Petitions

The Consumers Have a Right to say NO! NO GMO in our Bread

Dear
CEO Pick n Pay Mr Richard Brasher
CEO Spar Mr Wayne Hook
CEO Shoprite/Checkers Dr. Whitey Basson
CEO Woolworths Mr Ian Moir
CEO Tiger Brands Mr Peter Matlare
CEO Premier Foods Mr Tjaart Kruger
MD FoodCorp MD Mr CB Sampson

We, the undersigned members of the public, are outraged to learn that our daily bread is contaminated with Genetically Modified (GM) soya. We have learnt that the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) recently submitted samples of white bread brands sold in supermarkets across South Africa, to a GMO testing facility, which found the levels of GM soya in the soya flour used in the bread to be extremely high.

 

The test results are as follow:

White bread brand GM content in soya flour Produced by Labelled as
Checkers white bread 91.09% Shoprite Holdings No GM label. (No ingredients labelled)
Woolworths white bread 85.62% Woolworths May be Genetically Modified
Spar white bread 72.69% Spar No GM label. (No ingredients labelled)
Blue Ribbon white bread 64.9% Premier Foods Not labelled
Pick n Pay white bread 42.82% Pick n Pay Not labelled
Albany superior white bread 23.23% Tiger Brands Not labelled
Sunbake white bread 20.46% Foodcorp Not labelled

We are further

Call for Parliamentary hearing on GMOs

Call for urgent Parliamentary hearing on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and transparent review of risk assessment procedures and public participation in GMO decision making
Mr. Mlungisi Lulu Johnson
Chair: Portfolio Committee on Agriculture
Parliament of South Africa
e-mail: mjohnson@parliament.gov.za
23/07/2013

Dear Honourable Mr Johnson,

Recent events, such as the nationwide protests against Monsanto and consumer outrage over the presence of genetically modified (GM) ingredients in well-known brands of baby food, illustrate that the issue of GM food is of great concern to the people of South Africa. Much of this public anger was triggered by the decision, in May 2012, of GMO Executive Council (SA?s GMO regulatory body) to permit the importation of the Dow Chemical Company?s GM maize, dubbed ?agent orange maize?, engineered to tolerate herbicides based on the highly toxic chemical 2,4-D.

As a result of this decision, on the 7th of August 2012 the ACB, with support from the African Christian Democratic Party, submitted a petition to Parliament calling for the reversal of the Executive Council?s decision to approve Dow?s 2,4-D tolerant maize for import and for a review of the GMO decision making process in South Africa. The petition was supported by 18 health

STATEMENT BY CIVIL SOCIETY IN AFRICA

MODERNISING AFRICAN AGRICULTURE: WHO BENEFITS?

[vc_row][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_tour interval=”0″][vc_tab title=”English” tab_id=”db2e8494-50db-cl”]

STATEMENT BY CIVIL SOCIETY IN AFRICA
MODERNISING AFRICAN AGRICULTURE: WHO BENEFITS?

African agriculture is in need of support and investment. Many initiatives are flowing from the North, including the G8’s “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa” and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). These initiatives are framed in terms of the African Union’s Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP). This gives them a cover of legitimacy.

But what is driving these investments, and who is set to benefit from them?

The current wave of investment emerges on the back of the gathering global crisis with financial, economic, food, energy and ecological dimensions. Africa is seen as underperforming and in control of valuable resources that capital seeks for profitable purposes. The World Bank and others tell us Africa has an abundance of available fertile land, and that Africa’s production structure is inefficient, based as it is on many small farms producing mainly for themselves and their neighbourhoodsi.

Africa is seen as a possible new frontier to make profits, with an eye on land, food and biofuels in particular. The recent investment wave must be understood

CIVIL SOCIETY PETITION TO TIGER BRANDS t/a PURITY

Outraged by the results of tests conducted by the ACB.
We, the undersigned members of civil society, are outraged by the ACB’s test results showing that Purity’s Cream of Maize tested positive as containing 56.25% GM maize; and Purity’s Purity Baby First tested positive as containing 71.47% GM maize.

We note with alarm, that this is not the first time that Purity’s Cream of Maize cereal tested positive for GM. In 2008, consumer watchdog SAFeAGE revealed the product to contain more than 24% GM maize.

We are deeply disappointed to learn that neither of these baby foods are labeled as containing products derived from genetically modified maize. We are of the view that Tiger Brands has acted disingenuously and deprived parents of crucial information about their baby’s nutrition. We do not want to eat GM food, much less feed our babies with GM cereals.

During September 2012, Professor Gilles-Eric S?ralini, and his research team at the University of Caen in France, published the results of a two-year animal feeding study in which rats fed with Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant GM maize, event NK603, and glyphosate residues, developed tumours and showed signs of liver and kidney damage.

African Civil Society Statement: Call for a ban on GMOs

Download the petition for a ban on GMOs to the African Union.

 

read more
 
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_tour interval=”0″][vc_tab title=”English” tab_id=”2e3d9241-4a0f-cl”] Introduction
We, the undersigned, members of civil society organisations from across the African continent, hereby call for an immediate and complete ban on the growing, importing and exporting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the African continent.

We call upon the governments of Africa to take the necessary steps to protect the health of their populations by supporting this call and commit to conducting independent and authoritative long-term food safety studies.

We also call upon the governments of Africa to take note of our additional strong objections to GMOs. These concern the patenting of life forms and privatisation of agriculture, which has led to the dependence by farmers, rural communities and indigenous people on external private and monopolistic seeds suppliers. We are also extremely concerned about the adverse impact of industrial and GM based agriculture on biodiversity and climate change. We cannot ignore the suicide epidemic of farmers in India- a direct result of farmers’ dependence on GM cotton- and the resultant increased costs and unmanageable debt.
Scientific uncertainty about food safety
During September 2012, Professor Gilles-Eric S?ralini,

Call on BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta to stop marketing highly hazardous pesticides.

PAN Germany, a charitable organisation which provides information on the adverse effects of pesticides and promotes environmentally friendly and socially just alternatives.

pan-action-banner_l_160_trans_gbr

Click on the banner to sign up.

We will send the following letter in your name:

To: Syngenta, Martin Taylor, Chairman of the Board of Directors
Bayer CropScience, Sandra E. Peterson, Chief Executive Office
BASF, Wayne T. Smith, Member of the Board of Executive Directors

Dear Mr Taylor,
Dear Ms Peterson,
Dear Mr Smith,

Every year, countless cases of pesticide poisoning occur. Syngenta, Bayer, and BASF, as the three largest pesticide companies worldwide, are to a large extent responsible; your company markets more than fifty highly hazardous pesticides worldwide.

Since the mid-1980s, programs for a safe use of pesticides have been implemented to prevent pesticide poisonings. Nevertheless, people, farm animals, and the environment continue to suffer considerable harm due to highly hazardous pesticides.

Twenty-five years are enough. I call on you to end the sale of highly hazardous pesticides.

Yours sincerely,

Support our appeal to the minister for Environmental Impact Assessment of GM maize GA21

On the13th of December 2009, Syngenta published a public notice of their intent to apply to the GMO Registrar for a permit for the general release of genetically modified maize, GA21. Having obtained a ‘non-confidential-business-information’ version of Syngenta’s application, it is our contention that the application cannot be adequately assessed. The information provided is sketchy at best, key information required for a full and thorough assessment of the event in question is designated confidential business information and therefore not made available to the very public who are expected to consume the product. Claims made regarding gene stability are by reference to information provided by the developer of the GMO and not to any independent, objective source. Additionally, assertions made as to the socio-economic benefits pertaining from a general release of GA21 are grossly misleading and do not hold up to objective scrutiny.

Please support us in our request to the Minsiter of Water and Environmental Affairs, Buyelwa Sonjica, to have Syngenta’s application for the general release of genetically modified maize GA21 subject to a full, independent environmental impact assessment.

http://www.activist.co.za/campaigns/2010/eia.php

South African government non-compliance with national and international law on access to information

Take Action! Write to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry demanding access to information on GMOs

On 14th January 2009 the African Centre for Biosafety wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs, Lulama Xingwama, alerting her to the fact that South Africa is not complying to an important provision in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This provision obliges governments who are a Party to the Protocol to share their information and decisions on GMOs by posting to an international website called the Biosafety Clearing House. South Africa is just not posting decisions and information, despite being a Party to the Protocol since 2003. We asked that the Minister ensure compliance within 30 days of receiving our letter, failing which we would lay a complaint with the Compliance Committee set up under the Protocol.

This has not happened, but as there is now a new Minister in place, we decided to write again before going to the International body. In the meantime, the Constitutional Court has handed down judgement in the case between Biowatch South Africa and the GMO Registrar, which further strengthens our request. The 11 judges agreed unanimously that the State is duty bound to