*GM crops delayed by at least a year after cabinet leak - UK
*Disputes Stall Biotech Trade Talks - CALL TO STOP GMOS IS GETTING LOUDER
*GM Bans sought in California and now Vermont
---
GM crops delayed by at least a year after cabinet leak
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Thursday February 26, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1156328,00.html
Genetically-modified crops cannot be planted in the UK for at least another year, and maybe not even then, the environment minister, Elliot Morley, said yesterday. The delay is because it will take many months to sort out proper separation distances between crops, and a liability regime for contamination of conventional or organic crops.
A Commons statement by Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, that the government is to go ahead with the first commercially grown GM crop has been delayed, after the leak to the Guardian last week of cabinet sub-committee minutes.
Details of government plans to recruit MPs and scientists to put a gloss on the announcement embarrassed ministers, who have decided that another wide public consultation exercise is required before the policy on commercial growing can be implemented.
Mr Morley met Gregory Barker, Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle, who has cross-party support for a private member's bill on GM being introduced on March 26. It would create a strict regime for planting and compensation for farmers whose crops or livelihoods are damaged by GM crops.
Mr Morley told him that the government would not support his bill, although the minister agreed with parts of it.
Mr Morley told the Guardian that the bill was "out of sync" with government plans for a wide-ranging public consultation on the separation distances between GM and other crops and compensation funds for farmers, and on who would pay any damages.
A series of meetings at the department after the leak of cabinet papers and the widespread adverse reaction to the government's plans has led ministers to slow the process. They now aim to have firm proposals for separation distances and a liability regime in place at the end of this year.
Although the issue of distances between crops might be relatively easy to resolve, the twin problem of compensation if all goes wrong, and who pays for it, remains intractable.
The biotech companies remain adamant that they will not foot the bill, and that it is a matter for insurance by farmers. The government refuses to set up a fund with taxpayers' money.
Paul Rylott, head of Bioscience at Bayer CropScience, the company which markets fooder maize, the first GM crop likely to be grown commercially in the UK, said biotech companies would under no circumstances pay for a compensation fund. They had not been asked to do so anywhere in the world and did not intend to start in Britain.
Sue Mayer, of GeneWatch, a scientific campaigning group said: "Liability, if all goes wrong, is the key issue. It should not be left to the taxpayer to foot the bill." ...
See also:
GM industry to be liable for damages claimshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/26/ngm26.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/26/ixhome.html
Why it's time for GM Britain - Whether the 'public' want it or not. Why top government science adviser Chris Pollock supports GM crops http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,1155990,00.html
---
Disputes Stall Biotech Trade Talks
Associated Press, By SEAN YOONG
http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040226/API/402260699
Europe and developing countries clashed with the United States Thursday about the global trade in genetically modified commodities, with the former demanding strict labeling and liability laws and the latter seeking looser guidelines.
As a five-day conference on biotechnology safety neared its conclusion, government officials, scientists and environmentalists from more than 80 nations remained mired in disputes about whether gene-spliced crops might benefit - or befoul - human health and the environment.
Meanwhile, Mexico announced it was banning imports of some genetically engineered maize - a decision that could affect its imports from the United States, a key exporter of biologically altered foods.
Divisions at the conference surfaced in nearly every discussion on how to implement the U.N. Cartagena Protocol, which aims to protect Earth's diversity of life from biotechnology's possible risks by ensuring countries receive enough information to let them accept or reject gene-modified imports.
European and African countries called for punitive measures against signatories that fail to comply with the protocol's requirements to be included. The United States and Canada argued that such measures - which some countries say could include trade sanctions - are unnecessary.
U.S. officials said identification papers accompanying bio-engineered shipments meant for release into the environment - such as new varieties of corn for cultivation - shouldn't have to include details on how they've been genetically modified. India and Iran disagreed.
Swiss delegate Francois Pythoud, who chaired talks on the transport of biotech goods, expressed hopes that before the conference ends Friday, delegates might agree on "compromise language" for texts that suggest how shipments should be packaged and identified.
Ethiopia and other African nations called for a legally binding international regime that allows people to seek compensation from exporters if gene-modified organisms contaminate their environment or damage their health. But many countries refused to debate legalities for now.
Environmentalist groups accused biotech crop producers that haven't ratified the Cartagena Protocol - such as the United States and Canada - of undermining the treaty by trying to persuade other countries to sign separate agreements with them on biotech shipping procedures.
Mexico, which has ratified the protocol, last October signed a tripartite accord with the United States and Canada that activists claim barely fulfills some the protocol's minimum requirements.
Victor Manuel Arambula, executive secretary of Mexico's biosafety commission, announced Thursday his country was banning imports of maize engineered for nonagricultural purposes, such as producing proteins and chemicals used in pharmaceutical products and plastic.
The ban - which takes effect immediately - aims to prevent any genetic contamination of maize cultivated in Mexico for food, Arambula told reporters.
He said the ban doesn't interfere with Mexico's obligations under its pact with the United States, and Greenpeace spokeswoman Doreen Stabinsky said the announcement was "insignificant" because Mexico currently doesn't import any of the maize it is banning. She accused Mexican officials of trying to deflect attention from the criticism it has attracted over its trilateral agreement.
Mexico noted in a statement Thursday that the agreement has "not been free from mistrust and criticism," but stressed its aim was to maintain trade of genetically altered goods "in a practical, munequivocal and realistic way."
Mexico last year imported 5.6 million metric tons (6.1 million short tons) of yellow corn, mostly from the United States, Arambula said. He gave no statistics on what percentage of these were gene-modified.
see also:US undermining UN biosafety treaty http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/74049364-EE3B-40B2-9E63-194C1E4325B6.htm
---
THE CALL TO STOP GMOS IS GETTING LOUDER
[shortened]
South African civil society again renewed it's call for a moratorium on genetically modified food and seed today as the next round of international talks on the Biosafety Protocol began in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
South Africa is the only African country growing, importing and exporting GMOs and is a signatory to the Protocol. The open letter points out that the South African government is yet to implement the minimum standards set out by the Protocol while continuing roaring trade in GMOs...
The South African government has been accused of giving permits for GM seeds and food without proper public consultation or allowing public access to the results of safety assessments. The groups endorsing the letter said they found it "deeply ironic" that the South African government is promoting GMOs under a veil of secrecy while celebrating 10 years of democracy. "We reject with contempt, the South African government's kow-towing to the interests of trans-national corporations dealing in GM crops and foods by its consistent undermining of transparent governance in the trade and use of GMOs".
Ends
Haidee Swanby
Biowatch South Africa
+27 83 520 1782 +27 21 447 5939
---
Local Community Organizes to Ban GE Crops in California's Mendocino County and in Vermont
from Food First's WE ARE FIGHTING BACK 18
While residents of Mendocino County, California prepare to vote for a county-wide ban of genetically engineered (GE) crops on March 2, the Vermont legislature may vote on a bill that would place a two-year moratorium on planting and growing GE crops in the state on Thursday, February 26.
Called the "Farmer Protection Act," the bill, S. 162, has enormous support among Vermonters who care about local agriculture. Residents recently turned out in force to support the bill and demand that the rights of local farmers are supported while calling the legislature to hold biotech corporations strictly liable for economic, ecologic and food security damage caused by GE crops and seed.
For ten years the grassroots GE-Free Vermont Campaign on Genetic Engineering, a statewide coalition of public interest groups, businesses, concerned citizens and farmers, has been organizing residents of Vermont to stop the biotech industry from pushing its GE products across their state. Their efforts have already been boosted by a pledge from Vermont farmers not to grow genetically modified crops.
Vermont has a large number of organic farmers who are outraged at the thought of GE crops near their land, threatening their crops with contamination and possibly leading to the complete loss of GE-Free local food. Over a third of Vermont towns have already passed resolutions for a moratorium on GE crops.
"Light a candle. Plant a seed. Host a GMO-free food stall," proclaims the GE-free Vermont web site, www.gefreevt.org. This campaign is not just for Vermont, it is for all of the towns, counties and states that are sick of the biotech industry and genetically engineered foods being forced on their communities and contaminating their farm land.
Source:
www.nerage.org
http://www.gefreevt.org/index.php?set_table=content&articleID=66&page=home
Go to a Print friendly Page
Email this Article to a Friend
Back to the Archive
|
