| Revision as of 13:52, 15 June 2003 editMartinHarper (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,927 editsm assured->forced (less euphemistic, imo)← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:59, 17 June 2003 edit undoAnthere (talk | contribs)Administrators17,311 editsm link to mandatory labellingNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| In a context of ] surplus where current GM food has little added nutritional value, the European ] is wondering why any ] should be taken. | In a context of ] surplus where current GM food has little added nutritional value, the European ] is wondering why any ] should be taken. | ||
| For these reasons, the marketing of GM food is regulated in a manner that helps to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. At the beginning of the 2000's, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the ]. These new regulations required strict ] and ] of all food and ] containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the ]. (see also ]). | For these reasons, the marketing of GM food is regulated in a manner that helps to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. At the beginning of the 2000's, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the ]. These new regulations required strict ] and ] of all food and ] containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the ]. (see also ]). | ||
| One of the features of the European system is a comprehensive ], a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate ] and labelling. This ] is a means to implement post-market measures such as ] and ] (recalls).<br> | One of the features of the European system is a comprehensive ], a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate ] and labelling. This ] is a means to implement post-market measures such as ] and ] (recalls).<br> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| In GMO products, traceability is usually limited to products where transformed ] and/or transformed ] are detectable, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins. Officials stress that while traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure. | In GMO products, traceability is usually limited to products where transformed ] and/or transformed ] are detectable, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins. Officials stress that while traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure. | ||
| In ], a 4 year ] was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, ] environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 15-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a ]) identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the ] should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. | In ], a 4 year ] was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, ] environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 15-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a ]) identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the ] should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. (see ]). | ||
| == European Union and United States trade "war" on GM food== | == European Union and United States trade "war" on GM food== | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| ], director of ] indicates that American agricultural industry is "using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules" because they fear that "by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different than those the European promotes". | ], director of ] indicates that American agricultural industry is "using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules" because they fear that "by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different than those the European promotes". | ||
| The American Agricultural Department officials answer that since the United States do not require labelling, the Europe should not require labelling either. They claim mandatory labelling could imply there is something wrong with genetically modified food, which would be also a trade barrier. Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labeled or traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops pose any unique risks over ]. Europe answers that the labelling and traceability requirements are not only limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods. | The American Agricultural Department officials answer that since the United States do not require labelling, the Europe should not require labelling either. They claim ] could imply there is something wrong with genetically modified food, which would be also a trade barrier. Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labeled or traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops pose any unique risks over ]. Europe answers that the labelling and traceability requirements are not only limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods. | ||
| The American agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling. | The American agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling. | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
| ==Japan and GM food== | ==Japan and GM food== | ||
| Japan like Europe maintains |
Japan like Europe maintains labelling standards for GM food products. Japanese demand and assistance has led to a small effort to set up separate processing facility for non-GM soybeans in the U.S. | ||
| ==Poor nations and GM food== | ==Poor nations and GM food== | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 17 June 2003
A Genetically modified food is a food product containing some quantity of any genetically modified organism (GMO) as an ingredient.
The first commercially grown genetically modified food crop was a tomato created by Calgene called the FlavrSavr. Calgene submitted it to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for testing in 1992; following the FDA's determination that the FlavrSavr was, in fact, a tomato, did not constitute a health hazard, and did not need to be labeled to indicate it was genetically modified, Calgene released it into the market in 1994, where it met with little public comment (largely due to public ignorance).
Subsequent genetically modified food crops included virus-resistant squash, a potato variant that included an organic pesticide called Bt (NB: the EPA classified the Bt potato as a pesticide, but required no labeling), strains of canola, soybean, corn and cotton engineered by Monsanto to be immmune to their popular herbicide RoundUp, and Bt corn.
There was a brief interlude where Monsanto flirted with introducing a technology called terminator into food crops, which produced plants that grew sterile seeds. This technology would have forced farmers to return to Monsanto every year to buy seed, rather than saving their own. Public outcry about the potential hazards of this technology forced Monsanto to withdraw it from the market.
Awareness grew throughout the nineties and eventually produced a strong backlash against GM foods (discussed below), which were panned as "untested", "unlabeled" and "unsafe"; following this backlash, the International Rice Research Institute, with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation developed a strain of rice genetically modified, claiming it to be enriched with vitamin A, dubbed golden rice. Subsequently the biotech industry touted this as a boon to poor people suffering from Vitamin A deficiency, which can cause blindness. This was condemned by GM food opponents as a ploy and a public relations move. (See golden rice for more.)
Many prominent environmental organizations, like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, currently consider the issue of the presence of GMOs in conventional food products to be a major issue - indeed Greenpeace has made it a centerpiece of their activism.
Between 1996 and 2002, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs has increased by a factor of thirty. Land producing GMO crops grew from 1.7 million hectares (4.2 million acres) in 1996 to 52 million hectares (128 million acres) in 2001. Soybean crop represented 63% of total surface in 2001, maize 19%, cotton 13% and canola 5%.
Four countries represent 99% of total GM surface in 2001: United States (68%), Argentina (22%), Canada (6%) and China (3%). It is estimated that 70% of products on U.S. grocery shelves include GM products. In particular, corn and soybeans genetically designed to tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide are widely grown. The Agriculture Department estimated that 38 percent of the 79 million acres of corn planted in 2003 will be genetically engineered varieties (80% of surface) for soybeans on 73.2 million acres).
Genetically modified food in Europe
In Europe, a series of unrelated food crises during the 1990s (e.g. as the mad cow disease outbreaks) have created consumer apprehension about food safety in general. This has further fueled widespread public concern about GMOs, in terms of environmental protection (in particular biodiversity), health and safety of consumers and the right to make an informed choice. The apprehension might also be due to the perceived novelty of GM foods, as well as cultural factors relating to food. The mishandling of the mad cow crisis has left some consumers unwilling to consider "science" to be a guarantee of quality.
Although some claim genetically modified foods may even be safer than conventional products, many European consumers are nevertheless demanding that their "right to know" the content and origin of the food they consume be respected.
However, as a result of the high quantity of GMO crops, the adventitious presence of GM in imported food products (shipments of grain for food, feed and processing for example), is now thought inevitable and largely unavoidable, and usually not mentioned.
In a context of local food surplus where current GM food has little added nutritional value, the European consumer is wondering why any risk should be taken.
For these reasons, the marketing of GM food is regulated in a manner that helps to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. At the beginning of the 2000's, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the technology. These new regulations required strict labelling and traceability of all food and animal feed containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the precautionary principle. (see also Tax, tariff and trade).
One of the features of the European system is a comprehensive pre-market risk assessment, a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate information and labelling. This traceability is a means to implement post-market measures such as monitoring and withdrawals (recalls).
This system is not only limited to GMO products but should encompass any food product ultimately.
In GMO products, traceability is usually limited to products where transformed DNA and/or transformed protein are detectable, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins. Officials stress that while traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure.
In 1999, a 4 year ban was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, European Union environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 15-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a DNA code bar) identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. (see Mandatory labelling).
European Union and United States trade "war" on GM food
Agricultural trade market between USA and Europe
The European Union and United States are in strong disagreement over
the EU's ban on most genetically modified foods.
The value of agricultural trade existing between the US and the European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of XXI century, and some in the U.S., especially farmers and food manufacturers, are concerned that the new proposal by the European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade.
In 1998, the United States exported $63 million worth of corn to the EU, but the exports decreased down to $12.5 million in 2002.
The drop-off might also be due to falling commodities prices, less demand due to the recession, U.S. corn being priced out of foreign markets by a strong dollar, and importing countries reaction to the planned invasion in Irak. But farm industry advocates blame the EU's ban.
The European Parliament's Environment Committee proposal, adopted in the summer of 2002 and expected to be implemented in 2003 has deep cultural roots, which are difficult to understand for the US agricultural community. It requires that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically modified organisms be labeled and any GM ingredients in food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing biotechnological products through each step of the grain handling and food production processes.
The new European tax, tariff and trade proposal would particularly affect US maize gluten and soybean exports, as a high percentage of these crops are genetically modified in the USA (about 25 percent of US maize and 65 percent of soybeans are genetically modified in 2002).
The ultimate resolution of this case is widely thought as resting on labeling rather than food aid. Many European consumers are asking for food regulation (demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified), while the American agricultural industry is arguing for free trade (and is strongly opposed to labeling, saying it gives the food a negative connotation).
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Watch indicates that American agricultural industry is "using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules" because they fear that "by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different than those the European promotes".
The American Agricultural Department officials answer that since the United States do not require labelling, the Europe should not require labelling either. They claim mandatory labelling could imply there is something wrong with genetically modified food, which would be also a trade barrier. Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labeled or traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops pose any unique risks over conventional food. Europe answers that the labelling and traceability requirements are not only limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods.
The American agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling.
Official US complaint with the WTO
The ban over agricultural biotechnology commodities is said by some Americans to breach World Trade Organisation rules. Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, indicated the European position toward GMO was thought as being "immoral", since it could lead to starvation in the developing world as seen in some African countries facing famine refusal to accept U.S. aid because it contain GM food (Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique).
In may 2003, after initial delay due to the invasion in Irak|war against Irak, the Bush administration officially accused the European Union of violating international trade agreements, in blocking imports of U.S. farm products through its long-standing ban on genetically modified food. Robert Zoellick announced the filing of a formal complaint with the WTO challenging the moratorium after months of negotiations trying to get it lifted voluntarily. The complain was also filled by Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chili, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru and Uruguay. The formal WTO case challenging the EU's regulatory system was in particular lobbied by U.S. biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Aventis and big agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association.
EU officials questioned the action, saying it will further damage trade relations already strained by the U.S. decision to launch a war against Iraq despite opposition from members of the U.N. Security Council. The US move was also interpretated as a sanction against EU for requesting the end of illegal tax breaks for exporters or face up to $4 billion in trade sanctions in retaliation for Washington's failure to change the tax law, which the WTO ruled illegal four years ago.
Ratification of the Biosafety Protocol by the EU parliament
In june 2003, the European Union Parliament ratified a three-year-old U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade in genetically modified food, expected to come into force in fall 2003 since the necessary number of ratification was reached in may 2003. The protocol lets countries ban imports of a genetically modified product if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities such as corn or cotton. It makes clear that products from new technologies must be based on the precautionary principle and allow developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits.
Jonas Sjoestedt, a Swedish Left member of the EU assembly, said that "this legislation should help the EU to counter recent accusations by the U.S administration that the EU is to blame for the African rejection of GM food aid last year".
The United States did not sign the protocol, saying it was opposed to labeling and fought import bans.
Japan and GM food
Japan like Europe maintains labelling standards for GM food products. Japanese demand and assistance has led to a small effort to set up separate processing facility for non-GM soybeans in the U.S.
Poor nations and GM food
China is currently a heavy producer of GM cotton. However, in 2002, the country introduced biosafety rules that demanded strict labelling, extensive documentation and government approval for food shipments. Under this new rules, all soybean shipments from Midwestern U.S. states were stopped in 2002.
Poor nations agriculture officials are receiving training courses on GMO at the American Agriculture Department, with instruction in the WTO rules on GM products and benefits of biotechnology.
U.S. industry groups are also providing "technical assistance" to fund initiatives that promote "science-based and transparent biotechnology regulations" in countries such as China.
See also Biosafety Protocol, conventional food, organic food, pre-market risk assessment, food monitoring, food withdrawal, Tax, tariff and trade
External links