Satya June 19, 2002

 

You Say "Tomato," I Say "Technology" By Tracy VanStaalduinen

There used to be a time when milk came from cows who were allowed to� produce milk naturally. Instead, cows today are often dosed with� recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and made to produce up to� three times their natural milk yield. Meat once cost a pretty penny� because it didn't come from the factory farms that we have today,� which churn out as much beef as possible to make it cheap and� available to the masses. (Ronald McDonald loves to see you smile,� remember.) Now, thanks to the agri-biotech industry, future� generations may look back on the 1990s and think of a time when crops� grew naturally; when corn was corn and soy was soy.

Today, the majority of crops are grown from natural seed, but at� least 25 percent (a total of over 88 million acres in 2001) of� soybeans, cotton, corn, and canola grown in the U.S. consist of� genetically altered plants; plants that are grown with a foreign gene� inserted or an undesirable gene deactivated. Squash and tomatoes-like� 1994's "FlavrSavr" tomato, the first genetically modified (GM) food� to appear (and subsequently flop) in America's produce aisles-have� been experimented with, and GM alfalfa, lettuce, cabbage and broccoli� are on the horizon.

Genetic modification is different from traditional crossbreeding.� Crossbreeding takes two of the same or very similar species and� combines them to enhance ideal traits (for example, making fruit grow� faster or taste sweeter). Genetic alteration may cross two unrelated� species like cabbage and scorpions. In that instance, the gene that� gives the scorpion its poisonous tail was inserted into cabbage DNA,� whereby they could produce their own poison to kill caterpillars.

While genetic engineering (GE) is purported to increase crop yields� and reduce pesticide use, it has also been widely criticized as� giving less than a dozen corporations-like Monsanto, Aventis, and� DuPont-too much power over the food supply. Patented seeds can be� programmed to not reproduce or to depend on other products from a� given corporation for survival. Organic farmers have also protested� the proliferation of GE crops because cross-pollination can� contaminate their own crops-intended to be grown naturally-with GE� characteristics.

Resistance to genetically modified food has been active just about� everywhere outside the U.S. since the early `90s. Australia, China,� New Zealand, Russia and all 15 countries of the European Union now� require all foods containing GM ingredients to be labeled. Algeria,� Brazil, India and Sri Lanka have prohibited GE foods altogether. But� as with milk and rBGH, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the� Food and Drug Administration do not require foods containing GM� ingredients to be labeled as such; they suggest that food companies� label products, but do not require that phrases like "genetically� modified" or "genetically modified organism" (or even� just "modified") be used in doing so.

At the same time, the government and the food industry have listed� many potential benefits that can come from genetic engineering:� allergen-carrying genes can be "turned off;" crops can produce their� own pesticides if given the right genes; vitamins can be added to� foods that naturally lack them. But activists have a different view.

"Genetic engineering is just another way to take life and sell it as� a commodity," says Andy Zimmerman, an activist with the New York� State Greens. "It's just that much more power to give us bad food for� cheap."

As an example, Zimmerman cites the idea entertained by some� scientists of non-browning fruit. Naturally, fruit develops bruises� in damaged areas, and people are less inclined to buy bruised fruit.� Zimmerman says GE fruit could have certain genes turned off, allowing� its skin to remain healthy-looking and spotless, while inside,� bruising and rotting could be taking place. Its shelf life would be� extended, increasing its potential profit.

"They're not on the market yet, but it's the kind of thing that� impinges on your rights as a consumer," Zimmerman said. Howard Brandstein, director of Save Organic Standards Food, a non- profit New York City group focusing on agricultural issues,� agrees. "Their aim is really a commercial one. They might try to glom� on some health benefits, but you'd have to eat 15 pounds a day to� reap the benefits," he says, referring to the vitamin A- enriched "Golden Rice" that was developed in the late 1990s. The rice� (slightly yellow because of the insertion of daffodil genes) is� supposed to supplement the nutritional intake of millions of Asians,� whose diets are based on the vitamin-deficient grain.

"Instead of encouraging a wide variety in diets, they focus on� improving one crop," Brandstein says. "It's just patently absurd, and� you have to deconstruct the logic of corporate agriculture."

Golden rice is currently in development at the International Rice� Research Institute in Manila, the Philippines, where scientists say� it will undergo field testing over the next five years.

The reluctance to label food stems from the industry's belief that� labeling would be seen as a stigma, and stigmata are not good for� sales. As Norman Braskick has said, "If you put a label on a� genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and� crossbones on it." Braskick is the president of Asgrow, a Monsanto- owned seed company.

The FDA's requirements are that GM foods should be labeled if their� nutritional content differs greatly from their naturally produced� counterparts; if they have an increased amount of allergens or� toxins; or if they are `novel' foods. Novel foods apparently would� not include scorpion cabbage, daffodil rice, or strawberries bred� with flounder DNA, though you can certainly rate their novelty by the� unpleasant faces people will make if you mention any of the above� combinations. All of these are things that have been experimented� with but are not currently on the market.

Public Labors for Labeling

Slowly but surely, the campaign to label GE foods is spreading across� America. Labelthis.org is a tremendously informative resource for� anyone willing to take the initiative. If the food industry, with the� government securely in its back pocket, says there will be only� voluntary labeling, then labelthis.org says, "Let's build a network� of volunteer labelers to inform our fellow citizens!"

The site is just that-a Web site, not an organization. It is a self- described "resource for citizens taking peaceful action to remedy the� fact that genetically engineered ingredients are in our foods� unlabelled, untested and without our consent." The site was designed� on behalf of several groups working to eliminate GE foods from� American stores, among them the Genetic Engineering Action Network, North-West Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, and Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has its own site on the topic (www.truefoodnow.org), which� includes its staggeringly comprehensive "True Food" list. From baby� food and baking supplies to heat-and-serve meals and energy bars, the� True Food list shows foods that have been proven to contain GE� ingredients and lists GE-free alternatives. The site is also a good� starting point for people to take action via petitions and letter- writing.

Valerie Suzdak, an environmental studies major at Long Island� University's Southampton College, has used the True Food list for the� voluntary labeling campaigns she has organized in some of� Southampton's grocery stores, including King Kullen, Waldbaums and� IGA. Suzdak says her labeling efforts are not as organized as� labelthis.org suggests they should be, but they have been effective,� at least in getting people to think about the issue, if not in� getting those stores to stop stocking GM foods altogether. With a small group of activists, Suzdak has more than once set about� placing labels on GE foods, mostly focusing on products made by� Kellogg's, Del Monte and Kraft. (The labels are easily removable,� which prevents labeling from being straight-out vandalism.) While the� labelers are at it, others hand out pamphlets and talk to shoppers� before they enter the store.

"For me it's such a big issue because it's what we're eating," Suzdak� said. "We need to eat food to live, and we need good food in order to� be healthy."

Zimmerman, the Greens activist, focused on a Trader Joe's outlet in� Boston last year as part of a nationwide campaign to raise� consciousness about the use of GM ingredients, and ultimately to get� them removed from the shelves.

"They have a health-conscious image, but [sell] GE foods in reality,"� Zimmerman said of the nationwide chain.

That particular Boston store agreed to stock non-GM foods, but only� after several visits from Zimmerman and a handful of other activists.� When meetings with the manager initially failed to get results, they� went shopping. After filling their carts, they wheeled them up to the� registers and announced to the other customers that all of the� products in their carts were made with genetically modified� ingredients, present without consumers' knowledge or consent. The� manager removed them from the store only to find that activists had� also hung a banner outside, attesting, in large print, to the same.

Trader Joe's issued a statement in November 2001 recognizing� consumers' concerns over the issue, but also acknowledged that� because of "genetic drift by genetically engineered crops to non- genetically engineered crops...it is not possible for any supplier or� retailer to realistically offer any guarantee that their products� are `GMO-free.'"

In New York City, Save Organic Standards Food has been taking action� similar to Zimmerman's and Suzdak's, though Brandstein, the director,� disavows knowledge of any "labeling." The group's main target is The� Food Emporium, a chain owned by The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea� Company, which also owns stores in Europe. The European stores, due� to popular demand, do not sell GE foods; the American stores do.

"We think that's a double standard and for that reason we've targeted� them," Brandstein says. "I think we need to step up the pressure� because they're not responding. I think the biotech industry thinks� it can ignore consumers, because even though over 90 percent of� consumers say that they want changes, the media and the government� write it off."

Customer service representatives for The Food Emporium did not return� phone calls for comment.

SOS Food has been tabling outside Food Emporiums for the past couple� of years and is organizing a fast to protest GE foods. This June the� group plans to maintain a 24-hour presence outside of the Food� Emporium near Manhattan's Union Square for several days. SOS Food� volunteers will hand out information, talk to people about the� potential dangers of genetic modification, and encourage them to take� action by doing simple things like expressing their concerns to their� store manager and spending the extra money to buy organic food.

Hasta La Vista, Tradition?

The debate over GE food has its similarities to the debate over meat� in that the end product may or may not be immediately dangerous to� the consumer, but the means to the end product can be problematic and� ethically untenable.

Consider the "Terminator" seed, part of something known as Traitor� technology, developed by Monsanto. The company agreed in 1999 not to� put the seed on the market, but still conducts research on similar� products. The seeds have been called "The Neutron Bomb of� Agriculture"-programmed not to reproduce, they simultaneously prevent� bad genes from being handed down and guarantee that farmers will have� to buy new batches of seed annually.

In a March 2002 article posted on CorpWatch (www.corpwatch.org),� Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero writes that it is far from inconceivable that� corporations or governments (or a coalition of the two) would use� such technology to achieve their own ends. Traitor technology would� allow genetic traits to be activated or deactivated, depending on� what "inducer chemical" the organism is given. Therefore, Monsanto� could sell seeds for plants that die unless given constant doses of� its Roundup herbicide. Ruiz-Marrero then asks the important� question, "What, then, will happen to farming and food security?"

Both Zimmerman and Brandstein said that part of the problem with GE� foods is that their effects, not just on the environment, but on� human health, are not yet fully understood. Because people have been� eating foods with GM ingredients for some time now without massive� adverse health effects, it may seem a non-issue when compared to� everything else you could be concerned about today. But by the same� token, compared to cigarette smoking, it could take some time to make� the connection. With cigarettes, it was cancer and heart disease;� with genetic alteration of food, it might not be disease we should be� worried about, but the idea that new species could eventually phase� out the old, and if they did prove to have negative health effects,� what would we be left with?

"GE crops came first, but there's all kinds of scary stuff,"� Zimmerman said, adding that there have been tests for plants to grow� medicine, like a strain of spermicidal corn. There are also GE trees� and fish, and British scientists have bred pigs with human genes to� allow them to grow faster and larger, as well as sheep that produce� milk with a human protein, which reportedly would benefit people with� lung disease.

"Even hungry meat eaters may turn up their noses at humanized pork� chops with their scorpion salad and rubberized tomatoes," says Dr.� Patrick Dixon, author and chairman of Global Change Ltd. But luckily,� those animals being bred with human genes, just like the scorpion� cabbage, are not part of the food supply. Yet.

Now, the Good News.

Particularly active in this issue is The Campaign, a nonprofit� political advocacy group whose founders successfully passed the� Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. The act required� safety provisions to "ensure that safe and appropriately labeled"� dietary supplements be available to consumers. The group later took� up the same issue with food and announced on April 26 that they would� soon be ready to introduce their final draft of the Genetically� Engineered Food Right to Know Act to Congress. Earlier drafts were� submitted in late 1999 and early 2000.

"We are very pleased with the content of this legislation and have� officially endorsed it," the statement said. "When passed into law,� this legislation will require foods that contain genetically� engineered ingredients to be labeled."

In the meantime, scores of GE crops remain. Whether or not labeling� legislation is passed, the potential for organically grown crops to� be infected with GE characteristics still exists and experimentation� with introducing human genes into the food supply is taking the issue� further down the slippery slope. Labeling of GM ingredients would be� a good first step, but consumers should remain vigilant and demand� regulation to ensure that future generations will indeed be able to� eat natural foods.

Tracy VanStaalduinen is a graduate of the State University of New� York at New Paltz and has previously written for both Satya and the� mid-Hudson magazine, the Chronogram.

For a list of genetically modified foods currently on the market, see� the Union of Concerned Scientists' site,� www.ucsusa.org/agriculture/gen.market.html. The Campaign is online at� http://thecampaign.org, and another great resource on all aspects of� genetic engineering is http://special.northernlight.com/gmfoods/#gmo.