Fwd: Canadian Wheat Board vs. Monsanto + U.S. vs. EU

[Guest guest]

Tue, 27 May 2003 16:16:39 -0700

News Update from The Campaign

Canadian Wheat Board vs. Monsanto + U.S. vs. EU

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

The global war over genetically engineered foods is heating up with many

battle fronts.

 

CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD vs. MONSANTO

 

The Canadian Wheat Board sent a letter to Monsanto on Tuesday asking the

company to withdraw its application for approval to grow genetically

engineered wheat in Canada.

 

A spokesperson for Monsanto quickly responded to press inquiries

indicating that the company refuses to comply with the request of the

Canadian Wheat Board.

 

Posted below are two articles on this controversy and the letter from

the Canadian Wheat Board to Monsanto. The first article from AgWeb News

is titled " CWB Asks Monsanto to Put the Brakes on Roundup Ready Wheat. "

The letter to Monsanto follows that article. The second article from

Reuters is titled " Monsanto undeterred as biotech wheat debate

persists. "

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods plans to be fully

engaged in this battle over biotech wheat. We hope to have our new Save

Organic Wheat! web site fully functional by this weekend. (We are still

fine-tuning some of the coalition sign-up forms.) The web address is:

http://www.saveorganicwheat.org

 

We have also registered the domain names www.wheataction.org and

www.biotechwheat.com.

 

The Wheat Action web site will be geared towards conventional wheat

farmers who want to fight genetically engineered wheat.

 

The Biotech Wheat web site will be an educational web site explaining

the many problems with genetically engineered wheat. It will be designed

to counter the propaganda the wheat farmers are receiving from the

biotech industry.

 

If you would like to support our efforts to get these web sites up, you

can make a donation at:

http://www.saveorganicwheat.org/donation.php

 

UNITED STATES vs. EUROPEAN UNION

 

As we have previously reported, the U.S. filed a World Trade

Organization (WTO) case against the European Union's moratorium on

genetically engineered foods. Last week President Bush charged that the

EU position is hurting efforts to fight hunger in Africa.

 

Now former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has criticized

President Bush's statement. Glickman stated: " I think that to blame

them on the hunger issue is awfully strong and provocative rhetoric. "

 

Posted below is an excellent article by Bill Lambrecht of the St. Louis

Post-Dispatch titled " U.S. presses Europe over biotech. " This article

does a great job of reviewing the issues and bringing you up to date on

the latest developments, including an EU attack by U.S. Senators.

 

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. "

 

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

 

CWB Asks Monsanto to Put the Brakes on Roundup Ready Wheat

 

by Julianne Johnston

AgWeb News

5/27/2003

 

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has called on Monsanto Canada to withdraw

its application for an environmental safety assessment of Roundup ReadyR

wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application is currently before the Canadian

Food Inspection Agency.

 

In a May 22, letter to Monsanto Canada's President, Peter Turner, the

CWB detailed the " devastating economic impact " the introduction of RRW

will have on western Canadian farmers. " Economic harm could include lost

access to premium markets, penalties caused by rejected shipments, and

increased farm management and grain handling costs, " the letter states.

The letter is signed by Ken Ritter, chairman, and Adrian Measner,

President and CEO.

 

" Monsanto has said in the past it would not introduce RRW unless it was

beneficial to farmers, " Ritter said. " Well, there are no benefits. So

we're asking Monsanto to put the interests of their customers, western

Canadian farmers, ahead of their own commercial interests and put the

brakes on RRW, before Prairie farmers suffer serious financial

consequences. "

 

" Customers in over 80 percent of our markets have expressed serious

reservations about genetically modified wheat, " Measner said. " For us,

the customer is always right. We cannot jeopardize our ability to

maximize returns to western Canadian farmers through the introduction of

a product our customers do not want. "

 

The CWB has asked Monsanto to confirm its compliance with the CWB's

request by June 27, 2003. The CWB has already called on the federal

government to close the regulatory gap on genetically modified wheat by

adding a cost benefit analysis to the food, feed and environmental

assessments currently being undertaken on RRW.

 

However, the CWB is taking this additional step because RRW could be

approved before the introduction of any regulatory changes. " Under the

current system, RRW could be approved for unconfined release as early as

2004, " Ritter said. " We had to move quickly, so we are appealing to

Monsanto directly. "

 

A copy of the letter to Monsanto Canada is below.

 

------

 

Mr. Peter Turner

President

Monsanto Canada Inc

 

Dear Mr. Turner:

 

As you know, the potential release of Roundup ReadyR wheat (RRW) remains

the cause of considerable concern for wheat customers, farmers and

others. The farmer-controlled Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is extremely

concerned that the unconfined release of RRW in Canada will result in

significant and predictable economic harm to western Canadian farmers.

This harm will occur to those who adopt the technology and those who do

not, as well as to others in the Canadian wheat value chain.

 

Economic harm could include lost access to premium markets, penalties

caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management and grain

handling costs. Unfortunately, scientific data demonstrating the food

safety of RRW will not, by itself, prevent this harm. Furthermore, the

CWB is not satisfied that Monsanto's stated commitments regarding

commercialization of RRW will adequately protect the interests of

western Canadian farmers and Canada's wheat customers from this economic

harm.

 

The CWB hereby requests Monsanto withdraw its application to the

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for environmental safety

assessment of RRW.

 

It is of the utmost importance that your decision on this request be

made as soon as possible in order to protect the interests of the wheat

value chain and to prevent the damages that may result from the

unconfined release of RRW. We ask that you confirm by June 27, 2003 your

withdrawal from the application process.

 

Yours truly,

 

Original signed by

 

Ken Ritter

Chair, CWB Board of Directors

 

Original signed by

 

Adrian C. Measner

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

c: Hugh Grant, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer,

Monsanto Company

 

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

 

Monsanto undeterred as biotech wheat debate persists

Reuters, 05.27.03, 4:30 PM ET

 

By Carey Gillam

 

KANSAS CITY, Mo., May 27 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co. said Tuesday it will

continue to seek regulatory approvals for the world's first genetically

modified wheat despite allegations that the controversial product could

devastate Canadian wheat exports.

 

Monsanto believes its bid to win deregulation of its Roundup Ready wheat

in Canada and the United States has " tremendous support, " said Monsanto

spokesman Michael Doane.

 

The regulatory review process should answer questions and concerns about

the product's safety and efficacy, Doane said.

 

" People want to know it is safe. We're going to stay on course and

continue to look for those regulatory approvals, " Doane said.

 

Doane's comments followed Tuesday's plea by the Canadian Wheat Board for

Monsanto to withdraw its application to test herbicide resistant wheat

in Canada. The CWB is one of Canada's largest exporters and is

controlled by western Canadian farmers.

 

The CWB said the " Roundup Ready " wheat would have a " devastating

economic impact " on Canadian farmers because foreign buyers opposed to

genetically altered foods would shun Canadian supplies.

 

The CWB's concerns echoed similar fears in the United States, most

recently underscored in March when a consortium of U.S. agricultural and

environmental groups filed a legal petition seeking a federal moratorium

on Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat. But the regulatory review is still

under way.

 

Some think Monsanto might have regulatory approval in time to market its

biotech wheat in 2004. But customer acceptance remains a significant

hurdle.

 

That was underscored earlier this month when the Korea Flour Mills

Industrial Association (KOFMIA), a major U.S. wheat customer, said it

would boycott American supplies if U.S. regulators approve biotech wheat

varieties.

 

North American Millers' Association vice president Jim Bair said Tuesday

that concerns are so high about market disruption that Monsanto should

slow down the regulatory approval process to focus on customer

acceptance.

 

" In this case the market acceptance is clearly lagging behind regulatory

approval. We think those two things need to happen in tandem, " said

Bair. " Trying to force it onto the market .. is merely a recipe for

chaos. "

 

Other U.S. wheat industry leaders said that Monsanto should continue to

pursue regulatory approvals so it could release the wheat variety in

Canada and the United States simultaneously, preventing either country

from gaining an advantage in the wheat export market.

 

" Monsanto has assured us that they will do this as a joint effort, " said

North Dakota Grain Growers executive director Lance Hagan. " It would be

economic suicide for them to go back on that. "

 

U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets U.S. wheat to foreign countries,

also said customer acceptance remained an obstacle to a successful

launch of Monsanto's wheat.

 

" U.S. Wheat continues to strongly urge Monsanto and other technology

providers to ensure customer acceptance prior to commercialization, "

said U.S. Wheat spokeswoman Dawn Forsythe.

 

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

 

U.S. presses Europe over biotech

 

By BILL LAMBRECHT

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

05/24/2003

 

WASHINGTON - The United States' next target after Iraq isn't a military

one. It's Europe, and the continent's refusal to accept genetically

modified food.

 

A formal trade protest, a hard edged presidential speech last week and

new condemnation of Europe in Congress add up to a coordinated offensive

that has stunned European leaders.

 

The efforts are giving heart to Midwestern biotech and farm interests,

who have been pushing the administration to toughen the drive to end

Europe's nearly five-year-old moratorium on new approvals of modified

crops and food.

 

Others, among them ex-agriculture secretary Dan Glickman, believe the

administration's timing is bad and that President George W. Bush went

too far last week when he blamed Europe for undermining the fight on

world hunger.

 

Glickman, a Clinton administration cabinet member and ex- Kansas

congressman, said relations with Europe remain too frayed from the Iraqi

war for the sort of full-blown trade conflict that the United States

initiated this month in the World Trade Organization.

 

In an interview, he contended that the president spoke too strongly in

linking European food preferences with starving people.

 

" It would be helpful for a lot of reasons to get resolution to this

issue. But I think that to blame them on the hunger issue is awfully

strong and provocative rhetoric, " said Glickman, who now heads the

Institute of Politics at the Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

 

Bush surprised the Europeans and many biotech observers in this country

when he criticized the Europeans in his commencement address at the

Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., on Wednesday. He asserted that

Europe is impeding the fight against world hunger with its de facto

moratorium on approvals of new modified crops and food.

 

" They have blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded unscientific

fears. This has caused many African nations to avoid investing in

biotechnologies, for fear their products will be shut out of European

markets, " the president said.

 

Europeans bridled at the accusations and what they view as the opening

shots of a trade war. A headline in the Guardian newspaper in Britain

typified the battle rhetoric sounding in Europe last week: " US uses GM

(genetically modified) foods in first assault of EU trade battle, " it

read.

 

The Europeans argue that they are working diligently to end the

moratorium, which has been in place since 1998 because of consumer fears

and adherence on the continent to the " precautionary principle "

requiring exhaustive analysis of new technologies.

 

At the European Union offices in Washington on Friday, a trio of

European officials offered figures to show that they are spending as

much or more to fight hunger than the American government.

 

" It's rubbish, " said one of the Europeans, referring to the president's

words. The officials insisted on remaining unidentified in stories as

part of the ground rules for their hourlong briefing of reporters.

 

" It only sours the atmosphere for people working very hard on

development issues here and around the world, " the official added.

 

Allen Johnson, chief agriculture negotiator in the U.S. Trade Office,

said in an interview, " I think that all of us have reached a similar

view that the illegal moratorium that has been in place for almost five

years now needs to be challenged. "

 

Johnson said that the Europeans shouldn't be surprised at the escalating

rhetoric. " I think anyone who has been involved in this case would have

been misleading themselves given all the attention that this issue has

received, " he said.

 

Senate rebuke

 

Later on Friday, the Europeans heard more criticism, this time from the

Senate in a resolution engineered by Missouri Sens. Christopher " Kit "

Bond and Jim Talent, both Republicans. The resolution, which passed

unanimously, argued that Europe had slowed down the advance of genetic

engineering " to the detriment of farmers and consumers around the world

and especially to starving people in the developing world. "

 

On the Senate floor, Bond referred to Europeans as " Luddites " suffering

from " Euro-sclerosis. " He added, " Certain left-wing organizations

decided that they could raise fears and cause unfounded scares of the

public and raise money through solicitation to fund their own salaries

by spreading lies about the food that we in the United States eat every

day. "

 

Talent said, " It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone around the

world that there is no reason other than market protection not to permit

biotech product into Europe. "

 

In yet another pro-biotech initiative last week, the Senate adopted

wording to a $15 billion global AIDS initiative scolding African

countries that have large populations of HIV- or AIDS-infected citizens

and who have rejected shipments of food aid fearing that it may be

genetically engineered.

 

That effort triggered criticism from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth,

the Global AIDS Alliance and several other organizations. They charged

the Senate was attempting to strong-arm African nations into accepting

genetic engineering by threatening to withhold AIDS relief packages.

 

The flurry of recent efforts mark a turning point, Bond said in an

interview, in the government's pro-biotech efforts overseas.

 

" We're excited. We're finally on track with something, and I think it is

extremely important, " he said.

 

Bond said he had raised the issue with the president on several

occasions, most recently when Bush visited Missouri earlier this month.

He described the president's response as enthusiastic.

 

" You can tell with this president when you touch a hot button, be it

baseball or bass fishing. On this issue, he speaks as a guy with an

agricultural background and a real gut-level sense of what is going on, "

he said.

 

Hayden Milberg, director of public policy for the St. Louis- based

National Corn Growers Association, said he thought that the modified

food issue - along with the government's pro-ethanol policies - would be

valuable for the president in his re-election campaign.

 

That could be especially true if Bush draws a Midwesterner as his

opponent in 2004 - such as Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. - and the

candidates are competing for blocs of voters that could spell the

difference in farm-heavy states.

 

" Once the Iraq war was over, it was time to move forward. We feel that

this administration is fully behind us, " Milberg said.

 

Biotech and hunger

 

The issue of world hunger has figured into the global genetic

engineering debate but never so prominently as last week. Biotech

companies and their supporters argue that the world's growing population

will require more production from the world's 1.7 billion acres of

arable land.

 

While no biotech food products that exist today are helping to alleviate

hunger, many under development someday might, the industry says. They

worry that continued roadblocks to the technology could dampen research

and prevent the development of genetically modified food that could help

combat famine.

 

The Europeans and others who are skeptical point out that companies are

nowhere near achieving breakthroughs that could yield drought-resistant

crops or genetic applications that could truly help sub-Saharan Africa

and other of the world's hungry regions.

 

They also contend that few subsistence farmers could afford the

" technology fees " and other costs of gene-altered seeds or otherwise

take advantage of a technology that so far has been suitable primarily

for large-scale farming.

 

" This is about rich people selling to rich people and it has very little

to do with the poor and the starving in the world, " said Margaret

Mellon, a biotech expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists in

Washington.

 

She asserted that both the United States and Europe could take steps

that would immediately address hunger by giving more generously to

international agriculture research establishments, building more roads

for farmers in hunger-stricken countries and reducing their respective

agriculture subsidies " to make it easier for small farmers to compete in

the world market. "

 

Monsanto spokeswoman Shannon Troughton said she considered the recent

administration efforts significant. " But it would be even more

significant if the endorsement results in access for farmers that would

like to use the technology, particularly in the developing world, " she

said.

 

Reporter Bill Lambrecht of the Post-Dispatch Washington bureau covers

biotechnology and environmental issues.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.