Fwd: News about the EU, the UK and China

[Guest guest]

24 Jul 2003 13:27:13 -0000

News Update from The Campaign

News about the EU, the UK and China

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

There are several important international developments to report -- and

a quick update about the U.S. labeling legislation.

 

EUROPEAN UNION

 

First, on Tuesday, the European Union (EU) Ministers voted to approve

the tough new labeling legislation on genetically engineered foods that

was passed by the EU Parliament earlier this month.

 

The first article posted below from Associated Press titled " EU

Ministers Endorse New Biotech Rules " will provide further details.

 

The second article on this matter is from FoodNavigator.com titled " EU

rules on GMOs to ignite trade war. " This article points out that the

United States food industry is not happy about the new EU labeling

rules. It is likely that the U.S. will file a second WTO case against

the EU on labeling.

 

UNITED KINGDOM

 

The second development is the release of a report in Britain on Monday

about the safety of genetically engineered foods. While the report

downplayed health concerns about eating genetically engineered foods, it

did not say they are totally safe. The report said more studies need to

be done and that some people may have allergic reactions from

eating genetically engineered foods.

 

The third article posted below is from the British newspaper The

Guardian titled " Scientists stress uncertainties of GM crops. "

 

CHINA

 

China passed labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods last

year that are just starting to be enforced. As a result, 32 companies

selling 53 different food products have told Greenpeace China that they

will not use genetically engineered ingredients in these products.

 

The fourth article posted below from the Environment News Service is

titled " Food Firms Pledge to Keep Chinese Products GE Free "

 

In a related development, the city of Beijing, China began enforcing

labeling requirements on genetically engineered foods on Monday. The

fifth article posted below from China Daily titled " GM foods with an 'ID

card' debut in Beijing " will provide further details.

 

UNITED STATES

 

I spoke with Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) this past weekend

when he was in Seattle. Kucinich, who is running for president

www.kucinich.us, told me he plans to introduce the " Genetically

Engineered Food Right to Know Act " before the House of Representatives

" very soon. " If there are not any unforeseen delays, we expect the

labeling legislation to be introduced next week. We will keep you

posted as we receive more details from his legislative staff.

 

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. "

 

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

 

EU Ministers Endorse New Biotech Rules

 

By CONSTANT BRAND

..c The Associated Press

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - European Union agriculture ministers Tuesday

formally approved tougher labeling of new genetically altered food

products, paving the way for new biotech foods to be sold in Europe by

this fall.

 

The move was a formality after the European Parliament passed the new

rules July 2 to avoid a trade battle with the United States.

 

But Washington said the new rules would do little to remove barriers on

new genetically altered products in the European market and has

maintained the EU's biotech policy violates principals of free trade.

 

The EU's health and consumer protection commissioner, David Byrne,

welcomed Tuesday's move. ``European consumers can now have confidence

that any genetically modified food or feed marketed in Europe has been

subject to the most rigorous pre-marketing assessment in the world,''

Byrne said in a statement.

 

Under the new rules, all genetically altered products including animal

feed, vegetable oils, seeds and byproducts containing more than 0.9

percent genetically altered material will have to be clearly labeled

with the words, ``This product is produced from Genetically Modified

Organisms.''

 

A new register will be set up forcing businesses dealing in GMOs to

trace each GMO product from its point of origin to the supermarket

shelf. The EU's new European Food Safety Authority will assess the

safety of all new biotech products before they are allowed to be sold.

 

The new laws also allow each of the 15 EU nations to set their own rules

to prevent seeds from farms growing genetically modified crops from

blowing onto fields producing foodstuffs conventionally or organically.

 

The EU head office is expected to introduce guidelines later this week

detailing how EU nations can set up such rules to ensure common

standards.

 

Despite complaints from Washington, EU environment commissioner Margot

Wallstrom said the new rules ``will reinforce ... international

credibility'' of the EU's biotech policy building much needed public

confidence in GMOs.

 

The EU introduced a moratorium on new biotech foods in 1998 in response

to consumer fears about the possible health risks, which the United

States says are unfounded. The freeze was intended to give the EU time

to study the issue and put in a system of traceability and labeling.

 

The United States, backed by Canada and Australia, filed suit with the

World Trade Organization against the EU's moratorium in June arguing

that the ban violated global trading rules.

 

EU officials said they hope to restart approval procedures of some 20

genetically altered products up for review once the moratorium is lifted

by the end of the year.

 

07/22/03 16:11 EDT

 

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

 

EU rules on GMOs to ignite trade war

 

FoodNavigator.com

 

23/7/2003

 

US food manufacturers this week spoke out against new European rules on

the labelling and traceability of GMOs, describing the legislation as " a

brick wall blocking international trade " .

 

Cutting straight to the quick, John R. Cady, president and CEO of the

National Food Processors Association (NFPA) claimed that the new

traceability requirements " are so complex and detailed that they equate

to the process for handling nuclear waste " .

 

Europe's Council of Ministers this week formally adopted the two

European Commission proposals on genetically modified organisms which

establish a tough new system to trace and label GMOs and to regulate the

placing on the market and labelling of food and feed products derived

from GMOs.

 

The controversial rules - overwhelmingly welcomed by European consumer

associations and environmental groups - aim to address consumer concerns

in europe over the environmental and health effects of GMOs.

 

Products containing more than 0.9 per cent GMO material will be clearly

labelled. In addition, in a bid to tighten up traceability the food

industry must - when using or handling GM products - transmit and retain

information at each stage of the placing on the market.

 

Speaking this week, Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner David

Byrne asserted: " Europe will now have a comprehensive and transparent

system of authorisation and labelling that can only enhance business and

consumer confidence. "

 

But the NFPA is not in agreement. According to the trade group, the

draconian rules will be seen by consumers as a 'warning label'. The

requirements ensure that these products are unlikely to enter the

European market, thereby actually denying consumer access to the

products of agricultural biotechnology, said Cady.

 

The voice of the $500 billion US food processing industry made no bones

about warning Europe of the repercussions linked to the new legislation.

 

" This is a bad decision by the EU, " continued Crady. Adding that the

NFPA will work with the US trade representative to ensure the World

Trade Organisation " understands the problem these new requirements will

pose, and request the WTO to take appropriate action to resolve this

issue. "

 

US companies such as Monsanto and DuPont have a lot riding on European

acceptance of GM products having invested billions in agricultural

biotechnology. US soy exports to the EU have declined dramatically over

the past five years.

 

In May this year the US filed a case with the WTO against the EU 'over

its illegal five-year moratorium on approving agricultural biotech

products'. Europe has blocked all new GM crops since 1998, but the rules

on labelling and traceability cleared this week by the Council are

largely recognised as a step towards lifting the moratorium. Far from

appeasing US farmers and industry trade bodies, it would seem that

Europe is in for a lengthy trade battle over GMOs.

 

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

 

Scientists stress uncertainties of GM crops

Wide-ranging review says no health ill-effects are yet known, but

emphasises need to protect consumers and countryside

 

Paul Brown, environment correspondent

Tuesday July 22, 2003

The Guardian (London)

 

Government hopes of an early introduction of commercially grown GM crops

in Britain suffered another setback yesterday when the world's most

comprehensive scientific review of the subject emphasised the

uncertainties and potential dangers of the crops rather than the

advantages.

 

Following the Cabinet Office review 10 days ago, which saw no economic

benefit to consumers or the economy in growing GM crops, the

government's genetic modification science review highlighted dangers

both to Britain's environment and the livelihoods of other farmers if

the crops were grown here.

 

The report was compiled by a wide spectrum of scientists from both pro

and anti lobby groups and was chaired by the government's chief

scientist, Sir David King.

 

The tenor of the report was far more cautious than expected and

emphasised the need to protect the consumer and the countryside, and to

promote more studies to avoid undesirable side-effects of GM technology.

 

Although the report said throughout that there were no known health

effects from the introduction of GM foods, it was equally impossible to

say they were completely safe. Allergies were a potential problem.

 

Perhaps the most damning conclusion from the government's point of view

was that it would be impossible to grow some GM crops without

cross-contamination of organic and conventional fields of the same

species.

 

One of the most commonly grown crops in Britain - oil seed rape - was

almost impossible to grow without likely contamination from GM crops if

commercial cultivation was allowed, the report concluded. This might

leave conventional and organic farmers with produce contaminated above

the level at which they could sell it without describing it as GM. A

working party has been set up to assess who would be liable for damages

for loss of sales if cross-contamination occurred, but it has yet to

come to a conclusion.

 

The scientists said the decision on whether to allow the growth of

crops, and the separation distances required between them, was

essentially political. However, the scientists will produce a second

paper in the autumn recording developments in the meantime, including

the results of the government's three-year crop trials, which are

expected in September.

 

Sir David said the panel had reviewed 600 papers on GM crops and

concluded that there was no case for ruling out genetic modification

either in food or for growing in Britain, but nor should there be

blanket approval.

 

The panel had identified four areas where further work was needed: food

allergies; possible changes in soil ecology because of GM organisms;

farmland biodiversity from the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops;

and consequences of gene flow between species.

 

" The public has correctly defined that there is currently no benefit,

and potentially some unknown risks, in genetic modification, so proper

labelling is vital so consumers can make informed choices, " Sir David

said.

 

Environmental groups were delighted with the tone of the report, but the

biotech industry was also supportive.

 

Michael Meacher, the former environment minister sacked in the

government reshuffle partly, it is believed, because of his suspicion of

genetic modification, said: " This is a setback for the early

introduction of genetic modification. It has accurately drawn attention

to the weaknesses, gaps, flaws and limitations of the technology and the

testing regime. It shows how much more needs to be done before we expose

our food and that of our children to this untested technology. "

 

Brian Johnson, biotechnology adviser for English Nature, said:

" Significantly, the report found that the most important issue for the

current generation of GM crops was their potential effect on farmland

and wildlife. "

 

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a bio-industry body, said the

report endorsed its view that there were no expected or observed

detrimental health effects from the introduction of GM crops and GM

foods, and that genetic modification, as an option for developing crops,

was as predictable and reliable as other crop breeding methods.

 

But Sue Mayer, GeneWatch UK's director, said: " People are effectively

being used in unmonitored testing of GM food safety across the world.

And there are no plans to start collecting hard evidence from the human

guinea pigs. Even so, the review tried to reassure us that current GM

foods are safe. They don't seem to have learned the hard lessons of

BSE. "

 

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

 

Food Firms Pledge to Keep Chinese Products GE Free

 

GUANGZHOU, China, July 22, 2003 (ENS) - For the first time food

producers in China have publicly committed themselves not to sell

genetically modified food. Thirty-two food companies producing 53 brands

have agreed to sell only food products that are free of transgenic

ingredients, the result of a campaign by Greenpeace China.

 

The 32 producers sent formal statements to Greenpeace confirming they do

not use genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in their products sold

in China.

 

Greenpeace China campaigner Sze Pang-cheung said Friday, " Transnational

food companies are learning the lesson. There is a heavy price to pay

for applying double standards to Chinese consumers. "

 

Several well known brand names are among the 32 food producers promising

not to use genetically modified ingredients in their products sold in

China including Lipton, Wrigley, Wyeth and Mead Johnson. These companies

are also selling foods free of genetically modified ingredients in other

countries.

 

The local companies include large soy sauce producers in southern China,

such as Pearl River Bridge, Lee Kum Kee and Amoy, as well as a major

soymilk brand, Vitasoy.

 

Last July, the Chinese government introduced compulsory labeling of

transgenic food. More recently it has stepped up measures to enforce the

labeling legislation by conducting a nationwide inspection. Agriculture

officials emphasised that producers selling unlabeled products

containing genetically modified ingredients would be penalized.

 

The food companies committing to foods free of transgenic ingredients

benefit from a new government policy introduced in March which commits

to keeping soy production in northeast China traditional. China is the

world's fourth largest soy producer.

 

The majority of Chinese consumers do not want genetically engineered

foods, Sze says, and the Chinese government is taking the consumer's

right to choose seriously.

 

Greenpeace China released the country's first survey of consumer

attitudes to transgenic foods in January. The survey, conducted by

Zhongshan University in December 2002, showed that a majority of people

questioned would choose food free of genetically modified ingredients,

and many would be willing to pay more for it.

 

A majority of 87 percent of those surveyed wanted genetically engineered

food products to be labeled.

 

" The choice for food producers is either to label their genetically

engineered products and face consumer rejection, or to risk violating

the regulation by covering up the true nature of their products, " said

Sze. " Companies simply have to make the right decision for consumers,

the environment and their business interests. "

 

When Greenpeace China revealed Nestle's overseas practice of selling

genetically modified foods, including baby food, in China and other

Asian countries, the Swiss based company's " double standards " met with

angry reactions from Chinese consumers who returned products to Nestle,

Sze said.

 

According to Sze, the consumption of foods free of genetically

engineered ingredients is a growing trend in China. He is urging more

companies to address consumers' concerns about GE food. These concerns

include fear of food allergies triggered by modified proteins in

transgenic foods, and concerns that modified foods might be less

nutritious or more toxic than traditionally cultivated crops.

 

In 2002, genetically modified crops were cultivated on some 59 million

hectares globally. Ninety-nine percent of these crops were grown in four

countries: the USA with 66 percent, Argentina with 23 percent, Canada

with six percent, and China with four percent.

 

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

 

GM foods with an 'ID card' debut in Beijing

( 2003-07-22 17:31) (chinadaily.com.cn)

 

Starting from July 21 all genetically modified (GM) foods will be

labeled in markets in Beijing -- the first Chinese city to do so -- the

China Youth Daily reported Monday.

 

The newspaper reported that 10 genetically modified food products are

now on sale in Beijing, including " Huoniao, " " Lubao, " " Hailanhua, "

" Xiyingmen, " " Jiaxiang, " " Yulongren, " " Hongle " and " Sicheng " salad oil.

 

Experts in this field indicate the GM label is not a symbol

demonstrating whether the food is healthy or not, but giving consumers

the right to know and the right to choose.

 

" The small label shows respect to consumers, " said Wu Jianfan, director

of the Beijing Genetically Modified Agricultural Organisms Office.

 

Regulations on the Administration of Genetically Modified Agricultural

Organisms, effective March 20, 2002, stipulate that all GM produce

listed in its catalogue should be clearly labeled. While GM foods were

readily available in China, no GM food appeared with an " ID card " in

2002.

 

Yesterday, the Beijing Agricultural Bureau checked the quality of GM

produce in many supermarkets and two oilseed processing companies. It is

common that the use of the label is not standardized. Some produce is

described as being " made from GM soybeans, but not containing the GM

element, " which experts said violates government rules.

 

In addition, some enterprises have applied for the genetically modified

organisms (GMO) labeling certificate, although they do not label produce

when putting it on the market. The phenomenon has been checked in

Beijing, the report added.

 

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

 

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