1.Rights panel pushing govt to drop biosafety bill
2.Activists say govt bill promotes use of GMOs
GM WATCH COMMENT: As the first of these articles notes, Thailand currently bans not just commercial production of GM crops but field trials. But it has required constant vigilance to maintain the ban in the face of negotiations over a bilateral free trade agreement with the US, and now new "biosafety" legislation.
EXCERPTS: Witoon Lienchamroon, director of BioThai, a network of academic and community organisations concerned with the importance of biological resources and conserving biological diversity, said the government's draft bill of the Biosafety Law appeared to promote the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) instead of protecting the country's biological resources. (item 2)
"We agree that laws should be put in place to deal with GMOs, but not in a way that would support the use of GMOs because the public still doubts their benefit." - Buntoon Srethasirote of Thailand's National Human Rights Commission (item 1)
---
1.Rights panel pushing govt to drop biosafety bill
GENETIC ENGINEERING / NEW LAW SPARKS CONCERN
Piyaporn Wongruang
Bangkok Post, 5 September 2006 http://www.biothai.org/cgi-bin/content/news/show.pl?0300
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has stepped up its call for the caretaker government to drop the draft biosafety bill for fear the legislation would pave the way for commercialisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The move was joined by the National Economic and Social Advisory Council (Nesac), which is preparing to seek clarification from the government about the national policy on GMOs.
Buntoon Srethasirote, of the NHRC's sub-panel on biodiversity, said genetic-engineering technology had an immense impact on human health and the environment, so agencies involved should seek a public consensus before going ahead with the development of laws.
However, the drafting committee of the biosafety bill had bypassed the process, resulting in the content of the bill sparking concerns, Mr Buntoon said.
"We agree that laws should be put in place to deal with GMOs, but not in a way that would support the use of GMOs because the public still doubts their benefit," Mr Buntoon told a seminar on the draft biosafety bill yesterday.
He said his panel would work with community and farmer representatives in drafting another version of the bill to counter the government's version.
The alternative version would focus on protection of human health and biodiversity from biotechnology, said Mr Buntoon.
Witoon Lianchamroon, a member of the Nesac's science sub-panel, said the new bill would lead to contradictions in the government's agriculture policy.
He said while the government had been promoting GMO-free organic farming, it was now going to enforce a law that could lead to commercial production of transgenic crops.
Instead of safeguarding the country's biological resources and farmer and consumers' rights from the GMOs, the new bill gives guidelines on how to use the GMOs, he said.
The Nesac member also demanded the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) confirm that the policy to expand organic farming to more than half of the country's farm area would be written down in the 10th national development plan.
Jaroen Compeerapap, vice president of Silpakorn University's Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge Faculty, said the draft bill contained several weak points, including the lack of a checks-and-balances system for the use of genetic engineering technology and compensation for damaged parties.
Vithes Srinetr, of the Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning, in charge of the drafting process, said the drafting committee would take all the comments into consideration.
It was likely that the draft bill would be revised, he said.
Thailand currently bans commercial production of genetically-modified crops. Field trials of the GM plants are also prohibited.
---
2.Activists say govt bill promotes use of GMOs
BIOSAFETY LEGISLATION
Pennapa Hongthong
The Nation, 5 September 2006 http://www.biothai.org/cgi-bin/content/news/show.pl?0302
Environmentalists and lawyers yesterday said they would draw up their own draft legislation on biosafety after being disappointed with the one drawn up by a government team.
Witoon Lienchamroon, director of BioThai, a network of academic and community organisations concerned with the importance of biological resources and conserving biological diversity, said the government's draft bill of the Biosafety Law appeared to promote the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) instead of protecting the country's biological resources.
The first draft of the bill, drawn up by a working team appointed by Suwit Khunkitti, who was the Natural Resources and Environmental Minister in 2004, was completed recently.
Witest Srinet of the Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning, who headed the team, said the bill aimed to protect biosafety related to the use and distribution of GMOs, but does not promote GMOs as Witoon claimed.
The bill has been strongly criticised by opponents of GMOs. Yesterday was the fourth and final public hearing, and the already heated debate reached a peak as it was the last chance to collect public suggestions for amendments to the draft.
Sairoong Thongplon, manager of the Consumers Federation, said the bill failed to consider the issues of consumer rights or the impact of GMOs on people's health and the environment.
"The issues have been controversial in the country for almost a decade, so why did the bill not focus on it? It seems the government wants to ignore all controversial issues on GMOs so the approval of the bill can be accelerated.
"Once it is enforced, the law will be used to open the country to GMOs," Sairoong said.
Somchai Rattanachaisakul, a law academic at the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, said the bill ignored the so-called precautionary principle accepted as the basis of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which Thailand is signatory.
The principle states that when there is reasonable suspicion of harm, lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to postpone preventative action.
Witest said he and his team would review the bill in light of the public's comments and draw up a new draft bill, but Witoon said activists would go ahead with drafting their own version.
"We need a comprehensive law on biosafety, not a separate law that only focuses on GMOs and products thereof," Witoon said.
Witoon said the "people's version" of the Biosafety Law would be submitted for the Parliament's consideration, either through opposition parties or by collecting 50,000 signatures and submitting it directly as prescribed by the Constitution.