Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Cracking the Frankenfood Code

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Cracking the Frankenfood Code
  • Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:27:16 -0600


Cracking the Frankenfood Code
10.22.03
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/10/60911

The seemingly innocent act of labeling produce has become a highly
contentious issue. Organic advocates tend to want more information; producers
of genetically modified food generally want less.

Recently, the organic side of the fence has been whispering about a sneaky
way to identify genetically modified fruits and vegetables. Shhh, don't tell
the biotechs, but you know those little stickers that are really annoying to
get off when you're washing a tomato? The numbers on them can tell you if the
tomato is genetically modified! That's the word on the street.

It would be scandalous (to people who care about genetically modified foods)
if, after all the hubbub over labeling, it was happening right under the
biotech companies' noses. But that's not exactly the case.

Those stickers carry price look-up, or PLU, codes which are generated by the
Produce Marketing Association for inventory and standardization purposes.
They're the numbers grocery checkout clerks used to punch in manually, but
now scanners read and feed them into the stores' computer systems. Yes,
unique codes exist for organic, conventionally grown and genetically modified
items. But grocers only use them if they want to, making PLU codes an
unreliable labeling system for consumers.

"There's no requirement that grocery stores use (PLU codes)," said Kathy
Means, vice president of issues management for the Produce Marketing
Association.

Various publications have generated a buzz around the PLU system recently.
For example, a letter to the editor in the October issue of Gourmet magazine
described the number code's meaning: four digits for conventionally grown,
five digits beginning with 9 for organic, and five digits beginning with 8
for genetically modified. Similar articles have appeared in Sunset magazine,
The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Times Union of Albany, New York, and various
other newspapers that picked up a Knight Ridder wire story on the PLU numbers.

What most of the stories don't mention is that PLU codes are not part of a
regulatory system. They exist merely to assist with inventory to help stores
be more efficient.

Another reason the numbers aren't so useful is because almost no genetically
engineered whole fruits or vegetables are available. The genetically modified
foods more common in stores now are ingredients in processed food,
specifically corn, rapeseed (in canola oil) and soy. Processed foods don't
carry PLU codes.

For now you will find only one item labeled with a PLU number beginning with
an eight at fruit stands: papaya from Hawaii, according to Craig Culp at the
Center for Food Safety.

Until organic and genetically modified fruits and vegetables came along, each
type of fruit had the same PLU number. For example, all bananas were 4011. To
differentiate conventional bananas from those which are organic or
genetically modified, the Produce Marketing Association decided that a 9
would appear in front of organic foods, and an 8 before those that have been
genetically modified, i.e., 94011 or 84011.

"The numbers system was developed many years ago when there was a thought
that (genetic engineering of fruits and vegetables) would take off faster and
there would be more (genetically engineered) products on the market," Means
said.

In 1992 the FDA declared that biotech foods are the same as conventional
foods, as long as biotech companies say so. They therefore don't require
special review, approval or labeling.

But the reception from consumers and corporate buyers of genetically
engineered foods has been historically chilly.

In 1994, a biotech company called Calgene introduced the first genetically
modified whole food, the Flavr Savr tomato, engineered to ripen on the vine
and slow the rotting process. It was taken off the market in 1997, Calgene
says, because the tomato required special transportation equipment that they
couldn't afford. Genetic engineering foes said it didn't sell because it
tasted bad and was more expensive.

In 1998, biotech giant Monsanto pulled the plug on its genetically enhanced
potato effort, when a major potato processor, McCain Foods, said it wouldn't
buy the altered potatoes, ostensibly because of consumers' mistrust of
biotech foods. Fast food establishments have since said they also don't want
genetically engineered potatoes for their French fries.

For now, labeling of both genetically modified and organic foods is strictly
voluntary. Organic labels must comply with the National Organic Program.
Consumer groups and legislators have launched efforts to require labeling on
genetically engineered foods -- but no biotech companies volunteer the
information on their labels.





  • [Livingontheland] Cracking the Frankenfood Code, Tradingpost, 08/05/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page