fw: ACTION ALERT + EU passes new labeling legislation

[Guest guest]

Please send an e-mail to your House Representative and

follow that up with a form letter. Letters mailed have much

more impact than e-mail.

 

...............

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Representative Dennis Kucinich will soon introduce the Genetically

Engineered Food Right to Know Act of 2003 before the U.S. House of

Representatives. The food labeling legislation is one of six bills that

are designed to effectively regulate genetically engineered food that

Representative Kucinich is preparing to introduce.

 

If you go to the following web page you can send an instant e-mail to

your House Representative asking him or her to co-sponsor these bills:

http://www.thecampaign.org/alert-house.php

 

You are also encouraged to print out our form letter and mail it to your

House Representative. Letters sent by U.S. mail get much more attention

than e-mail. We suggest you both e-mail and send a letter by U.S. mail

to your House Representative for maximum impact.

 

EU PASSES LABELING LEGISLATION

 

On July 2nd, the European Union (EU) Parliament voted to approve the

tough new labeling legislation on genetically engineered foods. Since

1998, the EU has had labeling requirements on some genetically

engineered corn and soy products. In 1998 they also enacted a moratorium

that stopped any new genetically engineered foods from being approved

for sale in the 15 EU nations.

 

The new EU labeling laws will be very comprehensive. With implementation

of their labeling law, it is expected that the moratorium will be

discontinued. The next step is that the labeling legislation must be

approved by the European Council of Ministers. That is likely to happen

later this month. If approved, it will go into effect in September and

compliance will be required within six months.

 

If you would like to read a 27-page report on the new EU regulations, go

to the following web page:

http://www.thecampaign.org/euregs070103.pdf

 

Posted below are two articles that discuss the new EU labeling laws. The

first article from the New York Times is titled " Europe Acts to Require

Labeling of Genetically Altered Food. " The second article from

Associated Press is titled " Labels for genetically modified food are a

political hot potato in the U.S. " and gives the U.S. perspective on the

new EU legislation.

 

STRATEGY FOR PASSING U.S. LABELING LEGISLATION

 

Now that the Europeans have their new mandatory labeling legislation, it

is time for us to get ours passed in the United States. Polls consistently

show that the vast majority of U.S. citizens -- 80 to 93 percent -- want

mandatory labeling on genetically engineered foods. Our job is to get

that message heard by our elected officials in Washington, DC.

 

As you know, members of the U.S. Congress are elected by the citizens

of their legislative districts and states. Since we elect them, they are

supposed to primarily represent us, not the special interests of large

corporations. However, if members of Congress do not hear from the

people who elect them, they will often listen to corporate interests

that frequently provide large donations to their campaigns for re-election.

 

The good news is that if voters let their opinions be heard, most

members of Congress will go along with their desires.

 

THE NUMBER ONE REASON WE HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON

WHY THEY HAVE NOT SUPPORTED LABELING LEGISLATION ON GENETICALLY

ENGINEERED FOODS IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO SUPPORT IT

BY ENOUGH VOTERS IN THEIR DISTRICT OR STATE.

 

So it is essential to let our voices be heard. The best way to do that

is to send a letter by the U.S. Postal Service. Yes, a letter sent by

U.S. mail has the most impact. Personal letters are best, but form

letters are a very effective way to communicate. Plus, by asking people

to sign form letters, you can quickly get many others to communicate

their desire for labeling. Most people simply won't take the time to

write a personal letter. But, if asked, they will sign their name and

fill-in a convenient form letter.

 

E-mails are quick and simple, but they do not nearly have the impact of

mailed letters. Sending e-mail to your members of Congress is better

than no communication at all, but letters are still a far superior

method to get the attention of our elected officials.

 

Each one of you reading this News Update has the ability to generate

dozens or even hundreds of letters to members of Congress by circulating

form letters to your friends and associates. Your active participation

in getting those letters sent to Congress can make the difference

between success and failure. Having strong feelings on an issue is good,

but grassroots activism is not a spectator event -- it requires active

participation to be truly effective.

 

This will be the first time the labeling legislation has been introduced

early in a Congressional session. We have about 15 months to get it

passed in this 108th Congress. Plus, 2004 is an election year which

provides some great advantages. Of significant impact is the fact that

Representative Dennis Kucinich is running for president:

http://www.kucinich.us

 

Representative Kucinich's strong position on labeling and regulating

genetically engineered foods provides an excellent opportunity to get

this issue discussed in the upcoming election debates. Plus, the debate

over genetically engineered foods is a major trade issue since the

United States has filed a World Trade Organization (WTO) case against

the European Union.

 

The Campaign will soon be sending out questionnaires to all the

presidential candidates asking their positions on the issue of

genetically engineered foods. We will inform you of the responses we

receive and post them on our web site.

 

Please take part in the current ACTION ALERT by sending both an e-mail

and letter to your House Representative. Thanks!

http://www.thecampaign.org/alert-house.php

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

***************************************************************

 

Europe Acts to Require Labeling of Genetically Altered Food

 

The New York Times

By Lizette Alvarez

 

LONDON, July 2 - The European Parliament approved legislation today to

require strict labels for food and feed made with genetically altered

ingredients, a move that was hailed by environmentalists but pilloried

by American farmers.

 

Intended to better inform wary European consumers, the legislation would

require supermarkets to label all food containing more than 0.9 percent

of a genetically modified organism. So, for example, a cookie made with

genetically modified corn oil would carry a label that states: " This

product contains a genetically modified organism. "

 

The legislation also ensures that genetically modified (or G.M., as they

are called here) foodstuffs like grains will be traced from the moment

of their inception to their arrival in the European Union through the

processing stage and into the supermarket.

 

" This should give consumers greater confidence, " said David Byrne, the

European commissioner for health and consumer protection.

 

The new laws are expected to receive final approval by the European

Union's 15 member states this fall. They would not take effect until

early next year.

 

The Bush administration criticized the legislation today, saying it

would be burdensome for food producers, could prejudice consumers

against genetically modified food and become a barrier to free trade.

 

" The European Union's practice may lead other countries to block trade

by imposing detailed information, traceability and labeling requirements

and prompt a host of new nontariff barriers just at a time we are trying

to stimulate world trade, " Richard Mills, the spokesman for the United

States Trade Representatives, said in a statement released today.

 

Genetically modified foods, which are common in the United States, are

passionately opposed by many Europeans, who call them " Frankenfoods " and

fear they may pose long-term health and environmental risks. These crops

have been biologically altered to build in a number of desirable

characteristics, from insect resistance to faster growth to greater

sugar retention.

 

European countries permitted the sale of some mutated crops, like soya,

in the 1990's, and those are still found in European food. But five

years ago, fueled by concerns from environmental groups, seven European

countries, including France and Italy, instituted an unofficial ban on

the sale of any new genetically altered crops.

 

The Bush administration, which views the moratorium as an illegal trade

tactic, filed the equivalent of a lawsuit with the World Trade

Organization in May.

 

President Bush heightened tensions over the issue by blaming Europe's

food policy for worsening Africa's hunger crisis. Many African

countries, fearing the loss of markets in Europe, are reluctant to plant

genetically modified crops that could otherwise ease famine, the Bush

administration maintains.

 

The vote on the legislation was framed by commissioners and politicians

as a crucial step in lifting the self-imposed moratorium. But in

practical terms, American farmers and European environmentalists both

agree that the new laws will not change much. In fact, American farmers

say they may make things worse.

 

" It's not going to lead to an increase in agricultural trade between the

U.S. and Europe, " said Hayden Milberg, a trade specialist for the

National Corn Growers Association, who estimated that American corn

farmers lose $300 million a year because of the moratorium. " It will

actually hurt trade. "

 

The labeling restrictions, he said, would require separating genetically

modified corn from regular corn and keeping records to prove it, which

would be prohibitively expensive. " There has to be a guarantee on a

piece of paper, " he said. " You have to show which farm it came from. "

 

Once the food reaches the supermarket, it would carry a tag or label to

identify it as genetically modified, a probable deterrent to European

buyers. Many European supermarkets no longer sell foods that have been

genetically modified.

 

Genetically modified food has been found to be safe in many scientific

studies. But environmentalists argue that there is no evidence proving

the altered foods' long-term safety. And they worry that pollen from

genetically modified crops will spread to other crops.

 

The legislation allows the 15 European Union countries to set their own

rules to prevent genetically altered seeds from blowing onto the fields

of conventional or organic producers.

 

***************************************************************

 

Labels for genetically modified food are a political hot potato in the

U.S.

 

BY PAUL ELIAS

Associated Press

 

Sat, Jul. 05, 2003

 

WASHINGTON - What's in a name? Deep political, economic and cultural

concerns, at least when it comes to labeling food made with genetically

modified ingredients.

 

In fact, it is such a tempestuous topic that organizers of the world's

largest biotechnology conference scrubbed a Canadian proposal to have a

panel discuss labeling during last week's gathering here.

 

But that was only a prelude to Wednesday's vote by the European

Parliament to require strict labeling as a condition of the European

Union dropping its five-year ban of genetically modified food. Rather

than ease trade tensions with the United States, that stipulation is

expected to exacerbate them.

 

For the U.S. biotech industry, the labeling requirements represent a de

facto continued European ban on genetically modified products.

 

Biotechnology's vocal critics readily agree. They think European

consumers will reject labeled products and hope to also bring mandatory

labeling to the United States, which has so far resisted such

legislation at all levels of government.

 

''I think the European action marks the beginning of the end for

agricultural biotechnology,'' said longtime critic and activist Jeremy

Rifkin.

 

The industry argues that Europe's stand is based more on internal

politics than science. It maintains that biotechnology products are safe

and better for the environment than traditional crops and will someday

even improve human health.

 

Under the European rules, which still must be ratified by member

countries, all products including animal feed, vegetable oils, seeds and

byproducts containing more than 0.9 percent genetically altered material

must carry this label: ``This product is produced from GMOs.''

 

Companies using engineered ingredients must trace each altered product

from its point of origin to the supermarket shelf.

 

''It's impractical,'' said Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industry

Organization, or BIO. ``It will be impossible to monitor, hugely

burdensome and expensive. Rather than facilitating consumer choice, it's

more likely to drive food producers to avoid using genetically improved

ingredients.''

 

U.S. soy and corn farmers have been particularly hard hit by the EU's

aversion to biotechnology crops.

 

Eighty percent of U.S. soy crops are engineered to withstand the

spraying of a popular weed killer, and 40 percent of corn crops are

engineered with a bacterium's genes to kill pests.

 

Soy exports to the European Union have fallen from $2.3 billion annually

in 1997, the year before the biotech moratorium, to half that last year.

U.S. corn exports fell from $191 million in 1997 to less than $2 million

last year.

 

There is a consensus among food and biotechnology companies that any

genetically modified food label anywhere will deter consumers. Already,

most large food makers don't use genetically modified ingredients in

their European goods. Biotechnology companies fear the same thing could

happen in the world's largest market if labeling is ever mandated in the

United States.

 

''It's a black label,'' said Stephanie Childs of the Grocery

Manufacturers of America. ''We have to respond to the market demand.''

So her organization has lobbied hard against mandatory labeling.

 

Last year, the biotech and grocery industries spent a combined $5

million to defeat an Oregon ballot measure that would require mandatory

labeling in that state.

 

At least two proposed laws mandating labels failed on Capitol Hill since

2000. Another bill will be introduced this month [edited from original

article for accuracy] by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohioan seeking the

Democratic presidential nomination.

 

The GMA, which represents the world's largest food makers, and the BIO

say they support voluntary labeling, which is the Food and Drug

Administration's current position.

 

But not a single company is known to label its products, though an

estimated 70 percent of processed food in the United States contains

genetically modified ingredients.

 

Organic companies have found a growing niche labeling their food as free

from genetically modified ingredients, but even they face some trouble

in European markets skeptical of all U.S. imports.

 

At BIO's annual convention, 16,000 international biotechnology

professionals heard some 200 panel discussions on topics ranging from

gene therapy to plant-made pharmaceuticals. But not an official word on

labeling.

 

Giddings said the labeling panel simply failed to make the final cut for

the busy four-day conference.

 

''Four out of five proposed panels got the ax for one reason or

another,'' Giddings said. ``It didn't clear our threshold.''

 

But the Canadian regulators organizing the labeling panel said BIO

yanked it well after they had begun the planning. They said indications

were that BIO was pressed to skip the subject by a conference organizing

committee of food and biotech executives.

 

One of the panelists who had been lined up, Gregory Jaffe of the Center

for Science in the Public Interest, blamed the food industry.

 

''BIO and its food industry partners felt it was too controversial a

topic to have an open discussion about,'' Jaffe said.

 

***************************************************************

 

If you would like to comment on this News Update, you can do so at the

forum section of our web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/forums

 

***************************************************************

[Guest guest]

Let's make this guy President!!!

 

>Please send an e-mail to your House Representative and

>follow that up with a form letter. Letters mailed have much

>more impact than e-mail.

>

>..............

>News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

>----

>

>Dear News Update Subscribers,

>

>Representative Dennis Kucinich will soon introduce the Genetically

>Engineered Food Right to Know Act of 2003 before the U.S. House of

>Representatives. The food labeling legislation is one of six bills that

>are designed to effectively regulate genetically engineered food that

>Representative Kucinich is preparing to introduce.

 

 

--

neil <http://www.sumeria.net/>

" Can a Bush - born on third base but thinking he hit a triple -

ever really understand the problems of the guys in the bleachers? "

-- Maureen Dowd, New York Times Columnist

[Guest guest]

gettingwell , John Draper <jdrape@l...> wrote:

 

 

Please send an e-mail to your House Representative and

follow that up with a form letter. Letters mailed have much

more impact than e-mail.

 

...............

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Representative Dennis Kucinich will soon introduce the Genetically

Engineered Food Right to Know Act of 2003 before the U.S. House of

Representatives. The food labeling legislation is one of six bills

that

are designed to effectively regulate genetically engineered food that

Representative Kucinich is preparing to introduce.

 

If you go to the following web page you can send an instant e-mail to

your House Representative asking him or her to co-sponsor these bills:

http://www.thecampaign.org/alert-house.php

 

You are also encouraged to print out our form letter and mail it to

your

House Representative. Letters sent by U.S. mail get much more

attention

than e-mail. We suggest you both e-mail and send a letter by U.S. mail

to your House Representative for maximum impact.

 

EU PASSES LABELING LEGISLATION

 

On July 2nd, the European Union (EU) Parliament voted to approve the

tough new labeling legislation on genetically engineered foods. Since

1998, the EU has had labeling requirements on some genetically

engineered corn and soy products. In 1998 they also enacted a

moratorium

that stopped any new genetically engineered foods from being approved

for sale in the 15 EU nations.

 

The new EU labeling laws will be very comprehensive. With

implementation

of their labeling law, it is expected that the moratorium will be

discontinued. The next step is that the labeling legislation must be

approved by the European Council of Ministers. That is likely to

happen

later this month. If approved, it will go into effect in September and

compliance will be required within six months.

 

If you would like to read a 27-page report on the new EU regulations,

go

to the following web page:

http://www.thecampaign.org/euregs070103.pdf

 

Posted below are two articles that discuss the new EU labeling laws.

The

first article from the New York Times is titled " Europe Acts to

Require

Labeling of Genetically Altered Food. " The second article from

Associated Press is titled " Labels for genetically modified food are a

political hot potato in the U.S. " and gives the U.S. perspective on

the

new EU legislation.

 

STRATEGY FOR PASSING U.S. LABELING LEGISLATION

 

Now that the Europeans have their new mandatory labeling legislation,

it

is time for us to get ours passed in the United States. Polls

consistently

show that the vast majority of U.S. citizens -- 80 to 93 percent --

want

mandatory labeling on genetically engineered foods. Our job is to get

that message heard by our elected officials in Washington, DC.

 

As you know, members of the U.S. Congress are elected by the citizens

of their legislative districts and states. Since we elect them, they

are

supposed to primarily represent us, not the special interests of large

corporations. However, if members of Congress do not hear from the

people who elect them, they will often listen to corporate interests

that frequently provide large donations to their campaigns for re-

election.

 

The good news is that if voters let their opinions be heard, most

members of Congress will go along with their desires.

 

THE NUMBER ONE REASON WE HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON

WHY THEY HAVE NOT SUPPORTED LABELING LEGISLATION ON GENETICALLY

ENGINEERED FOODS IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO SUPPORT IT

BY ENOUGH VOTERS IN THEIR DISTRICT OR STATE.

 

So it is essential to let our voices be heard. The best way to do that

is to send a letter by the U.S. Postal Service. Yes, a letter sent by

U.S. mail has the most impact. Personal letters are best, but form

letters are a very effective way to communicate. Plus, by asking

people

to sign form letters, you can quickly get many others to communicate

their desire for labeling. Most people simply won't take the time to

write a personal letter. But, if asked, they will sign their name and

fill-in a convenient form letter.

 

E-mails are quick and simple, but they do not nearly have the impact

of

mailed letters. Sending e-mail to your members of Congress is better

than no communication at all, but letters are still a far superior

method to get the attention of our elected officials.

 

Each one of you reading this News Update has the ability to generate

dozens or even hundreds of letters to members of Congress by

circulating

form letters to your friends and associates. Your active participation

in getting those letters sent to Congress can make the difference

between success and failure. Having strong feelings on an issue is

good,

but grassroots activism is not a spectator event -- it requires active

participation to be truly effective.

 

This will be the first time the labeling legislation has been

introduced

early in a Congressional session. We have about 15 months to get it

passed in this 108th Congress. Plus, 2004 is an election year which

provides some great advantages. Of significant impact is the fact that

Representative Dennis Kucinich is running for president:

http://www.kucinich.us

 

Representative Kucinich's strong position on labeling and regulating

genetically engineered foods provides an excellent opportunity to get

this issue discussed in the upcoming election debates. Plus, the

debate

over genetically engineered foods is a major trade issue since the

United States has filed a World Trade Organization (WTO) case against

the European Union.

 

The Campaign will soon be sending out questionnaires to all the

presidential candidates asking their positions on the issue of

genetically engineered foods. We will inform you of the responses we

receive and post them on our web site.

 

Please take part in the current ACTION ALERT by sending both an e-mail

and letter to your House Representative. Thanks!

http://www.thecampaign.org/alert-house.php

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label@t...

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

***************************************************************

 

Europe Acts to Require Labeling of Genetically Altered Food

 

The New York Times

By Lizette Alvarez

 

LONDON, July 2 - The European Parliament approved legislation today to

require strict labels for food and feed made with genetically altered

ingredients, a move that was hailed by environmentalists but pilloried

by American farmers.

 

Intended to better inform wary European consumers, the legislation

would

require supermarkets to label all food containing more than 0.9

percent

of a genetically modified organism. So, for example, a cookie made

with

genetically modified corn oil would carry a label that states: " This

product contains a genetically modified organism. "

 

The legislation also ensures that genetically modified (or G.M., as

they

are called here) foodstuffs like grains will be traced from the moment

of their inception to their arrival in the European Union through the

processing stage and into the supermarket.

 

" This should give consumers greater confidence, " said David Byrne, the

European commissioner for health and consumer protection.

 

The new laws are expected to receive final approval by the European

Union's 15 member states this fall. They would not take effect until

early next year.

 

The Bush administration criticized the legislation today, saying it

would be burdensome for food producers, could prejudice consumers

against genetically modified food and become a barrier to free trade.

 

" The European Union's practice may lead other countries to block trade

by imposing detailed information, traceability and labeling

requirements

and prompt a host of new nontariff barriers just at a time we are

trying

to stimulate world trade, " Richard Mills, the spokesman for the United

States Trade Representatives, said in a statement released today.

 

Genetically modified foods, which are common in the United States, are

passionately opposed by many Europeans, who call them " Frankenfoods "

and

fear they may pose long-term health and environmental risks. These

crops

have been biologically altered to build in a number of desirable

characteristics, from insect resistance to faster growth to greater

sugar retention.

 

European countries permitted the sale of some mutated crops, like

soya,

in the 1990's, and those are still found in European food. But five

years ago, fueled by concerns from environmental groups, seven

European

countries, including France and Italy, instituted an unofficial ban on

the sale of any new genetically altered crops.

 

The Bush administration, which views the moratorium as an illegal

trade

tactic, filed the equivalent of a lawsuit with the World Trade

Organization in May.

 

President Bush heightened tensions over the issue by blaming Europe's

food policy for worsening Africa's hunger crisis. Many African

countries, fearing the loss of markets in Europe, are reluctant to

plant

genetically modified crops that could otherwise ease famine, the Bush

administration maintains.

 

The vote on the legislation was framed by commissioners and

politicians

as a crucial step in lifting the self-imposed moratorium. But in

practical terms, American farmers and European environmentalists both

agree that the new laws will not change much. In fact, American

farmers

say they may make things worse.

 

" It's not going to lead to an increase in agricultural trade between

the

U.S. and Europe, " said Hayden Milberg, a trade specialist for the

National Corn Growers Association, who estimated that American corn

farmers lose $300 million a year because of the moratorium. " It will

actually hurt trade. "

 

The labeling restrictions, he said, would require separating

genetically

modified corn from regular corn and keeping records to prove it, which

would be prohibitively expensive. " There has to be a guarantee on a

piece of paper, " he said. " You have to show which farm it came from. "

 

Once the food reaches the supermarket, it would carry a tag or label

to

identify it as genetically modified, a probable deterrent to European

buyers. Many European supermarkets no longer sell foods that have been

genetically modified.

 

Genetically modified food has been found to be safe in many scientific

studies. But environmentalists argue that there is no evidence proving

the altered foods' long-term safety. And they worry that pollen from

genetically modified crops will spread to other crops.

 

The legislation allows the 15 European Union countries to set their

own

rules to prevent genetically altered seeds from blowing onto the

fields

of conventional or organic producers.

 

***************************************************************

 

Labels for genetically modified food are a political hot potato in the

U.S.

 

BY PAUL ELIAS

Associated Press

 

Sat, Jul. 05, 2003

 

WASHINGTON - What's in a name? Deep political, economic and cultural

concerns, at least when it comes to labeling food made with

genetically

modified ingredients.

 

In fact, it is such a tempestuous topic that organizers of the world's

largest biotechnology conference scrubbed a Canadian proposal to have

a

panel discuss labeling during last week's gathering here.

 

But that was only a prelude to Wednesday's vote by the European

Parliament to require strict labeling as a condition of the European

Union dropping its five-year ban of genetically modified food. Rather

than ease trade tensions with the United States, that stipulation is

expected to exacerbate them.

 

For the U.S. biotech industry, the labeling requirements represent a

de

facto continued European ban on genetically modified products.

 

Biotechnology's vocal critics readily agree. They think European

consumers will reject labeled products and hope to also bring

mandatory

labeling to the United States, which has so far resisted such

legislation at all levels of government.

 

''I think the European action marks the beginning of the end for

agricultural biotechnology,'' said longtime critic and activist Jeremy

Rifkin.

 

The industry argues that Europe's stand is based more on internal

politics than science. It maintains that biotechnology products are

safe

and better for the environment than traditional crops and will someday

even improve human health.

 

Under the European rules, which still must be ratified by member

countries, all products including animal feed, vegetable oils, seeds

and

byproducts containing more than 0.9 percent genetically altered

material

must carry this label: ``This product is produced from GMOs.''

 

Companies using engineered ingredients must trace each altered product

from its point of origin to the supermarket shelf.

 

''It's impractical,'' said Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industry

Organization, or BIO. ``It will be impossible to monitor, hugely

burdensome and expensive. Rather than facilitating consumer choice,

it's

more likely to drive food producers to avoid using genetically

improved

ingredients.''

 

U.S. soy and corn farmers have been particularly hard hit by the EU's

aversion to biotechnology crops.

 

Eighty percent of U.S. soy crops are engineered to withstand the

spraying of a popular weed killer, and 40 percent of corn crops are

engineered with a bacterium's genes to kill pests.

 

Soy exports to the European Union have fallen from $2.3 billion

annually

in 1997, the year before the biotech moratorium, to half that last

year.

U.S. corn exports fell from $191 million in 1997 to less than $2

million

last year.

 

There is a consensus among food and biotechnology companies that any

genetically modified food label anywhere will deter consumers.

Already,

most large food makers don't use genetically modified ingredients in

their European goods. Biotechnology companies fear the same thing

could

happen in the world's largest market if labeling is ever mandated in

the

United States.

 

''It's a black label,'' said Stephanie Childs of the Grocery

Manufacturers of America. ''We have to respond to the market demand.''

So her organization has lobbied hard against mandatory labeling.

 

Last year, the biotech and grocery industries spent a combined $5

million to defeat an Oregon ballot measure that would require

mandatory

labeling in that state.

 

At least two proposed laws mandating labels failed on Capitol Hill

since

2000. Another bill will be introduced this month [edited from original

article for accuracy] by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohioan seeking the

Democratic presidential nomination.

 

The GMA, which represents the world's largest food makers, and the BIO

say they support voluntary labeling, which is the Food and Drug

Administration's current position.

 

But not a single company is known to label its products, though an

estimated 70 percent of processed food in the United States contains

genetically modified ingredients.

 

Organic companies have found a growing niche labeling their food as

free

from genetically modified ingredients, but even they face some trouble

in European markets skeptical of all U.S. imports.

 

At BIO's annual convention, 16,000 international biotechnology

professionals heard some 200 panel discussions on topics ranging from

gene therapy to plant-made pharmaceuticals. But not an official word

on

labeling.

 

Giddings said the labeling panel simply failed to make the final cut

for

the busy four-day conference.

 

''Four out of five proposed panels got the ax for one reason or

another,'' Giddings said. ``It didn't clear our threshold.''

 

But the Canadian regulators organizing the labeling panel said BIO

yanked it well after they had begun the planning. They said

indications

were that BIO was pressed to skip the subject by a conference

organizing

committee of food and biotech executives.

 

One of the panelists who had been lined up, Gregory Jaffe of the

Center

for Science in the Public Interest, blamed the food industry.

 

''BIO and its food industry partners felt it was too controversial a

topic to have an open discussion about,'' Jaffe said.

 

***************************************************************

 

If you would like to comment on this News Update, you can do so at the

forum section of our web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/forums

 

***************************************************************

--- End forwarded message ---