April headlines

Return to April article index

Chefs cook up cuisine of gloom

April 19
USA Today column by Greg Critser

As a result of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules that go into effect Saturday, American consumers next year will see new organic labeling on products in their local grocery stores. The rules, which set standards for growing, marketing and distributing foods sold as organic, will do nothing less than revolutionize the nation's supermarkets, their supporters say. Among their numerous restrictions: no pesticides, no artificial fertilizers, no irradiation and no genetically modified seeds.

The standards represent a victory for the $6 billion organic-foods lobby and, perhaps more importantly, a codification of what might be called the Theology of the High Foodie: the belief, particularly among celebrity chefs and their followers, that the only food truly worthy of its moral salt is that which has been produced locally, seasonally and sustainably without pesticides and herbicides.

But does that belief have any grounding in reality? The facts, and the experience of most Americans, suggest that the revolution has become reaction.

Consider the chef's doctrine of localism. This notion holds that food grown by a local or regional truck farmer should be given first preference by a consumer, even if that means paying substantially more for the item in question. Higher quality and purity are said to earn the higher dollar. Thus the oft-heard invocation, reiterated again and again at last fall's meeting of the Chef's Collaborative, an influential player in contemporary food politics, that ''we should all be paying more for our food!''

Indeed, if the chefs had their way -- and their voices are increasingly heard in national (USDA) and international agricultural (the United Nations) policy circles -- today's consumers would spend 20% of their household budget on food rather than the 9% currently estimated.

Yet to millions of Americans, nectarines from Chile and bell peppers from the Netherlands have proved to be rational replacements for locally grown produce -- replacements that are not only just as safe but nearly as tasty, and often for half the price or less. This is because the core notion of organic -- that pesticide-free food warrants a premium -- has been consistently undermined by study after study, each showing that dietary pesticide residues pose no health hazards.

Even more notable is a new trend detected by the Food and Drug Administration's pesticide program. In 1999, it found that the percentage of imported fruits that were completely free of residues actually was on the increase.

What about ''seasonality,'' the chefs' notion that we should eat only what is in season? It would be easy to discount that as an elitist notion. But it's not; it's simply undermined by the reality of global food trade.

Today, seasons are a transnational blur. In California, we are on Chilean time when we buy nectarines and on Yucatan time when we buy peppers, tomatoes and bananas. If those fruits are not as tasty as their seasonally grown brothers, just give the new agricultural players time. Only a few years ago, these same countries knew little about growing for the modern export market. Now the United States routinely buys 70% of their crops.

And regarding ''sustainability'' -- the environmental impact of this global commodification of food -- won't that mango produced from giant agribusiness in Mexico ruin the earth, what with all of its unnatural inputs and intensive watering and tillage?

That is certainly a legitimate concern. But developments in agroscience, most notably genetically modified (GM) foods that reduce the need for pesticides and soil tillage, hold enormous potential to make things better.

The chefs, of course, hate the very notion of GM. It's unnatural. It's a bummer. Even vitamin-A-rich golden rice, which might prove beneficial to millions of the world's vitamin-deprived poor, is something ''we do not need,'' according to the Collaborative's Peter Hoffman, of New York's trendy Savoy restaurant.

It would be easy enough to suggest -- as have the many highly paid PR flaks working for Monsanto -- that the chefs and their followers are mere pawns of the increasingly profitable and influential organic foods industry; a representative of the giant organic Whole Foods supermarket chain even sits on the chef's emeritus board.

But that would be to sell them short. Instead, I suspect that much of their gloom is grounded in the ongoing boomer identity crisis, one that began when many of today's chefs came of age in the 1960s. In short, it's about them, not the food.

It wasn't always so. Chefs once entered the profession to experiment and nurture. The 19th century Italian cookbook writer Peligrino Artusi warned chefs that ''the times of seductive, pleasing and illusory ideals and withdrawal from the world are gone!'' France's Gilbert Phileas maintained that ''cookery must continuously modernize according to circumstances.''

But no. Today's chefs cook to find their lost true selves.

Writing in the introduction to his celebrity cookbook, Red Sage: Contemporary Western Cuisine, the successful restaurateur Mark Miller notes that the impetus for the book ''had nothing to do with food or a restaurant.'' Instead ''it started with my first glimpse of the West in movies. These were men who were performing important deeds, and they didn't take flak from anyone.

''That last trait was especially appealing,'' Miller's introduction continues, because ''I wanted to escape my little life and be a part of this fictional landscape.''

This he and his contemporaries have now achieved. Can we now get a serving of non-fiction, please?

Greg Critser, who writes about the politics of health for Harper's and Worth magazines, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

French activist urges Canadians to ruin GM crops

April 19
Reuters

QUEBEC CITY - Rebel French farmers' leader Jose Bove on Thursday urged Canadians to destroy genetically-modified ``seeds of death'' and attack laboratories where the controversial crops were being developed.

Bove, best known for attacking a McDonald's restaurant in France in 1999 to protest against the United States, said Canadians should attack facilities owned by two major GM crop producers -- the U.S. biotech group Monsanto and Swiss-based Novartis AG .

The walrus-mustachioed Bove told a cheering crowd of 300 demonstrators -- in Quebec City to demonstrate at the Summit of Americas -- that it was especially important to act in Canada, which is one of the world's largest producers of GM crops.

``That means people here must also join the resistance movement and not just make speeches,'' thundered Bove, who has been tried twice in France for various acts of sabotage.

Supporters say the crops will help develop hardier crop types to help feed the world's poor. Opponents say they could lead to the uncontrolled spread of modified genes and thereby harm insects and humans.

``This means that GM crops must be destroyed, this means the the laboratories which continue to make these seeds of death must be attacked, this means the Monsanto and Novartis facilities must be attacked, they must not be given five minutes of peace,'' he said to loud applause.

Despite a massive police deployment, militant demonstrators have threatened violence at the Friday-to-Sunday summit where the Western Hemisphere's leaders will discuss creating the world's largest free trade zone. They claim a trade deal will serve big business but ignore the hemisphere's poor.

Bove told reporters the free trade area would allow the world's multinationals to take control of seed distribution and food production throughout the hemisphere.

``We have to fight against this because if it goes (ahead), it means farmers won't be able to decide any more what they are going to grow,'' he said.

``This is a fight which must be fought every day and in doing so you should not be afraid to break the law...all forms of combat are possible,'' said Bove.

In January, Bove joined poor Brazilian farmers in uprooting rows of genetically modified soybeans at an experimental farm owned by Monsanto.

Last month, a court handed Bove a 10-month suspended jail sentence for destroying genetically-modified rice plants during an assault on a research center in the southern France.

Bove shot to fame in 1999 when he led an attack on a McDonald's burger bar in southern France to protest against junk food and U.S. tariffs on French cheese and foie gras, winning a three-month jail term.

Concerns arise about safety of GM foods

April 18
Economic Times

BANGALORE - THE INDUSTRY may be very optimistic about biotech but there is a flip side, specially in agri-biotech. Genetically modified food, for instance, has triggered a wave of apprehension the world-over and consumers are increasingly wary of the composition of biotech food.

In this context transparency is very essential as safety of food is of concern to the consumer, said Central Food Technological Research Institute director Prof V Prakash.

"The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act needs to be revisited in the biotech era," he said.

Agri-biotech could also emerge as a big sector with increasing pressure to create more food using lesser resources. Today, the country is the second-largest food producer of food after China.

Though genetically modified food have not yet hit the market, Prof Prakash believes that in less than five years a lot of GM food products will be available off the shelves.

And while ensuring safety of the product is the greatest challenge for the food industry, packaging is also likely to emerge as contentious issue.

"It will be imperative for food producers to label their products comprehensively," Prof Prakash said.

The ground rules on labeling of biotech foods is that the consumer should be provided complete information about the products.

"If the product contains anything that has allergens, that is substances that could potentially trigger an allergic reaction in the body, it must be mentioned clearly on the label," he added.

Currently, the best option for those in the agri-biotech sector is to follow Codex, which is an international body that issues guidelines to the food industry.

Intellectual property rights could also be an area of concern for the sector.

"Most developing countries have their fair share of problems with patenting," Prof Prakash said.

The solution to this, he suggested, is to stress on documentation. "Documentation is an absolute requirement especially considering that we need to capitalize on our biodiversity," he said.

Indonesia: Farmers protest against transgenic cotton cultivation

April 17
Indonesian Observer

Farmers from various parts of Indonesia yesterday staged a rally at the office of Agricultural Minister Bungaran Saragih, urging him to cancel the permits of companies cultivating transgenic cotton in South Sulawesi. [Monsanto's GM Cotton was recently brought to Sulawesi from South Africa under military guard in response to protests by many local environmental and farmer organizations - an act that resulted in international condemnation.

The protesters from the Federation of Indonesian Farmers Association said the presence of a new breed of engineered cotton will make farmers dependent on larger cotton producers. 

Recently the minister issued decree No. 107, 2001 on the cultivation of transgenic cotton in seven districts in South Sulawesi based on the assumption that the better seeds would produce higher yields. Following the decree, PT Monsanto started planting engineered cotton that produced notable results.

Local farmers are afraid that if big companies can produce enough cotton by themselves, there will be no market segment left for their own products. The farmers were from Aceh, North Sumatra, West Sumatra, Lampung and West Java.

Consumers, awareness groups question safety of genetically engineered foods

April 16
Daily Bruin (UCLA)

LOS ANGELES - Chances are, Americans are regularly consuming foods that have been genetically engineered without their knowledge.

According to Julie Miles, the Safe Foods Campaign coordinator at the California Public Interest Group, 60 to 70 percent of all processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients.

"People should just not assume that GE foods are completely safe," Miles said. "Currently, GE foods are not subject to the same standards or safety requirements as other food products are."

According to Miles, the most common GE crops are corn and soybeans, which are both widely used in the form of corn oil, corn syrup, soybean oil, soy lecithin and other products.

Genetic engineering of food generally involves the process of combining genes to produce effects that would normally occur in nature. For example, the injection of Bovine Growth Hormone to cows will increase their output of milk.

Last fall, taco shells served at the Taco Bell restaurant on campus were suspected of containing GE corn unfit for human consumption.

Although it was later found that only the taco shells sold in grocery stores were harmful, the incident helped raise awareness of GE food at UCLA.

"At this point we do not have a policy regarding the purchase of genetically engineered food," said Associated Students of UCLA Director of Food Operations Robert Williams in a statement. "However, we did not and are not selling the Taco Bell taco shells that were in question."

He added that ASUCLA has made sure that on-campus food vendors are using "non-genetically enhanced" corn chips in their products.

The uncertainty of whether GE foods are as harmless as selective breeding or hybridization, which does not involve has led CalPIRG to call for a moratorium on the use of GE foods, according to Miles.

The group wants to wait until the GE industry can provide adequate proof that modified foods are safe to consume.

"If GE products are proven safe, there should be labeling of whether a product contains GE ingredients so that people can have the choice of whether they want to buy the product or not," Miles said.

But microbiology and molecular genetics Professor Jeffrey H. Miller does not think labeling GE foods would be a good idea.

"Given the current hyped-up fears about GE foods and the stigmatization of them being evil, labeling will only result in people being scared off from buying GE products simply of the words 'genetically engineered,'" he said.

Miller added that genetic modification is merely another way to prepare food. Food should be labeled not according to the way it is processed but according to how safe the product is, he said.

This job of assessing safety, Miller continued, remains the Food and Drug Administration's responsibility.

Currently, the FDA Web site does not indicate any requirements for labeling GE foods.

According to Miles, CalPIRG is concerned with potential environmental concerns and health risks GE foods pose, such as increased risk of cancer, allergies, antibiotic resistance and toxins.

"Since genetic engineering involves the creation of new organisms that people have never consumed, there is no knowing what our response will be," she said.

Microbiology and molecular biology Professor Jake Lusis said the growing alarm toward GE foods is mainly due to what he termed "paranoia."

"People are suspicious of altered products, so it's easy to raise fears," he said. "There is probably a lot of exaggeration going on, and the whole thing seems more of a political issue than a scientific one."

According to Miles, GE foods were first widely commercialized in the US in 1996. By 1999, there were more than 98 million acres of GE crops, with more than 70 million of these acres in the U.S.

Despite what seems to be an American dominance in production of genetically modified crops, there is more exposure of issues concerning GE food in European countries than in the U.S.

"This is because Europeans have had some scares with their food, such as with the mad cow and hoof and mouth diseases, making them more sensitized to potential dangers in their food," Miles said.

"Also, the biotech companies are more powerful in the U.S., and they are very conscious and concerned over how Americans react to their products," she added. "They've been pretty smart and careful about rolling out GE technology without drawing much attention."

Several students said they do not really worry about whether GE foods are safe or not because of the lack of the widespread use of the products.

"I don't think (GE foods) are really prevalent yet," said third-year English student Sarah Peters. "And people probably wouldn't know the difference anyway."

Without knowing for sure whether certain foods contain GE ingredients, consumers may find the task to completely avoid modified foods difficult.

One of the safest ways to avoid buying GE-enhanced products might be to turn to organically-grown foods, which are generally more expensive.

To a scientist, however, the health problems caused by eating some traditional foods, such as preservatives and chemicals in a chocolate bar, can be more of a risk than eating GE food.

"As a geneticists and biochemist," Miller said, "I think we eat more things everyday that can be more harmful than GE food."

Cheese gene study may aid taste, health

April 16
UPI

JOUY EN JOSAS, France - Scientists in France have unlocked the genetic code of the harmless microbe that gives sharp cheddar and nutty Gouda cheeses their flavor and texture. Their findings may one day not only help make a better-tasting lower-fat cheese, but may also help make genetically-modified foods safer. They also may reveal critical secrets about the microbe's harmful relatives, which cause pneumonia and meningitis.

Cheese is made via fermentation, the same natural organic process that transforms grape juice into wine and vinegar. This fermentation is triggered by microbes termed "starters," which gobble up a sugar in milk known as lactose and in return produce lactic acid. A proper acid level is essential to good cheese texture -- too much acid will lead to a crumbly cheese, while too little will result in a pasty product.

"The starter culture also helps determine flavor development," explained dairy microbiologist Jeff Broadbent at Utah State University. "The bacteria act on a complex mix of fat, protein and sugar in milk, breaking all three of these down to some extent to create the compounds responsible for flavor."

The most commonly-used starter is Lactococcus lactis, which is used to make cheddar, Gouda and cottage cheese, as well as buttermilk. The microbe is a member of the lactic acid bacteria family and is related to the harmful germ Streptococcus pneumoniae. However, L. lactis does not cause disease and may in fact directly suppress disease-producing germs. Scientists estimate that people eat more than one billion L. lactis bacteria annually.

Alexei Sorokin, a microbial geneticist at the Institut de la Recherche Agronomique in Jouy en Josas, France, and colleagues reported they sequenced the complete genome, or genetic code, of L. lactis.

"This gives scientists the first real good look at this particular organism, of what its metabolic pathways are," said Laurie Goodman, executive editor of Genome Research, the journal in which the researcher's findings will appear. "This will allow scientists to do a number of things, to start to play games with the genome ...to target members of Lactococcus' family that are dangerous ...and to manipulate the genome to get new and different flavors or enhance flavors."

Broadbent predicted that better know-how of L. lactis' genetics could help make lower-fat cheeses tastier. "Without the fat, the cultures have some problems with producing the right flavor compounds," he said. "The removal of fat allows some flavors to be perceived more strongly than we would like. By understanding how bacteria respond to a low-fat environment, you can identify strains or tweak the metabolisms of particular strains to test the biochemical basis of flavor development."

A better understanding of the cheese microbe's genome may also allow medical researchers to find new ways of attacking the germ's dangerous relatives, Goodman said. She said this might prove especially important, given that bacteria are growing resistant to existing antibiotics. No other member of the lactic acid bacteria family, or LAB, has had its genome sequenced by scientists yet.

"Comparing the genomes will help scientists figure out what makes some LAB bacteria virulent, and perhaps help ensure that genetically-modified food-grade LAB microbes are safe for human use," Broadbent added.

The French researchers have already made a number of surprising discoveries about the microbe, such as the fact that it can breathe oxygen. Another "striking finding was the detection of a gene 95 percent identical to the one from E. coli and Salmonella," the researchers said. This indicates a relatively recent transfer of genes across species lines, perhaps through ingestion or viral infection.

"This gene is present in all bacteria and some higher organisms, and has unknown function," Goodman said. "This isn't all that uncommon, actually. In genetic research, you often come up against at least 40 percent of the genes that have unknown function, which is absolutely fascinating, because they're clearly doing something."

Aventis wants minimum tolerance levels for StarLink

April 16
Cropchoice News

The company admits that removing the variety from the food supply might be impossible, at least for the next few years.

Aventis has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in attempts to segregate StarLink, and to pay farmers, elevators and processors for the sales they lost when foreign markets rejected their contaminated corn.

Despite the fact that StarLink had approval only for use in livestock feed, it turned up in taco shells last year. This triggered numerous recalls. Foreign markets, particularly Japan and South Korea, that had not approved the variety for livestock or human food use cut their U.S. corn imports.

Fury at pro-GM school magazines

April 15
Sunday Herald (Scotland)

MORE than 140,000 glossy brochures sponsored by the US corporate giants of genetic modification such as Monsanto are being pushed into Scotland's schools by Scottish Enterprise, with the enthusiastic backing of the schools watchdog HM Inspectorate of Education.

The brochures, which sing the praises of GM technology in medicine and marine science, have provoked widespread protests from teachers, consumer groups and environmentalists. They are suspicious that GM companies are trying to soften up students as part of a campaign to quell mounting public fears about the dangers of genetic engineering.

The "infiltration" of industry into the curriculum worried the Educational Institute of Scotland, the trade union representing teachers. The institute's general secretary, Ronnie Smith, wanted Scottish Enterprise and HM Inspectorate of Education to exercise more critical judgment, and urged teachers to do the same.

"I think every product of industry that purports to be a curriculum resource should be viewed carefully by teachers before they use it," he said. "Most commercial organizations do not involve themselves in this area out of a charitable concern to help education."

Your World - Biotechnology And You is a 16-page full-color magazine produced in the US by the Biotechnology Institute. The institute was founded two years ago in Pennsylvania to promote public understanding of GM science. It is funded by Monsanto, Novartis, Pfizer, Rhone-Poulenc, Merck, Amgen and the 900-member Bio technology Industry Organization.

Up to 20,000 copies of seven editions of Your World are this month being sent to 600 schools and colleges throughout Scotland as a "teacher's resource for biotechnology education". In promoting the magazine, neither Scottish Enterprise nor HM Inspectorate of Education mentioned the fact that it has been sponsored by multi national GM companies.

Those who represent the interests of parents also expressed alarm. "Pressure is increasing on schools to accept industry-led sponsorship and marketing," observed Martyn Evans, the director of the Scottish Consumer Council. He said that was why, along with the National Consumer Council in London, his organization was now updating guidelines for schools on industrial sponsorship. "Schools have to be particularly careful in accepting sponsored materials or products," he said. "The biotech companies behind the magazine are using the provision of education as a marketing opportunity É to influence pupils."

However, in the blurb accompanying the magazine, Dr Jack Jackson, HM Inspector of Schools, writes: "Your World is a valuable resource for Scottish Science teachers and should help inform pupils and raise their awareness of the many benefits and issues which surround the development of this exciting new technology."

The magazines cover genes and medicine, tissue engineering, Aids, the brain, diagnostics, computing and marine bio technology. They are peppered with quotes and profiles of industrialists and ideas for classroom activities and often end with positive accounts of recent developments in gene science.

The most recent Your World, which the Biotechnology Institute hopes will be circulated to Scottish schools in the future, covers the controversial area of GM food. It has enthusiastic articles on "creating better plants" as well as a piece knocking organic farming, and suggests children should experiment by growing Monsanto's GM soybean seeds.

"We want to make these magazines available to Scottish teachers on a regular basis," the Biotechnology Institute's Jeff Davidson told the Sunday Herald from Pennsylvania last week. He argued that the use of GM in medicine was uncontroversial, and pointed out that Your World, though sponsored by GM companies, was actually produced by academics and science writers. He accepted, however, that GM foods aroused more fears in Europe than they did in the US, and suggested the presentation of the issue in Scotland might need rethinking.

One anti-GM group, Glasgow-based Scottish Genetix Action, is so angry about what it sees as the bias and prejudice of the brochures that it has demanded they be withdrawn immediately from classrooms. "Corporations are taking hold of our education system," said the group's Scott Armstrong.

Neither the Scottish Executive nor HM Inspectorate were willing to comment last week, referring questions to the Executive's Dundee-based agency, Learning and Teaching Scotland. It too was unable to make any public statements, though insiders privately defended the use of Your World on the grounds that its articles were directly related to parts of the fifth and sixth-year biology curriculum.

Scottish Enterprise's bio technology director, Peter Lennox, dismissed criticisms of the involvement of GM companies as nonsense. "I'm flabbergasted that anyone should raise this," he said. "It didn't even cross our minds. I thought it was just knowledge. Biotechnology is an enigma wrapped in a mystery and there is a lack of knowledge about it."

Sri Lanka strict action against violators of GM food law

COLOMBO - The Sri Lankan government will take strict action against violators of the genetically modified food regulations which come into effect on May 1, the state-run Daily News said on Friday.

Health Minister W.D.J Seneviratne said that they plan to mobilize food and public health inspectors to detect any violators of the law and take stern action against them. Under the regulation the import, manufacture, transport, storage, distribution and sale of any food item that has been produced using genetic engineering method will be totally banned in the war-torn country. 

Studies have revealed that soya beans and other soya products available in the country are free of genetically modified ingredients while certain  imported food such as chocolates, oils and a well known brand of soup in the genetically modified category are available in the market.