Does Laura's Lean Beef use genetically modified organisms?
Laura's Lean Beef is opposed to the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our livestock feeds. We ask our farmers not to plant genetically engineered corn and soybeans.
However, at times some of our farmers must purchase corn and soybeans from commercial silos. As part of our program we check this feed for pesticide residues, in addition to antibiotics and growth hormones. Since there is no labeling for GMOs, and at present no system for keeping genetically engineered grain separate from traditional grain, we cannot ensure that all our cattle feed is free of GMOs.
Laura's Lean Beef is philosophically committed to the concept of "transparent" labeling. We believe consumers should have a choice about what they eat and where it comes from, and that this should be absolutely clear on the product label. Thus, we support segregation and labeling of genetically modified organisms.
GMOs are also called genetically modified crops, genetically engineered foods, or transgenic organisms. In GMOs, genetic engineering is used to alter the traits of one type of organism by adding genetic material from another organism, not necessarily closely related. In other words the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination. This genetically modified material stays in the environment, and flows to non-genetically modified plants. The cumulative result of this genetic mixing could take years to manifest itself, at which point any harmful effects that may occur could be irreversible.
At present, scientists, consumer advocates, industry and government are debating whether the benefits of GMOs outweigh the risks. Proponents argue that GMOs could be an answer to world hunger, by genetically engineering crops to produce more at a quicker pace. Proponents of GMOs cite environmental benefits of GMOs, such as use of less land and lower amounts of insecticides needed for genetically engineered crops.
Opponents of GMOs argue that biotechnology is not essential to feeding the world, and that world hunger has more to do with politics and the distribution of food rather than the volume of food produced in the world. Some criticize the manufacturers of GMOs, claiming that in their rush to get GMOs on the market, they may have ignored precautionary principles, such as long term testing and risk assessment science.
The main crops now being produced through biotechnology are cotton, corn, and soybeans. Papayas, potatoes, squash, tomatoes, melons, peppers, broccoli, popcorn and sweet corn are also grown, but to a lesser extent. Estimates vary on current production levels, but in 2002 GMOs accounted for roughly 25-40% of the nation's corn crop, and 35-50% of the soybeans.
The first GMOs were engineered to include genes for insect and weed control. Plant tissue from these crops either contain toxins which will kill insects, or genes which allow the plants themselves to be resistant to certain herbicides which kill everything else.
However, the use of GMOs in food producing operations does not necessarily eliminate the use of agricultural chemicals, they merely influence which chemicals are used. For example, soybean, cotton and corn producers may plant crops which have been genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Round-Up. Thus the farmers can spray their fields with Round-Up and kill the weeds without killing the crop. Because the so-called "Round-Up Ready" crops only withstand Round-Up and not other herbicides, these farmers are inclined to use Round-Up to kill the weeds. It is worth noting that the company that manufactures genetically modified Round-Up Ready Soybeans also manufactures Round-Up, the largest selling herbicide in the world.
An unanswered question has to do with the longevity of the pest control offered by GMOs. Will GMOs lead to crops with new resistance to herbicides and pesticides, similar to the way in which the overuse of antibiotics has led to antibiotic-resistant infections? The result would be that GMOs could not only cause an increased use of agricultural pesticides and herbicides in the future, but also the need for research into 'new generation' pesticides, thus potentially damaging the environment even more.
GMOs and Allergies
There is additional concern that GMOs can lead to unforeseen allergic reactions. For example, research showed that soybeans genetically engineered to contain Brazil nut proteins could cause reactions in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts (fortunately, this was discovered prior to release for general public use). Genetic engineering that involves incorporating proteins from organisms which have never been consumed as foods by humans could also have unforeseen consequences as a food allergen.
International Policy on GMOs
The policy of the European Union is to label all products containing GMOs. The British Medical Association (BMA) has called for moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered crops until further studies are done.
However, in the United States the FDA does not require the labeling of genetically modified food products, stating that it is concerned with the characteristics of a food, not the method used to produce it.
The debate continues in political circles in the international community. After a summit of the Group of Eight leaders in July 2000, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton criticized European leaders for moving too slowly in promoting genetically modified foods, citing the benefits of GMO crops such as Vitamin A-enhanced rice. Canada and the United States actively promote genetically modified foods. Europe and Japan are more cautious, demanding more scientific information on the ecological and health consequences of genetically modified crops.
In October of 2002 the European Union (EU) approved new standards and technologies for the approval of GMOs. With the advent of these new standards there has been an increase in the approval of GMOs.
In May of 2003 the U.S. placed a grievance case with the World Trade Organization against the EU's regulatory system for GMOs, stating it is too confining for the sales of GMOs in Europe. At the time of this writing, the debate between the U.S. and the EU on approval of GMOs continues.
Additional Reading on GMOs
BMA. 1999. BMA Press Release: BMA calls for open-ended moratorium on commercial GM planting (May 17).
EU Discussion Forum "Towards Sustainable Agriculture for Developing Countries: Options from Life Sciences and Biotechnologies" (Brussels, 30-31 January 2003).
European Union: European Commission regrets US decision to file WTO case on GMOs as misguided and unnecessary (May 2003).
FAO. FAO Newsroom: Genetically Modified Organisms (March 2003).
Gatehouse AM et al. Trends Genet. May 18(5):249-51, 2002.
Losey, J.E. et al. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214.
Milius, S. 1999. Bt-Corn Pollen Can Kill Monarchs. Science News 155(May 22):324.
Nash, J.Madeline 2000. Grains of Hope. Time 156(July 31):
Parry, Richard Lloyd 2000. Clinton Attacks Europe for Moving too Slowly Over 'Safe' GM Food. Independent News July 24.
Shelton AM et al. Annu Rev Entomol. 47:845-81, 2002.
Weinstein, S. 1999. Biotech: The Third Wave. Progressive Grocer (April).
