Here’s a less commonly seen legal perspective on the GMO debate from Dean Seman and Richard Ranieri with The Legal Intelligencer. Will GMOs and herbicides be at the root of the next crop of bodily injury claims?
While the recent glyphosate exposure toxic-tort cases failed to flourish due to the lack of medical causation, one has to question whether medical research advances will change the landscape. We anticipate that similar claims will continue to be filed and will evolve. For instance, the heavy use of glyphosate with GM crops has spawned glyphosate-resistant “super weeds.” In an effort to address this problem, certain manufacturers are producing a new herbicide that combines glyphosate with 2,4-D (one of the main ingredients in Agent Orange). Significantly, on June 23, the IARC classified 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
The government of New Zealand are being accused of legislating by stealth by tearing down local protections that prohibit GMOs and GE Trees.
The proposed National Environment Standard on Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) would loosen restrictions on genetically modified pine trees and force councils to remove wording around genetically engineered trees from their policies and plan changes.
Whangarei District Council team leader of futures planning Kerry Grundy said the GMO
provisions seemed to have come “all of a sudden”.
“People are saying: why have you slipped this in? It’s overriding what councils want to do. If we have provisions around GM pine trees – which we do at the moment – we will have to take them out,” he said.
Who really cares about climate change? This Pew Global poll analysis breaks it down by international region, ideology and more.
“Global climate change ranks substantially lower as a comparative global threat for Americans, with 42% saying they are very concerned about the issue. The only global issue that is even less worrying to Americans: territorial disputes between China and its neighbors (30%). Much like in Europe, perceptions in the U.S. about the threat of climate change depend on ideology. About six-in-ten Democrats (62%) are very concerned about climate change, while just 20% of Republicans say the same.”
The following press release from PLANT (Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples) focuses on the rights of traditional and indigenous communities being trampled by powerful agri-business lobbyists and their politician allies in Brazil’s Congress, who want to make changes to the Constitution in order to facilitate their increasing access to the cultural lands of Brazil’s oldest and most exploited peoples during centuries of marginalization.
Meanwhile, the people and ecology of Brazil face another threat, as the ongoing development of GE trees in industrial plantations in Brazil will exacerbate the already well-known negative social and environmental impacts caused by industrial tree plantations while introducing yet further impacts and knock-on effects due to the additional risks inherent to genetic engineering.
Please show your solidarity and that of your networks at a most critical moment in the struggle of vulnerable indigenous peoples of Brazil for the survival of their cultures, lands and fundamental rights.
Just sign on to the Protest Letter, translated below, by filling in your name and address and, please don’t forget to CLICK ON THE GREEN BUTTON at the bottom of the page in order to send it.
For a quick summary of what is at stake, check:
Excerpt: “Earlier this month, more than a thousand indigenous leaders met in Brasília to protest and organise against PEC 215, a proposed constitutional amendment that would shift the power to demarcate indigenous land from the executive to the legislature – that is, from Funai, the Ministry of Justice and the president, by decree, to Congress. . . The Indians’ fierce opposition to placing demarcation in the hands of Congress is easy to understand: some 250 members of Congress are linked to the powerful “ruralist” congressional caucus, representing interests including agro-business and the timber, mining and energy industries. In contrast, there has been only one indigenous member of Congress in the entire history of Brazil: Mário Juruna, a Xavante cacique, who served from 1983-87 in Rio de Janeiro. . . . If passed, as it seems will likely be the case, the amendment also allows for the review of previous demarcations, and introduces exceptions to the exclusive use of protected land, including leasing to non-Indians and the construction of infrastructure, “in the public interest”.
You may also want to consult Survival International’s action on the issue at:
The following is an unofficial translation of the Protest Letter from the website of the IC Magazine of The Center for World Indigenous Studies:
PUBLIC MANIFESTO AGAINST PEC 215/2000
Brasília (DF), June of 2015. On May 19 of 2015, the House of Representatives, social organizations and movements, of the indigenous peoples, indigenous and environmental advocates, along with the Parliamentary Fronts for the Support of the Indigenous Peoples, in Defense of Human and Environmental Rights. the undersigned, brought to the Plenary session of the House “Threats to fundamental rights and PEC 215: democracy, indigenous peoples and the environment”. As a result of the Plenary, by common accord it was decided to publish the following motion of repudiation of the Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment (PEC) 215/2000, pending before the Brazilian House of Representatives (Câmara dos Deputados) currently in the Special Commission.
The PEC 215 and its appended actions are intended to paralyze the demarcation of Indigenous Lands, the titration of Quilombo Territories and the creation of Units of Conservation, as well as to permit the approval of large-scale enterprises within these protected areas, such as: hydroelectric dams, mining; extensive agribusiness, the building of highways, waterways for industrial transport, ports and railways.
If approved, the referred to PEC 215/2000 will result in irreversible consequences for the indigenous peoples and quilombola communities, considering that their territories are vital to their physical and cultural survival, in addition to contributing to the preservation of an ecologically balanced environment, in the context of global warming.
The PEC 215/2000 is declared to be unconstitutional, for injury to binding clauses related to the principle of the separation of powers and the consecration of fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, that as such are constitutional shields and supported in international standards.
In view of this and considering that:
The signatories listed below RESOLVE to manifest their total support in the struggle of the Indigenous Peoples, the Quilombola Communities and Brazilian Collectivity and demand the immediate withdrawal from legislative process the PEC 215/2000, the appended proposals and any other initiatives that serve to suppress or regress on the rights of indigenous peoples, of the quilombola communities and on the recognition of Units of Conservation.”
The Burlington Free Press reports that a group of protesters have blocked a truck transporting compressed natural gas in Addison, Vermont on July 7. GJEP staff and board members took part in the environmental gathering where this action was planned.
In a news release, Trans* and/or Women Action Team, or TWAC, said its activists will try to stop the delivery of fracked gas to the International Paper mill in Ticonderoga, New York, “to demand an end to the extraction, shipment, and consumption of fossil fuels.” TWAC said it is part of a wider effort by activists to take action against the transport of fossil fuels across the Champlain Valley.
Four protesters were arrested on suspicion of unlawful trespass. Read the full report here.