CPE: Euro farmers association against GE
The Coordination Paysanne Europeenne (CPE)
is the EU umbrella organisation of small-
and medium-size and organic farmers organisations.
There follows a press release from CPE about an
action against Novartis, and a long strong anti-GE declaration
from them. If you are short of time, don't bother to read it all, perhaps
the demands at the end of the msg are the most interesting: including a
ban on Bt maize, moratorium on GE crops, reform of regulations, openness
of research and information, and liability provisions for any genetech
disasters.
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:18:01 GMT To:
PRESS RELEASE Brussels, 18 April 1997
International action week against gentechnology:
* CPE takes part in a action against genetically modified maize in front of Novartis ... and
* publishes its overall stand about genetic engineering
technologies in agriculture.
On 21 April 1997, CPE will take part in an action in front of Novartis in Basel (Switzerland). The participating organizations will hand over a letter to Novartis, signed by some 100 organizations, where they ask the genetically modified maize to be withdrawn from the market.
The organizations feel that they are supported
by the European Parliament, who has adopted
on 07/04/97 a resolution (407 votes For, 2 against, 19 abstentions) where
the European Parliament confirms that food security must be a priority
matter of concern in any decision and asks
for suspending the import authorization for maize, notified by Ciba
Geigy (now: Novartis).
The action in front of Novartis is part of the International action week (21 to 27 April 1997) against genetic technologies and cloning. Several actions are foreseen in : USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Austria, Netherlands,Spain, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, New Zealand, Georgia (former USSR), Ethiopia, Brazil,..
Novartis has made an application in France and Spain in order to register its modified maize in the catalogue of the cultivable varieties.
CPE asks the Spanish government to refuse this
request, as the French government has already done it. For this occasion,
CPE publishes its stand on the use of genetic technologies in agriculture
(see annex) and asks for a moratorium on the use of genetic engineering
in agriculture.
For further information on this action, please contact this organisation:
Basler Appell (Switzerland) phone 0041-61-6920672 fax
0041-61-6932011 For further information about the international action days, please contact: Ronnie CUMMINS, Pure Food Campaign (USA), phone 001 - 218 - 2264164 fax 001-218-2264157
EMail: alliance@mr.net.
See also the CPE press releases of 20 December
96.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1997
CPE asks for a moratorium on the use of gentechnology in agriculture.
CPE position on gentechnology
Present situation
The use of genetic engineering represents a
new step, after mechanization and chemistry, in the
industrialization of the production process. The
financial issues at stake will be gigantic
if production depends on genetic engineering
produce, and we witness a huge concentration at the international
level of the seeds companies and chemical companies.
On the other hand, a great part of genetic technologies
is used in the microbiology field, whether for production
or processing of agricultural "raw material". We are getting
closer to the ultimate step of food production industrialization,
which could do completely without farmers, or even
without soil. The majority of the investments goes towards designing
produce which can at the same time increase the dependency
of the farmers vis-a-vis these companies and increase the
benefits of the companies. This is why the majority of the produce
are linked to hybrids, plants resisting to one herbicide of
the company, animal growth hormones.
Terminology
CPE is against the use of the word "bio-technology",
invented by industry in order to give a positive
image to the public opinion about genetic
engineering. This term does not entail, of course, the
word genetic. We would rather use the word "gentechnology".
Lack of transparency and forcing of the multinationals
There is no transparency in development and marketing. Companies try to impose their produce against the consumers' will.The scientific basis of genetic engineering are still poorly known. The results come mainly from lengthy "hit and miss" tests. The "successes" are rare and a little bit hazardous.
These results are put on the market in order to
get the benefits out of the investments made
in research, but they are in no way answers
to the farming issues. Market is forced to get adapted to produce,
instead of having these produce meeting the market's needs.
Does Gentechnology bring about progress for
agriculture and food?
CPE has expressed itself in favour of sustainable family farming . Gentechnology , up till now, has not offered any beneficial solution for farmers or consumers as regards present agricultural problems.It does not support our aim, and is even against it:
- - it increases farmers' dependency vis-a-vis the multinationals. For example: looking for F1-hybrids, using this technology.
- - it involves substantial hazards forconsumers, marketing food without knowing its consequences on health.
- - it involves substantial hazards for environment: it is not possible to control the dissemination of genetically modified organisms (GMO). This means that it is impossible to foresee its effects on environment, mainly on micro-organisms, which get multiplied at a very high speed.
We do not need this technology, the way it is
developed today. Industrialization of agriculture has already provoked
so many damage. Therefore we don't want to run useless risks.
Genetic engineering will not solve the starvation
problem in the world.
With the green revolution, we were promised that
hunger would disappear. Today, once again
we hear the same with genetic engineering.
But hunger is progressing: it is not a problem of production
technique, but a political issue: i.e. the fair distribution
of production and consumption (cf CPE text on the FAO
World Summit in Rome, November 1996). Instead of flaunting a new
technical solution in order to get public credits for private
research, instead of getting involved in the patenting of living
probeings coming from gentechnology, which would be done at
the detriment of the Southern countries, it is urgent to start
concrete actions in order to safeguard the genetic resources
which are plundered by the Northern countries and already
highly endangered by intensive farming.
The situation at the world level
The big companies use the poor presence of the
public authorities at the international level
in order to push forward their interests.
Through the GATT agreement, the Codex Alimentarius,
and their behaviour on the markets, the companies put
the populations in front of an accomplished fact, as to the introduction
of gentechnology. Modified maize and soya are good examples
of such practices! Private companies impose their rhythm,
the public authorities just follow and cover them.
Ethical debate
The ethical issues are essential in the debate
on genetic engineering. But they are in fact
part of a questioning of each citizen towards
society. As a European professional organization,
CPE will tackle only with ethical issues in the agriculture
and food areas. However CPE invites each citizen to wonder
seriously about the ethical issues at stake in the use of
genetic engineering, in all its application fields. Isn't the use
of totally alien genes (for example animal genes into plants or
vice versa) going to completely change the natural evolution of
the living world, started some 5 billion years ago? CPE questions
also very seriously athe need for society to develop xeno-transplant
(organ production by animals for human transplants)
and medicine production by animals. CPE asks for the creation
of a European Ethics Committee, independent from the economic
power, which decides about the limits that cannot be crossed
in research and application. This Committee should not only
aim at meeting the so called ever increasing "needs" of
geneticists financed by private industry.
What is the CPE answer to the present situation
?
Since gentechnology developed for agriculture
and food up till now has not brought about
any advantage neither for farmers nor for
consumers, since a large debate within society has not taken place,and
since the hazards are far too unknown, CPE proposes a moratorium
on the introduction of gentechnology in agriculture.
I. CPE asks farmers to react against the introduction
of produce such as modified maize and
modified soya.
Farmers have their own responsibility. They have a decision-making power as far as theirsupplies are concerned.
CPE proposes them to demand transparency from
each supplier as to the composition of the
produce they buy (input, cattle food), indicating
whether they have produce with gentechnology, in order
to decide whether they want or they do not want to buy,knowing
thoroughly the produce. CPE asks the human food and animal
feed processors and retailers to refuse the use of produce
coming from gentechnology.
II. Changing the existing regulation to meet the society's needs.
Precaution principle must prevail. We need rules
which market only produce which are beneficial
for the citizens. Present rules almost do
not prohibit any marketing. They exist mainly
in order to reassure the public! Moreover, industry wants a
greater de-regulation. Industry representatives should be banned
from the commissions and the committees which give their opinions
to the policy makers about the permission for marketing (and
they may only be heard in these committees and not be a member).Public
authorities must react and intervene in a stronger
manner and guarantee the assessment according to the society's
needs and not to the industry's needs.
III. Creating a total information access for
the citizens: guaranteed b y
European legislation.
IV. Defining an agriculture and food policy which is consumer reliant.
Consumers do not really rely on this technology,
according to opinion polls. This is due to the real hazardsand problems
which are already visible. Let us draw the lessons from the BSE! A way
of producing, processing and retailing should be found, which will draw
the confidence of the consumers (see CPE proposals).
V. Make the companies penally accountable in case of accident or destruction ofproduction methods implemented in family farming.
The BSE scandal cannot be repeated: dangerous
produce are marketed and the responsible people are difficult to find afterwards...It
is up to the companies to prove that the produce or technologies they develop
are not dangerous on the short and long run for the human beings, animals,
plants, environment, and not to the community
at large to find those pieces of proof. In order not to repeat
the EBS (BSE) tragedy, the public authorities who take the decisions about
marketing permission should be identified and make accountable in advance.
VI. Towards a public independant research,
oriented to the needs of society.
Today industry is hiding the problems, and creating
great hopes in order to mobilize for private research huge amounts of money
coming from the pubic funds. Public money must be spent for supporting
independent research, whose starting point is the problems to be solved,
and not a technology to sell. Public authorities have also the obligation
to assess through research the "added" value for society and
the hazards involved: and this is not done at present. An end has to be
put to the financing of public research projects by private industry. Substantial
investment should be made in research for socially and environmentally
sustainable technology.
VII. Present issues (see also CPE press releases)
1) genetically modified maize: CPE makes an appeal
to all the farmers and consumers to get mobilised
against this scandalous surrendering to the commercial interests of a few
companies.
At the agronomic level, manipulated maize growing, done in order to produce a biological toxin against pests (bacillus thurgensis) is a real attack of the chemical companies against organic methods (which have been using this biologic insecticide for decades). The large scale development of resistant insects will ruin this practice. At the environmental level, the resistance of the manipulated maize to the glufosinat herbicide will increase the use of this herbicide. As to human and animal health, the hazard for humans and animals to become resistant to the antibiotic, included in this manipulated maize, cannot be neglected.
Therefore there was at least three good reasons
for banning this transgenic maize, which is
not needed neither by farmers nor by consumers.
2) Modified soya: CPE against EU importing genetically
modified soya. CPE is against the forcing
make by Monsanto, trying at all costs to market its genetically modified
soya in the EU, without any public debate, or appropriate rules. The hazards
for the consumers are poorly known. But the negative effects for environment
do exist: a persistent and probably increasing use of pesticides, such
as Round-up, and the propagation of the weed's herbicide resistance.
3) The European Directive adopted in january 1997
on Novel foods shows once again the priority
given by the EU to the industry's interest, rather than to a principle
of precaution vis a vis the consumers. This leaves the door open to a new
accelerated phase for the industrialisation process of the food production.
No lesson has been drawn from the mad cow scandal. While they claim for
transparency, the consumers will not be able to choose and will not know
more about the food processing, which goes everyday further and further
away from agricultural production.
4) CPE is against patents on living beings. The
directive proposed by the European Commission
is almost the same as the proposal rejected by the European Parliament
in 1995. CPE asks the EP not to accept such an arrogant step taken by the
Commission, and to reject this new proposal.
5) Growth hormones for milk(BST), pork( PST),
sheep(OST), salmon, etc... CPE asks their
definite ban.
VIII. CPE calls on to the citizen consumers for debate and action .
The future of food is too important to be left
in the hands of industry. CPE makes an appeal
to the consumers/citizens to do all their best in order to impose a society
debate clarifying the ethics, economic, health and environment issues at
stake. CPE asks the farmers, trade unions, associations, consumers, to
carry out actions in order to inform the population, and stem the
interference, without debate, of those technologies
in the food process as well as in other fields.
Peter Morris, GE Campaigner, Greenpeace Int, Amsterdam
voice: +31 20 5249529 email: pmorris@mail.nli.gl3