|
GREENPEACE REPORT:
Monsanto, the U.S. chemical giant that brought
the world Agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone has been busy.
Their genetically engineered soybeans are literally a new life form.
The mutant crops have no natural habitat outside of the laboratory,
and the risks they pose to human health and the environment are
unknown.
Attention all shoppers: 1997 marks the entry
of a wide variety of unlabelled genetically- engineered foods onto
supermarket shelves -- whether you like it or not. But donít bother
checking labels to avoid these products, because oddly enough, the
very people insisting that the genetically-altered foods are safe
are the same ones who donít want you to know which foods are laced
with experimental ingredients.
As you read this, crops of genetically-altered
soybeans and corn are quietly making their way into hundreds of
processed foods. Margarine, chocolate, bread, soda, spaghetti sauce,
potato chips -- literally thousands of foods will eventually be
affected because soy products and corn sweeteners are such frequently
used ingredients. A host of additional genetically-manipulated foods
are scheduled to flood the market in the next few years. Unfortunately,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) do not require that genetically-altered foods be labeled
as such. But the public is concerned. Recent polls in Europe, for
example, show that up to 70 percent of consumers do not want genetically-engineered
products in their food supply; a December 1996 Gallup poll in Denmark
indicated 95 percent want labeling of any food made with genetically-engineered
ingredients. Polls in the US also indicate very strong support for
labeling of foods made with biotechnology.
Consumers have good reason to be concerned.
The U.S. regulatory agencies charged with keeping the food supply
safe are unprepared to deal with genetically-engineered crops, leaving
many "loopholes" in the regulations that these crops can slip through.
New genetically-engineered crops are not seriously investigated
for health risks by the FDA. Instead, the FDA only performs a cursory
check for known allergens in the new plants.
There is a real danger that genetically-engineered
foods will contain unknown allergens, with serious health implications
for sensitive persons. Crops are being genetically crossed with
bacteria, viruses, and petunias to withstand applications of herbicides
so that companies like Monsanto can increase their chemical sales.
Herbicide resistance among weeds and wild relatives of crop plants
from genetic pollution is a real threat posed by these manipulated
crops, threatening ecosystems, consumer health, and ultimately the
domestic farm economy.
Biotechnology PR campaigns would have you believe
that the industry is motivated by such noble goals as bettering
the environment, improving human health, and alleviating world hunger.
But the Union of Concerned Scientists found that in 93 percent of
the cases it studied, the real goal of genetic food alterations
is maximizing profits from industrial-scale food production and
processing.
Biotech corporations like Monsanto and Novartis
are pursuing these technologies to boost sales of their patented
crops and related products, despite the threats posed by these risky
genetic experiments. Consumers will buy the products because they
have no choice: by opposing warning labels, these companies are
eliminating the consumerís ability to make informed purchasing decisions.
Families concerned about their health and environment
are increasingly turning to organic food as a safer alternative
and supporting ecological farming. From its humble origins as a
small niche market, organic food has grown into a booming industry.
Just since 1990, sales have jumped 20 percent a year, reaching a
projected $3.3 billion in 1996. "Certified Organic" indicates (1)
no toxic chemical pesticides or fertilizers were used to grow or
process the food, and (2) the farming methods employed have been
verified under a USDA-accredited private or state certification
program. State organic food laws protect consumers from fraudulent
claims.
National standards concerning organic certification
are being written now. Legislation passed in 1990 established the
"National Organic Standards Board" (NOSB), composed of organic farmers,
processors, retailers, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and
scientists. The board advises the USDA on national organic standards
for food grown in, or imported into, the United States. The issue
of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) was specifically addressed
by the NOSB in its most recent recommendations to the USDA. In September,
the NOSB passed a resolution recommending that "the class of genetically
engineered organisms and their derivatives be prohibited in organic
production and handling systems." Simply put, genetically-engineered
food violates the standards of purity and safety that organic certification
represents. Many state and private certification agencies already
prohibit the use of genetically-manipulated organisms, meaning that
"organic" is defined as food that is not only free of toxic pesticides,
but also free of genetic engineering. However, the organic industry
has reason to worry: the USDA is the world's biggest supporter of
chemical intensive farming, and now of biotechnology in agriculture.
Corporations that design and market genetically-engineered crops
seek the respectability that comes with organic certification. These
corporations have a powerful ally in the USDA, particularly Agriculture
Secretary Dan Glickman. An outspoken advocate of genetic engineering
and its role in food production, Glickman has the ultimate authority
regarding the future of national organic standards. Given his support
for genetic engineering in the past, it is entirely likely that
Glickman may now dilute the integrity of organic standards.
To preserve the only current source of GMO-free
food in the United States, the "certified organic" designation must
be protected. The NOSBís suggestions concerning the exclusion of
GMOs from organic certification must remain in their pure form,
free from dilution by the USDA. We need to remind the Secretary
of Agriculture and other genetic engineering advocates in the USDA
that they are employed to defend the interests of family farmers
and American consumers, not big biotechnology companies.
Contact the USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture.
The public comment period on the proposed rules
from the USDA, based on the NOSB recommendations, is expected to
begin this spring. Contact the USDA during this comment period,
demanding that the proposed organic standards reflect the position
taken by the NOSB that organic food products are kept free of genetically
modified organisms. Your input is needed to make sure these rules
protect the public interest, not corporate profit. To monitor the
progress of the national organic standards and determine the beginning
of the public comment period, contact the USDA at (202) 720-3252.
In the meantime, write letters to the Secretary
of Agriculture, encouraging him to respect the integrity of organic
standards by keeping them free of genetically modified organisms.
Make your letters respectful and supportive in tone. Tell the Secretary
of Agriculture that:
- you support the USDA's efforts to create comprehensive
national organic standards;
- you support the NOSB's resolution that organic
food be free of genetic engineering, and support the passage of
organic standards that reflect this;
- you look forward to a timely posting
of the proposed organic standards in the Federal Register for
public comment. Write to: Mr. Dan Glickman Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC 20250
Get Involved: Contact the Greenpeace Activist
Network at (800) 930 4542, or join our Activist Network online.
Members will receive a Community Action Guide with more detailed
information on genetic engineering and suggestions for how you
can organize community action.
Please let Greenpeace know what steps you
have taken, and send us copies copies of any correspondence
you receive on this matter.
Write to: GREENPEACE
1436 U ST. N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20009
- (1) "Flavor Saved?" Mother Jones, Feb. 1997.
- (2) MORI/Greenpeace poll, Jan. 9, 1997.
- (3) Gallup poll, Dec. 1996.
- (4) "Consumer Attitudes About Food Biotechnology,"
Thomas Hoban and Patricia Kendall, Project Report 1993, USDA Extension
Service, North Carolina State University and Colorado State University.
- (5) "Not Ready for Roundup," Greenpeace 1996
- (6) Mother Jones, ibid.
- (7) "Organic Food Makers Reap Green Yields
of Revenue," The New York Times, Oct 26, 1996.
- (8) Kathleen Merrigan, NOSB Environmental
Representative, Organic Food Marketing Association (OFMA) website.
Ý Please see the following Greenpeace
Reports on other genetic engineering issues.
- Can Genetic Engineering Feed the World?
- Glyphosate Fact Sheet
- Life for Sale
- Monsanto: The Chemical Giant Experimenting
with Our Food
- Monsanto: Greenpeace Corporate Criminal Report
- Not Ready for Roundup - A Critique of Monsanto's
Risk Evaluation
- Not Ready for Roundup - Why Consumers and
Farmers Should Avoid Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Soybeans
- The Public Says "No!" to Genetically Engineered
Food - Action by Governments, Food Producers, Retailers and Consumers
- What is Genetic Engineering?
Return to Greenpeace
USA Homepage.
This Factsheet © Greenpeace 1997, photo
© Kent Hardouin Greenpeace 1996.
|
