[E-rundbrief] Info 43 - The Global Citizens GMO Challenge

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 43

Bad Ischl, 14.10.2003

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
www.begegnungszentrum.at

=============================================================

The Global Citizen's GMO Challenge (on Genetically Modified Organisms)
Sign-on Declaration
A Citizen's Intervention in the US-EU GMO Dispute at the WTO


Publicly launched on the occasion of the WTO ministerial in Cancun, this 
citizens' challenge will be a major mobilizing tool for protecting people's 
right to safe and healthy food.  Sign this challenge to declare your 
support for:

1.      An amicus intervention in the GMO dispute as a global solidarity 
network of citizens.

2.      The international movement to keep our food systems and ecosystems 
GM free, and to defend our freedom to choose.


To sign on to the GMO Challenge

Please send your details (including a preferred way to contact you) to the 
email address below. PLEASE specify if it is an individual or 
organizational endorsement that you are making.

gmochallenge at yahoo.com


Signatorees include:

Mae-wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society (I-SIS)
Andrew Kimbrell, International Centre for Technology Assessment
Caroline Lucas, Member of the European Parliament, Green Party, UK
Pat Mooney, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group)
Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology (RFSTE)
Brian Tokar, Institute for Social Ecology

Berne Declaration
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Friends of the Earth International
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
SAFeAGE
Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)
The Global Citizen's GMO Challenge
Sign-on Declaration
A Citizen's Intervention in the US-EU GMO Dispute at the WTO

1) Citizen's Around the World Say NO

At the 7th annual Biodevastation conference, a broad grassroots gathering 
of concerned citizens from around the world, it was decided to mobilize a 
people's intervention into the US-EU dispute over Genetically Modified (GM) 
Foods.

Seven years after the first commercial introduction of genetically modified 
(GM) foods, most people around the world still firmly reject this 
technology. Only four countries are growing nearly all of the world's 
genetically modified crops, with the US alone accounting for over 75%. More 
than 35 countries around the world, including the entire European Union, 
have taken steps to restrict the growing and importation of GM crops, and 
require labeling of all foods with genetically modified ingredients.

The U.S. administration response has been to bring a suit at the level of 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) to pressure the European Union to lift 
its five-year de facto moratorium on new GM food varieties and strict 
limits on imports of GM products. Once again, US-based agribusiness 
companies, the biotechnology industry, and their political allies in 
Washington are seeking to force this hazardous technology on the peoples of 
the world.

2) Citizen's Have Standing

We assert the right and duty of citizens to participate in the setting of 
international rules and regulations regarding trade. The WTO claims to be a 
multilateral institution, where each country (and by extension, each 
citizen) has an equal vote. However in practice, the WTO is a 
"multinational" institution, where multinational corporate interests use 
governments as proxy to push their interests unilaterally.

The people of the United States are not demanding an end to the EU 
moratorium, they are demanding clear labeling of GM foods. In many states 
Americans are demanding a moratorium of their own. The US trade 
representative is representing a handful of biotech corporations, not US 
citizens, in demanding that the EU change its policies against the will of 
its own citizens.

This case is not just an assault on the rights of EU citizens to make their 
own food choices, it is also a threat to all citizens of the world who want 
safe food. This case demonstrates why citizens must have clear standing in 
any legitimate global trade regime. Current WTO rules and dispute 
mechanisms embody corporate unilateralism, and must be changed to reflect 
democratic multilateralism on the basis of citizen's rights

3) Scientific evidence: Instability and Uncertainty

 From erosions (early ulcers) in the stomachs of rats fed GM tomatoes in 
the lab, to triple-herbicide resistant oilseed rape volunteers plaguing 
Canadian fields, scientific evidence points to the dangers of GMOs. Biotech 
proponents fund numerous studies to try and show that their GMO products 
are safe, but the scientific evidence points conclusively to two things 
about genetic engineering; uncertainty and instability.

Uncertainty - Contrary to the image projected by the biotech industry, 
biologists do not fully understand what causes a trait to be exhibited in a 
living organism. What is clear is that they are not determined by DNA 
alone, but through complex interactions within a cell. It is not surprising 
that the vast majority of attempts to "genetically engineer" living matter 
usually fail. Almost every major report on GMO's cites the need for further 
study.

Instability - There is significant evidence that Genetic Modification 
brings transgenic instability. When foreign genes inserted into a living 
organism they behave in volatile and unstable ways. Often they fail to 
produce the expected result, which would explain crop failures of GM crops 
like the ones seen in India last year. Even more frightening, the genes can 
be functional and "break free." These genes can stack up, as in the case of 
triple herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape volunteers appearing in Canada 
within two years of the planting of single-herbicide tolerant crops. These 
genes can even be transmitted to other organisms. Genes for herbicide 
resistance have been transferred from GM crops to weeds, creating potential 
"super weeds."

In 22 years the only agricultural products that have been commercialized 
are herbicide resistant and BT crops. The science at the genetic level is 
still in its infancy and commercialization is obviously premature.

4) Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is the antidote to short-term thinking and the 
excesses of unaccountable industry. This basic premise is that when (on the 
basis of available evidence) an activity may harm human health or the 
environment, a cautious approach should be taken in advance. It recognizes 
that in complex biological systems, direct cause-and-effect proof of harm 
is not easy to demonstrate until irreversible damage is done.

In the past people have been exposed to deadly doses of radiation, 
bio-accumulative pesticides like DDT, and countless other toxins and 
pollutants long after serious health concerns had been documented. The 
precautionary principle is based on these experiences, and has been 
enshrined in numerous international environmental treaties, conventions and 
political declarations, including the Biosafety Protocol (see below).

There are serious concerns about the threat of GMO's to human health, and 
there is conclusive proof of the dangers of "genetic pollution" in the 
environment. The US is taking the opposite of a precautionary approach with 
its "Don't look, don't find" approach to monitoring GMO's after commercial 
release. The US Department of Agriculture, from 1992 to 2002, spent only 1% 
of is biotech research budget on risk-related research. The US is 
globalizing a culture of scientific irresponsibility by initiating this 
dispute against Europe, and by refusing to become a member of the 
Convention on Biological Diversity and the Biosafety Protocol.

5) Biosafety Protocol

The Biosafety Protocol is an international framework for dealing with 
GMO's, which was the outcome of over 10 years of negotiations under the 
convention on biological diversity. It is designed to protect biodiversity 
and its sustainable use from the potentially negative effect of the 
transboundary movement of GMOs, defined as Living Modified Organisms 
(LMOs). The protocol also refers to human health and socio-economic 
impacts. It allows countries to invoke the precautionary principle and 
prevent the import of GMOs in certain cases. Justifying US opposition to a 
strong biosafety protocol, Rafe Pomerance, head of the US delegation at the 
negotiations in Cartagena stated: "This is about a multimillion dollar 
industry."

The Biosafety Protocol is in essence about regulating trade in GMOs by 
giving primacy to safety. Any WTO jurisdiction in this area should clearly 
be limited by this. For the US to claim that the EU moratorium is an unfair 
barrier to trade is to deny the existence of the biosafety protocol, and to 
deny the world community the right to set basic health and environmental 
standards.

6) Socio-Economic Failures

The primary reason cited for pushing GM crops on unwilling citizens is that 
they will produce more food and thus will remove hunger and increase 
incomes of poor farmers. However independent evaluations show that they are 
no socio-economic advantages to GM crops. In fact there are serious 
socio-economic costs because GM seeds are more expansive and require 
payment of royalty and technology fees.

Under field conditions GM crops have often performed much worse than their 
non-GM counterparts. In 2002, the first commercial planting of Bt cotton in 
India was wiped out while non-GM varieties performed well, leaving GM 
planting farmers facing serious financial losses.

The Strategy Unit of the UK Cabinet Office also showed that GM crops have 
no socio- economic advantages but could create ecological risks and 
political unrest. (Field Work: Weighing up the Costs and Benefits of GM 
Crops Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office, UK) Even the United States 
Department of Agriculture has had to recognise that GM crops do not bring 
exceptional benefits to farmers.

7) There Are Alternatives

For every application for biotechnology in agriculture offered by industry 
so far there are safer and more sustainable alternatives available. 
Ecological management of pests and weeds is a proven option to genetically 
modified herbicide resistant and Bt crops. 208 sustainable agriculture 
projects in 52 developing countries have shown productivity increases from 
50 to 100%. (Reducing Food Poverty by Increasing Agriculture Sustainability 
in Developing Countries, J. N. Pretty et al.)

In Latin America rotations, green manures and cover crops have increased 
yield from 20%  250%. (Applying Agro-ecology to Enhance the Productivity of 
Peasant Farming System in Latin America, Miguel Altieri, 2001). Even 
proposed future crops, such as the genetically modified Golden Rice and the 
Protein Potato, are inferior to natural alternatives for meeting the 
nutritional needs of the poor.

8) Conclusion

Given the abundance of alternatives, the risks that GM crops pose to the 
environment and human health, the existing Biosafety Protocol, the 
scientific uncertainty, and the lack of any socio economic advantages, we 
declare that this use of the WTO dispute settlement system for imposing GM 
food on the world is totally illegitimate. We also declare our support for 
the right of all citizens to choose safe food, and the duty of governments 
to protect the health of their people and their environments by refusing GM 
food.

(Siehe auch "E-Rundbrief" - Info 23)

=================================================

Matthias Reichl
Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Wolfgangerstr.26
A-4820 Bad Ischl
Tel. +43-6132-24590
e-mail: mareichl at ping.at
http://www.begegnungszentrum.at