Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

December 10, 2000

Subject:

New Cutural Imperialism of The Greens; Biotechnology for

 

I have now placed the full 44 page report, "Applying the Precautionary
Principle to Genetically Modified Crops" by Indur Goklany at our website:
http://www.agbioworld.org/ as .pdf file.

May I encourage you to download this excellent paper as this scholar (who
works for the US Dept of Interior and has a Ph. D. in Engineering) has
brilliantly argued the need to balance the larger issue of the benefits of
agricultural biotechnology in examining the hypothetical and miniscule
risks posed by its use.

- Prakash

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Also, Check out the IFPRI's website for some excellent downloadable
documents related to biotechnology, food policy, and international
development

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/catalog.htm#focus

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Subj: "pro-GM" Labeling
From: Andrew Apel

Colleagues,

There is a disturbing trend in this discussion group, and in the news
media, regarding the use of the term "pro-GM." The term implies that those
labeled "pro-GM" have an innate desire to use advanced techniques to
modify genes, as though that were an end in itself. I suppose there are
also people out there who are "pro-electricity," who want to electrocute
us all, and our pets and house-plants as well.

As one might surmise, the majority of such people are institutionalized,
or else at large and (hopefully) taking powerful soporifics to curb their
bizarre compulsions.

The vast majority of those who are here and elsewhere labeled "pro-GM"
(the remainder being controlled by sedatives or subject to constant
supervision) are merely "pro-science," or simply, "pro-fact." They have no
inborn lust which drives them to conduct or advocate intrusions on
anyone's genome; they have merely found something useful. If scientists
and corporations currently labeled "pro-GM" found a way to improve crops
which is better than GM, they would abandon GM overnight--it would be a
stampede.

This "pro-GM" label is pernicious, and it should be excised from the
dialogue.

Andrew Apel, editor AgBiotech Reporter http://www.bioreporter.com

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

The New Cutural Imperialism: The greens and economic development

Prof. Deepak Lal.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/libertyinstitute/lalb.html

December 9, 2000; India International Centre, New Delhi The Green Peril:
Deepak Lal sees the ecological movement as a new form of imperialism.

While the green movement claims to have the future of the planet in mind,
economist Deepak Lal warned of the new imperialist threat posed by the
ecological movement, particularly for the developing countries. Prof..
Lal, who is the James Coleman Professor of International Development
Studies at the University of California, at Los Angeles, USA, was
delivering the inaugural Julian L. Simon Memorial Lecture organised by
Liberty Institute, in New Delhi, on Saturday.

The lecture attracted a wide audience, and was chaired by Dr. Montek Singh
Ahluwalia, Member, Planning Commission. Dr. Ahluwalia introduced Prof. Lal
as some one who never minces words. Prof. Lal lived up to that reputation.

Prof. Lal noted the parallels between utopian ideas of Marxism,
Christianity and the present day environmental movements. He said, "The
ecological movement is the latest manifestation of the various secular
religions in the West once the Christian God died for so many with the
Scientific and Darwinian revolution… … The spiritual and moral void
created by the Death of God is, thus, increasingly being filled in the
secular Western world by the worship of Nature." What was ironic is that
"those haunted natural spirits which the medieval Church sought to
exorcise so that the West could conquer its forests (see Southern), are
now being glorified and being placed above Man."

Prof. Lal warned that the Green movement is a modern secular religious
movement engaged in a world-wide crusade to impose its "habits of the
heart" on the world. He pointed out that their primary target was to
prevent the economic development which alone offers the world's poor any
chance of escaping their age-old poverty. This modern day secular
Christian crusade has exchanged the saving of souls for saving Spaceship
Earth. It needs to be fiercely resisted.

Having failed to promote their agenda through the normal political process
even in developed countries, the greens are now seeking to push their
agenda through various unelected and bureaucratic international agencies
such as the UNEP. Their chief prize is the capture of the WTO to impose
their anti-development, anti-trade platform on the rest of the world.

For instance, Prof. Lal wondered how could the developed world that
consumes twenty times more energy per capita than India, expect India to
slow down or even retard their energy needs in order to implement the
Kyoto Protocol on climate change. He harshly criticised western
environmental groups such as Greenpeace for advocating a ban on DDT in
developing countries, where malarial mosquitoes continue to affect an
estimated 500 million annually, when the western world itself had used it
much more widely to fight the disease some decades earlier. Likewise Prof.
Lal ridiculed the fear mongering over biotechnology, and argued that India
should take a leaf out of the Chinese position which has made that country
adopt the newer agricultural technology in a very big way.

Prof. Lal called on India and other developing countries to stand up to
this insidious threat coming from the global greens. He called for India
to consider withdrawing from a range of international environmental
agreements and conventions, including the Basel Convention on Hazardous
Waste, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Convention, the Kyoto Protocol on
Climate Change, the Biosafety Convention. He felt that many of the
implications of these agreements are not clearly understood, and would
impose a very heavy burden, particularly on the poor. For India, which had
been a leader against the colonial era, must once again take the lead and
stand up against the latest attempt to resurrect a new form of western
colonialism - ecological imperialism, concluded Prof. Lal. And in this
fight, there would be allies in the west like the late Julian Simon.

Prof. Lal's lecture, "The New Cultural Imperialism: The greens and
economic development", has been published by the Liberty Institute, and
was released on this occasion. Prof. Lal began by recounting his
association with Prof. Julian Simon in the 1980s. Prof. Julian Simon, in
whose memory this lecture series was inaugurated, was an economist and
demographer at the University of Maryland in the US, and was singularly
responsible for exposing the fallacy behind the Malthusian fear that
growing human population would degrade the environment and the quality of
life. Simon held, " The standard of living has risen along with the size
of the world's population since the beginning of recorded time. There is
no convincing economic reason why these trends toward a better life should
not continue indefinitely… … … Minds matter economically, as much or more
than, hands or mouths."

Prof. Simon was instrumental in helping to establish the Liberty Institute
as an independent, economic policy research and educational organisation,
in 1995. Prof. Lal has been on the board of advisors of the Institute
since its inception. Since his untimely death in 1998, the Institute has
rededicated its research centre in the name of Julian L. Simon to keep
alive in the Institute his never-ending spirit of inquiry. The Instituted
hosted a lunch following the lecture and discussion. The participants had
an opportunity to interact with each other informally. Deepak Lal signed
copies of his lecture for some members of the audience.

More information about Prof. Deepak Lal's lecture, and Prof. Julian Simon,
are available on the web site of Liberty Institute.
<www.angelfire.com/mi/libertyinstitute>

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Genetically Altered Foods are the Key to Feeding Increasingly Hungry World

http://www.guestchoice.com/oped19.htm
August 27, 2000 Op-ed By Richard Berman

In the last days, according to the Book of Revelation, the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse will bring unprecedented misery to the peoples of the
Earth. At least one of these riders seems to be saddling up right now. His
name is Famine, and helping him into his stirrups are all those who would
block the continued development of genetically improved food.

About 60 percent of processed foods already contain some genetically
improved component. But to feed a planet whose population will grow by 3
billion to 9 billion people by 2050 requires more scientific breakthroughs
like that which produced “golden rice.” By splicing a gene containing
beta-carotene (commonly found in carrots) into normal rice, researchers
have produced a strain capable of preventing the Vitamin A deficiency that
each year blinds millions of Third World children. Sadly, however, elitism
and greed would stop the miracle of the Petri dish from ever reaching the
rice bowl. Speaking out against biotech food at a Washington, D.C., news
conference underwritten by organic food marketers, Peter Hoffman of the
Savoy restaurant in New York, the incoming chairman of a group of
celebrity chefs called the Chefs Collaborative, publicly opposed “golden
rice.” Hoffman also attacked all of modern agriculture. “The Green
Revolution was a dismal failure,” he said. “We don’t need it now. We
didn’t need it then.”

A few months earlier, master chef Charlie Trotter of Chicago’s tony
restaurant that bears his name led the “Chefs Collaborative” in demanding
that the Food and Drug Administration slap a moratorium on any new
genetically improved food while requiring products already on the shelf to
bear a stigmatizing label. (A dangerous bunch, these seedless grapes.) Now
if chefs Trotter and Hoffman insist on organically grown fruits and
vegetables to create their pricey delectables — at Charlie Trotter’s,
dinner for two is $220 without wine — that’s between them and their Yuppie
clientele.

But why sabotage similar creativity by the genetic scientists who would
feed ragged multitudes? And why lend an air of glamour to scaremongers who
have no higher motivation than selling their product by defaming the
competition?

Coke cannot really smear Pepsi as dangerous and Pizza Hut cannot
convincingly brand Domino’s a safety hazard because Americans are experts
on colas and pizzas. They understand the difference between rival (yet
similar) products.

Organic, conventional and genetically improved foods are also very
similar. Modern gene scientists simply produce improved traits in food
more quickly and precisely than farmers who needed years of traditional
cross-breeding to perfect their crops. Yet terms like “transgenic crops”
mystify many Americans, allowing profit-driven organic merchants to
exploit consumers’ fears about “Frankenfood.” For example, Whole Foods,
one of America’s big-two natural-food retailers, enthusiastically backs
Chefs Collaborative’s labeling crusade. And why not?

The firm, which promoted a study linking genetically improved potatoes to
abnormalities in rats, realized net income growth of more than 70 percent
in 1998. This was nearly triple Whole Foods’ sales growth, suggesting that
manufactured anxiety over genetically improved food allowed the company to
charge premium prices to spooked customers. (Soon after the release of the
potato report, The Royal Society — Britain’s leading scientific body —
labeled it “flawed in design and implementation” and declared “no
conclusions can be drawn from it.”)

Sound cynical? Well, at last year’s U.S. Organic Food Conference, one
speaker said, “The potential to develop the organic market would be
limited if consumers are satisfied with food safety and the furor over
genetic modification dies down.”

The plain truth, quoting FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, is that “biotech
products have produced no evidence of food safety risks: not one rash, not
one sore throat, not one headache.” That is not a claim that organic
foods, which often eschew such fundamental safety steps as pasteurization,
can match.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control suggest that Americans who eat
organic foods increase eightfold their chance of contracting a strain of
E. coli bacteria that causes 250 U.S. deaths every year. Often fertilized
by animal manure, organic food also puts its consumers at greater risk for
a virulent salmonella strain. Paradoxically, too, this natural food is
hard on nature: On the same acreage, organic farms produce up to 40
percent less food than conventional farms, meaning they plow up that much
more land. Widespread organic agriculture would also require nitrogen-rich
green manure, entailing the conversion of more millions of wilderness
acres to pasturage.

How then is the organic-foods industry able to put this new exciting
agricultural technology under a cloud? Part of the answer is the tendency
of many Americans to cling to romantic ideals. The organic crusade finds
an audience in a movement that sees natural farming as one step on the
road back to Eden. Chefs Collaborative’s founding organization, Oldways,
for instance, speaks of looking back for dietary lessons that would help
humanity weave “a seamless web of agriculture, behavior, history,
tradition, culture, health, finance, politics . . . “ Or as Chefs
Collaborative board member Judy Wicks puts it, “We like to say we use good
food to lure innocent customers into social activism.”

Sometimes self-indulgent uto-pianism is harmless. Not here. As a wise man
observed, “The boy throws the stone in jest; the frog dies in earnest.”
The consequence of this ideological lark, exploited by old-fashioned
greed, could be more than dead frogs.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Biotechnology for the Developing World

Sandhya Tewari

Confederation of Indian Industries, New Delhi, India. Aug 1, 2000,
Africabio Workshop (Pretoria, South Africa)
http://www.up.ac.za/academic/fabi/africabio/news/symposia/

A man with food has many problems. A man without food has only one. I
thought I would begin with a quote that Dr CS Prakash likes to use since
he was supposed to speak here today.

Estimates are that currently about 850 million undernourished people
worldwide. By the year 2040, the world population is projected to be 9
billion. How are we going to feed these people?

Biotechnology offers tremendous potential for increasing agricultural
productivity and feeding billions. Farmers around the world will be able
to choose the best options for their particular areas to grow healthy food
products. Consumers will have greater access to products that have been
produced more efficiently, with less disease and using fewer natural
resources and synthetic inputs. The best part is that all this will come
pre-packaged in the seed and the farmer will not have to learn a totally
new technology. As the applications of biotechnology are further
developed, farmers will be able to grow crops that are better adapted to
the available climate and environment, as well as foods that have more
favourable nutrient, calorie and sensory profiles. Biotech is not a
panacea for all food problems but it is certainly the single most powerful
tool that the world has right now to address the problem of food.

There are three main considerations that underpin the strategic importance
of biotechnology for the developing countries:

One, it is in the developing countries that the large percentage of
malnourished people I referred to earlier, live. They could benefit
tremendously from increases in crop productivity.

Two, crop yields are generally, significantly lower in developing than
those in developed countries. There are several reasons for low
productivity. However, the most significant causes is that crops in
developing countries suffer much more from biotic stresses, due to pests,
weeds and diseases, for which current transgenic crops already offer
improved protection. Thus, the potential gain for developing countries
from improved control of biotic stresses is relatively greater than for
industrial countries.

Three, Developing countries have potentially more to gain from transgenic
crops than industrial countries because the area of almost all crops is
far greater in developing countries than in the USA and Canada where
adoption has been highest to date. According to 1998 ISAAA brief (No. 8),
there is 145 times more rice, five times more cotton, three times more
maize and wheat and as much soybean grown in the developing countries
compared with the USA and Canada.

The case for India

I would like to specifically take up the case of India. Agriculture is the
backbone of the Indian economy. Not only does agriculture represent a
major proportion of India's income, but a very large proportion of our
population is dependent on it for its living. It produces about 1/3rd of
GDP and employs almost 2/3rds of the national labour force. Thus food
security, which is an integral part of India's policy, is not a matter
solely of producing sufficient food. It is as much a matter of generating
rural employment and incomes.

Green Revolution turned India into a net exporter of agricultural items
from a net importer up to mid 60's. Despite the growth of population @1.8%
per annum, India is self sufficient in food grains with food production
aggregating to 200 million tonnes annually. However, to remain self
sufficient, it needs to add another 30-50 million tonnes by 2010. These
objectives would be very difficult to achieve if we take into account the
increasing rate of population and the 1.5% per annum growth rate of the
Indian Agriculture. Therefore, there is a urgent need to use the modern
methods or technologies to achieve the above numbers. Before the Green
Revolution, India grew only 10 million tonnes of wheat. This year it
produced 80 million tonnes. Without this phenomenal increase, millions of
people would have simply starved to death.

India and GM crops
We have not yet joined the select list of countries that grow commercial
transgenic crops. The Indian seed giant MAHYCO, in collaboration with
Monsanto is all set to release transgenic BT cotton. India is the 3rd
largest producer of cotton in the world. While cotton occupies only 5% of
the cultivated area, it accounts for almost half the agrochemicals sold in
India. This is due to the devastating pest the cotton bollworm. Mahyco has
crossed the Monsanto BT cotton with Indian strains to produce the Indian
bt cotton that is resistant to the bollworm. All biosafety and
environmental clearances have been done. They have received permission for
large scale trials of 85 hectares and large scale seed production of 150
hectares. If all goes well, the Indian farmer will finally have the choice
of using a GM crop in the next season.

Another product that should be available soon is transgenic hybrid
mustard, to be launched by Proagro-PGS (now Aventis Crop Science). Hybrids
can achieve yield potential of > 40 % with improvement in biotic & abiotic
resistances when compared to open pollinated varieties. The Indian farmer
could earn upto US$ 1000 / hectare more by using this mustard. Similarly,
insect resistant vegetables could substantially enhance the profits to
farmers.

Now the big question is whether the Indian farmers will take to gene-tech?
Experience has shown that farmers quickly adopt anything that increases
productivity. When Novartis introduced the virus resistant tomato seed
Avinash (non GE) 4 years ago, farmers lapped it up in spite of the steep
price difference. It soon went on to become the largest selling branded
seed in the country. I believe that the Indian farmer will certainly take
up GM crops if they make economic sense to them.

Are Biotechnology foods safe?

Transgenic crops are as safe, if not more, as their traditional bred
counterparts. The biology of transgenic crops is well understood and their
behavior in the field has been tested during thousands of research field
trials. On the contrary, the products of plant breeding, the classical
method of the plant development are never tested so stringently.

In an article posted on agbioview, a discussion forum for food biotech
issues, Dr Alan McHughen from University of saskatchewan says "At a
recently held OECD conference in Edinburgh, Sir John Krebs, the Chair of
the closing session asked the gathered 400 delegates from around the world
including industry, environmentalists, activists, scientists and consumers
if any group had scientific data indicating any harmful health effect from
GM Foodstuffs. After all, humans have been consuming GM foods since 1994.
With over 50 approved GM foods, over 100 million acres of transgenic crops
grown worldwide and over 300 million humans consuming GM foods in North
America alone, if there were any inherent dangers with GM as a technology,
it should be apparent by now. In spite of years of experience and
searching for problems, no one could provide any verifiable data
implicating GM food technology as a food or health hazard. It appears that
while individual GM food might prove hazardous, the technology or process
itself is not inherently harmful. Thus, it is time to shift the focus of
our concerns from the general process to the specific product. New GMOs
being developed will have to be assessed for biosafety not because they
are produced using GM techniques but because they represent a new
product".

There are risks in any technological interventions but to give up greater
benefits for the sake of minor problems which can be taken care of by
simple precautions is not correct. It is well recognized that aircrafts,
trains and motor vehicles cause noise pollution. However, anyone pleading
that we should ban them to ensure noise-free environment is definitely not
be taken seriously. Those who are working in the area of bio-technology
are more than aware of the risks involved and are working towards
minimising the risks. The solution is not to "throw the baby along with
the bath tub".

The great biotech debate

New advances in science and technology over the years have kept
transforming the way we live - improving our quality of life.
Biotechnology is one of those revolutionary technologies that can give a
better life to billions of people. It is sad that those people who require
more food and better nutrition are amongst those that are not seeing the
rewards of scientific discovery.

A small group of activists opposed to bio-technology are going all out
against genetically improved crops. I hope that their objective is also
the overall development and well being of a human being. If it is so, it
seems they have lost the sight of the basic objective and are making
efforts to arrest the agricultural progress by creating hurdles in the
latest technological developments. 1.3 billion people who live on less
than $1 a day, care about only the next days meal. Certainly, well fed
activists jetting around the world -generating fears about a technology
that offers them some hope, do not represent these people.

The activists have to come out with alternative solutions for solving the
food problem without using bio-technological advancement. Unfortunately,
the anti-biotechnology propaganda is confined to creating a fear psychosis
in the minds of people who may not have in-depth knowledge about the
scientific facts. Some of these 'eco-terrorists' are extremely articulate.
They will almost make you want to believe their illogical arguments
supported by fictitious or selective data wrapped in beautiful language.
The meaningless terms like "diversity of output", "output of nutrition per
acre" that they like to throw around make absolutely no sense to a
scientist (At the US Congressional Hunger Centre Biotech Briefing at
Capitol Hill on June 29, 2000). One would also like to know where are
those "3000 times" more yields of food on small farms based on
biodiversity? If that is true, then why are these people still poor? The
activists should closely work with scientists in this area if their
objective is to provide food to the hungry.

Finally, the debate on biotechnology is set in different contexts in each
country. Western nations like UK, Switzerland, etc. can afford, if they so
like, to take a highly skeptical view and follow a highly precautionary
approach, without compromising on their high standard of living.
Developing countries on the other hand, I think, have little choice. It is
a choice between hunger and applying "precautionary principle".

Each country must keep its requirements and compulsions in mind before
adopting or rejecting a technology. Our requirements and options will
certainly not be identical to those elsewhere. Their concerns may not
necessarily be our concerns. The eco-rectionaries are trying their best to
influence this debate in developing countries by perpetrating flawed
philosophical and ethical arguments borrowed from west. As long as there
is acute suffering, starvation and death - alleviating this should be our
strongest ethical drive.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

NATURAL LAW PARTY'S TOUR OF DR STEVEN DRUKER LEAD TO NEW RESOLUTION OF THE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF GREEN PARTIES (EFGP)

7 December 2000 MAHARISHI INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF NATURAL LAW PARTIES
NEWS SERVICE Bockhorner Weg 191 * 28779 Bremen * Germany Tel.:
+49-421-6096042 * Fax: +49-421-6006209 Internet:
http://www.natural-law-party.org E-mail: nlp@euronet.nl
____________________________________________

The Natural Law Parties of Europe sponsored a tour of Dr Steven Druker, a
US lawyer, last spring throughout Europe as part of their Global Campaign
to Ban GM Foods. Dr Druker met during the tour with many politicians,
including the leader of the Swedish Green Party. She invited Dr Druker to
submit a resolution for the Council Meeting of the European Federation of
Green Parties (EFGP) in Stockholm 24-26 November. The Council adopted the
resolution without additions or revisions.

RESOLUTION adopted at the 10th EFGP Council Meeting 24-26 November 2000,
Stockholm, Old Parliament Building

A CALL FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

The Green Parties of Europe acknowledge there are scientifically justified
concerns about the safety of all foods produced through recombinant DNA
technologies and that these genetically modified (GM) foods pose unique
hazards to the health of both the consumer and the environment. We also
acknowledge that various governmental bodies entrusted with safeguarding
public and environmental health have been failing to regulate GM foods in
a responsible manner. We hereby call upon these bodies to face the facts
about the hazards and uphold their duties by taking more responsible
actions. Following is a summary of the hazards of GM foods and the
inadequacies of governmental response, with a list of our specific demands
for remedial action.

A. Hazards of GM Foods

1. Numerous experts assert that recombinant DNA technology differs from
conventional breeding and entails a distinct set of risks. Among these
risks is the potential for generating new toxins, carcinogens and
allergens.

2. Because such harmful substances can be novel and never before seen in
any of the species involved in the gene transfer, they are essentially
unpredictable and cannot be adequately detected by the compositional
analyses currently in use.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) files reveal that its own staff
scientists also recognised the unique hazards of GM foods, warned about
them in numerous memos to administrators, and asserted the need for
toxicological feeding tests using the whole food to screen for the
presence of unexpected harmful substances. (Photocopies of memos by FDA
experts are posted at www.biointegrity.org )

4. Renowned experts have submitted declarations to a U.S. federal court
that GM foods could be dangerous and that there is no reliable evidence
showing any have been demonstrated safe through appropriate tests. The
tests currently relied on in the EU do not adequately screen for the range
of potential negative effects identified by these and many other experts
(including those at the FDA).

5. The inadequacy of the current tests is evident from the failure of the
OECD conference on GM foods in February, 2000 to meet a formal challenge
to provide evidence that even one GM food has been demonstrated safe.

6. Besides unique risks to humans, GM foods pose unique risks to the
environment: creation of super weeds and super viruses, destruction of
biodiversity, pollution of soil, and many others.

B. Irresponsible Government Behaviour

7. Despite the numerous warnings of its scientists, the U.S. FDA's
official policy statement of May, 1992 claims: "The agency is not aware of
any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ
from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way...." It also claims GM
foods can be marketed without having been tested because there is
overwhelming agreement among scientists that they are safe.

8. If the facts about the unique risks and the scientific concerns had
been acknowledged, no GM foods would yet have come market in the U.S. or
Europe, since if the U.S. had not approved them, the EU would not have
done so. It is only through deception that GM foods were introduced, and
their continued sale depends on continuation of the deception.

9. Consequently, the marketing of GM foods in the EU is contrary to the
guiding principle of the EU's food law, which is based on the
precautionary principle. (e.g. Green Paper: General Principles of Food Law
in the EU, 30 April 1997, in which the European Commission states it
"...will be guided in its risk analysis by the precautionary principle, in
cases where the scientific basis is insufficient or some uncertainty
exists.")

10. Further, large quantities of meat, milk and eggs from animals raised
on GM feed are currently sold throughout Europe without any requirement
for labelling. U.S. FDA experts stated these products could be hazardous,
but their warnings were covered up and the tests they called for have not
been conducted. (See FDA document #10 at www.biointegrity.org )

THEREFORE, in light of the above facts, we, the Green Parties of Europe,
call upon the European Parliament and European Commission: (a) to promptly
remove all GM foods (including GM animal feeds and products derived from
them) from EU markets, (b) to ban their further introduction, and (c) to
clearly resolve that no GM food will be considered for future approval
unless and until it has been definitively demonstrated to be safe for the
consumer and for the environment. If the EC or EP believes that a
particular GM food has in fact been established safe, we demand they
provide all original testing data, along with an explanation of how such
tests have monitored for the presence of unintended, novel harmful
substances. Unless we receive such documentation within 30 days for a
particular product, we will conclude it has not been demonstrated safe.
Further, we plan to submit any data we might be given to independent
experts for review. Each distinct gene insertion must be evaluated
independently, even for varieties of the same species produced by one
manufacturer.

We further call on every national government in Europe to: (a) take
similar measures and (b) redirect funding of agricultural biotechnology to
research on and implementation of safe and sustainable farming practices
that do not rely on genetic engineering or synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides.

Stockholm 26 November 2000 European Federation of Green Parties (EFGP)
Arnold Cassola, General Secretary Marian Coyne, spokeswoman Pekka
Haavisto, spokesman

European Parliament - room PHS 2C85 rue Wiertz, 1047 Brussels, Belgium ph:
32 2 284 51 35, fax : 32 2 284 91 35 email : EFGP@europarl.eu.int http//:
www.europeangreens.org