GreenSage E-zine 11/2008

GE Meat Products: To Label or Not to Label. That is the Question
by the GreenSage Team with information courtesy The Consumers Union

For over a decade we at GreenSage have been promoting green. But Green has come to mean many things from reducing global warming through energy efficiency to management of our natural resources to simply Reduce Reuse & Recycle. If you're overwhelmed about how to get your head around this thing called 'Green,' you're not alone. We hear from people every day who want to be more clear about what it means.

For us, 'Green' simply equates to quality of life — or if thinking more inclusively, the quality of living systems. Afterall, the planet is a living system made up of living systems. It is our vision that 'Green' is a perspective of thinking (and doing) to holistically manage our living systems.

To that end, transparency is key in terms of how things are made, where they are made and how much energy it takes to make them. Do you know what you put into your body, your own personal living system? through your Food? Your Breath? Your Skin? What's in these products? Shouldn't we have the right to full disclosure of this stuff?

The debate over whether to label genetically modified foods has shifted away from transparency and disclosure with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recent release of their Draft Guidance on Regulating Genetically Engineered Animals, saying the agency will not require a label on food made from genetically engineered animals.

Public comment is invited and we urge you to do so. The comment period for the draft guidance, titled "The Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs," is about to close — Nov. 18, 2008. The 25-page document is available online at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/GEAnimals.htm.

To post your comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FDA-2008-D-0394

The FDA has proposed that they will only review genetically engineered animals for their safety as food, and will not require any labeling. The Consumers Union finds it “incomprehensible” that the FDA will not require labeling of genetically engineered animals that are sold as food. Genetically engineered animals may contain genetic material from entirely different species. For example mouse genes have been put into pigs to help them metabolize phosphorous more efficiently, and spider genes have been put into goats so that they produce spider silk in their milk.

“It is incomprehensible to us that FDA does not view these animals as different from their conventional counterparts, and therefore something that under law is required to be labeled,” stated Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union. “In our view, consumers have a right to know if the ham, bacon or pork chops they are buying come from pigs that have been engineered with mouse genes,” or cows engineered to produce antibiotics in their milk, which will not be cleared before production, unlike conventional antibiotics, which must be cleared from the cow before it can be used to produce milk or meat. We are concerned both about the potential safety and lack of labeling on such food products,” stated Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at Consumers Union.

Genetic engineering generally refers to the use of recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques to introduce new characteristics or traits into an organism. Scientists splice together pieces of DNA and introduce a spliced DNA segment into an organism to give the organism new properties.

Genetic engineering already is widely used in agriculture to make crops resistant to pests or herbicides. In medicine, genetic engineering is used to develop microbes that produce drugs and other therapeutic products for use in humans. In food, genetic engineering is used to produce microorganisms that aid in baking, brewing, and cheese-making.

GE animals can produce human or animal pharmaceuticals (biopharm animals); they can serve as models for human diseases; they can produce high-value industrial or consumer products, such as fibers; and they can be food-use animals with new traits.

Under the FDA's Draft Guidance on Regulating Genetically Engineered Animals, in those cases in which the GE animal is intended for food use, producers will have to demonstrate that food from the GE animal is "safe" to eat. We aren't very trusting that the producers themselves 'demonstrate' safety and we're certainly not fond of the word 'safe.' How is it determined safe and by whom for whom? Peanuts may be safe for me, but maybe not for you. Products that have peanuts in them are labeled. By labeling them, we have a choice to determine for ourselves whether they are safe or not — as it should be.

According to the Draft, the FDA claims that it will study all genetically modified foods for safety issues before approving them for market consumption. There are no genetically engineered animal products on the market, the FDA's Web site said, although some products are undergoing a safety review.

For more information, see http://www.fda.gov/cvm/GEAnimals.htm

The FDA says the foods would undergo strict testing and that any approved foods would be safe for human consumption. But that's missing the point, said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union. Many label requirements have little to do with food safety. "We require labeling of juices whether they come from concentrate or if they're fresh-squeezed or whether milk is homogenized or not, so along those lines, we think that all genetically engineered animals present in the food chain should labeled as such," Hansen said.

The Institute for Responsible Technology, founded in 2003 to stop genetically modified foods and crops, is launching The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which will include non-GMO education centers that retailers can place in their stores. Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute, says that the natural products industry alone has the strength of numbers to effect far-reaching and permanent changes to the U.S. food market, natural or otherwise. "We don't need to wait for government to give us a choice," he said. "We can do it ourselves. If we were to convince 15 million people in the U.S., or 5 percent of the population, to conscientiously avoid GM foods, that would be more than enough to force them out of the market, because for large food companies, that represents millions of dollars in lost sales."

Smith points to the European Union's swift rejection of GMO foods in 1999, as well as efforts in the U.S. to work with dairies to get rid of milk containing the growth hormone rGBH — efforts that were eventually supported by Starbuck's, Walmart and 40 of the 100 largest U.S. dairies — as examples of how a "tipping point" can be reached through consumer reaction.

"When consumers reject GMOs, it makes them a marketing liability to food companies and ensures their swift removal," Smith said. "If we can provide clear non-GMO choices and clean out all GMO ingredients from natural manufacturers, we can drive the national food industry away from GMOs and provide the tipping point for the entire nation to drive GMOs out of our food supply." Smith believes that, once consumers know of these organisms' inherent danger, not just to agriculture but to livestock and human health, this knowledge will create a groundswell of grassroots activism, which will alter the landscape of genetic engineering in our food supply.

Don't forget, November 18th deadline to register your comments at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FDA-2008-D-0394

You may also be interested to:
Read the proposed rule on the National Organic Program web site.

Read the proposed Rule to Clarify Pasture Provisions of Organic Regulations