Hi all,
I took it upon myself to read between the lines a little, since Monsanto
and the supporters of rBGH were flooding the e-mail and airwaves with their
response. It seemed odd that the foes and supporters of rBGH might be on the
same side of an issue, so I called Epstein up and following my note is what
he sent back. I think we should be careful to read the politics in the
decision that the Codex Commission did make. it is often the case that
tabling is a decision not to move any further, because the US couldn't get
enough support for its position. It takes a little subtility to not just
look at the surface of these types of proceedings. I'm not saying I
understand all of the goings on here, but we should be analytical of these
types of stories.
Bill Aal
Washington Biotechnology Action Council
Postscript to PR Newswirg, August IS Press Relase on "Monsanto's Genetically
Modifiedfied Milk
In response to the strong interest and supportive calls, apart from some
narrow legalistic questions, on this press release, I would like to
furtherclarify the Codex ruling.
Since 1995, the U.S. has pressured the Codex Commission to adopt a standard,
based on tolerances or Maximum Residue Limits, for residues of rBGH in milk
in attempts to prove its safety and promote its international export. At its
June 30 meeting, the Commission unanimously rejected further consideration
of this U.S. proposal, particularly in light of the recent Canadian ban or
"notice of non-compliance", and of recent reports to the European Commission
by two committees of independent international experts on the cancer and
other risks of Monsanto's milk. By such action, the Commission explicitly
ruled that national governments have absolute rights to decide whether or
not to permit imports of rBGH milk in view of well based public health
concerns, My August 18 press release is clearly consistent with these
events, notwithstanding the self -interested protestations by spokesmen for
the FDA, the highly Hawed and unaccountable Joint Expert Committee on Food
Additives and Monsanto,
It may be further noted that the premier health and science U.K. journalist
George Moribiot in his July 22 article in The Guardian, reported that "three
weeks ago the European Union routed an American attempt to fbrcc - -
(Europe) to accept (rBGH milk) since safety concerns about rBGH milk could
not be ignored". Monbiot also commented on the "deluge of absolutely no
coverage at all" with which this unprecedented and momentous ruling against
genetically modified food has been greeted.
.
School of Public Health (MC 922) August 23,1999
2121 West Taylor Street
CHicago, Illinois 60612-7260
Phone. (312) 996-2296/2297 - Nix (312) 996-1374 - E-mail epstein@uic.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Roush [mailto:rroush@waite.adelaide.edu.au]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 10:40 PM
To: gentech@gen.free.de
Subject: Re: rBST mil, archive 1730
Maroc:
As I have said on this server in the past and in my comment on this story,
"I am no fan of bst". I agree that it is completely unnecessary from a
production
standpoint, although I would disagree slightly that some benefit must
accrue to private dairymen in competition with their neighbors or it
wouldn't sell.
However, my point is that if you have a really good case, do you have to
sink to distortions to make it? If you do exaggerate, do you have any
greater (or even equal) moral integrity than those you criticise? You CAN
pick your friends even in politics, and unless you are prepared to sink to
the lowest levels, you ought to. Cohen at his web site clearly took the
high ground, and I respect him for it.
Rick
>Rick, you may be correct about Epstein's interpretation of the Codex
>action, or he may be correctly reading between the lines but I guess in
>politics (and this is about politics, public and corporate) you can't
>always pick your friends). Some day it could be possible that milk
>produced by cows being drugged with rBST will be shown to be detrimental to
>human health but we don't have to wait to know that the use of rBST is
>negative to the health of cattle. We knew this long before Monsanto even
>became interested in the drug (back when American Cyanamid was the main
>promoter). There is also a negative side effect on dairy farmers who raise
>fine herds of registered cattle for breeding purposes.
>
>Beyond the health aspects of rBST I'd like to have your take, Rick, on the
>use of a drug which is If all completely unnecessary from the production
>standpoint. We can already greatly overproduce at a very low product
>retail price (here in Canada we use a supply=management system to avoid
>over-production), so why resort to a drug whose only real benefit is
>corporate profit? farmers use the drug there is no benefit to
>individual farmers. The only way farmers can benefit is if the poor
>managers use it to overcome their shortcoming.
>
>The social and ethical side of the arguments about rBST are more important
>that the scientific.
>
>Don Maroc
>Vancouver Island, Canada
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
subscribe or help is:
GENTECH-REQUEST@gen.free.de
The searchable WWW list archive is available at
http://www.gene.ch/archives.html
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
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