Breaking News:  New Field Evidence Confirms Gene-altered Corn Kills Monarch Butterflies.  Join Greenpeace in Calling on Kellogg's to Stop Using Butterfly-killing Corn.  More info

Books on Ayurveda, Herbs, Food, BioPiracy, Sustainable Agriculture and Genetic Engineering
Vandana Shiva is perhaps our  greatest voice in protecting Ayurvedic herbs from BioPiracy and Genetic Engineering
  Stolen Harvest : The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply   by Vandana Shiva
  Biopiracy : The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge  by Vandana Shiva
  The Violence of the Green Revolution : Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics  by Vandana Shiva
  World As Lover, World As Self by Joanna Macy, Thich Nhat Hanh  (Deep Ecology meets Buddhism)
  Coming Back to Life : Practices to Reconnect Our Lives, Our World   by Molly Young Brown, Joanna R. Macy
  Genetic Engineering, Food & Our Environment  by Luke Anderson

What is Genetic Engineering ?
In traditional forms of breeding, variety has been achieved by selecting from the multitude of genetic traits that already exist within a species` gene pool. In nature, genetic diversity is created within certain limits. A rose can cross with a different kind of rose, but a rose will never cross with a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in breeding the offspring are usually infertile. For example, a horse can mate with an ass, but the offspring, a mule, is sterile. These boundaries are essential to the integrity of any species.

 In contrast to traditional breeding, genetic engineering involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to transfer a desired trait or character. For example, selecting a gene which leads to the production of a chemical with antifreeze properties from an   arctic fish (such as the flounder) and splicing it into a tomato or strawberry to make it frost-resistant. It is now possible for scientists to introduce genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans, into plants. 

It has been suggested that, because we have been modifying the genes of plants and animals for thousands of years, genetic engineering is simply an extension of traditional breeding practices. While it is true that the food crops we are eating today bear little resemblance to the wild plants from which they originated, it is clear that through this new technology organisms are being  manipulated in a fundamentally different way. 

Inadequate safety testing of genetically engineered (GE) food ?
Many people became aware of GE food for the first time in 1996 when soybeans grown in the US were genetically engineered by Monsanto to be resistant to their best-selling herbicide Round-up. Over 40% of the US soybean harvest is exported. When the first consignment of GE soya arrived in Europe, it was already mixed in with the conventional harvest. The American Soybean Association rejected calls to segregate the GE soya on the basis that it was 'substantially equivalent' to ordinary soya.

The theory of 'substantial equivalence' has been at the root of international guidelines and testing of
GE food. According to this principle, selected chemical characteristics are compared between a GE product and any variety within the same species. If the two are grossly similar, the GE product does not need to be rigorously tested on the assumption that it is no more dangerous than the non-GE equivalent.
From a scientific standpoint, the use of 'substantial equivalence' as a basis for risk assessment is  seriously flawed, and cannot be depended on as a criterion for food safety. Genetically engineered  food may contain unexpected new molecules that could be toxic or cause allergic reactions. A  product could not only be 'substantially equivalent', but even be identical with its natural  counterpart  in all respects bar the presence of a single harmful compound. 

In 1989, 37 people died in the United States after consuming a food supplement  called
L-tryptophan that had been produced from GE bacteria. It was regarded as  'substantially
equivalent' and passed as safe for human consumption. 

GE foods already on the market in the US include corn, soybeans, potatoes, squash,  tomatoes,  chicory and papaya as well as milk and other dairy products from cows treated with  a genetically  engineered growth hormone (rBST).A variety of enzymes produced from genetically  engineered  microorganisms are used throughout the food processing industry. None of these  foods have been  subject to long-term safety studies or the kind of rigorous toxicological assessment  that is applied  to pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals undergo up to 15 years of clinical trials which  are still limited  in their ability to assess unexpected problems; when pharmaceuticals are put on the  market, 3% of  them need to be withdrawn due to serious side effects. 
Public Concern Numerous surveys have been conducted around the world in order to monitor public attitudes  towards GE food. In industrialised nations these have highlighted a discrepancy  between  government policy and public concern. With a few exceptions, governments have  been keen to  encourage the introduction of genetic engineering into the food supply. Opinion polls,  however, have  shown that most people would rather they did not have to eat it. Concerns fall into a  number of  categories: 
 

• Choice - consumers are worried that lack of segregation and labelling together with the fact that so many foods are being introduced will leave them unable to exercise free choice.

• Health - people are becoming aware that there is a scientific basis to safety concerns about GE food, and are reluctant to replace food they know to be safe with food that might not be. A lack of trust in official assurances of safety, which has been exacerbated by the BSE crisis in the UK, has made people very suspicious of  claims that there 'is no evidence of harm'. 

• Ethics - for some people the main issue is not whether genetically engineered food  is safe or not, but the fact that it is unnatural and unnecessary. For some it offends deeply held principles about the relationship between humanity and nature. 

• Politics - International free-trade agreements are increasing the power of  commercial interests and people are concerned that governments are being influenced by unelected bodies (1).

• Profit - trade in GE food and crops is dominated by a handful of multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca, Aventis and DuPont. It is  widely believed that these are the only beneficiaries of genetically engineered foods. 

• Environment - there is growing evidence that genetic engineering poses new risks to ecosystems, with the potential to threaten biodiversity, wildlife and truly sustainable forms of agriculture. According to the research, it is the potential for long-term effects that most concerns people. Critics of the technology argue that once GE  organisms have been released into the environment they may transfer their characteristics to other organisms and can never be recalled or contained. 

Labelling ?
When people began to realise they were eating GE food without their knowledge or consent, there  were immediate calls from consumer organisations around the world for mandatory  labelling of all  GE food. 

On the 27th of May 1998, Codex Alimentarius (a UN body responsible for  establishing international  rules on food policy) rejected these calls in favour of a much more limited labelling  regime that  suited the food and genetic engineering industries. They used the argument of  substantial  equivalence to say that it would be discriminatory to enforce mandatory labelling of  GE food, and  suggested that this would constitute an illegal trade barrier. Mandatory labelling could  mean that  consumers would be able to boycott GE products, and that segregation would need  to be  introduced, potentially making GE food uneconomical for the food industry.  Independent scientists  have pointed out that GE food is in fact 'substantially different' from other food and  that labelling is  essential in order to be able to trace any health problems that may arise. 

New EU legislation on partial labelling of GE soya and maize was introduced from  the 1st of  September '98. In Europe, GE soya is estimated to be present in about 60% of all  processed food  in forms such as vegetable oil, soya flour, lecithin and soya protein. GE maize can be  found in  about 50% of processed foods as corn, cornstarch, cornflour and corn syrup. Over  90% of these  ingredients are excluded from the new labelling scheme. 

So-called scientific arguments have been used by the food industry as a basis for  refusing to label  derivatives such as soya oil because most of the DNA is destroyed when food is  processed.  Surveys have found that even so, most people want the right to know if the food they  are eating  comes from something that has been genetically engineered, and they may have  ethical reasons or  concerns about environmental issues that make them want to avoid it. 

The most certain way of avoiding GE food is to eat organic produce. In the spring  of '98, the US Department of Agriculture put forward legislation which would have  compromised this: they proposed that GE food could be labelled as 'organic'. Eventually these plans were ejected when they received over 280,000 letters of complaint. 
There is evidence that the United States government has been applying pressure  on other countries to reject labelling regulations. A New Zealand cabinet document from  19th February '98 showed that the US had threatened to pull out of a potential  free-trade agreement with the New Zealand government because of its plans to test and  label GE food. The document stated that "The United States have told us that such an approach  could
impact negatively on the bilateral trade relationship and potentially end any chance  of a New Zealand - United States Free Trade Agreement.".

Who is in Control? 
The genetic engineering industry is dominated by a handful of multinational corporations holding  interests in food, additives, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and seeds. These  corporations are  beginning to hold monopolies in the global market for genetically engineered  products. This is being  facilitated through: 

The World Trade Organisation - which gives priority to free-trade and makes it difficult for countries to refuse a new product or technology even if they have  concerns about its potential impact on health or the environment. 

Patenting rights - which allow corporations to patent new genetically  engineered varieties. This gives them control over huge areas of the market. It is very  expensive to research, develop and patent new crops, and this reinforces the trend towards  market dominance by the larger companies.

A systematic process of acquisitions and mergers - these mergers incorporate seed companies, genetic engineering companies and other related interests. Monsanto, for example, has spent $8 billion on new acquisitions in the past three years. 

 "This is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the  entire food  chain "

The United States government in particular has been criticised for 'revolving  doors' between the White House and the genetic engineering industry. Many of the  people now sitting on key regulatory bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration  have strong links to these multinational corporations. 

In a document leaked to Greenpeace, PR firm Burson Marsteller demonstrated confidence in the proactive stance of national governments. They advised  EuropaBio (a consortium of GE companies with interests in Europe) to refrain from partaking  in any public debate and leave it to " those charged with public trust, politicians and regulators, to assure the public that biotech products are safe." 
 
 

    Breaking News: 

    New Field Evidence Confirms Gene-altered Corn Kills Monarch Butterflies.  Join Greenpeace in Calling on Kellogg's to Stop Using Butterfly-killing Corn. 

    A two-year field study on the effects of genetically engineered (GE) corn  has confirmed laboratory evidence that pollen from the GE crop can kill monarch butterflies. Results from an Iowa State University study published in the science journal, Oecologia, validate a 1999 laboratory study that showed insecticidal "Bt" corn can be harmful to Monarch larvae. The Iowa scientists concluded that increased risks to monarchs "may be substantial," and warned, "the ecological effects of transgenic insecticidal crops need to be evaluated more fully before they are planted over extensive areas." Currently, twenty million acres of Bt corn are grown in the U.S 

    "Food producers like Kellogg's have the clear  responsibility to stop using these untested GE foods," said Charles Margulis, Greenpeace genetic engineering specialist. "Kellogg's can no longer ignore doctors and scientists  who have warned that these foods may not be safe for our children or our environment." 

    Kellogg's has moved to eliminate genetically engineered foods from its products in Europe, but the company tells consumers in the U.S. that the corn they eat may be genetically altered. 

    It's Kellogg's vs. Monarch Butterflies 
    Take action today! 
    Log on to http://www.truefoodnow.org to send a fax to Kellogg's CEO Carlos Guittierez 

    Or call Kellogg's - 1800-962-1413. 

    Tell Kellogg's to stop the threat to Monarch butterflies and our health by going GE-free.  Tell them to protect Americans and our Monarchs just as they've protected Europeans and their environment! 

    You can find out more about the recent Monarch study by checking out 
    http://www.truefoodnow.org 
To take more action against GE food go to  http://truefoodnow.org/take_action/takeaction.html