Dear Friends and Colleagues,
The NGO Biowatch is currently taking the South African Government to court, over access to information on GM crops in South Africa.
For years, the NGO has been trying to get access to the safety data and information on which GMOs are being imported, tested, grown and released, which it says the public has the right to know. But the registrar of genetic resources has consistently stalled, claiming that the data is confidential business information.
Now Biowatch has taken their demand to the Pretoria High Court, where the Registrar of Genetic Resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms and the minister of agriculture have been joined by biotech companies Monsanto and Delta Pine Land, and seed company Stoneville Pedigreed, who are seeking to prevent the information about their products being made public.
The case started on Monday, and has been accompanied by protests from the public, demanding their right to know about GMOs in their food.
Under questioning, the respondents admitted that Biowatch was entitled to most of the information it sought, but tried to claim that the amount of information being requested was too much for understaffed Registrar of Genetic Resources to deal with. To which the judge commented "The effect of (this argument) is that because a particular state organ is understaffed people are going to be denied their Constitutional Rights to access information."
The judge said that his decision would probably not be made until the end of next week.
Best wishes,
Teresa
***********************************
1. Environmentalists Want State's GM Secrets
Article from South African Press Agency (SAPA).
24 May 2004
Mariette le Roux
2. Biowatch Seeks GMO Secrets
Article from News24.
24 May 2004
Tisha Steyn http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1531701,00.html
3. Monsanto Wants to Control What South Africans Are Told Press Release from Biowatch South Africa/ Oryx Media Productions. Date: 24 May 2004
4. Genetic Managers too Busy to Disclose Engineering Activities
Press Release from Biowatch South Africa/ Oryx Media Productions.
26 May 2004
5. GMO Protesters Turn Parly into Cereal
Press Release from South African Press Association (SAPA). 26 May 2004
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=14&art_id=qw1085574064320B216&set_id=1
6. 'What have GM producers got to hide?'
Article from the Cape Argus (South Africa).
27 May 2004
Gert-Jaap Hoekman
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=14&art_id=vn20040527124427690C156030&set_id=1
*****************************
1. Environmentalists Want State's GM Secrets
Article from South African Press Agency (SAPA). Date: 24 May 2004 Mariette le Roux
Environmental lobby group Biowatch sought a Pretoria High Court order on Monday compelling the government to divulge details of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) brought into or manufactured in the country to date.
The body is seeking an order directing the state to make available a list of facts concerning each permit, approval and authorisation granted for all GMO imports, exports, field trials and general releases to date.
This includes, in each case, a description of the GMO, its purpose, the name and address of the permit applicant, the area where the GMO will be used, plans for its monitoring, emergency measures in case of an accident, and the relevant environmental impact studies.
It also seeks similar particulars of those applications still pending.
Biowatch lodged its court application after several failed attempts to get certain information.
John Butler, for the non-governmental body, argued that a clear legislative duty of openness and transparency rests on the government in terms of environmental issues.
He disputed contentions that the information being sought is confidential, saying the government is obliged to inform the public prior to any GMO trial or general release.
"The information, if it does exist, should have been in the public domain in any event," Butler told the court. "Members of the public and farmers in an affected area should understand the potential threat they face."
The Open Democracy Advice Centre joined the proceedings as amicus curiae (a friend of the court) and argued that Biowatch is entitled to the data being sought on the basis of its constitutional right of access to information.
Access to information held by public and private institutions should only be denied where it is clearly justified, and such a decision has to be supported by factual evidence, it said in court papers.
The respondents are the registrar of genetic resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms, the minister of agriculture, biotechnology company Monsanto South Africa, seed company Stoneville Pedigreed and GMO producer D and PL South Africa.
Mervyn Rip, SC, rejected on behalf of the registrar, the council and the minister the assertions that his clients are trying to repress information.
Some of Biowatch's questions have been "substantially answered", he said.
However, Biowatch is asking such vast amounts of information that his clients are administratively unable to deal with the request.
He also contended that the requests do not follow procedures set out in the Promotion of Access to Information Act.
But he conceded under questioning by acting Judge Eric Dunn that the requests for information precedes the enactment of the legislation, and that Biowatch is "possibly" entitled to the information it is seeking.
About 50 anti-GMO protesters gathered outside the court in yellow T-shirts with the words: "Protect Africa's harvest."
They marched through the city centre with placards reading: "Our world is not for sale", "Phucking pharming" and "Save our seeds". -- Sapa
*********************************
2. Biowatch Seeks GMO Secrets
Article from News24. Date: 24 May 2004
Tisha Steyn
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1531701,00.html
Pretoria - Environmental lobby group Biowatch sought in the Pretoria High Court on Monday to compel the government to divulge information about genetically modified organisms (GMO) in South Africa.
It is seeking details about permits issued for the importation and production of GMO products.
The court application follows failed attempts by Biowatch to obtain certain information from the state in a bid to determine the extent of GMO prevalence in the country.
Biowatch contends the information it is seeking is not confidential as claimed by the state.
Members of the public should be notified, in any event, of any trial releases, it said.
The respondents are the registrar of genetic resources, the executive council for genetically modified organisms, the minister of agriculture, bio-technology company Monsanto South Africa, the Seed Company, Stoneville Pedigreed and GMO Producer D and PL South Africa.
**********************************
3. Monsanto Wants to Control What South Africans Are Told
Press Release from Biowatch South Africa/ Oryx Media Productions.
Date: 24 May 2004
Multinational seed and chemical company Monsanto wants tight control over the type and amount of information South Africans are told about genetically modified food and crops.
Biowatch South Africa has applied to the High Court in Pretoria for an order compelling the Department of Agriculture and multinational companies to reveal information to which it argues all South Africans are entitled. On the first day of argument today (Monday) the respondents collectively abandoned most of the issues they had raised in papers, with Monsanto trying desperately not to concede the crucial confidentiality point.
Counsel for The Registrar Genetic Resources, Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms and the Minister of Agriculture, Advocate Mervyn Rip SC, suggested that because Biowatch South Africa were fundamentally concerned with environmental issues, the organisation's beef was with the Minister of Environment not Agriculture. But Advocate Rip later conceded that Biowatch South Africa was entitled to most information it sought.
Counsel for Monsanto Advocate Jerome Wilson protested: "It's hopelessly overbroad, my Lord," in response to the scope of information sought by Biowatch South Africa. He said Monsanto was concerned that the Department of Agriculture should not release its commercial secrets.
The Open Democracy Advice Centre, which has joined the action as a Friend of the Court, argued that anyone wanting to limit the Constitutional right of access to information could only do so on specific and compelling grounds. Transparency was a cornerstone of our democracy, said Advocate Jacqui Cassette.
Advocate John Butler for Biowatch South Africa made the point that genetic modification was a controversial issue. Mr Justice Dunn agreed. It was a public interest issue, he said.
Outside court protestors displayed posters proclaiming: "Monsanto, Stop Poisoning Us," and, "Promote Sane Farming".
This statement was issued by Biowatch South Africa. For more information please visit the Biowatch website at www.biowatch.org.za <www.biowatch.org.za/> or call Vicky Stark at 082 786 4240.
***********************************
4. Genetic Managers too Busy to Disclose Engineering Activities
Press Release from Biowatch South Africa / Oryx Media Productions.
26 May 2004
Government functionaries responsible for managing genetic engineering in South Africa are too busy processing applications and issuing permits for new releases to comply with the Constitutional rights of other South Africans to know what they are doing.
It emerged in the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday that the Office of the Registrar Genetic Resources comprises just five people, two of whom are administrative assistants. Since 1999 the office had considered more than 2000 applications for new releases of genetically modified food and crops, and issued more than 1000 permits, Advocate Mervyn Ripp SC said. Advocate Ripp was appearing for the Registrar Genetic Resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms and the Minister of Agriculture in the application by Biowatch South Africa for access to information relating to the proliferation of genetic engineering.
Advocate Ripp said the information sought by Biowatch South Africa was so voluminous that the Office of the Registrar was incapable of delivering it. Mr Acting Justice Dunn said: "The effect of (this argument) is that because a particular state organ is understaffed people are going to be denied their Constitutional Rights to access information."
Advocate Ripp responded: "That's part of the growing pains of a democracy."
Advocate John Butler, for Biowatch South Africa, pointed out that had the Registrar's office responded to his client's initial request in 2000 for information relating to risk assessments, the number of documents required would have been relatively few.
Biowatch South Africa had offered to visit the Registrar's office to view the documents, and to pay for photocopying.
Putting the proliferation of genetically modified organisms together with Advocate Ripp's description of the staffing situation in the Registrar's office, Advocate Butler said Biowatch South Africa could ask legitimate questions about whether due attention was paid to environmental impact and risk assessments.
Biowatch South Africa launched the court application after repeated failed attempts to be granted access by the Registrar Genetic Resources to sufficient information to allow the organisation to evaluate if genetic engineering in South Africa is safe and compliant with South African law, the Constitution and international environmental standards.
Multinational seed and chemical company Monsanto, and two distributors of Monsanto products, the Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Company and Delta Pine Company, subsequently joined the action as fourth, fifth and sixth respondents. They joined to ensure that their rights to commercial confidentiality were not infringed.
On the issue of costs, all the respondents apart from Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Company on Monday indicated they would be seeking a cost order against Biowatch South Africa. But by Tuesday, only Monsanto was still pursuing the cost order. "There can be no respect in which we can be held liable for costs," said counsel for the multinational giant, Advocate Jerome Wilson. Advocate Matthew Chaskalson, for the Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Company termed the case "unfortunate" in the sense that an NGO attempting a worthy public interest initiative had been stonewalled by an uncommunicative bureaucracy. Biowatch South Africa was entitled to relief from the first three respondents, but private parties were also entitled to ensure their rights were not infringed.
Making the point that the matter was complex, Mr Acting Justice Dunn reserved judgement until the end of next week - if possible.
This statement was issued on behalf of Biowatch South Africa. For more information please visit the Biowatch website at www.biowatch.org.za or call Vicky Stark at 082 786 4240.
Source : Ends /avb Date : 26 May 2004 07:16
*****************************
5. GMO Protesters Turn Parly into Cereal
Press Release from South African Press Association (SAPA).
26 May 2004
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=14&art_id=qw1085574064320B216&set_id=1
The main entrance leading to Parliament was turned into a cereal when protesters campaigning against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) emptied a bag half-full of yellow maize and substitute milk to highlight their concerns on Wednesday.
The protest, organised by the Environmental Justice Network Forum (EJNF), was in support of Biowatch. Biowatch, an NGO, is currently involved in litigation in the Pretoria High Court on the lack of information from the government on the licensing and production of GMOs in South Africa.
"We are surprised at the position the South African government is taking with GMOs. It is not an Afro-centric position," said ENJF Western Cape co-ordinator Thabang Ngcozela, referring to other African countries who have taken a stance against GMOs.
Ngcozela accused the government of underhand tactics, by taking advantage of the majority of people who were ignorant of GMOs.
"Not many people know about GMOs, and the government is taking advantage of them, by example, not labelling GMO products," he said.
He said the Constitution guaranteed basic food provision, adding that this was not just about quantity, but rather quality.