SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  33
ASSIGNMENT FRONT SHEET
                              please complete all sections electronically

Course Title:        Legislation

Faculty:             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 been
accepted 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 previously
published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of
the assignment.

I also understand that under no circumstances should any part of this assignment be
published, including on the internet, or publicity displayed without receiving written
permission 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 deadline

Time Received:                                  Signature:
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 the

Codex AlimentariusCommission on potatoes. Furthermore, it has a focus on the issues of

genetically modified products, in particularthe manipulation of genes in potatoes and the

concerning lobby.

       Design/methodology/approach – The paper discusses recent literature on genetically

modified organisms and standards of Codex Alimentarius. Furthermore it examines

organizations, foundations, and individual researcher who are either promoting or demoting the

use of GMO and the reliability of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

       Findings– This paper finds that the definition and standards compiled by the Codex

Alimentarius regarding the SolanumTuberosum, commonly known as potato, are very general as

there are standards for post production potatoes, such as quick frozen French fries.In addition, it

explainsthe reasons for growing GMO and the view of Codex Alimentarius towards this

innovation. Regarding the various conspiracy theories of GMO and Codex Alimentarius this

paper will illustrate some critical analysis of the GM lobby and individuals opponents.

       Research limitations/implications –Considering the profoundness of the topic,the

restricted timeframe, and the limited amount of accessibility to literature articles, this paper bases

most of its information gathered from non-governmental organisations, inter-governmental

organizations and health foundations. There is a lot of material available covering the issues and

arguments of GM food but somewhat limited materialson potatoes specifically.

       Originality/value – This paper attempts to illustrate the role of Codex Alimentarius and

some of its disputable regulations.

       Paper Type – Research Paper
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 2


TABLE 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
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
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 organization

first established in 1961 by the World Health Organization [WHO] and the Food and Agriculture

Organization [FAO] (EUFIC, 2004; Joint WHO/FAO, 2006). These organizations felt that there

was a need of international food regulations in order to provide safe, fair and consumer

protective food trade. However, the regulations are not legally binding and are therefore just an

international 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 decided

to use the Codex regulations and standards, e.g. in case of doubt discrepancy, the regulations

became more attached towards international laws than one would think (World Trade

Organization, ND).

                             GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

       These are foods, produced from genetically incorporating modified organisms into the

foods‟ genome. According to the World Health Organization (N.D.), these foods are produced

because there is a perceived advantage to the producer and consumer. This means that the user of

such food enjoys lower prices and durability. The consumer is also guaranteed a higher

nutritional value because the food is genetically consolidated to provide all the nutrients in

required levels. The producers compose of the largest group of beneficiaries to these foods since

the overall objective of incorporating genetically modified organism in crop production is to

achieve crop protection (Paarlberg, Borlaug, & Carter, 2008). This is done by integrating

innovation of modern gene technology, to introduce plants that are resistant to common crop

diseases. GM foods were introduced into the food market two decades ago with varieties ranging

from soybeans, tomatoes, sugarcane, Rapeseed, rice, sweet peppers, corn and potatoes.
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 GM

food. He states, that the Codex Alimentarius supports this idea as in the future it would be the

only feasible solution of feeding the world. The Codex, however, affirms that they only set

standards 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 another

conclusion.

       In 2009 the attendees of the meeting of the Codex Commission on Food Labelling

discussed the problem of whether GMO should be labelled, or if doing so will confuse

consumers, 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 chairman

Paul Meyers was willing to postpone the decision making for 3 years. Only after the resistance of

the 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 like

Dr.Damato (2009), and brought up new discussions about the Codex being influenced by

lobbying 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, also

known as potato. These, however, are only adding up on regulations and definition produced

over time by different organization.
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 as

starchy enlarged solid roots, tubers, corms or rhizomes. In addition, they can be of various

botanic species with the edible portion, in most cases,lying underground. These are only parts of

the definitions and regulations of the Codex, as every product made out of potatoes has its own

definition, like frozen French-fries (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1993).

       Other definitions are generated by the Codex with the help of the FAO from 1994. This

document divides the different purposes of the use of the tuber between human food, animal feed

and industrial use, e.g. for alcohol fermentation (FAO, 1994). Moreover, it states that a potato

has high water content, some 70% to 80%, and shows little protein fat. Also, the starch

component accounts for 16% to 24% of the tuber‟s weight. Furthermore, seven main kinds of

crops were defined, including potatoes, sweet potatoes and cassava (FAO, 1994).

       The Codexwas initially focusing on tropical fruits and vegetables but amended the terms

of reference towards regulations for all food in the 1990‟s.This creates a “double standard” as

other organizations, such as the UNECE, which is responsible for food regulations in terms of

vegetables and fruits since the 1950‟s,set their own standards (LFL Ernährungswirtschaft, ND).

Therefore critics question the need for the Codex Commission.
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‟s

entire harvest. The infections show different symptoms and can appear in different stages – from

seed to storage.

       One example of storage disease is Pink Rot, which occurs globally. The cause is mainly

high soil moisture (Michigan State University, 2010). Fusarium Dry Rot is another storage

disease withmainly symptoms of dark deep depressions on the tuber. Other noteworthy kinds of

tuber disease or fungus are Black Dot, Common Stab or Black Heart, and most importantly

Potato Late Blight.

                                WAYS OF GROWING POTATOES

       Potatoes can be grown in three different techniques. The healthiest method of cultivating

is the organic or so called biological plantation, as the use of any nonorganic protections is

prohibited and strongly controlled by health authorities (Verkerk, 2008c). Although being the

healthiest technique, it is by far not the most common as it has several disadvantages towards the

conventional way, which uses chemical plant protections – so called pesticides. GM crops‟ being

still 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 protection

against tuber disease.

                                         Organic - Biological

       According to Verkerk (2008c) it would not be possible to fight the hunger of the world by

limiting   ourselves     to   organic   food.   Furthermore     despite   being   healthy   and   not

contaminating,there are several problems in regards of organicgrowing. First there are

discrepancies between the strict regulations of several countries regarding plant protection agents
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 8


and the Codex Alimentarius. Subsequently the amount of spoilage is considerably higher than

conventional growing methods, which induces an increase in the consumer end price as only a

part of the planted crop can be harvested. Codex Alimentarius is trying to reduce the standards

required for growing organic food to suit interests of large food producers (Alliance for Natural

Health - Europe, N.D.). Additionally they are approving the use of various chemical additives

and irradiation, which will due to labelling, be hidden in the final good. As such, the only

solution arising from these problems would be supporting the use of chemicals, as there is no

significant difference between organic and conventional goods. However, organic cultivation

does not need chemicals to protect the plant from tuber diseases. By diversifying, farmers can

eliminate contamination threats.

                             The Irish Potato Famine: real life example

          The great famine that took place between 1845 and 1852 in Ireland was characterized by

starvation and population decrease due to migration. The famine was caused by potato blight, or

PhytophthoraInfestans, which destroyed potato crops in Europe causing catastrophic results

(University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2006). The fungus on the tuber caused the

death 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 nation's food

needs.”

          These numbers indicate the reason for the severe loss in harvest. The Irish agriculture

experienced 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 in

contrast to the traditional potato farmers in Central and South America.
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 the

traditional diverse plantation of potatoes representing South American cultivation, and the

second 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 California

Museum of Paleontology, 2006)



        Diversified cultivation provides a smaller target area for the fungus. Therefore, fewer

potatoes are destroyed by a single disease which prevented severe loss in harvest.If cultivation is

concentrating 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 eco

friendly way of prevention. Farmers are also encouraged to remove haulms, apply biological

fungicides, and harvest the crop early and to prevent long-term storage of their production.
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 the

environment. Figure 1 illustrates a “summary of the results of the short-term consumer risk

assessment for the pesticide/crop combinations for which a potential consumer risk could not be

excluded.” (EFSA, 2010).




       Figure 2

       As shown in Figure 1 the X-Axis identifies the maximum IESTI [International estimated

short-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 be

ingested by the human body without causing any damage. The Y-Axis represents the frequency

of samples (in percentage) exceeding the threshold residue (EFSA, 2010). The pesticides
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 11


showing the most significant residue in potatoes is oxamyl and carbaryl, with levels of more than

1000% the reference dose.

       The use of carbaryl has been prohibited in November 2007 in the EU. In the report

conducted by the EFSA,three out of four samples with elevated residue concentration originated

from Europe. As this report was conducted in 2008, there should not have been any residue of

this 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 seen

that the residual amount of carbaryl on potatoes can be as high as 0.2 mg/kg, which is in direct

violation with the European regulations (Codex Alimentarius, 2010). Figure 2 represents the

highest 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 potatoes

even though the use is not authorized by the EU and furthermore it is considerably higher than
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 12


given by the Codex guidelines. As such we need to ask ourselves if the guidelines established by

the 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 health

issues such as nerve damage, cancer and birth defects. Furthermore, they can present severe risks

to the environment through the soil (Environmental Protection Agency, 2007; Food Standards

Agency, 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, local

residents or the environment (EFSA, N.D.; European Commission, 2008). As such, the only

logical 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 which

is still in the development stage. The main issue with GMO is the nescience of potential diseases

and 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 the

use of GMO - Allergic reactions, gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the human body, and

outcrossing. 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 be

considered. CodexAlimentariushas adapted principles of risk assessment, which evaluates direct

effects and unintended effects on the environment. According to WHO (N.D.), GM foods are not

likely to reveal risks to the human health and the Codex principles have been put in place in

order to guarantee safety.
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 genetic

composition 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 and

usage in the chemical industry, the potato has been considered an important crop for crop

biotechnology. This new type of potato has arisen as an ideal raw material that is used in starch

processing industries. Through biotechnology this potato, also known as Amflora, have

separatedAmylase 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 headache

to organic potato growers. The reduced prevalence of blight in GM potatoes has pushed genetic

engineering on potatoes to greater lengths (Nelson & Science Direct, 2001).

       The GM potato is mainly produced by different biotechnology companies in America and

Europe. German giant BASF and the US Company Monsanto are the two main companies that

are deeply involved in the potato biotechnology enhancement. Monsanto was the main producer

with a 90 percent grip of the world production of GM crops until they decided to cease their

production of GM potatoes. Before that, the company integrated commercial practices and strong

lobbying to encourage the adoption of GM potatoes across America and EuropeGreenpeace

International (2003). Monsanto was the primary owner of the nature mark and new leaf GM

potato, 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 different

environmental, 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
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 14


by both Monsanto and BSAF on some GM crops. Currently the GM potatoes have received

advances that are aimed at strengthening their resistance to pesticides. This range from the use of

chemicals excreted from frogs that have been inserted into the potatoes gene to inhibit them to

produce that chemical during growth (Sawahel, 2005). However, advances in GMO potatoes

have caused oppositions from traditional groups who support organic production and the risk

spread of their chemicals to human and animals through contamination and environmental

damage. It has also been claimed that introduction of GM potatoes is a great risk to emergence of

human infections that are resistant to antibiotics (Evenson, 2002). This has led to establishments

of different standards and commissions that enforce such standards on the development of GM

potatoes by GMO companies.
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 different

reasons. In order to develop an assessment that gives ground for application of the Codex, it is

required that the potential benefits and risks of the potatoes be identified (Halsberger, 2003).

Although, companies are advancing innovations aimed at improving the value, quality and

disease resistance of the potato, issues of concerns have arisen. These are the main reason for

intervention by the Codex and other state authorities in the country. The transfer of gene from

organism 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 potatoes

has a direct effect on food safety and security, which are the two main reasons for the

establishment of the FAO and WHO that gives the Codex its mandate. Finally, issues of concern

emerge in the use of the GM potato, which give rise to need for enforcement of standards on

Monsanto 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 to

potatoes. Increased use of the potatoes also lead to detrimental effects on wildlife and other

animals who consequently feed on potato leaves or plants that grow from the consequent soil that

surrounds the GMO potatoes. Additionally, induction of insects, which are resistant to common

pesticides arises whose population, may increase sporadically causing large-scale destruction of

other secondary crops apart from the potatoes (Barstow, 2002).The Codex Alimentarius is of

decisive importance in ensuring that GM potatoes are developed, grown, sold and consumed in

such a way that safety and food supply are controlled in adherence to set standards and

guidelines.
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 companies

that have stakes in the biotechnology and genetically modification. This stakeholders range from

the GMO companies, state government and financers of such projects. However, there have

arisen attempts by different organizations and individuals to undermine the application and

enforceability of the Codex. This range from individual persons, international donor organization

to 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 due

to the results of his experiments. Although he was terminated and his research findings

confiscated, Dr.Pusztai contributed to the controversy that GMOs have a deleterious effects on

organisms. He attributed this to scientific study, which is not enough to investigate user‟s health

risks. The scientist claimed that the present safety technology tested is not enough to detect any

detrimental effects on consumers of GMOs (Connor, 1999). By carefully investigating rats

feeding them GM potatoes, he claimed that the unpredictable toxins that affected the rat would in

the end cause dangers to human beings. However, a diet solely based on potatoes is so

nutritionally poor,Dr.Pusztai added protein supplements to the experiment, that led to an

imbalance trial (Connor, 1999). He also used the results of a 10-day experiment for his

conclusions, when there was another trial duration of 100-days that showed positive results

which he stated too much supplements were used (Connor, 1999). Publication of his work was

therefore not recommended.
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 Solutions

Foundation   (HealthFreedomUSA.org)      are   running   a   campaign   against   the   Codex

Alimentariusproviding inaccurate information. According to Rath (2010) the information spread

by 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 of

confusion were present in her explanations about Codex and health freedoms. Factual

inaccuracies 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 has

been disproved by Dr.Matthias Rath and Dr.Robert Verkerk and by the fact that nothing had

happened on that particular date (Rath 2010; Verkerk, 2010). What Dr.Laibow did, was mixing

the European food supplement directive regarding the addition of vitamins in food with Codex

guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, while in essence the two are different

under the Codex.
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 Monsanto's 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‟s

meetings are held in Geneva, Rome and mainly in USA. Stubblebine and Laibow lobbying

against the Codex was due to their strong devotion to promoting individual health freedom.By

informing informed online readers that Codex would ban food supplements in order to portray

Codex in bad faith,this would cause the public to develop personal opposition on Codex since it

would restrict the use of food supplements. By directing these unfair and inaccurate attacks on
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 19


Codex, the two intended to cause divisions that would interfere with Codex ability to enforce

standards on GM products.

       Nevertheless some of their information were correct, such as the high acceptance levels

of pesticide residue on foods, but the fact that her claims and are neither properly researched nor

supported 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 as

a major dealing force in the GMO industry. Although it has ceased to be the largest foundation

group in terms of assets globally, the foundation is a large financer of different organisations and

ventures across the globe. This ranges from the education sector, health sector, research and

development, 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 has

provided 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 investment

is to enforce biotechnology towards production of GM foods, which is provided to poor

countries to help alleviate poverty and food shortages. According to the foundation,

biotechnology is an effective tool through which empowerment of third world countries can be

achieved (Cummings, 2008). The foundation argues that investment in production of GM rice

and potatoes in India, China, Brazil and Africa is important in creating genes of crops which are

resistant to soil toxicity, drought, and concentrations of minerals which impairs production of

organic foods (Durant, et al, 2004). Although the Codex Alimentarius offers standards for food

production, safety and security, Rockefeller has given justifications for its direct support of
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 20


biotechnology and genetic modification procedures on foods. On the alleged risks on the

environment, the foundation wonders why there is too much furore while human beings have

since medieval genetically engineered plants to produce crops with desired traits. The

Foundation points that the degree of environment impact lie with the user of the GM seed who

should ensure he correctly apply it (Bruinsma, 2003).

       On concerns on human health, the Foundation recommends adoption of a culture with

systems and supports from government institutions that monitor, report and evaluative the impact

of GM foods on human health. The foundation argues that the over 800 million people who are

globally malnourished, 190 million underweight children and more than 450 million women

anaemic women should be put on the frontline instead of the few groups of people who only

harbour a belief that GMOs cause health effects to their users (Ho&Cummins, 2004). To respond

to American pressure groups which believe that Rockefeller‟s decision to invest in GMOs are not

intended on sustainability, the foundation believes that poor countries need to be empowered in

planting pest resistant GMOs to be self reliant in food supply and claims that in order to stop

being reliant on multinationals for livelihood, countries should empower themselves in food

production (Coleman & Grant, 2004). Rockefeller therefore recommends and finances research

and innovation for developing countries to accept biotechnology and GMOs, to ensure safe and

constant food security.

                             Conspiracy towards Super Capitalism

       Although Rockefeller policies and support in creating a more sustainable and secure life

for different populations is appreciated as a great concern for human life, its investments and

justification for GMOs support is suspicious. The foundation has invested millions of dollars in

the last 30 years in its green revolution of the agriculture sector (Duram, 2010). However,
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 21


pressure groups and other biotechnology insiders have questioned its actions. The initial

introduction of the foundation‟s agricultural division was the first sign of the questionable state

of the foundation policies. The agricultural division was introduced after the awarding of a grant

to Mexico in order to protect Rockefellers investments in the country (Rockefeller Archive

Center, 2010). This deal brokered in 1941 by Henry Wallace the then vice president of the USA

shows the foundation under which a philanthropic venture is build. The green revolution that is

the 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 at

restricting 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 is

connected politically due to its influential nature and finance portfolio. Over the last four

decades, the foundation has had a major part in spreading the global acceptance of GMOs to

poor countries and research institutes where federal banks research program would naturally be

declined. By encompassing the philanthropic nature of its mission, the foundation has access to

hire people from different developing countries who are trained on GMO research. This was

done under auspices of foundation policies, while in essence these scientists are incorporated into

the general production of GMOs (Maessen, 2009).

       Rockefeller Foundation has been a supporter of population control programs (Rockefeller

Archive Center, 2010). In 1972, John Rockefeller founder of the philanthropic foundation was

drafted into the Presidents Commission on population and the American Future (Conway, 1999).

This famous American Commission advocated zero population growth. After its involvement in

population control programs in the last five decades, Rockefeller investment and stake in GMOs,
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 22


biotechnology and education on genetic engineering, the organisations focus and three

justifications for its investment in GMOs became questionable to great extents.

       Although the engineering has been going on since medieval time, GMOs presents a

completely different type of engineering. GMOs are products, which will directly affect their

users in the end. It is also hard to develop proper controls that identifies and evaluates any effects

of 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 to

ensure conservation of the environment (Weasel, 2009). However, Rockefellers‟ support of

GMOs does not uphold corporate social responsibility that every organisation is required to

uphold. It is therefore ironical that an organisation built on foundations of conserving human life

would directly support plans that endanger the same human beings by destroying the

environment. GMOs chemical presence in the soil does not end with the life of the plant but such

destructive chemical remain embedded in the soil causing destruction to insect, fodder crops and

if washed into streams may cause loss of life or chemical poisoning.

       Although Rockefellers‟ missions and objective to invest in GMOs is to alleviate global

hunger by improving productivity of crops, which are drought and pest resistant, its history and

inner reviews of its actions can be termed as directed towards achievement of a super capitalist

new world order, where global food supply and population is controlled by specific firms. These

firms have the resources, personnel and all input which could reverse effects of GMOs which

individual countries become over reliant on. Possession of such abilities can lead to control over

economies especially in third world countries. On the other hand, these groups which include

research firms, donor organisation, GMO companies and governments recommend GMOs for

self sufficiency in food supply while in the long run, cause lasting environmental degradation,
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 23


which leads to loss of human lives. This also displaces the local small-scale farmers who rely on

production of organic foods, who are then displaced by the large-scale industrial organisations

that will henceforth control the profits, product rights and global food supply. This is a recipe for

super capitalism where all resources from military, petroleum, reserve currency to global food

supply 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 in

biotechnology and genetic engineering. The two stakeholders have been attributed as

components of an evolving system globally that believes hungry human beings are not peaceful

people (Cohen & CIGI, 2009). The complementary relationship between the two is evident from

Rockefeller‟s investments in biotechnology, which are used by Monsanto and other GMOs firms

to sponsor research on GMOs. However, the relationship between the two parties has been

criticised as collaboration between enemies of humankind (Anton &Silberglitt, 2001).

Monsanto‟s GMOs products ranging from rice, potatoes and maize have devastated farmers

globally since they have suffered crop failure in subjective seasons. Monsanto has had a negative

effect on African Countries, where the free seeds distributed by Monsanto has led to major losses

to South African farmers (Engdahl, 2010).

       The collaboration by Rockefeller and Monsanto is not promising to any small-scale

farmers and poor countries since the combination of the economic and political power of the

Foundation and the irresponsibility of Monsanto will cause increased production of GMOs and

advanced research on production of more modified breeds. Although this will have a short-term

success in boosting food supply, such products are destructive to the environment, and isa

channel for over reliance on GMOs companies (Weis, 2007).
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 24


       Rockefeller involvement with Monsanto was evident when Rockefeller foundation

president Gordon Conway‟s wrote an open letter to Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro advising him

not to commercialize the lethal terminator seeds (Rockefeller Archive Center, 2010). This is due

to the detrimental effects of the “terminator on its consumers and the environment. By financing

research and training of GMO scientists, Rockefeller is determined to ensure genetic engineering

is 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 be

responsible for production of the highly demanded GMOs. This relationship benefits both

organisations since Monsanto will have a monopolistic control on control of GMOs globally

while Rockefeller philanthropic mission of providing sustainable food supply to the poor will be

achieved.
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 of

Codex related conspiracy issues, which mainly arose from the use of GMO.We can conclude that

though being the healthiest, organic growing can never produce sufficiently to feed the starving

population. Compromises on human health has to be made, be it on the use of chemicals or the

genetically modification of food. Even though, it is scientifically proven that the use of pesticides

causes human illnesses, the danger may be a lesser extent than with the use of genetically

modified food, as research of long term effects on consumers has so far not obtained enough

findings.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.The

controlsby health foundations and commissions should be more imposing as their decisions have

major impacts on the environment, wildlife and the human kind. However we need to distinguish

between the relevant and reliableinformationagainst theunscientifically proven doom-mongering

propaganda.
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 26


                                       REFERENCES

Alliance 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.pdf

Alliance 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: What's 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.stm

Codex Alimentarius (ND) FAQs - QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC CODEX WORK. Retrieved

  August 19, 2010 from http://www.Codexalimentarius.net/web/faq_work.jsp
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 27


Codex Alimentarius Commission (1993) Pesticides Residues in Food – Volume 2: Codex

  Classification of Foods and animal feeds. Rome: FAO/WHO

Codex 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=true

Cohen, 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.htm

Convention 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.
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 28


Damato, 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.html

Donnelly, J. (2009) The Irish Famine: The Irish Catastrophe. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml

Duram, L. A. (2010). Encyclopedia of organic, sustainable, and local food.Santa Barbara, CA:

  Greenwood.

Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O'Leary, 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.htm

Engdahl (September, 8, 2010)Monsanto Buys „Terminator‟ Seeds Company. Retrieved

  September 8, 2010 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082

EUFIC    (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/
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 29


European 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.htm

Evenson, 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: FAO

GMO Compass. (2010, September 2). Potato. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from GMO

  Compass: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/44.potato.html

Greenpeace 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. Hall

Halsberger, 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 Pub

Joint FAO/ WHO (2006) Understanding the Codex Alimentarius(3rd ed.) Rome: FAO/WHO

LFL Ernährungswirtschaft (ND) Codex Alimentarius.Retrieved August 22, 2010, from

  http://www.lfl.bayern.de/iem/obst_gemuese/25603/linkurl_0_17_0_2.pdf
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 30


MacKenzie, 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=1642

McKinney, M. L., &Schoch, R. M. (2003). Environmental science: Systems and solutions.

  Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers

Michigan State University (2010)Tuber and Stem Diseases/Conditions of Potato. Retrieved

  August 20, 2010 from http://www.potatodiseases.org/tuberdiseases.html

National 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 Press

Nelson, G. C., &ScienceDirect (Online service). (2001).Genetically modified organisms in

  agriculture: Economics and politics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Paarlberg, 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.html

Renneberg, R., & Demain, A. L. (2008). Biotechnology for beginners. Amsterdam: Boston.
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 31


Roach, 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.html

The 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=4

Sawahel, 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.html

University 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.shtml

Vasil, 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 Publishers

Weasel, 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.
The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 32


WHO (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




                                         BIBLIOGRAPHY

CBD (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.2010.486686

Borrell, B. (2008, December 9). How Would you grow the World's biggest potato? Retrieved

  August            18,           2010,              from         Scientific                American:

  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worlds-biggest-potato

neurope.eu. (2010, March 07). A GMO hot potato . Retrieved August 22, 2010, from New

  Europe - neurope.eu: http://www.neurope.eu/articles/99479.php

Contenu connexe

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

Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...
Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...
Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...Alfredo J. Escribano DVM, PhD, MBA
 
Tinkering with our future food
Tinkering with our future foodTinkering with our future food
Tinkering with our future foodSreekanth Jayanti
 
LAB fruits and vegetables.pdf
LAB fruits and vegetables.pdfLAB fruits and vegetables.pdf
LAB fruits and vegetables.pdfACASA Projects
 
Protein for life Wageningen- abstracts October 2016
Protein for life   Wageningen- abstracts  October 2016 Protein for life   Wageningen- abstracts  October 2016
Protein for life Wageningen- abstracts October 2016 New Food Innovation Ltd
 
Making products using food waste (autosaved)
Making products using food waste (autosaved)Making products using food waste (autosaved)
Making products using food waste (autosaved)nomin borhuu
 
Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66
Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66
Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66Elsa von Licy
 
Optimization of Food wastage Report
Optimization of Food wastage ReportOptimization of Food wastage Report
Optimization of Food wastage ReportUttam Jodawat
 
POLICY MEMO
POLICY MEMOPOLICY MEMO
POLICY MEMOEd Zeng
 
Essay On Food Safety Act 1974
Essay On Food Safety Act 1974Essay On Food Safety Act 1974
Essay On Food Safety Act 1974Beth Hernandez
 
Food Safety And Food Borne Diseases Essay
Food Safety And Food Borne Diseases EssayFood Safety And Food Borne Diseases Essay
Food Safety And Food Borne Diseases EssayPaper Helper UK
 
EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023
EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023
EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023Harm Kiezebrink
 
294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docx
294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docx294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docx
294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docxmaiyadeengupta94
 

Similaire à The view of codex alimentarius towards GM products using porato commodity as a case study (20)

Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...
Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...
Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Stu...
 
Tinkering with our future food
Tinkering with our future foodTinkering with our future food
Tinkering with our future food
 
Probiotics notes
Probiotics notesProbiotics notes
Probiotics notes
 
LAB fruits and vegetables.pdf
LAB fruits and vegetables.pdfLAB fruits and vegetables.pdf
LAB fruits and vegetables.pdf
 
Homestead Food Production: A Strategy to Combat Malnutrition & Poverty
Homestead Food Production: A Strategy to Combat Malnutrition & PovertyHomestead Food Production: A Strategy to Combat Malnutrition & Poverty
Homestead Food Production: A Strategy to Combat Malnutrition & Poverty
 
Protein for life Wageningen- abstracts October 2016
Protein for life   Wageningen- abstracts  October 2016 Protein for life   Wageningen- abstracts  October 2016
Protein for life Wageningen- abstracts October 2016
 
Making products using food waste (autosaved)
Making products using food waste (autosaved)Making products using food waste (autosaved)
Making products using food waste (autosaved)
 
Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66
Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66
Probiotics and prebiotics nrgastro.2014.66
 
Optimization of Food wastage Report
Optimization of Food wastage ReportOptimization of Food wastage Report
Optimization of Food wastage Report
 
POLICY MEMO
POLICY MEMOPOLICY MEMO
POLICY MEMO
 
Bioengineering in-production-of-food-ingredients
Bioengineering in-production-of-food-ingredientsBioengineering in-production-of-food-ingredients
Bioengineering in-production-of-food-ingredients
 
The moveable feast: converging technologies and our dinner table
The moveable feast: converging technologies and our dinner tableThe moveable feast: converging technologies and our dinner table
The moveable feast: converging technologies and our dinner table
 
Nadeem Mohammed Thesis
Nadeem Mohammed ThesisNadeem Mohammed Thesis
Nadeem Mohammed Thesis
 
Essay On Food Safety Act 1974
Essay On Food Safety Act 1974Essay On Food Safety Act 1974
Essay On Food Safety Act 1974
 
Argomenti CLIL
Argomenti CLILArgomenti CLIL
Argomenti CLIL
 
Food Safety And Food Borne Diseases Essay
Food Safety And Food Borne Diseases EssayFood Safety And Food Borne Diseases Essay
Food Safety And Food Borne Diseases Essay
 
EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023
EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023
EFSA rabbit farming report 2005 EFSA-Q-2004-023
 
294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docx
294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docx294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docx
294196410-investigatoy-project-on-application-of-biotechnology.docx
 
Storage of Organically Crops
Storage of Organically CropsStorage of Organically Crops
Storage of Organically Crops
 
Informe fao frutas y verduras 2020
Informe fao frutas y verduras 2020Informe fao frutas y verduras 2020
Informe fao frutas y verduras 2020
 

Dernier

PISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptx
PISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptxPISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptx
PISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptxEduSkills OECD
 
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdfMaximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdfTechSoup
 
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.raviapr7
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptxSandy Millin
 
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxClinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxraviapr7
 
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxEducation and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxraviapr7
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRATanmoy Mishra
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxAditiChauhan701637
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...CaraSkikne1
 
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxiammrhaywood
 
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxPractical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxKatherine Villaluna
 
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxPatterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxMYDA ANGELICA SUAN
 
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive EducationBenefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive EducationMJDuyan
 
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?TechSoup
 
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17Celine George
 
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17Celine George
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxheathfieldcps1
 
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George WellsThe Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George WellsEugene Lysak
 
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptxCAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptxSaurabhParmar42
 

Dernier (20)

PISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptx
PISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptxPISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptx
PISA-VET launch_El Iza Mohamedou_19 March 2024.pptx
 
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdfMaximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
 
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
 
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxClinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
 
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxEducation and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
 
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
 
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
 
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxPractical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
 
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxPatterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
 
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive EducationBenefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
 
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
 
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
 
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
 
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George WellsThe Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
 
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptxCAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
CAULIFLOWER BREEDING 1 Parmar pptx
 

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

  • 1. ASSIGNMENT FRONT SHEET please complete all sections electronically Course Title: Legislation Faculty: 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 been accepted 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 previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the assignment. I also understand that under no circumstances should any part of this assignment be published, including on the internet, or publicity displayed without receiving written permission 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 deadline Time Received: Signature:
  • 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 the Codex AlimentariusCommission on potatoes. Furthermore, it has a focus on the issues of genetically modified products, in particularthe manipulation of genes in potatoes and the concerning lobby. Design/methodology/approach – The paper discusses recent literature on genetically modified organisms and standards of Codex Alimentarius. Furthermore it examines organizations, foundations, and individual researcher who are either promoting or demoting the use of GMO and the reliability of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Findings– This paper finds that the definition and standards compiled by the Codex Alimentarius regarding the SolanumTuberosum, commonly known as potato, are very general as there are standards for post production potatoes, such as quick frozen French fries.In addition, it explainsthe reasons for growing GMO and the view of Codex Alimentarius towards this innovation. Regarding the various conspiracy theories of GMO and Codex Alimentarius this paper will illustrate some critical analysis of the GM lobby and individuals opponents. Research limitations/implications –Considering the profoundness of the topic,the restricted timeframe, and the limited amount of accessibility to literature articles, this paper bases most of its information gathered from non-governmental organisations, inter-governmental organizations and health foundations. There is a lot of material available covering the issues and arguments of GM food but somewhat limited materialson potatoes specifically. Originality/value – This paper attempts to illustrate the role of Codex Alimentarius and some of its disputable regulations. Paper Type – Research Paper
  • 3. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 2 TABLE 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. 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. 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 organization first established in 1961 by the World Health Organization [WHO] and the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] (EUFIC, 2004; Joint WHO/FAO, 2006). These organizations felt that there was a need of international food regulations in order to provide safe, fair and consumer protective food trade. However, the regulations are not legally binding and are therefore just an international 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 decided to use the Codex regulations and standards, e.g. in case of doubt discrepancy, the regulations became more attached towards international laws than one would think (World Trade Organization, ND). GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS These are foods, produced from genetically incorporating modified organisms into the foods‟ genome. According to the World Health Organization (N.D.), these foods are produced because there is a perceived advantage to the producer and consumer. This means that the user of such food enjoys lower prices and durability. The consumer is also guaranteed a higher nutritional value because the food is genetically consolidated to provide all the nutrients in required levels. The producers compose of the largest group of beneficiaries to these foods since the overall objective of incorporating genetically modified organism in crop production is to achieve crop protection (Paarlberg, Borlaug, & Carter, 2008). This is done by integrating innovation of modern gene technology, to introduce plants that are resistant to common crop diseases. GM foods were introduced into the food market two decades ago with varieties ranging from soybeans, tomatoes, sugarcane, Rapeseed, rice, sweet peppers, corn and potatoes.
  • 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 GM food. He states, that the Codex Alimentarius supports this idea as in the future it would be the only feasible solution of feeding the world. The Codex, however, affirms that they only set standards 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 another conclusion. In 2009 the attendees of the meeting of the Codex Commission on Food Labelling discussed the problem of whether GMO should be labelled, or if doing so will confuse consumers, 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 chairman Paul Meyers was willing to postpone the decision making for 3 years. Only after the resistance of the 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 like Dr.Damato (2009), and brought up new discussions about the Codex being influenced by lobbying 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, also known as potato. These, however, are only adding up on regulations and definition produced over time by different organization.
  • 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 as starchy enlarged solid roots, tubers, corms or rhizomes. In addition, they can be of various botanic species with the edible portion, in most cases,lying underground. These are only parts of the definitions and regulations of the Codex, as every product made out of potatoes has its own definition, like frozen French-fries (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1993). Other definitions are generated by the Codex with the help of the FAO from 1994. This document divides the different purposes of the use of the tuber between human food, animal feed and industrial use, e.g. for alcohol fermentation (FAO, 1994). Moreover, it states that a potato has high water content, some 70% to 80%, and shows little protein fat. Also, the starch component accounts for 16% to 24% of the tuber‟s weight. Furthermore, seven main kinds of crops were defined, including potatoes, sweet potatoes and cassava (FAO, 1994). The Codexwas initially focusing on tropical fruits and vegetables but amended the terms of reference towards regulations for all food in the 1990‟s.This creates a “double standard” as other organizations, such as the UNECE, which is responsible for food regulations in terms of vegetables and fruits since the 1950‟s,set their own standards (LFL Ernährungswirtschaft, ND). Therefore critics question the need for the Codex Commission.
  • 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‟s entire harvest. The infections show different symptoms and can appear in different stages – from seed to storage. One example of storage disease is Pink Rot, which occurs globally. The cause is mainly high soil moisture (Michigan State University, 2010). Fusarium Dry Rot is another storage disease withmainly symptoms of dark deep depressions on the tuber. Other noteworthy kinds of tuber disease or fungus are Black Dot, Common Stab or Black Heart, and most importantly Potato Late Blight. WAYS OF GROWING POTATOES Potatoes can be grown in three different techniques. The healthiest method of cultivating is the organic or so called biological plantation, as the use of any nonorganic protections is prohibited and strongly controlled by health authorities (Verkerk, 2008c). Although being the healthiest technique, it is by far not the most common as it has several disadvantages towards the conventional way, which uses chemical plant protections – so called pesticides. GM crops‟ being still 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 protection against tuber disease. Organic - Biological According to Verkerk (2008c) it would not be possible to fight the hunger of the world by limiting ourselves to organic food. Furthermore despite being healthy and not contaminating,there are several problems in regards of organicgrowing. First there are discrepancies between the strict regulations of several countries regarding plant protection agents
  • 9. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 8 and the Codex Alimentarius. Subsequently the amount of spoilage is considerably higher than conventional growing methods, which induces an increase in the consumer end price as only a part of the planted crop can be harvested. Codex Alimentarius is trying to reduce the standards required for growing organic food to suit interests of large food producers (Alliance for Natural Health - Europe, N.D.). Additionally they are approving the use of various chemical additives and irradiation, which will due to labelling, be hidden in the final good. As such, the only solution arising from these problems would be supporting the use of chemicals, as there is no significant difference between organic and conventional goods. However, organic cultivation does not need chemicals to protect the plant from tuber diseases. By diversifying, farmers can eliminate contamination threats. The Irish Potato Famine: real life example The great famine that took place between 1845 and 1852 in Ireland was characterized by starvation and population decrease due to migration. The famine was caused by potato blight, or PhytophthoraInfestans, which destroyed potato crops in Europe causing catastrophic results (University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2006). The fungus on the tuber caused the death 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 nation's food needs.” These numbers indicate the reason for the severe loss in harvest. The Irish agriculture experienced 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 in contrast to the traditional potato farmers in Central and South America.
  • 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 the traditional diverse plantation of potatoes representing South American cultivation, and the second 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 California Museum of Paleontology, 2006) Diversified cultivation provides a smaller target area for the fungus. Therefore, fewer potatoes are destroyed by a single disease which prevented severe loss in harvest.If cultivation is concentrating 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 eco friendly way of prevention. Farmers are also encouraged to remove haulms, apply biological fungicides, and harvest the crop early and to prevent long-term storage of their production.
  • 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 the environment. Figure 1 illustrates a “summary of the results of the short-term consumer risk assessment for the pesticide/crop combinations for which a potential consumer risk could not be excluded.” (EFSA, 2010). Figure 2 As shown in Figure 1 the X-Axis identifies the maximum IESTI [International estimated short-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 be ingested by the human body without causing any damage. The Y-Axis represents the frequency of samples (in percentage) exceeding the threshold residue (EFSA, 2010). The pesticides
  • 12. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 11 showing the most significant residue in potatoes is oxamyl and carbaryl, with levels of more than 1000% the reference dose. The use of carbaryl has been prohibited in November 2007 in the EU. In the report conducted by the EFSA,three out of four samples with elevated residue concentration originated from Europe. As this report was conducted in 2008, there should not have been any residue of this 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 seen that the residual amount of carbaryl on potatoes can be as high as 0.2 mg/kg, which is in direct violation with the European regulations (Codex Alimentarius, 2010). Figure 2 represents the highest 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 potatoes even though the use is not authorized by the EU and furthermore it is considerably higher than
  • 13. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 12 given by the Codex guidelines. As such we need to ask ourselves if the guidelines established by the 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 health issues such as nerve damage, cancer and birth defects. Furthermore, they can present severe risks to the environment through the soil (Environmental Protection Agency, 2007; Food Standards Agency, 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, local residents or the environment (EFSA, N.D.; European Commission, 2008). As such, the only logical 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 which is still in the development stage. The main issue with GMO is the nescience of potential diseases and 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 the use of GMO - Allergic reactions, gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the human body, and outcrossing. 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 be considered. CodexAlimentariushas adapted principles of risk assessment, which evaluates direct effects and unintended effects on the environment. According to WHO (N.D.), GM foods are not likely to reveal risks to the human health and the Codex principles have been put in place in order to guarantee safety.
  • 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 genetic composition 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 and usage in the chemical industry, the potato has been considered an important crop for crop biotechnology. This new type of potato has arisen as an ideal raw material that is used in starch processing industries. Through biotechnology this potato, also known as Amflora, have separatedAmylase 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 headache to organic potato growers. The reduced prevalence of blight in GM potatoes has pushed genetic engineering on potatoes to greater lengths (Nelson & Science Direct, 2001). The GM potato is mainly produced by different biotechnology companies in America and Europe. German giant BASF and the US Company Monsanto are the two main companies that are deeply involved in the potato biotechnology enhancement. Monsanto was the main producer with a 90 percent grip of the world production of GM crops until they decided to cease their production of GM potatoes. Before that, the company integrated commercial practices and strong lobbying to encourage the adoption of GM potatoes across America and EuropeGreenpeace International (2003). Monsanto was the primary owner of the nature mark and new leaf GM potato, 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 different environmental, 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. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 14 by both Monsanto and BSAF on some GM crops. Currently the GM potatoes have received advances that are aimed at strengthening their resistance to pesticides. This range from the use of chemicals excreted from frogs that have been inserted into the potatoes gene to inhibit them to produce that chemical during growth (Sawahel, 2005). However, advances in GMO potatoes have caused oppositions from traditional groups who support organic production and the risk spread of their chemicals to human and animals through contamination and environmental damage. It has also been claimed that introduction of GM potatoes is a great risk to emergence of human infections that are resistant to antibiotics (Evenson, 2002). This has led to establishments of different standards and commissions that enforce such standards on the development of GM potatoes by GMO companies.
  • 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 different reasons. In order to develop an assessment that gives ground for application of the Codex, it is required that the potential benefits and risks of the potatoes be identified (Halsberger, 2003). Although, companies are advancing innovations aimed at improving the value, quality and disease resistance of the potato, issues of concerns have arisen. These are the main reason for intervention by the Codex and other state authorities in the country. The transfer of gene from organism 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 potatoes has a direct effect on food safety and security, which are the two main reasons for the establishment of the FAO and WHO that gives the Codex its mandate. Finally, issues of concern emerge in the use of the GM potato, which give rise to need for enforcement of standards on Monsanto 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 to potatoes. Increased use of the potatoes also lead to detrimental effects on wildlife and other animals who consequently feed on potato leaves or plants that grow from the consequent soil that surrounds the GMO potatoes. Additionally, induction of insects, which are resistant to common pesticides arises whose population, may increase sporadically causing large-scale destruction of other secondary crops apart from the potatoes (Barstow, 2002).The Codex Alimentarius is of decisive importance in ensuring that GM potatoes are developed, grown, sold and consumed in such a way that safety and food supply are controlled in adherence to set standards and guidelines.
  • 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 companies that have stakes in the biotechnology and genetically modification. This stakeholders range from the GMO companies, state government and financers of such projects. However, there have arisen attempts by different organizations and individuals to undermine the application and enforceability of the Codex. This range from individual persons, international donor organization to 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 due to the results of his experiments. Although he was terminated and his research findings confiscated, Dr.Pusztai contributed to the controversy that GMOs have a deleterious effects on organisms. He attributed this to scientific study, which is not enough to investigate user‟s health risks. The scientist claimed that the present safety technology tested is not enough to detect any detrimental effects on consumers of GMOs (Connor, 1999). By carefully investigating rats feeding them GM potatoes, he claimed that the unpredictable toxins that affected the rat would in the end cause dangers to human beings. However, a diet solely based on potatoes is so nutritionally poor,Dr.Pusztai added protein supplements to the experiment, that led to an imbalance trial (Connor, 1999). He also used the results of a 10-day experiment for his conclusions, when there was another trial duration of 100-days that showed positive results which he stated too much supplements were used (Connor, 1999). Publication of his work was therefore not recommended.
  • 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 Solutions Foundation (HealthFreedomUSA.org) are running a campaign against the Codex Alimentariusproviding inaccurate information. According to Rath (2010) the information spread by 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 of confusion were present in her explanations about Codex and health freedoms. Factual inaccuracies 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 has been disproved by Dr.Matthias Rath and Dr.Robert Verkerk and by the fact that nothing had happened on that particular date (Rath 2010; Verkerk, 2010). What Dr.Laibow did, was mixing the European food supplement directive regarding the addition of vitamins in food with Codex guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, while in essence the two are different under the Codex.
  • 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 Monsanto's 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‟s meetings are held in Geneva, Rome and mainly in USA. Stubblebine and Laibow lobbying against the Codex was due to their strong devotion to promoting individual health freedom.By informing informed online readers that Codex would ban food supplements in order to portray Codex in bad faith,this would cause the public to develop personal opposition on Codex since it would restrict the use of food supplements. By directing these unfair and inaccurate attacks on
  • 20. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 19 Codex, the two intended to cause divisions that would interfere with Codex ability to enforce standards on GM products. Nevertheless some of their information were correct, such as the high acceptance levels of pesticide residue on foods, but the fact that her claims and are neither properly researched nor supported 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 as a major dealing force in the GMO industry. Although it has ceased to be the largest foundation group in terms of assets globally, the foundation is a large financer of different organisations and ventures across the globe. This ranges from the education sector, health sector, research and development, 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 has provided 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 investment is to enforce biotechnology towards production of GM foods, which is provided to poor countries to help alleviate poverty and food shortages. According to the foundation, biotechnology is an effective tool through which empowerment of third world countries can be achieved (Cummings, 2008). The foundation argues that investment in production of GM rice and potatoes in India, China, Brazil and Africa is important in creating genes of crops which are resistant to soil toxicity, drought, and concentrations of minerals which impairs production of organic foods (Durant, et al, 2004). Although the Codex Alimentarius offers standards for food production, safety and security, Rockefeller has given justifications for its direct support of
  • 21. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 20 biotechnology and genetic modification procedures on foods. On the alleged risks on the environment, the foundation wonders why there is too much furore while human beings have since medieval genetically engineered plants to produce crops with desired traits. The Foundation points that the degree of environment impact lie with the user of the GM seed who should ensure he correctly apply it (Bruinsma, 2003). On concerns on human health, the Foundation recommends adoption of a culture with systems and supports from government institutions that monitor, report and evaluative the impact of GM foods on human health. The foundation argues that the over 800 million people who are globally malnourished, 190 million underweight children and more than 450 million women anaemic women should be put on the frontline instead of the few groups of people who only harbour a belief that GMOs cause health effects to their users (Ho&Cummins, 2004). To respond to American pressure groups which believe that Rockefeller‟s decision to invest in GMOs are not intended on sustainability, the foundation believes that poor countries need to be empowered in planting pest resistant GMOs to be self reliant in food supply and claims that in order to stop being reliant on multinationals for livelihood, countries should empower themselves in food production (Coleman & Grant, 2004). Rockefeller therefore recommends and finances research and innovation for developing countries to accept biotechnology and GMOs, to ensure safe and constant food security. Conspiracy towards Super Capitalism Although Rockefeller policies and support in creating a more sustainable and secure life for different populations is appreciated as a great concern for human life, its investments and justification for GMOs support is suspicious. The foundation has invested millions of dollars in the last 30 years in its green revolution of the agriculture sector (Duram, 2010). However,
  • 22. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 21 pressure groups and other biotechnology insiders have questioned its actions. The initial introduction of the foundation‟s agricultural division was the first sign of the questionable state of the foundation policies. The agricultural division was introduced after the awarding of a grant to Mexico in order to protect Rockefellers investments in the country (Rockefeller Archive Center, 2010). This deal brokered in 1941 by Henry Wallace the then vice president of the USA shows the foundation under which a philanthropic venture is build. The green revolution that is the 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 at restricting 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 is connected politically due to its influential nature and finance portfolio. Over the last four decades, the foundation has had a major part in spreading the global acceptance of GMOs to poor countries and research institutes where federal banks research program would naturally be declined. By encompassing the philanthropic nature of its mission, the foundation has access to hire people from different developing countries who are trained on GMO research. This was done under auspices of foundation policies, while in essence these scientists are incorporated into the general production of GMOs (Maessen, 2009). Rockefeller Foundation has been a supporter of population control programs (Rockefeller Archive Center, 2010). In 1972, John Rockefeller founder of the philanthropic foundation was drafted into the Presidents Commission on population and the American Future (Conway, 1999). This famous American Commission advocated zero population growth. After its involvement in population control programs in the last five decades, Rockefeller investment and stake in GMOs,
  • 23. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 22 biotechnology and education on genetic engineering, the organisations focus and three justifications for its investment in GMOs became questionable to great extents. Although the engineering has been going on since medieval time, GMOs presents a completely different type of engineering. GMOs are products, which will directly affect their users in the end. It is also hard to develop proper controls that identifies and evaluates any effects of 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 to ensure conservation of the environment (Weasel, 2009). However, Rockefellers‟ support of GMOs does not uphold corporate social responsibility that every organisation is required to uphold. It is therefore ironical that an organisation built on foundations of conserving human life would directly support plans that endanger the same human beings by destroying the environment. GMOs chemical presence in the soil does not end with the life of the plant but such destructive chemical remain embedded in the soil causing destruction to insect, fodder crops and if washed into streams may cause loss of life or chemical poisoning. Although Rockefellers‟ missions and objective to invest in GMOs is to alleviate global hunger by improving productivity of crops, which are drought and pest resistant, its history and inner reviews of its actions can be termed as directed towards achievement of a super capitalist new world order, where global food supply and population is controlled by specific firms. These firms have the resources, personnel and all input which could reverse effects of GMOs which individual countries become over reliant on. Possession of such abilities can lead to control over economies especially in third world countries. On the other hand, these groups which include research firms, donor organisation, GMO companies and governments recommend GMOs for self sufficiency in food supply while in the long run, cause lasting environmental degradation,
  • 24. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 23 which leads to loss of human lives. This also displaces the local small-scale farmers who rely on production of organic foods, who are then displaced by the large-scale industrial organisations that will henceforth control the profits, product rights and global food supply. This is a recipe for super capitalism where all resources from military, petroleum, reserve currency to global food supply 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 in biotechnology and genetic engineering. The two stakeholders have been attributed as components of an evolving system globally that believes hungry human beings are not peaceful people (Cohen & CIGI, 2009). The complementary relationship between the two is evident from Rockefeller‟s investments in biotechnology, which are used by Monsanto and other GMOs firms to sponsor research on GMOs. However, the relationship between the two parties has been criticised as collaboration between enemies of humankind (Anton &Silberglitt, 2001). Monsanto‟s GMOs products ranging from rice, potatoes and maize have devastated farmers globally since they have suffered crop failure in subjective seasons. Monsanto has had a negative effect on African Countries, where the free seeds distributed by Monsanto has led to major losses to South African farmers (Engdahl, 2010). The collaboration by Rockefeller and Monsanto is not promising to any small-scale farmers and poor countries since the combination of the economic and political power of the Foundation and the irresponsibility of Monsanto will cause increased production of GMOs and advanced research on production of more modified breeds. Although this will have a short-term success in boosting food supply, such products are destructive to the environment, and isa channel for over reliance on GMOs companies (Weis, 2007).
  • 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 foundation president Gordon Conway‟s wrote an open letter to Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro advising him not to commercialize the lethal terminator seeds (Rockefeller Archive Center, 2010). This is due to the detrimental effects of the “terminator on its consumers and the environment. By financing research and training of GMO scientists, Rockefeller is determined to ensure genetic engineering is 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 be responsible for production of the highly demanded GMOs. This relationship benefits both organisations since Monsanto will have a monopolistic control on control of GMOs globally while Rockefeller philanthropic mission of providing sustainable food supply to the poor will be achieved.
  • 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 of Codex related conspiracy issues, which mainly arose from the use of GMO.We can conclude that though being the healthiest, organic growing can never produce sufficiently to feed the starving population. Compromises on human health has to be made, be it on the use of chemicals or the genetically modification of food. Even though, it is scientifically proven that the use of pesticides causes human illnesses, the danger may be a lesser extent than with the use of genetically modified food, as research of long term effects on consumers has so far not obtained enough findings.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.The controlsby health foundations and commissions should be more imposing as their decisions have major impacts on the environment, wildlife and the human kind. However we need to distinguish between the relevant and reliableinformationagainst theunscientifically proven doom-mongering propaganda.
  • 27. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 26 REFERENCES Alliance 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.pdf Alliance 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: What's 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.stm Codex Alimentarius (ND) FAQs - QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC CODEX WORK. Retrieved August 19, 2010 from http://www.Codexalimentarius.net/web/faq_work.jsp
  • 28. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 27 Codex Alimentarius Commission (1993) Pesticides Residues in Food – Volume 2: Codex Classification of Foods and animal feeds. Rome: FAO/WHO Codex 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=true Cohen, 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.htm Convention 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. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 28 Damato, 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.html Donnelly, J. (2009) The Irish Famine: The Irish Catastrophe. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml Duram, L. A. (2010). Encyclopedia of organic, sustainable, and local food.Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood. Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O'Leary, 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.htm Engdahl (September, 8, 2010)Monsanto Buys „Terminator‟ Seeds Company. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082 EUFIC (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. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 29 European 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.htm Evenson, 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: FAO GMO Compass. (2010, September 2). Potato. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from GMO Compass: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/44.potato.html Greenpeace 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. Hall Halsberger, 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 Pub Joint FAO/ WHO (2006) Understanding the Codex Alimentarius(3rd ed.) Rome: FAO/WHO LFL 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. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 30 MacKenzie, 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=1642 McKinney, M. L., &Schoch, R. M. (2003). Environmental science: Systems and solutions. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers Michigan State University (2010)Tuber and Stem Diseases/Conditions of Potato. Retrieved August 20, 2010 from http://www.potatodiseases.org/tuberdiseases.html National 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 Press Nelson, G. C., &ScienceDirect (Online service). (2001).Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: Economics and politics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Paarlberg, 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.html Renneberg, R., & Demain, A. L. (2008). Biotechnology for beginners. Amsterdam: Boston.
  • 32. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 31 Roach, 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.html The 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=4 Sawahel, 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.html University 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.shtml Vasil, 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 Publishers Weasel, 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. The view of Codex Alimentarius towards GM products using potato commodity as a case study 32 WHO (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 BIBLIOGRAPHY CBD (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.2010.486686 Borrell, B. (2008, December 9). How Would you grow the World's biggest potato? Retrieved August 18, 2010, from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worlds-biggest-potato neurope.eu. (2010, March 07). A GMO hot potato . Retrieved August 22, 2010, from New Europe - neurope.eu: http://www.neurope.eu/articles/99479.php