David Mandl on 3 Aug 2000 14:32:30 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] GM trade war looms |
Interesting, the way business works in the U.S.: Forcing the rest of the world to accept toxic genetically modified "foods" isn't enough; foreign governments (ostensibly sovereign states) also must be forbidden at economic gunpoint to label them in any way. The Americans are aware that Europeans are too smart to knowingly buy GM foods, so they've got to be sneaked into the fruit-and-veg pile surreptitiously. This is a lot like slipping LSD into random containers of orange juice in the grocery store, except you won't know that you've even been dosed until a couple of decades and thousands of tabs later. This is an important enough issue for the American GM-peddlers that they're threatening a full-scale trade war, which they may well win, in spite of clear and overwhelming rejection of GM technology by Europeans. Truly horrible. --Dave. -------------------------------------------- New trade war looms over GM labelling Special report: GM debate Paul Brown in Washington Monday July 31, 2000 The Guardian Europe and the United States are on a collision course over the issue of the labelling of genetically modified food which threatens to spark a trade war. Washington has warned the EU that it is considering making a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva on the grounds that labelling GM products is unfair discrimination against US goods and therefore a restraint of trade. The US says it will ask the WTO to impose sanctions against EU exports if GM labels are not removed from supermarket shelves. The row comes at a time when trade relations with the US are tense over other disputes. A spokeswoman for the US food and drug administration, which insists that only nutritional information should be on the label, said: "This is getting extremely serious. We regard requiring GM labelling as economic fraud. Our view is that we would not have allowed these products on the market if they were not safe, they are the same as non-GM food, so they do not require a label. In fact, to label them is trade discrimination and therefore wrong." The agency confirmed there had been discussions with the European commission over labelling and the restraint of trade issue, but the two sides were "as far apart as ever". Among those urging the US to take action is Senator Christopher Bond, a Republican from Missouri and a leading advocate of US bio-technology. He told the Guardian that the EU's insistence on labelling was designed to lower consumer confidence in US goods and was a barrier to trade. "I will be pushing for trade sanctions over this hysteria," he said. "We are on a collision course, and our government must go to the WTO if the EU does not give way." In Brussels, Beate Kminde, speaking for the commission, said the EU was aware of US threats but no formal complaint had been made. "We are aware of our trade obligations but we also believe in consumer choice so we require GM foods to be labelled. The Americans will not accept this but we are determined. We will have to see what they do." Unless the row is resolved, there could be a trade war that would make present disputes seem very small. The British government is already braced for heavy job losses in the Scottish cashmere industry as a result of US retaliation in the long-running US-EU banana dispute. US officials complain that Caribbean producers in former colonies of EU members are getting preferential treatment. Britain has so far escaped sanctions in the row over the EU ban on the use of hormones in beef, which has led to 12-year embargo on US beef. Goods including French cheese and truffles and German and French mustards have faced 100% US tariffs in tit-for-tat action but Britain's support for the US position, even though it cannot opt out of the EU ban, has meant British goods have not been targeted. The EU meanwhile has complained about US export subsidies to huge corporations such as Boeing, Exxon, Ford and Monsanto. Regulators on opposite sides of the Atlantic disagree about the purpose of food labels and the EU stance on consumer choice is regarded as fundamentally wrong in Washington. The FDA believes that GM foods are safe and the nutritional value is the same as non-GM foods, so there should be no mention on the label of the "process" by which the food was grown. In Washington, Tom O'Connor, director of technical services for the national grain and feed association, said the EU labelling system would "kill GM technology in Europe". "It looks like a warning, like putting a skull and crossbones on the packet, a kiss of death in marketing terms," he said. The FDA and other regulators decided in May to look again at the issue after US organic and other food producers began to label food GM-free. No final decision has been made but officials believe that to conform with regulations the food would have to be 100% non-GM, a difficult feat in a country where almost all processed food contains some GM maize or soya. © Copyright Guardian Media Group plc. 2000 -------------------------------------------- -- Dave Mandl dmandl@panix.com davem@wfmu.org http://www.wfmu.org/~davem _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold