02/19 09:48 Greens and growers wide apart on bio-tech food
CARTAGENA, Colombia, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Fears of mutant maize
and "Frankenstein food" have been pitched against promises of a
horn of plenty to end world famine at a United Nations conference on
genetically-modified crops this week.
More than 500 delegates from 130 countries are meeting in
Colombia's colonial port city of Cartagena to hammer out rules for the
import, export and use of crops and food engineered in laboratories
by scientists mixing genes and DNA from plants and even animals.
Environmental activists accuse bio-technology companies of trying to
make a fast buck in what is already a multibillion-dollar industry at the
risk of sparking a huge ecological disaster and damaging human
health.
The manufacturers of genetically-modified foods accuse the pressure
groups of using "bogus, metaphysical" arguments in a bid to wrap the
industry up in red tape.
U.N. officials hope government representatives will adopt a protocol
by the end of the meeting on Tuesday but concede that any
agreement would likely be "based on moral suasion rather than
punishment" -- effectively a dog with no teeth.
"It's now possible to do stuff that only writers could imagine before
and build up completely new life forms. The argument that we need
genetically-modified food to feed the world is complete bull," Mika
Raila, a Greenpeace spokesman at the conference, told Reuters.
"The U.S. government has said it sees the bio-tech industry as the
second most promising after information technology ... and it's been
bullying everybody to please the U.S. bio-tech industry," he said,
adding that other major grain exporters including Canada, Argentina
and Australia were also lobbying for as few controls as possible on
genetically-modified food.
Last year, about one-quarter of all maize, or corn, grown in the United
States was transgenic, together with about 35 percent of soybeans
and some 45 percent of cotton, according to industry estimates.
The bio-technology industry says their advanced techniques ultimately
will allow the world to feed its ever-growing population by boosting
crop quality and yields on existing farm land without encroaching on
hitherto uncultivated areas.
But alarm over the potential environmental and health risks of
genetically-engineered produce has reached fever-pitch in parts of
Europe, leading the British press to dub it "Frankenstein food".
This week environmental activists dumped four tons of
genetically-modified, U.S. soybeans on British Prime Minister Tony
Blair's doorstep, after he said he had no worries about eating the
hi-tech food.
Raila argued that genetically-modified crops could cross- pollinate
with wild species causing unwanted changes or even wiping out
plants, insects and animals right up the food chain.
The health risk to humans of eating such foods is as yet unknown but
there are signs it could cause allergies, resistance to certain
medicines and possibly even affect internal organs, he said.
"Nobody has more of a vested interest than ourselves to make sure
these products are safe for the consumer. Bio-technology gives us
the possibility to modify plants with precision," Val Giddings, vice
president of the Washington-based Bio-Technology Industry
Organization, told Reuters.
"The argument that gene exchange is problematic is bogus.
Greenpeace and its likes have made a decision for metaphysical
reasons that it is opposed to bio-technology," he added.
Environmentalists and industry experts appear to be poles apart on
the issue, but only government representatives are taking a direct part
in this week's talks in Cartagena.
Michael Williams, spokesman for the U.N. Environment Program said
the discussions, which began last Sunday, had been tough.
"This is a very complex issue and negotiations have been difficult. But
we're optimistic we will have a reasonable protocol at the end," he
said.
Controversy has centered on whether new rules should just apply to
modified seeds or extend to products made from
genetically-modified crops. There has also been argument over who
should be liable if a genetically-modified crop produces unwanted
side effects or environmental damage.
"There's a potential incompatibility between environmental and trade
interests here," Williams said.
moneynet.com@NEWS-P2&Index=0&HeadlineURL=../News/NewsHeadlines.asp&DISABLE_FORM=&NAVSVC=News\Company |
