| Opposing views on biotech crops keep debate alive (8/3/2008) | |
|
1.Opposing views on biotech crops keep debate alive EXTRACT: 'As far as genetic engineering for food, that is the great experiment that has failed. They literally have the entire world market against them. All those dreams... the blind will see, the lame will walk... has turned out to be science fiction. 'They are basically chemical companies selling more chemicals. They've been able to spread these herbicide-promoting plants around because it is more convenient for farmers who can just mass-spray their crops. But they've given absolutely nothing to the consumer while causing more chemical pollution and contamination.' (item 1) --- KANSAS CITY, Mo., March 7 (Reuters) - The debate over biotech crops is a constantly moving argument: each country, each crop, each new genetically altered strain of corn or bean or cotton offers a fresh battleground for biotech champions and critics. Interviews with leading figures on both sides of the debate illustrate the extent to which the views differ, leaving the truth about biotech crops -- good or bad or a bit of both -- hard to determine. For Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety and a lawyer who helped successfully derail biotech alfalfa last year, opponents are gaining ground. He takes pride in the fact that critics parlayed environmental concerns and trade-related arguments into the end of biotech wheat research and a court-ordered ban on the planting of biotech alfalfa. He cites as progress slowed development of biotech rice and a new lawsuit seeking to block a biotech sugar beet. And he takes heart from the fact that many countries outside the world have shown reluctance to support cultivation of biotech crops for food. Of all the biotech crops grown worldwide, more than 80 percent are planted in only three countries: The United States, Argentina and Brazil. Kimbrell said that, although biotech companies promise genetic engineering can offer a range of benefits to consumers, the vast majority of the technology to date is focused on crops that can endure increased chemical treatments or make their own insecticides but cause a range of environmental damage. 'As far as genetic engineering for food, that is the great experiment that has failed,' Kimbrell said in an interview. 'They literally have the entire world market against them. All those dreams... the blind will see, the lame will walk... has turned out to be science fiction. 'They are basically chemical companies selling more chemicals. They've been able to spread these herbicide-promoting plants around because it is more convenient for farmers who can just mass-spray their crops. But they've given absolutely nothing to the consumer while causing more chemical pollution and contamination.' DIFFERENT VIEW Paul Schickler, president of DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred International agricultural unit, has a decidedly different view. 'We continue to make strides in additional products and additional markets opening up and additional acceptance of the technology,' said Schickler. He cited recent moves by Brazil to approve a biotech corn for food use and said Argentina is moving forward to approve a new biotech corn engineered for both insect protection and herbicide tolerance. Schickler also pointed to improving receptiveness in South Africa, and said Thailand was moving closer to removing a 2001 ban on field testing for agricultural biotech products. Schickler said acceptance has also grown in the European Union where eight countries planted biotech crops in 2007. 'The technology is proven to be not only effective but to be safe. There is more understanding of the benefits, both in productivity and reduced uses of pesticides and improved quality and in a reduced environmental footprint,' Schickler said. 'As demand continues to increase for feed, food, fiber, fuel and materials from plant-based products, that necessity for increased productivity is more important today than it has been historically.' Schickler said questions about the safety of such products was invalid. 'This is one of the most tested product introductions that there has ever been. It is reviewed and moves through regulatory processes that are proven ... there has not been one example of a impact to the environment or health as a result of the science,' he said. (Reporting by Carey Gillam; editing by Jim Marshall) --- 2.U.S. activist circles globe to fight biotech crops KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Jeffrey Smith is a man on a mission. Each day, ever day for the last 12 years, the 49-year-old Smith has made it his personal calling to travel the world preaching against genetically modified crops. From Poland to Brazil and California to Vermont, Smith has crisscrossed more than two dozen countries to preach to physician groups, regulators, political leaders, and consumer groups that gene-altered corn, soybeans, canola and other crops, when included in human food, can cause a range of serious health problems. 'GMOs have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergic-type reactions, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals,' said Smith, who has authored two books on the topic. The New York native, who worked as a marketing consultant before turning activist, sees what he calls small victories all around him, including recent moves by major dairy companies and retailers to shun products derived from cows given biotech supplements, efforts by various U.S. states and local governments to restrict biotech crops, and wholesale bans on biotech crops in several foreign countries. This summer, Smith and a consortium of U.S. organic food company players who see him as a champion for their interests are rolling out a U.S. marketing strategy aimed at convincing consumers in this generally GMO-friendly country to shun foods containing genetically altered ingredients. 'Jeffrey is respected as a public educator on GMOs and a person who is interested in aggressively spreading the word,' said Organic Consumers Association national director Ronnie Cummins. Smith, who has replanted himself in Iowa, the largest U.S. corn-growing state, is discounted as misinformed and misleading by supporters of biotechnology who say the safety of genetically engineered crops and food is well established. Even some fellow biotech crop opponents question his strategies. |
|