Current Initiatives

The genetic engineering of food is a new and relatively untested technology that raises significant questions about its impact on society, the economy, and our environment.

Will genetically engineered (GE) foods provide us with new health benefits or make us ill from allergic reactions and increased antibiotic resistance? Will it feed the world's poor, or make the poor more dependent on food monopolies?

Will it create more pest resistant plants or create "superpests" that will need even stronger poisons to kill them? Will it create fish that grow faster and bigger or make them less nutritious and cause ecological havoc if they escape into the wild?

Studies can be found to support both sides of these arguments as scientists try to determine what are the real Risks to Public Health and Environment and what is the best way to safely harness the potential, and avoid the dangers, of GE foods.

One thing is clear: American companies are putting these unlabeled ingredients in more and more of our food without the general public's knowledge or consent.

In this case, American companies are the exception rather than the rule. In Europe for instance, the concern about food safety is much higher and all major food companies, including U.S. franchises operating there like McDonald's and Pizza Hut, have rejected the use of GE foods.

Brazil and European governments regularly pull up illegally planted GE crops, and more than 130 countries have signed the Biosafety Protocol - an international treaty allowing countries to ban the importation of GE products. Many other countries including the European Union, Japan, Australia, Thailand, and Taiwan, have responded to the "consumers right to know" and have mandatory labeling laws in place or pending.

It is not just consumers who are concerned, but investors as wellEuropean opposition to GE foods has resulted in a billion dollar decrease in US exports to Europe. The massive recall of StarLink's contaminated GE corn, which was found in a variety of corn products including Taco Bell, Safeway and Mission Foods taco shells, will result in nearly a billion dollars of losses and compensation. More and more investors are taking a hard look at the issue. AYS has prepared a special report on the financial risks of investment in GE food. Click here to access the full text of the report "Genetically Engineered Food and Financial Risk".

A Fast Growing Movement

Concerned shareholders responded quickly to the financial, environmental and public health risks of GE foods. In 1999 As You Sow helped initiate a new campaign on genetically engineered foods. We have teamed up with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility -- 300 religious institutions and social investors with over $150 billion in stock. This coalition launched a national education and shareholder campaign to urge companies to research, label, phase out, or stop using GE products until more is known about their long term safety; and to urge shareholders in these companies to vote their proxies FOR shareholder resolutions on GE food.

This initial response drew more shareholder attention faster than any other topic in the history of corporate social responsibility. Find out about ways to get involved.

More than 30 different companies in the U.S. have received shareholder proposals from three dozen different investor groups. The Securities and Exchange Commission has ruled consistently that companies may not omit the resolution and that genetic engineering of food is indeed a major policy issue for shareholders, and not ordinary business.

Resolutions have been filed at companies in three sectors of the food industry: life science companies, restaurants and food companies, and supermarkets and distributors. For a complete list of the upcoming 2002 shareholder resolutions and the results of previous votes go to: Companies Facing Shareholder Resolutions on GE Foods.

In 2002, As You Sow is involved in conducting shareholder outreach, company dialogues or co-filed resolutions at Dupont, Hershey, Starbucks and Sysco.

Dupont Co.

Chemical giant DuPont's Agriculture & nutrition Division is a major life science company involved in the production of GE seeds; the parent company also owns Pioneer Hi-Bred, producer of Liberty Link corn.

Shareholders are very concerned about the potential health and environmental impacts and financial liability from products that may be prematurely rushed to market. These concerns were echoed by critical industry sector and company reports such as a 1999 report by two Deutsche Bank financial analysts entitled "DuPont - Ag Biotech: Thanks but No Thanks" that proclaimed "GMO's are Dead" and downgraded Pioneer Hi-Bred to Sell from Hold. Click here to access the report.

A shareholder group filed a resolution in 2001 with the company asking it "to adopt a policy of not marketing or distributing GE agricultural products unless long-term safety testing has shown that they are not harmful to humans, animals and the environment". This resolution was withdrawn in exchange for an on-going dialogue with the company.

In exchange for withdrawal of the proposal, the company agreed to meet with representatives of grassroots NGOs and also with scientists who are critical of current practices regarding genetically modified seed. Those meetings took place in November, 2001 at the Interfaith Church Center in New York City.

Participating in the meetings were six senior managers from DuPont (including two from Pioneer Seed) and four Dow chemical representatives. Nine shareholder institutions were represented.

The grassroots non-governmental organizations represented were: Alejandro Argumedo, the Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Network (Asociacion Kechua-Aymara ANDES, Cusco, PERU); James Cheatle, the Association for Better Land Husbandry (Nairobi, Kenya); Erik Saracho, the Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco (A.C, Mexico); and Abou Thiam, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Africa (Dakar-Fann, Senegal).

Scientists included Norman Ellstrand, Ph. D., University of California Riverside, Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Fund, Anne Kapuscinski, Ph. D., Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability and Guenther Stotzky, Ph.D., New York University.

The shareholder dialogue will continue in 2002 with follow up meetings scheduled to cover a variety of topics such as developing a code of conduct, safety testing requirements. the Biodiversity Convention, intellectual property rights vs protection of rights of the common, obligation of transparency of information, just compensation/protection for local agriculture, and industry leadership.

Hershey Foods Corp.

Hershey Foods products contain ingredients such as corn syrup and soy, which are among the most commonly grown GE crops in the U.S. Yet Hershey has no policy to avoid GE ingredients and its products are unlabeled.

In 2001, As You Sow, Trillium Asset Management, Domini Social Investments and Citzen's Funds - with over $21 million in combined shares - filed a resolution that asked the company to report about steps required to phase out GE crops, organisms, or products unless long term testing proves them safe to humans, animals and the environment. The resolution received 2.2% of shares voted, which did not met the SEC minimum requirement for refilling.. The vote was not unexpected as Hershey management controls 78% of its stock.

Hershey management controls 78% of its stock. But the 8.5 million shares voted in support of the resolution represent 10% of the non-management owed stock. We believe this pressure, combined with our outreach efforts to investors forced the company to address this issue. Just two days after the annual meeting Hershey Foods made a rare public statement to the Wall Street Journal that the company had asked farmers not to grow genetically engineered sugar beets. Furthermore, the company stated their willingness to meet with GE Food experts.

Starbucks Corp.

An As You Sow-sponsored shareholder resolution asking Starbucks to label genetically engineered (GE) food products was supported by 7% of shares voted (15.8 million shares / $355 million) at the company's annual meting February 26, 2002.

Consumer demand for labeling is overwhelming. Over two-dozen media, government and industry opinion polls consistently show 70 - 90% of American consumers support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food.

In February 2001, the FDA released an internal report that showed that "virtually all participants" surveyed in focus groups want labeling. Industry sponsored surveys, even from those promoting genetically engineered foods, show similar results.

A complete listing of poll results from "Compilation and Analysis of Public Opinion Polls on Genetically Engineered Foods", February 1, 2002, Center for Food Safety, can be found here.

In the United States there is a long history of a consumers' 'right to know' about the products they buy. Starbucks products reach millions of Americans each day without proper labeling of an ingredient that consumers clearly want to be informed about. Labeling of foods is already commonly practiced for nutritional information such as fat and caloric content, additives, ingredients, and the manufacturer.

Shareholders, concerned about increasing financial, legal, and reputational liabilities to the company from its use of these ingredients, believe labeling can reduce liability and consumer backlash.

Without labeling, consumers will have no way of protecting themselves from hidden allergens. Millions of Americans suffer from mild to fatal food allergies. Genetic engineering involves splicing in genes from other species and making foods that have never been part of the human food supply that can result in unforeseen allergic reactions. Labeling will also inform those consumers who have religious or ethical concerns about eating genetically engineered products.

Starbucks' use of genetically engineered foods has made it the target of an international consumer campaign, and the company has faced more than 700 activist demonstrations on the issue in the last year alone.

As You Sow initiated a dialogue with Starbucks on GE food products before the 2001 annual meeting. At last year's annual meeting the company promised to provide alternative sources of non-genetically engineered milk in stores. The company also told shareholders they would provide a report by the end of 2001, to look at the feasibility of purchasing non-bovine growth hormone milk (rBGH) milk for all 50 million gallons they use annually.

These are laudable first steps, but consumer groups have been quick to point out that the availability of in-store non-GE milk is not generally made known to customers. Also, this policy also does not apply to other milk products such as Frappucinnos or Starbucks ice cream. Additionally, the company has yet to provide the promised feasibility report, nor will they state when it will be available.

And while the company does not sell GE coffee or tea products because no market currently exists, it has not pledged to not sell such products if they are eventually developed. Starbucks proxy statement says the company has only promised to not support 'research' of those products.

The focus of the 2002 shareholder meeting was Starbucks large scale expansion plans. Yet many of the new markets that Starbucks is expanding into, such as the European Union, Japan, South Korea, have passed or pending mandatory labeling. In the US, legislative bills calling for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods have been raised at city, state and the federal level.

As the largest food distributor in North America, Sysco Corp.'s actions in regards to GE foods could have a major impact on the expansion of these products into the marketplace.

The company provides an inventory of 275,000 products to about 370,000 restaurants, schools, hotels, health care institutions, and other food service customers. It distributes fresh and frozen meat, poultry, seafood, fruits and vegetables, canned and dry products, paper and disposable products, cleaning supplies, kitchen equipment, and medical supplies. Sysco has a network of more than 140 facilities throughout the US and in Canada.

A 2000 Sysco shareholder resolution was withdrawn when senior management agreed to establish a task force to investigate the issue.

Management said that with so many products they couldn't get out of genetically engineered food even if they wanted to. Shareholders responded by saying that it was not an issue of thousands of products but of three crops - soy, corn and potatoes. These three crops account for nearly all of GE food ingredients. Moreover, the majority of these crops are still conventional and not genetically engineered (in 2000 the potato crop production was 95% conventional & 5% genetically engineered; corn 75% conventional & 25% genetically engineered; soy was 50% conventional & 50% genetically engineered) and that Sysco could begin by requesting that its brand name products be made with non-GE crops which would be phased in over time. Sysco later surveyed its suppliers and concluded their brand name products could be GE-free in 2 years.

Shareholders also pointed out that several major North American companies had already committed to phasing out GE ingredients. These include: Frito Lay - the world's largest snack food maker; McCain Foods - which produces 1/3 of the world's French fries including those for McDonald's; Seagram's - one of the world's largest distillers; Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains; and Heinz and Gerber who announced they would rid their baby food productsof GE ingredients in response to parental concerns.

Shareholders organized an "expert briefing" for the company utilizing GE scientific experts from both sides of the issue to discuss the environmental and health risks of GE products. We also provided the company with research showing gaps in the regulatory process, a financial analysis of the biotech food industry indicating a loss of market share and falling stock prices.

Sysco, like any food company, has to wonder about taking on financial, legal and reputational risks for products that provide it with no financial or nutritional benefit. Our dialogue with the company is continuing.

In March 2002, the company abruptly sought to terminate the dialogue. Disappointed shareholder proponents anticipate filing a resolution on GE foods with the company this year.