I have read several blogs and information websites that either state or imply that one can avoid genetically modified (genetically engineered/GMO) fruit and vegetables by looking at the PLU (Price Look Up code). Unfortunately, this relies on outdated assumptions, and does not show a solid understanding of the current use of GE crops. I intend to set the record straight. If you disagree with my assessment, please post a comment to that effect.

The most recent report on the use of PLUs, published by the International Federation for Product Standards (IFPS), was put out in 2006. In this report, the IFPS states that most PLUs are 4 digits, but by adding an 8 or a 9 at the beginning (making it 5 digits) will denote that the food is genetically engineered or organic, respectively. This report, however, contains the same wording as their earlier reports, as evidenced by quotes and references on articles and blogs as early as 2002. The IFPS has not updated their wording to reflect the current uses of GE crops.

Back in 1990s it was thought that genetically engineered foods would be designed to add value for the consumer. The biotech industry still tries to make us think that that is what they are doing by issuing press releases boasting of more nutritious rice and other save-the-world products. Earlier GE crops which are nolonger in use include the Flavr-Savr tomato, designed to stay fresh on your counter for weeks. The PLU users guide contains language that clearly demonstrates that the IFPS believes, or wants us to believe, that GE technology is intended benefit consumers:

Although the correct key entry of this leading digit, in combination with the PLU, offers the ability to identify [organic and genetically engineered] products (often sold at a premium price), experience has shown that cashiers often ignore this leading digit with a resulting loss in revenue at retail checkout. Consideration should therefore be given to a clear visual identification of organic, or genetically modified items through a visually obvious means such as bright colored labels or clear use of the word “organic”, etc.

The fact is, genetically engineered foods are not premium price items. There is no GE product currently on the market that adds value to consumers. 80% of GE crops are designed to be herbicide resistant, and the other 20% are designed to produce their own pesticide. It would be a tough sell to convince consumers that eating herbicides and pesticides are in their best interest.

Also, the fact that genetically modified foods are even mentioned in the PLU guide is rediculous. There are very few, if any, GE products in the produce section. The vast majority (well over 95%) of GE crops are corn, soy, canola, and cotton. These crops are used in vegetable oil, processed foods, and animal feed. There are lesser crops that are approved for commercial sale but which have been pulled from production (tomato, potato), products which are approved but not yet commercially sold (sugarbeets, alfalfa*, flax), and products which are grown and sold in very small quantities (papaya, squash/zucchini, Quest brand tobacco). As you can see, with the exception of corn (which is used in processing and feed) papaya and squash/zucchini, there are no products which would be sold in the produce section, or have PLUs. The example the IFPS used to demonstrate the us of the 5 digit PLU in their 2002 report was a GE banana, which was never invented, and their current example is GE vine-ripened tomatoes, which have not been sold since 1999.

In addition, the use of the number “8″ at the beginning of the PLU is optional. The assumption of the IFPS is that there is value in labeling GE food, but more than half of Americans would avoid GE food if it was labeled, according to a 2003 ABC poll.

In sum, looking at PLUs is not the way to eat GE-free. In general, you will not find GE food in the produce section, unless it is Papaya from Hawaii. I challenge anyone reading this to find a PLU attached to a piece of food in the supermarket or at a produce shop with 5 digits starting with 8 (8XXXX). If anyone finds such a treasure, take a picture of it (but dont eat it!) with “undoGE.org” written on a sheet of paper behind it, and I will send you a package of seeds for your garden!

*Alfalfa was commercially planted in some fields earlier this year, and then a moratorium was placed on the sale of seeds.

References:

IFPS PLU users guide

Greenpeace: the Failures of Golden Rice

Union of Concerned Scientists: GE food and feed allowed on the market

ABC Poll on genetically engineered food

An article by Robert Weissman published today on the Huffington Post contrasts two recent reports: one by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) called Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007, and one by Friends of the Earth called Who Benefits from GM Crops? It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out which side of the issue each of these groups stands.

Weissman: “There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.”

Can anyone dispute that? This technology is out of control, and it is getting worse. Contamination is widespread, farmers are loosing their right to collect and share seeds, and consumers loose the most. The technology does not benefit consumers, farmers, or society as a whole. It only benefits the makers of Agent Orange (Monsanto) and Heroin (Bayer).

According to the ISAAA article, the crop area of GE plantations has grown over last year. In fact, it is the second largest year over year growth in five years.

Here is a link for a letter writing campaign to urge companies to not plant sugar beets in April.

Don’t plant GMO beets

This campaign is important because sugar is an ingredient in much of the packaged food available in stores. I currently look for food with sugar as an ingredient instead of its genetically engineered corn-derived younger, more feeble twin brothers glucose and high-fructose corn syrup. If sugar beets are planted as planned, we will have to greatly limit the products we consume.

Don’t plant GE cabbage either, or it might look like this:

Image credit: Frankenfood

It is always nice to find good stories in amongst all the news of the world getting worse. This one from the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

As we all know, contamination is incredibly widespread, with over 200 cases across 57 countries in the last decade. To avoid eating GE, one generally feels safe eating organic, but there is no requirement to test for contamination from GMOs.

The OCA reported a couple days ago that a range of players from the organic food industry are meeting in Anaheim, California to discuss testing requirements for organic food. They are expected to release a report soon, so we will stay tuned.

Full story here

Friends of the Earth Australia has released a new report on nano-scale particles which are being manufactured and put into food. According to their report, at least 104 food, food packaging, and agricultural products are being sold world-wide. These include everything from the wrapping on Cadbury chocolates to cooking oil.

Nano particles are basically everyday compounds which are produced such that the particles are much much smaller than they normally are. Everything smaller then 100nm (one hundred nanometers), which is on the scale of atoms and molecules, are considered nano. Because of their small size, these particles have a larger relative surface area, which makes them more reactive and bioactive, and they more easily penetrate the skin, stomach or intestinal lining, and cell walls. Their behavior is substantially different then anything with the same chemical composition which is not on the nano scale.

Why is nano bad? Its not necessarily a bad technology. The problem is, we don’t know very much about the potential toxicity of nano-particles. We also don’t know how they will behave in the environment once released. There is currently no regulation in Canada for the nano-tech industry.

What do we know about the impact on human and environmental health? According to the new FoE report, nano particles of silver, zinc, zinc-oxide and titanium dioxide have been tested and shown to be highly toxic to cells in test tube studies.

How do we know what products are made with nano-particles? There is no labeling requirement for products that use nano-technology, so we don’t really know. Some clear sunscreen uses nan0-particles to avoid the unpleasant feeling of smearing cream on your skin, but I would rather use a cream sunscreen then have nano-particles enter my skin cells and blood stream.

How many times have bills been tabled which call for mandatory labelling of genetically engineered food? Fifteen. How many of them have actually been debated? Two, and it was actually just one bill that was reintroduced and then debated again, and it hasn’t been debated since 2002.

Bill C-309 (2000) was the first bill calling for mandatory labelling, and it was tabled by a Bloc Quebecois MP. Since then, 14 other bills have been brought into the House of Commons, including at least one from each major political party: Liberal, Conservative, NDP and the Bloc. They were all private members bills, and none of them have gone anywhere.

The most success was in 2001 when Charles Caccia (a Liberal, acting against his party’s policy) introduced C-287. It was debated four times, and passed second reading before being voted down. 91 MPs voted in favour of the bill on October 17 2001, and no bill on the subject has made it as far since.
Some Federal politicians have not given up, and there are a couple more bills in the house this year. NDP MP Alex Atamanenko resurrected Bill C-309 for the seventh time back in October, and Block MP Gilles-A. Perron tabled an all-new bill two weeks ago on the leap year.

They all say pretty much the same thing, and pretty much what we have all been calling for: tell us what is in our food! Maybe I am being too pessimistic, but after 13 attempts that have gone nowhere, I am not holding my breath.

That’s not to say that I have given up, because I am just getting started. It is just to say that I think federal legislation is not where the change is going to come from. I think consumer action is the best tool we have, and it was proven to be successful in Europe seven years ago when activists were the driving force behind the mandatory labelling policy that is now in place. If we show the food producing industry that this is an issue that drives our buying decisions, then they will listen and the government will listen to them. Until then, make sure you buy GE-Free.

Greenpeace has declared March 11 to be GE-free day in this province. You should celebrate by not eating GE food (if you have no idea what is GE and what is not, just eat organic), becoming more informed by reading reports on GE food here and here, and signing petitions (I’ll post some links).

And why not join my forum? Post what you plan to do, or what you did do to raise awareness of the dangers of GE foods.

Here is a list of stuff happening around the province, taken from Josh Brandon’s post on the Greenpeace blog:

• 9 am: West 4th and Alma in Vancouver: Join us for a protest in front of the Premier’s office to tell Gordon Campbell to label GE foods in BC
• 11 am onwards: UBC Bus Loop- petition signing all morning 12:30: Capilano College – Food Awareness Panel with Josh Brandon, Greenpeace agriculture campaigner.
• 11-1 pm: SFU Food Awareness Week Kick-off Mar 11: All Day at Choices Markets at locations across BC
• March 12: 6:30. Movie night and potluck: watch “Unnatural Selection,” a stunning, award-winning film that shows the impact of genetically modified (GM) crops and animals. Near Metrotown, in Burnaby. Thats at my house, by the way.
• Mar 15: 10-3 pm Roberts Creek- petition signing at Seedy Saturday Roberts Creek Community School.
• March 15: Roberts Creek – Gumboot Café, Plus a film screening, ‘In Grave Danger of Falling Food’ with Bill Mollison, and movie vignette: EcoTech : Case Study : Local Permaculture Education in the Sunshine Coast School System Doors @ 6:30pm; Film @ 7:00pm. blackcat@resist.ca

Yves has refused to tell customers whether their products are GE or not. They used to label them as “non-GMO”, but they had a contamination incident in 2001 which led them to remove that label. According to Greenpeace, they have committed to removing GE ingredients from their products, but until they do, where can we get GE-free veggie burgers?

Make them yourself! I got a recipe off of vegetarian.about.com (original recipe), and then I made some changes. The following is the recipe I used.

• 1 15oz can of black beans
• 1 head of garlic
• 1 onion, diced
• 1 cup of diced mushrooms
• 1/2 cup of oats
• olive oil

Cut the bottom off the head of garlic, place on foil and drizzle with olive oil. Wrap it up tightly and place in the oven (or toaster oven) at 350 for 30 minutes to an hour. Sautee the onions until transparent, then add the mushrooms and cook for 5 or so minutes. Set aside. Drain and rinse the black beans and then mash them up. Squeeze each clove of roasted garlic in, add the sautee, add the oats, and mix thoroughly. They will be a little runny, so if you want a non-vegan version add an egg to hold it together. Drop with a spoon into olive oil and fry.

I’m not a vegetarian, but I love veggie burgers. These were exceptionally delitious, and they weren’t that hard to make. It took about as long as making meat burger patties, and they taste so much better. They are inexpensive, and healthy.

For the best summary of health risks, I will rely on Jeffrey Smith’s research. Jeffrey Smith is one of the most influential activists in the fight against genetically modified foods. He is the founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology and he has written two definitive books on the subject: Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette (2007). It was reading Genetic Roulette, the reference book on the health risks of genetically engineered food, that got me inspired to become involved in this movement.
Smith’s strength is taking scientific studies and explaining them in layman’s terms. He does an excellent job of defining what genetically modified organisms are at the beginning of his interview with Functional Medicine Update:

“With genetically engineered foods you take single genes or combinations of genes, typically you make changes in the structure of them, and then you artificially force them into the DNA (the genome) of other organisms. So it is not natural, but it is rather a method of selecting certain traits, pulling it out of context, and transferring it into species that would never naturally contain those genes. The process itself also causes massive collateral damage in the DNA, causing mutations and changed gene expressions, etc.”

I will briefly summarize the major points in Genetic Roulette, on his website, and from his February, 2008 interview.

GE foods carry a risk of known and unknown allergens. The incidents of soy allergies in Europe increased by 50% after GE soy was introduced. Test results determined that there were known allergens in GE soy that are not in conventional soy. Also, after eating GE soy, someone who was not originally allergic to soy can become allergic to conventional soy. Allergies have also been reported in response to crops engineered to produce Bt toxin. The process of genetically engineering crops is inherently unpredictable, and the risk of known and unknown allergies is a serious concern.

Animals avoid GE feed, so why don’t we? There have been hundreds of anecdotal reports of livestock avoiding GE feed when they have the choice. To do testing on the first commercial genetically modified crop, Flavr-Savr© tomatoes, rats had to be force fed because they wouldn’t eat the tomatoes on their own. Several of the rats in the study developed stomach lesions, and 7 of the 20 rats fed the tomatoes died within two weeks. The USDA and Calgene (owned by Monsanto) still took the product to market, and the feeding study was only made public as the result of a lawsuit.

There is no benefit to consumer or food produces for using GE food. Approximately 80% of commercial crops are designed to be resistant to the firm’s brand of herbicide, the residue of which poses health risks to humans and is clearly harmful to the environment. Almost all other GE crops are engineered to produce Bt toxin, a pesticide, in all edible parts of the plant. Allergic reactions and other health risks have been associated with Bt toxin and Bt crops.

In sum, there is NO good reason to eat genetically engineered food. They are not produced for the benefit of consumers, and they are simply not worth the risk. 60% of Americans believe that they have never eaten GE food, but according to Greenpeace, 70% of food in grocery stores are genetically modified. To find out how to avoid GE food, read the Greenpeace GMO Guide, which lists products Greenpeace believes are GE-Free and those which are not. Also read Jeffrey Smith’s How to Buy Non-GM guide.