December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

Food fight comes to America

December 27
The Nation

As the international uprising against genetically engineered (GE) foods continues to grow, the worst fear of US government and business officials is that the commotion abroad will awaken Americans, who unknowingly already consume biotech foods being rejected in Europe. 

The victories of their foreign counterparts, meanwhile, are providing fresh inspiration for US food activists, some of whom have struggled for decades to win media coverage, citizen attention and regulatory action. The Food and Drug Administration has officially opposed biotech food labeling and mandatory safety testing since 1992. But now that Europeans are forcing American companies to  segregate and label genetically engineered foods, it is much more difficult to claim that the same can't be done in the United States. 

Last summer was a watershed event for many US farmers, who planted Monsanto's biotech corn and soybeans, only to find them rejected abroad. Some are shifting back to traditional varieties, at least until the crisis is resolved. 

Gary Goldberg, CEO of the American Corn Growers Association, suggested in November that farmers avoid genetically engineered seed corn and try to obtain non-engineered varieties before farmer demand depletes supplies of old-fashioned seed. 

The US food and biotechnology industries are now in full "crisis management" mode, their PR experts and lobbyists working furiously to prevent the same kind of defeat suffered on foreign shores. One example is the recently launched Alliance for Better Foods, run from the DC office of the PR/lobby firm  BSMG, which also represents Monsanto and Philip Morris, America's largest food company. Monsanto's PR firm Burson-Marsteller recently bused 100 members of a Washington, DC, Baptist church to stage a pro-GE-foods rally outside an FDA hearing. 

But if events in Europe are any guide, the momentum may have shifted to a new alliance of grassroots environmentalists, consumer activists and family farmers. The Los Angeles Times noted in October that "a storm of protest...has reached US shores, leading some experts to predict that agricultural biotechnology could go the way of nuclear energy--falling out of favor because of public fears and unfavorable economics." 

The key to any successful biotech "issue management" campaign is repeating simple but carefully chosen messages that can set the terms of the debate. This was true with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH), administered to cows to increase milk output. In the case of rBGH, one message was that "the milk is the same." This isn't true, and changes in the milk are a reason the drug hasn't been approved by Europe or Canada. 

But the message worked here, where, after a furious PR and lobbying campaign, the FDA approved the use of rBGH and allowed sales of dairy products without consumer labeling. Six years later, Monsanto claims that one-third of US cows are in herds injected daily with rBGH.

Another simple but effective PR tactic, known as "the third-party technique," puts messages in the mouths of independent-seeming experts, such as scientists and doctors, whom journalists and the public are more likely to trust. Besides government "watchdogs" at the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), such messengers can include former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, the AMA and its prestigious publication Journal of the American Medical Association, and the American Dietetic Association. All these and more have vouched for rBGH, and we can expect an avalanche of similar trusted experts reassuring us about biotech foods in the months ahead.

Meanwhile, many right-wing pro-industry groups have launched their own PR campaigns against the "fearmongering" of consumer and environmental activists. At Thanksgiving, for example, the National Center for Public Policy Research faxed to newsrooms a release headlined Activists Attack Bio-Engineered Food Despite Benefits to the Poor and the Sick. All these tactics would fail, of course, if the media did their job by thoroughly investigating and reporting the issue of genetically engineered foods, and that is why media management is the number-one goal of every PR campaign.

As its ultimate weapon, industry has successfully lobbied into law "agricultural product disparagement" statutes that give them new powers to sue people who criticize their products. The first such lawsuit was filed in Texas against Oprah Winfrey and her guest Howard Lyman for the crime of airing a public debate on mad cow disease and its risks in the United States. A jury ruled in Oprah's favor, prompting her to crow that "free speech rocks." The reality is that her case is on appeal, and she has spent more than $2 million thus far in legal bills that she will never get back. Food-disparagement statutes survive intact in Texas and twelve other states, and this shot across the bow of the media has already had a chilling impact on coverage of other food controversies.

One of the smartest moves by Monsanto in the rBGH fight was hiring Carol Tucker Foreman, an influential and well-connected Democratic insider and lobbyist. Previously, Foreman had been the executive director of the DC-based Consumer Federation of America and then, under President Jimmy Carter, an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. Soon after her stint at USDA she launched her own DC lobby firm with many corporate clients. While paid by Monsanto to lobby for rBGH, Foreman also coordinated the Safe Food Coalition, whose members include a number of big Washington-based nonprofits such as Consumer Federation of America and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 

Running the coalition allowed Foreman to maintain dual identities as both a consumer advocate and a corporate food lobbyist. Earlier this year Foreman left her lobby firm and returned to the Consumer Federation of America, where she now says she favors labeling genetically engineered foods.

Another major Washington food lobbyist is Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group dubbed "the food police" by industry for its attention-getting news conferences against unhealthy fats and sugars in the American diet. When it comes to biotech foods, however, CSPI has been less vigilant, failing to oppose Monsanto's rBGH during the long struggle over its approval. Jacobson now frets that mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food sold in supermarkets, as called for in a bill introduced in November by Representative Dennis Kucinich, could kill a goose he hopes will lay genetically engineered golden eggs such as "increased yields, reduced toxins, increased nutrient levels, and modified fatty acid composition."

If inside-the-Beltway groups like CSPI and CFA are conflicted and unlikely to lead the charge to gain mandatory safety testing and consumer labeling of GE foods, who is? A broad array of seasoned activists has been fighting this battle for a long time, among them author Jeremy Rifkin, attorneys with the Center for Food Safety, the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, the National Family Farm Coalition, the Council for Responsible Genetics, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) and the Union of Concerned Scientists. In meetings this year a number of these organizations and others formed the Genetic Engineering Action Network, which is united around four objectives: mandatory safety testing of GE foods, mandatory consumer labeling if they pass safety tests, long-term industry liability to cover unforeseen problems and an end to the domination of food and agriculture by "supermarket to the world" companies. 

No one involved in the US fight expects it to be quick or easy. Says Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, "We have to do what Europe and Japan have done--build a powerful organized movement of farmers, consumers and environmental activists who will target and boycott companies."

Recently the FDA held three public hearings on genetically engineered foods. Critics call them staged events and dog-and-pony shows, but they have provided a media forum for advocates of safety testing and labeling. The activists want biotech foods off the market entirely until a rigorous system of health and ecological testing has been devised. Like their colleagues in Europe, they  are promoting the Precautionary Principle--the common-sense maxim of "looking before you leap"--as the basis for public policy. 

Adherence to the Precautionary Principle would obviously have dire consequences for companies whose bottom-line profits depend on selling as many biotech foods as quickly as possible, but it seems a minimal level of protection against the inevitable unforeseen consequences of genetically engineering the world's food supply.

John Stauber is executive director of the Center for Media & Democracy and founder of PR Watch, a quarterly journal that investigates corporate and government propaganda (www.prwatch.org). He is co-author of Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! and Mad Cow USA, both published by Common Courage.

Thailand urges UN body to settle biotech disputes

December 9
Reuters

Thailand urged the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on Friday to play a leading role in bridging the gap between rich and poor nations over bio-technology.

``The FAO needs to fill the gap between the developed and developing nations over bio-technology controversies,'' Ampon Kittiampon, assistant permanent secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, told Reuters. 

``The issues range from the scientific capability of each country to develop a product, to high intellectual property fees developing countries may have to pay to advanced countries,'' Ampon said.

The message was conveyed by Agriculture Minister Pongpol Adireksan to FAO director-general Jacques Diouf in a meeting on Wednesday.

Diouf was in Thailand to present King Bhumibol Adulyadej with a FAO award for his dedication to the battle against hunger and poverty.

Thailand, a major commodity exporter, is feeling the heat of global controversy over genetically modified food, with a highly active environmental lobby opposed to what they describe as ``Frankenstein Food.''

The government has has yet take a clear decision on whether to adopt the new technology.

Diouf said in Manila on Tuesday the FAO had no problem with genetically modified organisms so as long as they were proven safe to humans and had no negative impact on the environment.

He said the FAO would continue to work with Thailand in various projects to increase productivity and efficiency in the agricultural sector.

Pongpol told Reuters that Thailand, as well as being a recipient of FAO assistance, aimed to become a donor country under an FAO program.

``Under the FAO's South-to-South project, Thailand is ready to help Cambodia and Myanmar in developing their agricultural sectors,'' he said.

``The Ministry of Agriculture will soon send experts to those countries to assess what kind of assistance they need from us.''

Fed: Biotech control as important as in nuclear industry

December 7
Australian Associated Press

Brisbane - Australian governments had been dragging their heels on biotechnology regulations which were as important as nuclear restrictions, a lawyer said today.

"We've got a rapidly developing industry with risks associated with it," said James Bremen, of Brisbane law firm McCullough Robertson. "The unique nature of the industry demands special regulation because, much like the nuclear energy industry, the consequence of error can be fatal."

Mr Bremen said in this month's Queensland Law Society journal, Proctor, research was progressing at a significant rate but was largely unregulated.

"If you look at the developments that we've seen in respect of the biotechnology industry, two years is a millennium," he told AAP. "It's moving at a rapid pace. The legislation needs to move at that pace also."

Mr Bremen said the issue needed to be addressed at state and federal government level.

"We've got laboratories across the country with controls that aren't adequate," he said.

"Whilst the (federal) government has announced an intention to regulate the area, little apart from rhetoric has followed.

"Because significant health and environmental risks may be associated with the industry an effective system of regulation is a priority."

Mr Bremen said one major concern arising from genetic research into animals was the potential for a virus to "jump" a species and transform a virus harmless to humans into one for which there was no cure.

"Doctors in the United States are confident that hearts grown in pigs transplanted into humans would be successful," he said in the journal article.

"Speculation now is that this could lead to the establishment of farms where genetically compatible parts are grown in animals whose genes have been manipulated.

"The risk of disease in this process is a major issue."

A spokeswoman for the federal government's interim office of the gene technology regulator said a discussion paper was released in October. 

"Draft legislation for a national regulatory system should be released by the end of the year," the spokeswoman said.

EPA mulls stricter testing for transgenic crops

December 8
Reuters

Seed companies developing genetically modified crops may be required to conduct an array of new tests to detect any harmful effects for mallard ducks, rainbow trout, honeybees, and other wildlife, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday.

An EPA scientific advisory panel is drafting new requirements to ensure that biotech crops are safe for the environment at the same time several international groups, foreign governments and other U.S. agencies are taking a closer look at the controversial plants.

The EPA panel met on Wednesday to consider requiring more test data from seed companies to ensure that genetically altered canola, squash, soybeans, corn and other crops are safe for wildlife, the soil, and water sources. 

``The eyes of the world are on this meeting,'' said Dr. Steven Gallon, director of EPA's pesticide science policy.

Bioengineered crops, in which genes are inserted to protect the plant from pests or to resist a specific herbicide, were among the issues that galvanized protesters at last week's World Trade Organization meeting.

Critics and green groups have demanded more safety testing and regulation of foods made with genetically altered ingredients. Seed companies say the new technology reduces the need for farmers to use toxic chemicals, and enhances crop yields and quality.

Vaituzis Zigfridas, the head of EPA's ecological effects team, said companies developing genetically modified crops will face changes in testing requirements over the next few years.

``The agency expects the requirements to continue to evolve as the science and policies related to biotechnology mature,'' Zigfridas said. EPA scientists believe ``that the unique and novel aspects of plant-pesticides indicate that there should be testing guidelines and data requirements specific for these products,'' he added. 

Stricter testing may soon be required for wildlife such as mallard ducks, bobwhite quail, rainbow trout, channel catfish, honey bees and earthworms, he said.

The agency also needs to get more information from seed companies about how quickly a biotech plant degrades in the soil, and whether the plants can cross-pollinate with weeds and disrupt the ecosystem, he said. 

Earlier this year, the debate over the safety of biotech crops intensified when Cornell University scientists found that some monarch butterfly larvae died in laboratory studies after eating pollen from Bt corn. The researchers have cautioned that further studies are needed to determine if the same results would occur in real-world conditions.

Bt corn is engineered to contain a protein that kills the European corn borer, a major pest that destroys millions of dollars worth of crops annually.

Industry scientists urged the panel to carefully weigh whether stricter -- and costly -- tests are necessary. They also said regulators should not be swayed by the emotional rhetoric of green groups and consumer activists.

``The potential for ecological effects from plant-expressed pesticides must be considered in the broader context of current agricultural practices and trends,'' said Demetra Vlachos, a scientist with Novartis  AG's (NOVZn.S) Novartis Seeds Inc. unit.

``Bt crops have delivered on their promise to reduce the risk associated with broad spectrum pesticides and to provide growers with effective new options of pest control,'' she added.

For example, U.S. farmers growing Bt field corn have reduced their use of chemical pesticides by up to 75 percent. Meanwhile, conventional varieties of sweet corn may be sprayed with various chemicals up to 40 times before being harvested, Vlachos said.

The advisory panel is also scheduled to make recommendations to the EPA in February about what kinds of human health data companies should provide. 

U.S. farmers not shunning biotechnology - Farm group

December 8
Reuters

U.S. farmers are not shying away from growing genetically-altered food despite an increasingly vocal and visible attack on biotechnology in the world's food supply, a U.S. farm group said Wednesday.

``Even though there has been concern and perhaps some hesitation and a great deal of consideration, it appears that they are not pulling back significantly,'' Rosemarie Watkins, senior director of government relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said.

Watkins and others speaking at a National Policy Association forum on biotechnology said that farmers are still making their seed decisions for the upcoming year so planting statistics are unavailable.

Attacks on the use of biotechnology on the farm from environmentalists, consumer groups and others have grown over the past year, culminating with a flood of protests in Seattle last week at the World Trade Organization meeting.

The hostility against the technology, which has been developed to create plants that ward off pests, increase yields, resist natural disasters such as drought and even increase the amount of vitamins in food, began with consumers in Europe but has quickly spread across the globe. Several nations, including Japan, have pledged to begin labeling food made from genetically-modified grains.

Japanese importers on Tuesday bought more than 150,000 metric tons of corn from the United States, provided that the grain was not genetically-modified. Japan's beer industry has vowed to stop using GM corn to make beer by 2001.

But DuPont Co. Executive Vice President Charles Johnson said that as the world's population increases and the amount of available land for farming dwindles, biotechnology is going to become more important to feed the world.

Some groups estimate that in 30 years, the world's population will grow from six billion people to nine billion.

Johnson noted that protesters who complain that the long-term health effects of biotechnology are still not known should be heard. However, he said farmers and consumers must take that risk to ward off the threat of starvation in parts of the world and the potential political instability that could go along with it.

``There's going to be a lot of noise and there are legitimate concerns that people have,'' Johnson said. But, ``the risk of not doing it (biotechnology) is greater than the risk of doing it.''

Farm and industry groups, saying that they were caught off guard by the massive assault on biotechnology, are crafting a plan to counter-attack, which may include a massive advertising campaign to stress the technology's role in providing food.

As the pro-biotech voices become louder and are heard by more people consumer opinion will likely take a turn in the direction of the technology, Johnson predicted.

``As the discussion goes forward, the moderate middle will prevail,'' he said.

More than half of the U.S. soybean crop this year was planted with genetically modified seeds, with corn and cotton not far behind.

Gene therapy yields bigger pigs

December 7
AP

Here come the super pigs. Medical researchers using gene therapy have figured out a way to make young hogs grow 40 percent larger and faster.

Scientists say the technique, which stimulates production of the pigs' growth hormones, would be a boon for livestock farmers -- and eventually could even be used to treat children with growth problems and to prevent muscle deterioration in AIDS and cancer patients.

``We think that over the long term this is going to be a defining technology that will change the face of how agriculture is done,'' said the lead scientist, Robert J. Schwartz, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The prospect of biotech hogs also is likely to raise new questions in a growing worldwide controversy over genetically engineered food. The United States already is locked in a trade war with the European Union over the EU's ban on beef from cattle injected with hormones.

``I don't think most consumers are very interested in eating hormone-treated meats,'' Rebecca Goldburg, senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, said Tuesday. 

Livestock and poultry have been getting steadily bigger, leaner and faster-growing for years because of improvements in genetics, nutrition and housing and the use of hormones in cattle.

But the results reported by Schwartz's team, which are published in the December issue of Nature Biotechnology, are especially dramatic. All the improvements made in hog production over the past two decades have pigs maturing only 10 percent faster than they used to.

The key to the new technology is a synthetic chemical that's inserted into a biodegradable piece of DNA, then injected into the leg of a 2-week-old pig. The chemical in turn causes the pig's pituitary gland to secrete higher than normal levels of growth hormone.

Two months after the injection, treated pigs weighed 92 pounds, compared with 65 pounds for an untreated hog. The treated pigs eat 25 percent less feed, which would amount to huge savings for the farmer, and they are ready for slaughter two weeks earlier, Schwartz said in an interview Tuesday. The price of feed alone accounts for half the cost of raising a hog.

The pigs also are expected to produce less manure, he said. Hog waste is a growing environmental concern in many states. Additional research will have to be done to show that the meat is safe for human consumption, and the treatment has no negative long-term impact on animals. The treatment would have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration before it could be used commercially.

The technology could be used in humans as a less-expensive, more natural alternative to injecting AIDS patients with growth hormones, a treatment that costs as much as $20,000 a year, Schwartz said. A drug could be administered to switch patients' hormone secretion off and on.

``This is extremely interesting work, but it has some problems with how the consumer will receive it,'' said Max Rothschild of Iowa State University, one of the nation's leading authorities on pig genetics. ``Will consumers eat animals that are treated in such a fashion. The jury is still out. ... In Europe, the answer is absolutely not.''

It would be far less controversial to continue improving pigs by identifying genes that control growth and other traits, he said.

Goldburg said it will take considerable more research to prove the technology is safe for both pigs and humans.

``I'm not confident that these pigs will be as healthy as pigs without the hormone,'' she said. ``Animals as a whole are less plastic than plants. When their systems are disturbed by genetic engineering, their whole system can go out of whack.''

The study was financed by the Baylor College of Medicine, the Agriculture Department's Children's Nutrition Research Center, the National Space Biomedical Research Institute and private sources.