Genetically Modified Foods
Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM
Throughout the
world, there is a debate raging over genetically modified (GM) foods. Are they
safe? Should they be labelled? How might they affect future health? What will
they do to the environment? Are they necessary? Can Australia afford to miss
out on the benefits of growing GM crops? Who benefits from these new
technologies?
Reactions against GM foods range from the logical arguments of the Union of Concerned Scientists to protesters in space suits ripping up trial fields of GM crops in the United Kingdom. Some large food companies and major supermarket chains in the United Kingdom and Europe have declared they will not stock the foods, usually because they see the commercial advantages in taking such a stand. Many, including consumer groups in most countries of the world, have called for a moratorium on commercial growing of GM crops until their health, environmental and ethical effects have been fully investigated by independent researchers and appropriate committees.
On the other hand, companies marketing GM foods and some researchers react angrily to anyone who questions their wholehearted support of the technology. Researchers are often enthusiastic about potentially useful applications of the technology, and also see many job opportunities. Organisations representing large food companies are also in favour of GM foods, convinced that the public concern is fuelled by ignorance and scaremongering on the part of 'green' groups.
Where will it all lead, and what are the options?
Gene technology itself is not inherently bad and it undoubtedly has many potential uses. Medical applications of gene technology, for example, are vitally important and are well accepted because consumers see them as useful and their production and use is contained.
Theoretically, GM crops could offer better nutrition to people in countries where undernutrition is a major problem. The reality, however, is that GM crops are being grown in countries where there is more than enough food and are sold only to those who can pay for them. Many are being used for animal feeds - a proven distortion of use of the world's resources and GM crops have not been cheaper than regular crops and have not given the increased yields promised. Over 80% of the world's farmers are subsistence farmers and for them, GM crops will lead to a continued and worsening indebtedness to large agribusinesses. Many consumers believe there has not been sufficient recognition of the potential ecological problems of GM crops. The ethical aspects of large companies owning the patents on seeds used for basic foodstuffs has also been largely ignored as companies rush to secure their markets ahead of their competitors. The influence agribusinesses exert on governments, the lack of consultation with the public, the unwillingness to label GM products, the attempts to marginalise those who enter the debate and the dismissal of valid concerns as scaremongering do not engender confidence in those promoting GM foods. Nor does the fact that those who stand to profit from the research are its funders.
There are many examples where embracing new technologies before all the evidence is to hand have proved disastrous. The problems of pesticides when used in combination, the land degradation resulting from overenthusiastic clearing, salinity from irrigation and mad cow disease from inappropriate animal feeds are a few examples. We already have evidence that some forms of GM technology could create future problems with weed control and disrupt ecological balance through their effect on beneficial insect populations, so you might assume we would accept the lessons of history and move slowly.
Even more importantly, we should be working out whether there are practical ways this technology could benefit those who need it most instead of increasing the coffers of those who want the right to own and patent genetic resources. The disparity between rich and poor throughout the world is likely to accelerate with ownership of GM food patents. Much more debate on this technology is needed before we rush into accepting it.
Rosemary Stanton is a well-known Australian nutritionist, with a science degree in biochemistry and pharmaceutical chemistry, post-graduate qualifications in nutrition and dietetics, a graduate diploma in administration and a PhD for her work in public health. In 1998, she was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for her services to community health through education in nutrition and dietetics. Rosemary is the author of 29 books, including nutrition textbooks, books on diet and nutrition and recipe books. She has also published many articles in scientific journals and has written around 3000 articles for magazines and newspapers. She appears frequently on television and is a regular presenter on Burkes Backyard, averages 10 radio interviews a week, and lectures to medical students, doctors, teachers, nurses, sporting groups and to the general public.
Interview with Rosemary Stanton
Do you see yourself as a leader in the area of food and nutrition?
I have become a leader in communication about food and nutrition, although I did not seek this role. It found me - probably because I have worked hard at keeping myself informed in many areas, am beholden to no one and can therefore speak out on various issues.
What vision are you working towards?
Having the whole community understand more about what they are eating, so they can enjoy true flavour of food and the immense joy of feeling fit and well-nourished.
What attracted you to being a Nutritionist?
It was not my first choice, but due to family reasons, I needed to do a course which was accompanied by a scholarship that would pay University fees and a living allowance. In those days (1960), for a girl that was almost impossible, apart from going to Teachers College. However, the NSW Health Department offered me a cadetship to do a Science degree, followed by a post graduate course in nutrition & dietetics, so I chose that, hoping to later do my first choice which was medicine.
What have been some of the highlights of your career?
Being awarded an OAM for my services to health education and a PhD for my work in public health were both great honours. But my greatest joy is when someone stops me in the street and tells me how much something I said or wrote has helped them. This happens almost every week. One woman told me she had spent over $20,000 on weight loss programs, then bought one of my books for $3.95 and lost 110 kg! A man last week told me he believed my advice on a radio program some years ago had saved his life with a check up for bowel cancer that proved timely. There are thousands of such highlights that keep me going.
What difficulties have you encountered pursuing a career and raising family?
I have learned to live without much sleep! Fortunately, I have always been able to work from home and when my workload increased and my 4th baby was on the way, my husband decided to become a school teacher so he would be home after school and in holidays to mind the children. I work very late into the night and get up early and this has not always been easy. In retrospect, I should have worked less.
What strategies have you employed to advance in your career and what forms of support have you relied on?
I have had no planned strategies, but have always worked hard and thoroughly. I do lots of 'homework' on different issues. I have also been prepared to serve on lots of committees - more work, but no money. My main support has been my husband.
What are three of the most significant issues relating to women's health and how are they being dealt with in Australia?
Weight is a big issue - getting it right (not too much, not too little). Dieticians are doing a lot to help; the media tend to be more of a hindrance than a help. For excess weight, I believe we need to involve GPs much more. This is starting to happen, but progress is slow. For underweight, we need to involve the media and give women more confidence in themselves. This will take time, and will only occur in conjunction with other areas of women's feelings of self worth.
Osteoporosis is a huge issue on the horizon that we will have to deal with. Groups including doctors, exercise physiologists and dieticians are trying to come up with plans of attack and are being helped by some commercial groups, such as the Dairy Corporation and sellers of soy products. We need to take care these groups don't highjack the issue, which involves more than just drinking milk.
Breastfeeding is probably one of the biggest issues, related to children and their future health. Nursing Mothers have done one of the best jobs of educating and supporting women in breastfeeding, but we now need to make work places breastfeeding friendly. That is not yet happening, although it is beginning – eg Wollongong University staff have on campus child care and supportive staff.
Do you become frustrated in your pursuit to encourage people to follow good eating habits?
Yes. My frustration usually involves the food industry and their development of more and more junk foods or of pseudo-nutritious foods.
What changes would you like to see in the area of health education in Australia?
It would be good if every school taught nutrition and cooking - in infants and primary school. High school is too late. I would also like nutrition to play a bigger role in medical courses so GPs could pass on more appropriate messages.
Do you have any concerns about the way food is advertised in Australia?
Yes. We should ban food advertising on TV between 3 and 6 pm, as every committee and working party has recommended. Advertising of alcohol is also a problem and my pet hate is when some lifestyle programs promote products without declaring they are being paid to do so. I am asked almost very week how much I would charge to feature some product on Burkes Backyard. This is one of the few programs that doesn't do such things.
How do you feel about the introduction of Genetically Modified foods in Australia? What should we, as consumers, be wary about?
My main concerns about GM foods are that they are being introduced before appropriate tests have been done. Those in favour maintain lots of tests have been done, but they do not include some which should be done. Companies spend millions of dollars on PR campaigns to promote these products, but won't spend the thousands needed for tests because in the early 90s they succeeded in having the products declared 'substantially equivalent', which meant some tests were not required.
I am also concerned that environmental issues are swept under the carpet and that food industry organisations have resisted (and lobbied in high places) for GM foods not to be labelled. Public submissions to State Health Ministers helped somewhat but the food industry won concessions and ingredients such as GM canola oil will not be declared on labels. From the public health viewpoint, we need all GM foods labelled so that we can trace back later if something does go wrong.
Rosemary Stanton’s article and interview are reproduced with permission from Leadership for Women (http://www.leadershipforwomen.com.au/) a website, directed by Diann Rodgers-Healey, which aims to empower women to recognise their own potential to be leaders in a work and/or personal context