Re: [lingkungan] Dukungan diperlukan untuk pengamanan hayati di ASEAN

[Lembaga Ornitologi & Informasi Satwa]

Hira yang baik,
Kami mendukung atas pernyataan yang akan dikeluarkan.

Salam,
LORIES
At 08:24 PM 10/17/99 +0700, you wrote:
>Teman-teman yang baik, 
>
>Mungkin masih ingat beberapa waktu lalu kita pernah mendesak sekretariat
>untuk Konvensi PBB agar membolehkan partisipasi LSM dalam sidang mengenai
>pengamanan hayati dari produk rekayasa genetika. Rupanya, persebaran produk
>rekayasa genetika juga akan dilegalkan di tingkat asean. Tentu saja, tanpa
>pengamanan,kita tidak dapat mendiamkan hal ini. 
>
>Pada tanggl 28-29 Oktober nanti para menteri ASEAN akan bersidang mengenai
>rekayasa genetika dan distribusinya. Hal ini perlu kita cermati dengan
>memberikan pernyataan bahwa kita peduli dengan keanekaragaman hayati dan
>bahwa harus ada pengamanan untuk distribusi produk hasil rekayasa genetik. 
>
>Berikut surat tersebut yang dibuat oleh Third World Network Malaysia. Jika
>berminat tanda tangan silahkan ke alamat langsung yang tertera di bagian
>bawah atau kepada saya sebelum tanggal 24 Oktober. Bila anda tidak berminat
>mohon petisi ini jangan digusur. Terima kasih 
>
>Salam
>Hira
>
>Dear friends,
>
>As the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products
>derived from such organisms increase in Europe and North America, spreading
>now to Thailand and other ASEAN countries, a little known activity has been
>going on at the ASEAN governmental level.
>
>A meeting of ASEAN senior officials and Ministers on agriculture and forest
>is scheduled for 28-29 October, 1999 in Brunei. The agenda will include
>consideration of issues related to a set of draft ASEAN Guidelines on
>Agriculture-related Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) [and their
>Products]. We are very concerned that some countries may be advocating a
>position that is more pro-trade than pro-biosafety. The officials from the
>agriculture and forestry ministries in this ASEAN committee appear to be
>adopting a different position from the environment officials of their
>respective countries who have been undertaking tough negotiations on the
>international biosafety protocol under the Convention on Biological
>Diversity.
>
>In September 1997 the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF)
>endorsed Singapore's initiative on a regional programme to harmonise
>regulations for agricultural biotechnology products. An ASEAN Task Force on
>the Harmonisation of Regulations for Agricultural Products derived from
>Biotechnology, chaired by Singapore, was established in April 1998.
>Singapore hopes to be the regional centre for biotechnology research and
>development, capitalising on the commercialisation of biotechnology
>products.
>
>Draft ASEAN Guidelines on Agriculture-related Genetically Modified
>Organisms (GMOs) [and their Products] are now being considered, with a
>number of countries advocating positions that we fear will undermine
>biodiversity conservation, human and animal health and safety as well as
>the environment. These positions include:
>
>The Guidelines should only cover GMOs for release, and exclude products
>derived from GMOs;
>The Guidelines should adopt the FAO definition of "substantial
>equivalence";
>The Guidelines should exclude issues of liability and compensation,
>socio-economic considerations and labelling.
>
>There appears to be no consensus yet amongst the Task Force members, and
>little or no coordination with environmental officials who have been
>negotiating in the international biosafety protocol sessions under the
>Convention on Biological Diversity. In those negotiations,  ASEAN member
>countries have been part of the Like-minded Group of more than 100
>Developing Countries which has firmly advocated that the protocol's scope
>must cover all GMOs and their products, include provisions on liability and
>redress, and take into account socio-economic factors in regulating the
>use, handling and transboundary movement of GMOs and their products. 
>
>The Like-minded Group has also consistently maintained that the
>Precautionary Principle must be the over-arching scientific basis in the
>granting of any approvals for GMOs and their products. As explained in the
>attached NGO statement, the "substantial equivalence" approach is
>unscientific, increasingly discredited and the use of which for biosafety
>assessment would actually allow hazardous GMOs and products to enter our
>countries.
>
>It is therefore of the utmost importance that any guidelines adopted by
>ASEAN should support and not undermine the position of the Like-minded
>Group in the international negotiations due to resume in January 2000, nor
>prevent strong and comprehensive national biosafety laws from being adopted
>by ASEAN countries.
>
>We would also like to point out that it was the United States, the biggest
>exporter of GMOs and their products, that led five other countries to
>effectively stall the international biosafety negotiations scheduled to
>conclude in February 1999, by rejecting the inclusion of agricultural
>commodities, products of GMOs, and the Precautionary Principle. These same
>countries, supported by many European countries, also reject the inclusion
>of liability/compensation and socio-economic considerations. While growing
>public pressure is leading to labelling laws in Australia, New Zealand,
>Japan and possibly even the US (Europe is already requiring segregation and
>labelling of GMOs and their products), these same countries are still
>against any international law requiring consumer labelling.
>
>In addition, we have received reports over the past two years that the US
>and Australia have been pressuring developing countries which are vocal on
>biosafety (including some ASEAN countries) to align with their unacceptable
>positions in the international biosafety negotiations. We are concerned
>that such pressure, directly or otherwise, may be continuing.
>
>It is therefore crucial that the meeting of ASEAN senior officials and
>Ministers on agriculture and forest in Brunei (28-29 October, 1999) adopt
>strong biosafety positions, and the proposed Guidelines be open to public
>discussion in ASEAN countries. 
>
>We urgently urge you to do the following:
>
>1.     Circulate and sign on to the attached statement by sending us your name,
>organisation, address and contact numbers/email. PLEASE RESPOND BY 25
>OCTOBER, 1999;
>2.     Send the statement to relevant government officials/Ministers in your
>country;
>3.     Lobby your delegations to the Brunei meeting to adopt the
>recommendations in the NGO statement;
>4.     Alert the media to these developments;
>5.     Call for coordination among various ministries in each country to
>support strong and coherent biosafety policies and laws at the national,
>regional and international level;
>6.     Call for open public discussions on national positions relating to
>biotechnology and biosafety; and
>7.     Continue to send us information on your monitoring of your government's
>position on these issues.
>
>Third World Network will be forwarding the statement to the ASEAN
>Secretariat in Jakarta, too. 
>
>Thank you.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>S.M. Mohd. Idris
>President
>Third World Network
>
>Fax: 604-226 4505
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>NGOs CALL FOR STRONG BIOSAFETY LAWS AND POLICIES IN ASEAN
>
>Statement to the meeting of Senior Officials and Ministers on Agriculture
>and Forestry (SOM-AMAF) in Brunei, 28-29 October 1999.
>
>
>As ASEAN senior officials and Ministers on agriculture and forestry meet in
>Brunei on 28-29 October 1999, we the undersigned organisations and
>individuals, would like to express some concerns and recommendations
>relating to the proposed ASEAN Guidelines on the Release of
>Agriculture-related Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
>
>Introduction
>
>ASEAN has played a central role in putting the issue of biosafety on the
>international agenda since the late 1980s. 
>
>Malaysia, against strong resistance by a number of OECD countries
>(especially the USA), gained widespread support to include a provision for
>a biosafety protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
>Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines were amongst the leading developing
>countries which successfully worked towards the adoption of comprehensive
>terms of reference for the negotiations of an international biosafety
>protocol, including the elements of liability and compensation, and
>socio-economic considerations in assessing GMOs and products derived from
>GMOs. 
>
>In February 1999, the US led 5 other countries to bring international
>negotiations on a biosafety protocol to a standstill by blocking the
>inclusion of agricultural commodities in the Advanced Informed Agreement
>procedure proposed by the draft protocol. ASEAN countries at that
>negotiation session had joined more than 100 like-minded developing
>countries to insist on the inclusion of this sector. The major implications
>for biodiversity, food security and health posed by genetically engineered
>seeds, given new and emerging scientific evidence, call for utmost caution
>amongst our countries, and NGOs fully supported the strong stand taken by
>the Like-Minded Group.
>
>As international negotiations for a biosafety protocol resume in January
>2000, and national laws are being formulated in a number of countries, it
>is crucial that ASEAN Governments take full account of the latest
>scientific data and remain consistent with positions held at the
>international level.
>
>Therefore we call on the forthcoming meeting of Senior Officials and
>Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry (SOM-AMAF) to confirm their
>commitment to sound science and sustainable agriculture and forest
>management, in line with the protection of human health, biodiversity and
>the environment.
>
>Any work on ASEAN guidelines should be consistent with national positions
>adopted at the international level, and be coordinated with other sectors
>because of the inherent multi-disciplinary nature of biosafety. 
>
>
>In particular, we urge delegates to adopt the following:
>
>1.  The Precautionary Principle must replace the concept of  "substantial
>equivalence" as the scientific basis for biosafety laws and policies
>
>The substantial equivalence approach is increasingly open to question, and
>a recent letter in the scientific journal, Nature (October 7, 1999), has
>raised the debate over this concept which was first introduced by the OECD
>in 1993, and then adopted by the FAO and WHO in 1996. According to the
>authors (Millstone, Brunner and Mayer): "Showing that a genetically
>modified food is chemically similar to its natural counterpart is not
>adequate evidence that it is safe for human consumption". They called for
>the approach to be "abandoned in favour of one that includes biological,
>toxicological and immunological tests rather than merely chemical ones".
>
>A 1998 critique of the FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report
>highlighted this concept, upon which most safety assessment is currently
>based, as "unscientific and arbitrary. It is vague and ill-defined; it is
>flexible, malleable and open to interpretation. There are no defined tests
>that products have to undergo to establish substantial equivalence. It is
>so indiscriminating that unintended changes such as toxins and allergens,
>could easily escape detection" (Ho and Steinbrecher, 1998). 
>
>Dr. Henry Miller, the founding director of the US FDA's Office of
>Biotechnology and a member of the OECD Group of National Experts on
>Biotechnology, in response to the October Nature letter, wrote that
>"substantial equivalence was intended to be a conceptual tool for
>government regulators, not a scientific formulation". (In 1993, the OECD
>Group of National Experts on Biotechnology  described the concept of
>substantial equivalence in new foods as merely "a kind of regulatory
>shorthand".)
>
>In the international biosafety protocol negotiations which will resume in
>January 2000, the overwhelming majority of countries hold the position that
>the Precautionary Principle should be the over-arching principle for risk
>assessment and decision-making. This is particularly urgent, in the light
>of new and growing scientific data on the health and environmental hazards
>of GMOs and their products. This principle is also recognised in the
>Convention on Biological Diversity, under which the biosafety protocol is
>being negotiated. Under this principle, lack of scientific certainty or
>consensus regarding the potential adverse effects of a GMO should not be
>used as a basis for postponement of preventive measures.
>
>We call on Ministers to affirm their commitment to the Precautionary
>Principle, and to be bold to put biodiversity conservation, food security,
>health and community livelihoods over short-term commercial expectations in
>an industry that is even losing investors' confidence.
>
>2.     Seeds for planting, food, feed and processing as well as products
>derived from biotechnology must be included in all biosafety assessments
>
>There is no difference between genetically engineered seeds earmarked for
>planting and those for food, feed and processing as they carry the same
>potential risks or hazards. There is no guarantee that seeds for food, feed
>and processing will not end up in fields, either deliberately or
>accidentally. 
>
>The September 1999 shocking discovery of trangenic Bt cotton plants in
>Thailand, where open field trials are prohibited under the country's plant
>quarantine law, is a clear example of the kind of problems that accompany
>the Pandora's Box of GMOs.
>
>Products derived from genetically engineered organisms must also be
>included as emerging scientific evidence now show that these pose just as
>serious a danger as GMOs themselves. For example, a considerable amount of
>recombinant DNA persist in soy proteins, a product of transgenic soya
>beans. It can be transferred to the microflora in the intestinal tract of
>humans and animals, and subsequently to the environment (Tappeser et al,
>1999).
>
>Thus, biosafety assessment needs to be comprehensive and rigorous, covering
>all GMOs and their products. 
>
>3.     Liability and compensation, and socio-economic factors need to be
>integrated into biosafety laws and policies
>
>The Like-Minded Group of developing countries in the biosafety protocol
>negotiations, which includes ASEAN countries, has consistently advocated
>for the inclusion of these issues in the international agreement. These are
>of particular importance to developing countries which are targetted for
>the sale of transgenic products and even for commercial production. 
>
>A comprehensive assessment of any research and development, import or
>release of GMOs and their products must necessarily incorporate
>socio-economic considerations before any decision relating to such
>activities is made. At stake is the wild and domesticated biodiversity of
>the region and the livelihoods of millions of small farmers.
>
>Though some ASEAN countries may hope to be exporters of transgenic products
>in the future, the region will essentially be net importers of such
>products. At the same time, consumer demands are escalating for safe food
>and other products in developed countries. 
>
>It is therefore critical that ASEAN countries adopt high national and
>regional biosafety standards, in addition to continued efforts to forge a
>strong international protocol.
>
>4.     There must be labelling of transgenic organisms and products
>
>The European Union has legislation requiring segregation and labelling of
>GMOs and their products. Japan, Australia and New Zealand are also in the
>process of formulating labelling laws. In the US, there is growing consumer
>demand for labelling, and congressional hearings will soon be taking place
>on this issue.
>
>Therefore, in addition to the right of consumers to choose their products
>in the market based on full information, it would be totally unacceptable
>for ASEAN governments to label for export but not for domestic use and
>consumption.
>
>ASEAN countries should thus require labelling of all transgenic products,
>whether imported or produced domestically.
>
>Organisations and individuals endorsing this statement:
>
>Third World Network
>Consumers Association of Penang (Malaysia)
>Sahabat Alam Malaysia
>KONPHALINDO (Indonesia)
>
>
>
>
>
>For more information, and to sign on to this statement, please contact:
>
>Third World Network
>228 Macalister Road
>10400 Penang
>Malaysia
>
>Fax: 604-226 4505
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/lingkungan@indoglobal.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/lingkungan@indoglobal.com/