December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

GM food fears led to flood of calls, says M&S

December 14
PA News

Customer worries about genetically modified foods and crops led to a shake-up in sales policy at a leading high street store, MPs were told today.

Dr Tom Clayton, head of food technology and external affairs at Marks & Spencer, said the company received 10,000 to 15,000 complaints by letter and phone about GM foods, far more than was prompted by earlier publicity about BSE and salmonella poisoning.

"There is undoubtedly a pattern and media publicity fuels it. But the response from customers was wide ... people said GM foods "had to stop" and others said `Why are you doing this? We have no choice'."

"The conclusion we came to was that there was a concern about the pace of introduction of GM derived ingredients," Dr Clayton told the Commons Agriculture select committee.

Marks & Spencer has developed approved sources for a wide range of non-GM food ingredients derived from soya and maize in response to customer fears about the new technology.

Since July 1999, all St Michael foods have been made using only non-GM ingredients.

More recently the company unveiled plans to introduce a range of meat products where genetically modified soya and maize have been excluded from the animal feedstuffs.

The store has also reviewed its entire catalogue of 3,500 food products and more than 5,000 individual ingredients made from soya and maize were checked. Changes were made to 1,800 recipes. 

FDA hearing draws two sides of altered food issues

New York Times
December 14

As the Food and Drug Administration held the last of its three public hearings on bio-engineered food on Monday, hundreds of protesters staged what organizers said was the largest rally ever in the United States against the use of genetic engineering in food.

But in a sign that scientists might more actively defend biotechnology, about 30 professors and graduate students from the University of California campuses in Berkeley and Davis held their own demonstration.

Many of these demonstrators were from Berkeley's department of plant and microbial biology, which last year entered into an arrangement to receive $25 million in research funds from Novartis, the huge Swiss drug and agriculture company.

The protests, which coexisted peacefully outside the federal building here, reflect increasing public concern about genetically altered crops, which have swept largely unnoticed into American agriculture over the last decade. Because of that concern, the F.D.A. held hearings in Chicago and Washington last month to inform the public about its rules on biotech foods and seek comment on whether they need to be changed.

The Novartis contribution, which represents 30 percent of the department's research funds, has caused dissension both on campus and off.

"The circumstances in which it is being set up give just too much space for suspicion that it is tainted by the contribution of Novartis," said Ignacio Chapela, an assistant professor of microbial ecology who had opposed the deal, saying it would undermine the university's academic integrity.

But Wilhelm Gruissem, a professor of plant and microbial biology who is chairman of the committee overseeing the university research financed by Novartis, said that scientists retain academic freedom under the contract with the company.

Dr. Gruissem, who was the main organizer of today's pro-biotech demonstration, said the biotech supporters had come of their own accord out of their concern that the public was not being informed about the benefits of biotechnology.

"We are public sector scientists no matter where the funding comes from, and we are free to say whatever we want," said Dr. Gruissem.

Charles Margulis of Greenpeace said it was the largest protest in this country against bio-engineered food, not counting those at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, which involved other issues.

Biotech battle of Seattle, and beyond

December 13
MSNBC

Until several months ago, few Americans knew — or cared — that they were eating genetically engineered foods. Now, fueled by trade disputes and protests, public concern is growing over their health and environmental safety. A new bill in Congress would label these foods.

Chef de cuisine Matt Costello was introducing an “extraordinary” menu to the roomful of diners returning from meetings surrounding the recent World Trade Organization talks in Seattle. Tonight’s meal — Alaskan spot prawns on a bed of locally grown, Washington State pea vines, pumpkin tortellini made from organic flour, and wild caught salmon — would have been standard, fresh and eco-friendly fare here at the city’s famous Dahlia Lounge, but for one change.

Tonight, the meal was prepared specifically to avoid any known genetically engineered ingredients. “It’s really important for you to be able to know what’s in the food you eat and how it’s made,” chef Costello told the diners, adding that he didn’t personally consider genetically engineered foods to be healthy or safe.

Outside, pepper spray floated in the city air and protesters continued to march past the restaurant door.

Out on the streets, and inside the Seattle convention center, where the WTO talks were underway, global trade in genetically modified foods was among the hottest topics of discussion.

The United States, where 75 percent of these crops are grown, wants to open new markets for food biotechnology, but a growing number of countries are saying no. And now, resistance appears to be spreading in this country, too, judging from WTO protests and the demonstrations that have welcomed the Food and Drug Administration’s forums on the topic around the country. The forums end today in Oakland, Calif., with public comments accepted until January 2000.

“Two-thirds of Americans still don’t know they’re eating these foods, but as soon as they become aware they’ll want to know about their risks,” says Charles Margulis of Greenpeace, one of several environmental groups that has become increasingly critical of the technology. “The rising tide of consumer rejection is beginning to be felt.”

Consumer groups are increasingly concerned that these foods could be unhealthy and environmentally harmful, though the dangers may be slow to appear, and argue that long-term safety tests should be done.

Gene-food defenders

Defenders of food biotechnology, however, consider consumer fears to be unsubstantiated by “sound science.” In fact, the U.S. government itself regards genetically-modified foods to be no different than their natural counterparts.

“It’s just matter of time before these new foods are embraced by consumers for their many benefits,” says Gene Grabowski, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “We can’t feed the planet unless farmers increase their yields with biotechnology. It’s like trying to stop penicillin or the automobile.”

Grabowski’s trade group, along with 30 other food industry organizations, recently formed the Alliance for Better Foods to boost biotechnology in response to growing consumer resistance. With biotechnology, scientists can modify crops by moving genes and their desirable traits at will.

Currently crops are mainly altered genetically make them more tolerant of weed-killers or to incorporate a pesticide. But farmers, say biotechnology’s proponents, could someday grow plants that could be drought-resistant or less susceptible to freezing.

Because biotechnology promises, at least in theory, to increase yield and decrease plants’ need for chemical pesticides, farmers have been encouraged to turn to it. During the last several years, biotechnology in the United States has quickly spread across the farm states, with about 57 percent of soybeans, 65 percent of cotton and 38 percent of the corn acreage being altered, according to the Agriculture Department. At present, some 37 varieties of such foods have already been put on the market — all unlabeled.

Enter the WTO

But as the United States has invested in more plantings, countries to which we export have become increasingly leery of these foods. During the last year, European countries have refused to approve genetically engineered foods, partly in response to consumer protests there. Japan, Brazil and other countries are also avoiding them. That has caused huge export troubles for American farmers.

Enter the WTO talks. The Clinton administration, along with the biotechnology industry, hoped that they would help to fast-track approvals and pave the way for greater trade. Along the way, the administration suggested a working group on biotechnology, and behind the scenes, business groups, such as the Alliance for Better Foods, lobbied for its support. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo) read a letter in favor of biotech signed by 300 scientists, most from industry.

But their gambit failed, when the European Commission, initially interested, rejected any attempts “to deal with biotech exclusively on trade grounds,” arguing that serious issues still existed surrounding the health of the foods.

European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne said, “The biotechnology industry has moved forward very fast with what would appear to be a disregard for the concerns of society and an unwillingness to educate society as to the benefits of this technology. I appreciate that the opposition to these products has to date been largely found in Europe, but I am aware of growing concerns in the U.S. as well.”

Environmentalists were quick to applaud the collapse of this elusive deal, preferring for the issues to come up as part of the biosafety talks under the United Nations’ Convention on Biodiversity, to be held in January in Montreal.

Meanwhile, dozens of teach-ins and workshops focusing on genetic engineering and its social implications raged in downtown Seattle churches and meeting halls attended by thousands.

Unintended side effects

Biophysicist Mae Wan Ho, of the Open University in the United Kingdom, warned of the unintended side effects on human health, such as mutations resulting from gene transfer. ‘These new viruses that keep appearing are caused by horizontal gene transfer,” she told one group.

In Ho’s view, genetic engineering of crops, far from being a minor extension of traditional breeding techniques, is a radical departure because cross-breeding (like splicing fish genes into tomatoes or viruses into fruit) would never occur in nature. Thus, it could produce unintended side effects, she said.

Other speakers addressed the negative impacts on the world’s farmers and rural villagers of biotechnology. Vandana Shiva, author of Biopiracy, argued that the world’s indigenous farmers shouldn’t have to give up their biological treasures and Third world knowledge to corporations seeking patents.

“Food biotech, she said, is a “threat to their survival and a threat to biodiversity itself.” Shiva also criticized the high intellectual property fees developing countries may have to pay to countries with advanced technologies.

But perhaps the biggest single debate surrounding modified food is genetic or transgenic pollution, which critics contend is largely unstudied. Environmentalists fear that genes from GMOs could spread to wild plants and native species, resulting in herbicide-resistant superweeds, or other over-colonization by dominant species.

A recent study by Cornell University scientists showed that pollen from GE corn, designed to produce a bacterial toxin to protect it from corn borers, killed Monarch butterflies and other beneficial species. Since then, another study, in Nature, found that a toxin produced by genetically engineered corn to kill pests can also poison the soil.

New bill

For now, critics of the technology want there to at least be “transparency” (to use a favorite WTO word) when it comes to these foods. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress that would call for a label that says “GENETICALLY ENGINEERED: United States Government Notice.”

Called the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, the legislation was introduced in mid-November with 20 co-sponsors and Kucinich (D-Ohio) says it is gathering momentum as he seeks more support.

“Food is a very personal, even spiritual thing,” Rep. Kucinich told a forum on the subject. “But I consider it a fundamental consumer right to know what’s in the food we’re eating.”

Protesters rally vs. "Frankenfoods"

December 13
AP

Oakland - Demonstrators rallied Monday to protest a government hearing on the safety of what opponents call "Frankenfoods" -- food created by altering genes to increase yields or to improve its flavor, shelf life and appearance.

More than 1,000 people rallied at noon in front of Oakland's federal building to make speeches about what they felt was a lack of regulation of genetically modified foods by the Food and Drug Administration.

Inside the building, leading food experts discussed the issue with the FDA.

"Genetic contamination is forever," said organic farmer Laura Trent, whose sign read, `Get your pig gene out of my tomato.' "No scientist has proven it safe, and most people don't even know it's happening."

Genetically modified food is found supermarkets and in many restaurants. An estimated 57 percent of the soybeans and 30 percent of the corn planted in the United States this year was genetically  engineered to resist pests or herbicides.

State Sen. Tom Hayden said the FDA has dragged its feet in regulating such foods.

"Now we're playing catch-up, just now seeing the long-term effects of these foods," he said.

Some demonstrators -- both inside and outside -- called for a complete ban on genetically modified foods. But labeling appeared the most likely response.

The experts addressing the FDA panel generally supported labeling, but differed over whether labels should be mandatory, and over the definition of a "modified" food.

Rhona Applebaum, of the National Food Processors Association, thought more vigorous scientific review and voluntary labeling would help consumers feel better about the foods.

Farmer will testify at FDA hearing on altered foods

December 13
San Francisco Chronicle

Organic farmer Robert Cannard tosses a handful of lemon verbena in a pot, brews the tea and explains his quest.

On this rain-rinsed day, the fields outside are sparkling with endive and eggplant. Twice a week, a truck from Chez Panisse in Berkeley trundles up for vegetables and drops off kitchen scraps for compost. For years, the rhythm of his days has revolved around his 20-acre spread in the Sonoma Valley.

But Cannard's spadework these days is in a new venture: politics. He's digging into democratic dirt, hoping an initiative requiring labels on genetically altered foods will qualify for the November 2000 ballot. Several thousand signatures have been returned to the Glen Ellen post office already.

Although genetically altered crops, such as corn and soybeans, are grown mostly in the Midwest, the dissent has also taken root in California. Without labeling, people cannot know whether the corn syrup in their colas or the soybean in their tofu came from genetically altered plants. 

Cannard is expected to testify today in Oakland at a daylong public Food and Drug Administration hearing on the merits and drawbacks of these foods. The session will be at the Elihu Harris State Office Building, 1515 Clay St.

Genetically modified foods have given rise to protests in Japan, and stringent European labeling requirements effectively ban genetically altered food from the United States.

But the Alliance for Better Foods, a coalition of 40 food organizations including the American Farm Bureau Federation, says genetically modified foods will promote greater nutrition and less reliance on chemical pesticides and could go far in combating global hunger.

They envision bananas laced with oral vaccines, so shots can be avoided, or vegetables enhanced with more beta carotene. Already, the Rockefeller Foundation is working on rice with more vitamin A to counter nutritional deficiencies in developing nations. Existing federal regulations do not require food labels to describe the plant development process by which food is produced.

"There is no doubt that consumer attitudes will ultimately be a big force in this debate. But other than that, would it do us any good to steer that debate toward fear? That is what labeling would do," said farm federation spokesman Mace Thornton.

"The labeling of a food product that scientists and our government agencies say is safe would do nothing more than raise unwarranted fears in the general public."

Working just a few miles from the prized patch of land where the dapper Luther Burbank proved his wizardry with new hybrid strains, Cannard is cultivating caution. He wants to ensure that the natural order isn't destroyed by unleashed and untested forces.

"Luther Burbank would think (genetic engineering) was crazy. He knew how to look at the natural vibration of plants," said Cannard, 46. "When you start changing the nature of the beast, mixing the genetic organisms from other plants, then you are changing the spirit of the plants. Luther Burbank was into the spirit of the plant and not just the superficial." 

According to Cannard, crossbred strains or hybrid species don't muck with a plant's genetic material, but work with the willingness of the plant to adapt and change. But genetic engineering alters the natural immune system and growth of plants, introducing foreign fungus or laboratory DNA to make plants poisonous or unpalatable to pests, disease or weeds.

The effect on insects or people with allergies or sensitive digestive tracts is unknown, Cannard said. "Heirloom" crops like his -- older varieties that more closely resemble the ancient strains --may be at risk from the windblown pollen of genetically altered plants.

Caterpillars of Monarch butterflies have died after consuming pollen from genetically altered corn species that contain toxins for pests, including the European corn borer, according to the journal Nature.

If genetically modified foods are labeled, Cannard said, people can vote with their wallets and let market forces dictate whether farmers use the altered seeds.

"We're not questioning the religious, moral or scientific merits of genetically engineered foods but are giving people the opportunity to know," Cannard said.

"We're not saying genetic engineering is bad, like some sort of addictive drug, but it needs to be thoroughly studied and the effect on nature understood before it is released," he added. "If these were drugs, it would take 20 years before release. Drugs affect small quantities of people, but food affects many more people on the mass market."

His all-volunteer campaign has harnessed the power of the Internet with a Web site explaining the scope and purpose of the proposed initiative. If successful, this campaign would be the first to qualify an initiative using the Internet, according to Alfie Charles at the secretary of state's office.

The Internet helps hold down printing and mailing costs, giving people access to the petitions without the expense of hiring signature gatherers. Cannard has donated about $5,000 to the drive, and petitions are sprouting up at farmer's markets, health-food stores and organic-food groups. By March 6, signatures from 419,260 registered voters are needed to place the initiative on the ballot.

While a political novice when it comes to initiatives, Cannard said the effort is worthwhile to educate people about genetically engineered foods. 

"The initiatives are an expression of the population. People may not be aware of a potential problem and the caution needed for genetically modified food stock," Cannard said. "This effort will raise awareness, no matter what."

People interested in the petition can write to California Right to Know/Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Initiative, P.O. Box. 520, Glen Ellen, CA, 95442; call (707) 939-8316 or visit the Web page at http://www.calrighttoknow.org