The Campaign Reporter - August 2004

[Guest guest]

> " The Campaign Reporter "

> <thereporter

 

> The Campaign Reporter - August 2004

> Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:27:00 -0500

>

> The Campaign Reporter Online From

> The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

>

----

>

> This is the August 2004 text edition of our

> newsletter -- The Campaign

> Reporter Online.

>

> INSTEAD OF READING THE TEXT VERSION BELOW, WE

> RECOMMEND YOU GO TO THEFOLLOWING WEB PAGE TO READ

THE CAMPAIGN REPORTER IN FULL COLOR:

> http://www.thecampaign.org/reporter.php

>

> We hope you enjoy the August edition of The Campaign

> Reporter!

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Craig Winters

> Executive Director

> The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

>

> The Campaign

> PO Box 55699

> Seattle, WA 98155

> Tel: 425-771-4049

> 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. "

>

>

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

>

> The Campaign Reporter -- August 2004

> http://www.thecampaign.org/reporter.php

>

> The Campaign Reporter is also available in a 2-page

> printable PDF format.

> Click here (or on the image above) to go to the PDF

> version:

> http://www.thecampaign.org/reporter.pdf

>

>

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

>

> California: Big battle brews over biotech foods

>

> Californian activists are doing an incredible job

> this year of making a

> difference in the battle over genetically engineered

> foods.

>

> So far, voters have approved a ban on the growing or

> raising of biotech

> crops and animals in Mendocino County. And in early

> August, Trinity County

> officials voted to ban biotech crops and animals

> from being grown or raised

> there as well.

>

> Moreover, residents in the counties of Humboldt,

> Marin, San Luis Obispo and

> Butte have garnered enough signatures to get similar

> ballot measures onto

> the November ballot. Activists in several more

> Californian counties are

> working to get enough signatures to make it onto the

> ballot this November or

> in future elections.

>

> The county battles are being driven by organic

> farmers and shoppers, who

> worry that organic food may be contaminated if

> genetically engineered crops

> are allowed to be grown nearby.

>

> The Sacramento Bee calls Butte a key battleground

> county, because it is a

> rice powerhouse. The biotech industry is interested

> in growing " pharm rice "

> -- rice engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs

> or vaccines -- in

> California.

>

> The California Rice Commission, the industry

> dominant voice in the state,

> voted 28-1 to fight against Butte County's ballot

> initiative, Measure D.

>

> Don Bransford, a Colusa County rice grower and

> chairman of the rice

> commission, told The Bee that the vote didn't mean

> the commission was taking

> a position on biotech crops, which farmers both

> support and oppose. Rather,

> state law, not county mandates, should determine

> what kinds of rice should

> be planted.

>

> But supporters of the crop bans are taking action at

> the county level

> because the state so far has failed to take action.

>

> " We are definitely not going away, " said Scott Wolf,

> chairman of Citizens

> for a GE-Free Butte. " We are hoping our personal

> relationships and educating

> people about the issues will make the difference. "

>

> The Campaign has set up an extensive web page of

> California resources at:

>

http://www.thecampaign.org/states/california-counties.php

>

> There, you'll find the text of Measure H, the

> initiative passed by Mendocino

> voters in March, as well as the proposed measures

> for Humboldt, San Luis

> Obispo, Marin and Butte counties.

>

> Here are links to several California groups fighting

> to ban genetically

> engineered crops:

>

> GMO Free Mendocino: http://www.gmofreemendo.com

> Grow GMO free: Humboldt County:

> http://www.growgmofree.com

> GMO Free Marin: http://www.gmofreemarin.org

> GE-free Sonoma County: http://www.gefreesonoma.org

> GMO Free Alameda County: http://www.gmofreeac.org

> GE-Free Butte: http://www.gefreebutte.org

> SLO GE Free -- San Luis Obispo County:

> http://slogefree.org

> BioDemocracy Alliance:

> http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge-free.htm

> Californians for GE-Free Agriculture:

> http://www.calgefree.org

>

>

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

>

> Food industry alarmed by Prodigene's pharm crops

>

> Even some long-time proponents of genetically

> altered foods are concerned

> about pharm crops.

>

> The Grocery Manufacturers of America, one of the

> biggest food industry trade

> groups, is speaking out against a plan by ProdiGene

> to cultivate genetically

> engineered pharmaceutical corn in Frio County,

> Texas.

>

> Texas-based ProdiGene gave the biotech industry a

> black eye two years ago

> when the company's pharmaceutical corn crops were

> mismanaged in Iowa and

> Nebraska.

>

> In a letter to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, GMA

> said the government is not

> doing enough to regulate crops engineered for

> pharmaceutical and industrial

> purposes.

>

> Said Stephanie Childs, a group spokeswoman: " Right

> now, as it stands,

> federal regulations say that if any of these

> plant-made pharmaceuticals make

> it into the food supply, we have an adulterated

> product. It's our brands

> that get damaged. We're not ready to take that risk

> for a product that we're

> not developing. "

>

> Visit The Campaign's sister site, PharmCrops.com,

> for more info:

> http://www.pharmcrops.com

>

>

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

>

> Judge orders USDA to reveal Hawaiian pharm crop

> locations

>

> A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the

> USDA must reveal the

> Hawaiian locations of experimental pharm crop

> trials, a big victory for

> public safety.

>

> Chief Judge David Ezra sided with the plaintiff,

> Center for Food Safety,

> ruling that the locations of pharm crop trials is

> not confidential business

> information.

>

> The public interest law firm Earthjustice, working

> on behalf of the Center

> for Food Safety, filed the lawsuit in federal

> district court in Honolulu

> last November. The lawsuit asked the court to order

> the USDA to assess the

> environmental and public health risks of pharm

> crops, and to provide better

> regulation.

>

> " It's definitely a victory, " said Isaac Moriwake, an

> attorney for

> Earthjustice. " It's basically an affirmation that

> the defendants haven't

> been able to show that this kind of information is

> confidential. "

>

> The victory represents the first time in the United

> States that locations of

> biopharm crop tests will be revealed to an outside

> party. Analysts believe

> that disclosure of pharm crop locations in other

> states may follow.

>

> Ezra's ruling holds that the locations of test sites

> for pharm crops in

> Hawaii will be revealed to Earthjustice, which must

> keep the locations

> confidential for 90 days.

>

> The biotech industry considered the ruling a defeat.

>

> " It's disappointing, " said Lisa Dry, spokeswoman for

> the Biotechnology

> Industry Organization. If crop locations were made

> public, it would be " a

> real detriment for continuing to do business in that

> area. Basically it

> would be viewed as an unfriendly business

> environment for technology of any

> sort. "

>

> The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

> is concerned that pharm

> crops, which are currently grown only in trials, may

> soon be approved for

> commercial use and grown on a widespread basis.

>

> So far, there have been no peer reviewed scientific

> studies published on the

> safety of pharm crops. No one can say for sure what

> will happen if pharm

> crops intermingle with our food supply.

>

> Contamination of the food supply would appear to be

> inevitable if pharm

> crops are grown commercially.

>

> Please visit our sister web site, PharmCrops.com,

> where you can send

> messages to your members of Congress and the

> Secretary of Agriculture asking

> for a moratorium on the outdoor growing of pharm

> crops:

> http://www.pharmcrops.com

>

>

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

>

> Report raises red flags about GM crop safety

>

> A major new report from the National Academy of

> Sciences was released in

> late July titled " Safety of Genetically Engineered

> Foods: Approaches to

> Assessing Unintended Health Effects. "

>

> This project was funded by the Food and Drug

> Administration (FDA), the U.S.

> Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the

> Environmental Protection Agency

> (EPA).

>

> The Institute of Medicine and the National Research

> Council are the

> divisions of the National Academy of Sciences that

> released the report. The

> report was conducted by the " Committee on

> Identifying and Assessing

> Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods

> on Human Health. "

>

> This report from the nation's leading scientific

> organization raises many

> red flags about the safety of genetically engineered

> foods. We will

> definitely be using this important report in making

> our case to Congress

> about the need to label genetically engineered

> foods.

>

> You can read and/or purchase the entire 254-page

> report online at the

> National Academies Press web site. There is also a

> 16-page executive

> summary. Here is a link to the web site:

> http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html

>

> A few things to keep in mind:

>

> 1) Most of the people who served on this committee

> are very pro-biotech.

> Many earn their livings in this field and stand to

> profit significantly if

> this technology is adopted on a larger scale.

>

> 2) This type of safety review should have been

> conducted in the early

> 1990's, before we made guinea pigs out of the

> American public.

>

> 3) Since genetically engineered foods are currently

> being eaten on a daily

> basis by millions of U.S. citizens, there was great

> pressure on the

> committee to not alarm the public by suggesting that

> the current foods are

> in any way not safe.

>

> 4) The biotech industry is trying to say that this

> report indicates

> genetically engineered crops are safe when the

> findings clearly raise many

> significant safety concerns.

>

> 5) The report emphasizes the value and importance of

> post market tracking of

> genetically engineered foods that have been approved

> for human consumption.

>

> The easiest way to facilitate post market tracking

> would be to label the

> genetically engineered foods. Yet the committee

> chairwoman is downplaying

> the need for post market tracking, undermining this

> important safety review

> that the report emphasizes.

>

> 6) As the report points out, the technology does not

> even currently exist

> that is necessary to adequately safety test

> genetically engineered foods. It

> could cost many millions, if not billions, of

> dollars to develop such

> technology, and take many years. In the meantime,

> people are being fed these

> risky foods that have never been adequately tested.

>

> 7) Based on the track record of the government

> agencies that commissioned

> this report, it is unlikely they will suddenly

> change the way they have been

> dealing with genetically engineered foods. So, the

> status quo will likely

> remain. And under the current regulations, if a

> biotech company has a new

> genetically engineered product to bring to market,

> they are not even

> required to inform the FDA they are bringing it out.

>

> Again, this type of analysis on the safety of

> genetically engineered foods

> should have been done BEFORE allowing the American

> public to be made guinea

> pigs.

>

> Now that this report has been released indicating

> the potential for health

> problems is real, will the government agencies

> finally start adequately

> regulating genetically engineered foods? Probably

> not. Most likely it will

> take Congressional action to force the agencies to

> act. This report provides

> compelling evidence on why such action from Congress

> is needed.

>

> Safety testing and labeling should be required for

> ALL genetically

> engineered foods. As the report points out, the

> current system is inadequate

> to assure safety.

>

>

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

>

> Copyright 2004

> The Campaign

> PO Box 55699

> Seattle, WA 98155

> 425-771-4049

> label

> http://www.thecampaign.org

>