Playing With Nature Why You Should Be Concerned About Genetic Engineering by Marla Rose We used to know how to grow food in this country. We used to understand the basic laws of nature, and, whether we wanted to or not, respect them. It was understood that to grow plants on fertile soil, a farmer would have to rotate crops to keep the earth rich and diverse; we accepted that every so often, the soil needed a break to rebuild its vitality. Fertilizer was either compost or manure; pests and weeds were not controlled by the profuse application of toxic chemicals, but rather by wisdom acquired through the ages and passed down through the generations. Being Americans, though, we thought that we could break free of the limitations imposed upon us by natural law. A result of this arrogance was witnessed during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s: its aftermath can still be seen when driving through the Panhandle regions of Texas and Oklahoma - the flourishing, redolent prairie that once thrived there is now largely desert. After years of forcing unnatural and unforgiving farming practices upon the soil, the once-nutrient-rich earth of the Southern Plains became robbed of many vital minerals; when coupled with a long, unanticipated drought, many parts of the nation's heartland, which at one time had as diverse an ecosystem as the Brazilian rainforest, were reduced to a hard, powder-dry terrain that crumbled under one's feet. Year after year, violent dust storms spewed thick, black dirt everywhere, making it difficult to breathe and impossible to grow anything. Perhaps American soil wasn't infinitely giving, positively bursting with its incredible bounty? During the notorious "Black Blizzards", it looked like the whole earth was going to get sucked up into one giant dust storm, and, indeed, topsoil that took thousands of years to accumulate disappeared in a matter of minutes. The Dust Bowl not only created enormous economic and personal hardship, but also made one question the boundless generosity of the earth. Americans were angry, shocked, and filled with a sense of betrayal to discover that nature follows its own path, and, if restricted from following its particular course, is capable of unleashing a monumental fury. And what we're tampering with now, genetic engineering, has the potential of unleashing a fury of such a degree that it could make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look like a sand fight among four-year-olds. Once Frankenstein's monster is let out of the laboratory, he's not coming back. I am not a scientist; I've never claimed to be. I do know, however, that agribusiness apologists can cite statistic after finding after study that reinforce the 'safety' of their product, and I will still choose to eat a carrot that was grown with respect to nature over one beaten into submission with herbicides and pesticides. Millions of others across the world have a similar inclination. One of the key issues that we at Vegan Street consistently stand behind is supporting the organic food industry over agrichemical behemoths, like Monsanto and Du Pont. From corn engineered to release its own pesticide (Bt corn, the biotech variety known to be deadly to monarch butterflies) to a new breed of plants that are engineered by Monsanto to be sterile so that farmers must purchase new seeds from them every year, the reasons for supporting an organic industry are manifold. There is also a vast array of environmental concerns that accompany the use of biotechnology, such as the likely possibility of "superweed" development, weeds so resistant to herbicides that increasingly exotic (and toxic) biotech breeds will have to be formulated again and again. Additionally, there are obvious ethical issues for vegetarians, such as the implications of splicing of flounder genes into tomatoes, as well as ethical considerations for those who don't want to financially support multinational corporations that are literally trying to force genetically engineered products down our collective throat. Not to mention perhaps the most chilling fact of all: once biotechnology is released into the earth, the water, and the air, there's no way to take it back. Once Frankenstein's monster is let out of the laboratory, he's not coming back. In 1999, a mere three years after the first large-scale commercial harvest of its kind in the U.S., genetically engineered crops are grown on more than 90 million acres, or one-fourth of American cropland. It's estimated that more than 35 percent of all corn and anywhere from 40 to 55 percent of all soybeans are genetically altered; some are sold as whole foods, and some are mixed into processed items. Because the agribusiness industry has thus far eluded mandatory labeling in the U.S., it's quite unlikely one would know which products are genetically modified and which are not. (According to a random test conducted by Consumer Reports magazine, Boca Burger Chef Max's Favorite, Morningstar Farms Better ‘n Burgers, Morningstar Farms Harvest Burgers and McDonald's Veggie Burger all tested positive for containing genetically modified ingredients.) There is nothing on an ingredient list that would help one determine if a particular item was genetically altered. Despite what consumers want, the industry considers such labels to be innately pejorative, a covert implication that genetically engineered products are less desirable than conventional or organic products. the FDA has allowed the biotech companies to determine for themselves whether or not their products are safe How will genetically modified foods affect our health? Unfortunately, the regulatory process is fragmented between the USDA, the EPA, and the FDA; the end result is that after been tossed between the various agencies, the product in its entirety avoids strict scrutiny. Each agency oversees a particular area of genetic modification - for example, the FDA regulates the food but not the pesticide it releases, the EPA regulates the pesticide, but not the food itself - but no agency has the responsibility of assessing the food and the pesticide together. Also, the FDA, which has jurisdiction over any food product sold commercially, has allowed the biotech companies to determine for themselves whether or not their products are safe; this is a blatant conflict of interest. In another example of lax protection, the USDA, which once required that biotech companies send data detailing their environmental safeguards, no longer requires such materials from companies that have met performance standards in the past; all they must do is certify in a note that they will take the "expected safety precautions". As many biotech opponents have pointed out, government agencies require that juice manufacturers label whether their juice is fresh or from concentrate; don't American also consumers deserve the right to chose whether or not their food is genetically modified? Until recently, the biotech companies have done a remarkable job of hiding the controversy surrounding these products. This is certainly not so in Europe, however, and Europeans are forcing the topic to become raised in the U.S. The European Union has been vocal in its refusal to receive genetically modified varieties of American crops and seeds that the E.U. has not approved; France and Great Britain consumers have been especially impassioned in their resistance to biotechnology. Another element of the conflict is Europe's antagonism toward American globalization, symbolized by the McDonald's restaurants that are sprouting up throughout France. Recently several McDonald's have been trashed, and an opposition leader by the name of José Bové went to jail to spotlight the cause. He is a hero to the many Europeans that resent the bullying tactics of U.S. trade officials, who, in response to the European Union's refusal to accept hormone-treated beef, imposed a 100 percent tariff on products like Dijon mustard and brie cheese; it's no wonder that this resentment is beginning to take the form of an anti-American sentiment. As an acknowledgment of the economic strain a European ban could have on their business, Archer Daniels Midland, the American agribusiness giant known as the "supermarket to the world," recently alerted its suppliers at grain elevators throughout the Midwest that they should start separating their genetically modified crops from their conventional ones. For a massive corporation like ADM to bow to public pressure, it speaks volumes about the consumer's ability to fight the corporate take-over of our food supply. Incidentally, this move may be very signicant in reducing the amount of biotech crops planted next year, as farmers, fearing lower profit margins, will switch back to conventional crops. 81 percent of respondents wanted genetically engineered products to be labeled as such Dan Glickman, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and a strong supporter of genetic engineering, is now beginning to acknowledge the environmental and health concerns that consumers here and abroad want addressed. When speaking to the World Agricultural Forum last spring in St. Louis, he skirted around product safety concerns by saying, "We have to make sure that those involved in determining the safety of genetic engineered products are staying at arm's length from the people who stand to profit from them." He has also said that as yet he "will not mandate it from a national government level, but I believe that companies are going to find out that labeling is in their own best interest." If there is enough public interest, though, Secretary Glickman will give in to the demands; as witnessed when the USDA proposed changes that would undermine the purity of organic foods, and 275,000 Americans wrote in protest, and he had to acquiesce to consumer wishes. Despite Glickman's belief that Americans have more faith in their regulators than their European counterparts, a recent Time magazine poll found that 81 percent of respondents wanted genetically engineered products to be labeled as such. With such obvious public concern, biotech companies may soon be forced to make their secrets public. So what do we should we do in the meantime to protect ourselves and our children from the biotech foods? An obvious first step is to purchase organic products whenever possible, especially those produced locally. Purchasing from farmer's markets and CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture, where one buys a share of an organic farm's yield) are great ways to support independent farmers who work the soil responsibly and respectfully. And because of the protests of consumers mentioned above, organic produce will be free of genetically manipulated components for the forseeable future. The most effective defense, however, is a good offense. Be vocal. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Send letters to your elected officials (here's an easy way to find them) and to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. Voice your disapproval of genetically modified products to the produce and grocery managers of your local supermarket. Historically, attempts to stop technology have been an uphill battle, to say the least. So genetic engineering is probably here to stay, at least in some form. But consumers can and should have a voice in how these products are regulated, labeled and brought into the marketplace. Let's not let the biotech companies impose their unlabeled products on an uninformed populace. The only thing stopping the Monsantos of the world from stripping us of our right to chose is a sufficient degree of consumer outrage. And that is beginning to change. (back to Vegan News page)

Vegan St. Market...Vegan News...Community Center...Calendar...Vegan Living...Home
Funhouse...Activist's Handbook...Gwendolyn Good-Deed...Links

©1998, 1999 Vegan Street