Healthy Foods Free of Pesticides and GMOs. In Support of Food Sovereignty and Security in Latin America. No to the WTO

Healthy Foods Free of Pesticides and GMOs. In Support of Food Sovereignty and Security in Latin America. No to the WTO

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The WTO in Cancun, Mexico

In Cancun, Mexico, from September 10 to 14, the 148 countries that make up the World Trade Organization (WTO) met for the fifth time. This organization, based in Geneva, Switzerland, was born since 1995 as a forum where agreements are negotiated to lower tariffs and tariffs (taxes on imported products) that allow greater commercial exchange in the world, but whose effects go beyond trade . The WTO currently enforces about twenty trade agreements in areas such as textiles, agriculture, services, and intellectual property rights. Countries that violate these agreements are subjected to very strong pressure and brought before undemocratic commercial arbitration panels where they are sanctioned.
In practice, the WTO has served as an instrument for transnational corporations and a few wealthy governments to promote and impose an ever-expanding set of neoliberal policies globally that allow greater foreign penetration of strategic national resources, and greater control of national economies, which affects the satisfaction of basic needs and rights of the human being in terms of employment, food, health, education, the right to a healthy environment, and which causes greater inequality between the countries of the North and the South.

The issues identified since 1996 at the WTO Conference in Singapore to start a new round of negotiations and reach new trade liberalization agreements are: Investments, Competition Policy, Public Sector Procurement and Trade facilitation. Similarly, it is intended to further expand the trade liberalization of agriculture, whose negotiations began in 2000 and have not been completed, with the objective of reducing subsidies to agricultural exports, access to markets through the lowering of tariffs, and the reduction of internal measures that distort production or trade.

A food system under the rule of transnational corporations (1)

The neoliberal policies of structural adjustment promoted by multilateral financial organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) weakened the intervention of the National States in agriculture and reoriented agricultural policies to privilege the needs of the external market, on the needs of the national population, promoting agro-export crops and sacrificing policies to support the production of basic grains that ensure food self-sufficiency.

The United States and the European Union preach free trade but do not practice it; They pressure the other countries to lower their tariffs and subsidies to the countryside while they do raise their subsidies. The most scandalous example is presented by the United States, which in its 2002 Farm Bill raised agricultural subsidies by 80% - compared to 1986 - especially in eight crops: cotton, wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, barley, oats and sorghum. These subsidies mainly benefit large farmers and transnational corporations that have displaced and expelled most of the family farmers. Rich OECD countries are estimated to spend more than $ 300 billion a year on agricultural subsidies, six times more than aid to developing countries (2).

These subsidies allow the United States to export its products below the actual cost of production, in a practice known as "dumping." The artificially low price product of "dumping" destroys regional markets open to global competition and affects small farmers and rural peasant economies.

The overproduction of food at "dumped" prices promoted by the United States is part of a strategy of domination by world food hegemony, in competition with the European Union, to expand its control to other countries on the planet. It benefits large agri-food corporations, both cereal and grain marketers and processed food transformers. Just two US companies, Cargill and Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) control half of the world's grain trade in the world. The ten largest seed companies on the planet control a third of the world's seed trade.

The concentration of corporate power is accelerating with the globalization of free trade agreements and the fight for the world market. A few companies dominate the market for seeds, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, veterinary products and have opted for the expansion of genetically modified crops to consolidate their control.

Syngenta, Bayer - which bought Aventis Crop Science-, Monsanto, Basf, Dupont and Dow are the genetic giants that compete for the global market for agrobiotechnology patents, and it is these same transnationals that control almost 80% of the world pesticide market .

Pressure from the United States and Europe for further liberalization of agricultural trade under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture would have the consequence of consolidating transnational power over the food system.

The model of industrial agriculture poisons nature, workers and rural communities (3)

The agriculture promoted by free trade agreements and the WTO is an industrialized agriculture that subjects nature to processes of productive specialization and capital accumulation. This industrialized agriculture sacrifices biological diversity in specialized monocultures dependent on technological packages under the control of transnational corporations, especially in seeds - formerly hybrid and now genetically modified - and chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

The food system promoted by the WTO has a high expenditure in energy, due to processing, the great distances that food travels and the infrastructure in transport and refrigeration, which contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases that affect the planet's climate.

Chemical pesticides are by definition toxic substances, they are the weapons of the chemical industry that are offered to combat pests, such as insecticides, herbicides and fungicides; and they affect fundamental biological systems that are also shared by man. The intensive use of these pesticides causes short and long term poisoning of nature, workers, rural communities and consumers.

Every year in Latin America and the Caribbean hundreds of thousands of people are poisoned. The health secretaries of the Central American countries estimate that there are almost 400,000 poisonings caused by pesticides each year in that region, which has the best registration system. In Brazil it is estimated that 300,000; in Mexico, the authorities registered 2,800 cases in 2002, in Chile there were 1,000; but in most countries most of the poisonings are not reported to the authorities, so the total real figures are much higher. These are recorded cases of immediate, short-term poisoning, but the chronic, long-term effects caused by pesticides are not statistically kept.

Most pesticides entered the world market before tests were required to show that they had no chronic effects on the health of the population. Hundreds of pesticides have already been identified that are known or suspected to cause cancer, malformations, affect the fertility of men and women, damage their natural defense system against infections and diseases, cause spontaneous abortions and other reproductive diseases. Damages to health are not always immediate, nor do they occur in the short term, but can manifest years later, especially in pregnant women who are exposed to these pesticides. Although agricultural workers and their families are the most exposed sector, so are the rural communities where they are applied and all food consumers to whom these poisons were applied.

Pesticides are biocides that kill not only pests but also beneficial insects that control them in a natural way, so that the more they are used, new pests appear, which can also develop resistance, a hereditary biological capacity to these toxic substances due to which no longer die at the doses that were applied previously. Pesticides pollute the water of rivers, springs and wells, and affect coastal ecosystems where irrigation districts discharge, in addition to affecting flora and fauna in the places where they are applied.
The use of pesticides has created a huge environmental debt, and damage to health, in the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the rest of the world, benefiting mainly transnational corporations.

The myth of the quality of food produced in the United States and the imposition of risks on importing countries (4)

One of the consequences of neoliberal policies by prioritizing export crops is that governments pay more attention to ensuring the quality of the products that are exported than those that are imported and consumed domestically.

The flood of food from the United States into the large supermarkets of Latin America, increasingly in the hands of American multinational companies such as Wallmart, may create the illusion for consumers that imported food must be safer than that of the country of origin. However, the quality of "Made in USA" products is more a myth than a reality, given the intense use of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and additives used in US agricultural production that is offered as a "model" to businessmen and women. peasants from all over the world.

The United States is the country that uses the most chemical pesticides in the world - 20% of the world total - with hundreds of thousands of tons applied each year, and with products that, although registered, are not harmless but known or suspected of causing cancer, affecting the reproductive development, cause hormonal changes, or damage brain development and nervous system.

Every year thousands of farm workers are poisoned and there is a serious water pollution problem. In addition, it is estimated that 20% of the food consumed in the United States is contaminated with residues of organochlorine insecticides - especially dieldrin and DDE, a metabolite of DDT - that have been banned in that country and with dioxins, a highly toxic contaminant that accumulates in body fats. The presence of these contaminants has been found in fruits, vegetables, meat, chicken, and dairy products such as milk, yogurt, and cheese. Organochlorine pesticide residues and dioxins present in food in very low amounts, although we do not perceive it, accumulate in the human body, forming the body burden of pollutants that are excreted in breast milk and are passed on to future generations.

70% of the total antibiotics used in the United States - about 11 thousand tons - are used to promote the growth and fattening of pigs, chickens and cattle, which can cause bacteria resistant to these drugs, putting animal health and health at risk. of consumers. In the United States, more than 90% of beef cattle have hormones implanted in their ears or given hormones in their feed to increase their weight in the shortest time possible. To increase milk production, Recombined Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH for its acronym in English or somatropin in Spanish) is used, which is produced mainly by the transnational Monsanto and can put consumer health at risk as it increases the risk of allergic reactions and cancer of prostate, colon and chest.
The promotion of crops and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) create new risks and uncertainties for the health of consumers, not to mention the environmental risks of genetic contamination, as is the case with the varieties of maize native to indigenous communities in Mexico, the center of Mexico. world origin of corn. There is evidence that the consumption of GMOs can increase the risk of allergies, resistance to antibiotics, and possible affectations of the immune system.

Although the evidence is not conclusive if it is sufficient to require further studies before releasing these products for planting and human and animal consumption. The powerful transnational companies have succeeded in preventing the United States - unlike Europe - from requiring information on the label if transgenic organisms were used in fresh or processed food. Thus, when the food industry of Latin American and Caribbean countries imports soybeans or corn from the United States, they are importing a large part of genetically modified soybeans and corn that is used to make a wide variety of foods: tortillas , flours, oils, sweets, junk snacks widely consumed by children and adults. Without the labeling of imported GM foods, the consumer is eating blindly (5).

Governments should establish a national program for the prevention, control and monitoring of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and persistent organic pollutants in imported and domestically produced foods. Report if antibiotics or hormones were used. Governments should require imported foods to indicate on their label whether they contain transgenic products and ban the planting of genetically modified crops as a preventive measure.

The Food Codex and the illusions of the so-called "food safety or health" with free trade (6)

Measures to protect the health of food, plants, animals, humans and the environment are considered by the WTO as technical barriers to free trade that must be reduced to a minimum to increase the flow of trade; and in this way avoid customs inspections, temporary detentions or quarantine measures.

The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the WTO established, since 1994, that an international organization, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is the international benchmark in the resolution of trade disputes to determine the "appropriate levels" of protection in matters of food safety, which are tolerated and do not interfere with free trade. The existing differences between the countries of the protection measures must be "harmonized" globally, to eliminate what is considered as unnecessary obstacles and disguised restrictions, taking in practice as the limit ceiling the international standards established by the Codex.

The WTO hopes that countries that enter into free trade agreements will recognize as equivalent the measures adopted by another member, especially if they are based on these international recommendations.

The Codex Alimentary Commission was created in 1962 to implement the Joint Program of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on Food Standards. Originally, Codex provided technical advice to developing countries on sanitary and phytosanitary matters, with the aim of establishing minimum global guidelines based on which countries could develop their own standards, which could be stricter; However, the WTO has transformed Codex into the international benchmark for the elaboration of world food safety standards, establishing global maximum limits for pesticide residues and veterinary drugs, food additives, and contaminants, as well as hygiene measures. of food; and in recent years the use of hormones in livestock and milk, and on labeling and traceability of foods that contain genetically modified organisms. Codex is also the international benchmark for the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade in food labeling, quality provisions, nutritional requirements, and methods of analysis and sampling.

The committees that develop Codex standards are strongly influenced by transnational pesticide corporations and the food industry. The WTO says, in theory, that a country can maintain or introduce higher standards than Codex standards to protect health or the environment only if there is a scientific justification based on a risk assessment, although in practice, when this has been done. Once the affected country has made it, it can challenge this decision and demand compensation, taking the case to a special panel for study and recommendation.

When it is said that free trade agreements guarantee "food safety" it does not mean that the food is really "safe" or is free of pesticides or other toxic substances, but rather that it complies with the acceptable limits of residues of these substances established by the Codex Alimentarius or with equivalent measures agreed between the countries.

The WTO requires countries to establish their food safety measures based on risk assessments, as defined by the Codex Alimentarius. The risk assessment is based on the assumption that the risks of consuming foods where chemical pesticides, hormones and antibiotics have been used can be evaluated and managed to set maximum permissible limits that guarantee their safety or innocuousness. It is about setting acceptable risk levels instead of promoting alternative agricultural practices that replace or eliminate these toxic substances and avoid them. Having the Codex recommendations as a ceiling means that we accept in our diet to eat foods that have pesticide residues that can cause cancer or affect our hormonal system or other chronic effects, although we are told that as the allowed amounts are very small, the consuming them does not represent a health hazard.

Independent scientists have pointed out that the so-called risk assessments as currently practiced in Codex do not provide reliable safety limits as they do not consider chronic and multiple exposure of toxic substances, accumulated effects and their interaction in the body, or sensitivities The special risks of children or sick people only partially evaluate the risks of substance by substance, establishing for each one their maximum permissible limit in each food considering the characteristics of a healthy adult. Risk assessment should not be the straitjacket for public policy on food safety, but other options should be developed, especially for the evaluation of alternatives for the substitution and elimination of toxic substances in agricultural production (7).

The WTO perverts the Precautionary Principle, which establishes that governments can intervene by taking preventive measures in cases of presumption of irreversible damage to health or the environment, even if the scientific evidence is not absolute, so the one that promotes a practice or introduces a substance on the market is responsible for presenting proof that it is not harmful. With the WTO, the responsibility is reversed, it is the country questioned about its protection measures, which must defend itself and demonstrate that the product that does not allow it to enter its market represents an unacceptable risk; the benefit of the uncertainty benefits the claimant country before the commercial dispute panels.

The WTO rules have allowed, in this context, that the United States has sued the European Union for not allowing the entry of meat or milk with unauthorized hormone residues in the old continent, and for the de facto moratorium against entry of transgenic foods that are not labeled, as required by European legislation. Similarly, Australia's quarantine on salmon imports, to protect the health of its native population, or Japan's quarantine to protect its fruit from certain pests have been questioned (8).

Deregulation in the global and regional harmonization of pesticide labeling (9)

The harmonization of a global system of labeling and classification of chemical substances, initially promoted by the rich countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Economic Commission of the United Nations, results in a decrease in the level of risk communication in the case of pesticides.

Said global system developed a new classification of the acute toxicity of pesticides lower than the one elaborated by the World Health Organization, having as a consequence that pesticides whose label must be inscribed with the legend of extremely dangerous or very dangerous will be relabelled as " dangerous "with a different colored band.

The harmonization of pesticide labeling in the Central American common market has forced the reclassification of the paraquat herbicide in Guatemala, which, from having a label with a red band corresponding to "extremely toxic", went to a lower category with a blue band. of "slightly toxic" despite being the same formula. Similarly, in the case of El Salvador, various pesticides were reclassified from extremely or highly toxic to being moderately and slightly toxic. This harmonization represents in practice a deregulation that makes control and security measures more flexible and will have repercussions in greater cases of poisoning.

Unlike the United States, the labels of pesticides in Europe must include warning phrases about their chronic effects, this information should also be required in other countries and with great reason in Latin America, where companies of European origin dominate the market. Knowing not only the acute effects as they are currently in color bands and warning legends as recommended by the WHO, but also the chronic effects and the inert ingredients with toxic properties are part of the right to know of the users that must be defended in the projects for global harmonization of pesticide labeling.

In Mexico, proposals of this type have faced fierce opposition from transnational corporations.

Transnational companies also seek to harmonize or declare equivalent pesticide regulations in regional free trade economic blocs and thus minimize controls on pesticides.For example, transnational companies have proposed the Unified Register of Pesticides of the Central American Customs Union , which is currently being negotiated, whereby a pesticide that has been approved in one country must automatically be registered by the others. This proposal has already been adopted by El Salvador in its legislation through the signing of equivalence protocols with all the Central American countries. This record is expected to strengthen the investment of the Puebla Panama Plan, and trade integration with Mexico and the United States.

WTO investment agreement: threat to the sovereignty of local governments and the protection of health and the environment (10)

The United States and Europe pressure WTO countries to open negotiations on a global investment agreement. This would reinforce the investor protection clauses that have already been established in various regional and bilateral free trade agreements at the global level.

For example, Chapter 11 of the Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada, allows a foreign investor to demand that a country pay millions of dollars as compensation if it considers that it has been treated in a discriminatory manner or that they have taken measures similar to an indirect expropriation of the present or future value of your investment.

The commercial court that receives and resolves these types of lawsuits conducts hearings that are not open to the public, local or provincial governments cannot participate directly but through the federal government, and the panel members are experts in commercial disputes but are not It requires that they be in the area of ​​environmental law or protection of the health of the population. The investment protection chapter of NAFTA has been taken as a model for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) and contains.
With this type of agreement, foreign companies have a powerful weapon to blackmail local or provincial governments that try to prevent the operation of activities or the entry of products that put the health of their population at risk. This has caused, for example, that Metalclad, a North American company, has received from the Mexican government more than 16 million dollars in compensation for the fact that a poor municipality did not grant it the construction permit to reopen a toxic garbage dump, and for having created an area state natural protection due to the great biological diversity in cacti in the region.

Similarly, it has served to prevent a Canadian province from banning the use of lindane, a toxic organochlorine insecticide banned in many countries and that accumulates in fat and breast milk.

For the defense of food sovereignty and support for peasant and indigenous resistance movements (11)

RAPAL stands in solidarity with the struggle of the peasant and indigenous movements in defense of food sovereignty. Preserving food sovereignty means guaranteeing the right of peoples to produce their own food; to define their own agricultural and food policies, give support to farmers to strengthen national production and the domestic market, protect themselves from low-priced imports, and guarantee the stability of agricultural prices on an international scale through international agreements to control the production.

Faced with a homogeneous world food system in the power of a few transnational companies, it is necessary to rebuild sustainable food systems from below that conserve the cultural and biological diversity of peasants and indigenous peoples, giving priority to local and regional production over export.

RAPAL supports the demand of Vía Campesina and other organizations to remove agriculture from the WTO negotiations and stands in solidarity with groups and organizations that propose fair trade and more equitable trade relations, decent working conditions and ecologically sustainable production systems. with a respect that guarantee quality to consumers and raise the standard of living of rural communities.

For the production and consumption of healthy food free of pesticides and GMOs

The right to produce and consume healthy food free of pesticides, GMOs, hormones and antibiotics that could put health or the environment at risk is part of the fight for food sovereignty. Eating healthy food is a fundamental human right.

Governments should apply the Precautionary Principle as a guide in government decision-making in the face of potential dangers of irreversible health damage from bacterial, chemical or transgenic contamination of domestically produced or imported food. The adoption of the precautionary principle should lead to promoting alternative production practices that prevent said risks instead of trying to establish tolerable limits for these contaminants in food.

There is a set of agroecological pest management techniques that make it possible to eliminate the use of chemical pesticides and make the use of genetically modified crops unnecessary.

They include the methods of biological fertilization of the soil that create a balanced nutrition of the plants less susceptible to the attack of insects and fungi; the rotation and association of crops, the conservation and increase of beneficial insects that biologically control pests, the use of resistant varieties, the use of traps and baits, as well as the use of plants - such as tobacco, chili, garlic and many more - as natural insecticides.

The expansion of so-called organic or biological agriculture - which does not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides - shows that the main obstacles are not technical but political or economic for the elimination of pesticides.

Organic production should be supported not so much to open a new export window but to ensure that it is destined for and accessible to national consumption, through subsidies, financial and fiscal stimuli, and support for agricultural research and extension services.

For the improvement and free circulation of native seeds

The fight for food sovereignty begins by recovering peasant control of native seeds and their right to cultivate, improve and exchange them, recovering biological and cultural diversity in food production, without having to pay patents to transnational corporations. La semillas estériles modificadas genéticamente y las regalías que se paga a las transnacionales gracias a los derechos de propiedad intelectual impiden el ejercicio de este derecho campesino.
Se debe apoyar el desarrollo de alternativas al uso de plaguicidas tóxicos para la conservación de las semillas. RAPAL apoya la campaña de Vía Campesina de las semillas nativas como patrimonio de los pueblos al servicio de la humanidad.

Por el respeto a los derechos de los trabajadores, las mujeres y los niños

Se debe respetar la dignidad del trabajador y trabajadora agrícola y no poner en riesgo su salud por el uso de plaguicidas tóxicos en el lugar de trabajo. Los gobiernos deben cumplir con sus compromisos con la Organización Internacional del Trabajo e informar a los trabajadores de los riesgos a la salud y el ambiente por el uso de plaguicidas y otras sustancias tóxicas en la producción agrícola; así como el Convenio 169 que establece que los trabajadores, hombres y mujeres, pertenecientes a los pueblos indígenas no deben estar sometidos a condiciones de trabajo peligrosas para su salud, en particular como consecuencia del uso de plaguicidas u otras sustancias tóxicas.

No se debe permitir que niños o mujeres embarazadas se empleen para la aplicación de plaguicidas. Las mujeres deben defender sus derechos reproductivos para tener un embarazo y crianza infantil libres de plaguicidas que puedan poner en peligro su salud y la de sus hijos. Las mujeres organizadas pueden luchar contra el uso de plaguicidas químicos en su casa, barrio, lugar de trabajo y por el derecho a consumir alimentos libres de estos agrotóxicos.

Los gobiernos deben de cumplir con los compromisos establecidos en el Convenio sobre los Derechos del Niño aprobada por la Asamblea de las Naciones Unidas para crear las condiciones que permitan que la población infantil disfrute plenamente su derecho a la vida, a la salud, a su pleno desarrollo físico, mental y espiritual, y a que no desarrolle actividades que pongan en peligro su salud.

Por la eliminación prioritaria de los plaguicidas especialmente peligrosos

Los plaguicidas extremadamente tóxicos o altamente tóxicos deben de ser eliminados de manera progresiva para prevenir mayores intoxicaciones de productores y trabajadores agrícolas.

De igual modo, se deben reducir hasta lograr la eliminación los plaguicidas que incluyan un riesgo crónico para la salud, especialmente la de los niños y afecte los derechos reproductivos de las mujeres. No es aceptable que se permita el uso de plaguicidas y se toleren sus residuos en nuestra dieta en el caso de productos que puedan provocar cáncer, malformaciones, alteraciones hormonales, daños reproductivos u otros efectos crónicos irreversibles.

El objetivo de las políticas ambientales o de protección a la salud no debe reducirse al llamado "manejo seguro de los plaguicidas" como pretende la industria química; sino que debe prevenir los riesgos y tender a eliminar su uso, sobre todo cuando los riesgos se pueden evitar porque existen alternativas viables.

Por la firma y ratificación de los convenios ambientales multilaterales y su prioridad sobre los acuerdos comerciales

Los acuerdos comerciales no deben tener prioridad sobre los convenios ambientales multilaterales que tengan como objetivo una mayor protección a la salud humana o el medio ambiente. En ocasiones la firma o ratificación de estos convenios se ha obstaculizado por los defensores a ultranza del libre comercio. Los gobiernos deben firmar y ratificar los convenios ambientales multilaterales y contar con planes nacionales de aplicación de estos convenios con mecanismos amplios de participación ciudadana.

Es así, que se debe eliminar el bromuro de metilo destructor de la capa de ozono, como indica el Protocolo de Montreal. Aplicar el Procedimiento de Consentimiento Fundamentado Previo (PIC) en el intercambio comercial de plaguicidas prohibidos o formulaciones especialmente peligrosos del Convenio de Rótterdam. Eliminar los plaguicidas organoclorados y las fuentes de producción no intencional de dioxinas y furanos según lo establece el Convenio de Estocolmo sobre los Contaminantes Orgánicos Persistentes e ir eliminando otros plaguicidas organoclorados que aún se usan en nuestros países como el lindano, endosulfán, pentaclorofenol por ser dañinos a la salud y medio ambiente.12

No permitir que el Protocolo de Bioseguridad -Cartagena- del Convenio de Diversidad Biológica se subordine a la OMC, como pretende Estados Unidos, e instituir el Principio Precautorio en las leyes de bioseguridad nacionales.
El sitio de la OMC es, para una crítica véase : www.tradewatch/ftaa/ALCA_Espanol/,
2 Ver artículos de Silvia Ribeiro, Blanca Rubio y Ana de Ita en Fernando Bejarano y Bernardino Mata (editores) Impactos del Libre Comercio Plaguicidas y Transgénicos en la Agricultura de América Latina. México, RAPAL, RAPAM, UACH, SOMAS, SEGE, 2003. Sobre la crítica a la Ley Agrícola de Estados Unidos, véase de Peter Rosset de Food First
3 " Making Global Trade Work for People" UNDP Kamal Malthora, et. to the. 2003, en Greenpeace. A guide to 5th Ministerial Conference of WTO Cancun, México. 2003.
4 Fernando Bejarano, La Espiral del Veneno, Guía crítica ciudadana sobre plaguicidas. México, RAPAM, 2002.
5 Fernando Bejarano, Contaminación alimentaria de Estados Unidos, Un Mito la Calidad del Norte, en Masiosare, La Jornada 26 de enero del 2003.
6 No te dejes engañar, folleto de Greenpeace, RAPAM, GEA y otros grupos ambientalistas México 2003.
7 La página de la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius es Las normativas alimentarias en América Latina en Para una crítica del Codex ver Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza, Whose Trade Organization? Corporate Globalization and the erosion of Democracy. Washington. Public Citizen, 1999. "Chapter 2. pp 52-85.
8 Ver de Fernando Bejarano, La Espiral del Veneno, op. cit., pp 82-88, y de Mary O´Brien Making better environmental decissions. An alternative to risk assessment, Cambridge, London, MIT Press, 2000.
9 El Parlamento Europeo aprobó en julio del 2003 dos propuestas sobre etiquetado y trazabilidad de OGM que permitirá exentar de etiquetado al alimento que contenga menos del 0.9% de OGM y 0.5% de presencia accidental de OGM no autorizados y considerados sin riesgo.
10 Erika Rosenthal "Los acuerdos de libre comercio y la desregulación de los plaguicidas. El caso de América Central" en Fernando Bejarano y Bernardino Mata op. cit pp 105-116.
11 Fernando Bejarano, "Metalclad y el capítulo 11 del TLCAN" en Confrontando la Globalización, Laura Carlsen, Hilda Salazar y Timothy Wise, México, Ed.Porrúa, 2003.
12 Ver los planteamientos de Vía Campesina en
13 Para una perspectiva ambientalista global del Convenio de Estocolmo ver

Video: A Billion Go Hungry Because of GMO Farming: Vandana Shiva (May 2022).