Articles

Lured by promises of aid and investment, African governments are rewriting laws to create lucrative opportunities for corporate agribusiness, writes Chris Walker - while consigning their own farmers to servitude and landlessness. But now farmers are rising up, as in Ghana where a new 'Monsanto law' threatens to end their right to grow, save and share their ancestral seeds.

"We, the small holder farmers, want to have good lives," says Victoria Adongo from the Peasant Farmers' Association of Ghana. "We have our seed systems that we like and are proud of. So we do not want multinational companies to come in and take over."

Not only can agroecology increase Africa's farming yields, unlike corporate-led farming, it can help farmers control their land, seeds and livelihoods, and build resilient local economies.

Adongo, speaking in Global Justice Now's new short film Whoever Controls Seeds, Controls the Food System (https://youtu.be/pWKfg0d63SA) - launched this week - is explaining what could be at stake if Ghana's parliament passes new seed laws backed by G8 governments.

SPEECH - 8 June 2015

Commissioner Andriukaitis addressing extraordinary meeting of the parliament's committee on the environment, public health and food safety on GMO Proposal

Chairman, Honourable Members,

Thank you for inviting me to this extraordinary meeting of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food safety to discuss the Commission proposal to amend the GM food and feed Regulation.

(.....)

Therefore I would like to ask everyone to play fair here. The Commission will still be in charge as regards GM authorisations, which would continue to be granted at European level. However Member States who have identified very serious legitimate concerns about the use of GMOs will have the possibility to present these concerns and to restrict the use of GMOs on their territory.

(.....)

First of all, the Member States could not base their restrictions or bans on grounds which conflict with the element considered by EFSA during the risk assessment. They could only use “compelling grounds” unrelated to science.

"Other legitimate factors” is a notion already present in the legislation. The Commission can use these in the context of the decision of authorisation, but in practice, due to the divergent views of Member States, the Commission has never been in a position to identify legitimate factors valid at EU-level which could justify refusing an authorisation.

The proposal seeks to allow Member States to use these "compelling grounds", based on their own national situation. This is in line with the subsidiarity approach.

Let me also stress that the use of compelling grounds by the Member States is compatible with the single market rules. Indeed, the Treaty foresees the possibility to derogate to the Single Market for “overriding reasons of public interest”.

The movement of GM food and feed would be preserved. Member States could not ban the free circulation and import – only the use. Member States would not be allowed to ban food and feed where GMOs are present at trace level.

Other Member States and the Commission would have the possibility to comment on the draft opt out measures.

(.....)

Are Food Producers Abandoning GMOs in Breakfast Cereals but Force-Feeding Risky GM Staple Food to South Africans?

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITY (ACB) Johannesburg, 04 June 2015

The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has re-tested 4 popular maize milled products as well as 16 baby and breakfast cereals containing maize and/or soya ingredients in order to gauge the extent to which food producers are responding to consumer pressure (see Tables 1 and 2 below). The latest results reveal that the four food companies that control our maize milled market—Premier, Tiger Brands, Foodcorp and Pioneer—remain intransigent and are determined to force feed South African consumers with risky GM maize. The re-test results show an overall increase in the percentage of GM maize in the popular maize brands.1 The average amount of GM maize in a packet of maize meal is now 80%.

Major Blow to Monsanto’s Glyphosate as Swiss Retailers Begin Removing Herbicides From Store Shelves

Why are the Swiss willing to protect their people over the risk of profits and from cancer but not US retailers?

Coop supermarkets and Coop Building & Hobby hardware stores in Switzerland are effective immediately removing all glyphosate-containing herbicides including Round Up from it’s shelves. Following in their footsteps Migros another major retailer has also stated they will be doing the same. No word yet if retailers Landi, Hornback and Jumbo would also remove all glyphosate from their stores. The push for a permanent ban in the Swiss nation is being made by via a petition.

The petition (link below) has been launched demanding that glyphosate be banned permanently in Switzerland. The petition demands “Glyphosate ban – now!

The petition can be signed here: https://www.konsumentenschutz.ch/themen/lebensmittelproduktion/glyphosat-verbieten-jetzt/

or here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/switzerland/de/Kampagnen/Glyphosat/

After a long scan of the organic-vegetable cooler, Penelope Wall added several items to her cart.

"Oh my gosh!" Wall said. "I'm about to spend $5 on a bag of baby cucumbers."

She pinched one of the bright green gherkins and added, "But they look really crunchy and I'm excited to eat one."

Wall picked her way through City Market's eclectic-but-lightly-stocked produce section on a Sunday afternoon in May. The Burlington mother of two toddlers, who were napping at home, said she tries to shop organic and local. Her reasons include the desire to get the freshest food possible, to support community agriculture and to avoid genetically modified organisms.

For a moratorium on importated papaya seeds to New Caledonia

In February of 2014, the New Caledonian Government passed an order to ban the importation of GM fruit seeds, including papaya, into the territory. The ban was put into place in August of 2014. Nevertheless, this new law went nearly unnoticed: no debate on this serious issue…are there GM papaya plants in New Caledonia?

In spite of repeated demands, the institutions of New Caledonia have continued to turn a political blind eye regarding the presence of possible GM papaya plants in the territory and the probable contamination to the traditional local papayas. For several years now, the Office of Agriculture Development of the Southern Province have recommended using papaya seeds from the Hawaiian SunUp variety, the infamous GM papaya developed by the University of Hawaii.

The importation of seeds, and the contamination of local papaya plants is of no doubt, now is the time to inform the population in order to take the necessary steps to stop it. Moreover, given the risks of contamination and the spreading of GM papaya everywhere, it is no longer reasonable to continue to import papaya seeds into New Caledonia at all, even if they are not considered GMO.

Live debate “GMOs – on or off the EU’s menu?” on Monday 14 July at 12:00 pm CET

The Commission (DG SANTE) tabled its highly-anticipated review of the EU’s decision-making process for genetically modified (GM) crop authorisation on April 22 that seeks to give governments more freedom to decide on the use of GMOs on their territory. Under the plans, Member States could prohibit their farmers from using imports of biotech feed for their livestock. The long-awaited review – first announced by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in July 2014 – prompted a scathing response from industry, NGOs & the EU’s trade partners. Industry groups (representatives of trade, feed industry & oilseed processors) fear the plan risks disrupting the internal market & endangering feed supplies as European farmers are heavily reliant on imports of protein crops. Industry representatives say the move could increase costs for EU operators, cause feed supply shortages & trade distortions (when non-authorised GM varieties are detected in shipments). Meanwhile, green NGOs have reacted angrily to the move, saying it fails on a pledge by Juncker to make the approval process more democratic. In addition, the review has emerged as a major bone of contention in the on-going EU-US free trade talks, with key negotiators in Washington slamming the “nonsensical plans”.

Medford, OR - Family farmers and other supporters of Jackson County’s precedent-setting ban on genetically engineered (GE) crop cultivation are celebrating a federal court ruling upholding the legality of Jackson County’s ordinance. The ban passed last year with the backing of over 150 family farms threatened by contamination from GE crops, also known as GMOs, and bipartisan support from 66% of county voters. The win came despite almost $1 million in opposition spending by Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and other chemical corporations heavily invested in GE crops. The ruling released this afternoon by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke was a resounding victory for Our Family Farms Coalition (OFFC) and Center for Food Safety (CFS), which intervened in the case to defend the ban along with two local family farmers. Lawyers with Center for Food Safety and the Earthrise Law Center based at Lewis and Clark Law School jointly represented the intervening parties.

Magistrate Judge Clarke rejected a legal challenge by two GE growers, backed by Monsanto and other GE interests, claiming that the Jackson County GE crop ban violated Oregon’s Right to Farm Act. The court, however, held that Jackson County’s ban was allowed under Oregon’s Right to Farm Act since it was intended to “protect against damage to commercial agriculture products, and therefore it falls into the exception to the Right to Farm Act.” The Court also relied on the fact that Oregon’s Legislature clearly intended to exempt the Jackson County ban when it adopted a general pre-emption bill aimed at GE crops during the 2013 special legislative session.

Now you can enjoy watching the videos from this year´s GMO-FREE EUROPE Conference.

http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-europe-2015/videos-from-gmo-free-europe-conference.html

GMO-FREE EUROPE Conference Berlin May 6, 2015 (Time 1:24:43)

GMO-FREE EUROPE Conference Berlin May 7, 2015 pt1 (Time 1:17:04)

GMO-FREE EUROPE Conference Berlin May 7, 2015 pt2 (Time 1:32:21)

GMO-FREE EUROPE Conference Berlin May 8, 2015 (Time 2:15:52)

GMO-FREE EUROPE Conference Berlin May 6 to 8, 2015: Interviews (Time 27:05)

Brussels, 26 May 2015 – Today the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the Commission’s proposal for a new EU organic regulation, Martin Häusling, has presented his report to the Parliament Agriculture Committee.

“We welcome Martin Häusling’s report, which better reflects the needs of the organic sector, and is in line with the opinion of the Committee of the Regions and the independent evaluation report subcontracted by the Commission in 2012. It is a major step in the right direction, focusing on the needed improvements in the current legislation and clearly showing an understanding that an evolution of the organic regulation is needed, not a revolution”, said IFOAM EU President Christopher Stopes.

“One of the main issues hampering the organic sector is uneven implementation by Member States and the Green’s report adds new elements to the discussion,” stated Marco Schlüter, IFOAM EU Director. “The report also removes the most problematic elements of the Commission’s proposal, including the wrong-headed decertification threshold which would make organic farmers and processors pay for the pollution caused by adventitious contamination. In restoring the control aspects to the organic regulation, MEP Häusling also maintains the understanding that the organic food and farming based on a principled process of production, which cannot be evaluated simply by testing a final product. Import is another area where progress has been made, as the Green MEP corrects the Commission’s flawed compliance-based approach which would be detrimental to developing countries and would affect the availability of products for EU processors and consumers. Overall Häusling’s report is a good basis for discussion, even though some aspects need to be fine-tuned”.