A rchive Date
[ 03-06-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Biotechnology ]
|
[http://www.electricarrow.com/carp/tiller/archives/backlog.htm
NESTLE, UNILEVER & OTHER EUROPEAN BUYERS REFUSE RRS SOYBEANS
Nestle and Unilever in Germany and other major European soy buyers have begun to cancel orders for U.S. soybean exports, according to Pure Food Campaign and Foundation on Economic Trends spokespersons
The cancellations are due to consumer backlash against the controversial US government policy allowing unlabeled and relatively untested genetically engineered soybeans to be mixed together with ordinary soybeans and sold on domestic and international markets.
Unilever and Nestle announced respectively on Oct. 24 and 25 that they are canceling orders amounting to over 650,000 metric tons of unprocessed U.S. soybeans--equivalent to 7.1% of last year's 9.1 million metric tons of U.S. soy exports to Europe.
"As we predicted on October 7," Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Pure Food Campaign told a November 5 press conference, "Monsanto's genetically engineered 'Roundup Ready' soybeans (RRS} have sparked a major trade confrontation between the US and our trading partners in Europe.
"The latest data show that U.S. farmers and the U.S. economy have already lost $150-450 million dollars in soybean sales to Europe, with the controversy growing more intense with each passing week, " Cummins noted.
Nestle and Unilever's announcement came in the wake of similar actions taken by other European soy and soy oil buyers, including leading supermarket chains, baby food manufacturers, dietary food producers, and the natural foods industry in Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, and other EU nations.
It was Eurocommerce--the umbrella trade\association representing wholesalers and retailers in 20 European countries-- which pointed out in a Oct. 7 press conference, that recent European surveys indicate that up to 90% of consumers insist upon mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.
Since October 7 over 300 consumer, health, farmer, and environmental organizations from 48 nations have pledged to boycott Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" herbicide resistant soybeans, citing potential human health hazards and adverse environmental impacts.
In Germany alone more than 100,000 people have signed petitions demanding a ban on the RRS variety. It is in fear of such a consumer backlash that companies such as Nestle SA and Unilever NV have canceled multi-million dollar soybean orders within the past month because their U.S. suppliers refuse to identify the true nature of their beans.
On November 5 in the late afternoon when the freighter "Ideal Progress" docked in Hamburg's harbor with a 67,000-ton cargo believed to include the RRS beans, Greenpeace and other environmental activist groups illuminated its hull with protest messages denouncing U.S. policy
"We are pleased to see that major businesses are ready to adjust to the views of consumers even if governments are afraid to do so," Joerg Naumann, leader of the Greenpeace campaign told the Washington Post. "I think these companies are smart enough to realize that consumers will go elsewhere unless they know how and where these foods are grown."
The consumer protests have continued even though the German government and its European Union partners have approved sale of the gene-altered beans and declared them safe. Some observers speculate that the current uproar over bio-tech food reflects Germany's acute sensitivity to genetic manipulation of any kind largely due to the legacy of grisly eugenic experiments under the Nazis.
Meanwhile, German government officials acknowledge that the issues are so politically sensitive in their country that they would prefer to leave the choices to the private sector.
"We would like to see the food industry voluntarily label all products that include genetically modified ingredients," Juergen Ruettgers, Germany's minister for science and technology, told the Post's William Drozdiak. "If that is not possible, then we should introduce labels for all foods that do not include changed genetic material. We hope this would calm down any panic or conflicts."
The U.S. has adamantly opposed all such labeling, contending that it would likely become a trade barrier that would distort the market. U.S. government and food export companies also claim that such product discrimination would cause a sharp increase in costs and jeopardize future business. Soybeans, which are used in nearly 60 percent of all processed foods, would put at risk nearly $2 billion worth of exports to Europe.
"This whole issue has really touched a nerve, but the problem is, where do you draw the line?" notes George Pope, chief agriculture officer at the U.S. mission to the European Union. "What many Europeans do not realize is that the barn door has been blown wide open and the horse is gone. Genetically modified enzymes are now present in all cheese, yogurt and yeast products that they consume.
"There is a slew of new products out there, everything from corn to tomatoes to the ink in ballpoint pens, that have genetically changed material," Pope said. "The point is that it would be just about impossible to label everything. And if Europeans just try to single out soybeans, it would look pretty much like an anti American ploy."
A controversy similar to the RRS one has also erupted over Swiss-based Ciba Geigy's genetically engineered Bt-spliced corn, presently approved for marketing in the U.S., but banned in Europe.
According to Dan McGuire, former executive director of the Interstate Grain Commission in Lincoln, Nebraska, "An Oct. 24 export sales report by the USDA documents that cumulative U.S. soybean exports to Europe this marketing year are only 69.3% of year ago levels.
"The lack of flexibility [on refusing to separate and label genetically engineered soybeans and other grains] combined with the indifference and arrogance of some of the U.S./multinational grain companies toward our European customers flies in the face of the very 'market-oriented' farm and export policy that these same grain traders and commodity groups pushed through the U.S. Congress in 1996."
McGuire also points out that "If the U.S. grain industry really believes it is the 'supermarket to the world,' it better start acting like it. With cumulative U.S. exports off a full 20-30% and soybean prices at the farm gate dropping steadily, the negative impact on farmers and the rural economy from this export issue is very serious indeed.
"And let us remember," he concludes, "that although U.S. farmers and the U.S. economy are losing export sales to Europe, this does not mean that the multinational grain companies are losing sales--since they are quite willing to sell European buyers the grains and oil seeds produced by the U.S.'s foreign competitors."
Despite the Clinton Administration's refusal to require special pre-market safety testing or labeling of genetically engineered foods and crops, consumer concern over gene-spliced products, both in Europe and the U.S., is growing.
Consumer polls over the past decade indicate that 80-95% of the American public wants mandatory labeling. An April 17th poll by the Associated Press found that 22% of Americans have changed their dairy food purchasing habits because of concern over Monsanto's controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (also known as rBGH or BST).
An earlier boycott against rBGH has resulted in heavy financial losses for Monsanto during the first two years of the product's introduction onto the U.S. market. In addition the international boycott against rBGH has successfully blocked approval in Canada, Australia, and the European Union.
"The message from consumers worldwide is clear. Unless genetically engineered foods and crops are properly safety-tested and labeled, consumers and socially responsible businesses are left with no other alternative but to boycott them," said Jeremy Rifkin, FET President.
 World Fact Book (CIA]
|