Update on Labelling Genetically Engineered Foods

[Guest guest]

I thought you might find this informative....

Enjoy,

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

---

-

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

This News Update will discuss the resignation of Monsanto's president

and information about possible WTO sanctions against Europe.

 

MONSANTO PRESIDENT RESIGNS

 

The President of Monsanto, Hendrik A. Verfaillie, a 26-year Monsanto

veteran, resigned this week after the company experienced two years

of

poor performance.

 

No doubt Monsanto's poor performance had a lot to do with the growing

global opposition to genetically engineered foods. Nearly 90 percent

of

the genetically engineered crops grown in the world are produced by

Monsanto.

 

Many of the markets for genetically engineered crops Monsanto

expected

to develop internationally failed because labeling laws were

enacted.

In

every country where labeling laws have been introduced, manufacturers

quickly remove genetically engineered ingredients from their

products.

Manufacturers know that when labeled, consumers will reject

genetically

engineered foods.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods created one of the

most in-depth web sites ever developed on Monsanto during our effort

to

pass Measure 27 in Oregon this past election:

http://www.voteyeson27.com/monsanto.htm

 

Monsanto was the largest contributor to the $5.2 million advertising

blitz that served to defeat Measure 27 in Oregon.

 

We will soon be moving our Monsanto files over to The Campaign's

revised

web site that we will be launching in early January.

 

Monsanto is also suffering a significant public relations problem

after

losing a landmark environmental lawsuit earlier this year. Monsanto

was

found guilty of releasing tons of PCBs into the city of Anniston,

Alabama and covering up its actions for decades. The jury found

Monsanto

liable on all six charges it considered: negligence, wantonness,

suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage.

 

Under Alabama law, the charge of " outrage " requires conduct " so

outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all

possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and

utterly

intolerable in civilized society. "

 

It should not be a surprise that consumers are skeptical when a

company

with Monsanto's track record essentially says " trust us, genetically

engineered foods will not harm you or the environment. " They said the

same thing about PCBs, but lied about it for decades knowing they

were

harmful. If Monsanto finds genetically engineered crops causing

health

or environmental problems, can we expect them to let us know this

information?

 

The first article posted below from Associated Press is titled

" Monsanto's President Abruptly Resigns. "

 

SENATORS URGE WTO FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

On Thursday, a group of farm state Senators sent a letter to

President

Bush urging him to have the U.S. file a formal complaint with the

World

Trade Organization (WTO) over the moratorium the European Union (EU)

has

had in place since 1998 against genetically engineered crops.

 

The letter to Bush stated " We urge you to take that step without

delay. "

 

The EU is likely to remove the moratorium on their own after enacting

tough comprehensive labeling laws for genetically engineered foods.

The

EU farm and environmental ministers have already approved the new

labeling law, but it is waiting for approval of the European

Parliament.

It is likely to be another year or so before such labeling laws go

into

effect. And until they are in effect it is unlikely that the

moratorium

on genetically engineered products will be removed.

 

Posted below are three articles. The first is from Reuters

titled " U.S.

senators urge WTO case against EU on biotech. " The second is from

Associated Press titled " Lawmakers Press Bush on EU Biotech Ban. "

 

The third article titled " Let's not escalate the 'Frankenfood' war "

is

an editorial opinion from the Christian Science Monitor. It explains

why

using the WTO against the EU on genetically engineered foods is a bad

idea and could start a trade war.

 

 

***************************************************************

 

Monsanto's President Abruptly Resigns

 

By JIM SALTER

..c The Associated Press

 

ST. LOUIS (AP) - The Monsanto Co. president and chief executive who

led

the biotechnology and agricultural giant through its 2000 merger with

Pharmacia & Upjohn has abruptly stepped down, unable to overcome

Monsanto's financial struggles over the past two years.

 

The immediate resignation of Hendrik A. Verfaillie, a 26-year

Monsanto

veteran, was a mutual decision, said board chairman Frank AtLee III,

who

will serve as interim CEO while the company searches for Verfaillie's

permanent successor.

 

Some analysts were shocked by the change at Monsanto, whose shares

fell

$1.19, or 5.9 percent, to close at $19.02 Wednesday on the New York

Stock Exchange. The shares have tumbled by nearly 50 percent since

January.

 

``You don't just walk into the meeting and say, 'bye,''' said Juli

Niemann of RT Jones Capital Equities Inc. in St. Louis. ``This is not

the same as fire the coach because the season wasn't good. This is

not

something you can lay blame at his door.''

 

Verfaillie's departure comes amid a difficult financial year for the

maker of the world's leading herbicide, Roundup, along with

genetically

altered cotton, corn, soybean and canola seeds that tolerate Roundup

and

resist insects. Monsanto also produces Asgrow, Hartz and DeKalb

seeds.

 

``I want to be certain that shareowners of Monsanto understand that

Hendrik's resignation was mutual,'' AtLee said in a statement.

``Hendrik

and the board agreed that the company's performance during the past

two

years has been disappointing.''

 

Verfaillie, 56, led the company through a merger with Pharmacia &

Upjohn

in 2000, then an initial public offering. Monsanto then completed the

spinoff of Pharmacia earlier this year.

 

Monsanto announced about 700 job cuts in April as it consolidated

operations at sites in several regions, mostly in southeast Asia,

Australia, New Zealand and North America. Monsanto has about 14,600

workers worldwide.

 

For the first nine months of 2002, Monsanto lost $1.75 billion, or

$6.67

per share, compared to a profit of $399 million, or $1.51 per share,

a

year ago. Sales for the nine months declined 19 percent to $3.45

billion

from $4.25 billion.

 

In October, Monsanto lowered its forecast for earnings for all of

2002,

citing a continued decline in U.S. sales of Roundup as well as

lower-than-expected sales in Argentina, where the economy has been in

collapse.

 

``I think the company put a lot of their eggs in the South American

basket,'' said Morningstar.com analyst Dan Quinn. ``It doesn't look

like

South America will be quite the growth region they said it would

be.''

 

Quinn said Monsanto also has been unable to fully benefit from its

seed

technology.

 

``The bottom line is there are a lot of opportunities for Monsanto

to

be

growing its market share and they just haven't done it,'' he said.

 

On the Net: http://www.monsanto.com

 

12/19/02 01:13 EST

 

 

***************************************************************

 

U.S. senators urge WTO case against EU on biotech

 

WASHINGTON, Dec 20 (Reuters) - A group of farm-state senators has

urged

the Bush administration to lodge a formal complaint against the

European

Union's ban on genetically modified foods and other goods.

 

In a letter to President George W. Bush dated Thursday, the senators

petitioned for filing a World Trade Organization complaint against

the

EU, saying the ban is costing U.S. farmers hundreds of millions of

dollars in lost exports.

 

" We urge you to take that step without delay, " the senators, led by

incoming Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, wrote.

 

For the past four years, the EU has enforced a moratorium on the

approval of new biotech products, ranging from agricultural goods to

pharmaceuticals. The ban stems from widespread consumer fears in

Europe

over the safety of biotech foods. The United States says such

products

present no danger to health.

 

The United States is a major producer of biotech foods, with about 70

percent of soybeans and 25 percent of corn grown from genetically

modified seeds. The biotech company Monsanto hopes to bring to market

biotech wheat.

 

The WTO has ruled illegal the EU's moratorium on new biotech

products.

While the European Commission has been trying to lift that ban, it is

meeting resistance from some member countries.

 

U.S. farm and agriculture groups have also urged the Bush

administration

to file a formal complaint with the WTO.

 

The senators' letter said formal action was needed because there was

no

sign the EU would voluntarily open its market. The moratorium costs

the

United States $300 million annually in lost corn sales, it said.

 

Bush's Cabinet is expected to debate whether a WTO complaint should

be

filed.

 

U.S. officials say a formal complaint could create problems, such as

possible EU retaliation in other trade disputes and a strain in ties

with Europe at a time when Washington is seeking to build a coalition

against Iraq.

 

A U.S. agriculture industry source last week told Reuters the letter

from the senators was being crafted in part to give the White House

additional political cover for launching a trade case with the WTO,

based in Geneva.

 

Besides Grassley, an Iowa Republican, the letter to Bush was signed

by

senior Senate Agriculture Committee members.

 

12/20/02 11:33 ET

 

 

***************************************************************

 

Lawmakers Press Bush on EU Biotech Ban

 

By EMILY GERSEMA

..c The Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers are challenging Bush administration to

stick

up for U.S. farmers and take the fight over the European Union's

moratorium on biotech foods to the world's top trade regulator.

 

The EU ban on products made from genetically engineered plants has

been

in place for four years and is unfairly hurting U.S. exports, Sen.

Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a letter sent late Thursday to

President Bush. That merits World Trade Organization arbitration, the

letter said.

 

``A dispute settlement case against the moratorium will put the EU,

and

other countries that are tempted to follow its example, on notice

that

the U.S. intends to hold them to their WTO obligations with respect

to

biotech regulatory policy,'' he wrote.

 

The letter was signed by Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Tom Harkin,

D-Iowa; Kit Bond, R-Mo.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.;

and

Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

 

U.S. Trade Representative officials did not immediately return a

phone

call seeking comment on whether officials will seek a dispute.

 

Farm groups have argued for a dispute for the past month, saying the

ban

has cost the farm industry nearly $300 million in corn exports alone.

Nearly 30 percent of the corn grown in the United States is biotech.

 

Farmers grew nervous when the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers

adopted a proposal in late November that would require products to be

labeled as genetically modified if they contain 0.9 percent of

biotech

material. Some officials have said that is not workable because some

foods that aren't genetically modified may contain traces of biotech.

 

Ron Gaskill, an international trade specialist for the American Farm

Bureau Federation, said Friday that farmers have been waiting all

year

to see if the EU would lift the ban. Since it hasn't, the United

States

needs to take action or risk losing more markets, he said.

 

``You either get up and step up to the plate and be a player or

pretty

much let the world dictate to you what you're going to do, and we're

just not, in this case, willing to do that,'' Gaskill said.

 

European consumers have been distrustful of biotech products, and

U.S.

officials worry that their anti-biotech attitude is spreading to

other

countries. Some southern African nations facing famine initially

rejected U.S. food aid in August because it included genetically

modified grain. Some later agreed to accept the grain after it had

been

milled.

 

U.S. officials blamed environmental groups for the problem, saying

they

were pushing the countries to reject the aid.

 

Robert Paarlberg, an associate at Harvard University's Weatherhead

Center for International Affairs, said the United States could use a

dispute to warn developing countries against enacting a similar ban

on

biotech foods, also called GMOs.

 

But the United States also could face a backlash, Paarlberg said.

 

``GMOs are not popular in Europe, the WTO is not popular in Europe,

the

United States is not popular in Europe. If you put all three of those

into a package, you've given green parties, socialist leaders, and

antiglobalization activists an easy target.''

 

12/20/02 17:34 EST

 

***************************************************************

 

Let's not escalate the 'Frankenfood' war

 

By Julia A. Moore and Gilbert Winham

December 20, 2002, Christian Science Monitor

 

WASHINGTON - While Washington is obsessed with the prospect of

invading

Iraq, a less frightening - but economically and politically costly -

battle is shaping up between the US and Europe. In the next few

weeks,

the White House is due to decide whether to take legal action against

the European Union (EU) in the World Trade Organization (WTO) over

agricultural biotechnology.

 

The issue is genetically modified (GM) food. In the US, genetic

engineering is used to grow more food using less labor, tilling, and

pesticides. Sixty percent of the world's soybeans and 20 percent of

its

corn are GM crops, grown mostly in the US and Argentina.

 

The European public calls GM products " Frankenstein food. " They're

afraid it could pose a health threat, or create an environmental

disaster where genes jump from GM crops to wild plants and reduce

biodiversity or create superweeds. For four years, Europe has held up

new approvals of US exports of " Frankenfood. " Europe's parliament

voted

in July to require extensive labeling and traceability of food

containing genetically modified organisms - even if no remnants of

genetic modification are detectable.

 

The Washington rumor mill contends that US Trade Representative

Robert

Zoellick will file a WTO case against Europe in early 2003 - even

though

the Europeans have agreed to no immediate retaliation on US steel

protections and foreign corporate tax credits. Bets are that a WTO

case

will ignite a trade war - jeopardizing $16.6 billion annually in

US-European agricultural trade, endangering efforts to liberalize

world

trade, and further straining relations with European allies.

 

The US has a real grievance. With European public confidence in food

safety badly shaken by foot-and-mouth and mad- cow disease, no new GM

products have been authorized for use in Europe since 1998. European

Union officials admit this is likely illegal under WTO rules and

hurts

largely US farm exporters. In an effort to restart the approval

process

by addressing public concerns over consumer choice and environmental

protection, the EU in 2001 proposed burdensome new rules for biotech

food and animal feed labeling and for " farm-to-fork " traceability

measures on products.

 

Mr. Zoellick says these labeling and traceability proposals go " far

beyond health protections for consumers " and create " onerous and

impractical regulatory barriers. " The US position is that GM food is

safe. It cleared all regulatory hurdles set by the Food and Drug

Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department

of

Agriculture, and international health and safety bodies.

 

Even Zoellick's European counterpart, Pascal Lamy, concedes that

European research suggests GM foods present little risk. Given that

polls show 95 percent of Europe's consumers are wary of GM food and

strongly favor labeling, it's certain the EU wouldn't implement a WTO

decision favoring the US. The US could retaliate, but it could

backfire.

 

A WTO case would play into the hands of European environmental

organizations, consumer groups, and politicians who portray the US as

the world's fast-food superpower trying to force an unwelcome

technology

down European throats. It also would be a setback for European

scientists and leaders working for a more reasoned public debate over

biotechnology.

 

The crux of the problem is that in a free world economy where the

consumer is king, Europe's consumers don't want GM food. It's

possible

this problem can be surmounted, but it largely must be done by

Europeans

themselves. A WTO case by the US would only make a bad situation

worse.

 

.. Julia A. Moore is public policy scholar at the Wilson Center in

Washington. Gilbert Winham is the Eric Dennis memorial professor of

government and political science at Dalhousie University in Halifax,

Novia Scotia.