Guest guest Posted July 12, 2003 Report Share Posted July 12, 2003 12 Jul 2003 11:09:57 -0000 News Update from The Campaign Two interesting articles News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods ---- Dear News Update Subscribers, Posted below are two interesting articles. The first is an editorial from the New York Times written by Charles Benbrook titled " Sowing Seeds of Destruction. " It points out that the genetically engineered crops President Bush is pushing African countries to take are likely to make things worse there, not better. The second article is from the Portland Press Herald, a newspaper in Maine. The article is titled " Oakhurst sued by Monsanto over milk advertising. " It explains that Monsanto is suing a relatively small dairy for claiming their milk does not contain recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH. 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. " *************************************************************** Sowing Seeds of Destruction By CHARLES M. BENBROOK July 11, 2003 The New York Times SAND POINT, Idaho -- Though President Bush deserves praise for going to Africa and talking about hunger, his proposals for addressing the problem are likely to make it worse. American farm and trade policies - particularly the promotion of American-style agricultural biotechnology - will do little to alleviate hunger. In the weeks before the president's trip, the administration stepped up its efforts to promote biotechnology and genetically modified food. In May, the United States filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization against the European Union for its moratorium against the approval of genetically modified crops. The administration claimed that European policies have turned some African nations against biotechnology, thereby undermining American efforts to help Africa. In a speech last month to biotech leaders, the president said, " We must help troubled nations to avert famine by sharing with them the most advanced methods of crop production. " The president is right that African farmers will benefit from new knowledge and technology. But he's wrong about which technologies we should be offering. African farmers neither need nor want to produce American-style genetically modified crops. It is easy to understand Africa's lack of enthusiasm. The first generation of genetically modified food crops - corn and soybean seeds - were created to make pest management simpler on America's large, mechanized farms. The technologies would be far less effective on African farms, which are small and diversified and rely largely on human labor. These technologies don't make economic sense. In the United States, most farmers planting genetically modified seeds break even - the increase in seed costs, approximately 35 percent, is covered by reductions in pesticide expenses or marginally higher yields. In stable, well-irrigated environments, these crops enable individual farmers to cultivate more land. In Africa, however, these benefits can be burdens. For cash-poor farmers, the cost of genetically modified seed would be prohibitive. Moreover, genetically modified crops need near-perfect growing conditions. In dry areas, they require irrigation systems and the water to run them. They also need to be managed with special care. For example, crops are engineered to work with specific herbicides; the wrong herbicide can ruin an entire crop. In Africa, where pesticides are often misbranded, sold in unmarked containers or handled by people who cannot read, this can be a problem. Governments will also bear increased responsibilities and costs in carrying out and assessing health and environmental safety testing for these crops, a task few African nations are able to take on. Africans recognize these drawbacks and that's why American efforts to promote genetically modified crops have backfired. The initiative to introduce genetically modified corn to Zambia through American food aid donations in 2002 clearly did not work out the way the administration had hoped. The Zambians were vocal in their refusal. And the move brought simmering global tensions over biotechnology to a boil at last summer's global environmental summit meeting in Johannesburg and raised questions about American motives, priorities and understanding of the roots of hunger. Despite a full-court press by the Bush administration and some members of Congress, the Zambians have stood by their decision to reject such food aid. African farmers face a multitude of challenges. Drought is a recurrent problem. Soils are often worn out. Depressed commodity prices undercut human enterprise. Land tenure systems and reluctance to direct financial and technical assistance to the women who do the majority of the work on many farms are social issues that undermine farm productivity, as are civil strife and AIDS. For these problems, biotechnology has little to offer. The only way Africans can afford today's genetically modified seeds is for us to give the seeds or technology to them no strings attached, a highly unlikely scenario. Before contemplating this approach, though, Americans should know that their money and expertise might be better directed doing the things that Africans themselves might actually find useful. Charles Benbrook, an agricultural consultant, runs Ag BioTech InfoNet, a Web site. *************************************************************** Oakhurst sued by Monsanto over milk advertising By MATT WICKENHEISER, Portland Press Herald Writer July 8, 2003 Biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has sued Oakhurst Dairy of Portland, saying Oakhurst's claim that its milk doesn't contain any artificial growth hormones is essentially misleading. Monsanto, based in Missouri, claims there is no scientific proof that the milk is any different from that produced by cows that have been treated with the hormones. " We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they're marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk, " said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto's dairy business. " Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that's unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc., are all the same. " The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that Oakhurst stop advertising that it doesn't use milk from hormone-treated cows. It also asks that the dairy stop putting labels reading " Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones " on its milk jugs. This is the first such suit in a decade filed by Monsanto. But it's related to the global debate about genetically engineered foods. Most of Europe has banned the import or production of what opponents call " Frankenfoods. " Biotechnology re- searchers and corporations say that scientific advances boost productivity to levels that could help ease global hunger. Although the Food and Drug Administration approved the bovine growth hormone, or BGH, Canada and the European Union have banned it. Some organizations and consumers who oppose use of artificial growth hormones claim they are linked to breast cancer and premature puberty in children. Monsanto is the nation's largest producer of the synthetically produced hormone, which enhances milk production. Five years ago, Oakhurst began to make sure all of its milk comes from farms that pledge in writing every six months with a notarized affidavit that they won't use the hormones on their herds, said Stanley T. Bennett II, president of the dairy. " Consumers have let us know since the advent of these artificial growth hormones that they don't want to have to worry about (them). If consumers tell us they don't want anything added to the milk, or if they have a concern about something, we're going to respond to them as a company, " said Bennett. " We have said from the beginning that we make no claims to understand the science involved with artificial growth hormones, " he said. " We're in the business of marketing milk, not Monsanto's drugs. " The labeling is a market distinguisher for Oakhurst, said Bennett, and is so important to the dairy that it pays a premium of 20 cents on every 100 pounds of milk for the notarized guarantee. That would amount to $500,000 in 2002, when Oakhurst processed 250 million pounds of milk. Lee Quarles, a spokesman for the Missouri company, said the suit was filed because Monsanto believes Oakhurst's ads and labels are deceptive and also disparaged Monsanto's products with the inference that milk from untreated cows was better than milk from hormone-treated cows. Oakhurst was also stepping up its advertising and marketing efforts in recent months, leading to the lawsuit, said Quarles. " If in fact they are attempting to stop us from using our labeling, I think it strikes me as very odd that somebody could conceivably prohibit a company from telling people what's not in their product, " said Bennett. " On principle, it's also a question of free speech. The world seems a little bit discombobulated when somebody attempts to prohibit you from trying to do the right thing. " According to Monsanto's Garrett, an independent market study conducted in Massachusetts shopping malls showed that more than two-thirds of the 300 people surveyed thought that milk with the Oakhurst labels was healthier to drink than milk without such labels. Sixty percent of those surveyed thought Oakhurst milk was safer to drink, Garrett said. Bennett said his small dairy, which employs 240 and had $85 million in sales last year, has been ignored by Monsanto until recently. He speculated that the attention may come because other, larger milk producers are considering taking similar anti-hormone steps in their marketing campaigns. In 2002, Monsanto had net sales of $4.7 billion, net losses of $1.7 billion and working assets of $8.9 billion. Quarles said Monsanto has not filed similar lawsuits against other dairies, but wouldn't say whether more were planned. Monsanto filed similar suits against two dairies in Illinois about 10 years ago, said Quarles, and both were settled out of court under confidential terms. The suit against Oakhurst claims unfair competition, unfair business practices and interference with advantageous business relationships. According to the suit, the business relationships between Monsanto and dairy producers who use the artificial growth hormone have suffered because the farmers will stop using the treatments. Garrett wouldn't say whether any of Monsanto's customers have stopped the treatments because of Oakhurst's marketing practices. This isn't the first time Monsanto has had issues with dairy product labeling in Maine. Earlier this year, Attorney General Steven Rowe rejected a request by the company that Maine abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program that indicates when milk is free of artificial growth hormones. Monsanto argued that the seal, adopted in 1994, misleads consumers into thinking that hormone-free milk is superior to milk using an artificial growth hormone. Both Oakhurst and H.P. Hood dairies use the seal to promote their products. Industry experts suggested that although the seal has been used for nearly 10 years by Oakhurst, Monsanto objected now because other dairies are joining the program. Attorneys arguing that the seal program be stopped said Maine lacks an adequate system to monitor affidavits it accepts from farmers who pledge not to use the artificial hormone. In addition, they said, the FDA has recommended that any label that says the product is free of artificial hormones should appear in the proper context with accompanying information, such as " no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from (hormone)-treated and non-(hormone)-treated cows. " *************************************************************** 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 *************************************************************** @ Alternative Medicine/Health-Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc. To , e-mail to: alternative_medicine_forum- Or, go to our group site at: alternative_medicine_forum SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2003 Report Share Posted December 24, 2003 " News Update from The Campaign " Two interesting articles Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:39:29 -0600 News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods ---- Dear News Update Subscribers, Posted below are two interesting articles. The first article is titled " Can new wheat be separated from the chaff of uncertainty? " It reports on comments made at a recent forum called " GE Wheat: Is America Ready? " held in Washington, DC by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Of particular note are the comments at the end of the article by a spokesperson for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). She explains that the FDA does not have the authority from Congress to make actual safety declarations on genetically engineered foods. Instead the FDA is simply reviewing the limited data that the biotech companies present to the agency. These admissions by the FDA further document the position of The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods that the regulatory scheme in place in the United States for biotech crops is totally inadequate to protect the safety of the American public. It is time for the Congress to pass legislation that will force the FDA to require both labeling and adequate safety testing of genetically engineered foods. Such legislation is currently before Congress, HR 2916, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, and HR 2917, the Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act: http://www.thecampaign.org/national.php#bills The second article is titled " Brazil's controversial cash crop: illegal genetically modified soy is boon to farmers. " This article paints a disturbing picture of the situation in Brazil regarding genetically engineered soy. One point to keep in mind is that the increased yields and profits that are pleasing some Brazilian farmers will probably be short-lived. It is likely that over the next few years, the yields will begin to drop and the need to use more pesticides will increase dramatically cutting deeply into their profits per acre. Evidence from the United States suggests that in a few years weeds will become herbicide resistant and the farmers will need to use more herbicides to kill the weeds. For further reference on the increased need for pesticides required over time for genetically engineered crops, please review the recent paper from Dr. Charles M. Benbrook titled " Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years " : http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html 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. " *************************************************************** Can new wheat be separated from the chaff of uncertainty? Bill Lambrecht St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau 12/20/2003 WASHINGTON - As Monsanto Co. pushes genetically modified wheat toward the market, the food industry and farmers are wondering if consumers will accept genetic engineering with their daily bread. Kraft Foods North America, the nation's biggest food company, said last week that it doesn't know if it will use engineered wheat in its products because of consumer unease. " Many, many people are not quite sure what the benefits are, and this, to us, presents something of a problem, " said Ronald Triani of Kraft Foods North America, referring to the company's internal polling. Triani, along with other industry officials, also criticized the Food and Drug Administration's evaluation process for wheat and other products as being only voluntary rather than required. The industry officials spoke during a Washington forum called " GE Wheat: Is America Ready? " exploring issues related to genetically engineered wheat. It was sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group in Washington. FDA action on Monsanto's proposal to commercialize Roundup Ready wheat is expected soon. An FDA official said Wednesday that the agency has exceeded its 180-day internal time limit for such reviews. Monsanto, based in Creve Coeur, faces several regulatory barriers along with self-imposed hurdles. It could take many months and even years before engineered wheat reaches farm fields. But the prospect is drawing scrutiny because engineered wheat poses consumer issues weightier than those accompanying the arrival of modified soybeans and corn. Unlike the plans for wheat, most engineered soybeans and corn is grown for animal food or ends up in human diets only in small amounts. " Wheat is the first human food crop, and genetically modified wheat will be going into flour used in bread, cakes and cookies, " said Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Reviews of modified wheat have turned up no known safety concerns. But industry officials are encouraging caution on Monsanto's part and beefed-up regulations because of pockets of concern in the United States and deep suspicion of modified food around the world. Jerry Steiner of Monsanto said that because of wheat's sensitivity, his company had imposed a half-dozen conditions that must be met before it would sell modified seeds. They include regulatory approval in Canada, Japan and the United States as well as systems in place for segregating the gene-altered wheat from conventional varieties. Daren Coppock, who heads the National Association of Wheat Growers, said wheat farmers see themselves " on the horns of a dilemma. " On one hand, engineered seeds could mean easier production and possible cost savings. But, Coppock said, global opposition could threaten exports for an industry that has seen exports and commodity prices plummet. " It could be the greatest product in the world, but if the customer doesn't buy it, it's not worth anything to us, " he said. Triani, of Kraft, said his company continues to detect concern about genetically modified food in opinion surveys. He said 11 internal polls in recent years produced similar results: Of the roughly 70 percent of people aware of genetically modified food, about one-fourth are uneasy about the prospect of eating it, he said. The industry officials argued that the FDA might alleviate some of the fears with a more aggressive review that ended in a declaration that products are safe. Under its policy of voluntary review, the FDA reviews company studies rather than conducting tests. A letter from the FDA indicating that it has no more questions is tantamount to approval. The FDA has resisted pressure from all sides to make its process mandatory. Jeanette Glew, who supervises a six-member team examining Monsanto's application, argued that her agency lacks congressional authority to approach the review differently. " We feel that the process works, " she said. " Sometimes people don't understand the authority under which we are looking at this data, which companies bring to us voluntarily. A safety declaration is not something we make. " *************************************************************** Brazil's controversial cash crop: illegal genetically modified soy is boon to farmers Sunday, December 21 Alan Clendenning THE ASSOCIATED PRESS JULIO DE CASTILHOS, Brazil -- They're counting on another bumper soy crop in southern Brazil, where a new breed of rebel farmers work the fields in air-conditioned tractors and run to town in big new pickups. The seeds being sown -- and making the farmers rich -- are genetically modified to provide healthier yields at lower costs than conventional soy. They were originally smuggled in during a longstanding legal ban on so-called transgenic seed. While Brazil's ban didn't stop many farmers, it made it impossible for Monsanto Co. to collect seed revenues or crop royalties, as it does from farmers in the United States and elsewhere. American farmers are livid, but growers in towns like Julio de Castilhos are beaming. " Every year it's just getting better, " said Rodrigo Martins. Now 24, he started farming soy at age 17 and gave up plans to go to law school because he was making so much money. " With GM soy, you produce lots more profits in six months instead of a year, and it's not as much work. " In response to soaring world demand for soy used in products ranging from animal feed to processed food, Brazil's production has skyrocketed. It is expected to surpass the United States as the world's top soy exporter next year. An estimated 10 percent to 20 percent of Brazil's soy crop is grown with seeds smuggled in from neighboring countries and replicated locally. In Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil's third largest soy growing state, transgenic seeds are used to produce up to 90 percent of the annual harvest, experts say. U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, accuses Brazil's government, which rarely enforced the ban on transgenic soy, of letting the situation get out of control. Brazil's soy farmers are getting what amounts to an indirect subsidy, he contends, and are robbing Monsanto of money to develop new seeds that would help American farmers become more competitive. " It's unfair competition, " said Grassley. Brazilian farmers acknowledge using illegal seed, but claim their actions are forcing the government to legalize transgenic soy. Brazil permitted the planting of transgenic soy for the first time this season, and a bill is winding its way through Congress that would create the country's first rules allowing biotechnology in agriculture. Monsanto's soy seeds are spliced with a bacterium's gene that makes the plants immune to the company's popular herbicide Roundup, which farmers can then use to kill weeds while the soy plants flourish. Nearly 80 percent of the soy crop in the United States is genetically engineered. Critics are worried about long-term environmental effects. Brazil's ban was in line with that of most European countries, which do not permit genetically engineered crops. Smuggled transgenic seeds were introduced in Julio de Castilhos by an Uruguayan trucker in 1996, and skeptical farmers were amazed at the results. Oli Amadeu Facco planted five acres with the seeds, and they produced 50 percent more than his land cultivated with conventional seeds. " I couldn't believe it, but it came out more green, just beautiful, " said Facco, a burly 35-year-old who also travels from farm to farm as an agricultural specialist for the local soy farmers cooperative. In an area where cattle long was king, there now are more than 100,000 soy growers in Rio Grande do Sul state, a land of gentle rolling hills and flat " pampas " larger than Kansas and Iowa combined. Soy production in the Julio de Castilhos area has doubled to nearly 250,000 acres. Cattle farmers reduced their herds and hired legions of workers to clear rocks from pastures so they could be planted. Shifting from beef cattle ranches was a no-brainer. A farm of about 2,500 acres in the town producing genetically modified soy generates some $155,000 in yearly profit -- compared to $45,000 for cattle. The new money is coursing throughout Julio de Castilhos, population 25,000. Farmers and farm workers used to bake under the relentless sun in open-air tractors, but virtually everyone is buying air-conditioned tractors from local dealers these days. Land prices have tripled in five years, as have sales of $155,000 combines. Once-vacant storefronts are filled with new businesses ranging from cell phone vendors to a natural food shop. In what has become a local spectator sport rivaling soccer in popularity, townspeople cluster on street corners to watch a road crew laying the first asphalt over the bumpy, cobblestoned main street. When the workers quit for the day, farm families in the town's new vehicle of choice -- Ford F-250 turbo-diesel pickups sporting " 100% Transgenico " bumper stickers -- speed up and down the street to test the latest smooth stretch. Many residents are the descendants of poor German or Italian immigrants. Some farmers and business owners are having family trees prepared, contemplating trips to Europe for the first time to see the old country. But most are plowing their profits back into their farms, aiming to increase productivity amid growing competition. As he supervised farm workers loading seeds into a planter that efficiently injects them into the soil without plowing furrows, Martins said he doesn't regret his decision to forsake law school for soy farming on his family's land. With soy profits, the family has invested $344,000 to buy better farm equipment and build a dormitory for farm workers. They also put in a few ponds to raise carp, which the family sells to locals seeking a change from their daily " churrasco, " or barbecue in Portuguese. " We can't give this up, so my younger brother will go to law school, and we'll still have a lawyer in the family, " Martins said. Martins and other Brazilian soy producers brush off criticism from American farmers, who they say benefit from generous U.S. crop subsidies. Julio de Castilhos' soy farmers also insist they want to pay Monsanto as soon as they can buy the company's seeds -- and they support the bill in Brazil's Congress that would allow the government to legalize transgenic seed sales. But experts and farmers predict it could take years before a new law goes into effect, and for Monsanto's contractors to provide the seeds needed to fulfill Brazil's insatiable demand. Monsanto declines comment on how much money it has lost or how much it could make in Brazil from the country's soy producers, and it won't say how much it would charge. Lucio Mocsanyi, the Monsanto's Brazilian division spokesman, said the company sets prices at a level that won't discourage farmers from planting. In other countries, Monsanto's fees never surpass 5 percent of the price that farmers get for their soy, he said. " We want to reach agreements that are good and fair for both sides, " Mocsanyi said. " Growers are our customers. " Farmers in Julio de Castilhos would still come out ahead even if Monsanto set up a system whereby Brazilian farmers lost half of their newfound profits, said Antonio Abreu, the town's deputy mayor and a soy grower himself. Though the windfall of recent years would be reduced, there would still be plenty of prosperity in town, he said. " Right now, we've got a gold mine, " Abreu said. " It'll probably become a silver mine, but we can live with silver. " --------- Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.