---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:15:04 -0800 (PST) From: MichaelP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "unlikely.suspects": ; Subject: chefs speak up against genetically manipulated foods This is about - Why governments can't be trusted to protect us against genetically manipulated foods. Cheers MichaelP Guardian (London) Jan 31, 1999 Something happened on Tuesday that kicked one issue to the top of the consumer food agenda . In an unprecedented action more than 130 of Britain's leading food writers and chefs shared a platform with Greenpeace to call for a ban on gene foods. Food writers don't agree easily on on anything; we'll split arcane hairs over how much humidity should be left in sun-dried tomatoes or the optimum cocoa solid ratio for dark chocolate. That's why our concensus that gene foods are a recipe for disater is so significant. Our action started with the realisation that gene foods are the single most important food issue of our lifetimes Gene food s have been creeping into my awareness since 1993, when some top German chefs announced their opposition because of the risks they pose to human health and the enviroment. Since then I have watched the relentless progress of this genetic experiment, through the regulatory process with a growing sense of frustration. Governments and bureaucrats are rolling over for the biotech industry although every indicator of public opinion in Europe and the UK shows that the more consumers know about gene foods the less they want them. Now foods with genetically modified are on our shelves and it has become apparent that we were always going to get them, against our wishes and against our consent. It makes nonsense of any notion of demacratic public control of our precious food chain. I suspected that many other food writers would share that reaction and suggested to Greenpeace that we might approach them for support in calling for a ban. I thought that if 20 or more agreed we could make a minor fuss. But the response snowballed . In a fortnite or so, with relatively litle effort, we had the great and the good of the food writing establishment at our back. Nigel Slater, Nigella Lawson, Fay Maschler, Derek Cooper, Egon Ronay, Valentia Harris, Anna del Conte, Darina Allen, Antony Worral Thompson. Poeple who inform what the public eats and cooks through books broadcasts and columns. People who who between them hold a massive amount of expertise on food matter. We discovered that both the Eurotoques - The European association of top chefs and the UK Guild of Food writers felt that the same and had already drawn up policy to this effect. Even as we launched our campaign at the Savoy over an organic breakfast pre-pared by Anton Edelman, the biotech giant Monsanto was already on the phone to the newsdesks trying to nuetralise our stance, saying that it was dismayed by the foodwriter's endorsement of Greenpeace's views on genetic engineering. It said we of all people should have "faith in the regulatory process which ensures that all food that comes into the market goes through a rigorous safety approval process". Post BSE, it has become patently obvoius that we cannot trust government to put public health and the enviroment concerns first. The BSE enquiry is turning into one long depressing tale of guardians of the public health tellijg us that there is no risk and subsequently being shown to be entirely wrong. The recent House of Lord's report on gene foods was BSE all over again. Despite Monsanto's attempts to portray us as a irrational and uninformed, our opposition is profoundly sensible and easy to justify. Unlike dangerous baby car seats, theres no product recall. Once gene altered foods are released into the enviroment, theres no way of getting them back or predicting their effect, If genetic manipulation of our foodstuffs goes wrong it could make the fall out from BSE disaster look like child's play. Gene foods have already gone horribly wrong. Take the genetically engineered super salmon . It grows bigger, faster, and is also deformed. Then there's milk produced by cows injected with the growth hormone rBST. The cows do produce more milk than but it contains more IGF1, an insulin like growth factor which, at elevated levels can increase the likelyhood of cancerin humans. It has been demonstrated thast herbicide tolerance can be transferred accidentally from genetically engineered crops to conventional crops and, more worryingly, to weeds in neighbouring fields. Among food writers, there is not only the conviction that gene foods are dangerous, but that they are unnecessary. As author Lynda Btrown puts it: "They represent a double whammy . Not only do we get foods that we don't but there is less chance of getting the food we want." Go down the path to of genetic manipulation of the food chain and you prejudice the very existance of the organic food the public is demanding. Organic farmers simply cannot police every or bird to stop pollution from genetically-engineered crops. As people who care passionately about the quality and integrety of what we eat, the heart of the matter for food writers is that gene fods are taking us in the wrong direction. We want safe, wholesome, naturally produced food. We like products that are geographically specific. We want to encourage small scale food and true crop diversity. We want to see animals reared humanely and the enviroment cared for. Every step further down the gene food path makes that prospect less likely. But how can we stop the gene food juggernaut? It's becoming apparent that the food industry is extremely twitchy about genefoods and doesn't know which way to jump. Some leading brands such as Kellogs and Heinz have already said they won't use genetically engineered ingredients. Iceland has banned them in their'own brand' products and Asda and Spar lok set to do the same. On the other hand, Lord Sainsbury is actively considering showing propaganda films in supermarkets in an attempt to sell the 'benefits 'of gene technology to the doubting public. As fgood writers we intend to focus this debate by sending out a powerful message to food producers, the food industry and retailers: "If you want us to trust your brand, to give you our business, don't stock gene foods." Weare giving them a chance to earn back our trust and confidence. The cooks amongst us will be promoting the use of non genetically engineered ingredients in food.For example the makers of silver spoon sugar have decided not to use genetically modified suger beet. But Tate and Lyle have not. We'll be passing on this sort of information to our readers to inform their purchases. We'll also be urging consumers to boycott processed food (some sixty percent of which may contain gmo's) and go for unprocessed food. There is, as yet, no raw or unprocessed food that is on our shelves that contains it. Restaurant reviewers in our ranks will applaud establishments that take a "No gene foods" stance and tell their customers so. Bluntly, food writers have gone to war over gene foods. ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. ** -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
