____________________________________________
MAHARISHI INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
OF NATURAL LAW PARTIES
NEWS SERVICE
Bockhorner Weg 191 • 28779 Bremen • Germany
Tel.: +49-421-6096042 • Fax: +49-421-6006209
Internet: http://www.natural-law-party.org
E-mail: nlp@euronet.nl
____________________________________________
NATURAL LAW PARTY'S TOUR OF DR STEVEN DRUKER LEAD TO NEW RESOLUTION OF THE
EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF GREEN PARTIES (EFGP)
The Natural Law Parties of Europe sponsored a tour of Dr Steven Druker, a US
lawyer, last spring throughout Europe as part of their Global Campaign to
Ban GM Foods. Dr Druker met during the tour with many politicians, including
the leader of the Swedish Green Party. She invited Dr Druker to submit a
resolution for the Council Meeting of the European Federation of Green
Parties (EFGP) in Stockholm 24-26 November. The Council adopted the
resolution without additions or revisions.
RESOLUTION adopted at the 10th EFGP Council Meeting 24-26 November 2000,
Stockholm, Old Parliament Building
A CALL FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
The Green Parties of Europe acknowledge there are scientifically justified
concerns about the safety of all foods produced through recombinant DNA
technologies and that these genetically modified (GM) foods pose unique
hazards to the health of both the consumer and the environment. We also
acknowledge that various governmental bodies entrusted with safeguarding
public and environmental health have been failing to regulate GM foods in a
responsible manner. We hereby call upon these bodies to face the facts about
the hazards and uphold their duties by taking more responsible actions.
Following is a summary of the hazards of GM foods and the inadequacies of
governmental response, with a list of our specific demands for remedial
action.
A. Hazards of GM Foods
1. Numerous experts assert that recombinant DNA technology differs from
conventional breeding and entails a distinct set of risks. Among these risks
is the potential for generating new toxins, carcinogens and allergens.
2. Because such harmful substances can be novel and never before seen in any
of the species involved in the gene transfer, they are essentially
unpredictable and cannot be adequately detected by the compositional
analyses currently in use.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) files reveal that its own staff
scientists also recognised the unique hazards of GM foods, warned about them
in numerous memos to administrators, and asserted the need for toxicological
feeding tests using the whole food to screen for the presence of unexpected
harmful substances. (Photocopies of memos by FDA experts are posted at
www.biointegrity.org )
4. Renowned experts have submitted declarations to a U.S. federal court that
GM foods could be dangerous and that there is no reliable evidence showing
any have been demonstrated safe through appropriate tests. The tests
currently relied on in the EU do not adequately screen for the range of
potential negative effects identified by these and many other experts
(including those at the FDA).
5. The inadequacy of the current tests is evident from the failure of the
OECD conference on GM foods in February, 2000 to meet a formal challenge to
provide evidence that even one GM food has been demonstrated safe.
6. Besides unique risks to humans, GM foods pose unique risks to the
environment: creation of super weeds and super viruses, destruction of
biodiversity, pollution of soil, and many others.
B. Irresponsible Government Behaviour
7. Despite the numerous warnings of its scientists, the U.S. FDA's official
policy statement of May, 1992 claims: "The agency is not aware of any
information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from
other foods in any meaningful or uniform way...." It also claims GM foods
can be marketed without having been tested because there is overwhelming
agreement among scientists that they are safe.
8. If the facts about the unique risks and the scientific concerns had been
acknowledged, no GM foods would yet have come market in the U.S. or Europe,
since if the U.S. had not approved them, the EU would not have done so. It
is only through deception that GM foods were introduced, and their continued
sale depends on continuation of the deception.
9. Consequently, the marketing of GM foods in the EU is contrary to the
guiding principle of the EU's food law, which is based on the precautionary
principle. (e.g. Green Paper: General Principles of Food Law in the EU, 30
April 1997, in which the European Commission states it "...will be guided in
its risk analysis by the precautionary principle, in cases where the
scientific basis is insufficient or some uncertainty exists.")
10. Further, large quantities of meat, milk and eggs from animals raised on
GM feed are currently sold throughout Europe without any requirement for
labelling. U.S. FDA experts stated these products could be hazardous, but
their warnings were covered up and the tests they called for have not been
conducted. (See FDA document #10 at www.biointegrity.org )
THEREFORE, in light of the above facts, we, the Green Parties of Europe,
call upon the European Parliament and European Commission: (a) to promptly
remove all GM foods (including GM animal feeds and products derived from
them) from EU markets, (b) to ban their further introduction, and (c) to
clearly resolve that no GM food will be considered for future approval
unless and until it has been definitively demonstrated to be safe for the
consumer and for the environment. If the EC or EP believes that a particular
GM food has in fact been established safe, we demand they provide all
original testing data, along with an explanation of how such tests have
monitored for the presence of unintended, novel harmful substances. Unless
we receive such documentation within 30 days for a particular product, we
will conclude it has not been demonstrated safe. Further, we plan to submit
any data we might be given to independent experts for review. Each distinct
gene insertion must be evaluated independently, even for varieties of the
same species produced by one manufacturer.
We further call on every national government in Europe to: (a) take similar
measures and (b) redirect funding of agricultural biotechnology to research
on and implementation of safe and sustainable farming practices that do not
rely on genetic engineering or synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
Stockholm 26 November 2000
European Federation of Green Parties (EFGP)
Arnold Cassola, General Secretary
Marian Coyne, spokeswoman
Pekka Haavisto, spokesman
European Parliament - room PHS 2C85
rue Wiertz, 1047 Brussels, Belgium
ph: 32 2 284 51 35, fax : 32 2 284 91 35
email : EFGP@europarl.eu.int
http//: www.europeangreens.org