|
|
Magazine Issue 9 - Autumn 1999 | ||
| Feed for Thought The anti-genetics movement in the UK has been enormously successful. Awareness is growing and resistance to genetically modified (GM) food has forced many large food companies, supermarkets and even McDonalds to state that they are "…removing GM ingredients from products where it is practical to do so".(1) However, the fact that for the past two or three years almost all livestock in the UK have been reared on feed containing GM ingredients has gone largely unnoticed. Environmental concerns and the legitimate fear of corporate control of the food supply are widespread. However, it is probably true that most consumers who wish to avoid GM food are primarily worried about the potential health hazards. This is due, in no small part, to the BSE crisis, caused by raising cattle on similarly unnatural feed. Government reassurance So it is reassuring to learn that the government is examining whether GM animal feed poses a health risk to consumers of animal products. A Leeds University team led by Professor Mike Forbes is currently conducting MAFF-funded research on the effect of feeding livestock GM material. Strange then that "the materials used for this research were not GM crops, but the gene used was chosen because its DNA sequence is similar in length to the transgene in GM maize" (2). However, an earlier MAFF-commis-sioned report, from the University of Leeds, stated: "Genetically modified (GM) crops… [could] exacerbate the problem of resistance to strains of bacteria, already causing significant problems such as the resurgence of tuberculosis. It is unlikely to be proved impossible for transfer of such genes from plant to microbe to be completely excluded." (3) Soy Source The industry is acutely aware of the impending furore over the use of GM ingredients in animal feeds. They readily acknowledge that nearly all livestock in the UK are fed GM contaminated feed. Mike Evans of Mistral, the PR company working for UKASTA (United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association) and also for Dalgety Agriculture (one of the largest UK feed manufacturers), claims that it is impossible to guarantee GM free animal feed. He states that segregated, or identity preserved crops, are not available in sufficient quantities. Less than 1 million of the 75 million tonnes of the 1998 US soya crop were identity preserved (4). UK animal feed manufacturers use two million tonnes of imported soya every year.(5) Even when GM-free ingredients are used, there are risks of contamination at almost every stage of the supply chain. The supermarkets used this same argument until earlier this year before they miraculously discovered that they could source GM-free soya from other countries such as Brazil, though the problem of contamination during transportation and storage remains. It should now be much easier to source identity preserved soya, even from the US, since Archer Daniels Midland, one of the biggest grain trading and processing agribusinesses in the world, has requested that growers segregate. (6) Many of the other ingredients used in animal feed, such as vitamin B12, are also genetically modified - many being derived from GM micro-organisms. Milk Maids and Meadows The myth of the cow chomping on grass in idyllic pastures is still the vision many have of British agriculture. The truth, of course, is far removed from this romantic misconception. The feed they are reared on is a carefully measured mixture of feedstuffs comprising, among other things, protein concentrates from fishmeal or soya bean and additives - vitamins, trace minerals, food colourings and antibiotics.(7) The use of these hi-tech feedstuffs is considered essential to produce the meat and dairy products that consumers demand at 'competitive' prices. The UK's leading suppliers of feed, each with a market share of an estimated 22%, are BOCM Pauls and Dalgety Agriculture.(8) Both claim that while it is possible to produce feed for cattle and sheep without using soya or maize, it is impossible to raise pigs and poultry on a soya-free diet. MPthy Food Minister Jeff Rooker MP understands the problems feed manufacturers face. "Of course we are importing a lot of animal feed into this country... We cannot grow the chemical make-up of the necessary animal feed because of our intensive farming system… and you have to assume that anything imported from America or the Americas will probably be mixed up with GMOs…" (9) So, apparently animal feed suppliers are in the unfortunate position of being forced to use GM ingredients. Meanwhile the biotech companies are growing fat on an ever-increasing share of the world market in staple crops. It is they who have most to lose if there is a successful campaign to eliminate GM ingredients from animal feed. And they perceive this to be a real threat. Monsanto withdrew suddenly from a biotech debate at the Oxford Union Society, held this June, when the specific topic was announced as "the safety of GM animal feed." Monsanto press official, Dr Harry Swann, said: "If we were to lose a debate on GM animal feed at the Oxford Union, and this were to be reported back in the US and be seen by our customers there it could be very damaging." (10) Sources (1) Tesco position statement on the use of GM ingredients. (2) "Leeds team addresses fears over GMOs in feed." Farmers Weekly 11 June 1999. (3) MAFF-commissioned report from the University of Leeds (CS0116). (4) UKASTA statement on the use in animal feed of ingredients from genetically modified crops. (5) MAFF Report, Food Contaminants D, 11 March 1999. (6) Financial Times, September 2 1999. "ADM calls for crop segregation" (7) Key Note Report: Animal Feedstuffs. 1999. (8) Key Note Report: Animal Feedstuffs. 1999. (9) Select Committee on Science and Technology, Minutes of Evidence, 26 April 1999. (10) Genetically Modified Animal Feed - The Millenium Environment Debate. June 1999. |