Left relatively unscathed by the genetically modified organism debate hitting the crop and animal-feed sectors, the U.S. dairy industry might be getting a taste of possible controversy as an environmentalist group fights to keep genetically engineered milk off McDonald’s menus.   Chastising the gigantic fast-food chain for not committing to keeping its milkshakes genetically engineered-free, the Friends of the Earth organization is urging the corporation to halt using genetically modified ingredients entirely.

In mid-May, a representative of the group asked individuals assembled for McDonald’s annual shareholders meeting to adopt the policy until long-term testing proves genetically engineered-derived ingredients are safe for human consumption.  The organization, along with other corporation shareholder groups filing a resolution calling for the action, also seeks an interim policy of labeling all food products containing genetically engineered ingredients.

“No one can say with certainty that genetically engineered food is safe to eat over the long term,” said Sarah Newport, coordinator of Safer Food, Safer Farms Campaign. “McDonald’s has a responsibility to its shareholders. The company's reputation is at stake if it doesn't respond to American consumers who are increasingly concerned about the risks posed by genetically engineered food.”

The action arrives on the heels of various food-industry organizations, including the International Dairy Foods Assn., (IDFA) calling for U.S. authorities to establish biotechnology guidelines. A petition filed earlier this month with FDA requests the agency provide guidance to food manufacturers desiring to use such labeling terms as “GM-Free” or “Non-GM.”

Milk Related Debates
The genetically modified organism debate has largely ignored the dairy industry’s two main biotech substances -- recombinant bovine somatotropin and chymosin -- though efforts indicates milk-related products aren’t immune from public discussion.

The environmentalist group’s stance is echoed by such dairy companies as Horizon Organic Dairy, Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. and Stonyfield Farm, which have made anti-GMO sentiments central to their images. But to hear some food tech pundits tell it, the whole flap is much ado about nothing.

“There is absolutely no sane data indicating a problem with rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin),” said Robin Woo, director, Ceres Forum, Georgetown University, Center for Food & Nutrition. “It’s a wonderful tool, particularly in the Third World where they’re trying to boost dairy output and increase calcium and protein consumption in their populations. The dairy industry was there at the beginning with biotech,” Woo told dairy processors during IDFA’s recent Cultured Dairy Products Conference in Las Vegas. “The world embraces chymosin because you have taken it under your wing. Chymosin is still in England even though they’re marching in the streets against biotech.” The enzyme’s recombinant version currently is used in 80% to 90% of U.S.-manufactured cheese, according to C. Gordon Brown, IDFA senior vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs.

In addition, rBST is used in one-third of U.S. dairy cows, but because of pooling, one could argue that figure is considerably higher, he indicated. “The dairy industry has been a benefactor of biotechnology,” Brown said during the conference. “Although we haven’t been on the radar screen as some of these other bioengineered products have been.” But other nations aren’t as fond of the technology. To date, Canada and the European Union nations prohibit rBST use in dairy cows. In banning the hormone last year, Canadian authorities stated that studies indicate it increases the risk of mastitis, lameness and infertility in animals. A European Commission study released in March 1999 indicated that rBST-treated milk contains excess levels of insulin-like growth factor, which is linked to human breast and prostate cancer.

Pressing Matters
Dave Schmidt, Senior Vice-President of food safety for the International Food Information Council said he believes, as do others, that chymosin has escaped scrutiny because some activists regard creating a recombinant version as more humane than the traditional method of obtaining the enzyme from calves’ stomachs.

IFIC is a nonprofit organization whose self-described mission is to communicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition to health and nutrition professionals, educators, government officials, journalists and others providing information to consumers. “When we look at how the media covers biotech, 70% of stories reported on perceived harms,” Schmidt said during the cultured dairy event. “That had something to do with fueling consumer attitudes last summer. Some people think philosophically there’s something wrong with biotech because it’s outside Mother Nature,” he said. “We prefer to look at biotech as an evolutionary phenomenon, that we’re building on what came before. Don’t present it as an overnight phenomenon.”

Though Horizon Organic Dairy, for example, has become the first-ever national milk brand in the United States, Schmidt warned processors against focusing the bulk of their efforts on organic methods in making products. “I think there’s an upper limit to how many people are going to pay that additional price (for organic products),” he said. “It’s going to come down to taste and price. Throwing all your eggs in that basket, I think you’ll come up short based on supply and demand.” However, Horizon CEO Chuck Marcy predicted that GMO press coverage would exert pressure on processors to “get rid of all those nasty things in the milk supply.”

Schmidt maintains that there are no safety issues regarding biotech and that companies using the technology need to stand fast in the face of what is often an emotional, not a scientific, debate.

“When trusted food companies run from biotech, you can actually create consumer concern with that simple act,” he said. “It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. “We can’t be put on the defensive with outrageous charges without explaining why we pursued biotech in the first place,” Schmidt said. “Biotech does have a link to traditional agriculture and it’s just an extension. Some claims have been so sensational. You need to be able to respond with science.”

The above article was compiled by Gerry Clark, Managing Editor for DairyNetwork.com.

“No one can say with certainty that genetically engineered food is safe to eat over the long term,” said Sarah Newport, coordinator of Safer Food, Safer Farms Campaign.