fw: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

[Guest guest]

-

" News Update from The Campaign " <newsupdate

Monday, July 28, 2003 1:26 PM

Kucinich Introduces Labeling Bill in House!

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Great news! Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced the

Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act of 2003 in the House of

Representatives on Friday. The bill number assigned to it is H.R. 2916.

 

In addition to the labeling legislation, Kucinich also introduced five

other bills that deal with the regulation of genetically engineered

crops.

 

Posted below are a press release from Kucinich that announces the bills

and a summary of the bills that includes the initial co-sponsors.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods endorses all six

bills, but our primary goal is to get the Genetically Engineered Food

Right to Know Act passed into law. This 108th Congress runs through

October 2004 and we are entering into an election year. So the climate

has never been better for us to get Congressional action on labeling

genetically engineered foods.

 

If you do not see your member of the House of Representatives listed as

a co-sponsor on H.R. 2916, then your primary objective is to get him or

her to co-sponsor the bill. If your House Representative is holding any

public meetings in your area during their summer break, you might want

to attend such a meeting to request that he or she co-sponsor H.R. 2916

- the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act of 2003.

 

We will be updating our web site later this week to reflect the new bill

numbers for the legislation.

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

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

 

Kucinich Introduces Bills to Label Genetically Engineered Food and

Protect Consumers

 

Six Bills introduced In The House of Representatives

To Provide A Comprehensive Regulatory Framework

 

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Co-Chair of the Congressional

Progressive Caucus, introduced six bills today that will provide a

comprehensive regulatory framework for all genetically engineered

plants, animals, bacteria, and other organisms.

 

The six bills include the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act

of 2003, which requires food companies to label all foods that contain

or are produced with genetically engineered materials and instructs the

Food and Drug Administration to conduct periodic tests to ensure

compliance. Also introduced today were the Genetically Engineered Food

Safety Act of 2003, the Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Framer

Protection Act of 2003, the Genetically Engineered Organism Liability

Act of 2003, the Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2003 and the

Genetically Engineered Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crop Safety Act of

2003.

 

" This is a basic consumer safety issue, " stated Kucinich. " People have

a right to know what is in the food they are eating, and that the food

is safe. That is the goal of these bills. It is well past time that

Congress change current food safety and environmental laws because the

laws were not written with this technology in mind. "

 

Combined Kucinich's bills would ensure that consumers are protected,

increase food safety, protect farmers rights, make biotech companies

liable for their products, and help developing nations resolve hunger

concerns.

 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD LEGISLATION

 

 

H.R. 2916 - THE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD RIGHT TO KNOW ACT OF 2003

 

Consumers wish to know whether the food they purchase and consume is a

GE food. Concerns include the potential transfer of allergens into food

and other health risks, potential environmental risks associated with

the genetic engineering of crops, and religiously and ethically based

dietary restrictions. Adoption and implementation of mandatory labeling

requirements for GE food produced in the United States would facilitate

international trade. This bill acknowledges consumers have a right to

know what GE foods they are eating:

 

* Requires food companies to label all foods that contain GE material

and requires the FDA to ensure compliance with testing. Voluntary,

non-GE food labels are also permitted.

* A legal framework is established to ensure the accuracy of labeling

without creating significant economic hardship on the food production

system.

 

Cosponsors: Sanders (VT); DeFazio (OR); Lee (CA); Conyers (MI); Olver

(MA); Miller (CA); Honda (CA); Acevedo-Vila (PR); Brown (OH); Gutierrez

(IL); Nadler (NY); Owens (NY); Velazquez (NY); Waters (CA); Watson (CA);

Woolsey (CA); Kleczka (WI)

 

 

H.R. 2917 - THE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD SAFETY ACT OF 2003

 

Given the consensus among the scientific community that genetic

engineering can potentially introduce hazards, such as allergens or

toxins, GE foods need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The

possibility of such hazards dictates a cautious approach to GE food

approvals. However, FDA has glossed over the food safety concerns of GE

foods. This bill requires that all GE foods follow a strenuous food

safety review process:

 

* Requires FDA to screen all GE foods through the current food additive

process to ensure they are safe for human consumption including a public

comment period of at least 30 days.

* Requires that unique concerns be explicitly examined in the review

process, a phase out of antibiotic resistance markers, and a prohibition

on known allergens.

 

Cosponsors: DeFazio (OR); Sanders (VT); Lee (CA); Conyers (MI); Olver

(MA); Miller (CA); Honda (CA); Acevedo-Vila (PR); Gutierrez (IL); Nadler

(NY); Owens (NY); Velazquez (NY); Waters (CA); Watson (CA); Woolsey (CA)

 

 

H.R. 2918. - THE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROP AND ANIMAL FARMER

PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

 

Agribusiness and biotech companies have consolidated market power at the

same time as the average farmer's profits and viability have

significantly declined. Policies promoted by biotech corporations have

systematically acted to remove basic farmer rights. These policies

include unreasonable seed contracts, the intrusion into everyday farm

operations, and liability burdens. This bill provides several farmer

rights and protections to maintain the opportunity to farm:

 

* Farmers may save seeds and seek compensation for failed GE crops.

* Biotech companies may not: shift liability to farmers; nor require

access to farmer's property; nor mandate arbitration; nor mandate court

of jurisdiction; nor require damages beyond actual fees; or charge more

to American farmers than they charge farmers in other nations.

* Seed companies must: ensure seeds labeled non-GE are accurate; provide

clear instructions to reduce cross-pollination; and inform farmers of

the risks of using GE crops.

* EPA is required to take action to prevent resistance to Bt, an

important organic pesticide.

* The bill prohibits genetic engineering designed to produce sterile

seeds.

 

Cosponsors: DeFazio (OR); Sanders (VT); Lee (CA); Conyers (MI); Olver

(MA); Gutierrez (IL); Nadler (NY); Owens (NY); Velazquez (NY); Waters

(CA); Watson (CA); Woolsey (CA); Acevedo-Vila (PR)

 

 

H.R. 2919 - THE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISM LIABILITY ACT OF 2003

 

Biotech companies are selling a technology that is being commercialized

far in advance of the new science of genetic engineering. Farmers may

suffer from crop failures. Neighboring farmers may suffer from

cross-pollination, increased insect resistance, and unwanted " volunteer "

GE plants. Therefore, biotech companies should be found liable for the

failures of GE crops:

 

* The bill places all liability from negative impacts of GE organisms

squarely upon the biotechnology companies that created the GE organism.

* Farmers are granted indemnification to protect them from the

liabilities of GE crops.

 

Cosponsors: DeFazio (OR); Sanders (VT); Lee (CA); Conyers (MI); Olver

(MA); Acevedo-Vila (PR); Gutierrez (IL); Nadler (NY); Owens (NY);

Velazquez (NY); Waters (CA); Watson (CA); Woolsey (CA)

 

 

H.R. 2920 - REAL SOLUTIONS TO WORLD HUNGER ACT OF 2003

 

The demand for mandatory labeling, safety testing, and farmer

protections do not constitute obstacles to the cessation of world

hunger. Economics remain the significant barrier to a consistent food

supply, and the development of expensive GE crops may only exacerbate

this trend. However, agroecological interventions have had significantly

more success in helping developing nations feed themselves with higher

yields and improved environmental practices, all within reasonable costs

for developing countries.

 

* To protect developing nations, GE exports are restricted to those

already approved in the U.S. and approved by the importing nation.

* The bill creates an international research fund for sustainable

agriculture research paid for the Sustainable Agriculture Trust Fund, a

small tax on biotechnology company profits.

 

Cosponsors: DeFazio (OR); Sanders (VT); Lee (CA); Conyers (MI); Olver

(MA); Acevedo-Vila (PR); Gutierrez (IL); Nadler (NY); Owens (NY);

Velazquez (NY); Waters (CA); Watson (CA); Woolsey (CA)

 

 

H.R. 2921 - THE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PHARMACEUTICAL AND INDUSTRIAL

CROP SAFETY ACT OF 2003

 

A pharmaceutical crop or industrial crop is a plant that has been

genetically engineered to produce a medical or industrial product. The

new products are for medical or industrial purposes only and are not

intended for the food supply or released into the environment. However,

experts acknowledge that contamination of our food is inevitable due to

the inherent imprecision of biological and agricultural systems.

Contamination by pharmaceutical crops and industrial crops pose

substantial liability and economic risks to farmers, grain handlers, and

food companies.

 

* The bill places a temporary moratorium on pharmaceutical crops and

industrial crops until all regulations required in this bill are in

effect.

* The bill places a permanent moratorium on pharmaceutical crops and

industrial crops grown in an open-air environment and on pharmaceutical

crops and industrial crops grown in a commonly used food source.

* The USDA shall establish a tracking system to regulate the growing,

handling, transportation, and disposal of all pharmaceutical and

industrial crops to prevent contamination.

* The National Academy of Sciences shall issue a report that explores

alternatives methods to produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals

that do not present the risk of contamination.

 

Cosponsors: DeFazio (OR); Sanders (VT); Lee (CA); Conyers (MI);

Gutierrez (IL); Nadler (NY); Owens (NY); Velazquez (NY); Waters (CA);

Watson (CA); Woolsey (CA)

 

 

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

 

If you would like to comment on this News Update, you can do so at the

forum section of our web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/forums

 

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

[Guest guest]

-

" News Update from The Campaign " <newsupdate

 

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Monsanto and Bayer are both in the news.

 

MONSANTO

 

In a disappointing ruling on Wednesday, a U.S. federal judge refused to

grant class-action status to a lawsuit against Monsanto and other seed

companies. If the class-action status had been granted more than 100,000

farmers would have joined the lawsuit. As you may expect, Monsanto is

very pleased about this ruling.

 

The lawsuit will go forward, but it will only involve a small number of

farmers.

 

The first article below from Associated Press titled " Judge refuses

class-action status to antitrust lawsuit against seed producers " will

provide more details.

 

BAYER

 

Bayer CropScience has announced they will no longer grow test fields of

genetically engineered crops in the United Kingdom (UK). The reason for

discontinuing the crop trials is that activists are constantly destroying the

test fields. The second article from Sunday's edition of the UK paper

The Observer titled " Top GM food company abandons British crop trials "

will explain more.

 

Bayer's announcement caused anti-biotech activists to be quite happy.

However, to apparently prevent the activists from getting too excited, on

Monday Bayer announced they were ready to begin commercial growing

of genetically engineered crops as soon as they get government approval.

The third article below titled " Bayer says GM maize ready for planting

in Britain " will bring you up-to-date on Bayer's latest statements.

 

NEW ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

 

In the next day or two, a report will be released in the United Kingdom

by the Royal Society stating that genetically engineered crops can harm

the environment. Preliminary news in the UK indicates the report will

say that biotech canola and sugar beets are harmful to plants and insects.

Apparently maize, otherwise known as corn, will be found not to be

harmful to the environment. However, genetically engineered maize can

contaminate organic corn which greatly concerns organic farmers.

 

We will keep you posted on further details once the actual report

becomes available.

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

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

 

Judge refuses class-action status to antitrust lawsuit against seed

producers

JIM SUHR

 

Associated Press

Wed, Oct. 01, 2003

 

ST. LOUIS - A federal judge has ruled against granting class-action

status to a lawsuit accusing Monsanto Co. and some of its seed-marketing

rivals of plotting to control genetically modified corn and soybean

prices.

 

U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel's ruling, released Wednesday, thwarts

a bid by attorneys suing the companies to expand the 1999 lawsuit to

include more than 100,000 farmers, not just the handful of farmers

represented in the original lawsuit.

 

" Simply put, plaintiffs presume class-wide impact without any

consideration of whether the markets or the alleged conspiracy at issue

here actually operated in such a manner so as to justify that

presumption, " Sippel wrote in his 17-page ruling.

 

" It is a highly individualized, fact-intensive inquiry that necessarily

requires consideration of factors unique to each potential class

member, " including the variety of genetically modified seeds bought,

geographic location, growing conditions and purchase terms, Sippel

wrote.

 

" I am not persuaded that the alleged conspiracy could even be proven

with common evidence, " he ruled.

 

Telephone and e-mailed messages left with the law firm behind the

lawsuit were not immediately returned.

 

Wednesday's development follows Sippel's decision last month to let the

antitrust portion of the 1999 lawsuit go forward, concluding then that

" genuine disputes of material fact remain. "

 

Monsanto and others named in the case - Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and

DuPont unit Pioneer Hi-Bred - have denied the farmers' allegations that

the companies plotted for years to fix prices. Casting the lawsuit as a

political stunt, Monsanto has rejected claims that genetically modified

seeds and foods are unsafe.

 

To St. Louis-based Monsanto, Sippel's latest ruling further gutted the

lawsuit's claims and marks " a huge victory for Monsanto and

biotechnology, " a field critics have maligned as untested and unsafe,

company spokesman Bryan Hurley said.

 

" The allegations sort of typify the things we hear on a daily basis, and

those allegations are being put to rest, " Hurley said.

 

Pioneer spokesman Doyle Karr called Wednesday's move " a very favorable

development in the matter " for a company still maintaining that " the

underlying claims are without merit. "

 

Messages left Wednesday with Syngenta and Bayer were not immediately

returned.

 

The suit alleges that Monsanto, using its biotechnology patents,

coordinated with the other accused biotech companies to fix prices and

force farmers into using genetically engineered seed. The lawsuit also

alleged there is " substantial uncertainty " as to whether the crops are

safe.

 

In his ruling last month, Sippel rejected negligence and " public

nuisance " claims by farmers who grew non-genetically modified corn and

soybeans but who argued, among other things, that their crops were

tainted by Monsanto's genetically modified seeds, and that the company

wrongly hawked seeds critics called environmentally unfriendly.

 

Those farmers offered no proof of their claims, Sippel ruled in

narrowing the case's scope by throwing out part of the suit by a group

of farmers who said they had suffered losses because of global

resistance to genetically modified crops.

 

Corn and soybeans genetically designed to kill pests or withstand

herbicides have become widely popular in the United States, but they've

have met consumer resistance overseas. Genetic engineering involves

splicing a single gene from one organism to another.

 

Biotech opponents have focused on persuading food makers not to buy

genetically modified crops and getting governments to require the

labeling of altered foods.

 

ON THE NET

 

Monsanto, http://www.monsanto.com

Pioneer Hi-Bred, http://www.pioneer.com

Bayer, http://www.bayercropscienceus.com

Syngenta, http://www.syngenta.com

 

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

 

Top GM food company abandons British crop trials

 

Robin McKie, science editor

Sunday September 28, 2003

The Observer (London)

 

A key GM crop developer, Bayer, has decided to halt UK trials of

genetically modified plants. The move is seen as a major blow to the

industry. Bayer was the last company carrying out GM trials in the UK,

though it said yesterday it hoped to start up again soon when conditions

were 'more favourable'.

 

The company blamed Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett for its

decision. Her insistence that the locations of all trial sites be made

public had forced its hand, a spokesman told The Observer.

 

Until last week, Bayer CropScience, Bayer's crop subsidiary believed it

was close to a deal that would allow GM crop test sites - which are

regularly destroyed by protesters - to be kept secret. Instead of having

to publish exact map references for fields, companies would only have to

name the county in which it was holding a trial.

 

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment had said this

vaguer notification was 'acceptable in terms of risk assessment', while

the police have always complained that explicit disclosure of test site

locations has been a major factor in aiding 'crop-trashers'. But at the

last minute the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Defra) told Bayer it would not support this change in regulations.

 

'In the absence of any moves to ensure the security for trials, Bayer

CropScience has no choice, therefore, but to cease its variety trial

activities in the UK for this coming season,' said the official. 'It is

disappointing the criminal activities of a small minority of people have

prevented information on GM crop varieties being generated.'

 

Most GM crop trials carried out over the past few years have been

sabotaged, not only those of Bayer. Other companies have pulled out. Now

Bayer, the last to continue with them, has decided to call it a day. The

current 'brain drain' of UK agricultural scientists to the US and Canada

is now only likely to intensify.

 

The fact that companies also specifically blame Beckett for this latest

blow is particularly intriguing. Last week, a letter from Beckett to her

fellow Ministers said Britain should back EU laws that ban all GM-free

zones, a move that would give the go-ahead to the commercial growing of

GM crops here.

 

But as long as test GM trials are exposed to sabotage, the prospects of

commercial growing look remote. 'This is a back-door moratorium,' said

an industry source.

 

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

 

Bayer says GM maize ready for planting in Britain

 

LONDON, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Genetically modified (GMO) maize could be

grown in Britain within two years if biotech firms get government

approval for commercial plantings, leading UK player Bayer CropScience

said on Monday.

 

" If the government says 'yes' to commercial GM crops, then GM maize

would be the first to be planted, although it would be some time before

we see GM rapeseed and sugar beet -- maybe in 2006, " Bayer 's Julian

Little told Reuters.

 

" It's possible that GM maize could be planted as early as next year, but

this looks unlikely, " Little added.

 

Little said the quantities of the gene-spliced maize planted would be

relatively small and would most likely be used as animal feed.

 

The UK government is currently weighing up whether GM crops should be

grown in Britain, but a final decision is not expected until early next

year.

 

Little also rejected the notion that the UK unit of German chemicals

giant Bayer was preparing to abandon GM technology in Britain following

its decision to pull out of commercial trials.

 

" Bayer is not pulling out of the UK - we are committed to GM, " he said.

 

The Cambridge-based firm recently told the government it would not be

conducting any more commercial trials because environmental protestors

kept trashing plants.

 

" The government turned down our request not to publish details of where

the trials take place, so we've decided not to undertake any

(commercial) trials this year, " Little said.

 

Bayer CropScience said it usually conducts between six and 10 commercial

trials a year -- essential if the company wants to apply to have the

variety approved on the National Seed List.

 

Once on the list, the seeds can then be sold to farmers for commercial

use.

 

" We're not saying that we won't start commercial trials again. We'll

most likely restart them in a different climate, " Little said.

 

Bayer 's GM herbicide resistant maize, Chardon LL, already has EU

marketing consent.

 

PUBLIC DEBATE WAS FLAWED, BAYER SAYS

 

Last week, a government report on its six-week national dialogue on GM

crops and food showed that a majority of the British public were not in

favour.

 

But proponents of the technology say that much of the government-funded

debate was skewed in favour of environmental activists who took over

local meetings.

 

They also say the results of a questionnaire that showed 54 percent of

the population never want to see GM crops and food in Britain was far

from representative of British opinion because only 37,000 responded.

 

" GM crops and food aren't at the top of most people's list of priorities

-- they are not even on their radar, " Bayer 's Little said.

 

Earlier on Monday, former environment minister Michael Meacher joined

anti-GM activists attending the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth

to protest against U.S. attempts to get Europe to loosen its tight GM

rules.

 

" The results of the GM public debate have clearly shown the strength of

opposition to GM within the UK. The government must support the EU in

defending this U.S. challenge, and protect our right to choose GM-free

food, " Meacher said.

 

The U.S. launched a complaint against Europe's de facto moratorium on GM

crops and GM food imports at the World Trade Organisation earlier this

year.