The man from Nestlé's been at it again! Previously Garrett, executive vice president of a corporation infamous for its breastmilk substitute marketing malpractice which contributes to unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world, accused "over-fed activists" of harming the poor by raising questions about GMOs.
Now Garrett's been urging the great and the good at DAVOS not to surrender to pressure for restrictions on GMOs. His own corporation, of course, has under pressure stripped GMOs out of its products for European consumers but never surrenders to pressure for restrictions on its unethical activities in poorer countries - see item 3
Thanks to Wytze for item 2:
1. Industry, Officials on Defensive on Food Safety
2. DAVOS address from EU Commissioner for Health & Consumer Protection
3. MEPs shocked as Nestlé snub Public Hearing on corporate responsibility
----
Industry, Officials on Defensive on Food Safety
By Ben Hirschler
Saturday January 27 7:39 AM ET
DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - Humble pie was on the menu at Davos on Saturday as government and industry officials acknowledged mistakes in handling mad cow disease, now alarming consumers worldwide.
The United Nations (news - web sites) warned on Friday that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE (news - web sites)), and its human form new variant Cruetzfeldt-Jakob disease, was no longer simply a European issue but poised a global risk.
The disease started in Britain, but has since spread to Western Europe where governments are struggling to cope with plunging demand for beef.
David Byrne, the Europe Union's Food Safety Commissioner, said the delay by many European states in following scientific guidance and acknowledging the problem had been an error.
``The fact that politicians in some member states have not followed advice has raised concerns and made consumers frightened,'' he told delegates at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.
``This in turn has undermined confidence in the science-based approach which is crucially important in food safety.''
John Krebs, head of the UK's Food Standards Agency, said public confidence was at rock bottom with only seven percent of Britons trusting the government on food safety.
But despite this, Byrne, Krebs and others insisted food had never been as safe as it is today.
Michael Garrett, executive vice president at the world's largest food company, Nestle SA, said the biggest threat came from micro-organisms, caused by lack of hygiene, rather than rare diseases like BSE or minute levels of contaminants.
He said there were lessons to be learned from the BSE affair and other food scares such as the discovery of dioxin in some European foods in 1999, including better coordination of production ``from farm to fork.''
Garrett defended the case for scientific advances in food production and urged governments not to surrender to pressure for restrictions on genetically modified (GM) foods, another area of mounting public concern.
In a hungry world, GM crops were essential, he argued, citing the case of ``golden rice,'' a GM strain fortified with vitamin A which could improve the diet and health of millions in the developing world.
``Are we prepared to withhold that technology? How many people have to die? ... There must be developments of science to increase the production of food.''
---
2.Part of speech.
Address by David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection to the Davos World Economic Forum - "Should we be frightened by food", Davos, Saturday 27th January 2001
Full text: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/speeches/p eech79_en.html
Biotechnology
Let me take a case in point ? biotechnology. There is general agreement among scientists on a global level about the safety of genetically modified seeds, animal feed and human food. Any yet we have one of the most contentious subjects on our hands at the political level.
It is clear to me that the controversy around this subject owes as much and more to ideology and entrenched positions than anything else. And I fear that this goes both for proponents and opponents of the technology. It seems to me that the pro-lobby has done itself no favours in the past by its aggressive and less than honest stance on the issue. Equally the contra-lobby has been extremist and less than honest in its own right.
Over the past eighteen months or so some more rationale has begun to creep into the debate. This is something I have personally encouraged and I am glad that a more moderate tone has been evident.
This is not to say that public opinion within the European Union has changed appreciably. It has not. There is also evidence that public opinion in the US is shifting towards a more questioning attitude.
Regulatory responses in both the EU and the US have commenced to respond. Let me outline what I envision as the European Commission’s strategy on the regulatory side.
This approach, while clearly based on the best available science, also draws on environmental, consumer and ethical points of view. The basis of the approach is simple - a science-based safety regulatory model allowing for consumer choice. The Commission's strategy is designed to break the present deadlock on GM authorisations, address public concerns in relation to GMOs and ensure legal certainty.
Release of GMOs into the Environment - The revised Directive 90/220 has been just adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Over the next couple of months we will table the following laws :
Traceability and Labelling - A new Regulation will be proposed to the Parliament and the Council on these two vitally important topics. This fully horizontal law will cover all sectors (seeds, feed and food) with specific but distinct requirements for (live) GMOs and products derived from GMOs. It will also have specific requirements for the labelling of (live) GMOs. Pending adoption by Parliament and the Council of this Regulation, the Commission will adopt guidance for traceability of GMOs under the Revised Directive 90/220.
Food - A new Regulation on mandatory labelling of GM foods and food ingredients directly derived from GMOs. This will provide the full information consumers demand. At the same time, in order to ensure early implementation of this approach, we will amend the existing Regulation concerning the labelling of authorised varieties of maize and soya. This will dispense with the DNA/protein criteria as the trigger for labelling, thereby implementing the new labelling regime for the maize and soya concerned. Authorisation holders for these varieties would then be required to change the labels on their products accordingly. Feed - A new Regulation on GM feed with requirements on authorisation and labelling. Traceability issues being dealt with in the general traceability Regulation. Seeds - Technical requirements will be established through new legislation establishing for example planting distances and threshold levels. I have also directed that the overall revision of the Novel Foods Regulation be accelerated. A review of the existing Regulation will be carried out in the first half of this year with proposals for amendment likely to emerge in September next. My review will include issues such as :
different provisions for GM foods and other novel foods; improvements of the authorisation and notification procedures (making them clearer, more efficient and transparent); a centralised/Community procedure (with applications by companies directly to the European Food Authority) will be considered; dispensing with the notification procedure for GM derived foods and food ingredients based on substantial equivalence. All of this might seem on the complicated side. But this is in the nature of ensuring a strong and certain regulatory framework. If one were to drop anyone of these components, we would not have a strategy.
Perhaps not all aspects of our approach will be fully welcomed by the proponents or opponents of modern biotechnology. One cannot satisfy everyone all of the time.
I am, however, satisfied that we have developed a consistent, transparent and workable strategy. We identified dialogue with all stakeholders as being of the utmost importance. I believe we have made very great efforts over the past six months to meet and engage with consumer and environmental representatives. We have also met with representatives of enterprise.
When we are talking of BRIDGING DIVIDES the story is almost never-ending, especially where beliefs are passionately or viscerally held. We must continue not just to develop our legislation, but equally to develop our capacity to dialogue and communicate. To dialogue to foster mutuality of understanding. To communicate the truth. Full transparency, no holds barred. In this regard I heartily endorse and fully support plans to hold an "Edinburgh II" style conference on biotechnology. I am also encouraged by the conclusion of the recent EU-US Biotechnology Consultative Forum.
---
3. MEPs shocked as Nestlé and Adidas snub Public Hearing on corporate responsibility
Press Release - 23rd November 2000
Members of the European Parliament's Development Committee reacted with a mixture of shock and outrage as they heard a string of differing excuses offered by Nestlé to explain its absence from a Public Hearing on corporate responsibility, which took place in Brussels on 22nd November.
At the Hearing, The Network for Consumer Protection in Pakistan, a member of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), presented damning evidence of baby food marketing malpractice, including documentary evidence of bribes paid to doctors and sales targets set for staff (see the Network presentation on the website). UNICEF's Legal Officer also commented on Nestlé's incorrect interpretation of the marketing requirements adopted by the World Health Assembly (see UNICEF1s presentation on the website).
Tracey Wagner-Rizvi, Campaigns Coordinator at The Network, told the Committee how she had used EU regulations to report violations concerning labels on Nestlé products exported from the Netherlands, but the European Commission had taken no action. Richard Howitt MEP, who organised the Hearing, called for the Commission to review the procedures to make them effective. The Network also launched Masking the Truth, a critique of an audit commissioned by Nestlé. Ms Wagner-Rizvi said: "In short, the audit is a whitewash. The company should answer these charges and address the real issues. Why are they not prepared to do so?"
Richard Howitt MEP, told the Independent newspaper (23rd November 2000) that Nestlé and Adidas, which also refused to send a representative to participate in the Hearing into its activities, had shown: "utter contempt for a properly constituted public hearing. Not to attend reveals a combination of arrogance and distance which has set their cause back."
Mr. Sunil Sihna, of Emerging Market Economics, presented the audit he had prepared as a consultant for Nestlé and suggested that MEPs might also like to question Lord Nazir Ahmed, who had been proposed as an alternative speaker for the Nestlé slot. A consultant from the Shandwick public relations company, who accompanied Mr. Sihna, was seen to lobby journalists.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said: "Last year Nestlé Chairman, Helmut Maucher, told his shareholders that he welcomed the hearing and Nestlé has made statements calling for cooperation 'to further the implementation of the WHO Code.' By refusing to address the real issues in a transparent and democratic forum, Nestlé has revealed that these are hollow statements for public consumption. Meanwhile the marketing malpractice continues, contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world."
Also see: The Guardian 23 November 2000.
Notes for editors
1.For further information contact Mike Brady or Patti Rundall at Baby Milk Action, 23 St. Andrew's Street, Cambridge, CB2 3AX. Tel: (01223) 464420. Fax: (01223) 464417. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
2.The European Parliament Development and Cooperation Committee report under which the hearing was called is entitled: EU standards for European Enterprises operating in developing countries: towards a European Code of Conduct. It was adopted by the Parliament on 15th January 1999. Richard Howitt MEP, who steered the report through Parliament and has organised the hearings, can be contacted for further information on: + 32 2 284 5477
3.For further details and for pictures for publication visit the "codewatch" and "resources" sections. The Network and Baby Milk Action are both members of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).
4.The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 as a "minimum requirement" to be implemented by Member States "in its entirety." Subsequent Resolutions have addressed questions of interpretation and changes in marketing practices and scientific knowledge. European Union Council Resolution 92/C 172/01 "on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers" references the International Code.
5.The Parliamentary Hearing aimed to address: "marketing of infant formula in developing countries according to the WHO rules and European Council resolution... the operation and effectiveness of companies' own voluntary code of conduct will also be of interest to Committee members." Nestlé's decision to boycott the event exposes the call it made in a letter sent to Baby Milk Action by Nestlé Vice-President, Niels Christiansen, on 4th October 2000, which stated: "I realise that it may be difficult for you to envisage Baby Milk Action and Nestlé working together to further the implementation of the WHO Code, or that you could have greater success in reaching your objectives by participating in agreed-upon processes which allow verification of allegations under the watchful eye of national governments. Rather than devoting continued resources in trying to maintain a public confrontation, let's use them, instead, to work together with WHO and governments, as the Code calls for, to develop verifiable processes of monitoring." According to one of the excuses explaining Nestlé's absence, it objected to the presence of IBFAN and UNICEF at the hearing.
6.Stockton Borough Council invited Baby Milk Action and Nestlé to present their cases to an special Council meeting on 11th September 2000 after questions arose over the ethics of accepting funding from Nestlé for a town centre initiative. Nestlé pulled out of the meeting. The Council stated: "This was to avoid an open debate which they felt would have led to controversy, and the potential negative publicity for both themselves and the town centre. Although Nestlé are still prepared to look favourably on investing... this could not be done without going through the formal democratic process of hearing both sides of the argument." (See press release 1st September 2000).
7.According to UNICEF, reversing the decline in breastfeeding could save the lives of 1.5 million infants around the world every year. In Pakistan, 26% of the population does not have access to safe water and 53% do not have access to adequate sanitation.