The Campaign: News Updates

The European Commission defended proposed new rules on genetically modified foods on Monday despite reports that the U.S. government believes they break international trade laws.

"We believe it is a good law which is a solid base for fostering acceptance and consumer confidence in genetically modified products," Commission spokeswoman Beate Gminder told reporters.

She had been asked to comment on a Washington Post report at the weekend which said senior Bush administration officials were putting pressure on the EU to abandon the proposed new rules which they believed could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year and disrupt efforts to start a new round of global trade talks.

Under the proposed new rules, unveiled by the European Commission in July, all foods and animal feed derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have to be labeled.

In the case of processed goods, records have to be kept throughout the production chain allowing the GMO to be traced back to the farm.

The Washington Post report said U.S. officials had repeatedly told European counterparts that the rules discriminated against U.S. products in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and said they had left open the possibility of starting a legal case at the WTO.

The report quoted U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson as saying the new rules would require that American crushed soybean oil bear a label while European cheeses and wine made with biotech enzymes would not be covered.

The United States is the world's leading grower of genetically-modified crops.

Gminder said the Commission, the EU's executive body, had discussed the trade implications of the new rules before adopting them in July.

Commission members had agreed that the new rules were "absolutely necessary to foster consumer confidence, to foster biotech products' acceptance in Europe and therefore ultimately to foster trade in those products," she said.

The proposed law will now go to the European Parliament and EU governments for approval. "It will certainly see extensive discussion there, including trade-related aspects," Gminder said.

The new law is expected to take effect in 2003 at the latest.

The Commission has been in "extensive discussions, including with Mr. Larson, on it before the law was passed through Commission," she added.

The EU and the United States are already locked in trade conflicts over steel, beef and a multi-billion dollar U.S. business tax break program.

Starting next month, those who fail to notify customers of genetically modified agricultural products will be subject to fines or jail time.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry yesterday said the six-month education period, designed to publicize the merits of genetically modified organisms, will end this month.

Those who falsely mark modified products could be subject to less than 3 years in jail or a 30 million won fine.

During the education period, the ministry detected 198 violations of its GMO labeling guidelines.

Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring the European Union to abandon new restrictions on genetically modified foods that they say could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year and disrupt efforts to launch a new round of global trade talks.

U.S. OFFICIALS have repeatedly told their European counterparts that the regulations, which received preliminary approval last month, discriminate against U.S. products in violation of World Trade Organization requirements, raising the prospect of a major and emotionally charged trade dispute.

The European Commission�s decision to require the labeling of genetically engineered products reflects a European anxiety about food safety that is far more profound than in the United States, the world leader in agricultural biotechnology. This is a divide that threatens to further aggravate U.S. relations with Europe, already roiled by differences over global warming, arms control and other trade issues.

Undersecretary of State Alan P. Larson, the State Department�s senior diplomat assigned to economic issues, called the new restrictions �trade disruptive and discriminatory.� He said, �It�s obviously a very serious problem that affects a very important trade and one that�s of vital interest to a very important constituency in the United States, which supports free trade.�

Though U.S. officials have declined publicly to detail what type of punitive action the Bush administration might take against Europe, U.S. officials say the regulations are inconsistent with the terms of the WTO because they treat U.S. products less favorably than European ones.

For instance, Larson said the European regulations would require that American crushed soybean oil bear a label, while European cheeses and wine made with biotech enzymes would not be covered. �There are potential WTO concerns about how it is structured now,� Larson said.

U.S. officials have left open the possibility of bringing a legal case before the WTO, which, after lengthy litigation, could eventually impose a politically embarrassing judgment and stiff economic penalties on Europe. But Larson said the administration�s immediate focus is on lobbying European governments to amend the regulations before they take effect. He added that the United States and Europe need to resolve the issue quickly so it does not become a �distraction� that interferes with their shared interest in launching new global trade talks as planned later this year.

Officials said that economic losses in the United States � where 75 percent of soybeans and more than 25 percent of corn comes from genetically modified seeds � could far exceed other transatlantic trade battles, such as those over bananas and growth hormones in beef. Resolution of the long-running banana dispute earlier this year removed a major irritant in American-European relations.

The dispute could also harden public opinion about biotechnology and its ability to transfer beneficial genes from one species into another. Proponents want it to be seen as a force for progress and global improvement, but it could become a symbol of divisiveness if it set off a bitter trade dispute.

The European Commission�s new standards, among the most far-reaching in the world, call for all products made from engineered material to bear a label saying they contain �genetically modified organisms.� They also require producers to document the source of all their ingredients. Since the U.S. crop-handling system generally does not separate modified and conventional crops, the new requirements could be unwieldy and costly for U.S. businesses.

European limitations on biotech crops already ban most U.S. corn for food products, estimated by U.S. officials as a $300 million annual loss. The new requirements, which must be approved by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers before taking effect by 2003, could also make it difficult to export corn for animal feed and soybeans.

Larson said in an interview that he has raised U.S. concerns with �everyone that comes through this door, every trade minister, agriculture minister, economy minister from Europe,� including those representing about eight European countries. He said a similar message has also been delivered by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick.

President Bush, who comes from a large farm state and counts on the agriculture industry for political support, raised the issue personally with European leaders last month at the Group of Eight meeting of industrialized countries in Italy, according to a senior administration official.

Kimball Nil of the American Soybean Association said the food industry is pleased by the tough talk. �The Bush administration met with EU commissioners and very clearly laid down a marker that many of us felt was missing before,� he said.

But European officials chafe at the pressure, saying the administration is trying to impose U.S. acceptance of biotech food on a European public that does not believe these products are safe despite scientists� claims. The spread of mad cow disease and other health crises have fueled public concern about food safety, and prominent officials, including Britain�s Prince Charles, have been highly critical about biotechnology in crops.

�We are seeing an illustration of American unilateralism,� said Tony Van der haegen, a European Commission representative in Washington. �There are basic psychological differences between American consumers and those in Europe, where [genetically modified products] are not accepted.�

Requiring food labels is a way of offering choice to consumers and restoring their confidence in food, Van der haegen said. He added that the United States has exaggerated the potential loss to U.S. companies, putting the figure instead at $2.8 billion a year.

On a policy level, U.S. regulators have embraced the position that engineered and traditional crops are essentially equivalent, and so should be treated the same. There is some public � and congressional � pressure to require labeling of modified foods in the United States, but promoters of biotechnology have fought tenaciously, and successfully, to resist the efforts. They argue that labels would unfairly stigmatize the products.

The European Union has not approved any new engineered crops for almost three years, and it has been under great pressure from the United States to begin the review process again. The new regulations allow for biotech crop reviews to resume, but only with the requirements that U.S. officials find objectionable.

In an Aug. 9 letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Veneman and Zoellick, 24 U.S. trade organizations said the proposed EU guidelines on biotechnology in agriculture are �commercially unworkable, inconsistent with WTO obligations and would result in billions of dollars of lost U.S. exports.� The letter, signed by groups ranging from the Grocery Manufacturers of America to the American Soybean Association and the North American Export Grain Association, said the measure would cause a �serious trade impediment� by requiring labeling and tracing of modified foods, but not of European wines and cheeses.

The European regulations would not apply to the latter items because the requirements distinguish between food made from genetically modified material such as seeds and those produced with the assistance of modified material such as enzymes.

Larson wrote back this week that �I share many of your apprehensions regarding the proposals,� and said he was working to �ensure that any measures [implemented by the EU] are not onerous, costly or trade-disruptive.�

Mark Mansour, a Washington attorney who represents large food companies and has been consulted by administration officials, has written an analysis urging the administration to file a case with the WTO as soon as possible. Mansour also recommends that the United States withdraw support for the international Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal, a Clinton-era agreement that accepted some of the European concerns about genetically modified foods.

As the regulations now move to the European Parliament, legislators may tighten the restrictions further. Environmental groups are urging them to remove a provision that waives the labeling requirement if the percentage of genetically modified material in a food item is less than 1 percent of the overall product. �The U.S. is trying to force-feed modified foods to the rest of the world, and it just isn�t going to work,� said Charles Margulis of Greenpeace, which has led the anti-biotech campaign in Europe.

U.S. troubles over biotechnology and international trade are not limited to the European Union. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka have proposed bans on importing genetically modified foods, and Mexican legislators are also discussing tough labeling laws. Larson said the United States is concerned that the EU biotech guidelines could become a model for developing countries and significantly limit the reach of the technology.

Advocates of biotechnology say it can be especially helpful to poor farmers by increasing their yields, protecting against pests and viruses, and allowing them to grow crops in depleted soil. But critics say poor farmers will never see those potential benefits because the technology is owned by private, multinational companies interested primarily in selling seeds for a profit to commercial growers.

A citizens group's announcement that traces of genetically modified corn were found in seeds of what was supposed to be non-modified U.S. corn feed, has raised doubts about the control over such crops.

In late July, the Stop GM Seeds Network Japan announced that genes engineered to resist herbicides and harmful insects were found in four of eight breeds of U.S.-grown corn seeds.

The group bought the seeds this spring, which were sold to domestic farmers for feed, and had them analyzed.

Not all the samples contained modified genes and the ratio of mixture was 1 percent at the highest, according to the group.

The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries are testing 10 breeds of genetically modified corn for human consumption and feed.

Of them, modified genes were found in five kinds, of which only one is approved for domestic cultivation.

Agriculture ministry guidelines prohibit the sale of seeds that contain nonapproved modified genes.

None of the seeds that contained modified genes is grown as genetically modified corn.

Researchers believe that the breeds got mixed when modified corn pollen, carried by the wind, came in contact with non-modified corn being cultivated in the United States.

``The result suggests that seed pollution like this is widespread in the United States,'' said Katsumi Yamada, head of the group.

Yamada warned that if polluted seeds are planted on Japanese farms, modified genes could spread to corn being grown for human consumption.

This spring, the U.S. Department of Agriculture disclosed that traces of StarLink, a genetically engineered breed of corn which can cause allergic reactions in humans, were found in corn seeds sold by more than a quarter of seed companies.

Many plants produce seeds when pollen carried by winds and insects come in contact with the pistil. It is not uncommon for foreign genes to accidentally enter crops through pollen in the process of cultivation.

However, they rarely cause a significant change in characteristics and most cases have been overlooked.

But researchers fear that genetically modified plants may have a negative impact on the environment.

``Modified genes are a new presence that were added to ordinary plants,'' said Hyoji Namai, a former Tsukuba University professor and an expert on botanical genetics. ``They have yet to be fully controlled. Movement of pollen can cause a serious problem.''

Genetically modified plants are already used in some foods and livestock feed. In most cases, once they are digested, the modified genes are destroyed. However, when such genes are contained in seeds for growing, they could pass on the modified genes to later generations.

To ministry officials, the detection of modified genes in seeds for domestic cultivation was a completely unexpected development.

Hirofumi Yamaguchi, an Osaka University professor who was part of a committee set up by the ministry to discuss the environmental safety of genetically modified plants, said: ``It is a possible development, but we never discussed it within the committee.''

Even after the group's announcement, the ministry has said it does not consider it a problem that affects human health and the environment, because, so far, it has not detected unapproved genetically modified corn, such as StarLink, in foods and feed in the domestic market.

However, strict quality control is needed for seeds to maintain the characteristics of specific breeds. Strict guidelines should be followed in growing genetically modified plants. For example, they should be grown in isolation and kept a certain distance from other closely related crops when collecting seeds.

The ministry partly blames seed companies for careless management. However, since there are no laws to regulate modified genes in seeds, it has no legal authority to oversee their dealings, the ministry said.

Producers and suppliers of organic crops are especially concerned about the situation. Genetically modified crops are not recognized as organic both at home and abroad.

If farmers accidentally plant genetically modified seeds or modified genes enter their crops through pollination, the growers and suppliers could lose the trust of consumers.

Already, the problem has begun to affect organic farmers. Yoshimoto Maruyama, a farmer in Minamichita, Aichi Prefecture, cut down corn for food, planted in March and April, before harvest because he was afraid that his crop could be exposed to pollen of genetically modified corn.

Producers of milk who use labels stating milk was taken from dairy cattle that feed on non-genetically modified corn are also worried. Since domestic corn could contain modified genes, they are no longer sure if the content on their labels are true, they say.

Chikako Senga of Chubu Yotsuba-kai, a Nagoya-based consumer group that promotes food safety, said: ``Producers and consumers should speak out and do something to stop Japan's dependency on foreign seeds.''

According to reports, in the United States, it is not uncommon for traces of genetically modified crops to be found in organically grown produce. However, the international community has yet to actively debate measures to stop the proliferation of genetically modified crops.

It is extremely difficult to constantly control genes that are released into nature. Even if growers and businesses make use of genetically modified crops, effective measures are urgently needed to prevent modified genes from spreading unnecessarily.

SIX anti-GM protesters have been ordered to stay away from a farm where a demonstration has been taking place against the planting of genetically modified oilseed rape.

The protesters were arrested on Thursday evening and appeared at Dingwall Sheriff Court yesterday. They were charged with aggravated trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Peter Muskus, 49, an organic farmer from Nairn, and Donnie Macleod, 53, an organic farmer from Ardersier, were charged along with Catriona Spink,35, from Stratherrick, near Inverness, Andrew Aikman, 44, from Kinloss, James Grigg, 39, from Auldearn, and Daniel Puplett, 25, from Findhorn.

All denied the charge and trial was set for 23 November. Puplett also denied a charge of resisting arrest.

The six were released on bail on condition they do not go within half a mile of the farm near Munlochy in the Black Isle which is at the center of the protest.

Protesters have been staging a vigil at the farm since Wednesday after the Scottish executive announced a further round of trials. Last year, the executive sparked widespread opposition when it gave the go ahead to the trials on farmer Jamie Grant�s land. Highland Council tried unsuccessfully to secure an interdict to stop the planting.

Better oversight needed: Scientists' report is 'reeking of biotech' bias - Greenpeace

OTTAWA -- Canada needs to improve the oversight and regulation of genetically modified foods, a scientific panel said yesterday.

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee said the current system of protecting health and the environment is not designed to accommodate the advent of GM foods and other new plant and animal technologies. The regulatory process needs to be updated before the federal government starts to receive applications for approvals for the next generation of GM foods, the scientific panel concludes in an interim report.

"We need to be aware of what lies ahead when it comes to GM and novel foods. We also need to be sure that the government of Canada is ready and has all the right structures and processes in place that will allow us to reap the benefits and avoid possible harm," said Dr. Arnold Naimark, the CBAC chairperson. The CBAC panel was created by the federal government to provide advice on a broad range of ethical, social, regulatory, economic, environmental and health issues related to biotechnology.

In addition to better regulatory oversight by government, the CBAC interim report calls for better research and monitoring and data collection about the potential long-term health and environmental impact of GM products.

However, while recognizing that consumers need better information of the GM content of food and food labeling, the CBAC report said GM labeling standards should be implemented on a voluntary basis to test their adequacy and effectiveness.

The CBAC drew criticism of other groups that have raised concerns about biotechnology and the government's approach to health and environmental safety. Last month, a coalition of environmental and farm groups wrote to Jean Chr�tien, the Prime Minister, urging the federal government to adopt a more cautious, deliberative approach to developing GM food products.

Angela Rickman, Sierra Club of Canada director, said the interim report was disappointing since it did not insist on mandatory labeling to help consumers and to create the basis for ongoing scientific studies. As well, the CBAC proposals for improving regulation fall short, she said.

"I don't think what they have proposed ... is a proper fix," she said. For one thing, government has invested a great deal of money in promoting biotechnology and has an ongoing interest in its development, she said.

"The report recognizes there has to be longer term studies on health and environmental impacts, but then they move to [a] voluntary labeling regime which means you can't do long-term studies on a population, isolating a certain thing they are eating, if they don't even know they are eating it," Ms. Rickman said.

Greenpeace Canada called the advisory committee report "weak, meek and reeking of biotech bias."

"There's absolutely nothing here to prevent the environmental release of this unproven genetic experiment -- and nothing that lets Canadians know what they're eating," said Dr. Eric Darier. "Our worst fears have been confirmed. The whitewash continues."

On the issue of labeling, Dr. Naimark said the committee wanted to move in stages by first setting the standards for labeling to provide consumers with information. It may be in the end that the public is best served by mandatory labeling of GM food, but much more work needs to be done before reaching that conclusion, Dr. Naimark said.

"Labeling has a cost associated with it and part of our approach is to try and sense where Canadians are with respect to how much cost they are willing to bear to have labeling," he said.

As well, consumer information involves more than labeling, Dr. Naimark added. "Labeling needs to accompanied by much better, more accessible, more easily understood information such as how is the product produced, what goes into its development, what are the controls in place to prevent toxic substances ... all of those are things people are interested in but wouldn't appear on a label."