Fw: News from the European Union and India

[Guest guest]

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

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

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Posted below are two very interesting articles. They do a great job of

explaining the current status of genetically engineered crops in the

European Union and India.

 

The first article is from the New York Times titled " Europe Shows a

Growing Distaste for Genetic Foods. " As the article states, " In fact,

all across Britain and most of the rest of Europe, shoppers would be

hard-pressed to find any genetically modified, or " G.M., " products on

grocery store shelves, and that is precisely how most people want it. "

 

Yet here in the United States, most people are unknowingly eating

genetically engineered foods every day. These biotech foods were never

safety tested on humans before being sold to the public. U.S. citizens

are participating in the largest feeding experiment ever conducted on

the planet and most people are not even aware of it. But European

citizens are well aware of what is going on with these experimental

foods and they want no part of it.

 

The second article from Associated Press is titled " Monsanto's

Gene-altered Crops Finding Resistance In India. " Although no biotech

food crops are being sold in India, genetically engineered cotton was

approved last year. However, the claims made by Monsanto of increased

yields and reduced costs have not resulted. Many farmers are complaining

that after paying three times as much for the seeds, they found the

yields did not go up and the insects were not destroyed by the built-in

pesticide as promised.

 

SAVE ORGANIC WHEAT!

 

I also want to take this opportunity to announce that The Campaign to

Label Genetically Engineered Foods is launching a companion web site

specifically designed to fight the introduction of genetically

engineered wheat.

 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is deciding whether

or not to approve a petition to deregulate genetically engineered wheat.

If deregulation is approved by the USDA and farmers decide to grow

genetically engineered wheat, it will soon begin to contaminate organic

and conventional wheat.

 

We must stop the introduction of genetically engineered wheat in the

United States and Canada. That will be the focus of our " Save Organic

Wheat! " coalition.

 

You will be hearing much more about the " Save Organic Wheat! " coalition

in the coming weeks. You can see the " Save Organic Wheat! " logo at the

new web site:

http://www.saveorganicwheat.org

 

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. "

 

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

 

The New York Times

February 10, 2003

 

Europe Shows a Growing Distaste for Genetic Foods

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

 

 

TOTNES, England, Feb. 7 - At the Happy Apple green grocer in this

Elizabethan town in England's west country, the Roasted Vegetable Pasty

is labeled, clearly and proudly, as G.M.-free. So is the Hommity Pie and

a scattering of other products crammed onto shelves.

 

In fact, all across Britain and most of the rest of Europe, shoppers

would be hard-pressed to find any genetically modified, or " G.M., "

products on grocery store shelves, and that is precisely how most people

want it.

 

Tinkering with the genetic makeup of crops to make them grow faster and

more resilient, something done routinely in the United States with

seldom a pang of consumer concern, is seen here as heretical, or at the

very least unhealthy. In some countries, there is an unofficial

moratorium on the sale of genetically modified foods.

 

" It's not the natural order of things, that's all, " said Heather

Baddeley, who was picking up lettuce and avocados at the Happy Apple,

about genetically modified foods. " It's a kind of corruption, not the

right thing to do, you know? "

 

Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, does not

agree. He recently called Europe's stance on genetically modified food

" Luddite " and " immoral, " mainly because he said Europeans' fears about

genetically modified foods have convinced some famine-ridden countries

in Africa to reject genetically altered grains. Some Europeans believed

Mr. Zoellick was, in effect, blaming Europe for starvation in Africa.

 

" The U.S. government, including Republican leaders in Congress, accuse

Europe of using the issue of genetically modified food as a way of

keeping out American exports, " said David Byrne, who heads the European

Union commission on consumer protection and health. " What Bob Zoellick

said over the last few weeks has been unhelpful, clearly. It was unfair.

It was wrong. "

 

The European Union finances nongovernmental organizations but it is

those groups themselves, and not the European trading bloc, that have

moved in some cases to steer Africans clear of genetically altered

grains, Mr. Byrne insisted.

 

" The E.U.'s position on genetically modified food, " he added, " is that

it is as safe as conventional food. "

 

That is the official line at European Union headquarters in Brussels.

But public sentiment in much of Europe, successfully stoked by

environmental groups, is now so fiercely opposed to genetically altered

food that in Austria, for example, politicians have won elections by

vowing to keep " Frankenfood " at bay.

 

Many supermarket chains across France, Britain, Italy and Austria, among

others, yanked all genetically modified products from their shelves

three years ago and are in no hurry to restock. Most recently, hundreds

of Europe's most respected chefs banded together to form a group called

Euro-Toques to battle the biotechnology lobby.

 

American companies like Monsanto stand to make enormous profits if

Europe allows the import of more genetically modified foods. A decision

by the European Parliament on stricter labeling for genetically modified

foods could be made as early as summer, and European officials hope that

this may make the food more acceptable by clarifying exactly how it is

made. But there is concern in the United States that the labeling will

only alarm European consumers more.

 

The stricter labeling requirements would trace genetically altered

substances in maize, tomatoes, feed and oils and make it clear to

consumers which products contain at least 0.9 percent of a genetically

modified substance.

 

In France and Italy, Europe's two food meccas, public revulsion with

genetically modified food runs especially deep.

 

" U.S. culture is different from European culture, " said Lorenzo Consoli,

a Greenpeace expert on genetic engineering. " Here, there is a very

strong feeling that links culture and food. And here, there is much more

the idea that science is not church or a religion. It is not enough

anymore for European consumers to have somebody with a white coat, a

professional, say it's O.K. "

 

A string of food scandals, including the outbreak of mad cow disease in

1996, severely undermined people's faith in the safety of their food and

their confidence in scientists and public officials, many of whom

claimed consumers faced no health risk at the time. Other scandals - HIV

tainted blood in France, the spread of mad cow disease to other European

nations, dioxin infested chickens in Belgium - only added to this

mistrust.

 

Although there is no compelling evidence that genetically altered food

is harmful, the food's opponents say that it is unknown whether the food

is harmful in the long term. The uncertainty is precisely what worries

Europeans.

 

Europeans also tend to be more environmentally sensitive than some

Americans, and environmental groups, like Greenpeace and Friends of the

Earth, carry much greater sway. One widespread fear is that genetically

altered crops will pollinate and infest neighboring crops, a consequence

many see as irreversible. Environmental groups have turned this concern

into a successful campaign against genetically modified food.

 

Europeans also care more about how food tastes, as opposed to how long

it can sit on a shelf. " For some member states, it's nearly synonymous

with sovereignty, " said Mr. Byrne, referring to the quality of food.

 

The fight against genetically modified food is being led by organization

like Greenpeace, which is rooting for a legal confrontation over the

issue at the World Trade Organization.

 

Pia Ahrenkild Hansen, the spokeswoman for the European Union

commissioner on the environment, said the industry had done a poor job

marketing the advantages of genetically modified foods in Europe.

 

" The industry has been incredibly bad about demonstrating what's the

benefit, " Ms. Hansen said. " Why it would make food production more

sustainable, why it would require less resources. Those arguments are

not know by the consumers. People say, `Why should we buy it?' "

 

Certainly, in this speck of a town in the county of Devon, it is almost

impossible to find any supporters of genetically modified foods. Three

weeks ago, the Devon County Council executive board endorsed a decision

to bar its schools and hospitals from using any genetically altered

food.

 

Angry citizens held marches, set up booths and attended meetings on the

issue. Residents here were especially incensed when Britain began a set

of trials of genetically modified foods on farms, one that is near here.

One district councilor, Anne Ward, is petitioning the South Ham district

here to declare itself a " G.M.-free zone. "

 

Ms. Baddeley, and many other shoppers at the Happy Apple, would favor

this without a second thought, they said.

 

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

 

Monsanto's Gene-altered Crops Finding Resistance In India

 

By S. SRINIVASAN | Associated Press 02/10/2003

 

ENAKENAKONDA, India - Here, under a blazing sun in a southern Indian

cotton field 9,000 miles from U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto Co.'s

headquarters, Chikkappa Nilakanti has literally sown seeds of

discontent.

 

Nilakanti is one of 55,000 farmers in India who recently planted cotton

genetically engineered by Monsanto to fight pests without pesticides.

 

India permitted the crop into the country last year after a raucous

four-year battle and that decision is still being hotly contested in a

country that has always been skeptical of biotechnology.

 

Even now, no edible biotechnology crops are legally grown for

consumption in India, the world's second-most populous country.

 

Nilakanti's small plot of land and thousands like it throughout India

have become yet another front line in the global battle over

biotechnology, which is demonized as the near-exclusive domain of the

United States.

 

Still, slumping U.S. biotechnology companies are aggressively pressing

to sell their wares in new places overseas, including pressuring the

Bush administration to force open European markets.

 

St. Louis-based Monsanto is looking to shake off a yearlong profit slide

sparked by patent expirations, increased worldwide concern over

biotechnology and a drought at home. The company forced its longtime

chief executive to step down last month and promised angry stockholders

it would do better this year. And so it is pinning some of its

turnaround hopes on emerging international markets, including India.

 

India's cotton industry is notoriously inefficient: It has the most land

under cotton cultivation but is only the third-largest producer of

cotton. Consequently, Monsanto's promise of improving yields by as much

as 60 percent resonated with the government.

 

Monsanto's cotton seed is spliced with genetic material taken from

bacterium called bacillus thuringiensis and commonly referred to as BT.

The bacterium harms bollworms but not people.

 

The biotech seed costs three times as much as the natural stuff, but

Monsanto and its Indian partner, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co., promise

that the cotton crop, brand name Bollgard, will increase farmers' yields

and cut costs because fewer chemical pesticides are needed.

 

But Nilakanti and pockets of other Indian cotton farmers who planted the

biotech cotton seed complained that the pricey technology was a bad

investment because their yields have not improved. The ruinous boll

weevils have not disappeared.

 

Nilakanti paid about $33 for a 450-gram packet of BT seeds, nearly four

times the cost of traditional seeds.

 

Standing in his field, Nilakanti watched boll weevils pop up their heads

as if in a greeting and then resume their business of eating away his

cotton crop.

 

" BT bedaappa, " Nilakanti said in his native tongue, Kannada. " I do not

want BT. "

 

Meanwhile, the same anti-biotechnology activists who fought to keep

biotech cotton out of India have continued with their vocal campaign.

 

A survey conducted by an anti-biotechnology advocacy group, Research

Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, called Monsanto's

technology a failure, saying it has left " farmers in a great economic

and livelihood crisis, " and led to the emergence of " new pests and

diseases. "

 

Government and company officials dispute those findings and argue that

the complaining farmers are in the minority. Even more gene-altered

cotton is expected to be planted this year.

 

" BT cotton has done very well in all the five states where it was

planted, " said Ranjana Smatecek, Monsanto India's public affairs

director.

 

Smatecek said Monsanto's genetically engineered cotton doesn't repel all

bollworms but does reduce the amount of pesticide needed to control the

pest. He said it's not surprising that farmers are finding bollworms on

some of their engineered crops, because it takes up to three days for

the insects to die.

 

Environment minister T.R. Baalu told Indian Parliament that Monsanto's

cotton had performed " satisfactorily. "

 

In the Feb. 7 issue of the journal Science, two Western professors

published a paper supporting the government's position. David Zilberman

of the University of California, Berkeley and Matin Qaim of the

University of Bonn said they found that BT dramatically increased yields

and significantly reduced pesticide use.

 

The study's authors argue that BT cotton and similar technologies

involving genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, hold particular

promise for poor farmers in developing nations.

 

" It would be a shame, " Zilberman said, " if anti-GMO fears kept important

technology away from those who stand to benefit the most from it. "

 

---

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: AP biotechnology writer Paul Elias in San Francisco

contributed to this report.