WESSEX
GMOs Unsaleable on International Markets
NLP to campaign against GMOs in all member states in 1999 Euro Elections
It is interesting to see (story below) the economic damage that the introduction of
GMO crops is doing to the US agriculture and food industry.
An indication of the severity of the situation is the cost and trouble a DuPont
subsidiary is now going to to ensure it provides GMO free lines in
order to maintain access to European food markets. This is particularly
significant because DuPont is one of the world's largest investors in
genetic engineering. Is this a case of "as you sow, so shall you reap"?
Given the negative experience US food commerce is now having with GMOs it is
difficult to understand why there is any doubt at all about the wisdom of
banning GM crops in Europe. Our own farmers and food industry have nothing
to gain from them, and everything to lose - their markets and jobs. GMOs are
fast becoming unsaleable in Europe.
The DuPont news follows on from a recent report which reveals how North American
farmers are losing valuable export markets because they cannot provide GMO free
supplies.
The New South Wales Grains Board announced 8 January 1999 that it had sold the largest
cargo of oilseed rape to ever leave to Australia because it was able to provide GMO free
supplies required by European markets. The 57,500 tonne shipment was valued at
$A26 million ($US16.53 million) and will lead to a record shipping program for 1998
which is expected to total 350,000 to 400,000 tonnes.
Keeping the EU's own agricultural production GMO free means sound health for
its economy, not just for its environment and citizens.
The Natural Law Party will be campaigning in all 15 member states for a GMO
free EU during this year's European Elections to be held in June.
For more information on the poor agronomic performance of GM crops and their
danger to our health and environment visit:
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm .
For more information about the NLP's Euro Election campaign generally visit:
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/euroelec.htm
(Natural Law Party Wesssex)
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
(Thanks to Jim McNulty for posting this story.)
Date: 12 January 1999 19:56
Subject: Complex array of label rules gives US exporters headaches
No different to the complex array of people at this end refusing to eat
it, I think. Poor supermarkets and poor exporters, if only they had
listened and segregated it from the beginning, we would have seen the end
of it before now I reckon. Jim Mc Nulty.
Complex array of label rules gives US exporters headaches
Journal of Commerce Publication Date:
January 11, 1999
When the Euro-bureaucrats in Brussels order new labels, they
can stick it to a host of exporters across the Atlantic Ocean.
Whether those label requirements concern genetically modified
organisms (GMO) or metric-only measurements, such rules
cause headaches for U.S. exporters who must comply so they
can compete in European markets.
When those labeling regulations are unclear, or the rules are
inconsistently enforced, exporter
headaches can turn into migraines.
"It's very frustrating for an exporter to find out about a new labeling
requirement and then not be
able to tell whether his product complies," said a U.S. official familiar
with the GMO-labeling
rule. "With this GMO rule, nobody really knows how to come into
compliance."
As far as labeling goes, that GMO regulation is now the brittlest bone of
contention between U.S.
exporters and European Union officials.
In recent years, U.S. farmers have been planting an increasing number of
acres with soybeans
and corn -- such as [ Monsanto Corp. ] 's "Roundup-Ready" soybeans --
that
are genetically
modified to help fight weeds or insect pests.
Because the altered beans or corn look the same as "normal" ones, it is
difficult to segregate the
modified crops during harvesting, storage and transport. That makes it
tough for U.S. food
makers who use such crops to certify that they do or do not contain
genetically modified
ingredients.
Last spring, the EU decided to require labeling of food products
containing genetically modified
ingredients. The reason: Even though there is no scientific evidence that
GMOs pose health risks,
Europeans are generally more skeptical than Americans about altered
foods,
and they want labels
to show clearly whether some food-product ingredients are derived from
GMOs.
The problem is that the new "novel foods" labeling regulation, which went
into effect Sept. 3,
does not specify a "minimum threshold" -- below which no GMO labeling
would be required --
or a specific criteria for testing for GMOs.
Also, officials in Brussels have not yet issued a list of products --
such
as highly refined soya oil,
which shows no sign of genetically modified proteins -- that are not
subject to GMO labeling.
"How can you tell if you are in compliance with the labeling law if they
haven't set a minimum
level of genetically modified ingredients allowed, and they haven't
approved a testing method?"
asked a U.S. agriculture official.
The holes in the regulation also are confusing European food makers,
especially those that use
U.S.-grown soybeans or corn. "Clearly, there are problems," said Dominiqe
Taeymans, an
expert at the Brussels-based European Confederation of Food and Drink
Industries. "We have
asked the European Commission to act to clarify the situation."
Jochen Kubosch, a spokesman for the commission, says "there are technical
problems" with the
GMO-label rules, which the EU will try to correct, and that EU experts
are
working on a list of
food products to be exempt from the GMO rule. "There should be such a
list, but for the time
being it is empty," he said.
Meanwhile, U.S. companies have been scrambling to try to comply with the
EU labeling
requirements.
In one approach, Protein Technologies International Inc. -- a DuPont
Corp.
subsidiary that
markets soy proteins and fibers for use mainly in food products -- went
to
the expense of
developing an "Identity Preservation System" that tracks soybeans through
every step from the
farms where they are grown to the silos that store them to the trucks
that
transport them.
"Developing this system was very expensive," said Kathy Harris, the St.
Louis-based company's
general counsel. "But it now allows us to assure our European customers
that the soy protein we
sell them is not derived from genetically modified material -- and they
don't have to use the
"Contains GMO' label that the EU is requiring." Protein Technologies
sells
its soy products to a
wide range of European food- making companies, which the company says
accounts for a
significant portion of its $466 million in annual sales. Like many other
U.S.- based firms, it
maintains a Brussels-based subsidiary that keeps track of various EU
regulations affecting its
business.
But genetic modification is not the only labeling issue affecting U.S.
companies.
A decade ago, the EU insisted that all product labels list metric- system
weights and measures,
such as grams -- and not dual labels that list both metric and
U.S./British equivalents, such as
ounces.
The U.S. government has managed to stall the metric-only directive, but
unless the EU issues
another extension, it will go into effect as of Jan. 1, 2000.That would
cause major problems for
many U.S. exporters. In October, the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue --
representing leading
industries from both sides of the Atlantic -- urged the European
Commission to delay
implementation of metric-only labeling for another 10 years "to prevent
imposing additional costs
on industry and to eliminate regulatory uncertainty." The U.S. government
has taken the same
position.
More than 80 U.S. companies -- including such major exporters as 3M,
DuPont, IBM Corp. and
[ Mobil Corp. ] -- and several trade associations joined a coalition to
lobby EU governments to
postpone the law indefinitely.
But EU officials seem to be leaning more toward an extension of from
three
to five years. Said
Mr. Kubosch, the commission spokesman, "We are working on an extension
now, which should
be ready for consideration in the next two months. But I can't say how
long that extension would
last."
(Copyright 1999)
_____via IntellX_____
Publication Date: January 11, 1999
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? - some realities behind biotechnology myths