Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The End of Genetically Engineered Food?
As awareness of GE foods reaches levels seen in Europe, the wholesale rejection of what the British have dubbed "Frankenfood" is likely to be duplicated in the US.
Published on Thursday, November 29, 2001 in Tidepool
The Beginning of the End for Genetically Engineered Food?
by Phil Howard
With little fanfare, on November 13, grocery chain Trader Joe's announced plans to remove genetically engineered ingredients from its private label products.
This is not insignificant news, as 85 percent of the products sold by Trader Joe's are emblazoned with the store name. It also brings the fast-growing company into a small group of grocery chains, including Wild Oats and Whole Foods Market, which have made similar pledges.
Although Wild Oats and Whole Foods Market worked willingly to ensure the purity of their products, Trader Joe's decision followed in the wake of pressure from its customers.
Prior to the announcement, the CEO was receiving more than 100 letters a day demanding the removal of genetically engineered (GE) food from store shelves. In addition, a coalition of grassroots groups organized anti-GE demonstrations in front of Trader Joe's stores in more than 20 cities. Similar campaigns in Europe led to removal of GE ingredients from store labels of most major grocery chains, as well as a moratorium on planting or importing new GE organisms since 1998.
Why has it taken so long for a movement against GE food to achieve a victory in the United States? Conventional wisdom has it that Americans do not care about the quality or purity of their food. This was the rationalization for a double standard over the past three years, as manufacturers removed genetically engineered ingredients for European markets, but took no such steps for the US market.
For example, Aldi stores in Europe removed GE ingredients from store brands in 1999, but Theodore Albrecht (from one of the wealthiest families in the world) did not extend this policy to the Aldi or Trader Joe's stores he owns in the US.
Recent surveys suggest that in point of fact, most Americans were unaware of the recent introduction of GE organisms into the food supply. A Gallup poll released April 11, 2000 indicated that only 14 percent of US citizens had heard a great deal about the issue. This lack of awareness is intentional.
Chemical and pharmaceutical corporations like Monsanto have deliberately introduced genes from viruses, bacteria and other organisms into our food supply, nearly in secret. Monsanto, through its influence on political appointees in the EPA, FDA, and USDA, has successfully prevented GE food from being labeled as such, despite opposition from scientists within these government agencies.
Genetic engineers are well aware that consumers will reject food polluted with foreign genes, if given a choice. The power of the industry is such that they were successful in taking away this choice from US citizens in 1993, when the first GE foods slipped into grocery stores unannounced. As a result, as much as 70 percent of the processed food in a typical grocery store contains GE organisms, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
Trader Joe's recent decision suggests that the chemical and pharmaceutical industry victory may have been Pyrrhic. As activists expose government complicity with these corporations, faith in the safety of the US food supply is weakening and resistance to GE food is growing.
In response to the campaign against it, Trader Joe's recently conducted a poll of customers and found that more than 90 percent would avoid GE products if given a choice. This mirrors survey results from Europe, and suggests that Americans care just as deeply about food. The rapid growth in sales of organic foods, which do not contain GE organisms (unless contaminated by neighboring fields), underscores this concern. As awareness of GE foods reaches levels seen in Europe, the wholesale rejection of what the British have dubbed "Frankenfood" is likely to be duplicated in the US.
Phil Howard is a Ph.D. candidate in Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri. He presently lives in Portland, Oregon.
The Beginning of the End for Genetically Engineered Food?
by Phil Howard
With little fanfare, on November 13, grocery chain Trader Joe's announced plans to remove genetically engineered ingredients from its private label products.
This is not insignificant news, as 85 percent of the products sold by Trader Joe's are emblazoned with the store name. It also brings the fast-growing company into a small group of grocery chains, including Wild Oats and Whole Foods Market, which have made similar pledges.
Although Wild Oats and Whole Foods Market worked willingly to ensure the purity of their products, Trader Joe's decision followed in the wake of pressure from its customers.
Prior to the announcement, the CEO was receiving more than 100 letters a day demanding the removal of genetically engineered (GE) food from store shelves. In addition, a coalition of grassroots groups organized anti-GE demonstrations in front of Trader Joe's stores in more than 20 cities. Similar campaigns in Europe led to removal of GE ingredients from store labels of most major grocery chains, as well as a moratorium on planting or importing new GE organisms since 1998.
Why has it taken so long for a movement against GE food to achieve a victory in the United States? Conventional wisdom has it that Americans do not care about the quality or purity of their food. This was the rationalization for a double standard over the past three years, as manufacturers removed genetically engineered ingredients for European markets, but took no such steps for the US market.
For example, Aldi stores in Europe removed GE ingredients from store brands in 1999, but Theodore Albrecht (from one of the wealthiest families in the world) did not extend this policy to the Aldi or Trader Joe's stores he owns in the US.
Recent surveys suggest that in point of fact, most Americans were unaware of the recent introduction of GE organisms into the food supply. A Gallup poll released April 11, 2000 indicated that only 14 percent of US citizens had heard a great deal about the issue. This lack of awareness is intentional.
Chemical and pharmaceutical corporations like Monsanto have deliberately introduced genes from viruses, bacteria and other organisms into our food supply, nearly in secret. Monsanto, through its influence on political appointees in the EPA, FDA, and USDA, has successfully prevented GE food from being labeled as such, despite opposition from scientists within these government agencies.
Genetic engineers are well aware that consumers will reject food polluted with foreign genes, if given a choice. The power of the industry is such that they were successful in taking away this choice from US citizens in 1993, when the first GE foods slipped into grocery stores unannounced. As a result, as much as 70 percent of the processed food in a typical grocery store contains GE organisms, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
Trader Joe's recent decision suggests that the chemical and pharmaceutical industry victory may have been Pyrrhic. As activists expose government complicity with these corporations, faith in the safety of the US food supply is weakening and resistance to GE food is growing.
In response to the campaign against it, Trader Joe's recently conducted a poll of customers and found that more than 90 percent would avoid GE products if given a choice. This mirrors survey results from Europe, and suggests that Americans care just as deeply about food. The rapid growth in sales of organic foods, which do not contain GE organisms (unless contaminated by neighboring fields), underscores this concern. As awareness of GE foods reaches levels seen in Europe, the wholesale rejection of what the British have dubbed "Frankenfood" is likely to be duplicated in the US.
Phil Howard is a Ph.D. candidate in Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri. He presently lives in Portland, Oregon.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$120.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
for the industrialized world natural and organic foods are luxuries, and GMO's simple conveniences that can be had.
for those in the developing world, those GMO's are indispensable. and, if the industrialized world doesn't consume GMO's, there'll be little incentive for firms to research and develop new crops, much like how pharmaceutical companies won't research into cures for malaria since there is no first world demand.
absolutely tragic that the fear-mongers at greenpeace are managing to sabotage the developing world's best chance for hunger alleviation
It might not make anyone rich, but organic agriculture and agricultural biodiversity are part of a sustainable solution for feeding better food to more people.
Research into genetic engineering has its place, but research into tried and true methods of agriculture, like that practised by native peoples, and its synthesis with modern methods and understanding, is proving just as valuable to us, if not to your stock portfolio.
say that to someone in the third world. the situation is quite different.
traditional agricultural practices may have worked to feed populations 300 years ago, but given the huge demographic explosion today in the developing world sticking to old techniques with only minor modern modifications is a death sentence for millions.
i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't like that one swedish scientist who says that we should just let the third world starve in order to bring their population back into equilibrium. however, if you want to feed people in the third world you're going to need to increase crop yields substantially in order to bring prices down. not only that, but GMO are incredibly useful in delivering costly vaccines. one GMO crop just about to be rolled out can deliver a vaccine for hepatitis B at about 1/25th the cost of the usual technique. quite frankly, those in the developing world shouldn't give two squats what well-fed luddites think about GMO's so long as they are getting the food and medicine they require.
yes, thereotically there is enough food to feed around 8-9 billion people right now. so, its safe to say that as a global system the world overproduces food.
however, this doesn't address localized shortages. to imply that first worlders feeding their dogs meat somehow effects third world starvation is quite ridiculous and has little bearing on facts. the west has tried just giving massive food handouts to the third world. both the third world and the UN objected. why? b/c if you just dump several million metric tons of food aid on a country you completely ruin the local food industry, and thus make the people completely dependant upon western food aid.
third worlders starve because they lack proper entitlements to food. these entitlements can be properly restored either if they grow food themselves, unlikely in an urban setting, or if they increase their wages.
as for the use of cash crops instead of staple crops. again, this in of itself doesn't explain third world hunger. if properly done cash crops would greatly increase farmers entitlements over staple crops. farmers would grow cash crops, and using their new income command staple crop resources. increased demand for staple crops will lead to increased supply, and the end result is that less people starve.
the obvious solution is to liberalize trade and let third worlders be able to sell their crops on the int'l markets instead of jealously protecting western farmers as we currently do. furthermore, we could lower tariffs and barriers to trade regarding labor-intensive industries, thereby also increasing their wages.
nessie: what you are saying only appears true on the surface. its easy to be tricked into believing that since hte world produces enough food for 8 billion there should obviously be no starvation. however, simple production is not the only variable in play here.
GMO foods will increase the supply of food availible in the third world, thereby lowering prices. this the will go a long way in alleviating hunger
a new strand of bt cotton in china has increased the cotton industries productivity by 14% this year, even including the patent costs.
furthermore, productivity will not take into account the benefits brought about by hepatits-b vaccine carrying crops or "golden rice" which will help prevent blindness
however, you can't say "distributional" and then stop thinking about the problem.
WHY is distribution a problem, and how can it be solved?
if the poor had enough entitlements to command food resources then distribution wouldn't be a problem. if they had a wage they could do so, and food would get to them.
so, the solution is still the same as many people have advocated, give the poor jobs and increase their local food supply.
again, just giving them the surplus US food supply will only hurt the third world in the long run, crippling their local food system.
and i personally, cannot bring myself to forgive those who would condemn millions to starvation simply because they are too ignorant to study the issue in any depth, and thus offer half-hearted solutions that will do nothing.
You clearly have no idea what famine is all about. Famine isn't about a shortage of food. Famine is about a shortage of money
--------------------
omg did you even read what i posted. i've been saying exactly that over and over.
so, at least you agree that the solution is to increase entitlements. congratulations.
now, they can do this by either increasing their wage, or by increasing their food supplies. so, they need either labor-intensive jobs (what you would derisively refer to as sweatshops) or they need GMO foods.
as for just "letting them starve". please. everyone agrees that short-term emergency aid is needed when faced with massive starvation. however, just giving the third world large quantities of food would destroy their local agriculture, a point you ignore time and time again.
perhaps i shouldn't be surprised. all of your arguments are based entirely upon moral appeals, which although they have their place they still make poor policy prescriptions. in other words, here i am laying out specific plans about how third world hunger could be alleviated, and there you are making veiled threats at beating me up and calling me a moral cripple.
so, at the end of the day, which mindset do you think will actually get anything done?
------------------------
The Third World is poor because the First World is rich. The First World is rich because it looted, and continues to loot, the Third World of its resources and labor. If the First World wont desist this despicable practice on its own, sooner or later, the Third World will FORCE it to desist
---------------------
umm, not quite.
the age of colonialism ended 50 years ago when under heavy pressure from the US both france and britain began dismantling their empires. since then there has been literally billions in capital transfer to the global south.
to blame the first world for third world impoverishment is just laziness, pure and simple. why pray tell did east asia undergo rapid overall development while latin and south america stagnated? one good explanation is that south american thinkers spent all their time devising new ways in which the western world exploited them (i.e. dependancy theory) while the east asians actually used their intellectuals to plan a better life.
and really, what was the nature of most of this colonial "looting". the whole underlying basis for colonization was preferential trading status. in other words, a colony got trade deals for trading with the mother country, and vice versa. so, one of the real harms of colonialism was the phony companies that were set up to benefit from these ridiculous trade regimes, and hte economic/social consequences they wrought. colonialism ended when the US made acceptance of free trade a precondition for the marshall plan.
in other words, if you want to best get rid of the remaining vestiges of colonialism you'll support globalization and free trade.
----------------
They could abolish wages and share the food.
---------------
and that's your solution to world hunger? just abolish wages and share everything?
believe it or not that's not how the world works. i suppose we could also pray to God and ask that he rain kosher/halal mana on the world and thus feed the world that way, however i wouldn't bet a single starving child on that.
perhaps you should actually spend some time reading hte works of people who've dedicated their lives to fighting hunger, like the good people at oxfam, brown world hunger program, amartya sen, etc. they have real policies, real programs, that would all address the issue of world hunger. and believe it or not they all reflect more or less what i've been saying.
moral indignation at world hunger is of course needed and is a good start. however, it is only a start, and at the end of the day it ends up feeding no one.
as for your analysis of "neo-imperialism", its quite lacking. why pray tell were the east-asian countries able to attract foreign investment whereas the rest of the developed world couldn't? hmm?
perhaps b/c innovaters like lee kuan yee went about with actual development strategies and plans while the
----------------
They could abolish wages and share the food.
---------------
and that's your solution to world hunger? just abolish wages and share everything?
believe it or not that's not how the world works. i suppose we could also pray to God and ask that he rain kosher/halal mana on the world and thus feed the world that way, however i wouldn't bet a single starving child on that.
perhaps you should actually spend some time reading hte works of people who've dedicated their lives to fighting hunger, like the good people at oxfam, brown world hunger program, amartya sen, etc. they have real policies, real programs, that would all address the issue of world hunger. and believe it or not they all reflect more or less what i've been saying.
moral indignation at world hunger is of course needed and is a good start. however, it is only a start, and at the end of the day it ends up feeding no one.
as for your analysis of "neo-imperialism", its quite lacking. why pray tell were the east-asian countries able to attract foreign investment whereas the rest of the developed world couldn't? hmm?
perhaps b/c innovaters like lee kuan yee went about with actual development strategies and plans while the south americans at the first sign of trouble in the 60's began blaming everyone else.
as for looting the third world. gold and precious metals have no intrinsic worth and hundreds of millions of slaves is quite the exaggeration. furthermore, that doesn't explain the lack of adequate develpment prior to WWII.
as for your analysis of globalization. nothing more then vague generalities that get drilled into the heads of anyone who attends one of those lefty "teach-ins" or what have you.
so, maybe you should try to address this point directly, using actual logical arguments:
the primary purpose for colonialism was preferential trading. the colony traded with the mother country and no one else, and this monopoly over trade greatly benefited the mother country. the side effects of this was that the colonies specialized in things which weren't in their comparative advantage, or they fostered large inefficient industries protected form int'l competition b/c of the nature of colonization. all of these factors combined to cause economic stagnation and a lack of development.
thus, the best way to get rid of these vestiges of colonialism is to open up to free trade, which would undercut the very basis for colonialism, preferential trading.
perhaps you can explain this w/o resorting to empty-headed threats or idle mumbo-jumbo