-Caveat Lector- ******************** this is not done but I have homework and a test to prep for, will be posting it "probably" next week on my web site under the title in the subject line. ********************** GM Food and Sanctions 19 July 99 What I wonder is since it takes 3 years to become organic where will most American farmers be if it is not just GM foods that go down the drain but the use of chemicals for plants. Also what if -say- a certain chemical gets highlighted as being detrimental, and all crops that have been grown with this are blacklisted. Then say the crop is grapes, that could be a lot of bottles of wine - in the future. What would this do to France or to the Napa Valley in Calf.? Consider things that are processed to concentrate as certain traits or items that are cultured Olive Oil (Olives) perfumes (flowers - were the animals fed chemicals?) Jack Daniels (grain) Chivas Regal (grain) Wine (grapes - fruit) Cheese (milk) Beer (grain) Some of these items have a long shelf life and would have to be recalled if that were to happen. Organics, support of the family farm and Non Corporation farms are the way things are going. Yet with some farmers already past the start up three year long certification where will that leave the other farmers? Out in the cold, would they be able to keep their farms? With the Dioxin (poisoning) scare in Europe and the fact that Europe is beginning to test for Dioxins - what will this do to the farmers that are "organic" but have used and excess amount of chemicals and this shows up in their produce? Who will keep their farms in the future? Below are some current articles that I am using. There are more citations on http://freeweb.digiweb.com/science_fiction/ThePiedPiper/bacteria.htm 1) <a href="#1">1</a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/the_economy/newsid_398000/398526.stm Monday, July 19, 1999 Published at 21:33 GMT 22:33 UK US hits EU, spares UK in beef war Where's the beef? If it's hormone-treated, not on EU dinner tables 2) <a href="#2">2</a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_397000/397453.stm Sunday, July 18, 1999 Published at 08:12 GMT 09:12 UK UK Politics Organic funding under scrutiny Concern about GM crops has caused an increase in demand for organic food 3) <a href="#3">3</a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_394000/394301.stm Wednesday, July 14, 1999 Published at 13:28 GMT 14:28 UK Sci/Tech US farmers fear GM crop fallout US farmers are worried about consumer opposition to GM crops 4) <a href="#4">4</a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_393000/393949.stm Wednesday, July 14, 1999 Published at 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK Sci/Tech US to label GM foods US farmers have taken to GM crops in a big way 1) <a name="1"></a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/the_economy/newsid_398000/398526.stm Monday, July 19, 1999 Published at 21:33 GMT 22:33 UK Business: The Economy US hits EU, spares UK in beef war Where's the beef? If it's hormone-treated, not on EU dinner tables The United States has published a list of EU products that will be hit by 100% punitive tariffs to retaliate for the European import ban on its hormone-treated beef. Chocolate, pork, onions and truffles are among the goods on the $116.8m blacklist, but UK exporters escape the wrath from Washington. They are specifically excluded from the list because the London government consistently argued against the beef ban. All the 14 other EU members will see some of their exporters hit, with France, Germany, Denmark and Italy singled out for particularly painful import duties. The sanctions will come into effect on 29 July. The European Union has banned the beef, because its scientists are worried that hormone-treated meat carries health risks, possibly causing cancer and triggering reproductive disorders in men. US scientists and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute this. The United States has already imposed 100% tariffs on European imports worth $194.2m in a dispute involving trade barriers imposed on US banana companies producing in South and Central America. Legal sanctions The trade sanctions had been approved by the WTO, which ruled that the EU ban had cost US farmers about $117m. Canada was also given the right to retaliate, with damage to farmers estimated to be about $7m. US officials and farmers representatives had originally demanded penalties worth more than $900m. Reacting to the sanctions, Franz Fischler, the EU's Agriculture Commissioner, said: "My reaction to this is deep regret. I thought up to now that the US wanted to expand trade, not restrict it." The European Union has repeatedly offered to compensate US farmers for their losses. Acting EU Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan said that compensation would be "a more constructive approach than these sanctions". However, this approach has been rejected by Washington. The US government believes that only punitive tariffs can force the EU to open its market to hormone-treated beef. US Special Trade Negotiator Peter Scher said earlier this month that the move's "main objective" would be to "maximise our leverage over the EU". According to US officials, the list now published is designed to inflict the most economic damage on France, Germany, Italy and Denmark, as they believe that those nations hold the key to overturning the beef ban. Cancer worries The European Union has blocked the import of beef treated with certain artificial and natural growth hormones, because of health worries. The WTO, however, agrees with US scientists who say the beef is risk-free. Many farmers in North America use a range of six artificial and natural growth hormones, that they implant in their cattle or add to their feed, to boost meat yields. The extra hormones make cattle grow muscle faster than untreated animals. The dispute over beef imports has dragged on for more than a decade. Selective targetting From all EU countries, 14 will be hit by the beef war tariffs. Only the UK, which has argued in favour of lifting the ban, will be exempt. Items from all 14 countries hit by tariffs frozen and fresh meat from bovine animals fresh, chilled or frozen pork carcasses and half-carcasses fresh, chilled or frozen pork hams and shoulders, and cuts thereof Roquefort cheese onions truffles dried carrots goose liver, prepared or preserved rusks, toasted bread and similar toasted products fruit juice, concentrated and non-concentrated roasted chicory and other roasted coffee substitutes prepared mustard The US will also impose tariffs on prepared or preserved tomatoes from France, Germany and Italy. Products specifically from France and Germany to face tariffs include animal guts, bladders and stomachs (other than fish) soups and broths yarn (other than sewing thread) containing 85% or more of artificial staple fibres From France, the following products will face tariffs: fatty substances derived from wool grease chocolate and other cocoa preparations lingonberry and raspberry jams hams, shoulders and cuts thereof, with bone in products suitable for use as glues or adhesives. Meat deal Ironically, European Union agriculture ministers on Monday approved a long-awaited meat standards pact with the United States, which was aimed at easing trans-atlantic tensions. The "veterinary equivalency" agreement will set up a framework for solving disputes and provide for the mutual recognition of animal health rules. However, it will not help in the current trade war over hormone-treated beef. 2) <a name="2"></a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_397000/397453.stm Sunday, July 18, 1999 Published at 08:12 GMT 09:12 UK UK Politics Organic funding under scrutiny Concern about GM crops has caused an increase in demand for organic food The government is to review the amount of money it puts into the organic food industry after the backlash against genetically-modified (GM) foods and other safety scares. Countryside Minister Elliot Morley said the review could result in more novernment financial support for organic food producers. The government currently hands out £6.5m a year to farmers to help them to convert to organic methods, which usually takes about three years. Mr Morley, in an interview with BBC1's Countryfile programme said: "I think at the moment the expansion of the organic sector is very much in line with market demand and indeed it's been going very strongly. "So strongly that we will be reviewing the amount of support we put into the organic sector and if we think that support is not right, if we think that demand is stronger than we thought, we will take appropriate action to adjust that." Organic demand grows The message of support for organic farmers and those wanting to switch to organic methods comes at a time when Britain's major supermarkets are increasing their organic product lines, and organic consumption is up by about 40%. Anti-GM and environmental campaigners are pressing the Government to hit a target of 10% of all food being organic by 2005. Baroness Thornton of the British Retail Consortium, representing 90% of all UK retailers, said: "The supermarkets would love to have more organic foods. The demand is there and what the supermarkets want to do is work with farmers to reduce the production costs and that will reduce costs and increase the availability." Organic food production in the UK still only accounts for 1% of all food production but is currently worth about £400m a year while 75% of organic food sold in the UK is imported. 'Long overdue' Adrian Bebb, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "Increased government backing for organic farming is long overdue. But it will mean little if the government allows the movement to be destroyed by pollution from GM crops. We can move towards organic food or further down the dangerous road to intensive chemical farming, but we can't do both." A Ministry of Agriculture spokeswoman said later that the present financial aid package for farmers converting to organic had only been in place for three months after a review of the previous system. She said: "There are no plans at the present time to undertake a review of the financial assistance provided to the organic farming sector, but as Mr Morley has said, the government would of course reassess the situation if the circumstances changed." 3) <a name="3"></a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_394000/394301.stm Wednesday, July 14, 1999 Published at 13:28 GMT 14:28 UK Sci/Tech US farmers fear GM crop fallout US farmers are worried about consumer opposition to GM crops BBC Newsnight's science correspondent Susan Watts reports on how American farmers feel they have been let down by GM agribusiness. In the rural idyll of America's agricultural states farmers are getting to know the genetically altered crops they have been told will help them make the most of their land. Their fields are providing the evidence that will tell the world if the ambitious claims for biotechnology in agriculture are coming true. The whole point of the crops is that they are supposed to help farmers farm more cheaply. Suddenly they are under the spotlight. Consumers outside the US have turned against GM food. The export market is disappearing fast - US corn sales to Europe shrank from 70 million bushels in 1997 to just 3 million last year. Mood change in the Mid-West Professor Bill Heffernan of the University of Missouri has spent 30 years tracking rural change across the states. He says people fear GM crops could end up costing them more not less. "Six months ago we thought that basically these products were going to be accepted in the market - nobody thought otherwise and in fact it was just assumed because nobody was challenging it. "Now, especially because number one what's happening in Europe and Japan and other major consumer nations that may refuse these products, that's really gotten the farmers attention. "The farmers are really quite angry about it and they're quite confused about it and many farmers just wish the whole thing would go away, we'd go back the way it was a year ago and forget about all these products." 'Taking a second look' Doug Doughty is a GM seed dealer . His neighbour, Bill Christison is president of the National Family Farm Coalition, a group that has taken a stand against GM crops. Yet their apparently opposing views seem now to be converging. Mr Christison says: "I think in the past year especially that some farmers are taking a second look at the increased production costs and the increased yield that was promised them." Mr Doughty says: " US farmers embrace technology very quickly ,we want the newest thing on the market, the latest thing..i think we're just finding out that maybe this technology wasn't researched as well as it could have been. "The Europeans were right to go slow on this. We were fed a lot of propoganda that the Europeans were just being difficult, to be against what the US were doing - but I think we're finding out that they're our customers and if they want something we should be able to deliver that." Farming revolution under scrutiny One of the most common modified crops is soybeans that can tolerate herbicide - about one third of the soya bean crop in the mid west is genetically modified. The idea is that farmers need not till their land and can control weeds with fewer sprays. The other is pest resistant, or "Bt" corn, with extra genes that produce a toxin to fend off pests. The message from biotechnology developers has been consistently positive. For the past few decades field tests have been conducted on a wide variety of products that may produce a better answer, may herald the latest revolution in farming technology, products of agricultural biotechnology. Yet on one of the key claims for these crops - lower herbicide use - local farmers experience doesn't quite match the developers expectations. For example on Monsanto's Round Up-Ready soybeans, the aim was only to spray once. But according to Prof Heffernan many farmers still spray their crops twice. "You just have too many late weeds coming on and so in that case you spray just as much as you would with any of the other herbicides we've been using in the last few years," he says. GM yields figures 'confusing' Last week, the US department of agriculture released the most comprehensive analysis of data on GM crops in the US. As expected, these show a dramatic uptake among farmers - a six-fold increase to 50 million acres in just two years. Biotechnology companies sold their crops on the promise of fewer chemical treatments and higher yields. The official figures show that overall, the picture is confusing, with regional variations that are so large it is almost impossible to draw general conclusions. This puts big question marks over the message from biotech companies that GM crops mean automatic advantages for farmers. On chemical treatments, for 1997, pesticide treatment was about the same for pest resistant and conventional corn. For herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide use went down in some states, but up in others. On yields pest resistant corn showed big differences in yield advantage - five times higher in the Prairie states than in the main crop-growing states. For herbicide-tolerant soybeans, yields in the Prairie states were about 25% higher, yet in the Eastern states they were down by about 8%. Yield variations aside, there's no room for argument over the harsh economic reality of selling GM crops into a reluctant market - and some GM farmers are having second thoughts. Prof Heffernan says: "All of a sudden we're finding some firms are now saying they'll pay 15 to 16 cents a bushel more for Non GMOs." The result has been that some farmers have tried to return their GM seed for more traditional seed. Farmers fear cross-contamination Just as it becomes plain that GM developers were taken by surprise by the strength of reaction against their crops in Europe - another problem is emerging, closer to home, that they also failed to anticipate. Bill Christison is a conventional farmer selling into a mainstream market, yet he feels GM crops could now threaten his livelihood. "I have a fear that even though I do not plant GMO crops my corn will be contaminated and therefore not marketable around the world. I think this is an issue that is facing a number of farmers in this country. "I think that there is no doubt that there will be a rash of lawsuits - farmer against farmer if you will - to determine how they can control this Bt hybrid and keep it on their side of the fence," he says. Organic farmers angered Cross contamination is just one practical problem biotechnology companies apparently didn't foresee once farmers started actually growing GM crops. The issue is most acute for organic farmers. There have already been cases of Europe rejecting American organic produce because it was found to contain GM material although it was supposed to be GM free. Organic farmer Klaus Martens says: "I'm resentful. I don't know why when someone else is contaminating my land, I should have to bear the financial burden and make all the adjustments. "I certainly hope that American farmers will wake up and reject these products. It's definitely hurting American farmers. They cost us the European market, they have trapped our domestic markets for our grains and it's very obvious that they're not doing us any good." GM crops have 'really backfired' The evidence is mounting that conventional farmers are now are having doubts. GM seed dealer Doughty says: "There is a lot of feeling that Monsanto and some of the other companies reallly let us down in Europe, tried to stuff if down Europeans throats, and say here it is, you will have to accept it, without going to the countries, to their scientists and researchers and proving it first that everything was OK and it's really backfired on them." Mr Christenson says: " We are going to supply the land the machinery, the labour, and we are going to get a pittance for our efforts because of GMO seed and this does not set well with myself nor with a great number of farmer." Where farmers may once have seen Monsanto and others as pioneering saviours, now, as they watch biotech seed prices creep slowly upwards, their mood is changing from a warm welcome to simmering resentment. 4) <a name="4"></a> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_393000/393949.stm Wednesday, July 14, 1999 Published at 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK Sci/Tech US to label GM foods US farmers have taken to GM crops in a big way The US Government has said that it will probably agree to label genetically-modified (GM) food. At the moment, American law does not require this. However, European governments have threatened to continue their ban on the import of certain US GM products if the Americans do not accept such labelling. Up to now, the Clinton administration has opposed GM labelling, agreeing with the American food industry that it unfairly stigmatises what they regard as perfectly safe products. But the US Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, said that relations with Europe on the GM issue could deteriorate into an all-out trade war and labelling was a way in which such a crisis might be avoided. Speaking before an audience of environmentalists, lobbyists and lawmakers, Mr Glickman extolled the benefits of biotechnology. He said the technology would lead to increased yields and a decrease in the use of pesticides. Loud rhetoric According to Mr Glickman, several European countries were letting their fears override these potential benefits. And he urged them to sort out their internal differences as soon as possible. "Quite frankly, the food safety and regulatory regimes in Europe are so split, and so divided amongst the different countries, that I am extremely concerned that failure to work out these bio-tech issues in a sensible way could do deep damage in our next trade round, and affects both agriculture and non-agricultural issues," he said. "Both sides of the Atlantic must tone down rhetoric, roll up their sleeves, and work towards conflict resolution, based on open trade, sound science, and consumer involvement. And I think this can be done if the will is there." American farmers are producing more and more genetically-engineered products, with 44% of American soya beans and 36% of corn coming from GM seeds. So far this has been accepted without question by the American public. But last month, researchers at Cornell University said that pollen from GM corn had been shown to kill Monarch butterflies. Threat to butterflies This has prompted the US Environmental Defence Fund to petition the country's Environmental Protection Agency to introduce rules that would see buffer zones of 18 metres (60 feet) around GM corn to protect the butterflies. "There is considerable concern that other butterflies, not only Monarchs, but including endangered species may be killed by the widespread planting of GM corn," said Rebecca Goldburg, senior scientist for the fund. But a study presented on Tuesday by an association of biotechnology companies and research institutions said more research was required to establish the real threat to butterflies. Leonard Gianessi, senior research associate at the US National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, said: "I know of these risk concerns, I believe that the agency will look very closely at those kind of risk concerns, to the Monarch and others. "And if they conclude that there is a risk, an increased risk, then they will do something about it. So there will be more research done." DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
