June headlines

Return to June article index

Japan: Government mulls extending GM labeling requirements

June 21
just-food.com

In response to the recent GM-contaminated snack food recall by manufacturer Calbee Foods, the Japanese government is considering extending the requirements of labels on genetically modified food products. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries revealed that it is likely to revise labeling requirements to cover ingredients such as processed GM potatoes.

According to Kyodo News, the Japanese government has approved only 35 GM foods for human consumption. The Food and Drug Administration in the US has approved 51.
 
Food firms are meanwhile intensifying quality checks to ensure that GM ingredients do not unwittingly enter their products.

Tokyo-based Calbee was forced to recalled its Jagariko potato snacks after tests discovered the presence of the New Leaf Plus potato, a GMO widely used in the US but unapproved in Japan.

Tolerance would allow orderly marketing of StarLink corn

June 21
Wallaces Farmer

A government study released June 13, 2001 showed no evidence linking human food allergies and genetically modified StarLink corn. That study could help farmers and grain elevators sell their StarLink-mixed grain with less hassle and perhaps without a price discount.

Charles Hurburgh, an Iowa State University professor of ag engineering and an expert on grain quality, says the report might help set a tolerance level for StarLink. Hurburgh serves on a scientific panel advising the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on this issue.

The federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released the study. It says that in its recently completed tests, there was no evidence that the protein, called Cry9C and found in StarLink corn, caused the allergic reactions that were claimed by 17 people. The people may have been sick, but it wasn't StarLink that made them ill.

Cry9C is a protein found in a naturally occurring bacterium that is fatal to European corn borers. StarLink corn varieties have been genetically modified to produce this protein in the plant. When the insect takes a bite out of the corn plant, the insect dies.

Aventis Crop Science, developer of StarLink corn, has asked EPA to allow a small amount of Cry9C in human food products. Aventis wants EPA to set a maximum level for the biotech grain--20 parts per billion--which is the equivalent of one StarLink kernel for every 800 kernels of corn.

"The CDC report relieves a lot of anxiety over the health questions about Cry9C," says Hurburgh. "It could relieve some of the marketing pressure, too, but we have to make sure our trading partners accept the credibility of the report."

When EPA approved StarLink three years ago, the corn was restricted for use only in livestock feed. There were concerns that it may cause allergic reactions in humans. However, efforts to keep StarLink out of human food products failed last year. Many different kinds of products had to be recalled when the Cry9C started showing up in tacos and other items on grocery store shelves.

Aventis agreed to buy the StarLink corn and make sure that it was fed to livestock. As much as half of Iowa's 2-billion bushel corn crop last year contained traces of StarLink corn. Losses to farmers were estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars, although Aventis did eventually pay farmers some money to help make up for farmers' losses.

StarLink has resulted in a loss of export sales. Japan, for example, the largest overseas buyer of U.S. corn, doesn't want StarLink kernels in their corn. So the Japanese have been buying corn from China and Argentina instead of the U.S., notes Hurburgh.

Allowing a low level such as 20 parts per billion of StarLink in corn shipments may not help the U.S. recapture its corn market in Japan, but it could open up U.S. processing markets to StarLink.

"By establishing a tolerance, we could open up opportunities for selling the corn for processing in our own country," says Hurburgh. "It would take some major pressure off of the grain marketing chain."

"In the system we have today, we are still working with a zero tolerance," he points out. "As anyone involved in grain handling knows, zero doesn't exist. With zero tolerance, even if you had only one kernel in a railcar, that would theoretically be enough to cause the corn to have to be directed to another use."

Hurburgh and the other members of the scientific panel are keeping track of StarLink issues and are advising EPA. This committee, which has 13-members, is scheduled to meet again July 17 to 19 in Washington, D.C. to review the studies and evaluate other new information about StarLink.

The panel will write a report, which will be used by EPA in considering the request by Aventis that EPA declare the corn to be safe for people or to allow small amounts in human food. It is uncertain as to when EPA will reach a decision.

"EPA will be the agency to decide on the tolerance, although I'm sure they will have to have at least an informal agreement with the Food and Drug Administration and USDA," says Hurburgh. "The key will be whether or trading partners, the foreign buyers of our grain, will go along with it. If not, then the whole problem piles up at the export elevators."

EPA has big decision on StarLink request

June 20
BridgeNews Commentary by Tim Todd

Kansas City -- StarLink, the modified corn variety that led to food product recalls last year, will apparently not upend the food biotechnology movement. 

But, if regulators do the right thing, it may be awhile before the books finally close on the most significant blunder in the brief history of genetically modified seeds.

Genetically altered to resist certain crop-destroying pests, StarLink started grabbing headlines last year when it turned up in food items leading to a recall of some 300 products, from taco shells to corn meal. 

That wasn't good news for the food industry or StarLink's maker, the agricultural unit of European drug giant Aventis Corp. 

U.S. regulators, fearing that StarLink's key Cry9C protein might elicit an allergic reaction in humans, approved the product only for animal consumption or industrial uses. To the surprise of no one with even a minimal knowledge about the logistics of farm commodities, StarLink turned up in the food supply. 

With the recalls ongoing, scientists said the potential for a human to suffer an actual reaction was infinitesimally small. Repeated exposure, they said, was necessary to elicit a reaction. Then, people started reporting they had, in fact, experienced signs they interpreted as a reaction to eating products made with the altered corn. 

It created some nervous moments for the industry. Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sounded something of an all-clear, saying the blood tests showed the StarLink protein was not to blame. 

And then the CDC went a step further, delivering a slight jab at the regulatory absurdity that led to the mess.

"The difficulties of this investigation highlight the importance of evaluating the allergic potential of GM foods before they become available for human consumption," the report said. "Evaluating the public health limitations from the inadvertent introduction of StarLink corn into the human food supply posed a challenging retrospective task." 

LATE LAST FALL, WITH StarLink erupting all around it, Aventis said it was getting out of the seed businesses, but it said little beyond the announcement. 

Early this week, a few days after the CDC announcement, the European company revealed it has three or four potential suitors eyeing the business -- eyes that likely started to gaze a bit more intently after the CDC findings became public. 

In another bit of news, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said this week it has spent nearly $13 million to buy up seed corn contaminated with the Cry9C protein from 63 seed companies. 

The agency currently is reviewing applications from eight additional companies and could end up spending nearly $18 million in an effort to block further contamination of the food chain. 

Although it's not necessarily good news for U.S. taxpayers, getting the culprit off the market is a relief to both the food industry and Aventis. So, it's happy ending time, right? Aventis can get out of the agricultural business and food biotechnology proponents can stop worrying about StarLink, right? Well, not quite yet. There's still some StarLink out there, creating a major unresolved issue. 

AVENTIS WANTS THE ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency to establish a tolerance level that would allow 20 parts per billion, or about one StarLink kernel out of every 800. Currently, there can be no StarLink in food products. 

A tolerance level probably would not get Aventis totally off the hook, but it could go a long way toward solving some potential major problems for both Aventis and whoever ends up owning the agricultural unit. 

Certainly, a case could be made for the EPA to grant the request. The CDC tested folks who thought they had a reaction and found none. 

Scientists have said from the start that the likelihood of a problem is minuscule. One kernel per 800 is an exceptionally small amount. And, relatively speaking, there's likely not much StarLink still floating around the U.S. anyway. 

Approving the threshold, one could well argue, is a very, very low risk proposition for the EPA, at least from a health standpoint. It also would take a big step toward finally ending the whole mess. 

Under current standards, this debacle has the potential to linger for years returning anytime a StarLink kernel appears. 

No doubt, a tolerance level would make things easier not just for Aventis, but also for food companies, processors and farmers. But making things easier isn't always the right course of action. 

Even ignoring any potential health issues, it would be wrong for the EPA to grant Aventis' request. The U.S. has the safest food system in the world and Americans have extreme faith in its strength. 

Approving what would likely be a safe threshold after the fact sends the wrong message to consumers about how the approval process works. 

Biotech supporters have spent a lot of time talking about the stringent scientific review process for GMO foods -- it is often a key component in the argument against biotech opponents. 

Regulators made a mistake in originally granting StarLink a conditional approval. Let's hope EPA makes the right choice this time.

How magic markers are messing up our food system

June 20
Globe and Mail column by Naomi Klein

In the aisles of Loblaws, between bottles of President's Choice Memories of Kobe sauce and Memories of Singapore noodles, there is a new in-store special: blacked-out labels on organic foods. These boxes used to say "free of genetically modified organisms," but then Canada's largest grocery chain decreed that such labels were no longer permitted.

At first glance, its decision doesn't seem to make market sense. When the first frankenfoods protests came to Europe, chains such as Tesco and Safeway scrambled to satisfy consumer demand by labeling their own lines GMO-free. And when Loblaws entered the health-food market with its line of President's Choice Organics, it seemed to be going the same route. In ads, the company proudly pointed out that certified organic products "must be free of genetically modified organisms."

Then the about-face, made public last week: Not only won't Loblaws make the GM-free claim on its own packages, it won't allow anyone else to make the claim. Company executives say there is just no way of knowing what's genuinely GM-free -- apparently, it's too confusing.

The Loblaws argument points to a much broader strategy that North American food and agriculture giants appear to be using to take on anti-GMO forces. The goals seems to be to mess up the food system faster than consumers can demand labeling. Political will is pitted against nuts-and-bolts practicality, so that by the time the political will arrives, effective labeling is no longer a pragmatic option.

More than 90 per cent of Canadians tell pollsters they want labels telling them if their food's genetic makeup has been tampered with, but Galen Weston, chairman of Loblaw Cos. Ltd., has publicly warned that "there will be a cost associated" with such an initiative. This, in part, explains the magic markers: If Loblaws carries organic products that are labeled GMO-free, it weakens attempts to block GM labeling for the roughly 70 per cent of Canadian foods that contain GM ingredients. So the grocer has made a rather brutal choice: Rather than give consumers some of the information they are demanding, it will provide none of it.

And this is only one salvo in a war being waged by the agribusiness industry on consumer choice in the genetic engineering debate -- not just in Canada but, potentially, around the world. Faced with 35 countries that have developed, or are developing, mandatory GE labeling laws, the industry seems to be doing everything it can to make those European and Asian labels as obsolete as the ones that have been scratched out at Loblaws. How? By polluting faster than countries can legislate.

A few reports from the front lines:

One of the companies forced to remove its labels is Nature's Path, an organic food firm based in Delta, B.C. Earlier this month, company president Arran Stephens told The New York Times that GM material is, indeed, finding its way into organic crops. "We have found traces in corn that has been grown organically for 10-15 years. There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff contained."

Some organic food companies are considering suing the biotech industry for contamination, but the law is going in the opposite direction. Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto after its patented genetically altered canola seeds blew into the farmer's field from passing trucks and neighboring fields. Monsanto says that, when the airborne seeds took root, Mr. Schmeiser was stealing its property. The court agreed and, two months ago, ordered the farmer to pay the company $20,000, plus legal costs.

The most well-known contamination case is StarLink corn. After the genetically altered crop (meant for animals and deemed unfit for humans) made its way into the food supply, Aventis, which owns the patent, proposed a solution: Instead of recalling the corn, why not approve its consumption for humans? In other words, change the law to fit the contamination.

Around the world, consumers are exercising a renewed political power, demanding organic options at the supermarket and asking their governments for clear labeling of GMO foods. Yet all the while, the agribusiness giants -- backed by predatory intellectual property laws -- are getting the global food supply so hopelessly cross-pollinated, contaminated, polluted and mixed up that legislators may well be forced to throw up their hands. As biotech critic Jeremy Rifkin says, "They're hoping there's enough contamination so that it's a fait accompli."

When we look back on this moment, munching our genetically modified Natural Valuestm health-style food, our human-approved StarLink tacos, and our mutated-farmed Atlantic salmon, we may well remember it as the precise point when we lost our real food options.

Perhaps Loblaws will even launch a new product to bottle that wistful feeling: Memories of Consumer Choice.

New Zealand: Escape of GE salmon eggs 'highly likely'

June 19
Green Party press release

Jeanette Fitzsimons said today the evidence shows it is highly likely that eggs from genetically engineered salmon escaped into the wild during the NZ King Salmon experiment at Kaituna.

"Information released under the Official Information Act states that the average egg size was 4-5mm.

"The mesh size meant to keep eggs from being fertilized and escaping into the river was only 4mm. I can't see how anyone can argue that they know or believe eggs didn't escape during the experiment, given that the mesh and many of the eggs were the same size."

The document recently obtained by the Green Party is a report of a visit to the NZ King Salmon Hatchery by the Environmental Risk Management Authority chief executive Bas Walker on 9 December 1999, one day prior to the reassessment of the application by ERMA on 10 December 1999.

Ms Fitzsimons said the report would shake public confidence in ERMA once again.

"When ERMA released their decision to the public, Dr Walker stated that the average egg size was 5-7mm and played down any likelihood of escape. This is at odds with the report from his hatchery visit which gives the average size as 4-5mm and states 'some eggs could therefore pass through the screens, be fertilized and leave the containment facility'.

"ERMA's role should not be to reassure the public by skating over the facts. This is exactly the type of hush-hush attitude which has evolved in British food-safety scares and which has resulted in public mistrust of the very authorities who are taking the decisions and informing the public."

Ms Fitzsimons said the first step by ERMA should be to hear all decisions and reassessments in public.

"The public deserves to know why ERMA decided to change their estimate of how big the average salmon egg is, and why they ignored the initial recommendation that the mesh should be reduced to 2mm, and recommended instead a reduction to 3mm.

"If the King Salmon reassessment had been made in public, the report of this visit would have been part of the public domain. Now we find out that eggs could easily have escaped - yet because of the secrecy, there has been no owning up to this and no commitment to any monitoring of salmon populations in the wild for genetic pollution."

OIA papers are available on request

Guess, say the grocers

June 18
Globe and Mail

Next time you're buying breakfast cereal or waffles at the grocery story, check to see whether someone has drawn a thick black line through part of the label. Loblaws, Sobey's, A&P and the other big grocery chains in Canada have decided small companies that make organic products cannot be allowed to identify food as being free of genetically modified organisms. Products labeled as GMO-free will be yanked from shelves, the grocery industry has warned, so the small manufacturers who don't want to redesign their packaging are using felt-tipped pens or stickers to hide the offending information. 

The grocery chains argue that the labels are unfair, both to consumers and to competing food manufacturers, because it is impossible to verify whether GMOs were in fact used. It is odd that they haven't felt compelled to police claims that foods are "lite," "low-calorie" or "low-fat," yet feel they must step in to protect shoppers from being tricked into buying organic blueberry waffles the chains fear won't live up to their GMO-free billing. Could it be that Loblaws doesn't want competition for its own line of organic foods? Or have the large food manufacturers who fear a public backlash against genetically modified products won the day? 

The stores say they are working with the federal government on a voluntary labeling scheme, but that until standards are in place they want to make sure their grocery aisles are a level playing field for all food manufacturers. "Small suppliers were taking advantage," the Loblaws spokesperson said. 

Shame on small suppliers for attempting to give consumers information they want. While Canadians appear far less disturbed than Europeans about munching on genetically modified chips, polls show that 90 per cent of Canadians say they should have the right to know whether they are eating GMOs or feeding them to their children. 

Over the past five years, more than 40 types of genetically modified crops have been quietly approved in Canada. These include strains of corn, soy and potatoes that have had genes from other organisms spliced into their genetic code to make them resistant to pests or to enable them to produce their own insecticide. A recent report from independent scientists appointed by the government was harshly critical of the system in place to evaluate whether these products are safe. 

About 70 per cent of processed foods on grocery-store shelves in Canada already contain some genetically modified material. Consumers who don't want to buy these products should be able to make a choice. 

Making educated decisions about food is a healthy trend. The federal government last week announced it is moving forward with mandatory, standardized food labels that will allow consumers to check how much fat or salt is in the products they buy. Companies will also be able to make claims that their products help fight heart disease, osteoporosis, tooth decay, high blood pressure and some types of cancers. 

But Ottawa, which has invested heavily in the development of genetically modified crops, at times seems more concerned with protecting that investment than with protecting the interests of consumers .. It has ruled out mandatory labeling for GM products, and seems in no hurry to implement a voluntary labeling scheme. 

The more information consumers have, the better. Some may be as worried about potential allergic re actions to genetically modified products as they are about heart disease. The grocery chains are no t acting in the public interest. It is ridiculous that wary shoppers who want to avoid GMOs are reduced to looking for boxes with part of the label blacked out.

New York: Groups push moratorium on genetically modified crops

June 17
AP

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Environmentalists are pushing a bill before the state Legislature to create a five-year moratorium on the planting or growing of genetically modified crops in New York state.

Not enough is known about the crops, either their health effects on humans or the ramifications to the environment once they are planted, said Environmental Advocates, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) and the state Green Party.

"Our environment is being used as a laboratory for widespread experimentation on genetically engineered organisms with profound risks that, once released, can never be recalled," NYPIRG's Laura Haight said. "Until proper safeguards are in place, this unchecked experiment should stop."

A report late last week from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group indicated that New York is by no means a national leader in the experimental planting of genetically engineered crops. From 1997 to 2000, 209 field tests approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture were conducted with the modified crops in New York state, involving about 2,000 acres, according to the national group.

The tests chiefly involved potato, corn, tomato, grape, melon and apple crops. Cornell University (32 permits), the New York state Experimental Station (15 permits), the State University of New York at Albany (6) and SUNY-Geneseo (5) were the most frequent recipients for permits to perform the experiments.

The 209 experiments placed New York 34th in the country between 1997 and 2000. By contrast, Hawaii had the most permitted test plantings with 3,275. Mississippi had 245 permitted tests involving 28,400 acres, and California had 808 permitted tests involving 17,000 acres.

There is no accurate count of how often genetically modified crops are being used commercially in New York, the environmental groups said.

A professor emeritus of agronomy at Cornell, William Pardee, has estimated that about 5 percent of the state's corn acreage was planted with genetically modified corn in 2000, mostly in western New York, and virtually all of it was used to feed livestock. About 70 percent of the state's soy crop planted last year involved genetically engineered strains, Pardee said, again grown for livestock consumption.

Pardee said genetically modified crops grown for human consumption in the state last year was "essentially zero." But he said the plantings with such crops have steadily increased in New York over the past five years as more and more of the crops are being produced commercially by Monsanto, DuPont and other companies.

Scientists say the aim of genetic modification is to produce stronger and more productive crops. But critics say the process can run amok by the intentional or unintentional creation of crops like "super weeds" that are resistant to herbicides.

The environmental groups allege that New York is no better prepared than other states or the federal government to screen these crops and guarantee they are safe. Audrey Thier of Environmental Advocates likened the screening system to a "sieve."

Mark Dunlea, a leader of the state Green Party, said a moratorium on new plantings in New York also makes sense to protect the health of the state's agriculture industry. He noted that many foreign companies will not accept genetically engineered products, including Europe and Japan.

The moratorium bill, sponsored in the state Assembly by Albany Democrat Jack McEneny and in the Senate by Suffolk County Republican Kenneth LaValle, has not advanced past the agriculture committees in either chamber.