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/[email protected]/
