St. Louis Post-Dispatch | December 5, 1999 | By Bill Lambrecht, St. Louis Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
SEATTLE - Neither Ruth Hunter, 83, who stands under 5 feet tall, nor any of her four California friends resembled what they called themselves - the Dangerous Ladies of Santa Cruz.
But Hunter and other street protesters at the World Trade Organization summit last week saw themselves as a force to be reckoned with in the coming months as they fight the spread of genetically modified food.
"If anything will unify people, if anything will bring people together, it will be food," said the unlikely warrior.
The 35,000 protesters who converged on Seattle had more than food on their minds. The protesters also complained about environmental destruction, pushed for workers rights and questioned the legitimacy of a global trading authority.
But inside and outside the 135-country trade talks, few matters took on more urgency than global commerce in genetically engineered crops and food.
The talks collapsed late Friday, a failure linked to the chaos in the streets and the overly broad agenda that trade ministers tried to tackle in four days time.
Early Saturday, a weary U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky spoke grimly of the need to overhaul the secretive trade body so that more people can participate.
"We could stay there all night. We could stay there five days.It wouldn't matter. Governments were not ready to make the leap," she said.
Nothing emerged from the meeting that will alter the standoff between the U.S. and other countries over genetically engineered crops. Indeed, the collapse could draw further attention to those differences when governments gather next month at U.N. biosafety talks in Montreal.
Instead of looking at biotechnology through a trade lens as in the trade body, countries will be examining it through an environmental lens when they gather in Montreal. The collapse in the trade talks yielded distinct battle lines for that skirmish and another one brewing in Congress over the labeling of genetically modified products.
The Seattle meeting will be remembered for its civil unrest. It may also be recalled as the moment when supporters of biotechnology made a defiant stand against skeptics attempting to derail their promising new industry.
Drawing support from scientists, farm leaders, members of Congress and President Bill Clinton, the food and biotechnology industries waged a potent public relations campaign against the foreign opposition threatening to cripple their budding business.
In the United States, about 70 million acres of crops have been planted this season with seeds modified for production ease and insect control. Many of those seeds were modified by Monsanto Co. of St. Louis.
The industry's campaign featured Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, admonishing industry representatives to campaign in churches and to "empty your pockets" to fight biotechnology's critics. "We have to take to the streets ourselves. Otherwise, we lose," he said.
The gathering also brought out the fight in Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., who convened pro-biotechnology scientists in one forum and lashed out at businesses during another. In a speech, he singled out Archer Daniels Midland, the Decatur, Ill.-based agribusiness giant that sent tremors through the biotechnology industry this farm season by offering to pay farmers a premium to grow nonmodified crops.
"What we are concerned about is that some American companies are taking a dive," Bond said.
The mission of the gathering of trade ministers was simply to set the agenda for what it will consider in a new round of talks - like a choir arranging the sheet music it will use to sing.
Many Americans don't know what the Geneva-based World Trade Organization is, or at least they didn't before it became a venue for chaos in the streets. The World Trade Organization is a government club, in more ways than one, with the power to set rules for international commerce.
Critics say this world body, which is similar to the United Nations, threatens the sovereignty of nations as well as workers and the environment. The U.S. government and other defenders say the organization is needed to needed to assure fair markets and consistency in what is rapidly becoming a single global economy. The World Trade Organization has no real authority to enforce its rulings. But if a country violates them, at the least it will end up paying the complaining nation. That's what Europe is doing right now in the form of punitive tariffs for refusing to allow imports of U.S. hormone-fed beef.
The trade ruckus over genetically modified crops promises to dwarf the dispute over beef. Even as plantings of genetically engineered crops in the United States have soared, the 15-member European Union has refused to approve any of the modified varieties since early last year. That means looming export problems for U.S. farmers and trouble for companies like Monsanto.
To head off some of these problems, U.S. negotiators worked last week to promote better cooperation among governments to make sure trade rules don't discriminate against the products of biotechnology.
But they didn't succeed, despite an alluring offer by the European governments before the collapse to take part in a biotechnology working group with the authority to start sorting out the difficulties.
The proposed Millennium Round of the trade talks stalledprimarily because of disputes over agriculture, especially the drive to force Europe to cut farm subsidies so as to make trade fairer. In this era of the Internet and scientific advance, the talks broke down over basic issue of growing food and selling it.
In the end, the European Union's trade minister, Pascal Lamy, added insult to the injury. Lamy, from France, said the Europeans never were committed to the biotechnology working group.
"We only said it to help make a deal, to get something else," he said, speaking Saturday in French. "It is dead now."
Scientists step up
Martinia McGloughlin weeded potatoes as a girl on her family's farm in western Ireland. Last week, McGloughlin, 40, director of biotechnology at the University of California at Davis, told World Trade Organization delegates how genetic engineering offers "an incredible toolbox" for improving plants.
"So many times, scientists are scientists sitting around and saying 'trust us.' We can't do that any more," she said of her decision to begin speaking out.
Plant scientists are beginning to understand that they no longer can afford to sit by idly watching biotechnology buffeted by critics. More than 300 scientists signed a letter released by Bond at the trade hearings defending the technology. Scientists are being organized by the Alliance for Better Foods, a $1 million pro-biotechnology campaign by the food industry.
Douglas Randall, a plant biochemist at the University of Missouri, asserted in Seattle that scientists don't do a very good job persuading the public. "We're very good at communicating with one another. Now we have to step up," he said.
Monsanto's Jay Byrne, who was on hand for the Seattle talks, said the willingness of scientists and others to travel to Seattle bodes well for his industry in future debates. "To me, that was the big difference in what we've seen in other meetings when the farm community, the academic community and the science community didn't come out as strong as in Seattle," Byrne said.
Next skirmishes
The battles in Seattle precede more debates over biotechnology: in Montreal next month at the U.N. biosafety negotiations and in Washington over newly introduced legislation that would require labels on the packaging of genetically altered food.
In Montreal, countries will be trying to finish what they failed to do in Colombia earlier this year - write a treaty-like protocol among nations to govern the movement of genetically modified foods.
When countries gathered in South America, the United States, Canada and a small band of allies succeeded in blocking an agreement that they felt could impede trade. Greenpeace and other environmental groups argued that the Seattle protests make it more likely that an agreement can be reached in Montreal.
"Last week, when you mentioned the word 'biosafety' to anyone, the first reaction you would get was, bio what?" said Greenpeace's Remi Parmentier. "An outcome from this week is that the word is now on everybody's lips."
Meanwhile, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, vowed in Seattle to turn up the pressure on behalf of his legislation requiring labels. The rectangular label that Kucinich proposed in legislation last month features GENETICALLY ENGINEERED in bold letters above the words "United States Government Notice."
Ryland Utlaut, the Grand Pass, Mo., farmer who serves as president of the St. Louis-based National Corn Growers Association, said he worries that the news of all the Seattle protests will further frighten farmers.
With farmers preparing to order seeds for next year's crops, Utlaut wishes the debate over biotechnology would die down. But shaking his head, he added, "I don't think it's going to go away quickly."
