Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:01:42 +0100 (BST) owner-realfood Add to Address Book realfood REALFOOD: Real Food News July 2004 Real Food News July 2004 In a nutshell GM This summer, scarecrows - traditional protectors of crops - have been launched as a new symbol to protect crops, food and the environment from GM contamination. The launch (see 21 July 2004) saw MPs from all major political parties supporting the campaign, as a new opinion poll showed that 64% of people support tough new laws to prevent GM crops contaminating food and farming. Earlier in the month a committee of MPs published a critical report concluding that GM crops should not be grown in the UK until rules are in place to deal with liability and 'co- existence' between GM and non GM crops (see 8 July 2004). The Government has now announced plans for a consultation on co-existence (see 16 July 2004), but is initially planning a 'pre-consultation' of meetings between DEFRA and specific stakeholders to inform its position, before a final paper goes out to public consultation in the autumn. Ask your MP to show their support for the campaign at http://www.foe.co.uk/campaign! s/real_food/press_for_change/gm_bill/index.html In Europe, Monsanto's GM maize NK603 failed to get support from EU agriculture ministers for use as human food (see 19 July 2004), after last months failure to get the qualified majority needed for it to be used as animal feed. But also announced this month (see 12 July 2004) was news that the EU has awarded 12 million euros for investment in producing pharmaceuticals in GM plants. Contamination incidents have already occurred in the USA between food crops and experimental 'pharm' crops. And finally, Anglo-Swiss GM firm Syngenta has announced is to close its laboratories in Berkshire and move to the United States, the latest sign that the biotech industry recognises the overwhelming opposition to GM food and crops in the UK (see 1 July 2004). PESTICIDES New research (see 30 July 2004) shows that up to 220 young children a day could be exposed to pesticide levels above safety limits, even when legal limits are not being breached, just by eating a single apple or pear. We are calling on the Government to take action on this issue, and you can also ask your supermarket what they are doing to ensure their produce does not exceed safety levels at http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/press_for_change/league_tabl e/. Bayer CropScience has dropped its court action against Friends of the Earth (see 30 June 2004). Bayer has been trying to stop up telling the public how to access safety data on pesticides, taking legal action after we legally obtained copies of safety data from the Swedish pesticide regulator. But Bayer has now signed a settlement promising not to sue us for telling of the public how to access this type of data or for requesting this type of data from regulators. Our advice is now available on our webpage at http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/news/2004/june/bayer/index.h tml. SUPERMARKETS On the day of Sainsbury's AGM (see 12 July 2004) we urged Sainsbury's to concentrate on quality and fairness instead of aggressive price wars. Price is not the only issue of concern for customers: recent consumer surveys show that supermarket customers are interested in other issues including environmental and ethical issues. Thank you for your support and help with our campaigns Liz Wright Real Food & Farming Campaign Assistant ____ 30 July 2004 lers exposed to a daily pesticide threat, research shows New research by Friends of the Earth, published in a peer-reviewed journal this weekend, shows that up to 220 young children a day could have been exposed to potentially dangerous levels of pesticides just from eating a single apple or pear. The research also showed that internationally agreed safety levels on pesticides can be breached even when the legal limits on pesticides were met. Imported produce was more likely to contain high pesticide levels than homegrown fruit. The research, conducted with two leading experts on pesticide exposure, Professor Andrew Watterson of Stirling University and Dr Vyvyan Howard of Liverpool University used mathematical modelling to measure exposure to pesticides for children aged between 18 months and four years old. Using the Government's own data on pesticide residues found on apples and pears, and information on the quantities of apples and pears eaten by young children from the National Dietary Survey, the study found that between 10 and 220 young children could be exposed pesticide residues at levels which could pose immediate and long term threats to health. Apples and pears were chosen because they are eaten frequently by young children. The Government regularly monitors fruit and vegetables for pesticide residues. But instead of testing individual items of produce, the Government tests blended batches, with official figures only reporting the average for the batch (eg 10 apples). Research in the 1990s showed that some fruit and vegetables contain much higher levels of pesticides than others, with potentially no residues in one piece of fruit and a very high level of residues in another. Friends of the Earth's research used modeling to examine the likelihood of children eating a piece of fruit containing high pesticide residues. The results showed that, based on the Government's residue data for 2000 to 2002, young children can be exposed to residues at levels above internationally agreed safety limits. The model used real rates of fruit consumption, taken from the Government's national diet survey, and so the results are relevant for children who eat normal quantities of fruit - the most it was assumed that any child would eat was a single apple or pear. Although the Government knows that high levels occur in individual fruit, it continues to tell the public that there are no health concerns as long as legal limits are met. Friends of the Earth's Senior Food Researcher and one of the authors of the report, Emily Diamand, said: " Parents will be shocked to discover that pesticide safety limits set to protect young children can be exceeded just by a child eating one apple or pear. The problem of high residues occurring in individual fruits or vegetables is well known to the Government but they continue to issue bland reassurances that there is no risk to health. This problem must not be ignored any longer. The Government must act quickly to make sure that legal limits for these pesticides protect consumer safety and do more to help farmers reduce their pesticide use " The pesticides studied are carbendazim (banned in Belgium from this month), dithiocarbamates and phosmet which all have acute effects (ie they can have an effect from a short term exposure). Phosmet is not licensed for UK use so only occurs on imported fruit. Carbendazim and dithiocarbamates are suspected hormone disruptors. Phosmet is an organophosphate insecticide, which has the potential to damage the nervous system and is a potential carcinogen. While there may be no obvious immediate effects from consuming these chemicals at high levels, there may be long term implications. Children are particularly susceptible because they are still growing and developing. Professor Andrew Watterson of Stirling University said: " Very little is known about the long term effects on the immune, hormone or nervous systems when young children are exposed to short term high levels of pesticides. But the pesticides found in this research all have the potential to cause damage to health. The Government must take a precautionary approach and ensure that internationally agreed safety limits are not breached " Because safety limits were breached even though legal limits were not exceeded, apple growers would not have been alerted to any problem with levels of pesticides in their fruit. Friends of the Earth wants the government to take urgent action to lower legal limits to ensure that safety limits are not breached. The research found that UK apples and pears were less likely to exceed safety levels than imported produce. But Friends of the Earth is calling on the Government and supermarkets to do more to help growers reduce the use of pesticides further. Kent Apple grower, and member of the British Independent Fruit Growers Association David Budd said: " I'm concerned that it appears from this research that safety levels for apples and pears could be breached even when legal limits have been met. We go to great lengths to minimize inputs and are pleased that these efforts are reflected in the results that show English apples and pears are a safer option than imported. It would assist growers if the Government were to actively help the introduction of safer alternatives " Friends of the Earth is urging parents not to stop giving apples and pears to their children as fresh fruit is an important part of a healthy diet. Parents can choose organic produce but it is not affordable to everyone. Peeling and washing fruit may reduce but not eliminate residues. ____ 21 July 2004 Scarecrows Lobby Parliament to Keep Fields GM-free Nearly two-thirds of the British population support tough new laws to prevent GM crops contaminating our food and farming, a new NOP World survey for Friends of the Earth reveals today. The poll results are published as scarecrows descend on Parliament to meet with supportive MPs and lobby the Government to protect the countryside and keep their fields GM-free. A Government consultation on `coexistence' (between GM and non-GM crops) and liability was announced last week and will run until the end of the year. In response, anti-GM scarecrows have left the fields and are taking to the streets to support local actions and events across the country to help protect local food and farming from GM contamination. While there are no GM crops currently being grown in Britain, the threat of future planting has not gone away: - There are at least 10 applications to grow GM crops awaiting EU approval. If approval is granted, GM crops could be grown in the UK within the next three or four years. - There are currently no laws outlining what measures must be taken to prevent GM crops contaminating non-GM varieties in neighbouring fields. - The Government is considering designing `coexistence' measures to allow for some GM contamination of non-GM crops. - It is unclear who would be liable for any economic damage to farmers' livelihoods or environmental damage caused by GM crops. Friends of the Earth says that any rules must aim for zero presence of GM in non-GM crops. The NOP World survey for Friends of the Earth reveals that 64 per cent of the public support new laws to prevent GM crops contaminating non- GM crops in neighbouring fields or during handling and processing. Only 17 per cent said that the possible benefits of GM outweigh the risks. Earlier this month a Committee of MPs looked at GM `co-existence and liability' and said that " the Government cannot allow the commercial cultivation of GM crops in the United Kingdom until there is clarification of these critical issues " . " Two-thirds of the UK public want tough new laws to protect their food and farming from GM contamination if GM crops are ever grown here " , said Friends of the Earth GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow. " Unfortunately, the Government is planning to allow some GM pollution of our food crops. This is totally unacceptable. The British public wants GM-free food, not a spineless Government compromise that would lead to widespread GM contamination, and take away our right to choose GM-free food. " ____ 19 July 2004 EU Pushed To Accept GM EU agriculture ministers will vote today (Monday 19th July) on an application by the US company Monsanto to allow the import into the EU of a genetically modified (GM) maize called NK603. This will be the seventh attempt by the European Commission to win support from the member states for a GM product - previous attempts have all failed, despite UK support. The maize, which has been engineered to resist Monsanto's own herbicide (called RoundUp), has already been given the green light by the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). But the Commission has so far failed to gain enough support from member states for the approval of the controversial corn. Only last month the Commission failed to get the qualified majority it needed for the NK603 to be used as animal feed. Today's vote will be for its use as a human food. Friends of the Earth believes agriculture ministers must reject Monsanto's GM maize because: - There has only been an analysis of the short-term effects on human and animal health. There has been no analysis of the long-term effects on subsequent generations and the effects on health sensitive consumers. This is in breach of article 14 (4) of EU Regulation 178/2002. - There has been insufficient analysis of allergenicity. It is unacceptable that EFSA has dismissed the legitimate concerns raised by several Member States, about the suitability of the approach used for allergenicity testing. EFSA has also neglected a recent OECD report that demonstrates that maize can cause allergic reactions. " Scientists and member state authorities still disagree over the potential health effects of Monsanto's genetically modified maize " , said Friends of the Earth GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow. " This product should not be on the market until all questions about its safety are clarified. The Commission knows it has failed on six previous occasions to get sufficient support from the member states. If they fail again then their position on GM foods will look increasingly untenable. " ____ 16 July 2004 Government Fudges Consultation on GM Contamination Friends of the Earth criticised Government plans announced today for a limited consultation on GM `coexistence' as it is not clear whether the wider public will have the opportunity to get involved. Only a number of meetings with a selection of stakeholders will be held over the summer. The announcement follows a commitment from the Government in March this year that it would fully consult on the issue over the summer, after concerns were raised about the lack of legislation to control GM contamination, should GM crops be commercially grown in the UK. Friends of the Earth believes the restricted consultation suggests the Government it is not confident of its position on how to protect crops from GM contamination. The environmental campaign group is calling for tough laws to ensure that non-GM and organic crops are protected from GM contamination, and that biotechnology companies are strictly liable for any damage caused by their products; and gave its support to a Private Members' Bill on this issue, introduced by Gregory Barker MP last year. " The Government promised a full public consultation on GM contamination this summer, but now it is only talking to a selection of stakeholders " , said Friends of the Earth GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow. " Is the Government losing confidence in how it thought it could protect crops and food from GM contamination? It has already failed to support the Private Member's Bill on this issue, which would have allowed all MPs to debate the measures needed to protect crops, should GM crops be grown. Now it seems that the Government is trying to cut the public out too. We want assurances that the public will be involved as they have clearly shown they don't want GM crops and food. GM contamination is a threat to our food, farming and environment and must be avoided at all costs. " ____ 12 July 2004 Concerns raised over GM 'pharming' The EU has awarded 12 million euros to be invested in a European research project to produce pharmaceuticals in genetically modified plants, it was announced today. Responding, Friends of the Earth GM Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow said: " Growing medicines in plants has serious implications for both human health and the environment. We recognise the need for affordable medicines to be made available to people with life-threatening illnesses, but this research could have widespread negative impacts. Food crops in the United States have already been destroyed because of contamination by experimental `pharm' crops. A clear set of criteria must be established to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. Any benefits must genuinely reach those that need them, rather than simply lining the pockets of the biotech and pharmaceutical industry " ____ 12 July 2004 Sainsbury's AGM: Put quality and fairness first Friends of the Earth is calling on Sainsbury's to concentrate on quality and fairness instead of entering into an aggressive price war with its main rivals. The environmental campaign group also urged the supermarket chain to support Government action to outlaw unfair trading practices which would make it harder for rival companies to profit from the bullying tactics that many farmers and suppliers suffer. Sainsbury's Annual General Meeting is being held in London today. Friends of the Earth is concerned that if Sainsbury's focuses on cheap food it will compromise attempts to raise environmental and ethical standards, and UK farmers and overseas suppliers will pay. An alliance of 15 organisations are already actively campaigning on these issues. Price is not the only issue of concern for customers. Recent consumer surveys show that supermarket customers are interested in other issues including environmental and ethical issues. Some surveys also suggest that people's love affair with supermarkets may be on the wane. " Sainsbury's should use its AGM to make a firm commitment to sell food produced to high environmental and welfare standards, and that gives a fair return to farmers " , said Friends of the Earth Food and Farming Campaigner Sandra Bell. " It should also back calls for new legislation to stop farmers and suppliers being bullied by supermarkets and for companies to be accountable for their impacts on the environment " . There are also worrying signs that Sainsbury's is weakening its social and environmental commitments. One area of concern is palm oil, a vegetable oil largely produced on plantations in south east Asia. The production of palm oil is connected with deforestation, worker exploitation and human rights abuses, a fact that was recognised by Sainsbury's last year when it committed itself to an initiative aiming to source the oil from more sustainable sources. But the company has now pulled out of this initiative and is refusing to reveal where it gets its palm oil from or engage with NGOs on this issue. ____ 8 July 2004 GM crops must not be planted without rules on liability and co-existence say MPs A committee of MPs has told the Government that it cannot allow commercial crops to be grown in the UK until it sorts out the issue of co-existence (between GM and non GM crops) and liability. A Government consultation on this issue is expected shortly. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has today published its report 'GM Planting Regime' which investigates the implications of allowing GM crops to be commercially grown in the UK. In particular the MPs considered co-existence (between GM and non-GM crops), liability (should GM contamination occur), GM-free zones and legislative changes that may have to be made. The Committee's conclusions include: - That there is " huge confusion in both the Government's and the European Union's position in relation to GM crops, especially in relation to the thresholds of contamination of non-GM crops and thus liability. The Government cannot allow the commercial cultivation of GM crops in the United Kingdom until there is clarification of these critical issues. Until this is done no credible co-existence regime can be constructed. " - The Government should ensure that organic crops suffer zero GM contamination - The Government should consider carefully mandatory GM-free zones, particularly at the level of regions, and nations such as Wales. But there was scepticism on voluntary GM-free zones, - The Government must decide who should accept liability and fund compensation " This report rips the Government's GM position to shreds " , said Friends of the Earth GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow. " It is clear that the Committee has grasped the significance for farmers and consumers of allowing GM crops to be grown in the UK far more thoroughly than either the UK Government or the European Union. The MPs' recommendations directly reflect public opinion and the need to protect the environment. If the forthcoming Government consultation does not take this report on board it will be a meaningless sham. " Earlier this year Greg Barker MP introduced a Private Member's Bill, supported by Friends of the Earth, on GM contamination and liability. This proposed new law would require the Government to have a liability and co-existence regime in place before any GM crops were planted in he UK. The Bill, which has been repeatedly blocked by the Government, is due to be debated again in October. ____ 1 July 2004 Syngenta quits GM research in UK The prospects of GM crops being grown in the UK look even more remote today following reports that Anglo-Swiss GM firm Syngenta is to close its laboratories in Berkshire and move to the United States. Friends of the Earth welcomed the move, but called on the company to switch its research efforts away from GM and toward sustainable agriculture. The move by Syngenta is the latest sign that the biotech industry recognises the overwhelming opposition to GM food and crops in the UK. Monsanto and Bayer CropScience have both recently reduced their UK GM operations. " This is another massive blow to the biotech industry " , said Friends of the Earth GM Campaigner Clare Oxborrow. " While public opposition to GM food and crops has grown, biotech firms have kept their blinkers on and continued to develop products that people don't want. This move by Syngenta shows that there is no future for GM technology in the UK or Europe. But rather than moving to the US, companies should invest in researching the most sustainable ways of producing food that consumers will eat and doesn't threaten farming or the environment. " ____ 30 June 2004 GM pesticide " secrets " to go public as Bayer drops court case Bayer CropScience, the multi-national agro-chemical and biotech corporation, has dropped its court action against Friends of the Earth. It had tried to prevent the environmental group from telling the public how to access safety data on pesticides - including a weedkiller for use on GM herbicide-tolerant crops in the UK, Glufosinate Ammonium. Bayer started legal action when Friends of the Earth said it had legally obtained copies of safety data from the Swedish pesticide regulator KEMI and said it was going to tell the public how they could obtain the information in the same way. The information at the centre of the row is of interest to people exposed to pesticides through work, living near sprayed fields, legal representatives and academics researching the environmental and health impacts of pesticide use. Friends of the Earth told Bayer it intended to use its website to tell people how to get data from regulators around the world, including Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and the USA. Bayer had previously taken the UK Government to court to stop them releasing the same information to Friends of the Earth. Last October Bayer applied to the High Court for an injunction to stop Friends of the Earth: - telling people that KEMI or any other regulator held Bayer's pesticide data; - telling people that Friends of the Earth had obtained copies of Bayer's pesticide data from foreign regulators; - from making any more requests to KEMI or to any other foreign regulator for access to Bayer's data. Bayer has now signed up to a settlement promising never to sue Friends of the Earth again for doing these things, and in particular not to sue Friends of the Earth for telling members of the public how to access this type of data or for requesting this type of data from regulators. A web page published today by Friends of the Earth gives advice to the public on how to make requests to international regulators to get copies of information submitted by companies as part of approval applications. The web page includes a warning that the data is subject to copyright protection and intellectual property rights. " This is a humiliating climb-down by Bayer, a biotech bully. Bayer tried to use its massive financial muscle to prevent members of the public having access to important health and environmental data about substances that are sprayed on our food crops every day " , said Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper. " Bayer has gone to great lengths and expense to keep its data out of the public domain but in the end caved in because our case was right. Friends of the Earth's victory is a major step towards lifting the veil of corporate secrecy that surrounds pesticide approvals. It is an important signal to big business that we will not be silenced. It's high time the corporations making pesticides and chemicals moved into the 21st century and supported full access to information instead of resorting to bullying tactics in the courts " . Bayer market many pesticides world wide which pose a threat to the environment and health. Last month, the French Government banned Bayer's pesticide Gaucho because of the threat it poses to honey bees until the product undergoes a further EU safety review in 2006. Other Bayer pesticides include Aldicarb, one of the most toxic chemicals still approved - Bayer successfully lobbied to prevent an EU wide ban last year and continues to keep the product on the market beyond 2007. The Bayer weed killer IPU is frequently detected in rivers during the winter months and has to be filtered out from water going into public at high cost to the water companies to comply with EU drinking water limits. Friends of the Earth has been campaigning for full access to information for many years. It argues that companies that market pesticides and other potentially toxic chemicals must recognise the public has a right to know the potential impact of being exposed to them through breathing, eating and drinking. Public access is also important because it means that independent scientists can monitor the effectiveness of the regulatory process in protecting people and the environment. http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/food_and_biotechnology --- - this message is from realfood to from realfood, send a message to majordomo with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.