6/6 2014 - Køb biodynamisk, Nej GMO i USA, Robin-Hood, AntroPost og EU
 | | |
|
Inhold
|
- Købes biodynamiske varer
- Nej til GMO i USA
- Robin-Hood bladet
- Norske AntroPost og
- 5 EU vil mindske GMO-valgfrihed.
Mvh Lars Mikkelsen
| | | |
|
1 Biodynamisk i Torvehallerne
|
Biodynamiskmælk og smør m.v. kan købes I torvehallerne ved Nørreport, Kbh.
Regnet fra Nørreport st. i den sidste hal til venstre, boden Omegn.
Da jeg var der 3-6, stod der, at vores Klaus Loehr-Petersen ville være der om eftermiddagen.
Samme bod har også et økologisk grøntsagssalg, mange varer er biodynamiske (imellem de 2 haller).
| | | |
|
2 Nej til GMO i 2 kommuner i USA
|
Nej til GMO i 2 kommuner i USA – virkelig en god nyhed.
Der følger dog en retssag senere.
I nov. vil der komme noget om en evt. mærkning af GMO-varer.
Håb forude?
Fra: Klaus Loehr-Petersen [mailto:klp@pedersholm.dk]
Sendt: 24. maj 2014 22:56
Til: Lars Mikkelsen
Emne: Fw: Victory! GMOs Banned By Voters in Two Oregon Counties!
Hej Lars
Det var dejligt at se dig igen - på slotspladsen...
Her er den gode nyhed om de to kommuner i Oregon, der har stemt nej til GMO. Send det gerne videre.
Venlig hilsen Klaus
(Se lige herunder)
| | | |
|
Pledge to Support Local Initiatives to Ban GMOs
|
A message from the leader
Organic Consumers Association
From: Organic Consumers Association via Causes
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:49 PM
To: biodynamisk-forening@mail.tele.dk
Subject: Victory! GMOs Banned By Voters in Two Oregon Counties!
Posted By: Organic Consumers Association (campaign leader)
On Tuesday, May 20, voters in two counties in Oregon passed ballot initiatives to ban the growing of genetically engineered crops.
Jackson County's Measure 15-119 passed overwhelmingly, by 66 percent to 34 percent. Proponents of the ban raised only $375,000 compared with a record nearly $1 million raised by the opposition, which included agribusiness giants Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont Pioneer.
Voters in Josephine County passed Measure 17-58 by a vote of 58 percent to 42 percent. However, the ban will be tested in court because the state passed a controversial law in October 2013, stripping counties of the right to pass GMO bans. The Jackson County measure is exempt from the state law because it had already qualified for the ballot prior to the passage of S.B. 863.
Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association and the Organic Consumers Fund which mobilized its members and donated $50,000 to the Oregon campaigns, issued this statement today:
"The passing of these two GMO bans in Jackson and Josephine Counties should send a clear signal to politicians that citizens not only reject unregulated and hazardous GMOs, but are willing to defy the indentured politicians who pass laws, like Oregon's S.B. 863, that take away county rights to ban GMOs and obliterate a 100-year tradition of home rule and balance of powers between counties and the state.
"This is a tremendous victory for the citizens of these two counties, and for the farmers who are determined to fight the threat of unwanted contamination by GMO crops. It is also a victory for the national anti-GMO movement as it builds momentum for similar bans in counties in other states.
"The margins of victory for these two measures also bode well for passing Oregon's Ballot Initiative #44 in November 2014, a statewide ballot measure to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods and foods containing GMO ingredients, sold at retail.
"And finally, these victories make it clear to agribusiness giants like Monsanto and Dow that the day has come when they can no longer buy and lie their way to victory. By using the tools of democracy, such as ballot initiatives, citizens can overcome corporate and government corruption through honest campaigns, built on a foundation of truth, science and fair play.
"The OCA looks forward to helping the citizens of Josephine County defend their right to ban GMOs when they go to court to test the state's new law, S.B. 863, and to helping the Oregon Right to Know campaign pass a strong GMO labeling law in November."
| | | |
|
3 Nyeste udgave af Robin Hood
|
http://robin-hood.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RB4.pdf
| | | |
|
4 Nyeste udgave af AntroPost
|
http://www.antroposofi.no/fileadmin/ain/AntroPost_5-2014.pdf
| | | |
|
5 Forslag i EU om nationale forbud mod GMO
|
EU vil ikke, at de enkelte lande mere kan sige nej til GMO. (Hvis jeg har forstået dette ret)
Fra: inge.ambus@mail.tele.dk [mailto:inge.ambus@mail.tele.dk]
Sendt: 23. maj 2014 22:53
Til: Lars Thomsen Mikkelsen
Emne: Re: SV: Forslag i EU om nationale forbud mod GMO
Hej Lars,
Jeg har lige videresendt det brev, som vi fik fra Friends of the Earth, Europe om sagen. Der er både forslaget og deres anbefalinger til, hvad vi skal gøre.
Jeg har lige fået at vide her til aften, at der er brug for at tweete den danske coroeper repræsentant inden mødet, som er flyttet til den 28 maj, at forslaget skal til politisk debat inden afstemning.
Det er helt vildt.
Venlig hilsen
Inge
| | | |
|
Forslag i EU om nationale forbud mod GMO
|
Det er jeg bestemt interesseret i – og ved intet derom før nu, så tak.
Fra: inge.ambus@mail.tele.dk
Sendt: 22. maj 2014 00:09
Til: Lars Thomsen Mikkelsen
Emne: Forslag i EU om nationale forbud mod GMO
Hej Lars,
Har du mon fulgt med i debatten om det nye lovforslag i EU, der skal sikre enkeltlandene yderligere muligheder for at sige nej tak til dyrkningen af GMO. ????
Det første blev fremsat af Helle Thorning Schmidt under det danske formandskab, men blev nedstemt.
Nu er det græske formandskab kommet med et nyt forslag, som forventeligt er langt værre for os end det oprindelige forslag.
Godt fortalt skal de enkelte landes regeringere bede GMO-industrien pænt om tilladelse til at blive fritaget fra deres ansøgning om tilladelse til dyrkning af GMO.
Konsekvenserne er mere vidtrækkende og vedtages det, vil det være langt sværere at være økolog eller biodynamiker i fremtiden.
Der er et forberedende møde, hvor vi helst skal have de danske repræsentanter i EU om at anbefale Miljørådet om, som et absolut minimum at tage forslaget op til en politisk debat.
Rådet mødes i juni omkring dette lovforslag, men allerede den 28 maj er der et forberedende møde.
Har du mon set noget om denne sag ??
(Jeg har en kopi af lovforslaget, hvis du er interesseret)
Venlig hilsen
Inge (Ambus)
| | | | Fra: Inge Ambus
Sendt: 23. maj 2014 22:51
Til: lars@t-mikkelsen.dk
Emne: Fw: [Eurogm] ACT and Update National ban proposal, crucial days
----- Original Message -----
From: NOAH
To: 'Bente Hessellund' ; Christian ; Inge Ambus ; junerebekkabresson; 'Nanna Clifforth' ; 'Safania Eriksen' ; 'Sesilje Bondo Petersen' ; 'Tilde Detz Jensen' ; 'Aase Schroll Kristiansen'
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 2:50 PM
Subject: VS: [Eurogm] ACT and Update National ban proposal, crucial days
Fra: Eurogm
På vegne af Mute Schimpf
Sendt: 5. maj 2014 14:12
Til: EUROGM lista
Emne: [Eurogm] ACT and Update National ban proposal, crucial days
Dear all, It seems that we will end if a really bad text from Environment minister in the coming weeks about national bans. Thus it now time to get active around it.
1. Minimum aim for Lobbying
have a discussion at Council and not only a vote
If we do not succeed with it this would mean that ministers would vote without any discussion about the most controversial GM proposal for several years.
Representatives of Bulgaria, France, Poland, Cyprus, Malta, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark, Germany …. should demand a political debate on the proposal at Council level at their council preparatory meeting on 23 May.
2. Dirty Lobbying:
Improve some parts of the texts, even if we won’t like the outcome. The situation demands damage control.
Details about our demands you can find in the attached file
· Ask several governments to support amendments from the French or Polish government or from other GM critical governments
· table additional amendments
· and strongly signal need for further discussions.
This file should only be used for very good contacts in ministries and not given to anybody that you can not fully trust.
3. Use social media for get our message out to the public
- This is no way to keep Europe's fields free of these unwanted crops.
This proposal is a poisoned chalice that brings profits for biotech companies, and the expense of people and the environment.
- Forcing governments to ask biotech companies to them from the authorisation of new GM crops is undemocratic – putting the interests of biotech companies before democratically elected governments.
- It puts the decision on whether to grow crops or not into the hands of those who profit from them
4. Get in contact with investigative journalists
The story is too complex for a simple press release. Get in personal contact with journalists and explain them the real story behind the proposal. Currently I am in contact with one news-wire journalists and hope they write about it tomorrow.
We also work on a short media reaction for the coming days.
5. Update me what is going on in your country
6. Next steps:
After controversial discussions at the Council Working Group meeting on 2 May, the next discussion will happen on 23 May at Coreper. This means we gained some time to impact national ministries.
Please contact me, if you have any questions. Mute--
Mute Schimpf
Food Campaigner
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue d’Edimbourg 26
1050 Brussels
Belgium
Tel +32 2 893 1038
Fax +32 2 893 1035
http://www.foeeurope.org |
| | |
|
Det ene oplæg:
|
Assessment and recommendations for Greek presidency proposal discussed at 2nd May
Main content of the proposal
1. The legal base of the proposal and legal certainty for option 2
The European Parliament improved the original Commission proposal regarding the legal basis; the Greek Presidency however did not take this over in their compromise proposal. Previous legal opinions from the Council (11 April 2011) underlines the legal challenges via WTO rules.
It would be important to change the legal basis of the whole proposal from article 114 of the treaty to article 192 (article 192 refers to environmental, thus foresees the protection of the environment etc. as high priority, this would increase the legal solidity of the whole text).
EU-Parliaments text: "Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof, [Am 1]" (the Commission proposal foresees Article 114 as legal basis for the proposal)
→ recommendation following the Parliament text.
2. Approving national or regional bans
The Council is proposing 2 different ways of agreeing bans.
Option One: Agreeing bans with the GM industry:
Option one is for the applicant for a GMO (ie the biotech company) to agree to not include a country or region in its application.
This means that if a country wants to prevent the cultivation of a GM crop on its territory, it would have to first agree this in advance with the biotech company seeking an authorisation. The small change that the European Commission would be the communication channel between biotech companies and the government can not be seen as substantial improvement
This idea is inacceptable on a number of grounds:
- · it treats sovereign states and private companies as equals and gives the GM industry a formalised role in policy-making.
- · the current text would encourage member states to get agreements with biotech companies, demoting the need for any rigorous scrutiny of the health and environmental risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
- · there are no rights for countries to force the company to restrict the application, they can only make a request and the company can decide whether to accept it or not.
- · It seems unrealistic that biotech industry would accept this for any bigger member state
→ Maximal recommandation > delete Article 1, - paragraphs 1 -2.
To avoid bigger harm : support the amendments from France about clarification that biotech companies have a period of 30 days to react to the request to exclude a national territory from the EU wide application of a GM crop.
→ Minimum recommendation> secure transparency in the negotiations between governments and the applicant:
Add end of Article 1, para 1 the sentence:
The Commission informs other governments and the European Parliament about the outcome of member state request and in case of any specific agreements between a member state and the applicants also about these specific agreements.
Option Two: If biotech industry does not agree
The Greek presidency proposal makes it obligatory for member states to use option 1 - governments to ask the biotech industry for consent to ban a GM crop nationally- before they can use a list of grounds for a national restriction or prohibition of a ban.
This new obligation implements a direct demand from the biotech industry and give the biotech companies even more power.
→ Minimum recommendation> delete: Where the notifier/applicant opposes the adjustment of the geographical scope of its notification/application corresponding to a request made by a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1, that It would raise strong public concerns, if Environment ministers are favouring a demand from the biotech company, in order to develop a sound proposal for national bans.
→ recommendation: add more grounds to the list as biodiversity,
Better environment risk assessment - outstanding promises:
The French ministries tabled an amendment for a new recital 2a. This amendment reaffirmed the unanimous demand of Environment ministers from December 2008, for stricter environmental risk assessment. For more than 5 years the Commission has failed to act. All countries should support this demand:
(2a) As a matter of priority, risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority pursuant to this directive or to Regulation 1829/2003 should be strengthened. …. Revised guidelines on risk assessment concerning GMOs should be adopted in a legislative act.
| | | |
|
|
