Damn! Sorry.
Apos, the Europeans would allow GM foods on the shelves with labeling. As I said above, the industry refuses to label, and the US government supports their position, saying it’s not practical. The industry also fears the stigma attached to labeling.
Maybe some further explanation about GMOs and Bioengineered Crops is appropriate here. For the most part the engineering has taken the form of developing a plant that produces more fruit or withstands adverse conditions like drought better or which resists plant killing chemicals. All three developments are economically important–especially, to my part of the country.
For instance there is a plant killer called “Roundup.” I’m not sure what is in it but it kills just about everything, broad leaf, blade leaf, you name it Roundup kills it. I spray the stuff on my kitchen garden before plowing just to clean the place up and give me a nice clean seed bed. Farmers used the stuff to keep weeds and grasses down around their buildings and in fence lines. It works great but you could not use it on a crop field because it would kill everything, crop as well as weeds.
Some years ago some chemical-seed conglomerate developed corn (maize) and soy bean plants that Roundup would slap around a little but which the stuff would not kill. A farmer could plant this “Roundup-Ready” seed, let it germinate and sprout and then spray the whole field with Roundup. The result was a clean field with no other plants to compete with the crop, a bigger crop with fewer expensive trips across the field to cultivate and to spray weed killers that would not do as complete a job. The result was a better bottom line for the farmer.
European corn borer has been a long time pain for the corn farmer–it is a moth larva that eats the inside out of the corn plant so that it falls over and is difficult to harvest with big combine harvesters. Some seed company developed a corn plant that either tasted bad to the corn borer or had a genetic change that actually poisoned the maggot. Again, a better bottom line for the farmer even though the GMO seed is somewhat more expensive that the non-GMO stuff.
For farmers out here, GMO is as revolutionary and as economically beneficial as was hybrid seed back in the post-WW II period. Because of the cost of production a farmer will go broke growing non-GMO crops, but he can make a living with GMOs.
I suspect that much of Europe problem with GMOs is just the politics of money. I am not aware of any reputable study that demonstrates, shows or suggests that GMOs are in any way hazardous to human health, animal health or to the reproduction of other crops. However, I suspect that North American GMOs can be produced in sufficient qualities and at a low enough cost that their unrestricted sale to Europe would mean that imported North American grain, processed grain and meat would sell in Europe for significantly less than the local product. Let me suggest that it is economics and the wish to protect local producers, not a consern for public health and ecology that drives the European resistance to GMOs.
Much of what is coming out of Europe is a demand for a positive demonstration that no GMO will ever, under any circumstances, cause any harm. Of course, such a demonstration would take forever.
To which I whisper ‘hogwash’. You really don’t do yourself a favor by demonstrating that all you know is some catch words and that you have been happily asleep for several decades. I would suggest researching CURRENT standards a bit better and informing yourself a bit more on old issues you want to reference. The thalidomide episode happened 40 years ago, and suggesting it has a relevance for today’s safety standards is a demonstration of gross ignorance. I would suggest you first inform yourself on why the harmful effects were overlooked. Since you are apparently unaware of that fact, US safety measures were seriously tightened after the thalidomide incident as well -cf. Kefauer-Harris amendments. The drug never was denied approval in the US, but rather the application was withdrawn after red tape and a gut feeling by an FDA administrator had delayed approval so long that the harmful effects elsewhere became public knowledge.
No, I am saying it is irrelevant. It might break your heart, but that doesn’t change it. FDA approval of a drug also doesn’t translate automatically to approval anywhere else in the word. It might be inconceivable for you, but the authority of the FDA ends at the US border. Other nations might even demand different experiments being done, or have different standards.
‘Not likely’ to be hazardous and ‘may be eaten’ is not the same as ‘may safely be eaten’. It merely describes the likelihood of harm being done by eating it as low. Whether that is acceptably low is a matter of personal standard.
You are mistaken on several aspects. First of all, it has been shown that GMOs can cross-pollinate non-GMO plants. As such, the resistance can spread to fields of other farmers who don’t want it, and to wild plants, raising fears of a ‘Superweed’ which might be resistant against the weedkiller -and possibly a number of other factors from other GMOs, thereby forcing farmers to take drastic measures to get rid of them. In fact, genes from genetically modified corn have already been found in quite remote native corn in Mexico.
Second, it’s not that there is a company that produces ‘RoundUp’ and a company that produces ‘RoundUpReady’ plants. While a lot has been shuffled since then, originally, those were the very same companies which tried to produce both the plant and the weedkiller, thereby tying a farmer to their company.
Third, the claim that European protectionism is involved is hardly credible. Why? Quite simply because it is European companies who are some of the major producers of GMOs, the fact that most of such crop is farmed in the US notwithstanding.
While RoundUpReady was a development of Monsanto, European companies had produced BASTA (another total herbicide) resistant plants, and numerous other GMOs. Bayer CropScience is one of the leading companies in the field. Talking about protectionism is saying that Europeans don’t want to sell their high-tech.
Actually, this had been proposed during the negotiations between the US and the EU on this issue. But the US doesn’t want labels to be required. The US food industry know they won’t sell a lot of products labelled “contains GMO”. Beside, it’s essentially unable to provide GMO-free products because the whole food chain is “contaminated” (I’m using this word because I can’t find another more appropriate), and it would be economically totally unsound to create a specific food industry geared toward the european market and GMO-free (beside, even finding the GMO-free base products (cereals, etc…) would be difficult.
On the european side, the opposition to the labelling system comes from the same idea : that it would be extremely difficult to guarantee that a product is GMO-free once GMO food will begin to be produced and sold in Europe. Actually, it’s already difficult despite GMOs being currently banned. Also, since you can’t grow GMO crops in Europe, the european and american firms wouldn’t be on an equal footing. On the long term, european farmers would have to be eventually allowed to also grow GMO crops.
Finally, for people who are opposed to to GMO products on the basis that it could be a health hazard (contrarily to people who are opposed to them because they’re affraid of the consequences it could have on the environment and bio-diversity…cross-contamination, etc…), they won’t accept, of course, that potentially dangerous products could be sold for human consumption, labelled or not.
Actually, the EU as an institution (I mean the european commission, for instance) would be quite acomodating and isn’t very supportive of the ban on GMO products. It’s more the national governements which have an issue with it.
Anyway, IMO, the EU will eventually end the ban.
You’re somehow not assessing correctly the way european people tend to frown upon supposed “unnatural” foodstuff". This already existing feeling (essentially nobody here would want to eat hormoned beef, for instance) has been greatly exacerbated by the “mad cow” crisis. People are now extremely cautious on these issue, like “they also told us it was safe to feed beef that way…look at the result! No way i will feed my chidren with this stuff…” GM experimental crops (there are official studies going on on GM crops, so necessarilly there are fields where these plants are growing) have been destroyed, for instance.
That’s not to say that that economics plays no part at all, of course, but public opinion is IMO the major motive. By the way, though allowing GM products would be at first advantageous for american producers, quite quickly european firms would devellop and grow their own stuff, so it wouldn’t make a lot of difference in the long run. And as I said previously the agro and biotech european industries are actually lobbbying in favor of GM products. They too know they could make a lot of money with them.
One very serious problem with GM crops in Africa is that it might well make Africans much more dependant on the companies who produce them.
Most, if not all, African subsistance economies use a portion of one years crop to provide seed for the next crop.
GM crops are also patented and have intellectual property rights assigned to them, it means that even if you produce your own seed, since those seeds carry the reworked genes which can be tested and detected, then there could be royalties payable to those who hold the patents or copyrights, not an ideal situation for African nations who could be held accountable on their export produce, even if the individual farmers themsleves could not be traced.
Another major issue is that the crops can be engineered in such as way that it is impossible to produce viable seed grain, and that would then have to be sourced from the GM producing companies, this would be disastrous for subsistance economies, but it is a very likely scenario.
GM crops put power directly and massively into the hands of companies such as Monsanto and take it away from the subsistance farmer, oh sure, the first generation crops are good, but what about the following generation ? How viable will they be to export if there is a royalty payable when exported ?
Let Bush stick to feeding from the oil industry, let him declare war on oil producing nations on the back of intelligence that is simply a load of bullshit.
Maybe after such a self serving record he is trustworthy, maybe he really does have the inerests of Africans at heart, after all, he does seem to care deeply for the American construction industry, maybe he cares for the Ameriocan biotech industry just as deeply.
Or maybe he is just a liar, trying to blame others, and trying to increase American power across the world.
Not being able to produce viable seed grain is already a characteristic of many modern hybrid crops. But as for GMOs, such a practice is wholly unnecessary if you just ensure that the farmer is contractually bound not to do so… Of course, that would leave a tiny chance that the farmer produces the grain in violation of the contract, but given that that would endanger his supply of the corresponding herbicide, that would be a pretty senseless thing to do…
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030609&s=trb060903
Not exactly your most unbiased source (with his little digs about America doing so little), but his bit about the cotton crops and our own outrageous cotton subsidies is pretty shocking. I had no idea it was that bad: that we are actually pouring more money into a remarkably inefficient industry than it itself earns, and that it’s severely damaging African livihoods.
As this was my business, let me comment.
First, despite the snide commentary questioning European motives in re trade, I would hazard my opinion, as a former insider (with a Swiss firm) that most of the opposition is health driven as clairobscur argued.
I do not believe it appropriate for me for contractual reasons to comment on Euro company lobbying, but I think I can say that there are important divisions within Brussels over this. Certainly I would not deny that there is some farm protection support here, but that is only, in my opinion, a portion of this, and certainly some farm interests in Europe are pro-GMO.
Ahem, there are some major players already, and ready to go. Not as ramped up as Monsanto is, but they, Monsanto’s management, have placed a very large bet on a fairly narrow segment. I shall be happy to see them fall flat on their faces to be frank, given their clumsy ham-handed lobbying helped create our problems in the first place.
Well, let me control my dislike for them.
Already do.
On the issue, by the way of GMO ‘threat’ – to be perfectly fair the issue of cross-pollination is one that needs more study as trait leakage is indeed a big fear. I’ve been out of the loop for a while now, but I can report the one item “we” felt protestors had a point on was that. Now I don’t believe it is a killer problem, but prudence is indeed in order.
In any case, the whole concept of European blocking GMO as causing African famine is fairly stupid, alhtough rather typical of the Bush Admin.
While I might agree that the blocking or failure to win market acceptance has suppressed research funding, to be frank not enough goes to trait development that would be most useful for the region. I have a lot of confidence in the technology to deliver real benefits, commercially and otherwise, however rather clearly traits like water thriftiness and salt tolerance that might be most useful in say the Egyptian market need public support for development as commercial viability in terms of getting a return to cover the initial investment is a bit doubtful.
The whole “labeling” issue is really a red-herring. One, let’s establish that most people don’t care about this issue at all. There is a small subset of people who oppose eating genetically modified food, so why should the rest of the market be forced to change to accommodate these people? The fact is, the market already accommodates them by labeling the food which isn’t modified. There is a Whole Foods market by my place, and I can go in there and find all kinds of food which proudly proclaims its organic nature and the fact that it’s not genetically modified. There is already labeling, people, and the food that’s not modified is labeled. Those who wish to avoid modified food may already do so, and there is no need for a costly government-imposed scheme to label all other food as “genetically engineered.”
Frankenfoods, eh? <singsong> Someone’s political biases are showing!</singsong>
Seriously, though, the European resistance to GM foods is about as rational as objections to stem-cell research, or irradiation, or anything else thats beneficial but sounds bad to the unwashed. I understand concerns regarding contamination, big corporations patenting seeds, and so forth, but the basic concept – that humans can modify plants to our advantage – is sound, and is certainly something we will be doing in the future. Does anybody really believe otherwise?
Yes, the legal authority of the FDA is obviously nil when you’re talking internationally. However, they are a bureau known for rigorous testing (ask a drug company how difficult it is to get a new drug approved), and thus their approval may be seen as conferring some measure of legitimacy.
[quote]
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=163432
Evian - French President Jacques Chirac’s promising initiative to boost African agricultural exports into developed markets ran into US resistance at the Group of Eight (G8) summit.
<snip>
He was referring especially to one of the key provisions of the initiative to place a moratorium on export subsidies and other forms of support that some G8 governments give their farmers. This support distorts prices and puts African farmers at a disadvantage. “There was no unanimity on that,” Chirac said. “Our American friends did not agree.” He said the US had agreed to a moratorium on European Union export subsidies but not to other forms of export support that the US gave to its farmers, such as export credits and tied food aid (using US-produced food). Chirac said the summit had made some progress on the other two legs of his proposal to harmonise and extend the preferential market access some G8 countries gave to African exports and to stabilise the international commodity prices
<snip>
Observers believe US President George W Bush’s opposition to the moratorium on export support has effectively killed it, but a French official insisted the whole initiative was still alive and would resurface in World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations. {/quote]
One, on what basis are you “establishing” this. Mere assertion it would appear. Concern is not important in the US, but the US is not the world. Concern and desire for labeling regularly pulls in good numbers in Europe. Different experiences, different concerns.
In Europe the sub set is large and often the majority.
To make the market, I respond to the market. A reasonable labeling program with confidence building measures, not lawsuits is the intelligent means to move forward.
Again, bubaloo, the US is not the world.
In the US that probably is true. In Europe the politics and public are different.
occ
Many objections are not fully rational, some have some basis, others are reasonable but overplayed.
The reality is that forcing a market rarely works. The image of GMO was badly damaged, esp. in Europe for a variety of reasons, and needs to be repaired.
(and)
As much as Euro author. does in the US. The mere assertion that the FDA is good enough does not ipso facto carry water abroad. That is the simple reality of working across international markets, and using the FDA as the argument implies USA centered arrogance that further raises hackles. Whatever the validity (and having worked on a few of the US issues, I am not an immense fan of the FDA approach on GMOs for pure process reasons, although that is badly out of date now) it simply is not a useful argument.
The testing required by the FDA is today not significantly more or less rigorous than that of any other equivalent authority in a given developed nation. The US is not the market, but a market for major drug companies, and FDA requirements is only one set of criteria they have to comply with. Different authorities might emphasize different details, and in order to sell a product worldwide, the company has to take care of all of them. If the details a given authority considers important are not addressed, why should the FDA approval confer legitimacy? The Thalidomide case showed pretty well that it is not always advisable to simply trust other authorities, and the fact that it only hit the US through overseas purchases was based on little more than a gut feeling and red tape shows that details matter occasionally. As such, it is up to every individual authority to decide whether the details they care for (in the case of thalidomide, it was a tingling in the extremities after the drug was used) are sufficiently explained.
President Bush is at it again:
Demagoguery at its best.
There are several issues here which have been cleverly (or cunningly, dependent on your POV) conflated for political ends.
The GM angle to the story is something of a red herring, but let’s analyse it first. One one hand, it appears that the EU is actively preventing starving children being fed over a dubious moral principle. On the other, it might seem that the US is holding starving children hostage for its own economic benefit (“let us feed them this experiment or they die!”). The African nations themselves are the most confused of all: “Are we doing our exports long term harm by becoming reliant on patented US seeds which we might not be able to export to the overly cautious EU?”
My suggestion is a familiar one: Allow these nations to violate Patent Law without penalty, so that they can decide for themselves and the US cannot be accused of the aforementioned hostage-taking.
As for the real issues regarding the famine: War and desertification play major roles without direct involvement by either the US or Yurp. However, the main economic factor appears to be the dumping of subsidised excess grain there which sent the grain price through the floor and wiped out their export market. I believe the US was far more responsible than the EU in this respect.