U.S. Leaders Push Europe to Allow Biotech Crops

[Guest guest]

http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2003/2003-03-27-11.asp

 

U.S. Leaders Push Europe to Allow Biotech Crops

 

 

By J.R. Pegg

 

WASHINGTON, DC, March 27, 2003 (ENS) - U.S. lawmakers are urging the Bush

administration to formally challenge the European Union's moratorium on new

genetically modified crops.

Official World Trade Organization (WTO) action is the " only course that would

send a clear and convincing message to the world that prohibitive policies on

biotechnology, which are not based on sound science, are illegal, " House Speaker

Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, told the House Agriculture Committee

at a hearing Wednesday.

The moratorium is " indefensible, " and based on prejudice and misinformation,

said Hastert, who sent a letter to President George W. Bush supporting action

through the WTO.

The European Union (EU) has refused to grant import licenses for genetically

modified (GM), or biotech food for the past four years because many Europeans

are worried about possible health and environmental risks. European Union

officials are not slated to decide on any new policies affecting GM foods until

October.

Rhetoric threatening WTO action by the Bush administration and its Congressional

allies has been building in recent months, but the debate over the moratorium is

far from simple. Genetically modified crops continue to make many people

nervous about the health and environmental implications. (Photo courtesy

Monsanto)GM foods are an emotional issue for many people, with issues of

economics, public health, environmental protection, national sovereignty and

world hunger all playing a role.

Economics is the core issue for the United States, which produces some two

thirds of the world's genetically modified crops.

U.S. officials estimate the EU ban has cost its agricultural industry hundreds

of millions, including some $300 million a year in corn sales alone.

They contend the ban is negatively affecting global trade, slowing development

of new GM crops and contributing to famine in developing countries. It is the

effect on famine that has become a focal point of the argument to force the

lifting of the moratorium.

" This is a trade issue but more importantly, it's an issue of life and death, "

said Congressman Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican.

Several African nations, such as Zambia and Zimbabwe, have rejected U.S. food

aid because it contained GM corn. These countries fear the GM corn could end up

in crops or be fed to beef cattle tagged for export to Europe, which could then

reject the African imports.

The European moratorium is having " a chilling effect " on developing countries

who most need the benefits of biotechnology, said Representative Jo Ann Emerson,

a Missouri Republican and co-chair of the Congressional Hunger Center. Speaker

of the House Denny Hastert is a leading voice in favor of WTO action to remove

the EU moratorium. (Photo courtesy Congressman Hastert's Office)The argument

that the EU ban is increasing starvation in the Third World is " disingenuous, "

said Jane Rissler, a senior scientist with the food and environment program at

the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group of

scientists and citizens.

Rissler contends that the biotechnology industry and its supporters are using

starvation in the Third World as a lever to sell biotech crops to Europe.

" They are playing on the guilt of the First World, " she said. " People are not

starving for lack of biotechnology. "

It is money, not good will or free trade, that is driving U.S. policy according

to some critics.

The Unite States is " using free trade agreements as the battering ram to force

unwanted [biotech] food and crops onto the rest of the world, " according to

Anuradha Mittal, codirector of Food First: the Institute for Food and

Development Policy, a U.S. based human rights think tank.

GM crops are " likely to make food security worse through patented control over

seeds and by undermining traditional agricultural practices in the Third World, "

Mittal contends.

Even the benefits of biotechnology to those who have access to it are

questionable, Rissler said.

" There has not been a single consumer benefit after 10 years of GM food, " she

said. " There are promises and there may be some benefits to farmers and

pesticides, but society has not benefited. "

It is clear the rejection of food aid by African nations has biotech supporters

worried that the ripple effects of the EU ban are turning global opinion against

biotech foods. One potential benefit of GM crops could be reduced pesticide

use. (Photo by Ian Britton courtesy FreeFoto.com)For example, India rejected

food aid last year when nongovernmental aid agencies could not meet the

country's demand to guarantee the food contained no biotech grains.

Australia is embroiled in a bitter debate over GM crops. It is slowing the roll

out of GM wheat, and both Canadian and American wheat farmers have expressed

concerns.

Some 82 percent of customers " tell us they will not buy GM wheat, " said Louise

Waldman, media relations manager for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Of further worry to biotech proponents are recent moves by the Chinese

government, which is exploring labeling measures similar to those under

discussion by European officials.

Still, U.S. officials have not been swayed in their support of biotech crops,

nor in their opposition to labeling, which they contend would result in higher

food costs for consumers and producers.

House Agriculture Chairman Bob Goodelatte, a Virginia Republican, met with

European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy in February and said the moratorium can

not be replaced with new regulations on traceability and labeling, initiatives

the EU is actively considering. Scientists are working on an array of new GM

crops, including some that could be used to produce pharmaceuticals. (Photo

courtesy Monsanto) " Over the last few years, we have seen country after country

implementing protectionist trade policies under the cloak of food safety - each

one brought on by emotion, culture, or their own poor history with food safety

regulation, " Hastert said.

But this steadfast opposition to labeling or traceability requirements leaves

little apparent room for negotiation, causing many people to contend that the

United States is trying to force feed the world its GM crops.

European officials say that U.S. action through the WTO would do little to

convince the skeptical European public, in particular as some in Europe try to

further open the door to GM agriculture.

Earlier this month the European Commission said there is little environmental

justification for European Union legislation to govern the management of

genetically modified crops.

It said that no EU member state should be allowed to declare itself a " GMO free

zone, " but the ban on new approvals will remain through at least October.

Opponents of the EU's moratorium argue that the testing in the United States

should be enough to satisfy consumers worldwide and more than enough to

demonstrate that a ban on GM crops approved by U.S. officials is a non-tariff

barrier under WTO guidelines.

There are no health risks from GM crops that are currently being consumed in

large quantities by many Americans, according to Hastert. Critics believe

better distribution of food, not biotechnology, is the answer to global hunger.

(Photo courtesy International Relief Friendship Foundation) " No other food crops

in history have been tested and regulated as foods developed through

biotechnology, " Emerson said.

Others have less confidence in the U.S. regulatory system.

" To imply that the U.S. government has had a strong regulatory system does not

stand up to closer scrutiny, " Rissler said. " It is impossible to know if anyone

has gotten sick from GM food. "

" It is likely there has not been a huge effect on public health, but the absence

of evidence is not evidence of safety. "

The first generation of approved GM crops are " relatively simple " compared with

the next wave, explained Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director for the

Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit education and advocacy

organization that focuses on improving the safety and nutritional quality of the

food supply

" The U.S. regulatory regime is currently not set up to really ensure the safety

of biotechnology crops, " Jaffe said.

The disparity between the U.S. enthusiasm for GM crops compared to the criticism

much of the rest of the world is evidenced by recent decisions by the U.S. to

allow further trials of biopharm crops, which have been modified for

pharmaceutical purposes.

These crops raise further health and environmental concerns that many people

believe the current system is unable to address.

Even so, concerns over GM crops appear to be falling on deaf ears in the United

States, and Hastert assured members of the committee that he would not be

satisfied with anything but an end to the EU ban.

" The U.S. Government should immediately take a case to the WTO regarding the

current EU moratorium, " he said. " After all, the price of inaction is one we can

no longer afford to pay. "

 

 

 

advertisment

 

-->

 

 

 

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS)

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!