the battle over GMO wheat(long)

[Guest guest]

sorry, this is a long one..but, i got it in the mail, and don't have it as a link

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

The biggest battle yet in the history of genetically engineered foods is

rapidly developing. The crop of controversy is wheat. The primary

battlegrounds will be the United States and Canada. The whole world will

be watching.

 

FIRST, A BRIEF HISTORY OF BIOTECH FOODS

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of

unlabeled genetically engineered foods in 1992. The first genetically

engineered food to be sold commercially was the Favr Sarv tomato in

1994. It was a commercial flop.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00482.html

 

In 1996, the first wide-scale commercial planting of genetically

engineered crops took place. Five million acres of genetically

engineered corn and soybeans were planted and very few people were

paying attention. It was a couple years later before opponents of

genetically engineered crops organized themselves to start effectively

challenging these experimental foods.

 

In 1998, the European Union (EU) implemented labeling requirements on

genetically engineered corn and soybeans. Plus, the EU enacted a

moratorium to prevent any new genetically engineered crops from being

imported. The EU moratorium is still in effect. Rather than labeling

products as containing genetically engineered corn and soy, food

manufacturers and restaurants removed genetically engineered ingredients

from their products in Europe.

 

While Europeans are essentially not eating any genetically engineered

foods, most U.S. citizens are eating them every day. So now the U.S. is

preparing to take World Trade Organization (WTO) action to force the

Europeans into removing the moratorium on importing America's

genetically engineered crops. And the U.S. is likely to charge that the

EU labeling requirements are an illegal trade barrier.

 

Since the first wide-scale commercial planting in 1996, the acreage of

genetically engineered crops in the United States has rapidly increased.

In 2003, nearly 90 million acres of genetically engineered crops will be

planted in the United States. This represents about 70 percent of the

total amount of genetically engineered crops being grown in the entire

world.

 

The world's second largest grower of genetically engineered crops is

Argentina followed by Canada and China. Only a handful of other

countries are growing limited quantities of biotech crops. No

genetically engineered crops are being commercially grown in the 15

European Union nations.

 

MONSANTO AND BIOTECH WHEAT - THE MAJOR BATTLE

 

By far, the world's largest producer of genetically engineered crops is

Monsanto. However, Argentina, the second largest grower of biotech

crops, has been in a serious economic crisis for the past two years with

no end in sight. And Monsanto has been losing money -- big time.

 

If Monsanto can begin selling genetically engineered wheat in the United

States and Canada, the company may be able to start earning profits

again. So Monsanto has a strong interest in getting genetically

engineered wheat into commercial production in North America.

 

For several years, the U.S. and Canadian wheat industries have opposed

the introduction of genetically engineered wheat. However, that changed

dramatically in January of this year at a meeting of wheat industry

officials in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At that meeting, wheat industry

officials decided to form a partnership with Monsanto and push for the

introduction of genetically engineered wheat.

 

WHAT IS NEXT?

 

Late last year, Monsanto applied for approval to grow and sell

genetically engineered wheat in both the United States and Canada. If

approved, the first commercial crops of genetically engineered wheat may

be planted as soon as 2004.

 

Opposition in Canada to genetically engineered wheat has been more

organized than in the United States. Posted below are five articles that

do an excellent job of explaining in detail the growing battle in

Canada.

 

To support the global opposition to genetically engineered wheat, The

Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has started the Save

Organic Wheat! coalition. We are busy working behind-the-scenes to

create the Save Organic Wheat! web site:

http://www.saveorganicwheat.org

 

The Save Organic Wheat! web site will be one of the most advanced

activist uses of the Internet ever developed. It will support a global

coalition of organizations, businesses, farmers and consumers opposing

the introduction of genetically engineered wheat. Initially the web site

will only support English language, but as finances allow, we hope to

expand it into support for multiple languages.

 

The programming of the Save Organic Wheat! web site is very complex and

taking more time and costing more money than we initially anticipated.

However, it will be fully operational in May and geared for action. We

expect the U.S. and Canadian wheat industries to think twice before

moving forward with their support for genetically engineered wheat as

the opposition grows in the coming months.

 

HELP SUPPORT THE SAVE ORGANIC WHEAT COALITION!

 

As you will read in the first article below, the future of organic wheat

is under attack from the introduction of genetically engineered wheat.

It is essential that we fight back to protect the integrity and purity

of organic wheat.

 

If you would like to contribute to our efforts in this important battle,

you can make a contribution at:

http://www.saveorganicwheat.org/donation.htm

 

WE SEE THIS ONE COMING...

 

When the introduction of genetically engineered corn and soybeans took

place in 1996, hardly anyone was paying attention. As a result, we now

find that a great deal of the organic corn growing in the United States

has been contaminated by cross pollination from genetically engineered

corn.

 

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we going to allow the

same thing to happen to organic wheat?

 

The combined forces of the natural products industry, the organic

industry, the environmental movement, family farmers and concerned

citizens will be able to stop the introduction of genetically engineered

wheat -- but only with an organized effort.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods pledges to do

everything within our power to oppose the introduction of genetically

engineered wheat. But we can't do it alone. We need your active support.

 

Please read the articles below to get a better understanding of the

issues involved in the battle over genetically engineered wheat.

 

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."

 

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

 

Protesters fear consequences of GM wheat trials

 

Thursday April 10, 2003

By Ed White

Winnipeg bureau

 

MORDEN, Man. - After their demonstration, the protesters here tried to

relax, breaking into small groups to chat, to somersault on the grassy

field and to play hacky-sack.

 

A folk singer sang and pro-organic protesters munched away on free

organic treats, but the relaxed mood was strained by a cold northeast

wind. It chilled the demonstrators, who had come from Winnipeg to

condemn Agriculture Canada's participation in open-air testing of

genetically modified wheat.

 

It was the kind of wind they feared could spread genetically modified

pollen into organic fields.

 

"Pollen can spread extremely far," said Karine Grotte, a Winnipegger,

who played hacky-sack with friends in front of the Agriculture Canada

research centre in Morden.

 

"I'm very scared of genetic engineering. I don't think we have the

knowledge to mess around with these kinds of things at all and I'm

afraid of what's going to happen when we release this into the

environment."

 

Some, such as La Broquerie, Man., organic farmer Gerry Dube, see the

open-air trials as a threat to their livelihood.

 

The wind may blow wheat pollen out of the Agriculture Canada plots and

into conventional wheat. If GM genes get into his wheat, he would lose

his organic certification, he said.

 

Dube condemned Agriculture Canada for spending public money on

developing a product for Monsanto.

 

"It has not been proven that this will be beneficial to anybody except

the big companies that supply the product."

 

Janine Gibson, an inspector with Canadian Organic Growers, said this

protest, which she helped organize, was meant to spread the word to the

public that Agriculture Canada is testing genetically modified wheat in

open fields.

 

"Our members really do not want their wheat contaminated with

genetically engineered DNA," said Gibson.

 

Winnipeg folk singer Maria Mango said open-air trials could release GM

wheat DNA across the Prairies, and that would take away her right to

obtain organic wheat in stores.

 

"I believe in good food and freedom, and that food is key to freedom,"

said Mango.

 

Agriculture Canada has been working with Monsanto to develop varieties

of prairie wheat that would be resistant to glyphosate. No varieties of

GM wheat have been approved for farm production.

 

Open-air testing of GM wheat has not been carried out secretly. Last

year, Monsanto took reporters on a tour of its open-air test plots in

Western Canada.

 

But Gibson said many people believe GM wheat is still in the laboratory.

 

 

Scientists and developers argue that wheat pollen does not spread

widely, and large buffer zones around crop plots will virtually

eliminate the widespread mixing of GM wheat DNA into surrounding fields.

 

 

But Gibson said organic growers and eaters aren't willing to trust the

crop developers.

 

"They said the same thing about canola," said Gibson.

 

"Why should we believe them now when it didn't prove true then?"

 

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

 

Big grain coalition opposes GM wheat

 

Thursday April 10, 2003

By Barry Wilson

Ottawa bureau

 

The federal grain variety registration process must be changed to test

economic and market factors before genetically modified wheat is

approved, a powerful coalition of grain producers, millers, marketers

and farm groups told Ottawa last week.

 

The change must be made within the next year, politicians were told

through March 31 letters to agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief and

during April 3 appearances on Parliament Hill by Canadian Wheat Board

and miller representatives.

 

Wheat board chair Ken Ritter told MPs on the House of Commons

agriculture committee that with a Monsanto application for a GM wheat

registration in the system, there is no time to lose.

 

"We could be faced with a situation where Roundup Ready wheat is

approved for unconfined release and variety registration in the spring

of 2004," he said. "That is one year away and one year is a very short

time. The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated."

 

The board, with the support of a variety of farm and grain groups,

called for the addition of a cost-benefit analysis to the scientific

basis now used to decide if new varieties can be registered. The board

says 82 percent of countries that buy red spring wheat have indicated a

reluctance or refusal to buy Canadian wheat if GM varieties are

approved.

 

Gordon Harrison, president of the Canadian National Millers Association,

said millers and bakers support the proposal. Domestically and

internationally, there is consumer resistance and Canada does not have a

grain handling system capable of guaranteeing segregation.

 

"The experience of (millers) over the past three years suggests that

there is no demand for genetically modified milling wheat among this

industry's customers," he said in a letter to Vanclief.

 

Harrison told the committee that millers and bakers believe that all new

varieties being registered, GM or conventional, should have a market

impact test.

 

"We propose that in order to be licensed for unconfined release and

production, a new variety must provide a net benefit to the entire value

chain," said the miller lobbyist.

 

The federal government has resisted such a move, insisting that all

decisions on food registration be science-based.

 

At the April 3 agriculture committee meeting, that government position

and the scientific basis received strong support from the lobby group

Grain Growers of Canada, representing some barley, wheat, soy and canola

associations across the country.

 

Introduction of political or economic considerations into variety or

food approval decisions would undermine Canada's fight against

protectionist "consumer preference" rules promoted by such importers as

the European Union, said GGC and Ontario Corn Producers' Association Don

McCabe.

 

"The rigour of the Canadian system ensures that all new food products

are tested and determined for consumption regardless of how they are

produced," he said in a presentation to the Commons committee.

 

Canada's trade stance is to fight countries that try to restrict trade

for "non-scientific reasons .... Passing our own non-scientific

legislation or regulations would undermine these efforts."

 

As McCabe spoke, there was a symbol of the complexity of this issue

visible for MPs to see.

 

The Ontario Wheat Board, which has ended its marketing monopoly and is a

member of the grain growers lobby, nonetheless signed the letter calling

for a market acceptance assessment sent by the Canadian Wheat Board to

the government.

 

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

 

Lobby wants science, not consumers to decide

 

Thursday April 10, 2003

By Barry Wilson

Ottawa bureau

 

A national lobby group for grain and oilseeds farmers is warning the

federal government against using a market acceptance test or

cost-benefit analysis before genetically modified wheat can be approved

for the Canadian market.

 

Grain Growers of Canada warned the House of Commons agriculture

committee April 3 that any move away from a science-based criterion for

new plant variety approvals could drive biotechnology investment away

from Canada and deprive farmers of the best in variety development.

 

"Governments must be careful not to take actions today that restrict

farmers' access to these advances," Grain Growers vice-president Don

Kenny told MPs.

Don McCabe said any government decision on the approval system

for GM wheat will have to apply to all other varieties as well.

 

"This fact cannot be forgotten when this issue is discussed," he said.

"GGC members are extremely concerned with the direction proposed by

those calling for changes to Canada's regulatory system."

 

The grain growers' lobby was taking a stand against a powerful coalition

of growers, marketers and customers that is calling on Ottawa to keep GM

wheat off the market until it is more widely accepted.

 

The Canadian Wheat Board, bakers and millers and many farm groups have

joined the call for a cost-benefit analysis on GM wheat, arguing its

unrestricted introduction could drive customers away and close markets

for Canadian wheat.

 

The Ontario Wheat Board, although a Grain Growers' member, supports the

CWB call for an economic analysis, in addition to science-based

acceptance, before a variety can be approved.

 

The grain growers' lobby, representing Ontario corn producers, Canadian

canola growers, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and western

barley growers, acknowledged there are legitimate industry concerns that

GM wheat could damage markets.

 

However, rather than a regulatory change toward politics and economics

and away from science, they suggested an "advanced stakeholder review

process" that would allow the variety developer, farmers, consumers,

governments, processors and others with a stake in the debate to decide

how a variety that meets the traditional regulatory tests should be

introduced and marketed.

 

"These concerns should be dealt with on a voluntary basis by industry

and not through government regulations or legislation," said McCabe.

 

The group suggested developers of the varieties, including Monsanto and

GM wheat, would be willing to sign an agreement that the variety would

not be marketed until a committee evaluation had been done and a market

impact assessment completed.

 

Critics suggested this voluntary proposal leaves wary customers with

nothing more than a promise that industry will agree not to market an

unpopular product. The system must offer more guarantees that Canada's

wheat supply is guaranteed free of genetically modified varieties, they

said.

 

Gordon Harrison, president of the Canadian National Millers'

Association, said his members and the Baking Association of Canada want

a stronger guarantee than an industry promise that GM wheat or other

varieties with market-disrupting potential will not be introduced.

 

He said many customers of millers demand a written guarantee there is no

GM material. The existing grain handling system cannot guarantee

segregation.

 

And developers of new varieties that have been approved through the

traditional variety approval process will want a return on their

investment.

 

He said the protection against unwanted marketing of GM varieties must

be guaranteed by regulation and not left up to the industry.

 

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

 

Market 'risk' once part of process

 

Thursday April 10, 2003

By Barry Wilson

Ottawa bureau

 

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency quietly changed the terms of

reference for its advisory committee on grain variety registration last

year when it discovered that for more than a decade, the committee could

include market impact in its deliberations.

 

The demand for a market impact test is at the heart of a campaign by the

Canadian Wheat Board, millers, bakers and some farm groups to delay

registration of genetically modified wheat until buyers will accept it.

 

So far, Ottawa has resisted the call for a cost-benefit analysis as part

of the registration process, insisting that the science-based process

cannot be politicized.

 

But as early as 1990, the wheat, rye and triticale subcommittee of the

Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain included in its

operating procedures a "definition of merit" clause allowing its members

to look beyond agronomics, quality and disease resistance when

considering new varieties.

 

"Candidates that introduce production or marketing risks for their own

or for other wheat classes may be rejected regardless of merit in other

traits," said the operating procedures manual.

 

CFIA officials found out about it in late March 2001 and vice-president

Peter Brackenridge quickly summed up the impact for then-president Ron

Doering.

 

"If the members of this subcommittee, which includes representation from

farmers, agronomists, breeders, pathologists, seed companies and grain

quality experts, strongly believe that a (Roundup-resistant) wheat could

cause marketing risks for other traditional wheat, they could vote to

not support it for registration," he wrote in a memo acquired under

access-to-information laws by Canadian Health Coalition researcher Brad

Duplisea.

 

The CFIA quickly moved to tell the committee it should not use the power

to let market issues influence recommendations. And last year, it had

the operating procedures changed to remove the clause.

 

"Once we brought it up and the CFIA took note of it, they came back and

said they didn't think it appropriate that it be there, or that it be

used," Robert Graf, a wheat breeder at the Agriculture Canada research

centre in Lethbridge and a former chair of the wheat, rye and triticale

subcommittee said in an April 7 interview.

 

"So there is confusion about this issue and it really has to be cleared

up."

 

Graf said the agency was within its rights to change the terms of

reference.

 

"We can only recommend," said Graf. "They don't have to listen to the

recommendation. Most of the time they would accept it but they don't

have to."

 

He said he did not believe the market impact test has been used to

reject a variety.

 

Before the CFIA acted, the Canadian Wheat Board thought it had found a

way to keep GM wheat out of the system, despite government insistence it

was not possible under the rules.

 

"We have initiated discussions with CFIA, (Agriculture Canada) and

others on this topic and it seemed to me everyone was operating on the

understanding that market impact is not part of the process today and

that significant regulatory and/or legislative change would be necessary

to introduce it," Graf said in an e-mail message to a CFIA official

April 11, 2001 asking for more details.

 

Now, after the CFIA removed that option, the CWB is back before

government officials and committees asking that a similar option be put

back into the registration system.

 

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

 

GM wheat dividing Canadian industry

 

Thursday April 3, 2003

By Michael Raine

Saskatoon newsroom

 

A spokesperson for a group that represents pesticide and biotechnology

companies, said organic farmers' rights shouldn't interfere with the

rights of other growers who might want to use genetically modified wheat

when it becomes commercially available.

 

"If Europe has zero tolerance for GM content, then Canadian farmers

don't sell to Europe," said Denise Dewar of CropLife Canada in a phone

interview following a Canadian Wheat Board meeting on herbicide tolerant

crops.

 

"It is unreasonable to set a zero tolerance. It's an unfair trade

barrier that the government of Canada has committed to fight with the

United States through the (World Trade Organization)."

 

She said until the dispute over tolerance levels is settled, Canadian

organic farmers can sell to other markets.

 

Farmers attending the Saskatoon meeting heard plant researchers,

economists, biotech and agricultural chemical company officials, and

farmers say that once a GM cereal crop is released for commercial

production, a bit of it would spread on every farm in Western Canada.

 

Degree of spread and the effects that would have on Canadian wheat

markets are questions pondered by many industry groups.

 

"An (identity preserved) grain handling system will be necessary," said

Dale Adolphe, executive director of the Canadian Seed Growers

Association.

 

"Control of (crop) volunteers will be necessary. Growers' agreements

will help. In the end, there is no such thing as zero tolerance. There

will be pollen transfers, mechanical mixing on the farm, at the seed

plant, in the grain handling system. What we have to establish is a

level of tolerance if it (GM wheat) is introduced."

 

Organic producers at the event said it would be unfair to them to

introduce a crop that could eliminate some of their markets.

 

Ray Bauml, an organic grain producer from Marysburg, Sask., said his

grain earns a 50 to 300 percent price premium because it is GM free and

organic. His wheat couldn't be sold into the large European market if it

contained GM genes, he said.

 

"We know from experience already that if even one kernel of GM seed is

found in that container of grain, when that grain is tested at the dock

in Europe, it sits on the dock until we pay to have it dumped into the

ocean."

 

Curtis Remple, commercial development manager with Monsanto Canada,

repeated his company's assurances that it is committed to protecting the

Canadian grain industry.

 

"Before we release a commercial crop like Roundup Ready wheat there have

to be thresholds for Canadian Wheat Board customer acceptance. We aren't

going to intentionally ruin the Canadian wheat industry. That wouldn't

be a good business move for Monsanto," he said.

 

Richard Gray, head of the University of Saskatchewan's agricultural

economics department, said Canada's millers and bakers won't accept GM

wheat, which will hurt "technology adopters and non-adopters alike.

 

"They see the new food labelling requirements on the horizon and they

don't want to have to indicate that their bread contains GM products, no

matter how small the amount," Gray said.

 

"The organic industry isn't alone on this."