US Bureau tells Mexico to stop GM Labelling  

Natural Law Party Wessex 13apr01 

Most technologies that add value in life wish to advertise their presence in products if they can: e.g "Intel Inside" - look for the label on the casing of your computer (which is not made by Intel but probably contains an Intel processor).

What therefore are we to make of a technology, and the industry that supports it, that wishes to make sure that people do not know that it is being used in products? What do we make of an industry that is prepared to threaten the sovereignty of other countries - in this case Mexico - in order to achieve this? The US GM food industry claims that such labelling would be 'confusing' to consumers.

On this basis should computer manufacturers be banned from labelling the processor type on their machines because the general public do not understand computer processor technology and therefore such labelling might confuse them? Or would this be too damaging to US trade in computer processors?

Both these types of labelling relate to the process which gives rise to the product (computing and food).

It seems that US trade policy is seeking to allow labelling of US products which consumers want, but the prohibition of labelling of US products which consumers don't want. This is what the US government refers to as 'free-trade'.

God Bless America, land of the hustler.

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX nlpwessex@bigfoot.com www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex  

US Agribusiness Fights Mexico Mandatory Labels for GE Foods 

IS MEXICO GETTING STRONG-ARMED ON BIOTECH LABELING?

(Excerpted From Rural UPdates! March 29, 2001)

The Mexican Senate has unanimously approved a bill calling for mandatory labeling of biotech foods and a cadre of US trade groups are trying to block final passage in the Mexican House of Deputies. On February 4th, the American Farm Bureau Federation and approximately 20 other groups sent a letter to US officials urging them to intervene "at the most senior levels" to "prevent this legislation from becoming Mexican law." The letter urged them to use President Bush's "upcoming visit to Mexico" and was sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoelick.

Moreover, the letter conveyed wording that could be interpreted as a threat to Mexico regarding their favorable trade status. "The ramifications (of mandatory labeling) to US farmers, grain handlers, food companies and biotechnology providers" said the letter, "would be enormous and threaten our favorable relations with Mexico as an ally and NAFTA trading partner." The letter also stated that labeling "would not only confuse and mislead Mexican consumers about the safety inherent in biotech foods but also create a negative precedent for NAFTA." With the upcoming Free Trade for the America's next month in Quebec, this development is sure to reverberate widely throughout the global trade and biotechnology communities. The Mexican House of Deputies is expected to vote on this bill soon. Karil L. Kochendorfer of the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (202) 295 3927 was the contact person mentioned on the letter. Rural Updates! has obtained a copy and will be posting developments in future editions. To receive UPdates! email defenders.rural@reply.net with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line. To learn more about Farm Bureau's vast insurance and agribusiness investments, go to: http://www.defenders.org/rural3.html