[Fwd: Great editorial from the Denver Post]
Jasmine Sailing
-------- Original Message --------
***From: The Campaign: infor...@thecampaign.org
Dear Health Freedom Fighters,
Sunday's Denver Post had an excellent editorial that called for
mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.
The editorial also referenced a lengthy article that appeared in the
same paper a week earlier.
Posted below is the Denver Post editorial and the previous in-depth
article.
Craig Winters
Executive Director
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
The Campaign
PO Box 55699
Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049
Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: mailto:la...@thecampaign.org
Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org
Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign
for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass
legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered
foods in the United States."
***************************************************************
Editorial
Tighten biotech food rules
By Denver Post Editorial Board
Sunday, June 03, 2001 - Consumers have a right to know what they're
eating. Indeed, free markets work well only when informed consumers make
intelligent decisions about what products to buy or reject.
But many American consumers still don't know that 60 percent of
processed foods on our grocery shelves today contain genetically
modified substances. That lack of information not only leaves consumers
unable to make proper decisions but also undermines the food industry's
credibility.
Promises and concerns about genetically engineered foods were described
last week by Denver Post reporters Ann Schrader and Steve Raabe.
Genetically modified foods should not be banned, because they can offer
benefits, such as a new strain of rice containing extra protein.
But rules governing the labeling, marketing and liability of biotech
foods should be strengthened.
European consumers get crucial information because genetically modified
products are labeled. American companies that do business in the
European Union have had to comply with the strict disclosure rules. But
these same agri-businesses don't give similar information to consumers
in the United States. Why not?
There's really no excuse for their two-sided policy. Even if food
companies fear that some consumers won't buy their products if they know
what's in them, that very possibility highlights why disclosure is
important. Far from reassuring consumers, the dearth of information
makes it look like food companies have something to hide.
Legislation to require that genetically engineered foods be labeled as
such has been considered in Congress and 17 states, including Colorado.
So far, though, agri-businesses have managed to nix the proposals.
Normally, consumer protection should be Congress' job, but sometimes
states need to take the lead to compel changes at the national level. If
Congress doesn't act soon, then states like Colorado should start to
look at their own measures.
The lack of disclosure also undermines the industry's claims that
genetically modified foods pose no health risks. The companies say no
data indicate that anyone has been harmed. But if consumers aren't aware
of what they're eating, there is no way that they, their physicians or
public health experts could easily track unexplained illnesses or
allergic reactions. Disclosure and full labeling of products thus is
crucial to adequately protect certain at-risk groups, especially people
with severe food allergies.
In addition, critics fear that genetically modified organisms could
escape into the broader environment and cause unpredictable harm. The
biotech industry says that concern is exaggerated. But if the industry
is that sure of itself, then it should accept full financial
responsibility if any damage does occur.
***************************************************************
Biotech menu serves up conflict
Engineering benefits, risks confront public
By Ann Schraderand Steve Raabe
Denver Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 27, 2001 - Bethann Hubbard's biggest grocery-shopping
question used to be whether generic products offered a better value than
name brands for her family of four.
Then last year, StarLink, a strain of laboratory-engineered corn
approved only for animal feed, leaked into the human food supply.
Suddenly, Hubbard and others began to worry and wonder about something
that most Americans had barely noticed before: genetically engineered
foods.
Now the issue polarizes opinions about benefits and risks.
Foes call the products "Frankenfoods," which they say endanger human
health and the environment. They worry that genetically engineered foods
are an inadequately tested and regulated experiment that could create
"superweeds" and "superbugs" and reduce biological plant diversity.
What some fear most is the unknown.
"We have stepped into an area that we don't understand," said Suzanne
Wuerthele, a regional toxicologist with the Environmental Protection
Agency who specializes in pesticides and consults on genetic engineering
issues with the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club.
Supporters say fiddling with the genes of plants increases farmers'
yields, even offering a way to fight world hunger, while reducing
pesticide use. They envision so-called GE foods delivering nutrients,
vitamins and even vaccines.
While there are unknowns, advocates say the new crops are monitored and
there have been no documented cases of someone being harmed by GE food.
"People have been watching too many B movies," said June Medford, a
Colorado State University biologist who has published numerous
scientific papers on her plant-genetics research. "This is not the
attack of the killer tomatoes."
In Colorado, GE food increasingly is attracting attention in kitchens
and grocery aisles, on farms, in the political realm and, possibly, on
Denver's ballot this year.
"I read about those taco shells they had to recall, and that worried me
a little," Hubbard said, rolling a shopping cart through an east Denver
Safeway parking lot.
"I've heard that this food engineering can do some good things, but
there are some concerns also. I'm not sure if I'd buy them or not."
Chances are, however, that her grocery bags - and yours - already are
filled with GE foods.
About 60 percent of processed foods on grocery shelves contain
genetically engineered ingredients, experts say.
Many consumers may not know it, but it's likely that products they buy
containing corn, canola and soy come from seeds that have genes inserted
to change their characteristics. The engineered genes are widespread in
items such as baking mixes, soft drinks, cereals, soups, cooking oils,
salad dressings, juices, canned foods, crackers, snacks and baby food.
GE foes in Denver seek ballot initiative
Engineered traits also have popped up where they're not supposed to be.
In the case of StarLink, farmers and others couldn't keep the GE corn
segregated. Organic farmers and others who don't want to grow GE crops
say pollen from biotech crops could blow onto their fields. Testing has
discovered genetically engineered organisms in many products, including
some labeled as being GE-free.
Genetically engineered plants first were grown in test fields 15 years
ago and have been on most Americans' tables for six years.
Petitions to ban the sale or distribution of GE foods on school property
in Denver will soon be popping up. By summer's end, backers hope to
gather the required 2,500 valid signatures needed to get the initiative
on the November ballot.
Debate over genetically engineered foods has been heightened by fears in
Europe. Skeptics there said they were concerned the safety of GE foods
had not been adequately proved. This was before health concerns were
heightened by the recent outbreaks of mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth
disease, events unrelated to genetic engineering.
In one sense, all crops have been genetically altered. They've been bred
and crossbred, both deliberately by humans and by the vagaries of
pollination.
What's new is the technological breakthrough that lets researchers
create new strains by inserting a gene from another organism - a
bacterium, a plant or an animal - into a plant's genetic blueprint.
The idea is to transfer a trait or characteristic, such as taking a
common soil bacterium's ability to kill insects and incorporating that
into a crop plant's genetic makeup.
Cotton, tobacco, potatoes, corn and soybeans are among the crops
transformed through designer genes to battle pests, disease and weeds.
Wheat has been altered to withstand drought and strawberries changed to
weather frost. Still other tests aim to bolster plant nutrition, deliver
vaccines, slow spoilage and lower fat and cholesterol.
The ability to design new living organisms has created a brave new world
of science, ethics, politics, sociology and economics.
"The genie is clearly out of the bottle," said Boulder County
Commissioner Paul Danish after the commission unanimously declined in
January to ban GE crops on 40 to 60 acres of county open space leased to
farmers.
The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy announced in
January that genetically engineered crops accounted for 54 percent of
the nation's acreage devoted to soybeans, 19 percent of corn and 2
percent to 3 percent of the potato crop.
In Colorado, a small portion of corn, potato and sugar beet crops are
being grown with GE seed, say state officials, who do not track the
exact amount. Biotech research is focusing on several other vegetables,
fruits and grains. GE wheat, for example, may be available commercially
in two to four years.
"You could conclude that just about all crops have transgenic breeding
underway," said Jim Quick, a CSU crop researcher.
Does that pose a health risk?
Proponents say no, noting that not one case of illness has been linked
with GE foods. They also note the plants and foods are regulated by the
EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration.
"This is not some kind of witchcraft. This is harnessing nature," said
CSU's Quick. "I look at it as a genetic opportunity rather than a
genetic risk."
Jim Geist, director of the Colorado Corn Growers Association, said the
crops and effects are closely watched by many federal and private
agencies.
But opponents note that with other products, harmful effects took years
to appear.
"The industry told us for 30 years that DDT was safe and that there was
nothing to worry about," said Patrick West, state chairman of the
Colorado Natural Law Party, which supports, among other things, organic
agricultural practices and mandatory labeling of GE foods. West also
heads the Consumer Coalition for Food Labeling.
Some experts, including CSU's Medford, see genetic engineering as a
solution to issues as sweeping as hunger by boosting productivity. By
2025, she said, with a projected world population of 9 billion people,
"we could have two options: mass starvation or another doubling of food
production."
As in any new scientific endeavor, there are some risks, "but I think
they are pretty minimal," said Medford, whose research concentrates on
Arabidopsis, a small noncommercial plant that is a relative of wild
mustard. She blames fears on ignorance or elitism.
"Do we do it safely and carefully? I think we do."
'Why aren't they feeding the world already?'
But others aren't convinced.
"Why aren't they feeding the world already?" said Sister Dorothy Mary
Bauer, a member of the Sisters of Loretto religious order based in
Denver and part of a group of environmental activists called the Loretto
Earth Network.
Bauer objects to GE crops on many fronts and says that because they are
more expensive to purchase, they "make it difficult for farmers in
developing countries."
There's a similar division of opinion over whether GE crops help the
environment by reducing the need for pesticides.
Genetic engineering has cut pesticide use by 3.5 million pounds each
year, according to Syngenta Group Co., a producer of genetically
engineered seed.
Chemical giant Monsanto, for example, developed Roundup Ready plants,
which are bred to withstand the weed-killer Roundup.
Roundup-resistant plants reduce herbicide use because a farmer can spray
the herbicide on the field shortly after the crop has emerged, killing
off all the weeds. Roundup, generically called glyphosate, is considered
less toxic than most herbicides and breaks down quickly.
The alternative is to spray more toxic herbicides that kill specific
weeds several times throughout a growing season, supporters of genetic
engineering say.
But foes worry that use of Roundup Ready crops will create "superweeds"
that acquire the ability to resist herbicides and spread with impunity.
Or that insects could become "superbugs" by learning to adapt to
pest-resistant plants.
Where does all this leave consumers?
Wary and feeling uninformed about GE foods, according to several
national surveys.
Those responding to a May 2000 FDA questionnaire were surprised, and
some were even outraged, when they learned how many foods contain GE
ingredients.
The same questionnaire revealed consumers overwhelmingly support labels
disclosing which products have GE ingredients. But they disliked labels
that said: "Caution: This food contains GE ingredients."
Proposals to label GE products, such as is required in the European
Union, have been introduced in Congress and 17 states, including
Colorado. A labeling bill by state Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, was shelved
in February.
State Agriculture Commissioner Don Ament contends labeling would cast "a
cloud" on crops that have been certified by federal agencies.
"We produce the healthiest foods in the world," Ament said. "What we
really want to do here is not to spread hysteria about all of these
"Frankenfoods.'"
But things have gone wrong, despite monitoring by various regulatory
agencies.
The best-known example is StarLink corn.
Engineered to repel insects called European corn borers, StarLink corn
has not been approved for human consumption out of concern it could
cause allergic reactions.
In September, StarLink corn popped up on U.S. grocery shelves in taco
shells made by Kraft Foods.
This year on March 8, lab tests found meat-free corn dogs made under
Kellogg's Morningstar Farms label - a brand aimed at health-conscious
consumers - contained StarLink.
And a month later, StarLink corn seed was found mixed with seed
scheduled for planting this spring.
Another fear is that GE foods could increase bacterial resistance to
antibiotics, already a growing problem, since antibiotics have been used
to test where a plant gene has been transferred.
'Transferring genes should be carefully examined'
The FDA has given two Colorado State University plant scientists, Pat
Byrne and Sarah Ward, a half-million dollars to educate the public about
GE crops. Building on their team-taught class on genetically engineered
plants, the two self-described "neutral experts" have a Web site with
verified information.
"Many of us see benefits to this technology," Byrne said, "but we also
think that the risks of transferring genes between species should be
carefully examined on a case-by-case basis."
On the business side, some experts see a potential for GE crops to fetch
lower prices than "natural" food, for which consumers might be willing
to pay more. A more likely obstacle is loss of export markets for
biotech crops.
For Colorado farmers, that raises questions about whether to plant crops
that produce lower yields with high risk from insects and weather, or
engineered crops that may be tougher to market.
The debate takes on more sweeping dimensions as well.
"These are spiritual, religious objections, such as we should never play
God, that it's tinkering with nature and we shouldn't cross species
boundaries," said Gary Comstock, an ethicist at Iowa State University,
who once opposed biotech crops.
Comstock said he became a "cautious champion" of GE crops after finding
no logic in opponents' arguments that humans shouldn't tamper with
genes.
Still, Comstock said, with new technology "we need to be vigilant. We
need to hold our regulators' feet to the fire."
Wuerthele, the EPA toxicologist, sees the same grand dimensions to the
issue but comes away far more concerned.
"As we release these things in the United States - this country is
really gung ho - we find out about problems after they're released,"
said Wuerthele, whose agency is neutral on biotech plants but has
approved her Sierra Club work.
"We do it and learn by our mistakes. That's OK, as long as your mistakes
are small and reversible and don't create huge problems. But if you get
a mistake that is serious, then you've done something that has opened
Pandora's box."
For consumers such as grocery shopper Bethann Hubbard, genetic
engineering holds the promise of better foods. But the issue is also
tinged with concern.
"I have a few worries from some of the things I've heard." she said.
"But basically I just want to do what's best for my family.
"If they can show me there are benefits, then I'll listen."
<<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>>