple crops by breeding into them desirable traits from previously unavailable sources. 8

Socioeconomic Benefits Proponents claim that advantages of food biotechnology that will be noticed in the marketplace are foods that have longer shelf life and better flavor, appearance, and texture. Using biotechnology, familiar food products can be produced more cheaply. For example, before genetic engineering techniques became available, the enzyme used to make cheese, rennet, was obtained from the lining of calves’ stomachs. Using biotechnology, researchers have identified and removed the specific gene responsible for rennet production and inserted it in bacteria, which then produce rennet. 9

Instead of spending between 10 and 12 years breeding plants in the traditional manner and mixing thousands of genes that could have unpredictable outcomes, with genetic engineering modern plant breeders can select a specific genetic trait fromany plant or animal and move it into any other plant or animal. This way genetic engineers can design plants with specific beneficial traits and without specific undesirable traits. 10

BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN • Somatotropin (ST) is a naturally occurring protein hormone that regulates growth in humans and other animals. • Pro-BST scientists claim that studies show BST does not adversely affect the health of treated cows, does not change the composition of milk, and does not pose any risk to humans. 11

Opponents of BST claim that there has been a major hijacking of the scientific and regulatory apparatus by Monsanto. In Canada, several scientists claim they were pressured by supervisors to approve BST even though they had reservations about its safety. 12

HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES BST regulates another protein hormone found in milk, insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I). BST opponents believe poses serious risks for human health. They cite studies showing that. B women with small increases of IGF-I levels in their blood are up to seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with lower levels. Proponents of BST claim that higher levels of IGF-I in milk are not a safety risk since it is a protein and therefore is digested and rendered harmless just like all other dietary proteins. 13

ANIMAL HEALTH ISSUES Proponents claim that hundreds of studies have been performed, none of them showing an increased incidence of ill health in BST treated cows. Other scientists disagree with the findings that BST is not harmful to cows. A panel of animal health experts found that cows injected with BST have a higher rate of infertility, increased lameness, increased mastitis, and a shorter life expectancy. 14

SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES About the only fact that pro-BST and anti-BST groups agree on is that BST use results in a 10 to 15 percent increase in milk yield when administered to dairy cows. As with other food biotechnology products, proponents claim that the use of BST will benefit the environment. Reducing the amount of feed required to produce milk will reduce the need for fertilizer and other inputs associated with growing, harvesting, processing, and storing animal feed. Increases in productive efficiency also reduce the production of animal waste. 15

Labeling of milk from BST-treated cows is another hotly contested issue. Those who think it shouldn’t be labeled point to FDA claims that there is no difference in milk from. BST and non-BST treated cows. 16

FOOD IRRADIATION Proponents of food irradiation claim that the safety of irradiated foods has been studied by feeding them to animals and to people. There is no evidence of adverse health effects in these well-controlled trials. Irradiating foods does produce a very small amount of unique radiation products—about three milligrams per kilogram of food, equivalent to three drops in a swimming pool 17

THE CASE AGAINST IRRADIATION Opponents of food irradiation claim it is being pushed on consumers by agri-business, food processors, and the nuclear industry. Health concerns of those opposed to irradiation center around the unique radiation products formed during the irradiation process. Critics claim that irradiation destroys essential minerals and the vitamins A, B, C, E, and K. 18