February headlines

Return to February article index

Consumers want engineered food labeled

Shoppers express 'outrage' that product choices aren't clear, FDA reports

February 13
Washington Post

Consumers want mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and feel "outrage" when they learn how many supermarket products already are produced through biotechnology, according to a Food and Drug Administration report.

The internal report, which was commissioned by the agency to gauge sentiment about its proposals for voluntary labeling, said that consumers are concerned about possible long-term environmental and health effects of genetically modifed foods.

"Virtually all participants said that bioengineered foods should be labeled as such so that they could tell whether a given food was a product of the new technology," said the report, which is based on focus groups conducted last year. "They thought it would allow them to make more informed decisions about whether or not to buy a product."

The labeling of products made through bioengineering has become a contentious issue, with activists arguing that consumers need and deserve the information. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) have introduced bills to make labeling mandatory, a step already taken by the European Union and some Asian nations. The biotechnology industry has opposed mandatory labeling in the United States, saying that it would unfairly stigmatize products already determined to be safe.

Joseph A. Levitt, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said the focus group report showed that food biotechnology is a hot-button issue for many consumers, and that they want more information about it. But he said the FDA did not consider mandatory labeling to be scientifically necessary or legally possible. The agency concluded in 1992 that genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional products.

"Companies are going to be pushed by customers to put labeling on their products," Levitt said. "Our job here is to determine what information would be educational without being misleading."

The FDA conducted its 12 focus groups in four different cities in the spring. The report, which had not been made public previously, was released by Richard Caplan of U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer watchdog group.

Caplan criticized the FDA for seeking out public opinion about food biotechnology, but being unwilling to act on the results. He said the report "severely undercuts the FDA public position on labeling of [engineered] foods.

"There is overwhelming public support in favor of mandatory labeling, and the agency knows that," he said. "Whether the concerns are environmental or health-related, ethical or religious, people want to know when biotechnology is being used in their food."

Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents many food producers, said that its research similarly showed that people will say that they want more information about biotechnology on food labels. But spokesman Gene Grabowski said that follow-up research found that customers want more information about many subjects, and had no particularly great interest in biotechnology.

"You ask people if they want to know whether a tomato has been hand-picked or machine-picked, and they'll tell you they do," he said. "We see biotech food labeling in the same way." He said that after researchers spent 60 to 90 seconds explaining to people that the FDA did not consider genetically engineered foods to be different from conventional foods, the number who wanted mandatory labeling declined substantially.

In the focus group report, consumers voiced great surprise and concern over the way that bioengineered foods have been introduced, and how widely they are now used.

"The typical reaction of participants was not one of great concern about the immediate health and safety effects of unknowingly eating bioengineered foods, but rather outrage that such a change in the food supply could happen without them knowing about it," the report said.

Farmers favor altered seeds

February 13
New York Times

Chicago - Despite growing concerns over the use of biotechnology in agriculture, and the recent controversy over Starlink, an unapproved variety of bioengineered corn that accidentally entered the food supply, American farmers continue to favor planting genetically altered crops, according to surveys conducted by the nation's biggest seed companies.

The Monsanto Company said today that despite reports that farmers were turning their backs on biotech crops last year, worldwide biotech acreage increased 15 percent, with similarly big gains in the United States. Monsanto and two other large seed companies, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta, said that farmers had already made plans to plant even more biotech acreage in the coming spring, more than 75 million acres in the United States alone.

"We expect our biotech traits to be up in every one of the core crops," said Brett Begemann, a vice president at Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis.

The companies' reports, however, seemed to contradict earlier surveys of farmers' intentions and widespread impressions that the controversy over biotechnology is significantly damping farmers' enthusiasm for such crops.

Several major food companies have said they will no longer use genetically altered crops, and the European Union and Japan have restrictions on certain biotech crops. Yet the biotech companies say farmers have largely voted in favor of the genetically engineered crops because they offer higher yields and require fewer chemicals, and because most markets accept the crops.

"I don't want to say I told you so, but ever since this all started, we've been saying these products bring satisfaction for farmers. And when they're confident they'll have a market, they're going to grow these crops," Mr. Begemann said.

Some critics, however, questioned the data. Charles Margulis, a spokesman for Greenpeace, which is a vocal opponent of biotechnology, said he did not trust the figures supplied by the companies.

"I don't take Monsanto's word for it anymore," Mr. Margulis said. "They do the same thing every year; they say the numbers are going to go way up, but last year the government showed they were down.'`

Dan McGuire, a spokesman for the American Corn Growers Association, said he was also puzzled by the figures. A year ago, his association released its own survey, which indicated that farmers were significantly scaling back their planting of biotech crops. He expects much of the same this year, particularly after the controversy over Starlink, which was supposed to be used only as animal feed. In September, however, it was discovered that StarLink had accidentally leaked into the human food supply.

"It's my feeling that farmers would be getting more concerned about it and they would be planting less because of that StarLink business," Mr. McGuire said. "I'd be surprised to see an increase in acreage."

Also, earlier this year, a Reuters poll at the annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation said that farmers were planning to reduce biotech plantings by 15 percent to 26 percent.

The federal government's own surveys do not seem to clear up the issue. A survey released by the Agriculture Department in June said that biotech acreage was projected to be down just slightly, to about 69 million acres in 2000 from about 71 million acres in 1999.

But that survey came after a study released in March that said farmers were significantly scaling back their planting of genetically altered crops. The agency acknowledged some flaws in the March survey.

Today, of course, the major seed makers cautioned that it was still too early to tell what farmers would do, largely because they could change their mind about what seeds to plant this spring.

But the indications were favorable, they said, particularly for Roundup Ready soybeans, which are immune to the herbicide Roundup.

The adoption of biotech crops has been phenomenal. Last year, more than 100 million acres around the world were planted with biotech crops, up from 3 million acres in 1996. Monsanto said the strongest growth came in the United States and Argentina.

Biotech corn acreage was "flat, to up slightly" in the United States, the company said, but biotech soybeans and cotton were up significantly. Similar trends are expected this year, the company said.

Euro-row ignites over GM crops

February 13
BBC

In parliament, members will discuss a deal which would clear the way for new varieties of GM crops to be licensed by the EU - ending a three-year de facto ban.

And in court, 14 judges will be asked by the Netherlands to throw out European rules on patenting GM crops and animals.

Genetic engineering has divided Europe's governments and sparked protests in a number of countries, including the sabotaging of trials.

The possible change of rules on crops, to be debated by European members of parliament in Strasbourg, has been thrashed out in painstaking negotiations over many months.

The new deal would allow licenses to be granted, but only if firms provided a risk assessment and carried out continuous monitoring of any possible dangers. Permission would lapse after a certain period.

If the parliament gives its backing, the new rules will still have to be formally adopted by the Council of Ministers.

Policy 'mess'

France is believed to be leading a rearguard action of five nations who want the deal blocked and the ban to continue.

More than a dozen licenses had been granted before the moratorium came into effect, including four from the biotech giant Monsanto.

A wave of new applications is expected from Monsanto and others if the deal goes through.

Consumer protection commissioner David Byrne has said the new regulations are designed to get the EU out of a "mess" over its current policy.

For the past three years, new varieties of GM crops have been subject to the de facto ban because of safety fears and public resistance to eating GM foods.

But pressure has continued from the United States and the big biotechnology firms, who want a clear system of regulation.

A vote is expected on Wednesday.

Court battle

In the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, meanwhile, the Dutch Government is leading the legal challenge to GM patenting - backed by Italy and Norway.

The case centers on the most recent European Commission directive on patenting, which set out rules for advances relating to human, plant and animal genes.

The 15 EU members are now supposed to ensure the protection of such biotech inventions under their own national laws.

But the three governments object to being asked to protect inventions to which they are strongly opposed and have taken the matter to court. A decision is not expected for several months.

Environmentalists say GM crops could spawn "superweeds" and damage human health. Their arguments have not been scientifically proven, but neither has the opposite claim that GM crops are safe.

Monsanto says 2001 profits are due to rise

Earnings: Weedkiller sales and cost-cutting should compensate for a slowdown in bioengineered crops

February 13
Los Angeles Times

Monsanto Co., the No. 1 developer of genetically engineered crops, said it expects the 2001 profit from operations to increase by 9% to 13% because of planned cost-cutting and improved sales of its Roundup weedkiller, a company official said.

The company estimated that 2001 profit will be $1.85 to $1.92 a share, compared with a $1.70 in 2000, which includes a 2-cents-a-share accounting change, said Andy Kuchan, Monsanto's director of investor relations. Monsanto's operating profit last year was $445 million, or $1.72 a share.

The profit target is the first from Monsanto since it was partially spun off from drug maker Pharmacia Corp. in an October initial public offering.

Monsanto is 85%-owned by Peapack, New Jersey-based Pharmacia. The 2001 estimate excludes expected restructuring charges of up to $214 million before taxes, said Kuchan.

St. Louis-based Monsanto is restructuring to reduce its costs and focus its research on corn, soybean, cotton and wheat crops.

The costs include research and development write-offs, closing offices and severance for employees. Monsanto hasn't provided details on the costs.

Monsanto expects most sales growth from its top-selling Roundup herbicide, which had $2.6 billion in 2000 sales, rather than from seeds and technology used to grow bioengineered crops, said spokeswoman Lori Fisher.

Sales of bioengineered crops slowed as consumers in Europe, Asia and some in the U.S. have expressed concerns about genetically altered foods.

A 2000 net income of $149 million, or 58 cents a share, followed restructuring charges of $201 million, a $26-million adjustment for an accounting change, and $69 million related to the company's public offering proceeds and capital contribution from Pharmacia that reduced Monsanto's debt and interest payments. The results compare with $150 million, or 58 cents, a year earlier. Sales rose to $5.5 billion, from $5.2 billion in 1999.

Monsanto reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $52 million, or 20 cents a share, compared with a loss of $92 million, or 36 cents, a year earlier.

Monsanto shares rose $1.03 to $34.40 in New York Stock Exchange trading.

Protests over modified crops to escalate: CSIS

February 12
Southam News (Canada)

OTTAWA - Canada`s spy agency predicts an increase in protests -- including acts of vandalism and sabotage -- by militant opponents of bio-engineering and the genetic modification of crops.

In a newly obtained report, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service cites attacks on an Ottawa corn plot and hundreds of British Columbia trees as examples of the growing anger about modified organisms in Canada.

``Destruction of genetically engineered plants has become common in Europe and Great Britain, but the activity has only recently come to North America.``

A declassified version of the confidential intelligence report, completed last August, was obtained by Southam News under the Access to Information Act. Portions of the document were withheld.

The report is the latest evidence of the spy agency`s interest in radical elements of the anti-globalization movement, which has seen opponents of genetic modification join activists who support animal rights and environmental issues.

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are plants or animals whose basic makeup has been altered by humans through manipulation of DNA sequences.

Though scientists have long engaged in selective breeding of closely related species, genetic manipulation can help combine species that would ordinarily never become intertwined. For example, scorpion genes have been introduced into certain corn crops.

Advocates argue such techniques can improve crop quality and yield. Critics object to genetic engineering out of concern about possible ill effects on health and the environment.

``Anti-GMO protests are likely to increase and to become more prominent in association with anti-globalization demonstrations,`` says the CSIS report.

There have been numerous peaceful protests about modified foods in recent months, though the spy agency identifies a trend toward violent action.

``For the most part, activists associated with genetic engineering protests confine their actions to vandalism, including destruction of scientific research and facilities, use of graffiti and signage, and occasional harassment by correspondence,`` says the report.

Early last August, a group called Democraseed attacked a plot at the federally run Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, chopping down and uprooting corn stalks.

A communiqué released the following day claimed responsibility for the acts on behalf of a group comprising ``farmers, artists, government workers, hi-tech workers, researchers, teachers and social workers.``

Estimated damage was $50,000 and the project was set back one year.

CSIS says Democraseed thought it was attacking genetically modified crops, but actually destroyed a test field used to develop corn that would be resistant to root worm.

``The fact that Democraseed mistakenly attacked a regular corn plot obviously was not of concern to the group.``

The Democraseed communiqué anticipated such an error, saying it would be the fault of the government for not ``acting in an open, transparent and democratic way,`` notes CSIS.

The spy agency also points out the man charged with pushing a cream pie into Jean Chrétien`s face last summer in Charlottetown voiced his opposition to genetically modified foods among other political concerns.

In October, 1999, a group called Reclaim the Genes said it destroyed 500 trees at a University of British Columbia research facility. Another group claimed credit for chopping down 3,000 trees at a forestry center near Victoria.

There have been many such incidents in Europe and, in the last couple of years, dozens of examples in the United States.

The Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for a December, 1999, fire that partially destroyed a Michigan State University agriculture building.

Last June, the Anarchist Golfing Association wrecked experimental grass plots in Oregon, causing about $500,000 in damage.

EU allows in new flood of GM food

February 11
Observer (UK)

A new directive, which has been backed by the Government, will end a three-year de facto moratorium on granting licenses for the commercial development of GM foods. The standstill was imposed by major European nations following concerns about the impact of the new crops on health and the environment.

'The moratorium is dead,' said David Bowe, the British MEP who liaises between the European Parliament and the Commission on GM issues. He welcomed the new legislation last week.

'This is a significant step in terms of habituating people to GM products. There will soon be more GM foods in our shops but they will be safe. There is nothing here that will kill the world.'

But anti-GM campaigners have grave concerns.

'The [new directive] is not enough to protect the environment, consumers and farmers from GM crops,' said Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth.

'The British government is ignoring the wishes of the vast bulk of British consumers. The public have made it very clear that they are unhappy about eating GM foods and about GM crops growing in the countryside.'

Fourteen applications from biotech companies for licenses to plant GM products for commercial use have been on hold during the moratorium. Dozens of requests to develop GM organisms are now expected from major multinational firms in the wake of the new legislation. The testing of GM crops for environmental impact has been allowed - there will be 96 such trials in the UK this year - but no planting for commercial use has been permitted. This will be changed by the new laws.

All fresh applications will be subject to approval by a majority vote in a committee made up of representatives of EU member states. They will have to pass the requirements of the directive.

'The regulations are so strict that some natural foods wouldn't pass them,' said Bowe.

However from this week it will be illegal under EU law for Britain to ban or stop the commercial planting of a crop cleared at a European level unless serious and justified concerns over environmental or economic impact can be demonstrated. Because of the time needed for trials, and the 'implementation period' allowed, the effect of the new laws is not likely to be felt for up to two years.

GM products which have commercial licenses pending include tomatoes with extra-thick skins that make them less likely to bruise during transport and harvesting. Pressure from the public has previously forced supermarkets to withdraw paste made from the modified tomatoes.

The long-term effects of GM foods are not yet known. Campaigners now fear that supermarkets will be encouraged to 'have another go' at accustoming the British consumer to GM food. The Government has supported the new laws.

A spokesman for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is responsible for the current UK non-commercial GM crop trials, said the reform 'put in place new safeguards rather than opening any floodgates.'

However there are clear signs that British consumer is not yet happy to accept the new foods. Last month supermarket chains Tesco and Asda announced they would no longer sell the meat or milk of any animal fed with genetically modified soya or maize.

The two companies, which between them control 42 per cent of the grocery market, said they will switch their imports from North America to Brazil where commercial GM plantings are illegal. Iceland, Marks & Spencer, McDonald's and Burger King have already acted to remove GM in animal products.

Tony Blair appeared to be an early supporter of GM foods, hoping that Britain could be a world leader in biotechnology if 'the tyranny of pressure groups' was resisted. However, recently he was more cautious: 'There's no doubt that there is potential for harm both in terms of human safety and in the diversity of our environment from GM foods or crops.'

The new laws face strong opposition from other European nations and could lead to a major row. The French have said that they will try to block all new licenses for commercial growing of GM crops. They say that the question of the legal liability of biotech companies for any damage done by the new crops has not been satisfactorily resolved and are concerned about 'traceability' - provisions to ensure that consumers know what they are eating. Italy, Greece and Luxembourg are likely to back the French position.

Better beef through biotech

Safeway forms partnerships to develop genetic tests to breed cattle with higher-quality, tastier meat

February 11
San Francisco Chronicle

Safeway has roped genetics into the quest for the perfect steak.

The Pleasanton grocery giant is quietly lining up alliances with a beef grower and a biotech firm to use genetic tests to guide the breeding of tastier, more healthful beef to sell to its shoppers, The Chronicle has learned.

Although other meat producers and biotech firms are racing to develop similar breeding programs, the Safeway alliance seems poised to be the first to use genetics to shake up traditional cattle ranching practices.

"As far as I'm aware, none of this technology is being used in commercial breeding yet," said Mohammad Koohmaraie, a scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Neb., which has discovered genes that could be used in Safeway's program.

Safeway has tried for months to keep its cattle deal under wraps, in part to avoid tipping off competitors. The company also fears that its genetic test program could be confused with the more controversial genetic engineering. But in response to questions from The Chronicle, Safeway spokeswoman Debra Lambert reluctantly confirmed that the grocery giant has "an early-stage relationship" with Future Beef, a Denver cattle raising and slaughtering firm.

Future Beef Vice President Darrell Wilkes declined to discuss his dealings with Safeway, but stressed that Future Beef will not be doing the sort of genetic engineering that would alter cattle.

"We're not talking about transgenics or genetic modifications," he said. Wilkes confirmed that Future Beef has negotiated with AniGenics Inc. of Concord, Mass., to develop screening tests, akin to DNA fingerprints.

These tests would identify bulls and cows with desired traits, such as fast weight gain, disease resistance and tenderness. With this information, cattle ranchers could be steered to breed only the best animals, which would raise the quality of beef over time.

"We won't touch these animals' genes. We're just cataloging their genetic profiles," said AniGenics Chief Executive Officer Steve Niemi. "Their sex will happen the way it has for millennia."

Future Beef and AniGenics are still wrangling over the details of their proposed collaboration.

Evidence of Safeway's role as the patron of this cattle-breeding program surfaced after two financial newsletters reported that the grocery chain helped Future Beef win a $160 million loan last year to build a new meat- packing plant. One newsletter also reported that as part of the deal, Safeway made a 10-year purchase contract with Future Beef.

Andy Wolf, a financial analyst who follows Safeway for BB&T Capital Markets of Richmond, Va., was unaware of the deal with Future Beef, but said it would be a logical move. As one of the nation's largest grocers, with 1,680 stores across the United States and Canada, Safeway has already put its Safeway Select label on roughly 30 percent of the products it sells, everything from bread to corn to cola.

"Beef is about 10 percent of a store's dollar volume," making it a tempting target for a private label, Wolf said.

Moreover, industry observers say beef is a product that demands improvement.

"The consumer wants three things -- quality, consistency and convenience -- and for a long time the beef industry wasn't delivering on any of them," said Wayne Purcell, director of the Research Institute on Livestock Pricing at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va.

For instance, 1 out of 5 times, Purcell said, the consumer who paid extra for a choice cut got beef too tough to chew. Consumers had no reliable way to distinguish quality beef, and the market had no way to reward ranchers who raised better cattle. Purcell blamed this failure on fragmentation in the beef business.

Cattle raising begins with hundreds of thousands of ranchers, most of whom only own a bull and a couple of dozen cows. The ranchers breed and raise calves that they wean and sell to yearling operators.

The yearling operators graze cattle in fields before selling their herds to feedlot operators. Feedlots pen the beasts and fatten them on grain before selling them to packing plants. The packing plants render the carcasses and ship them to the butchers and grocers who trim the meat to fit our plates.

COMPETITIVE SYSTEM

Margins are thin at each step. "We're talking about 1 or 2 percent in a good year," said Brad Caudill, spokesman for Fresno County's Harris Ranch Beef Co.

Faced with thin margins, the multilayered market tended toward cutthroat tactics, with each producer trying to increase profits at the expense of its predecessor.

Purcell said this market system robbed ranchers of any incentive to set up breeding programs to improve their herds. Why bother, when any extra profit for quality would be swallowed by the packing plant or the grocer?

While beef ranchers bickered, Purcell said, pork and chicken producers were improving the quality and consistency of their meats using selective breeding programs driven by artificial insemination technology.

"Chicken was kicking our pants," said Purcell, who has charted the steep decline in beef consumption, relative to chicken and pork, between 1979 and 1998.

During the past few years, however, beef producers have halted the slide by forming business alliances that give ranchers up and down the line a share of what they hope will be higher profits by producing superior, branded beef.

HARRIS RANCH ALLIANCE

For instance, Harris Ranch has enrolled 75 ranchers, running 40,000 cattle, in a breeding alliance designed to produce branded beef for smaller grocers like Cala Foods, Piedmont Market and Bell Markets.

Harris shares its higher margins with the ranchers who follow its cattle- rearing regime. That system involves tracking physical characteristics to determine which bulls produced the best offspring -- and thus should sire future generations.

Future Beef and AniGenics propose to take this sort of profit-sharing alliance to a more scientific level by using genetic tests to pick the best breeding stock.

Niemi said AniGenics will help Future Beef develop quick, cheap DNA sampling tests that will track 5,000 cattle to start. Ranch hands will tag and track these cattle throughout the two years before they reach the packing plant, recording how long they take to reach certain weight targets, how often they get sick and how much feed they consume.

At the new Future Beef packing plant, which will be finished within months, workers will record the ratio of meat to waste and other characteristics like tenderness.

By the second year of the program, Future Beef will be tracking 45,000 cattle, Niemi said, creating an enormous database of genetic traits cross- referenced with meat production characteristics.

By finding patterns in this data, the partners expect to identify the best bulls -- it's easier to breed through males because they typically service two dozen or more cows -- resulting in meat of a consistently high quality.

"In two years we hope to know some of the (important) genes, and in four years we hope to begin changing the cattle in the production system," Future Beef's Wilkes said.