Negotiations have started to work out a protocol to govern a new
agriculture frontier. The export and import of genetically engineered
seeds and plants.
FULL STORY:
http://newsworld.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/go.pl?1999/02/14/corn990214
.................
Thanks to Epstein <namofo@jps.net> for posting this:
New York Times
February 15, 1999
Setting Rules on Biotechnology Trade
By ANDREW POLLACK
Delegates from about 170 nations are meeting this week to complete an
international biotechnology safety treaty that the United States
government and many American companies fear could greatly restrict exports
of food and other products made using genetic engineering.
The Biosafety Protocol, which is being negotiated in Cartagena, Colombia,
would require that exports of genetically modified organisms be approved in
advance by the importing country.
The negotiations are an outgrowth of the Convention on Biological Diversity
drawn up at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. They are scheduled
because of concern that the release of genetically modified plants and
animals into the environment.
In genetically altering an organism, genes from one species may be spliced
into another to confer certain desirable traits, like resistance to blights
or pests. One concern is that these enhanced organisms could overtake and
displace native species, reducing the variety of the gene pool.
But Washington and many American companies say such new rules could impede
tens of billions of dollars of annual exports of seeds, grains and perhaps
even products like breakfast cereal made from genetically modified corn, or
blue jeans made using genetically modified cotton.
"It could create enormous disruption to existing patterns of international
trade with no benefits to the environment or human health," said Val
Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, a trade group. "Some of the proposals would put in
place a draconian regime that we have never seen before except for highly
toxic and hazardous substances."
Washington thinks it is appropriate to have a treaty covering genetically
modified seeds, said Rafe Pomerance, deputy assistant secretary of state
for environment and development and head of the American delegation in
Cartagena.
What worries the government and American companies is that some nations are
proposing that the new rules cover not only seeds, plants and animals but
also genetically altered corn, soy beans and other agricultural
commodities. Some proposals would go even further and apply the treaty to
products made using genetic engineering, like pharmaceuticals, cookies made
from genetically altered grain, or even paper containing corn starch made
from genetically altered corn.
...........
posted by From: jim@niall7.demon.co.uk (jim mcnulty)
GENE LAB TOOK FOOD GIANT'S CASH GIFT
Mail on Sunday Publication Date: February 14, 1999
THE Government-backed institute which sacked the 'Frankenstein' food
whistleblower is receiving cash from the world's leading producer of
genetically modified crops.
American biotechnology giant [ Monsanto ] is the donor of a GBP 140,000
grant to the controversial Rowett Research Institute which sacked GM food
scientist Dr Arpad Pusztai.
Two weeks ago The Mail on Sunday revealed exclusively that officially
discredited research by Dr Pusztai who was sacked last August had in fact
been correct.
..............
LABELS FOR GENE-MODIFIED FOOD
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Feb 15, 1999
Mandatory labeling of all genetically modified food sold in British shops,
carry-outs and restaurants is to be introduced next month in an attempt to
quell growing fear of the foods.
Firms breaking regulations - to be policed by local authorities and
government scientists - will face tough fines.
"We are going to be ruthless in enforcing this," British Food Minister
Jeff Rooker said.
But attempts to clean up the reputation of genetically modified foods are
likely to be undermined this week.
[ Monsanto ] , the U.S. corporation spearheading their production, is to
admit illegally releasing modified oil-seed rape.
Campaigners fear such releases could lead to the creation of "super weeds"
resistant to herbicides.
They say this could pollinate nearby unmodified crops that might end up in
human food without
the public knowing.
...........
Genetic minister 'should be axed'; GM crop lobby
The Guardian
English Nature Publication Date: February 15, 1999
The Government's statutory advisers on wildlife have called for a
moratorium on the commercial growing of herbicide and insect- resistant,
genetically modified (GM) crops, fearing they could jeopardise wildlife.
They want more field research, but do not expect this to be ready for
three to four years. Only at this point, they say, should decisions be
made on widespread GM releases.
National Farmers Union
Farm leaders say that GM foods offer some benefits but that they need to
be regulated, labelled and monitored. `We are very aware of consumer
concern and here is no point growing something for which there is no
demand. The new Food Standards Agency is the sort of body that we would
want to oversee developments,' said a spokesman.
British Retail Consortium
Britain's shopkeepers are increasingly concerned about the health side of
GM foods. `It is not enough to wait {for} the Food Standards Agency . . .
to respond to consumers' concerns,' says Elizabeth Phillips, deputy
director general. `We urge the Government to put consumers' minds at rest.'
Consumers Association
Britain's leading consumer group called on the Prime Minister this week to
block all further GM foods coming on to the market until the regulatory
system has been overhauled. It wants full labelling, based on
`traceability'. This would mean that almost all processed foods that use
GM soya or maize, would have to be labelled. At present almost all escapes
it.
Environmental charities
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Development Movement,
Christian Aid, ActionAid, the Soil Association, and 23 other environmental
and development charities, next week call for a five- year freeze on the
growing of GM crops in Britain, and a halt to imports. The coalition
includes Iceland supermarket chain and Townswomen's Guilds.
SCIMAC
The Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops is a biotech
industry body set up to develop a code of practice. Members include GM
company [ Monsanto ] , and the NFU. It has agreed to a voluntary one-year
moratorium on the commercial growing of herbicide- resistant crops, and a
three-year moratorium on insect-resistant varieties. However, loopholes
mean the first crops may be planted within a month. European Parliament
This week the European Parliament voted for tighter regulation on GM
crops. If passed, it would mean that biotech companies would be legally
liable for any adverse health or environmental effects caused by the
organisms. They would be required to have compulsory insurance.
The Government
The Government believes that biotechnology offers huge potential for
better food and environmentally-friendly crops. However, ministers
recognise the public concern. They claim to have a `comprehensive
framework' of regulation to ensure products are thoroughly assessed before
their approval.
(Copyright 1999)
.........
Thanks to: jim@niall7.demon.co.uk (jim mcnulty) for posting this:
Genetic Engineering Talks Hits Snag
February 17, 1999
BOGOTA, COLOMBIA - The Associated Press via NewsEdge Corporation :
U.N.-sponsored talks on regulating trade in genetically modified organisms
_ from pest-resistant food crops to pharmaceuticals _ were in knots Tuesday
over developing countries' insistence they be allowed to restrict imports
and be compensated for any environmental damage.
It was unclear whether an international treaty, an outgrowth of the 1992
Earth Summit in Brazil, could be achieved in this weeks' negotiations
attended by more than 130 nations in the Caribbean city of Cartagena.
``It's rare that you come into a negotiation at this stage with so many
major issues of disagreement,'' said Rafe Pomerance, the U.S. deputy
assistant secretary of state for environment at the talks.
A draft of the Biosafety Protocol _ which had more than 600 disputed
passages _ is supposed to be defined by Friday and signed next Tuesday
before it is ratified by signatories.
Developing nations fear genetically engineered crops could have devastating
effects on their rich biological diversity, cultural traditions and more
rudimentary agriculture.
``Our knowledge of these things is too scanty. Until proven not dangerous,
they must be presumed dangerous,'' Tewolde Gebre Egziabher, Ethiopia's
chief environmental official, said of the new strains of plants that
scientists have created by tinkering with DNA, the genetic building blocks
of life.
Although widely accepted and approved in the United States, biogenetically
modified crops have won less acceptance in Europe, where several countries,
including Austria and Luxembourg, have banned specific biogenetic crops
fearing potentially catastrophic environmental consequences.
Egziabher, who characterized the talks as ``deadlocked,'' said he spoke for
most developing nations spanning Africa, Latin America and including China
in demanding that the protocol:
_Grant individual countries the right to selectively ban or restrict
imports of biologically engineered organisms and their byproducts or
derivatives.
_Make producers of such organisms legally liable for any damages.
_Force biotech manufacturers to provide early warning to countries whose
agricultural output would be adversely affected.
Egziabher said Ethiopia would, for example, want to be informed immediately
if a new strain of genetically engineered coffee were to be developed that
could cut into sales of its leading export crop.
``Many agricultural commodities are being replaced through genetic
engineering,'' said Egziabher.
Vanilla, long a chief income source for the Indian Ocean nations of
Madagascar and the Comoros Islands, was now being made in vats in
California, he said.
The United States only has observer status at the talks because it is not
among the 174 countries that have ratified the Biodiversity Convention
produced at the 1992 Earth Summit. But it is still a heavyweight.
Backed by allies including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, Chile
and Argentina, the United States is seeking to protect a rapidly growing
multibillion-dollar industry whose proponents insist bioengineering is a
safe, proven and environmentally sound technology with myriad benefits.
``Few products have received the scrutiny, the close attention and
scientific review that these products are receiving,'' said Karil
Kochenderfer of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, a U.S. industry
group.
The head of the Chilean delegation, Roland Stein, said Tuesday that never
in the two decades of international trade in genetically modified organisms
has biodiversity been endangered.
Biotechnology industry groups accuse environmentalists like Greenpeace of
using unfounded scare tactics based on unproven claims of biogenetic
hazards to impede the spread of products that reduce the use of pesticides
and raise crop yields dramatically.
``Biotechnology is helping to transform agriculture,'' said Val Giddings,
vice president for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry
Organization. In the United States last year, 25 percent of the corn crop,
38 percent of soy beans and 45 percent of cotton were genetically modified,
said Giddings.
Within a decade, predicted Kochenderfer, ``95 percent of all U.S. crops
will probably be biotech.''
Pomerance, the U.S. diplomat, said Washington believes that any protocol
with overburdensome requirements would be perceived as impeding trade _ and
might never be ratified by enough countries to take effect.
[Copyright 1999, Associated Press]
......
following article posted by Bradford Duplisea <brad@pei.sympatico.ca> at
Sierra Club of Canada:
Demand for more research on safety
By Paul Brown, Environment Correspondent
Wednesday February 17 1999
The Guardian (UK)
Forty organisations yesterday called on the Government to freeze commercial
development of genetically engineered food and crops for five years. An
unprecedented alliance between religious and environmental groups, aid
agencies, and a frozen food chain, supported by scientists and MPs,
demanded a moratorium to make sure that the genetic engineering was safe.
Their joint policy statement, made at a packed meeting at the House of
Commons, said: 'Some believe there is no place for the technology in our
countryside and on our plates; others think it could bring benefits as long
as it can be properly regulated and the consumer is offered genuine choice.
The thing that unites them all is the immediate need to stop and consider
the massive social, economic and environmental effects worldwide. It will
take at least five years for vital research to be undertaken and for
genuine public participation processes to be established.'
...........
posted by Paul Davis <devatalk@mcmail.com>
PA News Service 17 Feb 99
MONSANTO DEFIANT AFTER £17,000
'ESCAPED POLLEN' FINE
American biotechnology giant Monsanto has vowed to fight any move to halt
the development of genetically-modified foods in Britain after being fined
for breach of existing laws in a landmark legal case.
The company was fined £17,000 with £6,159 costs by magistrates in Caistor,
Lincolnshire, after admitting that a test planting of GM oil seed rape
failed to meet rules intended to stop the spread of pollen to other crops.
The case - the first of its kind in Britain - was another setback for the
Government in its attempts to extract itself from the deepening controversy
over the safety of GM foods.
............
ED HARRIS and PETER GRUNER report
Evening Standard - London Publication Date: February 16, 1999
PROTESTERS were due to gather at the House of Commons today to call for a
five-year moratorium on genetic foods. An unprecedented coalition of 29
consumer, health, environment and development groups want a freeze on
genetically modified foods in the wake of widespread concern over their
risk to health and the countryside.
Campaigners claim they are reflecting huge fears among the public. They
also say that people simply do not know enough about the subject to make
informed decisions. Their claims come at an uncomfortable time for food
producer [ Monsanto ] , on the eve of its appearance at Caistor
Magistrates Court in Lincolnshire to answer charges of breaching legally
required safety measures on a GM oilseed rape test site in the county.
However, biotech companies say their GM foods and products are perfectly
safe. They claim that years of research and field tests mean that their
products pose no risk to humans.
The genetic engineering industry dismisses the scare whipped up in the
press as "hysteria" and says it is time to separate science fact from
science fiction. Stories about fish genes being implanted in tomatoes do
nothing but create rumour and obscure the truth, one company said today.
Dan Verakis of American biotech giant Monsanto said: "Everybody needs to
calm down. There are good scientific answers to the questions that are
being asked. "What is needed is good scientific discussion to separate the
truth from the myths. It has become a political issue and it should not
be.It is sad that there is such hysteria. It creates an anti-science
climate."
But lined up against the GM companies are groups including Action Against
Allergy, the British Society of Nature Conservation, the Catholic Institute
for International Relations, Christian Aid, the Soil Association and the
Vegetarian Society. They want a five-year freeze on the growing of GM
crops for any commercial purpose, the import of GM foods and farm crops,
and the patenting of genetic resources for food and farm crops.
"The Government seems to be deaf to all but a few, carefully selected,
commercially-based opinions," said Sandra Bell, Five Year Freeze Campaign
co-ordinator. "This flies in the face of the widespread public concern at
the rush to embrace GM crops and food. Five years gives us all the time
necessary to make informed decisions." They also want television to make
prime time available for a nation-wide public debate on the issue with
the support of Monsanto.
At today's campaign launch was Dr Vyvyan Howard, the leading toxicologist
from Liverpool University, and adviser to the Government. He wants GM foods
to be treated like new medicines and be thoroughly tested before they are
given to the public. "There is no need to rush these foods on the public,"
he said. "The only reason we are rushing them is commercial pressure."
Dr Simon Lyster, director general of the Wildlife Trust, warned that
British wildlife was already under threat from intensive farming and GM
foods could make a bad situation even worse. "There has been a
catastrophic decline in biodiversity in the farm landscape over the last
50 years," he said. "The message is that within the farming landscape
wildlife is already in serious trouble and we need GM products like we need
a hole in the head."
Malcolm Walker, chief executive of Iceland Foods, also supports the
campaign. His company banned all genetically modified ingredients from
their own-brand products almost a year ago.
...........
posted on allsorts@pop.gn.apc.org newsgroup
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999
Washington Post/Front
U.S. Lobbies Against Biotechnology Curbs
by Rick Weiss and Justin Gillis
THE U.S. government and scores of corporations are scrambling to prevent a
proposed international accord from sharply restricting the global flow of
hundreds of billions of dollars worth of genetically engineered products,
ranging from cotton seeds to soft drinks.
The intense lobbying effort will climax this week as negotiators from more
than 170 countries convene in Colombia to draw up final language on the
pact, which would be the world's first accord to regulate the spread of
genetically manipulated organisms. It could promote or restrict the
burgeoning biotechnology industry worldwide.
Despite years of preparatory negotiations, however, philosophical rifts
loom between the handful of countries ready and eager to ship genetically
engineered products around the world and the many other countries that
remain wary of the biotechnology revolution.
Environmental groups see the proposed agreement as their first opportunity
to set ecological standards for trade in gene-altered crops, livestock and
other products. Yet many American companies -- along with the governments
of the United States, Canada, Australia and others -- are alarmed about
draft language they say could severely disrupt world trade.
_________________________________________________________
Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign,
for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term
Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
500 Wilbrod Street
Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596
email: rwolfson@concentric.net
Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
contains more information on genetic engineering as well as
previous genetic engineering news items
Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 for 12 months
See website for details.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail