News archive

The latest news | October-November 1999 | July-September 1999 

Entries before July 5th 1999

European governements yielding to consumer pressure

At an EU meeting in 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. 

European food manufacturers, retailers and restaurants are going GE free

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". 

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 deciscion 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.

Increasing resistance in the US 

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 

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 labelled as such. The association has also vowed to aggressively seek legislation requiring such labelling. 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. 

Resistance to GE in other parts of the world - some examples

Brazil: The agriculture ministers of all 27 braz. 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 intiated 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. 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.

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.

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

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 labelling, moratorium on domestic production of GM crops, suspension of research on GM rice and cloned cattle and promotion of organic farming.

Agricultural problems 

Findings by the U.S. Department of Agriculture demonstrate that such crops do not produce a higher yield and fail to reduce the use of pesticides: American experts studied GM soya beans, maize and cotton being grown across huge tracts of the U.S. farming belt. They found no increase in yields from crops in 12 of 18 areas. Farmers in seven of 12 areas studied used the same amount of pesticide as those growing traditional crops. 

The findings shoot down the favorite arguments of the Biotech industry that these crops could help stop hunger in the Third World through higher yields. They also disprove claims that the plants, engineered to include their own pesticide, would need to be sprayed less often with chemicals.A report in New Scientist magazine says U.S. officials admit that the figures don't support the argument that genetic engineering brings revolutionary improvements to agriculture. 

Other studies indicate unexpected ecological problems including damage to beneficial insects, see Environmental issues, agricultural aspects. 

Leading insurance firms warn about insuring risks of genetic engineering

The report questions the possibilities of insurance companies to fulfil their role as risk carriers to the genetic engineering industry. It says that the insurance industry "must have a clear conception of the nature and size of those risks". How can genetic engineering risks be insured, asks the report, when there is no clear conception of them?  "Today we must assume that the one-sided acceptance of incalculable risks means than any participants in this insurance market run the risk not only of suffering heavy losses, but also of loosing control over their exposure". 

Essentially the same thinking is found in the May 6 issue of The Post, an insurance magazine, where an underwriting manager for insurance giant Cigna International suggested business insurers go slow on policies which cover GM-selling companies. The experience from other products the potential dangers of diving into issues before we have an adequate awareness of the exposures," wrote Cigna official Maunce Pullen.

Leading equity trading firm closes it biotechnology investment unit

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST)

First published: July 5, 1999.

We want to thank Ronnie Cummins, editor of Foodbytes, and Richard Wolfson, editor of GE News Reports and Mark Griffiths, editor of "Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?", for valuable information used in this document. 

If you want to learn more about genetic engineering, we suggest you start with: 
What is genetic engineering?" [EL]
Or else, for further study, we suggest you return to the list of starting points on the start page.