And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Activist Mailing List - http://get.to/activist

For a change some good news to rejoice about. But there's still lots 
to do !!

INDEPENDENT (London) May 2

=================

GM foods - Victory for grass-roots action

Now most of the big names in the food industry are to ban GM products 
- but it is thanks to the consumer, not to the Government

By GEOFFREY LEAN

It was an extraordinary scene, a fitting start to the week that surely 
marks the beginning of the end for genetically modified foods in 
Britain. At nine o'clock last Monday morning two of the most powerful 
men in the global food industry turned up at a pressure group's door.

Richard Greenhalgh, chairman of Unilever UK, and Michel Ogrizek, the 
international head of corporate affairs for the giant multinational - 
the world's largest food manufacturing company - came to Greenpeace's 
offices in Islington, north London, in what appears to have been a 
last-ditch attempt to make peace. But next day the company had to 
admit defeat, announcing that it would stop using GM ingredients in 
its products in Britain.

The announcement started a week-long stampede by leading companies, 
all household names. The speed and suddenness of the flight from 
"Frankenstein foods" has surprised everyone, humiliated the Government 
and provided the most spectacular example to date of consumer power. 
Its repercussions will reverberate far beyond this country: it could 
prove a turning point in the battle over genetic modification 
worldwide.

Unilever insists that Monday's visit was just "part of a general 
ongoing discussion in regard to issues on genetically modified 
organisms". But Greenpeace recounts how it received a call from Mr 
Greenhalgh's office late the previous Friday, requesting an urgent 
meeting. It says that the company was "trying to resist going 
GM-free".

"Their suggestion was that some sort of full debate or discussion 
might be valuable," says Peter Melchett, Greenpeace's executive 
director. "We said that things had moved beyond that point."

Up to then Unilever had been one of the most committed proponents of 
GM foods - and even in defeat it insisted that its announcement did 
not "change our long-held belief in the potential of modern 
technology, including the genetic modification of food ingredients." 
It went on: "This technology offers huge future benefit to customers, 
but the realisation of this depends on winning full consumer trust and 
confidence."

It's right, at least, about the last part - as it knows only too well. 
For the giant company was forced into its reluctant volte-face by an 
unprecedented onslaught from its own customers. Bemused executives 
describe helplines swamped by worried and angry consumers since early 
this year. Worse, sales of its GM soya product, Beanfeast, have 
slumped precipitously. Some industry sources calculate they have 
fallen by 80 per cent; Unilever privately says it is "nearer 50 per 
cent". (The company has now promised to make it GM-free within two 
months.)

It is not suffering alone. Sainsbury will withdraw its GM tomato puree 
- the first genetically modified product to be introduced in Britain - 
from its shelves by June. Made from tomatoes modified to rot more 
slowly, it used to outsell its GM-free rival by two to one: now, says 
the company, "our customers do not want it".

No wonder Unilever's surprise announcement opened the floodgates. The 
next day Nestle, another of the world's biggest food companies, 
announced that it was phasing out GM products as fast as possible. The 
day after, Cadbury followed suit. Meanwhile Tesco, Britain's largest 
supermarket chain, said it would remove GM ingredients from its own- 
brand foods, joining Sainsbury, Safeway, Asda and Somerfield. And the 
Co-op will tomorrow announce changes that will make its products GM 
free as well.

When these phase-outs are complete, no major supermarket brands will 
continue to contain GM ingredients and - after last week's Unilever, 
Nestle and Cadbury announcements - many other foods will be free of 
them too. It's an extraordinary reversal from the rapid, silent, 
expansion of GM foods - from nothing to 60 per cent of the products on 
supermarket shelves in less than three years. And it has put 
environmental activists into the unfamiliar position of extolling 
market forces.

Those same forces will spread the effects of last week's events 
worldwide. For these enormously wealthy companies (Unilever's turnover 
alone is more than #35bn) will now start scouring the world for 
GM-free soya and maize, raising their prices and providing a powerful 
incentive to farmers to plant them. This could tip the balance in the 
many countries that have been facing a close-fought decision on 
whether to introduce GM crops: some analysts expect that many farmers 
will now abandon them even in the United States, their greatest 
stronghold.

The speed of the reversal has taken everyone by surprise - even the 
pressure groups which campaigned for many months before the issue 
caught fire early this year. What made the difference, both they and 
the industry say, was press coverage, including the Independent on 
Sunday's campaign.

And no one has been more surprised by the Government, which is now 
left - together with Monsanto and other bioscience companies - as just 
about the only supporter of GM foods. Last week's events are a major 
blow to its credibility, and to the personal authority of the Prime 
Minister who went out of his way, at the height of the controversy 
earlier this year, to stress his confidence in them.

This is the Government's greatest failure yet to read the public mood. 
Right up until last week - and in some cases even now - senior 
ministers were convinced that the GM foods controversy was, as Mr 
Blair privately told Labour MPs, just "a flash in the pan". How could 
an administration which is usually so successful at catching the tides 
of public opinion, have got so out of step?

The answer lies in Mr Blair's similarity to Tony Benn. In the 1960s Mr 
Benn embodied the Wilson government's faith that the "white-heat of 
technology" was the answer to Britain's economic problems. Mr Blair 
and other modernisers, like Peter Mandelson, enthusiastically adopted 
this Old Labour belief. They became convinced that the country's 
future depended on knowledge-based industries, and equated 
biotechnology with them.

Thus GM foods became integrated into the Blairite "project": to 
express concerns about them was to doubt New Labour. Blinkered by this 
conviction, the Government failed to spot the many early signs of 
impending public revolt .

It has been a damaging failure, for the episode has crystallised some 
of the strongest popular concerns about the Government - that it is 
arrogant, overinfluenced by big business and oversubservient to the 
United States.

Ministers (with one or two honourable exceptions) have haughtily 
dismissed concerns about the effects of the crops on health and on the 
environment, parroting the reassurances of official scientific 
committees who have a majority of members with links to the food and 
biotechnology industries. And growing anti-Americanism and hostility 
to multinational companies has been stoked by the US decision to mix 
GM and ordinary soya (so that they could not be distinguished or 
separated) before shipping them to Europe; by Monsanto's 
heavy-handedness; and by the evangelical zeal with which the Clinton 
administration has been pushing GM foods.

But even within the White House there are signs of concern, if not 
change. A few days before the Unilever announcement, at the start of 
an official lunch in New York, my neighbour - one of the Clinton 
administration's most senior environmental policymakers - turned to me 
and opened the
conversation; "Tell me. How do we get out from under this GM mess?"

===================

                      *  The Activist  *
                    http://get.to/activist

This is not about the world that we inherited from our forefathers,
  It is about the world we have borrowed from our children !!

Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
doctrine of international copyright law.
           &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
          Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
                     Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
                  http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/       
           &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
                             

Reply via email to