Unidentified subject!

[David Tribe <detribe@unimelb.edu.au>]

Mokma writes
I notice you could  not cite any research which even remotely suggests any dangers to organically  grown foods.  

Tribe responds
Well perhaps you might apply precautionary principles to the following:

 Int J Food       
Microbiol 1998 Jun  30;42(1-2):1-7 
Current microbiological status of 'health foods' sold in Canada.

Warburton DW, Harrison B,Crawford C, Foster R, Fox C,Gour L, Purvis U
Evaluation Division, Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Food, Health Protection
Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

A follow-up survey wasconducted across Canada toevaluate the current status of'health foods' sold in Canada.A total of 1239 sample unitsof 'health foods' wereanalysed for a variety ofbacteria, including aerobiccolony counts (ACC),coliforms, aerobic andanaerobic sporeformers,Escherichia coli and Bacilluscereus. Results presentedindicate that 16.8-18.4% ofthe 'health foods' exceed ACCguidelines, 16.0-17.8%exceeded coliform guidelines,35.7% exceeded aerobicsporeformer guidelines, 81.4%exceeded anaerobic sporeformerguidelines, and 9% exceeded B.cereus guidelines. Some ACCwere further identified andfound to be opportunisticpathogens, including thegenera Bacillus, Enterococcus,and Staphylococcus. It wasconcluded that more extensivesurveillance of this industryby health officials is needed.

It's all a matter of risk..........but can imagine the medias response if
this was a GM crop! 

Shane Morris
University of Guelph
Canada

Nature Neuroscience Press Release 


A new link between pesticides and Parkinsons disease 
Parkinsons disease is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases,
affecting about 1% of all people over the age of 65. It is characterized
by rigidity, bradykinesia (reduced movement) and tremors, which are caused
by the progressive degeneration of dopamine-containing neurons in a brain
region called the substantia nigra. Another characteristic feature of the
disease is that the brains of Parkinsons patients contain microscopic
protein deposits, known as Lewy bodies. Although some cases of Parkinsons
disease can be attributed to genetic risk factors, the majority of cases
are still unexplained; these so-called sporadic cases have been proposed
to result from environmental factors. In the December issue of Nature
Neuroscience, Tim Greenamyre and colleagues (Emory University) show that
rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, can induce the major features
of Parkinsons disease in rats. These results not only provide a new animal
model for testing potential treatments, they also support the idea that
chronic exposure to environmental pesticides may contribute to the
incidence of Parkinsons disease in humans.

Before this study, the most realistic animal model of Parkinsons disease
was the so-called MPTP model, in which mice or monkeys are treated with a
drug known as 1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP). This model originates
from the early 1980s, when a number of heroin addicts developed sudden and
irreversible symptoms of Parkinsonism after injecting themselves with an
illicit drug preparation contaminated by MPTP. The reason for the toxic
effect is that MPTP (or more strictly, its derivative MPP+) inhibits one
of the enzymes in mitochondria, intracellular organelles that provide the
cell with energy.

Rotenone, like many other pesticides, inhibits the same mitochondrial
enzyme (called complex I) as MPP+, and so Greenamyre and colleagues
hypothesized that chronic treatment with low levels of rotenone might
produce Parkinsonian symptoms in rats. They administered rotenone
intravenously over a period of several weeks, and observed gradual
degeneration of the dopamine neurons, accompanied by behavioral features
of Parkinsonism and the formation of structures that closely resemble Lewy
bodies. A likely explanation, as yet untested, is that rotenone acts by
causing the mitochondria to produce free radicals, reactive chemicals that
produce oxidative damage in a variety of contexts and have been implicated
in many human degenerative diseases.

Rotenone is a naturally occurring pesticide, and it is widely used both as
an insecticide and as a method for killing fish (as part of water
management programs). It is considered relatively benign compared to many
other pesticides. Although the new study does not prove that rotenone
causes Parkinsonism in humans, it is likely to raise new questions about
rotenones safety. More generally, it lends credence to the idea that
chronic exposure to environmental toxins, including pesticides, may
contribute to the incidence of the disease. The main risk factor for
Parkinsons disease is age, and it has also been claimed, more
controversially, that the disease is associated with living in rural
environments. Determining to what extent pesticide exposure can account
for Parkinsonism will require a great deal of further work. The present
findings, however, are consistent with the idea that chronic exposure to
low levels of environmental toxin may cause cumulative damage to the
brains dopamine system, eventually leading to the clinical symptoms of the
disease.

Benoit Giasson and Virginia Lee of the University of Pennsylvania discuss
the implications of these findings in an accompanying News and Views
article.

Article



Chronic systemic pesticide exposure reproduces features of Parkinson's
disease  p 1301
Ranjita Betarbet, Todd B. Sherer, Gillian MacKenzie, Monica Garcia-Osuna,
Alexander V. Panov and J. Timothy Greenamyre

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v3/n12/pdf/nn1200_1301.pdf

also
News & Views



A new link between pesticides and Parkinson's disease  p 1227
Benoit I. Giasson and Virginia M.-Y. Lee
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v3/n12/pdf/nn1200_1227.pdf

Red flag for green spray

Debora Mackenzie

BACTERIAL SPORES sprayed on organic crops as a pesticide may damage the
health of people who inadvertently breathe them in. French researchers
have found that inhaling the spores can cause lung inflammation, internal
bleeding and death in laboratory mice.

Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, produces a toxin that kills insects. The
dried spores of the bacteria have been used as a pesticide for more than
30 years and are one of the very few insecticides sanctioned for use on
organic crops in Europe. Bt is also widely used to combat pest such as
the spruce budworm, a caterpillar that attacks trees.

Last year, French scientists isolated a strain of Bt that destroyed tissue
in the wounds of a French soldier in Bosnia. The strain, known as H34,
also infected wounds in immunosuppressed mice (This Week, 30 May 1998, p
7). Now the same team has found that H34 can kill mice with intact immune
systems if they inhale the spores.

FranE7oise Ramisse of le Bouchet army research laboratories near Paris and
her colleagues found that healthy mice inhaling 108 spores of Bt H34 died
within eight hours from internal bleeding and tissue damage. Spores from
mutants of the same strain which did not produce the insecticide were
equally lethal to mice, suggesting that it was not to blame. Ramisse and
her colleagues presented their results at a conference in Paris last month.

The researchers think that the symptoms are caused by other toxins. The
bacterium's close cousin, Bacillus cereus, produces a toxin that ruptures
cell membranes. And in 1991, Japanese researchers showed that B.
thuringiensis produces the same toxin. In fact, when the French
researchers ran samples from the soldier from Bosnia through an automated
medical analyser, it seemed to show that the bacterium was B. cereus.
Ramisse suggest that companies producing Bt spores might make them safer
by deleting the promoter sequence that activates the gene for the
membrane-rupturing toxin.

Although H34 is not used as a pesticide, commercial strains of Bt tested
by the researchers also killed some mice or caused lung inflammation when
inhaled. The team obtained these strains from Abbott Laboratories, a major
supplier of Bt based in Chicago. Ramisse points out that the strains are
sprayed on forest pests at concentrations of 1011 spores per square
metre--and so might pose a danger to people in the immediate vicinity. But
Abbott maintains that Bt is safe. "We stand by our products," says Lind a
Gretton, a company spokeswoman. The French researchers have not yet tested
strains made by other companies.

"I suspect Bt infection is more widespread than we realise," says Ramisse.
Recorded infections by Bacillus pathogens are comparatively rare. Known
pathogenic species can have very distinctive symptoms. Anthrax, for
instance, is caused by B. anthracis. But where such tell-tale signs are
absent, Ramisse suspects that doctors often fail to recognise that the
bacteria are responsible, dismissing any Bacillus in patients' cultures
as contamination. Consequently, the cultures are often discarded. "I wish
they would start keeping them so we could check for Bt," she says.

When Bt was sprayed in towns in Oregon in 1991 to combat gypsy moths, the
bacterium was found in clinical samples from 55 patients who had
beenadmitted to hospital for a variety of other reasons.

Robert Haward of the Soil Association, which represents Britain's organic
farmers, says that they may have to use masks and take more care when
spraying the spores on crops.

From New Scientist, 29 May 1999



Date:  Feb 16 2001 00:55:35 EST  
From:  Roger Morton <roger.morton@pi.csiro.au>  
Subject:  One more reason why Bt crops more safe than Bt sprays  

One more reason why Bt crops are more safe than Bt sprays

GM crops with Bt genes are many times safer than crops with Bt sprays
(which must be very safe themselves because organic farmers have been
using them for years - and the organic industry is very interesed in
protecting farmers and consumers health). 

What is the evidence for this? This is based on the fact that there are
reported cases of food poisoning (2) and human infections (3) from Bt
sprays and none from Bt crops. 

It is impossible to catch an ìinfectionî from a Bt crop because such a
crop only has one gene from a pathogen. In contrast crops sprayed with Bt
have thousands of genes from a pathogen. In fact they have 
nearly all the genes from the pathogen that causes Anthrax (1) ñ a
pathogen that is reported to have been used by Sadam Hussein. 

Yes Bt crops contain a single Bt toxin. This is the toxin that is active
against insects but not mammals. In contrast Bt sprays carry both the Bt
toxin that is active against insects but also another toxin called
enterotoxin and this is the toxin that causes food poisoning symptoms in
mammals. As far back as 1997 scientists had cloned the gene for
enterotoxin and have suggested that the gene 
should be removed from Bt sprays by genetic engineering to ìeliminate a
human health concernî (6). However, as I understand it, this has not
happened. As I also understand it, if it did happen, the organic food
industry would not be able to use this safer alternative form of Bt
because of the ban on the use of ìgenetically modified orgnanismsî in
organic food production.

According to Carrie Swadener.(3) from the Northwest Coalition for
Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR. ìa  man working on a spray program
splashed B.t.k. on his face and eyes. He then developed skin irritation,
burning, swelling, and redness. B.t.k. was cultured from a sample taken
from his eye. Ground-spray applicators using Foray 
48B reported symptoms of eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation.
The frequency of their complaints was found to be related to the degree of
exposure. Workers with similar preexisting health problems were more
likely to report adverse effects from the ground 
spray.î

ìHuman volunteers suffered from nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, colic-like
pains, and fever after eating food contaminated with one B.t. strain, B.t.
var. galleriae. This indicates the close relationship between B.t. and
disease-causing pathogens. ì

ìFeeding studies of pure Bt toxin to mammals show no ill health effects
indicating that the toxic effects of B.t. sprays are due to the fact that
the spray is a live spore producing organismî

There is no confirmed evidence that any insect has developed field
resistance to any Bt crop so far (5) despite the crops being used for 4
years. In contrast there is definite evidence of field resistance to the
foliar B.t sprays used by the organic industry (4).

Professor Joe Cummins (who is a co-author on some publications with
M.-W.Ho whom many of you will know from ISIS) has this to say on this web
site http://www.vcn.bc.ca/stop/warning.html:

Bt May Cause Toxic Shock and/or Anthrax outbreak. 

"... government and public health officials should be horse whipped if
they allow the aerial spray in a populated area. Old animal holding cites
such as Fort Lawton would have anthrax spores in the 
soil from before 1914 and Bt would mobilize anthrax. Anthrax is the Gulf
War biotoxin. Bt shouldn't be allowed near such sites." 
---END Cummins Quote---------

Conclusion

In conclusion the Bt sprays are not substantially equivalent to the GM
crop form of Bt. The spayed form is much more dangerous and should
possibly be banned under the precautionary principle ñ until it can be
proved to be at least as safe as the GM form of the Bt. Or if this is
unacceptable the FDA and EPA should mandate that only enterotoxin deleted
strains (genetically engineered) be allowed to be used in any agriculture.

References 

1.  Helgason,E., Okstad,O.A., Caugant,D.A., Johansen,H.A., Fouet,A.,
Mock,M., Hegna,I., Kolsto,A.B., 2000. Bacillus anthracis, bacillus cereus,
and bacillus thuringiensis-One species on the basis of genetic evidence.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 2627-2630.

Abstract: Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus 
thuringiensis are members of the Bacillus cereus group of bacteria,
demonstrating widely different phenotypes and pathological effects. B.
anthracis causes the acute fatal disease anthrax and is a potential
biological weapon due to its high toxicity. B. thuringiensis produces
intracellular protein crystals toxic to a wide number of insect larvae and
is the most commonly used biological pesticide worldwide. B. cereus is a
probably ubiquitous soil 
bacterium and an opportunistic pathogen that is a common cause of food
poisoning. In contrast to the differences in phenotypes, we show by
multilocus enzyme electrophoresis and by sequence analysis of nine 
chromosomal genes that B. anthracis should be considered a lineage of B.
cereus. This determination is not only a formal matter of taxonomy but may
also have consequences with respect to virulence and the potential of
horizontal gene transfer within the B. cereus group

2. Jackson,S.G., Goodbrand,R.B., Kasatiya,S., 1995. Bacillus cereus and
Bacillus thuringiensis isolated in a gastroenteritis outbreak
investigation. Letters in Applied Microbiology 95, 103-105.

Abstract: During investigation of a gastroenteritis outbreak in a chronic
care institution, Norwalk virus was found in stool specimens from two
individuals and bacterial isolates presumptively identified as Bacillus
cereus were isolated from four individuals (including one with Norwalk
virus) and spice. Phage typing confirmed all Bacillus clinical isolates
were phage type 2. All clinical isolates were subsequently identified as
B. thuringiensis when tested as a result 
of a related study (L. Leroux, personal communication). Eight of 10 spice
isolates were phage type 4. All B. cereus and B. thuringiensis 
isolates showed cytotoxic effects characteristic of enterotoxin-producing
B. cereus. An additional 20 isolates each of B. cereus and B.
thuringiensis from other sources were tested for cytotoxicity. With the
exception of one B. cereus, all showed characteristic 
cytotoxic patterns 

3. Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t). Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, 13-20.
1994

4. Ferre,J., Real,M.D., Van Rie,J., Jansens,S., Peferoen,M., 1991.
Resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis bioinsecticide in a field
population of Plutella xylostella is due to a change in a midgut 
membrane receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U. S. A 88, 5119-5123.
Abstract: The biochemical mechanism for resistance to 
Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins was studied in  
***a field population of diamondback moths *** (Plutella xylostella) with
a reduced susceptibility to the bioinsecticidal spray. The toxicity and
binding characteristics of three crystal proteins [CryIA(b), CryIB, and
CryIC] were compared between the field population 
and a laboratory strain. The field population proved resistant (greater
than 200-fold compared with the laboratory strain) to CryIA(b), one of the
crystal proteins in the insecticidal formulation. Binding studies showed
that the two strains differ in a membrane receptor that recognizes
CryIA(b). This crystal protein did not bind to the brush-border membrane
of the midgut epithelial cells 
of the field population, either because of strongly reduced binding
affinity or because of the complete absence of the receptor molecule. Both
strains proved fully susceptible to the CryIB and CryIC crystal proteins,
which were not present in the B. thuringiensis formulation used in the
field. Characteristics of CryIB and CryIC binding to 
brush-border membranes of midgut epithelial cells were virtually identical
in the laboratory and the field population

5. RESPONSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO PETITION FOR 
RULEMAKING AND COLLATERAL RELIEF  CONCERNING THE REGISTRATION AND USE OF
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS EXPRESSING BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS
ENDOTOXINS, SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL,
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE MOVEMENTS, INTERNATIONAL
CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, et al. April 19, 2000

6. Asano,S.-I., Nukumizu,Y., Bando,H., Iisuka,T., Yamamoto,T., 1997.
Cloning of novel enterotoxin genes from Bacillus cereus and Bacillus
thuringiensis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 1054-1057.

--
Roger L Morton
Opinons expressed in this posting are personal and do not reflect the
position of my employer

BT CORN: LESS INSECT DAMAGE, LOWER MYCOTOXIN LEVELS, HEALTHIER CORN
 April 26, 2000
USDA - ARS News Service

Bt corn that has been genetically modified to prevent damage by European
corn borers may also be less likely to harbor mycotoxins, toxins produced
by fungi on corn ears, according to an Agricultural Research Service
entomologist.

Mycotoxins like fumonisin, a potential cancer-causing agent often found at
elevated levels in insect damaged kernels, are both a health issue and an
export issue. European and Asian markets can refuse to import U.S. corn
because of what they rate as unacceptable levels of mycotoxins.
Scientists have suspected higher mycotoxin levels may follow increased
insect damage, but ARS entomologist Patrick F. Dowd found fumonisin levels
30- to 40-fold lower in Bt corn than in non-Bt varieties in Illinois
cornfields. Bt stands for the biopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis.
Environmental conditions and the specific Bt corn hybrid play roles in the
actual amount of reduction seen, but corn varieties that expressed the Bt
protein throughout the plant rather than in specific areas were the least
likely to have significant fumonisin levels, according to Dowd, who is with
ARS'  National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research in Peoria, Ill.
ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief in-house research agency.
While Bt corn is modified mainly to resist European corn borers, Bt corn
also showed lower levels of mycotoxins when corn earworms were present in
fields, although not as significant a reduction as when European corn
borers were the primary insect pest.

This may encourage the creation of corn varieties with more resistance to a
variety of insects in order to provide more protection from mycotoxins.
Small plot studies by Iowa State University plant pathologist Gary Munkvold
appear to confirm Dowd's findings.



AU:  Munkvold,-G.P.; Hellmich,-R.L.; Rice,-L.G.
TI:  Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in kernels of trangenic Bt maize hybrids and nontransgenic hybrids.
SO:  Plant-dis. [St. Paul, Minn., American Phytopathological Society]. Feb 1999. v. 83 (2) p. 130-138.
CN:  DNAL 1.9-P69P
LA:  English
AB:  Maize hybrids genetically engineered with genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt maize) express CryIA(b) and other Cry proteins that are toxic to certain insects, particularly the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). Maize kernel feeding by O. nubilalis often leads to infection by fungi in the genus Fusarium, including the fumonisin-producing species F. verticillioides and F. proliferatum. In field experiments in 1995, 1996, and 1997, transgenic maize hybrids and near-isogenic, nontransgenic hybrids were manually infested with neonatal European corn borer larvae. Manual infestation increased Fusarium ear rot severity and fumonisin concentrations in kernels of nontransgenic hybrids. Transgenic hybrids with kernel expression of CryIA(b) consistently experienced less insect feeding on kernels and less Fusarium ear rot than their nontransgenic counterparts. In manually infested treatments, these hybrids also exhibited lower concentrations of fumonisins in kernels compared with their nontransgenic counterparts. In manually infested treatments in 1995, mean fumonisin B1 concentrations were 8.8 microgram/g in the nontransgenic hybrid and 6.7 or 3.0 microgram/g in transgenic hybrids. In 1996, mean fumonisin B1 concentrations in manually infested treatments were 4.9 microgram/g (range 2.3 to 8.8) for nontransgenic and 1.2 microgram/g (range 1.0 to 1.3) for transgenic hybrids with kernel expression. Mean total fumonisin concentrations (fumonisin B1 + B2 + B3) were 7.0 microgram/g (range 3.0 to 12.2) for nontransgenic and 1.7 microgram/g (range 1.5 to 1.9) for transgenic hybrids with kernel expression. In 1997, mean fumonisin B1 concentrations in manually infested.
treatments were 11.8 microgram/g (range 7.6 to 17.3) for nontransgenic and 1.3 microgram/g (range 0.8 to 2.2) for transgenic hybrids with kernel expression of CryIA(b) or Cry9C. Mean total fumonisin concentrations were 16.5 microgram/g (range 10.7 to 24.0) for nontransgenic and 2.1 microgram/g (range 1.5 to 3.1) for transgenic hybrids with kernel expression. Transgenic hybrids that do not express CryIA(b) or Cry9C in kernels did not consistently have fumonisin concentrations different from the nontransgenic hybrids. Higher fumonisin concentrations in nontransgenic hybrids were associated with high European corn borer populations during the early reproductive stages of the maize plants. These results indicate that under some conditions, genetic engineering of maize for insect resistance may enhance its safety for animal and human consumption.


Mycotoxin further quotes see
the Tony Trevawas article
posted by AgBioView on November 3, 2000.... especially footnote #63
(re premature death statistics for European premature deaths STILL
caused by myxotoxin-containing grain products).

> How safe is organic food?



Date:  Oct 02 2000 13:14:35 EDT  
From:  "Tammisola Jussi" <jussi.tammisola@mmm.fi>  
Subject:  Organic products  

As a response to the query of J. Mottley and others I propose a few points
for consideration.

"Organic" movement is a loose collection of various anti-technology
beliefs, from e.g. old vitalistic views, antroposophism, oriental
religions, sowing according to moon stages (biodynamics), homeopathy,
veganism and "living food" concept, to "ecological" misanthrophy. In
addition, some people envisage benefits in conservation. Therefore, when
you point to any drawback, there will always be a choir affirming that it
is not a problem in their "genuine" movement. Anyway, on the background
there are amply of odd ambitions and
requirements not based on science. Many of these notions were not set
formally as requirements, though not banned either, when EU agreed on its
regulations on organic agriculture. However, such "more pure" hopes are
still alive within organic movement and the consequent practices may well
be in general use somewhere in the community.

1) One of the worst ones may be the idea of non-pasteurization. In USA,
numerous cases of EHEC-coli poisoning have occurred due to not
pasteurizing apple juices. We in Finland made our immemorial acquintance
with organic production methods in 1990 (21st Oct.), when the European
turnee of our world-famous youth chamber orchester Helsinki Junior Strings
was changed to a week with intravenous drips in a hospital. In the midst
of "green" Germany, i.e. Sauerland,  the youth were offered (without any
warning label) a dessert prepared from non-pasteurized milk, seasoned with
sincere salmonella. (Though
the youngsters convalesced moderately within a few weeks, some of the
elderly guardians went near demise.).

Thanks to the brave and permanent resistance by responsible medical
doctors, the pernicious idea of non-pasteurization could be to some extent
countered during the preparation of the organic regulations in EU.

2) In USA the use of antibiotics is forbidden in organic animal
production. Similar requirement was proposed by the most "pure" organics
also in EU. Thanks to veterinary doctors, our organic regulation still
permits us to cure the animals two times in their lifetime with
antibiotics. However, in spite of strong veterinary opposition, organic
farmers were recommended to give their
sick animals "nursing" with homeopathy (i.e. with "preparations" diluted
to the point that no molecules but only their "memory in the water
molecules" is left...). Doctors think that keeping the animals sick is
neither humane for the animals nor safe for the consumers. Even though two
cures of antibiotics are permitted, there remains a  risk that animals are
kept sick without functional cure in order to not lose organic business
profit.

The use of antbiotics as feed additives is turning more strictly
controlled in EU. However, we can read in newspaper interviews that
certain organic pig growers are feeding their animals with turf, because
it "contains so good antibiotics". It is possible that certain soil types
may indeed contain antibiotic actinomycetes, in addition to harmful
constituents.Thus, as usual in "organics", the use of unknown, untested
and probably noxious "natural preparations" is permitted, whereas more
safe and pure products thoroughly
studied scientifically are forbidden.

3) Regarding human health, the soil contains too little selenium in
Finland. In conventional crops the deficit is compensated by adding
selenium in fertilizers, but organic grains are poor with selenium. That
is actually the only clear analytical difference consistently observed
between organic and conventional products in Finland. Though, organic pigs
kept grazing outdoors produce meat with somewhat higher content of heavy
metal cadmium than conventional ones.
Furthermore, such pigs reared outdoors according to organic rules in EU
are more exposed to hazardous parasites, e.g. trichinas, and diseases such
as classical swine fever (as being lately suspected with swine feber cases
in UK). Similarly with turkeys reared outdoors, an incurable disease (its
english name may be something like "blackhead") occurs due to eating earth
worms in rainy
days. Hen battalions reared "free" on the floor are also more prone to
certain important diseases, including salmonella. Please consult a
competent veterinarian. Additionally, they carry out in full the pecking
order characteristic to the species, with the consequence of faint
individuals being tormented to death - something that I would not quite
call "happy hens".

4) "Living food", especially sprouts, may often contain listeria,
salmonella and other severe human pathogens. In addition, it is known that
a diet based on raw or undercooked items may increase the number of
bacteria resistant for antibiotics 1000-fold in the intestines (Scientific
American, March 1998). Not to forget the point that due to e.g.
antinutrients and imperfect digestion of raw plants, cooked ones are often
much more nutritious - even to the degree that ability to cook plant
products has been regarded as a foundation for the
rise of humankind in the prehistoric era.

5) In organic production plants cannot often be efficiently protected from
pests and diseases. Therefore the harvest will usually contain more toxins
injurious for human.

a) As a consequence of an assault the plant will produce many native
toxins to protect itself against microbes and predating animals. More than
80 000 (maybe even 180 000) so-called secondary metabolites are known from
higher plants, and many of these compounds have importance for the
self-defence of plants. In addition, a great proportion of these compounds
have proven mutagenic or carcinogenic, at least in high doses. Therefore,
a healthy plant properly protected against injuries will be more healthful
for food. Acceptable control
sprays will not cause significant residues in the product provided
appropriate quarantine periods before harvest will be obeyed.

b) Many plant diseases, especially fungi, produce compounds toxic,
carcinogenic or mutagenic for man. Examples are ear blight in cereals and
aflatoxins produced e.g. in peanuts. These can be controlled by proper
fungicide sprays (usually forbidden in organic production) or by breeding
resistant plant varieties. Some bacterial diseases are devastating e.g.
for fruit trees and rice. Antibacterial products have been necessary for
their control until now, but resistant varieties can now often be bred
with the help of modern biotechnology. Viral diseases can only be
controlled to certain degree by recurrent sprayings of insecticides to
prevent their spread from plant to plant via insects. Gene technology have
offered a clear-cut way to breed virus-resistant varieties. Needless to
say that a virotic plant usually cannot produce but much less and lower
quality yield.

c) One should notice that with the rules laid down for organic production,
plant varieties resistant to important diseases or pests can only rarely
be found or bred with old methods. On the contrary, remarkable success has
already been attained with the new genetic methods (forbidden in organic
agriculture). That will be one of the most important factors favouring new
genetic know-how in the future in comparison with organics.
Virus-resistant papayas, potatoes,
melons, rice and many other plant genera; pest-resistant corn, potato,
cotton, cabbage, rice etc.; potato, apple and rice resistant to bacterial
blight diseases; potato resistant to late blight and cereals resistant to
carcinogenic Fusarium or Aspergillus pathogens may serve as examples.
Great numbers of similar cases of health and quality are coming - but not
in organic production.

6) Aluminium is toxic for plants, and for human beings as well, and causes
problems in 40% of our planet's cultivated soils. Breeding with the help
of modern biotechnology has already proved successful in producing plants
which can keep aluminium out of the roots. Plants stay in better health,
and the amount of aluminium accumulating in the crop to be used for feed
or food may also be reduced. Hypoallergic rice has already been bred with
gene technology,
and similar developments for the reduction of allergenicity are under
study in other plants, e.g. in rye-grass which contains two allergenic
glycoproteins in its pollen. No such developments are to be awaited based
on the less potent methodology used in organic production.

Sincerely,
Jussi Tammisola, DrSc(Agr&For)
Helsinki, Finland
Fax: +358 9 160 2443,  Phone: +358 9 160 88 656
Email:  jussi.tammisola@mmm.fi





Warning: organic food can seriously damage
                 your health
Stephen Bevan




ORGANIC foods could be bad for you. A Sunday       
Times study has revealed that compared with        
ordinary products, many processed organic
foods contain higher levels of fat, sugar
and salt - all of which can cause heart
problems.

The revelation blows a hole in the claim of
some manufacturers that processed foods
using organic ingredients are necessarily
better for you.

Of a basket of 27 grocery items bought from
high street retailers last week, 13 of the
organic versions were higher in fat and
saturated fat, eight were higher in sugar
and four were higher in salt.

A high fat intake is a cause of heart
disease, which is Britain's biggest killer.
Saturated fat, in particular, is linked to
the build-up of cholesterol, which leads to
heart disease.

Among the most dramatic differences in the
fat content were Jordan's Organic Crunchy
breakfast cereal. The label declares "Good
for you and the environment", yet the cereal
has almost 60% more fat than the non-organic
version of the same brand. Waitrose's "Pure
Organic" low-fat sunflower spread contains
80% more saturated fat than Flora Light,
while Kallo stock cubes, on sale in Safeway
and other supermarkets, has twice as much
fat as Safeway's own-brand non-organic
version.

Four of the organic foods, including
oatcakes and biscuits, exceeded 20g of fat
per 100g - a level described as "dangerous"
by the British Heart Foundation.

Last week Paul Fawcett, of the British Heart
Foundation, warned that fads such as organic
food could damage people's health. "We are
not advocates of organic food - the public         
needs to be aware of the diet as a whole and
get out of a faddish mentality."

Eight of the organic products in the Sunday
Times survey contained higher levels of
sugar than the non-organic equivalents.
These included Duchy Originals' Organic
Highland Shortbread - the brand created by
the Prince of Wales and produced using
organic wheat from his own estate - which
has 50% more sugar than Waitrose Butter
Shortbread Fingers, alongside which they
were being sold.

The BHF says anything above 10g of sugar per
100g is "dangerous" if consumed regularly;
the ideal is 2g per 100g.

Another danger for consumers of organic
foods is sodium - a constituent of salt -
high levels of which can lead to high blood
pressure.

Waitrose's own-brand organic roasted and
salted peanuts contain 0.6g of sodium per
100g, 50% more than the non-organic version,
as well as higher levels of saturated fat
and sugar. The BHF describes anything above
0.5g per 100g as "dangerous".

The National Consumer Council said the
revelations highlighted the confusion that
consumers faced. "Although organic labels do
not claim that it contains less fat, sugar
or salt, there may be that perception among
some people," said a spokeswoman.

Fuelled by recent food scares, sales of
organic food have rocketed in the last three
years. The Soil Association estimates that
organic food is now bought by 2% of
consumers and sales could reach over £1
billion by 2002.

The association demands that crops are grown
without the use of "artificial" fertilisers,
herbicides or pesticides. However, organic
farmers are allowed to use a number of
"natural" alternatives some of which, such
as copper sulphate, are highly toxic.


Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service
is provided on Times Newspapers' standard terms
and conditions. To inquire about a licence to
reproduce material from The Sunday Times, visit
the Syndication website.


===============
All Things Bright And Beautiful

By Robin Young
07-Oct-2000 The Times of London

We've fallen for organic food in a big way. But is it really better for
us? Robin Young wades through the hype to find the truth

When Professor Sir John Krebs, chairman of the Food Standards Agency, said
last month that people were wasting their money paying a premium for
organic food, the reaction was as if he had challenged holy writ. In a way
he had, because the craze for organics is one of those new religions, the
truths of which are based on mythology and unsupported by any scientific
or empirical evidence.

You probably think organic food is a healthy option. You might well expect
it to taste better. And you almost certainly suppose that organic farming
is better for the environment and for farm animals than conventional
agriculture.

Yet the Soil Association, principal guardian of the organic movement's 
reputation in Britain, was deservedly rapped across the knuckles well
before Sir John spoke for advancing just those claims. In a deflating
judgement, the Advertising Standards Authority, the people who make it
their job to ensure that advertising claims can be substantiated, found
that the Soil Association had failed to justify four of the crucial claims
repeatedly advanced for organic food: "You can taste the difference",
"It's healthy", "It's better for the environment" and "Organic means
healthy, happy animals."

The ASA asked the Soil Association to remove the claims and not use them
again until they could offer proper evidence that they were true. There
can be no doubt that the claims the ASA rejected, which have been central
to the promotion of organic farming for many years, have played a huge
part in the burgeoning commercial success of organic produce. Yet when put
to the test, they failed abysmally. 

Organic food, with sales rising 40 per cent year on year, is the fastest
growing sector in the United Kingdom, and in Europe generally.
Eco-activists have managed to convince millions of people that organic
food is healthy and good, just as assuredly as genetically modified foods
must be dangerous and undesirable.

Sales of organic foods in our supermarkets have already mushroomed to 
nearly five per cent of the total market, were worth about Pounds 550
million at the end of 1999, and are expected to reach Pounds 1 billion by
2002, and at least to double again in the next five years. In the
mid-Eighties Sainsbury stocked a handful of organically grown products.
Now the company, like Waitrose, has nearly 1,000 lines. Tesco has 750, and
is rapidly expanding its range. Marks & Spencer once grandly announced
that organic food was not of sufficiently reliable quality and appeal to
make it worth stocking. It has had to backtrack in a hurry.

Tesco alone expects to sell more than Pounds 150 million worth of organic
produce this year, Waitrose (vaunting itself as "organic supermarket of
the year") fully expects that a fifth of its fruit and vegetable sales
will be organic by the year end. Asda launched its own-brand range of
organic foods in February, and now Iceland, the first large retailer to
ban genetically modified food from its own label range, has announced that
it plans to switch whole ranges of conventional food to organic, starting
this year with its complete range of frozen vegetables. Whatever else this
decision might be good for, it is not the balance of payments. In order to
find the quantities of organic supplies it needs, Iceland will have to get
four-fifths of its frozen vegetables from overseas. The firm's buying team
says it has had to secure forty per cent of all the world's organic
vegetable produce to be sure that it can fulfil its commitment.

Although a third of Britons are now at least occasional customers for 
organic food, almost three-quarters of our organic food has to be
imported. Ministry of Agriculture officials calculate that well over five
per cent of Britain's farmland would have to be certified for organic
production if this country were to meet current demand for the organic
crops that could be grown in Britain. But, as yet, the proportion of
British farmland which has been converted to organic standards is little
more than one per cent. 

To make up the shortfall, the organic lobby is urging an increase in 
Government subsidies and the adoption of ambitious targets such as those
proposed by in a Private Member's Bill by Joan Ruddock MP last year: that
by 2010 at least 30 per cent of UK farmland and 20 per cent of our food
should be organic. Would it be money well spent? Well, it might remove
some of the nagging doubts that some of the imported organic food is not
really as organic as it might be.

Organic standards are complex and detailed and they vary from country to
country. Organic in Spain, Greece or Italy means something different from
organic in the United Kingdom. For the present the Soil Association has to
rely on certification by similar organisations in the produce's country of
origin.

That can raise contentious issues. For example, before the Soil 
Association gives it seal of organic approval to meat, it insists that
animals should have several months' free access to open grassland. Some
other European countries only specify access "outdoors", which could mean
no further than the farmyard gate.

As the Advertising Standards Authority discovered, even the Soil
Association's own requirements are not quite as inflexible as they
themselves sometimes suggest. It is often reported, and is widely
believed, that organic farms do not use chemicals. But in fact the list of
chemicals approved by the EU for use on organic farms runs to four pages.
While many of these are things people expect organic farmers to use, like
wood ash and composted bark, others sit uncomfortably alongside the Soil
Association's claim that organic farming is "as natural as nature intended
- produced only by natural, traditional farming methods". Basic slag,
toxic copper fungicides, sulphur, pesticides such as Derris dust,
pyrethroid insecticides, paraffin and potassium permanganate will not
strike everyone as what they would imagine the Soil Association meant by a
"small number of naturally-derived products" the use of which can be
tolerated.

How many customers paying premium rates for organic eggs realise that 
there is leeway for almost a third of the hens' diet not to be organically
produced without certification being called into question? Debates and
wrangles about what organic should mean continue. As usual the arguments
are advanced in the name of benefits to consumers. In fact they are more
likely to be designed to benefit the interests of particular producers.

Take, for example, a row rumbling at the moment over organic fruit juices.
How can fruit juices made from concentrates (albeit concentrates of
organically grown fruit) be certified as organic when there is as yet no
organic standard for water? The question is asked, not by consumers,
hardly any of whom give a monkeys about this fine issue, but by producers
of fruit juices pressed direct from fruit and not reconstituted from
concentrate.

Another instance concerns organic smoked salmon, a product of organic fish
farming. I asked a producer why the flesh was so fatty and oily as to be
nauseating. His reply was that organic standards for fish welfare did not
permit the fish to be starved in the last days before harvest so that they
lose their excess fat, even though wild salmon caught for smoking will
invariably have had a much leaner time of it, and so yield drier and much
more palatable results.
Nor, of course, is it only the Soil Association which is in trouble with
its claims for organic foods. Organic is on its way to becoming big
business, so now the big-time professionals in the gentle art of consumer
deception are going to work as well.

Geoffrey Hollis, a former Ministry of Agriculture mandarin, has become a
thorn in the side of the organic movement's least- restrained marketeers,
the supermarkets. He has already upended the trolleys of the country's two
largest food retailers, Tesco and Sainsbury's, with complaints to the ASA,
which established that the supermarket chains had misrepresented the way
organic foods were grown, and how they compared in price and flavour. The
supermarkets had suggested that organic was good for you, did not use
chemicals or veterinary medicines, and cost only "a little" more. the Soil
Association's director, Patrick Holden, defending supermarket phraseology,
conceded that organic food can cost anything from "zero to more than 100
per cent" more than the conventional equivalent. Surveys suggest that
anything organic commands a 40 per cent premium in price, though earlier
this year Dr Anna Ross, senior lecturer in economics at the University of
the West of England, found that a typical shopping basket of organic
produce cost 71 per cent more at Tesco, 65 per cent more at Sainsbury's,
62 per cent more at Waitrose and 60 per cent more at Somerfield. Hardly "a
little".

Now Hollis has similar complaints pending against Iceland, the chain that
promises to "bring organics to all at no extra cost to the consumer".
Hollis objects to Iceland's website, which still repeats the familiar
claims: "no artificial pesticides, artificial fertilisers or herbicides
are used", "less pollution", and "organic food is purer than conventional
food and therefore potentially introduces less toxins into the body".
Interestingly, though, the claim as to taste is rather cautiously phrased:
"organic farmers...believe that organic food tastes better". Hollis says:
"I am not against organic farming, but I do object to the way they try to
pretend that the organic label means the produce is somehow superior. I
try to make it clear that organic farming is just another method of
production. It does not guarantee that anything is better, and it is wrong
to try to scare people about the safety of conventional food. To say
organic food is purer than conventional food is going too far." The ASA
has yet to rule on these current complaints, but the moral of judgments so
far is pretty clear. It is that claims advanced by the champions of
organic food should be examined with the same healthy scepticism as those
put forward by any other farmer or food processor. When considering
whether to pay that often not-so-little extra for organic food, customers
should bear in mind: There is no law, and not much probability, that
organic produce will taste better.

There is no conclusive evidence that organically produced food is either
safer or less safe than that produced conventionally. While some organic
farming has environmental benefits, over-use of organic fertilisers can
also lead to nitrogenous pollution, while any farming system, properly
managed, can achieve the same environmental benefits that organic farming
aims for and, contrary to what animal lovers like to believe, some
principles of organic farming, particularly restrictions on the use of
medicines, can jeopardise the health of animals rather than protecting
them.

After that, if you still prefer organic (and I do myself, sometimes), go
for it by all means. But if you have doubts, be reassured that a balanced
diet of conventionally produced foods, hygienically prepared and including
plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, will taste good and will do you
good. Do not let them scare you into thinking anything else.


LABELING BIOTECHNOLOGY FOODS AND THE ORGANIC LOBBY
Jan. 25/00
ECONOMIC & AGRICULTURAL TRADE 2000 (EAT2K)
http://www.eat2k.org 
(Economic & Agricultural Trade 2000 is a coalition of academics, students
and others dedicated to research, information sharing and commentary on
the economic viability of traditional farming methods, organic production,
biotechnology, and other alternative approaches to commercial
agriculture and food production.
Among the issues EAT2K addresses are:
the Economics of Agriculture Production Methods
Health and Safety Data Cost Analysis
Marketplace Issues )

Summary
The history of food labeling in the United States has been to protect
consumers from misleading statements and misbranding of foods that can
result in fraudulent marketing schemes by unscrupulous retailers. U.S.
regulations have not been based on a consumer's right to know, rather to
provide nutritional and safety information and to protect consumers from
misleading marketing of food products. Current labeling proposals, backed by
organic food industry marketing interests fearful that cheaper
biotechnology-improved crops will replace premium-priced organic produce,
have the potential to add costs to food production, eliminate real consumer
choice, and distort the intent of U.S. labeling protections against
misleading advertising. Essentially, these proposals would create an food
tax on all consumers to pay for the ethical and social concerns of various
activist organizations and to support the sale of premium-priced products
through the food scare marketing tactics of the $10 billion organic and
natural products industry.
Background
>From the earliest of times, people have raised concerns over the quality and
safety of their food. Labels were often used to tell the name of a food, but
not much else and by early colonial times, regulation of food began to
address such concerns. In 1862, President Lincoln appointed a chemist,
Charles Wetherhill, to serve in the new Department of Agriculture. This was
the beginning of the Bureau of Chemistry in the department, a predecessor to
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1). The FDA primarily engaged in
agriculture research and development, but inevitably became involved in
matters of food safety (2). In 1906, The Food and Drugs Act was passed by
Congress and signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt. The law
prohibited, among things, the manufacturing and interstate shipment of
"misbranded" foods and drugs. The law also condemned any misleading
statements or devices on a product's label, even if technically true (1).
Labels were not required to state weight or measure, only content. If a
content statement was used on a food product, it had to be truthful (3).
In 1938, a new act was introduced by the FDA, The Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act. This act defined the information that was to be disclosed on
food labels. It requires that a food be given a common or usual name, that
the label disclose information that is material to representations made or
suggested about the product as well as consequences that may arise from the
use of the product, and that all labeling be truthful and not misleading.
The act does not require disclosure in labeling of information solely on the
basis of the consumer's desire to know (3,18).
By the 1990s, the FDA began to examine the safety and wholesomeness of foods
developed through biotechnology. Biotechnology, which refers to the
techniques that allow scientists to modify the genetic material of a living
thing, or DNA, met its first regulation in the United States in 1990, for
the use of a milk clotting enzyme that was used to curdle milk in cheese
production (4,18). Two years later, in 1992, the FDA issued a policy
statement clarifying its regulation of food developed through biotechnology.
The statement said that foods developed through biotechnology must meet the
same rigorous safety standards as required of all other foods. Products of
biotechnology are subject to the same FDA labeling and policies applied to
all foods in the U.S. Marketplace (5). Different labeling is required when,
for example, the use of biotechnology results in a significant change in the
composition of a food product. Labels are required on biotechnology
products, as needed, to inform consumers of any potential health or safety
risk, such as if a protein poses an allergy risk, unless scientific data
show that the allergen is not present. A label is also required if a food is
changed so that its nutritional content no longer conforms to normal
expectations, such as if the Vitamin C content of an orange is altered to
levels significantly above or below the normal range (5).
The FDA is able to evaluate the safety of biotech ingredients added to foods
in the same way as it evaluates any new ingredient, such as a new
preservative or food coloring agent. The FDA can also stop a food product
from being sold at anytime if it determines that a product or ingredient is
unsafe for public consumption or if it is mislabeled (5).
Many groups have spoken out in support of regulating biotechnology under the
current FDA labeling and safety regimes. Scientific and public interest
groups such as The American Council on Science and Health, Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology, and Institute for Food Technologists,
as well as trade associations such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America
(GMA) and the Alliance for Better Foods, representing well-known food
suppliers and retailers such as General Mills, Land O Lakes and Johnson &
Johnson, feel that biotechnology helps to produce foods that promote greater
nutrition, less reliance on chemical pesticides and could go far in
combating hunger (10). Such groups view the FDA policy on labeling as sound.
The policy recognizes the rights on the consumer to a safe food supply and
allows to consumer to choose the foods they want (7) all the while
protecting consumers and responsible food retailers from labels being used
as part of misleading and costly marketing campaigns relating to food
safety.
Other advocates, such as nutritionists, dietitians and farmers, see
biotechnology as an enabling technology that could have environmental and
consumer benefits. Biotechnology improved crops considerably reduces the
need for chemical inputs. Such reductions could save the feedstock and
energy used in their manufacturing, the ingredients used for their
formulation, and fuel used for distribution and application (18).
However, organizations, principally supporting organic food consumption and
sales, hold a different stake in the issue of biotechnology and labeling.
Their concern is best summed up by Promar marketing director Katy Hamilton
in her remarks to the 1999 Organic Food Conference, where she noted, "the
potential to develop the organic market would be limited if consumers are
satisfied with food safety and the furor over genetic modification dies
down." She further noted that "farmers might as well stick to conventional
farming methods than switch to organic, if the perceived threats to safe
food production are removed." (25)
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the International Agriculture
and Trade Policy organization (IATP), for example, are advocacy
organizations that promotes organic farming and organic food consumption.
The IATP and OCA want labeling, and an eventual ban, on all genetically
modified foods and crops (9). Such labeling would help to market alternative
organic crops to consumers as "safer" foods and support growth in the
organic and natural products industry, which was recently experiencing a
significant downturn in growth. Analysts who track this industry noted a
"free fall" loss of some 31 percent in the Natural Business Composite Index
(NBCI)in 1998 prior to a 1999 rebound coinciding with the biotech food scare
campaign. (26)
By far, the biggest issues for regulators and legislators looking at
biotechnology and labeling are how to respond to organic industry and
activist group lobbying and pressure campaigns. Groups, such as OCA, IATP
and Greenpeace, supported by organic industry interests and funding, state
that genetically modified foods and crops pose risks to the environment that
are "potentially irreversible and uncontrollable" and claim biotechnology
will create an "ecological menace" that could threaten the nation's food
supply (11,12). Public relations support to this campaign is being provided
by Fenton Communication's Environmental Media Services, whose industry
clients include some of the largest organic and natural products companies
in the United States. Fenton's group is best known for generating the now
debunked "60 Minutes" Alar food scare, resulting in increased sales in
organic produce and a loss of tens of millions of dollars to conventional
growers. David Fenton, put the Alar scare-strategy in context in a 1989 memo
to his clients, "A modest investment re-paid itself many-fold in tremendous
media exposure and substantial, immediate revenue..." (23)
These groups are now demanding that the FDA require mandatory labeling on
all genetically modified foods which, in their view, would be a step toward
banning the technology. They also want the FDA to tighten the approval
process for all biotech crops. They claim, the FDA policy allows
conventional and biotechnology food manufacturers too much discretion in
determining the safety of new products before marketing them (6,12).
Greenpeace and other activists, with the support of organic industry
interest organizations, have staged demonstrations opposing "frankenfoods"
throughout the world. Demonstrations by Greenpeace and others were held at
recent FDA public hearings on biotechnology, WTO meetings in Seattle and
during the U.N. Biosafety Protocol meetings in Montreal. (12).
Conversely, these same organic advocates have fought legislation providing
for stricter regulations for organically produced foods and have opposed
tighter labeling requirements for organic exports. In the United Kingdom,
organic advocates -- citing the demand for consumer choice -- successfully
lobbied to implement restrictive labeling for biotechnology derived foods,
resulting in a de facto ban on these foods. Yet these very same advocates
opposed instituting food safety standards and more restrictive labels for
organic foods in Europe as "perpetuating the conflict of interests in the
industry by giving too much weight to consumers." (21) In the United States,
organic advocates, using such arguments as free trade and "substantial
equivalence" (which they oppose when applied to biotechnology derived
foods), fought international food safety regulators in 1996 from imposing
stricter labeling and testing requirements for U.S. organic exports that
would be costly to their industry even though the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Organic Program manager argued that the measures
would be "good for consumers." (22)
The Pure Food Campaign, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
(both run by organic industry lobbyists), and legislation such as the
California Right to Know Initiative and Congressional legislation sponsored
by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), have also sprung up demanding
the mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. The purpose of such
legislation and campaigns is represented as "the consumer right to know."
Without such labeling, they stress, there would be no way for a consumer to
know which foods they purchase are genetically modified thereby placing the
consumer in "danger" (6,16).
Several of these groups, The Campaign to Label Genetically Modified Foods
(run by organic food industry representative Craig Winters) for example,
whose legislation is being pushed by Congressman Kucinich, have expressed
that their aim is an actual ban on biotechnology-improved products achieved
through restrictive labeling. Kucinich, a self-proclaimed organic consumer
and advocate, expressed that sentiment during a public hearing during the
Seattle WTO when asked why not simply legislate a ban on biotechnology
crops, "I think if we were to come out immediately and say they should be
banned, I'm not quite sure if we could get the kind of constituency moving
forward at this moment on that issue. I think the issue of labeling could
achieve that in the short-term." Kucinich added, "If there is resistance [to
his labeling proposal]... it's quite possible that we'll just pass up the
issue of labeling and go right for the ban." (20)
Opposition by activists has heightened the issue in Europe and in other
areas. In England, regulators, as a way of responding to activist demands,
have instituted mandatory labeling laws and sparked a stampede by food
producers and restaurants to rid their products of all genetically modified
ingredients so they wouldn't have to place a warning label on their products
(15). The Wall Street Journal has reported that this system has "confused
consumers" and "spawned a bewildering array of marketing claims,
counterclaims and outright contradictions that only a food scientist
possibly could unravel." All the while, organic sales and food costs in the
U.K. have skyrocketed. (24)
Similar, but less restrictive laws have also been instituted in Japan and
will take effect in 2001 (6). In Canada, the policy on labeling has remained
similar to that of the United States, despite the work of several activist
organizations calling for mandatory labeling of all genetically modified
foods on the grounds that a lack of labeling was a denial of the right to
freedom of choice (18).
Another issue facing biotechnology are fears raised regarding food safety
and long-term health effects. While there are risks associated with all
foods, including those genetically modified, that must be properly assessed
and managed, the vast balance of expert scientific opinion shows there is
little evidence that these risks are due to genetic manipulation itself or
that genetically modified foods are any more dangerous than conventional
foods. In addition, current food safety and labeling requirement provide
consumer information and protection in these areas (18).
For the consumer, there can be potential costs associated with new labeling
regimes. Consumers are, for the most part, not fearful of genetically
modified foods. As an October 1999 survey conducted for the International
Food Information Council (IFIC) points out, two out of three consumers
support foods produced through biotechnology and place a great deal of
confidence in the benefits of, and current regulatory climate for,
agricultural biotechnology (13). Letting a consumer know through a label
they are purchasing a product that has been genetically modified or contains
genetically modified ingredients may lead to some confusion over what they
are actually buying. Additionally, by requiring labeling all genetically
modified foods, production costs will have to rise for the farmer and food
producer (14). To compensate, the costs will be passed on to the consumer in
higher prices.
In turn, there are potential costs to the food chain. The world's population
is expected to double in the next 30 years, resulting in an increased demand
for food that is cheaper, more nutritious, safer and produced on less land
with fewer chemicals in a more environmentally sensitive manner (8).
Mandatory labeling would raise costs, which discourages producers and
consumers, and could destroy markets for new products (14). A study
conducted by the accounting firm KPMG for the Australia and New Zealand Food
Standards Council (ANZFSC) concluded that European-style labeling, similar
to that proposed by Congressman Kucinich in the United States, would cost
their consumers some $4.75 billion in the first year of implementation
alone. According to figures from Consumers Report and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, conversion to organic purchases would increase annual grocery
bills by more than $4,000 a year to the average family of four.
The issue of biotechnology and labeling is turning out to be one of the most
publicized and controversial issues facing the FDA many years. The challenge
in the months ahead remains twofold for those in the food, agriculture and
biotechnology sectors: confront the movement by organic industry and
activist groups demanding mandatory labeling while trying to win acceptance
in foreign countries for exports (17). Although opponents of biotechnology
continue in their attempts to raise public fear, biotechnology remains a
technology that offers remarkable innovations and provide tools for growth
and development (8).
Resources
BM_11. Food and Drug Administration. "Milestones in U.S. Food and Drug Law
History." (FDA Backgrounder). www.fda.gov <http://www.fda.gov> .
BM_22. Food and Drug Administration. "1906 Food and Drugs Act." FDA Consumer
Information, June 1981.
BM_33. Food and Drug Administration, "1938-The Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act." FDA Consumer Information, June 1981.
BM_44. Food and Drug Administration. "Biotechnology of Food". (FDA
Backgrounder). www.fda.gov <http://www.fda.gov> .
BM_55. Alliance for Better Foods. "Food Product Labeling Information."
www.betterfoods.org <http://www.betterfoods.org> .
BM_66. Alliance for Better Foods. "Biotechnology and Food."(Backgrounder).
www.betterfoods.org <http://www.betterfoods.org> .
BM_77. Grocery Manufacturers of America. "GMA: As Hearings Conclude, FDA
Biotech Policy Should Remain Science-Based." (Press Release) December 13,
1999. www.gmabrands.com <htt://www.gmabrands.com> .
BM_88. Bond, Senator Christopher. "Senator Bond releases Letter of Support
from Scientific Community urging need for Biotech." (Press Release)
http://bond.senate.gov <http://bond.senate.gov> .
BM_99. Organic Consumers Association. "Why Labeling?" October 14, 1999.
www.organicconsumers.org <http://www.organicconsumers.org> .
BM_1010. Podger, Pamela. "Organic Farmer wants labels on Altered Products."
The San Francisco Chronicle, December 13, 1999.
BM_1111. Barboza, David. "2 Sides Square off on Genetically Altered Food."
The New York Times, November 19, 1999.
BM_1212. Krieger, Lisa. "Activists Pressure Federal Officials to Label
Genetically-Altered Foods." San Jose Mercury News, December 14, 1999.
BM_1313. International Food Information Council. "Americans Remain Positive
on Food Biotechnology". (Backgrounder), October 1999.
BM_1414. Miller, Henry. "Genetic Engineering: A Rational Approach to
Labeling Biotech Foods." Science Magazine, May 28, 1999.
BM_1515. Miller, Henry. "Food Label Follies." Forbes, December 27, 1999.
BM_1616. Seyfer, Jessie. "Protesters, Scientists propose labels for
genetically modified foods." Associated Press, December 14, 1999.
BM_1717. Lambrecht, Bill. "Analysts ponder how a merger may affect focus on
Biotechnology." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 21, 1999.
BM_1818. Dewar, Arthur. Labeling of GM Foods (Agrow Reports Industry Alert).
PJB Publications, November 1999.
BM_1919. The Evening Post (Wellington), Shoppers hungry for quality
information, November 11, 1999.
BM_2020. "Science, Government, Religious World Leaders" Discuss Future of
Genetically Modified Foods, Seattle, December 1, 1999,
http://www.tappedintotheearth.com/html/wtoconf.html 
<http://www.tappedintotheearth.com/html/wtoconf.html%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20

BM_2121. Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, the organic
farming body as quoted in The Financial Times (London), September 3, 1997,
pg 2, Organic lobby attacks food safety plans
BM_2222. Codex Organic Labeling Could Dampen Exporters' Enthusiasm, The
Organic Times, September 1996,
http://www.nfm-online.com/OT/Sep_96/ot_codex.htm 
<http://www.nfm-online.com/OT/Sep_96/ot_codex.htm> l
BM_2323. Bodensteiner, Carol A, Predicting public and media attention span
for social issues, Public Relations Quarterly, June 22, 1995, Pg. 14; and,
Arrest that apple, The Washington Times, September 13, 1998, Pg B2.
BM_2424. Stecklow, Steve,`GENETICALLY MODIFIED' LABEL CONFUSES UK SHOPPERS,
The Wall Street Journal, Oct 27, 1999
BM_2525. Watson , Joe, Fear organic boom may be short-term, Aberdeen Press
and Journal, February 26, 1999 Pg.19
BM_2626. Pfeifer, Ellen, Healthy Living Sector Turns Around, Adams, Harness
& Hill's Winslow Environmental News, JULY 1999


SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION:ORGANIC FOOD IS NEITHER SAFER NOR BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
January 31, 2000
BBC Online
Roger Bate, Director of European Science & Environment Forum
http://www.bbc.co.uk/knowledge/havewords/bbc2/bbc2player1.shtml 
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/knowledge/havewords/bbc2/bbc2player1.shtml>
To find out more about the modern myth of organic food, Roger Bate spoke to
experts and researchers in the field. At Edinburg University Anthony
Trewavas, Professor of Biological Sciences has been trying to separate fact
from fiction when it comes to dealing with organic produce.
"What you eat is your business, what I eat is my business. My function as an
independent university professor is to give you the information I have about
organic food so that you can make a better-informed choice when you go into
a shop, what to buy yourself and your family. There have been various
studies carried out on comparisons between organic and conventional food and
the general conclusion of most people who have investigated this particular
question is that if you average all these investigations out there is
basically no difference."
Professor Trewavas says that in some cases, organic specialists will point
to one set of studies that show there are more vitamins in their products
but other investigations have found no difference or in some cases, fewer
vitamins. "If you want more vitamins, go to a vitamin bottle," he says.
Simon Brennan, Agricultural Development Director of the Soil Association
disagrees. He says that those studies showing the positive benefits of
organic food cannot simply be ignored. "There's been research done which
shows that there are more vitamins, more minerals, and trace elements in
organically grown crops particularly because there grow over a longer period
of time, they're not simply pushed hard with a lot of irrigation and
artificial fertilisers."
Talking with Hugh Pennington, Professor of Bacteriology at Aberdeen
University Roger found out why in laboratories and greenhouses across the
country there is increasing scepticism about the safety of organic food.
Professor Pennington admits eating organic food gives people a false sense
of security. "I think that the public feels happier with natural because
it's come to accept and to expect that a natural thing is somehow
intrinsically safer because it hasn't had the kind of Dr. Frankenstein
science applied to it. Natural does not necessarily mean safe, in fact some
of the most powerful poisons that we know of are natural poisons."
As Roger suspected, organic food is neither safer to eat nor better for the
environment and as far as he's concerned it's time to pitch this modern myth
on the compost heap. "The world will always change and throw out new
problems but the worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the sand and
retreat into a world of non-science and especially that false sanctuary
called organic food."
----
Roger Bate is Director of the European Science & Environment Forum, he says
that with hundreds of new organic food businesses springing up across the
country, it's all become big business. Despite the billion pound turnover
each year, Roger is sceptical about the benefits of organic food. He says
the number one reason people give for eating organic food is that it's
better for you but in his opinion that's a compete fallacy. He says it's
just part of a whole modern myth in this health conscious age.
"Organic food is definitely in, in fashion terms it's the new black. I've
never really followed fashion, and I distrust organic food. I think there's
something rotten about the whole issue," Roger says. "There seem to be
serious scientific doubt that organic food is healthier, but the second,
possibly more powerful myth is that it's safer. With each successive food
scare and controversy surrounding modern farming techniques, organic food
has come up smelling of roses."
In laboratories and greenhouses across the country there is increasing
scepticism about the safety of organic food that cannot be ignored. But
Roger is not only wary of the supposed health benefits linked to eating
organic food, he also wonders about claims that organic food production is
also better for the environment.
"People think organic farming is better for the environment because it
doesn't use pesticides. Not only is organic farming not better for the
environment but if you scale it up I believe you can even damage the
countryside."
The reason these myths persist is because of fears and a general
misunderstanding of science. With recent food scares and concerns about our
impact on the planet, organic food sales have soared but Roger says it's
time to separate fact from fiction.



THE ORGANIC MYTH: THE IDEA THAT IT CAN REPLACE OTHER FORMS OF AGR ICULTURE IS A DANGEROUS LIE
January 31, 2000
BBC Online
Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography, School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS), University of London
http://www.bbc.co.uk/knowledge/havewords/bbc2/bbc2arg2.shtml 
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/knowledge/havewords/bbc2/bbc2arg2.shtml>
In order to survive climate change, population growth, and the constant
mutation of pests and diseases, human beings need as many forms of crop and
animal production as they can muster. Organic farming will always have a
role in this process, albeit a small one. Today organic farming supplies
less than 1% of food in affluent countries and a declining proportion in the
developing world. The idea that organic farming can ever be a large-scale
alternative to other forms of farming is a pernicious recent myth. There are
also other elements to this myth, namely that organic farming is 'safer',
'better', and more 'natural'.
In reality, organic farming is no more 'natural' than any other form of
farming. The crops planted have, like virtually all crops, been genetically
modified for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The manures used can be
dangerous (I trust all organic farmers keep up-to-date with their tetanus
and hepatitis injections). Moreover, introduced organisms, including
bacteria, and chemicals, such as copper sulphate, are widely employed.
Despite this, in economic terms, yields remain relatively low (up to 50%
below more conventional yields) and there are serious problems with the
transport, storage and, in some cases, even the quality of the produce. The
costs of production are inevitably high and organic produce largely serves a
niche market for the privileged few. I was deeply angered by the recent
publication of an organic baby book, a distasteful self-indulgence for the
pampered and the precious rich. Organic farming will never be able to keep
ahead of population growth and world changes, and, because of its innately
extensive character, any increase in organic farming would necessitate the
development of vast areas of semi-wilderness. Some forms of organic farming
can also result in serious soil loss and soil erosion.
By contrast, improvements in more conventional agriculture, coupled with the
current development of techniques in biotechnology, will continue to help
the world outpace change. Some genetic improvements will also improve the
nutritional value of key crops, as with yellow rice, and help to cut down on
the use of pesticides and fertilisers. Storage, transport, and quality
issues will also be addressed. And, despite all the media hype, no one has
yet died from a modern genetically modified product, some of which are
already the most tested organisms ever. There have, however, been a number
of serious illnesses and deaths attributable to certain forms of organic
production, where the controls are not so good.
Organic farming will thus constitute, at best, a small part of a wider
strategy for our future survival and development. The idea that it can
replace other forms of agriculture is a dangerous lie, especially in a world
demanding, at one and the same time, a huge increase in farm output and yet
more land devoted to wildlife conservation.

Plus an ample extra literaure risks from E. coli O157, Salmonella, Listeriosis which could be added





 ******************************
David Tribe Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Microbiology and Immunology
University of Melbourne
Parkville, Australia 3010
Fax 61 3 9347 1540
Ph. 61 3 8344 5703