Fwd: More GE News for Thursday, February 7, 2002

[Guest guest]

The Campaign <information wrote: The Campaign

angelprincessjo

More GE News for Thursday, February 7, 2002

Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:31:01 PST

 

More GE News From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

------

 

More GE News for Thursday, February 7, 2002

 

1) China's GMO rules seen spurring few palm oil buys

2) Jail for France's Bove over McDonald's attack

3) Pope Urges Caution on Genetics

4) Corn Growers Commend Congressional Integrity and Calls for Same From

Farm Organizations

5) NEW THREAT TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

6) Monsanto posts loss on restructuring charges

7) Consumers Evenly Divided Over Environmental Risks and Benefits Of

Genetically Modified Food and Biotechnology

8) French report sees little risk from GM sugar beet

9) Environment groups warn UK govt on gene crop sites

10) Brazil GMO ban seen in place till at least 2003

11) Italian, French farmers spurn U.S. gene crops

12) Activists block U.S. soybean shipment in Philippines

 

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

 

1) China's GMO rules seen spurring few palm oil buys

 

By Lee Chyen Yee and Lewa Pardomuan

 

SHANGHAI/KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 6 (Reuters) - China's vague rules curbing

genetically modified soybean imports are likely to spark only a moderate

rise in palm oil buying as demand still remains steady, traders said on

Wednesday.

 

As U.S. officials press China to relax its genetically modified

organisms (GMO) rules during talks in Beijing this week, traders are

watching to see if lower soybean imports would depress the country's

edible oils output, hence translating into more soyoil or palm oil

purchases.

 

The market is also eagerly waiting for China to announce huge import

quotas at low tariffs, or tariff-rate-quotas (TRQs), for farm products.

It announced guidelines for imports late last week, which took effect on

Tuesday.

 

Southeast Asian palm oil producers hope all this will translate into a

raft of purchase orders from China, but traders say their hopes may be

dashed.

 

That's because China would prefer to buy significantly more soyoil

instead of palm oil, which is unattractively priced, traders said.

 

" Soyoil will be more directly affected than palm oil by the GMO issue, "

said an oils analyst at Beijing Orient Agribusiness Consultants.

 

Malaysia palm oil futures rallied in January on expectations of

increased Chinese palm oil buying after the release of GMO rules last

month -- seen aimed at curbing soybean imports from the United States --

and the imminent release of TRQs.

 

But the huge imports of palm oil that China has committed to under World

Trade Organisation agreements may be too much for it to digest, Chinese

traders said.

 

The traders expect China to import around two million tonnes of palm oil

at the most, although it will allow 2.4 million tonnes in 2002 at low

tariffs under WTO commitments. Last year, China imported 1.4 million

tonnes of the edible oil.

 

NOT ALL QUOTAS

 

" It is too much, and I doubt China would be able to import all,

especially at current global prices, " said another oil analyst from an

agricultural information company in Shanghai.

 

" China will import around two million tonnes at most, unless prices take

a huge dip, " said the analyst.

 

Palm oil's benchmark third-month April futures closed down 21 ringgit at

1,146 ringgit a tonne ($301.58), a level which is still not low enough

for China to sharply step up its buying, Chinese traders said.

 

But some southeast Asian traders held a more positive view on Chinese

import prospects after China announced details of GMO rules in January

that require foreign firms importing GMO food to apply for safety

certificates from March 20.

 

As Chinese authorities can take up to 270 days to approve certificates,

the traders said China would have no choice but to buy palmoil while the

papers were being processed.

 

" China will crush soybeans into oil and meal. When their meal

requirement is fulfilled, they don't need to import more soybeans, " said

a Kuala Lumpur trader. " This will mean that they will need to import

more palm oil. "

 

Traders from Malaysia and Indonesia -- the world's top palm oil

producers -- are now eagerly hoping that China will unveil its TRQs

soon, but opinions differ on the timeframe.

 

Most Chinese traders said they expected it to come as soon as this week,

just before the week-long Lunar New Year holidays starting February 12,

though some traders in southeast Asia believe that they would release in

March.

 

" Even though food processing plants are closed for the Spring Festival,

China will probably still release the quotas before that, " said the

Beijing oil analyst.

 

06:14 02-06-02

 

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

 

2) Jail for France's Bove over McDonald's attack

 

By Sybille de La Hamaide

 

PARIS, Feb 6 (Reuters) - France's highest court upheld a three-month

jail term on Wednesday for Jose Bove, hero of the international

anti-globalisation movement, over his ransacking of a McDonald's

restaurant to protest U.S. trade barriers.

 

The Cour de Cassation ruling means the sheep farmer has exhausted all

means of appeal in national courts against his conviction for the 1999

assault on the site of a planned new fast-food outlet in the southern

French town of Millau.

 

Judges rejected his argument that the attack he led with a group of

other activists was " legal and necessary " civic resistance in response

to punitive U.S. taxes on Roquefort cheese and other European farm

goods.

 

Reacting to the ruling from Millau, where he and 200 supporters had

gathered on the steps of the local courthouse, Bove said he was not

surprised.

 

" I still don't consider myself guilty because we acted out of a position

of necessity, " he told Reuters by telephone.

 

" I'm not afraid of anything, not even prison...We shall continue the

struggle, " he added.

 

Separately, his lawyer told reporters in Paris he would take the case to

the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

 

Supporters of Bove, for many French a symbol of their proud food and

farming traditions, slammed the decision, saying he was being made an

example of before French national elections in three months where law

and order is a major issue.

 

" We sense a political will to suppress anti-establishment movements. It

would help many politicians to see him in jail during the election

campaign, " Bernard Moser of Bove's Confederation Paysanne movement said

outside the Paris court.

 

Bove, who has already served 19 days of the sentence, may well get some

partial reprieve because a lower court must still decide how the

sentence is applied. One possibility could be a spell in open prison.

 

Some supporters have suggested that Bove's popularity among some

sections of French voters might yet play in his favour, paving the way

for leniency.

 

Aware that there are votes to be had in France by jumping on the

anti-globalisation bandwagon, politicians have sought to play up their

credentials in this area, for example by visiting the Porto Alegre World

Social Forum in Brazil.

 

Bove is also fighting against a separate six-month jail term handed down

last December for hacking down genetically modified rice plants in a

1999 raid on a research centre. A decision on that is not expected

before the end of the year.

 

10:06 02-06-02

 

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

 

3) Pope Urges Caution on Genetics

 

..c The Associated Press

 

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope John Paul II warned Tuesday against tampering

with the ``tree of life,'' saying that some advances in genetics may be

morally unacceptable in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

John Paul's latest attack on genetic manipulation came in his annual

message for Lent, the period of fasting and penitence before Easter. It

begins on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 13.

 

``The achievements of medicine and biotechnology can sometimes lead man

to think of himself as his own creator, and to succumb to the temptation

of tampering with the `tree of life,''' the pope said.

 

John Paul said life is a gift that ``remains precious even when marked

by suffering and limitations.''

 

``It is also worth repeating here that not everything that is

technically possible is morally acceptable,'' he said.

 

AP-NY-02-05-02 1235EST

 

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

 

4) Corn Growers Commend Congressional Integrity and Calls for Same From

Farm Organizations

 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Corn Growers Association

(ACGA) has called for an expansion of the statesmanship recently

exhibited by members of the United States Senate and House of

Representatives, in light of questionable support from a large energy

corporation, to the farm sector.

 

" We commend those Senators and Representatives who have either returned

political contributions to the Enron Corporation or made donations of

those contributions to support-funds established to assist the employees

hard hit by the financial demise of the company, " said Larry Mitchell,

CEO of ACGA. " It is impressive to see such integrity in these times,

and we commend their actions. These legislators can now more

appropriately represent the voters who elected them to office. We now

call upon organizations representing farmers to exhibit similar

integrity by returning the financial donations from those corporations

who are now prosecuting farm families. "

 

Mitchell went on to explain that there are some farm organizations which

have fallen into the quagmire of accepting large cash donations from the

very corporations who are taking family farmers to court for exercising

their centuries-old right to plant the seeds which they raised. " In

order to properly represent farmers they serve, these organizations must

divest themselves from any financial gains from those who continue their

relentless persecution of family farmers, " declared Mitchell.

 

In the new age of genetic modification and seed patenting, some

companies are currently pursuing an oppressive campaign to ensure that

farmers do not plant seeds raised on their own farms without paying

substantial sums of money to those companies claiming to own an

exclusive patent on the seed's genetics. " An even worse scenario being

played out all across rural America is when the genetic material

contained in the pollen of a neighbor's crop drifts onto the crop of a

farmer who has not even planted a patented crop. When that farmer later

plants the seed from the tainted crop, these companies have the audacity

to prosecute the unsuspecting farmer. They even send hired private

detectives onto the farms at night, sometimes illegally, in order to

obtain plant tissue as a means to make their case. "

 

" We feel these companies' time and energy would be much better spent

doing what they do best, providing crop protection products, hybrids and

genetics that consumers want and farmers need, " stated Mitchell. " These

companies are, instead, making a public relations mistake by challenging

the right of farmers to plant, in the following year, seed produced from

crops they raised on their own land. "

 

" This is unjust and inexcusable, but what is even more unfair is to

allow these predatory companies to make large donations to farm

organizations in order to buy their silence, " said Mitchell. " It is

time for farm organizations to show the same integrity as those in

Congress and either return the money to those companies, or deposit it

into a legal support fund for those farmers in trouble. Whether it's

genetically modified seed, with its extra fees, technology agreements

and utility patents or the corporate concentration agenda to influence

U.S. farm and trade policy, farm and commodity groups should cease

accepting money from those agribusiness companies. How else can they

properly serve the very farmers they represent? "

 

SOURCE American Corn Growers Association

 

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

 

5) NEW THREAT TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

 

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #743 .

January 31, 2002 .

 

The survival of indigenous people, within the U.S. and across the globe,

is being directly threatened by genetic engineering (GE) of food crops.

 

In September, 2001, scientists discovered genetically engineered (GE)

corn at 15 locations in the state of Oaxaca, deep in southern Mexico, a

country that has outlawed the commercial use of all genetically

engineered crops.[1] No one knows how it got there.

 

In the U.S., genetically engineered corn has been grown commercially

since 1996 and 26 percent of all U.S. corn acreage is now genetically

engineered. The remote region of Oaxaca where the illegal GE corn was

discovered is considered the heartland of corn diversity in the world.

Scientists had hoped to keep Oaxaca's rich diversity of corn

uncontaminated by GE strains because Oaxaca retains the wealth of

genetic varieties developed during 5500 years of indigenous corn

cultivation. Scientists now say that aggressive forms of GE corn, let

loose in Oaxaca, may drive native species to extinction, causing the

loss of irreplaceable cultivars.

 

It is unclear whether the GE corn was carried deep into Mexico by birds,

or was intentionally spread there by corporations or governments

promoting GE crops.

 

All genetically engineered varieties of corn are owned and patented by

transnational corporations. The only legal way to acquire such seeds is

to purchase them from the corporation holding the patent. Such patents

are called " intellectual property " and their enforcement under

international law has been a major goal of " free trade " agreements in

recent years. The World Trade Organization (WTO) contains strict

protections for Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), and

patented forms of life, such as GE crops, are explicitly covered by

TRIPs.

 

Under WTO rules, national governments are required to protect the

intellectual property rights of corporations. In the U.S. and Canada,

farmers have complained that they have become victims of gene drift, or

genetic pollution, as GE crops have drifted across property lines,

contaminating non-GE crops with patented GE varieties. Genetic drift of

GE crops to non-GE fields has, in fact, been well documented and even

the GE corporations and their regulators in government acknowledge that

it is a serious problem. Now, however, Monsanto, a leading supplier of

GE seeds, has cleverly turned the tables on the alleged victims of

genetic pollution by suing them for stealing Monsanto's patented genes.

In the first case that came to trial, in Canada in 2001, Monsanto sued

Percy Schmeiser, an organic farmer who complained of genetic pollution.

Monsanto said that after 40 years of growing crops organically, Mr.

Schmeiser had a change of heart and decided to raise a

genetically-engineered crop by stealing Monsanto's patented genes.

Monsanto won and Schmeiser must pay. With this important victory in the

bank, Monsanto now has similar lawsuits pending against farmers in North

Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, and Louisiana.[2] Thus farmers that fall

victim to genetic pollution may find themselves sued for violating the

intellectual property rights of a corporation and be forced to

compensate the genetic polluter.

 

The purpose of patenting seeds is to prevent seed saving -- the ancient

indigenous practice of keeping seeds from this year's crop to grow next

year's crop. Farmers who purchase GE seeds sign contracts requiring --

under penalty of law -- that they not save seed from one crop to the

next. Thus farmers who employ GE seeds must purchase new seed year after

year, making them dependent upon whatever transnational corporation owns

the patent. Farmers who can't afford to buy seed each year will simply

not be allowed to grow a crop. In free-market societies, such displaced

farmers are free to move to a city where they are free to be unemployed.

 

Today's GE crops can't guarantee that farmers won't save seeds.

Corporations intent on preventing seed-saving must hire agents to travel

from farm to farm, reporting any unlicensed crops. Such monitoring is

expensive.

 

To avoid the need for monitoring, and to gain 100 percent control over

farmers, the GE corporations have developed a new technology --

terminator genes. Terminator genes prevent a crop from reproducing

itself unless certain " protector " chemicals are applied to the crop. Any

farmer using terminator seeds must buy the " protector " chemicals each

year. As terminator technology spreads around the world, it will end

indigenous agriculture, and much biodiversity as well. An estimated 1.4

billion indigenous people currently grow their own crops for

subsistence, worldwide.[3] In many instances, their land is being eyed

for corporate " development " and GE crop technology offers a legal way to

separate indigenous people from their land.

 

The ETC Group (www.etcgroup.org) of Winnipeg, Canada, revealed last week

that two of the world's largest genetic engineering firms -- DuPont and

Syngenta (formerly Astrazeneca) -- during 2001 were awarded new patents

on " terminator " seeds, engineered for sterility. In 1999, Syngenta's

(then Astrazeneca's) Research and Development Director claimed that all

work on terminator technology had ceased in 1992, but the ETC Group

found that the Director was either mistaken or dissembling: Syngenta's

latest terminator patent was applied for March 22, 1997 and awarded May

8, 2001.

 

" Terminator [technology] is a real and present danger for global food

security and biodiversity -- governments and civil society cannot afford

to let 'suicide seeds' slip beneath their radar, " said Hope Shand,

Research Director of the ETC Group.[4]

 

Despite the grim social consequences that seem likely to follow the

widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops, few scientists have

questioned the safety of the technology itself. The major GE

corporations have insisted for 15 years that their technology is

thoroughly understood, reliable, and safe, and government regulators

have agreed (or at least remained silent).

 

Now a new report, released this month, asserts that the scientific

theory underpinning the genetic engineering industry is dangerously

outdated and wrong.[5] The new report, by Dr. Barry Commoner of Queens

College, City University of New York, says, " The genetically engineered

crops now being grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose

outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic, "

the report says.

 

At present, 68 percent of U.S. soybean acreage, 26 percent of our corn

acreage, and more than 69 percent of our cotton acreage have been

genetically engineered. " [A] ny artificially altered genetic system,

given the magnitude of our ignorance, must sooner or later give rise to

unintended, potentially disastrous, consequences, " says the new report.

 

The safety assurances of the genetic engineering industry are based on

the scientific premise that one gene controls one characteristic. If

this is true, then removing a gene from one species and inserting it

into a new species will give the new species one new characteristic, no

more and no less.

 

Unfortunately the theory that a single gene controls a single

characteristic, while it may have seemed true 40 years ago, is known to

be wrong today:

 

1) Genes are composed of segments of DNA, a long molecule coiled up

within each cell's nucleus.

 

2) The 40-year old theory (developed by Francis Crick, who, with James

Watson, discovered DNA in 1953), says that DNA strictly controls the

production of RNA which in turn strictly controls the creation of

proteins which give rise to specific inherited characteristics. Because

DNA is the same in all creatures, this theory says that a gene will

produce a particular protein (and a particular characteristic) no matter

what species it finds itself in -- thus making it possible for the

genetic engineering corporations to claim that inserting genes from one

species to another will not lead to any surprises or dangerous side

effects.

 

3) It was -- of all things -- the Human Genome Project that revealed

most starkly that Crick's theory was wrong. There are about 100,000

different proteins in a human and, if Crick were right, there should be

100,000 genes to produce these proteins. However, the Human Genome

Project announced last February that humans have only about 30,000

genes. (See many articles in SCIENCE Feb. 16, 2001.) Thus there must be

something more than mere genes controlling the development of proteins

and the resulting characteristics.

 

4) Actually, scientists had known for many years (since 1981 in the case

of human genes) that after DNA creates RNA, the RNA can split into

several parts, giving rise to several different proteins and several

different characteristics. This is called " alternative splicing. " By

1989 more than 200 scientific papers had been published describing

alternative splicing.

 

5) As cells split and reproduce themselves, their DNA molecule also

reproduces itself, but sometimes errors occur in in DNA reproduction.

Special proteins repair these errors of reproduction, so genetic

inheritance is not simply a matter of genes -- it's a matter of

interaction between genes and repair proteins. Will these complex

interactions always work reliably and identically when a gene is placed

into the entirely new environment of a different species?

 

6) Proteins function as they do because of two characteristics: they

have a specific chemical (molecular) make-up, and they are physically

folded into a particular shape. The Crick theory assumes that a

particular gene always gives rise to a single protein that is chemically

identical and is identically folded. However, scientists now know that

proteins get folded in a particular way by the presence of additional

" chaperone " proteins. More protein-gene interactions.

 

7) Furthermore, during the 1980s, in searching for the causes of fatal

" mad cow " disease, scientists made the startling discovery that some

proteins can reproduce themselves without involving any DNA whatever --

an impossibility according to the Crick theory. These proteins are now

called " prions " and, as Dr. Commoner points out, they reveal that

processes far removed from the Crick theory are at work in molecular

genetics and can give rise to fatal disease.

 

Thus the basic theory underlying genetic engineering of crops is quite

wrong. Single genes are important, but they do not invariably give rise

to a single characteristic in an organism. A gene's action is modified

by alternative splicing, by proteins that repair errors in reproduction,

and by the chaperones that fold the final protein into its active shape.

In nature, such a system works reliably within a species because it has

been tested and refined for thousands of years. But when a single gene

is removed from its familiar surroundings and transplanted into an alien

species, the new host's system is likely to be " disrupted in

unspecified, imprecise, and inherently unpredictable ways, " the Commoner

report concludes. In practice these disruptions are revealed by the vast

number of failures that occur whenever a gene transplant is attempted.

 

Most ominously, the report points out, Monsanto Corporation acknowledged

in 2000 that its genetically modified soybeans contained some extra

fragments of a transferred gene. Despite this, the company announced

that it expected " no new proteins " to appear in the GE soybeans. Then

during 2001, Belgian researchers announced that the soybean's own DNA

had been scrambled during the insertion of the new gene. " The abnormal

DNA was large enough to produce a new protein, a potentially harmful

protein, " Dr. Commoner concludes.

 

Thus genetically engineered crops threaten not only the agricultural

systems and the cultural survival of all indigenous people, but also the

food security and safety of all people everywhere.

 

==========

 

[1] Carol Kaesuk Yoon, " Genetic Modification Taints Corn in Mexico, " NEW

YORK TIMES October 2, 2001, pg. unknown. Available at www.nytimes.com

for a fee.

 

[2] David R. Moeller, GMO LIABILITY THREATS FOR FARMERS (St. Paul,

Minn.: Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc., November 2001). Available in

PDF format at www.iatp.org.

 

[3] Pat Roy Mooney, THE ETC CENTURY; EROSION, TECHNOLOGICAL

TRANSFORMATION, AND CORPORATE CONCENTRATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

(Winnipeg, Canada: The ETC Group, 2001); available in PDF: http://-

www.rafi.org/documents/other_etccentury.pdf. The ETC Group (formerly

RAFI, the Rural Advancement Foundation International) can be reached at

478 River Avenue, Suite 200, Winnipeg, MB R3L 0C8 Canada; Tel: (204)

453-5259, Fax: (204) 284-7871. This report is " MUST READ " for all

activists.

 

[4] News Release: " Sterile Harvest:New Crop of Terminator Patents

Threatens Food Sovereignty, " January 31, 2002. Available in PDF:

http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/new_termpatent_jan2002.pdf [5] Barry

Commoner, " Unraveling the DNA Myth, " HARPER'S MAGAZINE (February 2002),

pgs. 39-47.

 

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

 

6) Monsanto posts loss on restructuring charges

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Monsanto Co., maker of the world's top-selling

herbicide, Tuesday reported a $104 million fourth-quarter loss as it

paid for restructuring costs and prepared for its full spinoff from

Pharmacia Corp. as a biotechnology company.

 

The St. Louis, Missouri-based company's loss of $104 million, or 40

cents a share, included some $132 million of pretax charges for

restructuring and other special items.

 

Monsanto, which was acquired by Pharmacia in March 2000 but partially

sold off just six months later, reported a loss of $52 million, or 20

cents a share, in the same period a year earlier. Shares of the company

inched higher after its earnings report, which included a forecast of a

4 percent to 6 percent rise in profits this year, similar to previous

guidance it has offered.

 

Pharmacia, based in Peapack, New Jersey, currently owns about 85 percent

of Monsanto after selling about 15 percent of the company in an initial

public offering. It plans to sell the rest late this year.

 

Monsanto makes world's top-selling herbicide, Roundup, and a host of

bioengineered seeds, but has also come under fire from critics who claim

genetically modified foods could pose risks to the environment. Its

stock rose less than 1 percent in the fourth-quarter, underperforming

the benchmark S & P 500 index (.GSPC) which rose 10.3 percent in the

period.

 

Sales for the fourth-quarter rose 4 percent to $1.21 billion, although

sales of Roundup fell.

 

Excluding special items, the company reported earnings of $21 million,

or 9 cents a share up from $3 million, or a penny a share, in the

prior-year quarter. The consensus estimate was 8 cents a share,

according to tracking firm Thomson Financial/First Call.

 

Monsanto was hurt by the troubled economy in Argentina, one of its key

markets. As a result, it said it would closely watch the situation

there, with an eye toward possible effects on its 2002 earnings forecast

and on its U.S. dollar-denominated trade receivables position of $580

million.

 

Still, the company said its first quarter earnings should be similar to

the 26 cents a share it earned in the first quarter of last year,

without items.

 

In New York Stock Exchange activity, shares were up 11 cents at $31.56.

 

14:31 02-05-02

 

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

 

7) Consumers Evenly Divided Over Environmental Risks and Benefits Of

Genetically Modified Food and Biotechnology

 

Californians More Likely to Weigh Benefits Higher Than Risks

 

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The American public is evenly

divided over whether genetically modified food and other agricultural

biotechnology products hurt or help the environment, according to a

Zogby International poll released today by the Pew Initiative on Food

and Biotechnology. Californians were more likely than the rest of the

country to weigh the benefits of the technology as greater than the

risks after being read a series of informational statements on the

topic, the poll found. It was released as part of a panel discussion

hosted by the Initiative at the Presidio/Golden Gate Club titled

" Environmental Savior or Saboteur? Debating the Impacts of Genetic

Engineering. "

 

" Despite a long and often fractious debate about the environmental risks

and benefits of biotechnology between critics and supporters, a majority

of the American public agrees with neither position, " said Michael

Rodemeyer, executive director of the Initiative. " However, in spite of

the conventional wisdom that Californians care more about the

environment than the rest of the country, the poll found that

Californians are initially evenly divided over risks and benefits, but

reacted decidedly more positive about benefits over risks when

additional information is presented to them. "

 

Prior to reading a series of informational statements about the possible

benefits and risks of biotechnology, respondents nationwide were more

likely to say that the risks of biotechnology outweighed the benefits

(40 percent to 33 percent), while 19 percent thought the benefits and

risks were about the same, and nine percent were unsure. However, after

being read a series of questions about specific environmental risks and

benefits (without specifically identifying which were risks or

benefits), respondents were exactly evenly divided, with 38 percent

saying the risks outweigh the benefits and another 38 percent saying the

benefits outweigh the risks. An additional 21 percent now said the risks

and benefits were about the same, with the number of " don't knows "

reduced to 3 percent.

 

Interestingly, Californians were evenly divided between risks and

benefits prior to hearing the informational statements (36 percent

each), and skewed higher towards the benefits once more information was

given (44 percent of Californians rated benefits higher than risks; 32

percent said risks were higher, 20 percent said they were about the same

and 5 percent were unsure). In California, opinions varied by geography,

with those living in Los Angeles and San Diego most likely to say that

the benefits outweighed the risks (44%) prior to being read the

informational statements, while pluralities of respondents in the Bay

Area and in the rest of the state were more likely to say the opposite

(43% in the Bay Area said the risks outweighed the benefits; and 38%

said the same in the rest of the state). After the statements were

read, the percentage of those in LA and San Diego who felt the benefits

outweighed the risks increased slightly, but for Bay Area residents,

those saying risks outweighed benefits dropped significantly, with a

corresponding rise in those saying the risks and the benefits are about

the same. In the rest of the state, those who say risks are more of a

concern fall slightly behind those who say the benefits are more of a

concern.

 

Consumers nationally are also generally unaware of the environmental

risks and benefits of genetic engineering, according to the poll. Only

15 percent of respondents had heard " a great deal " about the benefits

and 17 percent heard " a great deal " about the risks, with 42 percent

hearing " some " about benefits and 43 percent hearing " some " about risks.

An additional 32 percent heard " not too much " about benefits and 27

percent heard " not too much " about risks, with the remaining 10 percent

hearing nothing about benefits and 13 percent about risks. In

California, awareness was slightly lower than the rest of the country,

with 12 percent hearing a great deal about the benefits and 14 percent

about the risks, and 42 percent hearing something about benefits and 41

something about risks, or about the same as the national numbers on the

" some " awareness measure.

 

Consumers felt the most important potential environmental benefits of

genetic engineering are: creating plants to clean up toxic soils (74

percent); reducing soil erosion (73 percent); reducing fertilizer

run-off into streams and lakes (72 percent); reducing the amount of

water used to grow crops (68 percent); developing disease-resistant

varieties of trees that are threatened or endangered (67 percent);

reducing the need to log in native forests (63 percent); and reducing

the amount of chemical pesticides used (61 percent).

 

Among Californians, the numbers were similar overall: creating plants to

clean up toxic soils (also 74 percent); reducing soil erosion and

developing disease-resistant varieties of trees that are threatened or

endangered (both 71 percent); reducing fertilizer run-off into streams

and lakes (69 percent); reducing the amount of water used to grow crops

(67 percent); reducing the need to log in native forests (67 percent);

and reducing the amount of chemical pesticides used (66 percent).

 

In terms of environmental concerns, consumers ranked the possibility

that genetically modified plants, fish, or trees could contaminate

ordinary plants, fish and trees not intended to be modified as highest

(64 percent), followed by " creating superweeds " (57 percent) and

increasing the number of insects that may develop pesticide-resistance

(also 57 percent); reducing genetic diversity (49 percent) and changing

a plant, fish or tree through biotechnology so that it might harm other

species (also 49 percent). Changing the ecosystem ranked lowest of all

the risks and benefits listed, at 46 percent.

 

Californians ranked the majority of the risks as slightly less important

than the rest of the country. In California, the rankings were as

follows: the possibility that genetically modified plants, fish, or

trees could contaminate ordinary plants, fish and trees not intended to

be modified as highest (57 percent), followed by " creating superweeds "

(46 percent) and increasing the number of insects that may develop

pesticide-resistance (50 percent); and reducing genetic diversity (46

percent). Changing a plant, fish or tree through biotechnology so that

it might harm other species ranked lowest at 42 percent.

 

The list of specific environmental risks on the poll were: drifting

genes, creating " superweeds, " increasing pest resistance, affecting

non-target organisms, reducing biodiversity, or changing the ecosystem.

Benefits listed were: engineering plants to clean up toxic waste,

reducing soil erosion, reducing run-off, needing less water to grow

crops, saving endangered or threatened species, reducing the need to log

in native forests, or reducing pesticide use. Asked to rank these 13

items in terms of personal importance, the environmental benefits scored

significantly higher than any of the risks listed, with the exception of

the non-target organism issue nationally. However, among Californians,

all the benefits outranked the risks.

 

These poll results were released at a panel moderated by Margaret

Warner, senior correspondent for the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The

panel, which explored the environmental risks and benefits in the debate

over agricultural biotechnology, included: Charles Benbrook, an

environmental consultant and the former executive director of the

National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture; Martina McGloughlin, of the Biotechnology Program at the University of California;

Carl Pope, Executive Director, The Sierra Club; and Peter Raven,

president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and

recently named " Hero for the Planet " by Time Magazine.

 

The poll, a nationwide survey of 1,214 adults and an additional 407

adults in California, was conducted by Zogby International from January

14-18, 2002. The margin of error is +/- 3 percent for the nationwide

sample and +/- 5 percent for the California sample. Copies of the poll

are available at http://www.pewagbiotech.org/research/survey1-02.pdf

 

The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology is a nonprofit, nonpartisan

research project whose goal is to inform the public and policymakers on

issues about genetically modified food and agricultural biotechnology,

including its importance, as well as concerns about it and its

regulation. It is funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to

the University of Richmond.

 

SOURCE The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology

 

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

 

8) French report sees little risk from GM sugar beet

 

By Sybille de La Hamaide

 

PARIS, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Genetically modified sugar beet poses very

little risk of contaminating other crops and so can be considered safe

to grow on a wider basis, a French government advisory panel said in a

report.

 

The report said the same was not true for GM rapeseed, however, and it

recommended at least two more years of field trials to assess the risks

of genetically modified (GM) rapeseed pollen spreading to other plants.

 

The report came after France's food safety agency last year discovered

traces of GM material in several conventional crops.

 

French opponents of GMs destroyed more than 10 experimental fields last

year.

 

GM sugar beet and rapeseed can at present only be grown experimentally

in France. Tests on GM beet and rapeseed represented just over a fifth

of all French GM crop trials in 2001, according to the farm ministry.

 

The report said it appeared that GM sugar beet designed to tolerate

certain herbicides posed very little risk of contaminating conventional

crops growing nearby so long as simple safeguards were applied.

 

However, the report's authors found that the pollen and seeds of GM

rapeseed plants could spread more widely and that more tests were

needed.

 

" Large-scale experiments should be conducted on genetically modified

rapeseed in order to find management methods that will allow different

types of agriculture to coexist, " they added.

 

The panel, which only analysed beet and rapeseed, also called for an

overall debate on GM crops and their impact on the environment.

 

The French farm and environment ministries on Monday began a two-day

public debate to explain France's current GM policy.

 

GM crops are common in the United States, but France and other European

countries remain highly reluctant to sanction new genetic technology in

agriculture.

 

EU approvals of new GM crops have been suspended since 1998 when six

governments, led by France, said they would not allow any new GMOs into

the 15-nation bloc until tougher rules on testing, labelling and tracing

were adopted.

 

Companies like Monsanto Co (MON.N) and Novartis AG (NOVZn.VX) have been

waiting for years to know whether their new strains of modified maize,

soy and cotton can be sold in the EU.

 

11:16 02-04-02

 

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

 

9) Environment groups warn UK govt on gene crop sites

 

LONDON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Britain risks tainting conventional and

organic crops with gene-modified varieties via new field trial sites

which were announced on Thursday, environment groups said.

 

" If planted close to organic farms, the trial sites risk contaminating

organic crops, " the Soil Association said in a statement.

 

The trial sites detailed by Britain's farm ministry, including 27 for

rapeseed and 17 for sugar beet, are the second last of its three-year

programme to evaluate whether gene-spliced crops should be grown

commercially.

 

The government is sticking to its set separation distances, which are

designed to ensure that cross-pollination is a maximum of one percent,

even though farm minister Margaret Beckett had said that there was a

case for wider distances.

 

" The separation distance around these crop trials are pathetic. If they

go ahead, neighbouring conventional and organic crops within a five

kilometre radius will be at risk of GM contamination, " Friends of the

Earth said.

 

" The government knows the separation distances are inadequate but has

recklessly failed to act. "

 

When the trial site plans were first proposed this month, the government

also asked its independent biotechnology advisers to draw up plans for a

public debate, particularly to measure opinion on contamination of

non-GM crops with modified material.

 

The Policy Commission on Food and Farming, which published a radical

blueprint on the future of English farming this week, said that " the

public wants a choice, including the choice to have GM-free food, while

some producers, such as organic farmers, depend on being able to

guarantee that their products are GM free. "

 

" As things stand the public doubts whether that can be delivered, if a

spread of GM crops is approved, " it added.

 

09:45 01-31-02

 

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

 

10) Brazil GMO ban seen in place till at least 2003

 

By Reese Ewing

 

SAO PAULO, Brazil (Reuters) - Brazil's ban on genetically modified

organisms should stand until at least 2003, despite government efforts

to lift it sooner, say analysts and leaders in the farm industry.

 

Big money is at stake for bioscience-seed companies like Monsanto Co,

the only company so far to seek approval to sell its trademark Roundup

Ready soy in the vast GMO-free country, the world's No. 2 soy grower and

exporter.

 

Lack of consensus among the three branches of government, legal red tape

on food labeling, the upcoming presidential election and the resistance

to GMOs by nongovernmental groups will be difficult obstacles to

overcome.

 

" This is an election year and there are many unresolved problems. It

will be hard to lift the ban in 2002. The October 2003 (Brazil's summer

crop) planting is a more likely candidate, " president of Brazil's

Association of Vegetable Oils Industries (Abiove) Carlo Lovatelli told

Reuters.

 

Two-thirds Brazil's No. 3 soy state Rio Grande do Sul is already

estimated to be illegally planted with GMO soy, said the state seed

association. Farmers are attracted by savings offered by GMO crops which

needs less application of herbicides and less fuel to power machinery

for routine field work.

 

Nongovernmental organizations, however, still see Brazil as sacred soil

because it is the last agricultural producer and exporter of its scale

to forbid the sale of bioengineered products.

 

Environmentalists and consumer groups have locked biotechnology

companies out of Latin America's largest farming market since 1999 when

Greenpeace and other NGOs launched the National Campaign for a GMO-Free

Brazil and halted the sale of GMOs through the local courts.

 

" Consumers have a right to know clearly what they eat and there is no

traceability system set up in Brazil that would guarantee that at this

point, " said Mariana Paoli, Greenpeace's GMO specialist in Brazil.

 

Legal battles have so far gone in favor of Greenpeace and local consumer

watchdog IDEC with courts upholding their demands for health and

five-year environmental impact studies from Monsanto and clear consumer

labeling standards from the government before GMO sales are legalized.

 

GOVERNMENT INTO THE BREACH AGAIN

 

The next stage of the battle is likely to unfold in February when

Congress and the federal courts return from recess.

 

Despite the government decree calling for consumer labeling for packaged

foods of over 4 percent GMO, Congress is debating more stringent

labeling regulations in a wide reaching biotechnology bill that is due

to leave committee for vote.

 

The Federal Regional Court is also expected to return next month to

review an earlier injunction that has stopped the government regulatory

agency on biotechnology (CTNBio) from allowing GMO sales in Brazil,

specifically Monsantos RR soy.

 

President Fernando Henrique Cardoso recently convened his cabinet to set

the record straight: the administration would be undivided on the issue

of GMOs and the government would step up its efforts to break the legal

deadlock and liberate GMOs.

 

But almost a year ago, one of the government's main proponents of GMOs,

Agriculture Minister Pratini de Moraes, had to recant after saying the

ban on GMO sales would be ended in a month. Now a year later, the

situation looks no less complicated.

 

EXPERTS SAY GMO WILL BE LEGALIZED SOONER OR LATER

 

Despite the mountain of obstacles, nearly all analysts and leaders in

the farm sector say the legalization of GMOs in Brazil is just a matter

of time.

 

" We will eventually go ahead with GMOs. Perhaps not this year but the

longer it takes the more our farmers will lose market share to

competitors in Argentina and the United States, " said Flavio Franca,

chief soy analyst at Safras e Mercado agricultural consultants.

 

Brazil is the world's No. 2 producer and exporter of soy after the

United States and ahead of Argentina, both of whom plant GMO soy.

 

Soybeans are Brazil's No. 1 agricultural export money earner. Most are

shipped to Europe, where health conscious consumers have been the most

resistant to GMOs calling them " Frankenstein Foods " .

 

" The big beneficiary of Brazil's ban on GMO has been the European

consumer who can purchase GMO-free soy here without paying the premium

that the United States and Argentina get when they sell certified

GMO-free grain, " Franca said.

 

But GMO foods have been widely consumed for about five years and grains

traders say the sale of certified conventional grains on the world

market is now much smaller than the sales of GMO grains.

 

" The big loser is the Brazilian farmer who lacks access to biotechnology

as a way to cut costs and who is losing competitiveness in the face of

North American and principally Argentine producers, " said Franca.

 

13:20 01-31-02

 

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

 

11) Italian, French farmers spurn U.S. gene crops

 

By David Brough

 

ROME, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Leading Italian and French farm groups called on

Friday for an EU plan to boost oilseeds production in Europe and reduce

dependence on genetically modified (GM) vegetable proteins from the

United States.

 

Italy's biggest farmers' group Coldiretti held a one-day summit with

French farm union FNSEA in Rome to seek joint proposals for reform of

the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which guarantees incomes to the

15-nation bloc's farmers.

 

" It is vital to implement a 'protein plan' that would allow Europe to

feed its livestock safely, without contamination from genetically

modified organisms (GMOs), " Coldiretti said in a statement.

 

" The EU should not allow itself to continue to import from the United

States vegetable proteins containing GMOs, " it added.

 

Coldiretti and FNSEA oppose the commercial planting of GM seeds and say

the EU needs to boost vegetable protein production to compensate for an

increased shortfall in Europe following a ban on the use of

meat-and-bone meal (MBM) in animal feed. Many scientists believe the use

of MBM triggered mad cow disease.

 

FNSEA president Jean-Michel Lemetayer acknowledged that Europe would

never be self-sufficient in vegetable proteins.

 

But he said an EU plan to boost its oilseeds area would reduce reliance

on GM vegetable proteins, such as soybeans and soybean meal, from the

United States.

 

" After the decision to suppress MBM, we depend more and more on

vegetable proteins, " Lemetayer told a news conference.

 

" We should produce more in Europe in order to depend less on GM

vegetable proteins from the United States, " he added.

 

Coldiretti president Paolo Bedoni, reflecting Italian concerns over the

environmental and health impact from GM crops, said that Italian

farmers' opposition to GM vegetable proteins was a matter of principle.

 

" It is a model that we should defend for an ideal society, " he said.

 

The United States is a major exporter of GM soybeans and soybean meal to

Europe.

 

ARGENTINA CRISIS BOOSTS U.S. MARKET SHARE

 

European oilseeds traders said the current financial crisis in

Argentina, another big vegetable protein supplier, had boosted the

market share of U.S. oilseeds in Europe.

 

Spain has said it would use its presidency of the EU to push for a plan

to develop vegetable protein production in response to the ban on MBM in

animal feed.

 

In an effort to halt the spread of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE), the European Union banned the use of MBM in animal

feed in early 2001.

 

The ban, which came as oilseed production in many EU countries was

already waning, prompted an increase in demand for soymeal and other

sources of vegetable protein, much of it from Latin America and the

United States.

 

The EU, however, faces a ceiling on the amount of oilseeds it can

produce under subsidies as a result of an international agreement known

as the Blair House accord.

 

Production of oilseeds in the EU has also dropped in recent years as a

result of the EU's Agenda 2000 farm reform, which reduced subsidies for

such crops.

 

11:51 02-01-02

 

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

 

12) Activists block U.S. soybean shipment in Philippines

 

MANILA, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Environmental group Greenpeace said on Sunday

their campaigners blocked the unloading of 17,000 tonnes of soybeans

from the United States, saying the product was genetically engineered.

 

Activists occupied the unloading equipment of General Milling

Corporation at a berth in Batangas, about 100 km (63 miles) south of

Manila, unfurling the banner " USA Stop Dumping GMOs on Asia " on the hull

of the cargo ship, the group said in a statement.

 

The vessel was delivering its load to the largest soybean processing

plant in the Philippines, it said.

 

The Philippines buys about 300,000 tonnes of soybeans and over one

million tonnes of soymeal annually, mainly from the United States.

 

" Asia should not be a dumping ground for genetically contaminated

products, " said Beau Baconguis, genetic engineering campaigner for

Greenpeace Southeast Asia in the Philippines.

 

" We should not be forced to feed our children with food the rest of the

world is increasingly rejecting. "

 

Last October, Swiss healthcare group Novartis AG confirmed allegations

from Greenpeace that some samples of baby food it sold in the

Philippines contained genetically modified soybean. Novartis stressed

the products were safe but added that it was seeking a new supplier.

 

Companies have been developing genetically modified crops to fight pests

and plant diseases, but some consumers have baulked at eating them

fearing they could lead to health problems.

 

23:43 02-02-02

 

 

<<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>>

* To remove yourself from this mailing list, point your browser to:

http://i.pm0.net/remove?TheCampaign:13

* Enter your email address (angelprincessjo) in the field

provided and click " Un " . The mailing list ID is " TheCampaign:13 " .

 

OR...

 

* Forward a copy of this message to TheCampaign.13

with the word remove in the subject line.

 

 

This message was sent to address angelprincessjo

X-PMG-Recipient: angelprincessjo

<<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>>

 

 

 

 

 

pmguid:1m.1kjl.3o4

 

 

Organic Farming Quotable Quotes= " A nation that destroys its soils destroys

itself " -----*Franklin D. Roosevelt* " Food is power... are you in control of

yours? " *John Jeavons*, Ecology Action-- " Health is not a medical issue! "

=Theaimcompanies == http://canceranswer.homestead.com/AIM.html

 

 

 

 

Got something to say? Say it better with Video Mail