Frankenfoods

Are U.S. consumers ready to demand labeling of genetically modified foods on their grocery shelves? The September issue of Consumer Reportsmagazine found DNA-altered ingredients in taco chips, infant formula, veggie burgers and corn-muffin mix. DNA-modified food has long been an international controversy, but a hidden issue for many Americans, because unlike Europe and, soon, Japan, the U.S. does not require genetically engineered food to be earmarked for shoppers.

Since the Consumer Reportsarticle, however, Hain Food Group Inc. decided to slap labels declaring its Little Bear line of natural snacks free of ingredients from genetically modified plants. Heinz told The Wall Street Journalthat it "will seek to avoid" genetically modified crops in all its U.S. products. Worthington Foods Inc., which makes Morningstar Farms veggie burgers, swore off genetically modified soybeans.

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced public hearings on the labeling issue. Last week, 50 members of Congress joined Democratic Whip David Bonior of Michigan in calling on the FDA to reverse its position and order labeling.

"He believes FDA policy regarding genetically modified foods is flawed," Bonior press secretary Fred Clark explained in a phone interview.

Genetic-engineering boosters, including the Grocery Manufacturers of America, dismiss labeling fever as the product of European-driven "hysteria."

"There’s certainly no reason for consumers to be concerned," said Grocery Manufacturers of America spokesman Brian Sansoni. "A lot of misinformation and hype have come over from Europe. Certainly the food has proven to be safe." A pro-biotech-food Web site says labeling would have the "unintended and unfortunate consequence of misleading consumers into thinking that biotech products have different health effects."

While there is no direct evidence that genetically engineered food is unsafe, scientists have questioned whether tinkering could inadvertently increase natural toxins or decrease nutrients in foods. Allergic reactions are a worry; in the mid-1990s, pre-market screening of soybeans modified with the gene of a Brazil nut caused allergic reactions among volunteers who were allergic to Brazil nuts. The modified soy was never released, but there remains no screening system in place to keep an unanticipated allergen off the market. Groups including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace USA have raised a number of environmental questions, linked to reports that genetically modified corn may endanger the monarch butterfly.

Since the FDA decided against labeling in 1992, genetically engineered crops have spread across the U.S. They now represent more than 35 percent of all corn and almost 55 percent of all soybeans, according to 1999 industry estimates — in the forms of soy oil and corn syrup, common ingredients in a wide array of processed foods.

"What I’m hearing across the country from consumers, and not just organic consumers, is they really want to have the right to know if their food is genetically altered," said Debbie Ortman, national field organizer for the Organic Consumer Association of Duluth, Minnesota.

"I don’t think the awareness about the extent of genetic modification is that high anywhere," added Steve Urow, Santa Monica–based Web designer for Organic Consumers.

The FDA hearings start Nov. 18 in Chicago; a third meeting is scheduled December 13 in Oakland. The FDA is taking written e-mail comments at www.fda.gov/ ohrms/dockets; messages must refer to "Docket No. 99N-4282." The deadline for comment is January 13.

GREAT CAESAR’S GHOST

It was as if Perry White had picked up the phone to find Great Caesar’s Ghost on the line — but this took place last week, in the Spring Street headquarters of our own metropolitan fishwrap. The hard-bitten, White-like editor was Bill Boyarsky, the L.A. Times’ veteran boss of city news, and on the line was Otis Chandler, scion of the founding family, calling in more than a year after stepping down from the Times Mirror board.

Chandler had been following the coverage of the Staples Center scandal that had been rocking the paper for more than a week. The paper had cut a deal with the center developers to split the profits on a special edition of the Sunday magazine devoted solely to celebrating the arena. Chandler decided it was time to weigh in. Steps taken by Times Mirror chairman Mark Willes to break down the traditional separation between editorial and business operations were "ill-advised" and "unsuccessful," Chandler said, but nothing compared to the "unbelievably stupid and unprofessional handling of the Staples Center special section."

Ever the reporter, Boyarsky took down every word of Chandler’s rambling, five-page critique, then called a meeting in the newsroom to recite the screed. The Timespublished a story on Chandler’s broadside the next day, along with major newspapers across the country.

But that wasn’t the end of it. Willes, a genial but uncompromising executive seemingly born to embody the Times’ stifling corporate culture, called Boyarsky into his corner office two days later and dressed him down. Boyarsky had been "disloyal," and Willes regarded his transmittal of the letter a "betrayal," as Boyarsky recounted the conversation to several reporters later that day. Boyarsky was not punished for his transgression, but he’s had enough of his unaccustomed role as newsmaker. "That’s my last press conference," he declared.