Genetically
 Manipulated 


 

 
 
 Food


 News

26 October 99

Table of Contents

UK Government Under Fire From Science On GM Food
US regulators take new look at biotech foods
Time Magazine Food Poll
Frankenfoods Fiasco: Has Global Opposition Killed Ag Biotech? (Part 1)
Ethics tests on GM foods urged
EU to decide on GM food labelling rules
NFFC Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
GM crops have 'significant snags'
Europe allows 1% GE contents in Food labelled GE-Free
Monsanto pressured to sell off GM assets
BIO-RECKLESSNESS: Why the Venture to Genetically Restructure Our Food Violates Sound Science and U.S. Law
Grassroots group lines up for WTO battle: Council of Canadians to defend labour, attack `Frankenfoods'
Ottawa delays controversial food bill
Ottawa's Food Safety Bill goes on Back Burner
'GMs consumer-unfriendly...'
GMO-Free Livestock Feed may be Next Biotech Issue
US bid to own gene rights
GM Firms Are Sued For Millions
Canadians Can Say No to GE corn
Iceland's Freeze on 'danger' sweetener
Japan Institutes Mandatory Labelling
Gerber Baby Food Soon GE-Free
Church of England Refuses GE Trials
Swiss Detect Contaminated Non-GE Corn from USA
Pesticide-Resistant Super-Bugs
Bt Corn Approvals Halted
US Patenting India's Genetic Resources
Chimeraplasty: editing of Genetic Code
GM Foods CAN Be Tested
You might Not Know It - but there is GE in your food
Backlash Against Biotech Foods Exacts a High Price

Top NextFront Page

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:19:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN8-20

UK Government Under Fire From Science On GM Food

LONDON (Reuters)

The British government came under fire Monday from a team of its own scientists over the way it is handling genetically modified (GM) foods. The experimental technology has provoked widespread fears in Britain of damage to the environment and public health, and many consider the Labour government to be overly close to the biotechnology industry.

The Economic and Social Research Council, a team of government-funded scientists, said the government had underestimated the intelligence of the public over GM foods and that many people now believed it was biased in GM's favor. The council said the public understood the issues surrounding GM technology – both the benefits and the risks – and that it was time for regulators to assess the "big questions" of GM, not just the narrow technological issues.

"Science can't answer all the questions," the council said. "People have very sophisticated and sensible attitudes toward these kind of risks. You shouldn't assume they are ignorant or ill-informed," said the scientists. "We just believe that policy-makers, regulators, should treat what the public are saying seriously and tread cautiously," they said.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:19:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN8-20

US regulators take new look at biotech foods

WASHINGTON, USA: October 19, 1999 http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=4235

WASHINGTON - Faced with a growing consumer backlash in Europe and Asia against genetically modified (GM) foods, a U.S. government agency said yesterday it would re-examine the safety of the foods and whether special labels may be needed


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:19:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN8-20

Time Magazine Food Poll

Time Magazine is conducting a poll asking people's opinions on how concerned they are about Genetically Engineered foods. Let them know how you feel.

http://www.pathfinder.com/time/daily/poll/0,2637,foodpoll,00.html


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:19:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN8-20

Campaign for Food Safety News
#22 October 21, 1999
News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering,
Factory Farming, & Organics
by: Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston
Campaign for Food Safety
Affiliated with Organic Consumers Association

Frankenfoods Fiasco: Has Global Opposition Killed Ag Biotech? (Part 1)

Sections:
Quotes of the Month:
Global Firestorm
EU Resistance Fans the Flames
Resistance in Asia and the Pacific
Is Frankenstein Dead?

Quotes of the Month:

"[Biotechnology] is the single most successful introduction of technology in the history of agriculture including the plow. The fundamental question investors are asking me: Is the public's acceptance going to slow down the commercialization? And that's a perfectly good question. The only appropriate answer is: Let's see."

Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto,
quoted in the New York Times Aug. 5, 1999

"Ag Biotech. Thanks, but no thanks."

July 12, 1999 report for investors published by US analysts
for Deutsche Bank, the largest bank in Europe.

"It's going to come to a head this fall. I don't know what will happen. Maybe violent uprisings, farmers burning grain in the street."

W. Kirk Miller, Director of International Programs and Regulatory Affairs,
North American Export Grain Association Sept. 2, 1999

Global Firestorm

Over the past 90 days the Biotech Behemoth has come under unprecedented attack. From New Delhi to New England, from Scandinavia to South Africa, Monsanto and the Gene Giants have been forced to trim their sails and scramble for defensible positions. By September even the heretofore complacent United States began to experience the first waves of Frankenfoods unrest, with no less than nine biotech field test crops sabotaged by eco-guerrillas in California, Minnesota, and New England; announcements by major baby food companies Gerber and Heinz that they were banning genetically engineered (GE) ingredients from their products; chaos in farm communities after grain giant Archer Daniels Midland announced they would not buy soybeans and corn co-mingled with GE varieties; unprecedented media coverage of the gene-foods controversy across the US and Canada; Monsanto's announcement of a partial surrender on the Terminator Technology; and initial discussions in the US Congress and Canadian Parliament on requiring labeling of GE foods.

"Clearly the firestorm of controversy in Europe has spread around the world," said biotech analyst Sano Shimoda, president of BioScience Securities Inc. of Orinda, Calif. "The sparks of the firestorm have landed in the US."

EU Resistance Fans the Flames

In Europe, the Frankenfoods boycott continues full-force with more and more supermarket chains and food manufacturers surrendering to consumer demands to get GE-tainted products off their shelves. Crop uprootings and protests have multiplied across the continent, with French farmers and British, German, Irish, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Austrian, Swiss, and Scandinavian consumer and environmental groups leading the charge. Rattling the nerves of the international grain cartel and agribusiness giants, a number of major animal feed companies, meat and poultry producers, and supermarkets have announced bans on GE-derived animal feeds, pet foods, and meat and poultry products.

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other groups initiated in September a "mopping up" campaign to drive GE-contaminated meat and animal feeds completely off the EU market. Industry analysts point out that approximately 50% of all GE crops worldwide are incorporated into animal feed. As Benedikt Haerlin of Greenpeace International stated on Sept. 16 "The question of whether you can use genetically modified products in animal feed is the next big issue to face Europe...I'm afraid many consumers are not fully aware of how their chicken, for example, is produced using genetically modified material. We'll be working on changing that by the end of the year."

The EU has imported 16 million tons of soybeans over the past 12 months from the US, Argentina, and Brazil. US and Argentina agribusiness corporations are increasingly worried that most of their overseas major buyers will soon refuse to buy any soybeans, corn, or soy or corn-derived animal feeds whatsoever which are not guaranteed "GE-free." Almost no US corn (nor Canadian canola oil) has being exported to the EU for the past two years because of consumer resistance. Meanwhile Brazil, where a GE ban is in effect, is exporting record-breaking amounts of soya to the EU; while Australia is exporting increasing amounts of non-GE canola to Japan.

Public concern about the safety of GE foods and crops reached a new level of intensity in Europe in mid-October after key articles appeared in two prestigious scientific journals, Lancet (by Drs. Arpad Pusztai and Stanley Ewen) and Nature (by Drs. Eric Millstone, Eric Brunner, and Sue Mayer). The Lancet article basically reaffirms the preliminary results of Dr. Arpad Pusztai's explosive research findings last year that lectin-spliced genetically engineered potatoes and a commonly-used viral "vector" contained in many GE foods, derived from the Cauliflower Mosiac Virus (CaMv), may likely present serious health hazards for humans.

The October 7 Nature article, "Beyond Substantial Equivalence," demolishes the pseudo-scientific rationale of the biotech industry and international regulatory agencies that Frankenfoods and crops are "substantially equivalent" to their non-genetically engineered counterparts, and therefore require neither stringent pre-market safety-testing, nor mandatory labeling. Lancet has come under intense criticism from the biotech industry since publishing the Pusztai piece in its Oct. 15 issue.

Industry leader Monsanto is literally on their knees in the UK. In several closed-door meetings in September with the Soil Association, Britain's leading organic farming organization, and Friends of the Earth, Monsanto begged forgiveness for bullying its critics and offered to help organic farmers carry out more effective crop breeding by sharing its proprietary data on plant genomes. As the UK newspaper, the Independent, put it in their October 3 edition:

"[Monsanto] is in full retreat, its products rejected, its share prices well down, and even the American heartland that forms the foundation of its business is now increasingly at risk. It seems to be able to do nothing right. Last week it announced that it had found plants that could make a green plastic to be put on compost heaps to rot, only for environmentalists to accuse it of trying to spin its way out of trouble and to point out that genes from the new plants could spread to contaminate others."

Resistance in Asia and the Pacific

In Asia and the Pacific, biotech opposition has intensified significantly over the past six months, forcing marketplace changes and prodding government officials to call for mandatory labeling and more stringent safety-testing of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Throughout the region there has been an upsurge in protests, public debate, and mobilization efforts by anti-biotech campaigners and consumer and farm groups. Among the more serious recent blows to the GE Colossus in the Asia and Pacific region are the following:

  1. Despite biotech industry and US government complaints, mounting public pressure has forced regulatory authorities in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan to begin to implement programs of mandatory labeling of gene-altered foods. Although consumer and public interest organizations in these countries have criticized proposed labeling regulations as incomplete and riddled with loopholes, US trade officials are "concerned" about the possible loss of "billions of dollars" in US grain exports to the region, according to a Reuters story on September 1.

    Similar demands for labeling are building in Malaysia and the Philippines, while farm and consumer organizations in India have called for an outright ban on GE crops and imports. Indonesia and Pakistan officials have also recently announced plans for more stringent safety-testing of GE imports, while Thailand government authorities announced on Oct. 18 it will ban imported GE seeds "pending clear scientific proof that they are safe," according to the Associated Press. "Fears reached new levels last week when a shipment of genetically modified wheat believed to be from the United States" mysteriously arrived in Thailand, according to the AP story. The EU has warned Thailand that its rice exports may be rejected if shipments are found to be contaminated with GE rice varieties now being grown in that country.

  2. Reuters reported on Oct. 15 that Australia's $14 billion farm export sector is shunning GE crops because of fears of a "consumer backlash." Despite heavy biotech industry lobbying the country has still not allowed the commercialization of a wide range of GE products, including sugar cane, beer, and canola. The only GE crop presently being grown on a large-scale in Australia is cotton.

  3. Major food and beverage companies in Japan – following the pattern of food and animal feed corporations in Europe – have begun implementing bans on GE soybean and corn ingredients in their products. Kirin Brewery, Sapporo Breweries, Itochu Feed Mills, Nippon Flour Mills, Nissin, Fuji Oil Co., and the Japan Tofu Association, among others have decided to either ban GE ingredients completely or put a major marketing effort into sourcing and selling GE-free products.

    A division of Honda Motor Company announced they were building a soy-handling plant in Ohio to supply the sharply rising demand for non-GE soybeans in Japan. Interpress on Oct. 14 reported a similar move by Pioneer-Hybrid Japan, who announced a major business venture to import non-GE soybeans from the US. In the same article Interpress called attention to a 1999 poll in Tokyo where "90% of those surveyed expressed deep concern over the growing trend toward biotechnology." Japan is the largest importer of food products and animal feeds in the world.

    Dow Jones reported on October 5 that the Japanese futures market (the price buyers are willing to pay for future deliveries) for US soybeans which were harvested last year are "declining rapidly" because last year's soybeans "are mixed with large amounts of GM (genetically modified) products." According to Dow Jones "Japanese [grain] traders are rapidly switching to imports of GM-free soybeans." With giant importers in the EU, Japan, and other nations now demanding GE-free foods, more large transnational grain traders are expected to follow the example of Archer Daniels Midland, who announced in September they expect US farmers and grain elevators to start separating out and segregating GE from non-GE grains. Archer Daniels Midland purchases fully 1/3 of all corn, soybeans, and wheat produced in the US.

    Storm Clouds Over Latin America and Africa Monsanto and the GE industry are now coming under fire as well in Latin America and Africa, once considered "secure areas" for bio-colonial ventures. Besides mounting criticism over the Terminator and Traitor Seed technologies (see ) and monopoly patents, Biotech Inc. is beginning to feel the heat over issues of safety-testing, environmental impact, and labeling. Among the more significant developments:

  4. In Mexico, the ruling PRI party has been forced by mounting public pressure since May (when the Monarch butterfly story broke) to proclaim-at least in rhetoric, if not in reality – that genetically engineered corn cannot be imported into Mexico from the US. On July 16, Interpress reported that two government scientific bodies on biodiversity and technology warned of threats to Mexico's native corn varieties from field tests or imports of Bt or herbicide-resistant corn varieties from the US, and called for both an import ban and a planting ban. Mexico is the world center for corn biodiversity with 25,000 native varieties. As Greenpeace Mexico told the Financial Times on Oct. 12, referring to GE corn exports from the US, "It's a time bomb. The biggest threat is to biodiversity." Greenpeace warns that 25% of this year's corn imports into Mexico are GE. According to the Times, despite mounting concerns over GE corn, Mexico has approximately 120,000 acres of GE cotton and 15,000 acres of GE soybeans currently under cultivation.

    Responding to growing controversy Mexico's largest corn flour company, Maseca, recently announced a ban on GE ingredients in their products, according to the New York Times. Mexico, with a population of over 90 million, is the second largest buyer of US corn in the world, purchasing $500 million in US corn exports annually.

  5. In Brazil, where 25% of the world's soybeans are grown, the Supreme Court ruled in June that Monsanto's GE Roundup Ready soybeans (RRS) cannot be grown until the government finalizes stringent regulations on bio-safety and Monsanto completes an environmental impact statement. Mounting public debate and demonstrations by farm and environmental groups have made the GE controversy a major issue in the country. Monsanto representatives admitted to the Brazilian trade press in late-September that no RRS soybeans will be planted in 1999-2000 and that prospects for planting in 2000-2001 are also in jeopardy. Analysts believe that if Brazil's RRS ban continues for several more years (and sales to the EU of non-GE soya continue to grow), GE crops may never gain a significant market share in the country. Brazil, with a population of 165 million, has the largest economy in Latin America.

  6. Other Latin American developments. Paraguay's Biosafety Commission, supported by many of the country's non-governmental organizations, called on August 4 for "GE-free" production in Paraguay. Meanwhile in Argentina, the world's second largest producer of GE crops (with 10 million acres of GE soybeans under cultivation), the government has begun to come under criticism by environmental groups for its lack of regulations on GE crops and for the "heavy participation of representatives from the industrial sector" in the nation's so-called "Bio-safety Commission," according to a Sept. 7 story by Interpress.

  7. In Africa, a group of nations, led by Ethiopia, are developing draft legislation that would make it illegal to export GE foods or crops to their countries without prior country approval, according to an article in Nature magazine August 5. This prior consent law would force GE exporters to carry out human safety, environmental, and socioeconomic studies. This initiative has drawn opposition from biotechnology corporations and grain-exporting nations, led by the US, who consider so-called Biosafety Protocols a restraint of trade. In early August it was announced that the government of South Africa, through its departments of Agriculture and Health, is moving toward compulsory labeling of GE foods.

Is Frankenstein Dead?

We at CFS News would love to inform you that our adversaries, the so-called "Life Sciences" corporations, are on their last legs, at least in regard to their global plans for agbiotech. Monsanto in particular seems to shifting into a defensive mode, compared to their former bully-on-the-block attitude. Swiss-based Novartis is trying ever so hard to be nice, while DuPont ("better living through chemistry") is promising a cornucopia of health benefits once its GE functional foods and nutraceuticals hit the market 5-10 years from now.

Waiting in the wings for the Frankenfoods controversy to die down are the friendly xenotransplantation (animal to human organ transplants) folks from Novartis, the GE tree doctors from Monsanto, and the GE Frankenfish advocates, who respectively assure us they'll solve the global organ donor, forestry, and fishing crises. However, peel off the thin veneer of biotech "green washing," cut through the PR propaganda, and it's obvious that our adversaries are still up to their old tricks:

  1. Monsanto's "surrender" on the Terminator Technology October 4 is, in battle terms, a tactical diversion, rather than a strategic surrender. Of course it is a significant victory for farm and consumer organizations around the world to force Monsanto to publicly renounce first-strike use of this neutron bomb of GE agriculture. As Pat Mooney of RAFI stated "Congratulations should go to the civil society organizations, farmers, scientists, and governments all over the world who have waged highly effective anti-Terminator campaigns during the past 18 months."

    But as Hope Shand from RAFI explained to the Environmental News Network: "[The]Terminator is not dead in the water. Many other companies are pursuing the same goal, as well as genetic trait control, which is also very scary. And the USDA is still promoting terminator." As the New York Times noted, Monsanto and its soon to be acquired cotton seed subsidiary, Delta and Pine Land company, will still continue research on the Terminator, while they and other transnational biotech companies will continue researching and patenting "related work."

    This "related work" on the trait or "Traitor" technology, the "Son of Terminator," will achieve the same end results as the Terminator, essentially preventing GE seeds and plants from growing to full maturity, developing full yields, or expreszsing desired traits without spraying the biotech company's proprietary chemicals – thereby giving a half-dozen giant GE companies a global stranglehold over seeds and farm inputs. Traitor technology, just like its predecessor, the Terminator, poses a mortal threat to global plant and insect biodiversity and the 1.4 billion farmers and rural communities worldwide who save and trade or sell their seeds.

  2. While sounding off about "dialogue" and "engaging with the concerns of consumers" Monsanto and the other life science corporations are working furiously behind the scenes to discredit scientists and journalists who dare to speak out publicly about the evermore obvious hazards of GE foods and crops. Nearly every biotech company and agribusiness public relations firm in the EU and North America during the first two weeks of October joined in a loud chorus to attack Erik Millstone's brilliant article on the myth of GE "substantial equivalence" in Nature, as well as Arpad Pusztai's article in Lancet.

    Overall in the past 30 days there has been a major increase in pro-biotech stories, letters to the editor, editorials, and opinion pieces in newspapers, magazines, and electronic media across the global. The biotech lobby are in a panic. They know they're losing the battle for the hearts and minds of consumers and farmers, and they have launched an all-out propaganda offensive – using indentured scientists and "third party" experts to brand their opponents as "luddites" and to proclaim their own corporate junk science as "sound science."

  3. While Deutsche Bank has proclaimed the end of ag biotech – or at least Monsanto – as a profitable investment, other financial powerhouses such as PaineWebber in their Sept. 27 agbiotech newsletter characterize GE agriculture investments as having "short-term uncertainty, [but] long-term promise." According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Oct. 5, in a poll of 19 investment analysts conducted by Zack's Investment Research, "nine say Monsanto is a 'strong buy,' five call it a 'moderate buy,' and five have a 'hold' on the stock."

  4. On Wall Street Monsanto's stock price recently fell as low as $33.62 a share, down 35% over the past 12 months. Novartis, AstraZeneca, AgrEvo, Dupont, and other biotech companies are experiencing similar problems. Rumors are circulating in financial circles that Monsanto plans to layoff 20% of its employees by the end of the year. According to Dow Jones Newswire on October 6, Monsanto's Director of Agriculture in the UK, Charlotte Walker, admitted to Greenpeace leaders that the company's public relations efforts had failed and that Monsanto is "discussing the segregation of genetically modified and conventional crops."

  5. While under attack, beleaguered Monsanto is still selling record amounts of Roundup herbicide, GE seeds, and other agricultural chemicals, with sales in its agricultural operations totaling a record $3.1 billion for the first six months of 1999, according to Chemical Week magazine (Sept. 15). Monsanto's pharmaceutical division, Searle, is also quite profitable, boasting record sales of its new arthritis drug, Celebrex. Although profits are sluggish in their ag divisions, Novartis and the Gene Giants are still raking in billions of dollars in profits off chemicals, drugs, and medical biotech. And as RAFI points out in a Sept. 3 news release, even if the top five Gene Giants (AstraZeneca, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, Aventis) were ever to stumble and fall, their agbiotech and seed operations would likely become "bargain buys for bigger fish – the food processors or insurance companies."

  6. While mouthing the need for public dialogue and debate on the GE issue, the Clinton administration and the biotech lobby have been busy behind the scenes trying to pressure government officials and international economic and trade organizations to discourage individual country's efforts to require mandatory labeling or rigorous safety-testing of Frankenfoods and crops. The Bureau of National Affairs reported on Sept. 9 that the US was trying to get trade ministers from 21 nations in Asia and the Pacific (members of APEC – the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum) to put pressure on EU authorities to stop obstructing GE imports. The Los Angeles Times reported on October 5 that the Clinton administration has been "fighting to remove... trade barriers" to GE exports and will press for pro-biotech rules at the upcoming WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle Nov. 29-Dec. 3.

  7. PR Week (a trade journal of the public relations industry) reported in its July 5, 1999 issue that ag biotech corporations are putting millions of dollars into PR efforts to counter anticipated US public opposition to genetic engineering. Tony Minnichsoffer, communications manager for Novartis in Minneapolis, told PR Week that the US food industry's 5000 trade associations "need to work together as an industry" to broaden PR efforts on behalf of GE, while Monsanto's favorite PR firm, Burson-Marsteller warned that the [GE debate in the US] "is not in the crisis mode yet, but the potential is certainly there in this country." Fleishman-Hilliard, a leading PR firm, said they expect their company alone to receive $2.5 million dollars in contracts this year for PR work on "crisis preparedness and issues relating to GE foods."

    The Grocery Manufacturers of America, a major US trade association representing food manufacturers and the supermarket chains, also have launched a $1million PR effort to burnish the tarnished image of agbiotech. Fleishman-Hilliard recommends that food and biotech companies prepare for a major controversy over GE to erupt in the US with a "three-pronged approach": "Anticipate potential issues; Drill with simulated situations to raise the crisis instinct within a company; Quickly deal with brush fires such as the butterfly study."

  8. Despite growing public demands in the EU, and warnings from scientists about the hazards of antibiotic resistant marker genes, the European Commission bowed to US and agribusiness pressure on Sept. 27 and refused to require mandatory labeling on genetically engineered animal feeds. However, with or without required labeling, major EU animal feed, pet food, meat, poultry, and dairy corporations – fearful of facing the wrath of Greenpeace and other anti-GE campaign groups – are scrambling to eliminate GE ingredients from their products.

To answer our own question. Frankenfoods are not dead – although global opposition has certainly put the Gene Giants on the defensive. We're starting to win some of the battles, but the war has just begun. Stay tuned to this newsletter and to our two web sites for further developments. For more in-depth stories on the developments mentioned in this issue see the "Latest News" section at http://www.purefood.org We've installed a new search engine so you can more easily find the information you're looking for among the several thousand articles now posted on our site.

### End of CFS News #22 ###

To Subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Campaign for Food Safety News send an email to: majordomo@mr.net with the simple message in the body of the text: subscribe pure-food-action

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

Ethics tests on GM foods urged

By James Meikle, The Guardian, GM food: special report
Thursday October 21, 1999

Genetically modified foods and other new technologies should have to pass ethics tests as well as undergo health and safety trials before being allowed on sale, academics said yesterday in the second big challenge this week to government GM policy.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

EU to decide on GM food labelling rules

By Michael Mann, Wednesday October 20, 2:04 pm Eastern Time

BRUSSELS, Oct 20 (Reuters) - European Union governments are set to vote on Thursday on plans to define which foods must be labelled as containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients, officials said on Wednesday.

The European Commission wants to exempt foods where none of the individual ingredients contain more than one percent of GM material from the obligation to carry a label warning consumers of the presence of modified substances.

If accepted by member state food experts, the plan would end months of legal uncertainty and allow EU states to introduce a more consistent food labelling policy.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

NFFC Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) nffc@nffc.net

In the face of the growing controversy over genetic engineered crops and food the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), which currently consists of farm, resource conservation and rural advocacy groups from 33 states bringing together farmers and others to organize national projects on preserving and strengthening family farms, is sponsoring a nine-point petition drive titled "Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture." It declares:

"Genetic engineering in agriculture has significantly increased the economic uncertainty of family farmers throughout the U.S. and the world. American farmers have lost critical markets which are closed to genetically engineered products. Corporate control of the seed supply threatens farmers' independence. The risk of genetic drift has made it difficult and expensive for farmers to market a pure product.

"Genetic engineering has created social and economic disruption that threatens traditional agricultural practices for farmers around the world. Farmers, who have maintained the consumer's trust by producing safe, reasonably priced and nutritious food, now fear losing that trust as a result of consumer rejection of genetically engineered foods.

"Many scientists believe genetically engineered organisms have been released into the environment and the food supply without adequate testing. Farmers who have used this new technology may be facing massive liability from damage caused by genetic drift, increased weed and pest resistance, and the destruction of wildlife and beneficial insects.

"Because of all the unknowns, we, as farmers, therefore:

  1. Demand a suspension of sales, environmental releases and further government approvals of all genetically engineered seeds and agriculture products until an independent and comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and economic impacts of those products is concluded.

  2. Demand a ban on the ownership of all forms of life including a ban on the patenting of seeds, plants, animals, genes and cell lines.

  3. Demand that agrarian people who have cultivated and nurtured crops for thousands of years retain control of natural resources and maintain the right to use or reuse any genetic resource.

  4. Demand that corporate agribusiness be held liable for any and all damages that result from the use of genetically engineered crops and livestock that were approved for use without an adequate assessment of the risks posed to farmers, human health and the environment.

  5. Demand that the corporations and institutions that have intervened in the genetic integrity of life bear the burden of proof that their actions will not harm human health, the environment or damage the social and economic health of rural communities. Those corporations must bear the cost of an independent review guided by the precautionary principle and conducted prior to the introduction of any new intervention.

  6. Demand that consumers in the U.S. and around the globe have the right to know whether their food is genetically engineered and have a right to access naturally produced food.

  7. Demand that farmers who reject genetic engineering should not bear the cost of establishing that their product is free of genetic engineering.

  8. Demand the protection of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and the environment by ending monopoly practices of corporate agribusiness through enforcement of all state and federal anti-trust, market concentration and corporate farming laws; by a renewed commitment to public interest agricultural research led by the land grant colleges; by an immediate shift of funding from genetic engineering to sustainable agriculture; and by expanding the availability of traditional varieties of crops and livestock.

  9. Demand an end to mandatory check off programs that use farmers' money to support and promote genetic engineering research and corporate control of agriculture."

To sign onto this declaration, please email to nffc@nffc.net or fax to (202) 543-0978 with your: Name, Organization, Phone and Fax number or email address.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

GM crops have 'significant snags'

By environment correspondent Alex Kirby, BBC website
Thursday, October 21, 1999 Published at 02:45 GMT 03:45 UK

GM food may harm developing countries, the report argues

In yet another blast at the concept of genetically-modified (GM) crops, a group of UK experts has urged politicians and scientists to think again about persisting with the technology.

The group is the Food Ethics Council, set up last year with funding from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Most of its members are academics or consumer affairs specialists.

In a report, Novel Foods: Beyond Nuffield, the FEC says that ethical concerns demand a much more precautionary approach to the approval and regulation of GM foods than that in force today.

The report criticises a report produced last May by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which it says took a "yes, but ... " approach to GM technology, an argument that there were no major problems, only minor concerns.

'Novel foods'

The FEC report, by contrast, says there are significant drawbacks to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), which suggest they will only rarely be appropriate. It argues for a "no, unless ... " approach - rejection of GM foods. In other words, they should only be developed when they serve vital roles with low risks.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

Europe allows 1% GE contents in Food labelled GE-Free

INDEPENDENT (Lndon) 22 October 1999

Europe agreed yesterday to allow food to contain up to 1 per cent of genetically modified material while still being labelled as GM-free.

The deal, agreed by a majority in an EU committee last night, came despite objections from two countries which argued that the threshold should be set much lower, perhaps at a level of 0.1 per cent.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

Monsanto pressured to sell off GM assets

By Jane Martinson in New York, Friday October 22, 1999

Monsanto, the beleaguered American biotechnology company, is coming under intense pressure from Wall Street analysts and professional investors in New York to dismember itself in the wake of the campaign against genetically modified food.

New York's financial community is now convinced that successful protests from consumers and environmental groups in Europe have hurt Monsanto's growth prospects and its stock market rating so badly that the only option to realise some value for investors would be some kind of sell-off.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

A web-site called IntellectualCapital.com is featuring the debate over genetically engineered foods. The argument against GE foods is titled

BIO-RECKLESSNESS: Why the Venture to Genetically Restructure Our Food Violates Sound Science and U.S. Law

by Steven M. Druker, J.D., Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity

found at: http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue312/item6924.asp


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

Grassroots group lines up for WTO battle: Council of Canadians to defend labour, attack `Frankenfoods'

The Ottawa Citizen Thursday, October 21, 1999 D6

The Council of Canadians is prepared for a no-holds-barred clash with free at two major trade meetings this fall. The grassroots citizen's organization unveiled Wednesday plans for protests and other high-profile events at upcoming meetings of the Free Trade Area of the Americas next month in Toronto and at World Trade Organization talks in Seattle in December.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

Here is a small success in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture has had to retreat on plans to introduce a bill that would weaken food standards, including safety standards of genetically engineered food:

Ottawa delays controversial food bill

CBC Online, WebPosted Thu Oct 21 1999

OTTAWA - The federal agriculture minister says he'll consider all views before reintroducing the controversial Bill C-80, the Food Safety and Inspection Act, in the House of Commons.

Lyle Vanclief says he wants to consult with critics and concerned experts, and put to rest their fears that the planned law will create food dangers.

"We thought it was the appropriate thing to do, to have further consultation with them in order to clarify what the bill says and how it says it," says Vanclief. "Then we'll retable it after that."

Critics say Bill C-80 is irresponsible because it transfers control of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) from the health department to the agriculture department. The agriculture department is supposed to promote the food industry, so that means there's a conflict of interest, they say.

The controversy was set off by the Canadian Health Coalition. Mike McBane, who's with the Coalition, says the bill "puts industry in charge of its own regulations in order to promote export and promote economic growth."

Earlier this week, 200 scientists with Canada's health protection branch signed a petition urging their boss, Health Minister Allan Rock, to scrap the bill.

The agriculture minister won't say when he'll proceed with the bill. But the fact that the government has delayed it is a sign it's been forced to recognize that more and more people are worried about the food they eat.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:50:18 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-21

Ottawa's Food Safety Bill goes on Back Burner

By Laura Eggertson OTTAWA, The Toronto Star, October 21, 1999,

The federal government is backing away from controversial new food safety legislation that critics contend weakens protection for public health. Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief announced yesterday he will delay the proposed legislation and conduct more public consultations in response to concerns about the bill. There are a number of people and organizations that raised concerns, said they didn't clearly understand what C-80 did and says, so we thought it was Vanclief told reporters.

Opponents of the legislation immediately praised the government's action. said Jennifer Story, public health campaigner for the It speaks to the fact that there is a growing public concern about food safety issues in general, about genetically

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:00:28 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-25

Comment from "NLP Wessex" nlpwessex@bigfoot.com regarding the following article: The National Farmers Union (NFU) of England and Wales, has until now been one of the few farming unions across the globe to have engaged in pro-actively promoting GM technology.

Following talk of a 'conceivable' global rejection of GM crops at a National Farmers Union conference last week, even Bob Fiddaman their number-one spokesman and enthusiast on this subject appears to be more or less admitting the hopeless situation for the future of GMOs.

'GMs consumer-unfriendly...'

Farmers Weekly 22 October 1999

AN INFLUENTIAL farmer involved with the introduction of genetically modified crops has warned that consumers are likely to remain unconvinced of their benefits.

The controversy over GM food shows little sign of ending, said Bob Fiddaman, NFU representa- tive on the Supply Chain Initiative for Modified Agricultural Crops, the pro-GM body set up by farm- ers and the industry to oversee the introduction of GM crops.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:00:28 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-25

GMO-Free Livestock Feed may be Next Biotech Issue

By Emily Kaiser, October 22, 1999, Reuters

CHICAGO – As European consumers balk at food made from genetically modified crops, industry analysts were cited as saying livestock feed may be the next flash point in the debate over whether such products are safe for the environment and human consumption.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:00:28 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-25

US bid to own gene rights

By Julian Borger in Washington, GUARDIAN (London) Monday October 25, 1999

Shock at plan to profit from 'human blueprint'

A US biotechnology company [Celera Genomics] is seeking to patent segments of the human genetic code in an attempt to cash in on its research before British-led moves are implemented to prevent the "human blueprint" becoming the private property of a few corporations.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:00:28 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-25

GM Firms Are Sued For Millions

By Oliver Tickell, INDEPENDENT (London) 25 Ocober 1999

Top laws firms in the United States and Britain are to launch a series of class actions next month in which they will demand "hundreds of millions of dollars" in damages from the principal companies involved in the production of genetically modified (GM) seeds and food crops.

Targets of the actions, which are to be taken on behalf of farmers in the United States, the European Union, Central America and India, are likely to include Monsanto, Du Pont, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Agr-Evo.

In a private meeting in London this week, American lawyers and senior partners at the British law firm Mishcon de Reya discussed the action with representatives of the Soil Association, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Christian Aid, the Confederation of European Small Farmers (CPE), individual farmers and farmers' organisations from the US, Panama, and India.

The first of the actions will be launched in US courts in mid-November. They will allege "anti-competitive behaviour" in the seed market, which is dominated by a small number of companies, in violation of "anti-trust" or monopoly laws. They will also cite "questionable corporate behaviour" in pushing forward the rapid introduction of GM foods in the absence of clear data to prove their safety.

"There is the question of whether there is a collusive aspect of the behaviour of the companies to co-ordinate a joint control of over the entirety of food production," said Michael Hausfeld of the Washington DC-based lawyers Cohen, Millstein, Hausfeld and Toll (CMHT), who was at the meeting.

"And there is the question of whether or not there was a concerted effort to knowingly but prematurely force the commercialisation of GM foods when there was information that the companies knew, or should have known, that the safety of the foods was inconclusive. This would include charges of possible undue influence on legislators and regulators," Mr Hausfeld said.

As well as seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, Mr Hausfeld indicated, his clients also wished to put the deployment of GM foods on hold until their safety was scientifically proven, and to establish legal liability where farmers were burdened with unmarketable crops that were either grown from GM seed or contaminated with GM material from neighbouring fields.

One key issue will be the principle, backed by the US government, that GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to non-GM foods and consequently do not need to be tested for their safety. The idea has now been challenged by numerous scientists who say that experiments that would justify the "substantial equivalence" of GM foods have not been done.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26

Canadians Can Say No to GE corn

Ontario's largest exporter of corn, Casco, is right now deciding how much GE corn and non-GE corn that it should be telling farmers to plant for the next season. There are only a few weeks left until farmers start buying corn seeds.

You can contact Casco at
tel. 1-800-443-2746
fax. 1-416-620-4488
email. douglas.hobbs@cornproducts.com

If you want to let Casco know how you feel about GE corn.

Thanks

Richard


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26

Regarding the following article, NutraSweet contains genetically engineered ingredients:

Iceland's Freeze on 'danger' sweetener

UK Daily Mail 25 October 1999

Iceland stores are to ban NutraSweet from own-brand products following fears of a possible link to cancer.

The sweetener contains the chemical aspartame, which is used in thousands of foods and drinks, including Diet Coke. This chemical has been the subject of health worries for some years. These resurfaced last month when researchers at King's College launched a three year study into the possible effects.

Iceland, which earlier this year became the first major store to ban GM foods, will announce details of the move today. Managing director, Russell Ford, said, "We are not saying aspartame is unsafe. We're simply responding to customers' concerns." Nutrasweet dismissed the ban as 'a cynical attempt to gain publicity amongst by creating alarm amongst customers."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

Biotech News, by Richard Wolfson, PhD

Reprinted with permission from the November 1999 issue of Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition, 7436 Fraser Park Drive, Burnaby, BC V5J 5B9

Japan Institutes Mandatory Labelling

According to new regulations in Japan, genetically engineered soybeans, corn, or potatoes, or products that contain measurable quantities of these GE ingredients will have to be labeled as such, starting April 2000. Food companies importing these products from the U.S. will have to test for genetic modifications and label the goods if necessary. If a product's makeup cannot easily be determined because it contains mixed ingredients, the producer will have to label it as possibly containing genetically engineered ingredients.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

Gerber Baby Food Soon GE-Free

Gerber baby food, the largest baby-food producer in the USA, is dropping suppliers who use genetic engineering in their corn and soybean products. The move by the parent company Novartis follows a request from the environmental group Greenpeace for information on the company's use of bioengineered products. The company is also trying to switch over to only organic (pesticide- and herbicide-free) ingredients in its products. According to Al Piergallini, President and CEO of its North American consumer health division, "We want a mother to buy our product and have no concerns."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

Church of England Refuses GE Trials

The Church of England has refused to allow the UK Government to use its land to conduct trials of genetically modified crops, pending a full-scale inquiry into genetic modification and its "theological implications." The church's Ethical Investment Working Group will spend several months analyzing the issue. As a practising Christian, the Prime Minister is expected to take particularly hard accusations by Christian Aid that genetic manipulation of crops is unethical and will ruin the livelihoods of poor farmers.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

Swiss Detect Contaminated Non-GE Corn from USA

The Swiss Department of Agriculture discovered that guaranteed non-GE corn from the USA was contaminated with genetically modified varieties. The corn was purchased from Pioneer Hi-Bred (USA). Before the contamination was discovered, about 200 hectares of contaminated seeds were planted, and another 200 hectares worth of the seeds were sold. Swiss farmers burned the fields planted with contaminated seeds. The Swiss seed importer compensated farmers 700 Swiss Francs per hectare.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

Pesticide-Resistant Super-Bugs

New research published in Nature shows that the GE insect-resistant crops may produce pesticide-resistant insect pests quicker than expected. The insect-resistant crops contain toxins (Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt) genetically engineered into the plants.

Scientists and farmers have long-known that sooner or later, insects would become resistant to Bt. However, biotech experts claimed the pesticide-resistant bugs would mate with the non-resistant bugs in designated non-GE areas called refuges, delaying the development of pesticide resistance. However, new research shows that the pesticide resistant varieties have a difference life cycle, indicating that they may be more likely to mate with each other, and produce pesticide-resistant super-bugs in large numbers.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

Bt Corn Approvals Halted

Both the European Commission and the Japanese government have suspended approvals of Bt corn as a result of Cornell University research showing that pollen from the crop may threaten monarch butterflies. In the USA, a coalition of national environmental organizations has urged the Environmental Protection Agency to disallow planting of Bt corn until it can be determined that the corn pollen is not a danger to the monarch or other beneficial or endangered insect species.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

US Patenting India's Genetic Resources

American owned Cromak Research was recently granted a patent on a combination of three Indian herbs, which has been used for centuries in India for the treatment of diabetes. India's scientists are furious. "It's outrageous", said Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign, set up to protect genetic resources and farmers' rights. "This amounts to theft, a violation of our indigenous knowledge. The Americans are stealing from us with impunity and dispossessing Indians of what is rightfully theirs. It's like someone stealing Coca-Cola's formula and getting away with it."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26 Alive Nov. 1999

Chimeraplasty: editing of Genetic Code

Researchers have adapted a recently developed gene therapy technique, called chimeraplasty, to genetically engineered plants without inserting foreign genes. This new method involves editing the genetic code by using a DNA/RNA fragment as a writing device to alter the DNA sequence of the cell. Biotech promoters hope that this method might be more acceptable to those who oppose the insertion of foreign genes into cells. However, scientists are concerned that the impact of chimeraplasty on non-target genes could also produce unpredictable, damaging effects.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26

October 25, 1999

SYDNEY, Reuters [WN] via NewsEdge Corporation : The war of words over testing for genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food heated up on Friday as Australian and New Zealand health ministers met to consider introducing food labelling requirements.

Privately-owned Genetic ID of the United States denied statements by other scientists that tests could not identify all GM foods and did not yield exact, quantifiable results.

GM Foods CAN Be Tested

GM Foods CAN Be Tested Accurately and Inexpensively World's Leading GM Laboratory Refutes Claims in Wire Service Report

The most experienced and respected laboratory testing food for genetic modification (GM), Genetic ID of Iowa, USA, today refuted claims made in a wire service story that DNA tests cannot identify all GM foods and that DNA testing does not yield exact, quantifiable results.

"A good GM testing lab can identify every GM on the market," said John Fagan, the molecular biologist who founded Genetic ID, "and DNA testing through the PCR method is the most accurate way to quantify exactly how much GM is present, even at very low levels of contamination. Every DNA test needed to accurately label GM food is available now."

Dr. Fagan pointed out that precise testing information is vital to allow governments and retailers to respond to consumer demand for non-GM food. "Without accurate and reliable testing," Dr Fagan said, "there is no way to regulate or control GM food. And the accuracy and reliability of DNA testing is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific fact. As a method for quantifying GM foods, it was validated by a European Union ring trial in 1997."

In 1996, industry sources said that no tests could identify GM foods. On the basis of these assertions, the U.S. government told governments around the world that no tests were possible, and GM food would have to be accepted. In spite of such assertions, Dr. Fagan used his experience doing DNA research for the NIH to develop the first commercial PCR tests that could identify GM genes in crops and food products. He formed Genetic ID and licensed the Genetic ID technology to other laboratories in Europe and Australia, and other university and private labs began to develop their own tests. With valid testing methods available, governments in Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand began to implement labeling regulations for GM foods.

Now, some industry sources say that tests do exist, but add that they can't measure all GM foods, they can't give quantitative results, and they don't work if the lab isn't told exactly what GM variety to look for.

"These statements are exactly the reverse of the experimental facts," said Dr. Fagan. "A good GM lab can test for all GM crops, can give quantitative results down to 0.01% GM contamination, and can find GM in any crop even if it doesn't know which GM to look for.

At Genetic ID, for example, we have an on-going research program to maintain our ability to detect any GM variety as it comes to market. We also give precise quantitative results so our clients know if the GM content matches their buyer's requests. And we can find GM contamination even if don't know which types of GM might be involved.

For more details visit http://www.genetic-id.com


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26

You might Not Know It - but there is GE in your food

From ABC's, Nightline show Monday, Oct. 25, 1999, 1:30 p.m. ET http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/Nightline/nl991025.html

You may not know it, but the corn flakes you ate for breakfast this morning or the tortilla chips you munch on tonight while watching Monday Night Football in all likelihood are made with some genetically modified corn. After all, more than 35 percent of all corn and 55 percent of soy produced in the United States has been genetically altered. You also may not know it, but the spoonful of Gerber or Heinz baby food your child swallowed today probably did not contain any genetically modified ingredients. Why? Because these concerned major U.S. food corporations decided against using such ingredients.


Top PreviousFront Page

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-26

Crop Busters Take On Monsanto

Backlash Against Biotech Foods Exacts a High Price

By Justin Gillis and Anne Swardson, Washington Post Staff Writers
Business Section, Tuesday, October 26, 1999; Page E01

The face on the giant video screen looming above the hotel conference room was drawn and ashen. Robert Shapiro, chief executive of Monsanto Co., was admitting corporate sin to his worst adversaries.

"We have probably irritated and antagonized more people than we have persuaded," he told a conference organized by Greenpeace, the environmental group. "Our confidence in this technology and our enthusiasm for it has, I think, been widely seen – and understandably so – as condescension or indeed arrogance."

It was an extraordinary admission for the chief executive of one of America's proudest companies. Shapiro promised to stop lecturing and start listening in Monsanto's campaign to sell the world on the benefits of genetically modified food. As a concession to his critics, he promised never to deploy a gene dubbed "terminator" that might have protected Monsanto's commercial interests by producing sterile seeds after one generation.

No company has bet more than Monsanto on genetically modified foodstuffs. No company believed more deeply in their value – and potential profitability. And now no company is suffering more, in terms of finances, stock price and image, from the international debate about the safety of those products.

Concern about gene-altered food is spreading from Europe, where it has bordered on panic for more than a year, to North America and Asia. Baby-food producers in the United States, grocery chains in Europe, even a Mexican tortilla maker have sworn off the use of genetically modified corn and soybeans.

Monsanto is a profitable company, thanks in part to a pharmaceutical unit that has launched the most successful new product in the history of the drug business. But nervousness about the long-term future of agricultural biotechnology seems to have overwhelmed whatever short-term regard investors might have for the company's income statements.

Monsanto stock has lost more than a third of its value in the last 14 months, and analysts believe that unless there's a sharp upturn in the stock price soon, company executives could be forced into radical changes, possibly including breaking Monsanto into pieces. That would shatter the company's strategy of using its broad platform of genetic research to make simultaneous headway on better crops and improved human drugs.

** 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 (USD for those outside Canada) for 12 months, payable to "BanGEF" and mailed to the above address. Or see website for details.