--Dan Worley in Sunny Puerto Rico--
>Errors-To: <rwolfson@concentric.net>
>X-Sender: rwolfson@pop3.concentric.net
>Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:05:23 -0500
>To: info@natural-law.ca
>From: Richard Wolfson <rwolfson@concentric.net>
>Subject: websites, Green Conference, report on French farmers
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ice.icepr.com id
QAA21435
>X-UIDL: 4b442f867373eb45600b7984dd20b3ba
>
>1. A new website has been designed to make it easier to make comments to
>the USDA's on its new proposed rules on organic foods, which would allow
>food producted with genetic engineering, irradiation, and grown on toxic
>sewate sludge to be called organic:
>
>The website is http://www.ticketplease.com/safefood
>
>If you go to this website, you can easily make comments to the USDA.
>
>..........................................................
>
>2. Canberra Organic Growers Society have an excellent new website on
>genetic engineering:
>
>http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
>
>..............................................................
>
>
>3. Here is a press release from the GREEN GROUP in the European Parliament
>
>Thanks to Helmut Weixler <hweixler@europarl.eu.int> for posting this:
>
>
>PRESS RELEASE
>
>Brussels, 9 March 1998
>
>Greens Hail Successful Gene Tech Conference
>
>Alternative Scientists Expose Genetic Engineering Risks
>
>Over 300 participants at the Green Conference on Genetic Engineering in
>Brussels last week heard a panel of distinguished scientists pull apart the
>official line that risks from genetically modified organisms are under
>control through strict application of the precautionary principle.
>
>Dr Mae-Wan Ho, Professor of Biology at the UK Open University and author of
>"Genetic Engineering: Dreams or Nightmares?" told the conference "Science
>is not bad, but there is bad science. Genetic engineering is bad science
>working with big business for quick profit against the public good"
>
>Kjetil Hindar, Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Nature
>Research examining the case of transgenic salmon said "To enable us to make
>accurate predictions about the risks, we need to understand fully the
>genetic make-up and behaviour of the fish. Today we know almost nothing"
>
>Heikki Hokkanen, Head of the OECD Research Programme on Biological Resource
>Management and Professor at the University of Helsinki, Finland warned of
>the dangers of making only short-term risk assessments. Speaking on the
>commercial use of plants engineered to be toxic to insects he said "If we
>assume that there are no harmful effects from GMO releases just because
>they are not obvious at the beginning, we will be repeating the mistakes of
>the past"
>
>Beatrix Tappeser, Head of the Department of Genetic Engineering and Risk
>Management at the Oko Institute in Freiburg also highlighted this knowledge
>gap. "In 1977 we were told that isolated DNA was fully broken down and
>neutralised in the human gut. In 1994 we were told that this was an
>unproven assumption"
>
>"95% of the human genome is called ¡junk DNA¢. This is because we don¢t
>understand what it is there for" commented Jean-Claude Perez, author of
>"DNA Decoded"
>
>Jean-Marie Pelt, Director of the European Institute of Ecology in Metz,
>France was also highly critical of the risks we are taking "Because the
>Titanic was declared to be unsinkable, the risks from icebergs were thought
>to be negligible. Scientists today are equally compartmentalised in their
>thinking"In a discussion on genetically modified foodstuffs, Gilles-Eric
>Seralini Professor at the University of Caen, France demolished the idea
>that they could be compared to existing foods, stating that "The notion of
>substantial equivalence has no relevance at the present level of risk"
>Italian Research scientist Grazielle Picchi told delegates that "GMO foods
>have low nutritional values compared to naturally grown produce"
>
>Huib de Vriend of the Dutch Consumer and Biotechnology Foundation
>demonstrated the futility of trying to impose an arbitrary labelling regime
>for gene foods. "Labelling based on physical detection of GMOs in consumer
>end-products is not a realistic option" he told the conference, arguing
>that the only workable scheme was one based on certificates of origin
>throughout the food chain.
>
>Economist Ulrich Dolata from Bremen, Germany in a concluding speech
>dissected the idea that the biotechnology industry would become a key
>source of employment in Europe. "One thing I am sure of--biotechnology is
>not going to be a job-creating machine. The net effect will be minimal"
>
>The Green Group has drafted a 6 point Declaration drawing on the findings
>of the Conference which is open for signature by all concerned citizens,
>whether they are scientists, parliamentarians or consumers. It states:-
>
>1. That uses of genetic engineering in agriculture, animal husbandry and
>food production pose potentially unacceptable risks for humankind and the
>environment.
>
>2. That strict liability for damage to human health or to the environment
>should be imposed on all users of GMOs in field trials and commercial
>applications in the EU.
>
>3. That an independent and multi-disciplinary scientific tribunal be
>established to investigate the long-term impact on human health, the
>environment and biodiversity of the uses of genetic engineering in
>agriculture, animal husbandry and food production.
>
>4. That no transboundary movements of living modified organisms should be
>permitted before the implementation of a comprehensive U.N. BioSafety
>Protocol.
>
>5. That there should be no patents on human, animals or plants or their
>component parts.
>
>6. That all products derived from genetic engineering techniques should be
>clearly labelled as such.
>
>...........................................................................
.....
>.................................
>
>4. REPORT ON FRENCH FARMERS
>
>
>Thanks to the <genetics@gn.apc.org> genetic engineering news group for
>posting the following report:
>
>What follows is a moving account of why the French Farmers from
>Confederation Paysanne destroyed GE maize. It is written by Jose Bove, one
>of the farmers that stood trial for this 'crime'. I hope it inspires all of
>you as it has all of us.
>
>**********************************************
>For those that have not heard about this action before, the background
>article is pasted below the account. You may want to read it before you
>read the account - then again you may not!
>
>**********************************************
>
>Madame,
> Today, I am present in this court together with Rene Riesel and Francis
>Roux, accused of committing a serious crime according to the law.
> The alleged crime is: the destruction of sacks of genetically modified maize.
> Yes, this is serious, and that's why I assume full responsibility for it.
>I am not going to hide behind collective, anonymous responsibility. As a
>trade unionist in the Confederation Paysanne, I believe in the ability of
>everyone to act as an individual. There is no place in our trade union for
>a heirarchy of responsibility. Each member of the union plays a main part
>in her or his own future, and is fully engaged in this. The strength of our
>union movement rests on this determination to mobilise free individuals who
>accept all the consequences of their acts knowing fully the motive for them.
> Yes, on the 8th of January I participated in the destruction of
>genetically modified maize, which was stored in Novartis's grain silos in
>Nerac. (And the only regret I have now, is that I wasn't able to destroy
>more of it.)
> I knew that by acting in this way I was doing something illegal. But it
>was necessary, and we had no other choice. The way in which genetically
>modified agricultural products have have been imposed on European countries
>didn't leave us with any alternative.
> When was there a public debate on gentically modified organisms? When were
>farmers and consumers asked what they think about this? Never.
> The decisions have been taken at the level of the World Trade
>Organisation, and state machinery complies with the law of market forces.
>The WTO dictates its own law on the opening of trade barriers. The
>obligation to import bovine somatotrophine meat from the USA is a good
>example of this. The Panel of the WTO, the true policeman of world trade,
>decides what's “good” for both countries and their people, without
>consultation or a right of appeal.
> The countries or groups of countries which refuse the importation of
>bovine somatotrophine meat or genetically modified products have to prove
>that these are dangerous, and not the inverse! The Codex Alimentaris, the
>norm dictated by the multinationals, is there to fix the rules of the game!
> Why refuse something which is presented as “progress”? It's not because
>of old fashionedness, or regret for the “good old days”. It's because of
>concern for the future, and because of a will to have a say in future
>development. I am not opposed to fundamental research. I think that it
>would be illusory and detrimental to want to curb it. On the other hand, I
>don't think that every application of research is necessarily desired, at
>the human, social or environmental level.
> The current discussion on cloning is like the one on genetic
>modifications. Is everything that is possible actually desired by and
>gainful for people?
> Today, no intelligent person can say that genetically modifed maize is an
>example of progress, neither for agriculture, nor for the economy. On the
>other hand, the greatest concerns surrounding genetically modified maize
>are as equally important for human health as for nature.
> Novartis's Bt maize is associated with multiple long-term risks because of
>the presence of the three introduced genes. Even the director of Novartis
>recognises that a “zero risk” simply doesn't exist. Is this an admission of
>powerlessness, or a way in which to cast aside his future responsibility in
>case there are problems? The problems arising today with certain
>agricultural practices (such as animal-based feeds, the effects on bee
>populations etc.) only serve to reinforce our caution when dealing with
>the sorcerer's apprentices.
> The biggest danger which genetically modified maize represents, as well as
>all the other GMOs, is the impossibility of evaluating the long-term
>consequences of their use, and to follow their effects on the environment,
>animals and humans.
> No separation of genetically modified and non-manipulated products is
>carried out. For example, non-manipulated and genetically modified soja are
>actually mixed together when they arrive in France. As a result, there is
>no way of tracing the genetically modified soja. There is no choice left,
>neither for the producer, of which I am one, nor for the consumer, amongst
>whom we all number. What's going to happen about the French AOC label which
>verifies the origin of a product, and other labels which indicate quality?
> What guaranteee can we offer to those who claim to eat healthy products?
> This type of culture also poses a threat to the future of farmers. For
>some decades productionism has served to enslave farmers. From being a
>producer, the farmer has now become someone who is exploited, who can no
>longer decide on her or his way of managing the land, nor freely choose her
>or his techniques for this. However, a real revolution has been taking
>place for the last 15 years amongst members of the Confederation Paysanne,
>who have put this other type of agriculture back into action. Today, more
>and more farmers lay claim to a farmer's agriculture, which is more
>autonomous, economic, and which integrates problems associated with the
>environment, employment, and regional planning. We are faced with a real
>choice for society.
> - either we accept intensive production and the huge reduction in the
>number of farmers in the sole interests of the World Market, - or, we
>create a farmer's agriculture for the benefit of everyone. Genetically
>modified maize is also the symbol of a system of agriculture and a type of
>society which I refuse to accept. Genetically modified maize is purely the
>product of technology, where the means become the end. Political choices
>are swept aside by the power of money.
> Agriculture is a perfect illustration of this type of logic, which
>pervades every facet of food production. Agricultural production has now
>become the agro-industry. From the farmers who formed their small
>cooperatives, we have seen a conversion to the firms who have rationalized
>their systems of production in order to maximize profits on their
>investments. Since the 1920s, maize in the USA has been hybridized in order
>to oblige all farmers to buy seeds through a trust.
> The trusts merged in order to invest in new techniques, which were capable
>of releasing new profits.
> Novartis, the world's leading pharmaceutical group, invests billions in
>order to remain number one: they sell seeds, herbicides, pesticides and
>medicines. But competition is strong, and as a result of the merger which
>took place between two of their main competitors last week, they have
>announced a plan to lay-off 2000 employees in order to assure their
>shareholders of the profitablility of the company.
> Is it this kind of logic we want?
>No - I reject this lurch forwards where the aim of the economy isn't to
>satisfy needs, but is merely production for production's sake, without any
>link to the interests of the individual or the whole.
> Do we need genetically modified maize in Europe?
> No - in 1997 the maize production increased yet again. It's overflowing
>the silos. The European Union has to stock the excess. And who's got to pay
>for this - citizens. Who needs these new seeds? No-one - it's only Novartis
>who wants to get the returns on its investment and remain the number one
>pharmaceutical group in the world!
> By destroying the genetically modified maize seeds on the 8th of January
>at the Novartis factory in Nerac, we wanted to put this short-sighted logic
>into the spotlight.
> A democratic debate simply doesn't exist. The conspiracy of silence
>organised by the companies and the sovereign states is the sole logic which
>prevails. Like with the blood contaminated with the HIV virus, or mad cow
>disease, the public musn't be alarmed. Everything has to be allowed to
>continue in silence.
> By appearing before you today, I'm aware of being in breach of the law
>which wants every citizen to be content with expressing her or his views by
>simply putting their vote in the urn every six years.
>
> But it's not in this way that social and economic problems are resolved -
>on the contrary.
> Through the action which we undertook and for which we are being judged,
>we kicked-off a vast citizen's movement whch refuses the use of GMOs in
>foodstuffs for animals and for humans. These actions will stop when this
>mad logic comes to a halt.
> Yes, this action was illegal, but I lay claim to it because it was
>legitimate. I don't demand clemency, but justice. Either we have acted in
>everyone's interest and you will acquit us, or we have shaken the
>establishment and in that case you will punish us.
> There is no other issue.
>
> 3rd February 1998, Agen, France
>
> JOSE BOVE
>
>****************
>background article:
>
>On January 8th 1998, one hundred and twenty members of the Confédération
>Paysanne the 2nd largest French Farmers Union, entered a Novartis
>conditioning and storage plant/stocking factory in Nérac (France) and
>destroyed transgenic (GE) maize seeds. This was in order to protest against
>the decision of the French government last November, to clear the
>production of gene-altered maize, thus reversing a ban on cultivation
>imposed by the previous conservative government. After ‘looking around'
>they finally found 5 tons of transgenic maize which they mixed up with
>non-modified maize before humidifying it - rendering it useless. The
>modified maize has been at the centre of European debate over the use of
>genetic technologies in agriculture for over a year, with Austria and
>Luxembourg maintaining national import bans despite EU marketing approval
>given in December 1996.
>Genetically modified to resist attack by the European corn borer through
>the addition of the "Bt" bacterial toxin gene, the Novartis maize is also
>herbicide resistant and contains an antibiotic resistance gene introduced
>as a marker.
>Novartis has estimated the damages to 30 tons (more or less 2 to 5.000.000
>FF) and claimed 1 million US Dollars in damages (the five tons of seeds
>destroyed were apparently ‘total seed' kept in cold storage). Three of the
>people involved were arrested and put on trial on the 3rd of February.
>Coinciding with the start of the trial, a coalition of consumers, farmers
>and environment groups launched a campaign to reverse the French government
>decision allowing the cultivation of the genetically altered maize. The
>weekend before the trial opponents of GE staged protests at two Novartis
>sites in northern and central France.
>During the trial the court was packed out and about a thousand people
>gathered outside. About eleven varied and distinguished witnesses addressed
>the court on the folies of GM maize.
>Sentence was passed on February 18th. Rene Reisel and Jose Bove face an 8
>month suspended prison sentences and Francis Roux 5 months. Novartis, which
>owned the maize, was awarded FFr500,000 (Ecu75,000) in compensation.
>Although the act of the farmers was made in the public interest, and aimed
>to bring to full attention the political expediency, scientific deficit and
>lack of democracy of the imposition of genetechnologies, and specifically
>the maize, the judge was not really interested. The farmers were given
>heavy sentences. It is not clear whether the three farmers will appeal the
>decision or whether they will agree to pay Novartis. René Riesel, one of
>the farmers involved, is national secretary of >Confédération Paysanne,
>which represents smaller farmers, the association has strongly supported
>the three defendants during the trial. Though a "guilty" verdict was never
>in doubt, the case has sparked broader discussions in France over the risks
>and benefits of using genetically modified crops in agriculture. In
>questions to agriculture minister Louis Le Pensec tabled on the day of the
>hearing, several MPs demanded more details of the government's plans to
>hold Danish-style "consensus conferences" on the issue of transgenic
>plants. The minister responded by announcing
>a debate for June.
>Preparations have already begun, with the French parliamentary office for
>scientific and technological evaluation holding hearings for industry,
>union and public interest groups. An initial report will be published in
>mid-May, and will be used as the basis for the larger public consensus
>conference. Contacts: Parliamentary office of scientific and
>technological evaluation, tel: +33 1 40 63 88 19;
>Confédération Paysanne (http://www.mygale.org/00/confpays/qsn.htm), tel:
>+33 1 43 62 04 04.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Richard Wolfson, PhD
>Consumer Right to Know Campaign,
>for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term
>Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
>500 Wilbrod Street
>Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
>email: rwolfson@concentric.net
>
>Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
>contains more information on genetic engineering as well as
>previous genetic engineering news items
>Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 for 12 months
>See website for details.
>__________________________________________________________
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".