Rachel's Precaution Reporter #94
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

From: CNW Group ...........................................[This story printer-friendly]
June 8, 2007

PLANNING FOR THE PANDEMIC: NURSES' SAFETY IS NOT NEGOTIABLE -- CFNU

[Rachel's introduction: Nurses union delegates unanimously supported entrenching the "precautionary principle" in public health planning in order to ensure the safety of health care workers and the public. The precautionary principle means erring on the side of caution.]

ST. JOHN'S, June 8 /CNW Telbec/ -- The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU) passed a strong resolution at their Biennial Convention in St. John's demanding full protection for health care staff during any pandemic.

Delegates unanimously supported entrenching the "precautionary principle" in public health planning in order to ensure the safety of health care workers and the public. The precautionary principle means erring on the side of caution. When there is any question or doubt about what protection is required, the higher level of protection must be used.

CFNU and its member organizations will be lobbying for amendments to build in the "precautionary principle" as a core element of the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan and of provincial plans. The principle was not in play during the SARS outbreak in Toronto where two nurses and 42 others died. Ontario Justice Archie Campbell's final report on the SARS outbreak found that nurses had been supplied with inadequate protection, particularly masks.

"Front-line nurses must have the same level of health and safety protection in their workplaces as other workers," said CFNU President Linda Silas. "Our safety is not negotiable. Nurses need to be protected to care for their patients and their families."

In a position statement on staffing for a pandemic, CFNU stated: "Frighteningly, the evolution of the threat cannot be predicted, nor can the nature or severity of the outbreak. For this reason, one of the greatest threats to the health system is not just the outbreak of a pandemic, but an inability to limit the transmission and to provide adequate care." The policy also states "From the experience with SARS, we know first-hand how existing nursing shortages 'were magnified when fewer nurses were available to work because of home/work quarantine, additional demands for infection control and restrictions on employment in more than one health care facility'."

In addition to lobbying governments, the resolution calls on employers to properly supply, fit and train nurses on the appropriate masks. The statement also calls for the federal government to release announced money to the provinces to help provide the N-95 -- or greater -- masks.

CFNU's position statement is available at www.cfnu.ca.

For further information: Teresa Neuman, Acting Director of Communications/Campaigns, CFNU, 613-292-9106 (Cell); Peter D. Birt, Manager, Public Relations, Ontario Nurses' Association, 416-300-8415 (Cell);

The CFNU Biennial Convention is happening at the St. John's Convention Centre, Marconi Hall

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF NURSES UNIONS -- More on this organization

Copyright 2005 CNW Group Ltd. PRIVACY & TERMS OF USE / CONTACT US / SITE MAP

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Daily News Transcript (Norwood, Mass.) .............[This story printer-friendly]
June 11, 2007

GROUPS CHALLENGING STATE PLANS TO USE HERBICIDES

[Rachel's introduction: "We're practicing a precautionary principle. We believe risks don't need to be taken because there are other methods to try to get rid of weeds."]

By Greg Duggan/Daily News stafff

Opposition has sprouted to a state highway department plan to spray herbicides along roads.

The spraying, set to begin in August, affects 17 interstates and state routes in 57 cities and towns, including Norwood and Walpole.

"We don't apply (herbicides) in sensitive areas," said MassHighway press secretary Erik Abell. "It's primarily for vegetation management along medians on highways in order to control invasive species of vegetation."

Abell said the spraying locations are along thin medians or Jersey barriers.

"It's predominantly in high-speed locations where stopping to use mechanical methods to treat would be a less safe work environment," Abell said.

The spraying will occur, Abell said, "on less than one-half of 1 percent" of all roads treated by MassHighway during the year.

For two environmental groups, however, even a fraction of a percent is too much.

The Toxics Action Center of Boston and the Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition of Ashfield have joined forces against the spraying as the Massachusetts Coalition for Pesticide Reduction.

The coalition has pointed to studies linking herbicides to health problems including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and birth defects. It is reaching out to residents to form local opposition.

Dan Dilworth, organizer for the Toxics Action Center, acknowledged, "There have not been any documented effects (from the state's spraying) so far. Many problems with (herbicides) don't usually come out until years after they're used. We're practicing a precautionary principle. We believe risks don't need to be taken because there are other methods to try to get rid of weeds."

Dilworth cited hand cutting as an alternative.

Ken Kipen of the Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition could not be reached for comment.

Asked about the risk of a motorist striking a worker, Dilworth responded that a worker using herbicides could "develop some kind of disease" years later.

"Our opinion is that the use of herbicides is a greater risk than mechanical cutting," Dilworth said.

MassHighway stopped spraying herbicides in the late 1990s after hearing health and environmental concerns. Abell said chemicals were brought back in 2004 for safety reasons.

Abell said when MassHighway sprays herbicides, it uses substances available at hardware stores and dilutes the concentration before spraying. He said spraying does not occur in windy weather.

Affected communities include Foxborough, Norwood, Sharon and Walpole along Rte. 1 and Interstate 95, as well as Mansfield on I-95. Natick will undergo spraying on Rte. 9, as will 14 communities along Interstate 495.

The public comment period runs from June 25 through Aug. 8. Comments should be sent to the Department of Agricultural Resources, 251 Causeway St., Boston, MA, 02114-2151.

Daily News staff writer Greg Duggan can be reached at 781-433-8355 or gduggan@cnc.com.

Copyright 2006-2007 GateHouse Media, Inc.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: SciDev.Net ..........................................[This story printer-friendly]
June 12, 2007

AGRI-BIOTECH IN AFRICA: SAFETY FIRST?

AU By Maryke Steffens Africa embraces a range of attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology, particularly transgenic crops. While genetically modified (GM) crops are commercially farmed in South Africa, an informal ban is in place in Zambia. Biotechnology promises to solve many of Africa's problems, including an insecure food supply from a dry, harsh and unpredictable land. But the African Union (AU) believes that if Africa is to pursue biotechnology's promise it is going to have to do so as a cohesive whole. Too many outsiders are pushing biotechnology agendas in Africa, says John Mugabe, science and technology advisor to the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). Mugabe believes that foreign interests, imposed on Africa, are creating a continent with no clear strategy. He says the time has come for Africa to take back control of its biotech future. Risk assessment David Duthie, from the biosafety unit at the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), says the problem is that many countries are confused about how to approach GM. "African countries are really struggling with this," says Duthie. "They don't have access to [scientific] literature, they don't have scientific and technical elites to talk about the subjects. But they do have a lot of newspapers and a lot of media." The chief concern of many countries is the safety of the environment and people's health. In accordance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, UNEP has been setting up procedures to help sub-Saharan African countries decide whether or not to import GM crops. Cameroon, Kenya, Namibia and Uganda are working with UNEP to make their biosafety policies operational, while almost all other African states plan to have draft policies by December 2007, when the UNEP project is scheduled to end. According to Duthie, UNEP has stayed clear of the pro- versus anti-GM fray. "As a UN agency, we take a policy-neutral approach. We don't prescribe any particular policy or approach to safe use of modern biotechnology." Caught between transatlantic differences How a country defines 'safe' in the context of biotechnology forms the cornerstone of the debate. Germany and the United States -- both actively implementing biosafety policy and research programmes in Africa -- are in disagreement. In the United States a transgenic product is considered to pose no new health risks if it can be assessed as 'substantially equivalent' to its unmodified counterpart. But in Germany, which had led the formation of EU policy in Europe, the 'precautionary principle' is used. In the face of uncertainty, a defensive approach is taken even when causal links have not been scientifically established. "From the EU standpoint, there is this question of 'what if?'" says Jose Falck-Zepeda, a research fellow at the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute. Falck-Zepeda says there is no clear endpoint in that decision making process, whereas the United States is willing to live with a system that considers "safety as a matter of degree". There are nations in Africa willing to live with this system too. The US-funded Program for Biosafety Systems has trained scientists in countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Malawi and Uganda to run field trials for GM crops in line with its own approach to biosafety. Germany has directed its efforts toward persuading the AU, rather than individual countries, to adopt new biosafety regulations. Though the biosafety regulations.

[Rachel's introduction: African nations are coming under intense pressure to abandon the precautionary approach to food safety.]

has no authority over its member states, it advises them on

biosafety regulations.

Germany has, for example, funded an AU biosafety project, now in its second year, that focuses on building an Africa-wide biological safety system where member states are guided by a regional model law -- the African Model Law on Safety in Biotechnology.

The proposed law, which some say derives from the idea that the Cartagena Protocol cannot sufficiently safeguard human health and the environment in an African context, is conservative in its approach to biosafety. It puts the onus on exporting countries to pay compensation if any harm or loss of livelihood occurs as a result of introducing GM products.

A combined approach

Although a great deal of money has been invested in Africa through these projects, some think African nations have not benefited as much as they should have.

"The different projects may have resulted in more fragmentation," says Julius Mugwagwa, a researcher from the UK-based Open University and a former biotechnologist at the Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe, where he assisted in setting up a regional initiative (RAEIN-Africa) implementing a Southern African biosafety and environment programme from Namibia.

The Freedom to Innovate report, jointly published by NEPAD and the AU and put together by the High-Level African Panel on Modern Biotechnology, tries to reconcile these competing interests.

NEPAD's John Mugabe says it is about Africa taking back control of biotechnology and expanding scientific capacity -- laboratories, scientists, field trials -- beyond biosafety frameworks.

The report involved an all-African panel of experts, including Calestous Juma from Harvard University, the director general of Ethiopia's Environmental Protection Authority Tewolde Egziabher and representatives from the German-funded AU biosafety project, as well as scientists and representatives of nongovernmental organisations. They were charged with charting a strategy based on consensus.

Ismail Serageldin, director of the Library of Alexandria and co-chair of the panel, says the report offers "an alternative way forward from the paralysis that has characterised much of the work in Africa".

According to co-chair Calestous Juma, it is about developing long-term strategies that will give biotechnology efforts "a more pragmatic focus".

The Freedom to Innovate report emphasises the need for countries across Africa to unify their approach to biotechnology and regulation of risk.

Julius Mugwagwa says if countries don't work collaboratively as regional economic communities they will lose out.

He says regions want to be seen as one big market, so that investors won't have any problems with different systems in different countries. According to Mugwagwa, there will be economic losses if they don't harmonise.

He says the report reflects the continent's current enthusiasm for science, technology and innovation to "propel economies to a greater level".

But, he adds, whether this can be translated from an expert-driven report into sustained action at the implementation level is another question.

"A critical issue is how prepared are the regional economic communities at the policy, infrastructural, human resources and other levels to handle these responsibilities?"

Mugwagwa also questions the potential commitment of individual countries to the Freedom to Innovate report, especially those without the technical or policy capacity to contribute to regional biotechnology activities.

Some countries have been reluctant to let go of their sovereignty, but this may be changing. In March, West African states adopted a regional five-year plan of action for increasing food production through biotechnology.

Saving the orphans

The risk associated with incompatible biosafety requirements across the continent goes far beyond economic loss.

Small public-sector projects aimed at developing 'orphan' crops such as sorghum, cassava and pigeon pea -- largely ignored by big biotechnology companies -- may struggle to move forward through the sheer number of regulatory hurdles. These projects' limited financial resources would stretch further under one common testing and approval process.

Supporting these projects is vital, according to Frank Shotkoski from USAID (US Agency for International Development) who is currently involved in a Ugandan project on transgenic pest-resistant bananas.

Although agricultural biotechnology can't be a "silver bullet" solution for Africa, he believes it has "the potential to do more to bring Africa up to speed on the ability to produce food for its people than any other technology out there".

Field trials

Several countries in sub-Saharan Africa are already running or planning GM field trials of both orphan and commercial crops.

Nigerian farmers and their crops Credit: USAID/A Fleuret Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi and Uganda are preparing for trials with Bt cotton -- engineered to carry the insect-killing Bt toxin. Kenya is pursuing transgenic maize, sweet potato and cassava. Nigeria is looking into Bt cowpea, and virus-resistant cassava is in the pipeline in Nigeria and Uganda.

There are other projects planned. The Harvest Plus project, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, is fighting malnutrition with GM technology by fortifying the nutrient content of key crops such as sorghum, banana and cassava.

If Africa can forge a common path to protecting itself from any unseen consequences of GM technology without smothering innovation, it could find a pot of gold at the end of the transgenic rainbow.

According to Ismail Serageldin, Africa must look to the success stories and get inspiration. "These should not be the exception and they can be the norm," he says.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: The Leader-Post (Regina, Saskatchewan) .............[This story printer-friendly]
June 7, 2007

OP-ED: PROTECTING FARMS FROM GMOS

[Rachel's introduction: "Saskatchewan organic farmers embrace the precautionary principle and will continue our struggle to protect organic farming and organic food from GMO contamination."]

By Arnold Taylor

Despite the denial of class-action certification by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ("Organic farmers may appeal ruling", Leader-Post, May 4), Saskatchewan organic farmers maintain there remains a compelling legal and moral claim for damages resulting from contamination of food, field and crops, by genetically engineered canola.

After the ruling, Monsanto's Trish Jordan was quoted as saying all types of farming can coexist "with reasonable tolerances and thresholds for adventitious presence ...", and that Saskatchewan organic farmers should "focus on something positive for your industry instead of trying to criticize what other farmers want to do".

This condescending and insulting advice ignores the fact organic farmers' livelihoods depend on protecting the integrity of the food they produce in a way that meets the demand of their customers, many of whom believe contamination by transgenic material is potentially harmful.

Despite Jordan's assertions that "food and feed products containing ingredients derived from plant biotechnology crops have a solid 10- year history of safe use", consumers have reason to question the safety assessment given GMO (genetically modified organism) crops by government regulators.

A study released at a Paris press conference on March 13, 2007 (in the peer-reviewed American journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, revealed the Monsanto maize MON863 caused serious damage to the livers and kidneys of rats in feeding trials. Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, who conducted the study on data initially suppressed by Monsanto, said "this maize cannot now be considered safe to eat. We are now calling urgently for a moratorium on other approved GMs while the efficacy of current health-testing methods is reassessed".

The maize was approved by the European Community on Aug. 9, 2005, and while this study deals with maize, not canola, it exposes shortcomings in the approval process for GMO products.

Saskatchewan organic farmers embrace the precautionary principle and will continue our struggle to protect organic farming and organic food from GMO contamination.

Taylor is chairman of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee.

Copyright The Leader-Post (Regina) 2007

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: The Sun (Vancouver, British Columbia) ...............[This story printer-friendly]
June 13, 2007

FOES OF POWER LINES HEAD TO HIGH COURT

[Rachel's introduction: The Tsawwassen people in British Columbia are demanding that the precautionary principle be used as the basis for stopping two high-voltage power lines scheduled to be built near Tsawwassen homes. Lower courts have ruled against them; now their case moves to Canada's highest court.]

By Glenn Bohn and Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun

DELTA -- A Tsawwassen community group hopes an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada will keep two proposed high-voltage lines out of a residential neighbourhood and away from the 1,300-student South Delta senior secondary school.

Last July, the B.C. Utilities Commission approved a $250-million proposal by the publicly owned B.C. Transmission Corp. to build two new 230-kilovolt power lines on its existing aerial right-of-way through Tsawwassen.

Construction has already started on the project, which is part of an electrical power line upgrade for Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. It will serve 700,000 people when it's running in 2008.

But the Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Overhead Lines, which filed documents Tuesday asking Canada's highest court to hear its appeal, argues the lines shouldn't be running through their neighbourhood.

They say a potential route through DeltaPort Terminal, the industrial shipping terminal just north of the BC Ferries terminal would be safer.

The route was rejected by the commission, along with five other alternatives.

TRAHVOL, which points to the much-debated, long-term human effects of chronic exposure to electrical and magnetic fields around high-voltage lines, has argued in earlier briefs that government should err on the side of caution when considering major projects.

"I think Canadians want to be reassured that governments and regulators are looking at the health and environmental impacts of megaprojects," said Maureen Broadfoot, spokeswoman for the community group, when asked why the Supreme Court of Canada should hear the appeal.

"Too often they look only at costs and economic implications," she said. "But where something could damage people's health or damage the environment, they should at least have the precautionary principle as part of their decision-making, especially at these times. Hindsight is 20-20 with global warming, second-hand smoke, with asbestos -- things where the warning signs were there but were ignored," she said.

Jane Peverett, president and CEO of B.C. Transmission Corp., said health authorities have said there is no reason to be concerned about exposure levels from transmission lines and the public shouldn't be worried.

"This is safe," Peverett said. "We wouldn't be building it if it wasn't safe."

She said the route, along with alternatives, had been thoroughly reviewed for 21 months, and the B.C. Utilities Commission deemed it was the best location. She said, and the lines would replace those that have been in place for 50 years.

gbohn@png.canwest.com

ksinoski@png.canwest.com

Copyright The Vancouver Sun 2007

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.

Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:

Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::