# 666: The Bad Seed :Health Alert

[Guest guest]

Hello to all of my friends, relatives, and health-conscious online buddies:

I believe that this a very important newsletter that I am forwarding to all

of you, and I hope that you will take the time to read it and pass it on to

whomever you think might also be interested. The potential implications of

this are mind-boggling, and it will have a profound effect on all of our

lives. I am sending this to many mailing lists to which I am subscribed,

and I do hope that the listmembers do not regard this as spam.

Sincerely,

Ira M. Fine

iramfine@...

This has been cut and pasted in its entirety.

Subj: #666: The Bad Seed

Date: 09/03/1999 02:02:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: rachel@...

Sender: montague@...

Reply-to: rachel@...

rachel-weekly@...

=======================Electronic Edition========================

.. .

.. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #666 .

.. ---September 2, 1999--- .

.. HEADLINES: .

.. THE BAD SEED .

.. ========== .

.. Environmental Research Foundation .

.. P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403 .

.. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@... .

.. ========== .

.. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .

.. info@... with the single word HELP in the message. .

.. Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. .

.. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .

.. listserv@... with the words .

.. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. .

.. The newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .

.. to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an .

.. E-mail message to info@.... .

=================================================================

THE BAD SEED

Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis has been maneuvering for more

than a decade to dominate the world's supply of seed for staple

crops (corn, soybeans, potatoes) -- a business plan that

Monsanto's critics say is nothing short of diabolical. Monsanto

says it is just devilishly good business.

Monsanto has spent upwards of $8 billion in recent years buying

numerous U.S. seed companies. As a result, two firms, Monsanto

and Pioneer (recently purchased by DuPont), now dominate the

U.S. seed business. Monsanto specializes in genetically modified

seeds -- seeds having particular properties that Monsanto has

patented.

The U.S. government is very enthusiastic about these new

technologies. From the viewpoint of U.S. foreign policy,

genetically modified seeds offer a key advantage over

traditional seeds: because genetically modified seeds are

patented, it is illegal for a farmer to retain seed from this

year's crop to plant next year. To use these patented seeds,

farmers must buy new seed from Monsanto every year. Thus a

farmer who adopts genetically modified seeds and fails to retain

a stock of traditional seeds could become dependent upon a

transnational corporation. Nations whose farmers grew dependent

upon corporations for seed might forfeit considerable political

independence. The Clinton/Gore administration has been

aggressively helping Monsanto promote ag-biotech, bypassing

U.S. health and safety regulations to promote new, untested

gene-altered products.

A key component of the U.S./Monsanto plan to dominate world

agriculture with genetically modified seeds is the absence of

labeling of genetically engineered foods. All U.S. foods carry

labels listing the ingredients: salt, sugar, water, vitamins,

etc. But three separate executive agencies -- U.S. Food and Drug

Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency -- have ruled that

genetically-modified foods deserve an exception: they can be

sold without being labeled " genetically modified. " This strategy

has successfully prevented consumers from exercising informed

choice in the marketplace, reducing the likelihood of a consumer

revolt, at least in the U.S., at least for now.

Earlier this year, opposition to genetically modified foods

exploded in England and quickly spread to the European

continent. (See REHW #649.) Burgeoning consumer opposition has

now swept into Asia and back to North America. The NEW YORK

TIMES reported last week that, " the Clinton Administration's

efforts have grown increasingly urgent, in an attempt to contain

the aversion to these crops that is leaping from continent to

continent. " [1]

** Recently Japan -- the largest Asian importer of U.S. food --

passed a law requiring the labeling of genetically modified

foods.[1] A subsidiary of Honda Motor Company immediately

announced that it will build a plant in Ohio and hire farmers to

supply it with traditional, unaltered soy beans. Soy is the

basis of tofu, a staple food in Japan.

Subsequently, the largest and third-largest Japanese beer

makers, Kirin Brewery and Sapporo Breweries, Ltd.,

announced that they will stop using genetically modified

corn by 2001. Other Japanese brewers are expected to

follow suit.

** The Reuters North America wire service reported Sept. 1 that

South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand have all now passed laws

requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. Reuters

says the U.S. government has publicly protested against such

labeling laws and has privately lobbied hard against them,

unsuccessfully.

** Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour --

recently announced it will no longer purchase any genetically

modified corn. Corn flour is made into tortillas, a Mexican

staple. Mexico buys $500 million of U.S. corn each year, so the

Grupo Maseca announcement sent a chill through midwestern corn

farmers who planted Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.[1]

About 1/3 of this year's U.S. corn crop is being grown from

genetically modified seeds.

** Gerber and Heinz -- the two leading manufacturers of baby

foods in the U.S. -- announced in July that they would not allow

genetically modified corn or soybeans in any of their baby

foods.[2] After the baby food announcements, Iams, the

high-end pet food producer, announced that it would not purchase

any of the seven varieties of genetically modified corn that

have not been approved by the European Union. This announcement

cut off an alternative use that U.S. farmer's had hoped to make

of corn rejected by overseas buyers.

** As the demand for traditional, unmodified corn and soy has

grown, a two-price system for crops has developed in the U.S. --

a higher price for traditional, unmodified crops, and a lower

price for genetically modified crops. For example, Archer

s Midland is paying some farmers 18 cents less per bushel

for genetically modified soybeans, compared to the traditional

product.[1]

** The American Corn Growers Association, which represents

mainly family farmers, has told its members that they should

consider planting only traditional, unmodified seed next spring

because it may not be possible to export genetically modified

corn.[1]

** Deutsche Bank, Europe's largest bank, has issued two reports

within the past six months advising its large institutional

investors to abandon ag-biotech companies like Monsanto and

Novartis.[3] In July, 1998, Monsanto stock was selling for $56

per share; today it is about $41, a 27% decline despite the

phenomenal success of Monsanto's new arthritis medicine,

Celebrex.

In its most recent report, Deutsche Bank said, " ...t appears

the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments

are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not

ready for GMOs [genetically modified organisms].' "

Deutsche Bank's Washington, D.C., analysts, Mitsch and

, announced nine months ago that ag-biotech

" was going the way of the nuclear industry in this country. "

" But we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast

appears to be playing out, " they told the London GUARDIAN in

late August.[3]

In Europe, the ag-biotech controversy is playing out upon a

stage created by an earlier -- and ongoing -- scientific dispute

over sex hormones in beef.[4] About 90% of U.S. beef cattle are

treated with sex hormones -- three naturally-occurring

(estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone) and three synthetic

hormones that mimic the natural ones (zeranol, melengesterol

acetate, and trenbolone acetate). Hormone treatment makes cattle

grow faster and produces more tender, flavorful cuts of beef.

Since 1995 the European Union has prohibited the treatment of

any farm animals with sex hormones intended to promote growth,

on grounds that sex hormones are known to cause several human

cancers. As a byproduct of that prohibition, the EU refuses to

allow the import of hormone-treated beef from the U.S. and

Canada.

The U.S. asserts that hormone-treated beef is entirely safe and

that the European ban violates the global free trade regime that

the U.S. has worked religiously for 20 years to create. The U.S.

argues that sex hormones only promote human cancers in

hormone-sensitive tissues, such as the female breast and uterus.

Therefore, the U.S. argues, the mechanism of carcinogenic action

must be activation of hormone " receptors " and therefore there is

a " threshold " -- a level of hormones below which no cancers will

occur. Based on risk assessments, the U.S. government claims to

know where that threshold level lies. Furthermore, the U.S.

claims it has established a regulatory process that prevents any

farmer from exceeding the threshold level in his or her cows.

In a 136-page report issued in late April, an EU scientific

committee argues that hormones may cause some human cancers by

an entirely different mechanism -- by interfering directly with

DNA.[5] If that were true, there would be no threshold for

safety and the only safe dose of sex hormones in beef would be

zero. " If you assume no threshold, you should continually be

taking steps to get down to lower levels, because no level is

safe, " says Bridges, a toxicologist at the University of

Surrey in Guilford, England.[4]

Secondly, the EU spot-checked 258 meat samples from the Hormone

Free Cattle program run jointly by the U.S. beef industry and

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This program is intended to

raise beef cattle without the use of hormones, thus producing

beef eligible for import into Europe. The spot check found that

12% of the " hormone free " cattle had in fact been treated with

sex hormones. EU officials cite this as evidence that growth

hormones are poorly regulated in the U.S. beef industry and

that Europeans might be exposed to higher-than-allowed

concentrations if the ban on North American imports were lifted.

" These revelations are embarrassing for U.S. officials, " reports

SCIENCE magazine.[4] Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to assert

that its hormone-treated beef is 100% safe.

Thus we have a classic scientific controversy characterized by

considerable scientific uncertainty. This particular scientific

dispute has profound implications for the future of all

regulation under a global free trade regime -- including

regulation of toxic chemicals -- because the European Union is

basing its opposition to hormone-treated beef on the

precautionary principle. The U.S. insists that this precautionary

approach is an illegal restraint of free trade.

The EU's position is clearly precautionary: " Where scientific

evidence is not black and white, policy should err on the side

of caution so that there is zero risk to the consumer, " the EU

says.[6] The Danish pediatric researcher, Niels Skakkebaek, says

the burden of proof lies with those putting hormones in beef:

" The possible health effects from the hormones have hardly been

studied -- the burden of proof should lie with the American beef

industry, " Skakkebaek told CHEMICAL WEEK, a U.S. chemical

industry publication that is following the beef controversy

closely.[6]

It appears that European activists have seized upon hormones in

beef, and upon Monsanto's seed domination plan, as a vehicle for

opposing a " global free trade " regime in which nations lose their

power to regulate markets to protect public health or the

environment. The NEW YORK TIMES reports that a Peasant

Confederation of European farmers derives much of its

intellectual inspiration and direction from a new organization,

called Attac, formed last year in France to fight the spread of

global free trade regimes.[7] The Confederation has destroyed

several Mc's restaurants and dumped rotten vegetables in

others. Patrice Vidieu, the secretary-general of the Peasant

Confederation, told the TIMES, " What we reject is the idea that

the power of the marketplace becomes the dominant force in all

societies, and that multinationals like Mc's or Monsanto

come to impose the food we eat and the seeds we plant. "

What began as consumer opposition to genetically-modified seed

appears to be turning into an open revolt against the

25-year-old U.S.-led effort to impose free-trade regimes

world-wide, enthroning transnational corporations in the

process. If approached strategically by ALLIANCES of U.S.

activists and their overseas counterparts (and it MUST NOT be

viewed as merely a labeling dispute) genetic engineering could

become the most important fight in more than a century.

-- Montague

(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

==========

[1] " Melody sen, " New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers, " NEW

YORK TIMES August 29, 1999, pgs. A1, A18.

[2] Lucette Lagnado, " Strained Peace: Gerber Baby Food, Grilled

by Greenpeace, Plans Swift Overhaul -- Gene-Modified Corn and

Soy Will Go, Although Firm Feels Sure They Are Safe -- Heinz

Takes Action, Too, " WALL STREET JOURNAL July 30, 1999, pg. A1.

[3] Brown and Vidal, " GM Investors Told to Sell Their

Shares, " THE GUARDIAN [London] August 25, 1999, pg. unknown.

[4] Balter, " Scientific Cross-Claims Fly in Continuing

Beef War, " SCIENCE Vol. 284 (May 28, 1999), pgs. 1453-1455.

[5] " Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures

Relating to Public Health; Assessment of Potential Risks to

Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat

Products. " European Commission, April 30, 1999. 139 pgs. The

report is available in PDF format from:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scv/out21_en.html .

[6] " Europe's Beef Ban Tests Precautionary Principle, " CHEMICAL

WEEK August 11, 1999, pg. unknown.

[7] Cohen, " Fearful Over the Future, Europe Seizes on

Food, " NEW YORK TIMES August 29, 1999, pg. unknown.

Descriptor terms: genetic engineering; farming; agriculture;

monsanto; pioneer; france; peasant confederation; beef industry;

hormones;

################################################################

NOTICE

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.

Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic

version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge

even though it costs the organization considerable time and money

to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service

free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution

(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send

your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research

Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403-7036. Please do

not send credit card information via E-mail. For further

information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.

by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at

(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.

-- Montague, Editor

################################################################

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <montague@...>

Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.1]) by

air-yg03.mail.aol.com (v60.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Sep 1999 02:02:26 2000

Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by

rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v60.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Sep 1999 02:02:12 -0400

Received: (from daemon@localhost)

by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22178

for rachel-weekly-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:08:06 -0400 (EDT)

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:08:06 -0400 (EDT)

Message-Id: <199909022308.TAA22178@...>

rachel-weekly@...

Subject: #666: The Bad Seed

From: rachel@...

Sender: montague@...

Precedence: bulk

Reply-rachel@...