Who's Online

We have 442 guests online

Popular

3921 readings
A PRESENTATION AT THE VICTORIA 2014 MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO PDF Print E-mail
PEJ Events
Posted by Joan Russow
Saturday, 24 May 2014 16:39

BY JOAN RUSSOW GLOBAL COMPLIANCE RESEARCH PROJECT

March Against Monsanto: Victoria, BC

 

IF NOTHING IS DONE SOON THERE MAY NO LONGER BE ORGANIC FOOD AND CROPS. THE SITUATION IS URGENT.   GMOS AND NON-GMOS CANNOT CO-EXIST.

THERE MUST BE A GLOBAL BAN ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS AND CROPS AND A CAMPAIGN FOR FOOD SECURITY AND FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

 http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops

(IN  CAPITALS TO BE READ A RALLY)

WE ARE LIVING IN A WAKE OF INSTITUTIONALCOLLUSION, AMONG GOVERNMENTS/INDUSTRIES / UNIVERSITIES, REGULATORY AGENCIES, JOURNALS; ALL OF WHICH HAVE COLLECTIVELY CONTRIBUTED TO GROSS OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE RESULTING IN GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY AND LACK OF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

 

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD AND CROPS   (GE/GMOS) SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED YEARS AGO. 

 

WHILE LABELING ADDRESSES THE RIGHT TO KNOW ISSUE, LABELLING DOES NOT ADDRESS THE EQUITY ISSUE - NOT EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE CAN AFFORD TO BUY ORGANIC FOOD, AND LABELING DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE- GENETIC DRIFT AND CONTAMINATION.

 

GIVEN THE LONGSTANDING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL HARM OF GMOS, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY TO DEMAND THE INVOKING OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; WHICH READS: WHERE THERE IS A THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT. 

A THREAT OF LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY OR A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH, THE LACK OF FULL SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY OF HARMSHOULD NOT BE USED AS A REASON TO POSTPONE MEASURES TO PREVENT THE THREAT.

THE LACK OF FULL SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY OF HARM

 

 I REPEAT THIS PART BECAUSE CANADA HAS MISINTERPRETED THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.  IN CANADA THE WORDING IS

 

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE” RECOGNIZES THAT THE ABSENCE OF FULL SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY” OF SAFETY SHALL NOT BE USED AS A REASON FOR POSTPONING DECISIONS   

 

IN CANADA, THIS VERSION HAS RESULTED IN THE QUESTIONABLE APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD AND CROPS AND THE IGNORINGING OF YEARS OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INDICATING HARM.   

 

THIS INTERPRETATION IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE INTERNATIONAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND HAS BEEN USED TO JUSTIFY THE AVOIDANCE OF ALL THE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH SUCH AS STUDIES CARRIED OUT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN THE REQUIREMENT OF 90 DAYS; STUDIES WHICH HAVE DEMOSTRATED   THE HARM OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD AND CROPS.

THERE HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF HARM, BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS, TO JUSTIFY DEMANDING A TOTAL GLOBAL BAN.

 

A YEAR AGO TODAY, THE INSTITUTE IN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY WHOSE DIRECTOR IS THE GENETICIST, MAE WAN HO, ISSUED A REPORT ENTITLED ‘BAN GMOS NOW!" THIS INSTITUTE HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD AND CROPS SINCE THE LATE. 1980S.

 

IN 2012, GILES-ERIC SÉRALINI, A PROFESSOR OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AT CAEN UNIVERSITY, LED A TOXICOLOGICAL STUDY ON GM MAIZE AND ROUNDUP HERBICIDE INVOLVING 200 RATS OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS; HE FOUND AN ALARMING INCREASE IN EARLY DEATH, LARGE TUMOURS INCLUDING CANCERS, AND DISEASES OF THE LIVER AND KIDNEY. THE STUDY, PUBLISHED IN 2012 BY THE JOURNAL FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY (FCT) [1], WAS BY NO MEANS THE FIRST, NOR THE ONLY ONE TO SHOW ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS FROM GM FEED OR ROUNDUP HERBICIDE IT WAS THE LATEST WARNING – PERHAPS THE MOST DRAMATIC - AND THE MOST IN-DEPTH LONG-TERM TOXICOLOGICAL STUDY EVER DONE. SIGNIFICANTLY, MANY OF THE MOST DAMAGING EFFECTS CAME AFTER 90 DAYS, THE OFFICIALLY MANDATED PERIOD OF FEEDING TRIALS FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL OF GMOS.

 

WHAT FOLLOWED WAS A CONCERTED WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT THE FINDINGS, INCLUDING THE APPOINTMENT OF EX-MONSANTO SCIENTIST RICHARD GOODMAN TO THE NEWLY CREATED POST OF ASSOCIATE EDITOR FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY AT THE AFOREMENTIONED JOURNAL.

 

ON 27 NOVEMBER 2013, THE JOURNAL’S EDITOR WALLACE HAYES WROTE TO SÉRALINI’S TEAM REQUESTING THEM TO RETRACT THEIR PAPER

 SUBSEQUENTLY THERE WAS AN OPEN LETTER CIRCULATED CALLING FOR A BOYCOT OF THIS JOURNAL

SO FAR THIS LETTER HAS BEEN SIGNED BY 1355 SCIENTISTS AND 3952 NON-SCIENTISTS FROM 99 COUNTRIES.

 

I AM MENTIONING THIS BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS DISCREDITING OR MUZZLING INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT AGAINST GENETICALLY ENGINEERING FOOD AND CROPS.

 

MANY GOVERNMENTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES HAVE INSTITUTED A TOTAL BAN OR A PARTIAL BAN OR PROMOTED GE FREE ZONES OR GE-FREE PRODUCTS.

 

BUT THERE ARE OTHER GOVERNMENTS, LIKE THE GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA, OF THE US, OF BRAZIL AND OF ARGENTINA.   THESE MAJOR SUPPORTERS AND PRODUCERS OF GMOS HAVE BEEN SILENT DEMONSTRATING BLATENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

IN1999, VANDANA SHIVA ORGANIZED, IN DELHI, THE BIODEVASTATION II CONFERENCE OF SCIENTISTS, ACTIVISTS AND FARMERS. AT THIS CONFERENCE THE FOLLOWING GLOBAL DECLARATION WAS ENDORSED BY ALL BUT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS;

 THE BIODEVASTASTION II GLOBAL DECLARATION CALLED FOR THE FOLLOWING:

 

(I)  A GLOBAL BAN ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS AND CROPS;

(II) A GLOBAL BAN ON THE PATENTING OF LIFE FORMS;

(III) AN END TO THE EXPLOITATION OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF FARMERS, PEASANTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES;

(IV) A GLOBAL SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR PROMOTING ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND OTHER FORMS OF ECOLOGICAL FARMING,

AND FOR INSTITUTING A FAIR AND JUST TRANSITION PROGRAM FOR FARMERS AND COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY THE BAN

 

ONE MAY ASK  SHOULD  WE AS CANADIANS JUST STRUGGLE TO PERSUADE THE GOVERNMENT IN CANADA TO  JUST LABEL GMOS TO FULFILL OUR RIGHT TO KNOW OR  .

 DO CITIZENS IN CANADA AND IN OTHER GMO PRODUCING AND EXPORTING COUNTRIES AND  

 

CITIZENS IN THE COUNTRIES WHERE THE MAJOR GMO PRODUCERS ARE REGISTERED

 DO THESE CITIZENS NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE REST OF THE WORLD WHERE THESE PRODUCTS ARE BEING DUMPED TO PUSH FOR A GLOBAL BAN

 

AN ACTIVIST FROM PARAGUAY, WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE REPUBLIC OF SOY, ONCE

DESCRIBED WHAT HAPPENED AFTER PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH AND PRESIDENT LULA FROM BRAZIL MET WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF PARAGUAY MONSANTO AND CARGILL- SHE POINTED OUT THE DIE HAD BEEN CAST!

 

MONSANTO WOULD PROVIDE THE ROUND UP READY WITH GLYSOPHATE TO DESTROY THE FORESTS FOR CARGILL’ S PLANTATION OF SOY

 

THIS IS ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES OF WHY WE NEED TO DO MORE THAN JUST SEEK TO ENSURE ONLY OUR RIGHT TO KNOW.

 

I WOULD PROPOSE THAT ESPECIALLY CITIZENS IN NORTH AMERICA HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO DEMAND MORE AND I PROPOSE

 

A CAMPAIGN FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY AND FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

1.   TO BUILD ON THE FOLLOWING UNITED NATIONS PRECEDENT.

In 2000 The UNITED NATIONS CALLED FOR A MORATORIUM ON  “GENETICALLY MODIFIED TO RENDER SEEDS STERILE” (GURT) AFECTIONATELY KNOWN AS  “THE TERMINATOR GENE”; THE MORATORIUM WAS RE-AFFIRMED AND THE LANGUAGE STRENGTHENED IN MARCH 2006, AT THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES MEETING OF THE  UNITED \NATIONS CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.

 

TO CALL FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE   UN MORATORIUM ON THE TERMINATOR GENE AND

AND CALL FOR ALL STATES TO BAN THIS TECHNOLOGY AND PASS NATIONAL LAWS   

[IT APPEARS THAT MONSANTO RESPECTS THE MORATORIUM BUT HAS NOT RULED OUT USING IT IN THE FUTURE. THEREFORE A BAN WOULD BE NECESSARY].

 

2. TO CALL UPON THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DRAFT A DECLARATION INSTITUTING A GLOBAL BAN ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS AND CROPS;

AND A GLOBAL BAN ON THE PATENTING OF LIFE FORMS;

SEE PETITION AT http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops

 

3.TO CALL FOR THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO INVOKE ARTICLE 22 OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND SET UP  AND INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL TO TRY  THE  PRO-GMO REGULATORY AGENCIES  AND THE BIOTECH COMPANIES LISTED BELOW  FOR GROSS/ CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND FOR CAUSING IRREVERSIBLE GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY AND  CAUSING LOSS OF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY.

 

4 TO CALL FOR THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DRAFT AN ANTI-GMO PROTOCOL, INSTITUTING A TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

 

5.TO CALL FOR THE NON-GMO  PRODUCING COUNTRY GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE THE GMO PRODUCING COUNTRY GOVERNMENTS, TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE FOR CONTRAVENING THE OBJECTIVE OF  THE LEGALLY BINDING CONVENTION ON \BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  

 

6. TO CALL FOR THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION’S CODEX ALIMENTARUS WHICH PERMITTED GMO LABELING IN 2011, TO SUPPORT THE BANNING OF GMOS, SO COUNTRIES WISHING TO BAN GMOS WOULD NOT BE VULNERABLE TO ATTACKS UNDER THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

 

7. TO CALL ON THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION (THE FAO) TO SUPPORT THE GLOBAL BAN. THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF FAO JOSÉ GRAZIANO DA SILVA HAS SAID SAID“WE DON’T NEED GMOS, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO AREAS OF PRODUCTION AND THE CROPS,” AND SAID THAT THAT TO ELIMINATE MALNUITRITION AND FOOD INSECURITY, SMALL PRODUCERS HAVE TO BE AT THE CENTRE OF POLICIES AND BE GIVEN ASSISTANCE AND

 

8. TO CALL UPON COUNTRIES, IN WHICH GMOS CORPORATIONS ARE REGISTERED TO REVOKE THE CHARTERS OF MONSANTO AND ITS GMO COHORTS.

INCLUDING THE FOLLOW CORPORATIONS WHOSE HEADS QUARTERS ARE REGISTERED IN VARIOUS CONTRIES.

 

MONSANTO(ST LOUIS, MISSOURI)

CALGENE(NEW JERSY USA);

, AMERICAN CYANAMID, (NEW JERSEY)

AQUABOUNTY (MAYNARD MASS USA);

SYMBIO (SAN JOSA USA)

PIONEER HIBRED ( IOWA USA)

DNAP (OAKLAND USA),

ELI LILLY ( INDIANAPOLIS USA)

 UPJOHN, (CONNETICUT, USA)

DOW  (MICHIGAN USA)

SYNGENTA;(BASEL, SWITZERLAND)

NOVARTIS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND)

NOVARTIS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND)

ZENECA ( LONDON UK)                 

OKANAGAN SPECIALTY FRUITS  (SUMMERLAND CANADA)

JUST TO NAME A FEW

 

9. TO CALL FOR THE PROSECUTION OF CORPORATIONS WHICH HAVE EXPLOITED THE KNOWLEDGE OF FARMERS, AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.

 

10,TO CALL ON CORPORATIONS  TO END  THE EXPLOITATION OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF FARMERS, PEASANTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES;

 

11. CALL FOR A GLOBAL SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR PROMOTING ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND OTHER FORMS OF ECOLOGICAL FARMING, AND FOR INSTITUTING A FAIR AND JUST TRANSITION PROGRAM FOR FARMERS AND COMMUNITIES. AFFECTED BY THE BAN

 

12.TO CALL FOR GLOBAL PROTECTION OF THE SMALL FARMERS AND GUARANTEE GLOBAL FOOD SOVEREIGNITY.

LA VIA CAMPESINA DEFINED FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AS

THE RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO HEALTHY AND CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE FOOD PRODUCED THROUGH ECOLOGICALLY SOUND AND SUSTAINABLE METHODS, AND THEIR RIGHT TO DEFINE THEIR OWN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS.

 

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY CALLS FOR A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN FOCUS FROM FOOD AS A COMMODITY TO FOOD AS A PUBLIC GOOD. AS SUCH IT CAN ONCE AGAIN ASSUME IT CENTRAL ROLE IN STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES, ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES

 

THE LANGUAGE OF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AS DISTINCT FROM `FOOD SECURITY IN BEING EXPLICIT ABOUT FOOD CITIZENSHIP; FOOD SOVEREIGNTY EMPHASIZES THAT PEOPLE MUST HAVE A SAY IN HOW THEIR FOOD IS PRODUCED AND WHERE IT COMES FROM THE CORE OF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY IS RECLAIMING PUBLIC DECISION MAKING POWER IN THE FOOD SYSTEM

 

13. TO CALL UPON CANADA TO ABIDE BY THE INTERNATIONAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

 

14. TO CALL UPON CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSIONER TO REPORT ON CANADA’S MISINTERPRETATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, AND BAN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD AND CRIOS AND TO PROMOTE ORGANIC ECO AGRICULTURE

 

15.TO CALL FOR THE CANADIAN AND  BC GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT  THE  GE FREE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE UNION OF BC MUNICIPALITIES ON SEPTEMBER 19 2013:

 “THAT UBCM ASK THE BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE THE PROHIBITION OF IMPORTING, EXPORTING AND GROWING PLANTS AND SEEDS CONTAINING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED DNA, AND OF RAISING GE ANIMALS WITHIN BC, AND TO DECLARE, THROUGH LEGISLATION, THAT BC IS A GE FREE AREA INRESPECT TO ALL PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES.”

 

16 ALSO TO CALL UPON  THE BC GOVERNMENT  TO NOT PROCEED WITH SITE C DAM WHICH WILL DESTROY ACRES OF GOOD AGRICULTURAL LAND

 

17. TO CALL ON  THE BC GOVERNMENT TO RESCIND BILL 23 ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE AND  TO INCREASE INSTEAD NOT DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE ALR. FOOD SECURITY REQUIRES A LAND AND WATER BASE THAT MUST TAKE PRIORITY OVER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.

LAND THAT MAY BE PERCEIVED NOW, TO BE PRESENTLY UNUSABLE FOR AGRICULTURE, COULD BECOME USABLE IN THE FUTURE. WE ARE EXPERIENCING THE DESTRUCTION OF ECOSYSTEMS AND ARABLE LAND. WE ARE ALSO LIVING IN A STATE OF UNCERTAINTY AND WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH CAUTION INVOKING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.

 

IN  THE FOOD SECURITY SECTION OF THE RECENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. THERE WAS A DIRE WARNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF FOOD SECURITY BECAUSE OF THE RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF THE MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCING STATES TO SERIOUSLY REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

 

BAN GMOS NOW!

 

 

  1. March Against Monsanto: Victoria, BC

     

 

 

Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 15:02
 

Latest News