|
GE crops - increasingly isolated as awareness and rejection grow Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/-geneng With the new planting season starting in North America, this briefing examines current trends and future prospects for genetically engineered (GE) crops (1).
1) Four countries account for 99% of GMO crop acreage. What
about the rest of the world? Even according to ISAAA figures, which are themselves difficult to verify, only 7 other countries commercially grew any GE crops at all in 2001. Spain grew less than 12,000 hectares (ha) and Germany less than 100 ha of GE corn. Mexico grew "...a modest area of transgenic cotton and soybean." Indonesia grew 4,000 ha of GE cotton. Romania grew a small volume of GE soya and Bulgaria a small volume of GE corn however no actual figures for these are given. Uruguay grew 3,000 ha of GE soya in 2000, but no specific mention of any GE growing in Uruguay is made in ISAAA's 2001 report let alone any figures. However, the name stayed on the list as a country growing GE crops. Clearly it strains credibility to include any of these countries in a list that claims to show worldwide acceptance of GE crops. In an effort to claim that GE crops are being widely adopted by and providing benefit to developing countries, the latest ISAAA report claims that, "...the percentage growth [of GE crops] was higher in the developing countries of the South....". What they failed to stress was that over 98% of GMOs grown in 'developing' countries are actually cultivated in just two countries: Argentina (87%) and China (11 %). Soya represents 95% of GMOs grown in Argentina and is primarily exported to be used as animal feed in developed countries, while virtually all the commercial GMO acreage in China is of cotton. 2) There is no market for 'new GE crops and the market for the
existing GE crops is rapidly diminishing GE potatoes were withdrawn from the US market in 2001 by Monsanto after a series of major market rejections, including by McDonald's, Burger King, McCain's and Pringles. GE flax seed was taken off the market in 2001 under pressure from the Flax Council of Canada and the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission because European customers, who buy 60 percent of Canada's flax, said they did not want GE. GE rice has also faltered with Aventis backing off from commercialising its herbicide resistant GE rice, largely because of warnings from millers and large value-added domestic and foreign producers that they will reject it. GE sugar beet has been rejected by US sugar refiners who told farmers to avoid GE sugar beet because Japan, which accounts for 80% of the sugar beet pulp market from the US, will not buy GE. The 'StarLink' fiasco: in the US last year, an unapproved GE corn which was a potential allergen was detected in taco shells and a range of other food products. This triggered a huge product recall, with related costs estimated at up to $1 billion. Aventis subsequently decided to abandon US production of GE 'StarLink' corn and withdrew it from the market. Aventis is currently selling its CropScience division to Bayer. GE wheat: In February 2001, farm representatives in North Dakota and Montana sought legislation restricting genetically modified wheat production. Terry Wanzek, chairman of North Dakota's Senate Agriculture Committee, was quoted as saying, "These bills are surfacing in North Dakota because of a genuine, sincere concern for the market. Our major wheat customers say they won't accept any wheat that has genetically enhanced characteristics, and we're listening to our customers." More than 200 Canadian groups, including the National Farmers' Union and the Canadian Wheat Board, have expressed in the strongest terms their concerns that GE wheat will damage exports. Growers in Colorado and Oklahoma are telling farmers to "stay away from it". David Payne, director of Louis Dreyfus Negoce, was recently reported saying "[GE wheat has] definitely become an issue in the Middle East. People just don't want it". He said US wheat officials had heard similar fears from end-users during recent promotion drives in the Far East. Monsanto has now pushed back the proposed introduction of its GE wheat from 2003 until 20042005 and has publicly stated that it will only do so if it can first gain pre-acceptance from buyers as well as environmental and health clearance from regulatory authorities. Pharmacia, which bought Monsanto's Ag Biotech division, is now looking to sell it again before the end of this year. GE Fish: The seven member countries of NASCO (the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation) have agreed to, "take all possible actions to ensure that the use of transgenic salmon... is confined to secure, self-contained, land-based facilities". Member countries include the US & Canada, European Union, Russia and Norway. It will likely be impossible to raise commercial quantities of GE salmon in such land-based facilities. At the North Sea Ministers Conference in Bergen, Norway earlier this month (21t March), European governments took the opportunity to reinforce their position, "... in order to prevent their release to the marine environment [of genetically modified marine organisms]." In the US, the state of Maryland introduced in April 2001 the first law prohibiting the raising of GE fish unless they are in ponds or lakes that do not connect to other state waterways. The California state legislature is currently reviewing a similar bill, as well as one that would require labeling of any GE fish sold to consumers. The scientific consensus appears to be that GE fish will not pass an examination of the potential human health and environmental dangers. However, even if they did, there would still be no market for them, domestically or internationally. GE soya: Despite a massive political and financial battle by Monsanto, Brazil has until now maintained a ban both on the growing and import of GE crops. Even if Monsanto overcomes that legal ban they are expected to meet stiff resistance from Brazilian soya exporters who have made huge gains by exporting guaranteed non-GE soya. Brazilian consumers and food industry are also likely to reject any use of GE foods and if commercialisation does go ahead at the national level, growing may be banned or severely curtailed by several state governments. The US Department of Agriculture in May 2001 stated that, "Over the last 12 months, demand for certified biotech-free soybean meal has grown from near zero to 20-25 percent of the EU market according to officials in the compound feed industry". Since then there have been a further series of commitments by major companies across Europe to use only non-GE feed. Since the main market for GE soya is as animal feed, the volume of GE soya being grown in the US and Argentina would be expected to reduce significantly once demand for non-GE animal feed on international markets and within the US significantly increases. That process has started and is gaining pace, but Monsanto has worked over time with major grain buyers to maintain a continued market despite the increasingly hostile climate for its GE crop. 3) International law is catching up with GE crops and labelling
of GE food is becoming standard practise throughout the world. Japan, which takes 20% of all US food exports, worth $ 11 bn a year, recently announced a revised biotechnology labelling regime that adds potato products to the labelling scheme which imposed tough rules on an initial list of 24 product categories. In South Korea, the government requires mandatory labelling of GE foods and a recent amendment now means that advertisements in newspapers, magazines and TV commercials also have to indicate the presence of GE ingredients in food products. China abandoned commercial growing of GE tobacco in 1998 and has recently introduced GE labelling laws and requirements for safety certification for all GE foods. Since China is the world largest single importer of soyabeans, this is already causing serious disruption of US soya exports. China's Dalian Commodity Exchange recently introduced new contracts for non-transgenic soybeans to conform to the country's rules on GMOs. Trading of non-GE soya futures in Japan's Tokyo Grain Exchange started already in June 2000, and has exceeded trading in GE soya. The European Commission proposed in July 2001 new regulations on traceability and labelling of GE food and animal feed. The tightened labelling regime would include products derived from GMOs such as oil and starch as well as animal feed. Traceability of GMOs is included in the proposed regulation for the first time. Although some GMOs such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soya, Aventis rapeseed oil and Syngenta Bt maize have clearance for use in food products in the EU, a de-facto moratorium on any new GE product approvals has been in place since 1998. Luxembourg, Austria and Germany have further banned Syngenta Bt maize, while France and Greece have banned Aventis rapeseed. Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, is expected to introduce labelling legislation this year. Australia and New Zealand have adopted a mandatory labelling regime for GE food, which came into force on December 7, 2001. In Bolivia a Ministerial Resolution was passed in January 2001 prohibiting the import and use of any GMOs for a period of one year. In September 2001, Croatia drafted a law proposing to impose a ban on the import, placing on the market, use and production of GMOs and GE products. In the Czech Republic, since January 1, 2002 all GE food products have to be labelled. The 13 countries applying to join the EU will eventually be covered by EU legislation of GE crops including strict labelling and safety testing requirements. In Paraguay, the use of GE soybeans in the agricultural sector was banned in 2000/2001. In the Philippines there are a number of bills before the Senate and Congress concerning the labelling of GE crops. Labelling legislation is also in preparation in Hong-Kong, Israel, Mexico and Brazil. GE food labelling is already mandatory in Indonesia, Latvia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Norway. Bills to restrict GMO planting or for labelling of GMOs currently being discussed in many US states, the Canadian Parliament and in Mexico. 4) International markets are rejecting GE crops in food and in animal feed Virtually the entire European food industry has already taken action to ensure that no GE ingredients are directly used in any of their food products. Such policies are being actively pursued by major retail groups and food manufacturers, including Carrefour, Tesco, ASDA (Wal Mart), Nestle, Unilever, Heinz and many many more. A significant number of these have already extended their policy to cover animal feed. The first mainstream US retailer, Trader Joe's, recently followed the major healthfood retail chains Whole Foods and Wild Oats in rejecting GMOs saying that the policy is the result of "talking with our customers," and finding that "it is clear ... that if given the opportunity, the majority of our customers would prefer to have products made without genetically engineered ingredients". In 2001, the value of US corn exports to the European Union was a mere 0.6% of what it was before the introduction of GE corn: $305 million in 1996 down to $1.8 million in 2001, according to USDA statistics. 97% of the world's GE canola is grown in Canada. It was introduced in 1996 and now accounts for about 66% of Canadian Canola. By 1998 Canada had entirely lost its $300-400 million annual sales of canola to Europe. 5) Public opinion continues to reject GE foods Consumer rejection of GMOs in Europe is well known. These latest polls from Asia, Canada and the US show GE rejection growing internationally. Surveys in these regions appear to be following the same trend as in the EU, i.e. increasing knowledge equalling increasing rejection. On November 16, 2001, the Rutgers University Food Policy Institute in the U.S. released a study confirming that the vast majority of Americans surveyed want GE foods labelled. This study is the second major poll recently conducted of U.S. attitudes toward GE foods to determine that upwards of 90 percent want labelling legislation. ABC News conducted the other poll in July of the same year. Furthermore, the study finds that Americans are highly sceptical of GE foods and the motivations of the producers of such foods, believing that most are in it for the money and not because consumers want it. 48 percent say that they would not buy fresh vegetables if they were labelled as produced through genetic engineering. The study also reveals that most Americans know little about genetic engineering or which of their foods are genetically engineered, yet 75 percent of those surveyed knew enough to agree that, "The potential danger from genetic modification [of foods] is so great that strict regulations are necessary." Nearly 60 percent also feel that, "The government does not have the tools to properly regulate [genetically modified] foods." 6) Farmers are also waking up to the problems and false promises of GMOs: "Farmers are really starting to question the profit-enhancing
ability of products that seem to be shutting them out of markets
world-wide" In the USA and Argentina, soya farmers have been won over by the industry's promises of better yields and lower costs. A number of studies in the last four years have found these promises to be false - some found that GE agriculture had no net effect on farmer profitability; some that it had a negative effect. For example: (2) Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, study of 1998 and 1999 Nebraska soya crop - found lower yields for GE varieties; (3) Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, survey of Iowa soya and maize crops, 2000 - found that total extra costs (e.g. for seeds) were roughly equal to total savings plus yield gain - i.e. no net economic advantage to farmers; (4) OECD annual report, 2000 - indicated confusion about whether there is benefit to farmers from GE crops; found that no conclusion on overall profitability can be drawn. 7) Future prospects for GE crops After five years of commercial growing on GE crops in the Americas, predicted environmental problems such as triple herbicide resistant canola crops in Canada are already a reality which farmers end up using a cocktail of chemicals to get rid off. The false promises of increased yields from GE crops have also been exposed. For example, an average 5 percent yield loss has now been regularly recorded with GE soya. With increasing worldwide legislation of GE crops, increasing international market rejection of GE crops, increasing demands for labelling and safety testing of GE crops on one hand and growing awareness and rejection of GE food by consumers, farmers and the food industry on the other, the increasing acreage of GE soya appears as an anachronism created more by political and monopoly influence than by market demand. Notes: (1) Statistics in this section are from ISAAA, Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops 2001. (2) Monsanto claims that the number of acres planted with its biotechnology traits amounted to 118 million acres in 2001 (Monsanto's Fourth-Quarter 2001 Earnings Per Share, 5 February 2002, www.monsanto.com), which makes 91% of the 130 million acres planted with GMOs according to ISAAA (ISAAA, Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops 2001). Greenpeace International Genetic Engineering Campaign: Chausseestr. 131 10115 Berlin - Germany Telephone +49-30-308899-14 Fax +49-30-308899-30 Ikeenan@dialb.greenpeace.org |
