info4action archive


GE - GMO news 9/22 part 2

1)  BANGKOK POST September 22, 1999 - Editorial- Blast raises some age-old 
2)  The Daily Yomiuri September 22, 1999 - Ministry launches probe into
imported GM  foods BYLINE: Yomiuri 
3) The Northern Echo September 22, 1999 - GM FOODS ARE BANNED FROM SCHOOL
4) Aberdeen Press and Journal September 21, 1999 - Campaign group face trial 
5) Journal of Commerce September 21, 1999 - WORLD TRADE - Discussions break
6) Newsday (New York, NY) September 22, 1999, Wednesday ALL EDITIONS SECTION:
8) tHE PANTAGRAPH (Bloomington, IL.) September 19, 1999, Growing pains for
farmers; Debate continues over genetically altered crops CHRIS ANDERSON
9)  Countries commit to biosafety deal in 2000 ENDS Daily - 21/09/99 
10)  Norwegian NGOs mobilise against GM foods ENDS Daily - 
11) Western Producer Online (Canada)September 23, 1999 

1)  BANGKOK POST September 22, 1999 - Editorial- Blast raises some age-old 
> questions BODY: The explosion on Sunday at the Hong Thai 
> Kaset Pattana lamyai processing plant in Chiang Mai in 
> which at least 35 people were killed and dozens of others 
> were injured was a tragedy waiting to happen. But, just as 
> equally, it was a tragedy that could have been prevented. 
> The blast is believed to have been caused by potassium 
> chlorate, an oxidising agent which is both inflammable and 
> explosive, and should not be left just lying around. 
> According to a Defence Ministry source, about 10 tons of 
> the chemical was stored at the factory after it reportedly 
> was moved without permission from the company warehouse. As 
> more facts surrounding the explosion bubble to the surface, 
> it it is becoming clear that the potassium chlorate was 
> intended for sale to lamyai growers in the province's San 
> Patong district, orchardists who sell their fruit to the 
> processing plant. Many of Chiang Mai's lamyai growers began 
> using potassium chlorate about a year ago after the 
> accidental discovery that the chemical helped boost the 
> fertility of their fruit trees. The wonders of potassium 
> chlorate spread like wildfire as more and more farmers 
> heard of it and passed on the word so that soon the 
> chemical was in demand by almost every lamyai orchard. 
> Although a controlled substance meaning its import, 
> transport and storage all require a special licence it 
> became accepted that many lamyai processing factories in 
> Chiang Mai were storing the chemical, in many cases 
> illegally. As if to confirm this, several factories closed 
> their doors yesterday, presumably to dispose of their 
> stocks of the chemical before they are discovered by the 
> authorities. Even if the managers of the devastated factory 
> must shoulder the blame for storing this chemical illegally 
> and thus the explosion, there still remains the issue of 
> the clearly lax and inefficient control and monitoring of 
> this explosive substance. There already have been 
> contradictory statements by the Defence Ministry and the 
> Agriculture Department on whether Hong Thai Kaset Pattana 
> had a licence to import potassium chlorate. This latest 
> tragedy, like so many before it, has shed light on another 
> disturbing problem, this time involving the development of 
> our farm sector: the over-dependence and overuse of 
> chemicals in agriculture, be it chemical fertilisers, 
> pesticides, insecticides or, lately, genetically -modified 
> plant seeds. Many lamyai growers have embraced the use of 
> potassium chlorate with a passion because the chemical 
> boosts the fertility of lamyai trees and provides them with 
> several crops a year instead of just one. Despite the 
> repeated warnings of agricultural experts that the chemical 
> would exhaust the trees and, in the end, kill them, growers 
> seem unconcerned. One was quoted as saying: "I would have 
> died long before the trees under the burden of debt which 
> keeps on building."It is not only lamyai growers who are 
> dependent on potassium chlorate to boost their crop yields; 
> many other farmers rely on chemical fertilisers and 
> insecticides for the same reason so that they too can 
> settle their debts with their creditors. Sadly, many are 
> unaware of the effects of the chemicals on the environment 
> and on their health. And those who are aware ignore the 
> consequences by focussing wholly on the greater income they 
> earn and need to pay off their debts. Behind the popularity 
> of potassium chlorate among lamyai growers, and the 
> incentive this gives companies such as Hong Thai Kaset 
> Pattana to keep stocks, is farmer indebtedness too often 
> the result of just trying to make ends meet from year to 
> year which is keeping our farmers in inescapable poverty. As 
> the authorities trip over themselves to appear to try to 
> prevent a repeat of Sunday's blast, we should hope that 
> they look beyond the obvious and delve into what is the 
> root cause of this tragedy. Copyright 1999: Bangkok Post. 
> ===================#=================== 
2)  The Daily Yomiuri September 22, 1999 - Ministry launches probe into
imported GM  foods BYLINE: Yomiuri 
BODY: The Health and Welfare Ministry 
> launched an investigation earlier this week at six 
> quarantine check points across the nation to check whether 
> genetically modified (GM) food that the ministry has not 
> yet authorized for sale mis being imported into the 
> country, according to ministry officials. Currently, 
> samples of imported soybean and corn are being targeted for 
> examination. It is the first time that the ministry has 
> taken action to collect objective data on imported GM 
> foods, although it has asked overseas manufacturers of such 
> foods to refrain from exporting food to Japan that it has 
> not licensed. GM foods that have been confirmed safe by the 
> ministry to date include soybeans, corn and rapeseed. A 
> total of 22 varieties of GM farm products have been 
> licensed by the ministry after the manufacturers applied for 
> registration and the products underwent safety checks by 
> experts. The experts screened the products according to 
> safety guidelines, which include an evaluation of toxins 
> produced as a result of genetic engineering. While the 
> ministry does not permit the importation of GM foods other 
> than those that have passed the screening process, there 
> are no legally binding regulations or penalties. The 
> government has relied on the voluntary restraint of 
> manufacturers concerning the export of unscreened foods to 
> Japan, but consumer groups have raised questions as to 
> whether the policy is effective. Currently, all GM foods 
> being sold for consumption are imported. Experts believe 
> that the majority of corn imported from the United States 
> has been genetically modified. However, U.S. scientists are 
> producing varieties that are mixtures of unmodified and GM 
> agricultural produce, which have not been authorized for 
> sale in Japan. Civic and consumer groups believe that GM 
> foods other than those that have been tested for safety are 
> being sold in the country. 
> ===================#=================== 
3) The Northern Echo September 22, 1999 - GM FOODS ARE BANNED FROM SCHOOL
BODY: A COUNCIL is banning genetically modified food from the 
> dinner plates of thousands of schoolchildren. Sunderland 
> City Council's school meals service is asking all its 
> suppliers to identify food and ingredients that has GM 
> content. A spokeswoman for Sunderland's meals service said: 
> "Food suppliers renewing future contracts will be required 
> to demonstrate that they are supplying GM -free products." 
> A spokesman for Durham County Council said: "All of our 
> meals are provided by private contractor Chartwells, which 
> has a policy, which we support, of not knowingly using 
> genetically modified food." 
> A Hartlepool Borough Council spokesman said: "Until we are 
> convinced otherwise we will continue to adopt a cautious 
> approach, which is why we have this policy of being against 
> GM foods." 
> Gateshead Borough Council now requires suppliers to 
> identify food or ingredients that have GM derivatives. "The 
> idea is to be totally GM-free," said a spokesman. A 
> Middlesbrough council spokes-man said: "We insist to our 
> suppliers that they don't supply GM food.
> ===================#=================== 

4) Aberdeen Press and Journal September 21, 1999 - Campaign group face trial 
BODY: AN ABERDEEN environmentalist will stand trial later this year 
> in an English court accused of damaging a field of 
> genetically modified crops. Alastair Beveridge, 30, of 36 
> Whitehall Place, was one of 28 Greenpeace supporters who 
> appeared before a court in Norwich, accused of damaging a 
> field of maize belonging to agro-chemical company Agrevo at 
> Lyng, Norfolk, on July 26. Beveridge has been a member of 
> the Aberdeen Greenpeace campaign group -which campaigns on 
> a number of issues at any one time - for six years. The 28, 
> who are also all accused of stealing a quantity of maize 
> during the same incident, come from all over the UK, 
> including Edinburgh. They also include the executive 
> director of Greenpeace, Lord Melchett, 51, of Ringstead, 
> Norfolk. They pleaded not guilty and opted for trial by 
> jury. They were all ordered to appear at Norwich Crown 
> Court on November 15. 
> ===================#=================== 

5) Journal of Commerce September 21, 1999 - WORLD TRADE - Discussions break
> BODY: Global talks on regulating the multibillion-dollar 
> trade in genetically altered foods and crops have ended 
> without resolution, but both industry and environmentalists 
> on Monday said progress had been made. The U.N.-sponsored 
> conference, which ended just before midnight on Sunday, was 
> a shot at hammering out agreement on a draft for an 
> internationally binding pact on the trade, handling and 
> transport of genetically modified organisms. Negotiating 
> parties agreed in Vienna that another round of talks would 
> take place in Montreal in January because it was necessary 
> to iron out differences before the Biosafety Protocol could 
> be signed by ministers in May 2000. The previous round of 
> talks ended in stalemate last February in Cartagena, 
> Columbia, after the main grain exporting countries led by 
> the United States baulked at accepting environmental 
> controls on exports of GM crops. The dispute centered on 
> the G-77 group of developing nations, wary that the 
> high-tech crops could pose a potential risk to the 
> environment and human health, and the ""Miami Group'' of 
> the United States, Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia 
> and Chile. The Global Industry Coalition, which represents 
> 2,200 firms worldwide active in biotechnology, said the 
> Vienna talks were encouraging as they were held in greater 
> openness and showed a stronger commitment to clinching a 
> successful protocol. ""We're all pleased there's been some 
> movement since the low point of Cartagena,'' coalition 
> member Joyce Groote of BioteCanada told Reuters. 
> ""Everybody's looking for flexibility, and although not 
> too much is on paper per se, there's definitely a mood, a 
> desire at looking at different proposals,'' she added. The 
> talks centered and stumbled on the treatment of commodities 
> containing genetically modified organisms that can resist 
> disease or produce higher yields. The Miami Group of 
> grain-exporting countries wants a distinction between 
> modified crops that are used for seed and those that will 
> be used for livestock or human food. ""It may be that 
> that's a nice distinction, but the real issue is what is 
> the impact on biodiversity? And the reality is that the 
> impact is exactly the same,'' said political adviser Louise 
> Gale of Greenpeace. According to Greenpeace, the major 
> development from the five-day talks was the firm resolve of 
> the so-called Like-Minded Group of the developing world to 
> insist on their right to reject imports of geneticlaly 
> modified commodities. It is the biggest grouping at the 
> negotiations and consists of the G-77 developing countries 
> except Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, but including China. 
> ===================#=================== 
6) Newsday (New York, NY) September 22, 1999, Wednesday ALL EDITIONS SECTION:
BODY: A FEW WEEKS AGO, I drove through Illinois, Iowa and Missouri, past 
> fields of lush green soybeans and acres of corn. Much of 
> the corn was dry and stunted, because of drought. Yet the 
> condition of the crops was not the most interesting thing 
> about these familiar plants. Though they looked the same as 
> any other such field to the naked eye, millions of acres of 
> the crops had been grown from bio engineered seeds. When I 
> reached my destination, a small farm in northeast Missouri, 
> hundreds of miles away from any major city, I learned more 
> firsthand. The relatives who run that farm sat at the 
> oilcloth-covered kitchen table and spoke matter-of-factly, 
> over glasses of iced tea, about these new GMOs, the 
> shorthand for genetically modified organisms. GMOs have 
> been genetically altered to resist weedkiller, such as the 
> popular Roundup, or to resist bugs such as the corn borer, 
> or to change other characteristics. One thing is clear: 
> Four years ago, the acreage planted in such crops was zero. 
> Now, practically everybody in farm country can show you 
> thousands of acres pl anted in Roundup Ready soybeans, the 
> beans that resist the powerful weed killer Roundup. Both 
> Roundup and the beans that thrive despite it are 
> manufactured by Monsanto. My almost-retired cousin, Waldo 
> Smith (farmers never completely retire), leases some of his 
> land to a grower who has planted it in Roundup. This 
> vividly brings home to me the reality that more than half 
> of the soybeans in the nation this year come from 
> genetically altered seeds. A hefty one-third of this year's 
> corn crop - some of which is fit only to be ground up for 
> silage, or animal feed - was grown from altered seeds, as 
> well. Earlier this year, I did reporting and research on 
> bioengineered crops and what they mean to the future of 
> food. Then, those Cornbelt fields seemed far away. Now, I 
> saw that in Missouri, GMOs were just down the road. They 
> were everywhere. On Long Island, few if any genetically 
> engineered crops are grown. But that GMO soy is close to us 
> here, too, as close as the grocery store. Here, we are 
> eating not just tofu but soy oil, yogurt, tortilla chips 
> and lots of other things that contain genetically altered 
> soy; about 60 percent of processed foods contain some soy. 
> It is in everything from baby food to muffin mixes. Read 
> closely and you are likely to find that your bag of chips 
> contains soybean oil. In this country, there is no 
> requirement that GMOs be labeled as such, as they are, for 
> instance, in Great Britain. The 15- country European Union, 
> Australia and New Zealand have ordered labeling of foods 
> with modified DNA. In Japan, 30 modified foods, including 
> tofu, which is made from soybeans, will soon have to carry 
> labels. Opposition to bio-engineering has been strong in 
> India as well. These objections have had an impact on 
> American crops. The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels 
> Midland Co. announced earlier this month that it will 
> require farmers to separate genetically modified soybeans 
> from regular soybeans when they are brought in for sale as 
> this fall's harvest begins. ADM, in a statement, said that 
> the move is in response to demands by customers "making 
> purchases based on the genetic origin of the crops." The 
> statement wa rned that if the U.S. firm cannot satisfy 
> requests for unaltered products, other nations "do have 
> alternative sources for their ingredients." (In Brazil, a 
> judge has banned soybeans that are modified to resist 
> pesticides, so lots of standard soybeans are being grown 
> there.) ADM claimed, however, that the GMOs are safe, 
> putting the requirement for separation of grain in an 
> economic context. Other companies are expected to follow 
> suit. At this writing, a premium of 18 cents a bushel was 
> being paid to farmers for certain "identity-preserved" 
> non-GMO soybeans (DuPont's STS), and old-fashioned, non-GMO 
> soybeans were likely to also command higher prices on the 
> grain market. Some of the growers were already beginning to 
> rethink their plans for spring planting. (The company does 
> not pay premium prices for standard corn.) Next time 
> around, farmers might plant fewer acres in genetically 
> altered beans. Not everyone fears engineered crops. In 
> fact, in this country, few people even know about them. But 
> the current shift toward non-GMO crops is the result of 
> economic pressure from Europe and Japan, which refuse to 
> accept exported soybeans containing altered DNA. Two 
> Japanese breweries, Kirin and Sapporo, have announced that 
> they will not accept any bioengineered corn starting in the 
> year 2001. (Already, the American Corn Growers Association 
> has told members they should consider planting only 
> conventional seeds next spring. The National Corn Growers 
> Association, which is about twice as big, has issued no 
> statement on the crops.) In this country there has been 
> relatively little opposition, though Gerber, the baby food 
> people, announced last month that they will no longer use 
> genetically engineered corn and soybean products; Gerber is 
> owned by Novartis AG of Switzerland. And Secretary of 
> Agriculture Dan Glickman, originally supportive of 
> bioengineered crops, has softened his position. Though the 
> Clinton administration and Glickman still say the crops are 
> safe, they acknowledge that more research is needed to prove 
> them so. Recently, too, concern about sweet corn altered 
> with Bt, a naturally occurring protein, (when pests such as 
> earworms and corn borers bite into a Bt plant, they die) 
> has grown. Cornell University entomologists released 
> results of experiments showing that pollen from such corn 
> killed Monarch butterfly caterpillars. Organic farmers have 
> long been concerned about such crops because they fear 
> cross-pollination will contaminate other plants. New, 
> Bt-resistant pests also might evolve from widespread use of 
> the crops. Terra Prima Inc., an organic food company in 
> Wisconsin, destroyed 87,000 bags of tortilla chips last 
> month after a test by an importer in the Netherlands showed 
> traces of gene-altered corn. The grower said that wind 
> probably blew corn pollen from a neighboring farm into his 
> field. Opposition to engineered crops has come from 
> Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, the Union of 
> Concerned Scientists and other groups. In the current issue 
> of Consumer Reports, products containing generically 
> modified ingredients are listed, putting consumers who 
> would like to avoid them on notice. In other news this 
> month, Jeremy Rivkin, an environmental activist, announced 
> that the Foundation on Economic Trends, which he heads, 
> will file an antitrust suit in December charging that too 
> few companies now own almost all the global seed supply. 
> Such firms as DuPont, AstraZeneca, Hoechst AG, Monsanto, 
> Novartis, Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland are to be 
> named in the suit. The biotech seeds are patented, and 
> farmers must buy new seed each year, instead of saving seed. 
> "Terminator technology" that makes saved seeds sterile, a 
> potent weapon against would-be seed savers, already exists. 
> Bill Christison, president of the National Family Farm 
> Coalition, said that it has been difficult for farmers to 
> obtain an adequate supply of standard seeds. Writers have 
> compared the lawsuit to the battle over computer software 
> (the Microsoft suit), Christison added, "but that doesn't 
> affect every living person on the planet the way this 
> does." * * * Natural Touch, a brand name owned by 
> Worthington Foods Inc., is pioneering no n-GMO organic 
> green soy- beans, frozen in 1-pound bags. On Long Island, 
> they can be found at Fresh Fields and at Adventist Book 
> Centers. They are already blanched and may be added to 
> salads without cooking, though the directions on the bag 
> suggest cooking them for about 10 minutes. The frozen 
> soybeans are shelled, but traditionally, green soybeans, 
> known in Japan as edamame, are harvested in the pod. 
> Edamame is a popular snack in Asian countries. They 
> sometimes can be found in natural foods stores or Asian 
> markets. Green Soybeans in the Pod 1 pound green soybeans 
> in the pod 2 cups water 1/2 teaspoon salt Wash soybeans and 
> steam-boil (the salted water does not have to cover the 
> beans) in their pods for about 15 minutes or until 
> crisp-tender. Serve in pod but remove from pod before 
> eating. Makes about 2 cups. This soup is from Lorna Sass' 
> "The New Soy Cookbook." Creamy Dilled Spinach Soup 1 
> tablespoon olive oil 2 cups thinly sliced leeks, white and 
> light green parts, thoroughly rinsed 3 cups vegetable stock 
> or broth 11/2 pounds spinach, trimmed if needed, coarsely 
> chopped 1 cup loosely packed fresh dill, stems removed 3/4 
> teaspoon salt, or to taste 1 cup soy milk Ground cayenne 
> pepper, for garnish 1. Heat oil in a large, heavy soup pot 
> over medium-high heat. Saute leeks for 2 minutes, stirring 
> frequently. Add stock and bring to a boil. Add spinach, 
> dill and salt. Cover and cook until spinach is very soft, 
> about 4 minutes. 2. Transfer to a blender in 2 or 3 batches 
> and process until very smooth. Return to pot and bring to a 
> gentle boil over medium heat. Reduce heat to very low. Stir 
> in soy milk and additional salt, if needed. Heat 
> thoroughly, but do not boil once the soy milk has been 
> added. Serve in shallow soup bowls, garnished with cayenne, 
> Makes 4 servings. GRAPHIC: American Soybean Association 
> Photo - Are they natural or genetically altered? A field of 
> soybeans can be deceiving. 
> ===================#=================== 

> Informal negotiations aimed at developing a U.N. 
> treaty on genetically modified organisms "have ended 
> without resolution, but both industry and environmentalists 
> said progress had been made." 
> At the talks in Vienna, which ended on Sept. 19, 
> representatives of many nations agreed that another round of 
> talks would take place in Montreal in January, with a goal 
> of ironing out disagreements and concluding a "biosafety" 
> protocol by May 2000. The last round of official 
> negotiations -- in Cartagena, Colombia, last February -- 
> broke down amid strong disagreements between backers and 
> opponents of genetically modified food. The Global Industry 
> Coalition, representing 2,200 companies worldwide, "said 
> the Vienna talks were encouraging as they were held in a 
> greater openness and showed a stronger commitment to 
> clinching a successful protocol." But according to 
> Greenpeace, the leading development "was the firm resolve 
> of the so-called Like-Minded Group (of developing 
> countries) to insist on their right to reject imports of 
> genetically modified commodities" (Julia Ferguson, 
> Reuters/Journal of Commerce, Sept. 21). 
> ===================#=================== 

8) tHE PANTAGRAPH (Bloomington, IL.) September 19, 1999, Growing pains for
farmers; Debate continues over genetically altered crops CHRIS ANDERSON
> European Union countries reiterated this spring that they 
> didn't want them. Since then, two major Japanese beer 
> brewers, a Mexican flour tortilla company and baby food 
> makers Gerber and Heinz have followed like a set of 
> tumbling dominos. And, in the United States, a group of 
> organic farmers and food processors just joined forces with 
> environmental organization, Greenpeace, to sue the U.S. 
> Environmental Protection Agency. The suit would have EPA 
> officials withdraw approval for Bt corn - resistant to 
> European corn borer - already on the market as well as ban 
> future approvals. The repeated concern and rejection around 
> the world of so- called genetically modified organisms, 
> including about half the soybeans and a third of the corn 
> being harvested in the United States this fall, has caused 
> emotions to flare on the farm. Many farmers' frustrations 
> levels have doubled with the furor about GMOs adding to 
> anxiety over low commodity prices. What to do about GMOs 
> has sparked lively discussion at field days as well as in 
> farm sheds and coffee shops. The verdict? Farmers aren't 
> ready to give up on the improved corn and soybeans lines 
> created by combining existing genes within the plants to 
> make new ones, but they're also unwilling to lose a global 
> market with a hankering for traditionally-bred grain. No 
> one believes the issue will be resolved soon. "Mad cow 
> disease really shook up the Europeans. I think it's their 
> right to be cautious about food safety. I also think we can 
> target grain to meet their needs. Instead of talking about 
> biotech crops, we need to think about what the customer 
> really wants," said Doug Wilson of Gridley, Illinois Corn 
> Growers Association president. "At the same time, I don't 
> want to abandon biotech. We may lose development of some 
> benefits that could be really good if we back away. Getting 
> pharmaceuticals from corn and soybean plants is a wonderful 
> idea." Few farmers would disagree with Wilson's sentiment. 
> They believe GMOs are safe because of testing and approval 
> by the EPA, Food and Drug Administration and U.S. 
> Department of Agriculture. Many, in fact, believe that 
> concern about GMOs would disappear if the cure for cancer 
> could be discovered in a cornfield. Biotech giant Monsanto 
> has already looked at ways to use corn material as in 
> chemotherapy and to assist diabetics. "So far, most of the 
> GMO modifications have centered on production benefits, for 
> example, controling weeds. If there is a pharmaceutical 
> benefit, I wonder what consumers will think," asked Joe 
> Kapraun, manager of Stanford Grain. "I also wonder how 
> worried they would be about GMOs if we didn't have large 
> supplies of grain on hand." 
> In the meantime, farmers are trying to decide what to do 
> next year. Many are considering planting nonGMOs not only 
> because of market concerns but also economics. Farmers pay 
> seed companies technology fees to plant GMO material. For 
> example, they may pay $24 more per bag for Bt corn and 
> $6.50 per bag more for Roundup Ready soybeans resistant to 
> Roundup herbicide. Farmers have to weigh those added costs 
> against lower herbicide and insecticide costs, and possible 
> yield gains. For many growers, Roundup Ready soybeans yield 
> about the same as other varieties. Using Roundup herbicide, 
> however, drastically reduces agrichemical costs. On the 
> other hand, farmers like Wilson and McLean grower Ron 
> Fitchhorn said Bt corn will be a hard sell for next year. 
> The corn only pays if European corn borers become a 
> problem. And, farmers receive no price premium for growing 
> the corn. Conversely, many growers and grain elevator 
> operators believe buyers may pay premiums for nonGMO grain 
> later this fall. A premium market, however, will hinge on 
> the ability of farmers and elevators to keep grain 
> segregated. Just two weeks ago, Decatur corn processor 
> Archer Daniels Midland asked grain suppliers to keep GMOs 
> separate. "I don't think we can do that at the elevator 
> level. How do you do it," asked Fred Gent, McLean County 
> Service Co. grain manager. "Next year could be different, 
> but our markets are accepting GMO grain for livestock feed. 
> If a premium does develop for nonGMO grain, everybody will 
> grow it next year, and then there will probably be so much 
> that a premium won't be paid." Gent and most farmers said 
> price incentives are needed to segregate grain on the farm. 
> Segregation means cleaning out the combine thoroughly when 
> changing fields, and paying close attention to on-farm bin 
> use. Kapraun said he thinks farmers could be paid 10 to 15 
> cents per bushel more for nonGMO corn and up to 30 cents 
> per bushel for nonGMO soybeans later this fall. While tests 
> are available to determine Bt corn in about 10 minutes, 
> Kapraun said he will not make farmers wait. Farmers needing 
> a GMO market can find buyers on the American Seed Trade 
> Association web page at http: GRAPHIC: Glenn Waller dumped 
> corn into a waiting truck, east of Danvers. Driving the 
> truck was Jack Gillis. The two are among hundreds of 
> Central Illinois Farmers faced with a dilemma for next year 
> of growing traditionally bred crops or those created 
> through genetic modification. 
> ===================#=================== 

9)  Countries commit to biosafety deal in 2000 ENDS Daily - 21/09/99 
>Government officials ended a week of talks on 
> regulating international trade in live genetically modified 
> organisms (GMOs) late on Sunday night with apparent 
> consensus that there is the political will to finally agree 
> a legal instrument in January. The draft UN biosafety 
> protocol aims to lay down international rules to safeguard 
> human health and the environment. Its progress was halted 
> in February when the world's main grain exporting nations 
> and a large group of developing nations reached deadlock 
> over key issues (ENDS Daily 24 February 1999). In 
> particular, these are: whether the protocol's scope should 
> be restricted to live GMOs designed to be grown in the 
> environment or whether it should also apply to GM foods; 
> what legal liability rules there should be in case traded 
> live GMOs cause damage, and what kind of relationship there 
> should be between the biosafety protocol's rules and those 
> of the World Trade Organisation. What, if any, progress was 
> made on these particular issues during last week's talks 
> remains unclear at this point. 
> Contacts: UN biodiversity convention secretariat 
> (<>, tel: +1 514 288 2220. 
> ===================#=================== 

10)  Norwegian NGOs mobilise against GM foods ENDS Daily - 
> 21/09/99 Fifteen Norwegian NGOs have formed a "network for 
> food and environment" to lobby for a ten-year moratorium on 
> the production and sale of gene-modified foodstuffs, the 
> Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board reports in its 
> newsletter Genialt. The conservationists are also calling 
> for government funding of "independent research" into the 
> environmental implications of gene technology. A spokesman 
> for the new umbrella group said: "Gene technology is more 
> bingo than science. It has only been tested for a few years 
> in artificial conditions. It is impossible to draw any 
> conclusions over the long-term ecological consequences of 
> cultivating GM species." Members of the network say they 
> are "mobilising" for a campaign aimed at consumers on the 
> grounds that "GM foods are unsafe, unwanted and 
> unnecessary". Shops selling products containing GM material 
> are intended to be plastered with stickers showing a red 
> "G" in the shape of a warning triangle with the legend, "GM 
> food -- no thanks!". 
> Contacts: Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board 
> (<>, tel: +47 22 24 87 91. 
> ===================#=================== 
11) Western Producer Online (Canada)September 23, 1999 Labels 
> coming for genetically modified products By Barry Wilson 
> Ottawa bureau The federal government last week announced 
> it is supporting labeling of food containing genetically 
> modified material. 
> Any labeling rules would be voluntary. 
> A representative of the grocery distributors said she hopes 
> there is a national standard for GM labeling ready sometime 
> next year. 
> "It is important that labels say and mean the same thing 
> across Canada," said Jeanne Cruikshank from Halifax, 
> vice-president of the Canadian Council of Grocery 
> Distributors. "Consumers want more information and this is 
> a step toward that." 
> The food industry quickly endorsed the Sept. 17 
> announcement that the grocery distributors and the Canadian 
> General Standards Board are launching a consultation on how 
> to create national standards for voluntary GM labeling. 
> "Farmers, as well as consumers, need reliable information 
> if they are going to exercise their right of choice when it 
> comes to what they grow and for whom," said Canadian 
> Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen in a 
> statement from the CFA Ottawa office. He said the recently 
> created standards for organic labeling are a precedent. 
> "Following the same process to establish real and 
> verifiable definitions for a voluntary labeling system will 
> offer both consumers and producers the means to make 
> meaningful decisions about products of biotechnology." 
> The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers said it is 
> important to give consumers the information about GM 
> products "so they can make up their own minds." 
> Critics of genetically modified foods scoffed at the 
> announcement. 
> "This is less than half a measure," said Michael Khoo, 
> genetic engineering specialist with the Greenpeace Canada 
> office in Toronto. 
> "This is only voluntary but beyond that, labeling is not 
> the solution. If genetically modified food is unsafe, it 
> should be taken off the shelves and there is no long-term 
> evidence that it is safe." 
> In fact, for anti-GMO activists, the issue of labeling is 
> old news. They are stepping up attacks on sale of GM 
> products, labeled or not. 
> This fall there are expected to be information pickets 
> outside some supermarkets, warning consumers they may be 
> buying genetically altered foods for their Thanksgiving 
> table. 
> And last week, Greenpeace issued a report accusing Monsanto 
> of ignoring domestic Ukrainian laws on food safety by 
> shipping genetically engineered Canadian potatoes to that 
> country in 1997 and 1998. 
> The NewLeaf potatoes were exported with the help of a 
> Prince Edward Island government-supported company. The 
> environmental group said it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars 
> and a flouting of Ukrainian law. 
> "This case shows exactly why the world needs a strong 
> biosafety protocol," Greenpeace said. "Genetic engineering 
> is a new technology with unknown risks." 
> But in Canada, food industry representatives who quickly 
> lined up behind the voluntary labeling initiative, insist 
> GM foods must pass the same health and safety standards as 
> other foods before they can be sold. 
> They see labels as another way to comfort consumers who 
> want information. 
> "Canadian consumers have a right to make their food 
> choices," states a background question-and-answer sheet sent 
> out last week to member companies by the Food and Consumer 
> Products Manufacturers of Canada in case they faced media 
> queries about the issue. 
> "We are confident, as is the government, that foods from 
> biotechnology are safe. And we also have confidence in 
> Canadian consumers (to) make their choices based on 
> accurate and balanced information."