<!-- Begin
function scrollit_r2l(seed)

{

        var m1  = " ----------> May 14, 2003 - U.S. Contests Europe's Ban on Some Food By ELIZABETH BECKER — The Bush administration filed suit today at the World Trade Organization to force Europe to lift its ban on genetically modified food, a move that was postponed earlier this year by the debate on Iraq... The suit will further heighten trans-Atlantic trade tensions after several recent rulings against the United States in cases brought by Europe at the W.T.O. over United States steel tariffs and tax shelters for overseas corporations... The administration was backed by the speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, and other senior Republican and Democratic lawmakers who have been promoting the lawsuit for months. American farmers have led the complaints, saying they have invested in the technology needed to raise genetically modified crops only to see one of the biggest markets — Europe — closed to their products... Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, said the administration had run out of patience waiting for the European Union to lift what he called a five-year-old moratorium that blocked several hundred million dollars of American exports into Europe. Worse, he said, European attitudes were spreading unfounded fears in the developing world, where the need is greatest for the increased yield of genetically modified crops... ``In developing countries, these crops can spell the difference between life and death,`` he said. ``The human cost of rejecting this new technology is enormous...`` Mr. Hastert estimated that American farmers lost $300 million in corn exports each year because of the European policy toward genetically modified food and animal feed... ``There's no question in my mind that the European Union's protectionist, discriminatory trade policies are costing American agriculture and our nation's economy hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year,`` Mr. Hastert said.  {Oh yes, it's completely obvious that GM mongers are nothing but innocent, the U.S. agricultural economy completely hinges upon GM Crops, and the European Union is nothing but a collection of stupid cretins who hate everyone...} But European officials said today that they were dumbfounded by the suit. They said there was no moratorium on genetically modified food... ``The U.S. claims that there is a so-called moratorium, but the fact is that the E.U. has authorized G.M. varieties in the past and is currently processing applications,`` said Pascal Lamy, the top European trade official. ``So what is the real U.S. motive in bringing a case?..`` In practice, the Europeans did have an informal moratorium on new varieties of genetically modified food from 1998 until last year, when the E.U. instituted a new regulatory system that has approved two applications, with others pending... At the center of the debate over genetically modified crops, if not the suit filed today, is a growing disagreement between the United States and Europe over what steps are necessary to protect public health and the environment... European consumers are far more wary of genetically modified food than are Americans {which Americans - the Texans?}, and many object to what they consider aggressive American promotion of those foods, influenced by agribusiness... The European Union is demanding that genetically modified food be labeled as such. They also want to be able to trace the origins of the food's ingredients and are near completion of new legislation to require both... The United States opposes such labels and tracing mechanisms, saying they are too costly and impractical {Translation: The elected megalomaniacs who actually believe they represent the opinions of the entire United States would prefer to divert their money towards pork barrel projects and corporate controlled third world countries - WAIT A MINUTE, HOW IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD BEING LABELING IN AMERICA?}... Margot Wallstrom, the European environmental commissioner, said the European legislature would complete its measure to require labeling and methods for tracing food and animal feed that is genetically modified... ``This U.S. move is unhelpful,`` she said. ``It can only make an already difficult debate in Europe more difficult...`` The United States agriculture secretary, Ann M. Veneman, said today that the case was aimed at protecting American farmers and ranchers {who have sold out to the GM mongers}... ``With this case,`` she said, ``we are fighting for the interests of American agriculture (the scientifically perverse agriculture ruled by corporations in America). This case is about playing by the rules negotiated in good faith. The European Union has failed to comply with its W.T.O. obligations...`` The United States was joined by Argentina, Canada and Egypt. Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and Uruguay expressed support as third parties without direct commercial interest... Many of these countries are in negotiations with the United States for a free trade agreement... Chile is waiting for the administration to sign off on its accord after a delay driven in part by disappointment that it refused to side with the United States on the war with Iraq at the United Nations... Mr. Zoellick promised European officials last week that trade would bring the allies together after the arguments over Iraq, not further separate them... But trade is becoming a divisive issue, especially since the end of the war... European officials lashed back at the administration today, refusing to be blamed for blocking genetically modified food aid and reminding the United States that it had refused to join 100 other countries and sign the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. That agreement sets out rules for exporters and importers of genetically modified crops to provide the proper information about the food and feed... Nonprofit groups opposed to the W.T.O.'s influence said the case showed how globalization undermined local and national governments... ``The people eating the food or living in the environment that could be affected must decide domestic policy, not some secretive W.T.O. tribunal of three trade experts,`` said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch... But several African farmers and scientists at a news conference here joined Mr. Zoellick and Ms. Veneman in praising the American action {Africans from the same group which has sold out to the oil cartels and wildlife poachers}... ``We believe it is better to give a person food to eat today than wait 10 years to be sure it is safe,`` said Darin Makinde, dean of the school of agriculture at the University of Venda in South Africa... ``Two elephants are fighting — the United States and Europe — and it is Africa that is suffering,`` he said (will a sellout like Makinde tell his people the differences between regular and GM crops?...  No)            ";

        var m2  = " ----------> May 22, 2003 - Bush Links Europe's Ban on Bio-Crops With Hunger By DAVID E. SANGER - NEW LONDON, Conn., May 21 — President Bush charged today that Europe's ban on genetically modified food had discouraged third world countries from using that technology and thus undermined efforts to end hunger in Africa... Mr. Bush's accusation, long a complaint of American farmers (THE ONES THAT ARE CORPORATE SELLOUTS), was made during a graduation speech at the United States Coast Guard Academy that dwelled on initiatives to combat AIDS and poverty... It is almost certain to exacerbate the divisions between Washington and Europe that emerged before the war in Iraq. While Mr. Bush has made the case before that Europe should stop obstructing the sale of genetically modified food, today was the first time he linked that policy with world hunger... The speech signaled the tough stance Mr. Bush is likely to take when he goes to France in 10 days for the annual economic summit meeting of seven major industrialized nations and Russia. White House officials have already said Mr. Bush plans no reconciliation with the leaders of France and Germany, beyond what they call a perfunctory ``courtesy visit`` to President Jacques Chirac during the summit meeting, to be held in the French town of Évian... In a speech that the White House said would put forward what aides called a positive agenda that would show a far softer side to American foreign policy, Mr. Bush insisted that widened use of ``high-yield bio-crops`` would greatly increase agricultural productivity in some of the poorest nations.... ``Yet our partners in Europe are impeding this effort,`` he said, clearly meaning France and Germany, though he named no countries. ``They have blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded, unscientific fears {CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT BUSH KNOWS OF SCIENCE?}...`` The result, he charged, was that African nations that fear being shut out of European markets are not investing in the technology. He appeared to be referring to countries like Uganda and Namibia... ``European governments should join, not hinder, the great cause of ending hunger in Africa,`` he said. {ASSUMING THAT GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS ARE THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR ENDING HUNGER OUT OF ALL OTHER AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES ON THIS PLANET FULL OF ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS...} Mr. Bush made no mention of the United States' own strong economic interest in the outcome of the dispute with Europe. American corporations lead the world in biotechnology and are anxious to open the lucrative European market (Translation: FULFILLING OUR GREED IS THE BOTTOM LINE)... Last week the administration filed the equivalent of a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization to force Europe to lift its ban on genetically modified food, a step that Mr. Bush had delayed during the debate on Iraq... Inside the White House, the emotions about the countries that tried to stop the invasion are still raw; recently a senior administration official told reporters that diplomacy to disarm Saddam Hussein had been going well until, in the official's view, France stabbed the United States in the back. The French have complained that such comments are part of a concerted effort by the administration to turn the American public against France and its goods {WHO KNOW'S?  MAYBE FRANCE IS HARBORING TERRORISTS AND THEY ARE NEXT ON THE WAR LIST - UNLIKE OUR GOOD NEIGHBOR, CANADA, WHICH WOULD NEVER DREAM OF HARBORING TERRORISTS, YET PRODUCE THEIR OWN ``SAFE AND FRIENDLY`` GM CROPS!  WHAT DO YOU THINK `CANOLA` IS?!!}... Today the United States trade representative, Robert B. Zoellick, wrote an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal accusing the European Union of disregarding scientific evidence and sending ``a devastating signal to developing countries that stand to benefit most from innovative agricultural technologies...`` He charged that some African countries were refusing American food aid ``because of fabricated fears stoked by irresponsible rhetoric about food safety. {IT COULDN`T BE ANY WORSE THAN THE IRRESPONSIBLE RHETORIC THAT IS CONSTANTLY POURING OUT FROM THE ZOELLICK`S MOUTH...}`` The European public has been highly reluctant to purchase any genetically modified products, citing unknown long-term health and environmental risks. European officials have said that the Bush administration can argue over the openness of the European market but that they reject as underhanded the implication that their stricter rules on genetically modified food are somehow responsible for hunger in Africa {IT COULD BE AFRICA ACTUALLY RESPECTS THE EUROPEAN MARKET BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN STEERED WRONG BY IT BEFORE!}... Tony van der Haegen, the expert for food safety at the European Union, said administration officials had been ``a bit unfair to whip Europeans`` when they had never blocked food aid. Last week European officials charged that the administration was manufacturing its claims... ``The U.S. claims that there is a so-called moratorium,`` Pascal Lamy, the top European trade official, said last week, ``but the fact is that the E.U. has authorized G.M. varieties in the past and is currently processing applications. So what is the real U.S. motive in bringing a case?...`` Yet as a practical matter, the European Union had an unwritten moratorium on new varieties of bio-crops until last year. Since then it has approved only two applications for new imports... Europeans have also demanded that any genetically modified foods be labeled, a move that American farmers say would condemn the products to the back shelves, where they would sit unsold {IN AMERICA, THERE IS NO LABELING OF FOOD PRODUCTS INDICATING THAT IT CONTAINS GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS - THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA OF OUR FOREFATHERS}. The United States suit has been joined by a number of other nations, many of which are seeking free trade agreements with the United States... Mr. Bush's speech here, delivered in a drizzling rain as Coast Guard vessels bobbed in the waters behind him, marked a return to the state where he was born — a native status that the adopted Texan rarely talks about, identifying himself more with Midland, the Texas town in which he grew up... But his birthplace was just too close today to be ignored, and Mr. Bush opened his speech by saying, ``You know, I was born in this state, just down the road.`` He was greeted by laughter, then applause. ``I've still got relatives living here,`` he said. {NOTE: BUSH WILL ONLY SURROUND HIMSELF WITH FRIENDS, FAMILY, AND PAYOLA ADVOCATES WHEN HE MAKES A SPEECH...} In his speech, Mr. Bush commended Congress for passing legislation authorizing greater spending around the world on AIDS treatment, a bill he said he would sign next week {MORE MONEY FLYING AWAY FROM AMERICA TO CORPORATE RULED, THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES - MORE DEBT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE}... He called a new for financing for the Millennium Challenge Account, a new approach to development aid that would grant money to nations that demonstrated a commitment to remaking their justice systems, spending more on health and education, and adopting market-opening measures.... ``When I'm in Europe,`` he said, pointing to another likely subject of contention, ``I will call on America's partners to join us in moving beyond the broken development policies of the past, and encourage the freedom and reform that lead to prosperity.``  {THE BEAUTY OF BUSH`S HYPERBOLE IS THAT IT CAN BE INTERPRETED IN TERMS OF ALTRUISM OR IN TERMS OF SELFISHNESS AND GREED - YOU DECIDE.}              ";

        var m3  = " ---------->  This is not entirely a matter of Europeans` falling victim to protectionist propaganda or hysteria... We must remember two things: One is that Europe has recently had some very bad experiences with contaminated food. Health experts in the 1990`s maintained that beef from cattle with mad cow disease was perfectly safe — until scores of Britains died... That experience was all the more searing because food is to European culture what free speech is to American culture. There may be no good scientific reason for concern (to the mechanistic mind and companies such as Monsanto which stand to lose billions on the market), but to consider eating something that has resulted from some laboratory manipulation is felt by many Europeans as a kind of denial of the true self. For Americans(?) to insist that the union accept genetically modified products is bound to be felt in Europe as another exercise in American cultural and economic imperialism... We may win the case before the World Trade Organization, but that is likely only to guarantee a hardening of resistance by consumers... The administration will argue that it wants only to give the consumers a choice.  (Perhaps, the Europeans know, by watching the actions of the average American, that by consuming biologically weaker produce this somehow weakens the mind, therefore, the will.)  But as one who spent years selling to European supermarkets and consumers, I can say with confidence that such a move by the United States would very likely result in a European campaign against all American food... That brings us to the second main point.  We have already caused great resentment among our European allies by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court, both of which were championed by the European Union. Given that we will want European support for whatever actions we eventually decide to take in the Persian Gulf or in North Korea, is this really the time to mount what is bound to be a bitter, high-profile case in order to sell genetically modified potatoes?.. It is, indeed, appalling (to the mind weakening, shadow government) that some countries would rather starve than accept donations of genetically modified corn. But trying to force genetically modified food down European throats is the surest way to guarantee that they swallow neither the potatoes nor a lot of other more important American proposals.            ";

        var m4  = " ---------> September 10, 2002 - Both Zimbabwe and Malawi have agreed to allow genetically modified (GM) grain can be distributed as urgently-needed food aid, says the World Food Program (WFP). The executive director of the UN food agency, James Morris, said Zimbabwe's decision would send an important message to other countries in the region which have refused food aid because it might contain GM grain. Both nations have stipulated that the corn will be milled before being distributed, so that the food aid cannot be planted. The precaution is being taken over fears that GM seeds could contaminate locally-grown crops, threatening lucrative exports to Europe, which insists that food must be GM-free. During the week of August 5, 2002 68% of World Campaign Issue of the Week voters felt that despite the threat of famine, southern African nations should not accept food aid containing GMOs because of potential long-term environmental and health risks.   BBC News          ";

        var m5  = "      --------> EU farm commissioner Franz Fischler criticized Europe's biotechnology sector saying that it risked being left behind unless it found a way to allay its peoples' fears about genetically modified organisms. The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, released a broad strategy paper last month for the summit with recommendations for a common biotechnology policy. But public resistance to biotech foods and crops remains high in Europe, making governments reluctant to embrace them. Last October, European Union governments refused to lift a 1998 ban on the marketing of new genetically modified organisms in the EU, despite pressure from the commission and from the United States. 'We have to stop making decisions on such a difficult issue as biotechnology on a purely emotional basis,' Fischler said in a speech at a Belgian agricultural trade fair. The commission expects that by 2010, the global biotechnology market, not counting agriculture, could amount to more than 2 trillion euros ($1.76 trillion). The US biotechnology industry employs 162,000 people, compared to 61,000 in Europe, even though Europe has more dedicated biotechnology companies according to EU figures - Associated Press, Paul Geitner - - -      ";

        var m6  = "    --------> 2/27/2002 - A panel convened by the US National Academy of Sciences believes the government should more carefully and publicly review the environmental impact of genetically altered plants before approving them, and in order to detect unforeseen problems, should monitor fields even after such crops are being grown commercially. Although the report stated the Department of Agriculture had not missed any big environmental risks in its review of genetically modified plants, it concluded that biotechnology companies are rapidly developing new plants containing either combinations of genes, or individual genes that induce the plant to produce industrial chemicals, fuels and other materials. These efforts, the panel said, will require much more rigorous testing and review than the government currently undertakes. Approval of the report was found on both sides of the issue with companies producing bio-engineered crops pointing to the report's qualified endorsement of the existing regulatory system and some environmental groups believing the report could help produce what they described as much-needed improvements in the review process - - - In the face of international resistance to biotech food, American farmers will plant more genetically engineered crops this year, including one-third of the corn on US soil. The farmers are expected to grow more than 79 million acres of genetically engineered corn and soybeans, the nation's two most widely planted commodities, a 13% increase from last year, according to the Agriculture Department's spring survey. The gene-altered crops require fewer chemicals, making them easier and cheaper to grow. The crops are engineered to produce their own pesticide or to be resistant to a popular weedkiller. About 74 percent of this year's soy crop will be genetically engineered, compared with 68 percent last year, and about 32 percent of the corn crop will be of biotech varieties, compared with 26 percent in 2001... Associated Press, The Detroit Free Press     ";

 

        var msg=m1+m2+m3+m4+m5;

        var out = " ";

        var c   = 1;



        if (seed > 100) {

                seed--;

                var cmd="scrollit_r2l(" + seed + ")";

                timerTwo=window.setTimeout(cmd,80);

        }

        else if (seed <= 100 && seed > 0) {

                for (c=0 ; c < seed ; c++) {

                        out+=" ";

                }

                out+=msg;

                seed--;

                var cmd="scrollit_r2l(" + seed + ")";

                    window.status=out;

                timerTwo=window.setTimeout(cmd,80);

        }

        else if (seed <= 0) {

                if (-seed < msg.length) {

                        out+=msg.substring(-seed,msg.length);

                        seed--;

                        var cmd="scrollit_r2l(" + seed + ")";

                        window.status=out;

                        timerTwo=window.setTimeout(cmd,80);

                }

                else {

                        window.status=" ";

                        timerTwo=window.setTimeout("scrollit_r2l(80)",75);

                }

        }

}
// End -->