GMW: NZ government condemned in Farmers Weekly

[Guest guest]

GMW: NZ government condemned in Farmers Weekly

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:31:19 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

As New Zealand reels from its latest GM contamination incident,

involving a 13,500 tonne consignment of maize in the North Island,

organisations such as 'GE Free NZ' are pointing to the desperate need

for the

principle of " polluter pays " to be established in law.

 

Why, GE Free NZ asks, are New Zealand's export industry and primary

producers repeatedly being put at risk while the taxpaying public gets to

foot the investigation and all the clean-up charges?

 

Instead of promoting the liability and compensation regimes that are

required, Helen Clark's NZ government has been busy blocking them, acting

as a stooge for the US government and other GM exporters.

 

New Zealand together with GM-exporting Brazil took this obstructive

stance at the recent Cartegena protocol meeting in Montreal Canada where

the NZ delegation actively blocked any liability laws and tracking of

GMOs.

 

Why? According to NZ's poorly regarded Environment Minister, Marion

Hobbs, the accurate labelling of GM shipments and a liability regime

would

serve to " slow trade " , acting as an " arbitrary barrier " to the free

flow of goods.

 

Here's a series of great letters and an excellent article, taken from

NZ's FARMERS WEEKLY, which respond to the behaviour of NZ's delegation

in Montreal and to the attempt by Marion Hobbs to justify it.

------

letters to the editor of NZ FARMERS WEEKLY:

email: tim

fax: 06 323 7101

 

18 July 2005 NZ FARMERS WEEKLY

 

" MINISTER DOES NOT CONVINCE "

 

Dear Editor

 

I would like to support what Zelka Vallings said [see article below -

CARTEGENA POSITION HURTS INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION] regarding New

Zealand's position at the recent Cartegena protocol meeting in

Montreal Canada

(Farmers Weekly, July 4).

 

When it first became apparent New Zealand and Brazil were siding with

non voting countries and companies involved in GE, the minister

responsible,

Marian Hobbs, retorted it was the NZ Greens and " NGO's " who were

spreading misinformation.

 

Later, as the truth became evident, she acknowledged the other

Cartegena delegates at Montreal disagreed with NZ's stance.

 

It is shameful enough for us to become the laughing stock of the

conference for our unprincipled stand, but for the minister to deflect

criticism and then change the tune suggests she is out of touch with

what's

going on.

 

It is time the minister acknowledged the depth of opposition here and

overseas to GMOs being spread around the globe unchecked, and stop

making us

look like clowns.

 

Jon Muller

Dip Hort, NDH (Hons)

Via email

 

next letter:

 

" GM MARKET DATA UNAVAILABLE "

 

Dear Editor

 

Environment Minister Marian Hobbs (4 July, Weekly Punchup) was trying

to say that in future New Zealand will have the reputation of being

clean, green and GM. This is highly unlikely, given the increasing

worldwide opposition to GM food.

 

" We do not export any GM products, and whether we do so in the future

should be determined by the normal rules of the market and consumer

demand-

not by arbitrary trade restrictions set through the Cartegena

Protocol, " said Ms Hobbs.

 

The trouble with this stance is that the market is not in a position to

assess any company data, like rat-feeding experiments, and even if it

did so, would have difficulty interpreting them (independent studies of

company lines of GM crops are scarce).

 

Leave this to Food Standards Australia NZ (FSANZ), I hear her saying.

 

Really? They have just approved the corn Mon(santo) 863, which caused

kidney and blood abnormalites in rats. Not a problem, say FSANZ, the

corn was compositionally similar enough to called safe.

 

Who would you trust?

 

Yours sincerely

Dr Elvira Dommisse

(ENDS)

 

25 July 05, NZ FARMERS WEEKLY

 

AUSSIES FIND KIWIS REJECT GMOs

 

Dear Editor

 

My husband and I recently visited New Zealand for a Sheep Breeders

Conference and toured the South Island, visiting many properties on the

way.

 

At every opportunity, I questioned the hospitable locals regarding GMOs

(transgenic technology).

 

Not one indicated to me they wanted GMOs grown in New Zealand and

preferably not on their supermarket shelves either.

 

Helen Clark, your Prime Minister, appears to have turned off her

hearing aid to her constituents by sending a delegation to the Cartegena

Protocol

meeting in Canada which promptly dismissed her own country's concern

about transgenic technology.

 

Perhaps Clark and indeed all parliamentarians who supported such action

would offer their services and their canteens for long term scientific

health studies! If transgenic foods are so safe, as the multinational

PR machines would have us believe, then Clark would have no qualms at

taking

part in such safety testing and then quite rightly- liability and

labelling could become a non-issue.

 

New Zealand is a beautiful country and your marketing skills are

fantastic - hopefully your current government will not lose your natural

advantage by supporting the multinationals over your farmers.

 

Let's get to the bottom of this matter - what problems are trying to be

solved by transgenic technology? There is an alternative and it lies in

understanding our soils, ensuring balanced mineralisation and

supporting farmers who actively pursue such sustainable farming practices.

 

Helen Chambers

Marong, Victoria, Australia

 

next letter:

 

CARTEGENA SAGE KEEPS ROLLING

 

Dear Editor

 

I see Environment Minister Marian Hobb's response to concerns about the

government's attitude to the Cartegena Protocol (Farmers Weekly, July

4) is

not exactly the same as the response I received from the minister.

 

My response from the minister did not contain the paragraph " we do not

export any GM products, and whether we do so in the future should be

determined by the normal rules of the market and consumer demand - not

by arbitrary trade restrictions set through the Cartegena Protocol. "

 

This paragraph is revealing and echoes a phrase which has been repeated

again and again throughout this affair.

 

Notice the minister uses the expression " arbitrary trade restrictions " .

 

How could any decision made by 130 countries who are signatories to the

Cartegena Protocol be considered " arbitrary " ? People right now are

being

affected by GE contamination and labelling issues, not least the 33

African countries for voted for higher accountability.

 

What does the minister consider the " normal rules of the market " to be

exactly, and what does this spurious statement on our possible future

as a

GM exporter have to do with her responsibilities to biosecurity and the

environment?

 

Simon Marler

Auckland

 

ENDS

 

*text of " Punchup " which got the ball rolling:

 

Weekly Punch Up

NZ FARMERS WEEKLY p. ll

4 July 2005

 

New Zealand's negotiating position at the recent Cartegena Protocol

meeting in Montreal, Canada has upset the GE-free lobby. In the Weekly

Punch-up, Northland farmer Zelka Vallings highlights the concerns of

other

conference delegates and suggests New Zealand's reputation for being

clean and green has been damaged. In response, environment minister

Marian Hobbs says that

is not the case at all.

 

(photo: Z Vallings - Zelka Vallings is a Northland avocado farmer)

 

CARTEGENA POSITION HURTS INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION

 

Our farming family is extremely concerned at the unprincipled stance

the New Zealand delegates took at a recent international meeting.

 

This was the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol meeting which discussed the

liability and labeling of LMOs (Living Modified Organisms).

 

On Radio New Zealand's Morning Report programme on May 31, Malaysian

delegate Gurdial Singh Nijar said " towards the end, the New Zealand

delegation suggested one of the options be that there be no instrument

(provisions) on redress and liability. So all of these options were

on the

table and then suddenly the New Zealand delegation suggested that

actually we should have one of those 'no document of any kind- voluntary,

binding, provisional'. "

 

Nijar continued by commenting that the NZ delegation were reflecting

the interests of some rather powerful countries who are involved in GMO

development but who are not parties to the conference.

 

African Group head Dr. Tewolde Egziabher warned the failure to reach

agreement would allow global genetic pollution to escape unnoticed and

unscathed.

 

He said the saddest part of the meeting was that it did not reach a

conclusion on labelling and that was because Brazil and New Zealand

blocked

any progress.

 

New Zealand's admirable reputation as a producer of the highest

quality, safe and clean non-GM food is at risk if stronger biosecurity

protocols are

not swiftly put into place.

 

The right of farmers to save their own seed is also under threat

because of careless distribution of unwanted GM varieties. Now NZ has

ratified the

Cartegena Biosafety Protocol, there is an opportunity to be a " good

global citizen " and for NZ to push for the highest standards of

environmental

protection and accountability (this will also protct our trade

interests/key markets, which demand non-GM produce).

 

But what has the Government actually done? Despite attempts to deny

the unprincipled position on liability and labelling of LMOs taken by the

NZ

delegates at the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol talks in Montreal, it is

clear from the criticisms made by delegates representing other nations,

and

respected journalists like Ashok Sharma (an award-winning journalist

who is respected by both the pro- and anti-GM lobby) that NZ has been

obstructing

negotiations in Montreal.

 

A change in the NZ Government's attitude is urgently needed, to stop

blocking the emerging consensus around rules to implement Article

l8(2)(a)

and to rejoin the countries that are working to build an effective

biosafety regime.

 

This is the Government's responsibility, as representatives of a

democracy where the majority of the population are opposed to the

release of

GM

organisms.

 

Environment minister Marian Hobbs should show some respect for the

serious, science-based environmental and public health concerns which

motivated the emergence of the Biodiversity Convention and the Biosafety

Protocol.

ENDS

 

 

 

 

----------------