Posted by WTO Watch Qld on June 13, 2002 at 00:11:41:
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The problem with the gene pool is, there is no lifeguard.
'Genetically engineered food threatens everything I stand for. There is enough evidence to tell us
that genetically engineered food is not a good idea.' Margaret Fulton at the launch of the True Food Guide
1) GATS UPDATE
a) GATS requests due June 30th
b) GATS and Football
c) Australia's GATS commitments in 'Sporting and Recreational Services.'
2) FOCUS.....THE WTO AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
a) Are We Being Genetically Modified?
b) Australia's labelling requirements
c) Australian Consumers Association Media release
d) US Threatens WTO Action against EU over GM crops
e) China Caves in after WTO Threat
f) Margaret Fulton Launches True Food Guide.
3) CALLS TO ACTION
a) Letter to Minister for Trade re Australia's GATS requests
b) Letter to DFAT re GM labelling
c) Call for submissions form Gene Technology Regulator
d) Sign on letter to protect native Mexican corn form GM contamination
==================================================================
1) GATS UPDATE
a) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is presently engaged in drawing up a list of all those service sectors in other countries that DFAT and the government would like to see 'opened up.' That means, that they will be itemising the government rules and regulations in other countries that Australia would like to see removed. Trade bureaucrats in other countries will be similarly engaged. You will all be familiar with the demands that the EU is making because their list was leaked. All these requests are to be completed by June 30th. As this is a matter of considerable importance, WTO Watch Qld has contacted the Minister to ask when Australia's list will be released for public comment.
This is his reply:"the government will release as much information as practicable, including on the sectoral and country coverage and the nature of the commitments sought, where this would be consistent with commercial confidentiality and does not compromise our negotiating interests" .
In other words, he will only tell us what he wants us to know.
Please see the Calls to Action at the end of the bulletin where youu will find a letter to send to the Minister.
b)
This taken from today's Guardian, original
story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,723784,00.html.
Football's brain drain
Wednesday May 29, 2002
The Guardian
You are right that the "football [transfer market] is not an example of "perfect free trade" but are mistaken if you
think the corporate interests behind this lucrative sport are happy to let this lie (This is a level playing field, Finance, May 28).
Current negotiations on the WTO's general agreement on trade in services (Gats) include "sporting services" and
"the movement of natural persons" (which include transfers). New Zealand has already claimed that the EU's
domestic transfer market discriminates against non-EU players and has called for the EU's restrictions on
international transfers to be removed, declaring them barriers to trade.
Brendan Batson, of the Professional Footballers Association, is quoted arguing that this is good for both
European and African football - he is wrong. British football may find it increasingly difficult to promote
home-grown talent, while Africa watches their young players flock to the big-money leagues of Europe while their own
leagues dwindle. Footballers from developing countries will become the new victims of the "brain drain" to developed
countries, joining doctors, teachers and engineers. Should we not be promoting a rigorous and professional football
league in Africa rather than pinching their players?
Football fans who would like to see England win the World Cup against world-class teams should ask themselves if they
are happy to see the fate of football subjected to this internationally binding trade agreement. Could this be time
for fans to join the international campaign to stop the Gats?
Those who think so should visit www.gatswatch.org
Mark Ellis-Jones
London
---------------------------
c)
Australia has made GATS commitments in 'Sporting and Recreational Services' with no limitations on market access and national treatment in mode 1(cross border supply), mode 2 (consumption abroad) and mode 3 (commercial presence).
======================================================
2) FOCUS
THE WTO AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD.
a) For those readers of the bulletin who may be new to the GM debate, this article form Canada will give an overview.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/articles/article322.html
ARE WE BEING GENETICALLY MODIFIED?
Schmeiser/Monsanto case shows extent of GM foods threat
By Judy Kennedy
So why do the French hate McDonald's?
The answer involves France's lifestyles and culinary practices, agri-biz,
and the feistiness of its family farmers. And its resistance to
the forced homogenization that McDo stands for around the world.
For we are being homogenized, standardized, and squared like genetically
modified tomatoes that taste like wood but have a shelf
life of 10 years and come with their own built-in toxins to ward off bugs.
Genetically modified (GM) or engineered (GE) products are those whose genes
have been altered, usually by the addition of genetic material from another species.
The product may be developed to resist, for example, a specific herbicide or pesticide.
Widespread use of such seed and herbicide combinations increases the practice of monoculture
and of the monopoly of food production through the control of the seed supply. Such practices are given
a giant boost by patent rights which compliant governments have legislated.
Genetics Professor Joe Cummins of the University of Western Ontario believes
that the GM seed industry is aiming at nothing short of total control--i.e., that certified seeds will be required for all
plantings, and that these seeds will have to contain a herbicide- resistant gene.
Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser would agree with this prediction. The case of Monsanto vs Schmeiser
is known worldwide. In March of last year, the Federal Court of Canada found that Schmeiser had
infringed Monsanto's patent rights because some of its GM canola was growing on his land. That Schmeiser had neither planted it nor
authorized its planting was deemed by the court to be "not significant."
The implications for farmers everywhere are awesome. Dr. Ralph Martin, Director of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, says,
"This throws the onus the wrong way--onto the farmer, not Monsanto."
Canola pollen can be carried over great distances by wind or insects, leading to outcrossing. Agriculturalists estimate that a buffer
zone of at least 800 metres is needed to protect a field of non-GM hybrid canola from infestation by the GM variety. The GM variety
was developed to resist the most widely used herbicide, Monsanto's Roundup.
These factors mean that most of Saskatchewan's canola fields may now be contaminated and that savers and developers of heritage
and other canola strains, like Schmeiser, cannot plant their seed. The contaminating "volunteer" plants bear proprietary genes, as
the court has indicated, and are tolerant to Roundup or other common herbicides.
Round One clearly goes to Monsanto.
In addition to the monopoly of a major food crop by one transnational corporation, a second public policy issue arises with GM
products: that of food safety. Health Canada holds that genetically modified foods need not be tested nor labelled because they are
identical in essential detail to the crop from which they originated, or "substantially equivalent."
Dr. Ann Clark, professor of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph, has long criticized Health Canada's assessment process in
relation to food safety; some see it as a mere bookkeeping device. She charges the Department's Food Inspection Agency with
having followed a seriously flawed protocol prior to its approval of some 50 GM foods--one that failed to consider their potential for
genetic flow to wild relatives or to become weeds--and also failed to evaluate their impact on non-target organisms or on biodiversity.
Recently the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on Genetic Modification recommended that more research be done on such
novel food products, and over a longer time period; that a government body conduct this research; and that it be funded
independently. Open records are essential to this process, they added.
These recommendations contrast with current government practice, which protects the confidentiality of research results as
"business information." Retired Agriculture Canada crop scientist Dr. Bert Christie sees government in a conflict of interest position
in its dual role of promoter and regulator of biotechnology. He confirms that the CFIA conducts no tests on its own and does not
submit the industry's findings to peer review.
What can be so dangerous about GM food crops? Some scientists see more danger in multiple sprayings of crops with herbicides
and pesticides than with genetic modification. Dr. Gefu Wang-Pruski, Research Professor, Plant Molecular Biology, Nova Scotia
Agricultural College, points to some non-GM apples which, "even if peeled, have 25% more (chemicals) than what is allowed--inside
the apple." GM crops, she claims, have been tested now for over 10 years, and have shown no allergenic reaction.
The Internet, however, provides lots of counter-arguments. Dr. Joe Cummins's concerns run like this: "Probably the greatest threat
from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory
that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower
mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus, meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It
is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human
and animal diseases of tremendous power."
Dr. Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics at Guy's Hospital, London, warns: "This procedure results in disruption
of the genetic blueprint of the organism, with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances
has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals, with the problem remaining undetected until a
major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an
immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light."
Other concerns have been raised by Agnes Sinai of Paris's Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales: "Consumers would
ingest much (sic) more pesticides if genetically modified plants were to spread because they contain so much of them. Like dioxins,
pesticides, including glyphosphate, are not broken down in the human body; they are a form of invisible pollution. Their molecules
have allergenic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and hormonal effects, and are harmful to male fertility. They have similar
properties to female hormones, oestrogens; overall, these hormonal effects could be responsible for a 50% decline in sperm counts
over the last 50 years. If that decline were to continue, the human race would have to resort to cloning by about 2060."
Scary stuff. But the list of GM food crops includes more than canola. Most of the corn and soy products we eat may now be of the
genetically modified varieties and therefore most of the processed foods that appear on supermarket shelves. No wonder consumers
clamor for the labelling of GM foods as a minimum response to the apparent risk this presents.
The precautionary principle--which Canada accepted in signing the Biosafety Protocol in Montreal in 2000--requires nothing less. Yet
last October, then Health Minister Alan Rock and his cabinet colleagues scuttled a bill presented by Liberal MP Charles Caccia, a
bill that would have made the labelling of GM foods mandatory and which had the support of 93% of Canadians.
Round Two to Monsanto.
Consumers in Europe are rallying, demanding the labelling of GM foods, and even their withdrawal from the market. Governments are
moving to ban the cultivation of GM crops. Boycotts of corn, soy and canola from the United States and Canada are being organized
by retailers, as well as by consumers abroad.
Organic foods are much sought after. One California food chain, Trader Joe's, recently announced that it would work with its private
label vendors to have GM-free products reformulated if necessary and certified within a year. Now there's competitve advantage!
Canadian farmers have taken notice and have instructed the board of directors of the country's largest grain company, Agricore
United, to work towards segregating GM and non-GM varieties of grain and oil seeds and urging government not to licence varieties of
GM wheat. Their market-share is at stake.
In the meantime, Percy Schmeiser has appealed the Federal Court's ruling, and the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate has
launched a class action suit against Monsanto on behalf of those farmers who have had their fields contaminated by GM seeds
without their authorization.
Stay tuned.
(Judy Kennedy--persan@auracom.com--is a retired lawyer and environmental
activist living in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley. She is
a member of CCPA-Nova Scotia and Sierra Atlantic. For more information, see
www.percyschmeiser.com -
www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark -www.natural-law.ca/genetic)
Taken from The CCPA Monitor, April 2002 Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives http://www.policyalternatives.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------
b) The Australian government has refused to sign the Montreal Biosafety Protocol.
Compulsory labelling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients has been introduced in Australia because of public demand. However the new labelling requirements do not come in to force until December, 2002. Those who followed the labelling debate may remember the Prime Minister remarking that labelling may not be consistant with WTO rules. Our labelling requirements are relatively stringent by world standards. Now, read on.............
-------------------------------------------------------------
.c) AUSTRALIAN CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
NEWS MEDIA RELEASE 9/5/02
Australia sabotages own GM food labelling system
Australia has undermined its own GM labelling system at international
negotiations, making our labelling laws potentially invalid under
World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the Australian Consumers'
Association (ACA) was informed by representatives of the consumer
movement overnight.
'Australia's delegation to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling has
deliberately voted against our own domestic labelling regime in an
international standards meeting in Halifax' said ACA's Food Policy
Officer Rebecca Smith. 'This is outrageous behaviour.'
Australian Health Ministers have been explicit, and it is now law,
that consumers have the right to labelling of genetically modified
foods. There is no excuse for this sort of traitorous behaviour by
Australian representatives.
'The international meeting is considering three alternatives for
labelling. The weakest option, being pushed by the United States,
would see labelling only foods considered to be a health hazard, for
example a known allergen, or if there were a significant change in the
nutrients of the food. Australian Health Ministers rejected this
option and what business do Australia's bureaucrats have in voting
for it now?
'Not only is the fact of Australia's voting behaviour of concern, the
US 'almost-never-label-GM option' would mean that exporting countries
with less rigorous GM labelling requirements could challenge
Australia's domestic rules as an unfair barrier to trade under WTO
rules - forcing a watering down of domestic rules in turn.
'ACA is not surprised by this underhand play by the Australian
Government. Trade and industry interests have been busy trying to
undermine Australia's GM-labelling system since it was promised in
1999. We have seen extensions granted to industry by our Food
Authority, to allow non-compliance with the national GM labelling
standard untill December 2002, and now this.
'These are reprehensible tactics by the Australian delegation, trying
to sabotage truth in labelling for not only Australian consumers but
consumers across the globe', stated Rebecca Smith.
For further information or interview request please contact ACA's Food
Policy Officer, Rebecca Smith on 02 9577 3373 or 0411 670 200
Australian Consumers' Association ACA
A non-profit company limited by guarantee ACN 000 281 925 - ABN 35
799 246 568Publications CHOICE Magazine ( CHOICE Books ( CHOICE Health
Reader ( Computer CHOICE ( Consuming Interest Services CHOICE OnLine (
CHOICE Consumer Information
(ED: Please see Calls to Action at the end of the bulletin for a letter to send to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
d) The European Union has steadfastly refused to import genetically modified agricultural products. Consumers in the EU are very wary about their food supply, having experienced Mad Cow disease, dioxin contamination of the food supply, and foot and mouth disease, among other things. They have emphatically rejected GM foods, much to the disgust of the US, which is the major producer of GM crops.
US ANGER GROWING OVER EU, CHINA GMO POLICY
The US is growing increasingly impatient with European and Chinese
policies on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which it claims are
seriously affecting US exports of agricultural products. According to
trade sources, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick last week
repeated threats that the US administration would seriously consider a
challenge at the WTO should the EU not lift its de facto moratorium on
the approval of new GMOs, in place since 1998. Zoellick also attacked
China's import regulations for GMOs -- scheduled to come into effect on
20 March -- which he said "as drafted, could serve as an unfair barrier
to trade". China, however, remains adamant that it will not postpone
the entry into force of its GMO regulations.
Bridges Trade Weekly
"USTR Zoellick questions China's food import intent," REUTERS, 4
February 2002; "Zoellick warns Lamy of possible biotechnology WTO
challenge," INSIDE US TRADE, 1 February 2002.
-----------------------------------------------
e) China Caves to U.S. Pressure on GE Soybean Imports
>Sources: Reuters News Service, March 18, 2002
After months of negotiations with U.S. trade officials and under threat
of WTO complaint, China announced a temporary certification scheme for
imports of genetically engineered (GE) food.
Pressure was brought to bear at the highest levels of government in
order to ensure that U.S. farmers would be able to export their
soybeans, 70% of which are genetically engineered. Soybean exports from
the U.S. to China, the world's largest soybean importer, are valued at
US$1 billion annually.
The Chinese regulations--scheduled to go into effect on March 20 of this
year--require labeling for all GE imports and also oblige companies
exporting products to China to apply for safety certificates stating
that their products are harmless to humans, animals and the environment.
Under the new scheme, the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture will issue
temporary safety certificates to GE food exporters if they have a
similar certificate from their own or a third country. The temporary
certificates will take only 30 days to obtain and will remain in effect
until December 20, 2002.
Prior to the announcement, U.S. soybean exports to China had virtually
halted in the face of the deadline for implementation of new Chinese
biotechnology regulations. Importers in China had stopped placing orders
for soybeans, and exporters in the U.S. had stopped sending shipments
fearing that the products would be rejected at the border.
U.S. officials had complained that the regulations were restrictive and
that the certification requirements were unclear. They had alleged that
the regulations were not a reflection of safety concerns but are rather
an attempt by China to protect its domestic soybean market. In February,
the U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary commented that filing a World Trade
Organization (WTO) complaint against China was "a big option."
China is the single largest market for U.S. soybeans, buying 5.2 million
metric tons of the crop last year. Annual U.S. soybean exports total
approximately 27 million metric tons. About 70% of U.S. soybeans are
genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate.
At least two unnamed biotechnology firms, one from the U.S. and one from
Europe, had hired a lawyer in New York to strategize and consider
potential "action" should China proceed with the regulations.
Critics of biotechnology have accused the U.S., Argentina and other
agricultural exporting countries of pressuring other nations--including
Bolivia, Croatia, Thailand and Sri Lanka--to drop strict rules on GE
products that they have adopted or proposed to adopt. Both the U.S. and
Argentina argue that rules restricting GE imports violate international
trade law under the WTO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
f) Sydney, Wednesday May 29, 2002:
Australia's leading food expert, Margaret Fulton, today launched a new
publication designed to give Australian shoppers control over their food.
The True Food Guide reveals which food companies may be using genetically
engineered (GE) ingredients in their products and which are not.
Greenpeace released new market research today, which shows that 68% of
Australians would be less likely to buy a food if they knew it was
genetically engineered.
Launching the True Food Guide Margaret Fulton said, 'Genetically engineered
food threatens everything I stand for. There is enough evidence to tell us
that genetically engineered food is not a good idea. The True Food Guide
will be our reference to what is safe to eat not only for us, but for our
children, grandchildren and great grandchildren'.
The pocket-size True Food Guide rates food companies according to their
policies on using genetically engineered ingredients. Over 170 food
companies and 400 products are classified in three categories.
Half a million free True Food Guides will be distributed nationally,
beginning with the Good Food Shows in Sydney and Melbourne.
Copies of the guide are available from Greenpeace by calling 1800 815 151
or from GeneEthics Network on 1300 133 868.
Copies can also be downloaded from www.greenpeace.org.au/truefood.
===================================================
CALLS TO ACTION
(ED: If everybody on this list sends off these letters, I believe that we will make a significant impact on DFAT and the Minister. So, go for it! )
1) Letter to Minister for Trade re release of Australia's GATS requests. Please copy into new email, add you name and address and send to mark.vaile.mp@aph.gov.au with a cc to jeff.hart@dfat.gov.au (Australia's chief services negotiator)
The Hon. Mark Vaile, MP,
Minister for Trade,
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT, 2600.
Dear Mr. Vaile,
RE: Request for Details of Specific Commitments Sought by Australia – WTO negotiations
I understand that Australia's GATS requests to other countries are to be completed by June 30th. I note also that the public consultation process closed on May 31st. This seems a very short time frame for the comments of the community to be read, analysed and incorporated into Australia's negotiating position. This short time frame has been a feature of other community consultations in the past and does little to inspire confidence that the views of the community are being taken into account in the drafting of trade policy.
Confidence is further undermined when we hear that you have stated, in relation to the release of Australia's GATS requests to other countries, that
'the government will release as much information as practicable, including on the sectoral and country coverage and the nature of the commitments sought, where this would be consistent with commercial confidentiality and does not compromise our negotiating interests."
My reaction to this statement is to assume you mean that you have no intention of releasing the information for public discussion. Is this correct? If it is not correct, when may we expect this information to become available?
If the government's trade policy is to garner support in the community, it is essential that it be transparent and accountable. Public discussion about an area as important as the GATS is absolutely essential.
I look forward to your early response. Yours faithfully,
add name, address and date.
b) Letter to the Minister for Trade re the sabotage of labelling laws by our trade negotiators. Send to mark.vaile.mp@aph.gov.au with a cc to jeff.hart@dfat.gov.au
The Minister for trade,
The Hon. Mark Vaile,
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT, 2600.
Dear Mr. Vaile,
I am extremely upset about reports that Australia's trade negotiators have moved at the Codex to sabotage Australia's labelling requirements for Genetically Modified food.
These labelling laws were introduced by popular demand and Health Ministers were quite adamant that consumers should have the right to know what was in their food.
The Codex meeting is considering three alternatives for labelling. The weakest option, being pushed by the United States, would see labelling only of foods considered to be a health hazard, for example containing a known allergen, or if there were a significant change in the nutrients of the food. Australian Health Ministers rejected this option. What business do Australia's bureaucrats have in voting for it now?
Not only is the fact of Australia's voting behaviour of concern, the US 'almost-never-label-GM option' would mean that exporting countries
with less rigorous GM labelling requirements could challenge Australia's domestic rules as an unfair barrier to trade under WTO rules - forcing a watering down of domestic rules in turn.
This is OUTRAGEOUS behaviour on the part of our trade bureaucrats.
I demand an explanation and I also demand that you immediately instruct DFAT to change their tune and to argue for the right of all countries to have strong labelling laws, if that is what their populations demand.
Yours faithfully,
Add name and address and date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Australia’s Gene Technology Regulator (the Regulator) is responsible for administering a new regulatory system established to protect the health and safety of people and the environment by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology and managing those risks by controlling dealings with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The Regulator has received two applications for licences to undertake limited and controlled releases of different types of genetically modified canola into the environment in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia:
DIR010/2001 from Aventis CropScience Pty Ltd proposes to trial InVigor® canola. This canola has been genetically modified by the introduction of a hybrid breeding system based on male sterile and fertility restorer lines, and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium (the active ingredient in Basta®) as a selective tool for breeding; and
DIR011/2001 from Monsanto Australia Ltd proposes to trial Roundup Ready® canola. This canola has been genetically modified by the introduction of tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup®) to assist in weed control.
Following consultation with the expert groups and authorities prescribed in the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act), the Regulator has prepared two risk assessment and risk management plans, including proposed licence conditions, in respect of the proposed activities.
The Regulator invites written submissions from interested people and organisations on these plans. There will be a six week public consultation period and copies of the risk assessment and risk management plans, as well as summary information, can be obtained from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s website or from the address below. Copies and summaries of the licence applications are also available from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Please quote the relevant application numbers.
Submissions should be forwarded to the Regulator by close of business on 12 July 2002.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
MDP 54, PO Box 100
WODEN ACT 2600
Telephone: 1800 181 030
Facsimile: 02 6271 4202
http://www.ogtr.gov.au
-----------------------------------------------------------
d) A coalition of groups in Mexico, including the Coletivo Ecologista Jalisco
(a PANNA affiliate) and Mexico Greenpeace, have put together a petition to
the Council on Environmental Cooperation (a NAFTA agency) to investigate
the contamination of native Mexican corn by transgenic corn.
For further information on the Mexican corn contamination scandal and to
see a copy of the petition, go to:
http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/gmo/pollution/maize1.html
While the tentative closing date to sign the letter is Friday June 7,
please continue to send late endorsements after that date.
To sign on, please send your name, title/degree,/organization and country
to Holly Penfound, Campaign Coordinator, Greenpeace Canada.
holly.penfound@yto.greenpeace.org
Ellen Hickey
Genetic Engineering campaigner
Pesticide Action Network North America.
========================================================
Terrie Templeton WTO Watch Qld gumbus@powerup.com.au