FDA Approved Genetically Engineered Soy and Corn in Baby Food and Nutritional S

[Guest guest]

http://greenpeaceusa.org/media/publications/babyfood.htm

 

FDA Approved: Genetically Engineered Soy and Corn in Baby Food and Nutritional Supplements

 

Laboratory analyses commissioned by Greenpeace have revealed the presence of transgenic DNA from genetically engineered (GE) foods in a popular brand of baby foods and in nutritional supplements used for tube feeding in hospitals and nursing homes. Gerber Mixed Cereal for Baby, a dry three-grain cereal mix for infants, tested positive for DNA from transgenic insect resistant "Bt" corn and herbicide tolerant "Roundup Ready" (RR) soybeans. The two supplements, Novartis' IsoSource and Ross Products' Osmolite both contained transgenic DNA from RR soy. In addition to commissioning the analyses, Greenpeace sent a questionnaire to these and other makers of baby foods and supplements, requesting information about their policies regarding genetically engineered ingredients. The survey questions and responses are detailed in Appendix IV. The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents over 115,000 doctors, released a report last month calling for a moratorium on the introduction of GE crops into the environment and food chain. Among other concerns, the BMA noted the potential for altered plants to add to the spread of antibiotic resistance, to lead to new and untraceable allergies, and to contain toxic by-products. The report suggests that precautionary action should be taken "for the foreseeable future...until the health and environmental impact of genetically modified organisms are fully assessed...."1 The altered corn found in the Gerber cereal includes genes that produce a bacterial toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). When genetically altered Bt plants grow, they produce the toxin, which is an insecticide farmers use to ward off certain pests. In 1991, Dr. Rebecca Goldberg outlined the kind of assessment that should be required of Bt plants and stated, "…There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Bt plants should be accepted for human consumption."2 Yet the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never required the kind of comprehensive testing Dr. Goldberg suggested. Instead, the FDA relies on the industry to voluntarily assess the safety of its products, despite the fact that the industry has not conducted long-term tests for effects on human health. The industry relies on chemical analyses or short-term animal feeding studies that typically last no more than ten weeks. No independent testing or review of industry data is required, and often studies are unpublished, making critical scientific analysis impossible. Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Policy Institute, a division of Consumers Union, has criticized the FDA policy for requiring industry "to make judgment calls that should be done by an agency with no commercial interest in the outcome and which is accountable to the public." He also noted that during the comment period prior to the agency's adopting this policy, the FDA received opposition to the proposal from the American Association of Retired Persons and the attorneys general of eight states, as well as over 4,000 public comments, most of which called for GE foods to be labeled.3 Problems with company testing have already been exposed. The RR soybeans, found in the Novartis IsoSource and the Ross Products Osmolite, as well as the Gerber baby food, are grown with direct application of Monsanto's flagship product, a toxic weed killer called Roundup. Yet the FDA approved the engineered soy based on Monsanto's tests of RR soybeans grown without any application of the chemical. This lack of proper testing prompted two Australian scientists to write to the FDA, saying, "Without [such] basic studies, the FDA is in no position to vouch for the safety of this controversial product now pervading the diet of millions of unwitting consumers."4 The FDA has also been criticized at home for its lax approach to the issue of allergens and GE foods. The FDA does not require genetically engineered foods to be labeled unless an inserted gene comes from a source that is known to be allergenic, or if the food is nutritionally changed. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marion Nestle states, "Because FDA requirements do not apply to foods that are rarely allergenic or to donor organisms of unknown allergenicity, the policy would appear to favor industry over consumer protection."5 More recently, the FDA proposed a policy for industry regarding the use of antibiotic genes in transgenic plants. In the engineering process used for many altered plants, scientists need a way to determine whether the gene insertion procedure is successful. Antibiotic resistance genes are used as a "marker" to help determine the success of the gene insertion. In its guidance to the industry, the FDA begins with the premise that "…the likelihood of transfer of an antibiotic resistance marker from plants to microorganisms in the gut or in the environment is remote and…would not add to existing levels of resistance in bacterial populations in any meaningful way."6 Yet in an article in La Recherché several months before the FDA's proposal was announced, the chief expert on antibiotics from the French Pasteur Institute noted the likelihood for antibiotic resistance to transfer from altered plants in the environment, and the potential for such transfer in the digestive tract. In "Transgenic Plants and Antibiotics," Dr. Patrice Courvalin states, "We must remember that the opportunities for genetic exchange between living organisms in nature are immense….The intensive cultivation of plants carrying a resistance gene does result in the presence, in higher numbers, of this gene in nature, thereby creating the conditions for its evolution and dissemination."7 In one alarming statement in its guidance to industry, the FDA suggests that in the case of the potential for inactivation of an antibiotic through ingestion of an engineered food, "…advice could be provided that the antibiotic…should not be taken together with food."8 It is striking that the FDA would propose labeling drugs to protect consumers against the effects of GE foods, when the agency is unwilling to protect consumers by requiring labeling of the foods. In his paper, Dr. Courvalin also noted that certain common soil bacteria that may take up antibiotic resistance genes from plants, such as Acinetobacter, are among the bacterial species responsible for infecting individuals with depressed immune systems. A 1998 laboratory experiment demonstrated that gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes could occur from genetically engineered sugarbeet to Acenitobacter, making the bacteria resistant to this antibiotic.9 Dr. Courvalin warned that the elderly, patients with AIDS or leukemia, and those undergoing chemotherapy or other intensive care might be most at risk if such resistance spreads.10 Finally, there are serious concerns regarding toxins that may result from genetic engineering. Dr. Goldberg noted that the Bt toxin in plants differs from the already challenging problem of pesticide residues in food in that "they [are] integral components of plants, pesticides wary consumers cannot wash off."11 Other scientists have raised the concern that RR soybeans may have altered levels of phytoestrogens, a change that could be particularly harmful to children.12 The potential for unintended toxicity resulting from genetic transfers is the focus of a fierce debate over the results of a study done by Dr. Arpad Pusztai last year. Pusztai found that rats fed with genetically engineered potatoes suffered damaged immune systems and stunted growth of vital organs. The cause of these deficiencies remains undetermined, though, and scientific reviews have both challenged and supported Pusztai's data. One reviewer, who joined 21 other scientists in a memorandum in support of Pusztai earlier this year, is Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a fetal and infant toxopathologist from the University of Liverpool. Dr. Howard was recently quoted in Scientific American as saying that Pusztai's results show that GE foods could result in "…long-term, low-dose toxicity from subtle changes to the nature of the food chain…. It is precisely this type of finding which means that animal testing for developmental toxicological effects is essential."13 Conclusions

Gerber is the largest selling brand of baby foods in the country. As such, the company has a responsibility to take the lead in assuring parents that the food they purchase for their children is safe. Other baby food companies and much of the food industry in general would likely follow the lead of this iconic American company, were Gerber to commit to providing GE-free food. Ross Products, Novartis, and other companies that produce medical foods must also take special care to ensure that those who are particularly at risk are not exposed to potentially hazardous foods. Novartis, as a leading producer of engineered crops as well as a leading baby food company, must be especially sensitive to the impression it gives when it fails to provide information about the foods it produces for American children. Even the appearance that its experimental crops are being dumped in our children's food, because the rest of the world will not accept the risks, is unacceptable. Last August, the Swiss baby food company Wander, which is also owned by Novartis, immediately withdrew an organic baby food from the market when it was found to contain transgenic DNA from soy.14 Swiss-based Novartis is also the world's leading pharmaceutical company, making its use of antibiotic resistance genes in its engineered plants all the more disturbing. All food producers should follow the lead of dozens of supermarket chains, restaurants and global food manufacturers, which are declaring their intention to avoid genetically engineered food in their products (see Appendix II for a summary). These foods offer no benefits to consumers, yet it is consumers and their children and families who bear the risks. Governments around the world are also taking action to protect the public and the environment from the irreversible consequences of GE (see Appendix III). In Italy, a presidential decree from March 31, 1999 stated that food products for infants or children "must not contain pesticide residuals greater than 0.01 mg/kg or genetically modified ingredients." In the United Kingdom, local authorities from Kent, Surrey, Oxfordshire, North Tyneside, Southampton and Lodon's Lambeth have banned GE foods from their schools. It is well past time for our government to ensure the safety of our food supply by requiring independent, long-term environmental and health testing for all genetically engineered foods. Our ailing loved ones, our elderly, and our children must not be guinea pigs in this experiment on our food. A Note on the Testing Procedure

Baby foods were purchased at major grocery stores (Food Emporium, Gristedes, Pathmark) and independent markets in the New York metro area. Tube feeding formulas were purchased at a pharmacy (Ricky's Drug Store, NYC) and through a nursing home supply company. Eight samples were sent in their original packaging to RHM Technologies for qualitative analysis. Earlier this year, this company announced its development of a highly sensitive and accurate method for detecting genetically modified DNA in processed foods. RHM uses PCR testing combined with techniques that "clean up" food samples of substances (salt, carbohydrates, and other common food components) that can inhibit the accuracy of PCR testing. Its process has also been amplified, enabling detection of DNA in complex foods. See Appendix I, "Detection of Genetically Modified Ingredients in Food," for further information from RHM about its testing procedures.1British Medical Association, The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health, May 1999.2Rebecca Goldberg & Gabrielle Tjaden, Are Btk Plants Safe to Eat? (Global Pesticide Campaigner, January 1991).3Michael Hansen, A Regulatory Patchwork - With Big Holes (The Environmental Forum, March/April 1999), pp. 50-51.4Ute Baumann and Stanley Robert, Letter to FDA, cited in The Guardian (UK), May 24, 1999.5Marion Nestle, "Allergies to Transgenic Foods - Questions of Policy," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 334, #11, March 14, 1996.6FDA, "Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants," 1998, www.fda.gov (docket #98D-0340).7Dr. Patrice Courvalin, "Transgenic Plants and Antibiotics," La Recherche 309, May 1998 (translated by Elisabeth Abergel for the Edmonds Institute).8FDA, "Guidance for Industry," 1998.9Gebhard F. and Smalla K. (1998), Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. strain BD413 by transgenic sugar beet DNA, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64, pp. 1550-1559.10Courvalin, 1998.11Goldberg, 1991.12Marc A. Lappé, Ph.D., Britt Bailey, M.A., Chandra Childress, M.S., & Kenneth D.R. Setchell, Ph.D., "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans" (Pre-publication abstract), Journal of Medicinal Food (Vol 1., no. 4), Maryanne Liebert Publishers); see also Lappé and Bailey, Genetically Engineered Soya: Contaminating the Great Treasure (Center for Ethics and Toxics, 1997).13Peta Firth, "Leaving a Bad Taste," Scientific American, May 1999, p.34.14Wander AG press release, August 25, 1998: "Wander AG Replaces Mamina Brand Soy Products."APPENDIX I: DETECTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED INGREDIENTS IN FOODRHM Technology Ltd.The Lord Rank Centre Lincoln Road, High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP12 3QR ENGLAND Contact: Anne Kaye, Marketing CoordinatorDr. Gordon Wiseman, BiochemistTelephone : +44 (0)1494 526191Faxcimile : +44 (0)1494 428080www.rhmtech.demon.co.ukThe Background

RHM Technology has developed a highly sensitive quantification test for genetically modified (GM) materials in ingredients and finished products. Genetic modification of food is one of the most controversial issues currently confronting the food industry. Current legislation (EC No 1139/98), which came into effect on the 1st September 1998, requires products containing any genetically modified material, irrespective of the level present, to be labelled with, for example, 'produced from genetically modified soya.' The European Union (EU) is currently producing a proposal for threshold levels for labelling, to take into account the presence of GM material by adventitious contamination. It is likely that the threshold level will be in the region of 1-2%. RHM Technology has made a significant investment in state of the art instrumentation and methodology that not only enable the detection of GM materials to extremely low levels, typically 10ppm in ingredients and 100ppm in processed materials, but also accurately quantifies the GM material present. Why RHM Technology?

RHM Technology is well positioned to offer this service, having many years' experience in the application of molecular biological techniques on behalf of major organisations. RHM Technology provides an engineering, food technology, information and scientific service to the food industry. With over 130 staff, RHM Technology is today one of the largest food industry technology centres in the United Kingdom. The Techniques

Using highly sensitive techniques, such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), extremely low levels of DNA can be detected, typically less than 1ng of DNA in 1g (1ppb) of material. However, such highly sensitive techniques are not without their potential problems. The PCR test is very susceptible to inhibitory factors such as salt, calcium, carbohydrates and polyphenolics commonly found in foods. At RHM Technology we employ stringent techniques to exhaustively "clean" up analytes, and sequential dilutions are used to overcome inhibitors. Failure to remove these inhibitors will lead to false negative results with potential embarrassment if products are subsequently found to contain GM materials. Unlike analyses available elsewhere, our DNA primer sets have been extended to amplify smaller DNA fragments than other laboratories, enabling detection of heat degraded GM sequences in processed food. This enables us to offer a highly sensitive service that goes beyond the straightforward analysis of ingredients to include the analysis of GMOs in difficult and complex food matrices such as oils and finished products. By further incorporating a normalising control we are able to extend the highly sensitive PCR detection method to provide an accurate quantification of GM material present. All our procedures include stringent positive and negative controls to support the validity of our results.APPENDIX II: SUMMARY OF FOOD INDUSTRY ACTION TO AVOID GE FOODAustriaUnilever Austria announced that it would not use GE ingredients for the foreseeable future. Three other major manufacturers and four large supermarket chains announced their commitment to avoiding GE ingredients. BelgiumA leading supermarket, Delhaize Le Lion*, has committed to eliminating GE foods from its store brands.FranceThree major supermarkets, including leaders Carrefour* and Auchon, committed to keeping GE ingredients out of their store brand products. Four food companies, including baby food maker Vitagermine, committed to making their products GE-free.InternationalKraft Jacobs Suchard and Danone, two of Europe's largest food companies, stated that they would not use GE ingredients in their products sold in Europe.IrelandThe largest supermarket chain, Superquinn*, committed to eliminating GE ingredients from its store brand products.ItalyTwo major supermarket chains, including Esselunga*, committed to eliminating GE ingredients in store brands. The food company Barilla also declared it would not use GE ingredients.SpainNestle Spain announced its company policy is neither to sell nor produce food with GE ingredients. The country's largest supermarket chain, Pryca, committed to eliminating GE ingredients from its store brands.SwitzerlandTwo major supermarket chains, including Migros*, committed to eliminating GE ingredients in their store brands. Two major food companies and two food industry associations declared measures to avoid GE food.United KingdomNestle UK, Unilever UK and Cadbury committed to eliminating GE ingredients from the food products they sell in the UK. Top grocery chains, including Tesco (the largest chain), Sainsbury*, Safeway, Marks & Spencer*, Iceland and Asda committed to eliminating GE ingredients from their store brands.United StatesSeveral natural food companies have taken steps to avoid GE food. Hain Foods reformulated its corn chip recipe to avoid GE soy. Eden Natural Foods has stated in advertising that their products will not contain GE ingredients.Chefs Collaborative 2000, representing 1,500 chefs nationwide, joined Greenpeace last fall in calling for GE foods to be labeled and subject to safety testing.*Denotes that the company is a member of a consortium of European supermarkets organized by Sainsbury (UK), which joined together in March 1999 to assure sources for non-GE ingredients for their products.APPENDIX III - SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT ACTIONS ON ENGINEERED PLANTSAustralia/New ZealandIn December 1998, the Australia-New Zealand Food Standards Council called for mandatory labeling of GE food.AustriaAustria banned the import of Novartis' Bt corn in 1997. No commercial GE crops are being grown. Austria also banned Monsanto Bt corn in May, after a Cornell University study showed the crop could adversely affect monarch butterflies.BrazilIn March, Brazil's second-largest soybean growing state, Rio Grande do Sul, announced its intention to ban the planting of GE crops. The Brazilian Environment Ministry joined a Greenpeace lawsuit to stop the planting of biotech crops in Brazil until full impact assessments are done.European UnionThe EU enacted legislation requiring the labeling of GE foods last September. Though well ahead of U.S. regulations, the law contains loopholes that allow many products produced with GE ingredients to remain unlabeled. In February of this year, the European Parliament called for stronger requirements and for manufacturers to be legally liable for damage to health or the environment from GE crops.FranceA de facto ban on cultivation of GE crops is in effect, since the High Court ruled last December that a case brought by Greenpeace raised issues that should be resolved at the EU level.GreeceIn April, the Greek Environmental Ministry blocked the approval of seven GE crops, including Monsanto cotton and corn varieties. The Greek government also called for an EU-wide moratorium on GE crops.LuxembourgLuxembourg banned the import of Novartis' Bt corn in 1997.SwitzerlandIn April, the Swiss Federal Environmental Agency rejected applications for field trials of GE corn and potatoes, stating that the safety of the GE corn for human health and the environment cannot be demonstrated with the current scientific evidence and experience.United KingdomLast October, the UK government reached a voluntary agreement with industry on a three year moratorium on commercial planting of GE crops.APPENDIX IV - FOOD COMPANIES SURVEYED BY GREENPEACE

The companies listed below were asked the following questions regarding their products: Do you use genetically engineered (GE) ingredients or products derived from GE organisms in your products?If yes, which products contain GE ingredients?If no, what steps have you taken (if any) to ensure that you are not using GE ingredients?Do you currently inform your customers whether you use GE ingredients or products derived from GE organisms in your products?If no, do you plan to do so in the future?Are you interested in finding sources for ingredients that are NOT produced with genetic engineering?Would you like more information from Greenpeace on sources for non-GE ingredients, labeling, or other issues related to biotechnology?

As of the writing of this report (6/10/99), only Healthy Times Natural Foods had responded in writing. The company faxed its answers and followed up with phone conversations. Healthy Times states that it does not use GE ingredients, and that it will inform its customers with a note on thei packaging. Organic Baby spokesperson Rick Keller told us in a phone conversation that his company relied on Oregon Tilth certification standards, which exclude the use of GE foods, to assure that the company's products are GE free.Nestle, USA Inc.Chair and CEO Joe Weller800 N. Brand Blvd.Glendale, CA 91203Tel: 818-549-6000Fax: 818-549-6952Novartis Nutrition CorporationCEO Michael Valentino5100 Gamble DriveMinneapolis, MN 55416Tel: 612-925-2100Fax: 612-593-2087Ross ProductsPresident Joy Amundson6480 Bush Blvd.Columbus, OH 43215Tel: 614-624-7677Fax: 614-624-0030Mead JohnsonPresident Christopher WhiteEvansville, IN Tel: 812-429-5000Fax: 812-429-7538Beech Nut Nutrition CorporationMilnot CompanyCEO Scott Meader100 S. 4th StreetSt. Louis, MO 63102Tel: 314-436-7667Fax: 314-436-7679Gerber ProductsJan Relford, VP Public Affairs445 State St.Fremont, MI 49412Tel: 616-928-2000Fax: 616-924-6724Earth's Best - A Division of HG HeinzPO Box 28Pittsburgh, PA 15230Tel: 800-442-4221Fax: 412-237-4230Organic Baby - Glacier Foods1117 K StreetSanger, CA 93657Tel: 559-875-3354Fax: 559-875-3179Healthy Times Natural Foods13200 Kirkham WayBuilding 104Poway, CA 92064Tel: 619-513-1550Fax: 619-513-1533

[Guest guest]

This article is dated May 1999. I wonder how much of this information has been buried, and/or superceded with slick propaganda.since then

Cheers, Doug

 

 

 

 

-

Elaine

*§ @y

Sunday, September 28, 2003 12:37 PM

FDA Approved Genetically Engineered Soy and Corn in Baby Food and Nutritional S

 

http://greenpeaceusa.org/media/publications/babyfood.htm

 

FDA Approved: Genetically Engineered Soy and Corn in Baby Food and Nutritional Supplements

 

Laboratory analyses commissioned by Greenpeace have revealed the presence of transgenic DNA from genetically engineered (GE) foods in a popular brand of baby foods and in nutritional supplements used for tube feeding in hospitals and nursing homes. Gerber Mixed Cereal for Baby, a dry three-grain cereal mix for infants, tested positive for DNA from transgenic insect resistant "Bt" corn and herbicide tolerant "Roundup Ready" (RR) soybeans. The two supplements, Novartis' IsoSource and Ross Products' Osmolite both contained transgenic DNA from RR soy. In addition to commissioning the analyses, Greenpeace sent a questionnaire to these and other makers of baby foods and supplements, requesting information about their policies regarding genetically engineered ingredients. The survey questions and responses are detailed in Appendix IV. The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents over 115,000 doctors, released a report last month calling for a moratorium on the introduction of GE crops into the environment and food chain. Among other concerns, the BMA noted the potential for altered plants to add to the spread of antibiotic resistance, to lead to new and untraceable allergies, and to contain toxic by-products. The report suggests that precautionary action should be taken "for the foreseeable future...until the health and environmental impact of genetically modified organisms are fully assessed...."1 The altered corn found in the Gerber cereal includes genes that produce a bacterial toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). When genetically altered Bt plants grow, they produce the toxin, which is an insecticide farmers use to ward off certain pests. In 1991, Dr. Rebecca Goldberg outlined the kind of assessment that should be required of Bt plants and stated, "…There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Bt plants should be accepted for human consumption."2 Yet the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never required the kind of comprehensive testing Dr. Goldberg suggested. Instead, the FDA relies on the industry to voluntarily assess the safety of its products, despite the fact that the industry has not conducted long-term tests for effects on human health. The industry relies on chemical analyses or short-term animal feeding studies that typically last no more than ten weeks. No independent testing or review of industry data is required, and often studies are unpublished, making critical scientific analysis impossible. Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Policy Institute, a division of Consumers Union, has criticized the FDA policy for requiring industry "to make judgment calls that should be done by an agency with no commercial interest in the outcome and which is accountable to the public." He also noted that during the comment period prior to the agency's adopting this policy, the FDA received opposition to the proposal from the American Association of Retired Persons and the attorneys general of eight states, as well as over 4,000 public comments, most of which called for GE foods to be labeled.3 Problems with company testing have already been exposed. The RR soybeans, found in the Novartis IsoSource and the Ross Products Osmolite, as well as the Gerber baby food, are grown with direct application of Monsanto's flagship product, a toxic weed killer called Roundup. Yet the FDA approved the engineered soy based on Monsanto's tests of RR soybeans grown without any application of the chemical. This lack of proper testing prompted two Australian scientists to write to the FDA, saying, "Without [such] basic studies, the FDA is in no position to vouch for the safety of this controversial product now pervading the diet of millions of unwitting consumers."4 The FDA has also been criticized at home for its lax approach to the issue of allergens and GE foods. The FDA does not require genetically engineered foods to be labeled unless an inserted gene comes from a source that is known to be allergenic, or if the food is nutritionally changed. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marion Nestle states, "Because FDA requirements do not apply to foods that are rarely allergenic or to donor organisms of unknown allergenicity, the policy would appear to favor industry over consumer protection."5 More recently, the FDA proposed a policy for industry regarding the use of antibiotic genes in transgenic plants. In the engineering process used for many altered plants, scientists need a way to determine whether the gene insertion procedure is successful. Antibiotic resistance genes are used as a "marker" to help determine the success of the gene insertion. In its guidance to the industry, the FDA begins with the premise that "…the likelihood of transfer of an antibiotic resistance marker from plants to microorganisms in the gut or in the environment is remote and…would not add to existing levels of resistance in bacterial populations in any meaningful way."6 Yet in an article in La Recherché several months before the FDA's proposal was announced, the chief expert on antibiotics from the French Pasteur Institute noted the likelihood for antibiotic resistance to transfer from altered plants in the environment, and the potential for such transfer in the digestive tract. In "Transgenic Plants and Antibiotics," Dr. Patrice Courvalin states, "We must remember that the opportunities for genetic exchange between living organisms in nature are immense….The intensive cultivation of plants carrying a resistance gene does result in the presence, in higher numbers, of this gene in nature, thereby creating the conditions for its evolution and dissemination."7 In one alarming statement in its guidance to industry, the FDA suggests that in the case of the potential for inactivation of an antibiotic through ingestion of an engineered food, "…advice could be provided that the antibiotic…should not be taken together with food."8 It is striking that the FDA would propose labeling drugs to protect consumers against the effects of GE foods, when the agency is unwilling to protect consumers by requiring labeling of the foods. In his paper, Dr. Courvalin also noted that certain common soil bacteria that may take up antibiotic resistance genes from plants, such as Acinetobacter, are among the bacterial species responsible for infecting individuals with depressed immune systems. A 1998 laboratory experiment demonstrated that gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes could occur from genetically engineered sugarbeet to Acenitobacter, making the bacteria resistant to this antibiotic.9 Dr. Courvalin warned that the elderly, patients with AIDS or leukemia, and those undergoing chemotherapy or other intensive care might be most at risk if such resistance spreads.10 Finally, there are serious concerns regarding toxins that may result from genetic engineering. Dr. Goldberg noted that the Bt toxin in plants differs from the already challenging problem of pesticide residues in food in that "they [are] integral components of plants, pesticides wary consumers cannot wash off."11 Other scientists have raised the concern that RR soybeans may have altered levels of phytoestrogens, a change that could be particularly harmful to children.12 The potential for unintended toxicity resulting from genetic transfers is the focus of a fierce debate over the results of a study done by Dr. Arpad Pusztai last year. Pusztai found that rats fed with genetically engineered potatoes suffered damaged immune systems and stunted growth of vital organs. The cause of these deficiencies remains undetermined, though, and scientific reviews have both challenged and supported Pusztai's data. One reviewer, who joined 21 other scientists in a memorandum in support of Pusztai earlier this year, is Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a fetal and infant toxopathologist from the University of Liverpool. Dr. Howard was recently quoted in Scientific American as saying that Pusztai's results show that GE foods could result in "…long-term, low-dose toxicity from subtle changes to the nature of the food chain…. It is precisely this type of finding which means that animal testing for developmental toxicological effects is essential."13 Conclusions

Gerber is the largest selling brand of baby foods in the country. As such, the company has a responsibility to take the lead in assuring parents that the food they purchase for their children is safe. Other baby food companies and much of the food industry in general would likely follow the lead of this iconic American company, were Gerber to commit to providing GE-free food. Ross Products, Novartis, and other companies that produce medical foods must also take special care to ensure that those who are particularly at risk are not exposed to potentially hazardous foods. Novartis, as a leading producer of engineered crops as well as a leading baby food company, must be especially sensitive to the impression it gives when it fails to provide information about the foods it produces for American children. Even the appearance that its experimental crops are being dumped in our children's food, because the rest of the world will not accept the risks, is unacceptable. Last August, the Swiss baby food company Wander, which is also owned by Novartis, immediately withdrew an organic baby food from the market when it was found to contain transgenic DNA from soy.14 Swiss-based Novartis is also the world's leading pharmaceutical company, making its use of antibiotic resistance genes in its engineered plants all the more disturbing. All food producers should follow the lead of dozens of supermarket chains, restaurants and global food manufacturers, which are declaring their intention to avoid genetically engineered food in their products (see Appendix II for a summary). These foods offer no benefits to consumers, yet it is consumers and their children and families who bear the risks. Governments around the world are also taking action to protect the public and the environment from the irreversible consequences of GE (see Appendix III). In Italy, a presidential decree from March 31, 1999 stated that food products for infants or children "must not contain pesticide residuals greater than 0.01 mg/kg or genetically modified ingredients." In the United Kingdom, local authorities from Kent, Surrey, Oxfordshire, North Tyneside, Southampton and Lodon's Lambeth have banned GE foods from their schools. It is well past time for our government to ensure the safety of our food supply by requiring independent, long-term environmental and health testing for all genetically engineered foods. Our ailing loved ones, our elderly, and our children must not be guinea pigs in this experiment on our food. A Note on the Testing Procedure

Baby foods were purchased at major grocery stores (Food Emporium, Gristedes, Pathmark) and independent markets in the New York metro area. Tube feeding formulas were purchased at a pharmacy (Ricky's Drug Store, NYC) and through a nursing home supply company. Eight samples were sent in their original packaging to RHM Technologies for qualitative analysis. Earlier this year, this company announced its development of a highly sensitive and accurate method for detecting genetically modified DNA in processed foods. RHM uses PCR testing combined with techniques that "clean up" food samples of substances (salt, carbohydrates, and other common food components) that can inhibit the accuracy of PCR testing. Its process has also been amplified, enabling detection of DNA in complex foods. See Appendix I, "Detection of Genetically Modified Ingredients in Food," for further information from RHM about its testing procedures.1British Medical Association, The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health, May 1999.2Rebecca Goldberg & Gabrielle Tjaden, Are Btk Plants Safe to Eat? (Global Pesticide Campaigner, January 1991).3Michael Hansen, A Regulatory Patchwork - With Big Holes (The Environmental Forum, March/April 1999), pp. 50-51.4Ute Baumann and Stanley Robert, Letter to FDA, cited in The Guardian (UK), May 24, 1999.5Marion Nestle, "Allergies to Transgenic Foods - Questions of Policy," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 334, #11, March 14, 1996.6FDA, "Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants," 1998, www.fda.gov (docket #98D-0340).7Dr. Patrice Courvalin, "Transgenic Plants and Antibiotics," La Recherche 309, May 1998 (translated by Elisabeth Abergel for the Edmonds Institute).8FDA, "Guidance for Industry," 1998.9Gebhard F. and Smalla K. (1998), Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. strain BD413 by transgenic sugar beet DNA, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64, pp. 1550-1559.10Courvalin, 1998.11Goldberg, 1991.12Marc A. Lappé, Ph.D., Britt Bailey, M.A., Chandra Childress, M.S., & Kenneth D.R. Setchell, Ph.D., "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans" (Pre-publication abstract), Journal of Medicinal Food (Vol 1., no. 4), Maryanne Liebert Publishers); see also Lappé and Bailey, Genetically Engineered Soya: Contaminating the Great Treasure (Center for Ethics and Toxics, 1997).13Peta Firth, "Leaving a Bad Taste," Scientific American, May 1999, p.34.14Wander AG press release, August 25, 1998: "Wander AG Replaces Mamina Brand Soy Products."APPENDIX I: DETECTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED INGREDIENTS IN FOODRHM Technology Ltd.The Lord Rank Centre Lincoln Road, High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP12 3QR ENGLAND Contact: Anne Kaye, Marketing CoordinatorDr. Gordon Wiseman, BiochemistTelephone : +44 (0)1494 526191Faxcimile : +44 (0)1494 428080www.rhmtech.demon.co.ukThe Background

RHM Technology has developed a highly sensitive quantification test for genetically modified (GM) materials in ingredients and finished products. Genetic modification of food is one of the most controversial issues currently confronting the food industry. Current legislation (EC No 1139/98), which came into effect on the 1st September 1998, requires products containing any genetically modified material, irrespective of the level present, to be labelled with, for example, 'produced from genetically modified soya.' The European Union (EU) is currently producing a proposal for threshold levels for labelling, to take into account the presence of GM material by adventitious contamination. It is likely that the threshold level will be in the region of 1-2%. RHM Technology has made a significant investment in state of the art instrumentation and methodology that not only enable the detection of GM materials to extremely low levels, typically 10ppm in ingredients and 100ppm in processed materials, but also accurately quantifies the GM material present. Why RHM Technology?

RHM Technology is well positioned to offer this service, having many years' experience in the application of molecular biological techniques on behalf of major organisations. RHM Technology provides an engineering, food technology, information and scientific service to the food industry. With over 130 staff, RHM Technology is today one of the largest food industry technology centres in the United Kingdom. The Techniques

Using highly sensitive techniques, such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), extremely low levels of DNA can be detected, typically less than 1ng of DNA in 1g (1ppb) of material. However, such highly sensitive techniques are not without their potential problems. The PCR test is very susceptible to inhibitory factors such as salt, calcium, carbohydrates and polyphenolics commonly found in foods. At RHM Technology we employ stringent techniques to exhaustively "clean" up analytes, and sequential dilutions are used to overcome inhibitors. Failure to remove these inhibitors will lead to false negative results with potential embarrassment if products are subsequently found to contain GM materials. Unlike analyses available elsewhere, our DNA primer sets have been extended to amplify smaller DNA fragments than other laboratories, enabling detection of heat degraded GM sequences in processed food. This enables us to offer a highly sensitive service that goes beyond the straightforward analysis of ingredients to include the analysis of GMOs in difficult and complex food matrices such as oils and finished products. By further incorporating a normalising control we are able to extend the highly sensitive PCR detection method to provide an accurate quantification of GM material present. All our procedures include stringent positive and negative controls to support the validity of our results.APPENDIX II: SUMMARY OF FOOD INDUSTRY ACTION TO AVOID GE FOODAustriaUnilever Austria announced that it would not use GE ingredients for the foreseeable future. Three other major manufacturers and four large supermarket chains announced their commitment to avoiding GE ingredients. BelgiumA leading supermarket, Delhaize Le Lion*, has committed to eliminating GE foods from its store brands.FranceThree major supermarkets, including leaders Carrefour* and Auchon, committed to keeping GE ingredients out of their store brand products. Four food companies, including baby food maker Vitagermine, committed to making their products GE-free.InternationalKraft Jacobs Suchard and Danone, two of Europe's largest food companies, stated that they would not use GE ingredients in their products sold in Europe.IrelandThe largest supermarket chain, Superquinn*, committed to eliminating GE ingredients from its store brand products.ItalyTwo major supermarket chains, including Esselunga*, committed to eliminating GE ingredients in store brands. The food company Barilla also declared it would not use GE ingredients.SpainNestle Spain announced its company policy is neither to sell nor produce food with GE ingredients. The country's largest supermarket chain, Pryca, committed to eliminating GE ingredients from its store brands.SwitzerlandTwo major supermarket chains, including Migros*, committed to eliminating GE ingredients in their store brands. Two major food companies and two food industry associations declared measures to avoid GE food.United KingdomNestle UK, Unilever UK and Cadbury committed to eliminating GE ingredients from the food products they sell in the UK. Top grocery chains, including Tesco (the largest chain), Sainsbury*, Safeway, Marks & Spencer*, Iceland and Asda committed to eliminating GE ingredients from their store brands.United StatesSeveral natural food companies have taken steps to avoid GE food. Hain Foods reformulated its corn chip recipe to avoid GE soy. Eden Natural Foods has stated in advertising that their products will not contain GE ingredients.Chefs Collaborative 2000, representing 1,500 chefs nationwide, joined Greenpeace last fall in calling for GE foods to be labeled and subject to safety testing.*Denotes that the company is a member of a consortium of European supermarkets organized by Sainsbury (UK), which joined together in March 1999 to assure sources for non-GE ingredients for their products.APPENDIX III - SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT ACTIONS ON ENGINEERED PLANTSAustralia/New ZealandIn December 1998, the Australia-New Zealand Food Standards Council called for mandatory labeling of GE food.AustriaAustria banned the import of Novartis' Bt corn in 1997. No commercial GE crops are being grown. Austria also banned Monsanto Bt corn in May, after a Cornell University study showed the crop could adversely affect monarch butterflies.BrazilIn March, Brazil's second-largest soybean growing state, Rio Grande do Sul, announced its intention to ban the planting of GE crops. The Brazilian Environment Ministry joined a Greenpeace lawsuit to stop the planting of biotech crops in Brazil until full impact assessments are done.European UnionThe EU enacted legislation requiring the labeling of GE foods last September. Though well ahead of U.S. regulations, the law contains loopholes that allow many products produced with GE ingredients to remain unlabeled. In February of this year, the European Parliament called for stronger requirements and for manufacturers to be legally liable for damage to health or the environment from GE crops.FranceA de facto ban on cultivation of GE crops is in effect, since the High Court ruled last December that a case brought by Greenpeace raised issues that should be resolved at the EU level.GreeceIn April, the Greek Environmental Ministry blocked the approval of seven GE crops, including Monsanto cotton and corn varieties. The Greek government also called for an EU-wide moratorium on GE crops.LuxembourgLuxembourg banned the import of Novartis' Bt corn in 1997.SwitzerlandIn April, the Swiss Federal Environmental Agency rejected applications for field trials of GE corn and potatoes, stating that the safety of the GE corn for human health and the environment cannot be demonstrated with the current scientific evidence and experience.United KingdomLast October, the UK government reached a voluntary agreement with industry on a three year moratorium on commercial planting of GE crops.APPENDIX IV - FOOD COMPANIES SURVEYED BY GREENPEACE

The companies listed below were asked the following questions regarding their products: Do you use genetically engineered (GE) ingredients or products derived from GE organisms in your products?If yes, which products contain GE ingredients?If no, what steps have you taken (if any) to ensure that you are not using GE ingredients?Do you currently inform your customers whether you use GE ingredients or products derived from GE organisms in your products?If no, do you plan to do so in the future?Are you interested in finding sources for ingredients that are NOT produced with genetic engineering?Would you like more information from Greenpeace on sources for non-GE ingredients, labeling, or other issues related to biotechnology?

As of the writing of this report (6/10/99), only Healthy Times Natural Foods had responded in writing. The company faxed its answers and followed up with phone conversations. Healthy Times states that it does not use GE ingredients, and that it will inform its customers with a note on thei packaging. Organic Baby spokesperson Rick Keller told us in a phone conversation that his company relied on Oregon Tilth certification standards, which exclude the use of GE foods, to assure that the company's products are GE free.Nestle, USA Inc.Chair and CEO Joe Weller800 N. Brand Blvd.Glendale, CA 91203Tel: 818-549-6000Fax: 818-549-6952Novartis Nutrition CorporationCEO Michael Valentino5100 Gamble DriveMinneapolis, MN 55416Tel: 612-925-2100Fax: 612-593-2087Ross ProductsPresident Joy Amundson6480 Bush Blvd.Columbus, OH 43215Tel: 614-624-7677Fax: 614-624-0030Mead JohnsonPresident Christopher WhiteEvansville, IN Tel: 812-429-5000Fax: 812-429-7538Beech Nut Nutrition CorporationMilnot CompanyCEO Scott Meader100 S. 4th StreetSt. Louis, MO 63102Tel: 314-436-7667Fax: 314-436-7679Gerber ProductsJan Relford, VP Public Affairs445 State St.Fremont, MI 49412Tel: 616-928-2000Fax: 616-924-6724Earth's Best - A Division of HG HeinzPO Box 28Pittsburgh, PA 15230Tel: 800-442-4221Fax: 412-237-4230Organic Baby - Glacier Foods1117 K StreetSanger, CA 93657Tel: 559-875-3354Fax: 559-875-3179Healthy Times Natural Foods13200 Kirkham WayBuilding 104Poway, CA 92064Tel: 619-513-1550Fax: 619-513-1533«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml