Eating in the Dark-Great
New Book on GE Foods

The Washington Post
June 16, 2002

What's for Dinner?

Reviewed by Nicols Fox

America's Experiment With
Genetically Engineered Food
By Kathleen Hart
Pantheon. 338 pp. $ 25

Many Americans are either unaware or unconcerned that a high proportion of
what they eat -- estimates run as high as 60 percent of processed food --
contains genetically modified ingredients. Europe and Japanese consumers, on
the other hand, will have none of it, and retailers overseas were quick to
reject genetically engineered (GE) imports and alert consumers to foods
containing these ingredients. Some large American food producers prepare
GE-free foods for Europe without giving Americans that option.

This American nonchalance tends to be viewed from abroad with a mixture of
amusement and amazement. As Alan Simpson, a British member of Parliament,
said, "From the European perspective, it's almost as if we've looked in awe
at what's happening in the U.S., either as an act of madness or with huge
admiration that the society is willing to offer its entire population as a
human laboratory." Is this cautious stance abroad merely a cultural
difference, or do Europeans know something we don't know? In Eating in the
Dark, journalist Kathleen Hart suggests it is the latter. In 1997, to find
out why America was virtually indifferent to the inclusion in its food
supply of millions of bushels of gene-altered corn and soy beans -- corn
designed to produce its own pesticide and soy designed to endure drenching
with herbicides -- she went to England. There she found a lively debate over
the issue -- in stark contrast to the resounding silence on the subject
here. Back in the United States, she pieced together a panoramic image of a
powerful industry, an easily influenced bureaucracy, decisions that left the
introduction of these foods under-regulated, safety studies that were
missing or of questionable relevance, and a seduced or sleepy press -- all
of which left consumers under-informed.

Hart's book is a careful documentation of that seemingly overnight journey
from sweet corn to scary corn -- which she attributes to the artfulness with
which these products were quietly slipped into the food supply. She climbs
the mountainous layers of industry PR for a clearer view of a process that
to some represents a fantastic future and to others an unmitigated disaster.
The technique of transferring genetic material from one organism to another
is now almost routine, although the results are not entirely dependable,
completely predictable or guaranteed to be stable. In fact, scientists tell
Hart that the premise that one gene equals one protein equals one trait is
vastly oversimplified and needs revision. Genetic material will react
synergistically with what is around it, which accounts for the
unpredictability. Scientists found that cows eating Roundup Ready soybeans
produced milk with slightly more fat content than did those eating ordinary
soybeans -- an unexpected consequence. The question that has not been
answered -- or even asked -- is what consuming the same soy does to humans.
It will surprise some to learn that the Food and Drug Administration had not
required notification that companies planned to introduce these foods
precisely because it didn't consider them new foods. (It now proposes to
mandate notification, although not testing.) The criterion has been that if
a product was "substantially equivalent" to the traditional food, it was
acceptable under the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) standard, meaning
that if a tomato looked and tasted like a tomato it was, essentially, a
tomato, whether it contained genetic material from a flounder or a firefly.
Testing is done by the companies themselves, and there is no foolproof test
to detect potential allergens in proteins that humans have never before

This hands-off approach was a boon to corporations that envisioned a
fabulous future for themselves, dominating food production worldwide with
patented seeds that farmers would have to buy anew each year. When the
engineered crop was tied to an herbicide produced by the same company, it
was a marriage made on Wall Street. Resistance to this notion in Europe and
beyond came as a rude surprise.

Hart reconstructs the industry strategy -- which was to deny that these
foods could possibly be unsafe, deny that they were substantially different
and then deny that they could be segregated from traditional varieties
within the food supply. Attempts in the United States to label foods
containing genetically engineered ingredients have been successfully foiled
by fierce lobbying. Yet she is sufficiently even-handed in her treatment to
make one believe that the contest between those who promote and those who
resist genetically engineered foods has been even-handed as well. Only a
whiff of the intense political and professional pressures -- the
vilification of those scientists who speak out against the process, the
silencing of opponents -- makes it into her pages.

The industry's strategy was likely a stalling tactic. As wind and insects do
their pollination work, organic farmers are finding their crops contaminated
with these altered genes, and multi-herbicide-resistant superweeds are
growing in Canada near fields of genetically modified canola. As genes
spread, segregating GE from non-GE foods will undoubtedly become even more
of a challenge.

It has always been recognized by proponents and opponents, however, that if
something went wrong with a genetically modified food, it would go terribly
wrong. What if it turned out to be toxic and ended up being widely
distributed throughout the food supply?

StarLink corn was never approved for human consumption because there were
sufficient hints in certain characteristics of its unique protein that it
might cause trouble. The FDA limited its use to animal feed. No single event
has been more revealing of the vulnerability of the U.S. food supply, and
the inadequacy of recall, than its introduction, for StarLink found its way
easily into supplies of corn meant for humans, a story Hart relates in
detail. Our vast and efficient processing and distribution system then
enabled StarLink to contaminate taco shells, tortillas and corn chips across
the country. Allergic responses to StarLink have been well documented, yet
even now this corn's unique genetic material continues to show up in tests.
It could have been much worse. Nevertheless, says Hart, although some major
food companies are backing away from genetically altered ingredients,
organic farmers complain that it may soon be nearly impossible to grow, buy
or sell uncontaminated corn and soybeans.

The problem is that the industry went too far too fast. The present
techniques for creating these novel foods are relatively primitive.
Approaches now in the research stage would re-sort and reshuffle an
organism's own genetic material rather than introduce genetic material from
a foreign organism -- a far safer proposition and one likely to work better
in any case. In the meantime, how our bodies, and especially our children's
bodies, will react over the long term to these novel foods will be an
interesting experiment. "Yet no one has signed a consent form," says Hart.
To read Hart's book is to experience a growing sense of alarm and outrage.
Precisely how much risk should we be asked to take on for the sake of
corporate profit? Or is this something else that patriotism requires? *
Nicols Fox is the author of "Spoiled: Why Our Food Is Making Us Sick" and,
forthcoming this fall, "Against the Machine: The Hidden Luddite Tradition in
Literature, Art and Individual Lives."

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.