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]/
