1.Playing Canute and Juma's Sorry Account of Global Food Fights – GM Watch
2.'Satan's Drink' and a Sorry History of Global Food Fights - Calestous Juma
---
1.Playing Canute and Juma's Sorry Account of Global Food Fights
In the article below - 'Satan's Drink' and a Sorry History of Global Food Fights - Calestous Juma of Harvard argues that the real concerns in Europe over GMOs have little to do with their safety, this being "largely a smokescreen used to conceal concerns about Europe's loss of competitiveness in biotechnology."
In support of his claim that European opposition is really about trade barriers protecting vested interests, Juma draws historical parallels with some of the European reactions to coffee when it was introduced from the New World. Those erecting trade barriers, Juma points out, included Frederick the Great, who banned coffee, and Charles II of England, who attempted to ban coffee houses. Juma quotes Frederick the Great's declaration, "It is disgusting to notice the increase in the quantity of coffee used by my subjects, and the like amount of money that goes out of the country in consequence."
But Juma's suggested parallels could hardly be less to the point. These were clearly top down attempts to protect vested interests from popular tastes, and they failed accordingly. Frederick the Great complains of "the quantity of coffee used by my subjects", ie his subjects were extremely keen to consume the stuff, while Charles II had to withdraw his ban on coffee houses before it was even instituted.
But the European public are hardly clamouring to consume GMOs - the very reverse, in fact - and the real historical parallels lie in exactly the opposite direction to that which Juma suggests. They are to be found in the failed attempts of Europe's political and corporate elite to push through acceptance of GMOs in the face of popular opposition.
In the UK, for instance, opposition to GMOs developed at a time when Britain, far from being concerned about a loss of competitiveness in biotechnology, had the world's very first "life science" company (Zeneca) and a commercialised GM food product - Zeneca's GM tomato paste - ahead of Monsanto.
Popular opposition to GMOs also developed in the teeth of the repeatedly asserted support for biotechnology of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was then at the height of his initial popularity. The governing Labour Party also had as its principle paymaster, Lord Sainsbury, a biotech enthusiast and entrepreneur.
Blair's ministers were also highly supportive of biotechnology with one leading member of the government memorably asserting, "Rest assured, the government is ready to support and enhance the competitiveness of the biotechnology industry. We believe you are a real success story in the UK... We want the UK to remain a leader in this field."
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/tom.htm
Nor was the support for the biotech industry confined to Britains's political and bureaucratic elite. The UK's main farmers' union at the time was under the leadership of Ben Gill whose support for the introduction of GM crops was so striking that he earned the nickname "Biotech Ben".
And not only was Lord Sainsbury Britain's Science Minister, but the UK's public funding body for the bio-sciences - the BBSRC - was under the Chairmanship of the Chief Executive of the biotech company Zeneca. The food industry, including all the major supermarkets, was also highly supportive with the industry's Food and Drink Federation taking a clear pro-GM stand. Yet despite all of this high-powered support, almost nowhere has opposition to GMOs been more marked than in the UK.
Was this due to fears of a "loss of competitiveness in biotechnology"? It hardly seems so! It's been down instead to popular disquiet about GM food and crops and the way in which they were being imposed upon the public.
Leaders like Blair have been seen by the public as the protectors of powerful vested interests. They have been the unsuccessful King Canutes of their day. The recent WTO ruling represents exactly the same kind of top down imposition and it is about as likely to be successful.
As the market analyst Bernd Pomrehn of Bank Sarasin told Dow Jones Newswires last week, "even if the WTO's ruling lifts the moratorium on GMO-based food products in the EU, the European consumer won't easily change its aversion toward GMO food, which is the real reason that holds back further spread of GMO in Europe." (Syngenta Not Seen Impacted By WTO Ruling - Dow Jones)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6215
And popular opposition is not limited to the UK or even to Europe. Consider this recent summary of public attitudes research from just the last 3 years, courtesy of GeneWatch UK:
January 2006 - Mali: At a five day meeting, farmers heard arguments for and against the introduction of GM technology. They rejected GM crops as an attack on their way of life. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece
December 2005 - South Africa: Almost six out of 10 South Africans either reject or avoid genetically modified foods, according to the results of a poll. http://allafrica.com/stories/200601160543.html
November 2005 - Switzerland: In a national referendum, the Swiss vote for a five-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops. There was 55.7% in favour of the moratorium with a majority across all 26 cantons, a situation which was unprecedented.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4475044.stm
April 2005 - Greece: research from University of Thessaly shows 'the overall attitude of Greek consumers towards GM food is negative'. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.00916.x
July 2005 - Europe: A Europe-wide survey by the European Commission shows a majority of Europeans (54%) agree that "food made from genetically modified organisms is dangerous". http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf
May 2005 - Russia: An opinion poll shows that two thirds of Russians are against genetically modified foods and the majority of experts questioned support a ban on GM crops. http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=60290-russians-reject-gm
March 2005 - China: In a Greenpeace opinion poll, a majority (57%) of the respondents said they would choose non-GM food over GM food. http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/press/releases/consumer-rejection-of-ge-foods
November 2004 - USA: According to opinion poll and focus groups research by the Pew Initiative, 'Americans' opinions about genetically modified foods remain divided, but majority want a strong regulatory system'. http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2004update/.
September 2004 - UK: Opposition to GM continues to grow. An opinion poll by the Consumer's Association shows:
* Only around a quarter of respondents found food from a GM plant acceptable, compared with almost a third (32 per cent) in 2002.
* Only around a quarter (26 per cent) favour the growing of GM crops in the UK, compared with around a third (32 per cent) in 2002.
* Overall 61 per cent of respondents said that they are concerned about the use of GM in food production with the long-term consequences as one of the greatest concerns. http://www.which.net/campaigns/food/gm/0209gmdilemmas_br.pdf
March 2004 - Canada/USA: tracking research by the Canadian Government revealed: 'Half (52%) of Americans are comfortable with buying genetically modified foods, compared to 45% of Canadians.
The number of Canadians who are comfortable with buying genetically modified foods has decreased seven points since March 2002' and 'Fully 85% of Canadians believe a new labeling system is needed and 77% believe that system should be mandatory. In the U.S., 82% believe it is needed and 70% feel it should be mandatory'. http://biostrategy.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x=588&mid=176
December 2003 - Canada: A Government report about public attitudes to biotechnology in general said: '.there remains continued and widespread wariness about GM food, reconfirmed in this wave in focus groups. If anything, people express stronger dissatisfaction than they have in the past about the lack of labeling and labeling standards for GM foods'. http://biostrategy.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x=544&all=true
October 2003 - Japan: Research using the 'willingness to pay' approach revealed that 80% of the Seikyou consumers who participated would not choose GM noodles over non-GM noodles, even with a price reduction of up to 50%. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4046/is_200310/ai_n9305606
September 2003 - UK: Two citizen's juries call for moratorium on commercialisation of GM to continue. http://www.which.net/media/pr/sep03/general/gmjury.html
---
2.'Satan's Drink' and a Sorry History of Global Food Fights
by: Calestous Juma
AgBioView & Financial Times
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=5224
In a long-awaited decision, the World Trade Organisation has ruled that the European Union's moratorium on approving genetically modified foods imposed in 1998 violated international trade rules.
Supporters of biotechnology have argued that the foods are safe to grow and consume. But critics have been demanding that new products must be shown to be safe before they are commercialised. The focus on health and environmental safety, however, often hides the main source of controversy. The driving force behind the dispute is technological competition between the two trading powers. The focus on safety is largely a smokescreen used to conceal concerns about Europe's loss of competitiveness in biotechnology.
We live in a new world marked by rapid technological innovation and global integration. Europe and the US should learn to manage new technologies collectively, not to suppress them. Failure to do so will shift technological leadership to other regions, such as China, that have made significant strides in using new technologies for economic growth. Attempts to stall the diffusion of biotechnology are not the first examples of safety arguments being invoked by promoters of incumbent products. Take coffee: in the 1500s Catholic bishops demonised coffee as "Satan's drink" and urged a ban. It was competing with wine. In its defence, Pope Clement VIII proclaimed: "Why, this 'Satan's drink' is so delicious it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it. We shall fool Satan by baptising it and making it a truly Christian beverage." More than a century later, coffee was pitted against tea as the incumbent English drink. To defeat the competition, King Charles II decreed the banning of coffeehouses in 1675 only to revoke the decision two days before it came into effect.
In Germany, coffee was outlawed or its sale severely restricted for economic reasons. "It is disgusting to notice the increase in the quantity of coffee used by my subjects, and the like amount of money that goes out of the country in consequence. My people must drink beer. His Majesty was brought up on beer, and so were his ancestors," declared Frederick the Great in 1777.
Historical cases of technological competition were limited in their reach. Today's global economy demands that governments find ways to ensure that the benefits of new technologies are widely shared. Judicial rulings will safeguard the integrity of international trading rules. But they will not guarantee consumer enthusiasm for products that threaten their settled ways.
The US has its celebrated cases of opposition to new technologies. Margarine, a French invention, was subjected to decades of slander by the dairy industry. The Horse Association of America launched a two-decade battle against the internal combustion engine. Similarly, decades of opposition to mechanical refrigeration waned in the face of technical improvements and market expansion.
Like in earlier cases, the WTO ruling has far-reaching implications for governments, business and the international community. First, promoting wider access to new technologies builds trust in the global trading system. Technological monopoly by a handful of nations can only breed disenchantment with globalisation. It is also for this reason that many developing countries remain wary of biotechnology. They are more concerned about exclusion than they are about safety. In other words, they perceive exclusion as a more serious risk than the adoption of the biotechnology. When given a chance, these countries have shown enthusiasm for adoption as in Argentina, Brazil and China.
Second, governments need to work harder to harmonise their regulatory practices. The traditional practice of projecting national laws globally must be replaced by greater efforts to agree on international standards.
But the debate about the risks of GM foods involves perceived rather than real risks. This is largely a political rather than a scientific issue. The business community has to improve its management of public perceptions of the risks of new technologies. The biotechnology industry can broaden its support by working on products for unmet needs. There is considerable scope for extending biotechnology applications to new fields such as environmental management and biofuels production.
The ruling also raises concerns about the impact of transatlantic relations on international trade. It is time for the US and Europe to provide new leadership on how to maximise the benefits of new technologies and minimise their risks. If they do not, leadership will shift to new players in other regions.