Growing
networking against GE trees
From the Amazon to Finland, New Zealand
and Chile, from Indigenous Peoples to European NGOs, from women
to youth groups, in just a week nearly 140 people got connected
and became involved in the gathering of signatures for an Open
Letter demanding a ban on the release of genetically engineered
(GE) trees.
The letter (1), denouncing the impacts
of GE trees on the environment and on people, was handed over
to the 13th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity's
(CBD) Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
Advice (SBSTTA) that took place in Rome, Italy. The signatures
came from members of organizations from countries where research
on the genetic modification of trees is being carried out: Aotearoa/New
Zealand, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal , Spain, Sweden,
The Netherlands, United Kingdom and US.
A web of connections quickly developed,
and a simple letter evolved into a tool for action, where people
got involved and in some cases were informed about something they
were unaware of. Such was the case of a person from Spain who
wrote: “I’ve just read about GE trees and feel it is a very threatening
issue. I didn’t know about this.
Though each and everyone of the signatories
became a participant of the initiative, the prevailing feeling
was that of being thankful, reflected by expressions like “I would
be happy to sign”, “thanks for the initiative”, “keep up the great
work”, “keep up the struggle.”
People expressed their concern as well
as their sorrow. “As a member of the Secwepemc (Shuswap) nation,
I am very concerned about the genetic engineering of the poplar
trees since our people had a very special relationship with the
tree for thousands of years. … I am also expressing our deep concern
over the long term ecological implications of genetic engineering
of plants, as well as the implications of corporate control of
plant life that goes along with genetic technology.”
Underlying the issue is the awareness
that most voices are not being heard, and that most people have
never been consulted about this. A friend from Brazil put it this
way: “I join the signature campaign convinced that we must protect
our native flora and we commit our efforts to make the voices
of those who cannot say what they think and feel to be heard.”
Concerns were expressed about specific
issues such as the potential cross-pollination of GE trees with
natural trees, thus permanently damaging genetic biodiversity,
as well as the potential impacts on human health, as in the following
message: “GM pollen will be widely inhaled by people and this
may have health effects, especially if the trees have been engineered
to produce a pesticide.”
People were eager to exchange updates
and news related to GE trees. From Belgium we got to know that:
“it might be interesting for you to know that currently an application
for a field trial with GM poplar trees is [being] considered.
The minister will take the final decision on the authorisation
the coming month.” A person from Canada informed that: “The Canadian
Government (the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada)
is field testing GE trees in Quebec: our last information is that
field tests include poplar and insect resistant spruce.” Friends
from South Africa expressed that: “The industry players deny that
they have any field trials, but it seems that there could be some
happening even if not approved by government. We will need to
investigate further to see if there is any proof.” The news from
Finland was that: “unfortunately Finland in general has been among
the few countries who have always voted in favour of GMOs. I think
there is a strong scientific lobby on their behalf.”
As a result of the dissemination of
the sign-on letter, a number of Brazilian social organizations
(2) sent a letter to the Brazilian delegate at SBSTTA urging him
“to advocate that CBD SBSTTA reaffirm the resolution of COP8 recommending
the adoption of a precautionary approach based on the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety. Furthermore, in the light of the lack and
uncertainty of scientific reports related to the use of GE trees,
it should be recommended not to perform field studies. ... A case-by-case
evaluation would be contrary to the principles of the CBD and
would respond to the corporate interests of the forestry and biotechnology
industries.”
Similar action was carried out by a
group of Latin American and Argentine organizations (3) who addressed
an Open Letter to the Argentine Delegation at the Rome meeting,
demanding that liberation of genetically manipulated trees be
prohibited.
It is clear that tackling the issue
of GE trees requires a strong opposition movement and in that
respect we quote a Brazilian friend that warned: “This is one
of the BIG issues and only being very united will we be able to
force a change in course.”
He is of course right and that’s precisely
why networking and campaigning at the local and global level are
so necessary. We therefore invite everyone to sign on a similar
letter to be sent to the upcoming CBD COP 9 (4), and –more importantly-
to become involved to stop this insanity.
(1)
[see letter at http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/BDC/SBSTTA13/GE_Trees_Campaign.html]
(2)
(including Marcha Mundial de Mulheres (a global women’s group),
Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores
(a small farmers’ group), Movimento
dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (a landless rural workers’
group), Movimento de Mulheres Camponesas (a peasant women’s group),
Terra de Directos (a human rights’ group)
(3)
(Movimiento Campesino de Santiago del Estero-Vía Campesina (Santiago
del Estero Peasant Movement – Via Campesina) Centro de Políticas
Públicas para el Socialismo (Centre for Public Policies for Socialism),
GRAIN, Grupo de Reflexión Rural (Rural Reflection Group), Movimiento
Semillero de Misiones (Misiones Seed Movement), Centro de Acción
Popular Olga Márquez de Arédez (Olga Marquez de Aredez Centre
for Grass-roots Action), Juventud Indígena Argentina,(Argentine
Indigenous Youth Movement), El Aguamanda-Gualeguaychú, (Water
Commands in Gualeguaychu), Grupo de Ecología Politica, Comunidades
y Derechos (Group for Ecological Policy, Communities and Rights),
Red por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos (Network for
a Latin America Free from Transgenic trees).
(4)
contact Ana Filippini, e-mail: anafili@wrm.org.uy
Article
based on messages received from people who signed on to the letter
