Fwd: Controversial report delayed + Concern grows over GMO gene flow

[Guest guest]

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Posted below are two articles of interest.

 

CONTROVERSIAL REPORT DELAYED

 

A report completed months ago by the North American Commission for

Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is being delayed, perhaps for political

reasons.

 

Of significant importance is the recommendation that U.S. exports of

genetically engineered corn be ground up before being sent to Mexico.

 

Mexico does not allow genetically engineered corn to be grown in that

country. However, genetically engineered corn from the U.S. is allowed to be

fed to cattle in Mexico.

 

In the past, some Mexican farmers planted genetically engineered corn

imported as animal feed and it cross-pollinated with native corn. The

scientists writing the report recommended that future exports to Mexico be

ground up to avoid the possibility of the corn being planted.

 

As you might expect, supporters of the biotech industry oppose grinding the

corn. They argue that it will add extra expense and give the impression that

there is something wrong with genetically engineered crops. And they fear if

this additional processing is done for exports to Mexico, it will add validity

to

demands from countries in Africa and Europe that also want the corn ground

up.

 

The first article posted below from the Chicago Tribune titled " Report could

put a crimp in corn exports " will provide further details.

 

CONCERN GROWS OVER GMO GENE FLOW

 

The second article from Associated Press is titled " Engineered " escapees "

worry organic farmers. " It discusses the growing concern about " gene flow "

from genetically engineered crops and how it can contaminate organic and

conventional crops.

 

The article mentions the government report released last week that found

pollen from genetically engineered grass traveling over 12 miles.

 

Next week, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods will be

issuing an ACTION ALERT regarding the genetically engineered grass mentioned

in the article.

 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has opened up a " public comment "

period on this biotech grass until October 25th. The USDA's Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service intends to prepare an environmental impact

statement on this genetically engineered grass.

 

Our ACTION ALERT will oppose the approval of this Roundup Ready grass from

Monsanto. And we will demand the environmental impact statement to be very

comprehensive.

 

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. "

 

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

 

Report could put a crimp in corn exports

Caution urged for transgenic crop

 

By Hugh Dellios

Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent

Published September 29, 2004

 

MEXICO CITY -- Even before its release, a report addressing the potential

impact of genetically altered U.S. corn exports to Mexico has stirred up a

dust devil of controversy, including fears that the Bush administration is

trying to bury it.

 

The report by a group of distinguished scientists and policy experts urges

caution in trade policies that send millions of tons of corn to Mexico from

Illinois and other states, including a recommendation to grind it up first.

The report also could influence a global debate over the safety of modified

food.

 

Originally scheduled to be made public in June, the report has not been

released. Last week, the agency managing the report, the North American

Commission for Environmental Cooperation, handed it privately to the U.S.,

Mexican and Canadian governments, which have 60 days to decide whether it

should be published at all.

 

The delay has angered the study's authors and environmentalists, some of

whom allege that U.S. officials have pressured the CEC, a watchdog agency

associated with the North American Free Trade Agreement, to keep the report

under wraps.

 

The critics note that the 60-day period could postpone the report's release

until after the November presidential election, when votes from corn-farming

states such aslike Iowa will be crucial.

 

`Totally unacceptable'

 

" This is totally unacceptable, " said Jose Sarukhan, a prominent ecology

professor at the Autonomous National University of Mexico and chairman of

the expert panel. " Surely [u.S. officials] don't like it, but it is the same

report they didn't like three months ago. "

 

Sarukhan said he planned to consult with the other panelists to see whether

they would consider releasing the report independently.

 

U.S. officials dismiss suggestions of undue pressure. But they and Canadian

officials have strongly criticized the quality of the science used in the

report and say it goes beyond its original ecological scope. Industry groups

have made the same criticisms.

 

" We want to make sure that any recommendations in the report are fully

supported by science, " said Richard Hood, a spokesman for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. " As the process allows, we raised concerns.

That's been responsible for the length of the process, not us delaying

anything. "

 

Hood said the CEC rules are " pretty flexible " and that U.S. officials will

take longer than 60 days if they need it.

 

According to an EPA letter to the CEC in July, the draft report recommended

that U.S. corn imports be " milled immediately upon entry into Mexico. " That

would ensure that local farmers could not plant it and spread the modified

genes but it would be very expensive and " a significant barrier to trade, "

the letter said.

 

The draft report also recommended that Mexico reinforce a national ban on

planting and experimenting with modified corn and educate peasant farmers

not to plant it, the EPA letter said.

 

This year the U.S. is expected to export 6.3 million metric tons of corn to

Mexico. The majority is shipped by companies like Archer Daniels Midland in

the Midwest and as much as half contains modified genes created by companies

like St. Louis-based Monsanto.

 

The vast majority is for animal feed, not for planting or human consumption.

But lab-modified genes recently have been found growing inexplicably in

homegrown corn crops in southern Mexico, the home of the world's original

corn.

 

" Mexico is a very, very important market " for U.S. corn, said Ricardo Celma,

Mexico representative for the U.S. Grain Council, who said any halt in U.S.

corn imports would make prices collapse. " It would have a major impact on

the Chicago Board of Trade, " he said.

 

Moratorium sought

 

Greenpeace and other environmental groups have urged the CEC panel to demand

a moratorium on Mexican imports of transgenic corn. They say a ban is needed

until further studies prove that modified crops pose no risk to human health

and will not displace Mexico's native corn.

 

Industry and government officials say fears about transgenic imports are

unsubstantiated and overblown. They say a ban also would be harmful to

Mexico's policy of using cheap U.S. corn to improve the diet of its growing

population.

 

CEC officials refused to comment on the delay. The commission was

established after NAFTA was signed in 1994 to advise the U.S., Mexico and

Canada on the effect of free trade on the environment. Its recommendations

are non-binding.

 

Scientists reject criticism

 

The panel of experts--15 geneticists, botanists and others, all approved by

the three governments--scoff at criticism of their scientific data.

Sarukhan, the chairman, said that the report was final in June except for a

few minor corrections and that the authors will not accept changes to their

conclusions.

 

While declining to discuss the report's recommendations, he said the panel

agreed that Mexico should adopt a " precautionary principle " in dealing with

transgenics.

 

" We need to proceed carefully, evaluating risks and having monitoring

systems in Mexico which do not [presently] exist, in order to be really

safe, " he said.

 

" On the other hand, we think this is an extremely important technology that

Mexico should [master] ... so it can make its own choices in terms of which

transgenes and where and how they should be utilized and not just using and

importing whatever is produced in other countries, " he said.

 

Critics of the delay suggest the reason is that the report could hurt U.S.

efforts to overcome concerns that have blocked transgenic crop exports to

Europe and Africa. Zambia and other countries have refused U.S. corn as food

aid unless it is milled.

 

The Bush administration challenged the European Union last year through the

World Trade Organization over the EU's restrictions on importing transgenic

products, saying they unfairly obstruct trade.

 

In defending their position, European officials have cited the calls for a

corn-import moratorium in Mexico. They hope a separate panel of experts will

be chosen to study the issue in that case as soon as November.

 

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

 

Engineered " escapees " worry organic farmers

 

By PAUL ELIAS

The Associated Press

Sep 27, 2004

 

SAN FRANCISCO - California rice farmers are worried Japanese customers will

boycott their products if genetically engineered rice is allowed into the

state.

 

In Hawaii, organic papaya farmers are outraged because traces of genetically

engineered papaya are showing up in their harvest.

 

Biologists call it " gene flow. " It's how plants have swapped genetic

material through cross pollination since life first appeared.

 

But for people who choose to grow crops without genetically altering them,

this natural biological exchange is a threat when bioengineered organisms

are involved.

 

Oregon study

 

Last week, already heightened tensions between the biotech industry and its

foes peaked when the U.S. government published a study showing that

genetically engineered grass found its way into conventionally grown grass

some 12 miles away in Oregon's Willamette Valley.

 

The study led to renewed calls for tighter gene-flow regulations, especially

from farmers who promise customers that their products are free of

genetically modified material.

 

More farmers are reporting finding trace amounts of genetically modified

organisms cross-pollinated or otherwise mingled with their organically grown

crops. Those are potentially devastating discoveries because organic

consumers generally demand that the higher-priced food they buy be free of

biotechnological adulteration.

 

The problem, like the weather, respects no boundaries.

 

Around the world

 

A North American Free Trade Agreement watchdog group said in March it had

found genetically engineered corn in Mexico despite that country's

6-year-old biotechnology ban.

 

Meanwhile, consumers in Japan, Europe and elsewhere demand all their crops

are grown conventionally. Farmers who can't make those biotech guarantees

risk losing those markets.

 

U.S. labeling rules allow for trace amounts of genetically engineered

material in organic products. Still, organic growers and other growers fear

market perception will turn against them if customers perceive that gene

flow isn't being controlled.

 

That's why many rice farmers in California opposed a biotechnology company's

plan this summer to increase the acreage it devotes to rice spliced with

human genes to produce medicines. The state government refused to let the

company expand.

 

It's also why organic growers in Hawaii earlier this month symbolically

dumped 20 genetically engineered papayas into a trash bin labeled with a

" biohazard " sign. Papayas genetically engineered to resist a virus were

first grown commercially in 1998 and widely credited with turning around a

moribund industry devastated by disease.

 

But the bioengineered variety is not the only papaya grown in Hawaii.

 

" We are finding widespread contamination, and farmers are concerned, " said

Noli Hoye of the Hawaii anti-biotech group that organized the protest. " Once

these genetically engineered crops are released commercially, they can't be

contained. "

 

An increasing number of scientific studies show evidence that genetically

engineered crops are creeping into conventionally grown fields, including

the grass study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists in February found trace amounts of

genetically engineered seeds of corn, soy and canola mixed in with seeds

that were supposed to be conventionally bred.

 

" We are concerned about gene flow, " said U.S. Agriculture Department

spokeswoman Meghan Thomas. But she said the USDA's regulatory reach extends

only to experimental crops. Once biotech crops are approved for market, as

papayas were in 1997, the government's oversight essentially ends.

 

Fears exaggerated?

 

The levels of cross-pollination in other studies were found to be minuscule,

and industry leaders say gene flow concern is overblown.

 

" Organic acreage has really boomed at the same time biotech acreage has

boomed, " said Chris Horner, a spokesman for Monsanto. " With good

agricultural practices, there is no reason these two technologies can't

coexist. "

 

Horner and others point out that no known lawsuits have been filed against

any biotechnology company alleging that gene flow has caused anyone economic

harm.

 

Call for coexistence

 

" It has not been a significant problem, and proving gene flow caused you

economic harm will be difficult, " said Drew Kershner, a University of

Oklahoma law professor who has written extensively on the subject. " If you

are neighborly and trying to get along, biotechnology and organic farming

can coexist very easily. "

 

Still, some organic farmers say the cross-pollination issue already is

cutting into their profits because they've undertaken more costly planting

processes or lost sales over fears their crops were corrupted by genetically

modified organisms.

 

The Organic Farming Research Foundation said about 11 percent of the farmers

responding to a survey last year said they have been DNA-testing crops for

the presence of genetically modified organisms.

 

 

 

---------

To be d from the News Update from The Campaign mailing list simply

below

http://www.thecampaign.org/cgi-bin/sment/s.cgi?r=1 & l=2 & e=namaska7=:aol.com

 

 

AOL USERS:

<a

href= " http://www.thecampaign.org/cgi-bin/sment/s.cgi?r=1 & l=2 & e=namaska7=:aol.com\

" >One-Click Un Link Here</a>

[Guest guest]

I don’t know how many people heard

Sunyatta’s show on GMO but it was explosive. This devil gov’t

is not going to stop til it has all the control of the food, period. All I

can think of is that James Brown song where he says we need to get some land so

we can control our own food. Soon, I feel that organic won’t be

safe.

 

Khepere

 

 

 

 

 

Namaska7

[Namaska7]

Thursday, September 30, 2004

11:43 PM

 

Fwd:

Controversial report delayed + Concern grows over GMO gene flow

 

 

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more Khepere. It was really a challenge for me yesterday to hear the whole show because being at work, I had many interuptions.

 

My only regret is that everyone that particularly care for and tried to contact and have them listen to the show wasn't available. This was really a show to have had recorded.Good Health to You

Elaine