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