December, 22 2020, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Navdanya International Press Office
The Lobby Behind Italy's Opening To GMOS
On December 22, a parliamentary process in favor of GMOs and new breeding techniques (NBTs) has begun at the Italian Chamber's Agricultural Commission. A process which opens a very risky path, since it could lead to a green light for the cultivation of GMOs in Italy - without any public or scientific debate. Such a decision could prove "irreversible", and therefore destined to have an overwhelming impact on the Italian agricultural sector with important consequences for both conventional and organic crops.
WASHINGTON
On December 22, a parliamentary process in favor of GMOs and new breeding techniques (NBTs) has begun at the Italian Chamber's Agricultural Commission. A process which opens a very risky path, since it could lead to a green light for the cultivation of GMOs in Italy - without any public or scientific debate. Such a decision could prove "irreversible", and therefore destined to have an overwhelming impact on the Italian agricultural sector with important consequences for both conventional and organic crops. What is happening in Italy today is not an impromptu legislative initiative, but a planned offensive. It is the result of a lobbying process developed over the last decade and has intensified following the ruling of the European Court of Justice that equates NBTs with GMOs.
In Europe, the use, as well as the cultivation and marketing of genetically modified organisms is subject to very strict rules and complex authorization procedures. The industry, in order to gain a foothold in the European market, has therefore decided to focus on NBTs, the new techniques of genetic manipulation. This is the case of CRISPR-CAS9, a particularly simple and inexpensive technique that allows for the modification of DNA without the introduction of external genes, as is the case with older generations of GMOs. Based on this procedural difference, the industry could claim that organisms modified with CRISPR-CAS9, which has been defined by many as a DNA cut-and-sew operation, were comparable to those obtained through conventional breeding and therefore do not require ad hoc regulation.
However, on July 25, 2018, a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union equated GMOs to NBTs, throwing the entire agribusiness sector into panic. The Corporate Europe Observatory denounced how, following the publication of the Court of Justice's judgment, the European Union has been subject to incessant lobbying pressure from the United States and other trading partners to allow NBTs to not be absorbed by the GMO legislation. Commenting on the multiple defeats of agribusiness, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, defined the European Court's ruling as "regressive and untimely", announcing the willingness of his ministry to "redouble efforts" to convince European partners to change their approach. A new phase that also involves Italy. The meeting between Sonny Perdue and the Minister of Agriculture Teresa Bellanova took place at the end of January 2020 in Rome. NBTs were not missing among the topics of the meeting. This was the Italian Minister's stance on the subject: "Above all, I consider the importance of the collaboration in research and innovation, with particular regard to innovative techniques of plant genomics. We are also working at European level to make a clear distinction between these techniques and transgenic genetic modification".
The alert on a new lobbying offensive had already been launched by the Corporate Europe Observatory, in October, when they denounced how the agribusiness lobby, together with pesticides and food industry giants, were trying to prevent the new EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) from aligning with the Farm to Fork strategy. Yet, it is precisely within the pages of the European Commission's strategy document that corporate interests have found the right opening. The goal of reducing the use of fertilizers by 20%, chemical pesticides by 50% and converting 25% of the continental agriculture to organic farming collides with some parallel assessments: "New techniques," reads the Farm to Fork strategy, "including biotechnology and the development of bio-based products, can play a role in increasing sustainability, provided they are safe for consumers and the environment while benefiting society as a whole. They can also accelerate the process of reducing dependence on pesticides. In response to a request from member states, the Commission is developing a study that will examine the potential of new genomic techniques to improve sustainability along the food supply chain." The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) also supported the industry by publishing a favorable opinion on NBTs in October 2020.
The news of a new political offensive by some Member States, including Italy and France, to open the doors to new GMOs seems to be a logical consequence of what has been developing in Europe in recent years.
As remarked by Dr Vandana Shiva, President of Navdanya International: "Gene edited Organisms are GMOs. Science informs us that gene editing is not a precise tool but a clumsy instrument for working with seeds which are complex self-organised living systems. The European Court of Justice has ruled that Gene editing is genetic engineering because it modifies organisms at the genetic level. Therefore, gene editing produces GMOs. Gene editing is not breeding but a short cut to patenting seeds and owing the seed heritage that farmers have evolved."
Navdanya is a movement for Earth Democracy based on the philosophy of 'Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam' (The Earth as one Family). We protect the India's biodiversity based food heritage through Bija Swaraj, Ann Swaraj, Bhu Swaraj and Gyan swaraj.
LATEST NEWS
'Disturbing': Intel Chair Used Schumer Protests to Push Warrantless Spying
"If any lawmakers were still on the fence and waiting for a smoking gun, THIS IS IT," said one advocate of reforming Section 702.
Mar 12, 2024
Privacy advocates issued fresh calls for changes to a historically abused U.S. spying program on Tuesday after Wiredreported that a top Republican congressman privately tried using peaceful protests as proof of the need to block long-demanded reforms.
"If you care about the First Amendment, please stop everything and read this Wired article," Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program, said on social media, sharing the piece.
Wired's Dell Cameron obtained a pair of presentation slides and spoke with multiple GOP staffers who attended a December 11 meeting with Rep. Mike Turner, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
"This is ice in the heart of our democracy."
The meeting was about competing legislation to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows warrantless surveillance targeting noncitizens located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, but also sweeps up Americans' data—and has been misused, particularly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. One of the bills would require the FBI to get a warrant before accessing U.S. citizens' communications.
Turner—who opposes the bill with that and other reforms—reportedly displayed the slides about 15 minutes into the meeting, which latest over an hour. The first shows a photo of opponents of Israel's genocidal U.S.-backed war on the Gaza Strip protesting outside the Brooklyn residence of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). It does not note that the October 13 action was organized by Jewish Voice for Peace.
The second slide features a social media post from Washington Free Beacon staff writer Matthew Foldi that contains misinformation suggesting Hamas—which governs Gaza and is designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government—was tied to a November demonstration at the Democratic leader's residence. The slides do not make clear that they were different events.
"At the outset of the presentation, he's running through slides, making his case for why 702 reauthorization is needed," one senior Republican aide told Wired about Turner's presentation. "Then he throws up that photo. The framing was: 'Here are protesters outside of Chuck Schumer's house. We need to be able to use 702 to query these people.'"
As Cameron detailed:
Jeff Naft, the HPSCI spokesperson, says the purpose of the slides was to illustrate that, even if the protesters did have ties to Hamas, they would "not be subject to surveillance" under the 702 program. "702 is not used to target protestors," he says. "702 is used on foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas. Chairman Turner's presentation was a distinction exercise to explain the difference between a U.S. person and Hamas."
Wired's sources, who are not authorized to discuss closed-door briefings and requested anonymity to do so, describe this as a conflation of two separate issues—a tactic, they say, that has become commonplace in the debate over the program's future. "Yes, it's true, you cannot 'target' protesters under 702," one aide, a legislative director for a Republican lawmaker, says. "But that doesn't mean the FBI doesn't still have the power to access those emails or listen to their calls if it wants."
In response to Wired's reporting, Goitein—who was quoted in the piece—said on social media that "if any lawmakers were still on the fence and waiting for a smoking gun, THIS IS IT. Turner has made the stakes crystal clear. A vote to reauthorize Section 702 without a warrant requirement is a vote to allow the FBI to keep tabs on protesters exercising [First Amendment] rights."
"HPSCI leaders are reportedly trying to persuade congressional leaders to slip a Section 702 reauthorization into one of the upcoming funding bills," she pointed out. "Lawmakers must be given the opportunity to vote on Section 702 reforms, including a warrant requirement and other critical protections for Americans' civil liberties. Our First Amendment rights depend on it."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) abruptly delayed action on Section 702 last month after Turner announced that the HPSCI had provided members of Congress with "information concerning a serious national security threat," which news outlets reported was that Russia has made alarming progress on a space-based nuclear weapon designed to target U.S. satellites. Critics called it a ploy by the chair to force through the spying program and demanded his immediate resignation.
Among the groups that pressured Turner to step down last month was Demand Progress, a longtime supporter of Section 702 reforms whose policy director, Sean Vitka, was also quoted in Wired's piece and issued a statement about the "disturbing" revelations.
"This is ice in the heart of our democracy," Vitka said. "Americans' right to protest is sacred, and all the more critical given the political volatility 2024 is certain to produce. As intelligence agencies and congressional intelligence committees mislead the public about what's at stake in this fight for privacy, Chairman Turner has been secretly selling his colleagues on backdoor searches of Americans as a way to help the FBI spy on protesters without so much as a court order."
Calling for "a forceful response" from Schumer, Johnson, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), he argued that "Congress must stop letting the House Intelligence Committee dictate its agenda by secretly vetoing any meaningful reform. In the coming weeks, Congress has the opportunity to enact meaningful privacy protections that would protect protesters and all people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, specifically by closing the backdoor search and data broker loopholes."
Jeramie Scott, senior counsel and director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, also weighed in on the reporting.
"Americans exercising their constitutional right to protest have a right to be free from warrantless surveillance. There should be no suggestion that foreign intelligence authorities can be used to target protestors; that would be counter to our core American values," Scott said. "This discussion is one more example of why Congress must pass a warrant requirement to ensure that these searches are not subject to abuse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Columbia Sued Over 'Retaliatory' Suspension of Pro-Palestine Student Groups
"Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning—not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don't approve of," said the head of the NYCLU.
Mar 12, 2024
The New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal on Tuesday filed a lawsuit on behalf of members of two pro-Palestine student groups at Columbia University which avocates say were illegally suspended for engaging in peaceful protests and other events protected under the First Amendment.
The suit—filed on behalf of the Columbia chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)—seeks the groups' reinstatement. Under pressure from people including wealthy pro-Israel donors, Columbia officials unilaterally
suspended the school's JVP and SJP chapters in November, claiming the groups repeatedly held "unauthorized" events including protests and teach-ins since October 7, when Hamas-led attacks on Israel prompted genocidal retaliation against the people of Gaza.
"Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning—not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don't approve of," NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman said in a statement.
"These student groups were peacefully speaking out on a critical global conflict, only to have Columbia University ignore their own longstanding, existing rules and abruptly suspend the organizations," Lieberman added. "That's retaliatory, it's targeted, and it flies in the face of the free speech principles that institutes of higher learning should be defending. Students protesting at private colleges still have the right to fair, equal treatment—and we are ready to fight that battle in court."
Maryam Alwan, an organizer with Columbia's SJP chapter, said that "Ivy League institutions should not attract students who value justice and equality if they do not want to be held accountable for the ideals that they claim to uphold."
"As a Palestinian American student, I should have the same right to speak out on my campus as everyone else—and no amount of targeted policy changes or illegitimate suspensions will prevent us from advocating for the Palestinian people," Alwan added.
Cameron Jones, a JVP organizer at the school, argued that "Columbia must protect all Jewish students and voices, not just those adhering to a specific political belief."
"The university's decision to suspend a Jewish group sets a concerning precedent for safeguarding free speech on college campuses," Jones added. "It not only took away our rights as a club, but told us that our university does not support or respect anti-Zionist Jews or their beliefs."
Palestine Legal staff attorney Radhika Sainath noted that "for decades, Columbia students have been at the forefront of speaking out against segregation, war, and apartheid and SJP and JVP sit squarely in this tradition."
"It is precisely because these principled students pose a threat to the status quo that they are being targeted for McCarthyist censorship, but the law does not allow it," Sainath asserted. "Universities must abide by their own rules and may not punish student groups speaking out for Palestinian rights in the moment when they are most essential—even if donors and lobby groups complain."
"For decades, Columbia students have been at the forefront of speaking out against segregation, war, and apartheid and SJP and JVP sit squarely in this tradition."
The Columbia suspensions came amid a nationwide campus crackdown on criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights. Some students have fought back. In November, the University of Florida SJP chapter sued state education officials and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis over their move to deactivate the group over its support for Palestinians' legally enshrined right to resist Israeli occupation, apartheid, and other crimes.
Conversely, five Jewish students and two organizations last month sued Columbia and Barnard College alleging "particularly severe and pervasive" campus antisemitism, while a Jewish student at Columbia's School of Social Work filed a separate discrimination lawsuit last month.
There has been a dramatic increase in reports acts of both antisemitism and Islamophbia on U.S. campuses and in wider society since October 7.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jewish Progressives Stage Sit-In at Hakeem Jeffries' Office to Protest AIPAC Influence
"Our Jewish communities are rising up to say, 'Never again is now,'" said organizers.
Mar 12, 2024
Sharpening their focus on the influence that pro-Israel lobbyists have had for decades on U.S. policy regarding Palestinians, Jewish progressives on Tuesday held a sit-in at the Capitol Hill office of U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, one of the largest recipients of campaign funds from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The protesters, who are members of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, prominently displayed a sign reading, "AIPAC gave $829,835 to Hakeem Jeffries, who opposes cease-fire," before proceeding to the New York Democrat's office.
The sign referred to AIPAC's contributions to Jeffries throughout his career.
"Our Jewish communities are rising up to say, 'Never again is now,'" said JVP Action. "We refuse to be bystanders as the Israeli government wages a genocidal campaign in our name and funding by U.S. tax dollars."
At the sit-in, the organizers held signs saying, "AIPAC funds genocide" and, "Jeffries: Reject AIPAC."
Israel has killed at least 31,184 Palestinians since it began its U.S.-backed bombardment of Gaza in October, and at least 25 people have died of starvation due to Israel's blockade on nearly all humanitarian aid. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East said Tuesday that more children have been killed in Gaza in the last four months than the number of children killed worldwide in wars over the last four years.
JVP Action is among several rights groups that announced a new coalition, Reject AIPAC, on Monday. AIPAC and its political action committee are planning to spend $100 million this election year to unseat lawmakers it views as insufficiently supportive of Israel.
As JVP Action noted Tuesday, while Democratic lawmakers who continue to back Israel's assault on Gaza may retain the support of AIPAC, they are out of step with Democratic voters, 77% of whom are demanding the U.S. call for a cease-fire in Gaza.
"If members of Congress vote to send Israel more bombs and weapons now, it's because AIPAC demands it," Justice Democrats, another member of the coalition, said Monday. "Reject AIPAC because Palestinian lives should matter more to our leaders than campaign checks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular