-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Dave Hartley http://www.asheville-computer.com/dave Agence France Presse Thursday, February 24 11:30 AM SGT Bio-engineered food controversy leaps into public arena PARIS, Feb 24 (AFP) - To their supporters, they are wonder foods that will yield sparkling benefits. To opponents, they are lab-created monsters that may ravage health and the environment. Few questions generate such fervour as genetically-modified food, where reason, fear, high tech and big bucks all collide. But a major effort will be launched on Monday with the goal of shedding light rather than heat, in the biggest international forum yet on the future of these revolutionary products. The three-day meeting in Edinburgh, gathering all the major actors in the debate, comes at a critical point in the process that will determine whether biotech foods will be embraced or shunned. Despite an accord at Montreal last month that set down guidelines for exporting genetically-changed crops, the United States, a supporter of the new foods, is muscling up for a fight with the European Union (EU), where there is growing public resistance to them. "There's no question that if we get into a trade war with these major crop commodities, nobody knows where that will end up," says Peter Kearns, health and safety administrator at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD's forum next week will gather scientists, environmentalists, consumers, corporations and national officials. The meeting will not make any decisions but draw up a report that seeks to provide a clear view about the state of knowledge on food safety. The main issues: how much do we know about the risks and benefits of the new foods? How should foods be assessed for safety? And should foods with genetically-altered ingredients be labelled? Everyone agrees it is urgent to sort things out, as laws and government policies are being rapidly overtaken by events on the ground, leaving behind a chaotic tangle of national assessment processes and the seeds for potential conflict. In the United States and Canada, which together accounted for 82 percent of altered foods last year, between a third and a half of sowed acreage of corn, soybeans, cotton and the oilseed canola have been bio-engineered. Genetically-changed potatoes, tomatoes, sweet peppers, sunflowers and peanuts are also widely commercially grown there. But apart from Argentina, which accounts for 10 percent of the acreage, and China, with around one percent, other countries are clearly reluctant to follow suit on a big scale. That is especially the case in the Europe Union (EU), the most environmentally-sensitive region in the world, where a revolt against the new foods has been given strong momentum by the "mad cow" scandal. European repugnance is such that many North American farmers worry about whether they should pursue sowing the crops, fearing they may no longer have a buyer in one of their biggest and most prosperous markets. Benny Haerlin of Greenpeace, whose organisation is viscerally opposed to modified foods, says it is madness to press ahead with new crops until thorough tests are made of the long-term impact. "As long as consumers don't have the certainty that their food is not genetically altered, it's extremely urgent to come to a conclusion" on accepting engineered foods, he said. Genetically-modified crops are plants, animals or fish that have material from other species spliced into their genes. A widely-grown US corn, for instance, exudes a toxin, of a type that already exists in nature, which kills pests -- and thus reduces the need for pesticides. Soft fruits such as tomatoes and strawberries can be engineered to have a tougher skin so that they have a longer shelf life or do not bruise easily. Dietary staples, such as so-called "golden rice," are being modified so that they produce more vitamin A, something that supporters say is a boon for undernourished people in poor countries. Environmentalists say that these benefits are shallow, and take no account of the risk of contamination to the environment from drifting pollen, or the destruction of insects that could be a vital link in the food chain. "I don't see any major benefits that we would forego if we take a more precautionary approach," said Haerlin, scorning the idea that the foods will help developing countries. "The underlying problem of vitamin deficiency is poverty and an unbalanced diet. These will not be solved by any coloured rice." _________________ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! 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 credence 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
