|
[ Genetically Engineered Foods Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I thought you might find this informative....
Enjoy,
Misty
http://www.searching-alternatives.com
News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Dear News Update Subscribers,
This News Update will discuss the resignation of Monsanto's president
and information about possible WTO sanctions against Europe.
MONSANTO PRESIDENT RESIGNS
The President of Monsanto, Hendrik A. Verfaillie, a 26-year Monsanto
veteran, resigned this week after the company experienced two years
of
poor performance.
No doubt Monsanto's poor performance had a lot to do with the growing
global opposition to genetically engineered foods. Nearly 90 percent
of
the genetically engineered crops grown in the world are produced by
Monsanto.
Many of the markets for genetically engineered crops Monsanto
expected
to develop internationally failed because labeling laws were
enacted.
In
every country where labeling laws have been introduced, manufacturers
quickly remove genetically engineered ingredients from their
products.
Manufacturers know that when labeled, consumers will reject
genetically
engineered foods.
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods created one of the
most in-depth web sites ever developed on Monsanto during our effort
to
pass Measure 27 in Oregon this past election:
http://www.voteyeson27.com/monsanto.htm
Monsanto was the largest contributor to the $5.2 million advertising
blitz that served to defeat Measure 27 in Oregon.
We will soon be moving our Monsanto files over to The Campaign's
revised
web site that we will be launching in early January.
Monsanto is also suffering a significant public relations problem
after
losing a landmark environmental lawsuit earlier this year. Monsanto
was
found guilty of releasing tons of PCBs into the city of Anniston,
Alabama and covering up its actions for decades. The jury found
Monsanto
liable on all six charges it considered: negligence, wantonness,
suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage.
Under Alabama law, the charge of "outrage" requires conduct "so
outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all
possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and
utterly
intolerable in civilized society."
It should not be a surprise that consumers are skeptical when a
company
with Monsanto's track record essentially says "trust us, genetically
engineered foods will not harm you or the environment." They said the
same thing about PCBs, but lied about it for decades knowing they
were
harmful. If Monsanto finds genetically engineered crops causing
health
or environmental problems, can we expect them to let us know this
information?
The first article posted below from Associated Press is titled
"Monsanto's President Abruptly Resigns."
SENATORS URGE WTO FORMAL COMPLAINT
On Thursday, a group of farm state Senators sent a letter to
President
Bush urging him to have the U.S. file a formal complaint with the
World
Trade Organization (WTO) over the moratorium the European Union (EU)
has
had in place since 1998 against genetically engineered crops.
The letter to Bush stated "We urge you to take that step without
delay."
The EU is likely to remove the moratorium on their own after enacting
tough comprehensive labeling laws for genetically engineered foods.
The
EU farm and environmental ministers have already approved the new
labeling law, but it is waiting for approval of the European
Parliament.
It is likely to be another year or so before such labeling laws go
into
effect. And until they are in effect it is unlikely that the
moratorium
on genetically engineered products will be removed.
Posted below are three articles. The first is from Reuters
titled "U.S.
senators urge WTO case against EU on biotech." The second is from
Associated Press titled "Lawmakers Press Bush on EU Biotech Ban."
The third article titled "Let's not escalate the 'Frankenfood' war"
is
an editorial opinion from the Christian Science Monitor. It explains
why
using the WTO against the EU on genetically engineered foods is a bad
idea and could start a trade war.
***************************************************************
Monsanto's President Abruptly Resigns
By JIM SALTER
.c The Associated Press
ST. LOUIS (AP) - The Monsanto Co. president and chief executive who
led
the biotechnology and agricultural giant through its 2000 merger with
Pharmacia & Upjohn has abruptly stepped down, unable to overcome
Monsanto's financial struggles over the past two years.
The immediate resignation of Hendrik A. Verfaillie, a 26-year
Monsanto
veteran, was a mutual decision, said board chairman Frank AtLee III,
who
will serve as interim CEO while the company searches for Verfaillie's
permanent successor.
Some analysts were shocked by the change at Monsanto, whose shares
fell
$1.19, or 5.9 percent, to close at $19.02 Wednesday on the New York
Stock Exchange. The shares have tumbled by nearly 50 percent since
January.
``You don't just walk into the meeting and say, 'bye,''' said Juli
Niemann of RT Jones Capital Equities Inc. in St. Louis. ``This is not
the same as fire the coach because the season wasn't good. This is
not
something you can lay blame at his door.''
Verfaillie's departure comes amid a difficult financial year for the
maker of the world's leading herbicide, Roundup, along with
genetically
altered cotton, corn, soybean and canola seeds that tolerate Roundup
and
resist insects. Monsanto also produces Asgrow, Hartz and DeKalb
seeds.
``I want to be certain that shareowners of Monsanto understand that
Hendrik's resignation was mutual,'' AtLee said in a statement.
``Hendrik
and the board agreed that the company's performance during the past
two
years has been disappointing.''
Verfaillie, 56, led the company through a merger with Pharmacia &
Upjohn
in 2000, then an initial public offering. Monsanto then completed the
spinoff of Pharmacia earlier this year.
Monsanto announced about 700 job cuts in April as it consolidated
operations at sites in several regions, mostly in southeast Asia,
Australia, New Zealand and North America. Monsanto has about 14,600
workers worldwide.
For the first nine months of 2002, Monsanto lost $1.75 billion, or
$6.67
per share, compared to a profit of $399 million, or $1.51 per share,
a
year ago. Sales for the nine months declined 19 percent to $3.45
billion
from $4.25 billion.
In October, Monsanto lowered its forecast for earnings for all of
2002,
citing a continued decline in U.S. sales of Roundup as well as
lower-than-expected sales in Argentina, where the economy has been in
collapse.
``I think the company put a lot of their eggs in the South American
basket,'' said Morningstar.com analyst Dan Quinn. ``It doesn't look
like
South America will be quite the growth region they said it would
be.''
Quinn said Monsanto also has been unable to fully benefit from its
seed
technology.
``The bottom line is there are a lot of opportunities for Monsanto
to
be
growing its market share and they just haven't done it,'' he said.
On the Net: http://www.monsanto.com
12/19/02 01:13 EST
***************************************************************
U.S. senators urge WTO case against EU on biotech
WASHINGTON, Dec 20 (Reuters) - A group of farm-state senators has
urged
the Bush administration to lodge a formal complaint against the
European
Union's ban on genetically modified foods and other goods.
In a letter to President George W. Bush dated Thursday, the senators
petitioned for filing a World Trade Organization complaint against
the
EU, saying the ban is costing U.S. farmers hundreds of millions of
dollars in lost exports.
"We urge you to take that step without delay," the senators, led by
incoming Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, wrote.
For the past four years, the EU has enforced a moratorium on the
approval of new biotech products, ranging from agricultural goods to
pharmaceuticals. The ban stems from widespread consumer fears in
Europe
over the safety of biotech foods. The United States says such
products
present no danger to health.
The United States is a major producer of biotech foods, with about 70
percent of soybeans and 25 percent of corn grown from genetically
modified seeds. The biotech company Monsanto hopes to bring to market
biotech wheat.
The WTO has ruled illegal the EU's moratorium on new biotech
products.
While the European Commission has been trying to lift that ban, it is
meeting resistance from some member countries.
U.S. farm and agriculture groups have also urged the Bush
administration
to file a formal complaint with the WTO.
The senators' letter said formal action was needed because there was
no
sign the EU would voluntarily open its market. The moratorium costs
the
United States $300 million annually in lost corn sales, it said.
Bush's Cabinet is expected to debate whether a WTO complaint should
be
filed.
U.S. officials say a formal complaint could create problems, such as
possible EU retaliation in other trade disputes and a strain in ties
with Europe at a time when Washington is seeking to build a coalition
against Iraq.
A U.S. agriculture industry source last week told Reuters the letter
from the senators was being crafted in part to give the White House
additional political cover for launching a trade case with the WTO,
based in Geneva.
Besides Grassley, an Iowa Republican, the letter to Bush was signed
by
senior Senate Agriculture Committee members.
12/20/02 11:33 ET
***************************************************************
Lawmakers Press Bush on EU Biotech Ban
By EMILY GERSEMA
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers are challenging Bush administration to
stick
up for U.S. farmers and take the fight over the European Union's
moratorium on biotech foods to the world's top trade regulator.
The EU ban on products made from genetically engineered plants has
been
in place for four years and is unfairly hurting U.S. exports, Sen.
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a letter sent late Thursday to
President Bush. That merits World Trade Organization arbitration, the
letter said.
``A dispute settlement case against the moratorium will put the EU,
and
other countries that are tempted to follow its example, on notice
that
the U.S. intends to hold them to their WTO obligations with respect
to
biotech regulatory policy,'' he wrote.
The letter was signed by Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Tom Harkin,
D-Iowa; Kit Bond, R-Mo.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.;
and
Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
U.S. Trade Representative officials did not immediately return a
phone
call seeking comment on whether officials will seek a dispute.
Farm groups have argued for a dispute for the past month, saying the
ban
has cost the farm industry nearly $300 million in corn exports alone.
Nearly 30 percent of the corn grown in the United States is biotech.
Farmers grew nervous when the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers
adopted a proposal in late November that would require products to be
labeled as genetically modified if they contain 0.9 percent of
biotech
material. Some officials have said that is not workable because some
foods that aren't genetically modified may contain traces of biotech.
Ron Gaskill, an international trade specialist for the American Farm
Bureau Federation, said Friday that farmers have been waiting all
year
to see if the EU would lift the ban. Since it hasn't, the United
States
needs to take action or risk losing more markets, he said.
``You either get up and step up to the plate and be a player or
pretty
much let the world dictate to you what you're going to do, and we're
just not, in this case, willing to do that,'' Gaskill said.
European consumers have been distrustful of biotech products, and
U.S.
officials worry that their anti-biotech attitude is spreading to
other
countries. Some southern African nations facing famine initially
rejected U.S. food aid in August because it included genetically
modified grain. Some later agreed to accept the grain after it had
been
milled.
U.S. officials blamed environmental groups for the problem, saying
they
were pushing the countries to reject the aid.
Robert Paarlberg, an associate at Harvard University's Weatherhead
Center for International Affairs, said the United States could use a
dispute to warn developing countries against enacting a similar ban
on
biotech foods, also called GMOs.
But the United States also could face a backlash, Paarlberg said.
``GMOs are not popular in Europe, the WTO is not popular in Europe,
the
United States is not popular in Europe. If you put all three of those
into a package, you've given green parties, socialist leaders, and
antiglobalization activists an easy target.''
12/20/02 17:34 EST
***************************************************************
Let's not escalate the 'Frankenfood' war
By Julia A. Moore and Gilbert Winham
December 20, 2002, Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - While Washington is obsessed with the prospect of
invading
Iraq, a less frightening - but economically and politically costly -
battle is shaping up between the US and Europe. In the next few
weeks,
the White House is due to decide whether to take legal action against
the European Union (EU) in the World Trade Organization (WTO) over
agricultural biotechnology.
The issue is genetically modified (GM) food. In the US, genetic
engineering is used to grow more food using less labor, tilling, and
pesticides. Sixty percent of the world's soybeans and 20 percent of
its
corn are GM crops, grown mostly in the US and Argentina.
The European public calls GM products "Frankenstein food." They're
afraid it could pose a health threat, or create an environmental
disaster where genes jump from GM crops to wild plants and reduce
biodiversity or create superweeds. For four years, Europe has held up
new approvals of US exports of "Frankenfood." Europe's parliament
voted
in July to require extensive labeling and traceability of food
containing genetically modified organisms - even if no remnants of
genetic modification are detectable.
The Washington rumor mill contends that US Trade Representative
Robert
Zoellick will file a WTO case against Europe in early 2003 - even
though
the Europeans have agreed to no immediate retaliation on US steel
protections and foreign corporate tax credits. Bets are that a WTO
case
will ignite a trade war - jeopardizing $16.6 billion annually in
US-European agricultural trade, endangering efforts to liberalize
world
trade, and further straining relations with European allies.
The US has a real grievance. With European public confidence in food
safety badly shaken by foot-and-mouth and mad- cow disease, no new GM
products have been authorized for use in Europe since 1998. European
Union officials admit this is likely illegal under WTO rules and
hurts
largely US farm exporters. In an effort to restart the approval
process
by addressing public concerns over consumer choice and environmental
protection, the EU in 2001 proposed burdensome new rules for biotech
food and animal feed labeling and for "farm-to-fork" traceability
measures on products.
Mr. Zoellick says these labeling and traceability proposals go "far
beyond health protections for consumers" and create "onerous and
impractical regulatory barriers." The US position is that GM food is
safe. It cleared all regulatory hurdles set by the Food and Drug
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of
Agriculture, and international health and safety bodies.
Even Zoellick's European counterpart, Pascal Lamy, concedes that
European research suggests GM foods present little risk. Given that
polls show 95 percent of Europe's consumers are wary of GM food and
strongly favor labeling, it's certain the EU wouldn't implement a WTO
decision favoring the US. The US could retaliate, but it could
backfire.
A WTO case would play into the hands of European environmental
organizations, consumer groups, and politicians who portray the US as
the world's fast-food superpower trying to force an unwelcome
technology
down European throats. It also would be a setback for European
scientists and leaders working for a more reasoned public debate over
biotechnology.
The crux of the problem is that in a free world economy where the
consumer is king, Europe's consumers don't want GM food. It's
possible
this problem can be surmounted, but it largely must be done by
Europeans
themselves. A WTO case by the US would only make a bad situation
worse.
. Julia A. Moore is public policy scholar at the Wilson Center in
Washington. Gilbert Winham is the Eric Dennis memorial professor of
government and political science at Dalhousie University in Halifax,
Novia Scotia.
In Reply to: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods posted by Misty L. Trepke on December 22, 2002 at 20:23:26:
their plan to OWN food production through patented mutant dna reminds me of how the Indians struggled with the white man's concept for OWNING parcels of earth. I can imagine famines resulting from dna mutations that occur in the wild causing these gmo foods to become poisonous.
In Reply to: Re: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods posted by PeterB on December 23, 2002 at 01:14:24:
I can see them raising the price of food so only the elite can afford it. I can even see them using food as a weapon to wipe out all natural production
of non GM foodstuffs. It's stuff like this that makes me want to convert the basement into a hydroponics garden.
In Reply to: Re: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods posted by Looking Deeper on December 23, 2002 at 02:33:36:
Are you paranoid or just an extremist?
In Reply to: Re: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods posted by Sam on December 23, 2002 at 04:20:17:
What? Only 2 choices?
In Reply to: Re: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods posted by Looking Deeper on December 23, 2002 at 06:54:01:
Well, I could throw in a few more, but I thought I would be polite about it.
In Reply to: Re: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods posted by Sam on December 23, 2002 at 06:55:23:
In that case, neither.
Not to persuade you, but keep in mind 3 things:
1. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you. As a corallary to that, don't assume because the evidence of a conspiracy is not
in in plain sight, that a conspiracy is not underway.
2. Companies exist to make money. For many companies that is their only goal. Many, especially large companies regularly circumvent rules and guidelines,
moral and ethical considerations in the advancement of this goal. One need look no further that the pharmaceutical companies to see this principle
in action.
3. There are to surefire ways to control a populance -through control of sex and through control of food supply. There are several organizations which are
of the opinion that Earth is overcrowded, and racially speaking, of the wrong color. While these organizations are throughout the world, many of
them call the United States home. They operate as "think tanks" and research facilities, and have a tremendous influence in the government
shaping policy. You may have seen the end-product of such influence recently. America has closed immigration except for white russians. The "browning of
America" has sufficient frightened those monitoring such things to take action.
A combination of government and big business action is often enough to make sweeping changes affecting a large portion of the population. You need only
peruse articles on the FDA to see evidence of malice and the contempt the organization holds for the population at large.
Most people will not dig very deep as what is underneath is frightening. It is easier to chalk it up to individual paranoia than a clear look of
what is right under one's nose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"paranoia is perfect awareness"
PS: you can expect that when a conspiracy is brought to light, lots of spin will be applied to make the details seem harmless and of little consequency. Remember
the savings & loan scandal, or more recently Enron and Worldcom?
In Reply to: "Big business has your interests at heart" and other myths... posted by Looking Deeper on December 23, 2002 at 07:38:34:
Ok, I will be honest. That really did scare me, if what you are saying is the truth!
"Most people will not dig very deep as what is underneath is frightening. It is easier to chalk it up to individual paranoia than a clear look of
what is right under one's nose."
Ok then, so what CAN be done to stop any of this from eventuating?
I can see why people would bury their hands in the sand about this one. If there is nothing that the little man can do about it, then this reaction would be normal from the general public if they were to find this info. out. Its too ugly for most to want to believe, even if the information was right there, it wouldnt seem "real" to most.
Even I myself, find it totally abhorrent what MAY be happening, and yet at the same time, hope that you are seriously mistaken or deluded, which you are probably not. But thats my own fear speaking of something that is out of my control and too ugly to want to think of. These things dont happen, right? We have freedom. Democracy. Innocent people cant be judged because of the colour of their skin any longer. How naiive on my part?!
But I havent seen this "reality" you speak of. Hell, I havent even experienced racial prejudice myself, and I am dark skinned, of mixed descent.
And yet I have lived in the States and abroad as well. Maybe I have just been fortunate, but i have never had the mentality of differences between races as my reality, whatever the color/creed others may be. I have never seen a division, or a separateness. I guess I have either been fortunate or living under a rock.
In Reply to: News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods posted by Misty L. Trepke on December 22, 2002 at 20:23:26:
Thanks, so much, Misty.
Namaste`
Walt
|
[ Genetically Engineered Foods Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |