Fwd: News from Brazil, Canada, Australia & the United Kingdom

[Guest guest]

:Sat, 5 Apr 2003 03:10:59 -0800

 

News Update from The Campaign

News from Brazil, Canada, Australia & the United Kingdom

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Posted below are four articles that report on news from Brazil, Canada,

Australia and the United Kingdom. Here is some background information:

 

BRAZIL

 

Genetically engineered crops are not legally permitted to be grown in

Brazil. However, it is estimated that up to 30 percent of Brazil's

soybean crop consists of genetically engineered soybeans that are

smuggled across the border from Argentina. (Argentina is the world's

second largest grower of genetically engineered crops after the United

States.)

 

The first article below discusses an interesting measure in the

Brazilian government that would test nearly the entire soybean harvest

and allow the genetically engineered soybeans to be sold off on a

temporary basis. Then the ban would be more strictly enforced beginning

next January.

 

Some members of Brazil's government want to legalize genetically

engineered crops. But others want to maintain Brazil's reputation as a

nation that does not permit genetically engineered crops. Brazil's

soybean exports have increased significantly in recent years since many

countries do not want to buy genetically engineered soybeans from the

United States.

 

CANADA

 

For three years, a Canadian government-financed committee has been

trying to come up with an agreement for the voluntary labeling of

genetically engineered foods. The committee does not seem to be able to

come to an agreement on the criteria for voluntary labeling and their

funds are running out.

 

Critics of the committee say the push for voluntary labeling guidelines

is backed by the biotech industry and that consumers want mandatory

labeling. There was an effort in the Canadian Parliament in 2001 to pass

mandatory labeling legislation, but it failed to receive enough votes.

 

It is interesting to note that biotech supporters opposing mandatory

labeling in Canada are pointing at the failure of the labeling

initiative in Oregon last November as evidence that consumers do not

want mandatory labeling. However, the real reason that the Oregon

mandatory labeling initiative, Measure 27, lost was because the biotech

industry spent over five million dollars on a propaganda campaign. They

told Oregon voters that their groceries would double in price if Measure

27 passed. This was a lie, but supporters of Measure 27 did not have

sufficient funds to get the truth out to Oregon voters.

 

The second article below will provide more details on the voluntary

labeling committee in Canada.

 

AUSTRALIA

 

In March, the largest state in Australia where Sydney is located, New

South Wales, implimented a three-year moratorium on growing genetically

engineered crops. Similar bans are proposed in South Australia and

Tasmania. However, the Australian federal government is supporting

genetically engineered crops.

 

Unfortunately, on Tuesday, Australia's Gene Technology Regulator

announced they are going to allow genetically engineered canola to be

planted. The crop of 12,360 acres will be grown in the state of

Victoria.

 

The third article below will provide more details.

 

UNITED KINGDOM

 

In England, the Food Standards Agency began a trial on Friday with a

sixteen person " citizens' jury " to consider whether genetically

engineered foods should be widely available in stores. Apparently the

verdict will be made on Monday.

 

This trial is part of a government-sponsored national debate on

genetically engineered foods that is currently taking place in the

United Kingdom.

 

As you may be aware, there are no genetically engineered crops being

commercially grown in any of the European Union (EU) countries. Products

sold in the EU containing genetically engineered soybeans and corn are

required to labeled. As a result, food manufacturers have all chosen not

to use these genetically engineered ingredients in their products sold

in the EU countries.

 

Compare this to the United States where there was never a public debate

or anything close to it before these products were sold unlabeled to an

unaware public. Instead, United States citizens have been made guinea

pigs in the largest feeding experiment to ever take place in human

history.

 

Here in the United States, most Americans are eating genetically

engineered foods every day and nearly 90 million acres of genetically

engineered corn and soybeans will be grown in 2003.

 

None of the unlabeled genetically engineered foods consumed daily in the

United States were ever subjected to human feeding tests before being

sold. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not even require a

company to notify them before a new genetically engineered food is

marketed to the public.

 

The fourth article below will discuss the citizens' jury and the

national debate taking place in the United Kingdom.

 

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. "

 

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

 

Brazil measure ignites congressional GM soy debate

 

By Sarah Rink and Reese Ewing

 

BRASILIA, Brazil, April 3 (Reuters) - A draft measure proposed last week

by the new government to rein in Brazil's rampant illegal transgenic soy

trade unleashed a storm of 70 proposals to alter the measure in Congress

on Thursday.

 

Statesmen drew sides in debate on the lower house floor, some pushing

for stricter enforcement of Brazil's ban on genetically modified crops,

to which the former government had turned a blind eye for years.

 

By unofficial estimates, transgenic soy seeds, smuggled from Argentina

where they are legal, are responsible for as much as 30 percent of

Brazil's record 50-million-tonne crop -- the world's second largest

after the United States, according to the Association of Brazilian Seed

Producers (Abrasem).

 

Others statesmen said the government proposal to clamp down on the huge

black market in GM seeds and illicit plantings was a step backward and

called for a permanent lifting of the ban.

 

Although Agriculture Minister Roberto Rodrigues has refrained from

voicing support of biotechnology in agriculture since he took office

this year, when he opened the floor debate on Thursday he said: " Brazil

cannot miss the train of history and deny new technologies. "

 

" The society was stirred up by this measure, it is good to see that the

legislature is too, " Rodrigues said.

 

But the new government said officially last month that it would uphold

Brazil's ban and proposed provisional measure 113 last week in an effort

to gain control of illegal GM soy planting.

 

Measure 113 calls for the testing of nearly the entire soy crop for GM,

the separation of conventional soy from GM and the temporary

legalization of sales of new crop GM soy with labels until January 2004,

after which time GM would again be banned.

 

AWESOME TASK

 

Nearly half the new crop has been harvested without segregation of GM

soy and, by the time the measure leaves committee, the whole crop would

have been harvested. And GM soy has been running unsegregated through

the food system here for years.

 

Only a fraction of the logistic, storage and processing chain is

equipped to separate GM from conventional soy. Food processors in Brazil

have never labeled for GM contents and there is no standard for testing

the genetic integrity of a truck or silo of soy.

 

Federal representative Roberto Freire, an author of one of the

amendments to 113 put forth on Thursday, questioned the government's

argument behind making GM soy sales illegal again in 2004 because they

believe GM soy could be harmful.

 

" (The government) wants to say that only after January (2004) it's going

to do harm? " Freire asked journalists. " This is backward. If it was

harmful the government wouldn't have liberated the sale of the crop. It

would be irresponsible. "

 

Freire's amendment calls for easing restrictions on labeling of foods

with GM, the legalization of GM seed trading and the suppression of any

fines for planting GM soy, as is currently proposed by 113.

 

The lower house will install a special committee by next Wednesday to

wade through the 70 proposed amendments and should put a measure before

a plenary vote by May 10, about the time when the soy harvest

traditionally ends here.

 

04/03/03 19:11 ET

 

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

 

GM labelling committee seeks extension

 

Thursday April 3, 2003

By Barry Wilson

The Western Producer - Ottawa bureau

 

CANADA - A committee created to devise rules for voluntary labelling of

genetically modified foods should be given one last chance to find

consensus, but with a quick deadline, says the chair of the committee.

 

Doryne Peace, chair of the government-financed GM labelling committee

formed by the Canadian General Standards Board in 1999, said that after

more than three years of talks, no consensus has been reached.

 

She told the House of Commons health committee that there should be one

last chance for agreement, even though she wrote to labelling committee

members recently that after a second failed vote last winter, they

should consider whether agreement is possible and if their work should

continue.

 

" It is likely they will continue because they are people of optimism and

good faith, " Peace told MPs.

 

In a later interview, the advertising industry executive said more

Agriculture Canada funding would be required to have the committee

continue past March 31. And any new funding should come with a

commitment to a fast decision, yes or no.

 

" In fairness to Canadians, we have to bring some closure to this and get

labelling out there, " she said.

 

Peace suggested a final decision by the end of summer.

 

But even if the committee found consensus by autumn, it could take a

year to have proposed new standards written into regulation, she said.

 

Critics of the committee and its quest for voluntary labelling rules

dismissed the proposal that the committee be continued.

 

" Not one more penny of public money should be spent on this farce, " New

Democratic Party health critic Svend Robinson said after the meeting.

 

He said the committee is an industry-dominated, government-supported

attempt to control the issue of labelling in favour of the biotechnology

companies. Instead, he said the government should bow to public opinion

and require mandatory labelling.

 

During the meeting with MPs, the co-chair of the Canadian Biotechnology

Advisory Committee challenged the view that consumers overwhelmingly

support mandatory labels.

 

Mary Alton Mackay said her advisory group supports an 18-month extension

of the effort to develop voluntary standards and she noted that in

November, 73 percent of Oregon voters rejected mandatory labels - a vote

that anti-GM campaigners said was heavily influenced by biotechnology

company spending.

 

" I am not saying that that number is directly applicable to the Canadian

population but it is an interesting development that calls into question

the established view that consumers will inevitably opt for a mandatory

labelling system, " Mackay told MPs.

 

The General Standards Board committee of food producer, processor,

retailer, consumer and GM seed producer groups has had a difficult time

agreeing on what rules should apply in a credible voluntary labelling

standard.

 

There has been disagreement over whether labels should be negative or

positive ( " does not contain " or " does contain " GM ingredients), whether

further processed foods that do not contain GM protein should be

labelled, the level of GM content required for labelling (currently it

is five percent) and the issue of dealing with accidental mingling of GM

and non-GM ingredients.

 

The federal government through Health Canada and the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency indicated last week that it continues to support

development of a voluntary labelling system, despite public opinion

polls that suggest most Canadians want more food information.

 

Supporters of the policy say five percent GM content is an appropriate

trigger for labelling because technology does not exist to guarantee

that genetically engineered content below that threshold could be

detected.

 

Robinson mocked that argument last week.

 

" How can a food containing five percent GE content be considered

GE-free, " he asked. " You can't call a beer alcohol-free if it contains

five percent alcohol. "

 

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

 

Australia grain GM canola to stage shy debut

 

SYDNEY, Australia, April 5 (Reuters) - Conditional clearance for

Australian farmers to grow genetically modified (GM) canola is expected

to lead to a small 2003 crop with opinion remaining strongly divided on

the transgenic plant's merit.

 

The clearance, handed down by Australia's Gene Technology Regulator on

Tuesday subject to eight weeks of public consultation, has produced

resigned acceptance by opponents of the technology that Australia will

grow its first GM food crop.

 

" The path has been cleared for the introduction of genetically

engineered canola into Australia, " Greenpeace campaigner Jeremy Tager

said, describing the regulator as throwing caution to the wind.

 

Australia's Gene Technology Regulator Sue Meek conditionally cleared an

application by Germany's Bayer, CropScience and Monsanto Co of the US

have also applied.

 

Only a small area would be commercially grown in 2003, in Victoria

state, Bayer CropScience general manager bioscience Susie O'Neill said

after Meek's announcement.

 

Bayer and Monsanto have each said they plan to release enough GM seed to

cover only 5,000 hectares (12,360 acres) in 2003, a tiny fraction of the

million hectares (2.471 million acres) or more which is normally planted

to canola in Australia each year.

 

But industry leaders believe that GM canola will eventually become the

dominant crop.

 

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)

said in a study released this week that Australia would grow larger GM

canola crops in later years if significant problems did not emerge from

the first crop.

 

FARMERS DIVIDED

 

" Farmers are all over the place on GM canola, " Ian Donges, a large grain

grower and former president of the National Farmers Federation,

commented to Reuters at this week's Grains Week annual conference.

 

The Grains Council of Australia (GCA), which represents growers,

welcomed the decision.

 

" After nine months of exhaustive assessment, (Gene Technology Regulator

Sue) Meek has found that GM canola poses no higher risk to human health

and safety of the environment than conventional non-GM canola, " GCA

president Keith Perrett said.

 

The decision would provide an assurance for Australian grain growers who

may be contemplating planting a GM crop, he said.

 

Not so, said the anti-GM Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF).

 

" This...plan does not consider the costs to farmers and the potential

loss of markets, " it said.

 

NCF estimates that the cost to farmers of segregating grain under a

system of coexistence between GM and conventional canola at a minimum of

10 per cent of the product value.

 

Farmers producing conventional canola would be forced to market their

product as GM to remain viable, it said.

 

In contrast, ABARE said agronomic benefits to Australian production of

GM canola would outweigh likely additional costs of compliance with GM

market access restrictions.

 

Bayer CropScience has said its InVigor hybrid GM canola in Canada showed

yield increases of 10 per cent to 15 per cent over conventional canola,

as well as better weed control.

 

The public discussion period, which will end on May 26, will leave just

enough time for some GM canola to be put in the ground before the end of

the planting season around the end of June.

 

Rapid expansion of Australia's canola industry, to 2.4 million tonnes in

1999/00 from just 200,000 tonnes in 1991/92, has made it the world's

second biggest exporter after Canada, whose crop is more than 60 per

cent GM.

 

Canola, a variety of rapeseed, is widely used as cooking oil.

 

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

 

UK food watchdog calls people's jury on GM crops

 

LONDON, April 4 (Reuters) - A people's jury is being called to consider

whether genetically modified foods should be widely available in shops,

but environmentalists said money spent on the initiative should be used

on debating the issue nationally.

 

The citizens' jury process, which starts on Friday, will include sixteen

people from Slough in southern England. Their verdict is due on Monday,

the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said.

 

Britain is expected to make a decision later this year on whether to

grow gene-spliced crops commercially, but shoppers -- bruised by a

string of food scares such as mad cow disease -- are wary.

 

Scientists say that GM technology could solve world hunger, while

opponents say growing such crops could change the face of the

countryside, by contaminating traditional varieties.

 

The government announced a national public debate on GM crops in Britain

earlier this year, but drew criticism early when it confirmed a major

scientific review of the technology will end before the GM crop field

trials finish.

 

The FSA has already been accused by lobby groups of bias in favour of

biotechnology companies and taking too much focus away from the national

discussion.

 

GM ingredients are already on sale in a few products, but supermarkets

have shied away from selling such items widely in reaction to consumer

unease.

 

The FSA said the exercise was part of its effort to independently assess

people's views on Genetically Modified food, which already available in

a few products.

 

But environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth said the three day

exercise would not add value to the government's official GM debate.

 

" We feel the money being spent on these initiatives would have been much

better placed into the national debate budget so that it could expand to

reach more people, " said FoE spokesman Pete Riley.

 

" By setting up a parallel process which is not going to be comparable

with the GM debate, then the level of information they glean from it is

going to be less valuable, " he added.

 

But he said the group would be among those giving evidence against GM at

the jury sessions.

 

" We decided that the people joining jury, in all innocence, deserve to

get our side of the case, " Riley said.

 

04/03/03 19:01 ET

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

---------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more