View Part I of II

Supporters of genetically engineered (GE) food say it offers massive benefits in terms of increased yields and nutritional value (see Do You Know What You're Eating? Part I). But critics say scientists are toying with nature and have opened a Pandora's box of genetically enhanced super-weeds and health threats. Adding injury to insult, the U.S. government has sided with GE food companies and biotech firms, in refusing to establish safeguards that prevent unknown GE products from being eaten by millions of unsuspecting consumers.

On October 7, 2002, FDA deputy commissioner Lester Crawford sent a letter to Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber opposing Measure 27, which would have required labeling of GE foods in that state. The letter warned him that the state of Oregon could be interfering with national food producers and that the measure "would impermissibly interfere with manufacturers' ability to market their products on a nationwide basis."

Jonathan Adler, a professor of environmental and constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, commented that "The FDA statement appears to allude to the commerce clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from impeding the flow of interstate commerce." (USA Today)

The same USA Today article reported that, "Food suppliers and processors argue that if they lose in Oregon, they'll face unjust suspicion from consumers that the foods aren't safe and the prospect of labeling laws in other states."

Critics of the measure also said that labeling is expensive and would force one label for Oregon foods and a different one elsewhere. But backers of the measure said that consumers should be able to make informed choices.

Measure 27 received a lot of media coverage nationwide, which was great for efforts to pass federal labeling legislation in the U.S. Congress.  However, the measure was defeated in Oregon's November, 2002 general election.

Heinz labels GE product sold to Australia

Greenpeace issued a press release after it received the label of a Heinz product sold in Australia, on which four ingredients are listed as "genetically modified." The product, Michelina`s brand Macaroni and Beef, is made in the U.S. for Heinz by Duluth, Minnesota-based Luigino's, Inc.

Australia and New Zealand began requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods in December, 2001. Greenpeace revealed the label to demonstrate that identifying and labeling GE ingredients for food produced in the U.S. is possible at no increased cost to consumers.

"Everyone in Oregon should get a chance to see this label," said Greenpeace spokesperson Lindsay Keenan. "When a major company like Heinz can label all the GE ingredients, ship the product all the way to Australia, and still make a profit selling it, then you have to wonder why labeling opponents say this is not possible for Oregon."

"This label makes a liar of anyone who says GE labeling can't be done in the U.S.," said Keenan. "Greenpeace calls upon the GMA [Grocery Manufacturers Association] to come clean and admit that GE labeling is feasible and is already happening, at no extra cost to consumers. The people of Oregon have the right to know that food companies are already labeling their GE products, without making consumers pay more for safe food."

H.J. Heinz is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which has been actively opposing labeling legislation, including Measure 27 in Oregon, saying labeling will be too costly. But, according to Greenpeace, prices have not gone up in Australia or in other countries where labeling is required.¹

GE labeling required in Europe

The European Union and the United States, already locked in trade conflicts over steel, beef and a multi-billion dollar U.S. business tax break program, have something else to argue about.

In July, 2002, the European Commission proposed new rules that all products made from engineered material have to bear a label saying they contain "genetically modified organisms"(GMOs).

They also require producers to document the source of all their ingredients. Since the U.S. crop-handling system usually does not separate modified and conventional crops, the new requirements put a tremendous burden on the U.S. agriculture and food industry.

On August 26, 2002, The Washington Post reported that senior Bush administration officials responded by pressuring the European Union to abandon the new restrictions, which, they said:

• obstruct free trade
• could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year
• could disrupt efforts to launch a new round of global trade talks.

According to The Washington Post, Europe was already banning most U.S. corn for food products, which results in about a $300 million annual loss for the U.S. The new requirements, which required approval by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers before taking effect, could also make it difficult for the U.S. to export corn for animal feed and soybeans.

But despite the reports that the U.S. government believes the new rules break international trade laws, European Commission spokeswoman Beate Gminder defended the decision.

"We believe it is a good law which is a solid base for fostering acceptance and consumer confidence in genetically modified products." (Reuters, August 27, 02)

FDA issues warning to natural foods companies about non-GMO labels

Korea's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry requires those who fail to notify customers of genetically modified agricultural products be fined or sent to jail. Experts and consumers around the world want clear labeling to distinguish GM-free products from products derived from genetically modified material.

Does it make any sense, then, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned six natural foods manufacturers to change their labels that advertise products as not containing genetically engineered ingredients? Does it all come down to the FDA backing the big business mentality and protecting bio-tech firms that stand to cash in on an experiment that may have dire effects for generations to come?

Ken Roseboro, publisher of a monthly newsletter, "The Non-GMO Source," reported in Natural Foods Merchandiser (March, 02) that "the FDA objected to the term 'genetically modified organisms,' saying that most cultivated crops have been genetically modified through the use of technologies other than biotechnology, and that most foods do not contain organisms."

The FDA sent letters to B & G Foods, Inc., Hain Celestial Group, Healthy Times, Spectrum Organic Products, U.S. Mills Inc., and Van's International Foods, and objected to their using acronyms such as "Non-GMO," No GMO," or "GMO-free."

The FDA also expressed concern that several labels implied that products were superior because they did not contain GE ingredients. (NFM, March, 02)

But the truth is, these products are superior. For example, Spectrum Organic Products Inc. works so hard to ensure the food it sells is free from genetically modified organisms that it sends employees as far as France to purchase corn oil guaranteed to be untainted by biotechnology.

Unfortunately, even though all six companies disagreed with the FDA's complaints, they plan to either change or remove their labels, rather than engage in a legal battle with the FDA.

It'll be interesting to see what develops down the road, especially in light of the USDA organic label that started appearing October 21, 2002. The USDA standards will at least, for the time being, assure consumers that if food is labeled 100 percent organic, that it's free of pesticides or genetically modified ingredients.

Be a savvy consumer

Here's how to read the new USDA organic label, which has four main categories:

• 100 percent organic: For products that contain 100 percent organically produced ingredients, not counting water and salt. Must list ingredients when there are more than one. Must name the certifying agent. This category guarantees, to the full knowledge of growers, producers and certifying agents, that there are no GMOs in any of the ingredients.
• Organic: For products that are at least 95 percent organic. Cannot contain added sulfites. Must list ingredients. Must name the certifying agent.
• Made with organic ingredients: Must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. Can't show the green USDA seal. Cannot have added sulfites, except in the case of wine that follows a set regulatory procedure. Must list the ingredients, and list the certifying agent.
• Containing some organic ingredients: Products can contain less than 70 percent organic ingredients. Must list the ingredients, and show the percentage.

What do the FDA scientists really think?

Numerous distinguished scientists view the genetic restructuring of food as a threat to both human and environmental health. In fact, in 1999, after the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, an Iowa City-based group hoping to reverse the FDA's approval of GMOs, filed a lawsuit against the FDA, the nonprofit organization received 44,000 pages of government documents. Some of those documents clearly show that there were vigorous internal disagreements among FDA scientists who specifically cautioned that GMOs were not the same as regular foods.² This contradicts the FDA's public claim that GMOs face no scientific objections and can be considered "generally recognized as safe."

Steven Druker, lawyer for the anti-GMO group, said "agency experts protested that [the agency was] ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens. What's significant here is that these are admissions from the FDA's own scientists in their own words."

Drucker, who lost the suit against the FDA, continues,

"These files clearly reveal that the FDA's scientific experts conducted a comprehensive review of GE foods and overwhelmingly concluded that the process of genetic engineering is inherently hazardous and that every new food it produces entails a unique set of health risks. They warned that no GE food could be considered safe unless it has been conclusively demonstrated to be so through extensive testing that includes toxicological feeding studies using the whole food.

"However, the FDA's politically appointed administrators—operating under a White House directive 'to foster' the biotechnology industry:

• covered up these warnings,
• professed themselves 'not aware of any information' showing that GE foods differ from others,
• and allowed GE foods to be marketed without any testing by claiming there is an overwhelming consensus among experts they are safe." ³

The battle rages on

Consumer interest groups and independent scientists and lay people continue to file lawsuits against the FDA and United States government in the attempt to at least get testing measures of GMOs in place.

We have a long battle ahead of us, if we want the assurance that our food— and the food that our grandchildren will be eating—is safe. There's plenty for all of us to do.

What can you do?

More consumer pressure on US companies is needed. Action in your community targeting food companies or supermarkets can have an impact beyond your town. Together with others working around the world, you can bring about changes in company policies.

Your action can also affect government regulations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) received nearly 300,000 comments on their proposal allowing genetic engineering in organic food, and was forced to withdraw that idea. ⁴

• To take action, contact your state representatives, senators, food manufacturers and local grocery stores. Let them know that you want to know exactly what is in the food you're eating, and that you want labels on all GE foods and food products.
• Below are a few samples of letters that you may edit or use as they are, according to your needs.

In the mean time, to protect yourself against possible DNA damage from GE foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), take a powerful antioxidant nutritional supplement.

Good luck!

Sample letters

Letter to state senator and representative

Dear Honorable (name here)

I believe that genetically engineered food poses a threat to the wellbeing of my family's health and the health of the world's population and environment. These foods, which have not been adequately tested, are increasingly difficult to avoid, both because of cross-pollination, and because of the FDA's refusal to approve labeling that allows us to know exactly what we're eating.

This is after all, the United States. We're allowed freedom of speech. What about freedom to choose the foods we eat with full knowledge of what they contain, and guarantees that they are safe?

I implore you to work on initiatives to ensure the safety of all food consumed by the American people and the world's population, by thorough testing of GMOs and GE food products, and by putting into place a "full-disclosure" labeling policy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Your name

Letter to local grocery store

H-E-Butt Grocery Co.

Attn: Customer Relations

P.O. Box 839999

San Antonio, TX 78283-3999

Dear HEB:

I am concerned that genetically engineered food products are being sold in your stores. If I had a choice, I would avoid eating them and feeding them to my family. Unfortunately these foods are not required to be labeled, so I have no way to avoid them.

I believe genetically engineered crops that are altered with viral, bacterial and antibiotic resistant genes pose significant human health and environmental risks. These foods, which have not been adequately tested, are increasingly difficult to avoid because of genetic contamination through cross-pollination or improper handling. If it becomes impossible to guarantee GE-free products, these crops should be phased out of agricultural production. The genetic integrity of the food supply and the consumers' right-to-choose must be protected.

I am counting on HEB to commit to introducing GE-free products in their brand name items (HEB and Hill Country Fare labels) and expanding the variety of organically produced products. Please fight for the preservation of the genetic identity of our food.

Sincerely,

Your name

Letter to Kraft Foods

Ms. Betsy Holden

President and CEO

Kraft Foods North America

3 Lakes Drive

Northfield, IL 60093

Dear Ms. Holden:

I recently discovered that many Kraft products contain genetically engineered ingredients, and I am concerned about the risks they pose to my family's health and our environment.

Genetically engineered foods are unregulated and untested, putting our health and the environment at risk. Mounting scientific evidence suggests that GE foods may cause health and environmental hazards such as new allergic reactions, new toxins, and the use of more dangerous pesticides.

I want Kraft to be a leader in corporate responsibility and work to prevent these threats to its customers by phasing out the use of all genetically engineered ingredients until adequate testing, labeling, and liability are in place. Kraft has stopped using genetically engineered ingredients in its European products, and your customers are demanding the same quality of food here.

Please provide me with a written guarantee that your products do not contain genetically engineered ingredients or I will purchase other brands that can provide this guarantee.

I look forward to Kraft's commitment to safeguarding my health and the environment we all care for.

Sincerely,

Your name

Important contacts and interest groups:

• U.S. Dept. of Agriculture: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/
• U.S. House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov
• U.S. Senate: http://www.senate.gov
• The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods http://www.thecampaign.org
• Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.org/safefood
• Greenpeace USA http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/ge
• Organic Consumers Association http://www.purefood.org
• Foundation on Economic Trends http://www.foet.org/
• Center for Food Safety http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org 

References