|
|
News |
| Top | Next | Front Page |
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:04:46 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
thanks to Bradford Duplisea brad@pei.sympatico.ca for posting this:
By Marie Woolf, The Independent on Sunday, 6 June 1999
GM corn sold in Britain could render eight powerful antibiotics, used by doctors to fight fatal diseases including typhoid, pneumonia and infections suffered by Aids patients, useless within half an hour.
Expert advice received by the Ministry of Agriculture (Maff) as long ago as 1995, warned that an antibiotic resistance gene inserted into a type of GM maize was so powerful that it could degrade an antibiotic in the human gut in 30 minutes.
The antibiotics are used to treat people with diseases such as bronchitis, septicemia, gangrene and life-threatening infections suffered by people with cystic fibrosis and Aids.
The leaked advice, from members of the Government's powerful Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, warned that the antibiotic resistance genes can mutate.
GM maize is already grown in the US and imported into Britain in foods such as tortilla chips.
The leaked advice has brought calls from environmentalists to ban the import into Britain of all GM food containing antibiotic resistance genes.
The week the Liberal Democrats will take the toughest stand by any political party yet on GM when they publish a policy paper on genetic modification. The party will call for the "swift phasing out of the use of antibiotic marker genes".
"It is completely irresponsible for the Government to allow antibiotics to be used indiscriminately like confetti at a wedding," said Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman.
The Liberal Democrats will call for genetic engineering companies, such as Monsanto and Novartis, to be legally liable for millions of pounds of compensation if the food turns out to harm people.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:04:46 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
June 5, 1999
Activists Pledge to Take Action!
The Steering Council (board) members of the Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) discussed the application to the New Zealand government for the use of rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) in the Dairy Industry, at a recent meeting in Malaysia.
Members from Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and India representing networks of consumers, women's and environmental organizations across the region, strongly oppose the use of this growth hormone due to associated health effects - including breast and prostate cancer.
"In the case of rBGH, the links to cancer, and other human health and safety concerns demands added vigilance. People have the right to know that they could be seriously jeopardizing their health, and that of their children", commented Anwar Fazal, PAN AP Steering Council Member, and Chairperson for the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA).
Since New Zealand dairy products are commonly sold and consumed in many of these countries, the organizations have pledged to organize actions - including boycotts of New Zealand dairy products - should the registration proceed.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:04:46 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
Friday June 4, 11:26 am Eastern Time
BERNE, June 4 (Reuters) - Genetically modified soybean varieties are expected to make up almost 55 percent of the U.S. crop this year, compared with about two percent in 1996, an official with the United Soybean Board (USB) said on Friday.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:04:46 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
Presenting the first 500,000 petition signatures calling for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods that will be submitted to the President, Congress, USDA, FDA, and EPA Thursday, June 17
Capitol Hilton Hotel, 16th & K Streets, NW, Washington, D.C. 9 AM to 12 Noon
You are cordially invited to attend this National Summit of eminent scientists and physicians, public policy experts, business and industy leaders, farmers, religious and spiritual leaders, and consumers to discuss the urgent need to safeguard our food supply from the hazards of genetic engineering.
Panelists:
Reservations and information: 1-877-732-5366 Sponsored by Mothers for Natural Law of the Natural Law Party Participation by panel members does not necessarily imply support for the Natural Law Party.
Natural Law Party * Blair House Suite 525 * 8201 16th Street * Silver Spring, MD 20910
William Crist, media communications
639 Whispering Hills Road, Suite 219
Boone, North Carolina 28607 USA
ph. 828-265-0023
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:04:46 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
Nicholas Watt, Political Correspondent Monday June 7
The Guardian 7th June 99.,
Front page
Links, reports and background: everything you need to know about GM food
Tony Blair yesterday signalled a significant softening of his support for genetically modified foods when he declared that "the jury is out" on whether they are safe to eat.
After months of intensive campaigning by ministers on the benefits of GM foods, the prime minister indicated that he has heeded growing public opposition when he admitted that he was horrified when he first heard the term.
"The first time I heard about genetic modification the term [was] so terrible," Mr Blair told BBC1's Breakfast with Frost. "You think, my goodness,what on earth is going on here. You think of Dr Strangelove."
The Prince of Wales, who spoke out against the genetic modification of crops last week, reportedly told friends that Cherie Booth [wife of Mr. Blair] spoke of her worries about the health and environmental impact of GM crops over lunch at his Highgrove estate last September.
In the interview yesterday the prime minister refused to comment on his wife's thoughts, joking that he would "get into a lot of trouble" if he spoke about their private discussions.
But Mr Blair said that he understood such fears,as he attempted to recast himself in the role of neutral observer on the issue of GM foods.
Mr Blair said: "We're in the position, as the government, where it is almost as if people say you're the greatest advocates of GM food. I'm not the advocate of anything other than keeping an open mind."
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:04:46 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
By Bill Lambrecht Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
Sunday, May 30, 1999. St. Louis Post-Dispatch
In the planting of genetically changed crops around the world, the U.S. government has done just about everything it can to help except drive the tractor.
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has been one of biotechnology's leading boosters, admonishing reluctant Europeans not to stand in the way of progress and urging the acceptance of food grown using the new, American technology. But lately, Glickman has turned cautious. In St. Louis last week, he warned that the United States must pay closer attention to questions being raised around the world about genetic engineering.
"We can't force-feed . . . reluctant consumers," he said.
His words, along with a recent scientific finding that biotechnology may harm butterflies, are helping trigger an emerging debate in this country that could prove pivotal for the new technology and for its driving force, St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.
In an interview in Washington on Friday, Glickman said biotechnology "shouldn't be a steamroller. ... Ultimately, if the consumer doesn't buy, the technology isn't worth a damn. Period."
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:06 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
Reuters, June 7, 1999
LONDON - British supermarket chain Tesco Plc said it was remaking some of its own label deep-pan pizzas after tests showed they contained genetically modified ingredients. A Tesco spokesman told BBC television suppliers had assured Tesco the product was GM free, but laboratory analysis showed traces of GM soya.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:06 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
By Geraint Smith, London, Evening Standard Edition, Monday June 7,
The farmer who agreed to having the country's first large-scale trial of genetically modified crops on his land has destroyed them with weedkiller. Captain Fred Barker says the trustees of his family farm at Hannington in Wiltshire forced him to end the trial because they are opposed to the Government-run experiment and were unhappy that other crops on the farm were to lose their organic status because of the trial.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:06 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
Message from Michael Hansen hansmi@consumer.org of the Consumer's Union (USA)
PAN AP is Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific.
Update June 7th, 1999
Dear Friends,
As we announced in the previous Update and Information shared on PAN AP's Campaign to deter the registration of the genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH - also known as rBST), the Animals Remedies Board was to meet on June 4th to discuss and decide on this issue.
The June 4th Meeting of the Animal Remedies Board
The Animals Remedies Board (ARB) did meet on the morning on June 4th, 1999 in Wellington, New Zealand. However, the Board - which is a statutory body set up via an act within the New Zealand Parliament - did not make a definitive decision on whether or not to register the hormone for use in the country. As such NO decision has been taken on this matter. While it is unclear at this when a decision will be made, one is expected later in the year.
PAN AP has learnt that the meeting discussed the mounting resistance to the possible registration of the drug. The official letter of concern from PAN AP, as well as numerous letters of concern and protest from PAN AP partners, were tabled at the meeting.
Significantly on June 5th, the New Zealand Herald carried a news story entiled" No Go for Cattle Hormone" in which it reported that "Elanco Animal Health, the animal remedy division of Auckland-based Eli Lilly NZ, says it will stop trying to register in New Zealand a controversial synthetic cattle hormone used overseas to boost milk production.
Green Party MP Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has been a vocal opponent of the hormone, widely used in the United States though banned in Europe and Canada, said the announcement was a triumph for advocates of safe food".
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:06 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
By Donna Hiscott, The Ottawa Citizen, June 08, 1999
The false horn of June 3, I feel the most salient point he makes is that the so- called benefits of biotechnology seem to be limited to the people who own the technology. These people are trying to sell us on the idea that we will all benefit from the genetic engineering of our food supply, especially the poor and undernourished of the world.
The Consumers Right to Know Association based in Ottawa has signatures from 35,000 people across Canada who do not agree. We do not want our food so that certain investors can make a big profit. We are upholding our legal right to know what is in our food and how it has been processed. We want mandatory labelling and long-term testing of all generically engineered food.
We like our food as nature intended, preferably without added pesticides, but at least in its genetically original form. We do not feel you can improve on nature in the lab.
Prince Charles is a spokesman for natural, organic food and a clean environment. We respect him for this work. But our own people – David Suzuki and many, many environmental activists – can speak just as well to the issues. Our government and our retailers are not listening to us. The is so true.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:06 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
THE NATIONAL MAGAZINE (Canada),
CBC-NW
Tuesday, June 8, 1999,
TIME 21:27:00 ET
Host: Hana Gartner
Guests:
- Murray Oliver, CBC Saskatchewan Reporter
- Percy Schmeiser, Farmer
- Randy Christenson, Monsanto, Regional Director, Western Canada
- Gary Pappenfoot, Mustard, Peterson, Humbolot Flour Mills
- Edward Zilinski, Farmer;
- Mrs. Kram, Farmer
HANA GARTNER:
Tonight: "Blowin' In The Wind."
UNIDENTIFIED:
What I believe is happening to farmers is wrong.
GARTNER:
The little seeds that have turned this into a battlefield. "Lord
of New Brunswick."
BERNARD LORD / NEW BRUNSWICK PREMIER:
It's difficult to be premier, no
matter how old you are.
GARTNER:
An interview with Canada's newest premier. The new plan for peace
in Kosovo. We'll hear from this former U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, and a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic.
GARTNER:
Hello. Our first story tonight is a modern day tale of David and
Goliath. It pits a Saskatchewan farmer against a giant bio-tech
multinational, and it shows just how far that company will go to protect
its position in the burgeoning market for genetically altered crops. Here
is Murray Oliver of CBC Saskatchewan with "Blowin' In The Wind."
MURRAY OLIVER:
Percy Schmeiser has spent 50 years farming this land near
Bruno, Saskatchewan. Now suddenly, Schmeiser is fighting maybe the
strangest battle in the history of agriculture.
PERCY SCHMEISER / FARMER:
My grandfather and my father homesteaded here,
and there was no such thing as chemical companies or basically no seed
companies. They were free and independent.
OLIVER:
Schmeiser learned a long time ago that the wind is often a farmer's
worst enemy; wind blows the seeds and pollen of weeds into farm fields,
choking out crops. But now the wind may have brought a new threat to
Schmeiser's farm, forcing him to fight for control of the seeds planted
beneath his feet. Schmeiser has picked a fight with the biggest boy on the
block – he's battling the world's largest agro-chemical company, Monsanto.
OLIVER:
Monsanto makes this famous weed killer, called "Roundup." Spray it
onto a field and it kills everything growing there. But now Monsanto has
genetically engineered a canola seed so that "Roundup" doesn't hurt it.
That means you can spray "Roundup" herbicide over an entire field, kill all
the weeds growing there and not hurt your canola crops - - as long as it
comes from Monsanto's special seed.
OLIVER:
Many Canadian farmers want the special canola seeds containing
Monsanto's DNA. But while farmers can buy the special seed, Monsanto keeps
the rights to the DNA itself. After all, that's what makes the seed special
and that's where Monsanto makes its money. But farmers traditionally plant
their fields using seeds saved from their last year's crop. Just like in
human beings, the DNA of seeds are passed along from generation to
generation.
OLIVER:
A farmer could buy Monsanto's special seed once, then never have to
pay for it again; all the benefits without the cost. So the problem for
Monsanto is protecting its investment. In the brave new world of
agriculture, it's Monsanto versus the farmer. Farmers buying Monsanto's
seed must sign a contract promising to buy fresh seed every year. Then they
must let Monsanto inspect their fields for cheating. Monsanto's regional
director in western Canada is Randy Christenson. He says the company has
got to be tough.
RANDY CHRISTENSON / MONSANTO, REG'L DIR., WESTERN CANADA:
We, of course,
put like years, years and years of research and time into developing this
technology and so for us to be able to recoup our investment, we have to be
able to be paid for that.
OLIVER:
Percy Schmeiser says he's never used Monsanto's seed. He saves the
seeds from his own crops, then replants them in the spring. But Monsanto
investigators say they've found Monsanto DNA in Schmeiser's crops. Monsanto
says Schmeiser never paid for the rights to use its DNA. Now they're suing
Schmeiser for the money.
SCHMEISER:
It's very upsetting and nerve-wracking to have a multi-giant
national corporation come after you. I don't have the resources to fight
this.
OLIVER:
Monsanto first got a tip about Schmeiser on its toll-free
snitch-line. Monsanto asks farmers to turn-in their neighbours if they
suspect them of growing the seed without paying. Monsanto uses private
investigators from this Saskatoon firm (Robinson Investigations Ltd.) to
check out the tips. Investigators patrolling grid roads took crop samples
from Schmeiser's fields to check for Monsanto's DNA. Monsanto doesn't
apologize for playing hardball, but the Monsanto representative insists the
whole process is very friendly. Monsanto calls its investigations "audits."
CHRISTENSON:
Yes, we do have a group that do audit – they do make farm
visits, but they do it in a way that is extremely respectful to the
farmers. And in fact I'd encourage you to talk to the farmers that have
gone through it. And they're very comfortable with what we're doing. We
never go on their property, never without their permission.
OLIVER:
But court documents show Monsanto ordered its investigators to
trespass into Schmeiser's fields and collect samples. Then Monsanto agents
paid a secret visit to the company which processes Schmeiser's seeds for
planting. Gary Pappenfoot was the manager.
GARY PAPPENFOOT / MUSTARD, PETERSON, HUMBOLOT FLOUR MILLS:
We were
approached by someone in Monsanto asking if Percy had some seed treated
there. We said there was. They asked for a sample. I'd asked my superior in
Saskatoon whether it was okay to give a sample. He said it was, so we did.
OLIVER:
Monsanto says Schmeiser has stolen its DNA. In fact, Monsanto has
accused dozens of farmers of growing the special seed without paying for
it. The problem is, nature has been moving DNA around for thousands of
years; Monsanto's is just the latest.
SCHMEISER:
It'll blow in the wind. You can't control it. You can't just put
say up a fence line and say that's where it stops; it might end up 20
miles, 10 miles.
OLIVER:
Schmeiser is backed up by some impressive research. Scientists from
Agriculture Canada say wind can blow seeds or pollen between fields,
meaning the DNA of crops in one field often mixes with another. Seeds or
pollen can also be blown off uncovered trucks and off farm equipment. But
Monsanto seems to be saying it's up to farmers to dig out any Monsanto
crops blowing into their fields.
CHRISTENSON:
The question on pollen flow is not something that's new. And
the tools that are available to the farmers – and the farmers know their
property; they know their crops; they've been managing this same situation
for as long as they've been farming.
OLIVER:
Without a microscope, there's no way to tell regular crops from
crops carrying the Monsanto DNA. This means even the seed farmers keep from
their own crops may contain Monsanto's altered gene.
UNIDENTIFIED:
Farmers should have some rights of their own.
OLIVER:
Last year, Edward Zilinski of Micado traded seeds with a farmer
from Prince Albert. This is an old farming tradition. But the seeds
Zilinski got in return had Monsanto's DNA. Now Monsanto says Zilinski and
his wife owe them over $28,000 in penalties.
EDWARD ZILINSKI / FARMER:
I saw a plane come over along there.
OLIVER:
Monsanto's heavy-hand is sparking the anger of many farmers in
western Canada. The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter
buzzed their fields. The couple say agents dropped weed killer on their
canola field to see if the crops had the Monsanto gene. Monsanto says they
had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Krams think otherwise.
MRS. KRAM / FARMER:
We are thoroughly disgusted the way things are going.
Who put the canola in? It is the farmer. It doesn't belong to Monsanto or
anybody else. And I don't see anybody else's name on the titles of these,
of all the land we own. It's my husband and myself. Nobody else. Thoroughly
pissed off.
OLIVER:
For his part, Percy Schmeiser believes Monsanto hopes to force
farmers into accepting genetically engineered products. Schmeiser is
standing up to Monsanto in court.
SCHMEISER:
I'm going to fight and fight and fight, because what I believe
is happening to farmers is wrong. And I'm fighting this not only for
myself, but for my farmer friends, for my children and my grandchildren.
CHRISTENSON:
As you move to adopt new technology, whether it was going from
the horse to the car, there was a great deal of controversy on how to deal
with certain issues, questions being asked.
OLIVER:
But the real question is this: can Monsanto or anybody really
control the work of nature? The answer could determine who controls the
future of world farming. For the National Magazine, I'm Murray Oliver in
Bruno, Saskatchewan.
GARTNER:
If you would like to know more about this story, check out the
National's Web site. The address is:
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national
GARTNER:
Now don't go anywhere because when we come back, I would like to
introduce you to a young man with a mission. Bernard Lord is only
33-years-old, but he just won New Brunswick's biggest job: premier.
BERNARD LORD / NEW BRUNSWICK PREMIER:
What's important is not my age, but my values and abilities.
(commercial Break)
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:11:31 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
By Lisa Schmidt,
The Regina Leader-Post (Canada)
Tuesday June 8, 1999,
Page A1
Biotechnology could forever alter the food we put on our plates. So why is no one asking questions about the safety, ethics and efficacy of genetic modification technology, asks Winnipeg journalist and author Ingeborg Boyens.
In her book Unnatural Harvest: How Corporate Science is Secretly Altering our Food, Boyens takes issue with the way governments and corporations are readily embracing - and rushing forward with - genetically altered crops.
"The whole notion of crossing the species line of taking a gene from one species and putting it into another is truly unnatural, is something that she said in an interview Monday.
Yet science is pushing ahead - bringing herbicide-resistant canola, " bug proof" potatoes and tomatoes with longer shelf life into the marketplace, she said.
Noticeably absent is any ethical debate surrounding the issue, Boyens said.
"We've heard the industry essentially say 'Trust us. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about science.'"
But the 20-year veteran journalist was surprised at the lack of guidelines and ethical framework in the industry when she started digging into the issue for her job with the CBC television program Country Canada.
"I found that no one seemed to know about it outside of the agricultural areas and in the agricultural areas it seemed no one was asking any questions about it," she said. That especially holds true in Saskatchewan, where much of the country's research work is being done, Boyens said. The Saskatchewan government in particular has unashamedly promoted the biotechnology industry in the province, she said, and injected millions of dollars of public money to help to set up a world- renowned research centre in Saskatoon.
And yet the province's biotech spending is rarely challenged by the media or opposition politicians, she adds. While Boyens said she can't fault the province for trying to rebuild a shrinking agriculture economy, she does think "the Saskatchewan government should take a step back and be aware of the fact that this may not be entirely a good news story." "This is not something that is being developed by small Saskatchewan companies," she said. "It is developed by large transnationals that have set up branch plants and we don't really know what the risks will be in the long term."
For the corporations themselves, Boyens has even harsher criticism. She claims their drive for profits are "hijacking" research. Most Prairie farmers are familiar with herbicide-resistant canola, which makes weed control easier, but only if producers use the companion herbicide.
"Let's make no mistake about it, we've heard a lot about biotechnology feeding the world, but right now it's an industry dominated by a few key transnational players who are bringing forward products and technology to sell their own products," she said.
But while companies maintain the technology will help produce better yields, it comes at an additional cost, Boyens said. Producers who need it the most, such as those in developing countries, cannot afford such technology.
And there's no proof consumers want genetically modified products, she said.
"In Europe, they are absolutely panic-stricken by this stuff," she said, adding a consumer "revolt" has pushed foods containing genetically modified organisms off supermarket shelves. Canadian exports of transgenetic canola have been shut out of the European Union.
But North American consumers seem oblivious to what makes up the food served on their plates, said Boyens. "I think a lot of people assume the government regulators are out there taking care of us to ensure the food we eat - serve our families - is going to be healthful and safe." In fact, government cutbacks means less testing is being done, she said.
"We have essentially no legislation on novel foods. "We're seeing them introduced into the marketplace on a hope and a prayer."
Instead the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on biotechnology research and promotion, Boyens points out. "We spend next to nothing on risk assessment. I would argue we should be putting a little more money to try to asses what the risks of this are," she said.
Boyens hopes it doesn't take a disaster like a massive crop failure before anyone starts asking questions.
"We've got long tradition here in the West of science and plant breeding, developing new crops and hybrids all really propelling agriculture forward so there's this assumption we're getting more of the same," she said.
"This is not more of the same."
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:11:31 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
By Alan Travis, Home Affairs Editor
The Guardian (London),
June 8, 1999
The public's trust in scientists has been so shaken by repeated food safety and health scares that it has now fallen below that of police officers, according to the Guardian/ICM opinion poll published today.
The June survey shows that scientists no longer command the level of trust enjoyed by teachers and doctors because of issues such as animal cloning and genetically modified foods.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:11:31 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
From the President of The British Beekeepers Association
By Alan Johnson, The Times (London) June 8, 1999
Sir,
The Prince of Wales is right to question the safety of genetically modified organisms (reports, June 2 and 3).
Cross-pollination is a very key question in the spread of genetically modified material. Insects carry out 80 per cent of all pollination and honeybees 80 per cent of that. Bees fly up to three miles to forage and don't necessarily forage on the nearest oil-seed rape. Cross-pollination will occur between oil-seed rape and charlock. Charlock will be cross-pollinated with other plants and weeds in the environment, so spreading genetically modified pollens. Where will it stop?
Before crops are grown commercially more trials are needed to convince the public that these foods are safe and that the environment is not going to be destroyed. This is obviously far too difficult for the Government, which appears to be being run by big business.
Sincerely,
Alan Johnson,
President,
The British Beekeepers Association,
Grasmead, Dean, Bishop Waltham,
Southampton SO32 1FY.
June 4.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:11:31 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
By Charles Arthur and Jonathan Glennie, INDEPENDENT (London) June 10
Britain's food producers are in headlong retreat from the use of genetically modified (GM) soya in their products after a consumer backlash against the technology, The Independent has found.
Almost all the major producers have taken steps to eliminate GM soya and maize, or derivatives of them, from their products. The development will push up the producers' costs by as much as 10 per cent, and may mean that foods specifically incorporating GM elements will not appear on retailers' shelves in Britain for at least two years.
But Lord Haskins, chairman of Northern Foods, which is one of the biggest food companies, said yesterday that the reintroduction would not happen until consumers, and then retailers, seem eager for it. He added that in time there would be GM products available that offered a price or other advantage to shoppers and retailers.
Only a handful of companies are now using soya that is not specifically from non-GM sources. This marks an almost complete reversal of the position a year ago.
Yesterday Northern Foods announced formally that it was stopping using GM ingredients, a move revealed by The Independent last month. The decision is a blow to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has repeated backed GM technology, since Lord Haskins is considered to be among his favourite businessmen.
Lord Haskins said he was unimpressed by the pressure that producers have experienced from retailers. "I'm ashamed at the way the retailers have wobbled," he said. "They should have given their customers choice [through labelling]." But he told the BBC's Today programme that the company was bowing to buyer pressure. "I think it's clear that consumers don't want to buy GM food," he commented.
He added that there was no incentive to use GM materials at present: "There's no price attraction, there's no product attraction at the present time and in that sense one is forced to renounce genetically engineered produce."
A similar ambivalence has been expressed by the huge food group Nestle. The company announced in April that it was removing GM ingredients from its products, including its baby milk.
| Top | Previous | Front Page |
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:11:31 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson
By Sean Poulter,
Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Daily Mail,
9th June 1999
FARMERS are turning their backs on pleas by Frankenstein Food firms to use their land as a laboratory.
The number involved in trials of genetically modified crops has slumped from 309 last year to 147.
Details emerged a day after it was revealed that a key experiment in Wiltshire was abandoned after pressure from green campaigners.
Farmer and landowner Captain Fred Barker ordered workers to kill off his 25-a~re field of modified seed rape with a special chemical spray on the orders of trustees.
The figures for GM trials suggest that decision will not be the last of its type as fears grow about the safety and value of the technology and the independence of the trials, which are mainly financed by the biotech industry.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **
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.