Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

There's a Lot You Don't Know About What's in Your Food

By Vanja Petrovic, AlterNet. Posted July 3, 2007.


Nearly three quarters of all processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients, but you'd never know it by reading package labels. Author Andrew Kimbrell discusses the risks of genetic engineering and how to avoid it.
Advertisement

Nearly three quarters of all processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients, but you'd never know it by reading the back of your kid's cereal box or that pint of ice cream you've been craving. Rather than being relegated to its own supermarket section, this food sits unlabeled on grocery store shelves, allowing a handful of transnational biotech companies to profit handsomely as consumers shop blindly.

In his new book, Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food, Andrew Kimbrell explores the risks of this technology and what genetic engineering means to our health, the environment and the future of agriculture.

Although Kimbrell's book aims primarily to educate, it is also an easy-to-use activist guide on how to identify -- and avoid -- genetically engineered foods.

Andrew Kimbrell is founder and executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology Assessment. As an author, lawyer, and activist for more than 20 years, Kimbrell has been at the forefront of legal and grassroots efforts to protect the environment and promote sustainable agricultural production methods. His written work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Harper's. He has testified at numerous congressional and regulatory hearings, and in 1994, Utne Reader named Kimbrell as one of the world's leading 100 visionaries.

AlterNet talked with Kimbrell via telephone.

Vanja Petrovic: How did you become interested in genetically engineered food?

Andrew Kimbrell: I became very interested in genetic engineering in general; it stemmed from my early work in appropriate technology. There was an E.F. Schumacher book, Small is Beautiful -- great book, everyone should read it. What Schumacher was saying is that we're going to have to devolve our technologies and change our economics to fit nature, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves. And I thought that was inevitable and became part of that. And it wasn't until genetic engineering that I realized that some people were saying, "Listen, let's not change our technology or our economic system to fit nature, let's change nature -- including human nature -- so that it fits our technology and our economic system."

So, for example what we have with genetic engineering, if you spray herbicide on crops, it kills them, it kills everything green, it doesn't just kill the weeds, it kills the crops. So, the idea would be, as weeds become resistant to herbicides, to stop using them, and find other ways of weed and pest control. But that didn't fit the needs of ... the chemical companies. That would mean less of their product. So, instead of changing their technology and economics to fit nature, they said "let's change plants so they can withstand huge amounts of our chemicals" -- herbicides -- and four out of every five acres of genetically engineered plants in this country and in the world are planted solely because they can tolerate these herbicides.

Petrovic: Why did you choose to write this book now?

Kimbrell: Actually, I didn't choose to write this book right now. I wish I could have stopped my fingers three years ago.

But, there are a number of reasons I wrote this book. One, the industry has been very powerful in the media. It has been able to influence the traditional media. So, a huge number of Americans believe that genetically engineered food is feeding the world, that it's increasing nutrition, that it's making better flavored food, is creating drought resistant crops, it's curing kids in Africa. This is complete science fiction. ... It's a marginal technology at best -- it is not curing anything, it is not feeding anything.

As a matter of fact, as we've seen in corn and soy, we have seen actual yield decreases because of genetic engineering. Not an increase, no more vitamins. We've seen, actually, FDA studies that show that it actually decreases vitamin content in food. So, why is it popular? Why do farmers use it? Because it's very convenient. You don't have to spot spray your herbicide just on the weed, you can, for the first time, aerial spray your herbicides over your entire crop and it won't kill your crop, it'll just kill the weeds. Although, those weeds are becoming more and more resistant and now we're having to use more and more.

Petrovic: What are the dangers of genetically engineered food?

Kimbrell: Genetically engineered food is the first really artificially lab created food that we have. Basically, you (the scientist) are putting foreign bacteria, foreign viral chains, foreign anti-biotic resistant genes into each cell of every food. So, every cell of every genetically engineered food, every one, has a novel bacteria, has novel viral promoters, has a novel genetic construct whether it be the herbicide tolerant gene or the Bt, and has an anti-biotic marker system.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, biotech, genetic engineering

Vanja Petrovic is an editorial intern with AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Francis
Posted by: Francis on Jul 3, 2007 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what are the limits to corporate greed and amoral predation? Certainly not your life or the lives of your family. This level of madness may surpass that of the war profiteers. The people green-lighting potentially disastrous genetic modifications both corporately and in the backrooms of the FDA are systemically overwrought by conflicts of interest. On top of that they operate protected by layers of privacy, obscuration and deception from the scrutiny of the public. And, as is pointed out in the interview, the media is thoroughly compromised by commercial considerations in allowing discussion of these vital issues. Once again, corporations win, humanity loses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Francis Posted by: cmaukonen
Interesting premise. I suppose if we were given some sources...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 3, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...there'd be no need to buy the book.

The claims are amazing, though, and I hope this writer can buy many gazebo's with his personalized facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote with your feet- firmly planted in a home garden
Posted by: DrSuess on Jul 3, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first read abut genetic engineering in the mid 1990’s and it made my skin crawl then. Nothing has changed in my reaction to it- except that it has become more widespread. I have now begun to protect myself from it. I have given all my canned food to the food pantry- and declared freedom from processed food in my house. My goal is to cut my processed food consumption by 90% or more. I have a large garden in my back yard, and I shop for food at farmers markets and at health food stores. Next year the size of my garden will double, and I will be planting heirloom seeds. I have found several companies that sell them. I am turning my back porch into a little greenhouse. I cannot stop this corruption of the American food supply- but I can refuse it. If the American rice is contaminated with GE, I will buy Indian rice. If both become contaminated- I will stop eating them. I am literally trying to checkout of the American big company dominated food marketplace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Death Wish?
Posted by: Nanocore on Jul 3, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing that seems odd in all this are the ones that promote these tactics in agriculture, they must believe themselves immune or beyond the reach of the effects of this technology. Perhaps each individual involved is only a cog that has no concept of the bigger machine. Anyone know if the book sheds light on this or any other measures being taken to reach each person that has significant influence on the subject, from the seed packager to the CEO. No matter how slim or fat his/her bank account may be, its like playing Russian Roulette and I don't think that persons checkbook will shield them from that bullet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It Is Your Own Fault Anyway!
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 3, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If corporations are using our bodies as laboratories in a giant, nonconsensual experiment for their own profit NO PROBLEM. Any health problems will just be blamed on faulty lifestyles anyway. Of course it is good to do things within our control for our own health. But the flipside is we have been so oversold the concept of individual responsiblity, we don't even consider environmental concerns like this one. Neither the public, nor their doctors, nor research scientists are even looking for problems caused by GMO. If John Q Public has any kind of health problem, Doc will chide him for eating too many cookies. It won't even register in Doc's consciousness to consider that what is IN the frankencookies may be playing havoc with JohnQ's system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GE
Posted by: grn1 on Jul 3, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Kimbrell for your tireless work, and to Petrovic for reporting this to consumers. Europeans whose food products are labeled to identify GMO's are dumbfounded when they learn that Americas government will not allow labeling. So why the big secret? Because most consumers choose not to eat this shit, if given the information. Since E.coli has been the infectious bacteria that insures transcription of DNA my description of shit is not far from reality. Through involvement of this issue I saw long ago the imperialistic goal of multinationals and government participation promoting genetically engineered agriculture worldwide. And they say they hate us for what we have, in this case it would be for what we are trying to impose worldwide that most do not want. As war criminal Kissinger said "He who controls the food controls the world", as someone who understands control it should be noted that the random world of genetics is not even comprehended by some of the worlds most experienced geneticist. The lack of testing and regulation has lead to mass contamination. Our long grain rice has been contaminated with pharmaceutical rice (not fit for human consumption) and the government fast tracked approval in order to not loose the market. Meanwhile many export markets want nothing to do with this substance. So if it is not recycled into (humaitarian?) food aid, it is on the menu for the uninformed consumers, controlled by those who give us security through terrorism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Short on specifics.
Posted by: brunowe on Jul 3, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the idea would be, as weeds become resistant to herbicides, to stop using them, and find other ways of weed and pest control.

And which ways would THOSE be.

Also, where does he allow for, for example, genetic engineering that creates rice strains that can survive immersion in floods

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Short on specifics. Posted by: henderson
» RE: Short on specifics. Posted by: Leadbyexample
I hate to throw a wrench in the monkeyworks but,
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Jul 3, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans have been genetically modifying their plants and animals for thousands of years directly, and who knows how many thousands of years indirectly. If you want to avoid genetically modified organisms (GMO's) you can pretty much give up eating entirely unless you live in the rainforest. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago is the speed at which we can develop new GMO's.

The problem these days does not lie in the GMO's themselves but in the speed of research and testing of new strains. In the past it took quite a while for new strains of plants or animals to spread from the original site where they were first crossbred or developed. If you crossbred a couple of varieties of ivy for the trellis, the farthest they might get would be your and your neighbor's farm before you figured out that you had come up with a poisonous variety. These days, for the sake of rapidly getting something the market, we rapidly deploy thousands of acres worth of a new strain without having a few years of experience on small plots to find out the quirks and potential problems the strain might have.

The label "genetically modified" is a bugaboo to scare the uninformed.

The problem isn't in eating GMO things, the problem is in regulating the propagation of new strains until we have several years of data to suggest that they are most likely safe. I have a real problem with some of the agribusinesses planting a bunch of something new and offering great assurances that there won't be any contamination or cross pollination with existing crops. Any time you have widespread production of something that looks like an existing product there will be contamination. Especially if there is a financial incentive to sell the new product into the existing supply. To argue that that won't happen is just naive or disingenous.

With animals it's pretty easy to identify the ones that have an extra ear growing out of their forehead. With plants it's a little harder to detect if they are producing something that is harmful to us or our environment until after a problem shows up. That is why the past practice of letting a new strain spread slowly over the course of years is safer. If we discover a problem after a few years, at least it is confined to a limited area.

GMO's as such aren't the problem. Not having a strict regulatory framework in place to deal with and insure the safety of large amounts of new GMO's is the problem.

For those who still want to insist that all GMO's are bad I suggest you look up the words polyploid, colchicine, and strawberries. After you have sworn off strawberries (GMO's through an old mechanism our great grandfathers figured out). All I will have to say is" MMMM! Great! More for me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'd rate this, but Posted by: Rod from Canada
Human + Rice does not = Selective Breeding
Posted by: grn1 on Jul 3, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
USDA Backs Production of Rice With Human Genes
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post
March 2, 2007
The Agriculture Department has given a preliminary green light for the first commercial production of a food crop engineered to contain human genes, reigniting fears that biomedically potent substances in high-tech plants could escape and turn up in other foods.
The plan, confirmed yesterday by the California biotechnology company leading the effort, calls for large-scale cultivation in Kansas of rice that produces human immune system proteins in its seeds.
The proteins are to be extracted for use as an anti-diarrhea medicine and might be added to health foods such as yogurt and granola bars.
"We can really help children with diarrhea get better faster. That is the idea," said Scott E. Deeter, president and chief executive of Sacramento-based Ventria Bioscience, emphasizing that a host of protections should keep the engineered plants and their seeds from escaping into surrounding fields.
But critics are assailing the effort, saying gene-altered plants inevitably migrate out of their home plots. In this case, they said, that could result in pharmacologically active proteins showing up in the food of unsuspecting consumers.
Although the proteins are not inherently dangerous, there would be little control over the doses people might get exposed to, and some might be allergic to the proteins, said Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science policy advocacy group.
"This is not a product that everyone would want to consume," Rissler said, adding that other companies grow such plants indoors or in vats. "It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors."
Consumer advocacy groups, including Consumers Union and the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, have also opposed Ventria's plans. "We definitely have big concerns," said Joseph Mendelson, the center's legal director.
Ventria has developed three varieties of rice, each endowed with a different human gene that makes the plants produce one of three human proteins. Two of them -- lactoferrin and lysozyme -- are bacteria-fighting compounds found in breast milk and saliva.
A recent company-sponsored study done in Peru concluded that children with severe diarrhea recovered a day and a half faster if the salty fluids they were prescribed were spiked with the proteins.
Deeter said production in plants is far cheaper than other methods, which should help make the therapy affordable in the developing world, where severe diarrhea kills 2 million children each year.
"Plants are phenomenal factories," Deeter said. "Our raw materials are the sun, soil and water."
The company is also talking to the Food and Drug Administration about putting the proteins into health foods. Its third variety of rice makes serum albumin, a blood protein used in medical therapies.
Until now, plants with human genes have been restricted to small test plots. In October, Ventria sought permission to grow its rice commercially on as many as 3,200 acres in Geary County, Kan., starting with 450 acres this spring.
A previous plan to grow the rice in southern Missouri was dropped when beermaker Anheuser-Busch -- the nation's largest rice buyer, which has expressed concern about the safety and consumer acceptance of gene-altered rice -- threatened to stop buying rice from the state if the deal went through.
Because no other rice is grown in Kansas and because rice can only grow in flooded areas, the risk of escape or cross-fertilization with other rice plants is nil there, Deeter said. The company will mill virtually all the seeds on site -- using dedicated equipment -- to minimize the risk of seeds getting mistakenly released or sold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Tastes Like Chicken. Posted by: James T. Swaggart
Humans + Rice = Pharmaceuticals
Posted by: grn1 on Jul 3, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Wednesd ay, the Agriculture Department published its draft environmental assessment, which concluded that the project posed no undue risks. The public can comment until March 30.



Also on Wednesday, the agency revealed that a type of rice seed in Arkansas had become contaminated with a different variety of genetically engineered rice, LL62, that was never released for marketing. The error was discovered in the course of an ongoing investigation into the widespread contamination of U.S. rice by yet another gene-altered variety, LL601, which has seriously disrupted rice exports.



Those problems, along with the previous discovery of unapproved, gene-altered StarLink corn in food and the accidental release of crops that had been engineered to make a vaccine for pig diarrhea, undermine the USDA's credibility, critics said.



"USDA's record is not good," Rissler said, pointing to several recent court judgments against the department and a December 2005 inspector general report that savaged the department for its poor oversight of biotechnology. "We don't think they can enforce even the inadequate system that is in place."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who can kill us via contamination of our food first, the Chinese or the U.S.?
Posted by: ateo on Jul 3, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm already boycotting every food from China that I can. Of course it's incredibly difficult because the vast majority of foods that contain additives from China are not labeled. About that only thing that can really be avoided is seafood.

Now I have to worry about genetically modified food with human, bacteria, and viral proteins - oh joy. Of course the GM food isn't labeled AT ALL so it's impossible to avoid.

The only thing to do at this point is leave the country and go somewhere where the government actually pretends to be accountable to the people and look out for their best interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Chew your fingernails and drink your urine. Posted by: James T. Swaggart
The pet food recall scandal may have been due to GMOs
Posted by: Rod from Canada on Jul 3, 2007 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To anyone out there who still thinks genetically modified crops or food is just fine, safe and similar to natural food, I would suggest googling vetenarian Michael Fox and pet food recall. There is some pretty damning evidence suggesting that it was GMO's that were responsible for the deaths of thousands of pets. It should make any believers in the GM propaganda think twice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

corn "blithe"
Posted by: Disconsolate Chimera on Jul 3, 2007 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um, "blight." Not "blithe."

/pedant

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr Drew
Posted by: jdrew on Jul 3, 2007 6:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your arguments are well -reasoned --too much so for the frantic panic mongers. Yes there is certainly reason for concern. And most are not meticulous enough or educated enough to sift through any of the science, in fact most know nothing of science or reason and just run screaming from the words "genetically modified". Human tweaking can be dangerous, yes, and we are wise to suspect motives of those who do the work. But to run in blind panic from it is just well ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dr Drew Posted by: Rod from Canada
GMP
Posted by: snowhound on Jul 3, 2007 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geneticlly Modified Politics. Example being; Not requiring that GM foods be labled in the ingredient list on food packages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors.
Posted by: DrSuess on Jul 3, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nature has been doing this since the dawn of time- they are called "herbs". This is the essence of herbal medicine. What the genetic engineers are trying to do- nature does already. There is one main difference- when nature does it- it is free to all. When man does it artificually- he can charge an incredible price and make a fortune. Genetic engineering is not about new medicines- it is not about better plants- it is all about patents and financial control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

honeyman
Posted by: honeyman on Jul 4, 2007 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this interview. A few comments...apologisits for the GM industry have been putting a misleading spin on GM discussions by claiming that for millenia humans have been genetically modifying food crops. This statement is egregiously misleading because what has been done over time has been mostly mass selection[ plantng the seeds of the most desirable plants in the field] and more recently hybridization involving the crossing of two parental lines to give superior offspring. Neither technique involves the insertion of foreign genes into the plants genome, rather more like the rearrangement of the existing genetic code.
I have an ongoing personal research project pertaining to my suspicion that toxic genes from GM corn and soybean are responsible for the honeybee die off, and in comments from the public about this matter, can attest that it is an indictment of science education that so many otherwise intelligent people could be so incapable of thinking rationally about biological topics.
I would encourage all readers here to be prepared , come fall, to bombard the lawmakers with well thought out , factual information concerning GM based farming and insist on revising laws permitting the cultivation these eco-busting crops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Farmer's Daughter
Posted by: K. on Jul 4, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does nobody proof your articles? There aren't "hundreds of thousands" farming rice in the southern United States, nor were there ever. I do believe that corporate agriculture is the devil and that what they're doing with genetically modifed food is evil incarnate. So why inflate the numbers? Does that make you righter???

Another problem is that spell check is not enough. Corn does not get blithe. That would be happy-go-lucky corn? Wheat without a care in the world? Blissful crops? Or are you talking about BLIGHT? I hate it when our side is equally full of shit. It makes us look bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

honeyman
Posted by: honeyman on Jul 4, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Additionally it occurs to me that when the FDA gets around to listing all of the food violations that China has perpetrated on American consumers they will then, by extension, be required to look at our own internal food industry practices and apply the same yard stick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hope my kids
Posted by: Knobby on Jul 8, 2007 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and their kids enjoy their Soylent Green when it comes to their favorite Global grocery store in the future...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just food that corporations put nasty things into, but health & beauty items as well...
Posted by: FireKittie1982 on Jul 11, 2007 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suggest to people to check out these websites. The stuff that is put into health & beauty items is enough to make the hairs on your head stand on end.

"The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics" linked text

"Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database" linked text

"Enviromental Working Group" linked text

This should help anyone if they're worried about what's being put into not just food, but health and beauty products as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cheap levitra
Posted by: viagra alternative on Jul 26, 2007 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]