-------- Original Message --------
Subject: US consumer groups slam biotech firms for ending talks
Date: 3 Jun 2003 08:21:02 -0500
From: "Mark Graffis"


US consumer groups slam biotech firms for ending talks

USA: June 3, 2003

WASHINGTON - U.S. biotech companies suppressed a campaign to strengthen
government oversight of genetically modified foods, fearing this would hurt
a U.S. trade case against the European Union, consumer advocates said.

The U.S. biotech industry and its critics, who have been meeting privately
since early 2001, said they failed to reach a consensus on how the
government should handle new biotech products like biopharmaceutical crops
and transgenic animals.
Consumer groups said that some firms thought the debate might undermine the
position of the United States which, earlier this month, said it would
challenge the EU's five-year-old moratorium on approval of new genetically
modified foods before the World Trade Organization.

"Parts of the industry thought they would be sending a bad message if they
suggested the U.S. regulatory system wasn't as good or sufficient enough,"
said Gregory Jaffe, biotech director for the Center for Science in the
Public Interest.

The United States is the leading producer of biotech food and U.S. officials
estimate the EU ban cost U.S. farmers about $300 million a year in lost
sales, mostly corn, to Europe.

Sponsored by Washington-based Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, the
18-member panel consisted of representatives from the food and biotech
industries, environmental groups, consumer groups and the agriculture
sector. The talks ended last week.

"Our timing was unfortunate," said Carol Tucker Foreman, food policy
director for the Consumer Federation of America. "We were ready for closure
at the time the WTO case was being filed."

Pew's Executive Director Mike Rodemeyer said the differences stemmed not
from the WTO dispute, but from a variety of biotech issues such as food
safety, the environment and transgenic animals.

"There were a number of issues we weren't making a lot of progress on,"
Rodemeyer said.

One of the main sticking points, according to members who wished to remain
unidentified, was to develop legislation that requires the Food and Drug
Administration to certify the safety of new biotech crops.

Monsanto Co. (MON.N), the top developer of biotech crops, and some other
biotech companies resisted such actions.

Although no agreement was reached, panel members said the discussions were
"very educational in understanding both positions in a heated debate."

The panel left open the possibility of meeting again in a year. Pew, which
spent $2 million on the forum, said it would need additional funding to
sponsor such an event.

Story by Randy Fabi

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

wrote in message ...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: US consumer groups slam biotech firms for ending talks
Date: 3 Jun 2003 08:21:02 -0500
From: "Mark Graffis"


US consumer groups slam biotech firms for ending talks

USA: June 3, 2003

WASHINGTON - U.S. biotech companies suppressed a campaign to strengthen
government oversight of genetically modified foods, fearing this would hurt
a U.S. trade case against the European Union, consumer advocates said.

The U.S. biotech industry and its critics, who have been meeting privately
since early 2001, said they failed to reach a consensus on how the
government should handle new biotech products like biopharmaceutical crops
and transgenic animals.
Consumer groups said that some firms thought the debate might undermine the
position of the United States which, earlier this month, said it would
challenge the EU's five-year-old moratorium on approval of new genetically
modified foods before the World Trade Organization.

"Parts of the industry thought they would be sending a bad message if they
suggested the U.S. regulatory system wasn't as good or sufficient enough,"
said Gregory Jaffe, biotech director for the Center for Science in the
Public Interest.

The United States is the leading producer of biotech food and U.S. officials
estimate the EU ban cost U.S. farmers about $300 million a year in lost
sales, mostly corn, to Europe.

Sponsored by Washington-based Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, the
18-member panel consisted of representatives from the food and biotech
industries, environmental groups, consumer groups and the agriculture
sector. The talks ended last week.

"Our timing was unfortunate," said Carol Tucker Foreman, food policy
director for the Consumer Federation of America. "We were ready for closure
at the time the WTO case was being filed."

Pew's Executive Director Mike Rodemeyer said the differences stemmed not
from the WTO dispute, but from a variety of biotech issues such as food
safety, the environment and transgenic animals.

"There were a number of issues we weren't making a lot of progress on,"
Rodemeyer said.

One of the main sticking points, according to members who wished to remain
unidentified, was to develop legislation that requires the Food and Drug
Administration to certify the safety of new biotech crops.

Monsanto Co. (MON.N), the top developer of biotech crops, and some other
biotech companies resisted such actions.

Although no agreement was reached, panel members said the discussions were
"very educational in understanding both positions in a heated debate."

The panel left open the possibility of meeting again in a year. Pew, which
spent $2 million on the forum, said it would need additional funding to
sponsor such an event.

Story by Randy Fabi

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


Just my opinion, but the Center for Science in the Public Interest is
only a center. It doesn't have anything to do with science. And they
aren't much concerned with the interest of the public. It is a very
narrowly focused special interest group intent on promoting the
vegetarian life style and turning back the progress of capitalism.
But like I said, that is just my opinion.

"Jerry" wrote in message

Just my opinion, but the Center for Science in the Public Interest is
only a center. It doesn't have anything to do with science. And they
aren't much concerned with the interest of the public. It is a very
narrowly focused special interest group intent on promoting the
vegetarian life style and turning back the progress of capitalism.
But like I said, that is just my opinion.

looked at the website and it isn't particularly loonie. Mind you they could
be awfully embarassed if eating too much carbohydrade does turn out to be
the problem

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Jerry" wrote in message

Just my opinion, but the Center for Science in the Public Interest is
only a center. It doesn't have anything to do with science. And they
aren't much concerned with the interest of the public. It is a very
narrowly focused special interest group intent on promoting the
vegetarian life style and turning back the progress of capitalism.
But like I said, that is just my opinion.

looked at the website and it isn't particularly loonie. Mind you they
could
be awfully embarassed if eating too much carbohydrade does turn out to be
the problem

If you consider what man ate most of our time on earth as hunter gatherers
it would be low in carbohydrates. Grain faming is only 10,000 or so years
old and Eskimos, lap landers, Mongiains, Bedouins, and all the drovers of
the world still subsist on diet nearly devoid of carbohydrates.

As may rapidly spread along the coast lines of the world we find their trash
heaps filled with shell fish, and fruit. I can still feed my self an my
family in the degrade coastal lands of the US an be home my lunch most days.
Oysters in particular a easy to catch. They are very poor at escape.

My dad an it went back to the Texas gulf coast 40 years after my first trip
there and the fishing was the best ever. They have band gill nets, and
commercial fishing inshore and put on reasonable slot limit and there are
more and bigger fish than i have seen the th 40 years I fished there. It was
a great trip for my dads last one.

Carbohydrates are a late addition to our diets. I expect our bodies can
handle them in reasonable amounts but I wouldn't want to live on them
exclusively with out a very very good nutritioalist to help me with
essential fatty acids and proteins, vitamins and other yet to be found food
factors. Consider alfalfa hay. The best studied forage on earth. You can
dream up any ration you want and replacing 2% of the roughage with alfalfa
hay will make it a better feed.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger