hazards of genetically modified foods

8/14/2019 Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods

1/8

significant percentage of processed foodspurchased today contain some geneticallyengineered (GE) food products.1 As a

result, each day, tens of millions of Americaninfants, children and adults eat genetically engi-neered foods without their knowledge.Consumers have no way ofknowing what foods aregenetically engineered becausethe Food and Drug Adminis-tration (FDA) does notrequire labeling of these

products. Whats worse, theagency also does not requireany pre-market safety testingof GE foods. Companies donot even have to inform theFDA that they are marketingGE foods.2 The agencys fail-ure to require testing orlabeling of GE foods has made millions of con-sumers into guinea pigs, unknowingly testing thesafety of dozens of gene-altered food products.

Not surprisingly, FDAs no-testing, no

labeling policy is opposed by the vast majorityof Americans. The public clearly believes it has aright to know if food has been genetically engi-neered. Opinion polls consistently show thatmore than 90% of Americans strongly supportthe labeling of genetically engineered foods.3 A1999 Time poll revealed that close to 60% wouldavoid such foods if they were labeled.4 And in 1998more than 275,000 angry consumers protested theClinton Administrations proposal that genetical-

ly engineered foods be certified as organic.5

Alarmed by the publics overwhelming rejec-tion of GE foods, the biotech industry has recentlyhired top PR firms and lobbyists in a $50 millioneffort to try to sell the public on the idea that GEfoods are safe and that they are just like any other

food.6 A centerpiece of theindustry PR initiative is theirrepeated claim that GE foodsare subject to rigorous gov-ernment-mandated testingand have been proven safe.7

These are outright lies. In1992, the FDA, without anyscientific basis, declared thatgenetically engineered foodsas a class are generally recog-nizedas safe and has refusedto require any safety testing ofany sort for these foods.8 The

FDA does not even require notification by com-panies that they are marketing a genetically engi-neered food. Nor has the FDA or anyone elseproven that GE foods are safe. The FDA, in its

response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for FoodSafety (CFS) in May 1998, admitted in court thatit has made no dispositive scientific findings,whatsoever, about the safety of genetically engi-neered foods.9 In other words, the FDA hasgiven the biotech industry carte blanche to pro-duce and market any number of genetically engi-neered foods without mandatory agency over-sight or safety testing and without a scientificshowing that these foods are safe to consume.

The Hidden Health Hazardsof Genetically Engineered Foods

AThe FDAs failure to require

testing or labeling of GE

foods has made millions of

consumers into guinea pigs,unknowingly testing the

safety of dozens of gene

altered food products.

continued on page 3

Food SafetyReviewA P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E C E N T E R F O R F O O D S A F E T Y

The Center for Food Safety is a national non-profit membership organization committed toprotecting human health and the environment by promoting organic agriculture and other sus-

tainable practices. CFS engages in legal initiatives, grassroots mobilizations, and educational programs designed to influence government and industry and to inform the public on suchissues as genetic engineering, food irradiation, and organic food standards.


2/8


3/8

FDAs failure to require safety testing of GEfoods could pose a very real health threat to millionsof Americans. A significant body of scientific evi-dence, including findings of FDAs own scientists,shows that the genetic engineering of foods cantransform safe foods into dangerous products.Below is a summary of the documented potential

human health threats posed by genetically engi-neered foods. Much of the scientific support forthese health hazards has comefrom the over 44,000 pages ofdiscovery provided to CFS aspart of its ongoing lawsuitagainst the FDA for its failureto require testing and labelingof GE foods.

Six Potential Human

Health ConcernsGenetically engineered foodsare different from other foods.Genetic engineering allows, forthe first time, foreign genes,bacterial and viral vectors, viralpromoters, and antibiotic mark-er systems to be engineeredinto food. These genetic cas-settes are new to the human diet and should besubject to extensive safety testing.10 Instead, in 1992

the FDA ruled, without any scientific basis, thatgenetically engineered foods present no differentrisks than traditional foods.11 FDAs own scientistsridiculed this unscientific agency view of geneticengineering. What happened to the scientific ele-ments in [the] document? one asked.12 FDA scien-tists consistently stated that [t]here is a profounddifference between the types of unexpected effectsfrom traditional breeding and genetic engineering.... [T]his difference should be and is notaddressed.13 What are the new unexpected effectsand health risks posed by genetic engineering?

ToxicityGenetically engineered foods are inherently unsta-ble. Each insertion of a novel gene, and the accom-panying cassette of promoters, antibiotic markersystems, and vectors, is random. GE food produc-ers simply do not know where their genetic cas-sette is being inserted in the food, nor do theyknow enough about the genetic/chemical makeup

of foods to establish a safe place for such inser-tions.14 As a result, each gene insertion into a foodamounts to playing food safety roulette, with thecompanies hoping that the new genetic materialdoes not destabilize a safe food and make it haz-ardous. Each genetic insertion creates the addedpossibility that formerly nontoxic elements in the

food could become toxic.15

FDA was well aware of the genetic instabilityproblem prior to establishingtheir no-testing policy. FDAscientists warned that thisproblem could create danger-ous toxins in food and was asignificant health risk. The sci-entists specifically warned thatthe genetic engineering offoods could result in increasedlevels of known naturally occur-

ring toxicants, appearance ofnew, not previously identifiedtoxicants, increased capabilityof concentrating toxic sub-stances from the environment(e.g., pesticides or heavy met-als). These same FDA scien-tists recommended that longterm toxicological tests be

required prior to the marketing of GE foods.16

FDA officials also were aware that safety testing

on the first genetically engineered food, the CalgeneFlavr Savrtomato, had shown that consumption ofthis product resulted in stomach lesions in labora-tory rats.17 Even more significantly, FDA hadalready concluded that genetic engineering was apossible cause for the 37 deaths and 1,500 disablingillnesses caused by consumption of the dietary sup-plement L-tryptophan. Showa Denko, a Japanesecompany, had begun using genetic engineering toproduce the dietary supplement in the late 1980s. Itis suspected that the genetic engineering of the sup-plement created a toxic contaminant by-product

which in turn caused the deaths and illnesses.18

FDAs response to the potential toxicity prob-lem with genetically engineered foods was to ignoreit. They disregarded their own scientists, the clearscientific evidence and the deaths and illnessesalready attributed to this problem. The agencyrefused to require pre-market toxicological testingfor GE foods or any toxicity monitoring. FDAmade these decisions with no scientific basis and

FDAs failure to require

safety testing of GE foods

could pose a very real

health threat. A significant

body of scientific evidence,

including the findings of

FDAs own scientists,shows that the genetic

engineering of foods can

transform safe foods into

dangerous products.

HIDDEN HEALTH HAZARDS (continued from cover)


4/8

without public notice and comment or independentscientific review. The agencys actions can only beseen as a shameful acquiescence to industry pres-sure and a complete abandonment of its responsi-bility to assure food safety.

Allergic ReactionsIn the United States, about a quarter of the popula-

tion reports some adverse reaction to food.19 At least8% of children have physically identifiable allergicreactions to food.20 The genetic engineering of foodcreates two separate and serious health risks involv-ing allergenicity. The first is that genetic engineeringcan transfer allergens from foods to which peopleknow they are allergic, to foods that they think aresafe. This risk is not hypothetical. A recent study bythe New England Journal of Medicine showed thatwhen a gene from a Brazil nut was engineered into

soybeans, people allergic to nuts had serious reac-tions to the engineered product.21 At least one food,a Pioneer Hi-Bred International soybean, was aban-doned because of this problem.22 Without labeling,people with known food allergies have no way ofavoiding the potentially serious health conse-quences of eating GE foods containing hidden aller-genic material.

There is another allergy risk associated with GEfoods. These foods could be creating thousands ofdifferent and new allergic responses. Each geneticcassette being engineered into foods contains a

number of novel proteins (in the form of alteredgenes, bacteria, viruses, promoters, marker systems,and vectors) which have never been part of thehuman diet. Each of these numerous novel proteinscould create an allergic response in some con-sumers.23 The FDA was also well aware of this newand potentially massive allergenicity problem. Theagencys scientists repeatedly warned that geneticengineering could produce a new protein aller-gen. Once again the agencys own scientists urgedlong-term testing.24 However, the FDA again

ignored its own scientists. Because these foods wereallowed to be marketed without mandatory testingfor this kind of allergenicity, millions of unsuspect-ing consumers have continuously been exposed to apotentially serious health risk. This FDA action isespecially negligent in that the potential conse-quences of food allergies can include sudden death,and the most significantly affected population ischildren.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnother hidden risk of GE foods is that they couldmake disease-causing bacteria resistant to currentantibiotics, resulting in a significant increase in thespread of infections and diseases in the human pop-ulation. Virtually all genetically engineered foodscontain antibiotic resistance markers which helpthe producers identify whether the new geneticmaterial has actually been transferred into the hostfood. FDAs large-scale introduction of these antibi-otic marker genes into the food supply could renderimportant antibiotics useless in fighting human dis-eases.25 For example, a genetically engineered maizeplant from Novartis includes an ampicillin-resist-ance gene. Ampicillin is a valuable antibiotic usedto treat a variety of infections in people and animals.A number of European countries, including Britain,have refused to permit the Novartis Bt corn to be

grown, due to health concerns that the ampicillinresistance gene could move from the corn into bac-teria in the food chain, making ampicillin far lesseffective in fighting a wide range of bacterial infec-tions.26

For the past seven years, FDA officials haveignored their own scientists concerns over the antibi-otic resistance problem.27 During the same time,medical professionals around the world havebecome increasingly alarmed at how GE foods areleading to a massive infusion of antibiotic genes intothe human diet. Last year, for example, the British

Medical Association (BMA) addressed this problemin its study of GE foods. The BMAs conclusion wasunequivocal: There should be a ban on the use ofantibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, asthe risk to human health from antibiotic resistancedeveloping in microorganisms is one of the majorpublic health threats that will be faced in the 21stcentury.28

Immuno-suppressionRecently, the well-respected British medical journal,

The Lancet, published an important study conduct-ed by Drs. Arpad Pusztai and Stanley W.B. Ewenunder a grant from the Scottish government.29 Thestudy examined the effect on rats of the consump-tion of potatoes genetically engineered to containthe biopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.). Thescientists found that the rats consuming geneticallyaltered potatoes showed significant detrimentaleffects on organ development, body metabolism,

THEHIDDENHEA

LTHHAZARDSOFGE

NETICALLY

ENGINEEREDFOODS

4

HIDDEN HEALTH HAZARDS


5/8

and immune function.30 The biotechnology industryhas launched a major attack on Dr. Pusztai and hisstudy. However, they have as of yet not produced asingle study of their own to refute his findings.Moreover, twenty-two leading scientists recentlydeclared that animal test results linking geneticallyengineered foods to immuno-suppression are valid.31

CancerAlong with its approval of GE foods, the FDA in1993 also approved the use of genetically engi-neered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone(rBGH), used to induce dairy cows to produce moremilk.32 At the time the FDA assured consumers thatthe milk was safe.33 Recently, however, regulatorybodies in both Canada and Europe have rejectedthe drug, citing numerous animal and human healthconcerns.34 Perhaps of most immediate concern for

consumers is that the recent research shows conclu-sively that the levels of a hormone called insulin-likegrowth factor-1 (IGF-1) are increased in dairy prod-ucts produced from cows treated with rBGH.35 TheCanadians and Europeans further found that theFDA had completely failed to consider a study whichshowed that the increased IGF-1 in rBGH milkcould survive digestion and make its way into theintestines and blood streams of consumers.36 Thesefindings are significant because numerous studiesnow demonstrate that IGF-1 is an important factorin the growth of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and

colon cancer.37

Loss of NutritionGenetic engineering can also alter the nutritionalvalue of food. The genetic instability of these foods(described above) can be a major culprit in reduc-ing their nutrients. In 1992, the FDAs Divisions ofFood Chemistry & Technology and Food Contami-nants Chemistry examined the problem of nutrientloss in GE foods. The scientists involved specifical-ly warned the agency that the genetic engineering of

foods could result in undesirable alteration in thelevel of nutrients of such foods. They furthernoted that these nutritional changes may escapebreeders attention unless genetically engineeredplants are evaluated specifically for these changes.38

Once again, the FDA ignored findings by their ownscientists and never subjected the foods to manda-tory government testing of any sort.

A Partial List ofGenetically Engineered Foods

This is a list of processed foods that tested positivefor genetically engineered ingredients (September1999). These tests were not safety tests; theywere only to establish the presence of unlabeled

genetically engineered ingredients.

Bravos Tortilla Chips

Kelloggs Corn Flakes

General Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal

Post Blueberry Morning Cereal

Heinz 2 Baby Cereal

Enfamil ProSobee Soy Formula

Similac Isomil Soy Formula

Nestle Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula

Quaker Chewy Granola Bars

Nabisco Snackwells Granola Bars

Ball Park Franks

Duncan Hines Cake Mix

Quick Loaf Bread Mix

Ultra Slim Fast

Quaker Yellow Corn Meal

Light Life Gimme Lean

Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix Alpo Dry Pet Food

Gardenburger

Boca Burger Chef Maxs Favorite

Morning Star Farms Bettern Burgers

Green Giant Harvest Burgers

(now called Morningstar Farms)

McDonalds McVeggie Burgers

Ovaltine Malt Powdered Beverage Mix

Betty Crocker Bac-Os Bacon Flavor Bits

Old El Paso Taco Shells

Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix

Sources: Genetic ID (an independent testing firm)and Consumer Reports (September 1999).


6/8

Conclusion

Much of the current controversy over geneticallyengineered food surrounds the important issue oflabeling. However, the labeling issue is actually asecondary one. The first call to action must be toforce the FDA to remove all genetically engineeredfoods from the market until long-term tests have

determined that such foods are safe for human con-

sumption. We do not label unsafe food, we take itoff supermarket shelves. Only after proper testing isdone, and if the foods are found safe, should theybe allowed to be sold. At that time they should alsobe labeled so those who want to take a precaution-ary stance, those with allergies, and those who haveethical or religious objections may choose to avoid

genetically engineered foods.

ENDNOTES

1. For example, approximately 60% of processedfoods contain soy protein, Weiss R., BiotechFood Raises A Crop of Questions.WashingtonPost, A1 (August 15, 1991) and, according to theFDA, 57% of the U.S. soy crop is geneticallyaltered. Blakemore, Bill, Genetically ModifiedFood: Exploring the Controversy Over CrossingNatural Barriers. ABC News, December 9, 1999.http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/

wnt_991209_CL_AlteredFood_feature.htm.2. See Statement of Policy: Foods Derived fromNew Plant Varieties, 57 Fed. Reg. 22984 (May29, 1992).

3. Hansen, Dr. Michael & Jean Halloran, WhyWe Need Labeling of Genetically EngineeredFood. Consumers International, ConsumerPolicy Institute, April 1998.Compilation andAnalysis of Public Opinion Polls on GeneticallyEngineered Foods. Center for Food Safety,February 11, 1999.

4. Time Magazine, January 11, 1999.

5. Public Docket, USDA Proposed NationalOrganic Program, 62 Fed. Reg. 65850(December 16, 1997).

6. Barboza, David, Industry Moves to DefendBiotechnology.The New York Times, April 4,2000.

7. See, e.g., Feldbaum, Carl B., Well-TestedBiotech Foods. The Washington Post, August31, 1999 (U.S. biotech crops and foods havebeen the most scrutinized agricultural products inhistory. In addition to the FDA, the Department ofAgriculture and the Environmental ProtectionAgency monitor them.).

8. See supra at note 2.

9. Alliance, et al. v. Shalala, et al., DefendantsOpposition to Plaintiffs Cross Motion forSummary Judgment On All Counts, Civ. ActionNo. 98-1300-CKK, filed June 25, 1999.

10. Memo from Linda Kahl, FDA ComplianceOfficer, to James Maryanski, FDA BiotechnologyCoordinator, January 8, 1992. See also, Memo

from FDA Division of Food Chemistry &Technology and FDA Division of FoodContaminants Chemistry to James Maryanski,Biotechnology Coordinator, Points to Considerfor Safety Evaluation of Genetically ModifiedFoods. November 1, 1991.


12. Document from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl,Comments on Biotechnology Draft Document,dated March 6, 1992.

13. Id.

14. See supra at note 2. See also, Transcript ofMeeting of the Food Advisory Committee, U.S.FDA, Vol. II, April 6-8, 1994.

15. See, e.g., Millstone, Erik, et al., BeyondSubstantial Equivalence. Nature, Vol 401.October 7, 1999.

16. Memo from FDA Division of Food Chemistry& Technology and FDA Division of FoodContaminants Chemistry to James Maryanski,Biotechnology Coordinator, Points to Considerfor Safety Evaluation of Genetically ModifiedFoods. November 1, 1991.

17. Memo from Dennis Ruggles, Experimental

Design and Evaluation Branch to Carl Johnson,Additives Evaluation Branch, StatisticalAnalyses of Three 28-Day Toxicity Studies inCharles River Crl: CD BR Rats Given aTransgenic Tomato. June 7, 1993.

18. Mayeno, A.N. & Gleich, G.J., Eosinophiliamyalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: acautionary tale. TIBTECH, 12:346-352 (1994).

19. Nestle, Marion, Ph.D., M.P.H.. Allergies toTransgenic Foods - Questions of Policy. TheNew England Journal of Medicine;Vol. 334, No.11. March 14, 1996.

20. Hansen, Dr. Michael & Jean Halloran, WhyWe Need Labeling of Genetically EngineeredFood. Consumers International, ConsumerPolicy Institute, April 1998.

21. Nordlee, Julie A., MS; et al. Identification OfA Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans.The New England Journal of Medicine; Vol. 334,No. 11. March 14, 1996.


23. Hansen, Michael, Ph.D. and Jean Halloran,Jeopardizing the Future? Genetic Engineering,Food and the Environment. PAN AP Safe FoodCampaign; Ch. 1. 1998.


25. Ho, Dr. Mae-Wan. Genetically EngineeredFoods: The hazards are inherent in the technolo-gy. Third World Resurgence. No. 79. Ho, Dr.Mae-Wan. The Hazards of GeneticallyEngineered Foods. Ho, Mae-Wan. GeneticEngineering: Dream or Nightmare. Bath:Gateway Books, 143 (1998). See also, supra at

note 20.26. See supra at note 20.

27. Memo from Murray M. Lumpkin, M.D.,Director of FDA Division of Anti-Infective DrugProducts to Bruce Burlington, M.D. December17, 1992. (IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTHHAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THATCODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTOTHE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERALPOPULATION.).

28. British Medical Association, The Impact ofGenetic Modification on Agriculture, Food andHealth-Interim Statement. May 1999.

29. Ewen, Stanley W.B. & Pusztai, Arpad, Effect

of diets containing genetically modified potatoesexpressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat smallintestine. The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9187,October 16, 1999.

30. Pusztai, Arpad. Report of Project Coordinatoron data produced at the Rowett ResearchInstitute, http://www.rri.sari.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm,October 22, 1998.

31. Van Driessche & Bog-Hansen,Memorandum on Dr. Pusztais report.

http://www.greenpeace.org/%7Egeneng/mem_pusz.html. May 25, 1999.

32. FDA Approval of New Animal DrugApplication for Monsanto Co.s Posilac, 58 Fed.Reg. 59946 (November 12, 1993).

33. Juskevich, J.C., et al., Bovine GrowthHormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation.Science, 249: 875-884, 877 (Aug 24, 1990).

34. Chopra, S., et al., rBST (Nutrilac) GapsAnalysis Report. rBST Internal Review Team,Health Protection Branch, Health Canada, April21, 1998.

35. Kimura, T., et al., Gastrointestinal Absorptionof Recombinant Human Insulin-like GrowthFactor-1 in Rats, J. Pharm. & Exper. Therapy.,1997: 283: 611-618. Epstein, SS. Unlabeled Milkfrom Cows Treated with Biosynthetic GrowthHormones: A Case of Regulatory Abdication.Intl. J. Health Serv. 1996: 26(1): 173-85. Gillette,Becky. Doin a Body Good? Studies Link rBGH-Produced Milk and Increased Cancer Risk. EMagazine Sept/Oct 1998, p. 42. (Reporting thatMonsanto even admitted to U.S. and Canadianofficials that milk from rBGH treated cows ishigher in IGF-1, according to Ronnie Cummins.)

36. Epstein, SS. Unlabeled Milk from CowsTreated with Biosynthetic Growth Hormones: ACase of Regulatory Abdication. Intl. J. HealthServ. 1996: 26(1): 173-85. See also supra at note33.

37. Gillette, Becky. Doin a Body Good? StudiesLink rBGH-Produced Milk and Increased CancerRisk. E Magazine Sept/Oct 1998 at 42 (citing aLancet study of U.S. women showing a seven-

fold increase in breast cancer among pre-menopausal women who had the highest levelsof IGF-1 in their bodies; also citing a Sciencestudy linking higher levels of IFG-1 in men with afour-fold increase in prostate cancer). Davis,Ben. Think Before You Drink. Conscious Choice.Nov/Dec 1995. See also rBGH Produced Milk:Cancer From Your Dairy Products? RachelsEnvironment & Health Weekly #598, 5-15-98.

THEHIDDENHEA

LTHHAZARDSOFGE

NETICALLY

ENGINEEREDFOODS

6

HIDDEN HEALTH HAZARDS


7/8

Save our organic standards! Comment to theUSDA today!On March 13, 2000, the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) released a revised proposed rulefor the United States National Organic Program.

While you may have heard that the rule made someconcessions in response to the over 280,000 commentsthat criticized the shortfalls of the first rule, the big threeare not dead! The use of genetic engineering, irradia-tion, and sewage sludge MAY BE ALLOWED because ofloopholes in the USDAs prohibition language. Visit

www.foodsafetynow.org to demand that the USDA moreclearly define genetic engineering, irradiation, and sewagesludge and classify all three as prohibited, syntheticsubstances, thereby banning them from use in organicagriculture. For a detailed analysis of these issues and

other problems with the Organic Rule, visit www.center-forfoodsafety.org or call the Center for Food Safety today!

Pull genetically engineered foods from themarket! Comment to the FDA today!The Center for Food Safetys legal petition (see In theNews) demands pre-market safety testing, environ-

mental review and mandatory labeling for all GE foodsand food products. As they were required to do by law,the FDA has set up a docket for public response to thepetition. IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that consumersfrom across the United States flood the FDA with hun-dreds of thousands of comments in support of safetytesting and labeling of all GE foods. Submit your com-ments today via our action website, www.foodsafe-tynow.org or by writing to FDA Commissioner JaneHenney, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 (HFA-305),Docket No. OOP-1211/CP 1, Rockville, MD 20852.

CFS files FDA legal petition to force testingand labeling of GE foodsOn March 21, 2000, an unprecedented coalition ofmore than 50 scientific, consumer, environmental andfarm organizations signed onto a legal petition filed with

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by the Centerfor Food Safety. This Petition demands that the FDAdevelop a thorough pre-market and environmentaltesting regime for genetically engineered (GE) foodsand subject all GE foods to mandatory labeling. Thiscritical action, initiated by CFS, successfully unitednearly every group working on genetically engineeredfood issues behind a single coherent set of legaldemands. For additional information on this petition oron CFSs ongoing legal case against the FDA on thesematters, please visit www.centerforfoodsafety.org or call

the Center for Food Safety.

GE food legislation introduced in CongressRepresentatives Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), JackMetcalf (R-WA), and a bipartisan coalition of 17 otherMembers of Congress have introduced the GeneticallyEngineered Food Right to Know Act (H.R. 3377), leg-islation which would require that foods that containgenetically engineered material or have been genetical-ly engineered, altered or otherwise modified be labeledas such. Congressman Kucinich and Congressman

Metcalf have also sponsored a bill (H.R. 3883) that would require the pre-market safety testing of allgenetically engineered foods. Two pieces of companionlegislation have been introduced in the Senate bySenator Barbara Boxer (D-CA); bill S.2080 calls forlabeling of GE foods and S.2315 would require safetytesting for GE foods.

Controversial NAS report on GE foodshopelessly tainted by corporate influenceOn April 5, 2000, the National Academy of Sciences(NAS), an organization which purportedly conductsindependent scientific investigations, released a con-troversial study entitled Genetically Modified PestProtected Plants. One hour prior to the release of thereport CFS, in partnership with other environmentaland consumer groups, held a press conference andrally outside the NAS to voice objections to the perva-

sive conflicts of interest and corporate influence whichtainted the report. Speakers called on the NAS to scrapthe report and drew attention to the revolving doorthat exists between the biotechnology industry and theNAS. Perhaps most egregiously Michael Phillips, theoriginal director of the study was forced to resign mid-

way through the completion of the report after heaccepted a position with the Biotechnology IndustryOrganization. Overall, seven of the studys twelveauthors have financial ties to biotech companies,including Monsanto, Novartis, and Pioneer Hi-Bred.

In the News

Take Action!


8/8

Board of AdvisorsDr. Melanie AdcockThe Humane Society of the U.S.

Roger BlobaumBlobaum & Associates

Michael Colby, Food & Water

Adele Douglas, The AmericanHumane Association

Dr. David EhrenfeldRutgers University

Jay Feldman

National Campaign Againstthe Misuse of Pesticides

Jim & Rebecca GoodmanFarmers/ActivistsDr. Joan GussowColumbia University

Dr. Michael HansenConsumers Union

Tony KleeseSustainable Farming Program

Dr. Sheldon KrimskyTufts University

Cheryl LongOrganic Gardening Magazine

Howard LymanVoice for a Viable Future

Dr. Margaret MellonUnion of Concerned Scientists

Rick Moonen, Oceana

Nora Pouillen, Restaurant Nora

Dr. Philip Regal

University of MinnesotaJim Riddle, InternationalOrganic Accreditation Service

Mark Ritchie, Institute forAgricultural & Trade Policy

Abby Rockefeller

Michael SlighRural Advancement FoundationInternational

John StauberCenter for Media & Democracy

Dr. Richard StrohmanUniv. of California at Berkeley

Martin Teitel, Council forResponsible Genetics

Alice Waters, Chez Panisse

StaffAndrew KimbrellExecutive Director

Joseph Mendelson, IIILegal Director

Charlotte Arnold ChristinPolicy Director

Tracie LettermanStaff Attorney

Sheila Knoploh-OdoleAssistant to the Director

Mark BriscoePublications Coordinator

Amy BrickerProject Coordinator

Rebecca SpectorProject Coordinator

Elizabeth DarrowProject Manager

Contact InfoNational Headquarters660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE,Suite 302Washington, DC 2003

Tel: 202-547-9359Fax: 202-547-9429email:[email protected]

West Coast OfficeBldg. 1062, Fort CronkhiteSausalito, CA 94965Tel: 415-229-9337

THECENTER

FOR

FOODSAFETY

660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE,

Suite 302

Washington, DC 20003

Nonprofit organization

U.S. Postage

PAIDWashington, DCPermit No. 1335

Join CFS! Yes, I support the work of The Center for Food Safety!H Student membership $15 H 1-year membership $30 H New membership H Renewal

H 2-year membership $50 H Business membership $100 H Gift Membership

H Additional Contribution (As a member you will receive our newsletter, Review and action alerts.)

_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________NAME ADDRESS

_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________CITY STATE ZIP

________________________________________________________________________________________________PHONE FAX EMAIL

printed on recycled paper

hazards of genetically modified foods

Documents