Fwd: Three important developments

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign "

Three important developments

Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:29:56 -0500

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

This is a busy week in the global battle over genetically engineered

foods. We have bad news and good news to report. First the bad news.

 

BRAZIL LIFTS BAN

 

The president of Brazil has decided to allow genetically engineered

soybeans to be planted this year. The vice-president of Brazil made the

announcement today while the president is visiting the United States,

Cuba and Mexico.

 

Although this is disappointing news, the presidential approval is only

for this year. The Brazilian congress will apparently decide whether or

not to lift the ban permanently.

 

The first article posted below from the New York Times will provide more

information. Now for some good news...

 

LAWSUIT AGAINST MONSANTO CONTINUES

 

Opponents of genetically engineered foods will be pleased to learn that

a federal judge has decided a lawsuit by farmers against Monsanto can

continue. Although parts of the lawsuit were thrown out by the judge, he

allowed many of the charges to remain.

 

The second article posted below from Associated Press will provide more

details.

 

GM NATION? THE BRITISH PUBLIC SAYS " NO "

 

A new report from the United Kingdom (UK) called GM Nation? was released

on Wednesday. The report documents the widespread public opposition to

genetically engineered crops. Only two percent of the UK public said

they were happy to eat genetically modified foods, eighty-six percent

said they were not.

 

All the UK papers are covering this story in significant detail. The

third and fourth articles below will provide a good overview.

 

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 to Lift Ban on Crops With Genetic Modification

 

By TONY SMITH

The New York Times

 

PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil, Sept. 24 - Brazilian farmers, the world's No. 2

producers of soybeans, got the go-ahead today to plant genetically

modified seeds this season after the country's vice president said he

would lift a ban on transgenic crops.

 

Vice President José Alencar, standing in for President Luiz Inácio Lula

da Silva who is visiting the United States, Cuba and Mexico, said that

he would sign a decree ending the ban, despite resistance from

environmental advocates and their supporters in the government.

 

The decree effectively extends a temporary decree legalizing the sale of

genetically modified soy from this year's harvest, but officials said

they expected it to pave the way for legislation that would be sent to

Congress this year. The extension comes just in time for the October

planting.

 

Until last year, Brazil was one of the world's last main exporters of

farm goods to ban the planting or sale of genetically altered crops or

foods, although an increasing number of farmers, especially in the

southern farming states Rio Grande do Sul and Paraná, have flouted the

ban in recent years by planting transgenic seeds smuggled in from

neighboring Argentina.

 

" This decree essentially legalizes what was already happening, but it is

important, " said Amaryllis Romano, agribusiness analyst at Tendencias, a

consultant in São Paulo.

 

Analysts estimate that 30 percent of Brazil's soy is grown from smuggled

genetically modified seeds, and in Rio Grande do Sul, which borders

Argentina and where most of Brazil's transgenic soy has been planted,

the figure is closer to 70 percent.

 

Even under the ban, Brazil produces more than a quarter of the world's

soy and has been closing the gap with the United States, the top

producer and exporter.

 

Brazil's oilseeds association says soy exports should top $8 billion

this year, 34 percent more than in 2002. This year's harvest produced 52

million tons, nearly 60 percent more than five years ago and only 20

million tons behind estimates for this year's American harvest.

 

" Sooner or later, Brazil will overtake the United States, with or

without transgenics, " Ms. Romano said.

 

While the agriculture minister, Roberto Rodrigues, and other members of

Mr. da Silva's pro-business economic team have advocated lifting the

ban, it was opposed by the environment minister, Marina Silva, and by

environmental advocates. Court rulings have overturned, then upheld the

ban in recent months. On Tuesday, a group of landless rural workers

stormed the agriculture ministry to protest the expected lifting of the

ban.

 

" The technicians tell me there are no risks, the environmentalists tell

me there are, " Mr. Alencar said at a function in Brasília. " But really I

must sign this decree. "

 

The lifting of the ban is good news for the Monsanto Company, which last

week ran notices in several newspapers here, asking soybean farmers to

pay royalties on future use of its Roundup Ready soybeans.

 

But smaller farmers were also happy.

 

" We did all our sums and we found that we had lost 28 percent of our

income by not planting transgenic seeds last year, " said Amauri Miotto,

treasurer of Rio Grandes family farmers federation who farms 120 acres

near the Argentine border. " That's about $1,500 - a lot of money for a

farmer like me. "

 

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

 

Judge: Monsanto Lawsuit Should Proceed

 

By JIM SUHR

..c The Associated Press

 

ST. LOUIS (AP) - The antitrust portion of a lawsuit accusing Monsanto

Co. and some of its seed-marketing rivals of plotting to control

genetically modified corn and soybean prices should be allowed to go

forward, a federal judge has ruled.

 

U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel's 13-page decision this month threw

out part of a 1999 lawsuit by a group of farmers who said they had

suffered losses because of global resistance to genetically modified

crops. But the judge said a claim alleging antitrust violations can

proceed because ``genuine disputes of material fact remain.''

 

Victoria Nugent, a lawyer for the farmers, on Wednesday praised the

ruling, calling it ``a very good result for our clients.''

 

Bryan Hurley, a Monsanto spokesman, said the company was pleased that

the judge had narrowed the scope of the case, and was confident it would

ultimately prevail against the antitrust claim.

 

Monsanto and others named in the case - Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont unit

Pioneer Hi-Bred - have denied the farmers' claims that the companies

plotted for years to fix prices. Casting the lawsuit as a political

stunt, Monsanto has rejected claims that genetically modified seeds and

foods are unsafe.

 

Bayer CropScience, a product of Bayer's acquisition of Aventis

CropScience last year, is a relatively minor player in the lawsuit,

named in just one of the case's nine counts, a spokeswoman said. If the

case ever went to jurors, ``we're quite confident that they will find no

activities unwarranted from us,'' said Peg Cherny, vice president of

government affairs and communications.

 

Messages left Wednesday seeking comment from Pioneer and Syngenta were

not immediately returned.

 

The suit alleges that Monsanto, using its biotechnology patents,

coordinated with the other accused biotech companies to fix prices and

force farmers into using genetically engineered seed. The lawsuit also

alleged there is ``substantial uncertainty'' as to whether the crops are

safe.

 

In a ruling released Friday, Sippel rejected negligence and ``public

nuisance'' claims by farmers who grew non-genetically modified corn and

soybeans but who argued, among other things, that their crops were

tainted by Monsanto's genetically modified seeds, and that the company

wrongly hawked seeds critics called environmentally unfriendly.

 

Those farmers offered no proof of their claims, Sippel ruled.

 

The judge has yet to rule on whether the lawsuit should have

class-action status. Such a declaration could expand the case to include

more than 100,000 farmers, said Michael Hausfeld, another lawyer for the

plaintiffs.

 

Corn and soybeans genetically designed to kill pests or withstand

herbicides have become widely popular in the United States, but they've

have met consumer resistance overseas. Genetic engineering involves

splicing a single gene from one organism to another.

 

Biotech opponents have focused on persuading food makers not to buy

genetically modified crops and getting governments to require the

labeling of altered foods.

 

On the Net:

 

Monsanto, http://www.monsanto.com

 

Pioneer Hi-Bred, http://www.pioneer.com

 

Bayer, http://www.bayercropscienceus.com

 

Syngenta, http://www.syngenta.com

 

 

09/24/03 18:48 EDT

 

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

 

British public says " no " to GMO crops

 

By David Cullen

 

LONDON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - A six-week national debate over genetically

modified (GMO) crops and food has found that British people are still

highly sceptical of the controversial technology and mistrust the

government and the industry that has to power to introduce it.

 

This was the overwhelming conclusion from a report on this year's

government-sponsored national dialogue, GM Nation? published on

Wednesday.

 

The debate also found that the more people were informed about GM

technology, the more sceptical they became.

 

" Across the different elements of the debate, participants expressed

unease about GM, " the report from the government's Independent GM

Steering Board, which oversaw the debate under the helm of Professor

Malcolm Grant, said.

 

" The mood ranged from caution to doubt, through suspicion and

scepticism, to hostility and rejection, " it added.

 

The UK government said it promised to take the report's findings

seriously and issue an official response in due course.

 

Britain's sceptical public said in the survey they wanted the government

to delay its decision on whether to allow GM crops to be grown

commercially until more questions are answered.

 

More than half of all participants said they never wanted to see them

grown under any circumstances.

 

Only two percent said they were happy to eat GM food, while 86 percent

were not.

 

" There is little support for the early commercialisation of GM crops, "

the report said.

 

Those who did not reject the technology outright called for more time so

that crucial questions about their potential effects on human health and

the environment can be answered.

 

" They seek varying periods of delay so that new information, tests or

research can identify and eliminate, or at least reduce to an acceptable

level, the potential risks, " the government-backed report concluded.

 

The national survey, which took 36,500 completed questionnaires, 600

local meetings and six regional debates into account, found there was

also widespread mistrust of the government over its handling of the

issue and the companies that advocate GM technology.

 

Many people surveyed thought the government had already made up its mind

to allow GM crops to be grown and that the debate " was only a camouflage

and its results would be ignored. "

 

" Even when people acknowledge potential benefits of GM technology, they

are doubtful that GM companies will actually deliver them, " the report

said.

 

Opponents of GM crops and food seized on the debate results and urged

the government to take note.

 

" The government will ignore this report at its peril -- the public has

made it clear that it doesn't want GM food and it doesn't want GM

crops, " Pete Riley of environmental group Friends of the Earth said.

 

Clare Devereux, who organises the " Five Year Freeze " campaign, said the

moratorium on GM crops should continue.

 

" One of the key messages from the public is how little government or

industry is trusted on this issue -- there is now a duty to adopt a more

precautionary approach to GM crops and food, " Devereux said.

 

GM CROP FIRMS SCEPTICAL OF RESULTS

 

But the biotechnology companies pioneering gene-spliced technology said

the government debate was flawed and that its results were unreliable.

 

" Public meetings do not equal public opinion, " the Agricultural

Biotechnology Council (ABC), which represents biotech firms like

Monsanto and Bayer CropScience, said.

 

" Unfortunately this exercise doesn't tell us anything new, " ABC's Paul

Rylott said.

 

" When the public is asked in a statistically valid way, they can see why

GM crops are so widely grown in other countries, " Rylott said.

 

UKagriculture minister Margaret Beckett said in a statement: " I will

reflect carefully on the findings of today's report. We said that we

will. "

 

The government is preparing to unveil the long-awaited results of

farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops on October 16.

 

Its findings, along with those of the Science Review Panel and the

Strategy Unit's costs and benefits study, are expected to form the basis

on which the government decides whether to give GM crops the green

light, probably later this year.

 

No GM crops are currently grown on a commercial basis in the UK. Several

applications for approval are under consideration at European Union

level, but no decisions will be taken until next year.

 

09/24/03 09:26 ET

 

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

 

5 to 1 against GM crops in biggest ever public survey

 

John Vidal and Ian Sample

Thursday September 25, 2003

The Guardian

 

The widest formal public debate ever conducted in Britain has found an

overwhelming percentage of people uneasy, suspicious or outrightly

hostile to the introduction of genetically modified crops in Britain.

 

More than 650 public meetings were held around the country, and about

37,000 people responded to questionnaires, with 54% saying they never

want to see GM crops grown in the UK. A further 18% said they would find

the crops acceptable only if there was no risk of cross-contamination;

13% wanted more research.

 

In a clear message to government and supermarkets, only 2% of people

said GM crops were acceptable " in any circumstances " and just 8% said

they were happy to eat GM food.

 

" Every single group was broadly negative in its feelings about every GM

issue, " said the report which found the numbers opposed to GM outweighed

those who may support it by 5 to 1.

 

The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, promised to take the

results seriously, but said the government would give its formal

response to the consultation at a later date.

 

" I will reflect carefully on the findings of today's report, along with

those of the science review and our costs and benefits study, before

publishing our response. We said that we will listen, and we will, " she

said.

 

Sue Meyer, of Genewatch, said the debate had confirmed that the country

is sceptical about GM food. " The public believe it is being driven by

profit and don't trust the government to act fairly. People see possible

dangers for themselves and for the environment, while industry reaps the

benefits. The more people learn, the more anxious they become. "

 

The blow to the government comes as a Guardian investigation reveals a

crisis looming in GM science in Britain. A stream of leading GM crop

researchers have quit the country, while others are preparing leave in

the next few months, threatening to damage Britain's world-class

reputation in the field.

 

" The really committed people who have underpinned our excellence are

moving out and that's a real worry, " said Professor Chris Leaver, head

of plant sciences at the University of Oxford.

 

Scientists said weak leadership from the government and public

opposition to GM, stirred up by anti-GM pressure groups, were largely to

blame.

 

The plant biotechnology industry has already taken a big hit in Britain.

High-profile GM research companies such as Monsanto, Bayer and Dow have

all closed down research facilities in Britain in recent years,

drastically diminishing the career prospects of scientists working on GM

crops. Only one multinational company, Syngenta, remains.

 

Yesterday's report uncovered deep suspicion about government motives,

with people following earlier studies which suggested there were few

economic benefits from growing the crops, and increasing concerns by its

own scientists.

 

The authors - a team drawn from universities, business and consumer

groups - found that " people believe that the multinational [GM]

companies are motivated overwhelmingly by profit rather than meeting

society's needs ... People are suspicious about any information or

science which emanates from GM companies. "

 

The prime minister had hoped the national debate on GM crops would

soothe widespread anxieties over their safety, paving the way for their

commercialisation in the UK.

 

The report comes on the back of an economic analysis by the No 10

strategy unit, which showed little benefit from growing the crops to

Britain, and a scientific analysis which urged more caution.

 

A decision on whether to allow the crops was to have been made within

the next month but has been put back to the new year following impasse

on legal liability and whether they can be grown next to conventional

crops. A report on their environmental effects is expected in

mid-October.

 

 

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search