I personally don't think that genetically modified food poses a danger to humans.
There is absolutely *NO* evidence that it does. One of the main crops that have
been totally transformed for the good are soybeans. They now have soybeans
that you can plant (drill) right into the ground and then be sprayed for weeds
*after* they have come up. The soybeans are immune to the spray that kills all
other vegetation. This means that the farmer has way less tilling to do to the
field which saves money, fuel, and erosion, which is good for the environment.
The fact that Greenpeace is behind this scare tactic should tell you something.
People have been manipulating the genetics of crops for centuries.... They
are just getting really good at it now with the advent of cellular biology.
As far as "do countries have the right to keep these crops from their shelves"
without violating the WTO.... I have no idear. That is a different kettle of fish.
On Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 04:21 PM, Charles wrote:
Hot-Button Issue: Genetically Modified Foods
Can a WTO member nation ban the import of genetically modified foods, or does such a prohibition amount to an illegal barrier to free trade? Seattle will host the showdown.
by Jen Soriano
Nov. 24, 1999
<image.tiff>
Do countries have the right to keep genetically modified foods off of their supermarket shelves? The issue has sparked popular protests and diplomatic fireworks in recent months -- and is emerging as a key issue for the World Trade Organization's Seattle summit.
Genetically engineered crops can produce higher yields, create their own natural pesticides and result in more nourishing food -- but critics say they also have the potential to cause vast damage to the environment and human health. The issue strikes a visceral chord: European Greenpeace activists have taken to hacking down swaths of genetically modified corn and soybeans, a French farm activist and friends in rubber fish masks began a series of rallies outside Washington supermarkets this week, and more mainstream groups have launched protests in Britain and elsewhere.
For the trade bureaucrats, the question is whether, under existing WTO agreements, countries can keep genetically modified products off the market in response to their citizens' concerns about ecological safety and public health, or whether doing so would constitute an illegal barrier to free trade. The stakes are high: Some 80 million acres of genetically modified crops were planted around the world last year, including at least half of the soybean acreage and one third of the corn crop in the US. The biotechnology industry has invested billions in developing such organisms.
The trade conflict sprouted in late June, when the European Union effectively banned the approval of all new genetically modified organisms. Shortly thereafter, a Brazilian judge suspended imports of US produce giant Monsanto's genetically engineered soybeans until a complete ecological impact study is completed.
In response, the US is proposing a reinterpretation of existing WTO rules. In essence, it wants any country seeking to ban genetically altered products to come up with concrete scientific evidence of their harmfulness, not simply outraged public opinion. "We cannot let others hide behind unfounded, unwarranted scientific claims to block commerce in agriculture," said Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman.
But critics retort that limiting the traffic in genetically altered foods is warranted precisely because so many scientific questions remain unanswered. Preliminary research by Cornell University scientists has shown that pollen from genetically modified crops can potentially harm insects like the monarch butterfly. Other researchers have identified a risk of herbicide-resistant genes "migrating" into nearby weeds, possibly resulting in a new strain of poison-proof "superweeds." Many environmental scientists say more research is required to assess the seriousness of these problems.
The question of whether genetically modified foods are directly hazardous to human health is at this point largely hypothetical, though consumer advocates say that's because it could take years for such health problems to emerge. Advocates and some scientists agree that the primary potential hazard of genetically altered foods lies in the possible transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to bacteria in people's organs, a process which could lead to the growth of antibiotic-resistant disease strains. Also of concern is the potential for new toxins and allergens to be produced by foreign proteins in genetically modified foods.
The widespread sentiment that genetically modified foods were being shoved down people's throats without regard to these environmental and health concerns led to a popular backlash against "frankenfoods" in Europe this year. That, in turn, sparked consumer protests in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries. The protesters have been heard: Britain now requires all shops and restaurants to notify customers about genetically modified ingredients in their food. In September, Japanese importers announced they would switch to supplying only non-genetically modified crops to domestic food manufacturers. And in the most drastic precautionary move to date, EU commissioners have halted approvals of new genetically altered organisms for at least the next two years, or until stricter risk assessment rules come into place.
If the WTO adopts the rule-changes the US is pushing, then the US will be able to challenge the EU ban. If the WTO's ruling in another case involving beef hormones is any indication, however, the EU may face an uphill battle. In 1998, a WTO appellate panel ruled against a European ban on hormone-treated beef, claiming the EU lacked scientific evidence of danger to human health. The EU refused to retract the ban, and is now facing retaliatory tariffs on mustard, cheese, and other goods exported to the United States.
While ministers debate the semantics of regulations for biotechnology, biosafety advocates will be in Seattle urging the WTO to jump off the biotech bandwagon altogether. Dawkins of the IATP says biotechnology regulations are currently negotiated by a distinct international body, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and that the WTO should not usurp this process.
"The WTO is not the preferable venue for establishing standards for genetically modified crops," Dawkins says. "The WTO has a commercial mandate and the ministers making decisions have expertise in trade, but not in molecular biology, environmental science, food safety, or human health." <image.tiff>
<endred.gif>________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
