the new & improved supermarket tour - fair...

TheSupermarket Tour

an OPIRG Publication

ENTER

Here

NEW &IMPROVED

CREDITS

Research and writing for the Supermarket Tour were by Stella Lee, Caroline Liffman and CindyMcCulligh. Final editing by Stella Lee. Design, layout, and additional editing was by Daryl Novak at theWaterloo Public Interest Research Group (WPIRG) at the University of Waterloo.

The project was coordinated by Shelley Porteous and Hanna Schayer at OPIRG McMaster.

Illustrations by Julian van Mossel-Forrester. Additonal graphics by Juby Lee and Julia Wilson.

Special thanks go to Brewster Kneen, Cindy McCulligh, Chris Watson, and Ann Clark for theirassistance in reviewing the Tour. The views expressed in this booklet are not necessarily those of thereviewers.

Thanks also go to Sandro Giordano at McMaster Design & Copy for his generous help in producingthe Tour, and to the Council of Canadians, Waterloo PIRG and OPIRG-Toronto for their financial supportin this project. For more information on OPIRG, or for an electronic PDF copy of this document, visithttp://opirg.org

If you would like to receive additional printed copies of the Supermarket Tour, contact OPIRGMcMaster.

© 2001, 2002 by: OPIRG McMasterBox 1013, McMaster University1280 Main Street WestHamilton, OntarioL8S 1C0(905) 525-9140 ext. 27289<[email protected]>

Title: The Supermarket Tourby Stella Lee, Caroline Liffman, and Cindy McCullighISBN 0-9690545-7-2

Printed in Canada in 2001, 2002

MENU

Credits ..................................................................................................... 4INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Eaten Anything Lately? ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Aisle 1: The Food system ....................................................................... 8GOING TO MARKET.............................................................................................................................................................. 8OUTSIDE THE STORE ENTRANCE .................................................................................................................................... 8

Who’s the Boss? ..................................................................................................................................................... 8Vertical Integration ................................................................................................................................................ 9We’ve Come a Long Way ................................................................................................................................... 9

INSIDE THE SUPERMARKET ENTRANCE...................................................................................................................... 10Consumer Manipulation ..................................................................................................................................... 10The Lure ................................................................................................................................................................ 10Entrances ................................................................................................................................................................ 11Music or Muzak ...................................................................................................................................................... 11Produce Section .................................................................................................................................................... 12Shelf Space ............................................................................................................................................................. 12Product Placement .............................................................................................................................................. 12Advertising & Packaging .................................................................................................................................... 13

ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Aisle 2: Produce .................................................................................. 16POISON & POVERTY ......................................................................................................................................................... 16PESTICIDES ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16WHY WORRY ABOUT PESTICIDES? ................................................................................................................................ 16

Health Effects ........................................................................................................................................................ 17Government Standards ....................................................................................................................................... 17An Apple a Day May Not Keep the Doctor Away ....................................................................................... 18

BANANAS: A CLOSER LOOK AT TOXIC TRADE ...................................................................................................... 20Environmental Degradation ............................................................................................................................ 20Deforestation, loss of biodiversity ..................................................................................................................... 20Heavy pesticide use ............................................................................................................................................... 21Toxic wastes and contamination ...................................................................................................................... 21Labour Issues ......................................................................................................................................................... 21Worker Health ..................................................................................................................................................... 22Worker Rights ...................................................................................................................................................... 23

SPOTLIGHT ON NAFTA: THE EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE ON WORKERS IN MEXICO ...................................... 24SPOTLIGHT ON STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS (SAPS) ...................................................................... 25 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................................ 26

Aisle 3: Biodiversity .............................................................................30BIODIVERSITY: HOW MUCH WE HAVE LOST ............................................................................................................ 30

Why We’re Losing It ............................................................................................................................................. 31 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Aisle 4: Biotechnology .......................................................................... 34BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING 101 ................................................................................................ 34WHY DO WE NEED GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS? .................................................................................... 35WHY ARE PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS? ........................................... 38MONSANTO ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40WHAT PLANTS ARE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED? ..................................................................................................41WHY AREN’T GMOS LABELLED? .................................................................................................................................. 43 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................................... 44

Aisle 5: The Meat Market .................................................................... 48ANIMAL ABUSE................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Crowding ............................................................................................................................................................. 49To the Slaughterhouse ...................................................................................................................................... 49Sick Animals ......................................................................................................................................................... 50

YOU ARE WHAT THEY EAT ............................................................................................................................................ 50Antibiotics ............................................................................................................................................................. 50Something Fishy? ................................................................................................................................................ 50Hormones ............................................................................................................................................................... 51Toxins ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ............................................................................................................................................. 52World Hunger ...................................................................................................................................................... 52Desertification ....................................................................................................................................................... 52Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................................................................... 52Walkerton tragedy ............................................................................................................................................. 53

SPOTLIGHT ON WALKERTON ........................................................................................................................................ 53 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................................ 54

Aisle 6: Additives ................................................................................ 58GOT ANYTHING TO ADD? ................................................................................................................................................ 58THE 10 MOST QUESTIONABLE FOOD ADDITIVES ..................................................................................................... 58 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................................ 59

Aisle 7: Corporate Control ..................................................................62CORPORATIONS CONTROL WHAT WE CONSUME .................................................................................................. 62CORPORATE POWER ....................................................................................................................................................... 62CORPORATE PROFILES .................................................................................................................................................... 63ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................................................. 71

Appendix 1: How To Lead a Supermarket Tour ................................. 73FACILITATING A TOUR ...................................................................................................................................................... 73

Some Suggestions for Facilitating a Tour ........................................................................................................ 73Preparing for a Tour .......................................................................................................................................... 73

SAMPLE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 75Making a Banana Split ...................................................................................................................................... 75 Let’s Go Shopping! A Window on Corporate Concentration ................................................................... 76

Appendix 2: Grocery Store Profiles ..................................................... 77

Appendix 3: Sample Letters ................................................................ 81

Appendix 4: Which Brands Claim to be GE-Free? ............................. 85

INTRODUCTION

Eaten Anything Lately?

What strikes you as you enter the brightly lit environment of the supermarket? As the clean aisles,the colourful arrays of fruits and vegetables, the full shelves and the cool frozen foods stand mutelybefore you? What messages do these potential breakfasts, lunches and dinners impart?

Twenty years ago, the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) produced an educationalbooklet, the Supermarket Tour, which told a story about store-bought foods that many of us had neverheard before. Showing connections among food issues, the popular Supermarket Tour has since beenupdated twice to incorporate more recent developments in Canada's ever growing and changing foodsystem.

Using the supermarket as a classroom, the Tour asks questions about the products on supermarketshelves, providing a focus for discussion on a wide range of food issues, from labour to labeling, frommarketing to genetic manipulation, from pesticides to profit. The information in this booklet is by no meanscomplete or exhaustive; instead, it is meant to highlight some key issues and to serve as a starting pointfor further research and education.

The information presented here is arranged in more or less the same order you would move throughthe store on a tour. Each chapter is a self-contained unit, though, to give you the freedom to change theorder, do the tour in several sessions, or leave sections out. If you are planning to take a group on asupermarket tour, please refer to the section entitled "How To Lead a Supermarket Tour" (Appendix 1)for some helpful guidelines.

There is a lot of information here, which may seem overwhelming at times-but don't give up! Eachchapter concludes with a list of alternatives-realistic ways to protect yourself from the risks of the foodsystem, to make your voice heard and to help bring about local and global changes.

What follows is the latest version of the Supermarket Tour that anyone can use to educate them-selves and others about food. If you eat, the Supermarket Tour is for you!

Aisle 1

The Food System

The Supermarket Tour 8

AISLE 1: THE FOOD SYSTEM

GOING TO MARKET

Our food system has changed tremendously in the past 50 years, keeping in step with thepace of technological “progress.” These changes, for the most part, have been made without ourapproval or even our awareness. Yet they can significantly affect our health, our environment andour values.

In the past, a shopping trip would include going to the butcher, the baker and several otherindependent specialty shops. Shop owners knew their customers and would have been concernedabout getting them the best quality food possible. The system now is much less personal. Thesedays we go to one-stop supermarket chains that offer everything, from baked goods to TVdinners — even non-food items, from medicine to photographic services. Although we canappreciate the convenience offered by supermarkets, one has to ask: what has been compro-mised?

The food industry would like us to believe that nothing has been compromised. However,this booklet provides information suggesting that the system we have now is not a healthy one.

The benefits of the system are in some cases illusory, or they have beenachieved only at a terrible cost, including producer exploitation, loss ofcontrol, environmental degradation, consumer manipulation, decliningfood quality, and the destruction of our national food security.1

Throughout the Tour we will be looking at how these costs have been incurred. This “aisle”(or chapter) in particular will focus on the loss of control and the consumer manipulation thatoccurs inside the supermarket. When you set foot in a supermarket, are you aware of whatyou’re buying into?

OUTSIDE THE STORE ENTRANCE

Who’s the Boss?

Take a few moments outside the supermarket to review where you are shopping. Whoowns the store? What other stores do they own? Where do they operate? [See Appendix 2 forGrocery Store Profiles.]

Especially in urban centres, there seem to be several choices about where to do yourshopping. This choice is somewhat illusory, at least in terms of who profits most. For example,whether you are shopping at “no frills,” Fortinos or Your Independent Grocer, you are shopping ata store owned by Loblaws Companies Ltd., a division of George Weston Ltd., which makes $21billion annually in sales. With revenues going to a single corporation, consumer choice is morelimited than it may initially appear.

9 Aisle 1: The Food System

Vertical Integration

Another form of corporate control and restriction of choice is found in the food productsthemselves. Transnational corporations typically seek “vertical integration,” a process wherecompanies take over all levels of a given industry. For instance, companies seek to control every-thing including farm equipment, seeds, fertilizers, animals, meat processing and packaging. Theend result is that a few companies dominate the entire industry, a condition known as “oligopoly.”Consumers have less real choice, and do not receive the benefits of real competition.

Later on in the Tour (See Aisle 7), we will be looking at corporate concentration in moredetail as it relates directly to the food products we buy.

We’ve Come a Long Way

Many of the issues we will be looking at throughout the Tour depend on a phenomenoncalled distancing. This is when consumers are increasingly alienated from their food sources.Nowadays, most people in the city don’t know where their food came from, where it was grown,how it was produced and by whom, what has been added or taken away from it or where ittravelled to get to their dinner table.

Distancing from field to table creates opportunities to extract money from the system and togain control over aspects of it. Distancing therefore represents a shift in values from the nutritionof the food itself to the potential profit to be gained by “adding value” to foods. Forms of thisinclude:

� breeding or engineering “shelf life” into food

� increasing the physical distance between where the food is grown and where it is soldand eaten

� processing raw food into a different end-product

� preserving and packaging foods for longer storage and easier shipping and handling

� urbanizing populations so that fewer people have any connection to the rural farmexperience.2

“In the industrialized world… it is hard to have any sense at all of whereour food comes from, how it gets to us, or what happens to it along theway. Rather than being a focal point of our culture, food has become forus a business activity in which we participate as workers, customers, orconsumers—and, one must add, owners and corporate shareholders.”3

— Brewster Kneen


INSIDE THE SUPERMARKET ENTRANCE

Consumer Manipulation

It’s time to enter the store and feast your eyes on the abundance, your ears on the Muzak…and to pause and consider the environment you have just walked into.

As soon as you enter a supermarket, you are being manipulated.

After all, this is not a neutral space—it is a space designed to make it easy for you to spendmoney. Did you know that you, the average Canadian, are most likely to shop on a Thursday orFriday afternoon, be in the store for 44 minutes, purchase 28 items and spend $84?4

A great deal of research is invested in the manipulation of consumer habits, so that in thedesign of a supermarket and the placement of products, consumer preferences are not alwaysthe highest priority.

If you’ve often wondered how on earth you spent so much money on groceries when youonly meant to buy a few items, here’s why. The following are a few notable tricks of the trade, alldesigned to make you spend more money than you intended:

The Lure

Why do you choose one supermarket over another? Many supermarkets go beyond lowfood prices to attract customers. Current trends include:

� Promoting and rewarding customer loyalty with such programs as Air Miles, Clubpoints, and “free” groceries.

� Providing non-grocery services like wine stores, film-processing, and banking at lowcosts (which are made up by other purchases customers might not have intended tomake).

� One-stop shopping: This is especially characteristic of “hypermarkets” such as Costco,but it is becoming increasingly popular with other supermarkets. By making moreproducts available, supermarkets can eradicate smaller competitors and lure moreconsumers through the convenient nature of their operation. Such stores can sell avariety of non-food items including clothing, prescription drugs, gasoline and audio/visual equipment.

“From the freshest produce, to toys and children’s wear, expansiveSuperstores provide the ultimate in one-stop shopping.”

– Loblaw Companies5


Entrances

How many entrances are there to your supermarket? Many stores have only one entranceso they can control where a consumer starts shopping. Staple items are spread throughout thestore to encourage the consumer to pass through most sections of the store.

� Left to RightMost consumers are right-handed and are therefore inclined to move ina right-handed direction, according to Design Forum. A good way toincrease sales would therefore be to “put the store’s most frequentlyvisited department furthest from the entrance and then build a righthand loop pattern that leads to it naturally, but passes through areas ofspecials and high-profit merchandise.”6

Once inside, supermarket planners like to place specialty items at store entrances, especiallysince you are likely to spend more money at the beginning of your shopping trip than at the end.Often plants, wines, gourmet food and candy are placed at the entrances, in the hopes that youwill make an impulse buy.

Also, end-of-aisle displays are considered prime selling locations because consumers passby them more frequently than they do items placed in the middle of an aisle. These displays areoften used to feature new products—don’t assume they are always sale items!

Music or Muzak

The barely noticeable background music in a supermarket is likely programmed to make youspend more money. Music programmers choose popular tunes and analyze them according tobeats per minute, style, chart position, emotional content, political content, and the age group towhich a track will appeal.7 They then modify the songs. For example, they might remove extremedynamics, sudden key changes or improvisations, or any other feature that might momentarilydistract the listener.8 The new tracks are then played in a sequence that is intended to have acalculated effect on the mood of the listener. Sometimes, promotional messages are also playedbetween musical selections.

Muzak, Inc., the most successful company to create and market programmed music,knows that “sixty-six per cent of all buying decisions are made after the consumer enters thesupermarket.”9 In response, Muzak’s company website tells business owners:

“What does that mean for you? Put simply, you have a tremendous opportunity to describeproducts or services to people who had no interest in them before they walked through your door.Muzak’s In-Store Marketing allows you to speak to your target audience subtly, yet convincingly.Blended seamlessly with appropriate music, our customized messages have been proven toincrease sales.”10

Designed to reduce stress, improve morale and delay fatigue, Muzak is not meant to catchthe attention of the consumer. Rather, it is a subliminal anesthetic made to relax the consumer andinvite him or her to shop longer.


“What is retailing, other than manipulative?… We are a retail organization.We are there to manipulate people.”

– Michael Clark, Managing Director, Muzak UK11

Produce Section

No one likes their bananas bruised or their strawberries smushed, so it makes sense to buyproduce at the end of a shopping trip, right?

However, because produce is perishable, supermarkets want to get rid of it quickly. Again,since consumers tend to spend more money at the beginning of their shopping trip than at the end,produce sales are markedly higher when it is placed at the beginning of the store. Therefore,fresh fruits and vegetables are usually located in the first aisle.

Shelf Space

Competition for shelf space is fierce. Thousands of new products fight to get onto super-market shelves each year — so if you do see a new product, it’s likely that the manufacturer hadto pay to get it there. Retailers don’t want to risk replacing a tried and true product with one newto the market, so they protect themselves by providing shelf space in exchange for discounts,favourable payment terms and a guarantee that the manufacturer will heavily advertise theirproduct.12

In 1987, manufacturers paid Canadian retailers an estimated $2 billion in shelf allowances,which added 10% to shoppers’ food bills.13 This only adds to the monopoly larger corporationshave on grocery store products, as smaller manufacturers with smaller budgets have a moredifficult time competing.

Product Placement

Shelving strategies also come into play when arranging products. Products placed at eyelevel tend to sell better than similar products at different heights. Most people don’t even look at aproduct that is 40 cm (16 in.) or less from the floor.14

Sugar cereals are placed lower on shelves so kids can see them. As well, if cereal is ar-ranged by type, instead of by brand name, sales drop by five per cent. In the same way, soupcans are not arranged alphabetically because sales would drop six per cent if they did.15 Havingto scan the soup display forces consumers to look through all the varieties instead of just the onesthey were going to buy, increasing the likelihood of impulse buys.

Stores will also employ a “boutiquing” technique, where products like barbecue sauce arenext to the meat section, or bread is found at the deli counter. Often more profitable items will beplaced around staple items. And of course, all this is designed to have you make an impulse buy.


Advertising & Packaging

Part of your grocery bill includes money spent by manufacturers on advertising and packag-ing designed to win your shopping dollar. Note, for example, the amounts spent on advertising in1997 by the following food manufacturers:16

Proctor & Gamble Company $2.74 billion USD

Phillip Morris Company $2.14 billion USD

PepsiCo $1.24 billion USD

A typical grocery store carries over 12,000 products. The typical consumer sees less than athousand of these. Adding to this that 75 to 80 per cent of all brand decisions are made right inthe store, and that this brand selection takes about seven seconds, you can see how importanteye-catching packaging is to a manufacturer.17

� Right to Left“Retailers often place in-store labels to the left of brand-name productsbecause the eye, trained by reading, naturally shifts left. The thinking isthat price-conscious consumers will notice the private label is cheaperand as visually appealing as the name brand, and buy it.”18

ALTERNATIVES

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of being manipulated by the corporate food system,here are some practical suggestions for reducing its influence on you:

� Stick to a list.The best way to avoid impulse buying is to make a shopping list, and stick to it!

� Step into smaller shops.Small shops and specialty stores generally cannot afford the strategies used bysupermarkets to boost sales. As a result, they are much more straightforward,customer-oriented, and tend to be more community-based.

� Join a food co-op.There is likely a food co-operative in your area. A co-operative is an independentassociation made up of people who want to achieve a common goal through ademocratically controlled enterprise. All members of a co-op have a say in how theorganization is run, so you are not reduced to being a nameless consumer. Buying fromfood co-ops usually means that you are supporting smaller, local enterprises andorganic food businesses.


Endnotes1 Philip White, The Supermarket Tour: A Handbook for Education and Action (Toronto: OPIRG, 1990), 1-2.2 Ibid., 39.3 Ibid., 40.4 Canadian Grocer Executive Report (Toronto: Maclean Hunter, 1997), 9.5 Loblaw Companies, Annual Report, 1994, 18.6 Lee Carpenter, “Eight Sure Ways to Drive Customers Out of Your Store,” Retail Merchandising 39, 10 (October 1987): 3,

quoted by White, The Supermarket Tour, 14.7 Rick Poynor, “Muzak” 2wice Magazine: Uniform, Winter 1997, <www.2wice.org/~uniform/muza.html> (19 June 2000).8 Simon Jones and Thomas Schumacher, “Muzak: On Functional Music and Power” Critical Studies in Mass Communication (June

1992): 156-169.9 Muzak, “Muzak is Messaging,” Muzak Home Page, 1999, <www.muzak.com> (19 June 2000).10 Ibid.11 Quoted by Rick Poynor, “Muzak.”12 Steve Brearton, “Grocery-store Confidential,” Toronto Life Magazine, September 1997, 15.13 Robert Matas, “Stocking Shelves Has a Hidden Cost,” Globe and Mail, 28 February 1987, A1, cited in White, The Supermarket

Tour, 26.14 Tom Eklof, “Triggering More Sales Through POP, Progressive Grocer 67, 9 (September 1988): 19.15 Brearton, “Grocery-store Confidential,” 14.16 “The Billion Dollar Ad Spenders,” Adbusters 24 (Winter 1999): 12.17 Thomas Pigeon, Jean Pierre Lacroix, Steve Candib, Ed Shikatani, and Shelley Marchant, “Marketplace Packaging Strategies

[Special Report]” Canadian Packaging 50 (November 1997): 13-16.18 Brearton, “Grocery-store Confidential,” 15.

Aisle 2

Produce


AISLE 2: PRODUCE

POISON & POVERTY

Take some time to wander through the produce section. Pay special attention to where thefruits and vegetables were produced. Is most of the produce imported or local? What sort ofinformation is on labels? How fresh do you think the food is? Do you know what is locally inseason? Is there an organic section?

We, the Canadian public, know very little about where our food comes from. But with thegrowth of the “global village” and global interdependence, we have to realize that the choices wemake about the food we buy affects people all over the world. This section looks at the impor-tance of knowing the conditions under which our food is produced, highlighting consequences toour health, the environment and labour in developing countries.

PESTICIDES

Most of us like to think our produce is fresh and nutritious. However, given the state ofmodern agriculture, you are probably eating several different synthetic chemicals regularly.Pesticides are present, to some degree, in most of our foods. Whether you’re eating a peanutbutter sandwich, spaghetti or fruit salad, you may be biting into pesticides at every meal.

Pesticides are chemicals designed to kill organisms regarded as pests, including weeds,insects, fungi, spiders, worms, mice, algae, mites and snails. They often kill several non-targetplants and animals as well. Pesticides are also used to improve the appearance of produce and toprotect it from bruising and spoiling.1

Pesticides are usually sprayed or dusted onto plants and seeds, or injected into the soil.They are applied to crops used for human and animal consumption. This means that we can beexposed to pesticide residues in two ways: directly from produce (and processed foods) orindirectly through animal products.

WHY WORRY ABOUT PESTICIDES?

Pesticides are designed to be toxic. It doesn’t really make sense to believe they will nothave a negative effect on the human body. Government and corporate testing agencies assumethat pesticide residues are present in such small doses that they will not have any significanteffect in humans. As we will see, there are severe limitations to this kind of thinking.

17 Aisle 2: Produce

Health Effects

Many pesticides that are currently used are known to have one or more of the followingeffects on humans and animals:

� Carcinogenic (cause cancer) (e.g. Captan, 2,4-D)

� Cause birth defects (e.g. Diazinon)

� Damage reproductive system (e.g. Carbaryl)

� Interfere with hormones (e.g. Methoxychlor)

� Damage brain and nervous system (e.g. Methyl Parathion)

� Damage immune system2 (e.g. Dieldrin)

Embryonic and Fetal Development: Recent studies show that extremely small quantities ofchemicals that disrupt hormones can cause all kinds of problems in the womb. During thissensitive and critical period, hormone disrupters can seriously threaten a baby’s developmentwith lifelong consequences. In animals, hormone disrupters are known to “derail sexual develop-ment, creating intersex individuals that are neither male nor female… sabotage fertility, erodeintelligence, undermine the immune system, and alter behaviour.”3

Children: Risks from pesticide exposure are especially high for children. Children eat morefood, drink more water and breathe more air per kilogram of body weight than do adults. Aswell, pesticides are likely to have a greater impact on children because their tissues and organsare still developing and growing, and their metabolic rate is higher than that of adults.4

Government Standards

Around the world, 100,000 synthetic chemicals are now on the market, with 1,000 newchemicals being introduced each year.5 At this rate, it is impossible for each chemical to beadequately tested. General toxicity tests are usually done on lab animals over short periods oftime, and with chemicals in isolation. These test standards do not take into consideration:

� The effects of long-term exposure to a chemical (many chemicals are stored and buildup in body fat for years)

� Different sensitivities and safety standards for children or fetuses (tests focus on thetolerance of the “average” adult; children and fetuses are particularly sensitive tochemicals)

� The effect of pesticides in combination with other chemicals (since we are usuallyexposed to several chemicals at a time — from food, water, lawns, air, etc.)

Since governments have accepted these loose standards of testing, it is not surprising thatsome pesticides, such as DDT and Methyl Bromide, have been in use since the 1940s and thenbanned much later (in Canada, DDT sales were permissible until 1990, and Methyl Bromide isto be phased out by 2005).6


The government assumes that synthetic chemicals are innocent until proven guilty, and notthe other way around. In many cases, the discoveries that certain chemicals have very negativeeffects on the human body and the environment have been quite accidental. If we still do notknow what the effects of these chemicals will be on us and our children, we are essentiallyparticipating in a large-scale experiment when we eat food, drink water, or breathe air that hasbeen exposed to pesticides.

An Apple a Day May Not Keep the Doctor Away

According to numerous studies and tests performed in the United States, pesticide residuesare present in many of our foods. (U.S. statistics are used due to information availability, but thisdata is relevant to Canadians because a large proportion of the produce section is “product of theU.S.A.”) Many of these pesticides, known to cause negative effects, are regularly eaten bychildren.

� In the U.S., 20 million children fiveand under eat an average of eightpesticides a day, every day—a total ofmore than 2,900 pesticide exposuresper child per year, from food alone.

� Between 1992 and 1996, pesticideconcentrations increased for sevenout of eight foods highly consumedby children, especially apples andpeaches.

� Pesticide use in the U.S. has increasedby eight per cent (60 million pounds)since 1989.7

19 Aisle 2: Produce

A recent survey of U.S. produce has determined the 10 most contaminated and least con-taminated foods on the market:

Source: Environmental Working Group.Complied from USDA and FDA pesticide residue data 1992-1997.13

Keep in mind that this data will be different for produce available in Canada. Also, theranking of foods is always changing. Consult the Environmental Working Group for updates at<www.ewg.org>.

Pesticides can be found lingering in almost any food product, from fruit to bread to meat. Ifyou would like to find out what pesticides you may have eaten lately, visit the EnvironmentalWorking Group Supermarket at <www.foodnews.org>.

Post Harvest Treatments: The shiny red apples in your supermarket disguise anothertoxic secret. Although we expect fruits and vegetables to be fresh and unaltered, many undergo“post harvest treatments” and contain several additives.

“By the time an ordinary apple reaches the fresh produce shelf, it has beendipped in fungicide, bathed in chlorine, scrubbed with detergent and polishedwith wax.”14

Waxed and/or shellacked fruits and vegetables include apples, avocados, bell peppers,cantaloupes, cucumbers, eggplant, grapefruit, lemons, limes, melons, nectarines, oranges, pas-sion fruit, peaches, pineapples and squash.15 The wax may contain fungicides, bacteriacides,colouring agents and ripening inhibitors. Grocery stores do not advise customers to peel theirproduce even though these waxes are fat-soluble, which means they stay in our bodies andaccumulate over time.16 The only safe method of removing all the wax is to peel your fruits andvegetables, thus sacrificing many of the nutrients, although a mild detergent or non-toxic pro-duce wash may remove most of the wax and some of the external pesticide residues.

RankMOST

Contaminated FoodsLEAST

Contaminated Foods

1 Apples Corn

2 Spinach Cauliflower

3 Peaches Sweat Peas

4 Pears Asparagus

5 Strawberries Broccoli

6 Grapes (Chile) Pineapple

7 Potatoes Onions

8 Red Raspberries Bananas

9 Celery Watermelon

10 Green Beans Cherries (Chile)


Double Standard: Industrialized countries generally have higher standards for approvingpesticides than non-industrialized countries. For example, at least 32 pesticides authorized foruse in Mexico are banned in other countries.17

Even if a pesticide is banned for use in Canada, we can still import foods that have beentreated with that pesticide in another country. The Food and Drug Regulations tolerate limitedamounts of these banned pesticide residues so that we can continue to import produce from othercountries.18 You may be exposed to banned pesticides when you bite into food from another partof the world!

It is also worth noting that laws in the largest pesticide-making countries (e.g. U.S., France,Germany, Britain, Switzerland) allow pesticides banned in their own countries to be producedand exported. It is commonly the people in developing countries who are exposed to the devas-tating effects of these pesticides.

BANANAS:

A CLOSER LOOK AT TOXIC TRADE

Each one the same size, the same colour, a jewel among homogenous industrial fruits, wecan only wonder if it is the sweet taste or the inexpensive price that has made the banana Cana-da’s favourite fruit. Canadians consume an average of 13 kg of bananas each year, paying aslittle as $0.29 per pound for the yellow treasures merely labeled “From The Tropics.”19

In 1996, Canada imported almost a billion dollars worth of fruit and fruit products fromsouthern countries, with bananas making up 25 per cent of that total.20 While “picture-perfect”bananas, melons, mangos, pineapples and grapes have become commonplace year-round inCanadian grocery stores, the distance between us and the producing countries makes it easy tokeep us in the dark about the environmental and social impacts of “exotic fruit” agriculture.

Environmental Degradation

In getting those perfect, identical bananas from the South to your supermarket, the environ-ment has suffered every step of the way. Without even taking into account the environmentalcosts of transporting and preserving the fruits from the plantations to the supermarket, let’s lookat the kind of damage that is done on the plantation itself.

Deforestation, loss of biodiversity

In Costa Rica, for example, large tracts of rainforest land have been cleared to make roomfor banana plantations. Tropical rainforests are incredibly diverse areas; a single hectare ofprimary tropical forest contains 100 to 250 or more species of trees alone.21 When these forestsare cleared to grow only bananas, all of this plant diversity is lost, and the diverse wildlife alongwith it.

21 Aisle 2: Produce

Heavy pesticide use

When a huge plot of land is used to grow only one crop, the natural checks and balancesare no longer in place; the loss of diversity usually leads to increasing pest and soil problems.Instead of hitting the root of the problem, producers and farmers tend to rely more heavily onchemicals such as pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

Banana plantations are an extreme example of this. Central American banana plantationsapply about 30 kg of active chemicals per hectare per year—more than 10 times the average forintensive agriculture in industrialized countries.22 Developing countries are subject to harsherqualities and quantities of pesticides because of lax government regulations. It is estimated thatup to a third of the pesticides on the market in developing countries do not meet internationalstandards.23

Many of the pesticides used on banana plantations are in the most or second-most danger-ous categories according to the World Health Organization, and several are among the “DirtyDozen,” a list of the most hazardous pesticides according to the Pesticide Action Network in SanFrancisco. The strength of these poisons is evident on banana plantations, where “there are nobird songs or animal calls because there is no longer any wildlife.”24

Toxic wastes and contamination

For each ton of bananas exported from Costa Rica, three tons of waste are created in theforms of excess pesticides, pesticide containers, rejected fruit, tree stems, leaves, and plasticbags. For each hectare of bananas grown, 67 kg of plastic bags are thrown away.25 These bags,infused with pesticides, are used to prevent rotting and to protect bananas from insects. Eventu-ally, these bags end up in drainage ditches, to be washed into streams and rivers, contaminatingthe water with pesticides and building up solid waste.26 Some of these bags, laden with toxicpesticides, have been found in the stomachs of dead sea turtles.27

Pesticides do not stay in one place. Less than 0.1 per cent of pesticides actually stay whereapplied. The other 99.9 per cent contaminate surface and ground water, air, other soils, and otherfoods.28 Pesticides and organic wastes are blamed for killing 90 per cent of the coral reefs off theCaribbean coast of Costa Rica.29

“[T]he existence of this huge monoculture… has resulted in a concentrationof the best lands in the hands of large banana producers and impoverishmentof much of the population. It has created a food security crisis… anddestroyed thousands of acres of primary forests.”30

Labour Issues

How often do you bite into a fruit and think about the hundreds of people who worked toproduce it? Probably not very often. And yet it’s the labourers on the farms and plantations whoare most affected in this production line—they put in the bulk of the work, take on most of therisks, and suffer most of the consequences.


Worker Health

The above-mentioned environmental hazards affect the workers most. Although pesticidesdo come with safety regulations, many farm managers do not train workers in the proper han-dling of chemicals, nor do they provide protective clothing, in order to lower production costs.31

Aerial fumigation, a process whereby pesticides are sprayed by an airplane over the planta-tion, occurs while workers are still in the fields, maximizing their exposure to poisons.

Thousands of cases of pesticide poisoning are reported each year—but the actual number isbelieved to be much higher, since not all incidents are reported. Also, reports do not considerlong-term or chronic repercussions such as asthma, allergies, cancer and reproductive problemscaused by pesticide poisoning.

The World Health Organization estimates that pesticides are responsible for the poisoningof at least 3 million people and the deaths of 200,000 people each year. Agricultural workers,who are often poor, are at the highest risk.32

“What level of ignorance has the civilized man reached to cultivate his foodwith poison? And how many more of us will have to die quickly or slowlybefore these agrochemicals are banned? Or do you want to kill us?”

- In a 1996 letter by representatives of the Huichol people,calling for the elimination of pesticide use in Mexico.33

BANNED HERE...

...WHAT ABOUT THERE?

DBCP is a pesticide that causes cancer, birth

defects and sterility. DBCP was banned from use

in the United States in 1977, but was still used in

developing countries, especially on banana

plantations. As a result, thousands of workers were

sterilized. In 1997, 20,000 workers from banana

plantations in Latin America, the Caribbean,

Africa and Southeast Asia successfully sued nine

American companies, including Chiquita and

Dole, for their irresponsible use of DBCP.34 While

companies like Chiquita no longer use DBCP, they

simply substitute it with other harmful pesticides.

23 Aisle 2: Produce

Worker Rights

The Cost of a Banana

Distribution & Retail

34%

Taxes15% Ripening

Process5%

Profit17%

Import Licenses

9%

International Transport

11%

Export Costs4%

Producer5%

Plantation workers are paid very little. The average wage on one Guatemalan plantation is$0.63 an hour, or $28 a week.35 In fact, when we buy bananas, over 90 per cent of our moneystays in North America, and only five per cent goes to the producer, who then has to distributewages to the workers.36

Why do they accept these low-paying terms? One immediate reason is that there are moreworkers than there are jobs, so people are often forced to accept any job they can find. In thisway, banana companies can exploit their workers, letting them choose between no wages orexploitative wages. Workers have no job security or regular employment, an uncertain state thatcan lead to increased alcoholism, abuse, drug use, prostitution, violence and crime.37

Labour unions, which work toward fairer wages, medical provisions, and overall betterworking conditions, are strongly discouraged by Latin American governments and multinationalcorporations. These corporations prevent the formation of unions by splitting up workers to keeptheir numbers small and insignificant, putting together workers from different communities whodo not speak the same languages and who therefore cannot organize themselves into a union, orfiring workers who join unions.

NAFTA: The Effects of Free Trade on Workers in Mexico

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), came into effect on January 1, 1994. Theagreement was supposed to benefit Mexican fruit and vegetable producers by removing tariffs on thetrade of their agricultural products, making tomatoes and other produce more affordable for consumersin the North and increasing the profits of Mexican producers.

However, as in many parts of the world, fruit and vegetable production in Mexico dependslargely on the exploitation and poisoning of its labour force. Field workers, including women, childrenfrom indigenous communities, live in camps on or close to the fields and are not even given access tosafe, clean water. In a setting where workers die every season from pesticide poisonings, it seems that“farm workers, for the fruit and vegetable producers, are waste material… It may not be an exaggera-tion to say that a cow, for the producers, has more value than a farm worker.”38

Still, despite the situation described above, the production of such fruits and vegetables astomatoes, avocados and mangos has “won” under NAFTA due to increased exports from Mexico to theUnited States. Dare we ask who the “losers” are? The losers in this free trade game are the millions ofMexican families who have traditionally relied on maize (corn) production for their livelihoods. TheUnited States is the world’s largest maize producer, and its tariff-free dumping practices are threateningMexico’s food security and the survival of millions of small farmers.

Agricultural subsidies in Mexico fell drastically from 34 per cent of agricultural production in1994 to only three per cent in 1998.39 Around the same time, agricultural subsidies in the U.S. tripledbetween 1996 and 1999.40 This is ironic, considering part of the neoliberal agenda promoted by theU.S. through NAFTA calls for the elimination of subsidies, since they supposedly “distort” prices.

The result is an abundance of U.S. corn at very low prices. When this corn enters the Mexicanmarket, Mexican corn loses out to its U.S. competition. Mexican farmers have sold their corn at 1,300pesos per ton for the last three years, the lowest price in the history of the country, but U.S. corncontinues to flood in at 1,000 pesos per ton.41

Although the phase-out of tariffs for corn and beans was supposed to occur gradually over 15years, the Mexican government has not abided by this agreement and has allowed millions of tons oftariff-free corn imports from the U.S. into Mexico. In 1996, when the quota for tariff-free corn importswas set at 2.65 million tons, the Mexican government authorized the imports of 5.8 million tons;similarly, in 1998 when the quota was set at 2.8 million tons, 5.03 million tons were imported tariff-free, contravening the accords reached under NAFTA.42

“As a result of [NAFTA], the proportion of Mexico’s food supply that isimported has increased from 20 percent in 1992 to 43 percent in 1996.After 18 months of NAFTA, 2.2 million Mexicans have lost their jobs, and40 million have fallen into extreme poverty. One out of two peasants isnot getting enough to eat. As Victor Suares has stated, ‘Eating morecheaply on imports is not eating at all for the poor in Mexico’”43

NAFTA’s quick implementation of trade liberalization supplies the North with cheap fruits andvegetables, especially in the winter months. But while we benefit from NAFTA, the people of ruralMexico are being hurt, poisoned by pesticides and stripped of their food security.

SPOTLIGHT ON NAFTA

Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs)

In the 1970s and 1980s, many countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean facedintense debt crises, and they were forced to turn to international financial organizations for help.The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and commercial banks imposed eco-nomic reforms—called structural adjustment programs (SAPs)—on indebted countries, in returnfor much-needed aid.

New loans and aid are given to developing nations only if they have adhered to SAPreforms. In addition, most donor countries, including Canada, also hold off their assistance untila country has accepted these reforms, thus leaving indebted countries with nowhere else to turnfor help.

In general, SAPs enforce a variety of economic measures, which include:

� increasing production of cash crops and export commodities;

� liberalizing trade to attract foreign investment;

� reducing government spending by cutting agricultural subsidies, cutting socialprograms such as health care, education and housing, and privatizing governmententerprises.44

The IMF and the World Bank believe that a country’s wealth will “trickle-down” andeventually reach the poor. However, the suggested reforms hurt the poor much harder than therich through its deep cutbacks to social programs, drastic currency devaluation, and lack ofprotection from market competition.

Instead of assisting the poor, SAPs haveoftentimes contributed to more land being taken awayfrom peasants and indigenous people—who couldhave used the land to grow food and become self-reliant—to be given over to foreign entrepreneurs.

In the end, SAPs have only increased thedeveloping world’s dependence on the globaleconomy, imperiling local food security and further

SPOTLIGHT ON SAPS


exposing the land and the people to the environmental consequences of chemical-intensiveexport agriculture.45

ALTERNATIVES

At this stage, you may feel overwhelmed in knowing the many issues surrounding the foodyou eat. Here is a word of advice — start small. Instead of trying to change your entire lifestyleimmediately, or ignoring the information here because the issues seem so big, make smallchanges one step at a time. Be realistic about what you can handle for now, and stick with thatdecision for a while. Over time, as these changes become part of your everyday lifestyle, thechanges will not seem so overwhelming.

Here are some steps you can take to reduce your exposure to pesticides and to foods grownunder exploitative working conditions.

� Buy organic produce.Organic producers have to be certified by an independent agency. Some of thestandards for organic food production in Canada are:

· The land must be free of herbicides for at least three years· The land must be free of synthetic chemical fertilizers for two years· Only natural herbicides (e.g. plants that are toxic to other plants) may be used to

control plant diseases· Fields that are vulnerable to drifting chemicals from neighbouring farms will not

be certified.46

Organic produce from the U.S., if certified under the California Organic Foods Act of1990, is subject to similar standards. Make sure you see the logo of the certificationagency when you buy organic food. Organic produce often costs more than conven-tionally produced food, especially since organic growing is much more labour-inten-sive and not as heavily subsidized or supported by the government.

� Ask your supermarket to stock organic produce.Let the managers know there is a demand for organic food.

� Grow your own produce.If you have access to a plot of land, whether it’s your backyard or a communitygarden, try growing your own organic produce. It’s a good idea to test the soils fortoxins beforehand.

� Buy locally.Buying locally means that pesticides banned in Canada have never been sprayed onyour produce. Also, local foods tend to use less preserving agents or fungicides, suchas methyl bromide, since they don’t have so far to travel before being consumed. Theproduce is probably fresher and more nutritious; tomatoes gain 80 per cent of theirvitamin C from the time they turn pink to the time they turn red, and they lose thesenutrients almost as quickly once they’re picked.47 The less travel time involved, thefresher your food will be.

� Buy in season.In the same way, buying foods that are in season reduces the need for preservative

27 Aisle 2: Produce

chemicals. You can freeze or preserve fruits for use over the winter, and get creativewith the food that is actually available in your region.

� Try CSA.Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) is a program where people can support local,environmentally friendly farming while receiving high quality produce directly fromthe farm. When you buy shares of produce through CSA, you benefit from fresh foods(CSA programs are often organic), the farmers benefit because they gain 100 per centof your purchase, and the environment benefits due to the reduction or elimination ofsynthetic pesticide use. See <www.inforganics.com> to find the CSA in your area.

� Peel your fruits and vegetables.If you can’t make the switch to organic, you can peel your produce (sacrificing somenutrients) to avoid the extra chemicals, or at least wash produce thoroughly. Somepeople recommend washing fruits and vegetables in a mild solution of dish detergentand water or in commercial fruit and vegetable cleaners.

� Eat fewer pesticides.If you’re eating conventionally produced fruits and vegetables, try to eat less of thosethat are highly contaminated (see earlier chart). Especially if you are pregnant, andcannot switch to organic food, it is important to reduce your consumption of the morecontaminated foods.

� Don’t try this at home.Don’t use pesticides in the home and the garden. A study in the U.S. shows thatchildren are as much as six times more likely to get childhood leukemia whenpesticides are used in the home and the garden.48 By not using pesticides on yourlawn, you’ll be doing your family, your neighbourhood and the birds a big favour!

� Stay away from golf courses.Golf courses use at least four times more pesticides per acre of land than farmers doon their food crops49 — try to stay away from them. In the same way, put pressure onyour municipal government to stop using chemical pesticides in public areas, parks,and schools.

� Try to buy fair trade products.Fairly traded foods ensure that producers are paid a fair price for their work. They linkproducers more closely with consumers, reducing the need for middle people, andguaranteeing a minimum price to the workers. The International Fair Trade LabellingOrganization also requires certain environmental protection standards, including:

· the protection of natural areas for biodiversity;· policies and practices for the prevention of erosion and water pollution;· documentation, control and reduction of the use of pesticides and fertilizers;· control, reduction and composting of waste material; and· environmental education.50

Look for a fair trade label on produce, coffee, tea, paper products, and clothing.


Endnotes1 Pollution Probe, Additive Alert! What Have They Done To Our Food? (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1994), 99.2 Environmental Working Group, FoodNews Supermarket, <www.foodnews.org/supermarket.html> (27 June 2000).3 Theo Colborn, Dianne Dunamoski and John Peterson Myers, “Preface to Paperback Edition,” Our Stolen Future (New York: Plume,

1997), xvi.4 Katherine Davies, Pesticides and Your Child: An Overview of Exposures and Risks (Ottawa: Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, 1998),

14.5 Colborn, Dunamoski and Myers, Our Stolen Future, 138.6 Environment Canada, “Review and Confirmation,” Canada-Ontario Agreement Objective 2.1: Priority Pesticides, October 1996,

<www.on.ec.gc.ca/glimr/data/zero-discharge/chapter4.html> (4 July 2000); Corinna Gilfillan, Reaping Havoc: The True Cost of UsingMethyl Bromide on Florida’s Tomatoes (Washington, D.C.: Friends of the Earth, 1998).

7 Environmental Working Group, How ‘Bout Them Apples? Pesticides in Children’s Food Ten Years After Alar (Washington, D.C.:Environmental Working Group, 1999).

8 Richard Wiles, Kert Davies and Susan Elderkin, A Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, November 1995, <www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/Shoppers/Shoppers.html> (5 July 2000).

9 Jamie Liebman, “Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in California Strawberry Production,” The IPM Practitioner Monitoring the Field ofPest Management 16 (July 1994).

10 Corinna Gilfillan, Reaping Havoc.11 Ibid.12 Joshua Karliner, Alba Morales and Dara O’Rourke, The Bromide Barons: Methyl Bromide, Corporate Power and Environmental

Justice (San Francisco: Political Ecology Group and Transnational Resource and Action Centre, 1997), 5.13 Environmental Working Group, How ‘Bout Them Apples?14 Dee Kramer, “Out of Season,” Harrowsmith 83 (January/February 1989): 40, cited in White, The Supermarket Tour, 17.15 Pollution Probe, Additive Alert! 126.16 Philip White, The Supermarket Tour, 17.17 Fernando Bejarano, for Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México (RAPAM), Plaguicidas, <www.laneta.apc.org/emis/

sustanci/plaguici/plagui.htm> (23 August, 2000).18 Pollution Probe, Additive Alert! 113.19 Asoka Mendis and Caroline Van Bers, “Bitter Fruit: Attractive Supermarket Displays of Tropical Fruit Conceal Ugly Environmental and

Social Costs” Alternatives Journal 25 (Winter 1999): 18-19.20 Mendis and Van Bers, “Bitter Fruit,” 19.21 George Cox, Conservation Ecology: Biosphere & Biosurvival (Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown, 1993), 61.22 David Ransom, “Bananas—The Facts” New Internationalist, October 1999, 18.23 Nikki van der Gaag, “Pick Your Poison” New Internationalist, May 2000, 11.24 Foro Emaús, “The Price of Bananas: The Banana Industry in Costa Rica” Global Pesticide Campaigner 8 (March 1998): <www.igc.org/

panna/resources/_pestis/PESTIS980522.4.html> (12 July 2000).25 Mendis and Van Bers, “Bitter Fruit,” 20.26 Ibid.27 Andrew Wheat, “Toxic Bananas” Multinational Monitor 17 (September 1996): 11.28 Pollution Probe, Additive Alert!, 109.29 Mendis and Van Bers, “Bitter Fruit,” 20.30 Emaús, “The Price of Bananas.”31 Mendis and Van Bers, “Bitter Fruit,” 20.32 van der Gaag, “Pick Your Poison,” 10.33 Plaguicidas en México 1991-1998: Carpeta de Prensa, coordinator Patricia Díaz Romo, (Mexico: ITESO, 1999), 255.34 Mendis and Van Bers, “Bitter Fruit,” 20.35 David Ransom, “Into the Dead Zone” New Internationalist, October 1999, 12.36 Ransom, “Bananas—The Facts,” 18.37 Emaús, “The Price of Bananas.”38 Jorge Guillermo Cano, quoted by Armando Sepúlveda Ibarra, “Miles de Niños Trabajan y Mueren en los Campos de Sinaloa,” Excelsior,

16 February 1996.39 Angélica Enciso, “Por Reducción de Subsidios, Caída Anual de 1.57% del PIB Agropecuarios Desde 1995,” La Jornada, 22 February

1999, 15.40 Tim Weiner, “Congress Agrees to $7.1 Billion in Farm Aid,” New York Times, 14 April 2000, A18.41 Angélica Enciso, “La Tortilla, a $4 Desde Hoy,” La Jornada, 18 January 2000, 22.42 Enciso, “Caída Anual,” 15.43 Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000), 9.44 The Halifax Initiative, Background on Structural Adjustment Programmes, <www.web.net/~halifax/SAP/sap.htm> (8 August 2000).45 Mendis and Van Bers, “Bitter Fruit,” 18.46 Pollution Probe, Additive Alert! 124.47 Wayne Roberts, Rod MacRae and Lori Stahlbrand, Real Food For a Change (Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1999), 32.48 Sierra Club of Canada, Pesticide Facts, 1998, <www.sierraclub.ca/national/pest/pesticid.html> (13 July 2000).49 Colborn, Dunamoski, Myers, Our Stolen Future, 218.50 Fair Fruit Initiative, Fair Trade Bananas, 13 September 1999, <www.web.net/fairfruit/ftbananas.html> (13 July 2000).

Aisle 3

Biodiversity


AISLE 3: BIODIVERSITY

Have you ever wondered why supermarkets always store the same varieties of foods?Three kinds of rice, five kinds of apples, one kind of banana, three kinds of potatoes… You maybe surprised to learn that some species of foods consist of thousands of different varieties. But ifwe keep seeing the same varieties in each supermarket, what has happened to all the others?

BIODIVERSITY:

HOW MUCH WE HAVE LOST

“Diversity is the characteristic of nature and the basis of ecologicalstability. Diverse ecosystems give rise to diverse life forms, and to diversecultures. The co-evolution of cultures, life forms and habitats hasconserved the biological diversity on this planet.”1

Agriculture is thought to have begun in three different parts of the world, where wild grainswere brought under cultivation: in North Africa with wheat, barley and millet; in Central andSouth America with beans and corn; and in East Asia with rice.2 For centuries, people living inthese “centres of diversity” have used wild plant relatives with characteristics such as droughttolerance or insect resistance to constantly improve their cultivated crops. With each farmer ableto propagate slightly different strains, a vast number of plant varieties evolved from small farmsall over the world.3

The relatively recent rise of industrial agriculture has endangered the rich heritage ofplant and animal diversity.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that since 1900, approxi-mately 75 per cent of crop genetic diversity has been lost.4 The following are some indicators ofthe magnitude of our worldwide loss:

� In India, farmers had evolved 200,000 varieties of rice through innovative breedingpractices.5 However, over the past two decades, thousands of varieties have been lost,due in large part to the imposition of the Green Revolution and its hybrid seeds. Now,just 12 varieties dominate production.6

� Globally, of the 4000 breeds of livestock believed to exist, 27 per cent are at risk ofextinction. Five per cent of these breeds are lost every year—that is, almost one breedof cow, horse or pig is lost per week.7

� Approximately 70 per cent of the world’s marine species are fully exploited, depletedor in the process of recovering from over-fishing. One fifth of all freshwater fish areeither extinct or endangered.8

31 Aisle 3: Biodiversity

� By the year 1900, 7500 different varieties of apples grew in North America.9 Today,there remain only a few hundred varieties, and only about a dozen varieties of applesare commercially grown.

� Although there are 2000 species of potatoes, commercial production is almostcompletely restricted to just one species, solanum tuberosum. Twelve varieties of thisone species dominate 85 per cent of the U.S. potato harvest.10

WHY WE’RE LOSING IT

Agricultural biodiversity is critical to our global food security. Without it, we lose the basisfor improving pest resistance, disease resistance, flavour and other attributes in our food crops.The loss of agricultural biodiversity is largely a result of monoculture food production. During theGreen Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, a few high-yield varieties of grains replaced the vastquantities of traditional varieties. For example, in the Philippines, where thousands of traditionalrice varieties had once been cultivated, only two Green Revolution varieties took up 98 per centof the rice-growing land by the mid-1980s.11

This assault, which struck hardest during the Green Revolution and continues today with theGE revolution (see Chapter 4), has not only reduced genetic crop diversity, but has shifted thecontrol over production from farmers to multinational corporations. Since modern agriculturedepends on the purchase of external inputs, corporations who supply inputs such as seeds, fertiliz-ers and equipment have tremendous power in determining the fate of the agricultural industry.

This shift in control from farmers to corporations is evident in the seed industry, which cameinto being in the early 20th century as seed houses began to replace the seed-saving and breedingpreviously undertaken by individual farmers. With small seed companies not able to competeagainst larger ones, there is now a relatively small concentration of companies providing seeds forthe world’s farmers. In the U.S. and Canada alone, 125 seed companies have gone out of busi-ness since 1984, with many more having been bought out by pharmaceutical and chemical corpo-rations.12

When large corporations cut out the production of more obscure seeds for commerciallysuccessful varieties, biodiversity is at risk. One example of this is the recent announcement thatSeminis, the world’s largest vegetable seed corporation, is eliminating 2,000 varieties (or 25 percent) of its total product line to cut costs.13 Forgetting that for generations, farmers have pooledtheir knowledge to provide some of the most nutritious and durable crops, we risk irreversiblylosing the products of centuries of wisdom and ingenuity.


ALTERNATIVES

While there are hundreds of gene banks where scientists try to preserve endangered seeds,a more viable and sustainable alternative would be to empower farmers to conserve seeds andcarry on the long tradition of innovation in agriculture. The following are some ways to getinvolved with preserving the treasure that is the earth’s agricultural biodiversity:

� Support Seed Conservation.Campaigns such as the Seeds of Survival programme of the Unitarian ServiceCommittee Canada has worked with up to 20,000 traditional farmers in Ethiopia inrescuing indigenous seed varieties. Supporting such projects encourages farmersaround the world to preserve sustainable agricultural practices while ensuring globalfood security.

� Adopt a Plant and Save Your Seeds.Whether you’re a farmer or grow food on tiny plots of earth, you can learn correctseed-saving methods, plant endangered varieties and share your seeds with others. Formore information on seed-saving, contact any of the following groups:

• Seeds of Diversity CanadaBox 36 Stn. Q, Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7(905) 623-0353, [email protected], <www.seeds.ca>

• Linnaea Farm (a non-profit land trust with educational status)Box 98, Manson’s Landing, Cortes Island, BC V0P 1K0

• Seed Savers Exchange3076 North Winn Rd., Decorah, Iowa 52101 (319) 382-5990

• Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)110 Osborne St., Suite 202, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3L 1Y5

• The Garden InstituteBox 1406, 194-3803 Calgary Trail, Edmonton, Alberta T6J 5M8

• Unitarian Service Committee Canada56 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B1 (613) 234-6827

Endnotes1 Vandana Shiva, Monocultures of the Mind (London: Zed Books, 1993), 65.2 Bob Wildfong, “Saving Seeds” Alternatives Journal 25 (Winter 1999): 13.3 Ibid.4 Ibid.5 Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000), 7.6 International Development Research Council, Seeds of Change (Ottawa: National Film Board, 1993).7 Jy Chiperzak, “Old MacDonald Had a Farm, Eee eie eee eie oh-oh,” Alternatives Journal 25 (Winter 1999), 15.8 Hope Shand, “Bio-meltdown,” New Internationalist, March 1997, 22.9 Wildfong, “Saving Seeds,” 13.10 Brewster Kneen, From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System (Toronto: NC Press, 1993), 80.11 Shiva, Stolen Harvest, 80.12 Wildfong, “Saving Seeds,” 14.13 RAFI, “Earmarked for Extinction?” RAFI News, July 17, 2000, <www.rafi.org/web/news.shtml> (1 August 2000).

Aisle 4

Biotechnology

Can you find the

frankenfood?


AISLE 4: BIOTECHNOLOGY

CAN YOU FIND THE FRANKENFOOD?

Make your way over to the oil section, and look for any oil products that are labelled forgenetically modified contents. Though most of Canada’s canola crop is genetically engineered,you won’t find any such labels on canola oil or any other food product in the supermarket. Ge-netically modified crops, first planted in Canada in 1996, have quickly become part of our foodsystem. In 1999, a quarter of the corn and majority of the soybeans and canola grown in Canadawere GE strains.1 But grocery stores, government regulators and multinational corporations whoproduce genetically engineered (GE) seeds are now under fire from farmers, scientists andconsumers all over the world.

Because GE foods (also known as Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs) raise amyriad of health, ecological and ethical concerns, many citizens are demanding proper labelling ofGE foods leading to a ban. In this chapter you will find background information on GE foods, whypeople are concerned and ways in which you can join the movement toward a more healthy foodsystem.

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND

GENETIC ENGINEERING 101

Biotechnology: The business of creating new products from living organisms.2

Modern biotechnology is rapidly changing how we think about everything from food toillness to reproduction. The tools of biotechnology are used in areas such as agriculture, foodprocessing, pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostics, chemicals, textiles, household products, manu-facturing, environmental cleanup and criminal forensics.

Some claim that plant biotechnology is merely an extension of traditional breeding practices.It’s true that for many centuries, farmers have created new variations of plants through selectivebreeding techniques, but these were always created by crossing within the same species, follow-ing the natural laws of reproduction seeking expression of a characteristic already present withina species. The difference today is that scientists can use genetic engineering techniques toexchange genetic information between different species, by forcibly inserting a bacterial gene intocorn, or an anti-frost fish gene into a tomato. And it isn’t just one gene, it’s five: a start segment;promoter; transgene; marker; and end. Although foreign genes have intermingled across speciesbarriers through evolutionary time, when it happened, it was a point source, not on millions ofhectares simultaneously—the issue is scale. This is where the “traditional breeding” argumentfails and the GE food controversy begins.3

Genetic Engineering: One of the most recent developments of biotechnology, genetic

35 Aisle 4: Biotechnology

engineering involves a set of techniques for isolating, modifying, multiplying and recombininggenes from different organisms.4

Using genetic engineering techniques, scientists can manipulate an organism’s DNA—itsgenetic blueprint—to block or add certain traits. Genetic engineering usually involves isolating adesired gene—the segment of DNA that causes a particular trait—from humans, animals, in-sects, bacteria or plants, and adding it to the DNA of an entirely different species.

At present, genes inserted into various GE foods come from species such as viruses,bacteria, flounder, wasps and other plants and animals,5 thereby creating transgenic organisms.

Transgenic Organisms: Life forms that contain genes from different species.

Although genetic engineering techniques are promoted as being precise and exact, theprocess of forcible gene insertion into a higher organism (such as a plant) is random and un-repeatable. The “new” gene can end up anywhere. As a result of the randomness of insertion,transgenes interfere with the genetic expression of the plant’s normal genes.6

To see whether or not the procedure has worked, scientists will often attach an antibioticresistance marker to the “new” gene. A marker gene codes for antibiotic resistance. If a plantcell survives antibiotic treatment, it means that the antibiotic resistance marker and the attached“new” gene have successfully made their way into the plant DNA. So, antibiotic markers are justsimple selection tools--nothing to do with the intended traits.

When a transgenic organism is created, its seeds will contain the new genetic information aswell. Corporations patent these genes, turning the basis of life into yet another money-makingcommodity.

WHY DO WE NEED GENETICALLY

ENGINEERED FOODS?

The truth is there is no benefit from GE food. Food doesn’t taste better, last longer, ornourish us any better. Profit, not humanitarian benefit, is the bottom line when it comes to geneti-cally engineered foods.

The corporations selling GE seeds try to convince us that they are fulfilling a global need forincreased food production when they manufacture transgenic seeds. For example, Monsantoclaims:

Demand for food is increasing dramatically as the world’s populationgrows. Biotechnology contributes to our meeting this growing demandwithout placing even greater stress on our scarce farmland. It can helpus to grow better quality crops with higher yields while at the same timesustaining and protecting the environment.7


Let’s take a closer look at the claims made by Monsanto and other “life science” corporations.

Claim #1: Biotechnology will allow us to grow more andbetter food to feed the growing population of hungrypeople around the world.

Currently, more than 80 per cent of agricultural biotechnology research focuses on develop-ing herbicide-resistant and pest-resistant crops.8 Other research seems to be going in the direc-tion of delaying fruit ripening for a longer transport and shelf life, increasing the solids content oftomatoes for processing advantages and producing oils with lower saturated fat content.9 None ofthese “enhanced” food products are directed at improving the quality of foods for the hungry.

The recent development of Golden Rice, which includes beta-carotene (a building block forVitamin A) due to the spliced addition of bacterium and daffodil genes, is the first serious GE foodproduct that has any “improved” nutritional value. But are Golden Rice and other nutritionally“enhanced” foods the answer to solving the malnutrition problem?

Countless studies have shown that simply increasing yield will not feed the hungry. Peopleare hungry because they are poor. Genetic engineering will not change this. There is enough foodavailable for every human being to receive at least 3500 calories a day, well over the daily re-quirements.10 In addition, food production in the past 35 years has grown faster than the world’spopulation by about 16 per cent.11 Finally, a 1997 study found that in the developing world, 78 percent of all malnourished children under five live in countries with food surpluses.12 A more re-sponsible distribution of the world’s abundance of food would be a better way to ease the prob-lem of malnutrition, not turning to GE products.

The Green Revolution

The “Green Revolution,” a term coined in the 1960s, promised to end world hunger byplanting seeds that produced high yields. While the first Green Revolution obviously has not putan end to world hunger, the biotech industry is now claiming that its “Second Green Revolution”of GE foods will be able to save the world. If they had taken the time to consider why the firstrevolution failed, it would be clear that this second revolution is just another empty promise.

Green Revolution seeds were more responsive to controlled irrigation and synthetic fertiliz-ers, and these “miracle” seeds quickly spread throughout the developing world. And while yieldsdefinitely did go up, the number of hungry people in the world increased by 11 per cent between1970 and 1990 (excluding figures from China, data unavailable).13 In India, where the effects ofthe revolution were most evident, the government ended up trying to store millions of tons ofextra grain while 5,000 children were still dying every day due to malnutrition.14

Some of the problems with the Green Revolution included:

� Most of the world’s poor don’t own any land on which to increase their crop yields.

� Poorer farmers don’t have bargaining power or even good enough credit ratings to getdeals on farm inputs such as chemical fertilizers, tractors and other equipment.


Meanwhile, large farms that can afford all the necessary inputs get the highestrewards from using new technologies.

� The proposed technology was not ecologically sustainable—heavy irrigation and theuse of fertilizers and pesticides degraded the soil, and adapted super-pests eventuallydestroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of food.15

� Many of the Green Revolution crops did not take up important minerals such as ironand zinc from the soil. As a result, one-quarter of the earth’s population is believed tobe affected by “Green Revolution iron deficiency.”16

Take another look: a biotechnology-centered revolution does nothing to alleviate theseproblems, and only stands to make them even worse.

The bottom line is that hunger is not caused by a shortage of food, but by problems in thedistribution of food, land and wealth. So if biotech corporations keep taking food rights away fromfarmers through patents, instead of empowering farmers to become more self-sustainable, wecan expect the second revolution to fail even worse than its predecessor.

Claim #2: Biotechnology will allow us to reduce the strain

placed on the environment due to agriculture.

A large proportion of GE seeds on the market are made to be herbicide resistant. Strains ofcorn, soybeans, cotton and canola plants have been engineered to survive herbicide treatment,which has lead to farmers using more pesticides than usual without the risk of killing off theircrop.

Over 60 percent of soybeans in the United States in 2001 will be planted to Monsanto GERoundup (a herbicide) Ready varieties, just five years after introduction in 1996. Despite claimsto the contrary, these varieties require more herbicides than conventional soybeans—field-leveldata from 1998 reveals that more than a dozen soybean herbicides are applied at an average rateof less than 0.1 pound active ingredient per acre. Roundup, on the other hand, is usually appliedon soybeans at about 0.75 pounds per acre in a single spray and most acres are now treatedmore than once.17 Herbicide resistant plants may benefit the manufacturers who make profits offboth the seeds and the pesticides, but they do not help to sustain the environment.

The argument that higher yields will reduce our need for clearing farmland has also beenused. However, while some GE crops have slightly higher yields, other studies have shown thatmany bring forth yields that are lower than traditional varieties. GE soybeans actually produce 5percent to 10 percent fewer bushels per acre in contrast to otherwise identical varieties grownunder comparable field conditions.18

It is irrational to argue that GE crops which yield less and use more pesticides will somehowreduce stress on the environment.


WHY ARE PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS?

1) No Short- or Long-Term Safety Testing

The government response to GE foods is that they are safe until proven otherwise—andwhile the federal government is supposed to ensure food safety, the research on GE foods isperformed entirely by the biotech industry, which obviously poses a conflict of interest.19 The testingprotocol accepted by Health Canada as evidence of GE food safety is largely assupmptions-based, with little or no actual animal testing. Seventy percent of the currently available GE crops,including all of the canola and cotton crops approved for commerce in Canada, have not beensubjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct humanconsumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock.20

2) No Decrease in Pesticide Use

There is virtually no evidence of actual reductions in herbicide or pesticide use21 and somescientists estimate that herbicide-resistant crops planted around the world will actually triple theamount of herbicide used.22 The British Medical Association in May 1999 urged that the risk thatGM crops may increase the useof herbicides and pesticides in the environment needs to becomprehensively assessed to determine their full environmental impact.

3) Creation of GE “Super-Weeds” and “Super-Pests”

Weed and pest resistance is foregone conclusion which means other, potentially more toxicchemicals will be needed to control weeds and pests. For example, pest-resistant GE cropscontain a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that is poisonous to many pests.Organic farmers have used Bt sprays sparingly for decades. But GE crops express the Bt proteinall the time, speeding up the development of Bt-resistant pests. Super-pests pose a devastatingthreat to organic farmers, who often depend on Bt sprays as a last resort in pest control. Already,eight species of insects have developed resistance to Bt toxins.23

4) Allergic Reactions

Genetic engineering can inadvertently transfer an allergen from one organism to another. Amajor disaster was narrowly avoided in 1996 when researchers found that a Brazil Nut genespliced into soybeans caused a potentially fatal reaction when eaten by people allergic to BrazilNuts.24 Tests on animals had turned up negative. In the absence of acceptedlab testing protocols,screening for alleregenicity of potential GM food is based entirely on comparing DNA and aminoacid sequences with those of known allergens.

5) Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic resistance markers (ARMs) might encourage the development of super-bugs that


cannot be killed using antibiotics. A 1999 study showed that ARMs in food could jump to bacteriain the gut during digestion.25 The British Medical Association is concerned that the widespreaduse of antibiotics for non-essential purposes will only aggravate the problem of antibiotic resist-ance, which costs the U.S. alone about $5 billion a year.26

6) Toxicity

In 1989, 37 people died, 1535 were permanently disabled and more than 5000 were tempo-rarily disabled after taking a genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan (a health food supple-ment).27 In 1999, gene scientist Dr. Arpad Pusztai found that GE potatoes had anti-nutritionaleffects on rats.28 Earlier in 1999, Cornell researchers found that pollen from GE corn killedMonarch butterflies. All these toxic effects were completely missed by the regulatory system andwere discovered well after the GE products had been sold to consumers.

7) Declining Food Quality

A 1999 study found that concentrations of phytoestrogen compounds, thought to reduce therisk of heart disease and cancer, were lower in GE soybeans than in traditional soybeans. Thereis also a concern that consumers may be misled in terms of the freshness of their food. GEtomatoes, for instance, might look fresh in the supermarket but actually be weeks old and practi-cally devoid of nutritional value.

8) Genetic Pollution and Bio-Invasions

Wind, birds and insects quickly carry pollen from GE crops into neighbouring fields, contami-nating the crops of organic and non-GE farmers. Contamination and invasion is also a problemwith marine animals. Atlantic salmon has been engineered with a growth hormone that makes itgrow twice as quickly as its natural counterparts.29 What will happen to wild marine specieswhen these fish escape into the ocean?

9) Terminator Technology

To protect the financial interests of corporations, the “terminator” gene has been developedto render seeds that carry it sterile. This obligates farmers to buy new seeds each year, strength-ening dependence on multinational corporations that already dominate the agricultural industry.Cross-pollination would cause natural crops to produce sterile seeds as well, which would endan-ger the world’s food security. Due to its unpopularity, Monsanto claimed in October of 1999 that itwould not commercialize terminator seed technologies.30 Although companies such asAstraZeneca followed suit, in August 2001 the US Department of Agriculture licensed use of theterminator technology to the world’s 9th largest seed corporation Delta & Pine Land (DPL).31

This, despite the UN’s FAO Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture deter-mination that Terminator seeds are unethical because over 1.4 billion people, primarily poorfarmers, depend on farm-saved seeds as their primary seed source.32


10) Northern Profit at the Expense of Southern Farmers

Corporations have patented agricultural information that has traditionally been shared freelybetween farmers for thousands of years. The World Trade Organization’s Trade Related Intellec-tual Property Rights Agreement sides with corporations, making it illegal for farmers to practiceseed-saving and seed-sharing when it comes to GE seeds—even when the GE content of theseeds is caused by accidental drift (see Monsanto). The progressive tightening of corporatecontrol is marginalizing poor farmers causing millions to lose their livelihoods.

11) Ethical Problems

“The genetic engineering and patenting of animals reduces living beings to the status ofmanufactured products.”33 Rearranging the genetic codes of living beings shows a disregard forthe sacredness of life. GE foods, while presenting ethical hazards at least for people who arevegetarians or follow religious diet restrictions (i.e. will people know if their food contains animalgenes?), also opens the door to the larger debate of manipulating the genetic code. Currently,hundreds of genetically engineered animals are on a waiting list for patent approval in the U.S.34

The human genome has been completely decoded, with numerous patents on human genes.35

Human genes have been inserted into tobacco plants 36and rice37, and genetically engineeredhuman babies have already been born.38 Where will we take this next, and who is to ensure thatGE technologies are used responsibly?

12) Consumers are Denied the Right to Choose

The lack of labelling requirements in Canada prevents consumers from choosing whether ornot to eat GE foods. In fact, it is illegal to label foods as being GE-free, because this wouldpresent an “unfair” market advantage. Anti-labelling regulations allow GE crops to be mixed withnon-GE crops before processing, resulting in up to 75 per cent of processed foods in Canadacontaining GE products.39 This mixing makes it very difficult to trace any health effects resultingfrom GE foods back to their sources.

MONSANTO

Monsanto Company (now owned by Pharmacia Corporation) is easily the most visible andcontroversial corporation in the “life sciences” industry.

Founded in St. Louis in1901, Monsanto has marketed everything from aspirin to aspartame(NutraSweet). But its current slogan, “Food, Health, Hope,” is inconsistent with the company’slegacy of creating some of the most harmful substances in history. Some of the most notoriousproducts introduced by Monsanto and its subsidiaries include:

� Polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs - found to cause cancer and reproductive,developmental and immune system disorders. PCBs remain in the environment today,decades after being banned, accumulating over time in the fats of mammals such aspolar bears and humans.


� Agent Orange - a herbicide used heavily during the Vietnam War. Monsanto’s AgentOrange had concentrations of dioxin several times higher than that of other chemicalcompanies.40 One consequence is that since the 1960s, up to 500,000 children inVietnam were born with dioxin-related deformities.41

Between 1995 and 1998, perhaps in a move to change its negative image, Monsanto spun-off its chemicals business and spent over $8 billion buying out the seed businesses from corpora-tions such as Agracetus, Asgrow Agronomics, Calgene, Cargill, DeKalb Genetics, Holden Seeds,Monsoy, Unilever and Sementes Agrocetes.42

David and Goliath Fight Over Seeds

Legally challenging a corporate giant like Monsanto is almost impossible although PercySchmeiser, a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan, is trying hard in a case that will affect the futureof farmers’ rights all over the world.

Monsanto won a lawsuit against Schmeiser in March 2001, after accusing him of illegallysaving seeds and planting the company’s Roundup Ready canola seeds without paying the re-quired “technology fees.” Schmeiser, who never bought RR canola seeds, claims that his fieldswere invaded by Monsanto’s product. He filed an appeal with the Federal Court in June 2001.43

Monsanto successfully argued that “even though it believes Schmeiser knowingly obtainedRoundup Ready canola from someone, legally it doesn’t really matter. If Schmeiser’s cropcontains the gene, it has broken Monsanto’s patent no matter how it got there or whether heknew it was there.”44 Will biotech companies litigate their way into forcing consumers and non-GMO farmers to accept GE foods?

WHAT PLANTS ARE GENETICALLY

ENGINEERED?

Thus far, Health Canada has approved almost 50 types of GE foods for use in Canada.These include:

� corn (used to make things like corn syrup, corn starch, corn sweeteners, corn chips,corn flour and other sweetened products);

� canola (used in hundreds of processed foods);

� potato (including strains resistant to Colorado potato beetles);

� tomato (used in processed sauces and frozen foods);

� squash;

� soybean (used in breads, baby foods and formulas and hundreds of other processedfoods);

� cottonseed oil.45

For a partial list of which brands do and do not claim to be GE-free, see Appendix 2.


WHY AREN’T GMOS LABELLED?

In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared GE foods to be “substantiallyequivalent” to their natural counterparts. This decision protects GE products from labellingrequirements and dramatically reduces the amount of testing required on the new product. If newbiotech products were required to undergo intensive testing to prove their safety, as is required ofnew drugs or food additives, the industry would be set back years or decades.52

Industrial giants know that labelling would be disastrous in terms of profits. In 1994, whenCalgene decided to voluntarily label its genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato, it was quicklyrejected by consumers—and no other biotech company has since decided to voluntarily label GEfoods.53

Food manufacturers in Canada do have the option to label their food as containing or beingfree of GE ingredients.54 However, this is still on a voluntary basis, and many consumers feel thatlabelling should be required by law.

The U.S. strongly opposes labelling, and also discourages voluntary labelling of foods that donot contain GE ingredients on the grounds that these labels would “mislead” consumers byimplying that non-GE foods are safer or of higher quality.

While a majority of citizens around the world support labelling and strict tracking of GMOs,many countries are under pressure by the biotech industry and their supporters (which includesome nation states) to delay erecting barriers to GMOs.


ALTERNATIVES

At present, there is a growing body of consumers who feel that the introduction of GEproducts into our food system is an infringement on our right to choose. The movement in Europehas been an encouraging one—more and more supermarkets, producers and retailers havebanned GE ingredients in their foods. Canadian companies and governing bodies should likewisevalue consumer concerns over corporate interests. If you object to being unknowingly exposed toGE foods, here are some ways to make your voice heard:

� Go to the Manager.Speak or write to your grocery store manager, telling her/him you don’t want to buyGE foods (See sample letter in Appendix 3).

� Call 1-800 Numbers.Call the numbers found on food packages, and ask for proof that the items do notcontain any GMOs. Ask the company to label those products that have no GEingredients with “Does Not Contain Genetically Modified Organisms.” In Europe, 10companies including Nestle, Kellogg’s, Kraft, Unilever and Frito-Lay produce GE-freeproducts. Why shouldn’t they do the same in Canada?

� Contact the Government.Phone or write to your federal MP (numbers are available at 1-800-463-6868), theMinister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture to demand mandatory labelling or amoratorium on GE crops (See Appendix 3).

� Raise Awareness.Education is the key to bringing about change. Learn about the issues surroundinggenetic engineering and raise awareness among your family and your community.

� Avoid GMOs.Avoid products that are highly suspect for containing GMOs (refer to Appendix 4). Tryto eat organically grown foods.

� Sign Your Name.Sign petitions calling for mandatory labelling of GE foods with groups such as BAM,Council of Canadians, Culinary Crusaders Collective, Green Peace, RAFI, Right toKnow and Sierra Club of Canada.


Endnotes1 Stephen Leahy, “A Swim in the Gene Pool,” Sustainable Times, Summer 2000, 16.2 Geoffrey Rowan, Globe and Mail, January 5, 1990, cited in Brewster Kneen, Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotech-

nology (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1999), 193.3 Michael K. Hansen, Genetic Engineering is Not an Extension of Conventional Plant Breeding: How genetic engineering differs

from conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer (Consumer Policy Institute/ConsumersUnion, January, 2000) <http://biotech-info.net/wide_crosses.html> (February 2002)

4 Mae-Wan Ho, Genetic Engineering, Dream or Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business (Bath, UK:Gateway Books, 1998), 19.

5 Ben Lilliston, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Know: The Biotech Regulatory Vacuum,” Multinational Monitor 21 (January/February 2000):9.

6 Brester Kneen, Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology (Gabriola Ilsand, BC: New Society Publishers, 1999),204.

7 Monsanto Company, “Why Do We Need This Technology?” Biotech Basics, 2000, <www.biotechbasics.com/question3.html>(20 July 2000).

8 Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000), 98.9 The CornerHouse, UK, Ten Reasons Why GE Foods Will Not Feed the World, 2000, <www.purefood.org/ge/tenreasons.cfm> (18

July 2000); Monsanto Company, “Plant Biotechnology Basics,” Biotech Basics, 2000, <www.biotechbasics.com/basics.html>(20 July 2000).

10 Frances Lappe, Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, World Hunger: Twelve Myths, 2nd ed. (New York: Grove Press, 1998), 8.11 Ibid.12 Ibid., 9.13 Ibid., 61.14 Ibid., 62.15 Ibid., 70-71.16 “Hi-Tech Grain, Low-Tech Brain,” Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition 213 (July 2000): 71.17 Charles M. Benbrook, Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans: Glyphosate Efficacy is

Slipping and Unstable Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defenses and Yields, AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number4, 3 May 2001.

18 Ibid.19 Maude Barlow, “Five Problems with GE Foods,” Canadian Perspectives, Fall 1999, 5.20 E. Ann Clark, Food Safety of GM Crops in Canada: toxicity and allergenicity, 2000, <www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/

safety.htm> (February 2002)21 E. Ann Clark, AgBiotech Issues that Matter to Farmers: yield and profitability, 2001, <www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/

cwb.htm> (February 2002)22 Organic Consumers Association, GE-Fact Sheet & Guidelines for Grassroots Action, 2000.23 Shiva, Stolen Harvest, 107.24 Lilliston, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Know,” 9.25 Reuters, “Antibiotics: Dutch Study casts doubts on genetically modified food,” 27 January 1999, <www.purefood.org/ge/

gegut.cfm> (26 July 2000).26 Lilliston, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Know,” 11.27 Ingeborg Boyens, Unnatural Harvest: How Genetic Engineering is Altering Our Food (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 1999), 105.28 Organic Consumers Association, GE-Fact Sheet, 2.29 Ibid., 3.30 Robert Shapiro, “Open Letter from Monsanto CEO Robert B. Shapiro to Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway,” 4

October 1999, <www.monsanto.com/monsanto/gurt/default.htm> (20 July 2000).31 RAFI, “USDA Says Yes to Terminator,” 3 August 2001, <http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=84> (February 2002).32 Report of the Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food an Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, 2001, <http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9600E/X9600E00.HTM> (February 2002)33 Organic Consumers Association, “GE-Fact Sheet,” 3.34 Helen Briggs, “The human gene harvest”, BBC News, 4 May 2001, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1150000/

1150415.stm>35 Greenpeace Identifies Secret Rice Fields with Human Genes, 7 September 2001, <http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/

food/pharmrice.htm>36 Jason Barritt, Mitochondria in human offspring derived from ooplasmic transplantation: Brief communication, Human

Reproduction, Vol. 16, No. 3, 513-516, March 200137 Organic Consumers Association, “GE-Fact Sheet,” 3.38 Aroha Te Pareake Mead, “Resisting the Gene Raiders” New Internationalist, August 1997, 27.39 Jennifer Story, “Field of Genes,” Canadian Perspectives, Fall 1999, 9.40 Brian Tokar, “Monsanto: A Checkered History,” The Ecologist 28 (September/October 1998): 256.41 Hugh Warwick, “Agent Orange: The Poisoning of Vietnam,” The Ecologist 28 (September/October 1998): 264.42 Shiva, Stolen Harvest, 29; Monsanto Company, Our Past, <www.monsanto.com/monsanto/about/past/index8.html> (24 July

2000).


43 Percy Schmeiser, June 2001, <www.percyschmeiser.com> (24 June 2001).44 Ed White, “No Decision on GMO Case Until Fall,” Western Producer, 29 June 2000, <www.producer.com> (24 July 2000).45 Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Office of Biotechnology, “How Many Genetically Modified Food Products are Permitted in

Canada?” Biotechnology, 2000, <www.cfia-acia.agr.ca/english/ppc/biotech/safsal/novalie.shtml> (25 July 2000).46 Paul Kingsnorth, “Bovine Growth Hormones,” Ecologist 28 (September/October 1998): 266.47 Ibid.; Ingeborg Boyens, Unnatural Harvest, 83.48 Kingsnorth, “Bovine Growth Hormones,” 267.49 Ingeborg Boyens, Unnatural Harvest, 78.50 Jim Boothroyd, “Steve Wilson and Jane Akre,” Adbusters 24 (Winter 1999): 22.51 Ingeborg Boyens, Unnatural Harvest, 95.52 Lilliston, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Know,” 10.53 Ben Lilliston, “The Consumer as Enemy: The Biotech Labeling Dispute,” Multinational Monitor 21 (January/February 2000):

12.54 Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, “Labelling,” Biotechnology, <www.ccgd.ca/en/public/frset_bio_label.html> (23

October 2000).

Aisle 5

The Meat Marketor W

ha

t’s Yo

ur B

eef?


AISLE 5: THE MEAT MARKET

OR WHAT’S YOUR BEEF?

Passing through the countryside, perhaps you have caught glimpses of these picturesquefarm scenes: cows lazily grazing through the fields, carefree chickens walking around and peck-ing at the ground for food, or pigs happily eating from a trough in a large pen. Take a closer look:these scenes are not the reality for most livestock animals in Canada.

Livestock farming has changed very quickly in the last few decades. With the rising popu-larity of meat, “factory farming” has usurped the role of traditional, small-scale farming opera-tions.

Factory Farming is the operation of large-scale intensive livestock production units.Typically, each factory farm holds thousands of hogs, fowl or cattle—some egg farms in Canadahold flocks larger than 100,000 hens.1 Most of these animals are kept in a single warehouse, invery small spaces. Traditional livestock farms might hold a few hundred animals at the most.

Factory farming, which views the animals simply as commodities, has been so monetarilysuccessful that smaller, traditional farmers are under a lot of pressure to follow suit or get out ofthe business. The consequences of intensive livestock farming are largely hidden from the public,but as conscientious consumers we need to know what we are implicitly supportingwhen we buy meat products from this system. The following briefly outlines just some of therealities of factory farming today.

ANIMAL ABUSE

Factory farms pack animals tightly into confinement facilities, feed them with the cheapestpossible sources of protein, with an antibiotic supplement to counter the disease-causing effectsof stress, and in the case of feedlot beef, implant them with hormone capsules—all in the name ofefficiency. According to Animal Action, the cost of treating the 500 million farm animals inCanada humanely would raise the price of animal food products far beyond the reach of mostCanadians.2

Abusive practices start when the animals are very young:

� Thousands of male chicks of the egg-laying strain are routinely killed, since they areuseless for laying eggs and are too lean to be sold as meat. They are crushed,drowned, made to suffocate in bags or gassed with carbon dioxide soon after theyhave hatched.3

� Farmers cut the beaks off of female laying chicks using a hot cauterizing blade. Thechicks are painfully “debeaked” to prevent them from pecking at other hens later inlife, a response provoked by their suffocating living conditions.4

49 Aisle 5: The Meat Market

Crowding

Imagine being stuck in a crowded elevator, where everyone is so packed in that you’re alltouching. Imagine living in that elevator forever.

This is the fate of most laying hens. Typically, four laying hens will permanently share a 16"x 18" battery cage.5 It is because they live in such cramped quarters, without room even to walkor stretch their wings, that hens become hysterical and violent. Farmers know that the sufferingcaused by crowding reduces egg production, but this is still a more “efficient” option, since“chickens are cheap, cages are expensive.”6

Broilers (chickens sold for meat), turkeys, pigs, and veal calves all experience crowding—intheir cages or stalls, they often do not even have room to turn around. This way more animalscan fit into one warehouse, and the animals do not go around burning off calories or tougheningtheir muscles by walking or running. This is especially important for calves, since consumersexpect veal to be tender and white.

To the Slaughterhouse

Some animals live well in the earlier parts of their lives, grazing and roaming freely on smallfarms. Yet few escape the horror of transportation to a central slaughterhouse. Animals aretransported across the country in trucks, again in crowded conditions, resulting in crippling andmillions of deaths each year from heat stress or extreme cold.7 Producers calculate for theselosses, which make up only a small percentage of the total number of slaughtered animals eachyear. For example, approximately 2.5 million poultry die annually in Canada during shipment toslaughterhouses, but producers allow this loss because it represents only about 0.5 to 2 per centof the chickens transported.8

Most animals are stunned unconscious before being killed while hanging from a conveyorbelt—for sanitary reasons. Sometimes animals are not stunned enough to knock them out, andthey are left hanging in pain and panicking until finally being killed.

Canadian slaughterhouses don’t seem to be moving towards making their slaughters morehumane. In 1999, four provincial plants and 15 federal plants were audited, with advance notice.Of those, 50 per cent of the provincial plants and 40 per cent of the federal plants failed one orboth of the stunning and handling audits for humane treatment.9

As our society has become comfortable with seeing these animals as commodities, webreed more animals in order to kill them. None of these animals live out their full life expectan-cies. While there is certainly nothing to live for under factory conditions, it is tragic that theseanimals must have such a horrible experience of life.


Sick Animals

Due to overcrowding, lack of exercise, and unhealthy breeding, animals are prone to gettingsick. These animals are specially bred to weigh as much as possible—broiler chickens have beenbred to grow twice as fast and twice as large as their ancestors.10 While this may be profitable, itcauses problems with chickens and pigs whose bones and joints crumble under their body weight,and who develop heart and lung problems from the rapid development of the rest of their bod-ies.11

Veal calves are not fed their mothers’ milk, but are given a low-iron liquid in order to keepthem borderline anemic, in order to keep their flesh pale and white.12

Some animals are born and raised inside a large warehouse, and do not see the light of dayduring their entire lifetime! The indoor atmosphere is not fresh by any means—in pig warehousesthe air is laden with dust and noxious gases from the animals’ urine and feces. As a result,approximately 70 to 80 per cent of pigs have pneumonia when they are slaughtered, and about 60per cent of farm workers experience breathing problems.13

YOU ARE WHAT THEY EAT

Antibiotics

In the factory farm, bacteria spread easily between crowded, dirty animals. To combat therisk of disease, farmers give animals feed laced with antibiotics.

While most antibiotics given to animals are eliminated through urine or feces, it is possiblefor some of the drug to remain in the animal tissues. This can cause problems for people who areallergic or hypersensitive to the drugs.

The more urgent problem is that bacteria can grow resistant to antibiotics. The antibioticsyou get from the doctor are often the same ones placed in animal feed. Bacteria are known fortheir amazing ability to adapt and to become resistant to antibiotics. So if a species of bacteriabecomes resistant to an antibiotic in animals, and that bacteria is consumed by humans, it isuseless to try fighting the bacteria. Doctors will be unable to fight the consequences of what wasonce a simple, curable bacterial infection. Antibiotic resistance has already occurred to a signifi-cant degree with Campylobacter and Salmonella bacteria.14

Even after feeding the animals antibiotics through life, they are susceptible to disease-causing bacteria after death. For example, after being slaughtered, poultry is placed into a com-munal hot bath to remove feathers.15 With this method, bacteria can spread rapidly from onediseased carcass to a host of others, become trapped in pores, and end up on your kitchen table.


Hormones

Cattle used for beef, dairy or veal are given hormones to speed up their growth, increasemilk production and the selling weight of each animal.16 The meat industry says using hormones isnot harmful to the consumer, stating that plants often contain more hormones than meat. How-ever, this comparison is rather inappropriate, considering hormones in plants are natural, muchless stable than in animals and break down more easily after consumption.17

Estrogen and androgens, sex hormones naturally produced by humans, can cause cancerand premature puberty when present in slightly higher than normal amounts.18 More recently,hormones in excess have also been linked with various forms of abnormal sexual development inboth animals and humans.19 Like antibiotics, it is possible for hormone residues to be found inanimal tissues—and it is known that extremely small doses of hormones are potent enough toaffect the human body.20

Toxins

In order to cut feed costs, livestock animals are often fed recycled waste, which containdrug residues, toxic metals, raw poultry or livestock manure.21 This simply adds to the build-up oftoxins and pesticides already found stored in the fat of all living beings. Persistent chemicals suchas dioxins, PCBs and DDTs move from plants to animals further up the food chain, eventuallyaccumulating in the body fat of an animal at concentrations that can be 25 million times greaterthan what is present in the surrounding environment.22

Something Fishy?

Both wild and farmed fish seem to be high in toxins. Wild

fish are exposed to the general contamination of the world’s wa-

ter supplies, which can include mercury, pesticide run-off, and

sewage wastes. Studies have shown that the babies of women

who had eaten Great Lakes fish, which contain high levels of

PCBs and other toxins, display significant negative behavioural

and neurological differences from babies whose mothers did not

eat Great Lakes fish.23

However, in artificial fish farms, fish live in unnaturally small

areas, making them more susceptible to infections. Fish farmers

will use antibiotics to ward off infections, herbicides to prevent

overgrowth of vegetation in ponds, hormones to promote fish

growth, and compounds to make the colour of the flesh look more

appealing.24 Unlike the rest of the Canadian meat industry, there

are no legal controls or limitations for the use of drugs in farmed

fish.25


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

World Hunger

Producing animal foods takes up a lot more resources and creates much more waste thanproducing plant foods. Producing only six pounds of ground beef requires the equivalent to 100pounds of grain.26 While many parts of the world, animals can help in food production by workingas draft animals and providing fertilizer, this is not the case with factory-farmed livestock. Sowhile we fatten up 1.3 billion cattle around the world for human consumption, an estimated 800million people in the world are suffering from hunger and malnutrition.27

Desertification

Our seemingly insatiable appetite for beef is environmentally devastating. Millions of beefcattle deplete the earth’s resources by overgrazing. The result is desertification: the spreading ofdeserts into areas that were once rich and fertile.

One sad example comes from Central and Latin America, where cattle ranchers slash andburn their rainforests to create more grazing land. In just 20 years, Costa Rica burned over 80 percent of its tropical forests for cattle grazing.28 The tragic part is that in only a few years, the landis degraded, unsuitable for cattle, and almost irreversibly devoid of good soil.

Each pound of Central American beef permanently destroys over 200 square feet of rain-forest.29 In the mid-1980s, American consumers boycotted Burger King for its use of rainforestbeef. Since then, Burger King, McDonald’s Wendy’s, Campbell’s Soup, Jack-in-the-Box, TacoBell, White Castle, Sizzler and Mariott all claim not to use rainforest beef. However, due to poormonitoring and a lack of control over the flow of Central American beef into North America, it isdifficult to be assured of the truth of this claim.30

Greenhouse Gases

The world’s huge population of cattle releases significant amounts of greenhouse gases intothe atmosphere in the forms of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.31 Greenhouse gasestrap infra-red radiation from the sun and keep heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere. How-ever, with the unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases released since the industrial revolu-tion, these gases also contribute to the phenomenon called global warming, whereby the averagetemperature of the earth is raised, with devastating ecological consequences. The anticipatedimpacts of global warming affect every living being on the earth, and include:

� Widespread extinction of plant and animal species;

� Rising sea levels and the flooding of coastal and low lying areas;

� Contamination of fresh water sources with salt water from the sea level rise;

� Agricultural crises due to drought, drier soils, and an increase of pests due to heatstress, resulting in food shortages around the world; and

� Increases in extreme climate events, including hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons.32


The world’s cows release nearly 50 million metric tons of methane—one of the strongestgreenhouse gases—to the atmosphere each year.33 The rate of global warming is sped up by thedecrease of green plants and trees that can absorb carbon dioxide.

Animal Waste

The disposal of animal waste has also created a large dilemma. By placing animals indoors,the nutrient manure cycle is broken, and producers are left with gigantic masses of unusablewaste. Even if it is returned to the soil, manure from factory-bred animals is full of heavy metals,additives, pesticide residues, bacteria, parasites, and residues from medications in the animals’feed.34 This manure does not act as rich fertilizer, but contaminates the soil, eventually poisoningground water and our drinking water. In Ontario alone there are about 27 reported manure spillsevery year that are strong enough to kill fish.35 Many more spills are not reported.

Walkerton tragedy

May, 2000 — At least seven people died and 2,300 people were sickened by

bad water in the small town of Walkerton, Ontario. Those who fell ill had symp-

toms such as bloody diarrhea, cramps, nausea, fevers and kidney disorders. The

culprit was a deadly strain of bacteria: E. coli 0157, bacteria that cannot be

treated using conventional antibiotics.

E. coli 0157 is known to be present in cow manure; Walkerton is in the middle

of Ontario’s cattle country. Within five miles of the town, there are five cattle

feedlots: four with about 200 animals each, and one with about 2,500 animals.

And in Ontario, there are no enforceable laws dictating how animal waste is to

be treated. Farmers are only given voluntary guidelines on how to store and

spread manure.36

Manure laden with bacteria could have escaped a dung holding tank or sim-

ply been present in soil when heavy rains hit southern Ontario, contaminating

run-off with E. coli, and then flooding the wells with the bacteria. It didn’t help

that the chlorinating system in Walkerton was faulty as well, or that the provin-

cial government had drastically cut the environment ministry staff by more than

50 per cent in five years.37

The public outcry stemming from the Walkerton tragedy forced the Ontario

government to change some of its policies regarding factory farms. They al-

lowed municipal governments to place temporary moratoriums on factory farms

until better bylaws and controls were set.38 This concession still falls short of

ensuring water security, though, especially considering the laws in place tend to

favour factory farms over municipalities, and government spending on conser-

vation or environmental projects has been cut dramatically.

SPOTLIGHT ON WALKERTON


ALTERNATIVES

No change can be achieved in the meat industry unless the public demands it. As consum-ers, we have the option of pressuring the meat industry to be more humane, health-conscious andenvironmentally responsible. Here are some avenues for effecting change:

� Reduce or eliminate your consumption of meat products.Go vegetarian, or try eating smaller servings of meat mixed with vegetables. Reducingdemand for meats decreases the need for large-scale feedlot operations that caremore for profit than animal and social welfare.

� Know where your meat comes from.Though painfully difficult to find out in supermarkets, independent butchers may beable to tell you who their suppliers are, what the living conditions were for the animals,what they were fed and other pertinent information. Their suppliers are often localfarmers. Animals are essential to many organic farmers, as they can fertilize gardensand eat weeds. Use your dollar to support a more local, humane and environmentallyethical business.

� Find out where your eggs come from.Due to pressure from the public, there are now several varieties of eggs available atmost supermarkets. These include organic eggs, eggs laid by free-range hens (hensallowed to roam around freely), natural grain-fed hens, hens who have not been fedantibiotics, hormones or additives, or combinations of the above.

� Learn the Laws.Find out about the laws pertaining to factory farms in your province, and put pressureon your provincial government to limit the sizes of feedlots/factory farm operations.With enough public pressure, the government must respond.


Endnotes1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, All About Canada’s Egg Industry, January 2000, <www.agr.ca/cb/factsheets/2egg_e.html8 (26

June 2000).2 Animal Action, What Every Canadian Should Know: According to official sources, extreme suffering is inherent in the lives of

farm animals, March 1996, <www.veg.on.ca/animal.html> (23 June 2000).3 Gene Bauston, “For A Mouthful Of Flesh,” The Animals’ Agenda, January/February 1998, 25; Clare Druce, Chicken & Egg: Who

Pays The Price? (London: Green Print, 1989), 3; John Robbins, Diet For a New America (Walpole: Stillpoint, 1987), 54.4 Bauston, “For a Mouthful of Flesh,” 25; Druce, Chicken & Egg: Who Pays The Price?, 7.5 Animal Action, What Every Canadian Should Know.6 Bauston, “For A Mouthful of Flesh,” 25.7 Animal Action, What Every Canadian Should Know.8 Ibid.; Correspondence from Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Animal Health and Production Division, July 13, 2000.11 Temple Grandin, 1999 Canadian Animal Welfare Audit of Stunning and Handling in Federal and Provincial Inspected

Slaughter Plants, 10 July 1999, <www.grandin.com/survey/canada.audit.html> (26 June 2000).9 Bauston, “For A Mouthful Of Flesh,” 24.10 Robbins, Diet For A New America, 86; Bauston, “For A Mouthful Of Flesh,” 24.11 Bauston, “For A Mouthful Of Flesh,” 26.12 Robbins, Diet For A New America, 94; Bauston, “For A Mouthful Of Flesh,” 28.13 Bonnie Liebman and Glenn Morris, “When Antibiotics Stop Working: Magic Bullets Under Siege,” Nutrition Action Healthletter

(Canadian Edition), May 2000, 4.14 Liebman and Morris, “When Antibiotics Stop Working,” 4; Caroline Smith Dewaal, Lucy Alderton and Bonnie Liebman, “Food

Safety Guide,” Nutrition Action Healthletter (Canadian Edition), October 1999, 5.15 Pollution Probe, Additive Alert! What Have They Done To Our Food? (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1994), 133.16 Ibid., 133-4.17 David Steinman, Diet For A Poisoned Planet: How to Choose Safe Foods for You and Your Family (New York: Ballantine,

1990), 79.18 Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, Our Stolen Future (New York: Plume, 1997).19 Ibid.20 Robbins, Diet For A New America, 93.21 Colborn, Dumanoski and Myers, Our Stolen Future, 26.22 Ibid., 190-4.23 Bauston, “For A Mouthful Of Flesh,” 26; Pollution Probe, Additive Alert!, 139.24 Pollution Probe, Additive Alert! 139.25 Rainforest Action Network, The Hamburger Connection, 1999, <www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/04e.html> (23 June

2000).26 The Hunger Site, “Hunger Facts,” About Hunger, 2000, <www.thehungersite.com> (23 June 2000).27 Rainforest Action Network, The Hamburger Connection.28 Ibid.29 Ibid.30 Ibid.31 Rainforest Action Network, Rainforests and Global Warming, 1999, <www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/04a.html> (23 June

2000).32 Tej and Tarang Sheth, Why Be a Vegetarian (Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing, 1995), 45; Michael Fox, “Manure, Minerals, and

Methane: How Factory Farms Threaten the Environment,” The Animals’ Agenda, May/June 1998, 32.33 Fox, “Manure, Minerals, and Methane,” 30.34 Brian McAndrew, “Manure From Factory Farms Causes Concern,” Toronto Star, 6 June 2000, <www.thestar.com> (27 June

2000).35 Thomas Walkom, “Fatal Outbreak Exposes Something Rotten in the State of Farming,” Toronto Star, 27 May 2000,

<www.thestar.com> (27 June 2000).36 Brian McAndrew, Theresa Boyle and Richard Brennan, “Tightening the Tap on Water Safety,” Toronto Star, 6 July 2000,

<www.thestar.com> (27 June 2000).37 Stuart Laidlaw and Richard Brennan, “Tories Flip-Plop on Factory Farms,” Toronto Star, 29 June,2000, <www.thestar.com> (27

June 2000).

Aisle 6

Food Additives


AISLE 6: ADDITIVES

GOT ANYTHING TO ADD?

Ostensibly, those scientific-sounding ingredients on your packaged food products are meantto enhance foods, but in fact, they offer no nutritional value and may in some cases be harmful.

A food additive is a substance that becomes part of a food product either directly or indi-rectly during processing, storage or packaging.1 While most approved additives are essentiallyharmless if consumed in small amounts, a few are highly questionable, and others have yet to beadequately tested.

According to Jo Ann Carson, a dietitian at the University of Texas, the problem with addi-tives is that they are mostly found in highly processed foods, which have little nutritional value forthe amount of calories consumed. “The more processed the food, the more things you are losingin foods, the more things you have to add to it… It’s how they are used rather than the additiveitself.”2

Make a habit of looking at the ingredients in your food products. If you are unsure about theuse or safety of certain additives, look them up (go to <www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm> for a good listing of additives), and try to avoid those that are potentiallyharmful.

THE 10 MOST QUESTIONABLE

FOOD ADDITIVES3

Salt: High sodium intake increases blood pressure, which contributes to heart disease. Saltis found in most processed foods including soups, potato chips, and crackers.

Sugars, including corn syrup and dextrose: Sugar contributes to obesity, tooth decay, andpoor nutrition. It is easy to over-consume as it is labeled under many different names. Sugar isfound in most processed foods, including bread, soft drinks, cookies, syrups, and snack foods.

Sulfites (sulfur dioxide, sodium sulfite, potassium, and sodium bisulfite): Sulfites can causeextreme allergic reactions, and they destroy Vitamin B1. Sulfites are found in dried fruits, dehy-drated vegetables, soup mixes, wine, beer, processed peeled potato products, shrimp, and cannedvegetables.

Saccharin, and possibly other artificial sweeteners, (aspartame, acesulfame K): Saccharinhas been shown to cause cancer in animals. It is found in diet products and soft drinks.

Sodium nitrite and nitrate: Nitrate can form nitrosamines, known cancer-causing chemi-cals, in foods. The addition of ascorbic or erythorbic acid inhibits this formation. Nitrates arefound in processed meats, including bacon, bologna, salami, ham, hot dogs, smoked fish, andcorned beef.

59 Aisle 6: Additives

Monosodium Glutamate and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (contains MSG): MSGhas been shown to cause headaches, nausea, and a burning sensation in the neck and upper armsin those who are susceptible. It is found in instant soups, hot dogs, sauce mixes, salad dressings,frozen entrees, seafood, poultry, stews, restaurant foods, and bouillon cubes.

Artificial Colourings – Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Citrus Red No. 2, Green No. 3, Red No.3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 (tartrazin), and Yellow No. 6: Multiple studies have suggested thatsome dyes appear to cause cancer or tumors in animals. Yellow No. 5 can cause allergic reac-tions; most dyes are used in foods with minimal nutritional value. Dyes are found in fruit juices,soft drinks, drink mixes, candy, baked goods, maraschino cherries, gelatin desserts, and pet food.

BHA and BHT: Some studies have indicated these additives can cause cancer, but this isnot a proven fact. BHT has also been shown to reduce the risk of cancer. BHA and BHT arefound in cereals, potato chips, chewing gum, and oils.

Olestra: Olestra has been shown to cause stomach cramps, diarrhea, and loose stools. Itinhibits the absorption of carotenoids and depletes fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. It is foundin chips and crackers.

Trans-fatty Acids (most commonly identified as hydrogenated oils): Trans-fatty acids havebeen shown to be a major contributor to heart disease. They are found in margarine, vegetableshortening, and many processed foods.

ALTERNATIVES

Here are some tips for avoiding unwanted additives in your diet.

� Eat food, the whole food, and nothing but the food.Avoid foods that come with labels and choose instead fresh, wholesome foods, such asfresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains.

� Ask about additives when dining.In restaurants, ask the server to find out if foods contain any additives that you wish toavoid.

� Read the labels.If you choose to eat processed foods, read labels carefully and avoid those foodscontaining questionable additives. Take the “Food Additive Shopping Guide” found onthe next page when you go shopping to avoid dangerous additives. Also, if a food labelreads like a high-school chemistry label, best not to buy that product.

� Talk with your grocer.Tell him or her of your desire for more additive-free foods. As consumers we do havepower to make changes.

Endnotes1 Kathy Schermerhorn, “Food Additives—Is there cause for concern?” Veggie Life, Summer 2000, 62.2 Ibid.3 Ibid.

SAFEThese appear to be safe, though a fewpeople may be allergic to any single additive.

AlginateAlpha Tocopherol (Vitamin E)Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C)Beta-Carotene

Calcium PropionateCalcium Stearoyl LactylateCarrageenanCaseinCitric AcidEDTAErythorbic AcidFerrous GluconateFumaric AcidGelatinGlycerine (Glycerol)Gums (Arabic, Furcelleran, Ghatti, Guar,Karaya, Locust Bean, Xanthan)Lactic Acid

LactoseLecithinModified StarchMono- and DiglyceridesPhosphates, Phosphoric AcidPolysorbate 60, 65, 80

Potassium SorbatePropylene Glycol AlginateSodium AscorbateSodium BenzoateSodium Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)Sodium CaseinateSodium CitrateSodium PropionateSodium Stearoyl FumarateSodium Stearoyl LactylateSorbic Acid

Sorbitan MonostearateStarchSucraloseThiamin MononitrateVanillin, Ethyl Vanillin

CUT BACKThese are not toxic, but large amounts maybe unsafe or unhealthy.

CaffeineCorn SyrupDextrose (Corn Sugar, Glucose)Fructose SyrupGlucose-Fructose

Invert SugarMannitolPartially Hydrogenated VegetableOilSalatrimSalt (Sodium Chloride)SorbitolSugar (Sucrose)

CAUTIONThese may pose a risk andneed better testing.

Articifial Colourings (Allura Red,Citrus Red 2)Aspartame (NutraSweet)Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO)Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)Propyl Gallate

Quinine

CERTAIN PEOPLESHOULD AVOID

These cause allergic orother reactions in some people.

Artificial Colourings (Tartrazine)Artificial and Natural FlavouringAspartame (NutraSweet)CaffeineCochineal or CarmineGums (Tragacanth)Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein(HVP)Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)QuinineSulphites (Soldium Bisulphite,Sulphur Dioxide)

EVERYONE SHOULD AVOIDThese are unsafe in the amountsconsumed or are poorly tested.

Acesulfame K (AcesulfamePotassium)Artificial Colourings (Brilliant BlueFCF, Erythrosine, Fast GreenFCF, Indigotine, Sunset Yellow)Cyclamate

Olestra (Olean)SaccharinSodium Nitrate, Sodium Nitrite

Food Additive Shopping GuideFor a complete food additive guide, go towww.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm

Aisle 7

CorporateControl


AISLE 7: CORPORATE CONTROL

CORPORATIONS CONTROL

WHAT WE CONSUME

As you’ve strolled through the supermarket, you’ve passed shelves stocked full of differentproducts. It may surprise you to learn that most of these products are owned by five or sixcorporate giants.

What does this mean? Among other things, it means that you don’t have as much choosingpower as you once thought. Any corporation that controls a large proportion of our food holds atight rein on the consumer population. Once again, the vast number of choices presented to youby the diversity of brand names and packaging is largely illusory.

The section that follows brings to the fore some of the key corporations in the global foodindustry. Some corporations, however, such as Cargill, the world’s largest grain trader, are notidentifiable by brand names. One can only imagine the true extent of “corporate empires” thatdominate the food industry.

CORPORATE POWER

To demonstrate the economic power of corporations, consider some data from 1995:

� Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 were corporations and 49 werecountries.

� The top 200 corporations’ combined sales were bigger than the combined economies of182 countries—that is, all but the top nine countries in the world.

� The top 200 corporations were net job destroyers. Their combined global employmentwas only 18.8 million, which at the time was about 0.3 per cent of the worldpopulation.1

Huge corporations not only undermine consumer choices, they are often responsible for orconnected to social and environmental injustices that occur throughout the world. [G]lobal giantssuch as Phillip Morris, United Fruit, Pepsico, Cargill, Unilever and Nestlé oversee vast portions ofinternational agricultural production and trade. In fact, transnationals either directly or indirectlycommand 80 percent of the land around the world that is cultivated for export crops such asbananas, tobacco and cotton. Such agro-export “development” patterns regularly displace farm-ers producing food for local consumption, pushing them into situations where they mustoverexploit the environment to survive.2

Corporate power is becoming more and more concentrated, as the pace of mergers andbuy-outs is quickening. In 1998, the value of global mergers and acquisitions reached a total of$2.4 trillion, a 50 per cent increase over 1997.3

63 Aisle 7: Corporate Control

CORPORATE PROFILES

The following profiles are not meant to condemn specific companies. Rather, they aremeant to illustrate some of the dangers of concentrating power into the hands of a few corpora-tions when profit is the bottom line. While corporations often do participate in unethical practices,when they listen to consumer demands they can also use their immense power to benefit society.

“It is not only the specific practices of individual companies that causeproblems. The attitudes created by the current system of exploitationgives power and profits to the few, at the expense of people, animals andthe environment. It is important to expose the unethical practices ofspecific companies as their behaviour is often indicative of the entiresystem.” - McSpotlight4

Let’s take a look at some of the major corporations that supply our food.

CAN I OFFER YOU A CIGARETTE WITH YOUR KRAFT DINNER?

PHILIP MORRIS

· 120 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017 <www.philipmorris.com>· 1999 Sales: $78.6 billion· 1999 Employees: 137,0005

Philip Morris Companies Inc. is the world’s leading cigarette maker, owner of Kraft Foods,Inc. and Miller Brewing Company. In 1995, Philip Morris had the 69th largest economy in theworld, with sales surpassing the GDP of Ireland.6 In June 2000, Philip Morris announced that itwould also take over Nabisco Holdings Corporation, adding 18 brands to its current 55 brands.7

The takeover is expected to be completed in October 2000.

INFACT’s Tobacco Industry Campaign focuses on Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds To-bacco (formerly owned by RJR Nabisco Holdings), and is boycotting them for their role in the“breakdown of democratic principles,” namely exerting undue influence over political decisionmaking and putting public health at risk.8

� Philip Morris was the highest contributor overall in the 1996 U.S. federal electioncycle, and spent at least $12.4 million lobbying federal officials in the first six months ofthe election year on such things as the FDA tabacco regulations, tax deductions foradvertising, cigarette taxes, the Clean Water Act and health care reform.9

� Every year, 3 million people around the world die from tobacco-related illnesses.However, the tobacco industry has hidden evidence about the addictiveness of nicotineand has conspired at least since 1964 to hold off lawsuits and regulations.

� In 1997, the tobacco industry sued the FDA to prevent tobacco regulation. The judge inthe case was a former tobacco lobbyist, and RJR Nabisco’s lawyer was a formergeneral counsel of the FDA.10


Besides being under fire for its involvement with tobacco, Philip Morris has also beencensured for licensing the manufacture of Kraft foods by South African companies during theyears of sanctions due to Apartheid. In addition, Kraft General Foods has been criticized for itstests on cats in developing a “stomach-friendly” coffee.11

At the same time, Philip Morris claims to have a large focus on communities, and makesmillions of dollars’ worth of contributions to areas such as hunger, domestic violence, the arts,fighting AIDS, environmental preservation, educational grants and humanitarian assistance—mostly within the U.S.12 99 per cent of North Americans are Kraft Foods consumers.13

Philip Morris Brand NamesAll Kraft and Nabiscofoods, in addition to thefollowing:

BeerHenry Winhard’sJacob LeinenkugelMillerMilwaukee’s BestMolsonOlde English

BeveragesCapri SunCountry TimeCrystal LightKool-AidQuenchTang

Cereals100% BranAlpha-BitsFruit & FibreGrape-NutsHillsborough MillsHoney Bunches of OatsHoneycombNuts’n CrunchPebblesRaisin BranShreddiesSugar-CrispCheesesCasinoCheez WhizCracker BarrelDarifarmDelissioExtra Cheddar De LuxeImperialParty SnackPhiladelphiaP’tit QuébecRSVPSinglesVelveeta

CoffeeBourbonCaffe MondialeCarte NoireChase & SanbornDickson’sMaxwell HouseMelroseNabobSankaStarbucks (U.S.)SwissThe Second CupThe Tea

Condiments & SaucesA-1 (Nabisco)Bull’s-EyeClaussenGrey Poupon (Nabisco)Miracle Whip

Cookies & Crackers(Nabisco)Air CrispsCheese NipsChipsAhoy!Dad’sFlavor CrispsFudgee-OHoney MaidNewtonsOreoPremium PlusRitzSnackWell’sTeddy GrahamsTriscuitWheat Thins

Desserts & SnacksAltoidsBaker’sBreath Savers (Nabisco)Callard & BowserCerto

NOTE: This list is notexhaustive. To find morecomplete lists of PhilipMorris products, visit thefollowing websites:

www.philipmorris.comwww.kraftfoods.com

Cool WhipCote D’OrDream WhipHandi-SnacksJell-OLife Savers (Nabisco)Magic MomentsMinitPlanters (Nabisco)MozartTerry’sTobleroneWhip ’N Chill

Main/Side DishesKraft DinnerMinute RiceShake ’N BakeStove Top

MeatsOscar Mayer

TobaccoBenson & HedgesMarlboroParliamentPhilip MorrisVirginia Slims(18 brands in the U.S., 74international brands)


A FORMULA FOR MALNUTRITION

NESTLÉ

· Avenue Nestlé55, CH-1800 Vevey, Vaud, Switzerland <www.nestle.com>· 1999 Sales: $45.9 billion· 1999 Employees: 230,92914

Nestlé, the number one food company in the world, holds about 50 per cent of the world’sbreast milk substitute market.15 Nestlé being boycotted for its continued breaches of the 1981World Health Organization Code (WHO) regulation on breast milk substitute marketing.16

Baby Milk Action, the UK group co-ordinating the Nestlé boycott, claims that over 99 percent of mothers are able to breastfeed.17 But mothers are often misled to think that formula isbetter for their babies.

Without breast milk, babies do not benefit from the passive immunity passed on from amother’s milk. Therefore, formula-fed babies are at high risk for contracting serious diseases.This risk is compounded in developing countries, where many do not have access to clean waterwith which to make up the formula, and where poverty may lead mothers to over-dilute formulato make it go further. “Bottle-Baby disease,” a common condition in many parts of the world,causes diarrhea, vomiting, respiratory infections, malnutrition, dehydration and often death.18

Over the past two decades, Nestlé has been criticized for encouraging bottle feeding by:

� giving away free samples of infant formula to hospitals,

� neglecting to collect payments for infant formula,

� putting out misleading promotional literature to mothers and health workers, whichclaim that malnourished mothers and mothers of twins or premature babies are unableto breastfeed, despite the claims of health organizations that there is no evidence tosupport these claims.

In 1981, the WHO and UNICEF drew up the International Code of Marketing of BreastMilk Substitutes, but this is still a voluntary code of practice. Nestlé and other companies agreedto follow the Code, and the Nestlé boycott was called off in 1984, only to start again in 1988 dueto repeated violations of the Code.19

Although Nestlé’s website includes the disclaimer, “Breast milk is best for babies. Beforeyou decide to use infant formula consult your doctor or clinic for advice,” as recently as early2000, there have been reports of Nestlé bribing doctors in developing countries to promote theirproducts.20

Nestlé has also been criticized for continuing to operate in countries with oppressive govern-ments. L’Oreal, a cosmetics company 50 per cent owned by Nestlé, is also under boycott for itsproduct testing on animals.


Nestlé Brand Names

BeveragesCarnationCaroLibby’sMiloNescauNesquickNestea

CerealsNestlé

CoffeeBonkaLoumidisNescaféRicoffyRicoréTaster’s ChoiceZoegas

Coffee CreamersCoffee-mate

CosmeticsL’Oréal

Culinary Products(bouillon, soup, cannedfood, pasta, sauces)BuitoniCrosse & BlackwellLibby’sMaggiThomy

Chocolate &ConfectionaryAeroAfter EightBaby RuthBaciButterfingerCaillerChokito

CrunchFrigorFun DipGalak/MilkybarGobstoppersKitKatNerdsNestléNutsOh Henry!OompasPixy StixPoloQuality StreetRoloRuntsSmartiesTart N TinysTurtlesYes

DairyBärenmarkeCarnationGloriaMilkmaid/La LecheraNeslacNesprayNido

FoodServicesChefDavigelSanta Rica

Frozen FoodsBuitoniMaggiStouffer’s

Ice CreamCamyDairy FarmFrisco

MagnoliaNestléParlour

Infant FoodsCarnationCérélacGuigozNanNestléNestum

Mineral WaterArrowheadBlaue QuellenBuxtonCalistogaContrexPerrierPoland SpringQuézacSan PellegrinoSanta MariaValvertVeraVittel

OphthalmologicalProducts(Eye Care)Alcon

Pet CareAlpoFancy FeastFriskiesGourmetMighty Dog

RefrigeratedProductsBuitoniNestléVismara

NOTE: This list is notexhaustive. To find morecomplete lists of Nestléproducts, visit:

www.nestle.com


I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S… STILL TESTING ON ANIMALS

UNILEVER

· PO Box 68, Unilever House, Blackfriars, London EC4P 4BQ, UK <www.unilever.com>· 1999 Sales: $43.6 billion· 1999 Employees: 255,00021

Unilever is an Anglo-Dutch company and one of the world’s largest manufacturers ofpackaged goods. It is cutting down its brands to 400 from about 1,600, and is also buyingBestfoods and Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream.22 Both mergers are expected to be completed by theend of 2000.

Unilever has been convicted several times for water pollution resulting from its manydetergent, soap and other chemical subsidiaries. Also, while no country legally requires animaltesting of cosmetics, toiletries or household cleaners, Unilever is still found on the PETA (Peoplefor the Ethical Treatment of Animals) list of companies that test on animals.23 Unilever and itssubsidiaries have also been criticized for unfair treatment of workers, especially in southerncountries, and for its operations in countries with oppressive governments, where human rightsabuses continue to take place.

Captain Birds EyeFindus 4 Salti in PadellaGorton’s TendersPopsicle

Ice CreamBen & Jerry’s (in 2000)BreyersMagnumSolero

HouseholdCleaning ProductsCifDomestosSunlightWisk

LaundryAlaComfortOmoSnuggleSunlight

Oral CareClose-UpMentadentSignal

ShampooCream SilkDimensionFinesse

Helene CurtisOrganicsPearsSalon SelectivesSunSilkThermaSilkTimotei

SoapDoveLever 2000LuxPond’sVaseline

Tea and CoffeeBriskLiptonLyonsRed Mountain

Under Bestfoods Label(to merge with Unilever inlate 2000)

Baked GoodsArnoldBoboliEntenmann’sFreihofer’sOroweatSahara PitaThomas’

Culinary ProductsArgoBovrilKnorrMaizena

DessertsAlsaAmbrosia

DressingsBest FoodsHellmann’sLesieur

OilMazola

PastaMueller’s

SpreadsKaroMarmiteSanta RosaSkippy

Unilever Brand Names

All Unilever and Bestfoodsproducts, including:

Butter & MargarineBecelCountry CrockI Can’t Believe It’s NotButterRama

Cosmetics & FragrancesCalvin KleinCutexElizabeth ArdenHouse of CerrutiHouse of ValentinoQ-TipsRimmel

Culinary ProductsCalvéColmansRagú

Deodorant and AftershaveAxeDegreeDoveLynxRexona/SureSuave

Diet FoodsSlim-FastFrozen Foods

NOTE: This list is notexhaustive. To find morecomplete lists of Unileverproducts, visit:

www.unilever.comwww.bestfoods.com


KILLER COSMETICS AND FAKE FAT

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

· One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202 <www.pg.com>· 1999 Sales: $38.1 billion· 1999 Employees: 110,000

Procter & Gamble is the number one maker of household products in the United States.24

The company has been criticized for unsafe environmental practices and for operating in oppres-sive regimes. P&G is being boycotted for its unnecessary testing on animals for cosmetics andother beauty care products.25

P&G has also taken a lot of heat for its development and marketing of olestra, a fat substi-tute used to make “fat free” snacks that taste just as good as the real thing. Olestra moleculesare too large for the body to digest, so all the “fat” material leaves the body without being ab-sorbed. However, it can cause severe abdominal cramping and diarrhea in some people. Also, itbinds to fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) and carotenoids, dragging them out of the body. TheU.S. FDA requires P&G to add the four vitamins to olestra, but does not require compensationfor carotenoids. Olestra has not been yet approved for use in Canada.26

TAKING THE CHALLENGE

BeveragesSunny Delight

Coffee & TeaFolgersMillstoneTender Leaf Tea

CosmeticsCover GirlMax FactorOil of Olay

Deodorants &AftershaveOld SpiceSecretSure

DiapersLuvsPampers

Feminine HygieneAlwaysTampax

FragrancesGiorgio Beverly HillsHugo BossHair CareHead & Shoulders

MedikerPantene Pro-VPert PlusPhysiqueRejoy/RejoiceVidal Sassoon

Health CareAttendsChlorasepticDayQuil/NyQuilLiving BetterMetamucilPepto-BismolSinexVicks Cough/Cold Products

HouseholdCleaning ProductsBizCascadeCometDawnFit (Fruit/Veggie Wash)Ivory DishJoyMr. CleanSpic and SpanSwifferLaundryBoldBounce

CheerDownyDreftDryelEraGainIvory SnowOxydolTide

Oils & FatSubstitutesCriscoOlean (Olestra)

Oral CareCrest ToothpasteFixodentGleemScope

Pet CareIams

SnacksPringlesSoap & Skin CareCamayClearasilCoastIvoryNoxzemaOil of Olay

SafeguardZest

Soap OperasAs the World TurnsGuiding Light

SpreadsJif Peanut Butter

Tissues/TowelsBountyCharminPuffsRoyale

Water FiltrationPUR

Proctor & Gamble Brand Names

NOTE: This list is notexhaustive. To find morecomplete lists of Proctor &Gamble products, visit:

www.pg.comwww.hoovers.com


PEPSICO, INC.

· 700 Anderson Hill Rd., Purchase, NY 10577-1444· <www.pepsico.com>· 1999 Sales: $20.4 billion· 1999 Employees: 118,000

The world’s #2 soft-drink maker (behind Coca-Cola Company), PepsiCo also relies on itssnacks and juices market to make it one of the largest food companies in the world. A decadeago, PepsiCo was strongly criticized for its operations in countries with oppressive regimes.However, due to public pressure and concerns about human rights abuses, PepsiCo pulled out ofthe military dictatorship of Burma in January 1997.

All Pepsi, Tropicana andFrito-Lay foods, inaddition to the following:

Frito-Lay BrandsBaken-ets Fried Pork SkinsCheetosChester’s PopcornCracker JacksDoritosFritosFunyonsGrandma’s CookiesLay’sMuchosRold Gold PretzelsRufflesSabritasSantitasSmartfood

Pepsico Brand NamesSmithsSunchips3D’sTostitosWalkers

Pepsi-Cola BrandsAll SportAquafina WaterFrappuccino Coffee DrinkFruitWorksLipton (partnership with Unilever)MirindaMountain DewMug Root BeerPepsi-Cola7UPSlice

NOTE: This list is notexhaustive. To find morecomplete lists of Pepsicoproducts, visit:

www.pepsico.com

Tropicana BrandsCopellaDole JuicesFruvitaHitchcockJuice BowlLoozaTropicana


CEREAL WARS

Competing neck and neck for the top of the U.S. ready-to-eat cereal business, Kellogg’sand General Mills control nearly two-thirds of the U.S. cereal market.27

Cereal has a high profit margin and a very low return for farmers. In 1999, while grainprices were low, Kellogg’s and General Mills planned to raise cereal prices by 2.7 and 2.5 percent respectively. U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan called for an investigation into the price increases,noting that “[f]armers suffer big losses growing the grain, while cereal manufacturers reap bigprofits turning the same grain into breakfast cereal. The family farmer is being cheated out of afair return.” He added that the “farmer’s share of the retail price for cereal was only 6.4 cents tothe dollar, down 20 percent from 1995.”28

KELLOGG COMPANY· One Kellogg Square, Battle Creek, MI 49016-3599 <www.kelloggs.com>· 1999 Sales: $7.0 billion· 1999 Employees: 15,051

GENERAL MILLS, INC.· 1 General Mills Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55426 <www.generalmills.com>· 2000 Sales: $6.7 billion· 1999 Employees: 10,660

CerealsAll-BranApple JacksCocoa KrispiesCompleteCorn FlakesCorn PopsCracklin’ Oat BranCrispixFroot LoopsFrosted Flakes

Healthy ChoiceJust RightMini-WheatsProduct 19Raisin BranRice KrispiesSmacksSmart StartSpecial KSnack Pak

Meat Alternatives/Vegetarian FoodsLoma LindaMorningstar FarmsNatural TouchWorthington

Other ProductsCorn Flake CrumbsCroutettes Stuffing MixEggo WafflesNutri-GrainPop-TartsRice Krispies TreatsSnack ’Ums

CerealsBasic 4CheeriosCinnamon Toast CrunchCocoa PuffsCookie CrispFiber OneFrench Toast CrunchGolden GrahamsHoney Nut ClustersKixLucky CharmsOatmeal CrispRice ChexSunrise

TotalTrixWheaties

DessertsBetty Crocker MixesFlour & Baking MixesBisquickGold MedalRobin Hood

Main Meals & SideDishesBetty CrockerChicken HelperFarmhouseHamburger Helper

Lloyd’sTuna Helper

Snacks &BeveragesBuglesChex MixDunkaroosFruit by the FootFruit GushersFruit Roll-UpsGolden Grahams TreatsNature ValleyPop SecretColomboYoplait


ALTERNATIVES

While avoiding corporations altogether would be an arduous task, it is possible to graduallydecrease your dependence on the products of multinational corporations. Here are some sugges-tions to consider if you don’t like feeding corporate concentration.

� Go Organic.There are a variety of packaged and canned organic foods on the market, includingbeans, pasta, chips, spreads and drinks. These offer healthy alternatives and areusually made by smaller companies who have to listen to consumer demands in orderto succeed.

� Seek Out Local, Enviro-Friendly Products.If you look for them, you should be able to find all kinds of enviro-friendly products,including toothpaste, deodorant, detergent, shampoo, menstrual products andunderwear! These products are often made with organic materials and generally arenot tested on animals.

� Write a Letter.If you disagree with a corporation’s actions, write them a letter telling them you won’tbuy their products until they’ve changed their practices. Join organizations that pushfor change in the corporate realm. Even though these corporations are huge, they stillrely on your financial support, and eventually will have to listen to large populations ofunhappy consumers.

� Join a food co-op.There is likely a food co-operative in your area. A co-operative is an independentassociation made up of people who want to achieve a common goal through ademocratically controlled enterprise. All members of a co-op have a say in how theorganization is run, so you are not reduced to being a nameless consumer. Buying yourfood from food co-ops usually means that you are supporting smaller, local enterprisesand organic food businesses.


Endnotes1 Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, “Corporate Empires” Multinational Monitor 17 (December 1996): 26-7.2 Joshua Karliner, The Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books,

1997), 17-18.3 RAFI, “The Gene Giants: Update on Consolidation in the Life Industry,” RAFI Publications, 30 March 1999, <www.rafi.org/

web/publications.shtml> (25 July 2000).4 McSpotlight, “Proctor & Gamble in the McSpotlight,” 4 March 2000, <www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/proctor.html>

(9 August 2000).5 Hoover’s, “Philip Morris Companies Inc. – Company Capsule,” Hoover’s Online, <www.hoovers.com> (2 August 2000).6 Anderson and Cavanagh, “Corporate Empires,” 27.7 Philip Morris Companies Inc., “Philip Morris Acquires Nabisco for $55.0 Per Share In Cash And Plans For IPO Of Kraft,” 25

June 2000, <www.philipmorris.com/whatsnew/nabisco.htm> (1 August 2000).8 INFACT, “INFACT’s Tobacco Industry Campaign,” <www.infact.org/helpstop.html> (2 August 2000); INFACT, “INFACT’s

Hall of Shame Campaign,” <www.infact.org/hos.html> (2 August 2000).9 Ibid.10 Ibid.11 McSpotlight, “Philip Morris in the McSpotlight,” Beyond McDonald’s, 24 March 1998, <www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/

companies/pmorris.html> (9 August 2000).12 Philip Morris Companies Inc., “Making a Difference in our Communities,” Philip Morris Companies Inc. Home Page,

<www.philipmorris.com/pmcares> (9 August 2000).13 Kraft Foods, “Company Profile,” Kraft Foods Home Page, <www.kraftfoods.com/corporate/about/cp_index.html> (1 August,

2000).14 Hoover’s, “Nestlé S.A. – Company Capsule,” Hoover’s Online, <www.hoovers.com> (2 August 2000).15 Ibid; McSpotlight, “Nestlé in the McSpotlight,” Beyond McDonald’s, 22 June 2000, <www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/

nestle.html> (9 August 2000).16 McSpotlight, “Nestlé in the McSpotlight.”17 McSpotlight, “McSpotlight on the Baby Milk Industry,” Beyond McDonald’s, <www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/nestle.html> (9

August 2000).18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 INFACT Canada, “Nastie Nestlé: Nestlé Bribes Doctors in Pakistan,” INFACT Newsletter, Winter 2000, 5.21 Hoover’s, “Unilever – Company Capsule,” Hoover’s Online, <www.hoovers.com> (2 August 2000)..22 Ibid.23 McSpotlight, “The Chemical Industry in the McSpotlight,” Beyond McDonald’s, <www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/industries/

chemical.html> (11 August 2000); PETA, “Consumer Products Companies That Test on Animals,” Caring Consumer,<www.peta.com/liv/cc/cctest.html> (11 August 2000).

24 Hoover’s, “The Procter & Gamble Company – Company Capsule,” Hoover’s Online, <www.hoovers.com> (9 August 2000)..25 McSpotlight, “Procter & Gamble in the McSpotlight.”26 Michael Jacobson and Leila Corcoran, “Olestra: Snack Attack,” Nutrition Action Healthletter, Canadian Edition, March 1998,

9-11.27 Russell Mokhiber, “The Cereal Trust,” Multinational Monitor 20 (April 1999): 28.28 Ibid.

73

AP

PE

ND

IX 1

73 The Supermarket Tour

APPENDIX 1:

HOW TO LEAD A SUPERMARKET TOUR

Taking a group of people for a guided tour of a supermarket is one of the best ways tohighlight the issues in this booklet. Anyone should be able to go on a tour, including students,seniors, neighbours, parents and religious community members.

The two-hour Supermarket Tour is designed for small groups; a group of about eightpeople, including tour guides, works well. Larger groups can be disruptive in the supermarket,while smaller groups might miss out on beneficial group discussions. If you do have a large group,try splitting the group into two or more smaller groups.

FACILITATING A TOUR

You don’t have to be an expert on all the issues in this booklet to lead a tour. As a tour guideor facilitator, your job is to raise questions for discussion and to direct the process of learning.Chances are the people going on the tour already know several different things about the foodsystem, and everyone on the tour is there to exchange information and ideas.

The following are some suggestions for facilitating a tour:

� Although the tour can be led by one person, it is easier managed by two so thatsubjects can be divided. Also, while one person talks, the other can prepare for thenext section of the Tour.

� Alternatively, if you are working as a group, you might divvy up the sections ahead oftime and have each participant facilitate a different discussion or activity.

Preparing for a Tour

� Become familiar with the material in this booklet. You may find that you need to updateinformation based on significant current events.

� There is too much information in here for a single tour, so decide which themes you’dlike to stress. Covering all the subjects could leave participants overwhelmed. If theywant to find out about certain topics in more detail, they can follow up later by readingThe Supermarket Tour.

� Ask the supermarket manager for permission. Ask when is a good time to come in soas not to disrupt customers. Explain that you would like to take a group of people on aguided tour of the supermarket, that it is a small group, and that you will be careful tostay out of customers’ way as you walk through the store.

� Choose a store and visit it. Run through a dress rehearsal. Plan where you would liketo stop during the tour. Estimate how long each section might take so you have a roughtimeline.

74

A

PP

EN

DIX

1


� Prepare props, lists or handouts for any activities during the tour.

� It would be good to prepare a list of local alternatives, including shops where organicfoods and products are sold, community shared agriculture, food co-ops, etc. Prepareto hand out copies of this at the end of the tour.

On the Tour

� At the beginning of the tour, it is important to outline the objectives and themes of thetour. It is a good idea to have the participants introduce themselves and share whatthey would like to gain from the tour. Let participants know how long the tour will last.

� Encourage everyone to participate. Explain that you are a facilitator, not a lecturer, andaffirm that everyone has much to contribute to this tour.

� Encourage participants to pick up products and examine labels.

� It may be a good idea to discuss alternatives at the end of each theme, rather thanleaving this to the end. Participants may feel more empowered and optimistic if theyare given time to think through alternatives throughout the tour.

� Don’t worry if you don’t have all the answers. Record any unanswered questions andask for volunteers to research the answers and share them with the group at a latertime.

� Leave the supermarket for the debriefing session.

Debriefing

� Debriefing the tour is very important. There needs to be time for participants to sharetheir impressions, ask further questions and give feedback.

� Ask participants to share their strongest impressions with the group. Don’t feel thatyou have to comment on each response.

� Follow up on any questions.

� Some participants may feel that the problems are too large for one person to make adifference. Emphasize the importance of small changes.

� If the group works well together, you might suggest that the group work together forsome common goal at a later date, such as inviting a speaker, giving tours to others orgetting together to write letters. But don’t push people into action if they are resistant.

� Ask people to consider what their visions for change are. They don’t necessarily haveto share this with the group if they are uncomfortable. Envisioning a goal is a muchmore positive motivator than dwelling on the negative aspects of the current system.

� Finally, evaluate the tour. Ask each participant to state one positive aspect of the tour,and one thing that could be improved. This will help you to improve your planning andpresentation for any further tours.

75

AP

PE

ND

IX 1


SAMPLE ACTIVITIES

While it may seem difficult in a supermarket, group activities are good ways to take breaksfrom information-intensive subjects. Activities often reinforce the information presented. Hereare two activities that may be used during the course of the tour.

Activities help to concretize the information being presented. At the end of each activity, besure to leave time for a discussion on alternatives.

Making a Banana Split

This activity can be used in a discussion about produce and the effects of buying producefrom developing countries.

Materials: Banana cut-outs, pens.

� Have participants work singly or in pairs. Explain that you are using bananas as anexample of a product exported by developing countries to better understand who earnswhat in the process of getting the banana to us.

� Quickly brainstorm: where do bananas come from? What steps are involved in theproduction and distribution of bananas? List people’s suggestions. Summarize them bylisting the following types of categories: farmer and plantation worker; export,transportation & taxes; wholesaler (e.g. Chiquita, Dole); retailer (stores).Make sure everyone in the group has a basic idea of the role of each of these groups.

� Ask each participant (or pair) to split up the banana based on the share they think eachgroup listed above should receive, based on costs and labour (e.g. if a banana costsone dollar, how many cents should go to the farm worker, the local store, etc.?) Havethem explain their reasons behind their numbers. If possible, get the group to agree onhow the banana should be split.

� Show the participants the actual breakdown of who receives what. (See Chapter 2; ingeneral, out of every dollar, the worker/grower earns five cents, the costs of export,transportation and taxes amount to 44 cents, the wholesaler gets 17 cents and the retailstore gets 34 cents.)

� Ask the group why they think the banana is cut the way it is. Why do the workers getso little? Who sets the prices? What can be done to change the situation so thatworkers and farmers receive a fairer share?

� You may want to remind the group that while the banana is only one example of themany products that come from developing countries, many other agricultural products(such as sugar, coffee and even manufactured products) have a similar breakdown.Even in Canada, wheat farmers are paid relatively little for their crops.

Adapted from “Workshop: What in the World is Fair Trade?”Ten Days for Global Justice: Education and Action Guide, 1998.

76

A

PP

EN

DIX

1


Let’s Go Shopping! A Window on Corporate Concentration

This is a good activity to let participants really see the control of corporations.Materials: Separate cue cards with the following shopping lists (do not let people know whichcompany is associated with each list until the participants have reassembled).

Suggested Shopping Lists

List 1: Philip MorrisJell-OCheez WhizKraft Macaroni and CheeseMaxwell House coffeeMinute RiceCool WhipRaisin Bran cerealKool-AidPhiladelphia Cream CheeseToblerone chocolate barBaker’s chocolateMiracle Whip

List 2: NestléCoffee-MateNescafé coffeeSmartiesTurtlesAlpo dog foodPerrier waterCarnation baby formulaParlour ice creamStouffer’s frozen entréeLibby’s canned beansOpti-Free contact lens solutionMaggi bouillon

List 3: UnileverBecel margarineCountry Crock margarineBreyer’s Ice CreamRagú spaghetti sauceLipton cup-a-soupRed Rose teaSunlight dish soapSalon Selectives shampooClose-Up toothpasteDove soapQ-TipsDegree deodorant

List 4:Procter & GambleFolgers coffeeSunny DelightPringlesCrisco vegetable shorteningJif peanut butterOld Spice aftershaveOil of Olay soapPampers diapersTampax tamponsCrest toothpasteTide laundry detergentMr. Clean

List 5: General MillsCheerios cerealLucky Charms cerealGolden Grahams cerealTotal cerealBetty Crocker cake mixRobin Hood baking productHamburger HelperBugles snackFruit Roll-UpsYoplait yogurtNature Valley barsPop Secret popcorn

� Give participants about 15 minutes to get as many of the products on their shoppinglists as possible. Ask the group to reassemble near the ice cream section, so that noproducts melt during the tour. Participants can share with the others what items are ontheir list and in their shopping basket.

� Once you disclose which corporation manufactures the items on each list, you canprovide relevant information about each corporation (see Chapter 7).

� Alternately, you can make up your own lists from the lists provided in the booklet. Youcan also make lists to illustrate other points, such as what food products containGenetically Modified Organisms (see Appendix 3), or what foods contain certainpesticide residues.

77

AP

PE

ND

IX 2


APPENDIX 2:

GROCERY STORE PROFILES1

If possible, it is advisable to update this information from time to time, as it is always chang-ing. To do so, look up the company’s profile on a site like <www.hoovers.com>, or visit thecompany’s website.

Unless otherwise indicated, annual sales are in Canadian dollars.

CANADA SAFEWAY LIMITED

1020 64th Ave. NE, Calgary, AB T2E 7V8(403) 730-3500

Banners: Food Barn, Food for Less, Lucerne Foods Ltd., SafewayOwnership: Safeway Inc. (U.S.A.) 100%Operations: BC, AB, SK, MB, ONAnnual Sales: $3.2 billion (1998)

EMPIRE COMPANY LIMITED

115 King St., Stellarton, NS BOK 1S0(902) 755-4440

Banners: Boni Choix, Calbeck, Foodland, Foodtown, IGA, Knechtel, Lofood, PriceChopper, Sobeys

Ownership: Sobey family (Canada) 62%Operations: All Canadian provincesAnnual Sales: $4.4 billion (1999)

Empire tripled the size of its food operations after the December 1998 purchase ofThe Oshawa Group, which formerly had control over the Food City, IGA, Dutch Boy,Price Chopper, Food Town, Boni Choix and Knechtel banners.

THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED

5559 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke, ON M9B 1B9(416) 239-7171

Banners: A&P, The Barn, Dominion, Farmer Jack, Food Basics, Food Emporium, Kohl’s,Miracle Food Mart, Sav-A-Centre, Super-Fresh, Ultra Mart, Waldbaum’s

Ownership: Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (Germany) 100%(German retailer Tengelmann Group owns about 55% of A&P)

Operations: ONAnnual Sales: Canadian figures not available. The Great A&P Tea Company’s sales

amounted to $10.1 billion [USD] (2000).

78

A

PP

EN

DIX

2


LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED

18th floor, 22 St. Clair Avenue East, Toronto, ON M4T 2S8(416) 922-8500

Banners: Atlantic Grocers, Atlantic Superstore, Extra Foods, Fortinos, LoblawsSupermarkets, Lucky Dollar Foods, Mr. Grocer, National Grocers, no frills, OK!Economy, The Real Canadian Superstore, Save Easy, Shop Easy Foods, SuperValu,valu-mart, Westfair Foods, Your Independent Grocer, Zehrmart,Under Provigo: Atout’ Prix, Axep, L’Econome, L’Intermarché, Jovi, Marché Plus,Maxi, Proprio, Provi-Soir, Provigo, Red Rooster, Votre épicier, Winks

Ownership: George Weston Limited (Canada) 63%Operations: All provinces plus NT and YTAnnual Sales: $12.9 billion (1999)

Loblaw Companies Limited is the top food retailer in Canada, and strengthened itspresence in Québec by purchasing Provigo Inc. in 1998. Due to competition concernsidentified by the Competition Bureau, Loblaws divested some of its newly purchasedinterests to Metro-Richelieu (including the Loeb trademark).

Brand names exclusive to Loblaw retailers include: no name, President’s Choice,EXACT, G-R-E-E-N and Too Good To Be True!

George Weston Limited, the owner of Loblaw Companies, operates in two maindivisions: Food Processing (fresh and frozen bakeries, biscuit and dairy operations, aswell as fish processing), and Food Distribution (through Loblaw Companies). 1999 Salesfor George Weston Limited amounted to $21 billion.

Metro Inc.

11011 Maurice-Duplessis Blvd., Montreal, QC H1C 1V6(514) 643-1055

Banners: Ami, Boeuf Mérite, Brunet, Les 5 Saisons, Distagro, Econogros, Gem, Loeb,Marché Richelieu, Metro, Pêcheries Atlantique, Super C

Ownership: Individual store owners (Canada) 20%, Caisse de dépôt et placement duQuébec (Canada) 13%.

Operations: QC, ONAnnual Sales: $2.7 billion (1999)

Fomerly Metro-Richelieu, Metro Inc. operates mainly in Québec. It also owns about40 Loeb stores in Ontario.

79

AP

PE

ND

IX 2


OVERWAITEA FOOD GROUP

P.O. Box 7200, Vancouver, BC V6B 4E4(604) 888-1213, (604) 888-4500

Banners: Overwaitea, Save-On-FoodsOwnership: Jim Pattison Group (Canada) 100%Operations: BC, ABAnnual Sales: Not available.

The Jim Pattison Group’s other holdings include auto dealerships, a Swiss financialcompany, the second largest cannery in the country and the largest neon sign company inNorth America.

Endnotes1 Information for this section is taken from the following sources:

a) Ranjani Achar, David Nitkin, Kay Otto, Paul Pellizzari, and EthicScan Canada, Shopping With a Conscience: The InformedShopper’s Guide to Retailers, Suppliers, and Service Providers in Canada (Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1996).b) Hoover’s, Hoover’s Online, <www.hoovers.com> (9 June 2000).

81

AP

PE

ND

IX 3


APPENDIX 3:

SAMPLE LETTERS

It is always better to write your own letter, but if you’re stuck for what to say here aresome sample letters to get you started.

Canola Council

400 - 167 Lombard Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba

R3B 0T6

or

Canadian Oilseed Processors Association

2150 - 360 Main Street

Winnipeg, Manitoba

R3C 3Z3

January 15, 2002

To whom it may concern:

As a consumer, I am happy with the quality and versatility of canola oil

and am proud of its Canadian origins. However, I want you to know that I

do not want to eat genetically engineered food. I am aware that these

products are approved by government agencies. Nevertheless, I will not be

buying any more canola oil unless it is certified organic or comes from a

company with a clear policy and procedure in place to exclude GMOs from

their products.

I look forward to receiving your response on this issue.

Yours truly,

82

A

PP

EN

DIX

3


Mr. Galen Weston.

ChairmanLoblaws Companies Limited

18th floor, 22 St. Clair Avenue E.

Toronto, Ontario

M4T 2S8

January 15, 2002

Dear Mr. Weston,

I am writing to express my concerns about genetically engineered food in

Loblaws Companies supermarkets.

The long-term impacts of GE foods are as yet unpredictable. Among other

things, these foods have the potential to spread antibiotic resistance, propagate

new weed species and create allergenic reaction. Other predictable impacts of GE

food production include increasing food contamination and increasing farm work-

ers’ exposure to toxic pesticides, especially considering so much of biotechnology

research is focused on the development of pesticide-resistant plants.

I believe that I should be able to choose between foods that do and do not

contain GE products. Unfortunately, I am aware that GE foods are present in up

to 75 per cent of processed foods sold in Canada. I also see that none of these

products are labelled.

Meanwhile, the major supermarket chains in the United Kingdom have

listened to consumer demands and are phasing out GE foods. As Chairman of

Canada’s largest chain of groceries—and manufacturer of “President’s Choice”

and “No Name” brands—you are in a position to set the same example in

Canada.

I ask you, therefore, to ban GE foods from your supermarket shelves, and to

clearly label GE foods until that goal is achieved.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Yours truly,

83

AP

PE

ND

IX 3


The Honourable Anne McLellan (or successor)Minister of Health21st Floor, Jeanne-Mance BuildingTunney’s PastureOttawa, OntarioK1A 0K9

January 15, 2002

Dear Minister,

I am writing to express my concerns about genetically engineered food in Canada.The long-term impacts of GE foods are as yet unpredictable. Among other things,these foods have the potential to spread antibiotic resistance, propagate new weedspecies and create allergenic reaction. Other predictable impacts of GE food productioninclude increasing food contamination and increasing farm workers’ exposure to toxicpesticides, especially considering so much of biotechnology research is focused on thedevelopment of pesticide-resistant plants.

I believe that I should be able to choose between foods that do and do not containGE products. Unfortunately, I am aware that GE foods are present in up to 75 per centof processed foods sold in Canada. I also see that none of these products are labelled.I ask you, therefore, to urge corporations to label their products containing GEfoods, and to reject any legislation that would disallow labelling of GE foods.Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Yours truly,

85

AP

PE

ND

IX 4


APPENDIX 4:

WHICH BRANDS CLAIM TO BE GE-FREE?

Greenpeace Canada’s Green List of GMO-Free Food

December 2000

The following information was taken from a shoppers’ guide that is part of the True FoodCampaign to promote GMO-free foods(foods free of genetically modified organisms) and GMO-free sustainable agriculture in Canada.The True Food Network members are an active force tobring an end to the genetic experiment on our food and work towards an ecologically basedagricultural system in Canada.

Greenpeace compiled the Guide primarily from direct communications with food producers.In some cases, they received company policy statements from consumers who passed them on toGreenpeace. In addition to written statements, they spoke to many company representatives toclarify or assess their position. Greenpeace has strived to present the most accurate and currentdata possible, but this list is by no means exhaustive. Contact Greenpeace for new informationand your own updates (mail us at [email protected] or call 1-800-320-7183).

Meat & Dairy

In Canada, Bovine Growth Hormone(BGH), or GM milk, has not been approved, as it hasbeen in the USA. At the present time there are no genetically engineered meats or dairy productsin Canada. However, animals are fed grains, such as corn and soy, which may contain GMOs.

Fish

All fish are in the Green category. Genetically engineered fish have not beencommericalized in Canada, although applications are before the federal government.

Produce

At this time very little GM food makes its way into produce sections - most is used inpackaged and processed foods.Certified organically grown produce excludes the use of geneti-cally engineered seeds. Fresh produce is one of the best ways to avoid GMOs.

Wheat

GE Wheat is not in our food supply at the present time, however there were 72 field trials ofGM wheat in Canada during 2000. Wheat is one of Canada’s most valuable agricultural exportcrops. Many countries in the world do not want to buy genetically engineered crops or seedsfrom Canada. If GM wheat goes to market Canada stands to lose major markets and contami-nate conventional and organic wheat fields. In addition to market loss, GM wheat poses environ-mental hazards and human health risks like all GM crops.

86

A

PP

EN

DIX

4


Baby FoodsGerber

All varietiesHeinz

All varietiesEarth’s Best Dry cereal

Whole Mixed GrainEarth’s Best (jars)

Pasta DinnerVegetable & BeefCorn & Butternut SquashSummer VegetableSpinach & PotatoesPotato & Green Bean

Earth’s Best JuniorsSpring Vegetable w/PastaSpaghetti & CheeseVegetable SouffleTender Chicken & StarsVegetable Beef PilafCountry Potato & VegetableChunk Orchard Fruit

Earth’s Best for TeethingOriginal BiscuitsWheat Free Biscuits

Gerber Dry CerealMixed Cereal for Baby

Gerber jarsPotatoCreamed Corn MacaroniTomato Beef Vegetable ChickenVanilla Custard

Gerber GraduatesTurkey Stew with RiceVegetable Stew with BeefPasta Shells with CheeseCheese Ravioli with Tomato SauceChicken & Broccoli with Cheese

Healthy Times jarsHarvest Time VegetableCountry VegetableVeggie Stew

So Good Soy MilkSo Nice Soy MilkVitaSoySoy Milk

BreadsCountry Fresh

Whole grain certified organicbreads

CerealsArrowhead Mills

Maple Buckwheat FlakesNature O’sPuffed CornMultigrain FlakesShredded Wheat

EnviroKidzAmazon Frosted FlakesGorilla MunchKoala CrispOrangutan-O’s

Health ValleyCranberry CrunchRaisin Bran FlakesFiber 7 FlakesFiber 7 MultigrainHoney Fiber 7 MultigrainGolden FlaxOat Bran FlakesBanana Gone Nuts

LifestreamSmart BranWildberry MuesliMultigrain Honey Puffs8 Grain

Nature’s PathCorn FlakesHoney’d Corn FlakesHoney’d Raisin BranMultigrain & RaisinMultigrain Oatbran Flakes

Healthy Times teething cookiesOriginal Teddy Puffs For ToddlersApple Cinnamon Teddy Puffs ForToddlers Vanilla Hugga BearCookiesCinnamon Hugga Bear CookiesVanilla ArrowrootMaple Arrowroot TretzelsOriginal TretzelsOrganic Peanut Butter

Nature’s OneToddler Infant Formula

Baking GoodsBob’s Red Mill

10 Grain Pancake & WaffleNo Oil 10 Grain Pancake/WaffleBuckwheat Pancake & WaffleButtermilk Pancake & WaffleCornmeal Pancake & WaffleButtermilk BiscuitCornbread MuffinDate Nut Bran MuffinOat Bran & Date Nut MuffinOat Bran & Nuts CookieRaisin Bran MuffinSpice Apple Bran MuffinWheat Free BiscuitCornmeal

BeveragesEden Soy Milk

OriginalChocolateCarobRice & Soy Blend

Green CuisineSuper Soy Milk

LiberteOrganic Soy Milk

Muir GlenTomato Juice100% Vegetable Juice

The Green List

About the list below: these are products containing soy, corn, canola or potatoes or theirderivatives (soy lecithin, corn syrup, corn starch, corn fructose) and guaranteed to be free ofgenetically modified organisms (GMOs). They are verified by written declaration either by letter,by electronic publication on a company web site, or by virtue of being certified organic (becausein Canada and the United States organic certification standards exclude GMO). To be on thegreen list the product must not contain any genetically engineered ingredients, nor be derivedfrom GM ingredients.

87

AP

PE

ND

IX 4


Shredded Oaty BitesMillet Rice Oatbran FlakesApple Cinnamon GranolaGinger Zing GranolaOrganic Soy Plus GranolaRaspberry Heritage Granola

Nature’s PathCorn Waffles

CondimentsAmano

Soy SauceAnnie’s Naturals

Barbeque SauceSmoky Maple Barbecue Sauce

BraggsMineral Bouillion

HainCanola MayonnaiseEggless Mayonnaise

Muir GlenTomato KetchupGrill Chef Barbecue Sauces -all

San JSoy Sauce (organic varieties only)

WestbraeNatural KetchupUnsweetened

Canned GoodsAmy’s Kitchen Soups

Cream of TomatoCream of MushroomBlack BeanLentilMinestroneVegetable Barley

Cascadian FarmsAll Jams/SpreadsHain SoupsChicken NoodleMinestroneSplit PeaWild RiceCreamy MushroomMushroom BarleyVegetarian Lentil

Health Valley SoupsChicken NoodleTomato Vegetable14 Garden VegetableCorn & VegetableMinestrone

5 Bean VegetarianLentil & CarrotSplit Pea & CarrotTomatoPotato LeekVegetableBlack BeanMinestroneSoup in a Cup Mixes

Muir Glen TomatoesWhole, PeeledDicedStewedGround PeeledTomato Sauce

Muir Glen SaucesChunky Tomato & HerbCabernet MarinaraGreen OliveMushroom MarinaraBalsamic Roasted OnionGarlic VegetablePizza SauceRoasted Red PepperTomato BasilItalian HerbSun-dried Tomato

Sharianne’sOrganic Soups

Frozen FoodsAmy’s Kitchen Pizzas

CheeseMushroom & OlivePesto & Tomato BroccoliRoasted VegetableSpinachVeggie ComboSoy Cheese

Packaged FoodsBalance Bars

Crunchy Peanut Energy BarNut BerryChocolate CrispHoney Almond

Barbara’s BakeryWheatiness CrackersSesame Wheatiness Crackers

CasbahGyros MixWheat Pilaf

Down to Earth Cookies

Cinnamon Graham TwistsChocolate Graham Twists

Ener-G FoodsHol Grain Snack ThinsHol Grain Onion & Garlic

Fantastic FoodsHummus

Pesto HummusChicken Flavour Rice PilafCoucousWhole Wheat Coucous

HainRich CrackersSesame Wheat Crackers

Hain CookiesHoney GrahamsVanilla GrahamsChocolate Animal Grahams

Hain KidzAnimal CrackersChocolate Animal Crackers

Health Valley CookiesOatmeal RaisinGraham AmaranthGraham OatRice Bran

Health Valley Granola BarsBlueberryRaspberryAppleRaisinMarshmallow8 Grain Sesame

Lifestream Breakfast BarsBuckwheat WildberryMesa SunriseSoy Plus

Lundberg Family FarmGarlic Pesto Brown RiceSpanish Fiesta Brown RiceVegetarian ChickenRisotto: Tomato BasilRisotto: Italian HerbRisotto: Garlic PrimaveraRisotto: Creamy Parmesan

Lundberg Rice CakesApple CinnamonMultigrainPopcorn

Plumm GoodAll Rice Cake Varieties

Westbrae Natural SoupOld World Split PeaLouisiana Bean

88

A

PP

EN

DIX

4


Mediterranean LentilSanta Fe VegetableMilano MinestroneGarden VegetableCorn ChowderFrench OnionCreamy Mushroom

Salad Dressings

& OilsAnnie’s Natural Dressings

BalsamicCeasarFrenchCilantro & LimeGreen GoddessGarlic Parmesan TofuLow Fat Honey MustardSesame Peanut TofuShitake & SesameThousand Island

NasoyaGarden HerbCreamy DillCreamy ItalianSesame GarlicThousand Island

Spectrum NaturalsCanola Oil, organicCanola MayonnaiseLite Canola Mayonnaise

Snack Foods & SweetsBearitos

Blue Tortilla ChipsReduced Fat Tortilla ChipsWhite Tortilla ChipsYellow Tortilla ChipsCheese CrunchiesLite Cheddar PuffsBaked Cheddar PuffsButtery PopcornWhite Cheddar PopcornMicrowave PopcornNo Salt No Oil Popcorn

Cloud NineOrganic Chocolate bars

Garden of Eatin’ Corn ChipsSesame BluesBlack BeanLittle Soy BluesRed Hot Blues

Red CornGarden Grains

Hain Mini Rice CakesRanchHoney NutApple Cinnamon

Hain Popped Mini CakesOriginalCaramelButterMild CheddarKettle Potato Chips

RegularLightly SaltedBakedMesquite BarbequeHoney BarbequeSea Salt & VinegarNY Cheddar & HerbYogurt & Green Onion

Que PasaOrganic Tortilla Chips

RapunzelOrganic Chocolate

Tofu & Soy ProductsAmy’s Kitchen

All American BurgerCalifornia Veggie BurgerChicago Veggie BurgerTexas Veggie Burger

GeniSoyVanilla Protein ShakeMix

LightlifeLightburger Veggie BurgerTamari Tempeh BurgerLemon Grilles Tempeh BurgerBarbecue Grilles Tempeh BurgerTempeh - All varietiesSmart Deli SlicesLean LinksGimme Lean SausageGimme Lean BeefSeitan - All varietiesTofu PupsSmart Dogs

Mori-NuSilken Tofu - All varietiesLight Tofu - All varieties

So Soy+Soy Vegetarian meals

SoyganicExtra Firm Tofu

SolgarIsoSoy Protein Mix

Sunrise SoyOrganic certified Tofu

UnisoyaOrganic certified Tofu O.C.I.A.

White WaveTofu - All varietiesFive Grain TempehSoy TempehSoy Rice TempehWild Rice Tempeh

Yves Veggie CuisineGarden Vegetable PattiesBlack Bean & Mushroom BurgersVeggie WienersVeggie Chili DogsHot Spicy Jumbo Veggie DogsTofu WeinersVeggie Breakfast Links

the new & improved supermarket tour - fair...

Documents