Fwd: More bad news for biotech foods

[Guest guest]

Fri, 30 May 2003 06:18:13 -0700

 

News Update from The Campaign

More bad news for biotech foods

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Posted below are four excellent articles worth reading. But in case you just

want summaries, here you go:

 

EGYPT BACKS OUT OF WTO CASE

 

Reuters news service is reporting that Egypt has backed out of their

support for the World Trade Organization (WTO) case the United States

filed against the European Union (EU) over their moratorium on

genetically engineered foods.

 

Egypt had initially joined the U.S., Argentina and Canada in filing the

WTO case against the EU. The first article below titled " Egypt drops

backing for U.S. GMO case vs EU-letter " will provide more details.

 

NEGOTIATIONS BREAKDOWN OVER U.S. BIOTECH FOOD REGULATIONS

 

In a revealing exposé titled " No Deal on Biotech Food, " the Washington

Post states:

 

" An elaborate, secretive effort in Washington over the past two years to

negotiate a truce between the agricultural biotechnology industry and

its critics has ended in failure, with the parties unable to agree on a

plan to strengthen biotech regulations in this country. "

 

This in-depth article does a fantastic job of pointing out the lack of

regulations over biotech foods in the United States. The article states:

 

" The FDA reviews biotech foods for safety, and the agency's action on a

new biotech crop is often characterized in press accounts as approval.

But legally, it isn't. The FDA operates a voluntary system under which

biotech companies decide on their own how to test the safety of their

products, submit summaries of their data -- not the full data -- to the

FDA, and win a letter that says, in so many words, that the agency has

reviewed the company's conclusion that its new products are safe and has

no further questions. In most cases, the data on which the safety

conclusion is based remain secret. "

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods applauds Justin

Gillis of the Washington Post for this excellent example of

investigative journalism. It is the second article posted below.

 

TOUGH BATTLE FOR MONSANTO'S BIOTECH WHEAT

 

The third article below from Reuters is titled " Monsanto GMO wheat far

from winning market okay. " This article highlights the growing

opposition to Monsanto's plan to get genetically engineered wheat

introduced into the global marketplace.

 

Monsanto claims that even if they get approval from the U.S. and

Canadian governments to commercially grow biotech wheat, they will not

move forward until there is consumer acceptance. However, many people do

not trust Monsanto's statements based on their track record. As the

article reports:

 

" Still, some say they do not fully trust the company and have yet to see

any aggressive moves by Monsanto to develop customer approval. "

 

THE TRADE WAR WITH EUROPE OVER GE FOODS

 

The fourth article posted below is from the New York Times titled

" Battle Over Biotechnology Intensifies Trade War. "

 

This article does a good job of pointing out the weakness of the U.S.

strategy of blaming Europe's opposition to genetically engineered foods

on the hunger crisis in Africa.

 

This approach does not seem to be working on changing the European

Union's position. If anything, the European Union seems to be more upset

with the United States than ever before over the issue of genetically

engineered foods.

 

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. "

 

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

 

Egypt drops backing for U.S. GMO case vs EU-letter

 

BRUSSELS, May 29 (Reuters) - Egypt has withdrawn its support for the

United States in a trade case against the European Union for the bloc's

effective ban on new genetically modified (GM) products, according to a

letter to a consumer group by Cairo's ambassador to the European Union.

 

Along with Canada and Argentina, Egypt had backed the United States in

its May 13 request to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for action

against the EU unless the group of 15 nations resumed authorising

applications for new biotech food.

 

But the Brussels-based European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) said the

Egyptian ambassador in Brussels had written to it to say Cairo had

dropped its support for the U.S. action.

 

" ...Egypt decided not to become a party to the motion for arbitration

launched by the United States within the dispute settlement body of the

World Trade Organization, " said a text of the letter seen by Reuters.

 

This decision had come after a thorough review of the EU's stance

regarding the production and marketing of GM food and food ingredients,

the letter added.

 

A spokeswoman at the Egyptian embassy in Washington said Ambassador

Nabil Fahmy had sought clarification of his government's position on the

case and was awaiting a response.

 

The letter was in response to one BEUC had sent the Egyptians to express

disappointment at Cairo's backing for the U.S. action. The U.S. said it

had not been informed of a change in the Egyptian position.

 

" The Egyptian government has given us no information to the contrary to

being a co-complainant on the case, " said Richard Mills, a spokesman for

the U.S. Trade Representative's office.

 

The filing of the U.S. case triggers two months of talks between

Washington and the EU. If these fail, the United States has said it will

formally lodge its complaint and start a WTO investigation that could

take about 18 months.

 

U.S. farmers say the EU's effective ban costs them some $300 million a

year in lost sales. More than 70 percent of U.S. soybeans and a third of

the corn crop come from biotech seeds.

 

For its part, the EU says it hopes that new rules will soon be in force

on tracing GM goods and labelling products to help consumers choose

between items on shop shelves.

 

The biotech dispute between the two trade giants has rumbled on for some

five years. If the row escalates into a formal WTO action, it would cast

a long shadow over EU-U.S. trade ties at a time when the two are

supposed to be working together to further the Doha round of global

trade liberalisation talks.

 

Consumer and environmental groups have criticised the U.S. threat to sue

the European Union via the WTO, questioning the safety of biotech crops

and saying Europeans had the right to decide for themselves whether to

accept them.

 

" We're delighted that Egypt has withdrawn from this US. attempt to force

GM food and crops into Europe, " said Geert Ritsema, campaigner for

Friends of the Earth.

 

" Countries should be allowed to choose what they eat and what they grow

in their fields. The United States should withdraw its WTO challenge,

and stop trying to bully Europe over GMOs, " he said in a statement.

 

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan in Washington, D.C.)

 

05/29/03 17:07 ET

 

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

 

No Deal on Biotech Food

Industry, Opponents Fail to Agree on Recommendation for Regulation

 

By Justin Gillis

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, May 30, 2003; Page E01

 

An elaborate, secretive effort in Washington over the past two years to

negotiate a truce between the agricultural biotechnology industry and

its critics has ended in failure, with the parties unable to agree on a

plan to strengthen biotech regulations in this country.

 

The talks foundered in recent weeks amid a dispute over whether to seek

legislation from Congress that would have given the Food and Drug

Administration strong power to judge the safety of foods containing

biotech ingredients, according to people with knowledge of the

discussions.

 

The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a foundation-funded group

in Washington that sponsored the attempt at compromise, is scheduled to

issue a final report today that describes the effort but not the core

dispute that killed it. About 20 people and organizations took part in

the initiative, ranging from Monsanto Co. of St. Louis, which controls

most of the world market for agricultural biotech products, to

Washington consumer and public interest groups that have long complained

of what they consider to be poor federal regulation of the industry.

 

The failure to agree means, in the near term, that the groups won't be

able to go to Capitol Hill or to regulatory agencies to present a united

front in favor of tighter rules, as they had hoped to do. That will

leave intact a status quo widely perceived as favoring the biotech

industry. Longer term, the collapse of talks raises serious new issues

for the American food industry, which has lately grown nervous about

agricultural biotechnology.

 

Food companies could respond to the breakdown by lobbying Congress for

tighter regulations without Monsanto's consent, essentially trying to

out-politic the biotech industry. And, absent a regulatory scheme that

suits them, the food companies will have to decide whether to try to

kill particular biotech crops, such as genetically altered wheat, that

they fear could cost them sales in foreign markets resistant to the idea

of genetic engineering. They might do that by refusing to buy biotech

crops, something a few food companies have already done on a small

scale.

 

The Pew Initiative spent some $2 million on the effort to reach

compromise, sponsoring 60 meetings and conference calls of agricultural

biotech " stakeholders, " commissioning reports, polls and studies. It is

by far the most elaborate attempt anyone has made at a master compromise

on the issues swirling around the genetic manipulation of plants and

animals.

 

Several participants in the discussions said they were deeply

disappointed at the failure to reach a deal, but they also emphasized

that they had accomplished some important goals nonetheless. Warring

parties built new relationships with one another that may yet lead to

compromise agreements on piecemeal issues, they said. And the group has

agreed to reconvene in a year or 18 months to see if positions have

shifted enough that a compromise might be possible then.

 

The Pew effort is a window into a central but little-known aspect of how

Washington works. It is common for the factions in a dispute, often with

prodding from Capitol Hill, to meet privately to see if they can reach a

consensus. When they do, legislation will often sail through Congress as

if by magic, with lawmakers relieved of the burden of having to mediate

the conflict. When the parties can't agree, Congress is often paralyzed.

 

Participants in the Pew discussion would not say publicly what issues

foiled their attempt at compromise. But speaking on condition of

anonymity, several people knowledgeable about the talks said the core

issue was whether to go to Capitol Hill to get legislation to prohibit

the introduction of new biotech foods without detailed FDA certification

that they are safe.

 

Consumer and environmental groups and several academics who took part in

the discussion felt that was the way to go and pushed the group to agree

to new federal legislation, the people said. At least some food

companies, though usually wary of too much federal oversight, took that

position. But Monsanto, in particular, strongly resisted the idea of a

new law and favored what would amount to a tweaking of the patchwork

regulatory system already in place to oversee biotech foods, the people

said.

 

" It's not our view to always go to the Hill, " said Linda A. Strachan,

Monsanto's representative in the Pew talks.

 

The two factions attempted a compromise that would have called for an

initial attempt to get a stronger regulatory system through

administrative changes, to be followed -- if that failed -- by a

unanimous appeal to Capitol Hill for legislation, the sources said. But

the Monsanto-led faction would not agree to the legislative proposal in

sufficient detail to satisfy consumer and environmental groups, which

would not agree to go forward without detailed commitments, the people

said.

 

One reason the biotech industry was so resistant, knowledgeable people

said, was that the Bush administration just filed suit in the World

Trade Organization to overturn a ban on many gene-altered crops in

European countries. As part of that case, the administration will take

the position that the current American regulatory system is fine.

European consumer and environmental groups consider it to be egregiously

inadequate. As the Pew discussions unfolded, the biotech industry grew

wary of endorsing any compromise that would appear to support the

European view and thus undermine the Bush legal case, the knowledgeable

people said.

 

" Timing counts for a lot, and our timing was atrocious, " said Carol

Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of

America.

 

The FDA reviews biotech foods for safety, and the agency's action on a

new biotech crop is often characterized in press accounts as approval.

But legally, it isn't.

 

The FDA operates a voluntary system under which biotech companies decide

on their own how to test the safety of their products, submit summaries

of their data -- not the full data -- to the FDA, and win a letter that

says, in so many words, that the agency has reviewed the company's

conclusion that its new products are safe and has no further questions.

In most cases, the data on which the safety conclusion is based remain

secret. It is a much less rigorous system than the FDA procedures for

reviewing new drugs or food additives, in which the agency will spend

months if not years going over company claims in detail.

 

Gene-altered corn and soybeans, mostly from Monsanto, have been planted

widely on American farms in recent years. They have been tweaked in a

way that allows the crops to resist insects or better tolerate weed

killers. The crops are mostly fed to animals, but some processed

ingredients, particularly oil and lecithin from altered soybeans, appear

in the majority of products on American grocery shelves.

 

In general, most scientists consider the current generation of biotech

products safe to eat. The industry, noting that hundreds of millions of

people have eaten genetically altered ingredients, argues that there has

never been a convincing case of harm. Most environmental groups

acknowledge that to be true, but counter that there have been few

long-term studies of the effects. They also argue that the products pose

at least theoretical environmental risks that haven't been studied

thoroughly. Consumer groups are tactically allied with the

environmentalists, supporting the technology in principle but wanting a

tougher regulatory system that answers safety and environmental

questions more thoroughly before a new crop is commercialized.

 

Complicating matters further, companies are developing not just biotech

plants, but also genetically altered animals, such as a salmon that

grows twice as fast as its natural counterparts. Many biotech companies

are tweaking food crops like corn to get them to produce pharmaceuticals

or industrial chemicals that aren't meant for human consumption.

 

The Pew discussions deliberately excluded environmental groups that

think biotechnology is inherently immoral or dangerous, as well as

libertarian groups that think the only problem is too much federal

regulation. Participants had to accept the premises that biotechnology

is here to stay and that it has to be regulated properly. That still

left a wide range of opinion.Several participants said that while the

Pew discussions deadlocked, sentiment could change rapidly if a

biotech-related disaster were to occur, such as scientific evidence that

the new foods are harming people.

 

" My view is that the American public is generally comfortable with

biotech crops and animals, but they don't know a lot about them, " said

Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology issues at the Center for

Science in the Public Interest and a participant in the Pew discussions.

" If a crisis were to occur, there could be a very swift and strong

backlash against the technology. "

 

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

 

Monsanto GMO wheat far from winning market okay

Reuters, 05.28.03

 

By Carey Gillam

 

KANSAS CITY, Mo, May 28 (Reuters) - A genetically modified wheat strain

under development by Monsanto Co. remains a significant threat to the

worldwide grain industry, and appears to be gaining little acceptance in

the market, U.S. industry players said this week.

 

On Tuesday Canada dealt a blow to Monsanto's progress toward

commercializing the product, when the Canadian Wheat Board asked the

company to withdraw its application for regulatory approval to prevent

" significant and predictable economic harm. "

 

In the United States, biotech wheat could cripple wheat sales. Foreign

buyers have said they would be reluctant to buy from the United States

if so-called GMO wheat is grown here. Environmental and consumer groups

have recently increased their level of opposition to GMO foods, raising

consumer awareness.

 

" The marketing issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Prior to

commercialization of biotech wheat they need to be defined and acted

upon, " North American Export Grain Association president Gary Martin

told Reuters.

 

Recently, U.S.-based food companies have begun spreading the same

message, telling farm groups they will not allow the wheat to enter

their grain elevators, flour mills or bakeries.

 

Betsy Faga, president of the North American Millers' Association, a

trade group, said that " Greenpeace and other activists out there on this

issue...could change consumer attitudes on a dime. "

 

To soothe market fears, St. Louis-based Monsanto has pledged it will not

release biotech wheat until it identifies willing buyers.

 

Still, some say they do not fully trust the company and have yet to see

any aggressive moves by Monsanto to develop customer approval.

 

" Knowing what determines acceptance is the biggest problem, " said the

Millers' Association's Faga. " This is one of the most difficult issues

to get our hands around. "

 

Monsanto's herbicide-resistant wheat, grown in test plots in North

Dakota, Montana and elsewhere, has been modified to tolerate

glyphosate-based Roundup Ready weed killer, also made by Monsanto. It is

designed to improve efficiencies for farmers, yielding a more profitable

crop.

 

But farmers have not clamored for the technology. U.S. Wheat Associates,

which markets U.S. wheat overseas, has repeatedly warned U.S. farmers

that sales will be lost if the wheat is released into the commercial

market.

 

Parts of Asia, Europe and elsewhere have already said they would abandon

U.S. wheat if the GMO product comes to market. Wheat is the No. 1

exported grain in the world.

 

" I think at this point Monsanto is saying they want to have the

scientific review take place, which they hope will convince consumers

and customers there aren't any health problems, " U.S. Wheat vice

president Nelson Denlinger said.

 

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

 

Battle Over Biotechnology Intensifies Trade War

By ELIZABETH BECKER with DAVID BARBOZA

The New York Times

 

WASHINGTON, May 28 — President Bush said last week that Europe's

opposition to genetically altered crops was a threat to efforts to end

world hunger.

 

But even many critics of Europe's stance say that the president's

argument does not stand up and that the dispute needs to be understood

for what it is: a multibillion-dollar cross-Atlantic battle over

agricultural trade.

 

The disagreement will be played out this week at the meeting in France

of the leading industrial countries. It pits European leaders, who say

they are worried about the safety of importing genetically altered crops

from the United States, against the Bush administration, which insists

that Europe's attempts to block the crops are an illegal trade tactic.

 

The trade dispute heated up after an intense lobbying effort here in

Washington, where some of the nation's most powerful interest groups —

farmers, the food industry and giant biotechnology companies — have been

pressing the administration to take on their case at a time of

heightened tensions between the United States and Europe.

 

Lawyers and lobbyists for some interest groups have descended on the

White House and Capitol Hill over the last few weeks to influence policy

makers and lawmakers, and in some cases, to simply remind them of the

importance of the Farm Belt in the next election.

 

Some of the biggest agriculture and biotechnology companies have

invested billions of dollars over the last decade to develop genetically

altered crops. Nearly 100 million acres of farmland in the United States

are now planted with genetically altered crops, and agriculture

officials say farmers have lost at least $1 billion over the last five

years because they have been unable to export some biotechnology crops

to Europe.

 

" We've been very patient with the Europeans, but their use of this ban

as a trade barrier sets a precedent for countries around the world, "

said Mary Kay Thatcher, director of public policy at the American Farm

Bureau Federation.

 

" We rely on export markets for one-third of our crops; this is a

nightmare, " she added.

 

Last week, the United States filed the equivalent of a lawsuit at the

World Trade Organization, arguing that Europe's effort to block some

genetically altered crops violated international trade rules.

 

At the Group of 8 summit in France this week, the Bush administration is

expected to press its case that Europe accept genetically altered crops.

But instead of arguing in the name of Monsanto — the giant of

agricultural biotechnology companies — or American farmers, Mr. Bush and

his aides will raise the issue of fighting world hunger.

 

In a speech last week he accused Europe of hindering the " great cause of

ending hunger in Africa " by banning genetically modified crops.

Administration officials say that such moves by Europe encourage African

nations to reject technology that could save millions of lives.

 

That has upset European diplomats who are negotiating a compromise on

biotechnology.

 

" It is quite shocking of Mr. Bush to tell us to follow his lead on

African aid when the United States gives one of the smallest proportion

of its gross domestic product for global development than any other

wealthy nation, " said a senior diplomat here. " This has not helped us. "

 

Pascal Lamy, the top European trade official, even challenged the notion

that Europe has a moratorium, saying that Europe is on the verge of

completing new regulations that could open up the Continent to more

genetically modified crops. Europe approved the sale of genetically

altered soybeans in the 1990's, but then in 1998 Europe instituted a

moratorium on approving new biotechnology crops like certain varieties

of genetically altered corn. So while soybeans have been largely

unaffected by the moratorium, corn exports have been harmed.

 

Several agriculture experts who want to lift European restrictions said

that the problem would not be solved by opening up Europe's market.

 

" It's quite a stretch to tie the problem of the ban against genetically

modified food in Europe to starving children in Africa, " said Dan

Glickman, who served as secretary of agriculture in the Clinton

administration. " It is also a bit provocative to say the Europeans don't

care about world hunger. "

 

Scientists also agree.

 

" In general, that is not the case at all, " said Pedro Sanchez, director

of tropical agriculture at the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

 

" The main problems in Africa have to do with soil fertility, " he said.

" Until you solve the soil problems, it doesn't matter whether you use

conventional or genetically modified seeds. "

 

Backers of genetically altered crops say that they have been properly

tested and that there is no scientific evidence that they pose a risk to

humans or the environment.

 

Mickey Kantor, the first trade representative for President Clinton and

a lawyer whose firm represents Monsanto, says the trade dispute has

grown beyond complaints from biotechnology companies.

 

" It's not just about the industry anymore, " he said. " It is a technology

that can have a positive effect on world hunger. "

 

If the biotechnology companies had done more for poor countries, that

argument might hold, said Peter Pringle, author of the coming book,

" Food, Inc., " (Simon & Schuster 2003).

 

Instead, he writes in his study of biotechnology, " while the industry

claimed that their products would save the world from malnutrition, seed

companies created only crops that made money for themselves and the

wealthier farmers who could afford the premiums. "

 

The current trade debate centers on opposing views about food safety and

the need to test a product before it is put on the grocery shelf. How

this dispute is resolved could determine the future course of

agriculture, according to many agriculture economists.

 

Genetically altered crops, which have been biologically altered to do

things like release their own insecticide, are already planted on more

than 140 million acres worldwide, mostly in North and South America.

 

But consumers and regulators in Europe worry that the crops could pose a

threat to humans or the environment.

 

Five years ago, Europe placed a moratorium on approving biotechnology

crops. In preparing to end the moratorium, Europe is planning to impose

new rules and regulations to trace crops back to their origin and label

all genetically modified products, a move that could make it more

difficult for Americans to export their biotechnology crops to Europe.

 

America's two biggest agricultural exports — corn and soybeans — could

be greatly threatened by the new regulations to label the product,

industry officials say.

 

" We think that's the equivalent of putting a skull and crossbones on the

packages, saying these things are bad, " said Bob Callanan, a spokesman

for the American Soybean Association in St. Louis.

 

American exports of corn to Europe have virtually dried up because corn

farmers have widely adopted a form of biotech corn that kills pests.

 

" We went from about a 1.5 million metric ton market in 1998 to 23,000

metric tons, so it's pretty much been obliterated, " said Hayden Milberg,

director of public policy at the National Corn Growers Association,

which is based in St. Louis.

 

The corn industry estimates that it has lost more than $1 billion since

the moratorium.

 

Some farmers are questioning the administration's strategy for opening

the European market.

 

Harvey Joe Sanner, the director of the Soybean Producers of America,

said Europe was the largest export customer for soybeans last year and

he criticized some of the stronger remarks made by Robert B. Zoellick,

the United States trade representative, in the current dispute.

 

" We are very concerned with the harsh rhetoric of late by Mr. Zoellick, "

he said in a statement today. " I am wondering how brilliant it is for a

key government official, who should be promoting sales of U.S. soybeans,

to use such derogatory terms in describing our largest single buyer. "

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

---------

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

Free online calendar with sync to Outlook.