Fwd: More GE News for Wednesday, March 19, 2003

[Guest guest]

Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:20:37 -0800

More GE News from The Campaign

More GE News for Wednesday, March 19, 2003

 

More GE News From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

------

 

More GE News for Wednesday, March 19, 2003

 

1) Group Presses GM Food Concerns for Consumer Rights Day

2) Frankenfood fear drives science from EU-Commission

3) US, Argentina mull WTO biotech case versus EU

4) Gov't (Japan) OKs bill to ratify biosafety protocol

5) Italy gene corn ban may be legal-EU court adviser

6) Germany To Loosen Rules on Genetically-Modified Products

7) Farmers welcome GM crop ban

8) Gov't (Japan) to pre-check GM crop growth, carriage

9) Biotech Firms Look to Crack EU Markets

10) Green groups say EU plan would hurt non-GM farmers

11) Genetic Engineering Compromises Farmers' Freedom to Farm

 

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

 

1) Group Presses GM Food Concerns for Consumer Rights Day

Fri Mar 14, 9:34 AM ET

 

Jim Lobe,OneWorld US

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. March 14 (OneWorld) - A global federation of more than

250 consumer groups is celebrating World Consumer Rights Day on Saturday

with national campaigns worldwide to demand greater public

accountability for the development and marketing of genetically modified

(GM) foods.

 

Consumers International (CI) is warning that, by introducing and

distributing GM technology, multinational corporations are gaining

tighter control over the entire food chain through patents and other

property rights on seeds, and that consumers must ensure that people,

rather than profits and corporate managers, determine what they eat and

drink.

 

" Consumer groups' concerns around GM foods no longer center only on

issues of food safety and the environment, " according to Sothi Rachagan,

CI's Asia Pacific regional director. " The most pressing issue now facing

consumers is the way in which agri-business is using GM technology to

consolidate its control over global food production. "

 

Genetic modification of food crops, which took off during the 1990s, is

designed to make them more resistant to a variety of threats, such as

drought, or certain kinds of pests or weeds. It is also used to improve

their marketability by, for example, making various varieties of

tomatoes appear redder.

 

GM crops skyrocketed to the top of the international agenda four years

ago when European governments began curbing the import and sale of GM

products in response to widespread popular concerns about their

environmental and health impacts. While GM crops were widely accepted in

North America during the early to mid-1990s, in part due to assurances

by governments that they were safe to eat, the European reaction was

altogether different.

 

In 1998, the European Union required that all GM foods be labeled so

that consumers would be informed about what they were buying. But the

U.S. agricultural biotechnology industry steadfastly opposes it, arguing

that labels would imply that something might be wrong with the product.

U.S. trade negotiators have backed the industry.

 

The result has been rising trade tensions across the Atlantic. While GM

crops now account for more than half of the acreage planted by farmers

and agribusiness in North America, the labeling requirement has

effectively barred their export to Europe and several other key markets.

 

 

A new wrinkle to the dispute was added late last year when it became

clear that millions of southern Africans desperately needed food aid due

to prolonged drought in the region. When the U.S. offered to supply GM

corn as part of its relief supplies, several nations, citing health and

environmental concerns, turned them down.

 

In January, Washington threatened to bring a formal legal challenge to

the EU's curbs at the World Trade Organization (WTO),

a step long urged by U.S. agribusiness. While it has since stepped back

from the threat, the EU has shown no signs of backing down, in part due

to pressure exerted by CI and other consumer groups on the continent.

Indeed, resistance to GM foods appears to be spreading, according to CI.

 

 

Consumers in Japan, for example, have halted the development of a

herbicide-tolerant GM rice promoted by the Monsanto corporation, a major

GM booster. GM flax seed was taken off the market in 2001 under pressure

from the Flax Council of Canada because European customers, who buy 60

percent of Canada's flax, said they did not want it.

 

In Latin America, testing by the national consumers' organization

resulted in the withdrawal of donated GM soya from national food aid

programs for young people and in sharply reducing the area granted to

Monsanto for planting GM cotton. Ecuador also halted GM food aid imports

after protests, while Brazil last year became the first country in the

world to ban the planting and commercialization of GM foods.

 

Opposition is even growing in the United States where some 44 towns and

cities, including major metropolises like Denver, Boston, and San

Francisco, have passed resolutions calling either for mandatory labeling

of GM foods or against the planting of GM crops.

 

CI said it intends to build on this movement Saturday by sponsoring

actions in countries from Jamaica to Vietnam, which are designed to

heighten awareness and public debate about GM foods and the corporations

that develop them. CI is also releasing a new consumer kit about the

issue, entitled 'Corporate Control of the Food Chain - The GM Link.'

 

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

 

2) Frankenfood fear drives science from EU-Commission

 

BRUSSELS, March 14 (Reuters) - Public concern across the European Union

over genetically modified foods is driving scientific innovation out of

the 15-nation bloc, the EU's chief research official said on Friday. A

poll conducted by the executive European Commission showed that citizens

in most EU countries opposed genetically altered foods, dubbed

" Frankenstein foods " by critics who fear they could pose dangers to

human health or the environment.

 

The poll showed widespread support for other forms of biotechnology such

as genetic testing and the cultivation of cells for medical purposes.

 

But the EU public -- rendered very cautious about food by the spread of

mad-cow disease in the 1990s -- remains sceptical when the technology is

applied to what they eat.

 

European Research Commissioner Philippe Busqin said, in a statement

accompanying the results of the poll, that the public was ill-informed.

 

" There is a perceived lack of scientific and other information and the

increasingly sceptical climate is scaring European biotech companies and

research centres away, " he said.

 

The agro-food industry is convinced that farmers, humans and the

environment can benefit by genetically altering plants and animals to

add characteristics like herbicide resistance or extra nutritional

value.

 

EU governments have enraged U.S. farmers by blocking new authorisations

for GM foods pending tougher regulations. Washington is considering

taking the Europeans to the World Trade Organisation over what it says

is an illegal ban.

 

Busquin said the new regulations in place or about to be passed in the

bloc meant that there was now " no ground for unjustified fears and

prejudice. "

 

03/14/03 11:43 ET

 

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

 

3) US, Argentina mull WTO biotech case versus EU

 

By Doug Palmer

 

WASHINGTON, March 13 (Reuters) - Top U.S. and Argentine trade official

said on Thursday they held talks on the possibility of taking joint

legal action against the European Union for blocking imports of

genetically modified food.

 

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgeier and Argentine Vice

Minister of Foreign Relations Martin Redrado said the two countries

shared a strong interest in making sure world markets remain open to the

new biotech food products.

 

The Bush administration has been under pressure from U.S. farmers and

members of Congress to launch a World Trade Organization case against

the EU for its four-year moratorium on approving imports of new biotech

food and pharmaceuticals.

 

" We're not in a position today to make an announcement about specific

measures in the WTO, but we both look at this matter in a similar

light, " Allgeier told reporters.

 

U.S. farmers estimated they have lost about $300 million in annual sales

because of the ban.

 

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick told the Senate Finance

Committee this month that he wanted to forge an international coalition

against the EU moratorium, rather than have the United States bring a

case on its own.

 

The EU moratorium is driven by consumer concerns about the safety of the

products, after a string of food scares in Europe that included mad cow

disease and contaminated animal feed.

 

The United States says the crops are safe and have the potential to

reduce world hunger and help the environment by boosting crop yields and

reducing pesticide use.

 

Redrado said the issue was important for Argentina because 95 percent of

its soybean product exports and 25 percent of its cotton exports are

genetically modified.

 

" We see this as a critical issue and we are looking for the development

of these products in a safer environment and we share those goals with

the U.S. " Redrado said.

 

The officials said they also discussed ways of expanding bilateral trade

under a program allowing Argentina and other developing countries to

ship certain goods to the United States without paying duties.

 

Argentina's exports under the Generalized System of Preferences program

increased 23 percent last year to $240 million dollars after the Bush

administration made a number of additional products eligible, Allgeier

said.

 

Washington will decide in the next few weeks whether to provide

duty-free treatment for another batch of Argentine goods, including

peanuts, Italian-style cheeses, other dairy goods, grape juice,

ferroalloys and ball bearings, he said.

 

The two trade officials also expressed alarm at the slow pace of

agricultural negotiations at the World Trade Organization ahead of an

important March 31 deadline.

 

03/13/03 18:51 ET

 

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

 

4) Gov't (Japan) OKs bill to ratify biosafety protocol

 

..c Kyodo News Service

 

TOKYO, March 14 (Kyodo) - The government at a cabinet meeting Friday

approved a bill to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety that

regulates the trade of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), government

officials said.

 

The government also plans to formulate in the near future another bill

on necessary domestic measures regarding the protocol, the officials

said.

 

The protocol, adopted in January 2000 based on the Convention on

Biological Diversity, aims to prevent negative effects on the ecology of

imported GMOs and preserve biodiversity.

 

GMOs result from the use of modern biotechnological techniques. They

include a variety of food crops that have been genetically modified for

greater productivity or for resistance to pests or diseases. Common

examples of modified crops include tomatoes, grains, corn and soybeans.

 

The protocol establishes an advance informed agreement procedure to

ensure that countries are provided with the information necessary to

make informed decisions before agreeing to the import of GMOs into their

territory.

 

Under the protocol, agreement from the importing country after risk

assessment is needed prior to the importation of GMOs to be used

directly in the environment, such as for plantation.

 

If intended for direct use as food or feed or for processing, prior

import agreement is not necessary but manufacturers are obliged to label

the products as genetically modified.

 

The protocol is to be put into effect 90 days after 50 countries ratify

it. A total of 44 countries, including Norway, Switzerland, and the

Netherlands, have ratified the protocol so far.

 

The bill on domestic measures will stipulate procedures for the

government to give the required prior approval for such GMO imports for

plantation, as well as measures on a government order for recalls if ill

effects on the environment are detected.

 

03/13/03 19:35 EST

 

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

 

5) Italy gene corn ban may be legal-EU court adviser

 

LUXEMBOURG, March 14 (Reuters) - A top EU court official said on

Thursday states were entitled to ban gene-modified (GM) foods if they

had reason to fear possible health or environmental risks.

 

Many European Union governments are resisting the introduction of GM

products, dubbed Frankenstein foods by some critics.

 

A European Court of Justice adviser said Italy did have the right to ban

GM maize, which had been approved before an EU-wide moratorium, if the

government had evidence of risks.

 

" The Italian Government was entitled to adopt provisional

measures...provided that it had detailed grounds for considering, as a

result of new information or a reassessment of existing information,

that the use of the food in question endangers human health or the

environment, " the court said in a statement, giving Advocate General

Siegbert Alber's opinion.

 

The case was brought by three biotechnology firms, Monsanto ,

Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred

, to contest a ban on GM

maize imposed by Italy in 2000.

 

The maize varieties, genetically altered to be more resistant to pests

and chemical sprays, were accepted for use in the EU before the bloc

imposed an unofficial moratorium on new authorisations in 1998.

 

The United States has threatened to take the EU to the World Trade

Organisation over the lack of access to EU markets.

 

Italy, one of the GM-sceptic countries that vowed to block any new GM

products from the EU pending tougher testing and monitoring rules, said

the simplified procedure used to assess the maize was not rigorous

enough.

 

The firms say the maize products once processed into food are no

different from traditional strains. But Italy argued that traces of

genetically modified DNA remained in corn meal even after processing and

could in theory pose a health risk.

 

A court spokesman said the EU court may leave the final decision on

whether Italy presented sufficient evidence to justify its ban to the

Italian courts, which will have to reconsider the case after the

Luxembourg court has ruled.

 

The court will not deliver its final ruling for several months. Judges

tend to follow the non-binding opinion of the advocate general in about

80 percent of cases.

 

The European Commission wants eventually to open the way to GM products

in the EU market and a law on tracing and labelling of goods has been

passed by the European Parliament.

 

Washington has applied intense pressure to get the ban removed as it is

costing its farmers millions of dollars in lost sales. But it has held

back from launching a WTO dispute case, saying it wants to build a

coalition against the EU's GM ban.

 

03/13/03 08:16 ET

 

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

 

6) Germany To Loosen Rules on Genetically-Modified Products

 

http://www.dw-world.de © Deutsche Welle

04.03.2003

 

In a major policy shift, the German government says it plans to open its

markets to genetically-modified products and will support the lifting of

the Europe-wide ban on GM food imports.

 

German Consumer Protection and Agricultural Minister, Renate Künast,

announced on Sunday in Berlin that the government would implement a new

law this year on gene technology that would pave the way for the import

of genetically-modified (GM) products into the German market.

 

The minister said that the government would give the go-ahead for the

new regulations in the cabinet in May, so that agricultural products

such as maize and seeds that have been genetically engineered could once

again be imported into Germany after a freeze lasting several years.

 

With the decision, the government has given in to long-standing demands

of industry and business to open up the markets for green biotechnology.

According to BIOCOM AG, a publishing company specialising in the life

sciences sector, there are some 600 biotech companies in Germany,

heavily involved in biotechnological research.

 

EU regulations still fuzzy

 

Künast made it clear that the new German law would only be implemented

once EU regulations on the import and labeling of GM foods came into

effect.

 

Künast indicated that the German government would then support the

lifting of the EU-wide ban on the import of GM plants that has been in

place since June 1999 -- a move that the European Commission has been

urging member states for months to take.

 

Before that can happen, the European Parliament first has to approve of

tough GMO (genetically modified organisms) labeling laws in food and

animal feed passed by EU agricultural ministers last November.

 

But the new EU legislation has still not cleared up the confusion about

how exactly foods that include genetically modified organisms should be

handled.

 

The regulations would force the labeling of foods that are derived from

GM crops but do not contain any measurable GM protein or DNA. This would

include glucose syrup produced from GM maize or soybean and rape oil

from GM plants.

 

The proposed laws would allow some food that contains detectable GM

ingredients to go unlabelled. Any food with less than 0.9 percent of

detectable GM components would not require a GM label. Another new

feature of the proposed law is that animal feed produced from GM crops

would also require labeling. So too will animal feed containing

GM-derived ingredients such as flavorings or vitamin additives.

 

The new regulations also lay down that production and processing of the

products must be transparent and documented comprehensively.

 

Minister Künast also wants tough German regulations in place for a

worst-case scenario such as genetically modified seeds spreading

uncontrollably.

 

" Thanks to labeling, the consumers can in future choose between buying

GM food or not, " she said.

 

" No obvious advantages " : critic

 

But not everybody is happy with Künast’s decision. Mr. Wolfschmidt of

Foodwatch, a watchdog organization in Germany that stresses food safety

to protect consumers, told DW-WORLD he sees no reason for the German

government to make such an announcement now. " From the point of view of

the consumer, it brings absolutely no kind of advantage for anyone at

present, " he said.

 

Künast said that even today GM products were used in certain production

processes, without the knowledge of the consumers. " That would come to

an end in the future, " she said.

 

Wolfschmidt says that the minister’s statement gives a wrong signal.

" She’s legitimizing what we don’t know for sure to be true, " he said. He

said that there are such a variety of components involved in products

such as biscuits and other baked products that it was difficult to prove

whether some contained traces of GM food.

 

Wolfschmidt also said that the new law would only flood the German

market with surplus products that weren’t really needed. " The

biotechnology lobby only wants to pursue its interests and hopes that

the consumers will eventually give up their resistance to GM products, "

he said.

 

Economic argument beginning to weigh with the Germans

 

Indeed ordinary Germans, with their famed eco-consciousness, worries

about the ethical implications of genetically engineered organisms, and

strict regulations governing genetic research, have been among the most

resistant to new genetic technology.

 

However that may be changing as Germany’s politicians are waking up to

the enormous economic potential of biotechnology. In 1997, German

politicians backed the biotechnology patent law approved by the European

Parliament.

 

On Sunday, Künast too emphasized that genetically modified products had

become a " world-wide reality " . She said that globally genetically

engineered plants were being planted on some 60 million hectares of

land, with the U.S. alone accounting for more than half of that amount.

 

" In the face of such facts, we are not going to have a yes-no debate, "

she added. The German government, she said, was for freedom of choice

and for coexistence between conventional, ecological and genetically

modified plants.

 

The European Commission has repeated in the past that the EU member

states are in danger of losing out in the international biotechnology

race with their resistance to GM products. Besides, the U.S., countries

such as China, India and Argentina are seen as edging past several

European countries to pick up a bigger slice of a globally growing

industry.

 

Transatlantic trade spat spurs Germans to act?

 

Wolfschmidt of Foodwatch suspects that the reason the government

suddenly seems to be rushing its decision on GM production is to lay to

rest the " transatlantic spat " over GM food.

 

Indeed the U.S. and the EU are locked in a trade battle over GM food for

the past four years ever since the EU banned imports of GM foods.

 

Last month, in the strongest indication that things might be coming to a

head, the Bush administration’s top trade official, Robert Zoellick

threatened to file a case against the EU at the WTO and said he had lost

his patience with the four-year feud about the safety of American

biotechnology food. He called the European position, " immoral " for

leading to starvation in the developing world.

 

The European Union for its part released a statement that it had

approved 18 genetically modified products and that while it was " aware

of U.S. frustration " , officials warned against any action at the WTO.

 

http://www.dw-world.de © Deutsche Welle

 

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

 

7) Farmers welcome GM crop ban

 

04mar03

 

The Courier Mail - Australia

 

A GROUP of Australian farmers has commended the NSW Government for its

decision to slap a three-year ban on the commercial introduction of

genetically modified (GM) food crops.

 

Premier Bob Carr yesterday announced the ban on the production of GM

food crops such as canola, clover, mustard and field peas until 2006.

Group spokesman Scott Kinnear said the ban was sensible.

 

" It is a precautionary decision and it proves that the Government is

listening to farmers, " he said in Sydney.

 

But the farmers joined the Australian Greens in expressing concerns

about trials of GM food crops, and their potential cross-contamination

with non-GM crops.

 

Queensland farmer Julie Newman questioned whether the farming industry

was ready for GM crops, and said farmers were being misled when they

were told they would make more money from them.

 

" Non-GM crops are offering a lot more, " she said.

 

" (GM crops) will cause serious industry damage.

 

" The biggest thing consumers should remember is that if farmers can't

grow non-GM crops, consumers can't buy non-GM crops. "

 

Canadian farmer Bob Willick is leading a class action of 1000 farmers

against Canadian companies Monsanto and Bayer for damages caused by the

release of GM canola in Canada.

 

Today in Sydney Mr Willick warned there would soon be no canola,

mustard, and perhaps wheat grown organically in Canada.

 

" It could be the end of organic farming in Canada, " he said.

 

Mr Willick said Australia had a great opportunity to export to different

markets with the banning of GM crops.

 

Tests on GM crops were acceptable, but only under secure conditions, Mr

Kinnear said.

 

" If they are going to have open field trials, where there is the

possibility for cross-pollination and cross-contamination, then we would

have a problem with that. "

 

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

 

8) Gov't (Japan) to pre-check GM crop growth, carriage

 

..c Kyodo News Service

 

TOKYO, March 2 (Kyodo) - People growing or transferring genetically

engineered crops in Japan will be required to get prior government

approval, according to a bill to control the domestic spread of

genetically modified (GM) organisms obtained Saturday by Kyodo News.

 

The bill drawn up by the environment, farm and health ministries also

calls for a government order for such people to recall their GM

organisms if their ill effects are later detected, with penalties of up

to one year in prison or 1 million yen in fines for noncompliance.

 

The government plans to submit the bill to the Diet during the current

ordinary session with a view to putting the law into effect by the end

of this year, officials of the ministries said.

 

The planned legislation is part of Tokyo's steps to ratify the Cartagena

Protocol on trade rules to prevent negative effects on the ecology of GM

organisms and preserve biodiversity, adopted in January 2001.

 

The Japanese bill also aims at preventing GM crops, insects and other

living things from spreading in the environment and affecting native

species.

 

The ministries have so far each set up guidelines to check such

organisms' biosafety, but will for the first time seek a law to enhance

their regulatory control. As for GM organisms used in foods, safety to

human health is being examined under the Food Hygiene Law.

 

The bill is designed to control GM organisms in three phases -- use in

the open air such as cultivating and carrying GM crops, use in closed

situations including laboratories, and international trade.

 

Outdoor users will be obliged to report their assessments of the

organisms' impact on other species and their plans to use them for prior

government scrutiny.

 

The government will be given the power to urge these users to change

their plans if they are deemed to affect the ecosystem negatively and to

order their use be altered or halted if ill effects are found later,

according to the bill.

 

Indoor users, meanwhile, will be required to take measures to prevent

the organisms from proliferating or accept government verifications if

they fail to have concrete preventive steps.

 

As for imports, the government will examine products with origins where

GM organisms, centering on crops, are feared to have mixed with non-GM

varieties.

 

Importers will be obliged to get a government green light to bring in GM

organisms and have managers responsible for their use in compliance with

regulations.

 

In the case of Japanese exporting the organisms, they will be required

to notify the governments of their destinations of the type and other

information of the products and to make clear their GM status in labels.

 

The international pact on biodiversity is expected to take effect later

this year.

 

Developed to improve yields and resistance to pests and agrochemicals,

GM corns and other GM crops have already been widely harvested in the

United States, while the European Union is taking a precautionary stand

over them.

 

Some reports indicate their effects in killing insects other than

intended pests and in altering nature by crossing with wild species,

while such crops as pest-resistant corns, pesticide-tolerant soybeans

and disease-resistant, long-life tomatoes are believed safe for the

environment.

 

The use in laboratories of GM organisms in rats, fishes and insects is

also increasing for the development of vaccines and other medical

products and of environmental technologies.

 

03/01/03 18:07 EST

 

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

 

9) Biotech Firms Look to Crack EU Markets

 

By PAUL GEITNER

..c The Associated Press

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Taking the European Union at its word that the

biotech ban is about to end, seed companies are testing the waters by

submitting new applications for genetically modified corn, cotton,

canola and other plants.

 

But prospects are murky. Even as some EU countries signal the 5-year-old

moratorium on biotech crops could be over in a matter of months, others

are raising new objections.

 

New EU legislation that took effect in October was intended to end the

ban by strengthening decade-old rules on testing and licensing

genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as crops or ingredients.

 

Since January the new procedure has attracted 18 applications, the first

of which are expected to reach the decision stage this autumn. EU

environment ministers were to be briefed on the new applications

Tuesday.

 

``We understand the member states do see now a clear road map forward

.... (and) we're optimistic and positive on that,'' said Lutz Knabe,

spokesman for French-based Bayer CropScience, which has five biotech

products in the pipeline.

 

But U.S.-based Monsanto, whose Roundup Ready corn, canola rapeseed and

other products account for 10 of the new applications, is not getting

hopes up too high.

 

``It's still too early to tell what the position will really be,'' said

spokesman Thomas McDermott in Brussels. ``There's some unclear

signals.''

 

With environmental and health risks covered by the new rules,

food-loving Italy has been pushing for an examination of potential

economic risks, especially to organic farmers. It also is asking whether

EU rules are needed to guard against contamination from one field to

another.

 

Similar opposition exists in France, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and

Denmark, where parliament in January demanded a study on whether the

country could go completely GMO-free.

 

``We need a complete economic analysis of what impact the genetically

modified crop will have on the farm economy,'' said Christian Hansen of

the Danish People's Party, a government ally.

 

The EU head office, which wants the ban lifted, argues that economic

interests would not be enough to legally block a farmer who wanted to

plant an approved biotech crop from doing so.

 

``The establishment of GMO-free zones against the will of some farmers

runs counter to the very principal of coexistence,'' according to a

draft report leaked by environmental groups on Monday.

 

Given that growing conditions differ widely across Europe, the report,

to be adopted Wednesday, recommends leaving it up to EU governments to

adopt their own rules for ensuring biotech, conventional and organic

farms can coexist.

 

Environmental groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, which

oppose biotech farming, said the European Commission was ``dodging its

responsibility.''

 

``With no hard legislation in this area, genetic contamination will soon

become a 'fait accompli' in EU agriculture, depriving European consumers

and farmers of the right to choose,'' the groups charged.

 

In France, officials have shown signs of yielding since their own

Academies of Sciences and Medicine last December reported finding no

evidence of health or environmental problems connected with biotech and

urged the EU to lift the ban.

 

French minister for research Claudie Haignere told parliament last week

that France would support lifting the moratorium ``a few months from

now,'' but only after separate EU rules requiring traceability and

labeling for products derived from GMOs enter into force.

 

The Bush administration has since backed down on an threat made in

January to pry open the EU market by challenging the ban at the WTO - a

step many predicted would have backfired by inflaming emotions and

stoking resentment.

 

Yet even if everything happens on schedule, biotech companies are not

counting on immediate sales.

 

``We hope in general that the market turns to really growing around 2006

or 2007,'' said Knabe at Bayer CropScience.

 

On the Net:

 

European Commission biotechnology website: http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/

 

03/03/03 16:08 EST

 

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

 

10) Green groups say EU plan would hurt non-GM farmers

 

BRUSSELS, March 3 (Reuters) - Environmental groups on Monday condemned a

European Commission proposal which they said force organic and

traditional farmers to pay to prevent their crops from mixing with

genetically modified organisms.

 

Since five European Union member states refused to grant any more GM

crop approvals in 1998, leading to a de facto ban, the EU executive has

been working to put a proper system in place to meet their concerns.

 

The non-binding proposal on how genetically modified (GM), conventional

and organic crops can co-exist is set for a vote on Wednesday.

 

" The Commission is going to dodge responsibility on the co-existence

issue, " Lorenzo Consoli, Greenpeace EU policy director for genetic

engineering, told reporters. " They would be responsible for the

contaminatinon of EU agriculture. "

 

But the EU executive disagreed.

 

" It's a question of choice for farmers what crops to grow, " said a

Commission spokeswoman, adding that the document is a paper, not a

legislative proposal.

 

Statements of policy often form the basis of future legislative

proposals, which originate in the Commission.

 

Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace and the European Environmental

Bureau say the proposal would tilt the balance in favour of the biotech

industry, leaving farmers in an uphill struggle to grow GM-free food.

 

They pointed to a section of the proposal, which says:

 

" The burden of applying measures to deal with co-existence should fall

on the economic operators who intend to gain a benefit from the specific

cultivation model they have chosen. "

 

Friend of the Earth GMO Campaign Coordinator Geert Ritsema said: " If

this paper is adopted, GM would be the rule and GM-free the exception. "

 

The three conservation groups want tough EU legislation on co-existence

that would apply across the 15-nation bloc.

 

The Commission spokeswoman said EU legislation is already in place,

ensuring that only authorised GM crops having undergone a health and

environmental assessment can be cultivated.

 

03/03/03 11:41 ET

 

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

 

11) Genetic Engineering Compromises Farmers' Freedom to Farm

 

MONTPELIER, Vt., Feb. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Genetic engineering compromises

farmers' freedom to farm, said Travis Forgues, a member of the Organic

Valley cooperative's Vermont pool who, together with his wife, children

and parents, operates an 80-cow certified organic dairy on 160 acres in

Alburg, Vermont.

 

Speaking at a State House press conference with members of Rural

Vermont, Forgues said " Genetic Engineering takes the freedom away from

people to farm the way they choose. I can't control drift from neighbors

four miles away. Due to the travel of pollen, I can't guarantee that I'm

growing what I planted. Genetically altered corn will have ended up in

my crop, changed the structure of what I planted, and altered the

product. "

 

The Forgues Farm has been certified organic for five years, and since

becoming organic has never grown corn or soybeans. Explained Forgues,

" With the higher costs of grain inputs, due to organic practices, many

people have suggested that I grow a few acres of corn and some soybeans.

Though I agree with them that it makes financial sense, I cannot take

that step because of the drift problem. "

 

Forgues noted that Vermont farmers want a fair price for their produce

and less restrictions on how they farm, especially as the face of

agriculture in the state becomes more bleak. " Farmers should have the

right to farm in a particular way, on their own farms as long as we

aren't compromising the health of others, the safety of our land, or

impeding the rights of others to do the same thing on their farms, "

emphasized Forgues.

 

Noting that the health consequences and ecological issues related to

GMO's are battles to be fought by others, Forgues concluded: " Should

everyone be forced to have to have genetically altered crops? As an

organic farmer, I stand against this. Organics is meant to work in

harmony with nature, not to genetically change it to fit our purposes.

Farming in this manner, is a choice our family has made. It's working

for us and the 517 other members of our organic cooperative in 17 states

nationwide. "

 

Strong consumer demand has prompted great growth for Organic Valley in

New England, where the cooperative produces it own local milk " New

England Pastures. " In 2002, the co-op brought on 12 farms in Vermont and

10 in Maine, for a regional total of 61 organic farms; added 940 cows

being raised organically for a regional total of 2,575 cows; and added

2,350 acres in organic production for a total of 6,525 acres in the

region.

 

Organized 15 years ago by a half dozen organic farmers, the Organic

Valley cooperative today is made up of 518 organic farmers in 17 states.

Last year it achieved record level sales ($125 million) and an average

farmer pay price well above conventional rates. Stewards of the earth

who use nature and the wisdom of generations of farm families as their

teachers, Organic Valley farmers produce more than 130 delicious organic

foods. Look for Organic Valley milk, cheese, butter, spreads, creams,

eggs, produce, juice and meats in food cooperatives, natural foods

stores and supermarkets throughout the country. For further information,

contact Organic Valley, 507 West Main Street, LaFarge WI 54639, tel.

(608) 625-2602, or visit www.organicvalley.com.

 

SOURCE Organic Valley

 

CO: Organic Valley

 

02/27/2003 11:00 EST

 

 

 

---------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!