24 October 2002
MONSANTO'S $1BN WRITE-OFF/FARMER FINED/CHINA COOLS ON GMOS/ ETC.
It's now clear that Pharmacia only acquired Monsanto for its blockbuster arthritis drug Celebrex but it's still suffering damage from the 'headache' company it recently got rid of (item 1).
China is always being held up, in contrast to the EU, as forging ahead like the US with GM crops. The reality is very different as a recent The New York Times article (item 5) reveals:
'Growing consumer resistance to genetically modified food in Japan and South Korea, as well as in Europe, provided another warning. Chinese officials feared that they would lose important export markets by pushing ahead too quickly.
Polls also showed that domestic shoppers preferred food that had not been genetically altered... Chinese officials issued new labeling rules this summer... there are many, like Rong's brand corn oil, that have bright yellow labels saying they contain only organic ingredients.
Both the Bush and Clinton administrations had hoped that China would become an ally on farm issues in the World Trade Organization, where the fight over the safety of genetically modified food may eventually end up. Instead, China now appears more inclined to support a cautionary stance like the one taken by the European Union. If its position does not change, it may slow the trade of genetically modified food globally.
... the trend is toward more restrictions... This spring, Beijing banned biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Syngenta from investing in the development of genetically modified strains of corn, soybeans and rice seeds.
More recently, it canceled plans to allow the broad use of corn plants modified to fight bugs in the main grain-producing provinces in the northeast. Field tests showed that in China's tightly concentrated farm plots, pests evolved quickly to overcome the resistance of genetically modified plants.
"The general sense is that the risks are too high and the market is too small" for most genetically modified plants, said Wu Kongmin, who heads a panel of experts conducting safety tests for the agriculture ministry.' (item 5)
1. Monsanto's Dollars 1bn write-off
2. FARMER FINED FOR DESTROYING GM CROPS
3. Safe in the GM slow lane
4. Consumers' right to know what they are eating
5. The Science and Politics of Super Rice
***
1. Monsanto's Dollars 1bn write-off
The Guardian (London) October 23, 2002
Guardian City Pages
Pharmacia, the drugs firm being acquired by Pfizer for Dollars 53bn, yesterday said it was taking a Dollars 1bn write-off related to its spin off of Monsanto, the company known for its genetically modified foodprogramme. Monsanto proved to be a headache for Pharmacia after it acquired the business in March 2000 to gain control of its drugs division. It announced plans to spin off the agribusiness division just 18 months later. Pharmacia, maker of the blockbuster arthritis drug Celebrex, fell to a loss of Dollars 429m in the third quarter after the charge.
***
2. FARMER FINED FOR DESTROYING GM CROPS
The Independent (London) October 23, 2002
The militant French farmer Jose Bove, an anti-globalisation activist who was once imprisoned for dismantling a McDonald's restaurant, has been fined EUR3,000 (pounds 1,900) for mowing down genetically modified crops in southern France two years ago. He was among 200 people who damaged a five-acre field of colza, a crop used to make cooking oil.
***
3.Safe in the GM slow lane
Stephen Nottingham
The Guardian (London) October 23, 2002
Philip Stott sees the planting of oilseed rape that has been genetically
modified to produce industrial products as part of the future for
British agriculture (Lost round, October 16). If his views are representative
of those promoting GM crops in this country, then we should be
worried. The experience of GM oilseed rape in Canada has demonstrated
that genes engineered into this crop can freely pass between cultivars
in different fields. A range of foodstuffs has now been contaminated
with transgenic material, including maize products in the US that
have been contaminated by genes from the StarLink cultivar,
unapproved for human consumption. Britain is wise to "lag behind"
with this technology, while we learn the lessons arising from the
undesirable crop and food contamination that is currently occurring
in north America.
Stephen Nottingham, Stevenage
***
4. How to maintain consumers' right to know what they are eating
From Dr Caroline Lucas MEP
Financial Times (London) October 23, 2002
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Sir, The failure of the Council of Ministers to agree the European
Commission proposals for strict labelling and traceability regulations
on genetically modified foods in effect means the European Union
moratorium on commercial growing or import of such foods will remain
in place for the foreseeable future. The European parliament voted
in favour of such regulations in July, despite the clear wishes of
the UK government to reject them at the behest of its friends in
the agribusiness lobby. The end result is riddled with irony:
had the UK government succeeded in scuppering the proposed labelling
regulations, the prospect of an end to the EU ban would be almost
nil, such is the opposition to GM in many member states. Yet its
opposition was intended to reduce the regulatory burden on - hence
open the European market to - US GM producers. Could it be that the
Council of Ministers failed to adopt the proposals precisely because
they knew that to do so would call into doubt moves to lift the moratorium,
in light of the belated recognition in the US that the GM industry
is in fact a drain on the US economy, as reported by the Soil Association
this week? Could this also explain the US reluctance to seek a WTO
ruling on the legality of the EU moratorium? Europeans are increasingly
speaking with one voice on GM - it is bad for the environment, bad
for consumers and bad for farmers and producers, as the US is now
realising. I urge the UK's representative at next month's Council
of Ministers' meeting to take the position supported by 74 per cent
of the British population and press for speedy adoption of the
labelling and traceability regulations necessary to ensure UK consumers
are given the freedom to choose and the right to know exactly what
they are eating.
Caroline Lucas, Green Member, European Parliament, 1049 Brussels
***
5. The Science and Politics of Super Rice
Joseph Kahn, The New York Times, October 22, 2002
Hangzhou, China -- Huang Danian, an expert at the National Rice Research Institute here, has created a rice so resilient and tasty, he says, that ''every farmer in China will certainly want it.''
So far, however, it grows only on a few acres in Mr. Huang's walled garden near Hangzhou, about 100 miles southwest of Shanghai. Though he has passed government safety tests and has a national patent for his creation, China has banned his rice from grocery shelves because it depends on altering rice genes to create a breed immune to the toxic effects of herbicides.
Reversing its formerly enthusiastic embrace of genetic experiments, China has imposed restrictions on domestic varieties of genetically modified crops like rice, soybeans, vegetables and tobacco, and required lengthy safety tests and cumbersome labeling rules for imports of such food.
The go-slow approach reflects rising concerns about food safety, but mainly, many critics say, the restrictions are a convenient tool for trade protection. Officials in Beijing fear that small-scale, and therefore relatively inefficient, Chinese farmers cannot compete with food imports from the United States, many of them genetically modified. Officials also think that the country's own food exports may suffer in the world market, where fears of so-called Frankenstein food are rampant, if China becomes a pioneer in genetically altered foods.
China's entry into the World Trade Organization earlier this year was supposed to open its markets permanently and make it difficult to manipulate trade in such ways. But new rules and regulations governing farm products and some crucial services like banking and telecommunications, show that it has no intention of making domestic producers fend for themselves overnight.
''The U.S. hoped China was just going to get out of the market, but it obviously isn't happening that way,'' said Robert Paarlberg, a political science expert at Wellesley College who has studied China's policies on genetics. ''In some ways, the genetics issue is just an excuse to control trade.''
The newly cautious approach to genetically modified foods has disappointed American farmers, who expected to sell far more goods to China after it joined the trade organization early this year. Instead, their sales of soybeans, the largest export crop, fell 23 percent in the year through September compared with the similar period of 2001, largely because of complications related to China's new testing and licensing procedures.
Bush administration trade officials have made repeated trips to China in recent months aimed at persuading officials to allow unfettered imports of soybeans. Trade in farm products is also expected to be a sensitive economic issue on the agenda when President Jiang Zemin meets President Bush in Crawford, Tex., on Oct. 25.
Possibly to ease trade tensions, China recently announced that it would extend a provisional arrangement allowing imports of soybeans until next September, giving it more time to review health and environmental effects.
This concession relieves some of the uncertainty that had disrupted the $1 billion soybean trade. But it may also push back the date when China decides whether to certify American soybeans as safe.
More broadly, the guarded approach to genetically modified foods appears to be ascendant. Officials in the agriculture ministry want more restrictions on genetically altered foods because of safety and competitiveness concerns, several Chinese officials said. They have outmaneuvered people in the nation's science establishment who wanted to see the fruits of genetic research harvested quickly.
''China has long wanted to be No. 1 in developing rice and other staple foods,'' said Mr. Huang, who had been negotiating with Monsanto and other big foreign biotechnology companies to commercialize his rice breed. ''But it is becoming clear that we will not develop faster than the rest of world. We are not going to be first.''
That would amount to a decisive shift for China, which until recently seemed to want to become the developing world's leader in biotechnology. It has invested large amounts -- as much as $100 million annually, according to a survey team from the University of California -- to develop more than 140 varieties of genetically modified plants.
The idea is to rearrange genes in important crops to maximize their resistance to pests or to pesticides and herbicides. Other strains have been designed to grow in arid or salty soil, while still others were tweaked to improve taste.
China saw genetic research as the way to maintain basic self-sufficiency in staple foods and get the most from its arable land, which is already scarce and is shrinking every year.
So strong was its commitment to genetic engineering that it was the only developing country to join the Human Genome Project. Its scientists played a leading role in deciphering the complex rice genome. And China produced genetically modified seeds to grow potatoes, tomatoes, soybeans, rice and even trees and flowers.
But some early failed experiments with genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1990's, as well as reports that genetically modified corn had unintentionally been mixed with organic corn in Mexico in 1999, began to diminish its ardor, local and international experts said.
Growing consumer resistance to genetically modified food in Japan and South Korea, as well as in Europe, provided another warning. Chinese officials feared that they would lose important export markets by pushing ahead too quickly.
Polls also showed that domestic shoppers preferred food that had not been genetically altered. After Chinese officials issued new labeling rules this summer, supermarkets were supposed to begin putting notices on products that contained genetically modified ingredients. Few products carry such labels now, but there are many, like Rong's brand corn oil, that have bright yellow labels saying they contain only organic ingredients.
Both the Bush and Clinton administrations had hoped that China would
become an ally on farm issues in the World Trade Organization, where the
fight over the safety of genetically modified food may eventually end up.
Instead, China now appears more inclined to support a cautionary stance
like the one taken by the European Union. If its position does not change,
it may slow the trade of genetically modified food globally. ''In
the long run, China could still be an ally of the U.S. within the W.T.O.,''
Mr. Paarlberg said, ''but in the short run they are definitely not going
to be a stalking horse.''
Indeed, the trend is toward more restrictions. Although China has had new seed varieties available for years, it has allowed the widespread planting of only one crop, a strain of cotton modified to resist the bollworm.
This spring, Beijing banned biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Syngenta from investing in the development of genetically modified strains of corn, soybeans and rice seeds.
More recently, it canceled plans to allow the broad use of corn plants modified to fight bugs in the main grain-producing provinces in the northeast. Field tests showed that in China's tightly concentrated farm plots, pests evolved quickly to overcome the resistance of genetically modified plants.
''The general sense is that the risks are too high and the market is too small'' for most genetically modified plants, said Wu Kongmin, who heads a panel of experts conducting safety tests for the agriculture ministry.
At his laboratory near Hangzhou, Mr. Huang is waiting for approval to develop rice seeds based on his herbicide-resistant breed. But he puts most of his energy into developing a new grade of rice that has an extra long grain, which he plans to market under the brand name Tianmei. He achieved that result, significantly, through conventional crossbreeding, not by rearranging genes.
''At least,'' he said, ''we can make some progress the old way.''