The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear Bob, You wrote: < ....I suspect that one thing on the agenda of the US corporations would be the introduction of GMOs into Iraq, with long-term and widespread consequences (assuming the GMOs are not already there). Will the occupying forces (US) adhere to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety any more then the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions, or other international laws? > Thanks Bob for this inquiry, with your consent I'll use it in my lectures as a masterpiece specimen demonstrating the very nature of an intelligent and elaborate rhetorical question ;) < With the recent flaps in the US about pharmacultural research products (to produce drugs from GM plants -- usually corn (maize)) and GMOs escaping from the test fields I would expect there to be efforts to plant these in Iraq. (I can almost hear the arguments now, that since people take such small quantities of drugs that since radioactive contamination from DU runoff would not be significant, pharmaculture in contaminated areas would be acceptable.) If Mr Amstutz decides to plant GMOs do the Iraqis get a choice?> So far, there seems to be no operable info of any concrete plans available. But meanwhile we could warm up and arm up ourselves - at least - with the below minimum info (selection of latest items on the topic). Best Andreas --------------------- Contents: 1) The Use of Transgenics in Brazil (by National Confederation of Brazilian Bishops) 2) (!) Damning Consequences Of GM - The Independent Science Panel on GM Final Report (!) 3) "People's Contract" needed GE Contaminates Wheat 4) GM foods threaten local farmers and environment --------------------------- 1) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MST306A.html The Use of Transgenics in Brazil by National Confederation of Brazilian Bishops MST Informe May 2003. www.globalresearch.ca 14 June 2003 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MST306A.html Concerned about the recent events involving transgenics, the Bishops of the National Confederation of Brazilian Bishops (CNBB), accompanied by the Pastoral Commission of Land (CPT), have written an informative letter about the health dangers caused by these products. They have also called attention to the loss of sovereignty that the use of transgenic seeds implicates. The document was delivered at the ceremony commemorating the shelving of the plan to permit the United States base at Alcântara. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECLARATION ON TRANSGENICS We, attendant Bishops to the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT), in the diverse regions of the CNBB, before the grave problem of transgenics in our country and supported by valid legal mechanisms, take the initiative to express ourselves on this subject. Transgenics are the result of genetic manipulation that permits the production, alteration and transference of genes among living things, breaks barriers preventing natural crossing between species, creating, altering and transferring genetic material between plants, animals, bacteria, viruses and humans. All over the world as well as here in Brazil many scholars and social leaders have raised, very opportunely, various questions in relation to this subject. These revolve around the following risks: 1st In relation to human health, the ingestion of genetically modified grains may provoke increased allergies, antibiotic resistance and an elevated index of toxic substances in foods. 2nd There is a risk of genetic erosion in the environment, irreversibly affecting biodiversity, through the contamination of natural seed banks (banks of germplasm). This adds to the frightening increase in monoculture and the consequent loss of the rich variety and quality of seeds. 3rd There is also a threat to our country’s food sovereignty, due to the loss of control of seeds and living beings through patenting of the same, turned into exclusive and legal private property of transnational groups that seek only commercial profits. 4th However, the greatest risk, in our opinion, is the total dependence, destruction and finally the disappearance of the small and even middle-sized farmer due to the inexorable global monopoly of the production and commercialization of seeds, that become the dominion of a small group of giant and powerful transnational companies. In relation to these questions, on the other hand, we cannot ignore or fail to comply with the ethical demands such as “no harm,” social justice, environmental justice and precaution. The principle of “no harm” implicates our duty to avoid or impede harm or damage to others. In the case of massive introduction of new technologies that imply potential health risks, this principle ought to be plainly guarantied through the means of clear and sure information. The principle of social justice, in cases of massive technological innovations and high social impact, brings us to ask who is going to benefit and who will be put at risk. At present, in the concrete case of transgenics it is clear that a small group of large businesses will be the greatest beneficiaries, with grave damage to family agriculture. The principle of environmental justice imposes the duty to preserve the environment for current and future generations. Transgenics may represent a serious ecological risk. The precautionary principle demands that there be strict biosecurity rules before allowing any product to be consumed by humans. This is not intended to hold back science or research, or to provoke a paranoid fear of newness. On the contrary, it supports the greatest space for science and research, oriented, however, for the common good. Technological applications that implicate potential risks of great breadth, be decided, approved, negated, or perfected through democratic decisions and remain under the control of the people Supporting the heroic struggle of popular rural organizations and echoing one of the great claims of the Porto Alegre’s World Social Forum, we readily advocate that seeds be declared a Patrimony of Humanity and conserved in their genetic integrity for farm communities. On this same note we take the liberty of indicating to the Public Power, to the Public Ministry, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary, and to the Executive Office that, upon addressing these grave questions, they orient themselves to these new and just demands, as well as the ethical principals that govern them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Itaici, May 6th, 2003. Attendant Bishops to the CPT: Dom Tomás Balduino, President; Dom Xavier Gilles, Vice-President; Dom Orlando Dotti; Dom Ladislau Biernaski; Dom Pedro Casaldáliga; Dom André de Witte; Dom José Alberto Moura; Dom Guilherme Werlang; Dom Heriberto Hermes; Dom José Mario Streher; Dom Moacir Grecchi; Dom José Agusto da Rocha; Dom Maurício Grotto; Dom Apparecido José Dias ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright Pastoral Commission 2003. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement . ---------------- 2) http://www.i-sis.org/ispr-summary.php Damning Consequences Of GM The Independent Science Panel on GM Final Report Wednesday, 4 June 2003, 8:13 am Press Release: Tremane Barr The Independent Science Panel on GM Final Report Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on GM at a public conference, attended by UK environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants, in London on 10 May 2003. The conference coincided with the publication of a draft report, The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World, calling for a ban on GM crops to make way for all forms of sustainable agriculture. This authoritative report, billed as "the strongest, most complete dossier of evidence" ever compiled on the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture, is being finalised for release 15 June 2003. Ahead of the release of the 120-page final report, the Independent Science Panel is pleased to provide a four-page summary as its contribution to the National GM Debate in the UK. It is a challenge to the proponents of GM to answer the case presented, rather than having to argue against the case for GM crops, which has yet to be made. Please circulate this document widely. Members of the Independent Science Panel on GM Prof. Miguel Altieri Professor of Agroecology, University of California, Berkeley, USA Dr. Michael Antoniou Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, GKT School of Medicine, King's College, London. Dr. Susan Bardocz Biochemist, formerly Rowett Research Institute, Scotland Prof. David Bellamy OBE Internationally renowned botanist, environmentalist, broadcaster, author and campaigner; recipient of number awards; President & Vice President of many conservation and environmental organisations. Dr. Elizabeth Bravo V. Biologist, researcher and campaigner on biodiversity and GMO issues; co-founder of Acción Ecológica; part-time lecturer at Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Ecuador. Prof. Joe Cummins Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Stanley Ewen Consultant Histopathologist at Grampian University Hospitals Trust; formerly Senior Lecturer in Pathology, University of Aberdeen; lead histopathologist for the Grampian arm of the Scottish Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Project. Edward Goldsmith Recipient of the Right Livelihood and numerous awards, environmentalist, scholar, author and Founding Editor of The Ecologist. Dr. Brian Goodwin Scholar in Residence, Schumacher College, England. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Co-founder and Director of the Institute of Science in Society; Editor of Science in Society; Science Advisor to the Third World Network and on the Roster of Experts for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; Visiting Reader, Open University, UK and Visiting Professor of Organic Physics, Catania University, Sicily, Italy. Prof. Malcolm Hooper Emeritus Professor at the University of Sunderland; previously, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sunderland Polytechnic; Chief Scientific Advisor to the Gulf War Veterans. Dr. Vyvyan Howard Medically qualified toxico-pathologist, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Group, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, The University of Liverpool; Member of the UK Government's Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Dr. Brian John Geomorphologist and environmental scientist; Founder and long-time Chairman of the West Wales Eco Centre; one of the coordinating group of GM Free Cymru Prof. Marijan Jost Professor of Plant Breeding and Seed Production, Agricultural College Krizevci, Croatia. Lim Li Ching Researcher, Institute of Science in Society and Third World Network; deputy-editor of Science in Society. Dr. Eva Novotny Astronomer and campaigner on GM issues for Scientists for Global Responsibility, SGR Prof. Bob Orskov OBE Head of the International Feed Resource Unit in Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland; Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, FRSE; Fellow of the Polish Academy of Science. Dr. Michel Pimbert Agricultural ecologist and Principal Associate, International Institute for Environment and Development. Dr. Arpad Pusztai Private consultant; formerly Senior Research Fellow at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. David Quist Microbial ecologist, Ecosystem Science Division, Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Dr. Peter Rosset Agricultural ecologist and rural development specialist; Co-director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), Oakland, California, USA. Prof. Peter Saunders Professor of Applied Mathematics at King's College, London. Dr. Veljko Veljkovic AIDS virologist, Center for Multidisciplinary Research and Engineering, Institute of Nuclear Sciences, VINCA, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Roberto Verzola Secretary-General, Philippine Greens, Member of the Board of Trustees, PABINHI (a sustainable agriculture network), Coordinator, SRI-Pilipinas (network of advocates for the System of Rice Intensification). Dr. Gregor Wolbring Biochemist, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues, University of Calgary; Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Alberta; Founder and Executive Director, International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability; Founder and Coordinator, International Network on Bioethics and Disability Prof. Oscar B. Zamora Professor of Agronomy, Department of Agronomy, University of the Philippines Los Banos-College of Agriculture (UPLB-CA), College, Laguna, The Philippines. Independent Science Panel Report released 15 June 2003 The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World - A Summary Why GM-Free? 1.. GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits a.. No increase in yields or significant reduction in herbicide and pesticide use b.. United States lost an estimated $12 billion over GM crops amid worldwide rejection c.. Massive crop failures of up to 100% reported in India d.. High risk future for agbiotech: "Monsanto could be another disaster waiting to happen for investors" 2.. GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm a.. Transgenic lines unstable: "most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature" b.. Triple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds emerged in North America c.. Glyphosate-tolerant weeds plague GM cotton and soya fields, atrazine back in use d.. Bt biopesticide traits threatening to create superweeds and bt-resistant pests 3.. Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable a.. Extensive transgenic contamination found in maize landraces in remote regions of Mexico b.. 32 out of 33 commercial seed stocks found contaminated in Canada c.. Pollen remains airborne for hours, and a 35 mile per hour wind speed is unexceptional d.. There can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM crops 4.. GM crops not safe a.. GM crops have not been proven safe: regulation was fatally flawed from the start b.. The principle of 'substantial equivalence', vague and ill defined, gave companies complete licence in claiming GM products 'substantially equivalent' to non-GM, and hence 'safe' 5.. GM food raises serious safety concerns a.. Despite the paucity of credible studies, existing findings raise serious safety concerns b.. 'Growth-factor-like' effects in the stomach and small intestine of young rats were attributed to the transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food 6.. Dangerous gene products are incorporated into food crops a.. Bt proteins, incorporated into 25% of all GM crops worldwide, are harmful to many non-target insects, and some are potent immunogens and allergens for humans and other mammals b.. Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs, including cytokines known to suppress the immune system, or linked to dementia, neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side effects; vaccines and viral sequences such as the 'spike' protein gene of the pig coronavirus, in the same family as the SARS virus linked to the current epidemic; and glycoprotein gene gp120 of the AIDS virus that could interfere with the immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate new and unpredictable pathogens. 7.. Terminator crops spread male sterility a.. Crops engineered with 'suicide' genes for male sterility, promoted as a means of preventing the spread of transgenes, actually spread both male sterility and herbicide tolerance traits via pollen. 8.. Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other species a.. Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate, used with herbicide tolerant GM crops that currently account for 75% of all GM crops worldwide, are both systemic metabolic poisons b.. Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities, and birth defects in humans and mammals; also toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, to larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia and some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout; it inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen. c.. Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK, and disturbances to many body functions have been reported after exposures at normal use levels; glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defects; glyphosate retards development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats, inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs; field dose exposure of earthworms caused at least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage among surviving worms; Roundup (Monsanto's formulation of glyphosate) caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers. 9.. Genetic engineering creates super-viruses a.. The most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process; it greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics. b.. Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling, allow geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution c.. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons. 10.. Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut a.. Transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria both in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers; antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat. 11.. Transgenic DNA and cancer a.. Transgenic DNA known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer b.. Feeding GM products such as maize to animals may carry risks, not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal products 12.. CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer a.. Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter could be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, re-activation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses. 13.. A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence a.. There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key experiments failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then misrepresented. Many experiments were not followed up, including investigations on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for the 'growth-factor-like' effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes. GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM crops should therefore be firmly rejected now. Why Sustainable Agriculture? 1.. Higher productivity and yields especially in the Third World a.. 8.98 million farmers adopted sustainable agriculture practices on 28.92 million hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa; reliable data from 89 projects show higher productivity and yields: 50-100% increase in yield for rainfed crops, and 5-10% for irrigated crops; top successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a cereal deficit of 644 kg per year to an annual surplus of 153 kg, Ethiopia, where 12 500 households enjoyed 60% increase in crop yields, and Honduras and Guatemala, where 45 000 families increased yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2,000-2,500 kg/ha b.. Long-term studies in industrialised countries show yields for organic comparable to conventional agriculture, and often higher b.. Better soils a.. Sustainable agricultural practices reduce soil erosion, improve soil physical structure and water-holding capacity, which are crucial in averting crop failures during periods of drought b.. Soil fertility maintained or increased by various sustainable agriculture practices c.. Biological activity higher in organic soils: more earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizal and other fungi, and micro-organisms, all beneficial for nutrient recycling and suppression of disease c.. Cleaner environment a.. Little or no polluting chemical inputs with sustainable agriculture b.. Less nitrate and phosphorus leached to groundwater from organic soils c.. Better water infiltration rates in organic systems, therefore less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to water pollution from surface runoff d.. Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests a.. Integrated pest management cut the number of pesticide sprays in Vietnam from 3.4 to one per season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1 per season b.. No increase in crop losses due to pest damage resulted from withdrawal of synthetic insecticides in Californian tomato production c.. Pest control achievable without pesticides, reversing crop losses, as for example, by using 'trap crops' to attract stem borer, a major pest in East Africa e.. Supporting biodiversity and using diversity a.. Sustainable agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity, which is crucial for food security; organic farming can support much greater biodiversity, benefiting species that have significantly declined b.. Integrated farming systems in Cuba are 1.45 to 2.82 times more productive than monocultures c.. Thousands of Chinese rice farmers doubled yields and nearly eliminated the most devastating disease simply by mixed planting of two varieties d.. Soil biodiversity enhanced by organic practices, bringing beneficial effects such as recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils, improved soil structure and water infiltration. f.. Environmentally and economically sustainable a.. Research on apple production systems ranked the organic system first in environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second and the conventional system last; organic apples were most profitable due to price premiums, quicker investment return, and fast recovery of costs b.. A Europe-wide study showed that organic farming performs better than conventional farming in the majority of environmental indicators c.. A review by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that well-managed organic agriculture leads to more favourable conditions at all environmental levels g.. Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct & indirect energy use a.. Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and greatly reduces CO2 emissions compared with conventional agriculture, both with respect to direct energy consumption in fuel and oil and indirect consumption in synthetic fertilizers and pesticides b.. Sustainable agriculture restores soil organic matter content, increasing carbon sequestration below ground, thereby recovering an important carbon sink c.. Organic agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous dioxide (N2O), another important greenhouse gas and also a cause of stratospheric ozone depletion h.. Efficient, profitable production a.. Any yield reduction in organic agriculture more than offset by ecological and efficiency gains b.. Smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms characteristic of conventional farming c.. Production costs for organic farming are often lower than conventional farming, bringing equivalent or higher net returns even without organic price premiums; when price premiums are factored in, organic systems are almost always more profitable i.. Improved food security and benefits to local communities a.. A review of sustainable agriculture projects showed that average food production per household increased by 1.71 tonnes per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58 million hectares, bringing food security and health benefits to local communities b.. Increasing productivity increases food supplies and raises incomes, thereby reducing poverty, increasing access to food, reducing malnutrition and improving health and livelihoods c.. Sustainable agricultural approaches draw extensively on traditional and indigenous knowledge, and place emphasis on the farmers' experience and innovation, thereby improving their status and autonomy, enhancing social and cultural relations within local communities d.. For every £1 spent at an organic box scheme from Cusgarne Organics (UK), £2.59 is generated for the local economy; but for every £1 spent at a supermarket, only £1.40 is generated for the local economy j.. Better food quality for health a.. Organic food is safer, as organic farming prohibits pesticide use, so harmful chemical residues are rarely found b.. Organic production bans the use of artificial food additives, such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity c.. Studies have shown that on average, organic food has higher vitamin C, higher mineral levels and higher plant phenolics - plant compounds that can fight cancer and heart disease, and combat age-related neurological dysfunctions - and significantly less nitrates, a toxic compound. Sustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in all aspects relevant to health and the environment. In addition, they bring food security and social and cultural well being to local communities everywhere. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive global shift to all forms of sustainable agriculture. -------------- 3) http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0306/S00006.htm "People's Contract" needed GE Contaminates Wheat Wednesday, 4 June 2003, 8:15 am Press Release: GE Free NZ Call to Government for "People's Contract" as GE Contaminates Wheat The Labour-lead government is being called on to promise New Zealanders that they will protect citizens' rights to grow, buy and eat GE-free food now and for future generations, under a " People's Contract". The demand for the government to make a commitment similar to the "Kiwi Share" has been prompted by the discovery that conventional supplies of US wheat have already become GE-contaminated, and by the government's decision to accept widespread contamination as the basis of "co-existence" of GE in New Zealand. Even before Monsanto has pushed through the commercialization of GE wheat, US exporters have admitted GE elements from other crops are being found in wheat. The revelations make the prospect of wider contamination a virtual certainty if Monsanto pushes to commercialise GE wheat despite the damage to exports and the denial of people's right to avoid GE food if they want. "The government must make a commitment to New Zealanders to protect our access to GE-Free food. According to their own claims and the Royal Commission's proposals for labelling GE-Free food, that means 100% GE-free, not 1% contamination, that would make a nonsense of food safety and consumer laws," says Jon Carapiet from GE-Free NZ in food and environment. There is already enough evidence to show that it is fundamentally wrong to lift the moratorium on GE release just as other countries are introducing moratoria because of the risks. But the Labour-lead government are bullying their way on, backed by the likes of Monsanto and biotech-speculators. The 'Kiwi share' negotiated with Telecom is one example of government making a commitment to protect the long-term interests of the New Zealand Public. " It is time the government made some similar promises to New Zealander's about the right to eat 100% GE-Free foods," says Mr Carapiet. " Helen Clark and her ministers must make this promise before they attempt to start commercial GE releases," says Mr Carapiet. "The new GE-release Bill now before a Parliamentary Select Committee must be amended to force ERMA, and other Ministries such as Trade, and Consumer Affairs, to guarantee this basic human right." " This protection is entirely reasonable. The government will be condemning themselves out of their own mouths if they refuse to make such a contract with the people of New Zealand, or ignore the overwhelming demand from the people to have their right, to choose GE-Free food, preserved." -------------- 4) http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0306/S00009.htm GM foods threaten local farmers and environment Wednesday, 4 June 2003, 11:59 am Press Release: Pacific Network on Globalisation GM foods threaten local farmers and environment Media Release 2 June 2003 GM foods threaten local farmers and environment Agricultural biotechnology products such as genetically modified (GM) food threaten food security and the livelihoods of small farmers in the developing world and poses serious health and environmental dangers. The Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) angrily rebuts suggestions that GM crops are totally safe, and that it will be of most benefit to the poor and undernourished in developing countries. "Multinational companies in the developed world are trying to make farmers in the developing world dependent on their laboratory produced seeds and crops," says PANG Coordinator, Stanley Simpson. "Biotech companies are pursuing genetic engineering techniques and manipulating plant genes to make it impossible for farmers to save seed for replanting. Once local farmers use this seed, they become reliant on these corporations for their future crops. GM technology is not given freely." "It is absurd to say that GM crops will solve world hunger by producing more crops. The world already produces more food per person today than ever before, but the problem lies in poverty, inequality and access to food," Simpson said. "We cannot allow multinational food corporations and countries like the US trying to profit from the commercial use of GM seeds and crops to tell us that they are safe until proven dangerous, as the livelihoods of millions of people in the developing world, as well a sustainable environment is on the line," Simpson said. "There is inadequate knowledge about the long-term effects and risks of these new GM organisms on the ecology and human health. While it may seem safe today, it is wrong and irresponsible to assume that the manipulation and altering of the genetic make-up of living things is therefore totally safe." "Right now only God knows the dangers these introduced genetically modified species will produce, science will take many years to establish this." "GM products must be put on hold until all the risks are looked at thoroughly and with time." Genetic engineering may cause harmful changes in the biochemical processes of living things in ways that are impossible to predict with present knowledge, once released into nature the genetically engineered organisms and their altered genes may spread widely and uncontrollably, the changes may have very complex effects that could endanger human health and the environment. For further information please contact Stanley Simpson on Phone: 3316 722 Mobile: 9259 643 E-mail: pang@connect.com.fj ----- Original Message ----- From: <bob.steel1@juno.com> To: <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk> Sent: Samstag, 14. Juni 2003 19:57 Subject: [casi] Another thing to keep an eye on... Here is an interesting juxtposition of two items concerning agriculture, and a hint for an area of research by those with the resources. I don't know if the US is a party to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, but given it's recent activities and attitudes towards international law and GMOs I suspect that one thing on the agenda of the US corporations would be the introduction of GMOs into Iraq, with long-term and widespread consequences (assuming the GMOs are not already there). Will the occupying forces (US) adhere to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety any more then the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions, or other international laws? With the recent flaps in the US about pharmacultural research products (to produce drugs from GM plants -- usually corn (maize)) and GMOs escaping from the test fields I would expect there to be efforts to plant these in Iraq. (I can almost hear the arguments now, that since people take such small quantities of drugs that since radioactive contamination from DU runoff would not be significant, pharmaculture in contaminated areas would be acceptable.) If Mr Amstutz decides to plant GMOs do the Iraqis get a choice? =*=*=*=*=*=* from: [casi] News, 4-10/6/03 (1) >* GRAIN EXPORTS TO IRAQ MAY SUFFER IN WAKE OF NEW APPOINTMENT >by Ashok B Sharma >Financial Express, 2nd June (?) > >New Delhi, June 1: Indian exporters of food items are not >very optimistic about the future of exports to Iraq. The >appointment of the former Cargill senior executive Dan >Amstutz, in charge of agricultural reconstruction >in Iraq is being viewed as a strategy to allows imports >only from US and its allies. > >Mr Amstutz also had earlier served the Reagan >Administration as a trade negotiator in the Uruguay round >of the world trade talks. Oxfam has already reacted to Mr >Amstutz's appointment and has expressed concern over the >promotion of US interests in Iraq. Oxfam's policy >director, Kevin Watkins has said "putting Dan Amstutz in >charge of agricultural reconstruction in Iraq is like >putting Saddam Hussein in the chair of a human rights >commission. This guy is uniquely well-placed to advance >the commercial interests of American grain companies and >bust open the Iraqi market - but singularly ill-equipped >to lead a reconstruction effort in a developing country." [...] *=*=*=*= From: "UN News Service" <UNNews@un.org> *=*=* TREATY ON TRADE IN GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS TO ENTER INTO FORCE - UN New York, Jun 13 2003 4:00PM A treaty that sets out the first comprehensive regulatory system for ensuring the safe transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is on a 90-day countdown to becoming international law, after Palau become the fiftieth country to ratify the protocol, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). "This new regime promises to make the international trade in GMOs more transparent while introducing important safety measures that will meet the needs of consumers, industry and the environment for many decades to come," <"http://www.unep.org/">UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said, referring to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which becomes international law in September. Adopted in January 2000 by States parties to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the Protocol features one set of procedures that deals primarily with GMOs intentionally introduced into the environment - such as seeds, trees or fish - and another with genetically modified farm commodities such as corn and grain used for food, animal feed or processing. [...] =*=*=*=*=*=* ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk