United States to drop GM complaint against EU

February 21 2003

AFP -- Washington is dropping plans to take the European Union to
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over its refusal to accept
genetically modified (GM) crops, a US embassy official in London
signalled yesterday.

The United States has threatened a complaint to the WTO, claiming that
"Luddite" Europeans had broken the organisation's free trade rules
with a 1998 decision not to allow in new GM seeds or crops.

Only US soya, which was approved prior to 1998, is allowed to be sold
in the EU.

The row threatened to be the latest in a series of fractious
trans-Atlantic trade disputes.

But the US embassy's minister counsellor for agricultural affairs
Peter Kurz told the BBC that a decision had been taken not to proceed
with the complaint to the WTO.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Farming Today program, Kurz said the
decision "was made at a high level of government. I suppose the idea
was we don't need further trade irritants.

"If there is some way of working this one out then so much the better.
If not, then maybe the decision will have to be reconsidered."

Kurz said the United States still believed Europe should accept its
crops, and did not believe food products should be labelled so that
consumers can see whether or not they contain GM material.

"This does not mean we're still not very concerned about the
moratorium on approval of new US GM crops or that we are not very
concerned about the position on labelling and traceability," he said.

"We believe that foods should not unnecessarily be labelled when there
is no substantial difference between two foods according to the way
they are produced."

Kurz rejected suggestions that the dropping of the case was part of US
efforts to build bridges with countries whose support Washington needs
in a looming war against Iraq.

"I wouldn't dream of speculating about any connection between this
issue and any ... broader urgent issue in the world today," he said.

"I happen to think that this decision is probably made on the merits
of the issue itself."

(Marcus Williamson) writes:

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Farming Today program, Kurz said the
decision "was made at a high level of government. I suppose the idea
was we don't need further trade irritants.

With GM foods forging full speed ahead in South America and Asia, and
starting to make major inroads in Africa, Europe is a minor player in the
GM food market. We can sell them conventional foods until the wave of GM
foods coming in from the East overwhelms their market resistance.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Erm... They're not "forging full speed ahead" anywhere except the US
and Canada, where consumers are finally waking up to the fact that
their food is contaminated with untested, unlabelling GM
ingredients...

regards
Marcus

With GM foods forging full speed ahead in South America and Asia, and
starting to make major inroads in Africa, Europe is a minor player in the
GM food market.

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

Erm... They're not "forging full speed ahead" anywhere except the US
and Canada, where consumers are finally waking up to the fact that
their food is contaminated with untested, unlabelling GM
ingredients...

regards
Marcus

you obviously missed the posting so I'll repost it for you

Genetically modified crops sprout across Asia
David Barboza/NYT The New York Times
Friday, February 21, 2003



CHIANG RAI, Thailand Worried about falling behind its global
competition,
much of Asia is rushing forward with the development and cultivation of
genetically modified crops.

The three most populous countries in Asia - China, India and Indonesia -
are already planting millions of acres of genetically modified cotton.
Other large Asian countries, including Japan, Thailand, the Philippines
and Malaysia, are earmarking billions of dollars for private and
government-sponsored research on biotech crops.

Because there are already 145 million acres (60 million hectares)
planted
with biotech crops worldwide, mostly in North and South America, these
developments in Asia could pave the way for biotech crops to dominate
the
world's food production.

"This is a significant development in the acceptance of genetically
modified crops," said Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, a professor of
agribusiness at the University of Missouri at Columbia. "This is not
only
a region where most of the population growth is, it's a region where
most
of the food growth is."

Aware of food safety concerns, especially among Europeans, most
governments in Asia plan to move cautiously before approving the use of
genetically modified food crops, which are much more controversial than
nonfood crops like cotton and flowers. China for now is holding off on
sending its biotech food crops, from green peppers to tomatoes, to
market. But delegates at a biotech policy conference sponsored here last
weekend by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group said that
spending
on biotech research and development was booming throughout Asia,
signaling undeterred confidence in the new technologies.

Malaysia is creating a biotech hub outside Kuala Lumpur that it calls
Biovalley. Indonesia is setting up its own industrial park, called
Bioisland. Even in Japan and South Korea, where some consumers have been
unnerved by the prospect of genetically modified foods, there are
investors and others spending heavily to develop biotech products.
Experts at the conference said most of these countries must embrace
biotechnology or risk seeing crops lose value in a fast changing
marketplace that promises a new breed of super-crops.

"They have no choice, because agriculture is their mainstay," said
ChoKyun Rha, a professor of biomaterial sciences at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and a conference participant. "If they don't
employ biotechnology, they're going to be left behind. They won't
compete. They would end up buying the seed from others, and that would
be
biotech colonization."

There are also concerns that China - which after the United States has
the most advanced biotechnology programs - could come to dominate
agricultural production in the region, because it is so far ahead in its
research on genetically modified crops. Already, a majority of the
cotton
grown in China, the world's leading producer, is genetically engineered
to resist pests. Besides peppers and tomatoes, China has developed
modified corn, tobacco, petunias and poplar trees. Other Asian
countries,
meanwhile, are beginning to release their first biotech products. India
and Indonesia recently approved the planting of a variety of insect-
resistant cotton that drastically reduces the need for pesticides.

Indeed, biotech cotton is so popular with farmers that a black market
has
emerged in several Asian countries that have not yet approved the
products. "There's piracy going on," said Clive James, head of the
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications,
an industry-sponsored group that tracks global plantings of biotech
crops. "These farmers think so much of this technology, they will steal
it." The enthusiasm extends beyond cotton. The Philippines has allowed
the commercial planting of biotech corn, a first for Asia. The
Philippines is also the site of the International Rice Research
Institute, which is working to use biotechnology to develop "golden
rice," a variety fortified with Vitamin A.

Critics of genetically modified crops say these moves in Asia could
leave
consumers around the world with little choice but to accept them.

"It's troublesome, because these countries don't have the regulatory
infrastructure to assess the risks," said Dr. Jane Rissler of the Union
of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group that has been critical of
biotech crops.

But in the absence of any solid evidence that modified crops are harmful
to humans, scientists in Asia are experimenting on everything from
genetically modified corn, potatoes and papaya to biotech mustard and
chili peppers.

Biotechnology advocates in Asia believe that genetically modified crops
will increase food production, significantly reduce the use of
pesticides
and insecticides and even create drought-resistant crops that can grow
on
land now regarded as nonarable. Poor farmers' incomes will rise, they
claim, with the greatest benefits in the poorest regions. China has more
than 20,000 people employed in government-led research at about 200
labs.
Government spending on biotech research has tripled in recent years and
could top $1.5 billion for the five years ending in 2005, making China
second only to the United States.

The rest of Asia is now playing catch-up. India is conducting biotech
research at most of its major universities. Japan and South Korea expect
to spend over $300 million a year on biotech research. Malaysia wants to

genetically engineer palm oil trees to serve as factories of specialized
plastics for medical devices. Vietnam and Singapore, too, are exploring
the development of portfolios of biotech crops


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


With GM foods forging full speed ahead in South America and Asia, and
starting to make major inroads in Africa, Europe is a minor player in
the
GM food market.

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:01:23 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote:


Erm... They're not "forging full speed ahead" anywhere except the US
and Canada, where consumers are finally waking up to the fact that
their food is contaminated with untested, unlabelling GM
ingredients...

There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention. That's false, and you know
it's false, but you keep saying it anyway. You're doing a disservice
to those of us with real concerns about GM by continuing to make
statements that are obviously wrong. Such statements unfortunately
are used as ammunition by those who would paint all GM skeptics as
ignorant luddites. One wonders if you're actually a pro-GM agent
provocateur out to make GM skeptics look bad.


___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.

There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention.

I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention.

I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.

well you've been damned slow to provide safety tests for the non-gm soya
or maize you are so keen on

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


regards
Marcus

On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:42:26 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote:

I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.

That's not what you said. Your original post simply said "untested",
not "tested and proven safe." As you should be aware, the latter is
impossible. If you find a scientist who says he or she has proven GM
crops (or any other food) to be safe you know you've found a liar.

___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.

Marcus Williamson wrote:
There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention.


I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.

Marcus,

Given that you refuse to accept or acknowledge any of tha data out
there, the onus is on you to state what you want to see. Be specific.
Do not say a vague thing like "safety data," because there is already an
abundance of that, and you refuse to accept. Time for you to come up
with the details....




regards
Marcus

NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.25.185.200
X-Trace: newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk 1046893691 8411 62.25.185.200 (5 Mar 2003 19:48:11 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2003 19:48:11 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Path: text-east!text-west.newsgroups.com!propagator3-maxim!news-in.superfeed.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv. net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.agricultu60589


wparrott wrote in message
...
Marcus Williamson wrote:
There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention.


I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years
to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops
are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.

Marcus,

Given that you refuse to accept or acknowledge any of tha data out
there, the onus is on you to state what you want to see. Be specific.
Do not say a vague thing like "safety data," because there is already
an
abundance of that, and you refuse to accept. Time for you to come up
with the details....

the trouble is he cannot do that because he knows that no food has that
kind of data so he ends up hoist by his own petard


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'





regards
Marcus

Reply-To:
NNTP-Posting-Host: wparrott.cropsoil.uga.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: cronkite.cc.uga.edu 1046893915 23751 128.192.145.167 (5 Mar 2003 19:51:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2003 19:51:55 GMT
Cc:
To:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To:
Path: text-east!text-west.newsgroups.com!propagator3-maxim!news-in.superfeed.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi !news-ext.gatech.edu!news-int.gatech.edu!cc.gatech.edu!finch!cronkite!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.agricultu60590

wparrott wrote:
Marcus Williamson wrote:

There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention.



I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.


Marcus,

Given that you refuse to accept or acknowledge any of tha data out
there, the onus is on you to state what you want to see. Be specific.
Do not say a vague thing like "safety data," because there is already an
abundance of that, and you refuse to accept. Time for you to come up
with the details....

Marcus,

I know you like to reply to my personal email, but I rather reply in
public. Here is your question to my personal email, and my response
follows:

Marcus wrote:
How about toxicological data proving that GM soya (for example) is not
more toxic (with and without RR spraying) than its conventional
equivalent?

For example, contains glyphosate residues which would be harmful to
humans or animals. Or contains toxic novel proteins as a result of the
RR genetic modification...
-------

Parrott answered:

The use of glyphosate on soybean inevitably leads to the presence of
glyphosate residues in the soybean plant and seed. Accordingly, the EPA
(2000) established acceptable glyphosate residue levels of 20 mg kg-1
for the soybean seed itself, 100 mg kg-1 for the soybean hulls, 50 mg
kg-1 for aspirated grain fractions, 100 mg kg-1 for soybean forage, and
200 mg kg-1 for soybean hay.

See: EPA. 2000. 40 CFR part 80. Glyphosate; pesticide residues.
Fed. Reg. 65:52660-52667.


As far as toxic novel proteins, where would they come from? Please
explain, and please be specific.

You cannot be referring to the RR protein itself. The protein made by
the RR (which incidentally, is only slightly different from one already
in soybean, and every other bacterium or green plant) has been
extensively characterized. You should have seen the data, as I have
pointed you in the data's direction in the past.









regards
Marcus

Keep GM crops out of the rest of the world. I don't want to have to compete
with India and Africa if they can bring their yields up to world norms.
Improving the cotton yields in India alone to the world average represents
more than the entire US cotton crop.

GM cotton does not produce any more cotton than the conventional
variety. Please stop telling untruths about "higher" yields on GM
varieties, thanks.

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

The three most populous countries in Asia - China, India and
Indonesia -
are already planting millions of acres of genetically modified
cotton.

This is quite simply not true...


simple denial is hardly evidence, you of course have figures of your own
that we can verify?


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

Keep GM crops out of the rest of the world. I don't want to have to
compete
with India and Africa if they can bring their yields up to world
norms.
Improving the cotton yields in India alone to the world average
represents
more than the entire US cotton crop.

GM cotton does not produce any more cotton than the conventional
variety. Please stop telling untruths about "higher" yields on GM
varieties, thanks.

it does in areas with certain pests,


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote:
Keep GM crops out of the rest of the world. I don't want to have to compete
with India and Africa if they can bring their yields up to world norms.
Improving the cotton yields in India alone to the world average represents
more than the entire US cotton crop.


GM cotton does not produce any more cotton than the conventional
variety. Please stop telling untruths about "higher" yields on GM
varieties, thanks.

Technically true, if you mean their yield potential. However, yield
potential and realized yield are not the same. GM cotton is less likely
to suffer yield losses than non-GM cotton when bollworms are the
yield-limiting factor.




regards
Marcus