GMW: GM food goes on trial

[Guest guest]

GMW: GM food goes on trial

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:43:38 GMT

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

---

EXCERPT: " We do not have a mandatory pre-market approval process for

GM crops at the Food and Drug Administration, " CSPI's Gregory Jaffe

points out. " We only have a voluntary consultation process. We're the

only country in the world with such a process. "

 

---

 

 

GM food goes on trial

John Feffer

http://www.alternet.org/story/32317/

 

The fundamental rule of retail is: The consumer is always right. The

World Trade Organization (WTO) has once again disregarded this rule by

declaring the majority of European consumers wrong.

 

In poll after poll, Europeans have voiced their skepticism of food

that's been altered at the genetic level. Their governments initially

responded with a moratorium on new GM products and subsequently

adopted a Europe-wide policy on product labeling. But in its latest

ruling, the WTO did some labeling of its own, declaring Europe's

cautious policy on genetically modified organisms (GMO) an unfair

barrier to trade.

 

The 800-page report, the longest decision in the WTO's short history,

has not yet been released to the public. But the U.S. government and

its co-plaintiffs, Canada and Argentina, are already treating it as a

historic ruling. The European Union, on the other hand, has dismissed

the report as simply a ruling about history, since it lifted its

moratorium against GMOs in 2004. Still unclear is how the ruling will

affect different regions within Europe that continue to declare

themselves GM-free.

 

The Europeans will likely appeal the ruling. If it still goes against

them, they may well steal a page from their other longstanding dispute

with the United States overhormones in beef: Pay the penalty and

maintain the cautious policy.

 

What's the big deal? you might ask. They say tomato and we say GM

tomato, so let's forget about the whole thing. But the United States

has been downright pushy in its approach to biotech. The Agency for

International Development (AID) is a big booster of GM, and some

offending grain has found its way into shipments of food aid to

GM-wary countries. The Trade Representative's office pushes GM through

bilateral and multilateral treaties. The State Department tries to

twist arms through rather undiplomatic letters of protest, like the

one it sent to Nicosia in July when new EU member Cyprus proposed to

put GM food on separate shelves at grocery stores.

http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem & id=6638

 

This pushiness is not simply a byproduct of the usual missionary

arrogance of Americans. The underlying story is that biotech has hit a

few roadblocks.

 

In 2005, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of

Agri-biotech Applications, the rate of growth of GM crops was 11

percent. That might seem like a lot. But it's the slowest growth rate

since GM was introduced in the mid-1990s. The rate is down from 20

percent in 2004 and 15 percent in 2003. Even taking into account the

saturation of certain markets -- GM soy, for instance, now accounts

for 85 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States -- such a

slowdown translates into lost revenue for biotech firms and less buzz

for the movement as a whole.

 

Governments around the world remain circumspect. Even China, which has

moved quickly on some GM crops like cotton, recently stepped back from

commercializing GM rice in November, citing safety concerns.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3487776a6026,00.html

 

Responding to pressures from the Japanese and others, Monsanto pulled

back from bringing GM wheat to market in 2004. The Europeans,

meanwhile, point out that 131 countries back their cautious approach,

for that is the number of signatories to the Cartagena Protocol on

Biosafety. This international treaty, attached to the Convention on

Biological Diversity, underscores the right of each country to make a

sovereign decision on how to handle the cross-border trade in GM

products and technology.

http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety

 

Even here in the United States, where the largest amount of GM food is

grown, biotech is showing a certain failure to thrive. The Center for

Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released a report last year

pointing out that the industry is not pushing new products through the

U.S. regulatory system. Meanwhile, the biotech industry still opposes

relatively simple reforms that would boost consumer confidence here in

the United States.

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200502021.html

 

" We do not have a mandatory pre-market approval process for GM crops

at the Food and Drug Administration, " CSPI's Gregory Jaffe points out.

" We only have a voluntary consultation process. We're the only country

in the world with such a process. "

 

If governments are wary, the public is even more so. Contrast the WTO

process with a very different trial that took place in Mali last month.

 

Facilitated by the International Institute for Environment and

Development, 43 Malian farmers grilled 14 international experts and

then debated among themselves the merits of biotech. After five days

of deliberations, they decided that GM was not for them. Citizen

juries held elsewhere in the world -- in Brazil and in Karnataka and

Andra Pradesh in India -- have produced similar verdicts.

http://www.iied.org/mediaroom/releases/290106.html

 

A case can certainly be made for GMOs. GM crops are popularly used in

South America along with no-till agriculture, a technique that both

prevents soil erosion and reduces the amount of fuel used in farming.

By cutting down energy inputs in farming, according to one recent

report, GM crops may have contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas

production equivalent to removing nearly 5 million cars from the road

annually.

 

Scientists are developing GM crops that can desalinate fields and even

turn color in the presence of landmines. New techniques, such as RNA

interference technology, rely on the cell's own underutilized

capacities rather than introducing foreign genes.

http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm

 

The global jury is still out on whether GMOs are a boon or a bust. The

farmers of Mali and the legal experts of the WTO have both spoken.

Ultimately, consumers might have the final word. Inspired by the

Europeans, labeling laws are spreading around the world. No matter how

hard the United States lobbies or the WTO deliberates, if a GMO label

translates into a skull and crossbones in the public mind, then

supermarkets won't be able to give the stuff away.

 

John Feffer is working on a book about the global politics of food.

 

 

 

 

--------------------