News
Visit the National Department of
Agriculture's website to read the first draft regulations on organic production in South
Africa
Read
about what is happening worldwide in the organic food market?
Learn
how to introduce bats onto
your farm and control pests naturally!!
Leading
African Scientists Denounce GE Foods and Crops
Suspend
GM Crops For 5 Years - Scientists
COMTEX Newswire
Nairobi (The East African, June 2, 2000) - Several countries, among them
Kenya, Uganda, Brazil, South Africa, and India, are making major human and
financial investments in biotechnology to improve food security and reduce
poverty.
But the question remains whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or
living modified organisms (LMOs) - the products of biotechnology - are
indispensable for feeding the world, protecting the environment and reducing
poverty in
developing countries, as biotechnology engineering companies claim.
A growing body of scientists, farmers, NGOs, institutions, and governments
opposed to the technology are convinced that it is designed to have the
opposite effect. They argue that the introduction of GMOs in developing
countries
will exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to sustainable
agriculture that can provide food security and health.
In a letter to delegates at the fifth Conference of Parties (COP5) on the
Convention on Biological Diversity at Gigiri, Nairobi, some 310 scientists
from both the developed and developing countries demanded a moratorium on the
use
of GMOs and LMOs. They said they were concerned about the dangers these
products posed for biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health.
"We call for the immediate suspension of the release of genetically
modified
crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least
five years, for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines
and genes to be revoked and banned, and for a comprehensive public enquiry into
the future of agriculture and food security for all."
They argued that genetically modified crops intensify corporate monopoly on
food. In order to protect their patents, corporations continue to develop
genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) like terminator and
trait-specific technologies.
Terminator technology makes seeds sterile in the second generation,
preventing farmers from saving and replanting seed, as is common in developing
countries.
Under the genetic technologies, farmers are dependent on the genetically
modified seed, which is protected under the intellectual property rights.
Trait-specific GURTs make it possible to switch on and off specific
characteristics of a plant, such as resistance to diseases. The result is
that farmers are obliged to apply particular chemicals to ensure that their
crops
thrive.
The scientists said this not only increased farmer dependency on chemicals
andgenetic engineering companies, it was likely to drive many to destitution.
The consortium of more than 25 NGOs at the COP5 has expressed concern that
almost all the major companies that controlled agricultural engineering
technology markets - such as of the UK - have patents on the terminator
technology. Despite
promises last year that they would abandon the technology, 50 new GURTs
patentshave been issued.
The scientists want the patents banned on grounds that they threaten food
security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources,
violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise health care, impede
medical and scientific research and work against the welfare of animals.
Products resulting from GMOs could be hazardous. The genetically modified
bovine growth hormone, injected into cows to increase milk yields, not only
causes
excessive suffering and illness for the animals, but also increases IGF- 1
in milk, a substance linked to breast and prostate cancer in humans.
Secret memoranda of the US Food and Drug Administration revealed that it
ignored the warnings of its own scientists that genetic engineering is a new
departure and introduces new risks. According to the documents, the first GM
crop to
be commercialised - the Flar Savr tomato - did not pass the required
toxicological tests.
In response to concerns on the potential risk of biotechnology and the
absence of control systems in developing countries, the legally binding
Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety is now in place to protect the environment from the
potential risk caused by LMOs. Some 63 governments, including Kenya, have
signed it.
Under the protocol, strict informed agreement procedures will apply to
seeds, live fish, and other LMOs introduced into the environment.
By Wandera Ojanji, Special Correspondent
The
Precautionary Principle: Why We Need a
Global Moratorium on GE Foods & Crops
Subject:
ISIS paper: The Use and abuse of the precautionary principle
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org)
Posted: 07/14/2000 By M.W.Ho@open.ac.uk
============================================================
ISIS submission
to US Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy
Use and Abuse
of the Precautionary Principle
The Burden of
Proof
The Misuse
of Statistics
The Anti-Precautionary
Principle
Conclusion
Notes and
references
ISIS
submission to US Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy
(ACIEP) Biotech. Working Group
The
precautionary principle is accepted as the basis of the Cartegena
Biosafety Protocol agreed in Montreal in January 2000, already signed by
68 nations who attended the Convention on Biological Diversity
Conference in Nairobi in May, 2000. The principle is to be applied to all
GMOs whether used as food or as seeds for environmental release.
The precautionary principle states that when there is reasonable suspicion
of harm, lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to
postpone preventative action. There is indeed sufficient direct and indirect
scientific evidence to suggest that GMOs are unsafe for use as food or for
release into the environment. And that is why more than 300 scientists from
38 countries are demanding a moratorium on all releases of GMOs (World
Scientists Statement and Open Letter to All Governments <www.i-sis.org>
).
The precautionary principle is actually part and parcel of sound science.
Science is an active knowledge system in which new discoveries are made
almost every day. Scientific evidence is always incomplete and uncertain.
The responsible use of scientific evidence, therefore, is to set precaution.
This is all the more important for technologies, such as genetic
engineering, which can neither be controlled nor be recalled.
Dr. Peter Saunders, Professor of Applied Mathematics at King's College
London, co-Founder of ISIS, has written an article which shows how the
precautionary principle is just codified common sense that people have
accepted in courts of law and mathematicians have adopted in the proper use
of statistics. It begins to clarify how scientific evidence is to be
interpreted in a socially responsible way which is also in accord with sound
science.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Director
Institute of Science in Society
C/o Dept of Biological Sciences
Open University
Walton Hall Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA, UK
Use
and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle
Peter
T. Saunders, Mathematics Department, King's College, London.
There has been a lot written and said about the precautionary principle
recently, much of it misleading. Some have stated that if the principle
were applied it would put an end to technological advance. Others claim to
be applying the principle when they are not. From all the confusion, it is
easy to mistake it for some deep philosophical idea that is inordinately
difficult to grasp (1).
In fact, the precautionary principle is very simple. All it actually amounts
to is this: if one is embarking on something new, one should think very
carefully about whether it is safe or not, and should not go ahead until
reasonably convinced it is. It is just common sense.
Too many of those who fail to understand or to accept the precautionary
principle are pushing forward with untested, inadequately researched
technologies, and insisting that it is up to the rest of us to prove them
dangerous before they can be stopped. The perpetrators also refuse to accept
liability; so if the technologies turn out to be hazardous, as in many cases
they have, someone else will have to pay the penalty
The precautionary principle hinges on concept of the burden of proof, which
ordinary people have been expected to understand and accept in the law for
many years. It is also the same reasoning that is used in most statistical
testing. Indeed, as a lot of work in biology depends on statistics, misuse
of the precautionary principle often rests on misunderstanding and abuse of
statistics. Both the accepted practice in law and the proper use of
statistics are in accord with the common-sensible idea that it is incumbent
on those introducing a new technology to prove it safe, and not for the rest
of us to prove it harmful.
The
Burden of Proof
The
precautionary principle states that if there are reasonable scientific
grounds for believing that a new process or product may not be safe, it
should not be introduced until we have convincing evidence that the risks
are small and are outweighed by the benefits.
It can also be applied to existing technologies when new evidence appears
suggesting that they are more dangerous than we had thought (as in the case
of cigarettes, CFCs, greenhouse gasses and now GMOs). Then, it requires that
we undertake research to better assess the risk and that in the meantime, we
should not expand our use of the technology and should put in train measures
to reduce our dependence on it. If the dangers are considered serious
enough, then the principle may require us to withdraw the products or impose
a ban or a moratorium on further use.
The principle does not, as some critics claim, require industry to provide
absolute proof that something new is safe. That would be an impossible
demand and would indeed stop technology dead in its tracks, but I do not
know of anyone who is actually demanding it. The precautionary principle
does not deal with absolute certainty. On the contrary, it is specifically
intended for circumstances where there is no absolute certainty.
What the precautionary principle does is to put the burden of proof onto the
innovator or perpetrator, but not in an unreasonable or impossible way. It
is up to the perpetrator to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that it is
safe, and not for the rest of society to prove that it is not.
No one should have any difficulty understanding that because precisely the
same sort of argument is used in the criminal law. The prosecution and the
defence are not equal in the courtroom. The members of the jury are not
asked to decide whether they think it is more or less likely that the
defendant has committed the crime he or she is charged with. Instead, the
prosecution is supposed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant
is guilty. Members of the jury do not have to be absolutely certain that the
defendant is guilty before they convict, but they do have to be confident
they are right.
There is a good reason for adopting a burden of proof that assumes innocence
until proven guilty. The defendant may be guilty or not, and may be found
guilty or not. If the defendant is guilty and convicted, justice has been
done, as is the case if innocent and found not guilty. But suppose the jury
reaches the wrong verdict, what then?
That depends on which of the two possible errors was made. If the defendant
actually committed the crime, but found not guilty, then a crime goes
unpunished. The other possibility is that the defendant is wrongly convicted
of a crime, in which case an innocent life is ruined. Neither of these
outcomes is satisfactory, but society has decided that the second is so much
worse than the first that we should do as much as we reasonably can to avoid
it. It is better, so the saying goes, that "a hundred guilty men should go
free than that one innocent man be convicted". In any situation in which
there is uncertainty, mistakes will be made. Our aim is to minimise the
damage that results when mistakes are made.
Just as society does not require the defendant to prove innocence, so it
should not require objectors to prove that a technology is harmful. It is
for those who want to introduce something new to prove, not with certainty,
but beyond reasonable doubt, that it is safe. Society balances the trial in
favour of the defendant because we believe that convicting an innocent
person is far worse than failing to convict someone who is guilty. In the
same way, we should balance the decision on hazards and risks in favour of
safety, especially in those cases where the damage, should it occur, is
serious and irredeemable.
The objectors must bring forward evidence that stands up to scrutiny, but
they do not have to prove that there are serious dangers. It is for the
innovators to establish beyond reasonable doubt that what they are proposing
is safe. The burden of proof is on them.
The
Misuse of Statistics
You
have an antique coin that you want to use for deciding who will go first
at a game, but you are worried it might be biased in favour of heads. You
toss it three times, and it comes down heads all three times. Naturally,
that does not do anything to reassure you, until someone who claims to know
something about statistics comes along, and informs you that as the
"p-value" is 0.125, you have nothing to worry about. The coin is not
biased.
Does that not sound like arrant nonsense? Surely if a coin comes down heads
three times in a row, that cannot prove it is unbiased. No, of course it
cannot. But this sort of reasoning is too often being used to prove that GM
technology is safe.
The fallacy, and it is a fallacy, comes about either through a
misunderstanding of statistics or a total neglect of the precautionary
principle - or, more likely, both. In brief, people are claiming that they
have proven that something is safe, when what they have actually done is to
fail to prove that it is unsafe. It's the mathematical way of claiming that
absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.
To see how this comes about, we have to appreciate the difference between
biological and other kinds of scientific evidence. Most experiments in
physics and chemistry are relatively clear cut. If you want to know what
will happen if you mix, say, copper and sulphuric acid, you really only have
to try it once. If you want to be sure, you will repeat the experiment, but
you expect to get the same result, even to the amount of hydrogen that is
produced from a given amount of copper and acid.
In biology, however, we are dealing with organisms which vary a lot and
never behave in predictable, mechanical ways. If we spread fertiliser on a
field, not every plant will increase in size by the same amount, and if you
cross two lines of corn not all the resulting seeds will be the same. So we
almost always have to use some statistical argument to tell us whether what
we observe is merely due to chance or reflects some real effect.
The details of the argument will vary depending upon exactly what it is we
want to establish, but the standard ones follow a similar pattern. Suppose,
that plant breeders have come up with a new strain of maize, and we want to
know if it gives a better yield than the old one. We plant each of them in a
field, and in August, we harvest more from the new than from the old. That
is encouraging, but it might simply be a chance fluctuation. After all, even
if we had planted both fields with the old strain, we would not expect to
have obtained exactly the same yield in both fields.
So what we do is the following. We suppose that the new strain is the same
as the old one. (This is called the "null hypothesis", because we
assume
that nothing has changed.) We then work out the probability that the new
strain would yield as well as it did simply on account of chance. We call
this probability the "p-value". Clearly the smaller the p-value, the
more
likely it is that the new strain really is better - though we can never be
absolutely certain. What counts as 'small' is arbitrary, but over the years,
statisticians have adopted the convention that if the p-value is less than
5% we should reject the null hypothesis, i.e. we can infer that the new
strain really is better. Another way of saying the same thing is that the
difference in yields is 'significant'.
Note that the p-value is neither the probability that the new strain is
better nor the probability that it is not. When we say that the increase is
significant, what we are saying is that if the new strain were no better
than the old, the probability of such a large increase happening by chance
would be less than 5%. Consequently, we are willing to accept that the new
strain is better.
Why have statisticians fastened on such a small value? Wouldn't it seem
reasonable that if there is less than a 50-50 chance of such a large
increase we should infer that the new strain is better, whereas if the
chance is greater than 50-50 - in racing terms if it is "odds on" -
then
we should infer that it is not.
No, and the reason why not is simple: it's a question of the burden of
proof. Remember that statistics is about taking decisions in the face of
uncertainty. It is serious business recommending that a company changes the
variety of seed it produces and that farmers should switch to planting the
new one. There could be a lot of money to be lost if we are wrong. We want
to be sure beyond reasonable doubt, and that's usually taken to mean a
p-value of .05 or less.
Suppose that we obtain a p-value greater than .05, what then? We have failed
to prove that the new strain is better. We have not, however, proved that it
is no better, any more than by finding a defendant not guilty we have proved
him innocent.
In the example of the antique coin coming up three heads in a row, the null
hypothesis was that the coin was fair. If so, then the probability of a head
on any one toss would be 1/2, so the probability of three in a row would be
(1/2)3=0.125. This is greater than .05, so we cannot reject the null
hypothesis, i.e. we cannot claim that our experiment has shown the coin to
be biased. Up to that point, the reasoning was correct. Where it went wrong
was in claiming that the experiment has shown the coin to be fair.
Yet that is precisely the sort of argument we see in scientific papers
defending genetic engineering. A recent report, "Absence of toxicity of
Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to black swallowtails under field
conditions"
(2) is claiming by its title to have shown that there is no harmful effect.
Only in the discussion, however, do they state correctly that there is "no
significant weight differences among larvae as a function of distance from
the corn field or pollen level".
A second paper claims to show that transgenes in wheat are stably inherited.
The evidence for that is the "transmission ratios were shown to be
Mendelian
in 8 out of 12 lines". In the accompanying table, however, six of the
p-values are less that 0.5 and one of them is 0.1. That is not sufficient
to prove that the genes are unstable, or inherited in a non-Mendelian way.
But it certainly does not prove that they are, which is what is claimed.
The way to decide if the antique coin is biased is to toss it more times and
record the outcome; and in the case of the safety and stability of GM crops,
more and better experiments should be done.
The
Anti-Precautionary Principle
The
precautionary principle is such good common sense that one would expect
it to be universally adopted. Naturally, there can be disagreement on how
big a risk we are prepared to tolerate and on how great the benefits are
likely to be, especially when those who stand to gain and those who will
bear the costs if things go wrong are not the same. It is significant that
the corporations are rejecting proposals that they should be held liable for
any damage caused by the products of GM technology. They are demanding a
one-way bet: they pocket any gains and someone else pays for any losses.
It's also an indication of exactly how confident they are that the
technology is really safe.
What is baffling is why our regulators have failed and continue to fail to
act on the precautionary principle. They tend to rely instead on what we
might call the anti-precautionary principle. When a new technology is being
proposed, it must be permitted unless it can be shown beyond reasonable
doubt that it is dangerous. The burden of proof is not on the innovator; it
is on the rest of us.
The most enthusiastic supporter of the anti-precautionary principle is the
World Trade Organisation (WTO), the international body whose task it is to
prevent countries from setting up artificial barriers to trade. A country
that wants to restrict or prohibit imports on grounds of safety has to
provide definitive proof of hazard, or else be accused of erecting false
barriers to free trade. A recent example is WTO's judgement that the EU ban
on US growth-hormone injected beef is illegal.
Politicians should constantly be reminded of the effects of applying the
anti-precautionary principle over the past fifty years, and consider their
responsibility for allowing corporations to damage our health and the
environment, which could have been prevented. I mention just a few: mad cow
disease and new variant CJD, the tens of millions dead from cigarette
smoking, intolerable levels of toxic and radioactive wastes in the
environment that include hormone disrupters, carcinogens and mutagens.
Conclusion
There
is nothing difficult or arcane about the precautionary principle. It
is the same sort of reasoning that is used in the courts and in statistics.
More than that, it is just common sense. If we have genuine doubts about
whether something is safe, then we should not use it until we are convinced
it is all right. And how convinced we have to be depends on how much we need
it.
As far as GM crops are concerned, the situation is straightforward. The
world is not short of food; where people are going hungry, it is because of
poverty. There is both direct and indirect evidence to indicate that the
technology may not be safe for health and biodiversity, while the benefits
of GM agriculture remain illusory and hypothetical. We can easily afford a
five-year moratorium to support further research on how to improve the
safety of the technology, and into better methods of sustainable, organic
farming, which do not have the same unknown and possibly serious risks.
Notes
and references
1.
See, for example Holm & Harris (Nature 29 July, 1999).
2. Wraight, A.R. et al, (2000). Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (early edition). Quite apart from the use of statistics, it
generally requires considerable skill and experience to design and carry out
an experiment that will be sufficiently informative. It is all too easy to
fail to find something even when it is there. Our failure to observe it may
simply reflect a poor experiment or insufficient data or both.
3. Cannell, M.E. et al (1999). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99
(1999) 772-784.
Major
Supermarket Chain in UK to Go 100% Organic
Iceland Supermarket Chain To Sell
Only Organic Food
June 14, 2000 (UK)
By Padraic Flanagan, PA News
Supermarket chain Iceland was today due to announce plans to switch complete
food ranges to organic - at no extra cost to the customer.
The retailer has bought up to nearly 40% of the world's organic vegetable
crop to meet a growing demand among supermarket shoppers.
The chain, which was the first to ban genetically modified ingredients from
its own brands, is to pledge that there will be no extra cost to the
consumer.
The company is also injecting £1 million into the National Trust, the UK's
biggest landowner, for a project to promote environmentally-friendly farming..
But the firm will warn shareholders that the organic move is being made at a
price, and will result in an £8 million drop in profits by December 2000.
Iceland's managing director, Russell Ford, told BBC radio that the investment
was prompted by a survey suggesting three out of four customers would prefer
to buy organic goods if they were cheaper than current prices.
The new scheme will set organic products at the same price as average
supermarket own-label products. Frozen organic vegetables will be introduced
first.
"At the moment Britain has minimal organic production due to lack of
Government investment in the organic industry in its formative years," said
Malcolm Walker, chairman of Iceland.
"We hope that our investment will help change this."
Iceland's £1m investment will support the National Trust's farming programme,
which works with tenant farmers to develop environmentally responsible
practices.
At present, only 3% of UK agricultural land is organic and all the
supermarkets are forced to rely on imports to meet the demand.
Sainsbury's is reported to have bought sites on Caribbean islands to
guarantee its organic supplies.
But with 40% of the organic crop sown up, experts say Iceland's investment
could act spur on the rest of the food industry, increase competition and cut
prices further.
Previous initiatives by the chain, which has 760 stores in the UK, such as
the GM food ban were widely welcomed by environmental campaigners like
Friends of the Earth.
Its introduction of a range of environmentally-friendly fridges and freezers
led to its products being the only ones to gain an endorsement by Greenpeace..
The new scheme may also put pressure on the government to give more financial
help to would-be organic food producers.
Find that elusive book on organic farming- view my
extensive book list and
order on-line from Amazon.com
BioDemocracy
News #27 May 2000
Biotech Bytes: Who's Winning the Frankenfoods Fight?
News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics
by: Ronnie Cummins
BioDemocracy News is a publication of the Organic Consumers Association
<www.purefood.org>
__________________________________________________________________
Biotech Bytes: Who's Winning the Frankenfoods Fight?
Quote of the Month:
"There are two things that most of us feel. We feel hurt and we feel
angry... We had real leadership... We had... faith in this science when
others were dubious, and it all seemed to be working. So we painted a big
bull's-eye on our chest, and we went over the top of the hill." Robert
Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, quoted in The New Yorker magazine April 10, 2000.
__________________________________________________________________
The worst nightmares of Monsanto and the Gene Giants are becoming reality.
The four year food fight by European consumers and farmers is slowly but
surely driving genetically engineered (GE) foods and crops off the EU
market, the largest in the world. US corn exports to the EU have fallen
from $360 million a year to near zero, while soybean exports have fallen
from $2.6 billion annually to $1 billion--and are expected to fall even
further as major food processors, supermarkets, and fast-food chains ban GE
soy or soy derivatives in animal feeds. Canada's canola exports to Europe
similarly have fallen from $500 million a year to near zero. Meanwhile
Brazilian exporters are doing a brisk business selling "GE-free"
soybeans
to European buyers, and organic food is booming throughout the
industrialized world. On May 18 the latest in a series of GE scandals
rocked Europe as a major rapeseed (canola) seller, Advanta Seeds, a
division of biotech giant AstraZeneca, admitted that genetic drift from
gene-altered canola fields in Canada had contaminated certified "non-GE
seed" export shipments to Britain, France, Germany and Sweden.
Consumer rejection of gene-foods is steadily spreading to Japan, South
Korea, Australia, New Zealand, India, and a host of other nations,
including the United States and Canada. Japan and South Korea-where public
concern is rising--have the biotech industry extremely worried, since these
two nations alone buy $11.3 billion of US agriculture exports every year.
On May 18 the Tokyo Grain Exchange soy futures market begin for the first
time to offer wholesale traders a choice of GE or non-GE soybeans. On the
first day of trading, non-GE buyers committed to 914,000 tons, compared to
only 364,000 tons for unsegregated (GE-tainted) US soybean futures.
Gene-foods and patents on living organisms have become hot button political
issues in India, Thailand, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines.
At recent international conventions such as the Biosafety Protocol meeting
in Montreal in January and the UN Codex Alimentarius meeting in Ottawa in
May, the US government has become increasingly isolated in its "no
labeling, no safety-testing" position.
Since the first of the year, prospects for a Biotech Century have dimmed
considerably. Among the most recent blows to the agbiotech industry have
been the following:
* Storm clouds in Asia. Japan dropped a regulatory bombshell in mid-April
when the Ministry of Health announced that starting next year agricultural
producers must "screen" imported genetically modified foods for
potential
food allergies and other health hazards. In addition new mandatory labeling
rules on GE food ingredients coming into force next April will have a major
impact on the marketplace.
According to a report by Sharon Schmickle in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune
on April 30, Japanese importers and manufacturers of many common food
products--including tofu, miso, cornstarch, corn snacks, popcorn and frozen
or canned corn--are almost certain to switch to non-genetically engineered
ingredients once they're forced to label. James Echle, who directs the
Tokyo office of the American Soybean Association, told the Star-Tribune "I
don't think anybody will label containers genetically modified," he said.
"It's like putting a skull and crossbones on your product." In a
related
story from Asia, the government of Sri Lanka formally banned the import of
GE foods and crops on April 23.
* Patent victory in India. Vandana Shiva and India and EU public interest
activists registered a major victory in mid-May when the European Patent
Office withdrew a controversial patent previously granted to pharmaceutical
giant W.R. Grace on a chemical formulation derived from the Neem tree,
which has been used as a bio-pesticide and medicinal agent for generations
by indigenous villagers and farmers in India. Biotech corporations fear
that the revocation of the Neem patent will set a precedent that could put
billions of dollars of their "biopirated" patents on drugs and seeds
at
risk.
* European opposition to gene-foods is as strong as ever. A new EU-wide
survey, "Eurobarometer," recently analyzed by the European
Commission,
showed that consumers in the EU were "deeply wary of genetically modified
food." Professor George Gaskell of the London School of Economics,
presenting the study at a news conference on April 27 flatly stated,
"Genetically modified foods are getting the thumbs down. They are seen to
be very risky."
* America's food giants begin to turn their backs on Frankenfoods. Even in
the heartland of biotech, consumer aversion to GE foods is increasing.
Since July, 1999 a number of major US food corporations--including baby
food giants Gerber, Heinz, and Mead-Johnson (infant formula); pet food
purveyor Iam's; corn chip king Frito-Lay; and several sizable supermarket
chains, Whole Foods, Wild Oats, and Genuardi's, have announced plans to go
"GE free." On May 9 in Chicago at the convention of the Food
Marketing
Institute, a trade association of supermarket corporations, a number of
leading supermarket chains admitted privately that mandatory labeling of GE
foods is probably inevitable.
* The death of Frankenspuds. Monsanto announced in early May that they were
closing down their NatureMark plant in Crystal, Maine, a transgenetic
laboratory and greenhouse operation that had been producing Bt potatoes
since 1992. Bt potatoes are gene-spliced with the soil bacteria, Bacillus
thuringiensis, to repel the Colorado potato beetle. Earlier this year,
Monsanto laid off 20 of the 30 employees in their other Bt potato lab in
Idaho. Bt potatoes thus join the growing obituary list of Monsanto's
Frankenfoods. In 1996 Monsanto/Calgene's Flavr Savr tomatoes were taken off
the market after dismal performances in the field and on grocery store
shelves.
Monsanto's retreat on Bt potatoes comes in the wake of news stories in the
Wall Street Journal and Associated Press that America's leading potato
buyers--including McDonald's, Burger King, Frito-Lay, and Procter &
Gamble--are eliminating Bt potatoes from their brand-name french fries and
potato chips. "We have to respect the preferences of our customers, and
both the domestic and global restaurant chains which we serve have asked us
to exclude these potatoes," said Fred Zerza, a spokesman for J.R. Simplot,
of Boise, Idaho, one of McDonald's largest suppliers.
In November 1999, McCain's and Lamb-Weston, two of North America's largest
potato processors, told farmers they would no longer accept gene-altered
spuds. Approximately 50,000 acres, amounting to 4% of last year's total
potato crop, were genetically engineered in North America. Next year Bt
spuds may become an extinct species.
* Bt cotton gives rise to "Stink Bug" epidemic. Recent field reports
posted at <www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/btcottonnoprofit.htm>
indicate that Bt cotton fields in North Carolina and Georgia are becoming
infested with Stink Bugs that are eating up the cotton crop. Not only does
the Bt toxin not kill the Stink Bugs, but apparently they love the mutant
plants. Monsanto's recommendation, posted on their Farmsource web site, is
to spray the Stink Bugs with toxic pesticides including methyl parathion,
one of the deadliest chemicals used in American agriculture. So much for
the notion that Bt cotton will get US farmers off the toxic treadmill.
As analysts have pointed out to BioDemocracy News, the pests that
Bt-spliced cotton are designed to kill--cotton bollworms, pink bollworms,
and budworms--were previously considered harmless "secondary pests"
until
the overuse of toxic pesticides (sold by the same companies now peddling
so-called "environmentally friendly" Bt crops--Monsanto, Novartis,
and
Aventis) killed off their natural predators and parasites and turned them
into major pests.
* More bad news for Monsanto. Recent studies carried out at the University
of Nebraska indicate that gene-altered Roundup Ready soybeans produce 6-11%
less yield than conventional soybeans.The two year study, reported by the
Associated Press on May 18, showed Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6% less
than their closest relatives and 11% less than high-yielding soybean
varieties. In another damaging revelation, Dr. Charles Benbrook, a
consultant for the Consumers Union, published a summary of an upcoming
report revealing that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans,
contrary to frequent claims by Monsanto, actually use 2-5 times more pounds
of herbicide per acre than conventional soybeans sprayed with other
"modern
low-dose pesticides." For background information see a previous study by
Benbrook on RR soybeans <www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf>
* American farmers back-off on GE. All signs indicate that US farmers are
slowly but steadily moving away from GE crops. According to the March 31
Associated Press, a recent USDA survey showed that American farmers will
plant 24% less genetically engineered corn this year, 13% less cotton, and
9% less soybeans. The Winnipeg Free Press reported on April 24 that farmers
in Canada are reducing the amount of acreage devoted to GE canola, perhaps
by as much as 10%.
* American grain dealers starting to segregate GE crops. A May 4 report on
the New York Times website
<www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/04tsc-foods.html> indicates that
many of America's grain wholesalers are segregating GE and non-GE corn and
soybeans for overseas export, even though they've been telling the public
for years that segregation is impossible. "We are encouraging farmers to
segregate crops," said Larry Cunningham, senior vice president for
corporate affairs at Archer Daniels Midland. "And we have an opportunity
to
also benefit from it. In Europe and Japan some people are willing to pay a
premium for segregated crops."
According to the Times, "a study conducted by Pioneer Hi-Bred , a
subsidiary of DuPont, indicated that, of the 1,200 U.S. [grain] processors
surveyed, 24 percent were planning to segregate corn crops this year, up
from 11 percent in 1999, and 20 percent were planning to segregate soybean
crops, up from 8 percent last year."
* Opposition to GE foods increases in Canada. A nationwide campaign
against Loblaw's, the nation's largest supermarket chain, has the food
industry worried. On May 9 the Council of Canadians, Sierra Club, and a
coalition of public interest groups filed a legal petition against the
federal government for failing to protect public health and the environment
in regulating genetically modified organisms. Under Canadian law, the
government is required to respond to the challenge within 120 days.
According to a March 31 poll conducted for the Council of Canadians,
three-quarters (75%) of Canadians familiar with GE foods are worried about
their safety and almost all (95%) want GE foods labeled as such. A
similarly high number (95%) want consumers to be able to buy non-GE foods,
and over two-thirds (71%) would even be willing to pay more to get them.
Moreover, most respondents (56%) are not confident in the federal
government's ability to protect their health and safety when it comes to GE
foods--although grocery retailers say they depend on consumer confidence in
government testing.
* Anti-GE protests increase in the US. Four thousand people demonstrated
against genetically engineered foods in Boston, Massachusetts on March 26,
marching in front of the national convention of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization (BIO). Over the past three months "Frankenfoods dumps"
outside supermarkets in Boston, San Francisco, and at the annual
shareholders meeting of the Safeway supermarket chain, organized by the
Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Friends of the Earth, have
generated significant media coverage and rattled the nerves of the biotech
industry. Meanwhile sabotage of biotech crops has continued in the US,
with an April 8 announcement by the "Petaluma Pruners" that they had
destroyed GE grape plants grown by the Vinifera corporation in Petaluma,
California.
* On March 21 anti-GE protesters, led by a group called Grain RAGE
(Resistance Against Genetic Engineering), wearing white biohazard suits and
respirators, blocked the road to the Cargill corporation's international
headquarters outside Minneapolis for several hours. Cargill, the world's
largest grain dealer, is one of the most strident proponents of GE crops.
ln September Cargill donated $10 million to the University of Minnesota for
a plant genetics research facility. Cargill also has strong ties to
Monsanto. Cargill sold its international seed business to Monsanto in 1998
and has agreed to manufacture commercial livestock and poultry feeds
produced from Monsanto's proprietary germ plasm. On May 15 Reuters reported
that Ernest Micek, the chairman of Cargill, told a globalization conference
sponsored by the Economic Strategy Institute that "while some American
consumers are raising concerns
about genetically modified foods, they are ignoring the safety risks of
organically grown corn, soybeans and other grains."
* On March 21 the Center for Food Safety, the OCA, Greenpeace and 51 other
groups filed a legal petition against the FDA in Washington, D.C. calling
for a moratorium on all GE foods and crops unless the FDA can prove through
stringent, long-term safety-testing that these products are safe for human
health and the environment. For further information on the legal petition
see <www.foodsafetynow.org>
* In Washington 52 members of the US House of Representatives are now
co-sponsors of a bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich (Democrat from Ohio)
calling for mandatory labeling of GE foods. Kucinich has also drafted a
House bill on safety-testing. The Kucinich GE labeling bill has drawn angry
criticism from the biotech industry, agribusiness, and the Grocery
Manufacturers of America--who maintain that mandatory labeling would unduly
alarm consumers and thereby kill the industry. Companion bills on safety
testing (Patrick Moynihan, Democrat from New York) and labeling (Barbara
Boxer, Democrat from California) have been introduced in the US Senate as
well. For further information on the grassroots lobbying campaign to get
these bills passed in Congress see <www.thecampaign.org>
* More than two dozen bills related to gene-foods have been filed in US
state legislatures over the past year year in at least 13 states; dealing
with issues such as the "Terminator" seed technology, registration of
farmers planting GE crops, and labeling gene-altered foods. Although these
bills have been held up in committee or rejected in the face of concerted
lobbying by powerful biotech and agribusiness special interests, their
proliferation is evidence that more and more politicians are feeling the
heat from constituents on GE foods.
* Swiss panel slams EPA. A prestigious panel of Swiss scientists,
commissioned by Greenpeace, on April 19 issued a peer-reviewed critique of
the shoddy science endorsed by the EPA to certify the environmental safety
of Bt corn. The EcoStrat report reveals that tests submitted by the biotech
companies Novartis and Mycogen to determine whether their GE corn could
harm non-target insects were so poorly designed that there was virtually no
chance that adverse effects would be observed. Despite the flawed
methodology, EPA accepted the tests as scientific evidence that the
gene-altered crop was harmless to non-target insects, and continued to
accept the same flawed testing procedures for approval of other companies'
insect-resistant "Bt" crops. According to Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, a
science
advisor to Greenpeace, "We now know that EPA's approval of
insect-resistant crops was based on false assumptions, shoddy methodology,
and skewed results." For more information on the EcoStrat report see
<www.greenpeaceusa.org/>
* Investors rebel against gene-foods. Anti-GE shareholder activism in the
US has increased considerably since the first of the year. According to the
New York Times "Twenty-one resolutions calling for restraints on the use
of
genetically modified ingredients are on the annual meeting agendas at some
of America's leading food and seed manufacturers this year, up from zero a
year ago... Shareholders at Coca Cola, Kellogg's, Phillip Morris ,and
PepsiCo have already voted on the resolutions, which garnered a respective
8.3 percent, 5.6 percent, 4 percent and 3.2 percent of the support of
voting shares." As activists point out, once a company faces opposition
from 10-15% of its shareholders on an unpopular position such as using GE
ingredients in its products, it will usually change its company policy.
Pharmageddon Strikes Back: Disinformation, TV Ads, Regulatory Reforms
Fearful that the global backlash against gene-foods is spreading to the
U.S., Monsanto, Aventis, Novartis, Dow, BASF, Zeneca, DuPont, and the
Biotechnology Industry Organization have launched a $50 million a year
public relations campaign to confuse and mislead the American public.
Fronting for the Gene Giants, the so-called Council for Biotechnology
Information has paid for cheery "biotech is great" national
television ads,
launched a Web site <www.whybiotech.com>, opened a consumer information
hotline, carried out focus groups and polls, and enlisted prominent
scientists and public figures (including Andrew Young, ex-ambassador to the
United Nations and former Nobel Prize winner Dr. James Watson) to serve as
messengers for pro-biotech propaganda. According to the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch on April 4, the Council says it may spend as much as $250
million on the campaign over the next five years. In the CBI's opening
national TV ad, the narrator tries to equate the potential benefits of GE
crops with the more widely accepted uses of biotechnology in medicine.
Flashing between scenes of farm fields and medical labs, the 60-second ad
proclaims: "A patient has a medicine she needs. A boy can survive a
childhood disease. A
cotton crop helps protect itself from certain pests because discoveries in
biotechnology, from medicine to agriculture, are helping doctors and farmers
to treat our sick and to protect our crops."
Based upon in-depth interviews and focus groups with American consumers,
the Council for Biotechnology Information has begun to hammer home the
following points--all of which of course are false:
* GE foods have been thoroughly tested by U.S. government agencies and
found to be safe.
* Biotechnology increases the nutritional content of foods, makes them
taste better, and can help feed the world's hungry.
* GE crops reduce the use of toxic pesticides.
In a national focus group study carried out last September 14-19 by public
relations powerhouse BSMG Worldwide on behalf of the Grocery Manufactures
of America, a copy of which was obtained by BioDemocracy News, BSMG
recommends broadcasting the above "positive messages" to American
consumers
to counteract their negative views on biotechnology. Unfortunately for the
biotech industry, BSMG also learned from interviewing American consumers
that there are some major obstacles to public acceptance of GE foods:
* American women, who generally do the grocery shopping, are more likely
than men to have negative feelings about gene-altered foods. These negative
feelings are "rooted in fear of the unknown, fear of negative consequences
for human health, and resistance to tampering with nature."
African-Americans are also "notably negative" toward gene-foods, as
are
senior citizens.
* Both men and women overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling of GE foods,
and strongly oppose industry efforts to restrict labeling or to make it
voluntary.
* Only 15% of consumers are aware that the majority of supermarket foods
already contain genetically engineered ingredients.
* Two-thirds of Americans say they are "concerned" about
biotechnology
issues. Forty-eight percent say they oppose any use of "genetic
modification" in food production.
Spoiling the Party: The National Academy of Sciences Report & FDA
"Reform"
On April 5 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released their
long-awaited report on genetically engineered crops. While the scientific
talking heads at the NAS press conference in Washington tried to reassure
the public that GE foods were safe, national TV networks broadcast a
different image--outside the NAS headquarters, a crowd of protesters
dressed in white lab coats, holding up signs ("The Best Science Money Can
Buy") and giant dollar bills, chanting anti-GE slogans. While the biotech
industry applauded the conclusions of the study, nearly every media
organization in the country reported that the NAS report was plagued by
charges of conflict of interest. The majority of the dozen scientists on
the NAS panel receive money from biotech corporations or labs under
contract to the industry, while the original head of the panel, Michael
Phillips, left the NAS to work as a PR flack for the Biotechnology Industry
Organization. The media also broadcast the criticisms of consumer and
public interest groups that the 261-page NAS report paid little attention
to the potential health hazards of GE foods.
As Rachel's Environment & Health weekly (May 11) <www.rachel.org> points
out, however, a close reading of the NAS report is actually quite damning
for the biotech industry and the nation's regulatory agencies (the FDA, the
EPA, and the USDA). Among other things the NAS report admits that:
* New allergens and toxins may be introduced into foods.
* Existing toxins in foods may reach new levels, or may be moved into
edible portions of plants.
* New allergens may be introduced into pollen, then spread into the
environment.
* Previously unknown protein combinations now being produced in plants
might have unforeseen effects when new genes are introduced into the plants;
* Nutritional content of a plant may be diminished.
Instead of a whitewash on the safety of GE foods, the NAS report has turned
into yet another public relations debacle for the biotech industry.
In a similar vein, the Food and Drug Administration's long-anticipated
announcement of "regulatory reforms" on GE foods and crops May 3 was
met
with indifference or hostility on the part of the general public. Headlines
across the country emphasized that the FDA was refusing to label GE foods,
while reporters noted that every consumer and environmental group in the US
was denouncing the FDA maneuvers as "too little and too late."
As we predicted months ago in BioDemocracy News the FDA is calling for
nothing more than (1) voluntary industry labeling; (2) non-specific
industry-FDA "consultations" before new Frankenfoods and crops are
put on
the market, and (3) non-specific disclosure of research data by biotech
corporations on the internet. As Debbie Ortman, National Field Organizer,
of the Organic Consumers Association put it, "The biotech industry
consulting with the FDA does not constitute safety-testing, nor is
so-called voluntary industry labeling of genetically engineered foods what
90% of consumers want--mandatory labeling."
Of course this is not the end of the debate. Battered by mounting public
criticism and serious market share loss in Europe and Asia, now spreading
to North America, we can expect Monsanto and the Gene Giants to fight back
with all they have. In the next issue of BioDemocracy News we will take a
critical look at the new generation of genetically engineered products
being readied for market: so-called "functional foods," GE fish,
Frankentrees, and other mutants. In the meantime stay tuned to our website
<www.purefood.org> for daily updates, events listings, and
action alerts.
### End of BioDemocracy News #27 ###
Ronnie Cummins
BioDemocracy Campaign/Organic Consumers Association
6114 Hwy 61
Little Marais, Mn. 55614
Tel. 218-226-4164
Fax 218-226-4157
email: alliance@mr.net
http://www.purefood.org
To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, BioDemocracy News, send an
email to: majordomo@mr.net
with the simple message:
subscribe pure-food-action
To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Organic View, send an email to:
info@organicconsumers.org
with the simple message:
subscribe
Read an interesting Greenpeace report on Monsanto's Round-up
Disturbing
Facts on Factory Farming & Food Safety
This
is taken from the following web page --
http://www.gracelinks.org/factoryfarm/facts.html#antibiotics
Facts
and Data on Antibiotics and Factory Farming
Below
are an assortment of facts and statistics relating to factory farm
issues - all information is referenced as fully as possible. For a more
detailed analysis, please refer to the individual links in the left sidebar.
Waste Pollution and the Environment
Animal Welfare
Economics
Antibiotics and Public Health
Miscellaneous
Sustainability (the good news!)
Waste
Pollution and the Environment
(1)
The USDA reports that animals in the US meat industry produce 61
million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human
waste - or five tons for every US citizen.
(2) North Carolina's 7,000,000 factory-raised hogs create four times as
much waste - stored in reeking, open cesspools - as the state's 6.5 million
people. The Delmarva Peninsula's 600 million chickens produce 400,000 tons
of manure a year.
(3) According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hog, chicken and
cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and
contaminated groundwater in 17 states.
(4) Pfiesteria, a microscopic organism that feeds off the phosphorus and
nitrogen found in manure, is a lethal toxin harmful to both humans and
fish. In 1991 alone, 1,000,000,000,000 (one billion) fish were killed by
pfiesteria in the Neuse River in North Carolina.
(5) Since 1995, an additional one billion fish have been killed from manure
runoff in estuaries and coastal areas in North Carolina, and the Maryland
and Virginia tributaries leading into the Chesapeake Bay. These deaths can
be directly related to the 10 million hogs currently being raised in North
Carolina and the 620 million chickens on the Eastern Shore of the
Chesapeake Bay.
(6) The pollution from animal waste causes respiratory problems, skin
infections, nausea, depression and even death for people who live near
factory farms. Livestock waste has been linked to six miscarriages in women
living near a hog factory in Indiana.
(7) In Virginia, state guidelines indicate that a safe level of fecal
coliform bacteria is 200 colonies per 100 milliliters of water. In 1997,
some streams had levels as high as 424,000 per 100 milliliters.
(1) Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert S., Walker, Polly, "How Sustainable
Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of
Industrial Agriculture," Johns Hopkins University's Center for a Livable
Future, July 9, 1999
(2) Chris Bedford, "How Our food is Produced Matters!", AWI
Quarterly,
Summer 1999
(4) Zakin, Susan. "Nonpoint Pollution: The Quiet Killer," Field &
Stream,
August 1999, p.86
(5) Environmental Protection Agency, 1998
(6) Centers for Disease Control, Mortality Weekly Report, July 5, 1996
(7) Washington Post, June 1, 1997
Animal
Welfare
(1)
Each full-grown chicken in a factory farm has as little as six-tenths
of a square foot of space. Because of the crowding, they often become
aggressive and sometimes eat each other. This has lead to the painful
practice of debeaking the birds.
(2) Hogs become aggressive in tight spaces and often bite each other's
tails, which has caused many farmers to cut the tails off.
(3) Concrete or slatted floors allow for easy removal of manure, but
because they are unnatural surfaces for pigs, the animals often suffer
skeletal deformities.
(4) Ammonia and other gases from manure irritate animals' lungs, to the
point where over 80% of US pigs have pneumonia upon slaughter.
(5) Due to genetic manipulation, 90% of broiler chickens have trouble
walking.
(1) Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert S., Walker, Polly, "How Sustainable
Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of
Industrial Agriculture," Johns Hopkins University's Center for a Livable
Future, July 9, 1999
(2) ibid.
(3) ibid.
(4) ibid.
(5) Erik Marcus, Vegan, Mcbooks, 1998
Economics
(1)
Almost 30% of agricultural subsidies go to the top two percent of farms
and over four-fifths to the top 30%.
(2) In 1970, there were approximately 900,000 farms in the United States;
by 1997, there were only 139,000.
(3) Between 1969 and 1992, the number of producers selling 1000 hogs
annually or less declined 73%. Producers selling more than 1000 annually
increased 320%, according to the US Census of Agriculture.
(4) Estimated inputs to produce a pound of: Pork: 6.9 pounds of grain, .44
gallons of gasoline, 430 gallons of water Beef: 4.8 pounds of grain, .25
gallons of gasoline, 390 gallons of water
(5) Meat production has grown worldwide from 44 million tons in 1950 to 211
million tons in 1997.
(6) The price of meat would double or triple if full ecological costs -
including fossil fuel use, groundwater depletion and agricultural-chemical
pollution - were factored in.
(7) 90% of the nation's poultry production is controlled by 10 companies.
(8) In Maryland, chickens outnumber people 59 to 1.
(1) Horrigan, Leo, Lawrence, Robert S., Walker, Polly, "How Sustainable
Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of
Industrial Agriculture," Johns Hopkins University's Center for a Livable
Future, July 9, 1999
(2) Drabenscott, Mark. "This Little Piggy Went to MarketÖ", Economic
Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Vol. 83, No. 3, Third Quarter,
1998, pp. 79-97
(3) Swine Strategies, State of Utah Governor's Office of Planning and
Budget, Summer 1995
(4) Alan Durning, "Fat of the Land", World Watch Institute, 1991
(5) Earth Times, July 1, 1998
(6) EarthSave, November 1997
(7) Zakin, Susan. "Nonpoint Pollution: The Quiet Killer," Field and
Stream,
August 1999, pp. 84-88.
(8) Ibid.
Antibiotics
and Public Health
(1)
Overuse of antibiotics in animals is causing more strains of
drug-resistant bacteria, which is affecting the treatment of various
life-threatening diseases in humans. The Institute of Medicine at the
National Academy of Sciences has estimated the annual cost of treating
antibiotic-resistant infections in the U.S. at $30 billion.
(2) Fifty million pounds of antibiotics are produced in the U.S. each year.
Twenty million pounds are given to animals, of which 80% (16 million
pounds) is used on livestock merely to promote more rapid growth. The
remaining 20% is used to help control the multitude of diseases that occur
under such tightly confined conditions, including anemia, influenza,
intestinal diseases, mastitis, metritis, orthostasis, and pneumonia.
(3) Chickens are reservoirs for many food borne pathogens including
Campylobacter and Salmonella. 20% of broiler chickens in the US are
contaminated with Salmonella and 80% are contaminated with Campylobacter in
the processing plant. Campylobacter is the most common known cause of
bacterial food borne illness in the US.
(4) 5000 deaths and 76 million cases of food-borne illness occur annually.
(5) Antibiotics in farm animals leave behind drug-resistant microbes in
meat and milk. With every burger and shake consumed, super-microbes settle
in the stomach where they transfer drug resistance to bacteria in the body,
making one more vulnerable to previously-treatable conditions.
(1)
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, "Antimicrobial
Fact Sheet", May 4, 1999
(2) American Medical News, "FDA Pledges to Fight Overuse of Antibiotics in
Animals", February 15, 1999
(3) Risk Assessment of Fluoroquinolone Use in Poultry, Food & Drug
Administration, February 2000
(4) ibid.
(5) Newsweek, March 7, 1994
Miscellaneous
(1)
The average American consumes nearly twice his or her weight in meat
annually.
(2) Poultry processing has almost double the injury and illness rate than
trades like coal mining and construction.
(3) The United Nations reports that all 17 of the world's major fishing
areas are at or beyond their natural limits. One third of all the world's
fish catch is fed directly to livestock.
(4) "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
on
earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." --Albert Einstein
(5) "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the
way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the
more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."
--Mohandas Ghandi
(1) Earth Times, July 1, 1998
(2) EarthSave, March 1998
(3) EarthSave, November 1997
Sustainability
(The Good News!)
(1)
Sustainable farming, once dismissed as the pastime of crackpots and
idealists, has grown into a business worth some $7.3 billion a year in the
European Union and around $15.6 billion worldwide.
(2) Organic farming became one of the fastest growing segments of U.S.
agriculture during the 1990's. Certified organic cropland more than doubled
from 1992 to 1997, and two organic livestock sectors-eggs and dairy-grew
even faster.
(3) The number of certified organic milk cows in the U.S. nearly tripled
between 1992 and 1994.
(4) The United States had 537,826 certified organic layer hens in 1997, up
sharply from 47,700 in 1994.
(5) Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) connects local farmers with
consumers; local farms grow food specifically for CSA members. As of
January 1999, there were over 1000 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
farms across the US and Canada.
(6) Responsible management of the natural resources of soil, water, and
wildlife on the 60 percent of all U.S. farms less than 180 acres in size,
produces significant environmental benefits for society.
(7) The smallest U.S. farms, those of 27 acres or less, have more than ten
times greater dollar output per acre than larger farms.
(8) In farming communities dominated by large corporate farms, nearby towns
died off. Where family farms predominated, there were more local
businesses, paved streets and sidewalks, schools, parks, churches, clubs,
and newspapers, better services, higher employment, and more civic
participation.
(9) In the United States, small farmers devote 17% of their area to
woodlands, compared to only 5% on large farms. Small farms maintain nearly
twice as much of their land in "soil improving uses," including cover
crops
and green manures.
(1) Quote by Dr. Nicolas Lampkin, Agriculture Specialist, University of
Wales in Aberystwyth. Paul Ames, Associated Press, December 27, 1999
(2) Economic Research Service, USDA
(3) ibid.
(4) ibid.
(5) University of Massachusetts Extension
(6) A Time To Act report, USDA National Commission on Small Farms, 1998
(7) Dr. Peter Rosset, "The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm
Agriculture", Institute for Food and Development Policy, September 1999
(8) ibid.
(9) ibid.
Download
reports from Australian Gene Ethics Network on Genetic Engineering
Go to Organic Info for the latest
organic news around the globe
What was the cause of the latest floods in Southern
Africa? Rain or the destruction of over 50% of South Africa's wetlands? Find
out at this brilliant website
Want to learn more about the hazards of
conventionally produced food?
Organic
Food is More Nutritious Than Conventional Food
Journal
of Applied Nutrition
1993; 45:35-39.
Organic foods vs. supermarket foods: Element levels
Synopsis:
Over a 2 yr period, organically and conventionally grown apples, potatoes,
pears, wheat, and sweet corn were purchased in the western suburbs of
Chicago and analyzed for mineral content. Four to 15 samples were taken
for each food group. On a per-weight basis, average levels of essential
minerals were much higher in the organically grown than in the
conventionally grown food. The organically grown food averaged 63% higher
in calcium, 78% higher in chromium, 73% higher in iron, 118% higher in
magnesium, 178% higher in molybdenum, 91% higher in phosphorus, 125% higher
in potassium and 60% higher in zinc. The organically raised food averaged
29% lower in mercury than the conventionally raised food.
The following ads can be viewed using Adobe
Acrobat. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Turning Point Project is a new non-profit organization, formed in 1999
specifically to design and produce a series of educational advertisements
concerning the major issues of the new millennium. The ads will appear in The
New York Times and, funds permitting, other newspapers through spring of 2000.
The issues discussed are those that will be crucial in determining the quality
of life on Earth in the near and distant future. Despite this, they have not
been given the in-depth coverage in the major media that they deserve.
Signers of the ads, including the Center for Food Safety, are part of a
coalition of more than 50 non-profit organizations that favor democratic,
localized, and ecologically sustainable alternatives to current practices and
policies. Please visit www.turnpoint.org for additional information.
News Release!
News Release! News Release!
Embargoed Until: June 17, 1998
Contact: Caroline Cox, NCAP
(541) 344-5044 Ext. 24
Number of Secret
Ingredients in Pesticides Doubles
New Report: Toxic
Secrets Released Today
Eugene, Oregon --A new analysis shows that
the number of secret "inert" ingredients used in pesticides almost
doubled in 10 years and that over a quarter of these "inerts"
ingredients are hazardous to public health and the environment. The report Toxic Secrets: "Inert" Ingredients in
Pesticides, 1987-1997 [PDF 200k] found that secret "inert" ingredients
increased 93% for a total of 2311 chemicals and that 26% are hazardous to the
public and/or the environment while the majority of inerts' toxicity remain a
mystery. Yet this information is not provided on product labels.
Toxic Secrets, authored by the Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and released by Californians
for Pesticide Reform (CPR), documents the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) inability to protect public health and the environment from the dangers
of pesticide ingredients called inerts. Inert ingredients, which can make up to
99.9 percent of a pesticide formulation, can be as toxic as the active
ingredient. However, only 7 of 2311 inert ingredients are disclosed on product
labels.
In 1987, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a policy designed to
"reduce the potential for adverse effects" from the use of 1200 inert
ingredients in pesticide products and "encourage the use of the least
toxic inerts available." Today, the number of inerts has not only grown, but
these materials continue to be kept secret from the public. The report found:
* Inerts identified by EPA as
"unknown toxicity" rose 122% in ten years. This represents a jump
from 800 to 1779 chemicals.
* Over 600 inert ingredients
have been classified as hazardous by other regulatory programs, or federal or
international agencies. For example, 20 are known or suspected carcinogens, 187
inerts are considered hazardous air and water pollutants, 12 have been assessed
as "extremely hazardous," and 118 are regarded as occupational
hazards.
"What you don't know can
hurt you when it comes to pesticides," said Sandra Marquardt, Toxics
Consultant for NCAP and the report author. "These mystery pesticide
ingredients which can be hazardous are applied on our produce, parks, schools,
and communities, and the secrets are growing."
Toxic Secrets also reveals that in
California over 152 million pounds of inert ingredients were used by
agriculture and liscensed pest control applicators in 1995. California has the
most comprehensive pesticide use reporting system in the nation which includes
reporting the amounts of inert ingredients used.
"Not only do we need
full label disclosure, Oregon needs full reporting of pesticide use," said
Caroline Cox of NCAP. 3How can we reduce pesticide use or evaluate our exposure
to these toxics when we don1t know where they are being used and in what
amounts?"
Toxic Secrets also found that one aspect
of EPA's inerts program potentially made manufacturers more accountable:
granting consumers the right-to-know. When manufacturers were required to list
their ingredients on the label because the ingredient was indentified as
"of toxicological concern," manufacturers chose to drop the product
containing a hazardous inert from their product line or switch to an
alternative ingredient. The number of List 1 "hazardous" inert ingredients
fell from 57 in use in 1987 to 8 in 1997, an 86 percent reduction and the
number of products containing a List 1 inert went from approximately 1300
products in 1987 to 40 in 1997, a 97 percent reduction.
"For over a decade EPA
has chosen to ignore publicly available information indicating the toxicity of
numerous chemicals in favor of a policy based on inertia, disinterest and
secrecy," said Cox. "We demand full disclosure of all pesticide
ingredients today."
-- 30 --
NCAP is a grassroots, regional
organization that promotes sustainable resource management, prevention of pest
problems, use of alternatives to pesticides, and the right to be free from
pesticide exposure. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP);
PO Box 1393; Eugene, OR 97440 (541) 344-5044
Northwest Coalition for
Alternatives to Pesticides
P.O. Box 1393 Eugene, OR 97440
Phone: (541) 344-5044; Fax:
(541) 344-6923
email
info@pesticide.org.
Web Page: http://www.efn.org/~ncap
Take
genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone off the market!
In early 1999, the Center for Food Safety (CFS)
initiated a legal action
against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting that Monsanto's
genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) (also known as rBST or
PosilacÆ) be taken off the market. CFS took this important step upon the
release of information from Health Canada (the Canadian equivalent of FDA)
that the FDA failed to investigate studies showing that the oral feeding
of rBGH led to thyroid cysts and prostate activity in male rats. The
Health Canada study emphatically found that these results necessitated
further study of the human health impacts of rBGH. The study also found
that significant animal health problems were associated with rBGH use in
dairy cows, including a 50% risk increase of lameness and a 25% risk
increase of mastitis (udder infections). However, the FDA approved rBGH
for use in the U.S. in late 1993 without finding that it was safe for use
and ignoring studies that indicated these human and animal health risks.
In contrast, both Canada and the European Union have found the potential
human and animal health impacts associated with rBGH great enough to
prohibit rBGH use.
rBST is widely used in South African dairy
herds and apart from the major impact on our health, it could limit the growth
of organic farming in South Africa since manure from these dairy herds would
not be acceptable according the EU Organic Standards for use on organic farms.
Ask the milk companies in your area to confirm in writing that their farmers do
not use rBST and spread this information to friends and family.
press releases
KELLOGG'S
TIGER TARGETED IN ACTION CONDEMNING USE OF "FRANKENFOOD"
WASHINGTON,
March 23, 2000-Today
Greenpeace activists went after Kellogg's Tony the Tiger for helping market genetically
engineered "FrankenFoods" to U.S. children. Greenpeace activists
climbed the towering façade of Kellogg's Cereal City to unfurl a huge banner
reading, "Kellogg's: Stop Feeding FrankenFood to America's Kids." An
additional message was hung by Tony the Tiger's mouth, which has him saying,
"They're Gr-ross!"
Greenpeace
climbers draped the banners at the children's exhibit hall located adjacent to
Kellogg's headquarters. The activists were joined on the ground by FrankenTony
the Tiger, Green-peace's genetically modified version of the Kellogg's mascot.
[Call for photographs.]
Earlier
this week, Greenpeace joined over 50 other organizations in a petition to the
Food and Drug Administration calling on the agency to remove genetically
engineered (GE) foods from the market because it failed to require safety
testing or labeling. Kellogg's tells American consumers that GE food
"poses no safety hazard to consumers," yet the company promises its
European customers that the cereals sold to them are free of genetically
modified organisms (GMO).
"A
breakfast of Kellogg's cereals is a breakfast of untested GMOs," said
Greenpeace genetic en-gineering specialist, Charles Margulis. Margulis led
FrankenTony into the corporate headquarters where they left for Kellogg CEO,
Carlos Guittierez, a copy of the FDA petition and two boxes of his company's
cereals from Europe with labels reading, "GMO-free in Europe, why not
here?" "Kids shouldn't be duped by Tony the Tiger into starting each
day with a science experiment in every bowl. Kellogg's must stop feeding
FrankenFood to America's kids."
A
Caravan opinion research poll commissioned by Greenpeace last fall found that
only 30 per-cent of Americans believed that Kellogg's would use GMOs in its
products. The poll also found that just 31 percent of Americans said they would
buy foods from companies who promise non-GMO food to Europeans but do not make
the same promise to Americans. Other polls have found that the overwhelming
majority of Americans want labels on GMO food and that most would avoid eating
biotech food if it were labeled.
Kellogg's
has defended its use of GMOs in the U.S. saying that Americans are not
concerned about engineered food. Yet Americans' concerns were well represented
last December when over 1,000 people protested outside the FDA's Oakland,
California, hearing on biotech food. In February, Senate legislation calling
for mandatory labeling of GE food was introduced, following a similar proposal
last fall in the House. Nearly 50 Members of Congress have urged the FDA to
"reverse its course of action and institute requirements for the labeling
of all genetically engi-neered and modified foods...."
"Americans
are waking up to Kellogg's secret ingredient in their family's
cereals-genetically modified organisms," added Margulis. "And as they
learn more, they will begin demanding that Kellogg's stop force-feeding their
children these untested ingredients. Europe's children kids are safe from this
stuff, why aren't America's kids?"
fact sheets
food fight: the truth about GMOs
Right
now a debate is raging in the United States about genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in our food. The biotech industry claims that GMOs will save
the environment and solve the hunger crisis. But Greenpeace considers GMOs a
threat to the planet, and organizations like Christian Aid and the Institute
for Food and Development Policy say GMOs are likely to increase world
hunger. How can you make sense of this tricky subject? Read on to find out the
truth behind the genetic engineering myths.
MYTH
#1: Genetic engineering is
merely an extension of traditional breeding.
REALITY:
·
Genetic
engineering is a new technology that has been developed to overcome the limitations
of traditional breeding. Traditional breeders have never been capable of
crossing fish genes with strawberries. But genetically engineered
"fishberries" are already in the field. With genetic engineering,
these types of new organisms can be created and released into the environment.1
·
Food and Drug
Administration scientists stated that genetic engineering is different from
traditional breeding, and so are the risks.2 Despite this warning,
the FDA continues to assert that GMOs are not different and don't require
special regulations.
MYTH
#2: GMOs can make foods
better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting.
REALITY:
·
The reason for
the 70 million acres of GMO crops grown in this country today has nothing to do
with nutrition, flavor or any other consumer benefit. There is little benefit
aside from the financial gains reaped by the firms producing GMOs. Nearly all
of the GMO corn, soy, potatoes and cotton grown in the United States has been
genetically altered so that it can withstand more pesticides or produce its
own.
MYTH
#3: GMO crops eliminate
pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming.
REALITY:
·
Farmers who grow
GMO crops actually use more herbicide, not less. For example, Monsanto created
Roundup-Ready (RR) soy, corn and cotton specifically so that farmers would
continue to buy Roundup, the company's best-selling chemical weed killer, which
is sold with RR seeds.3
·
Instead of
reducing pesticide use, one study of more than 8,000 university-based field
trials suggested that farmers who plant RR soy use two to five times more
herbicide than non-GMO farmers who use integrated weed-control methods.
·
GMOs may be the
greatest threat to sustainable agriculture on the planet. Many organic farmers
rely on a natural bacterial spray to control certain crop pests. The advent of
genetically modified, insect-resistant crops is likely to lead to insects that
are immune to this natural pesticide. When this biological pesticide is
rendered ineffective, other farmers will turn to increasingly toxic chemicals
to deal with the "superbugs" created by GMOs. Meanwhile, organic
farmers will be out of options.
MYTH
#4: The Government ensures
that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.
REALITY:
·
Neither the FDA4,
the Department of Agriculture (USDA)5, nor the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)6 has done any long-term testing of GMOs in
food or the environment, nor has any regulation specific to bioengineered food
been established. Biotech companies are on the honor system. They have
virtually no requirements to show that this new technology is safe.
·
FDA scientists
and doctors warned that GMO foods could have new and different risks such as
hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the
spread of antibiotic-resistant disease..
·
The USDA has
reviewed more than 5,000 applications for biotech crop field trials without
denying a single one.
·
USDA officials
claimed they would conduct long-term studies of GMO crops, but have no plans to
require any pre-market or pre-release assessment. Studies conducted after our
environment and food supply have been contaminated will be too late.
MYTH
#5: There is no scientific
evidence that GMOs harm people or the environment
REALITY:
·
There is no
long-term study showing that GMOs are safe, yet the biotech industry and
government have allowed our environment and our families to become test
subjects in these experiments.
·
Doctors around
the world have warned that GMO foods may cause unexpected health consequences
that may take years to develop.
·
Laboratory and
field evidence shows that GMOs can harm beneficial insects, damage soils and
transfer GMO genes in the environment, thereby contaminating neighboring crops
and potentially creating uncontrollable weeds.
MYTH
#6: GMOs are necessary to
feed the developing worlds growing population.
REALITY:
·
In 1998, African
scientists at a United Nations conference strongly objected to Monsanto's
promotional GMO campaign that used photos of starving African children under
the headline "Let the Harvest Begin." The scientists, who represented
many of the nations affected by poverty and hunger, said gene technologies
would undermine the nations' capacities to feed themselves by destroying
established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems.7
·
Genetic
engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation.
Biotech companies eagerly pursue a genetic-engineering technique named
"terminator" technology that would render a crop's seed sterile,
making it impossible for farmers to save seed for replanting.8 Half
the world's farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people
rely on for daily nutrition.
1 Rissler, Jane and Mellon, Margaret. The Ecological Risks of
Engineered Crops (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996, 4-5.)
2 Discovery documents from the lawsuit Alliance for Bio-Integrity et
al v Shalala, May 1998. Center for Food Safety, 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE,
Washingotn DC, 202-547-9359.
3 Benbrook, Charles. "Evidence of the Magnitude of the Roundup
Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University- Based Varietal Trials in 1998,"
Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999. http://www.biotech-info.net/herbicide-tolerance.html
4 Statement of James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator,
Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, October 7,
1999.
5 Sally McCammon, USDA, "Regulating Products of
Biotechnology," Economic Perspectives, US Department of State, vol 4, #4,
October 1999.
6 "Genetic Genie: The Premature Commercial Release of
Genetically Engineered Bacteria," Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, September, 1995. From PEER, 2001 S Street, Washington DC 20009.
7 "Let Nature's Harvest Continue!" African Counter
Statement to Monsanto, at the 5th Extraordinary Session of the FAQ Commission
on Genetic Resources, June 12, 1998.
8 Peter Rosset, "Why Genetically Altered Food Won't Conquer
Hunger," New York Times, September 1, 1999.
BioDemocracy News #25 March 2000
Special
Joint Issue of Organic View & BioDemocracy News on Organic Standards
News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics
by: Ronnie Cummins
BioDemocracy News and Organic View are publications of the Organic
Consumers Association <www.purefood.org>
__________________________________________________________________
Organic Standards Revisited: Beyond the Niche Market of "USDA
Organic"
Quotes of the Month:
"I do want to point out that the fact that we are once again announcing
a proposed rule on national organic standards is a living example of our
democracy at work. The people spoke very loudly... It's a well known fact
that we received an unprecedented 275,603 comments during the first go
round... But let me be clear on a very important point. The organic
classification is not a judgment about the quality or safety of any
product... Just because something is labeled as organic does not mean it is
superior, safer or more healthy than conventional food. "
Dan Glickman, Secretary of US Department of Agriculture, March 7, 2000.
"There's been no research to give consumers any confidence that paying
twice
as much for their [organic] food is giving them any enhancement in safety or
nutritional value." Michael Phillips, executive director for food and
agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Los Angeles Times
March 8, 2000
__________________________________________________________________
Victory for Organic Consumers & Farmers: The USDA Surrenders
It's nice to win a victory once in a while. After being battered in
Seattle, bruised by the mass consumer rejection of proposed organic rules
in 1998, and unnerved by the growing controversy over genetically
engineered foods, the Clinton and Gore administration find themselves on
the defensive. Feeling the heat from consumers, the USDA has apparently
decided to call off its food fight--at least temporarily--with the nation's
10 million organic consumers, 6,000 retailers, and 10,000 organic farmers.
On Wednesday, March 8, the USDA formally surrendered to the organic
community by releasing a completely revised proposal for national organic
food standards and labels. The new 663-page <http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop>
proposal incorporates nearly all of the recommendations made by the
National Organic Standards Board and organic activists, including a
prohibition on genetic engineering, sewage sludge, irradiation, and a
variety of other industrial-style agriculture practices.
A massive, unprecedented consumer backlash in 1998 over the USDA's first
proposed regulations shook up the USDA and forced them to back off on plans
to degrade organic standards and allow biotech and corporate agribusiness
to take over the rapidly growing organic food market. US organic food
sales this year will likely reach $8 billion--a sizable bite of the $350
billion total annual sales of the nation's supermarkets. At current growth
rates organic production will constitute 10% of American agriculture by the
year 2010.
Besides backing off on the "Big Three" (genetic engineering, sewage
sludge,
and irradiation) the USDA bureaucrats bowed to grassroots pressure and
basically agreed that any product bearing the label "USDA Certified
Organic" will have to be produced without toxic pesticides or toxic
"inert ingredients"; that antibiotics, growth hormones, and rendered
animal
protein can not be administered or fed to animals; that factory farm-style
intensive confinement of farm animals will not be allowed; and that no
synthetics or chemicals will be allowed in organic production without the
approval of the National Organic Standards Board. In addition the USDA
basically agreed to leave the preexisting system of private and state
organic certifiers intact; to allow accredited state and private organic
certifiers to uphold higher standards than the USDA; and for licensed
organic certifiers to be able to display their logos or seals on the front
label panel of organic products. Finally the USDA backed off on their
previous proposal to outlaw "eco-labels" which might imply that a
product
was organic.
Despite major improvements in the current proposed USDA organic standards
over what was put forth in 1998, there are a number of problems and
shortcomings in the lengthy March 8 document. Among the most obvious
problems are the following:
* So-called "natural foods" with less than 50% organic ingredients
will be
allowed to list their organic ingredients on their information
panel--usually on the back of the package--even though the non-organic
ingredients of these products may be genetically engineered, irradiated,
derived from sewage sludge, or produced with pesticides, growth hormones,
or antibiotics.
* Manure from factory farms will be allowed to be used as a fertilizer on
organic farms.
* Although the proposed regulations on organic animal husbandry require
"access to outdoors," no clear definition of what constitutes
"pasture" are
offered, nor does the USDA delineate exact space or spacing requirements
for humane housing and outdoor access for poultry, pigs, cattle, and other
animals.
* Although the USDA claim they don't intend to impose economic hardships on
organic certifiers and farmers, the added costs of USDA oversight will fall
heavily on small certifiers and farmers. The USDA should provide
accreditation services to organic certifiers free of change as well as
subsidize the costs of any farmer who wishes to become certified as
organic. Beyond this the USDA should allocate funds to pay farmers a
premium price for their products during their "transition to organic"
phase
as an added incentive for the majority of farmers to begin making the
transition to sustainable and organic farming practices.
* Although genetic contamination of organic crops by "genetic drift"
from
farms growing genetically engineered crops is one of the most serious
environmental threats to organic agriculture, no residue limits for genetic
contamination are delineated in the USDA's proposed federal regulations.
The USDA must hold biotechnology patent holders and seed companies
accountable and financially liable for the environmental and economic
damage inflicted on organic farmers and producers caused by genetic drift.
Proposed Rules Versus Final Rules: Consumer Vigilance & Comments Required
Although organic consumers and farmers should be proud of the fact that our
collective grassroots efforts have forced the government to adhere to high
standards in these proposed rules, we need to keep in mind that the March
proposed rules are not final regulations. After a 90-day official comment
period--which ends June 12--the USDA could bow once again to pressure from
corporate agribusiness and the biotechnology industry and issue a set of
weaker final rules, filled with legal loopholes and exemptions. For this
reason it is important once again for us to flood the USDA with thousands
of comments--which can be sent either by email (go to the USDA website
listed above); by fax (703-365-0760); or regular mail (Keith Jones,
National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-So., Ag Stop 0275, PO
Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456). When sending comments by fax or
regular mail identify your comments as referring to docket number
TMD-00-02-PR. Please demand that the USDA deal with the five problems we've
noted above, but stress first and foremost that the USDA should not weaken
the provisions outlined in the March proposed rules in any manner
whatsoever.
Industrial Agriculture Takes Over the World: Must Organic Remain a Niche
Market?
The main problem with "USDA Certified Organic," as outlined in the
proposed
rules, is not so much what the government says, but rather what they
deliberately ignore or fail to say. There's not a word in the new organic
standards about the evermore obvious dangers of industrial agriculture and
genetic engineering. Not a word about the 80 million cases of food
poisoning every year in the US resulting directly from the filth, disease,
and chemical contamination inherent in factory farming and industrialized
food processing. Not a word about rampant pesticide contamination and
hormone-disrupting chemicals in our food supply. Not a word about tons of
antibiotic drugs on factory farms being routinely fed to animals to make
them grow faster, which end up as residues in non-organic meat, poultry,
eggs, and dairy products--giving rise to dangerous drug-resistant strains
of salmonella and campylobacter.
In the USDA proposal there's not a word about billions of pounds of
pesticides and nitrate fertilizers contaminating more and more of the
nation's municipal water supplies. Not a word about the nation's food and
water-related cancer epidemic (48% of all males and 38% of all females in
the US can now look forward to getting cancer), or the even deadlier toll
resulting from heart disease and obesity--directly related to Americans'
overconsumption of junk food, meat, and animal products. Not a word about
the growing international call, endorsed by the British Medical Association
among others, for a global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and
crops. Instead the US Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman once more
repeated the Big Lie of Biotechnology and Corporate Agribusiness on March
7:
"Organic does not mean it is superior, safer, or more healthy than
conventional food. All foods in this country must meet the same high
standards of safety regardless of their classification."
On the sustainability front, there's not a word in the proposed organic
regulations on reducing "food miles." Not a word on how the average
over-processed, over-packaged, chemically and genetically-contaminated food
product in the US has traveled 1500 miles (burning up incredible amounts of
non-renewable energy and releasing climate disrupting greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere) before arriving at your supermarket. There's no mention of
the fact that recent statistics indicate that the single greatest cause of
global warming and climate destabilization may be industrial (i.e
non-organic, non-sustainable, non-locally produced) agriculture. Likewise
there's not a word in the new National Organic Program about the urgent
necessity of preserving biodiversity, in terms of food crops, animal
breeds, and wild species.
The US and Global Farm Crisis: Organic Niche Markets Are Not Enough
Finally the proposed organic rules have little or nothing to say about the
life or death economic crisis currently confronting American farmers and
rural communities. Likewise the USDA is silent on the frightening
implications of the further industrialization and globalization of
agriculture for the world's two billion small farmers and rural villagers.
The bottom line is that no one today is making any money in agriculture
except for the transnational corporate giants who control farm commodity
prices, agricultural input prices, seeds, patents, and retail food sales.
In other words Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Monsanto, Dupont, Cargill, Coca-Cola,
Tyson, Con-Agra, Kraft, and Archer Daniels Midland are making billions
while family farmers in the US and all over the world are going bankrupt.
In America today, 94% of the average farm family's income comes from wages
earned off the farm. Even as far back as 1990 the USDA admitted that 70% of
the nation's two million farmers were not earning enough income to support
a family. In the state of Minnesota, for example, it is estimated that 8%
of all farmers will be driven into bankruptcy or forced to give up farming
in the next 12 months.
The implicit assumption in USDA agricultural policy is that the 10% or so
of American small farmers who eventually switch over to organic production
over the next decade will probably survive, and even, in some cases,
prosper. The remaining 90% of US farmers will either be forced to sell
their land or consolidate their operations into giant biotech and chemical
intensive factory farms, leaving them the option of becoming tractor
drivers or tenant farmers. The implications for public health,
biodiversity, and a sustainable climate and environment of having organic
and sustainable agriculture remain nothing more than a small "niche
market"
alongside a monstrous North American network of biotech and industrial ag
factory farms is not reassuring. Applied on a global scale this chemical
and genetically engineered driven model of agriculture will be literally
catastrophic.
Food Agenda 2000: Transforming American Agriculture
The growing US and global citizens movement against genetic engineering and
corporate globalization can draw inspiration from the fact that America's
organic community woke up, got organized, and forced the USDA to maintain
strict organic standards, at least for the moment. This is an important and
historic victory for citizen action, comparable in significance perhaps to
the US anti-nuclear movement stopping the building of new nuclear plants in
the late-1970s. Our common victory in this Save Organic Standards campaign
underlines the effectiveness of mass-based public education and
mobilization in this new era of computer-based information and global
internet communications. But of course this unprecedented rebellion of
granola eaters, organic farmers, environmentalists, animal protection
advocates, and health conscious soccer moms is just the beginning.
The challenge over the next months and years will be to see if organic
consumers, environmental organizations, farm activists, churches, and
public interest groups can build upon this tactical victory and begin
making headway in the bigger battle--driving genetically engineered crops
off the market all over the world, beginning to phase-out the most
dangerous practices of industrial agriculture, and jump-starting the
conversion of the majority of the world's agriculture to organic methods as
soon as possible. To do this means we'll have to organize a mass base of
support in every local area and state, form national networks and
coalitions, and then link up with our counterparts all over the world. We
and our allies, from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to the Consumers
Union and the National Family Farm Coalition, have already started to do
this, but we've still got a long road ahead. If we're going to see 30% of
more of American agriculture go organic before the end of the decade we're
going to have to build up a powerful nationwide network of organic
consumers. If we're going to drive Frankenfoods off the market, and clean
up the mess of chemical-intensive agriculture we'll need a lot of political
clout.
JOIN THE CAMPAIGN!
We invite you to join the Organic Consumers Association in our campaign to
transform America's food and agriculture system:
(1) Volunteer to help organize an OCA chapter in your local community. Send
us an email to <campaign@organicconsumers.org>
(2) Volunteer to help distribute OCA petitions--which we call our Food
Agenda 2000--in your local community. Again send an email to
<campaign@organicconsumers.org>
(3) Make a tax-deductible donation to the OCA. You can do this by credit
card off of our website <http://www.purefood.org> or by sending us a check
to our office: OCA/6114 Hwy 61/Little Marais, MN 55614
(4) Circulate this newsletter to your friends and tell them to subscribe by
sending an email to <majordomo@mr.net> with the simple message subscribe in
the body of the text.
Editor's Note: We're happy to announce that we now have 30,000 subscribers
to BioDemocracy News and Organic View. But this is just the beginning. We
need your help to spread the OCA message far and wide. Join Us!
And finally don't forget to send in your comments to the USDA on the
proposed national organic standards by June 12. Stay tuned to OCA website
<www.purefood.org> and our newsletter for further
developments.
### End of BioDemocracy News #25
Ronnie Cummins
BioDemocracy Campaign/Organic Consumers Association
6114 Hwy 61
Little Marais, Mn. 55614
Tel. 218-226-4164
Fax 218-226-4157
email: alliance@mr.net
http://www.purefood.org
To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, BioDemocracy News, send an
email to: majordomo@mr.net
with the simple message:
subscribe pure-food-action
To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Organic View, send an email to:
info@organicconsumers.org
with the simple message:
subscribe
Some Specific Problems in the New USDA Proposed
Regulations on Organic Standards-by Jim Riddle
USDA Proposed Rule - What are some issues of concern?
Compiled
by James A. Riddle, Organic Independents/Organicworks!
Rt. 3 Box 162C, Winona, MN, 55987, Ph/fax: 507-454-8310.
Released March 20, 2000.
Despite major improvements in the proposed rule, there are a number of
issues of concern, where comments are needed to create a National Organic
Program which meets the needs and expectations of organic farmers and
consumers. Among them are the following:
Subpart A - Definitions. Does not provide a definition of "organic
agriculture," or contain a statement of "Principles of Organic
Production."
Definition of "system of organic production and handling" is
inadequate.
Subpart A - Definitions. Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMO s) are
defined by a new term "excluded methods" - see preamble discussion.
"Excluded methods" needs to cover products and derivatives of GMO s,
and
needs to be directly linked to the definition of "prohibited
substances."
Subpart A - Definitions. Terms defined, including "audit trail,"
"buffer
zone," "compost," "fertilizer," and "inert
ingredient," need to be
carefully assessed for accuracy and applicability.
Subpart B - Applicability. No transitional labels are defined or recognized.
Subpart B - Applicability. 205.101(a)(1). The $5000 small farm exemption,
which under OFPA applied to total farm sales, is extended to include
"organic sales" and handling sales.
Subpart B - Applicability. 205.101(b)(1). Brokers, distributors,
warehousers, and transporters are exempt from certification.
Subpart B - Applicability. 205.101(b)(2). Retail operations, including
those with delicatessens, salad bars, bakeries, and juice bars, are exempt
from certification.
Subpart B - Applicability. No oversight or certification is required for
operations using the word "organic" in the ingredient list only.
(<50%
organic ingredients.)
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.202. Split operations, including
those with parallel production, are allowed with no restrictions or
additional considerations.
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.203(c)(1). No restrictions on the
quality, quantity, or potential contaminants in manure from "factory
farms"
or industrial agriculture operations. (contrary to Codex and EU
requirements.)
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.203(c)(3). Requires compost to be
produced in compliance with NRCS compost practice standard code 317, which
may be inappropriate, unreasonable, and inadvertently prohibit
vermicomposting.
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.203(d)(2). Allows use of Chilean
nitrate and potassium chloride. (contrary to EU requirements.)
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.204(a)(2). Seed treatments are
only allowed if they are on the National List, yet none are listed, meaning
that the use of treated seeds will be prohibited.
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.236(a)(2). Contains no allowance
for new herd dairy clause, seriously inhibiting the ability of small dairy
farms to convert to organic production.
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.238(b)(1). Breeder stock could
receive parasiticides while lactating.
Subpart C - Production and Handling. 205.238(c)(1). Antibiotics are
prohibited, but antibiotics in vaccines and semen are not addressed.
Subpart C - Production and Handling. Stocking rates and space requirements
per animal are not addressed. Buffers for pastures are not addressed.
Subpart C - Production and Handling. Concept of "commercially
available" is
applied to organic seeds only - not applied to minor ingredients,
processing aids, or livestock inputs.
Subpart D - Labeling. Products with <50% organic ingredients could contain
non-organic ingredients from "excluded methods" or produced using
prohibited materials.
Subpart D - Labeling. 205.203. Does not address use of the word
"organic"
as a modifier in a product name when the ingredient modified is not organic
- e.g. "organic cherry sweets", where the cherry is a natural flavor,
but
not an organic ingredient.
Subpart D - Labeling. 205.301. Product composition. Requires that
non-organic ingredients must not contain or be created using excluded
methods, sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation. This places new burdens on
manufacturers, inspectors, and certifying agents.
Subpart D - Labeling. 205.310. Design of seal "USDA Certified
Organic"
implies certification by USDA, which may violate ISO Guide 61, section
2.4.2, which prohibits the accreditation body s mark from being used to
imply certification. Should be changed to "Certified Organic USDA
Accredited."
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.500(c). Foreign equivalency deals only
government to government - no provisions are made for recognition of
certifiers not under a government program or accredited by the USDA.
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.501 (a)(11). Measures conflict of interest
on a 12 month period. The commonly accepted organic industry standard for
conflict of interest is a 24 month period.
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.501(a)(12). New section needs to be inserted
requiring certifying agents to provide certification services to all
applicants who comply with USDA regulations. Language also needed requiring
certifying agents to provide non-discriminatory services.
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.501(a)(12). Requires certifier to accept the
certification decisions of all other USDA-accredited certifiers
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.501(b)(2). Needs to integrate allowance for
"contract specifications" in order for certifying agents to be able
to
maintain and control their licensed trademarks.
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.209. Peer review is weak - peer review
"may"
be used; reviewers act as individuals; reviewers are prohibited from being
compensated.
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.510(c)(1). Evaluation of certifying agents
occurs once every five years - may not be compliant with international
norms. (ISO Guide 61, section 3.5.1.)
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.501(c)(2). An accredited certifier must
provide "reasonable security" to the USDA. This amount is unspecified
and
its affordability is of concern.
Subpart F - Accreditation. 205.508(b). "An initial site evaluation of an
accreditation applicant shall be conducted before or within a reasonable
period of time after issuance of the applicant's notification of
accreditation. " The practice of conducting the site visit after
accrediting a certifying agent may violate ISO Guide 61, section 2.3.1.
Subpart G - Administrative. National List. Does not contain NOSB criteria
to evaluate materials. Should be inserted per each National List section or
at 205.607, "Amending the National List."
Subpart G - Administrative. State Programs. 205.620. Confuses "State
organic certification programs" and "State organic programs."
e.g.: States
can have additional requirements, and take enforcement actions, without
establishing certification programs - this is not clear in the text.
Subpart G - Administrative. Compliance. 205.660. Does not address
investigation of non-certified operations making "organic" claims.
Subpart G - Administrative. Compliance. 205.662(e). No penalties are
assigned other than suspension and de-certification.
Subpart G - Administrative. Compliance. Funding for investigation and
enforcement action is not addressed.
Subpart G - Administrative. Inspection and Testing. 205.670(b) states that
residue tests must be conducted at the certifier s "own expense".
Subpart G - Administrative. Inspection and Testing. 205.671 sets maximum
allowable residue levels at "estimated national mean" without
providing
information on what those levels are.
Subpart G - Administrative. Inspection and Testing. Provides no protection
of organic producers from chemical or genetic trespass; liability for
damages is not addressed.
Subpart G - Administrative. Inspection and Testing. Does not set or propose
any rejection levels for GMO contamination.
| Links | Contact Us