Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------------------------- . . [Via Communist Internet... http://www.egroups.com/group/Communist-Internet ] ----- Original Message ----- From: secr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9:24 PM Subject: [mobilize-globally] U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards Subject: [GSN] Fw: [Fwd: U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards] Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:06:39 -0700 From: "Frieda Werden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frieda Werden, Producer WINGS: Women's International News Gathering Service P.O. Box 33220, Austin TX 78764 USA (512)416-9000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wings.org fax number: (425)675-1297 "Raising Women's Voices Through Radio Worldwide" WINGS now accepts payments online via www.paypal.com U.S. donations can be made tax-deductible with a check to: NRPA/WINGS ----- Original Message ----- From: Joni Gilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:17 AM Subject: [Fwd: U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:00:03 PDT From: The Campaign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Health Freedom Fighters, Sunday's Washington Post featured a front page story (posted below) titled "U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards." As The Campaign has reported in the past, a trade war appears to be developing between the United States and the European Union over genetically engineered foods. The Washington Post article does a good job of discussing this growing controversy. However, we will also provide you with some background information to help you better understand these developments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In May 1998, the European Union (EU), which consists of 15 countries in Europe, passed regulations that require mandatory labeling of soy and corn products. (The EU countries are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.) The EU also enacted a moratorium in 1998 to stop any new genetically engineered foods (or new varieties of GE soy or corn) from entering these European countries. In an attempt to remove the EU moratorium, strict new labeling regulations on genetically engineered foods were recently proposed by the 20-member European Commission. Before being implemented, the proposed labeling regulations will have to be approved by the European Parliament and the 15 member countries. If approved, the new regulations will require labels on all foods that contain, or are derived from, genetically engineered ingredients. After the 1998 labeling requirements were passed into law, the entire food industry in the EU soon decided to quit using genetically engineered ingredients in their products. In a matter of months, genetically engineered foods in the EU countries were virtually eliminated. The United States seemed to accept the loss of the EU market without a lot of opposition during the Clinton administration. But in the past couple years the international opposition to genetically engineered foods has grown. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and recently China, have all agreed to label genetically engineered foods. U.S. officials and the biotech industry are concerned that with labels consumers will reject these products as they did in Europe. The acreage of genetically engineered crops planted by U.S. farmers has continued to grow, but the international market for these foods has been reduced dramatically. So a crisis is developing for America's agricultural biotech industry. The loss of revenues could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year. It now appears the Bush administration has decided to aggressively fight the international opposition to genetically engineered foods. There have been numerous reports of U.S. government officials telling EU officials that their new proposed labeling requirements may be violating World Trade Organization requirements. On August 9th, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick, along with 24 U.S. trade organizations, sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell complaining about the new proposed EU regulations for labeling biotech foods. It is worth noting that Secretary of Agriculture Veneman used to serve on the board of directors of Calgene, a biotech company owned by Monsanto. Calgene was the company that brought the first genetically engineered crop to market, the Flavr Savr tomato. Posted below are three articles that provide a great deal of insight into the international battle over genetically engineered foods. The first article is the Washington Post front page story. The second article is from Associated Press titled "EU Defends Proposed Biotech Law." It includes comments from a EU commission spokesperson responding to the Washington Post article. The third article is from the British newspaper The Guardian and is titled "Global GM market starts to wilt." This special report provides some unique information about the world's view on genetically engineered crops. These articles are somewhat long, but I think you will find this to be interesting and informative reading material. 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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." *************************************************************** U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards By Alan Sipress and Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, August 26, 2001; Page A01 Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring the European Union to abandon new restrictions on genetically modified foods that they say could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year and disrupt efforts to launch a new round of global trade talks. U.S. officials have repeatedly told their European counterparts that the regulations, which received preliminary approval last month, discriminate against U.S. products in violation of World Trade Organization requirements, raising the prospect of a major and emotionally charged trade dispute. The European Commission's decision to require the labeling of genetically engineered products reflects a European anxiety about food safety that is far more profound than in the United States, the world leader in agricultural biotechnology. This is a divide that threatens to further aggravate U.S. relations with Europe, already roiled by differences over global warming, arms control and other trade issues. Undersecretary of State Alan P. Larson, the State Department's senior diplomat assigned to economic issues, called the new restrictions "trade disruptive and discriminatory." He said, "It's obviously a very serious problem that affects a very important trade and one that's of vital interest to a very important constituency in the United States, which supports free trade." Though U.S. officials have declined publicly to detail what type of punitive action the Bush administration might take against Europe, U.S. officials say the regulations are inconsistent with the terms of the WTO because they treat U.S. products less favorably than European ones. For instance, Larson said the European regulations would require that American crushed soybean oil bear a label, while European cheeses and wine made with biotech enzymes would not be covered. "There are potential WTO concerns about how it is structured now," Larson said. U.S. officials have left open the possibility of bringing a legal case before the WTO, which, after lengthy litigation, could eventually impose a politically embarrassing judgment and stiff economic penalties on Europe. But Larson said the administration's immediate focus is on lobbying European governments to amend the regulations before they take effect. He added that the United States and Europe need to resolve the issue quickly so it does not become a "distraction" that interferes with their shared interest in launching new global trade talks as planned later this year. Officials said that economic losses in the United States -- where 75 percent of soybeans and more than 25 percent of corn comes from genetically modified seeds -- could far exceed other transatlantic trade battles, such as those over bananas and growth hormones in beef. Resolution of the long-running banana dispute earlier this year removed a major irritant in American-European relations. The dispute could also harden public opinion about biotechnology and its ability to transfer beneficial genes from one species into another. Proponents want it to be seen as a force for progress and global improvement, but it could become a symbol of divisiveness if it set off a bitter trade dispute. The European Commission's new standards, among the most far-reaching in the world, call for all products made from engineered material to bear a label saying they contain "genetically modified organisms." They also require producers to document the source of all their ingredients. Since the U.S. crop-handling system generally does not separate modified and conventional crops, the new requirements could be unwieldy and costly for U.S. businesses. European limitations on biotech crops already ban most U.S. corn for food products, estimated by U.S. officials as a $300 million annual loss. The new requirements, which must be approved by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers before taking effect by 2003, could also make it difficult to export corn for animal feed and soybeans. Larson said in an interview that he has raised U.S. concerns with "everyone that comes through this door, every trade minister, agriculture minister, economy minister from Europe," including those representing about eight European countries. He said a similar message has also been delivered by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick. President Bush, who comes from a large farm state and counts on the agriculture industry for political support, raised the issue personally with European leaders last month at the Group of Eight meeting of industrialized countries in Italy, according to a senior administration official. Kimball Nil of the American Soybean Association said the food industry is pleased by the tough talk. "The Bush administration met with EU commissioners and very clearly laid down a marker that many of us felt was missing before," he said. But European officials chafe at the pressure, saying the administration is trying to impose U.S. acceptance of biotech food on a European public that does not believe these products are safe despite scientists' claims. The spread of mad cow disease and other health crises have fueled public concern about food safety, and prominent officials, including Britain's Prince Charles, have been highly critical about biotechnology in crops. "We are seeing an illustration of American unilateralism," said Tony Van der haegen, a European Commission representative in Washington. "There are basic psychological differences between American consumers and those in Europe, where [genetically modified products] are not accepted." Requiring food labels is a way of offering choice to consumers and restoring their confidence in food, Van der haegen said. He added that the United States has exaggerated the potential loss to U.S. companies, putting the figure instead at $2.8 billion a year. On a policy level, U.S. regulators have embraced the position that engineered and traditional crops are essentially equivalent, and so should be treated the same. There is some public -- and congressional -- pressure to require labeling of modified foods in the United States, but promoters of biotechnology have fought tenaciously, and successfully, to resist the efforts. They argue that labels would unfairly stigmatize the products. The European Union has not approved any new engineered crops for almost three years, and it has been under great pressure from the United States to begin the review process again. The new regulations allow for biotech crop reviews to resume, but only with the requirements that U.S. officials find objectionable. In an Aug. 9 letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Veneman and Zoellick, 24 U.S. trade organizations said the proposed EU guidelines on biotechnology in agriculture are "commercially unworkable, inconsistent with WTO obligations and would result in billions of dollars of lost U.S. exports." The letter, signed by groups ranging from the Grocery Manufacturers of America to the American Soybean Association and the North American Export Grain Association, said the measure would cause a "serious trade impediment" by requiring labeling and tracing of modified foods, but not of European wines and cheeses. The European regulations would not apply to the latter items because the requirements distinguish between food made from genetically modified material such as seeds and those produced with the assistance of modified material such as enzymes. Larson wrote back this week that "I share many of your apprehensions regarding the proposals," and said he was working to "ensure that any measures [implemented by the EU] are not onerous, costly or trade-disruptive." Mark Mansour, a Washington attorney who represents large food companies and has been consulted by administration officials, has written an analysis urging the administration to file a case with the WTO as soon as possible. Mansour also recommends that the United States withdraw support for the international Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal, a Clinton-era agreement that accepted some of the European concerns about genetically modified foods. As the regulations now move to the European Parliament, legislators may tighten the restrictions further. Environmental groups are urging them to remove a provision that waives the labeling requirement if the percentage of genetically modified material in a food item is less than 1 percent of the overall product. "The U.S. is trying to force-feed modified foods to the rest of the world, and it just isn't going to work," said Charles Margulis of Greenpeace, which has led the anti-biotech campaign in Europe. U.S. troubles over biotechnology and international trade are not limited to the European Union. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka have proposed bans on importing genetically modified foods, and Mexican legislators are also discussing tough labeling laws. Larson said the United States is concerned that the EU biotech guidelines could become a model for developing countries and significantly limit the reach of the technology. Advocates of biotechnology say it can be especially helpful to poor farmers by increasing their yields, protecting against pests and viruses, and allowing them to grow crops in depleted soil. But critics say poor farmers will never see those potential benefits because the technology is owned by private, multinational companies interested primarily in selling seeds for a profit to commercial growers. *************************************************************** EU Defends Proposed Biotech Law By PAUL GEITNER .c The Associated Press BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The European Union's head office expressed faith in its proposed law on genetically modified products despite a report that the United States might challenge it at the World Trade Organization. EU Commission spokeswoman Beate Gminder said the rules proposed last month were ``absolutely necessary to foster consumer confidence'' in biotech foods, ``and therefore also trade in those products.'' She also noted that the Commission's proposed directive is now going to the European Parliament and national governments in the Council of Ministers, where ``it will certainly see extensive questions ... including trade-related aspects.'' In an interview published Sunday in the Washington Post, U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson said the Bush administration was lobbying European governments to change the rules. The newspaper said U.S. officials have left open the possibility of a case before the WTO against the EU rules, which they said could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year. Among the changes in the new proposals is a requirement that records be kept on genetically modified products ``from the farm to the supermarket'' to facilitate traceability and accurate labeling. The United States, where 70 percent of the world's genetically modified crops are grown, currently does not require any labels for products with gene-altered ingredients. In addition, modified grains are often mixed with conventional crops during shipping. Gminder said U.S. officials, including Larsen, were involved in consultations before the directive was approved. ``We think it's a very good law,'' she said. The European Parliament instructed the Commission in February to come up with proposals that would allow for the lifting of a 1998 moratorium on approving new GMOs in Europe - a ban imposed largely due to public fears in Europe over ``Frankenstein foods.'' While about 40 crop varieties are in use in North America, the EU has approved only 11. The EU accounts for less than 1 percent of the 40 million metric tons of biotech crops grown annually. AP-NY-08-27-01 1253EDT *************************************************************** Global GM market starts to wilt Static profits, tighter laws and consumer health doubts slow growth of disputed technology - except in US Special report: GM food debate John Vidal Tuesday August 28, 2001 The Guardian The global GM food bubble may have burst after almost 10 years of exponential growth. Companies are investing less in research than five years ago, profits are static, countries are tightening up labelling and import laws, the promised new generation of crops which could bring health benefits is still years away, and no major new markets are expected to develop for some time. Paradoxically, Guardian research has also found that the acreage of GM crops is still growing in the US and, at more than 109m acres now across the world, is 25 times what it was five years ago. The industry, moreover, has now convinced almost all governments and world bodies to back the bitterly disputed technology. But Sergey Vasnetsov, Wall Street's leading chemical industry analyst with Lehman Brothers, says: "The outlook [for the GM food industry] is less certain than it was three years ago. The euphoria has gone. Growth has fallen significantly. The industry has overstated the rate of progress and underestimated the resistance of consumers. "Acceptability will only come with new products but that seems to be something the industry cannot achieve. The crops that will benefit people [as opposed to farmers] are still three or four years away. The market is not expanding and research budgets are down 5-7% on five years ago. Conceptually, the value [of GM foods] has come down," says Mr Vasnetsov. Benedict Haerlin, Greenpeace International's GM analyst, agrees: "The wonder times are over. The promises have not materialised. There are still only four major crops being grown. The world market is reducing in terms of delivery. Scathing But the GM food companies are confident they can overcome regulatory hurdles and global opinion. World leader Monsanto, whose seeds were planted on more than 80m acres last year - but which has had to slash costs, cut back on research and fire almost 700 people - is conducting field trials in many developing countries and reported an 11% increase on acreage. The global GM acreage is thought to be 17% higher than in 2000. Most of the new plantings, however, have been in north America. Mr Vasnetsov is scathing of the claims made by the UN, chemical companies and scientists that GM crops will alleviate hunger in developing countries. "Let's stop pretending we face food shortages. There is hunger, but not food shortages. GM food is for the rich world. The money from GM is in developed countries. The battle is in Europe," he says. Greenpeace's Benedict Haerlin agrees. "No GM company is going to produce varieties for poor countries unless it sees a market," he says. US analysts fear that GM crops, after 10 years of plantings, are still a north American phenomenon, with the rest of the world proving increasingly cautious. The US now has 80% of all plantings, followed by Canada, Argentina and China. Ten other countries grow small amounts. Overcoming Europe's five-year-old moratorium on new commercial plantings is crucial for the development of the crops. EU draft laws announced last month would allow imports with 1% contamination of conventional crops by GM organisms, but while allowing new GM crops to be grown, they could increase to up to three miles the buffer zone between them and conventional ones which could put most farmers off. The companies are expected to lobby to relax the limits. US growers and government fear that their 30bn food export industry is being undermined as countries try to substitute their exports for those of the US. Despite the objections of the US government and lobbyists, many countries are now trying to turn the screw on US agriculture by increasing regulatory pressure. Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, is bringing in strict laws on labelling and traceability; Algeria, a large food importer, may ban completely their import, manufacture or sale; Japan, which takes 20% of all US food exports worth $11bn a year, has imposed tough labelling rules on 24 product categories and new Chinese laws may delay GM maize for several years. In Sri Lanka, the government has come under intense pressure from the World Trade Organisation and business not to reimpose a ban on imports and growing of the crops. Wariness The US government and farm organisations admit that GM has severely hit exports. Europe, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea have largely switched to buying non-GM maize and soya from Brazil and China rather than the US. The US department of agriculture recently lowered its maize export forecast by 50m bushels as a result of GM's unacceptability. Meanwhile, legal uncertainties surrounding the testing of GM crops are leading some European biotech and seed companies to shift their research to north America. "We won't be carrying out any more field trials in Germany for this year," said seed company Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht (NPZ). The companies say farmers are happy with the performance and profitability of the crops, but the global wariness has prompted even biotech supporters to question GM. A recent survey of the 14,000 members of the American Corn Growers' Association suggested 78% would abandon GM to recover lost export markets. While animosity to growing the crops may have peaked in Europe, consumer support is waning in the US. An ABC poll in June found 52% saying GM foods were "not safe to eat," and only 35% expressing total confidence. A year earlier, a Gallup poll found the reverse, with 51% seeing no health hazard. The hoped-for "ethical" GM crops which have been promoted by governments and scientists are also reported to be years away from markets. Subsistence farmers will not be able to benefit from Syngenta's much-hyped "golden rice", modified to include vitamin A for the benefit of people in developing countries, for at least four years because at present it is only viable in temperate climates. Monsanto is preparing to introduce GM wheat within two years but US and Canadian farmers, who dominate world exports, are cautious. More than 200 Canadian groups, including the National Farmers' Union and the Canadian Wheat Board, want the test plantings to stop, fearing GM wheat will damage exports. In the past month, the UN has claimed GM crops could significantly help developing countries, the EU has taken the first steps to ending its moratorium on new plantings, Britain has sanctioned 30 more major trials in readiness for commercial growing, and the New Zealand government has strongly backed the crops. Testing times - 25,000 trials in 40 countries --The genetic modification of plants involves transferring DNA from a plant, bacterium, or even an animal, into a different plant species --The four main GM crops are corn (maize), cotton, soya bean and canola --More than 109m acres of GM crops are grown worldwide --The main planting areas are in the US, Canada, Argentina and China --Since 1985, when genetically engineered plants resistant to insects, viruses, and bacteria were first tested, 25,000 trials have been carried out in more than 40 countries --In 1995 the EU approved the importation and use of genetically modified soya --The UN development programme, and all major national scientific bodies, believe GM crops can benefit farmers and consumers --This year more than 30 test sites have been wholly or partly destroyed in Britain --Apart from all major crops, tests have been done on most vegetables, as well as trees and fish. The four types of GM crops --Bt crops: Protected against insect damage and reduce pesticide use. Plants produce a protein - toxic only to certain insects - found in the common soil bacterium bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt --Herbicide tolerant: Allow farmers to control weeds without harm to the crop --Disease-resistant: Armed against destructive viral plant diseases with a "vaccine" --Nutritionally enhanced: Foods that could offer higher levels of nutrients and vitamins ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/zoU8wD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/XgSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
