转基因特洛伊木马——美寻求转基因标准的‘协调一致性’

Pentium_5

转基因特洛伊木马 —— 美寻求转基因标准的‘协调一致性’
http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/gm-trojan-horses/

转基因食品身陷困境米粒尖合众国拟拯救危机

       该计划呼吁废除各国政府专门针对转基因生物体而制定的保护措施。华盛顿的选择

手段是‘协调一致’，而实施手法则是自由贸易协定。

       映入人们眼帘的是其它国家独立评估转基因食品是否应该种植或食用的权力。甚至

要求对转基因成分进行标识的权力也是上膛之弹。

          所有这一切均无须用任何解密文件来证实。然而，同样地，所有这一切也均不能在

光天化日之下实现——因为，政府废止公民压倒多数性地支持着的保护措施的做法，会

令米国利益露怯。例如，83%的新西兰人赞成保留现行的对食品中转基因成分进行标识

的要求。1

    所以，米国才用自由贸易协定这一不受公众视线左右的手段来促成这一切，虽然，

自由贸易协定只是对已经丧失的国家主权和针对经济增长所做的承诺进行了捆绑销售

而已。它们变成用来暗渡陈仓形成根本性变化的特洛伊木马，而这在正常的民主进程下

则是不可能胜出的。

      米国有很多事情处于成败关头。因为它在转基因农作物上已经下了很大的赌注，而且，

这个赌局也并非如其所描绘的‘米国农业出口的核心’那样进展顺利。2

      在欧洲以及其它许多极具价值的市场上，存在着来自于消费者持续而广泛的对转基因

食品的抵制。转基因食品的绝大部分被用于动物饲料或深加工，而只有极小部分在米洲

以外的地方种植。3

      随着要求对动物产品中使用的转基因饲料进行标识的趋势，即使是动物饲料市场也正

面临着挑战。

      对米国而言，当务之急是通过让其它所有人顺应放任自流的米国标准而使转基因食品

恢复常态化：寻求中间立场则不是解决问题的办法。

      这第一次在美洲聚拢了朋友，而与加拿大所草拟的协议则精确地描述了什么是米国

正在寻求的东西。4

  《生物科技产品相互认可协定》—— 意味着米国政府批准的任何一种转基因产品在其它成员国

都是合法的。

    《协调一致的风险评估》—— 意味着无论是在米国还是在其它国家转基因生物体的

评估程序均必须取得相同的结论。

       在近期与欧盟开始了《跨大西洋自由贸易协定》的谈判时，米国恰恰是极其希望上述
协定得到详细的阐明。虽然许多欧盟国家已有效地废止了转基因农作物，一封米国参议员
写给其谈判代表的信还是清晰地表明了立场： 不废除针对米国农产品而设置的障碍，
就无协定可谈。5

       该参议员那封简明扼要的信函的首行所列明的是，一份‘成功的’协定所必须着手

解决的是农业壁垒，而且，接下来所提到的第一个就是‘欧盟对转基因农作物的限制’。

同时，米国贸易代表正式将转基因食品标识要求描述为‘贸易壁垒’。6

      在《跨大西洋自由贸易协定》的姊妹篇——拟定中的《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》

（TPP）中，米国正采取不同的手段。因为，这一次谈判中没有公共需求，而且，据

新西兰外交与贸易部称，迄今为止这份协定的草案文本中还没有能迫使包括新西兰在

内的成员国接受该协定、修改其针对转基因生物体而制定的监管制度的内容。7

     这可以解读为米国最初是锁定了类似欧盟那样殷实的食品进口商。然而，类似

新西兰这种具竞争力的食品出口商，在某种程度上也将会成为攻击目标。

      考虑到接下来将要发生的事情，目前新西兰应该异常清醒的是，对转基因的选择

权她是不能与人讨价还价的。对于其脆弱的清洁环保品牌该国的非转基因食品生产商的状态则是重要的支撑

（试着兜售‘清洁、环保和转基因’）。8

   

  
     

      这稍后会在的《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》谈判中发生。因为新西兰仍不得不在其
最大的目标——较好的米国牛奶市场的准入方面取得进展。或者，这会在该协定正式
签署后开始，因为《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》同样会制定一个框架，以便具体制定关于
双方相互认同的新规则。

        而且，还有比经济价值更为利害攸关的。正如其无核状态已成为新西兰身份的一部分，

非转基因食品生产也是如此。

        当被问及排除用新西兰的转基因贸易保护措施做交易时，迄今为止部长们已拒绝做出

那种承诺。直到他们愿意排除对管辖食品标识和转基因生物体的新西兰法律的任意一种

削弱时，其转基因立场最终才会尽人皆知。

          本文第一次公开发表是2013年8月26日的《新西兰邮报》。

GMfood is in a tight spot but the United States has a plan tosave it.

The plan calls for demolition of protections that governments around the world have set specifically to cover GMOs.   

Washington’s tool of choice is “harmonisation” and the delivery vehicle is free trade agreements.

Inthe sights are other countries’ rights to independently assess whether GM foods should be grown or eaten. Even the

right to require GM content to be labelled is in the gun.

None of this requires any leaked document to prove.  But none of it can be done in broad daylight either - as it would

look craven to US interests for a government to remove protections that citizens overwhelmingly support.  For example,

83% of New Zealanders favour retaining the current requirement to label for GM content in food.1

Sothe US is pushing this one through free trade deals that are out of public view – agreements that bundle lost sovereignty

with promises of economic growth for all. They become Trojan Horses for smuggling in fundamental changes that would not

survive normal democratic processes.

The US has a lot at stake as it has gambled big on GM crops and the bet has not gone well for what it describes as

“the core of U.S. agricultural exports”.2   

In Europe and many other high value markets there is sustained and widespread consumer resistance to GM food.  

The great bulk of it goes to animal feed or is highly processed, and only a tiny percentage is grown outside the

Americas.3   

With a trend towards labelling for the use of GM feed in animal products, even the animal feed market is facing challenges.

For the US, the imperative is to normalise GM foods by getting everyone else to “harmonise” to permissive

US standards: finding middle ground would not be a fix.

It has first been rounding up friends in the Americas and proposed arrangements with Canada describe precisely

what the US is seeking.4

•     “MutualRecognition Agreement for biotechnology  products” - meaning any

        GM product the US approves is legal in the other country.

•     “Harmonised  risk  assessments” – meaning the assessment  processes for GMOs inthe US and the other country

       will need to come to the same conclusions.

     

  

Just how badly the US wants such arrangements was spelt out when it recently opened negotiations with the EU

on a transatlantic free trade deal. Despite a number of EU nations having effectively banned GM crops, a letter from

the US Senate to its negotiators made clear that: no removal of barriers to US agricultural products, no deal.5

At the top of the Senate’s brief list for what a “successful” agreement must tackle are agricultural barriers with the first

one cited being “the EU’s restrictions ongenetically engineered crops”. And the US Trade Representative officially

describes GM food labelling requirements as a “trade barrier”.6

In a proposed sister agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the US is taking a different approach. For this one

there have been no public demands  and according to MFAT, there is so far nothing in the draft text that would force

parties to it - including New Zealand - to alter their regulation of GMOs.7

That can be read as the US initially focusing on wealthy food importers like the EU. But competing food exporters like

New Zealand will also come under fire at some point.

That could come later in the TPP negotiations, as New Zealand has still to make headway on its biggest objective of

better access to the US dairy market.  Or it could come after signing, as the TPP would also set up a framework for

making new rules on mutual recognition.

Given what is coming down the road, New Zealand should now be making crystal clear that its right to choose on GM

matters is non-negotiable. The country’s status as a GM Free Food Producer is a vital support to its fragile clean green

brand (try selling “clean, green and GM”).8

And there is more at stake than economic value. Just as its nuclear free status has become part of New Zealand’s

identity, so has GM free food production.

When asked to rule out trading away New Zealand’s GM protections, ministers have so far refused to make that commitment.   

Until they are willing to rule out any weakening of New Zealand laws governing food labelling and GMOs, then its GM position

is ultimately up for grabs.

An article based on this text was first published in the Dominion Post on 26 August 2013

1 Sustainability Council,Over 80% Supportthe Requirement to Label GM Foods, 23 November 2011:

http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/over-80-support-the-requirement-to-label-gm-foods/

2 US Foreign Agricultural Service, 2012 Explanatory Notes, p 31-2:

http://www.obpa.usda.gov/31fas2012notes.pdf

3 Sustainability Council,GM Food ProductionFacts and Figures, 2013:

http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GMFoodProductionFactsFigures2013.pdf

4 Government of Canada, Regulatory Cooperation: What CanadiansTold Us, 2011, p 21:

http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/page/rcc-ccr/summary-report-consultations-canadians-regulatory- cooperation-between-canada-and-united

5 US Senate FinanceCommittee, Letter to USTR, 12 February2013:

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=17b2fd73-067d-4a4a-a50f- a00265efbf67

6 Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2011 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade, p 49:

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TBT%20Report%20Mar%2025%20Master%20Draft%20Final%2

0pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Pro.pdf     See also:  http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/RightToChooseGMFreeFoodandtheTPP_Nov2011.pdf

7  http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Notes-from-MFAT-Stakeholder-Meeting- on-TPPA.pdf

8 http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/genetic-modification/gm-free-food-producer/

Pentium_5

论坛改版后，文字编辑排版越来越磨练人的意志了！！！

CC_best

Pentium_5 发表于 2014-1-15 00:14
论坛改版后，文字编辑排版越来越磨练人的意志了！！！

辛苦了!

研究转基因

无论转基因粮食安全与否，如果这种技术为美国等少数国家的公司掌控，而中国没有掌握，那么中国就不能让孟山都的转基因作物大面积推广来加强它的市场垄断地位。1，转基因作物产量高价格低廉，很容易击败传统农作物，将来想要挽救传统农作物财政补贴会是个大负担。2，转基因作物产量基因可控，而中国不掌控该技术不能识别种子。美国有一天让我们颗粒无收，叫天天不应了。3，中国没掌握该技术，种子每年都得进口每年都得付专利费，在捞得短期利润后，将来只有获得可怜的辛苦费，处于替美国人打工的地位。4，东北大豆的命运，大豆油市场的局面应该给中国上了一场很好的教育课。所以美国人可以放心吃，中国人吃未必安全。

Pentium_5

研究转基因 发表于 2014-1-20 14:10
无论转基因粮食安全与否，如果这种技术为美国等少数国家的公司掌控，而中国没有掌握，那么中国就不能让孟山 ...

加入世贸，最大的文章就是农产品领域。
我们的农业，并不乐观。

paoding

"控制了粮食就能控制世界"，如此具有蛊惑性的思维方式下，极可能让那些贪婪之徒急于贸然冒险而忘记“玩火自焚”的教训，不公平的是：倘若最坏的结果出现，非仅仅是他们自己会完蛋，也许还将破坏乃至毁灭整个地球生态。

Pentium_5

paoding 发表于 2014-1-29 12:56
"控制了粮食就能控制世界"，如此具有蛊惑性的思维方式下，极可能让那些贪婪之徒急于贸然冒险而忘记“玩火自 ...

利欲熏心利令智昏者的终极归宿。

fukgm

{:soso_e179:}{:soso_e179:}{:soso_e179:}

Pentium_5

fukgm 发表于 2014-2-2 07:46

兄弟，大年初三早！

天马

中国是国际粮食市场上最大的买主，美国转基因粮食最大的目标必定是中国。

Pentium_5

天马 发表于 2014-2-3 15:38
中国是国际粮食市场上最大的买主，美国转基因粮食最大的目标必定是中国。 ...

一点没错儿！

尤其是当初加入世贸组织时我们对该条约所做的开放农产品领域进口的承诺。
这本身就是个牵着你鼻子走的游戏规则。
当初入世时所做的承诺，一定要践约的。

dnh7688

研究转基因 发表于 2014-1-20 14:10
无论转基因粮食安全与否，如果这种技术为美国等少数国家的公司掌控，而中国没有掌握，那么中国就不能让孟山 ...

支持一个，不能让美国控制中国的粮食