NEWS RELEASE

For immediate release
October 27, 2005

Contact: Ronnie Cummins, 218-226-4164, Organic Consumers Association

Congress Votes to Weaken Organic Standards Despite Widespread Consumer Opposition

Changes Were Sought by Large-Scale Food Processors to Cut Costs of Meeting Current Law

WASHINGTON <>

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) and food processors have been pressing Congress to change the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to allow for the use of numerous synthetic substances in products labeled "organic" and to weaken organic dairy standards.

A recent court decision ruled that the OFPA does not allow synthetic (non-natural) ingredients to be used in foods labeled "organic" and that the act must ensure a strong standard under which dairy cows are converted to organic milk production. After rejecting efforts by members of the public interest and environmental community to reach an agreement on these issues, major food processors in the organic food industry, including Smucker's, Dean Foods, and Kraft, pushed Congress to "quietly" change the law to allow the use of such synthetic ingredients and potentially weaken the organic dairy standards.

"Congress voted last night to weaken the national organic standards that consumers count on to preserve the integrity of the organic label," said Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.. "The process was profoundly undemocratic and the end result is a serious setback for the multi billion dollar alternative food and farming system that the organic community has so painstakingly built up over the past 35 years. The rider will take away the traditional role of the organic community and the National Organic Standards Board in monitoring and controling organic standards. Industry's stealth attack has unnecessarily damaged the standards that helped organic foods become the fastest growing sector in the food industry."

As passed, the amendment sponsored by the Organic Trade Association allows:

· Numerous synthetic food additives and processing aids, including over 500 food contact substances, to be used in organic foods without public review.

· Young dairy cows to continue to be treated with antibiotics and fed genetically engineered feed prior to being converted to organic production.

· Loopholes under which non-organic ingredients could be substituted for organic ingredients without any notification of the public based on "emergency decrees."

The amendment was vigorously opposed by consumer, retail and growers groups, as well as public health and environmental groups, including National Cooperative Grocers Association, National Organic Coalition and Rural Advancement Foundation International ­ USA, Beyond Pesticides, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, Organic Consumers Association, and Consumers Union. Consumers sent more than 300,000 letters to Congress imploring members to stand up against industry's efforts to weaken the organic standards.

In October 2002, just days after the rules governing organic under NOP were implemented, Maine blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey filed suit against USDA claiming that the USDA regulations governing foods labeled "organic" contravened several principles of the OFPA. Having initially lost on all counts, Harvey prevailed in January 2005 when the Court of Appeals ruled in his favor on the three counts finding:

1. Synthetic substances are not permitted in processing of items labeled as "organic," and only allowed in the "made with organic" labeling category.

2. Provisions allowing up to 20-percent non-organic feed in the first nine months of a dairy herd's one-year conversion to organic production are not permitted.

3. All exemptions for the use of non-organic products "not commercially available in organic form" must be reviewed by National Organic Standards Board, and certifiers must review the operator's attempt to source organic.

Vía Campesina prepara el camino de Ginebra a Hong Kong

Vía Campesina *

Delegados y delegadas de Vía Campesina de todas partes del mundo se reunieron en Ginebra la semana pasada para preparar su plan de acción con miras a la cumbre ministerial de la OMC en Hong Kong.

Campesinos de CPE/Vía Campesina de Europa, y también delegados y delegadas de México, Haití, Corea, Brasil, Malí, Nepal y Estados Unidos se reunieron en Ginebra llevar nuestro mensaje a los funcionarios de la OMC y para preparar la movilización de campesinos y campesinas el próximo diciembre en Hong Kong durante la reunión ministerial de la OMC.

Alberto Gómez de la UNORCA de México explicó: “Es urgente informar a las mujeres y hombres de las organizaciones campesinas la necesidad de seguir preparando nuestras fuerzas para detener la OMC. Nosotr@s, campesin@s, trabajador@s del campo, constituimos una parte imprescindible dentro de la sociedad, porque es nuestro trabajo y el de nuestras familias, el conocimiento acumulado y transmitido de generación a generación lo que hace posible que los cultivos broten y sus frutos y semillas lleguen a la mesa de tod@s, lo que nos permitirá derrotar a la OMC en Hong Kong.”

Young Soo Lee de la KPL (Liga de Campesinos Coreanos) explico: ¨La alimentación y agricultura son más importantes que los productos industriales como los automóviles. Sin los productos industriales, tendríamos inconvenientes, pero no moriríamos. Pero los pueblos no pueden sobrevivir sin la alimentación. En la agricultura y la alimentación están nuestras vidas. No podemos comercializar nuestras vidas. La OMC mató al campesino coreano Lee Kyung Hae en Cancún y están matando muchos campesinas y campesinos en todo el mundo. Enviamos un mensaje fuerte : si la OMC no responde a nuestra voz legitima, enfrentará una lucha fuerte en Hong Kong. y en este caso la responsabilidad será de la OMC y de su director, el Sr. Lamy, por no escuchar nuestras voces. ¡La OMC mata campesin@s! ¡OMC fuera de la agricultura!”

“Diez años de OMC nos han llevado a una migración forzada económicamente, un medio ambiente degradado, y una brecha aun más grande entre pobres y ricos” dijo Ingeborg Tangeraas de la Comisión Coordinadora Internacional de Vía Campesina, que pide un análisis de los impactos del comercio global bajo la OMC. “Los países poderosos en la OMC están intentando utilizar la agricultura como arma para forzar a los países pequeños (como los del G90) para abrir sus mercados, no solamente en agricultura sino también frente a otros productos y servicios - incluyendo la privatización de la salud y la educación. Vía Campesina apoya el derecho de países - como los del G90 - de decir no a acuerdos que causarían daño a sus pueblos.

Vía Campesina es una voz legítima a nivel mundial de las campesinas y campesinos, las trabajadoras y trabajadores emigrantes rurales y los pueblos indígenas. La soberanía alimentaría debe ser el principio clave para la aplicación de políticas agrícolas y la OMC debe salir de la agricultura, la alimentación, la pesca, los servicios públicos y otros bienes públicos esenciales. Seguimos luchando en contra de las desastrosas políticas agrícolas de los países económicamente poderosos, para frenar el “dumping” de productos agrícolas, así como para lograr reformas agrarias integrales y por una agricultura libre de transgénicos.

* La Vía Campesina
Jakarta, octubre 28 del 2005
Secretaria operativa: Jin. Mampang Prapatan XIV no 5 Yakarta Selatan, Indonesia
Tel/fax: +62-21-7991890
www.viacampesina.org

Revolving Door Working Group

...committed to increasing public confidence in government

• about us
• resources
• ethics news
• contact us
• home

It's Time To Tighten Ethics Laws To Ensure Integrity And Fairness In Public Policy

A Matter of Trust

How The Revolving Door Undermines Public Confidence In Government, and What To Do About It

Download:

Complete report
(764kb; pdf)

Executive summary
(142kb; pdf)

Press Release
(30kb; pdf)

For too long now, the American public has looked on in despair or resignation as private corporations shape public policies to advance the interests of their industry, often at the expense of the common good. While generous campaign contributions have proven a tried and true means for companies to buy influence with policy makers, it's time to shine a bright light on The Revolving Door, another key mechanism by which corporate interests influence federal decision-making, especially with regard to regulatory policy and procurement choices. The Revolving Door — the movement of individuals back and forth between the private sector and the public sector — takes three forms:

• The Industry-to-Government Revolving Door, through which the appointment of corporate executives and business lobbyists to key posts in federal agencies establishes a pro-business bias in policy formulation and regulatory enforcement;
• The Government-to-Industry Revolving Door, through which public officials move to lucrative private sector roles from which they may use their experience to compromise government procurement, regulatory policy and the public interest; and
• The Government-to-Lobbyist Revolving Door, through which former lawmakers and executive-branch officials use their inside connections to advance the interests of corporate clients.

While some observers argue that such movement between regulatory roles and regulated industries ensures that policymakers bring expertise and understanding to their oversight functions, there is ample evidence to suggest that the revolving door more often creates at least the appearance of serious conflict of interest.

The Revolving Door Working Group (RDWG) investigates, exposes and seeks remedies for conflict-of-interest problems such as loopholes in revolving door laws, inadequate disclosure, and other issues associated with the improper influence of the regulated community over the regulatory process. RDWG has just produced a white paper on the issue, entitled: A Matter of Trust: How the Revolving Door Undermines Public Confidence in Government, and What to Do About It. The paper includes a comprehensive review of problems associated with the revolving door, and proposes the following measures to tighten ethics rules, eliminate loopholes, and reduce conflicts of interest:

• consolidation of ethics oversight entities in the executive branch and in Congress;
• granting the consolidated entities greater oversight and enforcement powers;
• standardization of conflict-of-interest rules throughout the federal government;
• adoption of procedures that would allow the Office of Government Ethics to rule a person ineligible for a certain post if that person's employment background would tend to create frequent conflicts with the rule requiring impartiality on the part of federal employees;
• strengthening of recusal rules that bar appointees from handling matters involving their former employers in the private sector, including mandatory recusal on matters directly involving one's employers and clients during the 24-month period prior to taking office;
• monitoring of recusal agreements by the Office of Government Ethics;
• prohibiting, for a period of time, senior officials from seeking employment with contractors that may have significantly benefited from policies formulated by those officials;
• restricting the granting of waivers that allow public officials to negotiate future employment in the private sector while still in office;
• extending the period during which officials cannot engage in lobbying after leaving office and expanding the scope of prohibited activities;
• requiring federal officials to enter into a binding ethics "exit plan" when leaving the public sector to clarify what activities will be prohibited;
• revoking the special privileges granted to former members of Congress while they are serving as lobbyists; and
• improving the reporting and disclosure of recusal agreements, waivers, lobbyist reports and other ethics filings.

The Revolving Door Working Group's recommendations do not seek to disqualify all private-sector veterans from government service, nor do we suggest that federal officials be completely barred from moving to the business world. Yet there is clearly a need to strengthen the existing regulatory framework covering revolvingdoor activity and to tighten its enforcement. Doing so will go a long way toward restoring integrity to the federal government.

Hello Carmelo,

ORGANIC BYTES #68
Health, Environment and Consumer News Tidbits with and Edge!

10/28/2005

Subscribe to this Bi-weekly Email Newsletter: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm

IN THIS ISSUE INDUSTRY SNEAK ATTACK ON ORGANIC STANDARDS RAMMED THROUGH CONGRESS ALERT: STOP FACTORY FARM DAIRY FEEDLOTS FROM LABELING THEIR PRODUCTS AS ORGANIC WHERE DID YOUR FOOD COME FROM? HEALTH NEWS: JUST PLAIN OLD SOAP IS ALL YOU NEED TEENAGE GIRLS MAKE THE SALE SIGN UP TO ORGANIZE A "BREAKING THE CHAINS" EVENT IN YOUR AREA DISASSEMBLING THE FAMILY FARM: CONGRESS CUTS MORE PROGRAMS QUICK TIDBITS

INDUSTRY SNEAK ATTACK ON ORGANIC STANDARDS RAMMED THROUGH CONGRESS Despite receiving over 350,000 letters and phone calls from OCA members and the organic community, Republican leaders in Congress October 27 attached a rider to the 2006 Agricultural Appropriations Bill to weaken the nation's organic food standards in response to pressure from large-scale food manufacturers. "Congress voted last night to weaken the national organic standards that consumers count on to preserve the integrity of the organic label," said Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association. "The process was profoundly undemocratic and the end result is a serious setback for the multi billion dollar alternative food and farming system that the organic community has so painstakingly built up over the past 35 years. As passed, the amendment sponsored by the Organic Trade Association allows: Numerous synthetic food additives and processing aids, including over 500 food contact substances, to be used in organic foods without public review. Young dairy cows to continue to be treated with antibiotics and fed genetically engineered feed prior to being converted to organic production. Loopholes under which non-organic ingredients could be substituted for organic ingredients without any notification of the public based on "emergency decrees." OCA will work to reverse this rider with an "Organic Restoration Act" in Congress in 2006. http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm

____________________________________

ALERT: STOP FACTORY FARM DAIRY FEEDLOTS FROM LABELING THEIR PRODUCTS AS ORGANIC Organic consumers assume that when they're buying "USDA Organic" milk or dairy products, that the animals have access to pasture, and have been raised organically for their entire lives on sustainably-sized farms. Unfortunately, as the Cornucopia Institute has pointed out, companies like Dean Foods (Horizon) and Aurora have become leaders in the organic dairy sector by producing cheap milk on factory farm feedlots, feeding the cows organic grains, but providing no access to pasture, as organic standards require. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has pleaded with the USDA for four years to clarify federal regulations requiring pasture access and to put an end to factory farm dairy feedlots calling themselves organic. Unfortunately USDA, no doubt under pressure from "industrial organic" lobbyists, has failed to act. In addition loopholes in federal organic standards are allowing unscrupulous organic dairy operators to increase their herd size by importing young calves from conventional farms, where the animals are routinely weaned on cattle blood, injected or medicated with antibiotics, and fed genetically engineered grains, laced with slaughterhouse waste and tainted animal fat. The NOSB will be meeting on November 16, at which time public comments will be reviewed on this issue. Please sign OCA's petition to the USDA, calling on the agency to close loopholes in federal regulations that are allowing factory farms to produce milk labeled "organic." Please give the US Department of Agriculture a call at 202-720-3631 and ask them to stop allowing factory dairy farms to use the "USDA Organic" Label. http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/alert102505.cfm

____________________________________

WHERE DOES YOUR ORGANIC FOOD COME FROM? Increasing numbers of food companies, including Brand Name organic companies, are "outsourcing" their ingredients from overseas in order to increase their bottom-line profits. Suppliers in places like China, where prices and wages are rock-bottom, are gaining market preference over "Made in the USA" products, where wages and environmental regulations are more strictly regulated. Consumers are left guessing which products to buy, due to a lack of "country of origin labeling" on grocery items (except fish). Congress passed a mandatory country of origin labeling law two years ago, in the wake of massive consumer pressure, but has not yet funded or implemented this law. Now transnational food giants and supermarket chains, like Wal-Mart, are pressuring congress to rid of mandatory country of origin labeling laws and make the labels strictly voluntary for industry. To learn more about organic outsourcing see: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/imports101005.cfm To tell Congress to make country of origin labeling mandatory go to: http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/cool091605.cfm

____________________________________

HEALTH NEWS: JUST PLAIN OLD SOAP IS ALL YOU NEED There's good news for old fashioned soap lovers. U.S. health experts and scientists asked the FDA to pass restrictions on antibacterial soaps last week. Scientists referenced a mounting body of studies showing that standard soap removes bacteria as effectively as soaps with antimicrobial chemical additives. Experts said that, due to the overuse of antibacterial soaps, bacteria are developing resistance to important antimicrobial disinfectants and medicines. The panel recommended that antibacterial soaps only be used in medical facilities or in homes of the elderly and sick. As a related note, USDA Certified Organic soaps are now available at your local natural products store. http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/fda-soap.cfm

____________________________________

TEENAGE GIRLS MAKE THE SALE "Buzz Marketing" is becoming the new rage in corporate advertising and marketing. Kids are literally being "hired" by the hundreds of thousands to coax their peers into buying certain products. Marketers are getting a much bigger bang for their buck with this technique, since people trust what their peers have to say over an advertiser's voice on the TV or radio. Although few people are aware of it, a full 85% of the nation's top 1,000 marketers now use the technique. Procter & Gamble, alone, has a force of 250,000 kids, 75% of whom are girls, age 13 to 19, who are mailed free products in return for suggesting those products to friends. Tremor, one of the largest firms employing this marketing technique, says it's completely ethical. "To be a member is empowering for a teen," says Steve Knox, CEO of Tremor. http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/nabbing102005.cfm

____________________________________

SIGN UP TO ORGANIZE A "BREAKING THE CHAINS" EVENT IN YOUR AREA This holiday season, Organic Consumers Association is calling on consumers worldwide to take part in a series of events to help spread the good news about buying "local, Fair Made, and organic." Between November 13 and December 31 the OCA will be organizing hundreds of events, working with a critical mass of global citizens to "Break the Chains" and take back control of our communities, our food and commerce, and our future. We ask you to please consider organizing an event near you. The OCA will help you organize your event and provide you with materials for the type of event that is most appropriate for you. You could throw a "Breaking the Chains" house party, organize a film showing, hold a leafleting event, picket an area Wal-Mart, or coordinate a "buycott" (helping others find local independently owned businesses). This campaign is fun, it's effective, and it's one of the best ways to help health, environmental, and justice minded consumers stop the Wal-Martization of their community and the planet by supporting local products from independent grocers, restaurants, coffeehouses, bookstores, and farms. Learn more and sign up here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc.htm

____________________________________

DISASSEMBLING THE FAMILY FARM: CONGRESS CUTS MORE PROGRAMS A big thanks to all of you who responded to the Organic Consumers Association's Alert two weeks ago regarding impending agriculture appropriations cuts in Congress. The original proposed Budget Reconciliation bill would have cut $3 billion in conservation programs and food stamps to low- income Americans. Your letters helped stop Congress from cutting food stamps. Unfortunately, corporate agribusiness lobbyists got most of what they wanted, slashing funds for sustainable agriculture and farm conservation programs, while maintaining $20 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to the nation's largest chemical-intensive and genetically engineered farms. According to Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), the Conservation Security Program, which helps family farmers protect the land and reduce pollution, received the bulk of the cuts, while the 2006 Federal Budget "authorizes additional tax breaks of $70 billion - the lion's share of which will go to the very wealthiest Americans." http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/agbill102105.cfm

____________________________________

QUICK TIDBITS

	During Halloween, chocolate sales to children are at their highest. This is a great opportunity to show your support for Fair Trade practices and to take steps towards ending the production of chocolate by hundreds of thousands of child cocoa laborers. Global Exchange, the International Labor Rights Fund, Oxfam America, Co-op America, and United Students for Fair Trade are promoting a campaign to help you serve Fair Trade Certified Chocolate this Halloween. For more information visit http://www.globalexchange.org/halloween
	The city of Madison, Wisconsin is going sweatshop free. The City Council voted unanimously to pass an ordinance that requires that all city worker clothing apparel be made in conditions "that respect the economic dignity and human rights of workers, including the right to organize." http://www.organicconsumers.org/cfac/madison101805.cfm
	A new Russian study found that genetically modified (GM) soy negatively affects the offspring of rats. A group of mother rats with newborn babies who were fed standard soy had three of their offspring die in three weeks. A similarly sized group of mother rats who were fed GM soy had 25 of their babies die in the same three week period. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/deadrats101805.cfm
	Tip of the Week: Feel like you have money problems? This little link can fix your financial frustrations in a matter of seconds. In comparison to the rest of the world's population, you might not have it so bad. Now you can find out exactly how you rank among the world's richest and poorest people. Just type in your annual income and this website will calculate specifically how you compare with the rest of the world. http://globalrichlist.com

____________________________________

******** messages from sponsors**********

Organic Top 40 in Ode Read the average bottle of shampoo or multipurpose cleaner and you'll find an incomprehensible mishmash of ingredients -- the names of all the artificial chemical additives. We don’t know what these chemicals may be doing to us. All we know is that never before in history have there been so many poisonous substances present in our bloodstreams, and that there are few, if any, thorough studies about how this bizarre mixture affects our health. In the next issue, Ode reports on the toxic substances all around us, and offers ideas on alternatives. Don’t miss it – get Ode now and give Ode as a gift!

____________________________________

Is it Green? Click and check The Green Guide, consumers' go-to source for green homes tips, product reviews, environmental health news, and green living advice. Whether you want information on eco-friendly products, green building materials, organic foods and bottled water, or you want to know what the latest research is on mercury in fish, flame retardants, or food safe plastics and cookware, The Green Guide is your source. Subscriptions start at $15 and include 6 issues per year of The Green Guide plus 24/7 access to premium web content. To subscribe, visit https://ssl.thegreenguide.com/subscribe/oca.

__________________________________

*****************************

__________________________________

DONATE TO THE OCA

http://www.organicconsumers.org/donations.htm

IRC Americas Program Special Report Cellulose and Forestation Two Sides of a Predatory Model By Raúl Zibechi | October 24, 2005 Translated from: Celulosa
Americas Program, International Relations Center (IRC) americas.irc-online.org
The construction of two huge cellulose factories on the Uruguay River that threaten to pollute the binational stream illustrates how a model of forestry imposed by neoliberalism in the 1990s is gaining ground in the Southern Cone.

Ten percent of Uruguay's farm land is planted with trees for the production of cellulose. Eucalyptus monoculture displaced the important cereal production (wheat, barley, linen, and sunflower) that had become one of the country's main export sectors.

The forestry fever started 16 years ago, pushed by the neoliberal model and pushed by policies of the World Bank and the Interamerican Development Bank (IADB). At that time, a ton of pulpable lumber was worth $60 on the international market and demand was high. In the view of financial institutions, the indiscriminate felling of pulpable lumber, at a worldwide rate of 15 million annual hectares, required replacing tropical forests as the main source for paper and cardboard production.

Uruguay, among other third world countries, seemed like a good candidate for the production of pulpable wood, and, starting in 1998, national governments followed the recommendations of international institutions to the letter. One was to offer massive state subsidies to the growing sector: 50% of the cost of planting, very low-interest credits with a grace period of up to ten years, exoneration from national and municipal taxes, and the construction of infrastructure (bridges, ports, roads, and railways) to facilitate the transport and export of wood. In barely 12 years the Uruguayan state invested over $500 million (between direct disbursements and uncollected taxes) in support of monoculture planting, almost 4% of the country's annual internal gross product.3

The results of the investment, which was made at the cost of reducing Uruguay's education and health expenditures, have been clearly negative. Since many countries followed the recommendations of the IADB and the World Bank, the world supply of pulpable wood grew and prices dropped to less than half of what they were when massive forestation was promoted as a “safe, profitable and reliable” business. Now, with the price oscillating between $23 and $28 per ton, many small private investors have not been able to recoup their investment.

Meanwhile the large corporations apply a double pressure: to make the government build large infrastructure works (one 45-ton truck carrying wood arrives in the port of Montevideo every five minutes) and to build cellulose factories to compensate for the fall in the price of raw wood. The biggest foresters are the ones planning to install the large factories: the U.S.-based Weyerhaeuser owns 130,000 hectares of forest monoculture, the Finland-based Botnia has 57,000, and Spain's Ence has another 50,000 in the country.

Studies reveal that tree monocultures generate serious problems for the country. Tree plantations expel the rural population, since they occupy last place in job creation per hectare, employing just four workers for every one thousand hectares , compared to six in the case of intensive cattle grazing, eight for rice, and at the opposite extreme, 133 workers for every 1,000 acres in horticulture, 165 in viticulture, and 211 for poultry. Besides, the growth of tree plantations keeps farmers from farming their lands because these species of trees dry up surrounding soils that end up unusable for agriculture as sources of water disappear.

For the few who do find employment, Uruguay's Association of Labor Inspectors (AITU) carried out an investigation that shows that some 6,000 forestry workers live in semi-slavery conditions on tree plantations. A specialized chainsaw worker—who has to pay for the saw out of his own pocket—earns barely five dollars a day and is the highest paid of forestry workers. The inspectors conclude: “It is practically a slavery system. Months and months pass without receiving hardly anything, in a cycle in which they cut and sleep, send food to their families and don't see one peso. They sleep in infrahuman conditions, under tents almost always made from simple pieces of cardboard and on a floor of dirt.”4

As for the impact of the plantations on soils, a study done by a team of researchers from the Sciences faculty of the University of the Republic holds that after 25 years of forestation with eucalyptus the results are grave.5 The soils become highly acidic: while Uruguayan prairies have a Ph of 6.5 to 6.8, the parcels that have tree plantations showed levels of 3.8 to 4.0. Eucalyptus extracts great quantities of calcium from the soil, lowering the Ph level, causing the soil to be less permeable because of the proliferation of fungus and mycelia, which in turn keeps water from penetrating the land and increases erosion. Other results, according to the study, are reduction in fertility, of organic matter content, and irreversible changes in soil texture and structure.

A study carried out in Chile shows that forestry regions are the most impoverished in the country. Between 1994 and 1998 some zones with high forestation impact have registered a growth in poverty and homelessness of up to 29%.6 Chile, with over two million forested hectares, has been defined as the “forestry model” to follow. However, the study reveals that municipalities where the increase in poverty has been highest are those in which besides tree plantations there are also cellulose and paper factories, like the Comuna de Constitución and the Comuna de Nacimiento, in southern Chile.

Both the Uruguayan Ministry of Livestock, José Mojica, and of Labor, Eduardo Bonomi have declared the need to limit forestation. Mujica pointed out that forestation degrades soils and declared himself opposed to continuing to provide facilities to forestry multinationals through generous subsidies. Bonomi denounced the irregular work conditions, the “irresponsible outsourcing and subcontracting” observed in the sector, and assured that the state will start to control the work in that sector.7

WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT
MOVIMIENTO MUNDIAL POR LOS BOSQUES

Secretariado Internacional
Maldonado 1858, Montevideo, Uruguay
Correo electrónico: wrm@wrm.org.uy
Página web: http://www.wrm.org.uy
Editor: Ricardo Carrere
************************************************************

===============================
B O L E T I N 99
Octubre 2005 - Edición en castellano

Este boletín está también disponible en francés, inglés y portugués. Si desea recibirlo en alguno de estos idiomas comuníquese con nosotr@s.
=================================

- Cambio climático: ¡paren la música!

El cambio climático ya está ocurriendo. Los recientes huracanes en el Caribe, Centroamérica, México y el sur de Estados Unidos, que dejaron gran cantidad de muertes a su paso, no son hechos naturales normales: son desastres provocados por los humanos, resultado de causas bien conocidas. Si estas causas no se encaran con seriedad, millones de personas seguirán sufriendo los impactos del cambio climático, que abarca desde sequías extremas a tormentas e inundaciones extremas.

A pesar de sus compromisos declarados, los gobiernos tanto del Norte como del Sur hasta ahora han hecho poco para resolver el problema. Se dice que mientras Roma ardía, Nerón tocaba la lira. Hoy se está dando una situación similar: mientras arden los combustibles fósiles y los bosques, nuestros gobiernos se ponen a tocar la lira, simulando que el mercado terminará resolviendo el problema. Desgraciadamente, no lo hará. Por el contrario, es el mismo mercado quien hace que lo absurdo parezca razonable y que lo razonable parezca imposible.

Pretender que la plantación de millones de hectáreas de árboles "compensará" de algún modo las emisiones de carbono provocadas por la quema de combustibles fósiles es claramente un absurdo. Es obvio que el depósito de carbono biosférico neto continuará aumentando al extraerse más carbono del subsuelo e inyectarlo en la biosfera. Pero al mercado, sin olvidar la industria del petróleo, le encanta esta visión. Se ha creado una nueva mercancía, el carbono, con la que se podrá hacer mucho dinero. El absurdo se ha vuelto razonable.

Nosotros, ellos, todo el mundo sabe que es necesario tomar medidas políticas drásticas, sin importar si son o no económicamente sensatas. Cuando un ser querido está gravemente enfermo nadie piensa en términos del dinero que costará salvarlo sino que se hace todo lo necesario para salvar esa vida. El clima del planeta está muy enfermo y se necesita un enfoque similar. La prioridad de la agenda debería ser la eliminación de los combustibles fósiles lo antes posible.

Esto sería lo razonable. Pero intereses económicos profundamente enquistados se oponen a esto y lo declaran "inviable". El segundo punto de la agenda debería ser detener la deforestación, pero las "fuerzas del mercado" siguen promoviendo la destrucción de los bosques en aras del lucro económico, haciendo que la conservación de los bosques se vuelva imposible.

Sería muy simple echarle la culpa al actual presidente de EEUU, pero la verdad es que hay muy pocos gobiernos, si es que hay alguno, que estén haciendo algo para tratar el problema del cambio climático con seriedad. Las empresas petroleras del Norte y del Sur siguen explotando y explorando para tener aún más petróleo. Se hace que el petróleo sea barato y se hace que las energías alternativas sean caras. La eficiencia y la conservación de la energía no son más que medidas marginales superficiales para tranquilizar al público en cuanto a que se está haciendo algo. Algunas zonas de bosques se declaran "protegidas" de forma de permitir que continúe la destrucción de los bosques restantes. Las plantaciones forestales como sumideros de carbono siguen instrumentándose en el Sur a pesar de que son absurdas.

En este contexto, la única solución posible está en manos de la gente común, que todavía es capaz de distinguir entre lo razonable y lo que no lo es. Es la gente quien presionará a los gobiernos para que instrumenten las medidas necesarias para detener el cambio climático antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Nerón puede haber tenido la excusa de su locura, pero nuestros gobiernos no. El mensaje de la gente tiene que ser fuerte y claro: ¡paren la música y hagan algo ya!

Perspectiva
El Nuevo Día

El sagrado derecho a la vivienda

Martes, 25 de octubre de 2005


Margarita Sánchez de León

Activista de los Derechos Humanos

En 1993, durante la Conferencia Mundial de los Derechos Humanos celebrada en Viena, los países miembros de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas dejaron fuera de toda duda que los derechos humanos son indivisibles y están vinculados unos con otros. Mucho tiempo antes diversos movimientos sociales asumieron como parte de sus luchas el entendimiento de que no es posible ejercer la ciudadanía plena si las personas no tienen acceso a una alimentación adecuada, una vivienda segura y servicios de salud, entre otras necesidades básicas.

Aunque los llamados derechos económicos, sociales y culturales no son un tema nuevo en los tratados internacionales, ni en las leyes de los Estados, ni en las luchas a favor de los derechos humanos, ciertamente su cumplimiento había sido abandonado a la buena voluntad de los gobiernos. La opinión de que estos derechos son sólo aspiraciones de desarrollo contribuye a que muchas de las violaciones de estos pasen inadvertidas. Esta situación va cambiando con lentitud. En la actualidad varias decisiones de tribunales regionales y nacionales señalan la responsabilidad de los Estados en la vigilancia y protección de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales.

Puerto Rico no está fuera de esta ambivalencia e inconsistencia hacia la protección de estos derechos. Las recientes expropiaciones forzosas en el barrio San Mateo de los Cangrejos, en Santurce, son uno de los muchos casos en que surgen dudas sobre la responsabilidad del Estado en vigilar y proteger todos los derechos humanos de sus comunidades y de sus integrantes. Según las leyes, el Gobierno puede ejecutar una expropiación forzosa cuando se cumplen dos elementos: una indemnización al justo precio y cuando se expropia por causas de utilidad o fin público. Aunque cada vez más los tribunales han ido ampliando las causas de utilidad o fin público, queda fuera de duda que el beneficiario de esa expropiación debe ser la comunidad en general. En el caso Kelo vs. City of New London, el Supremo de Estados Unidos dejó claro que una causa de interés público para expropiar puede ser el desarrollo económico de una zona o comunidad. Ese interés de revitalización o desarrollo queda establecido cuando las autoridades pueden demostrar la existencia de un plan de desarrollo económico que beneficie a la comunidad.

Eso es precisamente lo que el Gobierno de Puerto Rico mediante el Departamento de la Vivienda no ha podido demostrar públicamente. La falta de una causa de interés público fue confirmada mediante investigación de la Comisión de Vivienda del Senado de Puerto Rico. Esta Comisión, en su informe final del 25 junio de 2005, concluye que en justicia procede la restitución de las propiedades. Sin embargo, sorprendentemente la Comisión se declara impotente para tomar acción en este caso. Insólito también resulta la decisión de los tribunales al declarar un escueto “no ha lugar” a la impugnación de fin público sin escuchar los alegatos de algunos miembros de la comunidad. Ante la probabilidad de que estos casos se repitan, hay preguntas de interés público que deben ser respondidas: ¿Quiénes son los beneficiarios de esta expropiación en Santurce? ¿Por qué la comunidad no fue consultada por el Gobierno ni participó de la llamada revitalización urbana? ¿Por qué los tribunales no escucharon el caso en su fondo?

No podemos perder de vista que la práctica de las expropiaciones forzosas está ampliamente difundida y afecta mayormente a personas y/o comunidades más vulnerables o con desventajas, esto es así, tanto en países en desarrollo como en vías de desarrollo. Por otro lado, los desalojos forzosos podrían resultar en la violación de otros derechos como la libertad de movimiento y a escoger dónde vivir, el derecho a la educación y a la salud (toda vez que la reubicación tiene a veces como consecuencia la pérdida de los lugares en donde la persona recibe esos servicios). Varios miembros de la comunidad de Santurce han declarado públicamente que este desalojo forzoso les privará de esos derechos y esa preocupación debe ser seriamente considerada. La vivienda es un derecho humano fundamental, sagrado; por tanto, las expropiaciones forzosas deben darse dentro del marco estricto de la ley y para el beneficio comunitario, nunca para favorecer exclusivamente intereses privados. Velar por ello es responsabilidad de todas las instituciones de Gobierno; fiscalizar al Estado para que cumpla con ese deber es responsabilidad de la ciudadanía.

Clorando Papel, Agua, Nuestros Cuerpos

Por Luis E. Sabini Fernández

En el río Uruguay, “enfrente” han aparecido dos proyectos, de igual tenor, dos papeleras, una española y otra finlandesa, que se proponen producir celulosa en gran escala a transferir hacia los países que precisamente han hecho las instalaciones.

En el río Uruguay, “enfrente” han aparecido dos proyectos, de igual tenor, dos papeleras, una española y otra finlandesa, que se proponen producir celulosa en gran escala a transferir hacia los países que precisamente han hecho las instalaciones.

Las cuentas parecen claras: nos traen los chirimbolos técnicos, nos usan la materia prima, nos dejan los desechos y se llevan lo que “ellos” necesitan.

No es nada demasiado nuevo. Es lo que se ha estado haciendo en el último medio milenio, océanos por medio (probablemente algo ya se hacía antes, pero sin saltos transoceánicos).

Pero el trámite y los “actores” en juego son peculiares.

COMUNICADO

Octubre de 2005
Barrio San Mateo de Cangrejos

Consumado el crimen. Desalojados nuestros viejos, destruídas nuestras casas, desmembrado nuestro barrio, es nuestro deber invitarlos a reflexionar sobre la gravedad de estos hechos y sus implicaciones. ¿Hasta dónde nos ha llevado la avaricia, el afan de acumular bienes, el beneficio del progreso material a costa de aniquilar nuestras raíces, traicionar a nuestros ancianos, atropellar a los más indefensos y claudicar a la justicia.?

Han sido cómplices los tribunales de justicia, las agencias de gobierno, la legislatura, las instituciones culturales y el gobernador que se ha hecho de la vista larga. Han permitido y fometado una visión elitista que es discriminatoria y conlleva el desasosiego y sufrimiento de los más humildes, la pérdida irreversible de valores que nos hacen únicos como pueblo - nuestra compasión. Todos han sido complices de la empresa privada, en particular la banca y la industria inmobiliaria, que para el beneficio de sus negocios y su lucro han diseñado un negocio redondo - sacar a la gente de sus casas, pagarle poco y desarrollar vivienda de alto costo.

El Gobierno de Puerto Rico ha vendido nuestros terrenos en una pérdida millonaria para el beneficio de los Zalduondo y los Padró, et. Al. Han traicionado al pueblo. Trabajan para los que están saqueando a Puerto Rico canto a canto, creando problemas ambientales y sociales profundos de discrimen craso y de injusticia social. Que no queden dudas que la corrupción es el motor y la especulación es el norte detrás de todo el “plan” de desarrollo de Santurce. El verdugo es el Departamento de Vivienda.

Queremos que visualizen las vidas de Dóña Carmen Benítez Cartagena que ya no tiene balcón de donde hechar las bendiciones a todos los transeúntes, la de Don Meinardo Cabrera que ya no podrá disfrutar de la ayuda de sus vecinos y la compañía de sus gatos y de Don Gilberto Serrano quien a sus 94 años se enfrenta a rehacer una casa para vivir.

No hay manera de justificar lo que no tiene justificación. Pero no olviden que todo vuelve.

Nos comprometimos a continuar nuestra luchal por defender nuestra dignidad de pueblo y nuestro patrimonio histórico, cultural y natural. En apoyo solidario y protesta en contra de la destrucción del Barrio San Mateo, el lunes 17 de octubre de 2005 PUNCH el abusador, UBU REY el glotón y PINOCHO el compulsivo - tres personajes nefastos, nacidos como marionetas en su tiempo, caminaron al mediodía por la Milla de Oro saludando a todos. Portaban mensajes UBU REY – extermino la memoria, PUNCH – arranco las raíces, PINOCHO - fácil engaño al pueblo. Y por el otro lado UBU REY – todo Santurce para mi, PUNCH – los saco a palos, PINOCHO – el dinero habla, la verdad calla. Los tres se encontraron a gusto entre los banqueros.

Les invitamos a acompañarnos en nuestras intervenciones próximas en apoyo a las Jornadas Mundiales Desalojos Cero que se celebran en todo el mundo durante el mes de octubre. Santurce se ha añadido a la lista de los desalojos que se están denunciando a nivel mundial.

Lunes 24 de octubre de 2005, mediodía
Los ENCAPUCHADOS, uno rojo, uno blanco y uno negro, visitarán el Capitolio de Puerto Rico. Desde aquí se han gestado las leyes que facultan a entidades gubernamentales a ser cómplices de las empresas privadas y especuladoras. La mayoría de los legisladores continúan apoyando estos crímenes en contra del pueblo al no actuar en defensa de nuestro derecho a nuestra vivienda y vida digna.

Lunes 31 de octubre de 2005, desde el mediodía
Las CALAVERAS, personajes con máscaras de calaveras, transitaran en el sistema de transportación pública para alertar a todos los usuarios y vecinos al hecho de que todas las comunidades están amenazadas de no unirse y actuar para detener el plan abusivo de desalojos que el gobierno está ejecutando en el país en complicidad con la empresa privada.

Queremos agradecer a todos los que han apoyado nuestra gesta, sin ellos no hubiese sido posible. Gracias a la Junta de Acción Comunitaria San Mateo de Cangrejos, AgitArte, MaskHunt. A todos los amigos de lucha que nos han dado su apoyo incondicional, responsables de un trabajo de altura, honestidad, compromiso e integridad.

Pa’ lante.

Mary Anne Hopgood

Santurce, Puerto Rico

787 233-7056

México: la privatización del agua: cuando lo global es local

Cristian Chávez y Tunuari Chávez

¿Qué pasa cuando el control del agua, las plantas medicinales, el paisaje, la contaminación, el consumo de energía, la salud, la tierra y las semillas se introducen en esa lógica de mercado?. Quizás la respuesta la tengan las más de mil millones de personas que no tienen acceso al agua en el mundo, las que deben pagar por ella mucho dinero, las comunidades despojadas de sus ríos y manantiales, a las que robaron y patentaron sus conocimientos tradicionales y plantas medicinales, cuyos pozos se secaron por las profundas excavaciones de la embotelladora

Por el agua, la próxima gran lucha social en México: Maude Barlow

Angélica Enciso

La activista canadiense advierte sobre una creciente privatización del recurso en el país. Acreedora al Nobel Alternativo, pugna para que se considere derecho humano el acceso al líquido. El foro que se efectuará aquí, "con membrete de la ONU pero impulsado por las corporaciones"

First People's Workshop in Defense of Water Water Privatization in Latin America By Carmelo Ruiz Marrero | October 18, 2005
Americas Program, International Relations Center (IRC) americas.irc-online.org
The drive to privatize water distribution and resources is gaining steam in Latin America. Although transnational water companies have suffered setbacks in places like Puerto Rico, Bolivia, and Uruguay, they continue with plans to appropriate the region's hydrological resources—rivers, aquifers, wells, and aqueduct systems. While “privatization” has become a loaded term in the water business, companies prefer a softer discourse, employing concepts such as “decentralization,” “civil society participation,” and “sustainable development.”

World Food Day 2005: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Highlights Its Role In Global Intercultural Dialogue

At the occasion of World Food Day 2005, The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) highlights its role in recognizing our common agricultural heritage and creating a global platform for intercultural dialogue. IFOAM and the international organic movement worldwide are demonstrating the relevance of organic agriculture in promoting and enhancing biodiversity and food security and creating an ecologically, socially and economically sound future for all.

In its World Food Day press release, the FAO recognizes that "Poor farmers cannot compete in an international marketplace if their goods are shut out of richer countries, while subsidized farm products from industrialized countries are sold at or even below production cost in poor countries." This recognition by the FAO that export subsidies and the dumping of agricultural products on poor countries create an unfair trading system is an important step. However, commitments to partially eliminate such economically and culturally devastating practices by 2010 only provides for an additional several years of suffering and destruction of cultural traditions in poor countries, and virtually ensures that the 852 million people around the world who are hungry will remain hungry, and also makes the stated World Food Summit goal of reducing this number to 426 million hungry by 2015 practically impossible.

IFOAM and the organic movements worldwide are making tangible and systematic efforts towards achieving its goal of the worldwide adoption of ecologically, socially and economically sound systems that are based on the Principles of Organic Agriculture (http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/principles/index.html). As of the beginning of 2005, 558,449 farms in 108 countries, amounting to more than 26 million hectares and a market value of over 25 billion Euros, are currently certified. Many millions of people are involved in the production, marketing, processing and distribution of organic products, generating immense income for a great number of people while simultaneously enhancing biodiversity and protecting the environment for future generations.

The Terminator warned, "I'll be back!," and the Gene Giants, in cooperation with governments, are rolling out the red carpet. Once again, genetic seed sterilization technology is threatening the 12,000-year old tradition of farmers saving, adapting and exchanging seed and the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed as their primary seed source. ETC Group urges you to participate in the global BAN TERMINATOR campaign (see below). Support is particularly critical in advance of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity meetings in Spain and Brazil early next year, where Terminator is on the agenda. Let's terminate Terminator, once and for all!

Please circulate widely and get involved. (posted October 2005)

BAN TERMINATOR SEEDS - Join the Global Campaign

http://www.banterminator.org (in English, Espanol, en francais)

Terminator Technology - "Suicide seeds" are back! Your action is needed.

Unfortunately Terminator is not yesterday's news. Corporations and governments are again pushing hard to commercialize Terminator technology - plants that are genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest. The Canadian government tried to overturn the international (United Nations) de facto moratorium on Terminator in February 2005. To meet this new crisis and re-build global opposition, we ask you to join the new Ban Terminator Campaign and take action with us.

Mobilization is needed now to pressure governments to ban Terminator nationally and internationally. There are two important United Nations meetings coming up where debates on Terminator are planned. We will work to establish a ban on Terminator at the major meetings of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity: January 23-27 in Spain and March 20-31 in Brazil.

Your action is needed NOW to make this happen.

We ask individuals, communities and groups across the world to take action locally, nationally, and internationally as part of the new global strategy.

Many of you are working to secure Farmers' Rights, food sovereignty and the self-determination of your peoples and communities. You have successfully opposed Terminator in the past. Please add Terminator to your campaign work now - and please add your work and voices to the Ban Terminator Campaign.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

- Groups and communities please "Endorse the Campaign" so we can show
governments how strong the global opposition is http://
www.banterminator.org/take_action/sign_on_to_ban_terminator
- Subscribe to receive Action Alerts and breaking news so that you can take immediate action when it is needed the most
http://www.banterminator.org/take_action/subscribe
- Join with others in your area to pressure your government to ban
Terminator nationally and at the United Nations. We can help provide materials and contacts.
- Organize events and actions - Become a Ban Terminator contact and organizer.
- Share information on Terminator in your community so that we can work together
- Pass a resolution in your group or community against Terminator to communicate your protest and reasons clearly for all to see
- Visit http://www.banterminator.org for action ideas, information and campaign materials

Your input is important to us - join the strategy - participate in the campaign.

COMING SOON! to www.banterminator.org : "Select Your Country" Action
and Frequently Asked Questions

CAMPAIGN DETAILS:

Purpose: The Ban Terminator Campaign seeks to promote government bans on Terminator technology at the national and international levels, and supports the efforts of civil society, farmers, Indigenous peoples and social movements to campaign against it.

Strategy: The international de facto moratorium on Terminator technology at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is under attack. Two upcoming meetings of the CBD where Terminator is on the agenda - the Working Group on Article 8 (j) in Granada, Spain January 23-27 and the 8th Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the CBD in Curitiba, Parana, Brazil March 20-31 2006 - offer important opportunities to strengthen the moratorium. The build-up to these meetings is also an important opportunity to encourage governments to establish national prohibitions on Terminator technology - just as Brazil and India have done. Corporations will not stop their efforts to commercialize Terminator until governments prohibit the technology.

Origins: The Ban Terminator Campaign was initiated in response to recent efforts by governments and corporations to push for Terminator field trials and commercialization. Despite widespread opposition, in February 2005, the Canadian government attempted to overturn the CBD's international de facto moratorium on Terminator technology. The Ban Terminator Campaign was formed in response, following discussions initiated by Canadian-based civil society organizations (ETC group, Inter Pares, National Farmers Union, and USC Canada).

History: In 1998, ETC group (then RAFI) discovered Terminator patents. In 1999, in response to the avalanche of public opposition, two of the world's largest seed and agrochemical corporations, Monsanto and AstraZeneca (now Syngenta), publicly vowed not to commercialize Terminator seeds. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a de facto moratorium on Terminator seeds. As a result, many people believed that the crisis had passed, and the issue faded from public view. Unfortunately, Terminator is still being developed and is now being heavily promoted.

Structure:

The Ban Terminator Campaign's steering committee:

AS-PTA - Assessoria e Servicos a Projectos em Agricultura Alternativa
www.aspta.org.br
ETC Group - Action group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration
www.etcgroup.org
GRAIN www.grain.org
Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism www.ipcb.org
ITDG - Intermediate Technology Development Group www.itdg.org
Pesticide Action Network - Asia and the Pacific www.panap.net
Third World Network www.twnside.org.sg www.biosafety-info.net
Via Campesina www.viacampesina.org

BRIAN TOKAR ON U.S. ORGANIC STANDARDS

Dear friends,

A serious alarm has been raised over the past several weeks about the future of the USDA's Organic Standards. Alerts have been going out from several organizations suggesting that new proposed revisions would lead to a fatal weakening of organic rules. A long-term subscriber to this list wanted to post the latest alert from the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), which makes some very serious and disturbing charges.

However, some further investigation over the past two weeks has revealed a story that is far more complicated. Basically, a court decision handed down over the summer would prohibit the use of virtually all synthetic ingredients in the manufacture of organic processed foods. The Organic Trade Association (OTA), representing both small and medium-sized companies (Smucker's is the largest company on their board) is petitioning Congress to reinstate the use of 'approved synthetics' from the original USDA organic rules, everything from baking powder to various food handling agents routinely used in processing. But OCA, the Center for Food Safety, and other organizations view this proposal as opening the door to even more synthetics in organic production, a step toward dramatically weakening the standards.

OTA views their proposed amendments as simply restoring the status-quo, necessary to prevent a drastic reduction in the use of organics in food processing and a rapid decline in the demand for organic ingredients by food processors. Others question this assumption, and view the OTA proposal as part of the steady erosion in the integrity of 'organic' that we've seen over the past decade, with the rise of 'mass market' organic products and increasing involvement of the largest food processing companies in 'organic' marketing. The present controversy has revived a long-standing debate about whether organic standards should be relatively open and accessible, with a goal of expanding the use of organic practices and encouraging farm conversions, or a stringent as possible, in order to keep organic food as 'pure' as it can be.

At the very least, it's clear that the story is much more complex than is painted in OCA's latest alert.

Here are some links that will help you better understand the current debate over organic standards:

Organic Trade Association statements:

http://www.ota.com/JusttheFacts.html
http://www.ota.com/pp/legislation/Setting_The_Record_Straight/index.html

Center for Food Safety/NCSA position:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/policy_com52.cfm

I hope this will shed some light on what has become an increasingly
confusing situation. Stay tuned for further updates.

----------------------------------------------
Brian Tokar
Biotechnology Project
c/o Institute for Social Ecology
1118 Maple Hill Rd.
Plainfield, VT 05667
802-454-7138
www.nerage.org
www.biodev.org