COUNTRIES – EU

Speech by David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, "Risk and Governance", World Congress on Risk Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), Brussels, 23 June 2003 http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=SPEECH/03/317|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=

 Environment and health; the European Commission launches a strategy to reduce diseases linked to environmental factors, 11 June 2003 http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/823|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display= 

 =================================================

COUNTRIES - INDIA

June 23, 2003: State Level Environmental Discussion Group

Indian Environment Online has started separate State Chapters for  each States & UTs. So that each state specific issues can be  discussed in that separate State Environment Online Discussion Group  in detail.  http://indianenvironmentonline.net

 --

 from Coalition against BAYER-dangers

Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta exploiting child labour, says report A new report by Dr Davuluri Venkateswarlu (Glocal Research and Consultancy Services) reveals that multinational companies are perpetuating the terrible problem of child labour on cotton seed farms in India. It is estimated that nearly 450.000 children, in the age group of 6 to 14 years, are employed in cottonseed fields in India.

 Currently there are about 200 seed companies involved in production and marketing of hybrid cottonseeds in India, including multinational companies (MNCs) like Unilever, Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Advanta and Emergent Genetics. MNCs are operating their seed business activities through their own subsidiary companies in India or joint ventures and collaborations with local Indian companies.

 Local seed farmers, who cultivate hybrid cottonseeds for the big seed companies, secure the labour of girls by offering loans to their parents in advance of cultivation, compelling the girls to work at the terms set by the employer for the entire season, and, in practice, for several years. These girls work long days, are paid very little, are deprived of an education and are exposed for long periods to dangerous agricultural chemicals.

 MNCs like Monsanto, Advanta and Bayer claim that they are committed to socially responsible business practices. Unilever, Syngenta and Bayer are also member companies of the global compact (please also see the report: “Bayer and the Global Compact”), a joint initiative of the United Nations and private business companies started in 2000, aimed at improving the human rights, social standards and environmental protection. But the activities of these MNCs in the area of cottonseed business in India are certainly not in tune with what they claim about their commitment to socially responsible corporate behaviour. Though they are not directly involved in employing children they have substantial control over seed farmers who actually employ children for producing seed for these companies.

 Seed farmers have stated two main reasons for their preference for child labour: children's wages are much lower than adult wages and they are generally easier to control. Given costs of cultivation and prices they get for their produce seed farmers can not afford to hire adult labour by paying better wages and still earn a reasonable profit. Accordingly a seed farmer who is producing seed for Unilever says, “if we have to employ adult labour we will have to pay double the wages than what we are paying now to children. With prices we get from companies we cannot afford to employ adult labour. Though our costs are increasing every year companies are not coming forward to increase their procurement prices.”

 What distinguishes child labour in cottonseed production from other industries which employ child labour is that it involves relatively large numbers and female child labour constitutes majority of the total labour force. The figure of children working in the cottonseed business surpasses the total number of children employed in industries such as carpet, glass bangles, diamond polishing gem polishing and limestone put together in India.

 See full report: http://www.indianet.nl/cotseed.html

The report was commissioned by the India Committee of Netherlands

 Coalition against BAYER-dangers, web: www.CBGnetwork.org , email: CBGnetwork@aol.com

 ================================================= 

 COUNTRIES  - INDIA

From P A N U P , Pesticide Action Network Updates Service

Indian Chemical Companies Seek a Right to Poison

July 7, 2003 The Indian chemical industry has urged their government not to ratify the Stockholm Convention, an international treaty on persistent organic pollutants that is nearing global ratification. The Indian Chemicals Manufacturing Association (ICMA) released a statement in early June warning that "the globally legally binding treaty would be detrimental to the health of the Indian chemical industry" if it is accepted by the Indian government. India was one of the 97 countries that signed the treaty in May 2001, indicating intent to ratify and implement the Convention.

The Stockholm Convention, which currently has 33 of 50 ratifications needed to come into effect, maps out a plan for the elimination of a class of chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants or "POPs." POPs have characteristics that lead to their global transport and biomagnification as they move up the food chain and accumulate in animal and human fat. Extremely persistent and toxic, they are particularly harmful to children and pregnant women, even in very small doses.

The initial list of 12 chemicals targeted under the Convention includes DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, mirex, toxaphene and PCBs, all of which had once been produced for the human benefit, either to control diseases (DDT), pests (aldrin) or as industrial products (PCB oils for electrical transformers). Others like dioxins, furans, hexzachlorobenzene and PCBs (which are also manufactured) are unintentional by-products of processes like waste incineration, paper manufacturing and chemical production (see PANUPs Stockholm Convention Ratifications Gain Momentum, November 2002, http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20021101.dv.html and http://www.pops.int , for a detailed description of the Stockholm Convention and a current list of ratifying countries).

In India, nine of the 10 'manufactured' POPs on the initial list have already been banned (e.g. aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane) or were never manufactured in the country (e.g. mirex and toxaphene). The sole exception is DDT, which is used and exported for malaria control, but manufactured only by the government and in decreasing quantities. It is important to understand why ICMA would so aggressively oppose a treaty that does not affect its current markets.

The powerful Indian chemical industry has annual revenues of over US$25 billion (13% of total Indian GDP), ranking twelfth worldwide. Within that, the Indian agro-chemical sector contributes US$600 million every year and produces an estimated 90,000 metric tons of pesticides a year. Data on pesticide residues in food collected over the past 15 years has shown widespread contamination of both packaged food and farm gate products throughout the country. The chemical industry is also a significant source of export revenue, representing 13% contribution to total exports annually.

The restrictions and ultimate bans laid out in the Stockholm Convention represent a new reality for Indian agrochemical companies, which have faced minimal restrictions over the years as government policy linked pesticides and fertilizers to increased food production.

The provision in the POPs treaty to add new chemicals beyond the 12 currently on the list may be the major source of industry opposition. The Indian chemical industry has a particular investment in two pesticides, endosulfan and lindane, which are widely considered likely candidates for addition under the treaty. Endosulfan alone accounts for over 10% of total insecticide consumption in India, and has recently come under severe pressure owing to the health effects it has caused in communities living around cashew plantations in the Kasargode district in South India. To counter this public pressure a new Association of Endosulfan Manufactures in India has been formed and is campaigning aggressively to protect endosulfan production and use.

The Indian chemical industry's efforts to block adoption of the Stockholm Convention flies in the face of an emerging international consensus supporting global elimination of persistent organic pollutants. Increased flow of global information, however, will make it difficult for ICMA to succeed in their efforts. New internationally linked networks of civil society such as IPEN (the International POPs Elimination Network) bring credible global information and experience, through its worldwide membership, to the doorstep of affected villages in India. Civil society is now participating in international policy fora such as the Intergovernmental Forum for Chemical Safety (IFCS) and the UN Environment Program. Regional and national public interest can engage with and counter industry arguments effectively.

By calling on the Indian government to avoid ratification of the Stockholm Convention, ICMA is attempting to block inevitable progress in the country's chemicals policy. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, Indian chemical companies are refusing to accept real progress in protecting human health and the environment.

Sources: "Chemical Industry Urges Govt To Stay Off POPs Treaty" by Vijay Trivedi, June 9, 2003, Financial Express, http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=35846 ; Pesticides in India: Environment and Health Sourcebook, November 2000, Toxics Link.

 Contact: Toxics Link India, email ravig1@vsnl.com , Web site http://www.toxicslink.org .

 PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

Back issues of PANUPS are available online at: http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html

To comment, send an email to: panna@panna.org  Web: http://www.panna.org

 ================================================= 

 FOOD  - GMO – POLITIC

From Coalition against BAYER-dangers

Australia: Bayer refuses to accept liability for its GM crops. It's time government acted to protect non-GM growers

 The Network of Concerned Farmers (Australia) have expressed disappointment that Bayer Cropscience has indicated they have no intention to accept costs and liabilities for the control of their product. Bayer Cropscience refused a request to withdraw their license application for
genetically modified canola until this issue was resolved.

 "If Bayer CropScience was so confident that there will be no problem with their product, they would not be objecting to accepting the cost and liability for the control of it." said Julie Newman NFC spokesperson and WA farmer.

 "We are faced with a situation where the GM industry is not prepared to bear the costs and liabilities associated with introduction and control of the GM product and have drafted management plans to put this responsibility on to non-GM growers. Non-GM growers are certainly not prepared to subsidise companies such as Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto; these companies make this product and they must be totally responsible for it."

 "On release, Australia will lose its non-GM status And it will be extremely expensive for non-GM growers  to verify a crop as non-GM. Non-GM growers must not be forced to market as GM due to these excessive costs and liabilities. Non-GM is a preferred market and  the GM industry must not be allowed to deprive us of our chosen markets."

 "We can only co-exist if we maintain our national non-GM status and ensure the GM industry is 100% responsible for  total containment of the GM canola and all associated costs and liabilities.  This must include containerising on farm, a strict testing regime for neighbouring crops, serious fines for non-compliance and a contingency fund for compensation." "If the company will not accept responsibility for its product, it's time the Government imposed legislation to ensure they do."

 The Network of Concerned Farmers tabled the following letter:

 Susie O'Neill, General Manager, BioScience, Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd, 391 Tooronga Rd, EAST HAWTHORN VIC 3123

 12th June, 2003

 Re: Request to withdraw license application for Invigor Canola

 Dear Susie,

As Bayer Cropscience is well aware, there are many unresolved issues still in dispute regarding the practicalities for commercial release of Invigor Canola.

Unfortunately the Federal legislation may allow the OGTR to approve the commercial release of Invigor Canola prior to the appropriate State legislations being in place and prior to the agricultural industry being prepared and able to manage these crops. It is imperative that no sector of industry should be faced with unmanageable problems with the introduction of any new crop.

Contamination of non-GM seed by GM crops is considered uncontrollable and yet it appears the cost and liability for controlling contamination has been allocated to the non-GM growers.

As a network representing non-GM growers, we refuse to accept any costs or liabilities for attempting to control the contamination of a GM crop we do not want.

We therefore insist that, in accordance with normal business practise, Bayer Cropscience accept the costs and liabilities for the control of their product.

If Bayer Cropscience refuse to accept this, we consider the release of Bayer Cropscience Invigor Canola should not progress until there is a party willing to accept these costs and liabilities.

The Network of Concerned Farmers hereby requests that Bayer Cropscience temporarily withdraw the application to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator for license of Invigor Canola until these serious issues are resolved.

As the Regulator is expected to make a final decision within weeks, we consider it a matter of urgency that you make your decision public within 7 days.

Yours faithfully,

 Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmers (  www.non-gm-farmers.com  )

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

 19 June, 2003 Update: Bayer Cropscience have responded to our letter and although the details of the letter were marked confidential, they have responded with the following press release on 20, June 2003:

 Bayer Cropscience has responded in writing to the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) request to withdraw InVigor hybrid canola from the regulatory process of the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).

The NCF presented a letter demanding the withdrawal of the InVigor hybrid canola submission at the end of a Canberra meeting arranged by Bayer CropScience last week. A joint communique was issued at the end of the meeting signifying constructive discussions and a willingness to continue dialogue.

In the response, Ms Susie O'Neill stated that Bayer CropScience was unable to withdraw the application for commercial release of InVigor hybrid canola for a number of reasons including maintaining good faith and trust in the federal regulatory system for GM crops.

Ms O'Neill said "To withdraw our licence at this time would show a lack of confidence in both our product and in the OGTR, neither of which we would see as being warranted."

"Bayer CropScience strongly disagrees with the Network's assertion that "contamination" is "considered uncontrollable". Whilst we respect this partisan position, it is clearly contrary to the vast body of scientific evidence, trial outcomes and experience, said Ms O'Neill.

Bayer CropScience noted that the NCF's greater concern lies with issues of liability which Bayer believes can be addressed through the avenues governed by contracts and common law.

"Thresholds and stewardship programs for GM and non GM crops also effectively deal with liabilities, Ms O'Neill explained.

"Thresholds and tolerances, for example, for weed seeds and pesticide residues are standard practice for non-GM crops produced today to meet marketing specifications. Whilst further clarification of GM threshold levels in non-GM grain, consistent with global trade requirements are progressing, Australia's major export markets for canola all accept GM grain today.

"Through grower training programs on InVigor hybrid canola and the coexistence principles developed by industry, farmers will be able to produce the crops of their choice without impacting on each others farming system.

Ms O'Neill also explained that OGTR approval for InVigor hybrid canola, should it proceed, is not the end of the issue for commercialisation as various State Governments have, or are considering, introducing moratoriums. "Whilst Bayer CropScience does not see the need for moratoroiums to be introduced in Australia, we are committed to working with State Governments to ensure they have confidence in markets and trade, before moving ahead", she said.

 Bayer CropScience announced last week that no commercialisation would occur in Australia in 2003, but trial programs would continue, as they had for a number of years. Bayer CropScience thanked the NCF for their letter and welcomed the opportunity to engage with all groups in this debate.

 Further information regarding Bayers reply:

 Markets: Using a 5 year averages from 97-01, our largest customer China (37%) has not yet approved GM canola and its tightened regulation requires a guarantee of the product to health and the environment. When even the American FDA will not guarantee this, will our marketers sign such a deal? Japan (29%) have expressed preference for non-GM and European Union (13%) are rejecting GM's. Both China and EU propose to introduce labelling of oils which will have a serious impact on markets as retailers will be reluctant to stock GM. It should not be up to the GM industry to make decisions restricting non-GM growers rights to market on the preferred non-GM market.

 Cost: Why should farmers who wish to market on the non-GM growers be expected to be responsible for paying an estimated 10 - 20% of the product value to provide the necessary segregation, identity preservation and traceability system required?

 Liability: Contracts in use, lack of established thresholds, the Trade Practises Act and the proposed stewardship programs clearly indicate that if a product is guaranteed as non-GM, it must contain no GM product and if it does, the non-GM grower will be liable for that contamination. Bayer may consider this acceptable but non-GM growers do not.

 Contamination uncontrollable?: The segregated certified non-GM seed in Canada has been tested and 95% of samples found to be contaminated with over half above certification standards. Some growers are using 2km buffer zones which makes a mockery of the Australian 5 metre buffer zone proposal (or 400 metres for certified seed).

In the well publicised case of Monsanto vs Schmeisser (March 2001) Judge MacKay concluded while considering an injunction "(130). to restrain the growing of Roundup Ready canola, would be impossible to comply with in light of the uncontrollable spread of the patented gene."

 Canadian Experience: The Canadian Farmers Union is calling "for governments to hold genetic modification companies accountable for the costs their products create for other farmers and the general public."

 Network of Concerned Farmers (Australia) Media Release, http://www.non-gm-farmers.com   23 June 2003

Coalition against BAYER-dangers, www.CBGnetwork.org   CBGnetwork@aol.com 

 ----

 From PANUP- Pesticide Action Network

Voices From the South Debunk GE Myths

June 20, 2003. A new report, Voices From the South, systematically refutes a number of widely promoted myths about genetically engineered (GE) food. Released by Pesticide Action Network North America and Food First just days before a ministerial level agricultural conference promoting GE foods gets underway in Sacramento, California, the report counters the claims of the biotech industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that GE crops are a solution to hunger in the Third World. ...

 Voices from the South is available online at http://www.foodfirst.org/  .Sources: Voices from the South, The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops, Ellen Hickey and Anuradha Mittal (editors), June 2003, PANNA, 49 Powell St. #500 San Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 981-1771, http://www.panna.org/  .

 ---

 From Friends of the Earth International

18th June 2003 GMO Trade war : EU urged to stand firm as US-led coalition starts to crumble

Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest environmental network, has urged the European Union to stand firm against the United State’s aggressive attempt to force genetically modified (GM) foods into Europe. The two sides meet tomorrow (Thursday) in Geneva as part of the official consultation process.

The US started proceedings against the EU’s de facto moratorium through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 13th May 2003, along with Argentina, Canada and Egypt, and supported by nine other countries. But as the trade war reaches its first stage, Friends of the Earth pointed out that the coalition, and its arguments, are "weak and on shaky ground".

This is because:

* Egypt, El Salvador and Honduras will not now take part in the official WTO consultation.

* Canada has distanced itself from the US, requesting a separate consultation with the EU.

* Many of the countries originally supporting the US also have either bans or moratoria for GMO products, including New Zealand (moratorium on planting GMOs), Australia (regional bans), Peru (ban on GMO crops), El Salvador (ban on GMO seeds) and Mexico (ban on GM corn) [1]. * India, a big agricultural country, has also requested to take part in the consultations. India is in the process of developing legislation on GMOs.

* Last week the 50th ratification of the UN Biosafety Protocol was announced, so the Treaty will enter into force in 2003 [2].

Dr Martin Rocholl, director of Friends of the Earth Europe commented: ''The US-led attempt to force-feed the world genetically modified foods appears to be losing support. The right of countries to take a precautionary approach on any new technology is fundamental to protecting people and our environment. Friends of the Earth urges the EU to stand firm in this dispute not only for its own sake but also for the increasing number of world citizens who are concerned about GM.''

Ricardo Navarro, chair of Friends of the Earth International said: "The US administration, pushed by corporate lobby groups, resorted to the use of the undemocratic and secretive WTO in an attempt to force GM foods to the world. But decisions about GMO policies should not be made at the WTO or the White House."

Contact:

Adrian Bebb, FoEE biotechnology expert, tel:+ 49-160 949 011 63 (m)

Alexandra Wandel, FoEE trade coordinator, tel: +49 172 748 39 53 (m)

Juan Lopez, FoEI biotechnology advisor, tel: +32-477 39 14 96 (m)

Notes:

[1] National or regional bans on GMOs

Australia 

Four Australian States have currently placed a moratorium on GMO crops: Western Australia and Tasmania for 5 years; New South Wales 3 years and Victoria for 1 year. South Australia - won't allow planting this year but has not placed a moratorium. The reasons vary between adopting a more precautionary approach and preserving marketing opportunities.

http://www.brisbane.foe.org.au/genetic/ge_news.htm

http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/EGIL-53876E?open

New Zealand

In 2001, the New Zealand Parliament passed an amendment to the HSNO Act to temporarily prevent applications to release GM organisms and to make specific controls on field testing mandatory for a two-year period. It was imposed to give New Zealand the time to investigate potential benefits from GM technology and explore ways to more effectively minimise any risks.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/

Peru

In a letter to the European Commission the Peruvian Ministry of Trade stated that according to the 'Law on Transgenic Foods and Genetically Modified Organisms', it is strictly prohibited in Peru to import, by any means, produce, sell and/or market transgenic foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for human or animal consumption

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/novel_food/responses/peru_letter_es.pdf

Mexico

According to information from the European Commission, Mexico has suspended authorizations for large-scale commercial growing of genetically-modified corn within its territory, due to ongoing discussions on their potential impact on wild relatives and traditional crops. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm , WT/DS291/19  

Mexico has also ratified the Biosafety Protocol.

El Salvador

A Seeds law approved on the 30th of September 2001 forbids cultivation of GM seeds.

India

India have adopted or are intending to adopt legislation on genetically-modified organisms, in accordance with their recent

ratification of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.

[2] U.N. treaty regulating biotech crops to become law, FoEI press  release, see http://www.foei.org/media/2003/0613.html

---

 From CBGnetwork
June 20, 2003, Biotech Industry brings down UK environment minister.

"Meacher going in the middle of the GM debate leaves the British Government without a credible voice on the subject"

 SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Michael Meacher's position as environment minister was at risk last night after he was accused by a leading member of the powerful pro-GM lobby of boycotting the field trials for the controversial plants.

Dr Paul Rylott, a senior executive with the chemical giant Bayer, who heads a coalition of GM seed producers including Dupont and Monsanto [the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC)], said Mr Meacher had not visited British crop trials in four years.

The GM lobby regard him as an obstacle to the development of such crops in Britain, while Mr Blair has made clear he believes that the Government should not stand in the way of scientific developments. Field trials were launched to study GM crops' possible impact on neighbouring organic farms and bio-diversity. The results will be announced in September, and a national GM debate began last week. (Jun 8 2003)

Dr. Rylott holds numereous key positions: Head of BioScience UK, Bayer CropScience;  Deputy Chairman (and Acting Chairman) of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC); member of the GM Public Debate Steering Board; member of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC); representative to the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops;

representative to the British Society of Plant Breeders.

 Friends of the Earth: Blair sacks Meacher. Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to sack Environment Minister Michael Meacher is yet another sign that the Government is failing to take green issues seriously, Friends of the Earth said today.

Mr Meacher had a high reputation among environmental campaigners, and had frequently been seen as a "lone voice" in taking a greener line than the general government view, for example over genetically modified food and crops. (...)

Earlier this week, the Sunday Telegraph suggested that Mr Meacher's job was under threat following pressure from the biotech industry because of his cautious attitude toward GM crops. Earlier this month the Government launched a nationwide GM public debate and is expected to make a decision on whether GM crops should be commercialised towards the end of the year.

Press Release, Jun 13 2003

 Meacher a loss to GM-Crop debate. Tony Blair's sacking yesterday of Michael Meacher as Environment Minister removes the Government's safest pair of hands in the debate over genetically modified crops. Meacher, as amanuensis to John Prescott during his environment and transport superministry, played an important part in the negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, the first agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.  He led a charmed life until dented by the debacle over the fridge disposal ban which officials brought to his attention too late to do anything about it.

The environmentalists stood by Mr Meacher yesterday. Patrick Holden, of the Soil Association, said: "Meacher going in the middle of the GM debate leaves the Government without a credible voice on the subject."

Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said: "No 10 has been trying to marginalise Michael for some time now. But Mr Blair may find that his removal leaves this Government's poor green record apparent for all to see."

By Charles Clover, (Filed: 14/06/2003)

 =================================================

 FOOD - POLITIC – EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY

16/2003, 2003-07-03
Advisory Forum of the new European Food Safety Authority meets at BfR in Berlin
Focus on issues of future cooperation with national institutions

For its third meeting, the Advisory Forum of the new European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the guest of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) on 3 and 4 July. The Forum, which currently has 15 members from the European Member States, supports EFSA's Executive Director, Geoffrey Podger, in his activities. Representatives of the ten future European Member States can attend the meetings as observers. Professor Andreas Hensel, President of BfR and member of the Advisory Forum, describes the meeting as an important step towards the efficient networking of national scientific institutions. Hensel comments in his welcome address, "EFSA is an important cooperation partner for the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. We seek close cooperation in order to effectively collate and exchange knowledge."

The European Food Safety Authority was established in response to the White Paper on Food Safety, published in January 2001, which identified serious capacity bottlenecks in scientific risk assessment. Like BfR, EFSA is fully independent in its risk assessment and communication. The Executive Director does not report to the European Commission but to a Management Board composed of 14 members and one representative of the European Commission. In addition to the Management Board and the Advisory Forum, the EFSA permanent staff, the Scientific Committee and eight scientific panels are the other key elements in the organisational structure. Risk management, at EU level, remains the responsibility of the European Commission. In Germany this is the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture and the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety.

EFSA's primary task is scientific risk assessment, including the identification of emerging risks. This covers almost all food safety areas from primary production through the safety of animal feed to food. The Authority will not only collect and analyse external scientific data but, unlike BfR, will also generate its own data. This will help, amongst other things, in the identification of emerging risks. EFSA advises the European Commission on scientific issues in a similar way to that in which BfR advises the Ministry of Consumer Protection. Furthermore, like BfR, it can also instigate risk assessments in its own right.

The European Food Safety Authority intends to provide prompt information on its scientific results. In this context, the Executive Director, Geoffrey Podger, gives public interest very high priority and, within certain confidentiality constraints, has indicated his support for the greatest possible degree of openness in risk communication.

Further information on the structure and tasks of the European Food Safety Authority can be found on the homepage on www.efsa.eu.int. The minutes of the Advisory Forum meetings are also published there.

 =================================================

RADIATION – DEPLETED URANIUM

Lectures of Doug Rokke and Leuren Moret

 Leuren Moret Speaking on Depleted Uranium , Los Altos, California 21apr03

Nuclear Holocaust and The Politics of Radiation. : http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Leuren-Moret21apr03.htm

 Doug Rokke: Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy; University of Illinois; 1992. ; Master of Science; University of Illinois; 1986.  Bachelor of Science; Western Illinois University; 1975

Learn About Depleted Uranium From The US Army's Expert on Depleted Uranium (DU)

Text of Dr_ Doug Rokke Speaking in Los Altos, CA 21apr03.htm

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm

 Recorded and transcribed by Paul Goettlich.
Audio recordings of the complete lecture (about 120 minutes)   are available.

 =================================================

 RADIATION

NTP announces the availability of the background document onX-radiation & Gamma-radiation and Neutrons. X-radiation & Gamma-radiation and Neutrons are nominated for possible listing in the 11th Edition of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). The background documents are posted in PDF format on the RoC web site at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/NewHomeRoc/roc11Bkgrnd2003.html  or available in hardcopy and/or on CD by contacting Dr. C. W. Jameson at the following address: National Toxicology Program, Report on Carcinogens, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 79 Alexander Drive, Building 4401, Room 3118, P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, e-mail: jameson@niehs.nih.gov .

 ---

 Greenpeace Delivers Radioactive Contamination from  Villages Back to Occupying Forces in Iraq

 Baghdad, 24th June 2003: Greenpeace activists today  confronted the occupying forces in Iraq with radioactive  material collected near the Tuwaitha nuclear complex and  called for a clean up of radioactive contamination of villages    surrounding the plant, just south of Baghdad.  A convoy of vehicles bearing Greenpeace banners that read .  “Al Tuwaitha - nuclear disaster ¯ Act now!” and with a single  activist walking at it’s head, carrying a white flag, are   returning a large uranium “yellow cake” mixing canister to the  US military guards stationed at the heart of the nuclear plant. The canister ¯ the size of a small car, contained significant  quantities of radioactive ‘yellowcake’ and had been dumped  on a busy section of open ground near the Tuwaitha plant. Despite the military being aware of its presence, locals say it   has been left open and unattended for more than 20 days.

 “If this had happened in the UK, the US or any other  country, the villages around Tuwaitha would be swarming with radiation experts and decontamination teams. It would  have been branded a nuclear disaster site and the people  given immediate medical check-ups. The people of Iraq deserve no less from the international community. That they  are being ignored is a scandal that must be rectified without delay,” said Mike Townsley of Greenpeace International.   

Greenpeace radiation experts have found abandoned uranium  ‘yellowcake’ and radioactive sources scattered across the      community. Much of the material was looted from the facility  by villagers who used it for house building and water and  food storage. They did not realise the potential danger. In a week long survey, as well as the ‘yellow cake’ canister, Greenpeace uncovered: radioactivity in a series of houses, including one source measuring 10,000 times above normal anothersource outside a 900 pupil primary school  measuring 3,000 times above normal  localswho are still storing radioactive barrels and lids in  their houses anothersmaller radioactive source abandoned in a  nearby field  consistentand repeated stories of unusual sickness after coming into contact with material from the Tuwaitha plant severalobjects carrying radioactive symbols discarded in the community The preliminary survey and this morning’s action in front of heavily armed US troops, highlights the   total failure of the occupying forces to address the urgent need for a full assessment, containment and clean up of  missing nuclear material from the Tuwaitha Nuclear  facility. (1)

 The occupying forces have so far refused to allow the UN  nuclear experts, the International Atomic Energy Agency      (IAEA), to carry out proper documentation and decontamination in Iraq. The US authorities in Baghdad have insisted upon retaining responsibility for protecting human health but consistently deny there is a risk to the local population. (2) In addition, in the last two days, the IAEA itself has indicated, “most of the (uranium) material is accounted for” (3)

 “The Greenpeace team has only been surveying for eight  days and has discovered frightening levels of radioactive      contamination.” said Townsley. “The IAEA must be allowed  to return with a full mandate to monitor and decontaminate.     They may believe they have accounted for most of the  uranium, but what about the rest of the radioactive material?

 If the inspectors are allowed to come out from the shadow of    the occupying forces and into the community, they can do the     job properly,” Townsley added.

    Notes:  Two members of the Greenpeace team are maintaining a  weblog of their mission to Iraq. You can review a history of     the expedition to date and monitor live developments at  http://weblog.greenpeace.org/iraq    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/iraq 

 (1) The Tuwaitha nuclear storage facility, south of Baghdad,  was left unsecured by occupying forces after the fall of  Saddam Hussein and was heavily looted. In contrast, oil  pipelines and the oil ministry were immediately secured. Just days after the ceasefire, British Museum officials were brought in to reclaim stolen artefacts. It was nearly two months before IAEA inspectors were allowed to return.

(2) Washington Post ¯ June 6th 2003 ¯ “The U.S.