Who engineered my food?

What are genetically modified foods, why are some calling for supervision in the field and is this an unfounded fear of food that is supposed to benefit our diets? Everything you should know about food is already causing a stir in the world of science

Rafael Shalhav Galileo

In March of this year, a group of researchers from the John Innes Center in Great Britain published a press release about several attempts to genetically engineer food products, in a way that would improve their nutritional properties. For example, several researchers at the institute discovered in a study the results of which have not yet been published, a connection between anthocyanins - common plant pigments, known as antioxidants, which give red oranges (also known as "blood oranges") their color - and the reduction of the body's ability to accumulate fat from food.

Since red oranges are much less common than regular oranges, the same researchers are trying to incorporate the pigment into regular oranges without changing their taste. Another group at the institute is focused on trying to insert algae genes into rapeseed plants, from which oil known as canola is produced, with the aim of making them produce omega-3 fatty acids. The main natural source of these oils is fish that feed on algae, but creating it from a plant source that is accessible and easy to grow may increase the accessibility of omega 3 oils, and benefit the health of vegetarians as well as help prevent overfishing.

How will genetically modified food affect the human body?
In an interview he gave to the British Guardian newspaper, Professor Dale Sanders (Sanders), the head of the institute, said that in his opinion the public would not object to consuming genetically modified food, if they knew that the genetic modification was intended to improve the quality of the food, and not to increase the profits of the companies that produce it. Reducing the cost of food and increasing the benefits that the human body can derive from it may benefit consumers in developed countries, as well as in developing countries. However, Sanders is in a minority position in the European Union, where there is great opposition to the marketing and use of genetically modified food.

According to the law in the European Union, a company wishing to market genetically modified food is required to obtain approval from the head of the European Food Safety Authority, after proving that the food is not dangerous to humans, animals or the environment. Even after receiving the approval, the company must ensure that any food product that contains more than 0.9% of genetically modified components will be marked as containing genetically modified products in order to inform consumers and allow them to buy food in an informed manner.

In addition to this, everyone involved in the production and sale of the food is required to maintain constant contact with those close to him in the production chain, and to inform them that the product in question has undergone genetic engineering processes or contains genetically engineered components, so that the knowledge of the content of the ingredients will reach the consumers at the end of the day.
Behind the particularly strict regulation of the European Union is a fear of the consequences of consuming food that is perceived as unnatural, and whose effects on the human body are unknown. In recent years, several documentaries, such as "Food Inc", brought to the public's attention the fact that many of the foods we consume are genetically modified in order to make them more resistant to transport or spraying.

This fact raised concerns about possible changes in the way in which genetically modified food will affect the human body that needs it, the animals that feed on it and then marketed as meat for food, or the quality of the environment and ecological diversity. According to estimates made by the Director of Consumer Health of the European Union in 2010, close to 90% of the fodder used in the EU countries was genetically modified, and it is estimated that this will have an impact on the possibility of continuing to grow certain types of plants without the pollination and hybridization of transgenic varieties and varieties. natural'.

However, the director also reported that as of today there have been no cases of damage caused to consumers as a result of the consumption of genetically modified foods, and that the great fear of genetically modified foods has not materialized.

Different countries - different laws

On the other side of the Atlantic, in the United States, the legal situation is completely different. The American Plant Protection Act (The Plant Protection Act) allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture in the federal government to prevent the spread of pests to plants in the United States, or to limit and monitor the spread. Although, regulations published by the Department of Agriculture in accordance with the law, stated that genetically engineered plants fall into the category of 'pests', unless the Department of Agriculture determined otherwise after an environmental review was conducted regarding the effect of the engineered plant on the environment.

In practice, the Department of Agriculture tends to state fairly broadly that genetically modified plants are harmless to agriculture, and therefore removes any oversight of them. In addition, the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States (FDA) take a completely opposite position to that of the European Union in relation to labeling food that contains genetically modified ingredients. According to the American policy, genetically modified foods should not be labeled as such, in order not to arouse unfounded concern among consumers, and not to indirectly encourage the consumption of an alternative product over a product labeled as genetically modified.

The American approach and the European approach to labeling genetically modified products express two opposing approaches in relation to labeling products whose health nature is unclear. The European supervision makes an effort to provide the consumer with all the information on the product's ingredients, to allow him to choose between different options and substitutes. Thus the union protects the consumer's ability to choose and allows him to control the type of food he buys. This approach has been criticized by manufacturers and suppliers of food and animal feed, who claim that the restrictions on the marketing of genetically modified food are too strict and may occasionally lead to a significant shortage of products on the European market, especially in relation to animal feed. In contrast, the American supervision of genetically modified foods is mainly regulatory, and uses the power of the state to ensure the interests of consumers.
Since the consumer who buys products cannot easily find out if they contain components that have undergone genetic engineering, he is forced to rely on the assumption that before this or that product was approved for marketing, all the appropriate tests were conducted and that the bodies entrusted with this found that there is no risk in marketing the engineered product. This approach receives a lot of criticism among organizations and people who encourage natural nutrition, because it prevents them from choosing for themselves the type of food they consume.

How do you choose what to eat?

Is one approach better than the other? It seems that the answer to this question is not unequivocal. Today there is, and rightfully so, a great emphasis on the right of every person to choose his life and body. As part of encouraging this approach, it is important to allow every person to consume food products wisely and aware of health needs and risks. However, it seems that few people will stand in a store or supermarket in front of a product marked as genetically modified, and know how to explain what the marking means, and if the modified product is healthy and suits them more or less than other products. This is because the choice between the products is based on complex scientific knowledge, most of which is not available to the common man, and some of which is also subject to controversy among scientists.

In such a situation there is a danger that the choice will be made on the basis of unfounded concerns or on the basis of irrelevant information, therefore the ability to choose will not necessarily lead to the right choice. On the other hand, there is always the danger that production and marketing companies with the ability to influence the government will succeed in obtaining permits to market genetically modified products with the help of shortcuts and unfair influence on government officials. The lack of transparency regarding the marketing and labeling procedures of products reduces the sense of responsibility of government bodies towards the consumer, and prevents public involvement in the procedures.

Today, the main investment in genetic engineering of organisms used as food is aimed at speeding up the growth time of the plant and developing resistance in transportation. Moreover, to the clear benefit of the large food companies, success in this field can prevent food shortages due to natural events or political conflicts, and also meet the growing demand for food. Furthermore, despite the accumulated years of medical research regarding the effect of genetically modified food on the human body, no proof has yet been found that genetically modified food is dangerous to the human body. On the other hand, a relatively short period has passed since the beginning of the widespread use of genetically modified products, and the long-term effects of consuming such products are still unknown.

In Israel, the Food Service of the Ministry of Health supervises the granting of permits for the marketing of "novel food" - a food product with a new primary structure at the molecular level, genetically engineered, a new and unknown production procedure, or food products for which there is not much experience of safe human consumption in Israel As part of the approval process, the manufacturers are required to provide the ministry with scientific information that will allow it to perform a risk assessment and determine conditions of use of the product, if necessary. However, there is currently no regulated Israeli policy of encouraging or opposing the marketing of genetically engineered products or a labeling policy for such products.
In December 2011, the Science and Technology Committee of the Knesset held a discussion on the topic "use of genetic engineering in agricultural research in Israel", with the aim of expanding the public discussion on these topics.

In the discussion, which was conducted in a matter-of-fact and interesting way, it was possible to notice a tendency in favor of expanding the use of genetic engineering in food products, perhaps because many scientists and representatives of farmers participated in it, but not consumer representatives or representatives of environmental protection organizations. At the end of the discussion, it was decided that the committee will initiate the drafting of legislation and regulation for the labeling of genetically modified food products, and will encourage education and information on the significance of the development of genetically modified products and their consumption in order to enrich the knowledge of consumers. It is hoped that the continued regulatory treatment of the issue will continue with transparency and with as much public involvement as possible.

for further reading:

Report of the Director of Consumer Health of the European Union
Transgenic plants - the concern and the necessity - Galileo, 2003
Who is (not) afraid of genetically modified plants

The writer is a lawyer and a doctoral student at the Faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University

The full article was published in Galileo magazine, May 2012