At 12:00 AM 31/03/04 -0500, Automatic digest processor wrote:
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:48:51 -0500
>From: James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Canadian Honey
>
>>> Is it true that Canadian honey is not being sold in Europe because
>>> it is contaminated with GM pollen?
>
>Not really. It is just that selling any food crop to any EU buyer
>has a much higher "gamesmanship" factor than when selling to buyers
>in other places.
CANADIAN HONEY BANNED IN EUROPE
April 3, 2001
Ontario Farmer
<http://207.229.10.88/ontariofarmer/pages/Info_active/farm_general/farm_gen
.html#article2>
Canadian beekeepers say they're powerless to do anything about new European
regulations banning Canadian honey because it isn't certified GMO-free.
CBC reports trace amounts of GMO canola have been found in Canadian honey
shipments.
That has led to a ban in Europe and could potentially cost beekeepers a
substantial amount of income. The European move has already driven down
honey prices.
Canadian beekeepers say they have no control over the plants visited by
their bees and there are plenty of canola and wheat fields in their foraging
area. They also say they're helpless to do anything about the ban because
it's expensive to test honey samples for GMO content.
After filtration, honey is left with just 0.1 per cent pollen, the article
says. A Canadian Honey Council spokesman said that's a very small percentage
and, on that basis, the product should be declared GMO-free.
>> there is an increasing resistance to the attempt by a few huge businesses
>> to dominate world food production
>
>I think it would be more accurate to say that the UK and EU have
>simply stumbled upon a purely emotional/political stance which serves
>as a basis for attempting to restrict imports and thereby protect
>domestic producers without the need for all that boring and expensive
>"testing". As nothing more than an accusation thrown at entire countries
>is required, it is a uniquely low-cost non-tariff barrier to trade, as
>it requires no tangible evidence, no proof that any health risk exists,
>and does not even require a coherent explanation of the specific risk
>in quantitative terms.
Oh please. This is almost too lame to even respond to. The fact is people in the EU have more awareness of the health and environmental implications of tinkering with the genes of our food plants than do North Americans. And many of them are saying "no" to GMOs. The USA seems to think it has the right to shove GM foods down the throats of people in other countries and that any protestation is simply playing trade games. To imply that these people are deluded, conned or otherwise too dumb to understand the 'truth' is just ridiculous. Why do you think the corporations fight tooth and nail to prevent their GM foods from being labelled? They know people won't buy them, that's why.
International trade regimes make rules to allow the free flow of goods around the world. They subordinate environment, human health and social justice. They are created to protect and increase corporate power.
Have you never heard of the Precautionary Principle? It means it is not necessary for citizens to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a substance is harmful before we take action to eliminate or prohibit the substance. People have the right to refuse involuntary exposure to substances they suspect may be harmful, or have not been proven safe. The onus is on the proponent of a new product to prove it is safe.
The old game played by government and corporations, especially the pesticide corporations, was to inflict a new chemical on the planet, and tell citizens THEY must prove it unsafe. By the time evidence of damage could be studied and assessed, people were dead from cancer, wildlife poisoned and lives ruined. By then, the corporations did not care if the pesticide was banned. They had made their money from that particular chemical and had new products to bring to the market. And round and round we go.
People are fed up with that game and now are demanding the onus be put on the corporations to prove their products safe before unleashing them on the world. If the US and other GMO producing countries wants to compete globally, they had better get with it. Increasingly, the rest of the world is saying it does not want your contaminated food. Even some Americans are now saying this - Mendocino County just banned the growing of GMO crops.
This month a petition representing one million people from Japan was presented to the Canadian government saying they will not eat GMO wheat from Canada if government approves this plant. US and Canadian wheat growers also do not want this plant approved but Monsanto persists.
And how about this excerpt:
The Associated Press
March 12, 2004,
HEADLINE: Genetically modified corn threatens Mexico's native species, NAFTA study says
BYLINE: By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: OAXACA.Mexico
If left unchecked, modified genes spread by
imported U.S. biotech corn threaten to displace or
contaminate native varieties in Mexico, the birthplace of
corn, a NAFTA watchdog panel said. The study for the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation said gene
transfers could damage Mexico's vast storehouse of native
corn, whose wild ancestral genes might one day be needed to
help commercial crops overcome diseases or adverse
conditions.
========
There is more to this than the simplistic notion that other countries are just ganging up on the poor old USA.
Sharon Labchuk
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
