This is G o o g l e's cache of http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2000/msg02705.html as retrieved on 31 Mar 2004 22:20:22 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:UKG9C4sRj_UJ:csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2000/msg02705.html++%22David+MacClement%22+site:csf.colorado.edu&hl=en
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. |
| These search terms have been highlighted: | david | macclement |
|
|
[pf] Negotiators reach agreement on genetically engineered food
< < <
Date > > >
|
< < <
Thread > > >
[pf] Negotiators reach agreement on genetically engineered food
by David MacClement
30 January 2000 00:46 UTC
http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500160878-500201995-50090584
4-0,00.html [all on one line; ] is:
Negotiators reach agreement on genetically engineered food
Copyright © 2000 Associated Press
From Time to Time: Nando's in-depth look at the 20th century
By MATT CRENSON
MONTREAL (January 29, 2000 4:05 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com)
- U.N. talks in Canada produced rules governing trade in genetically
engineered products on Saturday, nearly a year after previous talks
collapsed in the face of international discord.
The new rules are complex, and many may be subject to legal challenges or
interpretations. But for now they contain language letting a country ban
imports of a genetically modified product if it feels there is not enough
scientific evidence showing the product is safe.
It requires exporters to label shipments that contain genetically altered
commodities such as corn or cotton. It also tries to dictate how those
safety rules will coexist with free trade rules governed by the World Trade
Organization.
The United States, a major producer of genetically engineered products, had
opposed labeling and had fought import bans except in cases where the
product is shown to be risky. It was forced to make concessions on those
and several other points.
Fighting back tears, the conference's president, Juan Mayr, congratulated
his colleagues on reaching a compromise.
"The adoption of this protocol represents a victory for the environment,"
Mayr said.
The protocol is intended to protect the environment from damage due to
genetically modified organisms. Environmentalists and some scientists worry
that bioengineered plants, animals and bacteria could wipe out native
strains or spread their genetic advantages to weeds and other undesirable
species.
"There's fish genes in fruit, poultry genes in fish, animal genes in
plants, growth hormones in milk, insect genes in vegetables, tree genes in
grain and in the case of pork, human genes in meat," said Steve Gilman, an
organic farmer in Stillwater, N.Y.
A first attempt to draw up a biosafety protocol ended last February in
Cartagena, Colombia, when the United States and five partners blocked a
pact that was acceptable to the other 125 countries.
Saturday's new agreement came after a week of intense negotiations that
pitted the United States and its five allies in the talks - Canada,
Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay - against the European Union and a
coalition of developing nations. As protesters stood outside in
single-digit temperatures chanting "Hey, ho, GMOs have got to go,"
negotiators worked until just before dawn to hammer out the final details.
The EU and developing nations had argued that countries should be allowed
to refuse imports of a genetically modified product if little is known
about its environmental effect. The United States and its partners had
disagreed, saying many of the proposed rules would restrict trade.
But the political situation changed in the last year, with major U.S. food
producers like Archer Daniels Midland and Gerber either demanding that
genetically modified products be segregated from other products or refusing
to use them altogether. Scientific studies have suggested that monarch
butterflies and other beneficial insects may be harmed by genetically
engineered crops.
And protests at the WTO talks in Seattle last month also suggested that the
American public has concerns about genetically altered food.
EU negotiators, whose constituency strongly opposes genetic modifications
in food, used the changed climate to exact a number of concessions from the
U.S. delegation. Nonetheless, U.S. negotiators said they were satisfied
with the final agreement.
"The agreement that we achieved is a very substantial improvement over the
agreement we started with," U.S. Undersecretary of State Frank Loy said.
In the end, the sides' most serious differences turned out to be over how
the biosafety protocol would relate to WTO rules, and whether shipments of
genetically modified commodities should be labeled.
Environmentalists have complained in recent years that the WTO's free trade
pact has overridden regulations meant to protect human and ecological
health. But Saturday's agreement calls for the biosafety protocol and the
WTO rules to be "mutually supportive" with nothing "intended to subordinate
this Protocol to other international agreements."
Under the protocol, exporters will be required to apply the label "may
contain living modified organisms" to all shipments containing genetically
altered commodities. The protocol allows for a revision of that labeling
policy after two years.
In a legal question mark, the United States has neither signed nor ratified
the biodiversity treaty that oversees the new protocol. So technically, the
U.S. is not bound to honor it.
"Not being part of this treaty makes it more challenging for us here," U.S.
negotiator David Sandalow said.
Genetically modified crops are already widespread. About 70 million acres
of genetically engineered plants were cultivated worldwide in 1999. In the
United States, genetically engineered varieties account for about 25
percent of corn and 40 percent of soybeans.
Biotechnology proponents point to the potential of the technology to
increase yields and improve nutrition.
"The longer I use it the more I believe in it," said Robert M. Boeding, an
Iowa farmer who has grown genetically modified corn for the last five
years. He says the modified strain keeps him from having to use dangerous
pesticides to protect his crop from insects.
Copyright © 2000 Nando Media
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent on by David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html
or better: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/
****************************************************
______________________________________________
Faster, stronger and able to send millions
of emails in one click: the new Topica site!
http://www.topica.com/t/14
< < <
Date > > >
|
< < <
Thread > > >
|
Home