Controversial Issues at Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Brazil

Also, check out http://www.reclaimthecommons.net for updates about
the April 8 - 10 Reclaim the Commons Convergence in Chicago!

And for more about the Biosafety Summit in Brazil, visit http://www.indymedia.org

============================================================

Subject: Controversial Issues at Biosafety Protocol Meeting

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The third meeting of the parties (MOP3) of the UN Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety is taking place in Brazil this week, (13th-17th March) in the
week prior to the eighth conference of the parties (COP8) for the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity (20th-15th March)

The Biosafety Protocol is a critical piece of international legislation
on the regulation of GMOs. It is the Biosafety Protocol that grants
countries the right to apply the Precautionary Principle when considering
GMO applications, and the right to reject them if they suspect that
there may be health, environmental and socio-economic risks associated
with GMOs. The Africa Group was a leading force in pushing for high
regulatory standards during negotiations, and the Biosafety Protocol has been
in force since September 2003.

At the MOP3 meeting, there are still some issues to be resolved on the
practicalities of regulation of transboundary movements of GMOs. On the
issue of traceability & labelling, New Zealand are expected to push for
shipments to only be obliged to say "May contain GMOs" which is
uninformative and meaningless, whereas all other countries are agreed that the
more specific "Contains GMOs" is necessary to ensure that countries can
be informed enough to be able to accept or reject shipments and remain
GMO-free. Unfortunately, New Zealand appear to be acting on behalf of
the US (who are not party to the Biosafety Protocol and cannot therefore
participate in negotiations), and blocking consensus. Please see the
call to action from Friends of the Earth below, and send a fax or email
to the New Zealand Government.

The other issue where progress may be slow, is on the issue of
liability and who should carry responsibility if non-GM crops are contaminated
or if GM crops are shown to cause harm. Of course the industry will be
lobbying hard to avoid taking responsibility should any problems arise.

The need for strong biosafety legislation and implementation became
apparent last week with the release of the first report from the GM
Contamination Register, co-ordinated by Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK. The
report showed the extent of GM contamination of non-GM crops (and included
information on the sale of GM pork as meat), and showed that GM
contamination was present in many countries where it has not even been
commercially approved.

Grupo Reflexion Rural, the organisation which first alerted the world
to the disastrous impact of GM soya in Argentina, are also planning to
release their new report this week, which details the human rights
abuses associated with GM soya expansion that have taken place in Paraguay.
It is cases like these that demonstrate the devastating social impact
that GM crops may bring to developing countries, and the need therefore
for strong biosafety laws that allow countries to reject GM altogether.

Best wishes,

Teresa

**************************************************
1. Is NZ a US "Stalking-Horse" on GE Issue?
Press Release from the Green Party, New Zealand. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0603/S00223.htm
2. Don't Block the World from Strong Biosafety Laws
Cyber Action from Friends of the Earth. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6341
3. World Treaty on GMO Trade Set to Spark New Tensions
Article from Reuters. Date: 10 March 2006
Jeremy Smith
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx
type=reutersEdge&storyID=2006-03-13T140547Z_01_KWA350531_RTRUKOC_0_US-GMO-TRADE.xml
4. Biotech Foods: David Versus Goliath. Developing Countries Fight with
Big Business over Safety Laws.
Press Release from Friends of the Earth International. Date: 10 March
2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6329
5. First Contamination Report Reveals Worldwide Illegal Spread of
Genetically Engineered Crops
Press Release from Greenpeace. Date: 8 March 2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/first-contamination-report-rev
6. Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI): Profile of Pro-GM
Lobby Group in Curitiba
GM Watch. Date: 13 March 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6336
7. Human and Environmental Rights Violations Related to GM Soy
Expansion in Paraguay.
Press Release from Grupo Reflexion Rural. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6337
*****************************************************

1. Is NZ a US "Stalking-Horse" on GE Issue?

Press Release from the Green Party, New Zealand. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0603/S00223.htm

New Zealand appears to be a "stalking-horse" for the United States in
blocking consensus on the labelling of living GE organisms traded
between countries, Greens Environment Spokesperson Nandor Tanczos says.

Last May in Montreal, New Zealand and Brazil prevented an international
meeting - the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol -
from reaching any decision on labelling of traded living GE organisms.
This week, the third meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol
is being held in Brazil.

"All the other 117 countries attending the Montreal meeting supported a
call for shipments of living genetically engineered organisms, being
traded for use in food, feed or processing, to be labelled with the words
'does contain GMOs'," Mr Tanczos says.

"Has New Zealand simply become a stalking-horse for the United States -
which is not a party to the convention? Does this explain why our
foreign affairs officials at the meeting in Montreal refused to give reasons
for our objections to labelling?"

New Zealand insisted on the wording "may contain GMOs" and refused to
give any explanation for rejecting the "does contain GMOs" wording. The
"may contain GMOs" wording is largely uninformative just as "may
contain traces of nuts" is uninformative when it occurs on every item of
processed food in supermarkets.

"The wording 'may contain GMOs' puts the onus on importing countries to
test the shipments for GE organisms rather than on the exporting
country where the responsibility should lie," Mr Tanczos says.

Many developing countries do not have the human or financial resources
to test shipments and appropriate labelling would help them protect
their biodiversity just as NZ is able to protect its
biodiversity through our rules concerning biosecurity and import of GE
organisms.

"At the opening address, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Ahmed Djoghlaf, emphasised the importance of
reaching agreement on documentation of bulk shipments of living GE
organisms," Mr Tanczos says. "Reports indicate that Brazil will no longer oppose
full labelling. Will New Zealand be the only country to block
consensus?"

**************************************

2. Don't Block the World from Strong Biosafety Laws

Cyber Action from Friends of the Earth. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6341

Dear all

We urgently need to take action against the New Zealand government who
are
attempting to block the Biosafety Protocol from being implemented. The
negotiations are currently taking place in Curitiba in Brazil. We would
like
to ask you to send either a fax or, if not possible, an email to the
New
Zealand Prime Minister.

The key issue is whether developing countries will have the right to
know
whether shipments coming into their country contain genetically
modified
organisms. If they do not know if a shipment has GMOs in then they
cannot
implement any biosafety legislation. Their food and environment will
become
contaminated.

We have attached below a draft letter. Please feel free to edit it into
your
own words. Please send a fax as soon as possible. If you cannot then
please
send an email.

For further information on the Protocol:
http://www.haerlin.org/bsp/news//index.html

=====================================================
FAX Number: +64 4 473 3579

EMAIL
Helen Clark pm [at] ministers.govt.nz

Carbon copy:
Hon Parekura Horomia phoromia [at] ministers.govt.nz
Hon Jim Anderton janderton [at] ministers.govt.nz
Hon Phil Goff pgoff [at] ministers.govt.nz
Hon David Benson-Pope dbenson-pope [at] ministers.govt.nz
Hon Chris Carter ccarter [at] ministers.govt.nz
Hon Lianne Dalziel ldalziel [at] ministers.govt.nz

=======================================================
Don�t block the world from strong biosafety laws

Dear Prime Minister Helen Clark

I am writing to express my grave concern that New Zealand intends to
play a
blocking role on the issue of identification and documentation of
genetically modified organisms in food and feed at the Biosafety
Protocol
meeting currently being held in Curitiba, Brazil.

The Biosafety Protocol was born out of the visionary objectives of the
Rio
Earth Summit and is focused on protecting the world�s magnificent
biodiversity and human health from the risks associated with trade in
genetically modified organisms.

There are indications that New Zealand delegates instead intend to
undermine
consensus, as they did already at MOP2 in Montreal in 2005, and shut
down
agreement on precise and efficient wording within article 18.2(a) of
this
all-important environmental Protocol.

I am very concerned that New Zealand may remain the only nation
prepared to
block an international standard, designed to provide equal rights of
information and protection from the risks of GMOs to all citizens of
the
world.

The Protocol is most important for the world�s poorest nations who
often
lack dedicated biosafety legislation and the complex biosecurity
infrastructure that New Zealand enjoys. These nation�s food security
and
biodiversity are most at risk from unidentified and potentially illegal
imports of GMOs for food feed and processing.

In the spirit of New Zealand's good reputation as an international
citizen,
defender of the environment and advocate of sustainable development and
the
right of nations to know what is entering their borders, I urge you to
ensure that the New Zealand delegation in Brazil actively seek a
constructive solution to securing consensus on this core environmental
treaty.

Yours sincerely



*******************************************


3. World Treaty on GMO Trade Set to Spark New Tensions

Article from Reuters. Date: 10 March 2006
Jeremy Smith
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID=2006-03-13T140547Z_01_KWA350531_RTRUKOC_0_US-GMO-TRADE.xml

BRUSSELS, - Europe may be on a collision course with its major trading
partners as debate heats up over a treaty to regulate the global flow
of
genetically modified (GMO) foods, largely rejected by Europeans.
The European Union's sceptical stance on GMOs has long poisoned
relations
with biotech-friendly countries like the United States, Canada and
Argentina, where many consumers shrug off claims the products pose
health
or environmental risks.

And the EU may have lost moral ground after its GMO import policy was
criticised last month at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in a case
filed against it by the three major GMO growers. But that has not
changed
the view of most Europeans who shun GMO maize, soybeans and other crops
as
"Frankenstein Foods", leading retailers to keep them off shelves.

From the WTO, the biotech battleground now shifts to a U.N. treaty,
the
Cartagena Protocol, which came into force in 2003 and aims for
transparency and control in world GMO trade The protocol obliges
exporters
to provide more information about GMO products like maize and soybeans
to
recipient countries to help them decide whether to accept them.

Under its provisions, a nation may reject GMO imports or donations --
even
without scientific proof -- if it fears they pose a danger to
traditional
crops, undermine local cultures or cut the value of biodiversity to
indigenous communities. As of early March, 132 countries had signed the
protocol.

But the United States, where companies like Monsanto are large
producers
of GMO seed, has not signed and looks unlikely to do so anytime soon.
Along with major GMO exporters Canada, Australia and Argentina, the
United
States says GMO crops are safe, can increase yields and resist
destructive
pests.

Europe, more cautious on biotechnology, thinks differently and has
introduced tough rules on GMO traceability and labelling in food and
animal feed that go beyond the Cartagena provisions. Diplomats say
developing nations, mostly those in Asia and Africa that need food aid,
are caught between the two powers. Although many African nations are
prone
to food shortages, countries like Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique have
voiced concerns about accepting biotech maize donations.

Slow Progress. Negotiations on the treaty's implementation and
enforcement
have moved very slowly, with the next meetings set for Curitiba in
southern Brazil starting next week. Key issues to be debated will be
economic liability and documentation of GMO shipments. Little progress
is
expected on liability, where discussions have focused recently on areas
like handling and transport of GMO cargoes, defining "damages", and how
far any responsibility should lie with the exporting or importing
country.

"We are not saying 'no' to liability, but are concerned that there
still
appears to be a push for an all-encompassing, unworkable and
unmanageable
regime under the protocol," said Michael Leader at CropLife
International,
a Brussels-based federation representing the global plant science
industry. "A lot still needs to be spelled out," said Leader,
CropLife's
international regulatory policy manager for agricultural biotechnology.

The Brazil meeting instead should focus on paperwork and labelling
requirements. These are a big concern for biotech companies, which
complain they would face hefty extra costs for testing export cargoes
for
the presence of gene-altered grains. "Documentation is the big issue,
the
key thing to trigger the whole protocol, for whether it works or not --
and whether countries have the right to know what's being imported,"
said
Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.

So far, shipments of GMOs destined for use in industrial processing,
food
and animal feed, must be labelled as "may contain GMOs". Green groups
are
very keen to tighten this requirement, as are some Third World
importers
in Africa.

Biotech companies do not agree, saying the wording is already tough
enough
and anything more might hamper trade. Other unresolved areas are the
threshold for the percentage content of GMO material that may exist by
chance in a non-GMO cargo and compliance, where the EU is believed to
want
legal and financial penalties for anyone flouting the treaty's
provisions.


*********************************************

4. Biotech Foods: David Versus Goliath. Developing Countries Fight with
Big Business over Safety Laws.

Press Release from Friends of the Earth International. Date: 10 March
2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6329

CURITIBA (BRAZIL), 10 March 2006 - The battle between the majority of
developing countries and some of the world's biggest corporations will
peak on March 13-17, 2006 in Brazil.

United Nations talks on the global trade in genetically modified (GM),
or biotech foods and crops will highlight the gap between countries
demanding the right to regulate imports of GM products and the huge
business interests that seek to benefit from weak rules.

The identification and labeling of imports of GM products will be the
key debate in Curitiba. (1) The biotech industries consistently opposed
clear identification and labelling requirements for any of the GM crops
on the market today. Without clear labelling many countries, especially
developing countries with their limited resources, are unable to
protect their food supply and environment from GM contamination.(2)

Nnimmo Bassey, International Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth GM
Campaign said: "These talks are key to protecting the environment and
the world's food supply from contamination from the biotech industry.
Every country should have the right to know what is being imported and to
decide if they want to eat genetically modified foods or not. African
countries and other developing countries will not be the dumping ground
for genetically modified crops that no one else wants."

The UN Biosafety Protocol, which was originally agreed in January 2000,
provides basic international rules that allow mainly developing
countries to regulate the safety of GM foods, crops and seeds. It has been
ratified by 132 countries but the three main countries that grow GM crops
– the United States, Argentina and Canada - have refused to
support it. Talks broke down in Montreal in June 2005 after Brazil and New
Zealand blocked proposals that would have allowed the majority of
developing countries to know if GM grains were being imported.

Ten years after the first significant planting of GM crops, no plants
with benefits to consumers or the environment have materialized and GM
crops have failed to deliver the promises of the biotech industry. More
than 80% of the area cultivated with biotech crops is still
concentrated in only three countries: the US, Argentina and Canada. Friends of the
Earth International recently published a report (3) that concluded:

GM crops are not "green". Monsanto's GM soybeans, the most extensively
grown GM crop today, has led to an increase in herbicide use. The
intensive cultivation of soybeans in South America is fostering
deforestation, and has been associated with a decline in soil fertility and soil
erosion.

GM crops do not tackle hunger or poverty. Most GM crops commercialized
so far are destined for animal feed, not for food, and none have been
introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. In Argentina, the
second biggest producer of GM crops in the world, only 2% of the soya stays
in the country. Other developing countries, such as Indonesia and
India, have experienced substantial problems with Monsanto’s GM crops,
often leaving farmers heavily indebted.

The biotech industry has failed to introduce the promised "new
generation" of GM crops with consumer benefits. After 30 years of research,
only two modifications have made it to the marketplace on any scale:
insect resistance and herbicide tolerance.

for more information contact

In Curitiba, Brazil

Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International / Friends of the
Earth Nigeria
Tel: +234 8037274395 (Nigerian mobile) or email <nnimmo [at] eraction.org

Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile) or email
adrian.bebb [at] foeeurope.org

In Europe

Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International
Tel +34 6259 805 820 (Spanish mobile)

notes to editors

(1) For a full briefing on the Biosafety Protocol see:
http://www.foei.org/gmo/Briefing_Curitiba.pdf

(2) See FoEI Briefing: Tackling GM contamination: making segregation
and identification a reality
http://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/contamination3.pdf

(3) See http://www.foei.org/media/2006/0110.html

for more information:
Background on biosafety: http://www.foei.org/gmo/biosafety.html


*******************************************

5. First Contamination Report Reveals Worldwide Illegal Spread of
Genetically Engineered Crops

Press Release from Greenpeace. Date: 8 March 2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/first-contamination-report-rev

The first report into the extent to which genetically engineered
organisms have 'leaked' into the environment - released today -
reveals a disturbing picture of widespread contamination, illegal
planting and negative agricultural side effects.

The report is a summary of incidents uncovered by the on-line
Contamination Register (1) set up by Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK. It
reveals a catalogue of highly disturbing incidents right across the
world, including:

- Pork meat from genetically engineered pigs being sold to consumers -
Ordinary crops being contaminated with GE crops containing
pharmaceuticals - Growing and international distribution of illegal
antibiotic resistant Maize seeds - Planting of outlawed GE crops which
have been smuggled into countries - Mixing of unapproved GE crops in
food, including shipments of food aid - Inadvertent mixing of
different GE strains even in high profile scientific field trials

The report reveals 113 such cases worldwide, involving 39 countries -
twice as many countries as are officially allowed to grow GM crops
since they were first commercialised in 1996. Worryingly, the
frequency of these cases is increasing, with 11 countries affected in
2005 alone. Contamination has even been found in countries conducting
supposedly ''carefully controlled" high-profile farm-scale
evaluations, such as the UK. "This may well only be the tip of the
iceberg, as there is no official global or national contamination
register so far," said Dr. Sue Mayer of GeneWatch UK, who leads the
team of investigators. "Most incidents of contamination are actually
kept as confidential business information by companies as well as
public authorities."

Greenpeace is calling for a mandatory international register of all
such events to be set up, along with the adoption of minimum standards
of identification and labelling of all international shipments of GE
crops. "Without such biosafety standards ,the global community will
have no chance of tracing and recalling dangerous GMOs, should this
become necessary." said Benedikt Haerlin of Greenpeace International's
Biosafety Protocol delegation.

The publication of the report comes only days before the latest
meeting of the 132 countries who have signed the Biosafety Protocol
(2), which is to establish standards of safety and information of GE
crops in global food and feed trade. At their last meeting an imminent
agreement was blocked by only two member states, Brazil and New
Zealand. They were backed by the major GE exporting countries USA,
Argentina and Canada, who are not members of the Protocol and want to
restrict required identification to a meaningless note that a shipment
"may contain" GE.

"All of these countries have national legislation to protect
themselves from illegal GE imports. Still they want to deny the same
rights and level of information to less developed countries, with no
national Biosafety-laws and means to enforce them," concluded Haerlin.
"Do they really want such unethical double standards and create
dumping grounds for unidentified and illegal GE imports? We hope that
Brazil, who will be hosting this meeting, will not betray the
developing countries and cater to large agro-businesses at the expense
of the environment."

Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation that uses
non-violent creative confrontation to expose global environmental
problems to force solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful
future.

1. The GM Contamination Register is online at
http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org. The full report is also available at
http://www.greenpeace.org/bsp2006
2. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
under the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international
treaty to establish minimum international safety standards for
genetically engineered organisms ratified by 132 states.
http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety
3. An overview of national legislation
on imports and labelling of GE organisms world wide including a map of
potential GE dumping grounds as well as import and export figures is
available online at http://www.greenpeace.org/bsp2006

**************************************

6. Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI): Profile of Pro-GM
Lobby Group in Curitiba

GM Watch. Date: 13 March 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6336
Among the pro-biotech lobby groups active in Curitiba, Brazil, this
week at
the 3rd Meeting of the Parties (MOP-3) to the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety is the Public Research and Regulation Initiative - a pro-GM
lobby
which will be fielding over 40 representatives, mostly picked from the
developing world and trained and scripted by PRRI, to promote identical
goals to those of the industry.

Here's profile of the group whose leading lobbyists in Curitiba include
former Monsanto man, Gerard Barry, and Piet van der Meer who is married
to a
lobbyist for the Global Industry Coalition! ---
Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI)
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=316

Established in December 2004 in the Netherlands, the Public Research
and
Regulation Initiative (PRRI), also known as the Association for Public
Research and Regulation, is a foundation with the stated aim of
involving
'the public research sector in regulations relevant to the development
and
application of biotechnology'. The implicit concern is that the
'development
and application' of genetically modified organisms will be obstructed
if
regulations are either too extensive or too stringent.

PRRI's focus is not just on national regulations, and how they are
implemented, but on the international agreements that influence them,
particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which controls the
trade
in genetically modified organisms. It is the view of the foundation
that
while industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were well
represented both at the the negotiations that led to the adoption of
the
Protocol and at the first Meeting of Parties to the Protocol (MOP1 in
February 2004), a third group 'the public research sector involved in
developing biotechnological applications' should also have been given a
voice. The aim of PRRI is to make sure this sector has a bigger say on
the
Protocol.

PRRI also issued a position statement on the Aarhus Convention - the
United
Nations Treaty covering Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. PRRI
opposes
the amending of the Convention so as to extend the rights of the public
to
participate in decision-making on GMOs. Like the biotechnology
industry,
PRRI is adamantly opposed to any amendment that would give the public
any
greater rights. In other words, these 'public researchers' while
seeking a
far bigger voice for themselves in decision-making on GMOs, want no say
for
the public.

PRRI also wants to talk up the benefits of public research into
genetically
modified crops and, in particular, to counter the 'misconception' that
GM
crops are 'the exclusive domain of a handful of big, western
multinationals.' The foundation contrasts this handful of big companies
with
a 'public research sector involved in developing biotechnological
applications, which includes over a hundred thousand researchers in
thousands of governmental, academic and international research
institutions
in developing and developed countries.'

It is unclear how reliable these figures are, however, particularly as
the
foundation uses the vague term 'biotechnological applications', which
could
have relevance to a whole variety of fields (medical, industrial,
environmental and agricultural) and to a wide range of biological
processes.
It seems likely that the number of researchers involved specifically in
developing GM crops - PRRI's main point of concern - is a small
fraction of
the figure the foundation quotes. Moreover, following the launch of the
initiative, and in the run up to MOP2, the 'list of public sector
scientists
and others who support the initiative and wish to be actively involved
in
the activities' of the foundation amounted to just 113 scientists (as
at 19
May 2005).

The list of those supporting the initiative also undermines PRRI's
clear cut
separation of public research and private companies. The list includes,
for
instance, Dr. Andrew Bennett of the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable
Agriculture. Yet, 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's board
are
occupied by directors of Syngenta, the world's largest biotech
corporation,
and Syngenta's Chairman is the Foundation's President. The Syngenta
Foundation has been accused, by Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of
Development Studies, of conducting showcase projects that are more
about
generating useful public relations for GM crops than meeting the real
needs
of poor farmers in the developing world. DeGrassi writes, 'The Syngenta
Foundation - has a poor record of supporting client-driven public
agricultural research institutes'.

PRRI's call for increased leverage for 'nonprofit' 'public sector'
players,
in fact, belies the heavy industrial-alignment of most public sector
agricultural biotechnology, where there is a long history of
involvement
with intensive agricultural R&D, of collaboration with agribusiness
multinationals and of significant dependence on commercial funding. The
effect of this has inevitably been to generate a convergence of
interests,
views and even personnel, between private sector and public sector
operators.

Other supporters of PRRI also point to this interpenetration of public
and
private. Dr. Gerard Barry, for instance, although now an employee of
the
International Rice Research Institute was formerly a research director
at
Monsanto. The Chairman of the Public Research and Regulation
Initiative,
Prof. Phil Dale, works at the John Innes Centre , which has benefitted
from
tens of millions of pounds in funding from big biotechnology
corporations.

This public-private convergence can also be seen in the way in which
the
Initiative was launched. PRRI's formal launch took place at the
Danforth
Center in St. Louis, Missouri (3-4 March, 2005), hosted by Roger
Beachy, the
Center's founding president. St Louis is the home town of Monsanto, and
the
Danforth Center was, in fact, established by Monsanto 'and academic
partners' with a $70-million pledge from the company. Monsanto also
donated
the 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million, on which the Center
is
built.

Similarly, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies have helped to
fund the
research of the Center's founding president, Roger Beachy. As well as
being
on the Public Research and Regulation foundation's Steering Committee,
Beachy is also co- Chair of the scientific advisory board of the
Akkadix
Corporation, a global agricultural biotechnology company. He is also on
the
scientific advisory board of Spacehab, Inc. Beachy is also a consultant
to
the United Soybean Board which works to 'make U.S. soybeans the world
leader' . This clearly illustrates the extent to which a public sector
biotechnologist can be enmeshed in a series of private sector
interests.

The activities of the foundation are similarly enmeshed. Prior to the
formal
launch of the foundation, a number of 'awareness raising activities' at
events involving public sector scientists were undertaken with the
financial
support of the private sector. The private sector is also contributing
to
the running costs of the foundation. The foundation is even
administered via
a private sector company - Cambridge Biomedical Consultants Ltd.

Conflicting interests also enmesh the prime movers behind the
initiative,
Willy de Greef and Piet van der Meer, who are on the Foundation's
four-member Board as well as being the Vice-Chairs of its Steering
Committee. De Greef is currently the Executive Director of his own
private
consultancy - International Biotech Regulatory Services - but until the
end
of 2002 he was the Global Head of Regulatory Affairs - Biotechnology
for
Syngenta.

Syngenta has been a key player in the Global Industry Coalition which
has
represented the biotechnology industry throughout the Biosafety
Protocol
negotiations. Although it has been claimed in relation to the
initiative
that, 'nobody has mobilized these [public sector] scientists before',
this
is not in fact the case. In 1997 de Greef was part of a panel of
'public
researchers' brought in to support the industry's case by the Global
Industry Coalition during the course of the Biosafety Protocol
negotiations.
Although unsuccessful at the time, this attempt to influence the
negotiations appears to have provided the model for the Public Research
and
Regulation initiative - with the crucial difference that the 'public
researchers' are now presented as a third party, wholly independent of
industry.

De Greef has also been Chairman of the ICC Commission on Biosociety,
which
has sought to project a positive vision of biotechnology to government
and
international policy-makers in order to counter what de Greef calls the
'uncoordinated proliferation of international policies and regulations
affecting the life sciences'. 'Everybody seems to feel the need to make
laws
about the life sciences,' de Greef was quoted as saying and this
'threatens
the survival of the innovative wave.' From this, it seems that what de
Greef
was trying to achieve as head of a Commission of '40 senior executives
from
companies and business associations involved in agriculture, food
processing
and pharmaceuticals' was strikingly similar to what he is now trying to
achieve via the Public Research and Regulation foundation. The critical
difference is that there is no ambiguity about whom the ICC
(International
Chamber of Commerce) represents. (Companies form group to champion
biotechnology)

The other main mover behind the Public Research and Regulation
Initiative,
Piet van der Meer, is married to a lobbyist for the Global Industry
Coalition. As Laura Reifschneider, Laura van der Meer won notoriety
during
the Protocol negotiations for the fervour of her lobbying on behalf of
the
Coalition.

Laura Reifschneider's husband-to-be was also involved in the
negotiations,
ostensibly as a non-partisan expert chairing the technical terms
subworking
group in the Protocol negotiations throughout their duration. However,
Dr
Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, Director General of the Environmental
Protection Authority of Ethiopia and Chair of the Africa Group at the
Protocol negotiations, found Piet van der Meer to be very far from
impartial. 'Piet was the most unfair of the chairs in the negotiations.
Many
of our delegates were, understandably, not very fluent in English. He
used
to make them sound as ridiculous as he could by finding fault with how
they
said what they said, instead of focusing on the content. He often
blatantly
disregarded them when theywanted to make interventions. Sometimes he
championed ideas, disregarding the fact that he was chairing. For
example,
he made the issue of protoplastic fusion almost useless by championing
that
it be considered as a biosafety issue only when the fusion happend
accross a
taxonomic level above the family.' (personal communication)

Piet van der Meer is also said to have shown a similar bias in the post
he
subsequently took up in December 2002 as Programme Manager of the
United
Nations Environmental Program-GEF Projects on Implementation of
National
Biosafety Frameworks. The aim of these projects was to assist countries
to
develop national biosafety regulations in line with the Biosafety
Protocol
but Juan Lopez Villar of Friends of the Earth International, who
observed
Piet van der Meer in action at a UNEP workshop in Turkey in December
2003,
says van der Meer used his UNEP role to implicitely promote 'a
fast-track
process of creating minimalist biosafety frameworks'. (personal
communication)

Some of van der Meer's critics in developing countries accuse him of
'letting
industry in to biosafety development' via the UNEP-GEF initiative. They
point to the UNEP-GEF Workshop on the Implementation of the National
Biosafety Framework of Kenya (April 2003) as a classic example. Here
the
international panel of 'independent experts' - 'Resouce Persons' - who
addressed the Kenyan bureaucrats and others on the issues of GM crops
and
their regulation at the start of the workshop, consisted of:

Dr S. Wakhusama of ISAAA, an industry-backed body which has had leading
executives from Monsanto and Syngenta on its board; Dr C.S. Prakash,
who has
acted as a GM ambassador for the US State Dept and whose controversial
pro-GM Internet campaign was co-founded with the free market
Competitive
Enterprise Institute; Dr Marceline Egnin, a colleague of Dr Prakash's;
Dr Florence Wambugu, a Monsanto-trained scientist whose controversial
communications activities are funded by CropLife International; Dr
Eugene
Terry, the Implementing Director of AATF, a 'public-private partnership
designed to remove many of the barriers' to the uptake of GM crops by
Kenyan
farmers; Dr Silas Obukosia of USAID Kenya; USAID's 'training' and
'awareness
raising programmes' provide companies such as Syngenta, Pioneer Hi-Bred
and
Monsanto with opportunities for 'technology transfer'. Monsanto, in
turn,
provides financial support for USAID. Amidst considerable criticism,
Van de
Meer quit UNEP for private consultancy (Horizons sprl).

Willy de Greef has also been in the firing line over what is seen as an
extreme bias in the way he has sought to promote GMOs. In February 2005
de
Greef was invited to address an audience of 'producers and agribusiness
representatives from across the United States' at a U.S. Grain
Council's
Meeting in California. According to a press report, de Greef told his
audience that the 'failure of developing countries to accept
genetically
enhanced crops is a tragedy'.

Referring indirectly to the rejection of GM food aid by Zambia, he is
reported to have talked about the need to identify those responsible
for the
'outrage' and 'tragedy' of having 'children starve' rather than eat
'genetically enhanced foods': 'How did we get that far; who was
responsible
for whispering (those) messages to those policy makers
That is something
that I would rather sooner or later want to find out, because you're
talking
about literally crimes against humanity.' In fact, not a single person
is
known to have died as a result of the Zambian government's decision to
reject GM grain. Alternative non-GM supplies were found and there does
not
appear to have been any kind of 'tragedy', let alone 'crimes against
humanity'. In short, de Greef appears to have rewritten history in
order to
create a compelling argument for GM crop adoption. (Biotech Rejection a
'Tragedy')

The backgrounds and behaviour of those supporting this initiative
suggest it
would be unwise to take at face value their demands that they should be
allowed to 'weigh in' at meetings that help determine biosafety rules
on the
grounds that they represent a large group of disenfranchised experts
who are
independent of industry.

***********************************************


7. Human and Environmental Rights Violations Related to GM Soy
Expansion in Paraguay.

Press Release from Grupo Reflexion Rural. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6337


New Report Will be Launched at UN Biodiversity Summit, Curitiba,
Brazil, 13-21 March 2006

Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina) will present a new report
providing
detailed accounts of the current violent campaign against rural and
indigenous communities in Paraguay, which is strongly related to the
expansion of GM soy production. Witnesses of the cases exposed in the
report
will be present at the coming United Nations conferences on Biosafety
(MOP3)
and Biodiversity (COP8).

They will denounce the agroexport model that not only destroys
(agro)biodiversity, but also leads to violent land evictions and
intoxications of the rural population through agrochemical fumigations.

The new report called �Paraguay Sojero� (Soy producer Paraguay),
compiled
by Grupo de Reflexion Rural, exposes the widespread human rights
violations,
including biodiversity destruction, related to soy expansion in
Paraguay.
Javiera Rulli, one of the authors, says: "Ongoing human rights
violations in
Paraguay go hand in hand with the advancement of soy monocultures.
Agribusiness corporations knowingly take advantage of the fact that in
Paraguay corruption florishes, while environmental regulations or human
rights are not respected�.

The report will be launched at the Alternative Forum to the MOP3-COP8
conferences, on Monday 20 March, from 9-13.30 hrs. The launch is part
of the
Morning Panel titled: "The real agenda of Monsanto and its consequences
in
Latin America - Testimonies of the Victims of Agribusiness from
Paraguay,
Argentina and Mexico", organised by the Agribusiness Observatory
Network for
a Human Agriculture.

GRUPO de REFLEXION RURAL (Argentina), GRAIN and ACCION ECOLOGICA
(Ecuador),
part of this network, have invited a delegation of �Victims of
Agribusiness� to a range of activities during MOP3-COP8. From Paraguay,
Petrona Villasboa, member of CONAMURI (Coordination of Rural and
Indigenous
Women), will present her fight for justice after her son was killed by
agrochemicals fumigations of GM soy fields. Jorge Galeano, leader of
the
Movimiento Agrario y Popular, will account of the repression of peasant
organisations and violent land evictions taking place in Paraguay,
orchestrated by soy producers. Both their cases are described in the
report.

At the same time, two other publications dealing with GM soy expansion,
in
Paraguay and Brazil, will be presented.

Javiera Rulli, one of the authors of the report, as well as Petrona
Villasboa
and Jorge Galeano, will be available for interviews after the Morning
Panel,
and further throughout the period March 13-21. Photos, articles and
press
releases and the report "Paraguay Sojero" are available from the
website of
Grupo de Reflexi�n Rural: http://www.grr.org.ar

Please contact:
Javiera Rulli: contacto [at] grr.org.ar, javierarulli [at] yahoo.com, mobile:
Or Nina Holland: buen-aventura [at] gmx.net, mobile:

background

The exansion of soy monocultures is causing a wave of environmental and
social destruction throughout the MERCOSUR. The Biodiversity Convention
does not succeed to counteract the free trade policies headed by the
WTO,
that are at the basis of the expansion of industrial agriculture.
Equally,
the Convention fails to provide any protection for local and indigenous
communities, that according to the Convention are main actors in saving
biodiversity.

The situation in Paraguay presents the most pronounced case of this
violence
against the rural and indigenous population. Soy monocultures cover 2
million hectares, causing a great loss of (agro)biodiversity and food
security. Communities are frequently threatened by violent evictions,
carried out with help of corrupt police forces and paramilitaries.
Intensive
fumigations with agrochemicals intoxicate people, animals, destroy
harvests,
contaminate water sources and ruin rural livelihoods. Companies like
Cargill
and Monsanto are amongst those most benefiting from the expansion of
soy
production.

Jorge Galeano witnessed the infamous eviction of June 24 2005 in the
community of Tekojoja, where a group of soy producers and hired
policemen
expelled 270 people from their lands, burnt 54 houses and adjacent
fields,
arrested 130 people and killed two.

In 2003, Petrona Villasboa and her entire family were poisoned after
fumigations with glyphosate by a GM soy producer next to their farm.
Her 11
years old son Silvino Talavera died. Petrona and CONAMURI is fighting a
legal battle for justice against the two soy producers envolved.

These cases are just examples of the consequences of soy expansion,
suffered
by small producers and indigenous communities in the countryside of
MERCOSUR
countries. ---


"In the world I see -- you will stalk elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You will wear leather clothes that last you the rest of your life. You will climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower, and when you look down, you will see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." Fight Club

Reclaim our Commons!
http://ReclaimTheCommons.Net
Reclaim our Future!
http://PeakOilAnarchy.blogspot.com
http://Anthropik.com
http://PostCarbon.org
Reclaim our History!
http://911Truth.org
http://OilEmpire.us
http://GlobalResearch.ca