ASSIGNMENT FRONT SHEET                              please complete all sections electronicallyCourse Title:        Legisl...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 1                               ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 2TABLE OF CONTENTS     Abstract ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 3                               ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 4                     INTRODUCTI...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 5                               ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 6       According to the Codex A...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 7                               ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 8and the Codex Alimentarius. Sub...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 9        The following figure sh...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 10                              ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 11showing the most significant r...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 12given by the Codex guidelines....
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 13                            In...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 14by both Monsanto and BSAF on s...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 15                 In Depth: The...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 16          EMERGENCE OF CONSPIR...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 17                       Laibow ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 18       On Dr.Verkerk‟s webpage...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 19Codex, the two intended to cau...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 20biotechnology and genetic modi...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 21pressure groups and other biot...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 22biotechnology and education on...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 23which leads to loss of human l...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 24       Rockefeller involvement...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 25                              ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 26                              ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 27Codex Alimentarius Commission ...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 28Damato, G. (2009) Codex Contin...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 29European Commission. (2008, Se...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 30MacKenzie, A. (2000). The proc...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 31Roach, J. (2004) DNA Study She...
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 32WHO (N.D.). 20 QUESTIONS ON GE...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The view of codex alimentarius towards GM products using porato commodity as a case study

2,653 views

Published on

This research paper was written by myself and 2 other classmates for our legislation finals in collage. The paper scored the highest overall and I peaked this module.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,653
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The view of codex alimentarius towards GM products using porato commodity as a case study

  1. 1. ASSIGNMENT FRONT SHEET please complete all sections electronicallyCourse Title: LegislationFaculty: Mr. E.Student Name: LOH R., ROLLINGER S., SCHOLZ F.Student Class:Assessment Title: Legislation Project Due Date: 09 September, 2010 Word Count: 4878 Due Time: 17:00 Statement of Authorship‘I certify that this assignment is my own work and contains no material which has beenaccepted for the award of any degree or diploma in any institute, college or university.Moreover, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previouslypublished or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text ofthe assignment.I also understand that under no circumstances should any part of this assignment bepublished, including on the internet, or publicity displayed without receiving writtenpermission from the school.’Signature: __________________ Date: _____________FOR OFFICE USE ONLY (reception date stamp here)To be completed by reception staff for all submissions received after the deadlineTime Received: Signature:
  2. 2. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 1 ABSTRACT Purpose –The purpose of this paper is the introduction of standards developed by theCodex AlimentariusCommission on potatoes. Furthermore, it has a focus on the issues ofgenetically modified products, in particularthe manipulation of genes in potatoes and theconcerning lobby. Design/methodology/approach – The paper discusses recent literature on geneticallymodified organisms and standards of Codex Alimentarius. Furthermore it examinesorganizations, foundations, and individual researcher who are either promoting or demoting theuse of GMO and the reliability of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Findings– This paper finds that the definition and standards compiled by the CodexAlimentarius regarding the SolanumTuberosum, commonly known as potato, are very general asthere are standards for post production potatoes, such as quick frozen French fries.In addition, itexplainsthe reasons for growing GMO and the view of Codex Alimentarius towards thisinnovation. Regarding the various conspiracy theories of GMO and Codex Alimentarius thispaper will illustrate some critical analysis of the GM lobby and individuals opponents. Research limitations/implications –Considering the profoundness of the topic,therestricted timeframe, and the limited amount of accessibility to literature articles, this paper basesmost of its information gathered from non-governmental organisations, inter-governmentalorganizations and health foundations. There is a lot of material available covering the issues andarguments of GM food but somewhat limited materialson potatoes specifically. Originality/value – This paper attempts to illustrate the role of Codex Alimentarius andsome of its disputable regulations. Paper Type – Research Paper
  3. 3. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 2TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction to the Codex Alimentarius ............................................................................. 4 Genetically Modified Foods ............................................................................................... 4 The Codex and GMO ...................................................................................................... 5 Potato Working Definition and Standards ...................................................................... 5 Tuber Disease: Reason for Treatments ........................................................................... 7 Ways of Growing Potatoes ................................................................................................. 7 Organic - Biological ........................................................................................................ 7 The Irish Potato Famine: real life example ................................................................. 8 Conventional – Using pesticides ................................................................................... 10 Unconventional – genetically modified ........................................................................ 12 In depth: Genetically modified potatoes ................................................................... 13 In depth: Standard Topics on genetically modified potatoes .................................... 13 In Depth: The Codex Alimentarius and its role on GM Potatoes ............................. 15 Emergence of Conspiracies against Codex Alimentarius ................................................. 16 Controversy of Dr. Pusztai on GM Potatoes ................................................................. 16 Laibow and Stubblebine‟s claims against Codex ......................................................... 17 Rockefeller Foundation and its involvement in GMOs ................................................ 19 Conspiracy towards Super Capitalism .......................................................................... 20 Rockefeller Foundation‟s Involvement with Monsanto ............................................... 23 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 25 References ......................................................................................................................... 26 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 32
  4. 4. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 3 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2 ............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3 ............................................................................................................................. 11
  5. 5. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS The Codex Alimentarius, from Latin “food code”, is an intergovernmental organizationfirst established in 1961 by the World Health Organization [WHO] and the Food and AgricultureOrganization [FAO] (EUFIC, 2004; Joint WHO/FAO, 2006). These organizations felt that therewas a need of international food regulations in order to provide safe, fair and consumerprotective food trade. However, the regulations are not legally binding and are therefore just aninternational reference point for nations to have,i.e. guidelines to create their own standards(EUFIC, 2004; Joint WHO/FAO, 2006). However, when the World Trade Organization decidedto use the Codex regulations and standards, e.g. in case of doubt discrepancy, the regulationsbecame more attached towards international laws than one would think (World TradeOrganization, ND). GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS These are foods, produced from genetically incorporating modified organisms into thefoods‟ genome. According to the World Health Organization (N.D.), these foods are producedbecause there is a perceived advantage to the producer and consumer. This means that the user ofsuch food enjoys lower prices and durability. The consumer is also guaranteed a highernutritional value because the food is genetically consolidated to provide all the nutrients inrequired levels. The producers compose of the largest group of beneficiaries to these foods sincethe overall objective of incorporating genetically modified organism in crop production is toachieve crop protection (Paarlberg, Borlaug, & Carter, 2008). This is done by integratinginnovation of modern gene technology, to introduce plants that are resistant to common cropdiseases. GM foods were introduced into the food market two decades ago with varieties rangingfrom soybeans, tomatoes, sugarcane, Rapeseed, rice, sweet peppers, corn and potatoes.
  6. 6. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 5 The Codex and GMO According to Dr.RobertVerkerk(2008a; 2008c) the Codex is generally supportive of GMfood. He states, that the Codex Alimentarius supports this idea as in the future it would be theonly feasible solution of feeding the world. The Codex, however, affirms that they only setstandards and guidelines for GMO in case a country plans to grow and harvest it. Furthermore,they state that they neither promote nor dissuade the use of GMO (Codex Alimentarius, ND).Previous situations, however, in which the Codex had to deal with GM issues lead to anotherconclusion. In 2009 the attendees of the meeting of the Codex Commission on Food Labellingdiscussed the problem of whether GMO should be labelled, or if doing so will confuseconsumers, and therefore should be prohibited (Damato, 2009). As the opponents, e.g. the US[contra labelling] and the EU[pro labelling], were not able to come to a decision, the chairmanPaul Meyers was willing to postpone the decision making for 3 years. Only after the resistance ofthe label approving nations, he gave in and scheduled further discussionsin the future sessions(Damato, 2009). This reaction that reeks of disinterest was hardly criticized by GMO opponents likeDr.Damato (2009), and brought up new discussions about the Codex being influenced bylobbying yet again. The issue of lobbying and conspiracy will be discussed later in this paper. Potato Working Definition and Standards In 1993 the Codex published additional standards for the SolanumTuberosum, alsoknown as potato. These, however, are only adding up on regulations and definition producedover time by different organization.
  7. 7. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 6 According to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (1993), potatoes are defined asstarchy enlarged solid roots, tubers, corms or rhizomes. In addition, they can be of variousbotanic species with the edible portion, in most cases,lying underground. These are only parts ofthe definitions and regulations of the Codex, as every product made out of potatoes has its owndefinition, like frozen French-fries (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1993). Other definitions are generated by the Codex with the help of the FAO from 1994. Thisdocument divides the different purposes of the use of the tuber between human food, animal feedand industrial use, e.g. for alcohol fermentation (FAO, 1994). Moreover, it states that a potatohas high water content, some 70% to 80%, and shows little protein fat. Also, the starchcomponent accounts for 16% to 24% of the tuber‟s weight. Furthermore, seven main kinds ofcrops were defined, including potatoes, sweet potatoes and cassava (FAO, 1994). The Codexwas initially focusing on tropical fruits and vegetables but amended the termsof reference towards regulations for all food in the 1990‟s.This creates a “double standard” asother organizations, such as the UNECE, which is responsible for food regulations in terms ofvegetables and fruits since the 1950‟s,set their own standards (LFL Ernährungswirtschaft, ND).Therefore critics question the need for the Codex Commission.
  8. 8. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 7 Tuber Disease: Reason for Treatments Different Tuber diseases appeared in history, and in some cases destroyed a nation‟sentire harvest. The infections show different symptoms and can appear in different stages – fromseed to storage. One example of storage disease is Pink Rot, which occurs globally. The cause is mainlyhigh soil moisture (Michigan State University, 2010). Fusarium Dry Rot is another storagedisease withmainly symptoms of dark deep depressions on the tuber. Other noteworthy kinds oftuber disease or fungus are Black Dot, Common Stab or Black Heart, and most importantlyPotato Late Blight. WAYS OF GROWING POTATOES Potatoes can be grown in three different techniques. The healthiest method of cultivatingis the organic or so called biological plantation, as the use of any nonorganic protections isprohibited and strongly controlled by health authorities (Verkerk, 2008c). Although being thehealthiest technique, it is by far not the most common as it has several disadvantages towards theconventional way, which uses chemical plant protections – so called pesticides. GM crops‟ beingstill in its development stage is the most unconventional way as its risks are unknown(WHO,N.D.; EFSA, N.D). These different growing methods offer different methods of protectionagainst tuber disease. Organic - Biological According to Verkerk (2008c) it would not be possible to fight the hunger of the world bylimiting ourselves to organic food. Furthermore despite being healthy and notcontaminating,there are several problems in regards of organicgrowing. First there arediscrepancies between the strict regulations of several countries regarding plant protection agents
  9. 9. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 8and the Codex Alimentarius. Subsequently the amount of spoilage is considerably higher thanconventional growing methods, which induces an increase in the consumer end price as only apart of the planted crop can be harvested. Codex Alimentarius is trying to reduce the standardsrequired for growing organic food to suit interests of large food producers (Alliance for NaturalHealth - Europe, N.D.). Additionally they are approving the use of various chemical additivesand irradiation, which will due to labelling, be hidden in the final good. As such, the onlysolution arising from these problems would be supporting the use of chemicals, as there is nosignificant difference between organic and conventional goods. However, organic cultivationdoes not need chemicals to protect the plant from tuber diseases. By diversifying, farmers caneliminate contamination threats. The Irish Potato Famine: real life example The great famine that took place between 1845 and 1852 in Ireland was characterized bystarvation and population decrease due to migration. The famine was caused by potato blight, orPhytophthoraInfestans, which destroyed potato crops in Europe causing catastrophic results(University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2006). The fungus on the tuber caused thedeath of nearly one-eighth of the Irish population. According to Donnelly (2009), the blight“destroyed the crop that had previously provided approximately 60 percent of the nations foodneeds.” These numbers indicate the reason for the severe loss in harvest. The Irish agricultureexperienced such a severe hit by the fungus because of a lack of diversity. According to Roach(2004) the Irish farmers believed in modern agriculture and used to carry out monoculture incontrast to the traditional potato farmers in Central and South America.
  10. 10. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 9 The following figure shows the two different kinds of cultivation. The first flow is thetraditional diverse plantation of potatoes representing South American cultivation, and thesecond flow represents the Irish cultivation during the famine and the impacts on the harvest(University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2006). Figure 1 Note: illustration of effect of late blight on potato harvest in monopole or diverse cultivation (University of CaliforniaMuseum of Paleontology, 2006) Diversified cultivation provides a smaller target area for the fungus. Therefore, fewerpotatoes are destroyed by a single disease which prevented severe loss in harvest.If cultivation isconcentrating on one crop, the spreadrisk is greater and nearly all potatoes will be destroyed.This was the case in Ireland and led to over a million deaths (Chand, 2009).Therefore,diversifying protects against fungi and tuber diseases. Furthermore, it is a natural and ecofriendly way of prevention. Farmers are also encouraged to remove haulms, apply biologicalfungicides, and harvest the crop early and to prevent long-term storage of their production.
  11. 11. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 10 Conventional – Using pesticides Conventional potato plantation generates various problems for the consumers and theenvironment. Figure 1 illustrates a “summary of the results of the short-term consumer riskassessment for the pesticide/crop combinations for which a potential consumer risk could not beexcluded.” (EFSA, 2010). Figure 2 As shown in Figure 1 the X-Axis identifies the maximum IESTI [International estimatedshort-term intake] based on the highest measured residue pesticide (in percentage) of the ARfD[Acute Reference Dose]. The ARfD estimates the amount of residual pesticides that can beingested by the human body without causing any damage. The Y-Axis represents the frequencyof samples (in percentage) exceeding the threshold residue (EFSA, 2010). The pesticides
  12. 12. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 11showing the most significant residue in potatoes is oxamyl and carbaryl, with levels of more than1000% the reference dose. The use of carbaryl has been prohibited in November 2007 in the EU. In the reportconducted by the EFSA,three out of four samples with elevated residue concentration originatedfrom Europe. As this report was conducted in 2008, there should not have been any residue ofthis pesticide and they encouraged the Member states to check possible misuse at national level(EFSA, 2010). However, by analyzing the guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius, it can be seenthat the residual amount of carbaryl on potatoes can be as high as 0.2 mg/kg, which is in directviolation with the European regulations (Codex Alimentarius, 2010). Figure 2 represents thehighest residue value measure by the EFSA samples(EFSA, 2010). Figure 3 As highlighted, it can be clearly indentified that there is a residue of carbaryl on potatoeseven though the use is not authorized by the EU and furthermore it is considerably higher than
  13. 13. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 12given by the Codex guidelines. As such we need to ask ourselves if the guidelines established bythe Codex Alimentarius Commission are not followed or if the problems are of national nature. Pesticides, depending on the toxicity and the amount consumed, can cause various healthissues such as nerve damage, cancer and birth defects. Furthermore, they can present severe risksto the environment through the soil (Environmental Protection Agency, 2007; Food StandardsAgency, N.D.). The European Union for example will not allow any new protection products,unless they are efficient against pests and causes no harm to the consumers, farmers, localresidents or the environment (EFSA, N.D.; European Commission, 2008). As such, the onlylogical solution for protection and massproduction would be the use of GMpotatoes. Unconventional – genetically modified Lastly we have the genetically modified, unconventional, way of growing potatoes whichis still in the development stage. The main issue with GMO is the nescience of potential diseasesand long term effects as they still have to be researched and tested (Greenpeace International,2003; Halsberger, 2003). According to the WHO (N.D.) there are three core issues for the human health with theuse of GMO - Allergic reactions, gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the human body, andoutcrossing. Outcrossing is the movement of genes from GM plants into the nature, e.g.conventional crops or wildlife. Furthermore the persistence of genes after harvestingneeds to beconsidered. CodexAlimentariushas adapted principles of risk assessment, which evaluates directeffects and unintended effects on the environment. According to WHO (N.D.), GM foods are notlikely to reveal risks to the human health and the Codex principles have been put in place inorder to guarantee safety.
  14. 14. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 13 In depth: Genetically modified potatoes Genetic modification has been incorporated into potatoes, where their geneticcomposition is manipulated to include GMO that input a desired characteristic into the potatoes,making it more pest resistant or increasing its nutrient value. Due to its richness in starch andusage in the chemical industry, the potato has been considered an important crop for cropbiotechnology. This new type of potato has arisen as an ideal raw material that is used in starchprocessing industries. Through biotechnology this potato, also known as Amflora, haveseparatedAmylase and Amylopectin starches, which makes it a more valuable crop (Connolly,2009). These modified potatoes are also resistant to common potato beetles that are a headacheto organic potato growers. The reduced prevalence of blight in GM potatoes has pushed geneticengineering on potatoes to greater lengths (Nelson & Science Direct, 2001). The GM potato is mainly produced by different biotechnology companies in America andEurope. German giant BASF and the US Company Monsanto are the two main companies thatare deeply involved in the potato biotechnology enhancement. Monsanto was the main producerwith a 90 percent grip of the world production of GM crops until they decided to cease theirproduction of GM potatoes. Before that, the company integrated commercial practices and stronglobbying to encourage the adoption of GM potatoes across America and EuropeGreenpeaceInternational (2003). Monsanto was the primary owner of the nature mark and new leaf GMpotato, which produced on a large-scale basis. In depth: Standard Topics on genetically modified potatoes The GM potatoes industry has been under close evaluation and investigation by differentenvironmental, food safety and nutritional authorities in America and Europe (EFSA., N.D.;GMO Compass, 2010). This has led to halting of biotechnological and biochemical experiments
  15. 15. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 14by both Monsanto and BSAF on some GM crops. Currently the GM potatoes have receivedadvances that are aimed at strengthening their resistance to pesticides. This range from the use ofchemicals excreted from frogs that have been inserted into the potatoes gene to inhibit them toproduce that chemical during growth (Sawahel, 2005). However, advances in GMO potatoeshave caused oppositions from traditional groups who support organic production and the riskspread of their chemicals to human and animals through contamination and environmentaldamage. It has also been claimed that introduction of GM potatoes is a great risk to emergence ofhuman infections that are resistant to antibiotics (Evenson, 2002). This has led to establishmentsof different standards and commissions that enforce such standards on the development of GMpotatoes by GMO companies.
  16. 16. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 15 In Depth: The Codex Alimentarius and its role on GM Potatoes The Codex Alimentarius has been adopted in the production of GM potatoes for differentreasons. In order to develop an assessment that gives ground for application of the Codex, it isrequired that the potential benefits and risks of the potatoes be identified (Halsberger, 2003).Although, companies are advancing innovations aimed at improving the value, quality anddisease resistance of the potato, issues of concerns have arisen. These are the main reason forintervention by the Codex and other state authorities in the country. The transfer of gene fromorganism to potatoes would cause great concern if it would cause harm to human health (Vasil&IAPTCB, 2003). On the other hand, outcrossing of these genes from organisms to the potatoeshas a direct effect on food safety and security, which are the two main reasons for theestablishment of the FAO and WHO that gives the Codex its mandate. Finally, issues of concernemerge in the use of the GM potato, which give rise to need for enforcement of standards onMonsanto and other large-scale producers of GM potatoes (Alliance for Natural Health, N.D.).The susceptibility faced by other organisms that do not form part of the intended pests‟population is a major concern. This is due to the existence of insects, which are not harmful topotatoes. Increased use of the potatoes also lead to detrimental effects on wildlife and otheranimals who consequently feed on potato leaves or plants that grow from the consequent soil thatsurrounds the GMO potatoes. Additionally, induction of insects, which are resistant to commonpesticides arises whose population, may increase sporadically causing large-scale destruction ofother secondary crops apart from the potatoes (Barstow, 2002).The Codex Alimentarius is ofdecisive importance in ensuring that GM potatoes are developed, grown, sold and consumed insuch a way that safety and food supply are controlled in adherence to set standards andguidelines.
  17. 17. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 16 EMERGENCE OF CONSPIRACIES AGAINST CODEX ALIMENTARIUS The standards that are encompassed in the Codex are universally applied to all companiesthat have stakes in the biotechnology and genetically modification. This stakeholders range fromthe GMO companies, state government and financers of such projects. However, there havearisen attempts by different organizations and individuals to undermine the application andenforceability of the Codex. This range from individual persons, international donor organizationto corporations that are involved in large-scale production of GMOs. Controversy of Dr.Pusztai on GM Potatoes During a British TV show, Dr. Arpad Pusztai claimed he could never eat GM foods dueto the results of his experiments. Although he was terminated and his research findingsconfiscated, Dr.Pusztai contributed to the controversy that GMOs have a deleterious effects onorganisms. He attributed this to scientific study, which is not enough to investigate user‟s healthrisks. The scientist claimed that the present safety technology tested is not enough to detect anydetrimental effects on consumers of GMOs (Connor, 1999). By carefully investigating ratsfeeding them GM potatoes, he claimed that the unpredictable toxins that affected the rat would inthe end cause dangers to human beings. However, a diet solely based on potatoes is sonutritionally poor,Dr.Pusztai added protein supplements to the experiment, that led to animbalance trial (Connor, 1999). He also used the results of a 10-day experiment for hisconclusions, when there was another trial duration of 100-days that showed positive resultswhich he stated too much supplements were used (Connor, 1999). Publication of his work wastherefore not recommended.
  18. 18. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 17 Laibow and Stubblebine‟s claims against Codex Dr.Rima Laibow and Major General Albert Stubblebine from Natural SolutionsFoundation (HealthFreedomUSA.org) are running a campaign against the CodexAlimentariusproviding inaccurate information. According to Rath (2010) the information spreadby Dr.Laibow was inaccurate and badly researched. Although the two were not experts in Codex,they manipulated web site visitors by giving information, which lacked supporting evidence.Dr.Laibow claimed to have studied the 16‟000 Codex documents, while in reality elements ofconfusion were present in her explanations about Codex and health freedoms. Factualinaccuracies created by the two critics alleged Codex would go to full effect on December 31,2009 while in essence no legislation had set a date for adoption of the Codex. This rumour hasbeen disproved by Dr.Matthias Rath and Dr.Robert Verkerk and by the fact that nothing hadhappened on that particular date (Rath 2010; Verkerk, 2010). What Dr.Laibow did, was mixingthe European food supplement directive regarding the addition of vitamins in food with Codexguideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, while in essence the two are differentunder the Codex.
  19. 19. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 18 On Dr.Verkerk‟s webpage we can find more regular misinformation about the Codex.Misinformation circulating regarding Codex Alimentarius All nutrients (e.g. vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons as Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to „prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease‟ All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, to remove all „toxic‟ nutrients (unless consumed locally) Positive List of limited allowed nutrients (developed by Codex) Include such „beneficial‟ nutrients as fluoride (3.8 mg daily), sourced from industrial waste. All nutrients having positive health effects (e.g. vitamins A, B, C, D, zinc and magnesium) will be deemed illegal in therapeutic doses under Codex Advice on nutrition will most probably become illegal All dairy cows on the planet are to be treated with Monsantos genetically engineered, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones. Use of growth hormones and antibiotics will be mandatory on all livestock, birds and aquacultured species meant for human consumption. The worldwide introduction of unlabelled and deadly GMOs into crops, animals, fish and plants will be mandated.(Alliance for Natural Health, N.D.) .Further misleading information claimed that the Commission meetings are held bi-annually in off shore countries. This was fictitious since the Codex Alimentarius Commission‟smeetings are held in Geneva, Rome and mainly in USA. Stubblebine and Laibow lobbyingagainst the Codex was due to their strong devotion to promoting individual health freedom.Byinforming informed online readers that Codex would ban food supplements in order to portrayCodex in bad faith,this would cause the public to develop personal opposition on Codex since itwould restrict the use of food supplements. By directing these unfair and inaccurate attacks on
  20. 20. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 19Codex, the two intended to cause divisions that would interfere with Codex ability to enforcestandards on GM products. Nevertheless some of their information were correct, such as the high acceptance levelsof pesticide residue on foods, but the fact that her claims and are neither properly researched norsupported with accurate references, this source shell not be used as reliable information. Rockefeller Foundation and its involvement in GMOs The private foundation established by the Rockefeller family has over the years grown asa major dealing force in the GMO industry. Although it has ceased to be the largest foundationgroup in terms of assets globally, the foundation is a large financer of different organisations andventures across the globe. This ranges from the education sector, health sector, research anddevelopment, Nobel laureates work, cultural organisations and agricultural development(Rockefeller Archive Center, 2010). Agricultural development has risen as one of the sectors into which the Foundation hasprovided over $100 million dollars to finance biotechnology (Rockefeller Archive Center, 2010),which were used to train scientists from across the globe on genetic engineering. This investmentis to enforce biotechnology towards production of GM foods, which is provided to poorcountries to help alleviate poverty and food shortages. According to the foundation,biotechnology is an effective tool through which empowerment of third world countries can beachieved (Cummings, 2008). The foundation argues that investment in production of GM riceand potatoes in India, China, Brazil and Africa is important in creating genes of crops which areresistant to soil toxicity, drought, and concentrations of minerals which impairs production oforganic foods (Durant, et al, 2004). Although the Codex Alimentarius offers standards for foodproduction, safety and security, Rockefeller has given justifications for its direct support of
  21. 21. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 20biotechnology and genetic modification procedures on foods. On the alleged risks on theenvironment, the foundation wonders why there is too much furore while human beings havesince medieval genetically engineered plants to produce crops with desired traits. TheFoundation points that the degree of environment impact lie with the user of the GM seed whoshould ensure he correctly apply it (Bruinsma, 2003). On concerns on human health, the Foundation recommends adoption of a culture withsystems and supports from government institutions that monitor, report and evaluative the impactof GM foods on human health. The foundation argues that the over 800 million people who areglobally malnourished, 190 million underweight children and more than 450 million womenanaemic women should be put on the frontline instead of the few groups of people who onlyharbour a belief that GMOs cause health effects to their users (Ho&Cummins, 2004). To respondto American pressure groups which believe that Rockefeller‟s decision to invest in GMOs are notintended on sustainability, the foundation believes that poor countries need to be empowered inplanting pest resistant GMOs to be self reliant in food supply and claims that in order to stopbeing reliant on multinationals for livelihood, countries should empower themselves in foodproduction (Coleman & Grant, 2004). Rockefeller therefore recommends and finances researchand innovation for developing countries to accept biotechnology and GMOs, to ensure safe andconstant food security. Conspiracy towards Super Capitalism Although Rockefeller policies and support in creating a more sustainable and secure lifefor different populations is appreciated as a great concern for human life, its investments andjustification for GMOs support is suspicious. The foundation has invested millions of dollars inthe last 30 years in its green revolution of the agriculture sector (Duram, 2010). However,
  22. 22. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 21pressure groups and other biotechnology insiders have questioned its actions. The initialintroduction of the foundation‟s agricultural division was the first sign of the questionable stateof the foundation policies. The agricultural division was introduced after the awarding of a grantto Mexico in order to protect Rockefellers investments in the country (Rockefeller ArchiveCenter, 2010). This deal brokered in 1941 by Henry Wallace the then vice president of the USAshows the foundation under which a philanthropic venture is build. The green revolution that isthe foundation of the current GMOs was then transferred to India on geopolitical reasons(Weasel, 2009). Direct investment in GMOs is Rockefeller‟s part in a conspiracy, which is aimed atrestricting the future world food supply and population density by a group of elite organizations,which will entirely control the global agricultural sector. The Rockefeller Foundation isconnected politically due to its influential nature and finance portfolio. Over the last fourdecades, the foundation has had a major part in spreading the global acceptance of GMOs topoor countries and research institutes where federal banks research program would naturally bedeclined. By encompassing the philanthropic nature of its mission, the foundation has access tohire people from different developing countries who are trained on GMO research. This wasdone under auspices of foundation policies, while in essence these scientists are incorporated intothe general production of GMOs (Maessen, 2009). Rockefeller Foundation has been a supporter of population control programs (RockefellerArchive Center, 2010). In 1972, John Rockefeller founder of the philanthropic foundation wasdrafted into the Presidents Commission on population and the American Future (Conway, 1999).This famous American Commission advocated zero population growth. After its involvement inpopulation control programs in the last five decades, Rockefeller investment and stake in GMOs,
  23. 23. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 22biotechnology and education on genetic engineering, the organisations focus and threejustifications for its investment in GMOs became questionable to great extents. Although the engineering has been going on since medieval time, GMOs presents acompletely different type of engineering. GMOs are products, which will directly affect theirusers in the end. It is also hard to develop proper controls that identifies and evaluates any effectsof GMOs on human health while in essence; such victims will suffer from some form of harm,mild or severe, due to consumption of GMOs. It is of great importance for all organisations toensure conservation of the environment (Weasel, 2009). However, Rockefellers‟ support ofGMOs does not uphold corporate social responsibility that every organisation is required touphold. It is therefore ironical that an organisation built on foundations of conserving human lifewould directly support plans that endanger the same human beings by destroying theenvironment. GMOs chemical presence in the soil does not end with the life of the plant but suchdestructive chemical remain embedded in the soil causing destruction to insect, fodder crops andif washed into streams may cause loss of life or chemical poisoning. Although Rockefellers‟ missions and objective to invest in GMOs is to alleviate globalhunger by improving productivity of crops, which are drought and pest resistant, its history andinner reviews of its actions can be termed as directed towards achievement of a super capitalistnew world order, where global food supply and population is controlled by specific firms. Thesefirms have the resources, personnel and all input which could reverse effects of GMOs whichindividual countries become over reliant on. Possession of such abilities can lead to control overeconomies especially in third world countries. On the other hand, these groups which includeresearch firms, donor organisation, GMO companies and governments recommend GMOs forself sufficiency in food supply while in the long run, cause lasting environmental degradation,
  24. 24. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 23which leads to loss of human lives. This also displaces the local small-scale farmers who rely onproduction of organic foods, who are then displaced by the large-scale industrial organisationsthat will henceforth control the profits, product rights and global food supply. This is a recipe forsuper capitalism where all resources from military, petroleum, reserve currency to global foodsupply are controlled by a group of organisations who have a monopolistic grip on all resources. Rockefeller Foundation‟s Involvement with Monsanto Rockefeller foundation and Monsanto have enjoyed a complementary relationship inbiotechnology and genetic engineering. The two stakeholders have been attributed ascomponents of an evolving system globally that believes hungry human beings are not peacefulpeople (Cohen & CIGI, 2009). The complementary relationship between the two is evident fromRockefeller‟s investments in biotechnology, which are used by Monsanto and other GMOs firmsto sponsor research on GMOs. However, the relationship between the two parties has beencriticised as collaboration between enemies of humankind (Anton &Silberglitt, 2001).Monsanto‟s GMOs products ranging from rice, potatoes and maize have devastated farmersglobally since they have suffered crop failure in subjective seasons. Monsanto has had a negativeeffect on African Countries, where the free seeds distributed by Monsanto has led to major lossesto South African farmers (Engdahl, 2010). The collaboration by Rockefeller and Monsanto is not promising to any small-scalefarmers and poor countries since the combination of the economic and political power of theFoundation and the irresponsibility of Monsanto will cause increased production of GMOs andadvanced research on production of more modified breeds. Although this will have a short-termsuccess in boosting food supply, such products are destructive to the environment, and isachannel for over reliance on GMOs companies (Weis, 2007).
  25. 25. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 24 Rockefeller involvement with Monsanto was evident when Rockefeller foundationpresident Gordon Conway‟s wrote an open letter to Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro advising himnot to commercialize the lethal terminator seeds (Rockefeller Archive Center, 2010). This is dueto the detrimental effects of the “terminator on its consumers and the environment. By financingresearch and training of GMO scientists, Rockefeller is determined to ensure genetic engineeringis taken to advanced stages where GM products will be produced to boost food supply globally.On the other hand, Monsanto, which is the largest producer of GMOs, will directly beresponsible for production of the highly demanded GMOs. This relationship benefits bothorganisations since Monsanto will have a monopolistic control on control of GMOs globallywhile Rockefeller philanthropic mission of providing sustainable food supply to the poor will beachieved.
  26. 26. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 25 CONCLUSION Our research has led us from a specific commodity, potato, to anin-depthresearch ofCodex related conspiracy issues, which mainly arose from the use of GMO.We can conclude thatthough being the healthiest, organic growing can never produce sufficiently to feed the starvingpopulation. Compromises on human health has to be made, be it on the use of chemicals or thegenetically modification of food. Even though, it is scientifically proven that the use of pesticidescauses human illnesses, the danger may be a lesser extent than with the use of geneticallymodified food, as research of long term effects on consumers has so far not obtained enoughfindings.Although GMO was established to protect tubers against infection with diseases,diversifying can be an effective form of plantation which does not harm the environment.Thecontrolsby health foundations and commissions should be more imposing as their decisions havemajor impacts on the environment, wildlife and the human kind. However we need to distinguishbetween the relevant and reliableinformationagainst theunscientifically proven doom-mongeringpropaganda.
  27. 27. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 26 REFERENCESAlliance for Natural Health. (2008). CODEX ALIMENTARIUS - Global control of our food by governments and the transnationals. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from Alliance for Natural Health: http://www.anh-europe.org/files/080423-Codex_one-page-flyer.pdfAlliance for Natural Health. (N.D.). Alliance for Natural Health – Good science and good law. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from Alliance for Natural Health: http://www.anh-europe.org/ , P. S., Schneider, J., & Silberglitt, R. S. (2001). The global technology revolution: Bio/nano/materials trends and their synergies with information technology by 2015. MR // Rand, 1307. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Barstow, C. (2002). The eco-foods guide: Whats good for the earth is good for you. Gabriola, B.C: New Society Publishers.BBC5tv (Director). (2008a). Robert Verkerk - Codex Alimentarius [Motion Picture]. Totnes, UK.BBC5tv (Director). (2008b). Robert Verkerk – Codex, Food & Monsanto [Motion Picture]. Totnes, UK.BBC5tv (Director). (2008c). Robert Verkerk –Getting Nutrition [Motion Picture]. Totnes, UK.Bruinsma, J. (2003). World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: an FAO perspective. London: Earthscan.Chand, S. (2009) Killer genes cause potato famine. Retrieved August 28, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8246944.stmCodex Alimentarius (ND) FAQs - QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC CODEX WORK. Retrieved August 19, 2010 from http://www.Codexalimentarius.net/web/faq_work.jsp
  28. 28. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 27Codex Alimentarius Commission (1993) Pesticides Residues in Food – Volume 2: Codex Classification of Foods and animal feeds. Rome: FAO/WHOCodex Alimentarius (2009). VR 589 - Potato. Retrieved August 22, 2010, from Pesticide Residue in Food and Feed: http://www.Codexalimentarius.net/pestres/data/commodities/details.html?d-16497-o=1&d- 16497-s=3&id=347&print=trueCohen, M. J., Clapp, J., & Centre for International Governance Innovation. (2009). The global food crisis: Governance challenges and opportunities. Waterloo, ON.:Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Coleman, W.D., Josling, T. E., & Grant, W. (2004).Agriculture in the new global economy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.Connolly, P. (2009). Ethics in action: A case-based approach. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Connor, S. (1999, February 19). Arpad Pusztai: the verdict GM food: safe or unsafe? Retrieved September 2, 2010, from Mindfully.org: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Arpad-Pusztai- Potato.htmConvention on Biological Diversity. (2010, August 10). About the Protocol. Retrieved August 22, 2010, from Convention on Biological Diversity: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/Conway, G (June 24, 1999). The Rockefeller Foundation and Plant Biotechnology.Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.biotech-info.net/gordon_conway.html.Cummings, C. H. (2008). Uncertain peril: Genetic engineering and the future of seeds. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  29. 29. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 28Damato, G. (2009) Codex Continues to Assume GMO Labeling Would Confuse Ignorant Consumers. Natural News.Retrieved August 20, 2010 from http://www.naturalnews.com/026622_CODEX_food_GMO.htmlDonnelly, J. (2009) The Irish Famine: The Irish Catastrophe. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtmlDuram, L. A. (2010). Encyclopedia of organic, sustainable, and local food.Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & OLeary, R. (2004).Environmental governance reconsidered Challenges, choices, and opportunities. American and comparative environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.EFSA. (2010). 2008 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues accroding to Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA Journal, 8 (6), 1-162.EFSA. (N.D.). GMO - Genetically modified organisms. Retrieved September 03, 2010, from European Food Safety Authority: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/gmo.htmEngdahl (September, 8, 2010)Monsanto Buys „Terminator‟ Seeds Company. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082EUFIC (2004).What is Codex Alimentarius.Retrieved August 19, 2010 from http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/Codex-alimentarius/EUFIC. (2004). What is Codex Alimentarius? Retrieved August 20, 2010, from European Food Information Council: http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/Codex-alimentarius/
  30. 30. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 29European Commission. (2008, Septenber 1). Plant Protection - Pesticide Residues. Retrieved September 06, 2010, from Food Safety - From the Farm to the Fork: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/pesticides/index_en.htmEvenson, R. E. (2002). Economic and social issues in agricultural biotechnology. Wallingford: CABI Publ.FAO (1994) Definition and Classification of Commodities: Roots and Tubers and derived Products. NP: FAOGMO Compass. (2010, September 2). Potato. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from GMO Compass: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/44.potato.htmlGreenpeace International. (2003, July 2). Tougher European GMO legislation. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from Greenpeace International: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/tougher-eu-gmo-legislation/Hall, P. A. (2002). Protecting the U.S. food supply in a global economy: An expert gap analysis. Mandeville: Paul A. HallHalsberger, A. G. (2003). Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of the unintende effects. Nature Biotechnology, 21 (7), 739-741.Ho, M.-W., Lim, L. C., & Cummins, J. (2004). GMO free: Exposing the hazards of biotechnology to ensure the integrity of our food supply. Ridgefield, Conn: Vital Health PubJoint FAO/ WHO (2006) Understanding the Codex Alimentarius(3rd ed.) Rome: FAO/WHOLFL Ernährungswirtschaft (ND) Codex Alimentarius.Retrieved August 22, 2010, from http://www.lfl.bayern.de/iem/obst_gemuese/25603/linkurl_0_17_0_2.pdf
  31. 31. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 30MacKenzie, A. (2000). The process of developing labeling standards for GM foods in the Codex Alimentarius. AgBioForum, 3(4), 203-208. Retrieved September 8, 2010 fromhttp://www.agbioforum.org.Maessen, J (June 19, 2009). Beyond Golden Rice: The Rockefeller Foundation’s long-term agenda behind Genetically Modified Food. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.peopleseconomics.com/?p=1642McKinney, M. L., &Schoch, R. M. (2003). Environmental science: Systems and solutions. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett PublishersMichigan State University (2010)Tuber and Stem Diseases/Conditions of Potato. Retrieved August 20, 2010 from http://www.potatodiseases.org/tuberdiseases.htmlNational Research Council (U.S.), World Bank.,& Symposium on Marshaling Technology for Development. (1995). Marshaling technology for development: Proceedings of a symposium, November 28-30, 1994, Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center, Irvine, California. Washington, D.C: National Academy PressNelson, G. C., &ScienceDirect (Online service). (2001).Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: Economics and politics. San Diego, CA: Academic PressPaarlberg, R. L., Borlaug, N. E., & Carter, J. (2008).Starved for science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Rath, M. (2010). Don’t allow yourself to be fooled by the agents of disinformation and confusion. Retrieved September 01, 2010, from Dr. Rath Health Foundation: http://www4.dr- rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/Codex-agentsofdisinformation.htmlRenneberg, R., & Demain, A. L. (2008). Biotechnology for beginners. Amsterdam: Boston.
  32. 32. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 31Roach, J. (2004) DNA Study Sheds Light on Irish Potato Famine. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0505_040505_potatofamine.htmlThe Rockefeller Archive Center. (N.D.). Rockefeller Archives. Retrieved September 04, 2010, from The Rockefeller Archive Center: http://www.rockarch.org/Rosenthal, E. (2007, July 24). A Genetically Modified Potato, Not for Eating, Is Stirring Some Opposition in Europe. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/business/worldbusiness/24spuds.html?_r=4Sawahel, W (28, July 2005).GM potato uses frog gene to resist pathogens. Retrieved September 8, 2010 fromhttp://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-potato-uses-frog-gene-to-resist- pathogens.htmlUniversity of California Museum of Paleontology (2006) Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: Cases of missing genetic variation (2 of 3).Retrieved August 27, 2010, from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/IIAmonoculture2.shtmlVasil, I. K., & International Association for Plant Tissue Culture & Biotechnology. (2003). Plant biotechnology 2002 and beyond: Proceedings of the 10. IAPTC&B Congress, 2002, Orlando, Florida. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersWeasel, L. H. (2009). Food fray: Inside the controversy over genetically modified food. New York, NY: Amacom/American Management Association.Weis, A. (2007). The global food economy: The battle for the future of farming. London, UK: Zed Books.
  33. 33. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 32WHO (N.D.). 20 QUESTIONS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS. Retrieved August 30, 2010, from World Health Organization - Food Safety: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/WorldTradeOrganization(ND)WORK WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:The WTO and the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. Retrieved August 21, 2010, from http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/coher_e/wto_Codex_e.htm BIBLIOGRAPHYCBD (N.D.). The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Retrieved August 24, 2010, from Convetion on Biological Diversity: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/Laibow, R. (Director). (2008). Codex Alimentarious & Nutricide Dr. Rima Laibow [Motion Picture]. Keifer, M., Gasperini, F., & Robson, M. (2010). Pesticides and Other Chemicals:Minimizing Worker Exposures. Journal of Agromedicine, 15(3), 264-274.doi:10.1080/1059924X.2010.486686Borrell, B. (2008, December 9). How Would you grow the Worlds biggest potato? Retrieved August 18, 2010, from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worlds-biggest-potatoneurope.eu. (2010, March 07). A GMO hot potato . Retrieved August 22, 2010, from New Europe - neurope.eu: http://www.neurope.eu/articles/99479.php

×