December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

California: Genetically altered foods face labeling

December 22
Wall Street Journal

SACRAMENTO -- Two Senate Democrats here don't want to wait for the federal government to decide whether consumers should be warned when they buy genetically modified foods. They want California to act now. 

In the days following last week's U.S. Food and Drug Administration hearing in Oakland on the question, Sen. Tom Hayden of Los Angeles already has drafted, and Sen. Byron Sher of Stanford says he's seriously considering, legislation to require labeling of such foods. 

Sen. Hayden's proposal, to be introduced in January, goes further, requiring the labeling of genetically engineered seeds, in addition to modified raw and processed foods. Sen. Sher says "that might be a logical part of disclosure. It's possible we may take different approaches [but] I haven't had a chance to look at his bill."

Supporters of genetic engineering say gene splicing has given farmers a valuable tool to grow healthier and more-abundant crops. But opponents, including some organic farmers, are concerned the technique could create mutant pollens and food products that could harm beneficial insects and neighboring plants and aggravate allergies in people.

Sens. Hayden and Sher say mandatory labeling is needed as much for consumer choice and public information as for any purported health concerns raised by the altered food products. "I want to know what I'm putting into my stomach," says Mr. Hayden. "My primary concern would be the preservation of the democratic process against manipulation and invisibility."

But the California Farm Bureau Federation, which staunchly opposes mandatory labeling, says such laws would unnecessarily frighten consumers, force a big jump in labeling and food-testing costs that would be passed on to consumers and, ultimately, hurt food sales.

"We're not against consumer information if it tells you something," says Cynthia Cory, director of marketing and labor for the 85,000-member state farming organization. "But we are against warning labels when we think they're warning you about something that's not a threat."

Even so, Ms. Cory, a geneticist by training, admits it's the advocates of genetically engineered foods who must shoulder the blame for much of the consumer confusion. "It's understandable that people are scared," she says, "because these are scary words, because the science community and firms that have come up with [the technology] have done a really bad job -- an abysmal job -- of educating consumers."

Sen. Hayden says that's where his labeling proposal comes in. His measure would define seeds or food as genetically engineered if they have been "altered or produced through genetic modification from a donor, vector or recipient organism" using DNA techniques.

"Public anxiety, it would seem to me," says the senator, "would be increased by the secrecy, or has been increased by the secrecy. Anybody that's an advocate of the marketplace should favor consumer information and consumer choice."

These proposals come at a time when both agribusiness and the political and regulatory worlds are abuzz over the future of genetically modified foods, in which scientists splice a single gene from one organism to another. Indeed, the FDA's Dec. 13 hearing in Oakland was the last of three such meetings the agency has held nationwide to help it decide whether stricter safety and labeling rules are needed.

Last month, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) introduced legislation in Congress to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.. And just last week, a group of class-action lawyers filed a suit against Monsanto Co. in federal district court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the St. Louis-based company didn't adequately test the safety of its genetically modified corn and soybean plants. In addition, the suit alleges that Monsanto's patented genes give it too much control over how staple crops are used.

A Monsanto attorney attacks the suit's "outrageous allegations," and says he doesn't "have much doubt we will defeat this lawsuit." 

Here in California, meantime, an all-volunteer group opposed to genetically modified foods has begun a low-budget, Internet-based petition drive to place a mandatory-labeling provision on the November 2000 ballot. 

"It seems to me that in a free society we should have a right to know and to have public disclosure," says Robert Cannard, a Sonoma Valley organic farmer leading the effort.

Stuck somewhat in the middle is Peggy Lemaux, a research scientist and cooperative extension specialist at the University of California-Berkeley. Ms. Lemaux says she's served as a liaison between the university and the public for 10 years. She opposes mandatory labeling "because I don't think food should go in the direction where there would be legal battles over the labels on a can of tomato paste."

But if lawmakers determine there must be labels, her choice is something that says the product "may contain a genetically modified organism." In that regard, it would serve to notify consumers and, perhaps just as important, put the financial onus on nonmodified producers to determine that their products are free of genetic engineering and that they could label them as such.

"If there is a consumer desire for non-[genetically altered] foods," she says, "an industry will arise to fill that role."

Woolworths (South Africa) to clear its shelves of genetically engineered foods

December 22
COMTEX Newswire

Woolworths food stores would remove genetically modified food from their shelves, the company announced yesterday. Pick 'n Pay criticized the move and accused Woolworths of "scare tactics" and misleading the public.

"One has to be either very brave or very irresponsible to make a statement like that," said Pick 'n Pay MD Martin Rosen. "How do you know what food is genetically modified? Just about everything has been modified over the years. It is just impossible to tell."

Woolworths did not say when its shelves would be free of genetically modified food, but said that after a meeting with the SA Federation Against Genetic Engineering, it intended removing the food from its shelves.

"The situation with regard to (genetically modified) food in SA is unsatisfactory. (It) is already on our shelves, but we have no legislation that forces companies to label the products."

Genetically engineered food results when specific genes are artificially removed or introduced into another organism to boost a certain trait.

The technology has been used in the health industry for years in the manufacture of medicines, but since it has been introduced in the food industry, intense battles have raged over the pros and cons of the food and the technology, especially in Europe.

Woolworths said it would assess the food for "harmful effects" in a continuing monitoring program, starting with primary ingredients.

"If no alternative ingredients can be found, Woolworths will clearly label its products."

SA has no mandatory labeling laws yet. Government, under the auspices of the health department, has called for proposals from the food industry and consumer bodies on labeling policies.

A concern of the department is that too stringent labeling legislation could push up the cost of food significantly.

Rosen says the job of identifying genetically modified food is huge. "If you have one bean field with genetically modified plants and another with (nongenetically modified) plants, what happens when a bee pollinates the nongenetically modified bed of beans? Can you still claim that it is (nongenetically modified) food?"

In SA, the only genetically modified crops grown are maize and cotton, but genetically modified tomatoes, soya, potatoes and maize are imported, mainly from the US. Soya is used extensively in processed foods such as polonies and other types of meat.

A source from food company Escourt backed Rosen, saying it was impossible to tell which food contained imported genetically modified soya. 

Rosen said Pick 'n Pay was not removing genetically modified food from its shelves.

The company was working with manufacturers on a program to educate and inform the public about biotechnology, he said. 

Firm's own canteen bans GM products

December 22
The Guardian (London)

London: It must be the final insult. Having led the way in promoting genetically modified (GM) food, the food technology giant Monsanto has suffered the indignity of having GM products banned in its own staff canteen by the caterers, who say the move is "in response to concern raised by our customers".

Friends of the Earth gleefully welcomed the "vote of no confidence" in the new technology, while Monsanto, already reeling from worldwide financial fears for its GM future, complained that the decision removed choice for its employees.

The canteen at Monsanto's main UK offices, in Buckinghamshire, is run by an outside contractor. Its parent company, Granada Food Services, said in a statement it was working "to remove, as far as is practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant".

It would continue to sell products such as confectionery that were packaged and labelled by manufacturers as having GM ingredients, "where it is appropriate".

Friends of the Earth said: "The public has made its concerns about GM ingredients very clear. Now it appears that even Monsanto's own catering firm has no confidence in this new technology."

National Nutritional Foods Association asks FDA for stronger oversight of genetically modified foods

December 21
NNFA press release

A natural products trade group today filed a Citizen Petition with the Food and Drug Administration asking that the agency strengthen its evaluation process of genetically modified foods before allowing them to be sold. The National Nutritional Foods Association, which represents the interests of retailers and manufacturers of dietary supplements, natural foods and other products, was critical of the FDA's current policy that essentially treats genetically engineered foods the same as conventional varieties.

"A central tenet of NNFA's mission is to assure that the integrity of the American food supply is safeguarded," said the association's president, Patrick Toomey. "NNFA aims to ensure that the market entry of genetically modified foods does not outpace thorough scientific evaluations of their safety."

Under the FDA's current policy, developed in 1992, a manufacturer can market a new genetically modified food if it convinces the FDA, through a "private consultation," that the food is "substantially equivalent" to an existing substance already in the food supply. NNFA maintains that this process falls short in three areas:

-- it is voluntary, not mandatory

-- the substantial equivalence examination lacks well-defined risk assessment criteria

-- the process lacks the transparency needed for adequate public health protection because it is not open to participation by independent experts

As grounds for more careful scrutiny of genetically modified foods, the NNFA cites the unintended and potentially harmful side effects of these foods, such as the 1996 discovery of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybeans and the more recent toxic effect of genetically modified corn on the Monarch butterfly.

"Nothing should be taken for granted when assessing the safety of a particular substance intended for human consumption that is derived from the emerging science of genetic engineering," the petition stated.

To view the full petition, visit NNFA's Web site at www.nnfa.org. Established in 1936 and headquartered in Newport Beach, Calif., the National Nutritional Foods Association is the oldest and largest, non-profit trade organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the natural products industry for both retailers and suppliers.

Genetically modified food banned in Monsanto staff cafeteria

December 21
AP

LONDON - Genetically modified food has been banned from the staff cafeteria at Monsanto Co.'s UK headquarters by the company's own caterer, GM food giant Monsanto confirmed Tuesday.

Granada Food Services, whose customers include Monsanto's High Wycombe office near London, recently told clients it would not supply food containing GM soya and GM maize due to customer concerns.

In a statement to clients, Granada said the move was designed "to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

Genetic engineering involves splicing a single gene from one organism to another. GM products, including Monsanto's genetically engineered corn, have recently met with safety concerns in parts of Europe and Asia.

In October, the European Union adopted new marketing rules requiring companies to label food as genetically modified if more than one percent of the product contains GM organisms. Granada's statement said the ban also brings the company into compliance with the new regulations.

Monsanto played down the staff cafeteria policy, and denied it was an embarrassment to have a GM food ban at the head office of a company manufacturing GM crop seeds.

"We believe in choice. At our Cambridge restaurant the notice says some products may contain genetically modified organisms because our staff are happy to eat foods sprayed with fewer chemicals," said Tony Combes, Monsanto's director of corporate affairs.

Combes also pointed out that Granada's GM policy was a blanket ban covering all of its customers and did not target Monsanto specifically.

"It has nothing to do with us really," said Combes. Opponents of GM food said they believe the ban showed a lack of confidence in Monsanto, however.

"The public has made its concerns about GM ingredients very clear. Now it appears that even Monsanto's own catering firm has no confidence in this new technology," said Adrian Bebb, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

Top UK retailer says no to GM animal feed

December 21
Canadian News Wire

Today, the largest food retailer in the UK, TESCO, announced a plan to stop using genetically modified (GM) animal feed.

``This is crucial for the market since animal feed accounts for 80% of GM crop sales.'' said Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner Michael Khoo.

Other retailers like Sainsbury, Marks & Spencer and Iceland foods are also phasing out GM animal feed.

``This will have a dramatic impact on GM seed sales in Canada.'' said Khoo

The announcement sheds doubt on Canadian retailers' claims that they cannot label GM food. ``If TESCO can take GMOs out of animal feed, Loblaws can get them out of human food. At the very least, this separation of GMOs proves that labelling GM food is possible for Loblaws,'' added Khoo.

In a letter sent to Cargill (the largest grain exporter in the US) & ADM, TESCO's Martin Cooke said ``Removal of GM ingredients from animal feeds is achievable through a phased process and that this can and must be done without incurring extra cost for our customers.'' Grain handlers and food processors such as Cargill and ADM are responsible for the separation of GMOs from non-GMOs.

``It is clear to us that our customers are concerned about the use of GM crops for animal feed and that they would like us to take steps to remove them.'' Cooke continued.

The process will begin in spring 2000 the letter said. ``This puts the nail in the coffin for the argument that segregation and labelling are not possible.'' said Khoo.

GM food ban at Monsanto staff restaurant

December 21
Reuters

Genetically modified food has been banned from the staff restaurant at a British office of U.S. life sciences company Monsanto Co (NYSE:MTC - news), newspapers reported on Wednesday. Monsanto is at the forefront of GM crop trials in Britain, where public opposition has prompted supermarkets to remove products with GM ingredients from their shelves.

Newspapers said contract catering firm Granada Food Services, which runs the restaurant at Monsanto's office in High Wycombe in southeast England, had decided to ban GM modified ingredients from all its outlets.

``In response to concern raised by our customers over the use of GM foods and to comply with government legislation, we have taken the decision to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant,'' Granada's quality systems director Mike Batchelor was quoted as saying by the Daily Telegraph.

Monsanto's director of corporate affairs Tony Combes denied the move was an embarrassment for the company, the newspaper said. 

Neither company was immediately available for comment on the reports. In November, Britain extended for a further three years its ban on the commercial growing of GM crops.

Environment Minister Michael Meacher said he had agreed with SCIMAC -- a body representing the farm and biotechnology sectors -- that strictly controlled farm-scale trials would last until the harvesting of crops planted in 2002.

The trials aim to assess potential damage to normal crops through cross-pollination with GM produce but green activists have been up in arms over the issue.

The Labour government has taken a battering on GM food over the last year with Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently in favour of remaining at the cutting edge of the biotechnology industry at all costs while Meacher and others have been more cautious.

Agribiz fears dog Monsanto, Pharmacia

December 21
Reuters

Stockholm - Shares in merger partners Monsanto Co and Pharmacia & Upjohn fell further on Tuesday and are likely to be blighted for many months, to come by worries over the future of Monsanto's embattled agrochemicals unit, analysts said on Thursday.

Pharmacia shares closed 19.5 Swedish crowns lower at 381.50 in Stockholm while in New York the shares were down $2-3/8 at $44-3/4 and Monsanto was down $1-3/8 at $35-1/4 by 1650 GMT.

Analysts expect the combined group to eventually divest Monsanto's profitable but debt-burdened agricultural business, which is being sued by U.S. and French farmers worried about the safety of its genetically altered crops.

But this is unlikely to take place for at least two years, and several banks have cut their recommendation for P&U to ''hold'' from ``buy'' on the assumption that its share price will remain volatile until uncertainties over the issue are resolved.

U.S. Monsanto has managed to reap some rewards from Monday's news of the intended merger to create the world's eleventh largest drugs company as U.S. ratings agency Standard & Poor's said it might raise its debt ratings for Monsanto, while lowering those of its partner.

But the fall in the share prices has devalued the combined market capitalization of the two companies to around $48 billion from $53.21 billion prior to the deal, according to Reuters Securities 3000 data.

``The general skepticism of European consumers to genetically modified food is a problem which will haunt the company for the coming two years -- there is limited upside in the short-term,'' Carnegie analyst Peter Sellei told Reuters.

Like other Swedish analysts, who declined to be named, he has just downgraded P&U to a 'hold' from 'buy' and sees scope for further declines in the American-Swedish company's price.

Meanwhile in New York, Ryan Beck & Co and Le Anne Zhao both downgraded P&U, citing an uncertain future for agricultural products. 

Uncertainty over agrichemical outlook

``The combined company will carry the (agrichemical) problem and its pharmaceutical business will catch this infectious disease -- we don't know whether the patient will be healthy or very sick,'' Den Danske Bank analyst Carl Harald Janson said.

``The share market will look at Pharmacia and Monsanto with some skepticism during the next 12-16 months until these issues are solved,'' he added. He declined to give an outlook for the share, but said further underperformance was possible.

The new company has said it will set up its agribusiness unit as a separate entity and make a public offering of up to 19.9 percent of its shares six months after the merger, which it hopes will be completed vin the second quarter of 2000.

Most see this as a definite signal of eventual divestment, after a decision by Switzerland's Novartis AG and Swedish-UK group AstraZeneca Plc to combine and spin off their respective agricultural units early this month. If this does happen, the long-term outlook for the marriage is rosier, as its partners make complementary pharmaceuticals products and lack overlapping markets.

Handelsbanken's Stefan Wikholm is one of the few Swedish analysts who have upgraded P&U on the merger, raising his recommendation to a ``strong buy'' from a ``buy'' and increasing his share target for the company by eight percent to 540 crowns.

``I am looking at the group as a pharmaceutical company which will get a clearly stronger business...,'' he said.

The merged company will brandish an impressive arsenal of drugs, including Monsanto's top-selling arthritis drug Celebrex and treatments for glaucoma, colorectal cancer and insomnia.

But P&U's expected double-digit growth in drugs sales is unlikely to be matched by earnings on the agricultural business side, despite the fact that Monsanto's business is the most profitable in that sector.