Hi Hira,
I'll do it, perhaps ke Pak Effendy dan Pak Untung dulu ya...Menteri baru kan
belum masuk ke kantor ku. nanti biar beliau yang menyampaikan.
Tuti
"Hira D.G." wrote:
> Teman-teman yang baik,
>
> Beberapa waktu lalu, saya mengirimkan draft pernyataan untuk mendesak para
> menteri di ASEAN melahirkan peraturan keselamatan hayati yang kuat. Berikut
> adalah statement versi terakhir dan akan dibawa oleh Chee Yoke LIng ke
> Brunei. Kami minta tolong bagi teman-teman yang punya koneksi atau jalur ke
> para menteri bersangkutan (pertanian, lingkungan, teknologi dan kehutanan)
> untuk menyampaikan pernyataan ini. Untuk Mas Harry, bisakah dimuat di koran
> anda dan Jakarta Post? Terima kasih
> Salam
> Hira
>
> 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 meeting of Senior Officials and Ministers of
> Agriculture and Forestry (SOM-AMAF) to confirm its 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.
>
> We urge the Brunei meeting not to adopt the draft Guidelines or take
> positions that could undermine or pre-empt the international biosafety
> negotiations which are to resume in January 2000.
>
> In particular, we urge delegates to consider 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
> Asian Indigenous Women's Network
> Asia-Pacific Peoples' Environment Network
> Consumers International
> Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia
> Sahabat Alam Malaysia
> KONPHALINDO, Indonesia
> Indonesian Consumers Association/Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen, Indonesia
> WWF-Indonesia
> Indonesian Center for Environmental Law
> Pesticides Action Network - Indonesia
> Pelangi Indonesia
> Lories, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
> Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy
> Research and Education), Philippines
> IDEAL, Sarawak, Malaysia
> Riza V Tjahjadi, Indonesia
> Dwi R Muhtaman, Indonesia
> Virza Sasmitawaidjaja, Indonesia
> RobertoVerzola, Secretary-General, Philippine Greens
> BioThai, Thailand
>
> Concerned groups and individuals from non-ASEAN countries:
>
> The Edmonds Institute, USA
> International Center for Technology Assessment, USA
> RAPAL, Uruguay
> Viva la Tierra!(Mexico)
> Red de Comunicaci�n de Morelos
> LA REDada
> Seattle Walkout
> Seattle Direct Action Network
> Accion Global de los Pueblos
> Ecoropa, France
> International People's Health Council, Nicaragua
> Center for Information and Advisory Services in Health (CISAS), Nicaragua
> Green Choice of New York State, USA
> Maine Green Party, USA
> Gaia Trust, England
> Wellington Anti-MAI Campaign, New Zealand
> FAIR NZ
> GreenBeing, Inc., USA
> Oasis Gardens Community Supported Agriculture Project, USA
> Red de Accion en Plaguicidas de Chile, Chile
> PACT of Western Massachusetts, USA
> Friends of the Earth New Zealand
> Zululand Environmental Alliance (ZEAL), South Africa
> Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), USA
> Women's Environment Network, UK
> The ZHABA Collective, The Netherlands
> A SEED Europe, The Netherlands
> Ecologistas En Accion, Spain
> Friends of the Earth Uruguay
> The CornerHouse, UK
> Espacio de Salud, A.C., Mexico
> Brian Tokar, USA
> Ana Filippini, Uruguay
> Areli Carreon, Mexico
> Christine von Weizsaecker, Germany
> Rev Dorothy A Harper, USA
> Maria Mies, Germany
> Kate O'Connell, England
> Robert A McCroskey, Canada
> Helen Ellery, UK
> Gerald Lock, New Zealand
> Kurt D Schanaman, USA
> Ieva Zalite, Latvia
> Dr James M Phelps, South Africa
> Dr. Ricarda A Steinbrecher, UK
> Fatima Pelica, Norwich, UK
> Manoel Bassoi, Brazil
> Mika Iba, Japan
>
> [A - 16 (O) + 4 (I) = 20]
> [N - 31 (O) + 17 (I) = 48]
> (68 as at Monday, October 25, 1999, 4.00 PM)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
