News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods ----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to comment on this News Update, you can do so at the forum section of our web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/forums Dear News Update Subscribers, Posted below are three articles worth reading. The first two are about the important battle over genetically engineered wheat. The third article is about Africa and explains why genetically engineered foods are not the answer to their famine problems. As we announced last month, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods is launching the "Save Organic Wheat!" coalition to fight the introduction of genetically engineered wheat. The Save Organic Wheat! project is developing nicely and will be officially launched before the end of March. There is a lot of advanced web site programming going on behind the scenes on the Save Organic Wheat! web site that is keeping us very busy. The "engine" behind the web site is still under development. But you can get a sneak preview by going to: http://www.saveorganicwheat.org The first article below from Reuters does a good job of pointing out the issues behind Monsanto's push for genetically engineered wheat. The second article explains one way that Canadian farmers are fighting back. The article titled "There Are Better Ways to Feed Africa Than With GM Crops" does an excellent job of explaining the realities of the African hunger situation. Enjoy these informative articles. And look for the March edition of The Campaign Reporter to be sent out on Wednesday night. Craig Winters Executive Director The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods The Campaign PO Box 55699 Seattle, WA 98155 Tel: 425-771-4049 Fax: 603-825-5841 E-mail: mailto:[email protected] Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States." *************************************************************** Monsanto courts farmers on gene-altered wheat KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - When leaders of the U.S. wheat industry gathered for a recent conference in New Mexico, they toasted their partnership with Monsanto Co., developer of the world's first genetically engineered wheat. The scene reflects a major shift in the U.S. farming industry's position on a divisive issue. There has been widespread fear among American farmers that Monsanto's push for genetically modified wheat would hurt sales, especially overseas where opposition to genetically engineered crops is strongest. Winning over farmers has not been easy. Millers and food companies have said they will not buy biotech wheat for fear consumers will reject it, and the industry's export experts have warned foreign buyers could boycott U.S.-grown wheat. Monsanto officials appear to have succeeded in allaying the fears of farmers by crisscrossing America's mid-section and promising not to roll out the new wheat until the industry is ready. Farmers want Monsanto to meet several objectives, including ensuring market acceptance. Along the way, Monsanto has opened its checkbook, providing training, trips and parties for wheat industry leaders, and giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to universities where researchers talk up the advantages of biotech crops. "The (farmer) sentiment has turned fairly significantly," said Dusty Tallman, former president of the National Association of Wheat Growers. "They (Monsanto) do invest in our industry. They've done a very good job of educating producers to the value of what they're going to have to offer us." The new wheat tolerates Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, making weed control easier for farmers. And it could open the door for other biotech crops down the road, Monsanto says. The campaign has been so successful that critics have been effectively silenced, ordered by industry leaders to talk up - not down - the impact of gene-altered wheat. Consumer groups both in the United States and other countries have voiced concern about the unknown long-term health effects of the wheat and its impact on the environment. But for Monsanto, the wheat is a key part of an arsenal of biotech crops aimed at turning around its sagging revenues. Wheat, with more acres planted globally than any other crop, is more widely used for human consumption than either corn or soybeans, both of which have genetically modified versions already on the market. After more than a decade of research and development, Monsanto has made its final submissions for U.S. and Canadian regulatory approval of the new wheat. Earlier this week, Monsanto received regulatory approval for its latest biotech corn, designed to fight rootworm. "BUYING GOODWILL" Monsanto's strategy of cozying up to key players to influence industry issues is far from unique. Its top biotech competitors, like Syngenta AG and BASF AG, also fund agricultural players up and down the food chain. "We have both an obligation and a need to spend time doing that kind of outreach and education and putting ourselves in a position to learn," said Monsanto spokesman Michael Doane. But as the corporate leader in the controversial arena of transgenic crops - those that are engineered with genes from other plants and sometimes other species - Monsanto's efforts to win over wheat farmers has some critics crying foul. "They're buying goodwill," said Arthur Schafer, University of Manitoba's director of ethics studies, who has been outraged by reports that Monsanto paid travel and other expenses for some Canadian growers. "If you're a farm leader, it's a violation of your duty to your members to accept benefits from a company that has a stake or an agenda that you have to take a position on," he said. Monsanto's support for the industry is widespread. The company is a benefactor to the National Association of Wheat Growers, helps financially support the Wheat Quality Council, provides leadership training getaways for farmers, offers travel grants to business meetings and sponsors wheat industry gatherings around the United States. Just last month, Monsanto was a top sponsor - complete with a margarita party - of an industry meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico. There, wheat leaders voted to restrict their export experts from publicizing any negative views of gene-altered wheat held by foreign buyers. Wheat leaders say their close ties to Monsanto give them more say in how and when biotech wheat will be introduced. "If there are those who think that we're bought and paid for, they're laboring under false assumptions," said Daren Coppock, the association's chief executive. He estimated less than 15 percent of his group's funding comes from Monsanto and other corporate supporters. Still, some say the close-knit relationship at times acts to quiet critics. After two European milling executives spoke of their opposition to gene-altered wheat at an industry meeting in Oklahoma City last summer, wheat officials fretted Monsanto would no longer sponsor their activities. And two years ago, when North Dakota legislators were debating whether or not to impose a moratorium on genetically modified wheat, a Monsanto representative told them the company might have to discontinue funding research in the state if the measure passed. The measure failed. Another bill seeking to regulate biotech wheat was debated this month in North Dakota's legislature, but it also failed. UNIVERSITY FUNDING QUESTIONED Critics have long questioned corporate funding of research at public universities. For its work with Roundup Ready spring wheat, Monsanto has research partnerships with seven universities in key wheat growing states, and holds monthly conference calls to discuss research work. Last month, Monsanto flew researchers from the universities to its St. Louis, Missouri, headquarters for face-to-face discussions. "The research follows the dollars, so who is this benefiting?" said Stephen Jones, a wheat breeder at Washington State University, one of Monsanto's partners. "Are they just coming in to these institutions and using the public-financed infrastructure to their benefit? The pressure is tremendous from Monsanto and these other corporations." But wheat researcher James Cook, also of Washington State University, said collaborations are a necessity in times of tight state budget appropriations. "Private and public sectors can work together and must work together for the sake of good science," said Cook, a recipient of grants from Monsanto as well as Syngenta. At North Dakota State University, Monsanto has funded more than $200,000 in Roundup Ready wheat work. As is the case at WSU - which has a $145,000 deal with Monsanto - the relationship has created some controversy. But university officials defend the integrity of the deals. "Scientists remain objective even though research might be funded in part by a private entity," said Ken Grafton, director of NDSU's agriculture research station. Monsanto says the research deals benefit society overall, by developing higher-yielding and more nutritious crops. As Monsanto determines when it will bring the new biotech wheat to market, some farmers remain skeptical of the efforts. "They're trying to push a product there is no market for," said Louis Kuster, North Dakota Wheat Commissioner and a farmer himself. "It is going to be devastating to our market for foreign wheat." But, he said, "Monsanto right now holds the power." Story by Carey Gillam Story Date: 4/3/2003 *************************************************************** Farmers urged to stop buying Roundup The Western Producer - Saskatoon newsroom Thursday February 27, 2003 By Adrian Ewins Farmers opposed to Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat can voice that opposition by not buying Roundup, says the National Farmers Union. NFU president Stewart Wells said if farmers buy some other brand of glyphosate this year, it will send a powerful message to the company. "If farmers affect Monsanto's bottom line and shareholder profits, farmers can reverse Monsanto's decision to force genetically modified wheat on to the market," he told a Saskatoon news conference. In an interview later, he said farmers who participate in the boycott should tell their chemical dealers why they're not buying Roundup. "If they tell the retailer, the message will definitely get back to Monsanto," he said. The NFU said six other companies make glyphosate products that are registered for use in Canada, including some that are registered for in-crop use on Roundup Ready canola, so it wouldn't be difficult to make the switch. Some of the alternative brands are cheaper than Roundup. Monsanto is seeking regulatory approval for Roundup Ready wheat, although the company says it won't commercialize the product until all safety, agronomics and customer acceptance issues have been resolved. However, Wells said farmers can't trust industry and government to regulate the introduction of GM wheat and must take direct action. "If we want to keep GM wheat out of our fields, if we want to protect our foreign markets, we need to take matters into our own hands," he said. A spokesperson for Monsanto said there is no need for farmers to boycott Roundup. Trish Jordan said the company is aware of the concerns of farmers and industry and has no intention of launching Roundup Ready wheat commercially until those concerns have been dealt with. "We're being very cautious and responsible and doing research and getting lots of feedback on this," she said. The NFU said a "vast majority" of farmers do not want to the company to introduce GM wheat, a contention Wells said is based on the NFU's contact with farmers. Jordan disagreed. "Based on discussions and feedback from farmers we've had, I would say that is not true." Monsanto's feedback indicates that farmers fall into three groups: some are firmly opposed to GM wheat; some are "very interested" in growing it; and some are undecided and urge caution. *************************************************************** There Are Better Ways to Feed Africa Than With GM Crops Sunday Times (Johannesburg) ANALYSIS March 2, 2003 Posted to the web March 1, 2003 By Dulcie Krige Johannesburg CAN Africa feed itself? Many people will answer this question in the negative, prompting the biotechnology industry to insist that genetic modification is the way to increase crop yields. But this argument is based on a lack of understanding of the realities of food production in Africa. The problem is not a lack of food. It is that areas of surplus are often deficient in infrastructure (roads, railways) to convey food to the places where crops have failed. Ethiopia, often thought of as a place of famine, has generally produced more than enough food to meet its needs. However, droughts last year reduced crop production in some areas, and Ethiopia did not have the transport infrastructure to redistribute the food. Similarly, the European Union has pointed out that GM-free locally produced grain is available in abundance in Southern Africa and that it is EU policy to buy this grain and pay for its transport to the areas where there are shortages. This has the advantage, for African farmers, of providing a market for their crops. A problem with using biotechnology to alleviate African famine is that no GM seeds have been commercially developed with the purpose of increasing yields. Some 80% of the seed produced commercially is designed to resist herbicides. These can then be used extensively on crops to kill weeds. However, this does not lead to improved yield but may decrease the labour requirements for crop production - a distinct disadvantage in Africa. The biotechnology industry has overlooked the high cost of GM seed. How will farmers purchase seeds when poverty is the major limitation on small farmer production throughout Africa? Without money to erect fencing, they suffer neighbours' goats eating their crops. Without money for pipes and small pumps, they have to carry water from rivers during periods of low rainfall. Without transport they cannot get their crops to markets, and without storage facilities they cannot keep a surplus from one year to the next. GM seed does nothing to remedy these limitations. Another problem is that GM seeds are patented. It is difficult for a farmer who has used his own seed for generations to understand that, as a result of policies determined in the US, there are intellectual property rights over living organisms. Policing these rights on behalf of Western multinationals would further deflect Africa's resources from where they should be directed: at feeding the poor. Another issue which needs attention is the impression that Africa's rejection of GM crops and seeds has been instigated by Europe. In fact, the seven Zambian scientists who recently investigated the acceptability or otherwise of GM food aid visited the US and South Africa, in addition to Europe. They made their decision on the basis of food safety issues, including antibiotic resistance and the possibility of allergies. Dr Mwananyanda Lewanika, a biochemist, pointed out that, as maize is a staple food for the poor in Africa and people already have low immune systems, deleterious effects of consuming GM food were more likely than in the US. So is there a way in which Africa can increase its food output without resorting to expensive technology? Scientists have developed a natural system which dramatically reduces losses from stem borer beetle and from the Striga weed. These interventions have slashed losses from 40% to 4.6%. The introduction of a wasp has reduced stem borer infestation by 53%. And these methods cost the farmer nothing . Food shortages in Africa are a complex interplay of drought, poverty, lack of transport and storage infrastructure, shortages of agricultural extension officers and political instability. It is simplistic to contend that the biotechnology industry can alleviate these shortages by selling more of its expensive seed to the small farmers who produce more than 70% of Africa's food crops. A final thought: what would happen if the R180-million that our government plans to spend annually promoting private sector biotechnology development were spent instead on removing constraints facing small farmers? Could we lead Africa into a food-production renaissance? - Dulcie Krige Krige is a development consultant who has researched poverty in Southern Africa -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
