Fwd: [SoFlaVegans] Europe Not Buying US Stand on GM Foods

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone...

Please do not take this as a political attack on Bush, if any political figure

was involved in supporting GM food, and trying to force it on another nation, I

would have posted this information...

So other than that... comments anyone?

Be Well,

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

Bush Bullying on Biotech Backfires in Europe

 

Bush's evangelising about food chills European hearts

 

The fight over GM crops exposes the weaknesses of globalisation, says

Jeremy Rifkin

 

Monday June 2, 2003

The Guardian

 

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/rifkin060203.cfm

 

In case you thought that the Bush administration's rift with its

European allies ended with the Iraqi military campaign, think again.

The White House has now set its sights on something far more personal

- the question of what kind of food Europeans should put on their

table.

President Bush has charged that the EU's ban on genetically modified

food is discouraging developing countries from growing GM crops for

export and resulting in increased hunger and poverty in the world's

poorest nations. His remarks, made just days before the G8 meeting in

Evian, have further chilled US-European relations.

 

Last month, the US government launched a formal legal challenge at

the World Trade Organisation to force the EU to lift its " de facto

moratorium " on the sale of GM seeds and food in Europe. The EU has

countered that there is no moratorium in place and points out that in

the past year it has approved two applications for imports of GM

seeds.

Regardless, the new thrust by President Bush is likely to force

another confrontation between the two superpowers - one whose

long-term impact could be even more serious than the breach over

Iraq.

 

For most Europeans, GM food is anathema. Although Europeans are

worried about the potentially harmful environmental and health

consequences, they are equally concerned about the cultural

consequences. While Americans long ago accepted a corporate-driven

fast food culture, in Europe food and culture are deeply entwined.

Every region boasts its own culinary traditions and touts its local

produce.

 

In a world of globalising forces, increasingly controlled by

corporate behemoths and bureaucratic regulatory regimes, the last

vestige of cultural identity most Europeans feel they have some

control over is their choice of food. That is why every fidyl public

opinion poll conducted in Europe, including polls in the new

candidate EU countries, show overwhelming public disapproval of GM

food.

 

Global food companies doing business in Europe, such as McDonald's,

Burger King and Coca-Cola, have responded to the public's aversion by

promising to keep their products free of genetically modified traits.

 

By forcing the issue, the Bush administration is stirring up a

hornet's nest of public anger and resentment.

 

The White House has made a bad situation worse by suggesting that

European opposition to GM food is tantamount to imposing a death

sentence on millions of starving people in the third world. Denying

poor farmers in developing countries a European market for GM food,

says the White House, gives them no choice but to grow non-GM food

and lose the commercial advantages that go hand-in-hand with GM food

crops.

President Bush's remarks on the many benefits of GM food appear more

like a public relations release than a reasoned political argument.

 

Hunger in the third world is a complex phenomenon not likely to be

reversed by the introduction of GM crops. First, 80% of

undernourished children in the developing world live in countries

with food surpluses.

The hunger problem has more to do with the wayarable land is

utilised.

 

Today, 21% of the food grown in the developing world is destined for

animal consumption. In many developing countries, more than a third

of the grain is now being grown for livestock. The animals, in turn,

will be eaten by the world's wealthiest consumers in the northern

industrial countries. The result is that the world's richest

consumers eat a diet high in animal protein, while the poorest people

on earth are left with little land to grow food grain for their own

families. And, even the land that is available is often owned by

global agribusiness interests, further aggravating the plight of the

rural poor. The introduction of GM food crops does nothing to change

this fundamental reality.

 

Second, President Bush talks about the cost savings of planting GM

food crops. What he conveniently ignores is that GM seeds are more

expensive than conventional seeds and, because they are patented,

farmers cannot save the new seeds for planting during the next

growing season because those seeds belong to the biotech companies.

By exercising intellectual property control over the genetic traits

of the world's major food crops, companies such as Monsanto stand to

make huge profits while the world's poorest farmers become

increasingly marginalised.

 

Third, the White House alludes to the new generation of crops with

genes whose proteins will produce vaccines, drugs and even industrial

chemicals. The Bush administration cites the example of " golden

rice " , a new genetically engineered rice strain that contains an

inserted gene that produces beta-carotene. Noting that half a million

poor children around the world suffer from vitamin A deficiency and

become blind, the US trade representative Robert Zoellick argues that

to deny them this valuable food source would be immoral. The biotech

industry has been singing the praises of the " miracle " rice for

years, despite articles in scientific journals that say it simply

doesn't work. To convert beta-carotene into vitamin A the body

requires sufficient body protein and fat. Undernourished children

lack the body protein necessary for the conversion.

 

What is equally galling to Europeans is President Bush's moralising

style. When the president said that " European governments should join

- not hinder - the great cause of ending hunger in Africa " , many

European leaders were incensed. EU countries spend a larger

percentage of their gross national income on foreign aid than the US.

The US currently ranks 22nd in the percentage of its gross national

income devoted to foreign aid - the lowest of any industrial nation.

 

Bush's misguided plan to force Europeans to accept GM food is likely

to backfire. Indeed, it may well turn out to be the straw that breaks

 

the camel's back for European-US relations. The battle over GM food

is

uniting the European public and giving people a new sense of their

common European identity, while distancing them even further from

their old ally across the Atlantic.

 

The struggle over GM food may also further diminish the already

weakened status of the WTO. Even if the organisation eventually sides

with the US and forces the EU to introduce GM food, the victory is

likely to be pyrrhic because any WTO order to accept GM food is going

to have no effect on European farmers, consumers and the food

industry.

 

US strong-arming cannot make Europeans eat GM food. A European GM

food boycott will only expose the underlying weakness of

globalisation and the existing trade protocols that accompany it. In

the unfolding struggle between global commercial power and local

cultural resistance, the GM food fight might turn out to be the test

case that forces us to rethink the very basis of the globalisation

process.

 

Jeremy Rifkin is author of The Biotech Century and president of the

Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Misty, I sent this on to Domenici and Binagman asking them to oppose GM -

thanks for the info.

 

Deana

 

 

>mistylyn trepke <mistytrepke

>

>

>[s-A] Fwd: [soFlaVegans] Europe Not Buying US Stand on GM Foods

>Sun, 15 Jun 2003 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT)

>

>Hi everyone...

>Please do not take this as a political attack on Bush, if any political

>figure was involved in supporting GM food, and trying to force it on

>another nation, I would have posted this information...

>So other than that... comments anyone?

>Be Well,

>Misty

>http://www..com

>

>

>Bush Bullying on Biotech Backfires in Europe

>

>Bush's evangelising about food chills European hearts

>

>The fight over GM crops exposes the weaknesses of globalisation, says

>Jeremy Rifkin

>

>Monday June 2, 2003

>The Guardian

>

>http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/rifkin060203.cfm

>

>In case you thought that the Bush administration's rift with its

>European allies ended with the Iraqi military campaign, think again.

>The White House has now set its sights on something far more personal

>- the question of what kind of food Europeans should put on their

>table.

>President Bush has charged that the EU's ban on genetically modified

>food is discouraging developing countries from growing GM crops for

>export and resulting in increased hunger and poverty in the world's

>poorest nations. His remarks, made just days before the G8 meeting in

>Evian, have further chilled US-European relations.

>

>Last month, the US government launched a formal legal challenge at

>the World Trade Organisation to force the EU to lift its " de facto

>moratorium " on the sale of GM seeds and food in Europe. The EU has

>countered that there is no moratorium in place and points out that in

>the past year it has approved two applications for imports of GM

>seeds.

>Regardless, the new thrust by President Bush is likely to force

>another confrontation between the two superpowers - one whose

>long-term impact could be even more serious than the breach over

>Iraq.

>

>For most Europeans, GM food is anathema. Although Europeans are

>worried about the potentially harmful environmental and health

>consequences, they are equally concerned about the cultural

>consequences. While Americans long ago accepted a corporate-driven

>fast food culture, in Europe food and culture are deeply entwined.

>Every region boasts its own culinary traditions and touts its local

>produce.

>

>In a world of globalising forces, increasingly controlled by

>corporate behemoths and bureaucratic regulatory regimes, the last

>vestige of cultural identity most Europeans feel they have some

>control over is their choice of food. That is why every fidyl public

>opinion poll conducted in Europe, including polls in the new

>candidate EU countries, show overwhelming public disapproval of GM

>food.

>

>Global food companies doing business in Europe, such as McDonald's,

>Burger King and Coca-Cola, have responded to the public's aversion by

>promising to keep their products free of genetically modified traits.

>

>By forcing the issue, the Bush administration is stirring up a

>hornet's nest of public anger and resentment.

>

>The White House has made a bad situation worse by suggesting that

>European opposition to GM food is tantamount to imposing a death

>sentence on millions of starving people in the third world. Denying

>poor farmers in developing countries a European market for GM food,

>says the White House, gives them no choice but to grow non-GM food

>and lose the commercial advantages that go hand-in-hand with GM food

>crops.

>President Bush's remarks on the many benefits of GM food appear more

>like a public relations release than a reasoned political argument.

>

>Hunger in the third world is a complex phenomenon not likely to be

>reversed by the introduction of GM crops. First, 80% of

>undernourished children in the developing world live in countries

>with food surpluses.

>The hunger problem has more to do with the wayarable land is

>utilised.

>

>Today, 21% of the food grown in the developing world is destined for

>animal consumption. In many developing countries, more than a third

>of the grain is now being grown for livestock. The animals, in turn,

>will be eaten by the world's wealthiest consumers in the northern

>industrial countries. The result is that the world's richest

>consumers eat a diet high in animal protein, while the poorest people

>on earth are left with little land to grow food grain for their own

>families. And, even the land that is available is often owned by

>global agribusiness interests, further aggravating the plight of the

>rural poor. The introduction of GM food crops does nothing to change

>this fundamental reality.

>

>Second, President Bush talks about the cost savings of planting GM

>food crops. What he conveniently ignores is that GM seeds are more

>expensive than conventional seeds and, because they are patented,

>farmers cannot save the new seeds for planting during the next

>growing season because those seeds belong to the biotech companies.

>By exercising intellectual property control over the genetic traits

>of the world's major food crops, companies such as Monsanto stand to

>make huge profits while the world's poorest farmers become

>increasingly marginalised.

>

>Third, the White House alludes to the new generation of crops with

>genes whose proteins will produce vaccines, drugs and even industrial

>chemicals. The Bush administration cites the example of " golden

>rice " , a new genetically engineered rice strain that contains an

>inserted gene that produces beta-carotene. Noting that half a million

>poor children around the world suffer from vitamin A deficiency and

>become blind, the US trade representative Robert Zoellick argues that

>to deny them this valuable food source would be immoral. The biotech

>industry has been singing the praises of the " miracle " rice for

>years, despite articles in scientific journals that say it simply

>doesn't work. To convert beta-carotene into vitamin A the body

>requires sufficient body protein and fat. Undernourished children

>lack the body protein necessary for the conversion.

>

>What is equally galling to Europeans is President Bush's moralising

>style. When the president said that " European governments should join

>- not hinder - the great cause of ending hunger in Africa " , many

>European leaders were incensed. EU countries spend a larger

>percentage of their gross national income on foreign aid than the US.

>The US currently ranks 22nd in the percentage of its gross national

>income devoted to foreign aid - the lowest of any industrial nation.

>

>Bush's misguided plan to force Europeans to accept GM food is likely

>to backfire. Indeed, it may well turn out to be the straw that breaks

>

>the camel's back for European-US relations. The battle over GM food

>is

>uniting the European public and giving people a new sense of their

>common European identity, while distancing them even further from

>their old ally across the Atlantic.

>

>The struggle over GM food may also further diminish the already

>weakened status of the WTO. Even if the organisation eventually sides

>with the US and forces the EU to introduce GM food, the victory is

>likely to be pyrrhic because any WTO order to accept GM food is going

>to have no effect on European farmers, consumers and the food

>industry.

>

>US strong-arming cannot make Europeans eat GM food. A European GM

>food boycott will only expose the underlying weakness of

>globalisation and the existing trade protocols that accompany it. In

>the unfolding struggle between global commercial power and local

>cultural resistance, the GM food fight might turn out to be the test

>case that forces us to rethink the very basis of the globalisation

>process.

>

>Jeremy Rifkin is author of The Biotech Century and president of the

>Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

>

>