Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 WEEKLY WATCH 114 " GM WATCH " <info Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:15:07 GMT --------------------------- WEEKLY WATCH number 114 --------------------------- --------------------------- from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor --------------------------- Dear all: A majority of the European Union's Member States sent a powerful signal today to the Commission that they are getting their policy wrong on GMOs. (EUROPE) But what wouldn't the biotech industry do in order to get its products approved by governments? We've seen in recent weeks how Monsanto resorted to systematic bribery in Indonesia. Now come reports from India of government-industry fraud. It's alleged that data was tampered with to boost GM cotton yield figures and defraud farmers of compensation. (ASIA) It's also hard to imagine how the Indian government can possibly justify its crazy expansion of GM cotton plantings. As one farmers' leader put it, " Farmers have suffered heavy losses on account of cultivation of approved varieties of Bt cotton, for which the seed company is liable to pay compensation. Without addressing this, how can GEAC give approval for commercial cultivation of six new varieties of Bt cotton? " (ASIA) Don't miss our story about an important and revealing new report on the real motives behind American food aid to Africa (AFRICA). In response to r requests, I'm experimenting with a new Question and Answer section (Q & A). If you have a question and can't find the answer on our website, send it to me. I'll publish a selection, in the hope that some knowledgeable person will enlighten us. This section belongs to you, and will only work with the active participation of both questioners and answerers - so whether you're among the baffled or the boffins, please get on those keyboards! Claire claire www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org ------- CONTENTS ------- AFRICA LOBBYWATCH EUROPE THE AMERICAS ASIA COMPANY NEWS WTO LATEST WORLDWIDE ACTION Q & A URGENT ACTION REQUEST RE BRAZIL ------- AFRICA ------- + FEEDING THE FAMINE? NEW REPORT ON US FOOD AID IN AFRICA American food aid containing GM maize sent to Southern Africa during the 2002 food crisis had little to do with ending famine and much to do with promoting GM in Southern Africa. By demanding that countries accept US food aid unconditionally in an effort to promote its own foreign policy and commercial objectives, the US policy actually exacerbated the food crisis. Thus argues an important and very readable new report, " Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa " . Here are a couple of telling quotes from the report: " Food is a tool. It is a weapon in the US negotiating kit " - former US Secretary of Agriculture " For Washington, the choice was simple: Either accept US food aid unconditionally, or allow your population to starve. " The report concludes that US food aid policy in the crisis followed a tradition of using " food power " to achieve US policy objectives. In this case it was intended to promote the adoption of biotech crops in Southern Africa, expanding the market access and control of transnational corporations and undermining local smallholder production thereby fostering greater food insecurity on the continent. 3 specific American policy objectives affecting the crisis that the report identifies were: surplus disposal, market development, and foreign policy considerations. Surplus Disposal: Following the introduction of genetically modified maize in the United States in 1996, maize exports to Europe collapsed. From a peak of 3,513 million metric tons in 1995, total maize exports to the EU collapsed to just 26 million metric tons by 2002 (USDA, 2003). The increased competition for European markets from non-GM producers left the US with large quantities of surplus maize which it was unable to sell on international markets. Export to Africa under the banner of food aid conveniently disposed of the growing maize surplus. Market Development: USAID has a long history of promoting agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Indeed, the agency has made it its mission to " assist developing countries in building the framework for decision- making that will facilitate access to these opportunities the science [of biotechnology] holds and will ensure the safe and effective application of this technology " (USAID, 2003). However, Africa has been at the forefront of challenging the expansion of agricultural biotechnology, and especially of the proprietary system of patent rights that surrounds it - opposition most clearly articulated in the African Model Law on plant genetic resources (Zerbe, 2003). But, for USAID, the food crisis represented an opportunity to expand the promotion of biotechnology on the continent. Faced with the choice of importing GM food aid or allowing their populations to starve, USAID was banking on the governments of Southern Africa choosing GM food. Foreign Policy Objectives: As noted above, US biotech corporations had been locked out of Europe since the EU imposed its moratorium on the approval of new GM crops. With no sign of the moratorium being lifted, the United States chose to pursue a more aggressive strategy. In exporting unmilled GM maize to Africa, the US was hoping (indeed banking) on cross-pollination with domestic varieties. If Europe had no alternative, non-GM sources of food, it would be unable to resist biotechnology. Furthermore, the more countries cultivating GM crops, the more likely US pressure on the European Union (either backdoor diplomacy or public pressure through the World Trade Organization) would be successful. Either way, European markets would again be opened to US maize exports. The report was written by Noah Zerbe, Department of Government and Politics, Humboldt State University, USA; and the Center for Philosophy of Law, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium LINK TO PDF FOR THE FULL REPORT: http://www.geocities.com/nzerbe/pubs/famine.pdf EXCERPTS: " food power " - guiding mythology for US foreign policy http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4963 report's conclusions http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4968 + HOW ZAMBIA IS FACING DOWN THE US OVER GM SEEDS In 2002, in the midst of drought and severe food shortage, the president of Zambia rejected the US's offer of GM maize. Was that a responsible decision? In an inspiring article, Peter Henriot, director of the Jesuit Center for Theological Reflection in Lusaka, Zambia, looks at the evidence. EXCERPT: Mutale, a 40-year-old Zambian peasant farmer, was standing in front of his two hectares of maize (corn), smiling broadly. He had just finished explaining to me that despite poor rains, he was able to raise a good crop to feed his family and to sell a bit of surplus for some extra cash to meet household needs. He looked so very different from the other farmers I had spoken to only a few days earlier. They were his neighbors, worked soil similar to his, and had experienced the same dry season. But they were not at all smiling! No good maize harvest for them. The difference was that Mutale had planted his maize field using an organic agriculture approach, not relying on heavy doses of chemical fertilizer as his neighbors did. The organic agriculture approach - using cattle manure and decayed materials from nitrogen-rich plants such as legumes - was both much less expensive and much more efficient... The smile on Mutale's face taught me one more important reason for the wisdom of Zambia's rejection of GM crops coming into our country. There simply are plenty of alternatives to the GMO approach vigorously pushed by the United States. ... those of us who live in Zambia and other poor countries know that the major cause of hunger is not insufficient food production but poverty and the unjust social structures of distribution and accessibility of food. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4964 --------------------------- LOBBYWATCH --------------------------- + PRAKASH'S MINI-ME RAPS FOR GM - from John Vidal's Eco Sounding, The Guardian, UK: Remember Rohan Prakash, the sweet 12-year-old son of Dr CS Prakash, director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University in the US? (UK web-based arch enemies GM Watch found itself on the wrong end of his bilious emails after it had the temerity to criticise dad). Some months ago, Rohan wrote a rap song in praise of Norman Borlaug, the great old exponent of biotech and the green revolution. Well, now we can actually hear him singing it... Hear the whole ghastly thing on http://www.agbioworld.org http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4958 + CORE VIDEO AND CONFERENCE Black civil rights-turned corporate rights group CORE (corporate partner: Monsanto) is promoting its pro-GM video (and conference), which feature " personal testimonials from African farmers whose lives have been improved by genetically modified (GM) crops " . A taster from an article by Driessen and Boynes of CORE: " The [anti-GM] fear-mongering would be hilarious, if the hate-GM campaign didn't have such tragic consequences for a world where 800 million people are chronically malnourished... " etc. etc. All the invective that money can buy! http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4970 + PG ECONOMICS - A GM WATCH PROFILE Peter Barfoot and Graham Brookes are co-directors of the UK-based company PG Economics Ltd which specialises in reassuring reports on co-existence of GM and non-GM crops. They describe themselves as " Independent and objective consultants " . In publishing their reports, PG Economics has regularly issued press releases such as " New research proves that co-existence is NOT a problem " . These help produce headlines which for the biotechnology industry are literally " good news " , particularly when generated by an " independent and objective " source. BioScience UK, the website of GM company Bayer CropScience, made plain its excitement: " Can GM and non-GM crops really co-exist in the European Union? According to the respected economic consultants group PG Economics, yes they can! " BioScience UK did not mention that the report was commissioned by Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (ABE), an industry lobby group whose members include Bayer CropScience, as well as BASF, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. Nor was this fact mentioned by PG Economics in its press release. ABE was mentioned in the report itself but without clarification of ABE's membership or of the fact that it is an industry body. That Brookes and Barfoot might feel more sympathetic to the biotech industry rather than its critics or organic farmers would not be surprising. Not only is their company heavily dependent on both GM crops as a research issue and GM industry clients, Barfoot has spent the vast majority of his career either working in the biotech industry or in businesses wholly dependent on it, and with associates who display an extreme antipathy towards both organic farming and those who raise concerns about GM crops. One of Barfoot's co-authors and business associates, for instance, describes Greenpeace's opposition to GM crops as being " based on the same kind of doctrinaire and destructive propaganda that underpinned Lysenko's diatribes ..., Goebbels's and Goering's campaigns against non-Aryan activities... and Pol Pot's dehumanisation of his invented ideological opponents " . The partner of Barfoot's former employer warns of " epidemics of cancer courtesy of the organic farming lobby " , etc. etc. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=308 + PRO-CLONING LM LOBBYIST HELPS REGULATE CLONING Recently the journalist George Monbiot drew attention again to the way in which members of the extremist 'LM' network were gaining control of " much of the formal infrastructure of public communication used by the science and medical establishment " in the UK. Despite often lacking science backgrounds, Monbiot notes, " they hold key positions in Sense About Science, the Science Media Centre, the Genetic Interest Group, the Progress Educational Trust, Genepool and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. They have used these positions to promote the interests of pharmaceutical and biotech companies and to dismiss the concerns of the public and non-governmental organisations. " Now, Juliet Tizzard, a member of the LM network - which eulogises genetic engineering and human cloning - has become the Policy Manager of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK government body which licenses and monitors human embryo research conducted in the UK. In 1997 Tizzard appeared in the Channel 4 TV series 'Against Nature', which represented environmentalists as Nazis responsible for death and deprivation in the Third World, and argued germline gene therapy and human cloning would liberate humanity from nature. Subsequent investigations revealed that certain of the programme makers and several key contributors to the series, including Tizzard, had been closely involved with LM. Tizzard is not the first Furediite to gain entry to the HFEA. HFEA's former Director of Communications was Ann Furedi, wife of the ideological 'Godfather' of the LM network and star of 'Against Nature', the sociologist Frank Furedi. The fact that a pro-cloning lobbyist is in such a sensitive position is unlikely to worry the British government, which is currently preparing to vote against the ban on cloning at the UN. This week also brought news that the government will spend GBP1bn on biotechnology by 2008. This represents 10% of the projected budget for UK science over the next three years. Investment in nanotech-related research will also rise. Much of the funding will be targeted at human biotech and the government is determined to promote genetic technologies to the public. To that end it seems happy to use whoever it sees as effective lobbyists. Tizzard, previously headed a controversial lobby group with close links with the pharmaceutical industry. Latterly, this lobby group has been receiving funding from the Dept of Health " to promote public understanding of genetics " . Revealingly, Tizzard appears to regard " spin " as a valid way of overcoming public concerns. She has written, " maybe media spin isn't such a bad thing in science... perhaps instead of spin doctors, what we need is spin scientists! " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4960 + FORMER GM BOOSTER TURNS TAIL Deborah Koons Garcia's GM-critical film " The Future of Food " has been positively reviewed in the journal Nature Biotechnology by Tom Hoban, a man once considered " Biotech's Leading Propagandist/Pollster in the USA " . Hoban is still listed by Prakash's AgBioWorld as one of its approved experts for the media to contact. For how much longer, remains to be seen. While AgBioWorld's co-founder Greg Conko asserts in a recent AgBioView bulletin that current US regulatory methodology is scientifically unsound, unnecessarily costly and inhibitory in the strict demands it places on GMOs, Tom Hoban started signalling a while back his increasing unease about the laxity of US regulation, warning, " The FDA practices of voluntary pre-market notification and substantial equivalence are no longer valid. " EXCERPT: In the same vein as Super-size Me and Fahrenheit 9/11, The Future of Food draws attention to critical questions about food production that need more public debate. As someone who has monitored the public debate about biotech for 15 years, I welcome this film. The current Bush administration has let the government regulatory system wither on the vine, making good on the 1992 Bush-Quayle promise to " take the shackles off the industry. " Such shortsighted policies are, however, backfiring, as agbiotech increasingly struggles for acceptance by Western consumers. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4965 ------- EUROPE ------- + MAJORITY SUPPORT AS AUSTRIA RAISES QUESTIONS OVER GM MAIZE MON810 The government of Austria has raised strong concerns about the commercial cultivation of GM maize MON810, which has been approved by the Commission for planting in Europe, and a majority of countries (13: Hungary, Germany, Sweden, Cyprus, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Poland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia) have supported the Austrian criticism. In a note to the Council of the EU, Austria stated that in light of scientific uncertainties about possible effects of the GM maize as well as the absence of a plan to monitor these effects, MON810 should not be commercially planted yet. Eric Gall from Greenpeace European Unit commented, " A majority of Member States sent a very strong signal to the Commission that they should urgently change their policy on GMOs. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4955 http://eu.greenpeace.org/issues/news.html#050310_c + GERMANY: GREEN POLITICIAN STOPPED GM STUDIES Renate Kuenast, German minister for Agriculture and Consumer Protection and a Green Party member, is facing allegations, whipped up by Germany's GM lobby, of exerting undue political influence on science after it emerged that she instructed government researchers to cancel at least two projects into GM crops. (What about the " undue " influence exerted by all the pro-GM politicians?!!!) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4970 + UK FIRMS DROP BIOTECH, SEEK TO BOOST REGULAR SEED Reuters has published another typically superficial article bemoaning the demise of GM research in Britain. The article exclusively quotes biotech proponents (find all those quoted, or their institutions, in the GM WATCH " biotech brigade " directory of GM pushers: www.gmwatch.org). An example: " 'Most of the industry has left this country already. It's going to cost us hundreds of millions of pounds a year in lost revenue,' said John Pidgeon, director of plant research body Broom's Barn " - you can see where his preoccupations are! As for the sub-heading " UNITED STATES, CANADA AHEAD " , being " ahead " in an unproven and market-damaging technology might be something of a mixed blessing, quite apart from the recent evidence from CSPI that GM development in the US is " withering on the vine " , with the number of GM crops going through the regulatory review process dropping sharply in recent years. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4966 + EU MUST NOT DENY PUBLIC THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS ON GM The European Commission, the Biotech Industry and some EU countries, in particular France, do not want to provide the public a right to participate in decision-making related to GM activities, within the Aarhus Convention. The lack of adequate public participation provisions in the Aarhus Convention will facilitate the entrance of GMOs without public scrutiny into Europe, a situation favoured by the biotech industry and major GM exporting countries. The Aarhus Convention (AC), an international agreement adopted in 1998, grants the public rights to access to information, and participation in and access to justice in environmental issues. All 25 EU member states have signed the AC. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4952 ------- THE AMERICAS ------- + GMOs WILL NOT HELP HUNGER, FARMERS AND OTHERS TELL CANADIAN GOVT In meetings with Canadian government officials in Ottawa on March 9, farmers, scientists, and policy specialists from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East called on the government to review its use of GM crops as a tool for sustainable development. The international delegation joined Canadian civil society groups to express concerns over Canada's aggressive promotion of GM crops in developing countries. Delegation members will also address important misconceptions about the ability of GM foods to alleviate hunger. " By relying on traditional crops, we have coped with years of drought and never faced hunger. We have adapted our crops to local conditions and grow our food on marginal soils with no irrigated water, " says Indian farmer Sammamma Bidakanne, " Our ability to save and re-use traditional seeds is the basis of our biodiversity and food security - all this is threatened by GM crops. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4969 + CANADA: CANADIAN GOVT USES TAX DOLLARS TO SHAFT FARMERS The seed industry's attempts to redesign farming in Canada according to its own wishes has Canadian government backing. The Report of the Seed Sector Advisory Committee, published in May 2004, caused alarm among farmer, environmental and civil society groups because it aims to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Farmers could be required to pay higher insurance premiums if they don't use certified seeds and would be held liable for improperly using or selling seeds saved from a crop grown with a company's seeds. It now turns out that the Canadian government provided $600,000 in taxpayers' money to fund the report and, through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, donated staff, office space and equipment. In a forward to the report, Bob Speller, the former minister of agriculture and agri-food, congratulated the seed companies for their report and said " I look forward to our continued partnership as the sector pursues this plan for growth and competitiveness. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4950 + US: NATIVE AMERICANS SEEK GM BAN White Earth Indian reservation in northwest Minnesota has become the first reservation in the US to ban the introduction or growth of GM wild rice seeds and some White Earth Band members want the Legislature to ban GM wild rice statewide. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4970 + US: STINK BUGS EATING GM FARMERS' " LUNCH " Since the adoption of Bollgard cotton in North Carolina, damage from bollworms has decreased while stink bug problems have increased. This finding comes from research by Jack Bacheler, North Carolina State University Extension entomologist, conducted from 1996-2003. And an award winning cotton farmer, Bruce Bond points out that while Bt cotton has reduced control costs for heliothine pests, " now secondary pests -- plant bugs and stink bugs - are eating our lunch. " Bond says, " I probably have $90 an acre in insecticide costs on Bt cotton. I think that's too much, especially when I pay $32 right up front. " He adds, " Next year, I'd like to bump the non-Bt cotton acreage up a bit. I planted my [non-Bt] refuge cotton on the worst ground I have, and one 23-acre field of it was some of the best cotton I picked this year. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4956 + BRAZIL: GM WAR RETURNS TO COURTS The biosafety bill to legalize GM plantings recently passed by Brazil's lower house is unconstitutional, say organisations opposed to the introduction of GMOs, without prior studies into their environmental and human health impact. Sezifredo Paz, executive coordinator of the Brazilian Consumer Defence Institute (IDEC), said legal channels will be pursued in an attempt to revert the congressional decision. " We trust in the justice system, because it is the only one that has acted independently on this issue, " he said. One person few are trusting in is President Lula who, when he was a presidential candidate, pointed out, " Releasing transgenics is sheer stupidity. " Ask Lula to recognise his own wisdom and veto the bill! See below - URGENT ACTION REQUEST RE BRAZIL http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4961 ------- ASIA ------- + INDIA'S GM EXPANSION RAISES QUESTIONS OF CORRUPTION In spite of all the evidence of GM cotton failure and farmer suffering of the last 3 years, and of viable alternatives that could improve the plight of India's cotton farmers, the Indian government's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has... extended the area of GM cotton growing in India! GEAC didn't have the face to immediately extend approval for the GM varieties that have been shown to inflict harm over the last 3 years, so it has delayed that decision and approved 6 new varieties of Monsanto-derived Bt cottonseeds, for the northern states of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan. GEAC also approved large-scale trials of another 8 new varieties of Bt cotton for the northern region. GM cultivation in India has until now been allowed only in 6 southern and central states. Coming hard on the heels of evidence of data tampering (see next item) and given what has emerged about the corruption of officials by Monsanto in Indonesia, questions need to be asked about the integrity of those who have driven this disastrous decision in India. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4948 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4962 + DATA TAMPERING BY GOVERNMENT-MONSANTO NEXUS CHEATS INDIAN FARMERS Greenpeace and Sarvodaya Youth Organization have released the two versions of a report prepared by the Joint Director of Agriculture (JDA) of Warangal district, Andhra Pradesh. While the data in the original report reveals the comprehensive failure of Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh, a second, visibly tampered-with version exaggerates the yields, thereby reducing Monsanto's compensation burden by nearly Rs. 2 Crore. The report was commissioned under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the AP government and Monsanto-Mahyco, which marketed the Bt cottonseeds. The report was expected to assess failure of Bt cotton, and secure compensation for farmers. " The falsification of this report is clear evidence of the corporate-government nexus, " says Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace India, " The fact that data has been so clearly manipulated in this case, raises serious doubts about the authenticity of any data that GEAC would use to review Bt Cotton. Any decision in favour of Bt Cotton would only reinforce the fact the even the GEAC has something to gain from Monsanto-Mahyco. " " In response to a complaint lodged by a local BJP leader in February this year, the Collector of Warangal District admitted to the manipulation of the data in the report and ensured them that there would be an enquiry into the matter. No action has been taken as yet. The MoU signed in Andhra Pradesh was supposed to protect the interests of farmers, " said P. Damoder, Secretary, Sarvodaya Youth Organization, Warangal. " It is shameful that it is being abused to protect the commercial interests of the company instead. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4947 + 'OUTCAST' WOMEN FROM INDIAN VILLAGES EXPOSE BT COTTON FAILURE Poor women farmers from outcast (Dalit) communities in and around Pastapur, India made a film, " Why Are Warangal Farmers Angry with Bt Cotton? " which exposed the unhappy experiences of farmers in Andhra Pradesh who experimented with Bt cotton. Tracking the experiences of half a dozen farmers over the months between planting and harvesting, the women recorded their despair as the crop failed to live up to hyped promises. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4962 + SAFETY CONCERNS KEEP EAST ASIA CONSUMERS OFF GM FOOD Nine years after the debut of GMOs in the world market, consumers in East Asia are still worried about eating GMO food, although the region uses grain from such crops for feed. Takashi Oaki, secretary general of the Japan Oil & Fat Importers & Exporters Association, said, " Food processors do not use GMO crops for products that are subject to labelling requirements. I don't think this stance will change in the future. " Oaki said that if China becomes the first country to introduce GM rice, " China's move could rekindle public concerns as Japanese have special feelings about rice - their staple food. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4959 + PATENT OFFICE REVOKES NEEM PATENT The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked a patent right it had earlier granted on a fungicide derived from an Indian medicinal plant, neem. It said the patent application was an act of biopiracy. EPO, in September 1994, had granted the patent rights to US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) and agribusiness corporation, WR Grace of New York. The patent covered a method for controlling fungi on plants with a hydrophobic extracted neem oil. Presented with evidence of traditional use of the fungicide, EPO revoked the patent in May 2000. But this victory was short-lived as the revocation was followed by an appeal. On March 8, 2005 EPO revoked the patent rights once and for all. In this valiant defeat of biopiracy, the Indian government did not raise its voice. The legal challenge was filed by three women: Dr Vandana Shiva, director of Delhi-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology; Magda Aelvoet of the Green Group in the European Parliament; and Linda Bullard of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4967 ------- COMPANY NEWS ------- + AGENT ORANGE LAWSUIT BEGINS More than 100 Vietnamese affected by the chemical defoliant Agent Orange in the war against the US have started a lawsuit against 30 of the companies that made it. Among them are Dow Chemical and Monsanto. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4958 ------- WTO LATEST ------- + CAN COUNTRIES CHOOSE WHETHER TO ACCEPT OR REJECT GM? A report by Erik Millstone says that despite assumptions about World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, member nations - including developing countries - have a significant degree of autonomy in choosing which GMOs to accept, and which to reject. That is because in general, they can decide for themselves whether scientific evidence on the safety of GM foods that is considered sufficient by other WTO member states will also suffice within their own borders. http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=policybrief & dossier=6 & policy\ =55 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4953 ------- WORLDWIDE ACTION ------- + WORLD CONSUMER RIGHTS DAY FOCUS ON GMOS On 15 March, World Consumer Rights Day, consumer organisations all over the world will say NO to GMOs! Consumer International (CI) member organisations will lobby governments, and hold public meetings and demonstrations to stop the spread of GMOs. CI have released three fact sheets covering key issues on GMOs, available at: www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4951 ------- Q & A's ------- Q: Is there any evidence of GM DNA being present in the dairy products of GM-fed cattle? Q: Regarding the cows dying after being fed GM maize in Hesse, Germany, was there enough scientific evidence to convince a pro-GM Member of the UK Parliament who is a scientist and thinks there's no evidence of harm? ------- URGENT ACTION REQUEST RE BRAZIL ------- Please write immediately to President Lula of Brazil about the Biosafety Bill which NOW ONLY REQUIRES HIS SIGNATURE TO BECOME LAW! Articles in this bill violate the Brazilian Constitution because: … They would remove all decision-making powers regarding genetic engineering from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment. … They would also take away the power of the Federal Union, the Brazilian States and city councils to make any decisions related to genetic engineering, in violation of their rights under the Federal Constitution to make decisions about health and environmental matters that affect their populations … They would grant these powers to an unelected committee composed largely of biotech supporters (CTNbio: The National Technical Committee on Biosafety). Who benefits? When the bill was passed, Monsanto's shares promptly rose 54 cents to close at $59.02 on the New York Stock Exchange. People who participated in the fight over the EU Biotech Directive will recognise the emotive use of people in wheelchairs begging for cures during the lobby for this bill. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HELP TO REJECT THE ARTICLES THAT GIVE THESE POWERS TO THE CTNBIO COMMITTEE, PLEASE WRITE TO PRESIDENT LULA, ASKING FOR THE VETO OF THE ARTICLES RELATED TO THE COMMITTEE. Please copy and paste at the top of your letter: `Veto aos Artigo 16, paragrafos 2 e 3 e Artigo 14, inciso XX e paragrafos 1 e 2.' (This says you want to veto the articles in the Biosafety law that violate the Constitution.) And then please email URGENTLY to the following addresses: sg, casacivil, marina.silva, josedirceu, vpr, protocolo, scpai, pr , HERE IS A DRAFT LETTER YOU CAN USE: Dear President Lula 'Lei de Biossegurança: Veto aos Artigo 16, paragrafos 2 e 3 e Artigo 14, inciso XX e paragrafos 1 e 2.' When you were a candidate for the Presidency of Brazil, you spoke out on the subject of transgenic organisms in Brazil and said that they would only benefit the biotech companies, generating dependency among farmers. You affirmed that the harm to human and animal health could not be predicted and said that you supported the Campaign For a GM-Free Brazil. You even stated that you would be recommending a moratorium to genetic modified organisms. The majority of people in Europe agreed with you. Now we learn that only your signature is needed to make the Biosafety Bill into a law. This law contains articles that would violate the Brazilian Constitution because: … They would remove all decision-making powers regarding genetic engineering from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment. … They would also take away the power of the Federal Union, the Brazilian States and city councils to make any decisions related to genetic engineering, in violation of their rights under the Federal Constitution to make decisions about health and environmental matters that affect their populations. … They would grant these powers to an unelected committee (CTNbio: The National Technical Committee on Biosafety). We call on you to defend democracy, local and regional government and public accountability for health and environment. Please do not sign this bill into law while it contains the articles mentioned above. After a decade of commercial cultivation, negative impacts from genetically engineered crops are well documented. They do not improve yields, nor do they reduce pesticide use. They are a major cause of deforestation, environmental degradation, health impacts through pesticides and loss of food sovereignty, and loss of livelihoods and employment. They benefit only the companies that produce them and a few others. Those they damage most are the poor. Your position when you were a candidate was wise, and precautionary. The majority of the people of Europe are still firmly opposed to genetically engineered crops for the same reasons you gave as a candidate. Yours sincerely, More information Please send a copy of your message to AS-PTA, which asked for this action and sent out the message below: imprensa ------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.