Lucy Ward and Sarah Hall
Date: March 2.99 The Guardian Weekly , Page 8
GENETICALLY modified food is to be taken off the menu in schools, old people's homes and town halls after local government leaders recommended a five-year ban in the face of ministerial reassurances that the food is safe. The advice from the Local Government Association followed pressure from parents, and relatives of elderly people in council-run care homes, who contacted local authorities with concerns over the possible health effects of GM products. The association said that "the spectre of many unknown factors" surrounding GM foods had raised public alarm. The recommendation, which will affect almost 10 million children in 26,000 schools in England and Wales as well as 1.5 million local government workers and thousands of people receiving meals-on-wheels, will come as a blow to ministers, who hoped they had succeeded in riding out the explosion of concern over GM foods. Tony Blair has rejected calls for a five-year moratorium on the commercial growing of crops, arguing that sufficient safeguards are in place. The association's public protection committee took its unanimous decision to advise English and Welsh authorities to wait until 2004 before deciding whether to use GM products after receiving a report detailing health concerns. Councillor John Ryan, chairman of the committee, said: "As major buyers and suppliers of food, councils should be very cautious on behalf of the public." Mr Ryan said that seven of the 13 members of the advisory committee for approving GM crops were involved in GM companies. The controversy over genetic modification intensified as it emerged that Monsanto, the biotechnology giant, had been condemned for making "confusing, misleading, unproven and wrong" claims about its product in an extensive advertising campaign. The criticism comes in a draft report by the industry watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority, which upheld eight of 13 complaints. The findings relate to a series of advertisements that sought to pre-empt anxiety over GM foods with apparently reasonable lines such as: "Food biotechnology is a matter of opinions. Monsanto believes you should hear all of them." The ASA ruled that Monsanto had expressed its own opinion "as accepted fact" and used "wrong" and "unproven" scientific claims. One advert, the report said, "misled" consumers by suggesting GM potatoes had been approved in 20 countries when they had not, while a second did so by stating that the benefits of a GM tomato had been proven -- while neither they, nor potential health risks, had been assessed.
by Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
September 25, 2003
news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787
The title of the debate was "GM Nation?" But that is precisely what the British people do not want their country to be, according to the official report from the national consultation on genetically modified crops and food presented to the Government yesterday. The unprecedented test of public opinion, which over six weeks this summer involved 675 public meetings and elicited more than 36,000 written responses, revealed a deep hostility to GM technology across the population. Alongside fears that GM crops and food could be harmful to human health and the environment, the debate threw up widespread mistrust and suspicion of the motives of those taking decisions about GM - especially government and multi-national companies such as Monsanto. On a whole series of questions GM-hostile majorities were enormous, with 85 per cent saying GM crops would benefit producers not ordinary people, 86 per cent saying they were unhappy with the idea of eating GM food, 91 per cent saying they thought GM had potential negative effects on the environment, and no fewer than 93 per cent of respondents saying they thought GM technology was driven more by the pursuit of profit than the public interest. Figures in support of GM were, by contrast, tiny. Even special focus groups, deliberately selected from people who were uncommitted one way or another, to tease out the views of the "silent majority", and whose members were initially prepared to admit the technology might have benefits, opposed GM technology more the more they learnt about it, the report discloses. The extent and the unequivocal nature of the hostility revealed by "GM Nation?" will represent a substantial political hurdle to those who wish to bring the technology to Britain as soon as possible - led by Tony Blair and his Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, and the giant American and European agribusiness companies such as Monsanto and Bayer. Yesterday Mrs Beckett reaffirmed a promise that the Government would "listen" to the views the debate has highlighted and respond to them publicly, although she made no such pledge that it would take account of them in deciding its course of action. But that was what the Government had to do, said green groups, the organic agriculture movement and others sceptical of the values of GM, who warmly welcomed the report. "The Government will ignore this report at its peril," said Pete Riley, the GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "The public has made it clear that it doesn't want GM food and it doesn't want GM crops. There must not be any more weasel words from the Government on this issue." The umbrella body for the GM companies in Britain, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, rejected the report's findings, saying that "public meetings do not equal public opinion," although the ABC's chairman, Paul Rylott, had been a member of the debate steering group and issued no dissenting opinion in the report itself. Criticising the debate's methodology, the ABC claimed that nearly 80 per cent of the debate response forms "can be clearly identified by cluster analysis as being orchestrated by campaigning groups". The chairman of the debate, Professor Malcolm Grant, rejected the accusation. The report is indeed likely to be widely seen as reflecting public opinion, and Mrs Beckett herself legitimised it yesterday by saying it had been "a new way of engaging the public in the policy-making process." The embarrassment that "GM Nation?" will cause to Mr Blair and his like-minded colleagues is all the greater in that it is the third such in as many months, after two other GM reports, both commissioned by ministers and published in July. One final report is now due before the Government decides whether to give the go-ahead to the commercial growth of GM crops in Britain. This is on the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops, a four-year trial designed to see if the deadlier weedkillers used with them cause new harm to the environment. It is due to be published on 16 October and will be the crucial document in the debate, because the decision to go ahead is taken by the EU in Brussels, and the only way the Government can countermand it is by finding new evidence of harm to human health or the environment from GM technology - such as crop trials may provide. The general mood, the report said, "ranged from caution to doubt, through suspicion and scepticism, to hostility and rejection." Professor Grant said: "I now look forward to the Government's responding to the points raised in the debate, and taking these into account in the future formulation of policy on GM."
GM NATION? BY NUMBERS
* 20,000 people attended 675 meetings across Britain
* The public sent in 1200 letters and e-mails
* The website received 2.9 million hits in just six weeks
* 70,000 feeback forms were downloaded; 36,557 were returned
* 93% of respondents believed GM technology was driven by profit rather than public interest
* 85% thought GM crops would benefit producers, rather than ordinary people
* 84% believed they would cause "unacceptable interference" with nature
* 54% never want to see GM crops grown in Britain
* 86% were unhappy with the idea of eating GM food
* 93% said too little was known about health effects
* 2% were happy with GM foods in all circumstances
CONTACT: National Association of State PIRGs,
Kate Madigan, 213-251-3680x315
Michael Passoff, As You Sow, 415-391-3212
Rebecca O'Malley, ecopledge.com, 213-251-3680x302
Kimberly Larson, 206-568-2850
Date: APRIL 17, 2003, http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0417-01.htm
WASHINGTON - April 17 - Kraft Food's (KFT Ð NYSE) continued use of genetically engineered foods pose
unnecessary financial risk to the company and its investors, according a new report entitled, "Risky Business:
Financial Risks that Genetically Engineered Foods Pose to Kraft Foods, Inc. and Shareholders."
The report reveals that Kraft's use of genetically engineered ingredients poses risk of product recalls and liability
lawsuits, especially with the possibility that biopharm cropsÑfood crops genetically engineered to produce
prescription drugs or industrial chemicals could contaminate Kraft's products. Other financial risks include loss of
competitive advantage, consumer rejection of Kraft's products, and damage to reputation resulting from increased
controversy surrounding these foods.
The report also makes the case that genetically engineered foods do not offer financial benefits to Kraft or
marketable benefits to consumers. Genetically engineered crops may even cost more to produce than
non-genetically engineered counterparts.
"Continued use of genetically engineered ingredients is a no-win situation for Kraft and shareholders," stated Kate
Madigan, advocate for the state Public Interest Research Groups and author of the report. "Kraft is gambling with
controversial ingredients when there is nothing to gain from doing so."
The financial risks of genetically engineered foods became evident with the StarLink contamination of the food
supply in 2000, which is estimated to have cost the food industry billions of dollars. StarLink is a variety of
genetically engineered corn that was not approved for human consumption because of concerns that it might
trigger allergic reactions. StarLink was first discovered in Kraft's Taco Bell brand taco shells and Kraft's brand name
has been linked with genetically engineered foods ever since.
"Kraft derives no financial or nutritional benefit from using genetically engineered foods, there is no consumer
demand for these products and the massive recall of Kraft products has already proven them to be a liability,"
stated Michael Passoff of As You Sow Foundation. "Kraft shareholders have a right to know about the risks their
investments are exposed to, especially if these risks can be avoided."
In response to these financial risks and to the growing consumer demand for non-genetically engineered foods,
many U.S. food companies have already removed genetically engineered ingredients from their products, including
Frito-Lay, Gerber, McDonald's, and supermarket chain Trader Joe's. These manufacturers reported no financial
difficulties resulting from the switch and sales increased in most cases as a result.
"Kraft has already removed genetically engineered ingredients from its products in Europe," stated Rebecca
O'Malley, program director for ecopledge.com, an organization that organizes students, consumers, and investors
to influence corporate social and environmental responsibility. "These financial risks can be avoided and Kraft
knows how to avoid them. The company needs to finish the job and remove these ingredients from the rest of its
products."
According to the report, current FDA regulations do not shield Kraft from liability lawsuits and other financial risks
posed by genetically engineered foods.
or
or