Fruits of Genetic Tinkering Are Headed for U.S. Tables : Science: First ‘designer foods’ are winning FDA approval. But skeptical consumers threaten boycotts.
Fastidious gourmets will be asked soon to savor designer fruits and vegetables containing genes from bacteria or other unrelated species inserted to confer longer shelf life, faster growth or greater resistance to herbicides.
The first food from the laboratory horn of plenty--milk produced through a bovine growth hormone engineered by Monsanto Inc.--was approved for sale to consumers by the FDA last week and may reach supermarkets in February. Tomatoes genetically engineered by Calgene Inc. are expected to win FDA approval next month, and scientists have run more than 1,000 field tests of other genetically engineered crops around the country.
Eventually, the genetically engineered salad bar may feature chicken genes in the potato salad and virus genes in the squash. The sliced fruit could incorporate DNA from an arctic flounder. There might be a gene for human growth hormone in the bacon bits.
But this is not the kind of organic food some people have in mind. The idea of easing the boundaries between species to rearrange the natural order of the dinner table already alarms some chefs and makes many consumers skittish.
After major scientific advances, millions of dollars in development costs and almost a decade of political maneuvering, genetically engineered food products are clearing their last regulatory hurdle, only to face a gantlet of suspicious consumers.
“From the broader perspective of genetically engineered food products, the milk hormone is one of the worst products the industry could have started with,” said Nachama Wilker, executive director of the Boston-based Committee for Responsible Genetics.
“Milk is something people consider natural and sacred. They don’t want to see it manipulated,” she said.
This week, a coalition of activists, public interest groups, organic farmers and restaurateurs in a dozen cities began organizing a food boycott against milk, infant formula, cheese and other dairy products produced with the new hormone, according to organizers in California, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. Demonstrators plan to picket the FDA’s Los Angeles office today to protest the agency’s approval of the dairy hormone.
About 70 dairies and food companies so far have pledged they will not use Posilac, the name under which Monsanto will market its recombinant bovine hormone designed to increase milk production. The companies include several major infant formula manufacturers, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, and the dairy giant Borden’s Inc.
The boycott is part of a broader “pure food” campaign directed against all genetically engineered produce.
Many people, already leery of chemical ingredients in processed foods and scornful of force-grown greenhouse vegetables, may consider foreign genes spliced into grocery staples like corn, cantaloupe, squash, potatoes and cucumbers as potentially dangerous additives, biotechnology experts said.
Hundreds of chefs already have vowed they will not buy or serve genetically engineered produce. In Chicago, the City Council last month started requiring warning labels on genetically engineered foods.
In Los Angeles, a number of upscale restaurants now state plainly on their menus that they will not knowingly serve genetically engineered food of any kind.
“Food is my whole life, so what happens to food and what kind of food is available is paramount to me,” said Mary Sue Milliken, a chef who runs the City restaurant in Los Angeles and the Border Grill in Santa Monica. “I am really concerned about the long-term effects. I am not confident we know enough about how it affects our bodies.”
At Engine Co. No. 28, a restaurant in Downtown Los Angeles, the menu notes that no genetically altered produce will be served. “There are enough people who are concerned that we want to see more thorough testing,” said executive chef Ed Kasky.
The new dairy hormone is the first in a series of genetically engineered food products Monsanto has in development. The company this year has conducted field tests of genetically engineered varieties of potatoes, canola, tomatoes and corn. Some of the new plants contain their own insecticides, others tolerate higher doses of chemical herbicides. The tomato is designed to take longer to spoil, and the potato contains more starch and absorbs less oil in processing.
Monsanto officials discounted the boycott threat and consumer fears of the new technology.
“Despite what people who try to organize boycotts and pickets say, we think consumers are not buying into fear of the product,” said Lisa Watson, Monsanto Co.’s manager of health and consumer affairs. “This is like any new technology. There definitely is a learning curve. People have to get comfortable with it.”
Despite Monsanto’s efforts to ease the product’s introduction, the dairy hormone, which makes a cow give more milk without actually adding a genetically engineered product to the food, has become a flash point in the fight over the safety of genetically engineered food.
“We see this as a battle that may take years,” said Jeremy Rifkin, an influential critic of genetic engineering technology, who is the driving force behind the boycott effort. “This is the first genetically engineered product out and we are determined it will be dead on arrival.”
Monsanto, one of four major chemical companies developing bovine growth hormone products, spent an estimated $300 million to create Posilac, then spent nine years trying to gain federal approval. Congress has delayed sale of the product until Feb. 3.
The dairy hormone stimulates greater milk output by “super-charging” cows with extra amounts of a hormone called bovine somatotropin (BST), which is naturally produced by a cow’s pituitary gland.
Both the General Accounting Office and the FDA found evidence that cows treated with the new hormone were more likely to have infected udders and were concerned that antibiotic treatment for the infections could lead to increased antibiotic residues in milk.
FDA officials said that milk is already so strictly regulated that no additional safeguards were needed to prevent unsafe levels of antibiotic residues from entering the milk supply.
In an effort to allay consumer queasiness, Monsanto agreed to track milk production and drug residues in 21 top dairy states during the next two years.
The FDA also ruled that there was no need for labels to identify dairy products produced with the new hormone.
In contrast, Calgene officials said they decided some time ago to label their “Flavr Savr” tomato as a genetically engineered product. The tomato is designed to spoil less quickly and to have improved flavor.
“We will be prominently labeling it, leaving the consumer in no doubt as to what they are buying,” said Thomas L. Churchill, president and chief executive officer of Calgene Fresh, which will distribute the tomato. “We think that is the right thing to do.”
Several public interest groups said labeling the new engineered foods is especially important because consumers should be allowed to make an informed decision about what they eat.
“In the early years of this technology, consumers should have the right to choose and be concerned about the safety, until we get more data on genetically engineered foods,” said Jack Doyle, a senior analyst for technology and corporate policy at Friends of the Earth in Washington.
“Assuming these early products are safe, the more fundamental question is: Are they needed?” Doyle said.
The milk hormone, for example, is being marketed as a dairy management tool that can boost milk production 20% at a time when there is a longstanding surplus of milk in the United States. Industry analysts said it is not likely to lower the price of milk or result in any reduction of federal price supports for dairy products.
“There is nothing in this product for me as a consumer,” said Margaret Mellon, director of the agriculture and biotechnology project at the Union for Concerned Scientists. “It does not make my milk any more nutritious. It does not taste any better.
“Something is very very wrong with the way we are using this technology,” she said. “If you stand back from it, it is such a misuse of funds, technology and smart people. There is something tragic about it.”
