|
The third meeting of the parties (MOP3) of the UN Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is taking place in Brazil this week, (13th-17th March) in the week prior to the eighth conference of the parties (COP8) for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (20th-15th March)
The Biosafety Protocol is a critical piece of international legislation on the regulation of GMOs. It is the Biosafety Protocol that grants countries the right to apply the Precautionary Principle when considering GMO applications, and the right to reject them if they suspect that there may be health, environmental and socio-economic risks associated with GMOs. The Africa Group was a leading force in pushing for high regulatory standards during negotiations, and the Biosafety Protocol has been in force since September 2003.
At the MOP3 meeting, there are still some issues to be resolved on the practicalities of regulation of transboundary movements of GMOs. On the issue of traceability & labelling, New Zealand are expected to push for shipments to only be obliged to say "May contain GMOs" which is uninformative and meaningless, whereas all other countries are agreed that the more specific "Contains GMOs" is necessary to ensure that countries can be informed enough to be able to accept or reject shipments and remain GMO-free. Unfortunately, New Zealand appear to be acting on behalf of the US (who are not party to the Biosafety Protocol and cannot therefore participate in negotiations), and blocking consensus. Please see the call to action from Friends of the Earth below, and send a fax or email to the New Zealand Government.
The other issue where progress may be slow, is on the issue of liability and who should carry responsibility if non-GM crops are contaminated or if GM crops are shown to cause harm. Of course the industry will be lobbying hard to avoid taking responsibility should any problems arise.
The need for strong biosafety legislation and implementation became apparent last week with the release of the first report from the GM Contamination Register, co-ordinated by Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK. The report showed the extent of GM contamination of non-GM crops (and included information on the sale of GM pork as meat), and showed that GM contamination was present in many countries where it has not even been commercially approved.
Grupo Reflexion Rural, the organisation which first alerted the world to the disastrous impact of GM soya in Argentina, are also planning to release their new report this week, which details the human rights abuses associated with GM soya expansion that have taken place in Paraguay. It is cases like these that demonstrate the devastating social impact that GM crops may bring to developing countries, and the need therefore for strong biosafety laws that allow countries to reject GM altogether.
*****************************************************
1. Is NZ a US "Stalking-Horse" on GE Issue?
Press Release from the Green Party, New Zealand. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0603/S00223.htm
New Zealand appears to be a "stalking-horse" for the United States in blocking consensus on the labelling of living GE organisms traded between countries, Greens Environment Spokesperson Nandor Tanczos says.
Last May in Montreal, New Zealand and Brazil prevented an international meeting - the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol - from reaching any decision on labelling of traded living GE organisms. This week, the third meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol is being held in Brazil.
"All the other 117 countries attending the Montreal meeting supported a call for shipments of living genetically engineered organisms, being traded for use in food, feed or processing, to be labelled with the words 'does contain GMOs'," Mr Tanczos says.
"Has New Zealand simply become a stalking-horse for the United States - which is not a party to the convention? Does this explain why our foreign affairs officials at the meeting in Montreal refused to give reasons for our objections to labelling?"
New Zealand insisted on the wording "may contain GMOs" and refused to give any explanation for rejecting the "does contain GMOs" wording. The "may contain GMOs" wording is largely uninformative just as "may contain traces of nuts" is uninformative when it occurs on every item of processed food in supermarkets.
"The wording 'may contain GMOs' puts the onus on importing countries to test the shipments for GE organisms rather than on the exporting country where the responsibility should lie," Mr Tanczos says.
Many developing countries do not have the human or financial resources to test shipments and appropriate labelling would help them protect their biodiversity just as NZ is able to protect its
biodiversity through our rules concerning biosecurity and import of GE organisms.
"At the opening address, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ahmed Djoghlaf, emphasised the importance of reaching agreement on documentation of bulk shipments of living GE organisms," Mr Tanczos says. "Reports indicate that Brazil will no longer oppose full labelling. Will New Zealand be the only country to block consensus?"
*********************************************
2. Biotech Foods: David Versus Goliath. Developing Countries Fight with Big Business over Safety Laws.
Press Release from Friends of the Earth International. Date: 10 March 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6329
CURITIBA (BRAZIL), 10 March 2006 - The battle between the majority of developing countries and some of the world's biggest corporations will peak on March 13-17, 2006 in Brazil.
United Nations talks on the global trade in genetically modified (GM), or biotech foods and crops will highlight the gap between countries demanding the right to regulate imports of GM products and the huge business interests that seek to benefit from weak rules.
The identification and labeling of imports of GM products will be the key debate in Curitiba. (1) The biotech industries consistently opposed clear identification and labelling requirements for any of the GM crops on the market today. Without clear labelling many countries, especially developing countries with their limited resources, are unable to protect their food supply and environment from GM contamination.(2)
Nnimmo Bassey, International Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth GM Campaign said: "These talks are key to protecting the environment and the world's food supply from contamination from the biotech industry. Every country should have the right to know what is being imported and to decide if they want to eat genetically modified foods or not. African countries and other developing countries will not be the dumping ground for genetically modified crops that no one else wants."
The UN Biosafety Protocol, which was originally agreed in January 2000, provides basic international rules that allow mainly developing countries to regulate the safety of GM foods, crops and seeds. It has been ratified by 132 countries but the three main countries that grow GM crops – the United States, Argentina and Canada - have refused to support it. Talks broke down in Montreal in June 2005 after Brazil and New Zealand blocked proposals that would have allowed the majority of developing countries to know if GM grains were being imported.
Ten years after the first significant planting of GM crops, no plants with benefits to consumers or the environment have materialized and GM crops have failed to deliver the promises of the biotech industry. More than 80% of the area cultivated with biotech crops is still concentrated in only three countries: the US, Argentina and Canada. Friends of the Earth International recently published a report (3) that concluded:
GM crops are not "green". Monsanto's GM soybeans, the most extensively grown GM crop today, has led to an increase in herbicide use. The intensive cultivation of soybeans in South America is fostering deforestation, and has been associated with a decline in soil fertility and soil erosion.
GM crops do not tackle hunger or poverty. Most GM crops commercialized so far are destined for animal feed, not for food, and none have been introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. In Argentina, the second biggest producer of GM crops in the world, only 2% of the soya stays in the country. Other developing countries, such as Indonesia and India, have experienced substantial problems with Monsanto’s GM crops, often leaving farmers heavily indebted.
The biotech industry has failed to introduce the promised "new generation" of GM crops with consumer benefits. After 30 years of research, only two modifications have made it to the marketplace on any scale: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance.
for more information contact
In Curitiba, Brazil
Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International / Friends of the Earth Nigeria
Tel: +234 8037274395 (Nigerian mobile) or email
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile) or email
adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org
In Europe
Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International
Tel +34 6259 805 820 (Spanish mobile)
notes to editors
(1) For a full briefing on the Biosafety Protocol see: http://www.foei.org/gmo/Briefing_Curitiba.pdf
(2) See FoEI Briefing: Tackling GM contamination: making segregation and identification a reality http://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/contamination3.pdf
(3) See http://www.foei.org/media/2006/0110.html
for more information:
Background on biosafety: http://www.foei.org/gmo/biosafety.html
*******************************************
|
