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

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 Alimentarius Commission on potatoes. Furthermore, it has a focus on the issues of

genetically modified products, in particular the 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 Solanum Tuberosum, commonly known as potato, are very general as

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

explains the 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 materials on potatoes specifically.

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

some of its disputable regulations.

Paper Type – Research Paper


TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract................................................................................................................................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


TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1................................................................................................................................9

Figure 2..............................................................................................................................10

Figure 3..............................................................................................................................11


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 Codex and GMO

According to Dr. Robert Verkerk (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 discussions in 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 Solanum Tuberosum, also

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

over time by different organization.


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 Codex was 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.


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 with mainly 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 organic growing. First there are discrepancies between

the strict regulations of several countries regarding plant protection agents 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

Phytophthora Infestans, 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 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 spread risk 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.


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


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


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 GM potatoes.

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 harvesting needs to be

considered. Codex Alimentarius has 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.


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 separated

Amylase 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 Europe Greenpeace

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


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.


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.


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.


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 Alimentarius

providing 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.


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


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


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,


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,


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,


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 is a

channel for over reliance on GMOs companies (Weis, 2007).


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.


CONCLUSION

Our research has led us from a specific commodity, potato, to an in-depth research 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 controls by 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 reliable information against the unscientifically

proven doom-mongering propaganda.


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/

Anton, 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


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.


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/


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


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 from

http://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.


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 from http://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.


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/

World Trade Organization (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

Education

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