ngin - Norfolk Genetic Information Network
Date:  12 December 2000


1.     Free Holiday Gift... to Kellogg’s!
2.     Dear Mr Glickman, re: organic disclaimer

*  *  *
1.    Free Holiday Gift... to Kellogg’s!

-----Original Message-----

Free Holiday Gift... to Kellogg’s!

Now, you can send StarLink corn to Kellogg’s! At your request, Greenpeace will send a packet of Starlink corn to Kellogg’s this holiday season.  By clicking on the link below, you can send Kellogg’s a clear message: No Genetically Engineered Food! Take it out or take it back!

Even after Kellogg’s was forced to stop production at one of its plants because of StarLink corn contamination, the company still uses genetically engineered corn.  Even after thousands of people sent postcards, called and faxed Kellogg’s, the company still uses genetically engineered ingredients.

Tell Kellogg’s to protect children from dangerous GMO’s like StarLink.  Demand that Kellogg’s take immediate action to eliminate genetically engineered food from its products.

Send corn and a personalized message to Kellogg’s CEO:

*  *  *
2.     Dear Mr Glickman, re: organic disclaimer

Originated Claire Robinson    Posted: 12/11/2000  By

Dear Mr Glickman:

Though I live in the UK, I eat a lot of organic food imported from the USA. I am also aware that laws and standards adopted by the USA may well, via the World Trade Organisation, be forced onto other nations.

So as an interested party, I would like to comment on your proposal to release the new USDA organic standards with the disclaimer that organic foods are neither safer nor more nutritious than non-organic (conventional) foods.

I know that it is illegal in many states, due to food defamation laws, to make statements about the safety, nutritiousness or health-related effects of foods which are not backed up with published scientific data.

I have seen references to quite a few published studies showing that organic foods, in comparison with non-organic foods, have:

-      higher levels of certain nutrients believed to be beneficial;
-      lower levels of certain substances believed to be harmful (such as heavy metals);
-      lower levels of residual pesticides which have been linked in various published studies with
       various diseases including cancers

On the other hand, I am not aware of any peer reviewed and published studies which demonstrate that organic foods are NOT safer or more nutritious than conventional foods.

I know that USDA is keen on basing its policies on what it calls “sound science”. By “sound science” I assume that you mean scientific studies which are peer reviewed and published. I assume therefore that you are in possession of such sound scientific data showing that organic foods are no safer and no more nutritious than non-oranic foods. I would be grateful if you would forward the references of this data at your earliest convenience.

If I do not receive this information within 30 days of the date of this email, I shall assume that no such data exists and shall circulate this finding on the internet lists.  If I do receive the information from you, I shall also circulate the references, as I believe it is important for the public to know the quality of the science behind government and industry assertions about the food we eat.  If it is good science, we should know, and if it is dubious or non-existent science, we should know that too.

Many thanks and best wishes
Claire Robinson

ngin bulletin archive