EU Says Bush Accusations on Biotech Policy Untrue

[Alistar7]

The United States, Argentina and Canada, which grow 95 percent of the world gene-altered crops, have launched a trade suit against the EU's [b

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) got it wrong when he said the European Union (news - web sites)'s rejection of genetically modified (GM) food had aggravated the risk of famine in Africa, an EU spokesman said on Tuesday.

I take full responsiblity for not acurately reporting initially that Canada and Argentina were original members of the suit.....

any of our Canadian members want to rethink some of their earlier comments?

 

[Czar]

it is true though, the EU banning GM food has little to nothing to do with Africa, what Africa needs is better management of their farming.

 

[Alistar7]

not true czar, for a variety of reasons. many of those nations need to export part of their domestice farming for profit to feed themselves. If they grow GM foods they lose access to their biggest market. But with GM foods they could grow more, at a much better level of quality with less water, pesticides, have more for themselves, and more to sell.

The ban is only in effect, and not even offical, to protect EU farmers and their own domestic markets from cheaper, better quality products. They suffer by having to keep growing crops that lose 40% of their yield due to drought, pestilience, and disease, making it that much harder to feed themselves and still have enough to export for the income they need.

There has not been one peer reviewed study that conclusively shows GM foods are harmfull to humans or the environment.

 

[Czar]

so kicking white farmers of their land, farmers with decades of skill has nothing to do with it? or even corruption?

it is true that Africa is afraid of loosing markets if they start producing gm food, but that is far from being the main reason for famine in africa

 

[lozina]

Alistar, are you still fooled by the biotech industry's propaganda that GM food will be the key to solving world hunger?

Even the GM seed maker, the ever-notorious Monsanto seems to lack confidence in GM foods:

Monsanto fears GM liabilities?

New contracts that Monsanto are now requiring farmers to sign when buying their genetically modified seed would seem to indicate that Monsanto realise that the use of such crops could lead to substantial claims against them for poor performance or other liabilities. Monsanto have already paid out millions of dollars in previous claims for defective GM crops. Here's what farmers are now required to sign up to:

"....that the limit of liability of Monsanto or any seller for any and all losses, injury or damages resulting from the use or
handling of a product containing Monsanto's gene technology shall be the price paid by the grower for the quantity of such product involved or, at the election of Monsanto or any seller, the replacement of such quantity. In no event shall Monsanto or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages."

If Monsanto does not have confidence in their own seed products then what does this tell us? There have been problems with the performance of transgenic crops in the US for some time now despite the huge acreage planted ( see http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmnebraskasoycomment.htm ).

"After reviewing Monsanto's 2001 Technology Agreement, I would discourage any farmer from signing this document," says Dennis Howard, Oklahoma's Secretary of Agriculture.

"Despite the growing pains of transgenic varieties, our growers have jumped right in and planted Roundup Ready
soybeans. But I believe this agreement puts the seed industry and growers at a real crossroads, and I'm not so sure this
agreement is going to set too well with the people who have to pay for this technology," Alan Blaine, Mississippi State University Extension soybean specialist (who has previously been critical of the agronomic performance of new transgenic soy varieties - see: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm )

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com

Do you realize that GM seeds are patentable?. This is why there is such a big campaign by Monsanto to fool people like you in believing GM foods are so great. Never before do farmers have to go buy patented seeds from a particular dealer, it makes them dependent. Also there's the whole issue with getting sued by the seed manufacturer if during the reproductive season of the genetically engineered plant, some seed happens to drift off to a neighbor's farm and start to grow there.

Thank to the lobbyists of companies like Monsanto we can't even know what foods we buy are GM or not. There are laws to distinguish organic foods, Kosher foods, foods containing possible allergens but not GM! That's simply because if they were labelled, no one would buy them! Monsanto knows that full well.

another loophole Monsanto takes advantage of:

Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato is, itself, legally registered as a pesticide with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] because it has been genetically engineered to poison any Colorado potato beetle that might eat even a tiny portion of it. Every cell of Monsanto's New Leaf Superior contains a gene snipped from a bacteria called BACILLUS THURIENGENSIS, or Bt for short, which produces a protein that is highly toxic to Colorado potato beetles. The Bt gene is present in every cell of a Monsanto New Leaf Superior, which is why the potato itself is registered as a pesticide.

EPA-approved pesticides normally carry an EPA-approved warning label. For example, a bottle of Bt bears a label that warns people to avoid inhaling Bt and to avoid getting Bt in an open wound. However, in the case of Monsanto's pesticidal potato, EPA says FDA has responsibility for requiring a label because the potato is a food. However, FDA told the TIMES that it only requires genetically- engineered foods to be labeled if they contain allergens or have been "materially changed" and FDA has determined that Monsanto did not "materially change" the New Leaf potato by turning it into a pesticide. Therefore no FDA label is required. Furthermore, the law that empowers the FDA (the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) forbids FDA from including any information about pesticides on food labels. Pesticide labels are EPA's responsibility, says FDA, and we come full circle.

There has not been one peer reviewed study that conclusively shows GM foods are NOT harmfull to humans or the environment.

 

[lozina]

GM foods require less pesticide, right?

No Way Around Roundup



Monsanto's bioengineered seeds are designed to require more of the company's herbicide.

By Mark Arax and Jeanne Brokaw




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Monsanto's efforts in plant biotech are aimed not only at boosting crop yields but at helping the company retain a market for its cash cow, the herbicide Roundup. As the biggest-selling weed killer in the world, Roundup accounts for 17 percent of Monsanto's total annual sales of $9 billion. Roundup is what's known as a broad-spectrum herbicide, because it kills nearly anything green. But its main ingredient, glyphosate, breaks down quickly in soil, so that little or no toxic byproduct accumulates in plant or animal tissue -- a detail that Monsanto highlights when describing itself as an environmentally friendly company.


Monsanto's U.S. patent on Roundup runs out in three years, and if the company is to keep its dominant market position beyond the year 2000, it needs a new spin. Enter Roundup Ready soybeans and Roundup Ready cotton, seeds genetically manipulated so that they can survive direct applications of Roundup. Farmers who once confined their use of the weed killer to the borders of their planting area can now douse entire fields with Roundup instead of using an expensive array of sprays that each target just one or two weeds. "It expands the Roundup market," says Gary Barton, a Monsanto spokesman.


The only catch: Farmers using Roundup Ready seeds can only use Roundup, because any other broad-spectrum herbicide will kill their crops. So, with every Roundup Ready seed sale, Monsanto sells a season's worth of its weed killer as well. The company also keeps close tabs on the crops' progress: Farmers must sign a contract promising not to sell or give away any seeds or save them for next year's planting, and the company inspects its customers' farms for violations.


Monsanto says that the new technology will benefit the environment, arguing that the more farmers rely on Roundup, the less they will need harsher herbicides.


But studies show glyphosate, which has been described by the Environmental Defense Fund and by Vice President Al Gore as safer than other herbicides, is not as benign as it is billed. Glyphosate is less toxic than many other herbicides, but it's still the third most commonly reported cause of illness among agricultural workers in California. For landscape maintenance workers, it ranks highest. And, according to the Journal of Pesticide Reform, the herbicide also damages the ability of bacteria to transform nitrogen into a usable form for plants, and it harms fungi that help plants absorb water and nutrients. Residues of the herbicide have been found in lettuce, carrots, and barley that were pla nted a year after the soil was sprayed.


Critics also contend that as farmers plant more Roundup Ready seeds and spray their fields with increased doses of Roundup, herbicide "drift" may increase significantly. If this happens, neighboring farms may be forced to switch to the Monsanto seeds in order to keep their crops from being destroyed by the airborne herbicide.


Monsanto needs a big win with Roundup Ready seeds because the company has invested so heavily in biotech. James Wilbur, an analyst with Smith Barney, told the Wall Street Journal that "if genetic technology doesn't work on a product like this, it calls into question the whole long-term strategy of the company." But it may be human nature rather than Mother Nature that puts a dent in Monsanto's marketing plans for biotech products. The United States sells about 40 percent of its soybeans to Europe, where consumers and environmentalists are in an uproar about Roundup Ready soybeans. Even though these soybeans have been approved by the European Union, many consumers aren't convinced they are safe. In fact, surveys show up to 85 percent of Europeans would shun genetically altered food if given the choice. EuroCommerce, a trade group representing one-third of European wholesalers and retailers, has demanded that gene-altered soybean products at least be labeled -- a task that U.S. companies and officials say is impossible under current distribution methods, since soybeans from different sources are mixed together for shipment.


Furthermore, the German subsidiaries of packaged food companies Unilever and Nestle said last year they will not buy Roundup Ready soybeans, and canceled their U.S. soybean orders -- an amount that equaled 7 percent of total U.S. soybean exports to Europe in 1995.


The threat of a European boycott of genetically altered food products is significant, says Tim Galvin of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Labeling is a hot topic, and far from played out." But the USDA opposes labeling, claiming that gene-altered foods are no different from other foods. And Galvin thinks the issue will blow over.


But will it? "Companies like Monsanto were caught off guard," says Ron Barnett, president of Genetic ID, a small Iowa company that produces a test capable of detecting genetic alterations in crops. Barnett said the test has generated considerable demand from overseas importers who want to avoid buying altered crops.


So far, American consumers have been mostly silent. But the Washington, D.C.-based Pure Food Campaign, which was founded to combat bovine growth hormone, is organizing a telephone campaign aimed at getting companies such as Coca-Cola and McDonald's to shun genetically altered soy and corn. Greenpeace ran a full-page ad in USA Today on Halloween, accusing Monsanto of playing "tricks" with children's chocolate bars. And Central Soya, one of the nation's biggest soybean processors, has barred Roundup Ready soybeans from one of its grain elevators so that the different beans can be compared.


U.S. officials say that consumers here and abroad are being irrational. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, speaking on behalf of the United States at the World Food Summit in Rome last year, said, "Biotechnology can give us a quantum leap forward in food security by improving disease and pest resistance, increasing tolerance to environmental stress, raising crop yields, and preserving plant and animal diversity."


"As world leaders, we shouldn't fight sound science," Glickman argued. "Countries that choose to turn away from biotechnology should recognize the consequences of their actions to the world."


But critics insist the government and companies like Monsanto are missing the point. "I'm not scientifically qualified to say whether the crops are safe or not," says Dan McGuire, former executive director of the recently disbanded Interstate Grain Commission, which arranged grain sales between the United States and Europe. "But how can you be market-oriented if you don't give the market what it wants?"








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Helen P. Nelson, Ph.D. ------------ Office: RLM 9.220
Physics Department,--------- Voice phone: (512) 471-4453
Center for Relativity ------ Fax: (512) 471-0890
The University of Texas ---- Austin, TX 78712-1081, USA
E-mail: helen@einstein.ph.utexas.edu

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

it is true though, the EU banning GM food has little to nothing to do with Africa, what Africa needs is better management of their farming.

Ditto . . . if Africa managed their land (not necessarily displaced white land owners) better faminine would be much smaller issue on the continent. Once appropriate land management has been achieved . . . select GM seeds/crops will have utility.

The EU is no saint with regards to GMO. They are indeed protecting EU farmers from cheap African imports . . . granted the US provides billions annually in direct subsidies to farmers (just like the EU) and often institutes select tariffs to aid US producers.

 

[dpm]

Actually, the EU is far from being the only one worried about GM foods. I work for a major American Insurer as an underwriter, and so my job revolves about risk, potential risk, and risk management.

One of the current hot topics in the insurance world today is GM foods. There is a worry that GM foods in particular could be the Asbestos of the new century - except they have the potential to be much, much worse. After all, asbestos only badly affected a relatively small proportion of the population.

Alistar7 - when you are judging risk you ask not whether something has been proved dangerous, but whether it has been proved safe. It is not possible to forsee every possible risk in the future, and not possible to avoid them all. But surely we must at least make the greatest effort we can to do so.

Currently GM foods have proved benign. Perhaps, in the future, we will see that they are in fact totally benign. Perhaps we merely haven't had time to see their adverse effects yet. Or perhaps they will have adverse effects in ways that we cannot yet effectively predict. Many worry about the potential of cross-fertilisation, for example.

So, I am personally hopeful that GM foods could become a great boon for mankind. I am personally aware, however, that GM foods could turn out as tobacco did (remember, for a long time it was championed for its health benefits, and ther were no studies to say that it was harmful), or turn out as asbestos did.

Either way, I don't blame the EU for its attitude - remember that the EU is made up of democracies, (and is basically democratic itself) and the majority of its citizens (repeated polls have shown) are against the idea of GM foods. Perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby products containing GM foods would be allowed if they were clearly labelled, but so far the GM food production companies have been firmly against it, and since Bush's current pro-GM drive is for their benefit rather than anyone's in Africa, I don't think this will come to pass.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: dpm

Either way, I don't blame the EU for its attitude - remember that the EU is made up of democracies, (and is basically democratic itself) and the majority of its citizens (repeated polls have shown) are against the idea of GM foods. Perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby products containing GM foods would be allowed if they were clearly labelled, but so far the GM food production companies have been firmly against it, and since Bush's current pro-GM drive is for their benefit rather than anyone's in Africa, I don't think this will come to pass.

Thats a good point. I mean, can you believe that GM food lobbies was able to prevent laws in our country to enforce labelling of GM foods? There's no democracy in the way that turned out. It's corruption plain and simple. Can anyone give me a good reason why GM foods should NOT be labelled? Even candy bar manufacturer's have to print a label on their wrapper if the machinery used might have also been in contact with peanuts, since peanuts is a potential allergen!

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dpm

Either way, I don't blame the EU for its attitude - remember that the EU is made up of democracies, (and is basically democratic itself) and the majority of its citizens (repeated polls have shown) are against the idea of GM foods. Perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby products containing GM foods would be allowed if they were clearly labelled, but so far the GM food production companies have been firmly against it, and since Bush's current pro-GM drive is for their benefit rather than anyone's in Africa, I don't think this will come to pass.

Thats a good point. I mean, can you believe that GM food lobbies was able to prevent laws in our country to enforce labelling of GM foods? There's no democracy in the way that turned out. It's corruption plain and simple. Can anyone give me a good reason why GM foods should NOT be labelled? Even candy bar manufacturer's have to print a label on their wrapper if the machinery used might have also been in contact with peanuts, since peanuts is a potential allergen!

Because there is no harm in GM foods?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dpm

Either way, I don't blame the EU for its attitude - remember that the EU is made up of democracies, (and is basically democratic itself) and the majority of its citizens (repeated polls have shown) are against the idea of GM foods. Perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby products containing GM foods would be allowed if they were clearly labelled, but so far the GM food production companies have been firmly against it, and since Bush's current pro-GM drive is for their benefit rather than anyone's in Africa, I don't think this will come to pass.

Thats a good point. I mean, can you believe that GM food lobbies was able to prevent laws in our country to enforce labelling of GM foods? There's no democracy in the way that turned out. It's corruption plain and simple. Can anyone give me a good reason why GM foods should NOT be labelled? Even candy bar manufacturer's have to print a label on their wrapper if the machinery used might have also been in contact with peanuts, since peanuts is a potential allergen!

Because there is no harm in GM foods?

Are you sure ? What about a fruits or vegatables that have let's say peanut genetic components in them and thus produce the same effect as eating a peanut in someone who is allergic to peanuts ?

 

[Alistar7]

Lozina not convinced they are the solution to the worlds hunger problems, but they do perform better and some of the worst areas suffer a 40% loss annually that could be averted, of ocurse that will help.
I agree the 3 countires main reasons are not for the benefit of starving asians and africans, its their pocketbook, but so are the reasons behind the EU's ban. The question is which end better serves those that could be helped, I don't care who makes the money, I won't ever see a dime of it anyway.

The only force behind the opposition to removing Saddam was financial, the same thing the US and the others have done time and time again. The real war right now internationally is over money and markets, with both sides doing everything to protect their interests and blame the other guy for the worlds troubles. In that regard I would like to see globally (truly) free trade. You will have situations like Haiti where the domestic market may falter after protectionism is removed from their trade policy, but after an initial bump everyone will be on the same page and things should balance out....

drifter we have been eating GM foods in the US for 10 years, that hasn't happened....

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Lozina not convinced they are the solution to the worlds hunger problems, but they do perform better and some of the worst areas suffer a 40% loss annually that could be averted, of ocurse that will help.
I agree the 3 countires main reasons are not for the benefit of starving asians and africans, its their pocketbook, but so are the reasons behind the EU's ban. The question is which end better serves those that could be helped, I don't care who makes the money, I won't ever see a dime of it anyway.

The only force behind the opposition to removing Saddam was financial, the same thing the US and the others have done time and time again. The real war right now internationally is over money and markets, with both sides doing everything to protect their interests and blame the other guy for the worlds troubles. In that regard I would like to see globally (truly) free trade. You will have situations like Haiti where the domestic market may falter after protectionism is removed from their trade policy, but after an initial bump everyone will be on the same page and things should balance out....

drifter we have been eating GM foods in the US for 10 years, that hasn't happened....

I do agree that the raw stats show GM foods are currently producing higher yields and easier to grow, but for how long? Life is a truly dynamic force and it always adapts to new challenges. In the case of GM foods, lets take the potato which has the gene Bacillus Thuriengensis engineered into it to kill Potato Beetles. Now this gene is constantly in every cell of the potato giving constant exposure to the Potato Beetles. There will always be some potato beetles out there that may eat a little and survive, they reproduce and now create a resistant breed of potato beetles who thrive on GM potatoes. This isnt science fiction and it dosent take very long to happen. Look at antibiotic makers and how they have to keep updating their medicine to keep one step ahead of the bacteria that grow resistant to them in our bodies. It drives costs high and leaves ALOT of room for error while playing god.

The fact is, the U.S. are phenomenal at agriculture. We produce so much food and we waste ALOT of it! If we really cared about hunger in Africa we would funnel money into training farmers there to use methods and equipment we have. But we don't care of course, we'd rather keep selling the African farmers fish instead of teaching them how to fish. Of course, that's every country always looking to protect themselves and maximize revenue, I only defended EU because it seemed you considered US's stance so noble and honorable.

But I am personally against GM foods until it's been proeprly tested. If I do eat any GM foods its only because I go to a restaurant or a friend's house who dont know how to distinguish GM foods from normal food. If you don't know how the easiest way is t simply buy certified organic food, since they banned GM foods. I read about enough experiments that show GM foods weakening the test subjects to convince myself not to eat them, including experiments done on mice which you laughed at last time. It's ironic that Monsanto themselves used studies on mice to show GM foods ARE safe because it didn't kill them. It dosen't have to outright kill you though, to be considered a health hazard!

I also find the statement: "we have been eating GM foods in the US for 10 years, that hasn't happened.... " ironic considering America has the poorest health record of all industrialized nations.