Guest guest Posted April 23, 2003 Report Share Posted April 23, 2003 Something of interest to many vegetarians I have met...... > News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods > ---- > > Dear News Update Subscribers, > > Tuesday's Washington Post featured a major front page article (posted > below) on the growing controversy over genetically engineered wheat. The > article is titled " The Heartland Wrestles With Biotechnology. " > > CLEARLY THE BATTLE OVER BIOTECH WHEAT WILL BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT > EVER FOUGHT IN THE HISTORY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. > > Biotech soy, corn, canola and cotton were introduced in the mid-1990's > when no one was really paying much attention. Now there is a growing > global debate over these controversial crops and the introduction of > genetically engineered wheat will be the grand battle of them all. > > The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has responded by > starting the Save Organic Wheat! coalition. We hope to have our > exceptional new web site for the Save Organic Wheat! coalition fully > function sometime in mid-to-late May. There is a lot of very complex and > costly software development going on for this web site. You can get a > sneak preview now at: > http://www.saveorganicwheat.org > > All membership in the Save Organic Wheat! coalition will be FREE and > there will be four membership categories: Organizations, Businesses, > Farmers and Consumers. > > Organizations, Businesses and Farmers will be able to list complete > contact information and write up to a 25-word description. Consumers > will be listed by name, city, state/province and country. > > We will also have Save Organic Wheat! petitions both online and in paper > format. We will be encouraging you to actively circulate the petitions > and gather signatures. We need to let the U.S. and Canadian wheat > industries know they would be making a huge mistake by moving forward > with the introduction of genetically engineered wheat. > > Monsanto has applied to both the U.S. and Canadian governments for > approval to commercially grow genetically engineered wheat. However, > Monsanto has said they will not introduce the biotech wheat until the > wheat industry agrees. So we need to make sure the wheat industry tells > Monsanto to hold off and that they are not ready for genetically > engineered wheat to be introduced. > > The Save Organic Wheat! coalition will play a major role in making sure > the wheat industry gets the message that consumers and farmers are not > ready for the introduction of genetically engineered wheat. > > We are still concerned that even if the wheat industry tells Monsanto > that they do not want the introduction of genetically engineered wheat, > Monsanto may start selling it to some farmers anyway after they receive > government approval. Monsanto's history indicates that you can not > always trust them to keep their word. > > For example, in a lawsuit that Monsanto lost last year in Anniston, > Alabama, the company was found guilty of releasing tons of PCBs and > covering up its actions for decades. The jury found Monsanto liable on > all six charges it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of > the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. > > Under Alabama law, the charge of " outrage " requires conduct " so > outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all > possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly > intolerable in civilized society. " > > Before the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approves the commercial > growing on genetically engineered wheat, most likely there will be a > public comment period. The Save Organic Wheat! coalition will be > instrumental in generating massive amounts of comments to the USDA when > that time arrives. > > As the saying goes, " the best defense is a good offensive. " The Save > Organic Wheat! coalition will be taking an offensive role in making sure > organic wheat does not become contaminated from genetically engineered > wheat. The best way to prevent that from happening is to never allow > genetically engineered wheat to be planted commercially in the first > place. > > The Save Organic Wheat! coalition does need financial support. Our > software development costs alone are nearly $10,000. And The Campaign to > Label Genetically Engineered Foods has never been shorter on money than > we are right now. So if you are in a position to make a donation to > either The Campaign or the Save Organic Wheat! coalition, please do so > now. You can make donations at either of these web pages: > > The Campaign's " Our Supporters " web page: > http://www.thecampaign.org/supporters.php > > Save Organic Wheat! donation web page: > http://www.saveorganicwheat.org/donation.htm > > Thanks for your support! > > The Washington Post article posted below is quite long, but it is worth > taking the time to read. > > 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. " > > *************************************************************** > > The Heartland Wrestles With Biotechnology > > By Justin Gillis > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, April 22, 2003; Page A01 > > MANNING, N.D. -- In a bar in this hamlet on the great American prairie, > some wheat farmers gathered one night not long ago. They drove for miles > through blowing snow, and more than 50 of them packed the Little Knife > Saloon, doubling the regular population of Manning. They came to ask > questions about a new kind of wheat, and the more they heard from a > panel skeptical of the crop, the more their brows knitted in worry. > > The wheat was created in a St. Louis biology laboratory, through genetic > engineering. It is meant to benefit farmers, but a lot of people in the > room fretted that it would put them out of business. > > " Nobody has really found out if this stuff is safe, " declared Steven > Pollestad, who drove 30 miles from his family farm near Halliday and > stood at the back, thumbs hitched in his jeans. " The foreign buyers have > flat out said they won't buy it. And I believe they won't. " > > In the states that grow the fabled amber waves of grain that symbolize > America's heritage of plenty, the most plentiful commodity these days is > trouble. > > For the first time in its decade-long push to win acceptance of > genetically altered crops, Monsanto Co. of St. Louis faces significant > opposition from farmers. Across the northern Great Plains and > neighboring Canada, skepticism toward a forthcoming Monsanto product, > called Roundup Ready wheat, has solidified into a political movement. > Some farmers are so worried they want their state governments to wrest > authority from federal regulators and adopt formal moratoriums on the > crop. > > The opposition, based largely on fear that foreign buyers will reject > gene-altered wheat, potentially costing American and Canadian farmers > vital markets, has only a few symbolic victories and several substantive > defeats to show in statehouses and provincial legislatures so far. The > critical decisions on whether to approve it still rest with regulators > in Washington and Ottawa. But already, candidates have won elections by > emphasizing their opposition to biotech wheat. And, facing a revolt not > only from farmers but from a wary American food industry, Monsanto has > been forced into a tactical retreat, stretching its timetable and > issuing a long list of promises about how it would commercialize the > product. > > " We're pursuing a very diligent path of dialogue, " said Michael Doane, > Monsanto's director of industry affairs. " Over time, it has affected our > strategic approach. " > > By no means does the opposition movement command unanimous allegiance in > farm country -- the issue has split farmers, farm organizations and > legislatures in at least four states and two Canadian provinces, with > the pro-biotech side plausibly claiming majority support among farmers > in most of those places. > > But the strength of the opposition has provoked a rollicking debate. > Roundup Ready wheat is emerging as a key test of whether the > biotechnology industry can take charge of the destiny of a major crop > used primarily as food, something it has yet to accomplish despite > successes in other crops. > > And the fight is becoming a prime symbol in another way, too. As genetic > science creates opportunities to manipulate the plants and animals > people eat, associated battles are migrating out of Washington. In the > next few years, state and even local governments will confront new kinds > of crops, as well as gene-altered animals and even a genetically > engineered salmon. Some of these products require state permits before > they can be commercialized, and many state and local governments will > hear demands to keep them out. The new biology, in other words, is > coming soon to state legislatures and county commissions across the > land. > > The change is already evident in North Dakota and neighboring states, > where legislators and some ordinary citizens now speak knowledgeably > about such matters as genetic drift and pollen flow. The movement has > fed on the deep suspicion of corporate ethics sparked by recent > scandals. Pollestad, that Halliday farmer, captured the mood in a letter > to the editor of the Grand Forks Herald. He noted that Monsanto was > continuing to press for quick federal approval of its wheat despite its > go-slow promises, and he called on North Dakota lawmakers to give > citizens a voice in the decision. > > " Or, we could let Monsanto decide, " he wrote. " And maybe we also could > get Enron to run our utilities and Arthur Andersen to keep the books. " > > Recouping an Investment > The crop technology that many companies, led by Monsanto, are pushing to > develop these days is an outgrowth of the vast genetic knowledge pouring > from the world's research laboratories. Scientists are becoming > increasingly adept at manipulating plants and animals in a way nature > does not, moving genes across species to confer new traits. > > Most research suggests such organisms are safe to eat, but a host of > theoretical questions remain about the environmental risks, such as the > possibility of creating new types of weeds or pests. That concern, plus > lingering uncertainty about health effects, has led to a broad > opposition movement, particularly in Europe and Japan. > > In the long run, the technology offers potential benefits consumers may > want, such as foods to cut the risk of heart disease or cancer. But the > crops that have come to market first are primarily designed to benefit > farmers by giving them greater control over weeds and insects. > > Monsanto has been in the vanguard, developing varieties of corn, > soybeans and cotton that resist worms and other insects. The company's > biggest success, though, has been with crops designed to exploit another > of its products, an herbicide called Roundup. This popular chemical > kills weeds efficiently, does no harm to people or animals and readily > breaks down in the environment. > > But Roundup kills conventional crops as well as weeds, so farmers mostly > used it to prepare their fields for planting. Monsanto scientists set > out in the 1980s, using genetic engineering, to develop crops resistant > to Roundup. " Roundup Ready " crops have proven wildly popular, saving > farmers labor. Monsanto competitors brought similar products to market. > > Not long after the crops were commercialized in the United States, in > the late 1990s, a European backlash began, featuring " Frankenfood " > headlines and warnings about manipulating nature. American farmers lost > corn sales to Europe, but growing demand in other markets took up the > slack. Neither corn nor soybeans is primarily a human food crop -- corn > is largely fed to farm animals, and after the oil is squeezed out, so is > most soybean meal. Cotton, of course, is used to make cloth. > > Despite these successes, Monsanto has yet to recoup its huge investment > in biotechnology, so the company needs new products. It is trying to > conquer the fundamental cereal of Western diets -- wheat. > > On past experience, the company counted on ready farmer acceptance. But > wheat farmers are highly dependent on foreign markets, particularly > Japan, and follow them assiduously. And wheat, as it happens, is grown > in a part of North America with a long tradition of political activism > among farmers, who battled banks and grain monopolies early in the 20th > century, a populist tradition that persists. > > Moreover, the people who run Monsanto had never met Tom and Gail Wiley. > > Money-Minded Opposition > The Wileys are wheat, soybean and cattle farmers who live on a windswept > farmstead at the end of a long gravel road in southeastern North Dakota. > They met in Berkeley, Calif., many years ago, and Tom Wiley confesses to > some counterculture dabbling in his youth. > > But the Wileys are conventional, not organic, farmers, and have been > more or less comfortable using pesticides and other aspects of modern > farm technology since they began working Tom Wiley's family homestead in > the 1970s. > > In the late 1990s, events unrelated to the biotechnology industry > politicized the Wileys. The federal government promulgated a > crop-insurance program and then changed the payout rules after farmers > had already bought their policies, a bait-and-switch that infuriated the > Wileys. They led a farmer coalition that sued the government, won, and > eventually got an act of Congress passed to correct the problem. > > As that battle was winding down, the Wileys began hearing about Roundup > Ready wheat. They'd already had one bad experience with biotech crops -- > some high-grade soybeans they grew to make tofu somehow got adulterated > with a small amount of Roundup Ready soybeans, probably from a > neighbor's field, and buyers overseas balked. > > What would happen, the Wileys wondered, if Monsanto commercialized > Roundup Ready wheat and foreign buyers suddenly grew skittish about the > American crop amid fears of adulteration? They talked to other farmers. > Even if falling prices led growers to abandon the Monsanto product, the > reputation and marketability of U.S. wheat might be permanently damaged, > the farmers reasoned. > > A political movement was born. At lightning speed, it won a huge victory > when the lower house of North Dakota's Legislative Assembly passed a > moratorium in 2001 on Roundup Ready wheat. Shocked, Monsanto and > pro-biotech farm groups descended with lobbyists, and the state Senate > turned the moratorium into a mere study. But when the company and farm > groups began surveying major buyers of wheat, they found strong > resistance to the biotech crop, especially overseas. > > Sitting in their farm kitchen not long ago, the Wileys recalled their > surprise as they built alliances with environmental outfits like > Greenpeace that have traditionally taken a dim view of conventional > farming. " I think all my life I've been an environmentalist, " Gail Wiley > said, her voice dropping as she added, " even though you don't say that > too loudly around here. " > > If environmental factors influenced the Wileys' thinking, other people > in North Dakota looked at the issue in strictly dollars-and-cents terms, > and came out equally opposed to Roundup Ready wheat on the grounds the > marketplace just was not ready for it. > > As the rebellion grew, Monsanto bowed to political reality, pledging a > slew of steps that the company contends will protect existing markets. > Meeting all the milestones will effectively delay Roundup Ready wheat to > 2005, if not later. Assuming Monsanto keeps its word, the farmers have > gained a two-year moratorium without having to pass one into law. > > Doane, the Monsanto industry-affairs officer, has plied North Dakota on > the company's behalf. At his suggestion, a group of skeptical farmers, > not including the Wileys, boarded a Monsanto plane in December and flew > to St. Louis to talk to company leaders. The discussion was mostly calm, > but Louis Kuster, a grower from Stanley, N.D., and a member of a state > commission that promotes wheat sales, said he took offense when a > company executive, Robb Fraley, seemed to imply that farmers opposing > Monsanto might be advancing the agenda of radical environmental groups. > > " At that point I countered, and I did raise my voice a little bit and I > was a little bit angry, and I looked right straight at him and he was > only about five feet away from me, and I said, 'You're not talking to > the Greens here today,' " Kuster recalled. " 'We're money people. We > need to make money, too.' " > > 'Who Can You Trust?' > Gripping the wheel of his pickup truck on a chilly North Dakota morning, > an affable man named Terry Wanzek pointed with pride to the several > thousand acres of fields that make up his family farm. Wanzek, squarely > in the pro-biotech camp, acknowledged that the market risks cited by > opponents are real. But as he showed off his farm's spotless > grain-handling system, he declared the problems manageable. > > Besides, Wanzek said, what kind of message would it send to a biotech > industry investing billions in new technology if the very customers the > companies are trying to benefit, farmers, respond by kicking them in the > teeth? > > People on Wanzek's side of the issue generally take the view that > Monsanto's go-slow promises can be believed, and they also take > seriously a decade of rulings from the Environmental Protection Agency, > the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture > declaring biotech crops safe. > > " If you can't trust EPA and you can't trust FDA and you can't trust > USDA, " Wanzek said as his truck crunched its way down gravel roads, " who > can you trust? " > > This is Monsanto's position, too -- that federal regulators will make > the right decisions. But the company has been forced to acknowledge > that, whatever Washington and Ottawa decide, the risk of overseas > rejection is real. Monsanto has lately papered the Great Plains states > with brochures outlining how it will proceed. > > For starters, the company said it will wait until the United States, > Canada (the nation's largest competitor in selling wheat) and Japan (its > largest customer, most years) approve the crop. And the company said it > will help institute " appropriate grain handling protocols " to keep > biotech wheat separate from regular wheat. Monsanto acknowledges that > total separation of the crops in fields, combines and grain bins is > impossible but argues that adequate separation can be achieved. > > Doane, the industry-affairs director, said Monsanto will honor those > commitments. " We've put it in black and white, " he said. But distrust of > Monsanto runs deep enough in the Great Plains that politicians who > support the company can pay a price. > > Wanzek isn't just any farmer -- he was, until recently, the Republican > chairman of the Senate agriculture committee in North Dakota's > citizen-legislature. His committee was largely responsible for killing > the biotech-wheat moratorium in the last legislative session. He was > defeated by a Democrat last November in a campaign in which his support > for biotech crops became a major issue. " The wheat deal, I think, did > cost me some votes, " he said. > > Wanzek's opponent, April Fairfield, was one of at least three > legislative candidates to use opposition to Roundup Ready wheat as a > signature campaign issue. All won. > > Fairfield has failed so far to win a moratorium. Lawmakers also turned > down a related measure to shift legal liability to companies like > Monsanto if their crops taint nearby farms. Similar legislation has > stalled in Montana, South Dakota and other states where wheat revolts > are underway. Republicans, many of whom initially supported the North > Dakota moratorium, have closed ranks to defend the technology, largely > because of Monsanto's promises. > > Passions remain high. As Fairfield described her winning campaign and > her losing attempts at lawmaking, in an interview in the basement > cafeteria of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly in Bismarck, a fellow > named Lance Hagen, executive director of the North Dakota Grain Growers > Association, ambled by. > > " Biotech or bust, baby! " he declared. " That's our motto. " > > Unlikely Allies > Past midnight on a summer's evening three years ago, Larry Bohlen walked > out of a Safeway supermarket in Silver Spring toting $66.32 worth of > taco shells and other corn products. By the time Bohlen, director of > health and environment programs at Friends of the Earth, and his allies > in the environmental movement were done having the corn products tested > for adulteration, they had forced American food and biotech companies > into a recall costing hundreds of millions of dollars. > > A biotech corn called StarLink, meant only for animal consumption, had > made its way into the human food supply through sloppy grain handling. > The incident foreshadowed another mishap last year, in which corn > genetically engineered to grow a pig vaccine nearly made its way into > food. > > The problems have made large American food companies exceedingly nervous > about biotechnology. More than half their products in the United States > contain biotech ingredients, particularly lecithin or protein made from > Roundup Ready soybeans, and they live in fear that some contamination > incident will provoke a U.S. consumer backlash. > > " Right now, public acceptance of biotechnology in America is relatively > high, " Betsy D. Holden, co-chief executive of Kraft Foods Inc., said in > a recent speech in Arlington. " But how many more times can we test the > public's trust before we begin to lose it? " > > The food industry has been publicly skeptical of Roundup Ready wheat. > Behind closed doors, according to three people privy to the discussions, > the industry has been far blunter with Monsanto and its biotech allies. > " Don't want it. Don't need it, " one person said the message has been. > > The food companies have been killing smaller biotech crops like potatoes > and sugar beets for several years. Knowledgeable people say the food > companies have essentially told Monsanto they will try to kill Roundup > Ready wheat if the company moves forward, asking suppliers to accept > only conventional wheat. > > At the same time, the food companies are under political pressure from > biotech supporters on Capitol Hill not to come out publicly against > gene-altered crops. That makes for a volatile situation where it is hard > to predict exactly what the food companies will do until the wheat is > approved. > > Out on the Great Plains, farmers skeptical of the crop are hoping the > food companies come down as allies, but they are not counting on it. > Their efforts stalled in state legislatures, the farmers recently > petitioned the Agriculture Department for a full environmental and > economic assessment of Roundup Ready wheat before the government grants > approval. > > Some farmers acknowledge that Monsanto will probably win approval > eventually but say they're looking for any stalling tactic they can > find. > > " I feel that we have accomplished something, in that it's slowing up the > process so that more thought can go into it, " said Kuster, the farmer > from Stanley, N.D. " The slower it goes, the more chance it has of > getting done right. " > > *************************************************************** > > 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 > > *************************************************************** > > > > -------- - > To be d from the News Update from The Campaign mailing list simply below > http://www.thecampaign.org/cgi-bin/sment/s.pl?r=1 & l=2 & e=sarndt9=:comcast.net > > > AOL USERS: > href= " http://www.thecampaign.org/cgi-bin/sment/s.pl?r=1 & l=2 & e=sarndt9=:comca st.net " >One-Click Un Link Here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.