Being Fed Lies

By Britt Bailey

By the year 2025, it is estimated that 8.25 billion people will populate our planet. Will there be enough food for all? The looming population increase is of importance to agricultural based corporations that create herbicides, pesticides, and devise seeds for superior yield and disease resistance.

The impending need to produce more food is ostensibly a very "noble" cause, particularly for financial analysts who chart the stock markets and closely watch these chemical companies devise new products to meet the partly real and partly hyped demand for increased food supplies. Economists, along with executives of companies, that make agricultural herbicides, know that as plantings increase so will the production of herbicides . Many large companies are now involved in both the planting and chemical aspects of agriculture. For example, Monsanto Company, a known chemical manufacturer, has recently developed engineered technologies for crop seed. In addition to the latest developments in bioengineered foods, they are buying or controlling seed companies in order to market their new technologies. Biotechnology, in their view, promises farmers greater yields with less crop tillage. Tilling the soil less is considered an environmentally benevolent action which decreases the loss of soil and thus precious habitat damage.

But is the vastly increased productivity seemingly guaranteed by biotechnology really needed? Two fifths of the world's current food production comes from only 17% of land that is irrigated. The issue may not be food production at all. Many developing countries are producing food for export, while the United States dumps much of its subsidized foods. In India for example, wheat grown for export sells for $60 a ton. The wheat sells on the open market for $240 a ton. In the winter when the people of India run out of wheat, they must buy it back at $480 a ton.

According to many experts, including the World Bank, access to food may be at least as great a problem in feeding the world than the amounts of food produced. Nevertheless, much of the rationale behind the United States global leadership in the development of bioengineered food crops comes under the guise of feeding the burgeoning population. Others, notably the United Nations (U.N.) assert is that the world population growth is slowing, and food production is on the rise. The U.N. contends that it is poor resource management which is to blame for much of the world's food woes. Improper and over use of pesticides and poor farming methods are taking a toll on food production with 300 million hectares of farmland worldwide severely degraded, and 1.2 million hectares showing moderate fertility loss . United States based companies, such as Monsanto, AgrEvo, and Dupont, are world leaders in this technological development that will perpetuate further chemical abuse and farmland degradation. In part they encourage poor farming technologies by creating products that rely upon their herbicides. Presently, two thirds of all engineered food crops are being engineered for herbicide tolerance. Current U.S. government regulations are silently supporting this engineering movement, though in Europe there is not such reticence.

Engineered Food Crops and the Public Desire for Labeling:
As an example of these misplaced priorities, many of the new generation of "feed the world" products actually were engineered to have only cosmetic improvements. The first engineered food crops to be introduced into the commercial market were the "McGregor" Flavr-Savr® tomato, created by Calgene. The public was made aware that the Flavr-Savr® gene technology was to be used in commercial tomatoes. The media carried stories about their enhanced ability to stay fresh on the vine due to the introduction of a gene that delayed its ripening capacity. U.S. citizens were skeptical about these engineered tomatoes and they floundered in the marketplace. The company who created the tomato, Calgene Inc., was forthcoming, acknowledging that the tomatoes altered genetics may have led to its failure. In response to the consumer wariness of the Flavr-Savr® tomato, Monsanto, now owner of Calgene Inc., has re-marketed the tomatoes under the name of just "McGregor". Monsanto, when they first began buying interest in Calgene Inc., gave Calgene a company that they owned, Garguilo LP, the largest US tomato grower. When Monsanto completed the buyout of Calgene Inc. in January 1997, they reacquired Garguilo and began production of the "McGregor" and the "Garguilo Farms" tomatoes. These Promethean names do not give the public any hint of their potential accessorized genomes. The lesson learned from the introduction of Flavr-Savr®, as seen through industry eyes, is concealment. If disclosure will cause "irreparable harm," the answer lies in non-disclosure.

The present wave of engineered crops is entering into our food supply in a much more insidious way. Industry has decided to silence the genetic invasion of our food crops by denying any visible identifiers. If there is a label, it is only on the seed bag seen by the farmer under euphemistic names such as; Bollgard®. Endless Summer®, and New Leaf®. This is where the labeling stops. Once the food product has reached the open market, the engineered products have been mixed with their non-engineered family members in large silos. According to one food giant, Pillsbury, the genetically engineered soybeans, in this case, are mixed in when they buy them as commodity. The mixing together of transgenic versus non-engineered food staples virtually guarantees that the end product cannot be labeled. The combined engineered and unengineered products has taken place in spite of a recent industry poll which found that 93% of all respondents deemed labeling necessary . Even though the public appears to want labeling, they may in fact not have that need granted. An recent example where citizen request was disallowed occurred when the people of the state of Vermont voted for labeling of dairy products that contain a growth hormone given to dairy cows. The growth hormone is called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), manufactured by Monsanto Company under the trade name Posilac®. Regardless of the democratic vote voicing the inadequacy of labeling products containing additional hormones, on August 8,. 1996, the US circuit court of appeals ordered Judge Garvan Murtha to issue an injunction to block Vermont's rBGH labeling law after the Dairy Association in cahoots with Monsanto filed a lawsuit under the First Ammendment constitutional right "not to speak." This ordered "right" is continuing to conceal the fact that a rapidly growing amount of our dairy products contain rBGH and 94% of the American public would like labeling of these products . Industry concerns are seemingly overriding the desires of the American public. Interestingly enough, a large majority of the American public is not even aware that their food is being genetically engineered. The lack of cognizance in the U.S. is not entirely the fault of the public. There has been very little media coverage pertaining to the introduction of genetically engineered foods, thus little education. The European public, on the other hand, is very aware of the bioengineering of their food sources. Countries such as Germany and Austria are significantly more aware about biotechnology than the United States.

What's Happening in Europe:
The European Commission has proposed that companies must label products "may contain or may consist of genetically modified organisms." The European community has been very concerned about the absence of labeling of products that are genetically engineered; specifically soybean and maize. In January 1997, the Commission agreed upon definitions for novel food regulations that took effect in May 1997. In the definitions, genetically engineered food products must be labeled and sold separately In addition, the countries, Austria and Luxembourg, have banned the import of genetically engineered maize. The governments of these countries believe that the maize crop engineered by Ciba to contain a pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis, also contains a genetic marker conferring antibiotic resistance which could be transferred to humans or animals. Recently, 20% of the Austrian population, more than 1.2 million people, turned out to sign a petition calling for a ban on genetically modified foods and on patents on genetiacally modified plants and animals. This was the second highest turnout in their history of national petitions, and the highest ever for a grassroots initiative. Denmark decided that all foods containing genetically engineered soybeans must be labeled. In Germany, the Green Party has been diligently working to block engineered food products. Switzerland has passed laws stating that all food products containing genetically engineered soybean must be labeled. In fact, in April 1997, The chocolate maker Kraft-Suchard recalled 500 tons of chocolate after genetically engineered soybeans were detected in the soy lecithin which acts to bind fat and sugar.

The opposition in Europe to anything "genetic" or "contaminated may be due the reminiscence in their recent past of the "Mad Cow Disease" in which 15 cattle were incinerated after they were suspected of carrying transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) that killed a dozen or so people in Europe. The population of Europe has also within the last 60 years witnessed the atrocities at Nuremberg, where scientists and doctors, professionals, were implicated in a court of law and found guilty of human experimentation without proper informed consent. The European general public, therefore, may be more sensitive about the need for disclosure; procuring a right to choose. Labeling in the United States: The United States employs no labeling laws for bioengineered food products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in May, 1992 that engineered foods are not significantly altered; the similarity rendering no changes in labeling of the food products . The food companies; Proctor & Gamble, Nabisco, Frito-Lay, Ross Labs, Pillsbury, and Kraft do not have to manufacture labels which would otherwise alert the general public that the chips they are munching on likely contain soybean oil from Roundup Ready™ soybeans. Roundup Ready™ being the name Monsanto has assigned their revolutionary gene technology developed to allow the crop of choice the ability to withstand mass levels of their number one selling product, Roundup® herbicide. If a person were to call Frito-Lay, for example, wondering whether or not Fritos® contain oil from Roundup Ready™ soybeans, they answer, "we don't know, we don't test." Frito-Lay, like many other major food companies, receive their pressed oil from the likes of large grain traders, such as Cargill. U.S. based Cargill is the world's largest grain trader having a presence in 65 countries and providing grains to more than that. Ross Labs, the makers of Isomil® and Similac® soy-based infant formulas, on the other hand, admits to using engineered soybeans, if you speak with them via telephone . The labels of their products nowhere disclose the alteration of genes within the age old soybean. A bean once revered throughout cultures and religions as witnessed by their varietal names; Great Treasure and Brings Happiness.

Do folks in the United States care if their processed foods and raw commodities do not suggest all that they appear? The FDA is guided by a decree called the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. This act amended the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1938. The new act was ratified ion January 1997. The FQPA includes a section called "Consumer Right to Know" that promises within two years to include additional information on the risks and benefits of pesticide chemical residues. As long as industry is allowed to keep secret that fact that they have requested in some cases three times the originally determined safe residue levels for the newly engineered herbicide tolerant crops, the public may never know the truth behind their food products. Case in point occurred when Monsanto submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) petitions for increasing the allowable residue levels for the chemical glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®. In 1987, before the advent of Roundup Ready™ soybeans, the legal level of glyphosate residue for soybean as a raw commodity was 6 parts per million. Anticipating increased residues from the new ability to directly spray soybeans with the Roundup Ready technology, Monsanto had the "safe, allowable" levels of glyphosate in soybeans changed to 20 parts per million. What in 1987 was considered "safe" for human consumption was 8 years later "safe" at three times the amount.

Few people know that the U.S. government has patched together agency rules and guidelines for the regulation of bioengineered organisms. In fact, there has been no centralized regulatory body for the patenting and release of what represents billions of dollars in engineered food crops. It has been close to four years since the first engineered organism entered the U.S. marketplace. Yet, after the U.S. government's attempts to regulate organisms using a patchwork of agencies and laws, biotechnology regulations are finally being consolidated under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) subgroup the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). With this decision to consolidate agencies and laws, the U.S. Government is also agreeing to instill simplified regulations permitting the expeditious release of these engineered foods into the environment. The release of these transgenic crops are not simply effecting the United States, but are executing changes globally as massive portions of the US food crops are exported.