New Study Targets Kraft Products

It’s midnight, and that midterm is tomorrow morning. What option is there for a student who needs something to eat during an all-nighter?

The solution for many is Easy Mac, Kraft’s instant meal advertised as the easiest solution for dinner on the run. If it doesn’t sit well with students, however, there may be a reason.

The Massachusetts Public Interest Group named Easy Mac one of nearly 75 Kraft products, including Taco Bell taco shells, Stove Top stuffing and Oreo cookies, that potentially contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Jill Rubin, a food safety advocate for MASSPIRG, criticized Kraft for releasing untested and unlabeled genetically engineered products that could lead to harmful effects for consumers, including allergic reactions and antibiotic resistance.

“Americans deserve safe foods,” Rubin said.

Dr. Martha Herbert, a pediatric neurologist, said there is a lack of adequate testing for genetically engineered foods in these products.

“Biotech companies get to save money on testing by turning consumers, including our children and the sick and vulnerable, into guinea pigs,” she said in a statement.

Michael Mudd, senior vice president of Kraft Food Companies, defended his companies’ product.

“Kraft only uses ingredients approved by the federal government,” Mudd said. “The same goes for the labeling process. We know that food companies are directly responsible for their products. Besides, since there is no widespread public concern, there is no compelling reason to not use biotech ingredients.”

Mudd said MASSPIRG needs to do more research before making allegations. He said there will be no change in any of Kraft’s procedures, regardless of MASSPIRG’s complaints.

“It’s easy for organizations like MASSPIRG to throw around allegations,” Mudd said. “But until there is actual scientific evidence that harm has been done by genetically engineering our food, we won’t change our procedures.”

Gail Costellas, a member of the Safe Foods Campaign, a consumer interest group founded by MASSPIRG, said the public is indeed interested in what goes into its food.

“We’re all consumers,” she said. “This is something that affects anyone who goes into a supermarket. We have a right to know what is in our food.”

Rubin cited a Kraft’s 1999 controversy in Europe, when Kraft stopped using genetically engineered foods there because of consumer concerns and demands.

“Kraft is the largest food company in America and the second-largest in the world. They stopped using genetically engineered products in Europe in 1999. They definitely have the capability to do it here, too,” she said.

Mudd said rather than harming the public, genetically engineered foods could actually have many health benefits, including a smaller need for pesticide use on crops, a higher nutritional value and an easier way for poorer nations to eat better.

John Celenza, a Boston University assistant professor specializing in plant genetics, agreed genetically engineered foods could have positive health benefits. He mentioned a recent study in which scientist Igor Potrykus engineered a rice plant containing increased amounts of Vitamin A.

“In my opinion, there is an overreaction in the general public to this kind of research,” Celenza said. “Most of the modifications made in the foods are safe for humans, since they are not changing the actual identity of the plant.”

Melinda Newville, who graduated last year from the College of Arts and Sciences, agreed with Celenza and Mudd.

“I don’t think there’s anything detrimental in genetically engineered foods,” she said. “I’ve heard about cases in Third World countries where fruits were engineered to contain vaccines.”

Christi-Lynn Allen, a sophomore in the College of Communication, was a little more hesitant about non-organic foods. However, said she wouldn’t refuse them if their ingredients were fully disclosed.

“I wouldn’t mind eating genetically engineered foods as long as I know what’s in them and I know they’re safe,” she said.