Back to Index
All reports in this issue are thanks to
Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign,
for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term
Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
500 Wilbrod Street
Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596
email:
rwolfson@concentric.net
Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html contains more information on genetic engineering as well as previous genetic engineering news items Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 for 12 months See website for details.
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 06:00:23 -0500
Posted by: Allsorts
allsorts@gn.apc.org
See
Underwritten for the PHILIPPINES
Underwritten For THAILAND by
Underwritten for INDONESIA by
Underwritten for CAMBODIA by
Underwritten for INDIA by
Solidarity and endorsements from JAPAN
Rice is life in Southeast and other parts of Asia. It has been the cornerstone of our food, our languages, our cultures - in short, our life - for thousands of years. Over the centuries, farming communities throughout the region have developed, nurtured and conserved over a hundred thousand distinct varieties of rice to suit different tastes and needs.
The Green Revolution spearheaded by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the 1960s resulted the loss of this diversity from farmers' fields and the spread of wholly unsustainable farming systems which require high energy inputs such as pesticides, fertilizers, so-called 'high-yielding' seeds, irrigation systems and supervised credit schemes. In this process, farmers lost control of their own seeds, their own knowledge and their own self-confidence. Today, people are struggling throughout the region to rebuild more sustainable agriculture systems hinged on farmers' control of genetic resources and local knowledge.
In the past, the whole cycle of the rice economy was under the control of farmers themselves, from production through distribution. Today, global corporations are taking over the rice sector. With the expansion of industrial farming, global corporations - and their local subsidiaries - established their predominance in the rice sector through research programs, interference in policy-making, and their exports of farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizers.
Now, through the use of genetic engineering, they are increasing their control over our rice cultures. The kinds of rice that we are promised through this technology threaten the environment and public health. For example, herbicide tolerant rice will lead to increased pesticide use. Rice incorporating Bacillus thuringiensis genes will disrupt ecological balances. Both of these are unsafe for consumers and will lead to allergic reactions, increased antibiotic resistance and other health hazards. New hybrids - such as those based on the so-called 'Terminator Technology' - will force farmers to buy rice seed every planting season from transnational corporations.
The extension of the patent system through the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) gives global corporations the 'right' to claim monopoly ownership over rice - and life - itself. Companies in the industrialized world have already started to claim intellectual property rights (IPR) on rice. A derivative of IR-8, IRRI's 'miracle rice', was monopolised through IPR in the United States already in the 1980s. Recently, RiceTec, a company in Texas, has taken out a patent on basmati rice. This is biopiracy against India and Pakistan.
The same company and many others in the US are now marketing what they label as Jasmine rice. This is not only intellectual and cultural theft, it also directly threatens farm communities in Southeast Asia. Jasmine rice comes from Thailand, where it is grown today by over five million resource-poor farmers who are trying to develop ecological alternatives for Jasmine rice production and marketing.
We have to strengthen local groups to assert farmers' and community rights to counter these trends in the region. For this reason, we make the following demands:
MASIPAG/Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development 3346 Aguila St.,
Rhoda's Subd.,
Los Banos, Laguna,
4030 Philippines
Tel (63-49)536-5549 or 536-4205,
Fax (63-49)536-5526
May 14, 1998
LONDON - Inter Press Service via NewsEdge Corporation : The London-based Gaia Foundation, the Dutch Coalition Against Patents on Life and other European NGOs are worried that the new European directive on life patents will spell disaster to developing countries, particularly their farmers.
The directive was cleared by the European Parliament in Strasbourg May 7. It will put the right to patent life forms into European law for the first time, and bring Europe in line with the extensive freedom to patent for commercial exploitation already allowed in the United States and Japan.
For developing countries, this may give a free hand to Western multinationals to come and patent a variety of indigenous plants and seeds.
Posted by: Australian GeneEthics Network acfgenet@peg.apc.org (Bob Phelps)
By Tom Campbell, Lecturer in Environmental Studies,
Development Studies Centre, Kimmage Manor. Dublin. Republic of Ireland.
One of the biggest myths perpetuated by the biotechnology industry is that genetically engineered crops are likely to provide a solution to world hunger. Companies like ICI Seeds, Britainís largest seeds merchant, proclaim that biotechnology will be the most reliable and environmentally acceptable way to secure the worldís food supplies .
Elsewhere, executives from the Monsanto Corporation have gone as far as to promote themselves as part of the solution to the worldís food and environmental problems: ìsustainable agriculture is only possible only with biotechnology and imaginative chemistryî , they claim in a 1990 article entitled ëPlanetary Patriotismí Similarly, a recent advertisement from Monsanto depicts maize growing in the desert with the caption: ìWill it take a miracle to solve the worlds hunger problems?î. Implicit in these messages is that to oppose biotechnology is to reject the best hope for a solution to world hunger and to perpetuate the suffering of starving children.
Despite the evidence that genetically engineered crops may provide higher yields in the short term (it remains to be seen whether they do so in the long term) there are a number of good reasons why these arguments simply do not stand up to analysis. On the contrary there is plenty of evidence to suggest that biotechnology will more than likely reduce food and livelihood security for the worldís poor. Here are six reasons why biotechnology and food security can never be compatible:
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:32:43 -0500
Dear Friend,
Urgent Codex message from Dr. John Fagan
This question will be one of the central topics debated by the Codex Committee on Food Labeling which will meet in Ottawa, Canada next week (25 through 29 of May).
This will be a critical debate in the process of formulating international regulations on use of genetic engineering in food production.
You can influence the outcome of this debate.
How? By writing to your national delegate to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling.
If you email your letter to the email address of Richard Wolfson rwolfson@concentric.net , we will hand deliver it to your national delegate at the Ottawa meeting and speak with her/him personally to emphasize the critical nature of this question.
At present, the Executive Committee of Codex has proposed a policy on labeling that is highly favorable to the biotechnology industry, but fails to protect consumers.
This regulation does not require producers to label genetically engineered foods, except in a few minor cases. Even in those cases, the proposed regulation leaves consumers vulnerable to unsafe genetically engineered foods.
The sample letter, below, proposes revisions to the regulation that will strengthen consumer protection and ensure that we all have the ability to choose whether or not we will eat genetically engineered foods.
Please take a few minutes to let your delegate know your concerns on this issue.
If you do not have time to write your own letter to your delegate, please feel free to revise the sample letter to reflect your views, or just sign the sample letter as it is and send it in.
Thank you very much for your rapid attention to this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Dr. John Fagan
Professor of Molecular Biology
In brief: The Codex Alimentarius Commission has been designated by the World Trade Organization as the body which formulates regulations regarding international trade in food. As such, the regulations carry the weight of international law and profoundly influence the quality, safety, and other characteristics of the foods that we find in our local food markets.
The Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) focuses on labeling issues, and delegates from all nations that are signatories to GATT attend committee meetings held roughly once per year--usually more than 100 delegations attend.
For the past three years we have been working to monitor the workings of the CCFL and to influence the deliberations of this committee to ensure that the regulations that it formulates reflect the needs and welfare of consumers around the world.
For more information on Codex, go to their web site (search for Codex).
http://www.fao.org/es/esn/codex/codex.htm
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:33:06 -0500
URGENT
IF YOU SEND THIS LETTER (OR ANOTHER, PERSONALIZED VERSION) BACK TO ME AT rwolfson@concentric.net WITH YOUR EMAIL SIGNATURE (INCLUDING YOUR COUNTRY), WE WILL DELIVER THE LETTER TO YOUR COUNTRY'S CODEX DELEGATE HERE AT THE CODEX MEETING IN OTTAWA MAY 26-29. PLEASE ACT QUICKLY.
...........................................
Dear Delegate to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling:
I wish to commend you for accepting the substantial responsibility and hard work associated with ensuring that international regulations on food labeling are formulated in such a way as to protect the welfare of the citizens of our nation.
I am deeply concerned that the Revised Recommendations on Labeling of Foods Obtained through Biotechnology, proposed by the Codex Executive Committee, fail to protect the safety and other interests of the consumer.
I know that you have already proposed certain revisions to the Executive Committee's Recommendations, which would rectify some of the deficiencies of that document, and I commend you for your efforts. However, more fundamental revisions are required, if the safety of consumers, and the integrity of the food production and distribution system is to be preserved. The critical revisions that are required at this time are as follows:
The question of whether or not a food is genetically modified is of relevance from the perspective of fair trade practices, because the vast majority of consumers want to know if the foods that they are buying are genetically modified or not. Scientific surveys of consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods indicate that consumers want full labeling. For instance a 1996 study, carried out by the biotechnology company Novartis, found that 93% of consumers wanted full labeling of genetically modified foods. In light of this scientific evidence, it is clear that failing to provide consumers with information on this point is misleading, if not deceptive. Given the fact that the vast majority of consumers want this information, the added costs associated with measures necessary to implement such labeling (segregation of genetically modified foods from conventional foods) is justified. In fact market demand is already stimulating the food industry to voluntarily implement such measures (even the American Soybean Association has called for segregation on these grounds).
Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the scientific method make it impossible to design a research program that could investigate all possible risks and therefore that could determine with 100% certainty that a given genetically modified food is safe. Thus, even with safety testing, some risk will inevitably remain. In light of this, many consumers want to take a precautionary approach to genetically modified foods. They wish to avoid them, at least until the risks are better understood. Consequently, there is a clear-cut reason to require that genetically modified foods be labeled: Consumers need such labeling in order to give them the ability to choose to avoid genetically modified foods, if they are unwilling to accept the, yet unquantified, risks associated with them.
In closing, I want to thank you for attending to the points that I have raised above, and thank you, as well, for the important work that you are doing through the Codex Committee on Food Labeling. This work is essential to ensure that we have safe, nourishing food, that is accurately labeled. Such assurances are critical to protecting the welfare of the citizens of our nation.
Sincerely,
............................
URGENT: NGO signatures for resolution
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:37:28 -0500
Thank you to all the hundreds of people who sent in letters to be delivered to their Codex representative.
The following resolution will be presented to the international press early next week.
We would like to get as many NGO's, scientists, consumer groups, etc., to sign on to the resolution, so that we have hundreds of organizations supporting this call for mandatory labelling.
If your organization supports this initiative, please send the resolution
back to me at .........................................................
May 26-29, 1998,
Ottawa, Canada
Whereas: Several dozen genetically engineered foods and food products have
already been introduced into the international market, and many more such
products are being developed;
Whereas: These products are created when foreign genes from animals,
plants, bacteria, and viruses are spliced into our food, resulting in
unpredictable, permanent changes in the nature of our food;
Whereas: There are no long-term studies to prove the safety of genetically
engineered foods, even though changing the fundamental genetic make-up of a
food could result in new toxins, allergies, or other harmful effects that
may not be discovered for years;
Whereas: Genetically engineered organisms can upset the delicate balance of
our ecosystem, such as by creating new, unpredicted species, which can
endanger wildlife, out-compete natural species, and alter essential
ecological relationships between plants and animals;
Whereas: Consumers who observe specific dietary restrictions for ethical,
religious, or other reasons may wish to avoid foods engineered with foreign
genes from animals, bacteria, viruses, or other species;
Whereas: Consumers have no way of identifying which food or food products
have been genetically engineered as there is currently no general
requirement that genetically engineered foods and food products be
labelled;
Whereas: Consumers can make an informed choice regarding the consumption
and use of these foods and food products only if regulations are enacted
requiring labelling of all genetically engineered foods and food products
offered for sale.
Whereas: Surveys taken in many countries, including Canada, USA, Australia,
and in Europe, have consistently shown that a vast majority of consumers
want genetically engineered food products labelled;
Therefore: We call upon the Codex Committee on Food Labelling to enact
standards requiring mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods
and food products offered for sale.
We further urge Codex that this requirement of mandatory labelling extends
both to foods containing genetically modified organisms and foods produced
by genetically modified organisms, which may not themselves contain
genetically modified organisms.
Thanks to Jim McNulty at
jim@niall7.demon.co.uk
for posting these articles:
May 22, 1998
WASHINGTON, Reuters [WS] via NewsEdge Corporation : Researchers who cloned
the first genetically engineered calves described their work on Thursday
and said they hoped it would lead to the production of whole herds of
designer animals.
Jose Cibelli and James Robl of the University of Massachusetts and
colleagues said the three Holstein calves were born last January at a Texas
ranch operated by Ultimate Genetics.
Only three of the 28 cloned embryos they made survived, but they said they
believed their technique had better commercial potential than the method
used to produce Dolly the sheep, the first and still the only mammal to
have been cloned from an adult cell. ...
Only 28 embryos grew and just three of the 28 embryos they grew survived.
But the researchers said these three calves, whose birth was reported in
January, were healthy.
Some of the fetuses were abnormal and died. One was oversized -- a
documented side-effect of laboratory-conceived animals. One calf died of
abnormalities after birth.
May 22, 1998
Nikkei English News via NewsEdge Corporation : TOKYO (Nikkei)--Kanematsu
Corp. (8020) will start a service in June certifying that food products
have not been genetically engineered. The service, the first of its kind in
the world, will be offered in cooperation with U.S. organizations including
Farm Verified Organic, which certifies foods as organic.
The trading house will allow certified food producers to indicate that
their products have not been genetically altered. The service is in
response to growing concern among consumers over genetically-modified
foods.
Message from Consumers International re upcoming Codex Alimentarius meeting
in Ottawa May 25-29
from
http://www.consumersinternational.org/news/latestnews/
Latest News - updated 13 May 1998 Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food As an increasing amount of
genetically engineered food products make their way onto supermarket
shelves, consumers are becoming more and more concerned about what exactly
is in the food they buy. But there are no rules requiring manufacturers to
label all such food.
Consumers International, along with other consumer organisations around the
world, are hard at work lobbying the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the
international body that sets food standards, to ensure that standards are
passed that guarantee consumers can make informed choices.
Use your voice, DEMAND A CHOICE!
On 25-29 May, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling will meet in Ottawa,
Canada to discuss setting standards on labelling of genetically modified
food. The major concern is that Codex will only require that food products
containing genetically engineered organisms be labelled if "an adequate
analysis demonstrates that they that they differ from equivalent
conventional foods."
Consumers International finds this statement totally unacceptable, and
believes ALL genetically engineered foods should be labelled, whether or
not a difference from equivalent conventional products can be adequately
demonstrated by analysis.
Consumers representatives from around the world will attend the Codex
meeting in an effort to get the consumer side heard. To read more or become
a part of the Codex campaign please visit Consumers Internationals new web
site at www.consumersinternational.org/campaign/codex. The site also allows
you to send a message to Codex supporting Consumers International's call to
label all genetically modified foods.
The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business
by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho,
May 18, 1998
SAN FRANCISCO, May 15 /PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation -- Genetic
engineering is in the media, in the movies and in some of our worst
nightmares. Now, in a timely and prophetic work, distinguished genetic
scientist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho gives us the scientific facts as she examines the
inherent hazards of genetic engineering biotechnology, and the implications
of the intimate involvement of genetic science with big corporate business.
Seeking not to discredit responsible scientists, Dr. Ho deconstructs many
of the myths that have been built up about genetic engineering as she warns
about its dangers:
This authoritative yet easily accessible book is a clarion class for public
involvement and independent review of the risk and hazards involved in
genetic engineering before it is too late.
The book contains chapter summaries and bibliography, extensive reference
section and glossary.
NAPRA Review has said the following in praise of Genetic Engineering:
" ...Dr. Ho has positions (herself) at the heart of both the new holistic
science and the international movement to confront the recklessness of the
biotechnology industry. This authoritative and profoundly important book
explains the science, what has gone wrong and what needs to be done."
SOURCE Strictly Book Promotionss, 415-626-2665, or fax, 415-431-4425, or
strictly@bookpromo.com
Thanks to Dr. Ron Epstein
namofo@jps.net
for posting the following two articles
By GINA KOLATA,
© Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company,
May 23, 1998
Nearly 15 months after the publication of the landmark scientific paper
announcing the creation of Dolly the sheep, the first paper has appeared
extending cloning to another species. This time the clones are Holstein
calves, created from genetically engineered fetal cells.
The result is not another Dolly, because Dolly was made from an udder cell
of an adult animal. The new feat, cloning from fetal calf cells, is easier
because the younger the animal, the easier it is to clone its cells. But it
has great practical importance, experts said. It means that scientists can
slash the time to make a genetically engineered calf from three years, with
current methods, to nine months, with cloning.
For companies like Advanced Cell Technology Inc., of Worcester, Mass.,
which made the clones, it now becomes much more feasible to create
genetically engineered animals to produce valuable drugs in their milk or
to serve as organ factories for people because their cells are altered to
prevent the immune system from attacking them.
"It is amazing how well this apparently works,"
said Dr. Randall Prather, a
cloning expert at the University of Missouri.
"I think that people are
finally seeing the applications of cloning."
The investigators, Dr. James Robl of the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst, Dr. Steven Stice of Advanced Cell Technology and their colleagues,
first announced the cloning of three calves at a scientific meeting in
January. Their paper, published Friday in the journal Science, provides
additional data.
In an interview, Stice added that the group had now produced four
additional live calves from genetically engineered fetal cells.
To make the three calves described in their paper, the investigators grew
cells from a 55-day-old male Holstein fetus in the laboratory, and added
two innocuous marker genes to the cells. Then they began the tedious
cloning process. They slipped 276 genetically altered fetal cells into 276
unfertilized cow eggs whose own genetic material had been removed. Their
goal was to have the eggs take up the genes from the fetal cells and use
them to direct the development of calves.
After growing the eggs with their new genes for a week in the laboratory,
the investigators were left with 33 embryos. They transferred 28 of them to
11 cows that served as surrogate mothers. Four calves were born; one died
from a congenital heart defect when it was five days old.
Although Stice and Robl are the first to publish, several other research
groups report that they, too, have used cloning to produce genetically
engineered calves.
Cloning is still inefficient, Stice said, but it is far better than the
conventional method of creating cows with added genes, which involves
injecting genes into embryos. Few embryo cells take up the added genes, and
even fewer use them.
The researchers said in their paper that 500 cow embryos would have to be
injected with genes and transferred to surrogate cow mothers to produce one
genetically engineered calf. In contrast, they said, with cloning, they
transferred nine embryos, on average, to four cows to get one live,
genetically altered calf.
Moreover, the investigators noted, the gene injection method requires two
generations to produce an animal that has the added gene in every cell.
This is because genetically altered cells end up peppered throughout the
animal. To get an animal that has the gene in all of its cells, scientists
must breed animals made from the genetically engineered embryos, looking
for offspring of females that have the gene in their egg cells or males
that have it in their sperm. Cloning, in
contrast, accomplishes this goal in a single generation.
Robl and Stice also addressed a puzzling question: Is a cloned animal the
age of the cell from which it was created or is a clone its own
chronological age?
The fetal cells used for cloning had grown and divided in the laboratory
for so long that they were near death from old age. Yet, those cells still
produced cloned calves that were as young as calves are supposed to be.
If the cells being cloned had not started their life spans anew, the calves
would have died because their cells would have given out from old age,
Stice said. In a separate experiment, the investigators took the aged fetal
cells that had grown in the laboratory and started to clone them. Then they
took the resulting fetuses and studied their cells. The cells had the life
spans expected of normal fetal cells, Stice reported. But one question
lingers: When will another Dolly -- a clone of something older than a fetal
or embryo cell -- be born?
Last August, Robl and Stice announced that they had cows that were pregnant
with fetuses cloned from adult cells. But, Robl said, none of their five
fetuses survived beyond 50 days of pregnancy.
Researchers at Infigen Inc., in DeForest, Wis., announced that they, too,
had cows pregnant with fetuses cloned from adults. Dale Schwartz, the
company's president and chief executive, declined to say what became of
those fetuses.
Dr. Jean-Paul Renard, the research director of France's national
agricultural research center in Jouy-en-Josas, says he has a cow pregnant
with a fetus cloned from the cells of a 2-week-old calf.
"This cow is expected to deliver during the summer," Renard said in a
telephone interview.
Cloning experts said the pace of the research was actually quite rapid.
Cloning, Prather said, "is not a trivial matter." Scientists are still at
the earliest stages, he added, trying to figure out how to make it more
likely to succeed.
There are also practical considerations, like timing the experiments
exactly so the surrogate mothers are ready for the embryos, and then losing
months if a pregnancy does not go to term. "You start lining up cattle and
trying to get them to come into heat," Robl said. "Cows
only cycle every 21 days, and their gestation period is nine months."
Stice echoed these remarks, saying: "These are long and extended
experiments. And if we lose pregnancies at 60 or 70 days, it means we have
to start all over again."
By LISA NAPOLI,
© Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
In television parlance, May is traditionally "sweeps" month, the time when
stations air ratings-boosting series on sensational or controversial
topics. For example, this week in Tampa, viewers who tuned in to the Fox
affiliate, WTVT-TV, saw a three-part series about a much-debated hormone
that stimulates milk production in cows.
But on a Web site maintained by two former investigative reporters from the
station, a different take on the bovine growth hormone (BGH) is available
-- the story they say the station wouldn't let them tell. The site, created
by Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, features video clips the two reporters shot
for their segment, as well as dozens of legal documents -- all evidence in
a suit they've filed against the station.
Ironically, the Web site is allowing the reporting team to reach an
audience that's geographically broader than the one available to them over
the airwaves.
"Last I heard we'd gotten requests from 30 different countries," said Akre,
noting that the inquiries are coming from individuals ranging from
environmentalists to reporters. "The thing I find so ironic about that is
we did this story for a local TV station and now people in Botswana and
Finland are seeing it."
Viewers in Tampa didn't see the story, however. Wilson and Akre were
released from their contracts after a nearly year-long sparring match with
station management, during which they said they were asked to rewrite the
story more than 70 times. They said they were even told to "deliberately
mislead" viewers by Fox management and lawyers.
The internal dispute began after the maker of the hormone, Monsanto, sent a
threatening letter to Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News. BGH,
commercially known as Posilac, was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration in 1993, but has been linked to cancer in several studies,
and has been banned in Europe.
Akre and Wilson's report, had it aired, would have said Florida dairymen
were secretly injecting the hormone into cows after promising not to sell
milk from cows treated with BGH.
On April 2, the reporters filed a lawsuit charging the station with
violating the state's whistleblower act for firing them for refusing to
alter their reports in ways they said were misleading. That day, they also
launched the Web site, which contains dozens of pages of documents -- from
their employment agreements and correspondence from Monsanto, to the
scripts they wrote and the rewrites done at the station's behest.
For reporters who want to pick up the BGH story, Akre and Wilson provide a
list of all their sources, as well as their phone numbers.
"We went to the Web because the Web was the best place to put the story out
in full detail," Wilson said. "It was essentially a way we could share the
story with everyone around the world, everyone in Tampa Bay and throughout
the country, all of the evidence and backup documents, and audio and video
of the exact story. You don't have to walk to the courthouse in Tampa.
Every desktop is like a courthouse."
But Fox executives said what's on trial is an employment dispute -- not
censorship. Dave Boylan, vice president and general manager of WTVT-TV,
said the Web site is a matter between disgruntled employees and the
station. They were not, he said, released because of the story.
"They're basically suing us for not carrying their story," Boylan said.
"They've said they were let go because of their strong editorial position.
It's fairly amazing, that one minute you're sitting in a story meeting, and
your story is not approved, and the next call you make is to your
attorney."
Boylan points to this week's series, and a recent talk show interview with
the author of a book that is critical of BGH, as evidence that the station
isn't avoiding the topic. Akre and Wilson suggest that the reports were
rushed to air as a public relations move.
A Monsanto spokesman, Gary Barton, said the company is accustomed to
criticism in public forums, and didn't intend to silence the reports.
Fairness was all they were after, he said. As a chemical producer, Monsanto
is no stranger to criticism, and Barton said the Web is a place where
environmentalists often express their views. But he said he's troubled by
the way people fail to distinguish fact from advocacy on the Internet.
"It raises a lot of new issues," he said. "We're in the process ourselves
of thinking how you counter this kind of thing, not just Jane and Steve's
Web site. The burden shifts for readers on the Internet. People need to
learn to be skeptical, be it a trade association or activist group or Jane
and Steve. They have to read things with a certain eye and look and
evaluate different sources of information."
Everyone involved says what's at stake are First Amendment rights --
although for different reasons. Monsanto says all it wants is fair and
balanced reporting. The reporters say they were unjustly silenced as a
concession to corporate influence. The station says it is under fire for
"being cautious."
All agree that because of the Web, the story is getting wider play than it
probably would have in the medium for which it was intended. Journalism
mailing lists, as well as environmental forums, are driving traffic to the
site by the thousands, the reporters said.
"If we had run our original story, maybe twenty thousand people on the six
o'clock news would have seen it," Akre said. "It would have been pretty
limited. By firing us and making such an issue of this, more people know
about it."
Related Sites Following are links to the external Web sites mentioned in
this article. These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web,
and The Times has no control over their content or availability.
Lisa Napoli at
napoli@nytimes.com
welcomes your comments and suggestions.
GENEVA, May 19 (Reuters) - The United States warned the European Union on
Tuesday of serious trade repercussions if Brussels did not fulfill an
agreement to allow imports of three types of genetically modified maize or
corn.
Blaming France for delays on improving the imports, U.S. Trade
Representative Charlene Barshefsky told a news conference: "This is very
serious and threatens a very substantial trade row if these corn varieties
are not allowed to be marketed fully."
EU ministers agreed in April to allow the marketing of three strains of
high-yielding maize developed with genetic methods that have been the
target of a protest campaign by ecologists.
Varieties concerned were developed by U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto
Barshefsky accused France of holding up implementation of the EU decision
--causing all U.S. maize exports to the 15-nation EU being blocked at a
cost this year of $220 million. French officials were not immediately
available for comment.
The U.S. is the world's largest exporter of corn and so far the only major
area to use the new varieties. But while the row goes on, it has seen a
system of preferential corn sales to Spain and Portugal effective blocked
because of legal problems. Europeans say it is legally risky to import any
U.S. corn while the rules about gene crops remain unclear since ordinary
and lab-developed corn look alike. The trade to southern Europe has been
going to farmers in Argentina and eastern European instead. REUTERS
REUTERS
PARIS, May 19 (Reuters) France will await the outcome of a public debate
on genetically engineered crops in June before making a decision on whether
to approve the imports of new strains of genetically modified maize, a farm
ministry spokesman said on Tuesday.
France, which has already cleared the import and production of a maize
strain developed by Swiss drug group Novartis, will hold a public debate on
gene crops on June 20-21.
"Everything is on hold since we approved the Novartis strain. There will
not be any authorisations for new varieties before we hold the public
debate," the spokesman said. Earlier, the United States, the world's
largest corn exporter, accused France of holding up implementation of a
European Union decision to approve three new types of genetically modified
maize.
Speaking at a news conference in Geneva, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene
Barshefsky warned the EU of serious trade repercussions if Brussels did not
fulfill an agreement to allow imports of the new maize strains.
EU ministers agreed in April to allow the marketing of three maize
varieties developped by U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto, Novartis and
German group AgrEvo.
But France has yet to approve the new strains.
The farm ministry spokesman also said he was surprised that the United
States was singling out France in the dispute over U.S. corn shipments to
the European Union.
Some EU countries held more radical views than France, he said, citing
Austria, which has imposed a domestic ban on gene- maize imports in
defiance of EU law.
"One wonders why the United States is hitting on France," he said. A
farm ministry official familiar with gene-crops issues also said the United
States had a responsibility in the current situation because it did not
distinguish between the five different varieties of genetically modified
corn it markets.
Last November, when France authorised its farmers to grow gene maize
developed by Novartis, it said it would not clear the production or
marketing of other crops pending further debate and a public debate on gene
issues.
France, the EU's largest maize producer, is under pressure from a
coalition of environment groups and consumers to reverse its November
decision.
Opponents, who say gene techniques may be a risk to human health and the
environment, have called for a French moratorium on genetically modified
crops.
But supporters of the new technology say it will bring down production
costs and allow European farmers to compete with farmers in countries like
the United States where gene-crops have long been cleared.
Back to IndexRESOLUTION to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling
______________________________
______________________________ Name
Signed ______________________________
Date
Researchers Describe Their Engineered Cloned Calves
Kanematsu To Certify Food As Non-Genetically Engineered
Message to Codex Alimentarius
* Labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods
* Not-So-Golden Jubilee
* Eastern Europe Programme
Thanks to jim mcnulty Genetic Engineering -- Dream or Nightmare
Holstein Calves Cloned From Cells, Scientists Report
rBGH: Reporters Who Say They Were Silenced by TV Station Post Web Site (NYT)
Forwarded from Allsorts
allsorts@gn.apc.org
, May 20 news
U.S. warns EU of big trade row over genetic corn
Paris to decide on gene maize imports after debate