-Caveat Lector-
FOOD FIGHT
International protests mount against genetically engineered crops
By Martin A. Lee
San Francisco Bay Guardian
The next time you're invited to dine at the White House, beware. You'll be
eating genetically altered edibles.
Despite persistent concerns about the safety of such foods, our `what, me
worry?' president will entertain guests by serving pan-
seared genetically-modified super-salmon (which grows three times faster
than normal salmon), Texas-style pudding made with gene-
tampered Star Link corn (even though it has not been approved for human
consumption), and other dubious delicacies.
"These are traditional Texas recipes, but with a special twist," explained
White House chef Daniel Arreido, who also indicated that the Bush family
likes to drink milk containing rBGH, a genetically engineered bovine growth
hormone.
According to several environmental and science groups, rBGH may be linked
to human breast, colon, and prostate cancer. This artificial bovine growth
stimulant is banned in Europe, Japan, New Zealand, and Canada, but not in
the United States, where it is widely employed by dairy companies to pump
up milk production and profits.
When Bill Clinton was president, it was hardly a secret that his
administration favored agricultural biotechnology as potential cash cow for
U.S. corporations. But the clout that the genetically engineered (GE)
food lobby wields in George W. Bush's cabinet tops anything that came
before.
Several current cabinet members have ties to Monsanto, the dominant firm in
the burgeoning biotechnology industry. Monsanto contributed money to the
Senate election campaigns of Attorney General John Ashcroft and Health and
Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, while Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman were officers or directors
of companies that are now owned by Monsanto, which controls 80 percent of
the global market for transgenic seeds.
Bush's choice for deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Linda Fisher, was a chief lobbyist and political fundraising
coordinator for Monsanto. And the revolving door keeps spinning between
Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which functions more
as an arm of the biotech industry than a regulatory agency. Oversight of
the biotech business has been so lax that a federal judge recently ruled
that GE food is legally "unregulated."
Manipulating genes - the blueprints of a living organism - is inherently a
high-risk endeavor that could have unintended and unforeseen negative
effects. Given the serious ecological and human health dangers that could
arise from genetically engineered life forms, it makes sense for regulators
to err on the side of caution. Indeed, that's the ostensible mandate of
the FDA - to apply the precautionary principle when approving new food
products and pharmaceuticals. When it comes to bioengineered foods,
however, the FDA has done just the opposite.
Just a decade ago, there was virtually no genetically modified food
available for consumers. Now it's a challenge to find something to eat
that doesn't contain GE ingredients. Roughly 70% of the food sold in U.S
supermarkets has been genetically altered, thanks in no small part to the
FDA, which acknowledges that it has been operating under an explicit
government policy "to foster" the biotechnology industry since 1992. That
year, the FDA declared GE foods to be "substantially equivalent" to normal
foods and, therefore, exempt from special pre-
market testing - a determination that many of the FDA's own scientists
strongly disagreed with.
While labeling GE foods is mandatory in the European Union and several
Asian countries, the FDA adamantly opposes such a practice. Without
labels, people in the United States can't tell if they are eating
gene-finagled foodstuffs, which have been foisted on consumers without
their knowledge or consent. Current FDA guidelines "deny Americans the
right to know what is in our food, while protecting the economic interests
of biotech corporations," says Food First, an Oakland-based organization,
which has called for an immediate moratorium on the commercial use of GE
seeds and foods.
A vast, reckless experiment is underway with unknown but possibly
devastating consequences, and we are the guinea pigs. No one is certain
about the long-term health implications of eating foods fortified with
insecticide implants and other alien genes - and that's why many people are
worried. Tinkering with nature could irretrievably alter existing species,
wreak havoc on diverse wildlife, and set off vexing ecological problems
such as herbicide-
resistant super-weeds, which have already begun to sprout on farmland
planted with transgenic crops from Monsanto.
Monsanto's biotech crops are genetically tailored to tolerate the Monsanto
herbicide Roundup - a move calculated to enable the company to sell more of
its widely used, super-toxic Roundup. The sales pitch promised that
Roundup Ready seeds would allow farmers to spray herbicides that would
destroy most weeds but leave the crops largely intact.
Monsanto claims that growing its gene-jimmied variety of Roundup Ready
soybeans, for example, puts fewer pesticides into the environment. But a
new study by Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and
Environmental Policy Center in Sandpoint, Idaho, found that reliance on
Monsanto's Roundup to kill weeds in bioengineered soybean fields has led to
increased herbicide use, as some weeds inevitably become impervious to
Roundup.
Benbrook's study, "Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready
Soybeans," asserts that American farmers are employing an average of 11.4
percent more herbicides on Monsanto soybean crops compared to conventional
soybeans. Sixty percent of this year's U.S. soybean crop, roughly 40
million acres, has been sowed with Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds.
Other companies have developed transgenic plants that produce their own
internal pesticides - usually by inserting the bacteria bacillus thuringien
sis ("Bt") gene - but there are problems with this approach, as well. Bt
crops can have an adverse impact on beneficial insects and soil microbes,
while engendering a mutant breed of pesticide-resistant bugs.
Windblown pollen from Bt produce that settles on natural vegetation near
transgenic fields can also be fatal to non-target organisms. This was
confirmed by scientists at Cornell University, who examined the complex
interaction between genetically altered corn and monarch butterflies.
Their research showed the toxic effect of Bt corn pollen when applied to
milkweed, which grows near cornfields and which monarch butterflies eat.
Nearly half of the monarch larvae that fed on the Bt corn died - the
biotech version of collateral damage - while none of the caterpillars that
ingested non-Bt corn pollen were poisoned.
"We simply do not understand the genome-ecosystem relationships well enough
to make confident estimates of the ecological impact of new structures,"
asserts Arjun Makijani, president of the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research (http://www.ieer.org/) in Tacoma Park, Maryland.
Makijani warns that bioengineered life forms threaten to could disrupt the
delicate balance of nature and its evolutionary process.
About 25% of the corn currently harvested in the United States is Bt corn.
What might happen once a genetically modified product like Bt corn has been
introduced into the environment on a wide scale? "We should expect some
nasty surprises," says Makijani.
StarLink, a variety of corn genetically altered to include a protein that
can protect crops against several insects, was only deemed suitable for
animal feed, not for people, due to concerns that it could cause allergic
reactions. But StarLink inadvertently entered the world's food supply last
year, triggering a massive recall of about 300 corn products. While
acknowledging that nearly a half billion bushels of corn in storage
nationwide contain StarLink, Aventis denies that it poses a health risk to
humans.
The StarLink fiasco highlights how difficult it is to control biotech
organisms once they are released into the ecosystem. Genetic pollution -
whether by human error or wind-driven caprice - is inevitable, as modified
plants transfer engineered traits while cross-
pollinating with native species in nearby fields and storage facilities.
But a gene spill, unlike an oil spill, can't be cordoned off and contained.
"It's like a genie in the bottle. Once it's out, you can't put it back,"
says Doug Parr, author of a Greenpeace report, "Genetic Engineering: Too
Good to go Wrong?"
"There is very little appreciation," says Parr, "of the inherent
unpredictability of the science of genetic engineering. Already there are
too many cases of things going wrong."
The promiscuous movement of GE organisms across the landscape sparked a
legal showdown in Saskatchewan, Canada, where a farmer was recently
convicted of patent infringement after Monsanto's genetically engineered
canola plants were found growing in his field. The court ordered the
farmer to pay Monsanto several thousand dollars in damages, despite his
insistence that he never used any seeds from the biotechnology giant.
Pollen from the modified canola plants had drifted onto his property from a
neighboring farm and, astonishingly, he was held liable.
According to a report issued this month by the U.S. Public Interest
Research Group and the Genetically Engineered Food Alert coalition,
experimental field crops threaten to contaminate land cultivated by
traditional farmers, who often lack information about where test plots of
genetically engineered crops are growing. The report, "Raising Risk,"
notes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has authorized 30,000
field tests of gene-altered organisms since the late 1980s. The report
also indicates that more than 60 percent of all GE field tests conducted
during the past year utilized secret genes classified as "Confidential
Business Information," which means that the public cannot access crucial
information about experiments being conducted in their communities.
Another disturbing aspect of the brave new world of biotechnology involves
species jumping by genes used to modify crops, a process that can cause
bacteria to mutate. Dr. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a respected German zoologist,
found evidence that foreign genes inserted to modify oilseed rape had
transferred to bacteria living in the guts of honeybees. This discovery is
highly significant because it suggests that genes spliced into
bioengineered organisms could contaminate all kinds of bacteria - including
beneficial bacteria that live inside the human digestive system.
Kaatz's four-year study lends credence to fears that gene-altered life
forms could pose major health hazards. Biotech critics also point to
studies indicating that GE foods can cause allergic reactions, irritate the
digestive track, and compromise immune systems.
But Monsanto and other biotech boosters insist there is no cause for alarm.
They maintain that Americans have been eating GE produce for more than five
years without anyone being sickened by these provisions - complaints of
headaches and indigestion not withstanding.
As it stands, there has been precious little research on the
epidemiological effects of genetically modified foods because money is
generally not available for such studies. The USDA spends only one percent
of the funds allocated to biotech research on risk assessment, a paltry
$1.2 million a year. And independent academic research in this area, while
sorely needed, is not encouraged at budget-strapped universities that
increasingly rely on the largesse of big corporations, including those in
biotech sector, which are not eager to support studies that might cast
aspersions on their products.
Responding to critics who denounce genetically modified crops as
"frankenfoods," the biotech industry launched a three-year, $50 million
public relations campaign in April. Aimed at gaining public trust, the PR
campaign depicts biotech companies as misunderstood and under-appreciated
do-gooders who are trying their best to feed a hungry world. Sponsored by
the newly formed Council for Biotechnology Information, the PR juggernaut
has rolled out TV commercials and print ads - and the Council says up to
$250 million may be spent on this effort.
Desperate to showcase their goodwill, gene-tweaking advocates are hyping
"Golden Rice," a new product doctored in the labs of Syngenta, a European
firm, to generate extra beta-carotene, which the body converts to vitamin
A. The biotech lobby is touting this tampered foodstuff as something akin
to a miracle medicine, a cure for millions of poor children who would
otherwise go blind from vitamin A deficiency. But the humanitarian message
doesn't square with the fact that a four-year-old kid would have to at eat
more than two dozen bowls of Golden Rice every day to get the minimum daily
allowance of vitamin A, as stipulated by official U.S. nutritional
standards.
Critics of the biotech industry dismiss the notion of gene-adjusted
organisms as a quick fix for global hunger. The world is already capable
of producing enough to feed all humanity, asserts Anuradha Mittal,
co-director of Food First. Moreover, even if the problem was mainly one of
production, experimental trials cited in a recent study by the USDA
Economic Research Service have shown that GE seeds do not increase crop
yields.
The true causes of hunger, according to Food First, are unequal
distribution and lack of access to food because of poverty. "Seventy-
eight percent of countries reporting child malnourishment export food,"
says Mittal, who points out that her native India, home to one third of the
world's 80 million hungry people, has a food grain surplus of 42 million
tons. But the surplus is not reaching those who need it. Why should it be
any different for gene-altered rice?
There are 210 varieties of wild rice in India. How many of these will
survive the large-scale invasion of gene-tinkered rice controlled by a solo
seed source? In addition to discouraging the implementation of sound
integrated pest management practices, biotechnology promotes genetic
uniformity and crop monoculture in rural areas. It's well known that
single-crop farms are more vulnerable to pathogens and insect pests.
A worldwide network of grassroots movements and non-governmental
organizations contends that the real goal of the biotech industry is not to
banish hunger but to reap huge profits by fostering farmers' dependence
upon patented GE seeds, which are monopolized by a handful of private
companies. Biotech opponents charge that these giant, transnational
corporations are pirating genetic resources from the developing South, a
practice that threatens global food security, according to Henk Hobbelink
of Genetics Resources Action International.
After working out the genetic composition of an indigenous resource, or
modifying it in a laboratory, biotech firms have claimed the plants, seeds,
and even the harvested crops as their intellectual property. Not
surprisingly, big business is keen on reproducing only those plants that
are most lucrative. Critics fear that an increasing number of plant
varieties will be lost or simply shut away in genetic banks if private
companies hold exclusive rights over them.
Resistance to biotechnology is growing, particularly in poor countries such
as India, where several experimental GE plots were set on fire during a
"Cremate Monsanto" campaign waged by an association of 10 million landless
peasants. The Landless Workers' Movement in Brazil has made stopping
Monsanto soybeans a top priority. And farmers in Thailand have taken a
strong stand against genetic engineering while participating in a "Long
March for Biodiversity."
Opposition is also strong in Europe, where bioengineered products are
unpopular. In 1999, anti-biotech activists destroyed all the field trials
of genetically modified trees in England. The seeds of a consumer revolt
may have taken root in the United States, where support for biotechnology
is eroding, according to recent public opinion polls. A survey by the FDA
shows overwhelming U.S. public support for labeling GE foods.
Last weekend, a thousand protesters, some dressed as genetically engineered
ears of corn or monarch butterflies, converged at the world's largest
biotechnology trade show in San Diego, where industry leaders hailed the
rapid spread of genetically modified crops across the globe. Over 100
million acres of the world's farmland are now planted with bioengineered
seeds - 25 times more than four years ago. In addition to corn and
soybeans, GE crops on the market include potatoes, squash, papaya, and
tomatoes armored against disease. Bioengineered wheat and super-salmon is
in the commercial pipeline. Gene-altered substances have even turned up in
organically grown foods sold at health food stores.
Irate organic farmers are considering a class-action lawsuit against the
biotech industry that would seek damages for the contamination of natural
foods. But a successful legal challenge might take years. And if it ever
went to the Supreme Court, the case could be decided by the likes of
Clarence Thomas, a former lawyer for Monsanto.
Martin A. Lee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is the author of Acid Dreams and The Beast
Reawakens. His column, Reality Bites, appears in the San Francisco Bay
Guardian on Mondays.
=======================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=======================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
