Vegetarian Times: Waiter, there's a flounder in my fruit - bioengineered fruits and vegetable with a

TO DATE, CONSUMERS have been unsuccessful in convincing the federal government that bioengineered food, especially fruits and vegetables that contain animal, insect, viral or bacterial genes, should be labeled as such. But recent threats to U.S. companies, who may be losing out on international trade over this issue, may pique the government's interest in planting labels on high-tech food.

Nearly every major agricultural and pharmaceutical company, as well as many research universities, is involved in the potentially lucrative field of bioengineering. Current research or market tests involve adding human genes to cows so that their milk will resemble human milk, splicing flounder genes with tomatoes and combining chicken genes with potatoes. Some scientists insist these experiments may extend the shelf life of some foods, increase protein or antioxidant levels and enhance resistances to plant viruses. Others admit these projects simply allow researchers to stretch the boundaries of science.

But those who avoid certain foods say these experiments are unconscionable. "Unless there is labeling required by law, consumers are going to be facing a food Russian roulette--especially if they're following some sort of dietary habit or religious belief," says Michael Sly, director of sustainable agriculture for Rural Advancement Foundation International, an environmental advocacy group.

Current U.S. policy says consumers don't have the right to know what foreign genes are in the food they are eating unless there is a known health risk or a material difference in the final product. Genetically engineered foods don't qualify under these criteria, says Brad Stone, a spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Study after study has shown U.S. food shoppers want the labels, but the FDA holds fast. However, a United Nations sponsored delegation, called the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labeling, met last spring in Ottawa to begin establishing labeling standards for international trade. Concurrently, leading scientists from the U.S. and Canada called for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods at press conferences, hoping to influence the international committee on food labeling.

Whether the scientists' warnings were heard is not yet clear, but the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labeling will reconvene next April, and possibly address the scientists' concerns. If countries outside the U.S. make a fuss about the necessity of labels, and threaten to boycott U.S.-grown produce because it is unclear what the food contains, the FDA's position on labeling might weaken.

Pro-labeling scientists argue that the FDA's position is based on an outdated labeling regulation ill-equipped to assess high-tech foods. Moreover, they claim it ignores public opinion and the moral or religious beliefs of consumers who don't want animal genes in their vegetables or fruits. "While [genetic engineering] may not add material contents in the conventional sense, it adds `genetic information' that can significantly alter the composition of a food," says John Fagan, Ph.D., who chairs the Department of Molecular Biology at Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa. "Otherwise, how could people who are allergic to Brazil nuts have allergic reactions to a genetically engineered soybean that contains Brazil nut genes?" he asks, referring to a study reported in the March 14 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, which reported allergens can be transmitted through some food's genes.

Others at the Ottawa Codex conference raised significant human health concerns. In 1989, for example, a Japanese firm genetically engineered a tryptophan (amino acid) food supplement from a bacterium. But the product contained traces of toxins that killed 37 people and severely disabled 1,500 more. Because the product was not labeled as genetically engineered or containing the bacterium, it took months before authorities could identify the source of the problem and withdraw it from the market.

"We should expect [genetic alterations] to have numerous side effects," says Gary Kaplan, M.D., Director of Clinical Neurophysiology at Cornell University Medical College in New York City. Without labeling, says Sheldon Krimsky, Ph.D., professor of urban and environmental policy at Tufts University in Medford, Mass., "People are being made part of an experiment for which they have not given their consent."

If you would like to register your concerns about the FDA's position on labeling of genetically engineered foods, write the FDA's Office of Consumer Affairs, room 1685, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857-HFE-88; (301) 827-4410; or fax (301) 443-9767.