[Gen-Streitfall] Food Bully - GMO (Portside Article)

[Wiebke Herding]

Sehr lesenswerter Artikel über GM-Food Aid und die Interessen der USA.
* W

This is a forwarded message
From: portsideMod at netscape.net <portsideMod at netscape.net>
To: portside at yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 27, 2003, 12:43:02 AM
Subject: Food Bully

===8<==============Original message text===============
Food Bully 

By Conn Hallinan

Submitted to Portside

The decision by the Bush Administration to sue the European Union (EU)
over its five-year moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods has
all the earmarks of a "shock and awe" campaign targeted at prying open
a major potential market. But the suit before the World Trade
Organization (WTO) may be aimed less at the EU than at developing
nations, which are far more vulnerable to strong-arm tactics.

Take the case of the reluctant Egyptians.

Egypt had originally joined the suit, along with Argentina and Canada,
but, in the face of a domestic backlash over the safety of GM food
crops, withdrew. However, it filed a separate complaint on an EU ban
against its GM drought-resistant cotton, joining, at least in spirit,
the U.S. action.

Besides responding to popular sentiment, the Egyptians were also
nervous over the confrontational tone of the U.S. suit. "The way (the
complaint) was announced was like a war with the EU," one Egyptian
trade official told the Financial Times, "We can't go to war with the
EU. It is 40 percent of our trade."

Avoiding war with the EU, however, landed them in a shootout with the
Americans. Reacting with fury, the U.S. accused the Egyptians of
breaking their word and cancelled free trade talks.

According to the Financial Times, Egyptian officials were "stunned" by
the U.S. reaction, particularly after U.S. Trade Representative Robert
Zoellick recently described their country as a "linchpin" for a Middle
East free trade agreement and "the heart of the Arab world."

The White House was banking on Egypt to represent the need for GM
crops in "developing countries," in particular, Africa. GM crops as a
solution to the African famine is one of the major arguments the Bush
Administration has used against the EU ban.

The Bush Administration seems to be applying its "for us or against
us" anti-terrorism formula to trade policy, particularly if the
country is a developing one like Egypt. Similarly, when Croatia and
Thailand raised health objections to GM crops, the U.S. threatened
trade sanctions and both countries backed down.

The White House has been more circuitous with big countries, like
India and Brazil. In the case of Brazil, U.S.
corporations--underwritten by taxpayers--bring politicians and
scientists to the U.S. and South Africa to study GM crops. And
reaction to India's ban on U.S. GM crops has been muted.

There is much at stake in this fight over biotechnology, and it has
nothing to do with alleviating hunger or overcoming famine. The "Big
Five" biotech companies- Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Dow Chemical and
Aventis-- have invested billions of dollars in research and
development. Out of 1085 biotech patents, the Big Five control 937.

The U.S. argues that GM crops represent the new "green revolution"
that will allow countries to feed the growing world population. But
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own Economic Research Service
found that crop yields were no higher for GM crops than they are for
regular crops, and GM crops can be tricky to grow. They were created
for huge American super farms, not the small-scale agriculture that
characterizes most of the developing world. Plus GM seeds cost more,
and few poor farmers have access to cash.

The Bush Administration presents its GM-friendly policies as a
solution to hunger. During his recent tour of Africa, Bush said, "For
the sake of a continent threatened by famine, I urge the European
governments to end their opposition to biotechnology." But many
Africans are suspicious and see the spread of GM crops as creating a
kind of "bioserfdom," with farmers in thrall to huge biotech
companies. Amadou Kanoute, research director of African Office of
Consumers International, says the spread of GM crops, "will plunge
Africa into greater food dependency."

American agricultural policy has always had a strong self-interest
streak in it. According to a policy statement by the US Agency for
International Development (USAID), the main vehicle for foreign food
aid, "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance
programs has always been the United States." Hunger is a product of
access and distribution, not production, as the cases of India and
Uganda make clear.

India produces more than 48 million tons of surplus food, yet most is
never distributed to the more than 320 million Indians who go to bed
hungry each night. In Orissa's Kalahandi Province there is actual
starvation, even though the area is rich and fertile and produces
50,000 tons of surplus rice annually.

In Uganda, the problem is transport, not food production. The wet and
fertile west of the country produces plenty of surplus, but poor roads
and inadequate rail systems make shipping the food to the dry east
expensive. Yet few international organizations or lenders will pony up
money for improving things like infrastructure.

The Administration's charge that EU policies are encouraging famine in
Africa has deeply angered Europeans. As EU officials point out, Europe
gives Africa seven times as much aid as the U.S. does, and further,
that most of that aid is delivered in cash, which bolsters local
economies. The U.S., on the other hand, delivers its aid in the form
of agricultural surplus, which allows the U.S. to dump its
overproduction.

The European Parliament has already decided to phase out the
moratorium against GM crops, although it will demand strict labeling.
Any product containing more than 0.9 percent GM products will be
flagged, and GM food will have to be segregated from non-GM food in
production and harvesting.

The U.S., however, refuses to accept labeling. Zoellick says, while he
supports consumer choice, "this information should be non-prejudicial
in presentation and feasible for producers to provide," adding that
the labeling plan "does not meet this standard."

The "feasible" in Zoellick's statement refers to the expense involved
in segregating GM products from non-GM products. But the
Administration is also nervous that that if Europeans get labeling,
Americans might demand the same. Three fourths of the food on U.S.
shelves contain GM products, and a recent study by the high biotech
firm Novartis found that 92 percent of Americans approve of labeling.

The EU is unlikely to be intimidated by fines imposed by the WTO, and
if the Americans manage to block labeling, European consumers will
probably just boycott all American food imports. The only real
casualties in that trade war will be American farmers.

The prize in this fight is not the EU, which in any case only absorbs
some 10 percent of American agricultural exports. The prize is the
developing world, where regulations are lax, profits higher, and
resistance may carry a very high price.




portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion
and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy
and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to
people on the left.

Post            : mail to 'portside at yahoogroups.com'
Subscribe       : mail to 'portside-subscribe at yahoogroups.com'
Unsubscribe     : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com'
Faq             : http://www.portside.org
List owner      : portside-owner at yahoogroups.com
Web address     : <http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/portside>
Digest mode     : visit Web site
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/