Report on Impacts of Genetically Engineered Food

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that our Board review the Company's policies for food products containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients and report to shareholders by March 2004. This report, developed at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, would identify the risks, financial costs (including opportunity costs) and benefits, and environmental impacts of the continued use of GE-ingredients in food products sold or manufactured by the company.

Supporting Statement
There continue to be indicators that genetically engineered agricultural products may be harmful to humans, animals, or the environment:
· Crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals/industrial chemicals could pollute the food system; Fearing that pollen from corn not approved for human consumption may have spread to nearby fields of ordinary corn, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered 155 acres of Iowa corn uprooted and burned (9/2002); 500,000 bushels of Nebraska soybeans destined for human consumption were quarantined due to biocontamination by a small amounts of an test pharmaceutical/industrial crop (11/2002).
· The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report (8/2002) Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns cautions that the current regulatory system is inadequate to address "potential hazards, particularly in the environmental area." (p. 14). Environmental problems from accidentally released transgenic animals such as fish or pigs could be difficult to identify and more difficult to remedy;
· Research reported to the Ecological Society of America indicated that a gene artificially inserted into crop plants to fend off pests can migrate to weeds in a natural environment and make the weeds stronger (8/8/2002);
· The NAS report, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, recommends improved methods for identifying potential allergens in genetically engineered pest-protected plants and found potential gaps in regulatory coverage (4/2000);
· The NAS report The Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants calls for "significantly more transparent and rigorous testing and assessment" of GE-plants (2/2002);
· Since fall 2000, food companies have spent many millions of dollars in recalling food containing GE corn not approved for human consumption;
· For human health and environmental concerns, the European Union has proposed regulations to phase out by 2005 antibiotic-resistant marker genes, widely used to develop GE seeds;

Markets for GE-foods are threatened by extensive resistance:
· Upon ratification by 50 countries, the Biosafety Protocol, signed by over 100 countries, will require that genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) intended for food, feed and processing must be labeled "may contain" GEOs. Countries can decide whether to import those commodities based on a scientific risk assessment;
· Countries around the world, including Brazil, Greece, and Thailand, have instituted moratoriums or banned importation of GE seeds and crops;
· Labeling of GE foods is required in the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Australia, and favored by 70-93% of people surveyed in approximately a dozen opinion polls in the U.S.

We urge that this report:
1) outline a contingency plan for sourcing non-GE ingredients should circumstances so require;
2) cite evidence of long-term safety testing that demonstrates that GE crops, organisms, or products thereof are actually safe for humans, animals, and the environment.

<< Back to Proxy Book