June headlines

Return to June article index

Quebec microbrewery can say its beer has not genetically modified organisms

June 14
Canadian Press

Montreal -- A small Quebec brewery has won a court battle with a federal government agency over its right to say its beer contains no genetically modified organisms.

Unibroue, based in Chambly, Que., obtained a certificate a year ago from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, classifying its beers as GMO-free. The classification was intended to help the firm's European exports.

When Unibroue decided to use the certificate to boost its beers in Quebec, the food inspection agency contended the claim broke food and drug laws. It withdrew its approval and sought a court injunction against further use of the certificate.

The injunction request was denied by Justice Pierre Viau of Quebec Superior Court.

Paul Arnott, Unibroue's master brewer, said Wednesday the firm is happy that Viau quickly turned down the agency's demand.

He noted Viau didn't even require Unibroue's lawyers to present any arguments at the court hearing Tuesday. The judge listened to the federal government side, then gave his ruling.

"Obviously for us it's important because it means we're going to save money. If we had to remove all the posters, we were looking at $100,000 to $120,000," Arnott said.

Arnott said future promotional campaigns relating to the beers' GMO-free nature won't make any mention of the agency.

But he said the claim is true and Unibroue "may have to pay privately to have that certified through an official organization."

The firm will let its current promotion continue for a normal life-span and when it's over, "the posters will be removed."

Arnott said he hopes the agency will be content with this approach.

Ottawa has yet to establish a labeling standard for genetically modified foods.

CDC: No Starlink allergies

Boosts Biotech Industry's Argument That GM Foods Are Safe

Environmental Groups, Biotech Critics Still Aren't Satisfied

June 13
CBC News

The federal government has told 28 people tested for possible allergic reactions to genetically modified StarLink corn that their illnesses were not caused by eating the corn, reports CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews.

StarLink, specially engineered to produce its own insecticide, is not approved for human use because of worries about possible human allergies to the Cry9c protein it contains. It is supposed to be used solely in animal feed, the only GM product with that designation.

Last year, the corn was discovered in several products on grocery store shelves. The news sparked recalls and led the manufacturer and federal government to buy up the entire StarLink crop. The USDA and commercial farms are still testing corn grain for traces of StarLink.

An EPA science panel, meanwhile, is considering allowing StarLink in human foods. The question of whether people got sick eating it last year is central to that decision.

After an eight-month investigation, the government said Wednesday that whatever caused the 28 people to report allergic symptoms, it was not a Starlink allergy.

In a letter from the Centers for Disease Control, those tested were told their blood "did not react to this specific protein."

That was a stunning conclusion to Grace Booth, whose reaction to an enchilada was so severe, she went to the hospital.

"I know that whatever happened to me is very serious and I'm terrified that its going to happen again," she told CBS News in a December interview.

The negative test results are a watershed because for months, fear of Starlink allergies led to an upheaval in the U.S. corn crop and millions in lost corn exports.

The biotech industry, which argued from the beginning that StarLink posed no danger, called the study vindication.

"We've found there's just been no negative impact of this whatsoever that could be linked to this protein," said Mike Phillips, a spokesman for the Biotech Industry Organization.

Corn growers and the corn's manufacturer, Aventis, will likely use the test results to press for changing that ban on StarLink in human food. In a preliminary report issued last December, the EPA science panel weighing StarLink's status found it had a "medium likelihood" of being an allergen and a "low probability" of triggering allergies.

Both the EPA and Aventis released studies in April showing that by the time StarLink is processed into corn oil or syrup, none of the suspected allergen remained. That meant last autumn's recalls, while required by law, may not have been scientifically necessary.

Environmental groups, however, say its too soon to declare StarLink safe. The government blood tested 17 people, when critics claim hundreds reported reactions to StarLink.

"This test is not conclusive evidence that says StarLink is safe for human consumption," said Matt Rand of the National Environmental Trust. "We should not be eating this until we've had a thorough investigation."

Critics of StarLink — and GM foods in general — say the government does too little to regulate them.

The FDA has proposed new rules offering guidelines for voluntary labeling of biotech food and required the FDA be notified of new biotech products. But the FDA, which treats biotech food like all other food products, does not do its own testing.

However, the StarLink scare has encouraged commercial farmers to test their corn grain. Many of their contracts with buyers now require such testing.

A tiny minority of corn farmers have called on the federal government to help them test. The USDA reported last month that testing of this small and perhaps biased sample of harvested corn showed varying levels of contamination with StarLink, ranging from 0 to 22 percent depending on which test is used.

Biotech farmers respect consumers

June 13
AP

Genevea -- Biotech-engineered foods can be good, but U.S. farmers must allay the fears of European consumers if they want to build exports to the valuable market, a growers' association said Wednesday.

``U.S. farmers have plenty of confidence in biotech,'' said Fred Yoder, who farms in Plain City, Ohio. ``But we have to be sensitive to what the markets tell us to do.''

Yoder is chairman of the biotechnology working group of the National Corn Growers Association. The association sent a delegation to Europe to meet officials and farm lobbyists - and learn about consumer concerns there.

``We're out of the era where farmers can produce what they like and not worry about where it goes,'' said Richard Tolman, Vice President of the association.

Genetic engineering in agriculture involves splicing a gene from one organism, such as a bacterium, into a plant or animal to confer certain traits in crops, such as drought tolerance or insect resistance. The practice is growing in the United States, but farm exports to Europe have encountered resistance because of the unpopularity of genetically altered foods among environmental activists and ordinary consumers.

A survey cited by the European Union last year found that a majority of Europeans see biotech products as a health hazard, despite assurances from producers.

Even in Britain, where the government has been more enthusiastic about the potential of genetically modified goods, supermarket chains have pulled biotech products from their shelves because of consumer concerns. British newspapers have called them ``Frankenstein Foods.''

New legislation passed by the 15-nation bloc in March lifted a ban on licensing genetically modified products, but producers still have to give European buyers an incentive to buy.

EU nations still have 15 months to implement the law, and the moratorium stays in place until the law is ratified. However, each country retains the right to approve new biotech products, making it possible for individual governments to keep the ban in effect.

Biotech corn didn't cause reactions

June 13
AP

Biotech corn that spawned nationwide food recalls last fall didn't cause the allergic reactions that people reported after finding out about the grain, the government said Wednesday.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said its investigation of the complaints "did not find any evidence that hypersensitivity" to a special protein in StarLink corn caused the reactions.

Blood samples were taken from 17 people and tested for sensitivity to the protein, known as Cry9C.

StarLink corn was never approved for human consumption because of questions about whether it was an allergen.

The Cry9C protein breaks down slowly in the digestive system, an indication that it might induce allergic reactions. However, scientists say people would have to be exposed to the protein repeatedly to become sensitive to it.

Critics of biotechnology say the CDC investigation was too limited to conclude that the corn is safe. "This is a small piece of evidence," said Rebecca Goldburg, senior scientist with Environment Defense, an advocacy group. "It's far from being definitive."

StarLink is one of several types of corn that have been genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide.

StarLink was withdrawn from the market last year but not before the grain was found contaminating a significant portion of the nation's corn supply.

Discovery of the corn in taco shells last fall led to nationwide recalls of corn products, and more recalls may be necessary unless the Environmental Protection Agency agrees to allow a minimal amount of the corn in food, according to the corn's developer Aventis CropScience.

Aventis wants the EPA to set a maximum level for the biotech grain of 20 parts per billion – the equivalent of one StarLink kernel in every 800 kernels of corn. The EPA is expected to consider the CDC report in making its decision.

After the CDC began investigating complaints about StarLink, the Food and Drug Administration developed a blood test that could tell whether someone was allergic to the Cry9C protein.

The 17 people who gave blood samples to CDC were among 24 people interviewed by investigators after reporting complaints.

Keith Finger, a Florida optometrist who was included in the CDC study, said he suffered a severe allergy attack last September shortly before the first recall of a StarLink-tainted product, Taco Bell-brand taco shells.

Finger said he had a meal containing corn ingredients shortly before the attack, which included severe stomach cramps and swelling of his throat. He has since eaten the same products, which included a tortilla made with corn starch, without a reaction, he said.

CDC's findings should give EPA "the final piece of information" it needs to approve the Aventis request, said Val Giddings, a spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Results of FDA tests inconclusive; health risk of StarLink corn still unknown

June 13
Genetically Engineered Food Alert press release

WASHINGTON -- Results released today of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests on a handful of individuals with suspected allergic reactions to StarLink corn do not provide a scientifically sound answer to the question of whether StarLink's Cry9C protein is a human allergen. In the wake of these inconclusive tests, the Genetically Engineered Food Alert coalition promised to continue pressing FDA and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to convene a full and thorough investigation of the public health risk StarLink corn may pose to consumers.

"Test results from such a small sample could easily have missed
allergic reactions," said Bill Freese of Friends of the Earth.
"The EPA's scientific advisors specifically said that the investigation should be broadened, yet FDA chose to ignore that advice. A thorough investigation is exactly what the public
deserves."

"There is no way a credible scientist could rule out Cry9C as a
potential human allergen," said Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, senior
scientist at the Environmental Defense. "I'm especially concerned about the risk to children, who are much more vulnerable to allergies than adults. The FDA's investigation should have included more children."

Despite the Scientific Advisory Panel's (SAP) recommendation to widen the scope of the investigation, FDA chose to ignore hundreds of consumers who reported allergic reactions to corn products that may contain StarLink. These reports were unearthed from FDA and EPA documents obtained by Genetically Engineered Food Alert. In one report, 210 consumers blamed corn for allergic reactions, 74 visited doctors, while 20 more had to seek emergency care.

"It would be unacceptable to approve StarLink for human
consumption when the science is clearly incomplete," said Matt
Rand, biotechnology campaign manager at the National Environmental Trust. "The American public deserves a full and thorough testing of StarLink corn so they do not become the guinea pigs for a dangerous experiment on food allergens."

Other suggestions that the Scientific Advisory Panel made and
the FDA ignored include:

1. According to the SAP's allergy experts, young children are at the greatest risk of developing allergies to novel genetically
engineered proteins such as Cry9C. Yet FDA seems to have  tested only one child.

2. The SAP recommended that the medical community should be informed of the investigation into the allergenicity of Cry9C in corn products. In addition, FDA should monitor reports from the medical community to supplement the cases currently under investigation and to provide additional support for proving or refuting the allergenicity of Cry9C.

For more information visit http://www.gefoodalert.org

Genetically Engineered Food Alert founding members include:
Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, National Environmental Trust, Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network North America, and the State Public Interest Research Groups.

Genetically Engineered Food Alert supports the removal of
genetically engineered ingredients from grocery store shelves
unless they are adequately safety tested and labeled. The campaign is endorsed by more than 200 scientists, religious leaders, doctors, chefs, environmental and health leaders, as well as farm groups. http://www.gefoodalert.org

CDC report: Genetically modified corn didn't cause sickness

June 13
Minneapolis Star Tribune

After an eight-month investigation into claims that dozens of people were sickened by eating genetically-modified corn, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported today that the corn wasn't the culprit.

Many of the cases may have been true allergic reactions to food, the CDC said, but the study found no evidence that the allergies were triggered by StarLink, a biotech corn variety that was found in taco shells and other foods last year even though it hadn't been approved for human consumption.

The finding prompted relief in Minnesota, where StarLink was grown in 28 counties last year. Its maker -- Aventis CropScience of North Carolina -- withdrew it from the market last fall. But Minnesota growers said concerns that it may have sickened people have tainted the image of other biotech varieties that make up 55 percent of the state's soybean crop and 35 percent of the corn.

"StarLink gave all of the genetically modified crops a black eye," said Nathan Johnson, Lowry, past president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association.

"This is a relief from a humanitarian standpoint and also in terms of the future of biotechnology on farms," said Paul Strandberg, project manager for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. "StarLink has always been the poster child of an irresponsible release of the technology."

The CDC report doesn't end regulatory concerns over StarLink. The report has been submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and to a panel of allergy experts for further review, said Bernadette Burden, a CDC spokeswoman.

The report is expected to influence the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its decision regarding Aventis' request to declare StarLink safe for human foods in trace amounts.

StarLink, given a gene to thwart the European corn borer, was approved for sale in 1998. But the corn was supposed to go for animal feed and industrial uses because regulators were concerned that a protein that the gene prompts the corn to produce, called Cry9C, might trigger allergic reactions. So the EPA withheld approval for human consumption. Even so, the protein turned up in taco shells, corn chips and other foods last year.

Health experts said there was little or no risk to consumers because only about 1 percent of the nation's corn acreage was StarLink corn, and very little of that made it into groceries.

But after biotech foes forced food recalls and processing plant shutdowns, farmers and grain elevators had to sort through much of last fall's 10 billion-bushel harvest and divert every load containing even a few kernels of StarLink to approved uses. In addition to the 28 Minnesota counties, StarLink was grown throughout most of Iowa.

The sorting continues even now because many farmers stored their corn last fall waiting for better prices, Strandberg said. Although today's CDC report doesn't erase the need to separate StarLink from grain bound for food markets, it does raise hope that the EPA may ease restrictions and allow corn with traces of StarLink into all markets, Strandberg said.

The traces could persist for years, he said, because "just the dust in an elevator can give you some positives" on tests for StarLink.

Opponents of genetically modified crops attacked the long-expected report even before it was issued. Genetically Engineered Food Alert -- a coalition of environmental and consumer groups including Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy -- said this week that the FDA and the CDC should have tested more people and given special consideration to infants, children and farm workers who handle crops.

The coalition also criticized the method of testing that the federal agencies used in their investigation.

Biotech crops help U.S. farmers

June 13
Oklahoman opinion by Jim Zimmer of Monsanto

St. Louis -- Dinner table conversations at my family's farm in Illinois were always interesting, sometimes controversial and usually focused on something to do with our farm.

Now that I've left the farm, I'm amazed that so many people in our world don't understand how deeply farmers care about the land they farm and how they take to heart the role they play in providing food to their city brethren.

In many ways, my work in soybean and corn technology at Monsanto still keeps me intimately connected to my family's farm in Neoga, a small town about 65 miles southeast of Springfield.

One topic that seems to me to be little understood by the general public -- but better understood by farmers -- is the acceptance and use of bioengineered seed. Our bioengineered seeds were planted in 17 million acres in 1997. By last year, that total had jumped to 103 million acres.

For my family and our neighbors, the issue of bioengineered seed triggered numerous discussions, especially when the technology was first introduced. The two major questions that repeatedly came up were:

Would it help us make more efficient use of our land and allow us to make a better living? Would it do that while preserving the land for future generations?

Like most farmers, we needed to see how these products performed on our own land in order to decide whether they made sense for our farming operations. Ultimately, our answers to the questions we asked ourselves were "yes."

I don't want to understate the debates that took place within the farming community over some of the changes brought about by seed improved through biotechnology.

Farmers were not used to the idea of signing a licensing agreement for their seed. That was a change that provoked some heated discussion. Many farmers decided they didn't want to go down that road and chose instead to stay with conventional seed.

Monsanto and other seed companies still sell, and are happy to sell, conventional seed to farmers who want it. However, for a growing number of farmers, the benefits of biotechnology have become more and more clear.

That is why it is so disturbing to see a few "bad apples" give this technology a bad name. As someone who grew up farming and knows this technology inside and out, I'd like to set the record straight on a few counts.

Despite the recent claims of a farmer in Saskatchewan that his fields ended up with genetically modified seed because of "wind-blown pollen," the fact is that just isn't reality. It's not that easy. The Canadian court that heard this particular case found that this claim strained credulity to say the least.

Even the fiercest wind from Mother Nature couldn't blow in enough pollen from someone else's bioengineered crop and take over 1,000 acres -- especially when the nearest neighbor using a bioengineered seed lived 5 miles away.

Using genetically improved seed is a choice that farmers make because they believe it helps them. Monsanto is in business to make products that we believe farmers will want and therefore buy.

We also believe that the products we make have the capacity to help make our world better. These seeds can reduce the use of pesticides, increase crop yields and introduce new nutrients into staple food supplies in developing countries to combat malnutrition.

Zimmer is director of corn and soy technology/U.S. markets for Monsanto. Readers may write to him at Monsanto, 800 N Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Mo., 63167.

Group says Canada too slow on GMO labeling

June 13
CBC

TORONTO -- The Council of Canadians is accusing Canada's food distributors of dragging their feet in developing a system for labeling genetically modified foods.

An estimated 70 per cent of groceries contain genetically modified ingredients. But there's no law requiring grocers to say so unless there is a clear health hazard.

Brent Patterson, of the Council of Canadians, says all consumers can do is check out the ingredients and play a guessing game.

But if an organic producer wants to label a product GMO-free, most major food retailers in the country have decided they won't allow it.

About 50 organizations are in the middle of drafting voluntary standards for labeling and until they finish the job they say no label is a good label.

The Consumers' Association of Canada agrees. Spokesperson Jenny Hillard says people have been misled by slack labeling laws before.

Because GMO-free products cost more, Hillard says it leaves a lot of room for rip-offs. "We got misleading environmental labels all over the marketplace. In the late '80s and early '90s and now, we're still not able to either persuade manufacturers to use, or consumers to believe, a standardized set of labels."

But the Council of Canadians says large grocery chains should start by labeling the food they know has genetically modified ingredients.

Newman's own daughter dedicated to organic foods

June 13
San Jose Mercury News

She has his famous piercingly cool blue eyes. His love of fly-fishing. His passion for race cars. His business savvy. And his generous spirit.

Nell Newman, daughter of Paul -- as in Butch Cassidy, as in Cool Hand Luke, as in heartthrob actor-director -- is very much her father's daughter. Yet very much her own person.

The 42-year-old Santa Cruz resident may have shrugged off acting when she was a teenager, but she followed in Dad's footsteps in another way -- by establishing and running Newman's Own Organics, The Second Generation, a division of his Newman's Own specialty food products company. Like Dad, she earmarks all after-tax profits from the company's organic cookies, pretzels, chocolate and tortilla chips to charity.

When it comes to this family, food has long been not just a pleasure but a cause.

Newman, a former biologist, now serves as ``director/daughter'' (as her business card reads) at Newman's Own Organics in Aptos. But she has also become an outspoken activist, particularly against genetically modified foods.

She's been at the forefront of calls for a moratorium on the use of genetically modified seed until more long-term research is conducted. She has testified at a hearing for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Her views have landed her on the front page of the Wall Street Journal -- the only Newman to be so featured. And they've spurred an audience with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, who once sat on the board of Calgene, the Davis company that grows genetically altered tomatoes.

``I think steam will be coming out of my ears,'' Newman said recently, only half in jest. ``I joked with my dad, `Is this the time to get arrested?'

``He said if it happened, he'd come rescue me.''

Newman grew up in rural Westport, Conn., the eldest daughter of Paul Newman and actress Joanne Woodward. The family raised chickens, and when her mother wasn't caught up in one of her ``health-food'' kicks, making nut loaf with yeast gravy and the like, she and her eldest daughter would bake pies with apples picked in the back yard.

Living in a wooded area, Newman became fascinated with birds of prey, which she trained and flew. That interest eventually led her to Santa Cruz, where she took a job as a fundraiser for the Predatory Bird Research Group at the University of California-Santa Cruz.

There, she made an alarming discovery. The group's field researchers handled eggs so contaminated with toxic substances that they had to have their blood tested regularly. Although she didn't work directly with those eggs, Newman had her blood tested anyway. The results showed contamination from DDT, PCBs and chlordane, a termite pesticide.

It brought home to her just how polluted the world was. And it made her realize that no matter how hard she worked to re-establish endangered bird populations, they would be released into a contaminated environment.

Adding to her dismay, once 800 peregrine falcons were raised and released, and their existence became less precarious, donations tapered off.

``I thought, this is ridiculous,'' she says. ``I should just do what my dad's doing and donate the money.''

Over Thanksgiving dinner, for which she toted home a suitcase of organic products and made an all-organic meal of range-fed turkey, mashed potatoes, salad and pumpkin pie, she convinced her father to let her start an organics food products line. He was a bit apprehensive at first, given his wife's previous forays into health-food cooking. But his daughter's dinner convinced him that organic food indeed could taste good.

So he was game. After all, he started Newman's Own on a lark that grew out of his tradition of giving friends old wine bottles filled with homemade salad dressing at Christmas. In 1982, its first year, Newman's Own turned over nearly $1 million to charity, according to the company. Since then, it has given away more than $100 million.

In 1993, with a $125,000 loan from her father, Newman and Peter Meehan, an old family friend who used to clean the Newman family pool as a teenager and went on to earn a business degree, started the organics line out of their homes. The privately held division grew so successful that it doubled its sales in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, Meehan says.

The first product was a no-brainer: pretzels, her dad's favorite snack. They soon became the top selling organic pretzels in the natural foods market, beating two other companies.

In that tradition, all the division's products are childhood favorites of her family's. Newman and Meehan conceive the products, which are manufactured around the country to organic standards. Newman's Own Organics now is the leading brand in organic cookies, organic chocolates and organic pretzels, Meehan says, as well as one of the top 15 organic food companies in the natural foods industry.

At Newman's Own Organics, decisions about charitable giving are made by the Newmans, Meehan and everyone else involved in making and distributing products -- from the pretzel backer to the workers who pack the cookies. In this way, a lot of small organizations that otherwise wouldn't get recognized get help, Meehan says.

The money -- $1.4 million in the past seven years -- goes to organizations that support educational, environmental, medical, social and political causes, as well as children and the elderly. They include Habitat for Humanity; Shared Adventures in Santa Cruz, which organizes outdoor activities for the disabled; and the University of California-Santa Cruz Farm and Garden Project.

As an added bonus, the checks those organizations receive are all signed by Paul Newman.

For Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Santa Cruz-based Organic Farming Research Foundation, the money has made a huge difference. In the past five years, the non-profit group advocating organic farming practices has received $90,000 from Newman's Own Organics and $60,000 from Newman's Own, which has helped fund organic research projects nationwide.

``She lives her talk,'' says Scowcroft, who used to bring his kids trick-or-treating to Newman's house, where she handed out Newman's Own Organics chocolate bars. ``She lives an environmental lifestyle. It's rare to find someone who's born and raised in the white heat of a national spotlight who can be so caring and giving and sharing.''

Newman enjoys that lifestyle in Santa Cruz, where she can be spotted around town, surfing or combing farmers' markets when she's not tending the garden at her 1,050-square-foot house built in the 1940s. There, she grows peaches, lettuce, radishes, apples, pears and limes.

With food, as in life, she likes it simple. She makes a mean roast chicken and a killer ginger-pear tart. And although she eats healthy most of the time, she admits to a once-a-year craving for Twinkies or Snowballs.

The designated family cook, she laments that she doesn't make it home to Connecticut much, except for Thanksgiving and Christmas.

While Father's Day used to mean a fun day of fishing with her dad when she was young, nowadays it's a more long-distance greeting.

She's already fretting. ``When is it?'' she asks in a panic. ``I don't know what I'll send this year. Maybe fruit -- if it's really good at the market.''

And organic.