7

Genetically Engineered Foods-
The Hazards of Tinkering with Natural Law

Technically speaking, you cannot really violate a law of nature. You cannot exceed the speed of light-and for every action there will always be an equal and opposite reaction, no matter what. You can, however, run afoul of natural law-and create problems for yourself and others. You can eat things that make you sick, put chemicals in the soil that make it barren, release substances into the air that kill off life. Such may be the case with genetic engineering, which, according to a growing number of credentialed scientists, represents a pervasive and highly dangerous tinkering with natural law that could jeopardize the health of the whole earth. Surprisingly, few people really know much about the danger.

In the 1950s, nuclear energy was billed as the answer to all our energy needs, as well as a miraculous new technology that would forever transform the way we live. Edward Teller, one of the fathers of the H-bomb, enthusiastically promoted the idea of "geological engineering"-using nuclear explosions to "safely" restructure the geography of different aspects of the earth's surface. His first proposal: Carve a huge harbor out of the shoreline of Alaska above the Arctic Circle. Unbelievable as it may seem today, it was only an effort by a group of scientists from the University of Alaska and the Eskimos who would be displaced that captured the attention of the American people, and the project was halted at the eleventh hour due to intense public pressure. For decades, the nuclear power industry claimed that nuclear energy was safe, clean, inexpensive, and could provide all the energy requirements of a rapidly growing society. What we didn't discover until much later was that there are huge, life-threatening pollution and waste problems associated with nuclear technology. Now, because of these problems, no new nuclear power plants are under construction in the country and nuclear power is no longer considered a viable solution to America's future energy needs.

It is true that society marches ahead on technological advancements. And it certainly can be argued that far more technologies have proven beneficial to society than not. But it is those few exceptions, those highly hyped technologies that turn out to seriously endanger life-nuclear energy, DDT, and such "miracle" drugs as thalidomide, to name a few-that teach us a valuable lesson. We have not been vigilant enough to investigate promotions that oversell potential benefits, and that ignore-or cover up-very real hazards.

Genetic engineering-technologies which alter the genetic code, the very building blocks of an organism-is one such case. Proponents claim it can produce more abundant crops, create more nutritious foods, eradicate certain diseases, and thereby improve the quality of human life on earth. Not everyone agrees. Many scientists claim it's a technology that presents serious health and environmental risks,¹ and many consumers feel the same concern. In response to pressure from such consumers, the European Union has passed a law requiring all genetically engineered foods for sale in member nations to be clearly labeled "genetically engineered." Austria and Luxemburg have even placed an outright ban on genetically modified corn.. And many Japanese food retailers have told U.S. farmers to send over only genetically natural soybeans.

What's the story in the U.S.? We have no such laws, no such restrictions, no such precautions. In fact, some state governments have passed laws forbidding such labelling. Experts estimate that since the approval of the first genetically engineered food by the FDA in 1994, 60% to 70% of the processed foods now available in the U.S. market contain genetically engineered ingredients, such as high-fructose corn syrup, and genetically engineered versions of virtually every fruit, vegetable, grain, and legume already having been created in the laboratory.* Experts predict an avalanche of these man-made species will inundate our food supply in the next few years.

How do we know that genetically engineered (also known as GE) foods are safe? Because the Food and Drug Administration says so. And how does the FDA know? In almost every case, they know only because they asked the biotech industries-the corporations who, for a hefty profit, manufacture these foods. It's true. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine pointed out that the testing of genetically engineered substances at present is largely voluntary-more than 90% of genetically engineered foods are not required to be tested before they enter the market.² Consequently, the details of the testing programs are left primarily in the hands of the developers-namely, the biotech industry. We've left the fox guarding the chickens.

Speaking as a press secretary, I am astounded that there is no burning debate in the U.S., as there is in other countries, over the intrusion of GE foods on our grocery store shelves. It's a modern-day miracle of information management, or spin-doctoring, by the biotech industry. Instead of healthy, heated public debate, where both sides air their differences, there is no public discussion at all. The biotech industry makes the food, the FDA virtually rubber stamps its approval, and we buy it unknowingly, unlabeled, off our grocery shelves. Whatever controversy does remain is being fought in the organic market, where biotech interests are trying to penetrate that small but fast growing and highly lucrative market, but where they are meeting considerable resistance from the natural foods industry.

At first glance, the subject of genetically engineered foods can appear too complicated to grasp, and, perhaps is best left in the hands of the experts. But the Natural Law Party strongly disagrees-genetic engineering is neither too complicated nor should be left in the hands of the "experts."

Taking a Stand Against Genetic Engineering

November 7, 1994.   My first introduction to genetic engineering came from John Fagan, a Cornell-trained molecular biologist, who had spent 20 years conducting research on gene regulation and the molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis, which is, basically, the role genes play in cancer. Fagan had spent seven years at the National Cancer Institute and had been the recipient over two decades of more than $2.5 million in government grant money to conduct his research.

Fagan was calling me for help with a press conference. He was about to formally return $614,000 awarded him by the National Institutes of Health and withdraw grant proposals worth another $1.25 million. The reason for this surprising-and, it turned out, unprecedented-decision was his growing concern about how his own research findings could be used by other scientists for potentially dangerous genetic engineering applications. But more than that, he had become increasingly disenchanted with the whole direction in which biomedical research was going-in particular, the misapplication and overpromotion of genetic engineering.

Fagan said he wanted to hold a press conference "to set the record straight."

"I want to point out the serious risks that are associated with genetic engineering, in biomedical research as well as in agriculture and in the environment," he said.

At first, it was all new to me; in fact, it was all pretty indecipherable. But Fagan was a good teacher and it didn't take long to grasp both sides of the issue. Fagan is a quiet and humble type, but he was eager to use this opportunity-maybe a once-in-a-lifetime chance-to bring widespread public attention to an issue that had little or none.

Our press conference, unlike the extravaganzas I have seen put on by the biotechs, was a shoestring operation. Overnight we wrote up a press release and faxed it out to hundreds of media outlets in Washington. That was three days before Fagan's news conference was scheduled to be held at the Capitol Hilton Hotel on November 12, 1994.

We had no idea what to expect. The dangers of genetic engineering were then-and are now-not well understood by the public or the press. (If you want to show the dangers of the atom bomb you can point to a picture of Hiroshima. With a genetically engineered tomato, you can point to, well, a tomato.)

And the first response from the D.C. press was tepid at best. I worried that the news conference would be a bust. But then Rick Weiss, health writer with The Washington Post, read the release, convinced his editor it was a story of national consequence, and wrote a powerful piece that appeared prominently in the Post on the day of the news conference. The story, entitled, "Genetic Engineering Breeds Costly Protest," was better than I could have dreamed. In the article, Weiss wrote, "In a move that has become the talk of the scientific community, John Fagan has returned $614,000 in grant money to the National Institutes of Health, while withdrawing his previously filed request for an additional $1.25 million in support. He is doing so to protest what he sees as rampant and unwise genetic tinkering with plants and animals and the release of these novel organisms into the environment."

At 10:00 a.m., the news conference room was packed. Thirty-five journalists from the national and international press corps, including Science, Nature, and BioTechnology, showed up to hear John Fagan talk about his decision, and how the government should better patrol the biotech industry. Their stories were all great-fair and even-handed-and four days later, The Washington Post even wrote an editorial praising Fagan's stand, entitled "Scientist's Qualms." The editorial concluded, "Fagan's bigger point is that the excitement of these and other commercial possibilities could outstrip researchers' own caution and get beyond even the existing safety features. His gesture, and the attention it has drawn, could flash a useful yellow light on the stampede."

That news conference not only made "a statement," it also made Fagan a much-sought after spokesman on the potential dangers of genetic engineering worldwide. Since then, he has travelled to over 20 countries, primarily throughout Europe and Asia, where he has met with high-level government leaders in health, agriculture, and the environment, as well as with leaders of some the largest food companies and food manufacturers in the world. His work has been considered instrumental in educating and mobilizing the European Union against genetic engineering.

Fagan's message to lawmakers wherever he goes is simple: "You are only getting one side of the story-the biotech side-but there is more to the issue. And while it seems safe to base your decisions about genetic engineering on rigorous scientific evidence, you need to be aware of the environment within which a scientist works. If a scientist is funded by the biotech industry-and most molecular biologists are, directly or indirectly-it's very hard for him or her to be scientifically unbiased and to give a balanced evaluation of this technology."

Fagan advises decision-makers in government or in private industry to take a prudent and common sense approach, and access a broad spectrum of scientific expertise in order to ensure that they get balanced information from all sides.

January 21, 1998.   It's been over three years since the D.C. news conference. Although our paths crossed several times during the 1996 campaign when he would speak out against genetically engineered foods, this is the first time that I've had the chance to sit and talk at length with John Fagan about recent developments in genetic engineering. Now, though, we are not in a hall packed with reporters, but in a laboratory filled with instruments. In addition to his global travels, Fagan is spending as much time as possible in his laboratory, developing cutting-edge technologies that will allow governments and food industry leaders to test plants or seeds and determine whether they have been genetically engineered. Fagan's technology has become the international industry leader and is being used by the U.S.-based company, Genetic ID, to run tests for international grain traders and large food manufacturers worldwide who want to screen for GE crops and products.

Right now, Fagan is standing in front of a long black table with test tubes and beakers and pots and pans stacked on two shelves. On the far corner of the table are dozens of containers filled with soybeans-each container labeled with a tape with a series of numbers. Soybeans come in from all over the world to be tested at the lab. The lab also tests soy products and corn and corn products, including tofu, baby formula, baco-bits, veggie burgers, corn flakes, and corn chips. A lab assistant leaves the room carrying a tray of tiny plastic test-tubes, a half-inch tall by a quarter-inch wide, filled with a grainy brown substance. "Ground-up soybeans," Fagan says. They are about to have some of their DNA removed through a chemical extraction process, the second step in a 24-hour procedure that will identify whether or not the soybeans have been genetically engineered. This procedure will determine whether a shipment of these soybeans will be allowed into Europe unlabelled. As Fagan maneuvers around the lab, he defines some GE terminology-basics, such as what is a gene and what is genetic engineering.

"Genes are like the architectural blueprints of life," Fagan says. "They form biological structures that compose DNA and give rise to the specific characteristics that define a particular living organism. Genes make a tomato a tomato and a fish a fish. These structures, or genetic codes, have evolved over millions of years in perfect harmony with all the other genetic codes that make up life on earth.

"Genetic engineering allows scientists to remove genes from one organism, say a flounder, and transfer those genes into any other organism, say a tomato. The transfer of genes changes the genetic blueprint of the tomato and reprograms its cells to produce different material, which in turn creates new characteristics within the tomato. Through this process, researchers can change the traits and characteristics of an organism as they see fit-for instance, they can engineer a tomato to be frost resistant by inserting into it "anti-freeze" genes from a flounder. Or they can make soybeans that are resistant to herbicides, or corn that has its own built-in pesticide."

At first glance, the promises of this technology seem wonderful and unlimited, Fagan says.

"Researchers have become very excited about using genetic engineering to produce more abundant crops, to create more nutritious foods, to eradicate certain diseases, and thereby to improve the quality of human life on earth."

But the downsides are considerable. "Genetically engineered foods may contain toxins and allergens or be less nutritious," he says. "In fact, consumers have become sick and even died from such toxins already. Worse, genetically engineered organisms may multiply and crossbreed with the natural, non-genetically engineered population, creating irreversible biological changes throughout the earth's ecosystem."

I'm familiar with some of the hazards of GE foods, but I confess to Fagan that I am confused. How could something so potentially dangerous, as Fagan and many other scientists claim, be viewed with such optimism by so many other scientists and by the U.S government? Is Fagan being a doomsayer, is he anti-technology? I say that at least once a week USA-Today will run a news story about a major breakthrough in gene research that holds promise for curing a terrible disease or a minor problem, from cancer to Alzheimers, from obesity to baldness. And yet there is nary a word to indicate the possible downsides of these findings. Even my mother, who is a highly informed 76-year-old (she watches CSPAN instead of network sitcoms), is surprised to hear me talk of the possible risks of genetically engineered food. "Why," she wants to know, "would they sell something if it's dangerous? The government says its safe."

Fagan answers: "No scientist can speak from the platform of scientific objectivity and claim that some new technology is a cure-all or is 'absolutely safe.' When nuclear technology was developed, nobody knew that, within a few years, the human race would be threatened by mutually assured destruction. Nobody knew, when nuclear energy was harnessed to produce electricity, that we would be left with millions of tons of radioactive waste that could remain highly toxic for tens of thousands of years. Nobody knew, but we leapt ahead and created serious long-term problems for ourselves and for future generations.

"So how can the biotech industry possibly know that genetically engineered foods are completely safe, so safe that they don't need to be labeled? The answer is, they don't know.

"It took millions of years for life on earth to evolve into the highly balanced, dynamic ecosystem with its countless lifeforms that we know today. Now, in a generation or less, most of our important food crops are being radically changed through genetic engineering, and this change will seriously impact the ecosystem as a whole, jeopardizing human health as well. Until a genetically engineered product is proven safe, then there's a question about it. The implementation of genetic engineering should be guided by rigorous scientific safety standards, not by the profit motive."

We walk across the lab through some double doors into another room where there is still more equipment. Here is a machine, about the size of a desktop xerox machine, that amplifies, or makes millions of copies, of the extracted soybean DNA molecules. (This type of equipment is also used in court cases to match blood types.) In the room next door, another machine, through a process called electrophoresis, completes the procedure by determining whether a new gene has been engineered into the genetic code of the soybean. Fagan makes a few adjustments to a meter. Standing off to the side, out of his way, I ask him how his technology works.

"Basically, the test works like a word search on your computer. If you have a 2,000-word document and you want to find if the word 'good' is in your document-and how many times it appears-you give the command to your word processor, and it searches for the word 'good.' We simply use a genetic 'word search' procedure to identify whether a soybean, corn or any other crop has been genetically engineered."

I must not look entirely enlightened, so he elaborates.

"When scientists engineer a plant, they're actually adding new genetic information. It would be as if you had a Shakespearean sonnet, and then you were to cut into it a phrase from another poem, say a poem by e. e. cummings. It changes the information content. This test searches through the genetic information of a plant to identify if any new information has been added."

Fagan is working on new technologies that will speed the process up to around 30 minutes. He also hopes to make the equipment portable, so that tests can be done anywhere.

"This will allow developing countries, where there are few laboratory facilities, to be able to monitor incoming foods and make sure that they're not genetically engineered-or to at least determine if they are. This is important, because otherwise these countries cannot control what's coming across their borders," Fagan says.

We leave the lab and walk into his office. He sits on a stool, his back to a bank of computer monitors. Is it true, as proponents claim, that genetic engineering is simply a natural, but more precise, extension of traditional breeding practices-practices that mankind has been using for thousands of years to improve our food?

Fagan shakes his head no.

"The fact is that genetic engineering is not natural," he says. "It's a radical, revolutionary, and highly artificial approach to changing our foods. Is this a natural extension of traditional breeding practices? Absolutely not. Traditional breeding makes use of natural reproductive mechanisms, and must respect the natural reproductive barriers between species. But genetic engineering uses artificial means to aggressively penetrate those barriers. Genetic engineers can isolate genes from virtually any organism on the planet and introduce those genes into any other living thing on earth. When you introduce a gene from a fish into a tomato, or from a bacterium into corn, or from a virus into a squash, you're doing something that would never happen in nature."

The biotech industry also claims that technologies for manipulating genes are exact, I say. Fagan says they're not.

"It's true that scientists can cut and splice genes very precisely in the test-tube," he says. "But that's only half the battle. Once an artificial gene has been constructed in the test tube, it must be inserted into the food-producing organism. And that's a highly imprecise process whose results are extremely unpredictable and uncontrollable, often producing toxins, allergens, and reducing the nutritional value of the food."

Fagan cites genetic engineers in Japan who altered the genes of a bacterium to make it produce large amounts of the food supplement tryptophan. The engineers had been using this bacterium as "little factories" for tryptophan production, and hoped to make this process more efficient, and therefore more profitable, through genetic engineering.

"They succeeded in souping up these bacteria so that they produced tryptophan much more efficiently, but, unexpectedly, their genetic manipulations also caused the bacteria to produce a powerful toxin," Fagan says. "The genetic engineers had no idea that their tinkering had created this deadly contaminant, until the supplement was put on the market and people started getting sick and dying. Altogether, 1500 Americans were permanently disabled and 37 died from this defective product.³ Because it was not labeled as genetically engineered, it took months to track down the source of the problem and take the product off the market."

He cites a well-documented, near-miss horror story.

"Genetic engineers at Pioneer Hybrid International introduced a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans to improve their nutritional content," he says. "However, to their surprise, the Brazil nut gene also caused the soybeans to be allergenic to certain people. Fortunately, this problem was detected before these soybeans were placed on the open market, and no harm was done. In the grand scheme of things, Brazil nuts are much more closely related to soybeans than a flounder is to a tomato or an insect is to a squash. Just think how much more impossible it is to predict fully the outcome of mixing genes from such distantly related organisms."

Another argument in favor of genetic engineering is that it will lead to reduced pesticide use, I say.

"Oh yes, proponents do say that," he says. "But the reality is that most of the genetically engineered crops developed to date not only perpetuate, but actually extend, the chemical approach in agriculture. This approach is depleting our soil, diminishing the nutritional value of our food, and tainting it with toxic and carcinogenic substances.

"Nearly 50 percent of all genetic manipulations of crops have been carried out to make them resistant to herbicides. For example, Monsanto markets a pesticide called Roundup, and a genetically engineered soybean called Roundup Ready. Herbicide resistant crops allow the farmer to spray the fields heavily to kill weeds, knowing that the crop plants will not be hurt. This seems convenient, but, in fact, it will increase the use of these toxic chemicals at least threefold. Already 80 percent of America's ground water is polluted by herbicides and other toxic and mutagenic agricultural chemicals. Chemical companies engineer these herbicide resistant crops to stimulate sales of their herbicides, but we don't need the increased pollution caused by such high-tech crops. And in the long run, these crops will create more work for farmers by generating herbicide-resistant weeds," he says.

Fagan says that the reliance on genetic engineering and other high-tech approaches in agriculture "is regrettable because it is so unnecessary. These approaches have stunted the implementation of organic, sustainable farming approaches that are capable of growing crops more efficiently and cost-effectively."

I ask Fagan about religious concerns over genetically engineered foods.

"It's a very big problem," he says. "Many people hold religious beliefs that include dietary restrictions. Should a person of the Jewish or Muslim faiths be asked to eat a tomato that has pig genes? Many people believe that genetic engineering across different species violates the natural reproductive boundaries set in place by God. Others find the patenting of life forms blasphemous. Without product labels, these consumers will not be able to avoid foods that conflict with their religious and spiritual orientations."

Fagan looks at his watch. He has a lot of work ahead-and a lot of travel. Tomorrow morning he will fly to Sao Paulo, Brazil, to meet with retailers from Europe, a local food-testing company, and one of the largest soy processors in the world. The purpose of his visit is to set up a third-party certification system so that Europeans can import soy products grown and processed in Brazil that are guaranteed to be natural and not genetically engineered. Four days later, Fagan will return to the U.S. to speak at a two-day conference of organic farmers and organic food manufacturers from throughout the northern plain states that will be held in Aberdeen, North Dakota. He then will turn around and, with his wife Susel, fly to Perth, Australia, where he will transfer Genetic ID's testing technology to a laboratory there which will use it to test grain products that are being exported to Europe and Japan. And just about the time the Fagans get over that jet lag, they will head back to Wisconsin, where John Fagan will speak at the largest organic conference in the country.

Before leaving I have a quick question about his research. What got him started on it?

"I kept reading in the newspapers about how the promoters of genetic engineering from the U.S., including Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, were speaking all over Europe, saying that genetically engineered soybeans are just like the natural ones: They're just as safe, they're just as nutritious, they're identical-you can't tell them apart.

"When I heard that, I knew, as a molecular biologist, that you could tell them apart-that any competent molecular biologist with a decent lab could set up a test to do it. So I just took the time to develop that test, and over the years we have refined that test and made it more effective and more sensitive. But the tests that we do right now are not something that is a Nobel-prize-winning discovery. It was simply applying known technology to a new problem-and it works."

Mobilizing Grassroots Support for Mandatory Labeling

December 6, 1997   Laura Ticciati is on the telephone from her hotel in Florida, talking to a reporter about her efforts to do something that's never been done: Pull together a powerful coalition of U.S. Senators and Representatives, scientists and doctors, clergy, and leaders of the U.S. health food industry that can stand up to the biotech interests. As executive director of Mothers for Natural Law, a nonprofit, educational organization that she spun off from the Natural Law Party in 1996, Ticciati and a handful of volunteers have spent two years working nonstop to mobilize the forces. Their work is paying off. A year ago, few people had ever even heard about genetic engineering. But that is changing quickly, as the issue moves to the front burner, at least in the health food market. The shift is due, in large part, to the efforts of Ticciati and her associates.

Laura Ticciati hangs up the phone and walks into a room filled with 200 natural food retailers attending a regional trade show of the natural foods industry at the Omni Rosen Hotel in Orlando. She is a keynote speaker. For those who are not up to speed on the issue, she defines terms, gives a balanced account of both sides of the argument, and outlines an action plan to collect one million signatures in health food stores nationwide calling for mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods. This, she says, will send an unambiguous message to policy makers about citizen unrest over genetically engineered foods, and attract considerable media coverage along the way.

It's the holiday season, and Ticciati uses the holidays as a launching point for her talk.

"As we gather with our families this year we can still give thanks for a safe food supply," she says, herself a mother of two young children. "In 1998 that may not be the case. Genetically engineered foods are taking over a larger share of the market. By the year 2000, the FDA estimates that 100 to 150 new GE foods will be on our grocery store shelves.

"Last year, European consumers and food retailers united and gained government support for stricter policies and labeling of GE foods. And a few months ago, Japanese retailers collected one million signatures demanding labeling. It's time America got on board!

"We have always taken the position that whatever the challenge, there's always a solution. Right now, the challenge is to get the word out fast. Our Right to Know petition is a simple way to accomplish this. Grassroots organizers in Japan gathered in just a few months one million signatures from citizens concerned about the safety of their food supply. Here in America we intend to do the same.

"How can we accomplish this? Through commitment and organization," she says, breaking down the total into manageable chunks. "One volunteer in a high-traffic location can realistically collect several hundred signatures in a few hours. Multiply that effort by a dozen friends, and a dozen Saturdays between now and next spring and you could easily organize delivery of 30,000 signatures from your community. What greater contribution could you make to the health of the planet? What greater favor could you do to protect yourself and your children from the unknown dangers of these untested manipulations?"

Ticciati has been on the road a lot. For example, in the past year she testified at a hearing of the National Organics Standards Board in Indianapolis; she's addressed a national meeting of the Social Ventures Network, an association of CEOs and other top business leaders who are concerned about socially and environmentally responsible investments; and she was a featured speaker at Natural Products Industry Expos in Baltimore, Anaheim, and Las Vegas.

Ticciati talks about recent legal victories, and that draws applause.

"Ben & Jerry's, who make superpremium ice cream and yogurt, won a first-amendment lawsuit against the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago that will allow the company to voluntarily label its dairy products as being free of the controversial bioengineered growth hormone rBGH. Ben & Jerry's was joined in the suit by Stonyfield Farm, a manufacturer of yogurt and ice cream; Whole Foods Market, the nation's largest chain of natural food supermarkets; and Organic Valley, a farmer's cooperative selling milk, cheese, and butter products."

Ticciati concludes on a heartfelt note.

"We are at a crossroads on this earth where we can no longer afford to violate laws of nature in a mad dash for profits. We must make a decision to embrace technologies that support all of life, technologies that not only uphold and promote our growth as a society, but also do not damage anyone or anything in the process.

"There is an order in the universe, a seamless web that nourishes and connects us all-from the tiniest seed, to the beating of our hearts, to the stars in the galaxies," she says. "Every time we act without regard to that underlying intelligence of nature, we harm ourselves and we harm our planet. If we align ourselves with the nourishing power of nature, we will create a society that upholds the integrity and dignity of life for all of us, for all times to come."

The Natural Law Party's Policy on Genetic Engineering

1. Safety Testing-Rigorous, pre-market safety testing by an independent scientific review board of all genetically engineered organisms.

2. Market Safety-Removal of all products containing genetically engineered organisms currently on the market that have not been safety tested by an independent scientific review board.

3. Mandatory Labeling-Clear and accurate labeling of all foods derived from, processed with, containing, or consisting of genetically engineered organisms before they are released into any and all commercial markets.

4. Ban on Release of GE Organisms (Best Case Scenario)-A 50-year moratorium on the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment until they are proven safe by an independent scientific review board.

*Genetically engineered foods approved by the FDA(•), or awaiting approval or under development: Abalone•, alfalfa, apples, asparagus, barley, beets, broccoli, canola•, carrots, catfish•, cauliflower, cheesemaking enzymes (chymosin)•, chestnuts, chicory, corn•, cotton (cottonseed oil)•, cucumbers, flaxseed, grapes, kiwi fruit, lettuce, melons, papayas, peanuts, pepper, potatoes•, prawns•, raspberries, rice, salmon•, soybeans•, squash, strawberries, sugar cane, sunflowers, sweet potatoes, tomatoes•, walnuts, watermelons, wheat.   (back)