When the FDA approved Flavr Savr™ in 1994, stating that it was safe for human consumption, it probably did not anticipate the controversial maelstorm that was going to blow from the European shores as well as from the consumer advocacy and environmental groups here in the States. Whether these groups are overreacting or whether there is any validity in their claims against genetically modified foods has yet to be determined. The only caveat for the consumer is to shop cautiously.

What exactly is the controversy?

Flavr Savr™ tomatoes are just one of the many foods that have gone through genetic alteration in the name of scientific advancement and have been or will be heading to our markets. This type of engineering, better known as biotechnology, has been defined as the following:

1. any technique that uses living organisms or substances from those organisms to make or modify a product, improve plants or animals or to develop micro-organisms for specific uses; or

2. the application of science and engineering in the direct or indirect use of living organisms, or parts or products of living organisms, in their natural or modified form.

Note that under this definition, biotechnology techniques have been used for thousands of years to enhance fruits, vegetables, and meat, with the intent to make them juicier or flavorful, more nutritious and longer-lasting. From the time between 6000 and 4000 BC, when yeast was added to beer, cheese and leavened bread to improve their taste and durability, many cultures began developing other techniques to increase food production from domesticated plant and animal species.

So why are certain groups disturbed by the latest genetically modified foods? Because now the alteration includes the introduction of foreign genes from bacteria and viruses into the foods, some of which have never before been part of the human diet. In the future, we can expect to find foods that have been inserted with DNA from insects, fish, and, yes, even human beings.

Advocacy groups claim that this new biotechnology is putting the consumer at risk because there is no way to predict whether these foods are safe to eat. Right now, the government does not require rigorous testing, but rather routine food-safety tests that may not detect the presence of toxins or allergens that may result from these modified foods.

And yes, there may be a risk in these new engineered foods. In 1989, a dietary supplement called L-tryptophan was linked to 37 U.S. deaths throughout the country. The Centers for Disease Control showed a correlation between the deaths and to a particular tryotophan manufactured using genetically-engineered bacteria. A subsequent study confirmed that the tryptophan was contaminated with a toxin called “novel amino acid” which is not natural to regular tryptophan.

Some scientists argue that the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the benefits derived from genetically-modified foods which include resistance to pests and longer preservation. Yet, in England, one researcher states that his studies show that potatoes produced by biotechnological means has a detrimental effect on the immune systems of laboratory mice, and may pose a health risk for humans as well. Based on this research, some groups in England are calling for a ban on all genetically-modified foods exported from the U.S. The U.S. produces 75% of the world’s gene-modified crops, 50% of the cotton and 45% of soybean crops, so much of the protest has been levelled against its exports to European countries.

Here in the U.S., there isn’t the same public awareness surrounding these foods. And the voices out there in the maelstrom are confusing. There are as many arguments for as there are against this latest scientific development. Some groups are asking for stringent testing for such foods before the FDA approves them for the marketplace. At the minimum, the groups ask that these foods carry some sort of warning label that will inform the public exactly what processes were used to manufacture these foods, as well as the benefits and risks inherent in these processes.

Yet advocates for the modified foods argue that billions of dollars have already been invested in developing these products, so therefore, it would be cost-prohibitive to exclude these products from the marketplace. Another argument is that since genetically-modified foods have been engineered to withstand their natural predators, such as aphids, bollweevils, and other pests, there is less need to spray environmental-harming chemicals.

Currently, there are more genetically-modified foods that have been approved or are awaiting approval here in the U.S.:

Apples
Rice
Barley
Soybeans
Beans
Squash
Strawberries
Corn
Sugar Cane
Cucumbers
Lettuce
Tomatoes
Melons

In New Zealand, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority has received answers to its inquiry about those brand names that may contain genetically-modified foods. Many of these companies could not guarantee that their foods were free of genetic alterations. They included Nestle, Meadow Lea foods, McDonald’s, Delmaine, as well as a few others. Many of them state that the use of these foods are minimal, and some have claimed that they will try to eliminate any types of modified ingredients from their products.

As science brings about new technologies, there will always be those who will resist the changes that come with these advances. And there will also be those on the side of science who will brush aside claims that science is going too far. Somewhere in the middle is the confused consumer wondering whom to listen to. In this case, the criticisms may be valid, or they may be much ado about nothing. But in the end, we, the consumers, are the ones who will have to pay the price, whoever is right - or wrong.