Tide begins to turn in US against GM crops
European farmers worried that denial of access to transgenic varieties will
make them non-competitive in international markets as a result of the recent
EU decision to impose a de-facto moratorium on new GM consents can relax.
The following article by Alan Guebert published in the UK's Farmers Weekly 2
July confirms that US farmers are starting to pull out of GM crops because
the technology is making THEM uncompetive.
The article is also notable for the following points:
1) The US Secretary of Agriculture has asked Monsanto Boss, Robert Shapiro,
to stop talking about biotech foods because this is having a damaging effect
on US agricultural exports.
2) The US administration has been accused of by-passing Congress and using
"back door" tactics in multi-level trade talks on GM foods pushed by biotech
multinational companies with the assistance of the US trade representative's
office and the US department of agriculture.
3) The French foreign affairs journal, Le Monde Diplomatique, refers to
US-EU bilateral talks on the GM food issue as a war waged by transnational
companies on both sides of the atlantic with the support of their
governments which has "no regard for laws." The talks "conducted behind
closed doors without democratic control aim for a hastily-signed final
agreement (that hopes) to hand over all human activities to capital, without
let or hindrance, thereby stripping the EU, member governments and local
authorities of their ability to pursue their own policies, be they economic,
social, cultural or environmental."
4) Collapses in EU markets for US GM products are resulting in major US
processors offering price premiums for non-gm crops. One processor is
refusing to accept GM corn varieties not approved for sale in the EU.
Farmers are starting to pull out of the technology as a result. Some seed
dealers estimate that as much as 20% of GM maize seed was returned to
distributors by farmers this year.
5) The US insurance industry is warning that it may not be prudent for it to
provide insurance cover for GM risks.
Although describing GM as a "promising technology" in its main editorial in
the same edition, Farmers Weekly's own reader survey reveals that more than
60% of respondents to its GM survey were either opposed to GM technology or
undecided. Perhaps this figure will be even larger now that readers will
have had the chance to read Alan Guebert's article and have seen for
themselves the enormous damage this technology is doing to US agriculture.
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
TIDE BEGINS TO TURN IN US AGAINST GM CROPS
- European resistance to GM crops, once scorned by the US
farming establishment, has now become a force to be
reckoned with. Some processors are even paying a
premium for non-GM soyabeans, explains Illinois-based
agricultural commentator Alan Guebert -
The global fight over acceptance
of genetically modified organisms
(GMs) in food, to quote one
loquacious commentator, only gets
weirder and weirder. Witness recent
events on the American biotech bat-
tiefront.
In a face-to-face meeting with
Monsanto boss Robert Shapiro, US
secretary of agriculture Dan
Glickman reportedly suggested that
US agriculture would be better
served if Mr Shapiro stopped talk-
ing about biotech foods because
every time he opened his mouth US
farmers lost millions more bushels of
ag exports.
Although Congress has no plans to
give President Bill Clinton fast-
track trade authority this year,
multi-level trade talks continue and
are now aimed at getting a deal
which would not require congres-
sional approval. This back door
approach, says one American critic,
is being pushed by biotech multina-
tional companies with the assistance
of the US trade representative's
office and the US department of
agriculture.
The above-mentioned strategy,
however, was stung when European
officials challenged US negotiators'
claim that American consumers
have adopted biotech food lock,
stock and never-rotting tomato.
"The Europeans basically jammed
that idea down the US negotiators'
throats" during April talks in Paris
and Brussels, explains an American
witness. The Americans quickly
confessed their exaggeration and
scampered home.
All this American and corporate
bullying has left US farmers square-
ly in the messy middle. They con-
tinue to adopt GM technology
rapidly an estimated 40% of
1999 US maize acres and 30% of US
soyabean acres will be planted with
GM seeds - even as foreign con-
cerns over biotech foods now cut
into American ag exports and US
farm prices. How did this happen?
In the usual way, say sources who
have watched global food talks since
the mid-1990s. Big companies with
billions invested in GM research
and business deals used govern-
ments to push the techno-agenda
and hinder go-slow advocates.
This strategy is explained in detail
in the May 1999 issue of Le Monde
Diplomatique, a French foreign
affairs journal. In a blistering attack
on the current bilateral trade talks
between the EU and US, author
Christian De Brie documents how
"capital" — big money corporations
— are driving the world trade and
biotech debate.
"The war being prosecuted," writes
Mr De Brie, "with the support of
their governments, by transnational
corporations on both sides of the
Atlantic for the conquest and domi-
nation of world markets is becoming
increasingly brutal and has no
regard for laws.
"Talks conducted behind closed
doors without democratic control
aim for a hastily-signed final agree-
ment (that hopes) to hand over all
human activities to capital, without
let or hindrance, thereby stripping
the EU, member governments and
local authorities of their ability to
pursue their own policies, be they
economic, social, cultural or envi-
ronmental."
And, Mr De Brie notes, it's often
done through easily agreed-upon,
mostly benign words or phrases like
"transparency, deregulation, liberal-
isation, opening of markets, (and)
good governance" which are, in fact,
"only matters for countries and
their citizens, never for large corpo-
rations."
But Niel Ritchie, of the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy in
Minneapolis, says cracks are
appearing in the big company-big
government alliance to push biotech
food around the globe.
"When it comes to food and GMs,
even the free trade hawks in Europe
are deeply divided," Mr Ritchie
offers, "yet US officials and the
multinationals keep pounding them.
The beef hormone issue brought this
difference to a head and the
Europeans decided they've had just
about enough of the multination-
als." Thus the EU's anti-US blast
last month in Paris and Brussels.
American farmers are getting the
message, too. Giant ag processors
Archer Daniels Midland and AE
Staley recently warned US farmers
they would not purchase US-grown
biotech maize varieties not yet
approved by the European Union.
And, as if to drive home the point to
rock-headed biotech boosters, in
early May ADM announced it
would pay a $5.50 (£3.40)/t premi-
um to farmers for non-GM soy-
abeans.
The news rocked US farm circles,
and many farmers scurried to return
GM maize seed to distributors prior
to early spring planting. Some seed
dealers estimate as much as 20% of
the GM maize seed was returned.
This new - and still small - attitude
change recently got support from a
most unlikely source — the
American business insurance indus-
try. In the May 6 issue of Post, an
insurance magazine, an underwrit-
ing manager for insurance giant
Cigna International suggested busi-
ness insurers go slow on policies
which cover GM-selling companies.
"Our experience with asbestos,
PCBs and other "miracle" products
in the past should have warned us of
the potential dangers of diving into
issues before we have an adequate
awareness of the exposures," wrote
Cigna official Maunce Pullen.
"Prudence is, after all," he notes,
"meant to be the underscoring prin-
ciple of insurance underwriting."
This year of punishing low commod-
ity prices, increased production and
drooping grain exports might bring
American farmers to that simple,
unavoidable conclusion, also.
Besides, as one American farmer
asked in late May, "Isn't the cus-
omer always right?"