On GE Food
by Mischa Gelman

(published 11/22/99)

  Our food has undergone major changes in recent years. Genes are being
implanted into corn, potatoes and other products from bacteria, animals
and other plants. 35% of the corn in the country is now genetically
engineered (GE), along with 55% of soybeans and over 50 million acres of
total crops. While there are some major public health and scientific
matters to be taken into account, the major GE companies are overlooking
these concerns by claiming their products are no different than
traditional potatoes or soy. Some research shows this claim to be invalid.
In one test, soybeans with brazil nut genes inserted caused allergic
reactions in subjects allergic to brazil nuts. In another study, 44% of
monarch butterflies exposed to Bt corn (corn with a gene from a toxin
engineered into it) died. These obviously aren't normal soybeans and ears
of corn, regardless of the claims by the biotech folks. 
  While the GE industry claims the products are nothing new or different
in attempting to quell concerns, they make counterclaims as well. When
seeking patents the same corporations boast about the novel and innovative
products they're producing. People talking out of both sides of their
mouth are not to be trusted, as they always are lying out of one side.
  Deception is nothing new for many of the businesses involved in GE.
Monsanto, the major promoter of GE, has a known history of fraud and
immoral behavior - this is the same company that has pedalled PCBs,
aspartame and Agent Orange as not problematic. One Florida Fox-TV station
killed a piece on Monsanto and then offered $151,250 to the two reporters
who hadput together the story to remain quiet about it, an episode reeking
of blackmail. Are we trust a company like Monsanto when they assert their
products are safe without great empirical support?
  In addition to the lies, the GE companies are doing a fine job of
ignoring public opinion on the topic. In a Time Magazine poll, 81% of
Americans wanted genetically engineered food labeled. A large grassroots
organization has formed in response to worries about these products,
despite the scarcity of news on the risks. Countries around the world call
for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food. With the American
public strongly behind it and other countries acting, the US has lagged
behind - a large part of the sluggish pace a result of close ties between
biotech companies and the FDA, EPA and Clinton administration. Rep. Dennis
Kucinich (D-Ohio) is now bringing forward legislation tor equire labeling,
giving consumers information on what they're buying. This attempt to let
consumers chjoose what to eat surprisingly faces a challenge, given the
association between GE corporations and the federal government. The reason
GE companeis don't support labelling is because folks don't want unnatural
food. When the FlavrSavr Tomato premiered, the public rejected it. The
industry learned its lesson and now doesn't let us know what we're eating. 
  The rigid stance of the US government on this issue is already hurting
trade. The US is losing the European corn market to Brazil and France, a
loss of 200 million dollars for US sellers. Across the border, Canada is
losing the canola market to Australia, which can ensure untampered food.
The European Union has called for a 3-year moratorium on GE food. It is
obviously not in our economic interests to keep pushing this stuff. 
  Some groups try to pass of genetic engineering as a precise science in a
response to criticism. This is most heartily not the case. Ken Kasha of
the University of Guelph, a major biotech supporter, said, "Once [the
transplanted gene]'s in the cells we don't know exactly how it works. Mike
McGuire of GE company DeKalb Canada admitted, "It's not a very exact
science," the opposite of what you hear in some industry reports to the
media. Molecular biologist Mae-Wan Ho also rejects the claims of precision
and similarity to traditional foods. Her finding is that "single gene
transfers have inevitably led to 'unexpected changes' in the recipient
organism." Other scientific types express reservations - the
British Medial Association wants an immediate moratorium until more
research is done on the effects of GE foods on human health.
  Perhaps all this opposition from science, governments and the public is
amounting to something. Many GE companies are struggling financially.
Europe's largest bank has encouraged investors to sell shares of GE
companies due to the public opposition. A manager for Cigna Itl. has told
insurance companies to think twice before issuing policies for biotech
firms due to the potential hazards involved with playing G-d. Gerber's
baby food has dropped suppliers who use GE and ADM no longer accepts GE
corn for export.
  Some think industry will try using the World Trade Organization to fight
these laws. To voice opposition to the WTO, Prof. Dennis Brutus is leading
a presentation at the William Pitt Union lawn on Novemeber 30th at noon.
  For information on how to let legislators know you support consumer
choice, go to http://www.thecampaign.org

Mischa Gelman also would like his money to go to farmers rather than
chemical corporations.