PART 2 Reactions in different parts of the worldMarch 2001: Regions banning some or all GE crops from their territory. [EL] The number of regions all over the world banning GE crops is increasing rapidly. Reactions in EuropeThe reactions in Europe against GE foods have been by far the most extensive. Very active NGO:s, especially in Great Britain were able to evoke great popular involvement in the issue. Consumer protests are based on facts not on beliefsThe Biotechnology industry has been saying, especially to investors and politicians, that the resistance of consumers is just an "attitude problem", the expression of ignorance and irrational fears of new technologies. But after studying our information, you will realize that there are good grounds for resistance.The Biotechnology industry has believed that by investing millions in GE propaganda, it will be possible to make people accept this food technology. This appears to be a great mistake. They have greatly underestimated the awareness and intelligence of consumers, and their ability to access impartial information, not least through the Internet. Consequently, steadily increasing numbers of consumers all over the world are protesting against GE foods - refusing to eat it for well-founded scientific reasons. European governments yielding to consumer pressureIn Europe, a considerable majority of consumers is against GE foods. The European Union has long pursued a policy of fostering food biotechnology to the extent that safety problems were concealed. A major reason for this was strong pressure from the US government that threatened with trade war if the EU would create hindrances to the import of GE foods and crops. However, because of the strong consumer opinion in Europe, increasing numbers of governments in the European Union have found it increasingly difficult to pursue this policy.Recently at an EU meeting (June 1999) several governments asked for a change of the regulations for GE products into great restrictivity so that no applications would be granted unless "it is demonstrated that there is no adverse effect on the environment and human health"(Germany, Austria, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden). France wanted an even tougher wording. The result of the meeting was an informal moratorium on GE foods in the European Union. Comment It would be a great mistake to believe that the European Union resistance is part of some kind of protectionistic trade policy as some American biotech proponents are suggesting. Europe has nothing to gain from protectionism in this field. It is simply impossible for the governments to support the approval of GE foods anymore in the liberal way it has been done so far especially now that formerly concealed governmental documents reveal that they are not safe. [Added: 08/09 1999:] European Union signals stricter application of the precautionary principle.The European Union's environment commissioner, Sweden's Margot Wallström said in a hearing at the European Parliament that legislation is required to guarantee that companies are liable for any environmental damage caused by the products they manufacture. She also told the environment committee of the Parliament that the burden should be on companies to prove that products they introduce are safe. She intends to push for a rapid implementation of comprehensive rules on liability. (Source: Reuters, Sept 2 1999) Comment
[Added: 29/10 1999] European Union declares food safety as its prime objective. EU Commission President Romano Prodi statement on food safety with reference to a coming WTO conference:"Whatever trade negotiations the EU may enter into, I want to stress that our priority is and will remain the protection of consumers' health. There is no possibility of the Community being party to international agreements where we believe this would jeopardise our citizens' health. Let me also stress that EU food policy must have food safety as its prime objective and should be at the service of consumers and their health. Should any conflict arise between consumers' health and producers' interests, health must take precedence." (Speech to a plenary session of the European Parliament, 5 Oct 1999)
CommentThe European Commisson has formerly in practice favoured industrial interests on the expense of consumer safety in GE food issues by accepting the pseudoscientific principle of "Substantial Eqiuvalence" as a key criterion for food safety assessment (for an explanation of its weaknesses, see "Substantial equivalence versus scientific food safety assessment). The new commission that recently was inaugurated, has apparently taken great impression of the strong consumer reactions all over Europe to the liberal GE food policy of the former commission.This statement indicates an important change in the food policy of the union. If applied strictly it should mean that no GE foods can be approved on the basis of substantial equivalence. This would mean that, differently from now, each GE food would have to be subjected to billion dollar food safety testing programs taking several years. [End] [Added: 11/09 1999] Great cuts in the research programme of the European Union to develop new genetically modified crops and plants are planned. The move reflects increasing political and public concern over genetic engineering of plants. Scientists believe it will make it impossible to realize the former European dreams of becoming a world leader in the biotechnology. The future now does not look bright for biotech researchers across Europe. The new program of EU has the emphasis more on research into health, environment and sustainable agriculture. (Source: The Times, UK, Monday September 6th 1999) [End] [Added: 16/08 1999:] In August 1999, Philippe
Roch, Director of the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape
has suggested a moratorium in Switzerland on the use of genetic
modification for at least 10 years to allow enough time for side effects
to show up. He said that they may be linked with unknown dangers. Also he thought that it would be a great selling point on the market to be able to advertise that "Swiss made" always means genetically natural.
- (Switzerland is not a member of the European Union).[End]
European food manufacturers, retailers and restaurants are going GE freeIncreasing numbers of major food retailers, restaurants, and processors in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia, the UK, and other nations are now declaring a "GE-free" food policy.Some examples: In UK, McDonald's, Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken are responding to customer pressure by eliminating genetically engineered soya and corn ingredients from their menus. The sales of the retail chain Iceland Frozen Food, the leader of the GE free campaign in UK, have increased greatly since it declared a GE free policy. In March 1999 Britain's J.Sainsbury Plc formed an organisation with six other European supermarket groups to weed genetically modified (GM) foods out of any stage of production (the consortium includes Britain's Marks & Spencer, Carrefour of France, Delhaize of Belgium, Italy's Effelunga, Swiss Migros and Superquinn of Ireland.). Other large GE free supermarket chains are Asda, Safeway, Tesco (Britains largest), Somerfield, Waitrose and Morrison's in the UK and Auchan in France (this list is far from complete). 90 percent of all supermarkets in Austria and countless small producers there have declared that they are GM free. In March 22, the European Supermarket association "Eurocommerce" declared that a move by European food retailer chains to eliminate genetically modified (GM) ingredients and additives from their own-brand food products is of "major significance". [Added: 24/09 1999] The German retailer Edeka has joined other German companies in declaring that it will not use genetically modified (GM) ingredients in its products. Edeka joins other big German retailers like Tengelmann and Rewe, which after negotiations with Greenpeace, have recently declared that they will remove GM ingredients from own-brand products. Edeka had previously refused to join the initiative towards GM-free products. (Source: AgBiotecNet 15 Sept 1999). [End] [Added: 26/09 1999] The biggest distributor of frozen foods in Britain, Brake Bros., has now eliminated genetically engineered ingredients from all its products. The company is a leading supplier to hospitals, hotels, restaurants and schools. Brake Bros' chief executive, Ian Player, thinks this will give the company a competitive advantage especially on the health and education side. (Source: Electronic Telegraph, UK, Lauren Mills, Sept. 19 /99). [End] [Added: 26/09 1999]Europe's leading dry dog food producer, Royal Canin, vowed on the 15 th of Sept not to include GE ingredients in any of its pet food lines. The decision by the Paris-based firm comes after British pet food producer Pascoe's Group Plc launched the country's first wholly organic, non-GM dog food line last month. (Source: http://WWW.PLANETARK.ORG/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=3681, September 16 1999). [End] Unilever in Germany and Austria have declared that they are GM free. Van den Berg Foods UK and Birds Eye Wall's (part of Unilever UK) have likewise announced that they will stop the use of GMO ingredients replacing them with unmodified ingredients. This includes their soy products. Nestlé, a major transnational food manufacturer decided in June 1999 not to use any transgenic ingredients in its products. According to Gianfranco Faina, the general manager of communication of Nestlé, the decision was taken in light of the recognition that 'there isn't a consensus among consumers towards the use of biotechnologies, and the resistance started in Britain is now spreading all over Europe' (source: The Italian journal Il Salvagente 23 (10/6 1999:, page 12) ). The following day, Cadbury-Schweppes joined the ranks. [Added: 24/09 1999]GE soy production hits back on US agricultureAs a response to the greatly increased demand for GE free soy, European farmers are now planning to grow new hardy varieties of soy that are possible to grow in the European Climate. So far the United States has been the world leading source of soy which today is a used extensively by the food industry all over the world. The European Union countries have imported 15 million tons of soy annually, mainly from the US. Today a major part of US soy is genetically engineered and producers have difficulties in segregating GE and GE free soy. There are doubts whether GE free soy producing countries will be able to segregate the soy varieties in a reliable way. Therefore, the European food industry is expected to prefer buying from countries where no GE soy is grown. The European farmers expect a large demand in Europe for their GE free soy, which will be competitive against the transatlantic sources also because of lower transportation costs. Because of considerable acreage surplus, there is plenty of farmland available. Already growing soy ha been more profitable in Europe than many other crops. Unlike many other special crops, soy is technically easy to grow, not requiring any special machinery or production modification. So it is easy for farmers to switch to soy production. Consequently, a great increase of European soy production can be expected. This threatens to result in a great loss to United States agriculture. (Source: Farming News 17 September 1999 "Hardy varieties put soya boom on the cards")[End]
Increasing resistance in the USEven in the US, where Biotech companies have been claiming that there has not been any significant problems with the GE food market, the opposition is now growing: - Recently Time Magazine had a poll in which Americans were asked. "Should genetically engineered food be labeled as such"? Yes 81% No 14%. "If food were labeled as genetically engineered, would you buy if for yourself or your family?" Yes 28% No 58%.In June 1999, nearly a half-million Americans presented a petition that urged Congress to require labels on GE foods. It also demanded that the long term safety of these foods should be investigated [Added: 26/08 1999] On August 24, 1999, Consumers Union, a leading U.S. consumer group asked the government to require labels on food products containing ingredients made from genetically modified crops.[End] The US National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA), a trade group representing the interests of retailers and manufacturers of dietary supplements, natural foods and other products, has called for genetically modified (GM) foods to be labeled as such. The association has also vowed to aggressively seek legislation requiring such labeling. The executive director of the NNFA, Michael Q. Ford, commented, "The public has a right to know what they are eating. If a food product contains GMOs, then it should be stated on the label." Gordon Conway, president of the New York-based Rockefeller Foundation , declared in June 1999 in an interview concerning GE foods that "the industry as a whole has put things on the market very quickly without a full evaluation of what the effects might be" (source: Article by Bill Lambrecht in Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau, June 30, 1999). This is striking considering that the Rockefeller Foundation, has invested more than $100 million to develop new varieties of GE rice. US farmers are beginning to hesitate about cultivating GE crops. According to GE seed dealer Doughty there is a feeling among the farmers that the Biotech companies have let them down by trying to force GE foods upon Europeans without proving that they are safe (see "US farmers fear GM crop fallout" BBC News 14 july 1999). [End] [Added: 11/09 1999] Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) has decided to segregate their genetically altered crops from conventional crop. The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) thinks that this sends a distinct signals to consumers in America, Europe and Asia that US farmers want to respect the wishes of consumers (Gary Goldberg, Chief Executive Officer of the ACGA in Sept 1999). ACGA questioned whether it would be in the best interest of US farmers to continue growing GE crops considering the resistance against GMOs in Europe, Asia and the United States. [End] [Added: 24/09 1999] Important breakthrough for GE-labeling in the USGovernment agencies of the US intend to develop plans for labeling of products containing GE ingredients as a response to the resistance in the European market. According to consultant Charles Benbrook the decision was made at a meeting between representatives of the U.S. Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Source: Reuters 24/09/99) CommentThis decision represents a radical change in US policy. So far the United States has been strongly opposed to GE labeling and has been lobbying hard against it in international regulatory bodies. However, it has become more and more isolated internationally in this question, and is now apparently realizing the untenability of its position. Labeling is likely to greatly reduce the demand for GE products. [End] Resistance to GE in other parts of the world - some examplesIndia: On Feb. 23, 1999 India's Supreme Court decided that all field trials of Monsanto's genetically engineered Bt Cotton must be halted. This was called forth by a legal petition filed by Dr. Vandana Shiva, director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology. Dr. Shiva stated, "This case does not merely have national significance, it has international significance. Around the world scientists, environmentalists, consumer groups and farmers are calling for a moratorium on commercial releases of genetically engineered crops because of growing evidence of ecological hazards and threats to food safety." The court ruling was preceded by protests by Indian farmers and consumers since several months. [Added: 16/08 1999:] Over 1000 grassroots organizations including local village communities, women organisations, environmental groups, campaigns against MNCs and globalisation have joined a nationwide "Quit India" campaign" against Monsanto. [End][Added: 21/10 1999] Thailand: According to Deputy Prime Minister Supachai Panitchpakdi, Thailand will ban the imports of GE seeds until there is clear scientific proof that they are safe. The ban was decided at a meeting of the government's International Economic Relations Policy Committee. It decided to ban all import of GE organisms for food, but allowed their use in research. Grains like soy and corn will be allowed for animal feed but not for human food or cultivation. Thailand is the number one exporter of rice in the world. It is also an important exporter of other agricultural products. (Source: The Associated Press Oct. 18, 1999) CommentThis decision is especially important as Minister Supachai Panitchpakdi will be heading the World Trade Organization (WTO) for three years. WTO has so far had a liberal attitude to GE foods. It seems reasonable to expect that, under Supachai's leadership, a more restrictive policy will be applied.It will take several years and cost billions of dollars to obtain "clear scientific proof" of the environmental and health safety of GE organisms, see Article about the deficiencies of present knowledge about GE foods. Because of this, the biotech industry has been lobbying hard to evade this requirement and was temporarily successful only because the regulatory system was dysfunctional (see "Safety issues"). Now the situation begins apparently to normalize and our prediction of July 12 1999, of a world-wide moratorium appears more and more likely to to come true. [End] Brazil: The agriculture ministers of all 27 Brazilian states - unanimously - this year sent a statement to their federal counterpart, Mr. Franciso Turra, asking him to not allow transgenics in Brazil. In June 18, 1999, a federal court forbid planting of GE soy in the country. It also initiated investigations about the competence of the different members of the governmental commission CTNBio that decided, in the end of 1998 to allow the release of GE soy. The General Attorney is investigating the GE lobby in the government, and especially why the federal government has been using the same reasons in favour of GE as Monsanto is using in its publicity campaigns in Europe. A congressman has asked that accounts of each member of the commission CTNBio are being laid open to investigate irregularities. [Added: 07 1999]At the annual meeting of the Brazilian Society for Scientific Progress (SBPC) in July 1999, the society defended before Brazil's National Congress a five-year moratorium on the commercial production of genetically modified foods in order to better evaluate their effects on the environment and human health. This time period is necessary because the country is not yet ready to control and ensure safe consumption of these products, said Glaci Zancan, the newly elected SBPC president.[End] [Added: 24/09 1999]In Paraguay, a Bio-Safety Commission of experts, citizen organisations and parliamentarians designated by the government recommended that the executive office declare the nation "free of genetically modified organisms." Soya is Paraguay's primary agricultural product and the commission's pronouncement would be a serious obstacle to the transnationals' plans for GM products, indicated the citizen organisations. (Source: AgBiotechNet Sept 15 1999)[End] Malaysia: In July 1999, the National Consumer Protection Council called for the ban on imports and sale of all genetically- engineered food products until it has been proven safe for consumption by an independent body. [Added: 08 1999] Australia and New Zealand: New Zealand and Australian Health Ministers on August 3rd decided that all foods containing GE ingredients should be labelled. In August 1999 one of the country's biggest food manufacturers, Heinz Watties said it is working towards becoming free of GE ingredients. [End] [Added: 18/09 1999] Australia: An Australian consortium announced on August 11 that it had been formed so as to establish a label and certification process for GE ingredient free foods. The US firm "Genetic ID", a world leader in developing ultrasensitive methods for detecting unwanted GE genes, has been engaged for ensuring GE free status of the products.(Source: AP, 14/09 1999, CANBERRA, Australia).[End][Added: 24/09 1999] Australia: Policy decision of the Western Australian Farmers Federation: "That the Federation oppose the release of 'Genetic Modification' of both livestock and other farm produce and that we continue to promote R&D of those products by natural means." (Source: Rural Press Report, September 15, 1999) [End]Africa:More than 24 leading African agriculturalists and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN have issued a statement about Monsanto: "We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.", for more details see African Scientists Condemn Monsanto Latest Tactics and Call for European Support [Added: 21/10 1999] A group of African nations, led by Ethiopia, is drafting a legislation that would make it illegal to export GE foods or crops to their countries without prior country approval. This prior consent law would force GE exporters to carry out human safety, environmental, and socioeconomic studies. (Source: Nature magazine August 5).In early August the government of South Africa, announced through its departments of Agriculture and Health, that it is moving toward compulsory labeling of GE foods. [End] Japan: The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) announced in June 1999 that it will suspend approval of Bt crops for agricultural purposes until its committee on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has established criteria for evaluating the safety of such crops. The immediate reason was recent research indicating that Bt crops might be harmful to Monarch butterfly larvae, see Transgenic pollen containing pesticidal genes may cause potentially serious ecological disturbances . 1,700,000 Japanese citizens presented a list of demands to their Government
on 31 May, 1999, including compulsory labeling, moratorium on domestic production of GM crops, suspension of research on GM rice and cloned cattle and promotion of organic farming.
Consolidated Grain and Barge Company (CGB), the subsidiary of a leading agribusiness company in Japan, Itochu Corp, sent a message on Sept 1999 to US farmers that it will not buy GE corn and soy. They indicated that it will be profitable for farmers to segregate non GMO grains. Itochu Corp has substantial agri-food business interests in Thailand, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and the US. (Source: Reuters 1 Sept 1999).[End] "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems" News Introductory articles Health hazards Environmental hazards Global issues Safety issues Alternatives to GE FAQ About us What You can do Membership E-mail How to sponsor us |