hApPy xMass 2011/ 'Met Natal 2011

When It Comes To Xmas, There’s No Time Like It
























Empat lilin Kita nyalakan bagaikan bintang-bintang cerah... Siaplah hai segenap alam....





---o0o---

Don-Quixote will come to Lawmakers - a bill on foods

Don-Quixote will come to Lawmakers - a bill on foods

Eeeee-iiing-eeeeeeng... Don-Quixote mo dateng, ne… berencane secepatnye ke Senayan… Mo kasih surat dulu… Nantinye ’tuk bantu konsumen biar kagak “bingun” tentuin pilihan pangannye… apa ”tercemar” GMOs/transgenik ’pe, kagak?

RUU Pangan, amati, tanggapi, Ayo…

RVT

’Pan-kapan (laen ari), ada dengar-pendapat, siapa, mo gabung?

---o0o---

Pangan Transgenik tidak dillabel, malah diklaim ORGANIK (tapi ketahuan)

Susu Bayi
Transgenik tidak dillabel, malah diklaim ORGANIK (tapi ketahuan)


Inikah jadinya?


Poster

Kritik terhadap soal pangan transgenik
dalam "RUU Pangan" (versi naskah 2 Desember 2011)







Ber-ASI ogah, tapi sudah terlanjur berpreferensi pangan organik: kejar terus susu sapi organik... tapi susu untuk anak sapi tersingkir..! Cik-cik-cik..!


DHA used in infant formula products comes from genetically modified algae

USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) repot-kringetan minta Martek ajukan ijin pasang label organik:to use its DHA and AHA in organic products.



reactions in babies fed with products containing Life's DHA, the product name Martek gives its patented GMO version of naturally occurring fatty acids. The range of infant health problems includes difficulties breathing and gastrointestinal disorders. When affected babies are no longer fed the formula, the ailments disappear.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203365.html

http://www.facebook.com/wellnessuncovered/posts/297122086985765

http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=57551501

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24414.cfm

http://www.cornucopia.org/DHA/DHA_FullReport.pdf

DHA used in infant formula products comes from genetically modified algae
docosahexaenoic acid




Produk Martek Biosciences

Earth's Best Organic Soy with DHA & ARA (Hain Celestial Group)
Enfamil LIPIL (Mead Johnson Nutritionals)
Enfamil Next Step (Mead Johnson)
Isomil 2 Advance (Abbott Laboratories)
Nestle Good Start Supreme with DHA & ARA (Nestle USA)
Parent's Choice Organic (Wal-Mart)
Similac Advance (Abbott Nutrition)
Ultra Bright Beginnings Lipids (PBM Products, LLC)



More pictures
check out:
Products Containing life'sDHA

http://www.lifesdha.com/Products-Containing-lifesDHA-/Partner-Products/tabid/683/Default.aspx

RVT, 11 Des.2011
biotani@gmail.com








---o0o---

RUU PANGAN (a bill on Food; version 2 Dec। 2011) ignore this

RUU PANGAN
(a bill on Food; version 2 Dec। 2011)
ignore this


RUU PANGAN abaikan ini:


Social transfer scheme

# Safety net

# Food safety net

# School feeding programs

# Basic food basket scheme



The coverage may be disaggregated to all marginalised and disadvantaged groups; in particular

# Children, Orphants
# Homeless
# Migrant workers
# Prisoners
# People living with HIV/AIDS
# Female-headed households

(According to Voluntary Guideline 14, states should consider to establish and maintain social safety and food safety nets to protect those who are unable to take care of themselves. States have to implement appropriate measures to aid marginalised and disadvantaged groups).

also


Access to Justice



Riza V. Tjahjadi
biotani@gmail.com







-o0o---

RUU Pangan (versi 2 Desember 2011) Trangenic foods should be labeled

RUU Pangan
(versi 2 Desember 2011)
Trangenic foods should be labeled





a bird's eye view of a bill on Food


Kedaulatan Pangan, tanpa Pertanian Organik?
Ah. aaah, aaaah... (where r U organic proponents?)



Pangan Transgenik TANPA LABEL?
profiteering corporates?
Food? Health? Hope?
Monopolies From Seed to Supermarket..!
Ntar dulu....

ZERO HUNGER?



So, Let's promote:



Right to Food; NOT right to be fed

Pangan transgenik harus diberi label..!



Riza V. Tjahjadi
biotani@gmail.com





Retro

LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF GMO FOOD
MUST BE IMPLEMENTED
BOYCOTT … ! IF NOT

PAN (Pesticide Action Network) Indonesia, national networking for misuse of pesticide, GMO observers, and developer of alternative agriculture in Indonesia, with this declare that foods that contain GMO has been found in Indonesia. However, from observation and intervention from PAN Indonesia, we see that there are no regulation maintains, as should be done. Labeling and advertising, special for GMO product is yet or not applied.


PAN Indonesia through Indonesia Botany, one of two member from Indonesia in IFOAM (International Federation on Organic Movement) need to be declaim that consumers that their awareness has growing continuously realize the importance of food that produce and process that tends to be as natural as it could be. These consumers need to protect, even wider they really can has organic foods. This is because the consumers that have been intently spend a lot of cost and awareness, not just be respect but also protected by clearness of regulation maintenance, and also special regulation. This means that “what will be buy” by consumers must be clear and explicit as one of human universal service’s formula; esteem consumers right, not just pay attention to “what ready to pay” by consumers.


On other side, the un-exist of regulation maintenance about GMO labeling will cause a speculator or trade political dumping to consumers widely to become larger and from weakness of regulation maintenance in a country swallow by trade dumping politic. Greenpeace case block to unloading 17.000 ton GMO soy from ship call Qui Gon Jinn in Tabangao Batangas Bay in the Philipines weeks ago declaim as trade dumping politic. More than that, that case can be continued and need to be wary with the possibility that ship re-route destination to Indonesia. Other possibility by dumping is carried from US, Argentina or Brazil, just to mention producer of GMO soy, directly to Indonesia instead to others country that clearly put into effect rule of “differentiation” to commodity or product between the conventional and GMO. Other potential that thought by PAN Indonesia (1997) and direct statement from Greenpeace (2002) through food aid to Indonesia’s poor people.


Meanwhile in a organic agriculture society manner that include producer, agent, standard maker, and consumer is very understandable that there is a world consensus declare that genetics change organism and their derivative can’t use in organic agriculture (Zero tolerance of GMOs). This make a question appeared about substance for substation that put into organic production from outside like vitamin for “baby formula product”, or food. That consensus legally is on law regulation. As example, in Europe Union (EU) there is one regulation about organic agriculture that must free from GMOs. On August 1999 EU-Council Regulation no 1804/99 had amendment a regulation no 2092/91, and put public practices from organic planter association to Act. In organic food production, Genetic Modification Organism (GMO) and their derivative can’t use. EU implemented Codex Alimentarius CAC/GL 32-1999 for food that produces organically that has been legally in 23rd Public Committee from Codex Alimentarius Commission in Roma Italy on July 1999. Norma Codex name “all material and/or product that produce from GEO/GMOs… is not fit with the principle of organic production (planted, manufacture, or processing) and thereby can’t acceptable according to this manual”


On Asia region, South Korea said “The Organic regulation of Korea is very similar the CODEX guideline. We have initiated action on organic regulations. In late 1998, the Enforcement Ordinance and Regulation of the Environment-friendly Agriculture Promotion Act were enacted and revised the Regulation & Act on July 1 2001. NAQS (a government agency) is in charge of the certification system in Korea. According to the recently revised Act, it is prohibited to use the products produced from genetically engineered/modified organisms (GEO/GMOS) as a seed in Organic agriculture and processed food”. Before the ended of the IFOAM Asia, PAN Indonesia through Indonesia’s Botany insist urgent of the word “No to GMOs/ transgenic” through document of a declaration, Hangzhou Declaration 4th November 2001 that declare by IFOAM Asia that consist of around 300 organization and individual. For information PAN Indonesia is one of the promoter in setting up the so-called Jaringan Kerja Pertanian Organik (JPO or Organic Agriculture Network) in Indonesia that now the member are 30 farmer side by institution in Jawa and Bali.


Organic agriculture, if widely adopted, and combined with some sustainability variable can lead to integrated, likes can be a prevent for damage of environment quality, and it’s not impossible can repair ecology. Example: CACPK, consumer organization in South Korea since 1991 took initiative to puss a release of government for water cacthment area conservation in Paldang Dam, that is hope can supply drink water with minimum contamination of chemistry/metal for Soul inhabitants. On the contrary, Seoul’s City Council gave intensive for that conservation afford, which was by provide fund, and places for organic agriculture products in area around that water catchment area. As return, Seoul citizen gain double profit, clean water and natural agriculture product. If symbiosis-mutualism’s experience like that can be studied deeper, isn’t impossible development of Bopunjur (Bogor-Puncak-Cianjur) in the West Jawa can be like that.

Based on thing that has been mention earlier, PAN Indonesia demand that:

1. Labeling is very urgent to GMOs product, also product that in production mixed with GMOs. This without exceptional to those who in food aid category.

2. Stop import and selling GMOs product or in production mixed with GMOs now, before implementation labeling system.

3. Play straight to those whose prove become blocker regulation maintenance about labeling

4. Give elucidation to consumer widely about GMOs and the need for labeling.

5. Boycott GMOs product without labeling; as exclamation to consumer widely, if those things are ignore in a month or two.
That is declaration from PAN Indonesia


Jakarta, 06 Februari 2002.

Riza V. Tjahjadi
Koordinator


PAN Indonesia
Jl. Persada Raya No. 1
Menteng Dalam
Jakarta 12870
Telp&fax: 021-8296545






News clipping




KOMPAS Jumat, 23-01-1998. Halaman: 12


PERLU PERATURAN PANGAN HASIL REKAYASA GENETIKA


Jakarta, Kompas
Berdasarkan peraturan atau undang-undang yang ada, walaupun belum tertulis dengan jelas, produk pangan dari tanaman hasil rekayasa genetika tidak dilarang di Indonesia. Karena itu, mumpung sekarang masih taraf penyusunan, Peraturan Pemerintah mengenai ketentuan pemberian label makanan dan iklan makanan, sebaiknya memasukkan ketentuan pelabelan untuk makanan hasil rekayasa genetika.


"Kami mengusulkan pemerintah mengeluarkan peraturan mengenai pangan hasil rekayasa genetika untuk melindungi konsumen. Pengaturan pangan hasil rekayasa genetika bisa dimasukkan ke dalam Peraturan Pemerintah mengenai Label dan Iklan Makanan yang sekarang masih disusun oleh Kantor Menteri Urusan Pangan," kata Riza V Tjahjadi,
Koordinator Pesticide Action Network Indonesia hari Kamis (22/1).


Selama ini Indonesia mengimpor kedelai dan jagung dari Amerika Serikat ratusan ribu ton. Sampai sekarang tidak ada yang tahu apakah kedelai atau jagung impor itu tercampur dengan kedelai atau jagung hasil panenan dari tanaman kedelai yang sudah direkayasa gennya.


Panenan produk dari tanaman yang sudah direkayasa gennya di AS memang tidak terlalu banyak dibandingkan produk dari tanaman yang tidak terekayasa gennya. Menurut catatan PAN Indonesia produksi kedelai hasil rekayasa genetika kurang dari dua persen dari total produksi kedelai AS dan jagung hasil rekayasa genetika kurang dari satu persen, tetapi tahun 1997 produk kedelai berisi gen asing itu meningkat.


]Persoalannya, ungkap PAN Indonesia, para eksportir kedelai maupun jagung dari Amerika Serikat, antara lain Cargill, Archer-Daniels Midland, masih menolak memisahkan produk kedelai atau jagung hasil rekayasa genetika dengan produk dari tanaman yang tidak direkayasa gennya. "Kita tidak tahu yang mana yang sudah kemasukan gen asing dan yang mana tidak," kata Riza.


Menurut Riza Pasal 33 Ayat 1 dan 3 UU Pangan Nomor 7 Tahun 1996 harus mendapatkan interpretasi baru supaya bisa mencakup produk pangan dari tanaman hasil rekayasa genetika. Mengapa perlu interpretasi baru? Karena, Pasal 13 mengenai rekayasa genetika dan iradiasi pangan tidak menjamin tersedianya informasi bagi konsumen supaya bisa memilih dengan benar saat membeli pangan.


Pasal 33 Ayat 1 tertulis, Setiap label atau iklan tentang pangan yang diperdagangkan harus memuat keterangan mengenai pangan dengan benar dan tidak menyesatkan. Dan Ayat 3 tertulis, Pemerintah mengatur, mengawasi, dan melakukan tindakan yang diperlukan agar iklan tentang pangan yang yang diperdagangkan tidak memuat keterangan yang menyesatkan.


Sedangkan Pasal 13 hanya menitikberatkan kewajiban setiap orang yang memproduksi dan penetapan persyaratan maupun prinsip penelitian oleh pemerintah.


Melihat produk pangan dari tanaman yang sudah direkayasa gennya menjadi persoalan global dan ditolak di negara maju, menurut Riza, konsumen di Indonesia harus mendapatkan peluang memilih saat membeli produk pangan. (sur)






Below a translation of a news report of my press statement (see also the first poster of previous post)



Friday, 23 January 1998

GMO Food’s Need of Regulation

Jakarta, Kompas
Based on regulation or Act existed, even not written clearly, food product from GMO isn’t forbidden in Indonesia. That is why, as now is still on compiling stage, government regulation about labeling stipulation for food and food’s advertise, will be better if contain stipulation on labeling for GMO foods.


“We proposed that government release regulation about GMO foods to protect consumer. Ministry on Food Office can put that regulation into Government Regulation about Food Label and Advertise that now is still compiling,” said Riza V Tjahjadi, PAN Indonesia Coordinator on Wednesday (22/1).


For all this time, Indonesia import hundred thousand ton soy and corn from US. Until now, nobody knows if that imported soy or corn blended with soy or corn from soybean plants where the gene had modified. Although harvest products that came from GMO plant in US are not too much compare with non-GMO plants. According to PAN Indonesia, soybeans production in US is less than 2% from it’s total production, but in 1997 soybeans product contain alien gene is increase.
The problem, like reveal by PAN Indonesia, soy or corn exporters from US, like Cargill, Archer-Daniels Midland, still refused to separate GMO and non-GMO soy or corn products. “We didn’t know which ones that has been contain alien gene and which ones not, ‘” said Riza.


According to Riza, section 33 verses 1 and 3 Food Regulations No. 7 year 1996 must get a new interpretation so can include food product from GMOs. Why need new interpretation? Because, section 13 about GMOs and food irradiation is not guarantee information provides for consumer in order to be able to choose rightly when buy food.


In section 13 verse 1 written, each label or advertise about food that is commercialize must contain information about food rightly and not mislead. And verse 3 written, government arrange, watch, and do acts needed in propose that advertise about commercialize foods not contain mislead information. In contrary, section 13 only focus on producer obligation and determining rules and also research principle by government.


Seeing food products from GMOs plants become global problem and refused in wealth state, according to Riza, consumer in Indonesia should get opportunity to choose when bought food product.


“My letter to the state minister on food Prof. Ibrahim Hasan about this (the file is missing), yesterday I said it. That That letter had cause minister called me, but failed. He asked on 23 February 1998, meanwhile I was in Bangkok for the first meeting of the NGOs-based Southeast Asia Council for Food Security and Fair Trade, and when I returned he already replaced by A.M. Saefuddin.

-





(see the first poster of 7 December 2011)

A Press Release
PAN INDONESIA APPEALING, GMO FOODS LABELING
HAVE TO IN PP ABOUT FOOD ADVERTISE

PAN Indonesia insist that food from GMOs process legally is not forbade in Indonesia. However, the regulation is not getting enough explanation. However, PAN Indonesia observes that there is a regulation opportunity in Indonesia to anticipate, in government regulation. One of the spaces on it is Food Label and Advertise compiling process from Act No. 7 about Food that still working by Ministry Office on Food. For that reason, PAN Indonesia suggest that advertising on GMOs food must accompany by grafted declaration that food material include in one of genetic modification category, clearly and explicit.


Special for non-GMOs food materials terminology, PAN Indonesia suggest experts to found the right wording, so later will not mix up with the word “natural”, organic. This is different category. For meanwhile, labeling or advertising that use to sell GMO foods, must clearly designed those things. Basically, or the reason for crafted declaration about GMOs food material, according to PAN Indonesia, is to open new interpretation on Section 33 verses 1 and 3 Act No. 7 year 1996, which are:


(1) Every label or advertise about commercialize food must contain information on food rightly and not mislead


(3) Government arrange, watch over, and do the necessary act needed in order that advertise on commercialize food isn’t contain mislead information”, in order to include food from genetic modification.


Why the interpretation needs to be developed to section 33? Because according to PAN Indonesia, section 13 (third verse, Genetic Modification and Food Irradiation):


(1) “Everyone who produce food or use material, additive substance, and or other helper material in activity or process, food production that produce from genetic modification process had obligation to check first the food security for human health before distribute.


(2) Government established rule and regulation, and research principle, developing, and use of genetic modification method in food production process or activity, and also establish rule and regulation for food testing that produce from genetic modification process”.


According to PAN Indonesia, that section is not gave preferential for consumer because section 13 focused on obligations for everyone who producing, establish rule and regulation, and research principle by government. On the other side, GMOs food has become global issues, one of that is global campaign anti-cloning, patent, and gene-food that contain high controversial.


That is why consumer must give clear choosing opportunity on commercial food commodity. Meanwhile, section 58-verse b (criminal regulation to: Distribute (…) food process that produce from genetic modification process without checked first the food safeness, as means by section 13 verse 1 (…) arrest in jail maximum 3 (three) year and or fine maximum Rp 360.000.000 (three hundred and sixty million).


Once again, for consumer there is no choosing opportunity, if the foods judged pass the rule and regulation, no matter if the foods are regular or GMOs food. Whereas, once again “gene-food” is still sharply controversial, remembering to unclear negative impacts, and always debated from safety for human, environment pollution, and ethic. From those things, PAN Indonesia once again urge government to put declaration about GMO foods in advertising include in Food Advertise Government Regulations. Beside that, should be arrange determine regulation that distinct, if the putting declaration on GMOs food obeyed by industrialist or advertise companys.


Riza V. Tjahjadi

Jakarta, 26 April 1997,


send to:
Kompas, Jakarta Post, Indonesia Times, and Suara Pembaruan.
This press release published in PAN Indonesia's Terompet newsletter No. 19 year 1997.

Lapar, Curi Enam Kaleng Roti... kok, ada?

SEMARANG- Akibat ketahuan mencuri enam kaleng roti, M Farid (26), seorang pemuda yang mengaku berasal dari Madura babak belur dihajar massa Sabtu (15/9) malam sekitar pukul 22.00.


Pencurian terjadi di Toko Sanya di Jl Tentara Pelajar, tak jauh dari SPBU Kedungmundu. Yang pertama mengetahui terjadi pencurian adalan Bobby, seorang keamanan toko di daerah tersebut.

(..)

Kepada wartawan Farid mengaku datang dari Madura ke Semarang.

"Saya hendak ke rumah saudara di daerah Sayung, Demak. Sesampai di sini saya kelaparan dan berusaha mencari makanan," katanya. (H23-18) 2007.








-o0o-

RUU Pangan 2011, berHati-hatillah terhadap transgenik, beri lAbEl

RUU Pangan 2011, berHati-hatillah terhadap transgenik, beri lAbEl



Hati-hati terhadap transgenik, bukan hanya terhadap pasal-pasal transgenik dalam RUU Pangan 2011. Tahun 1997, saya sudah desak pemerintah untuk beri preferensi yang jelas dan tegas, bagi konsumen.
Pelabelan Pangan Rekayasa Genetika Harus Masuk PP Iklan Pangan


(Poster 1 paling atas; Scan, copy dari kalawarta Terompet, Teropong masalah Pestisida Edisi No.19/Tahun 4/197 PAN Indonesia. halaman 32).
PAN Indonesia. halaman 32).



"Kein Patent auf Leben!"
(No patents on life!)




-o0-

RUU PANGAN, tanggapan Biotani & Bahari Indonesia

RUU PANGAN

Tangggapan

Biotani & Bahari Indonesia

biotani@gmail.com

Rancangan Undang-Undang PANGAN dewasa ini memasuki tahap akhir pembahasannya di DPR. Dengan mengamati materi dan substansi RUU PANGAN, maka Biotani & Bahari Indonesia menyatakan, hal-hal berikut:

1. RUU Pangan dalam pemahaman analogis adalah mengatur pangan. Ini artinya membawa tafsiran bahwa RUU Pangan jauh lebih luas - karena tidak tersedianya Naskah Akademis - manakala diingat bahwa RUU Pangan adalah RUU yang bersifat Perubahan terhadap UU No. 7 tentang Pangan Tahun 1996. Dan dalam pengertian UU, maka perubahan yang dilakukan tidak boleh melebihi 50% dari total materi yang hendak diubah. Dengan kata lain RUU Pangan sudah jauh melenceng dengan kata RUU yang bersifat mengubah UU terdahulu.

2. RUU Pangan dapat pula dikesankan mengandung cakupan luas, manakala diperbandingkan dengan penambahan kata pada pangan, Contohnya Hak atas Kecukupan Pangan.

The UN-FAO’ Voluntary Guideline on the Right to Adequate Food approved by the intergovernmental FAO Council in November 2004. The Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security adalah bersifat tidak mengikat secara hukum (internationally nonbinding agreement), Tetapi dapat saja dipertanyakan:

3. Dimanakah jawaban "progressively realize the right to adequate food" dalam konteks nasional (Right to Food making it happen as well as mainstraimng right to food), khususnya RUU Pangan?

4. Ternyata RUU Pangan tidak menyantumkan pengaturan tentang Social transfer scheme – sebagaimana halnya pengaturan/ Panduan Sukarela hak atas kecukupan pangan FAO 2004.

Name

Social transfer scheme

(...)

Possible sub-indicators

• Safety net

• Food safety net

• School feeding programs

• Basic food basket scheme

Rationale

According to Voluntary Guideline 14, states should consider to establish and maintain social safety and food safety nets to protect those who are unable to take care of themselves. States have to implement appropriate measures to aid marginalized and disadvantaged groups.

State obligation

Obligation to fulfil (provide)

Legal content

Accessibility (economic/physical)

Voluntary Guidelines

Voluntary Guideline 14 (safety nets)

Category of Indicator

Qualitative and quantitative Indicator / Expert-survey-based / Structural Indicator

Disaggregation

The coverage may be disaggregated to all marginalized and disadvantaged groups; in particular

• Children, Orphants

• Homeless

• Migrant workers

• Prisoners

• People living with HIV/AIDS

• Female-headed households

• Indigenous people

• Elderly people and disabled

Catatan: Naskah UU tentang Fakir Miskin tidak tersedia online untuk perbandingan; bandingkan dengan bantuan pangan dalam RUU Kemiskinan (Biotani Indonesia, 2007; silahkan unduh di sharepdfbooks.com:

http://www.sharepdfbooks.com/1FFBF3RGY5QV/Hak_atas_Pangan_Pulau_Kecil-PositionPaper_Biotani_Ind-FINALdraft.pdf.html).

5. Tidak cukup terakmodasinya aspek membangun kesadaran (awareness building ) tentang hak atas pangan termasuk kependidikan/ kepelatihannya tentang hak atas pangan. Kedaulatan pangan dalam RUU Pangan tidak otomatis menjamin seluruh hak atas pangan sudah dikerangkakan pengaturannya ke dalam kewajiban negara. Contohnya, ya, pendidikan mengenai hak atas pangan maupun esc-rights dalam cakupan luasnya.

Pengakuan hak tersebut, maka akan membawa konsekuensi aspek penyelenggaraan kependidikan/ kepelatihannya, dan penganggaran dananya untuk pendidikan/ kepelatihan.

Voluntary Guideline 7 (Legal framework); Voluntary Guideline 1.5 (access to legal assistance to better assert the progressive realization of the right to adequate food)

Yang lebih penting lagi, EKOSOB tidak cukup terkerangkakan di sini(?)

„The right to adequate food is realised when every man, woman and child , alone or in community with others has physical and economic acces at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement in ways consistent with human dignity”

General Comment, 12, the Right to Adequate Food

Pernyataan di atas adalah jelas, bahwa Right to Food bukan Right to be Fed.

The right to food is not a right to be fed, but primarily the right to feed oneself in dignity. Individuals areexpected to meet their own needs, through their own efforts and using their own resources. To be able to do this, a person must live in conditions that allow him or her either to produce food or to buy it. To produce his or her own food, a person needs land, seeds, water and other resources, and to buy it, one needs money and

access to the market. The right to food requires States to provide an enabling environment in which people can use their full poten4 tial to produce or procure adequate food for themselves and their families. However, when people are not able to feed themselves with their own means, for instance because of an armed conflict, natural disaster or because they are in detention, the State must provide food directly. (OHCHR & FAO: The Right to Adequate Food. Fact Sheet No. 34)

Mising, dalam RUU Pangan, No? Manakah penjelasannya yang memadai tentang, minimal dua subjek yang disebutkan dalam VG RAF-nya FAO maupun Ekosob?

Mohon penjelasan/klarifikasi dari DPR RI (sebagai inisiator RUU Pangan) bagaimana kemungkinannya hak atas pangan sepenuhnya tertampung dalam RUU Pangan ini?

6. Pemakaian kata teknologi terlalu umum (Pasal 20), sehingga keberlanjutan operasional teknologi yang dilakukan produsen pangan pokok menjadi tanda tanya, dan keberlanjutan proses produksi pangan dapat turut berkontribusi terhadap ketidakberlanjutan pembangunan (sustainable development).

Jika RUU Pangan dipersempit menjadi RUU Kedaulatan pangan, maka pasal-pasal yang menyangkut rekayasa genetika/ transgenik haruslah dikeluarkan – tidak diatur sebagai pangan. Karena dalam paham “kedaulatan pangan” yang menjadi salah satu pilarnya adalah “working with nature” alias pertanian organik. Namun untuk sementara, Biotani & Bahari Indonesia pada saat ini menyatakan, bahwa

7. Produk dari hasil proses rekayasa genetika tidak diatur tentang kemestian pelabelannya. Argumennya rekayasa genetika masih dipandang Biotani & Bahari Indonesia kontroversi, dan karenanya harus diatur secara ketat. Analogi popular, pangan organik diwajibkan pelabelan (di Negara lain, di Indonesia tidak kuat dasar hukumnya), apalagi rekayasa genetika yang masih kontroversial. Karenanya Biotani & Bahari Indonesia mengusulkan satu (1) Ayat baru tentang label itu pada Pasal 73.

(4) Usul: Pangan yang dihasilkan dengan/dari proses rekayasa genetika wajib diberi/dicantumkan label dalam Pemasarannya: kemasan, iklan, dsb. Ini berbeda dengan Pasal 93.

8. Beberapa usul penambahan kalimat ke dalam beberapa Pasal dalam RUU Pangan, kritik dsb, sbb.

Usul

Pasal 20

Pemerintah dan/atau Pemerintah Daerah berkewajiban mengembangkan teknologi (perlu lebih spesifik biar nyambung ke Psl 21) untuk peningkatan Produksi Pangan.

Pasal 21

Pemerintah dan/atau Pemerintah Daerah mendorong dan memfasilitasi penggunaan dan pengembangan sarana dan prasarana dalam upaya untuk meningkatkan Produksi Pangan berkelanjutan.

PERAN SERTA MASYARAKAT

Pasal 126

(1) Peran serta masyarakat sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dapat berupa:

Usul

(g) Melakukan fungsi pemantauan realisasi hak atas pangan terhadap situasi produksi pangan, cadangan pangan, maupun bantuan pangan dari luar negri.

Kritik

Pasal 22

(1) Ancaman Produksi Pangan merupakan kejadian yang dapat menimbulkan gagalnya Produksi Pangan yang disebabkan oleh:

a. Perubahan iklim;

b. organisme pengganggu;

c. bencana alam;

d. bencana sosial;

e. teknologi;

f. rekayasa genetika;

g. kompetisi komoditas; dan/atau

Kritik Biotani

h. alih fungsi penggunaan lahan (ini akibat bukan sebab).

Pertanyaan

Bagian Ketiga

Cadangan Pangan Nasional

Pasal 23

(1) Dalam rangka mewujudkan Ketahanan Pangan, Pemerintah menetapkan cadangan Pangan nasional.

(2) Cadangan Pangan nasional merupakan upaya penyediaan Pangan untuk konsumsi masyarakat di seluruh wilayah Negara Republik Indonesia.

(3) Cadangan Pangan nasional terdiri dari cadangan Pangan Pemerintah dan cadangan Pangan masyarakat.

Catatan: Cadangan pangan darurat dalam ASEAN (ASEAN Food Security Framework, dan ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve, APTERR) masuk atau dikerangkakan (dukungan legalnya) di mana? Konsekuensinya ialah pada Pasal-pasal selanjutnya?

Pertanyaan

Kata Komunitas (Pasal 34) harap diperjelas batasannya.

Dengan mengacu kepada beberapa pokok kepedulian tersebut di atas, maka Biotani & Bahari Indonesia mendesak kepada Negara (khususnya, DPR RI dan pemerintah) agar:

1. Usulan di atas, (termasuk catatan Biotani & Bahari Indonesia dalam file/naskah) dimasukkan ke dalam naskah RUU Pangan. Yang terutama, mempertajam/persempit judul UU, dan substansinya.

2. Beberapa pertanyaan tercantum di atas agar diberikan jawabannya dalam wujud pasal-pasal yang kongkrit.

3. Dengan menyantumkan kedaulatan pangan dalam RUU Pangan, maka tidak ada kata lain hak ata pangan (Right to Food) harus diakomodir. Karena dalam paham kami, Biotani & Bahari Indonesia: kedaulatan pangan adalah prasyarat bagi terciptanya ketahanan pangan, sedangkan hak atas kecukupan pangan adalah dasar hukum dalam merealisasikan pencapaian ketahanan pangan (Food sovereignty is a pre-requisite to obtain food security, the Right to Food is the legal background and an instrument to achieve it).

Demikian tanggapan kami. Terima kasih.

Salam hormat,

Jakarta, 6 Desember 2011

Riza V. Tjahjadi

Pengusul Hak atas pangan dimasukkan ke dalam satu ayat tersendiri ke UUD 1945 (Surat Biotani Indonesia kepada Komisi Konstitusi tertanggal 19 Desember 2003).

Jejak-rekam

National

# Editor a newsletter of JARI, the Indonesia Action Research Network (1986-1987)

# Pesticide Action Network Indonesia (1988-2010)

# Biotani & Bahari Indonesia (1996-now)

# Chair of a national network on Organic Agriculture, Jaker PO (2007-now); one of four founders (1998)

Regional

# Member Regional Organising Board, ROB of SEASAN, Southeast Asia Sustainable Agriculture (1991-1994).

# Member of Steering Committee Pesticide Action Network the Asia and Pacific, PAN AP (1994-2003).

# One of founders of the SEA Council on Food Security and Fair Trade (SEACON FS&FT); member of SC (1996-2005).

# One of declaratory of NPOL (No Patent on Life No Patent on Rice) April 1998.

# Host the International Fact Finding Mission on Food Crisis in Indonesia (1999).

# Member of the International Planning Committee, IPC on the Right to Adequate Food (2006-2009).

Biotani & Bahari Indonesia

Bangun Reksa Indah I Blok H No. 24

Karang Tengah Ciledug Tangerang 15157

biotani@gmail.com, biotani2004a@yahoo.com

http://biotaniindonesia.blogspot.com

Contoh (kasus)

Bagaimana (R )UU Pangan dapat dipergunakan oleh dan bagi pegiat/ pengembang pertanian organik untuk menggugat pemerintah (khususnya Pemda Kabupaten Klaten) yang tidak mampu mengoperasionalkan rumah kompos di Pasar Srogo Klaten, Jawa Tengah - yang dibangun dengan “Partisipasi Masyarakat” melalui dana CSR salah satu bank di Indonesia (YDP) sehingga menganggur (mangkrak, Bhs. Jawa). Karena dalam konteks Hak atas Pangan, maka Negara berkewajiban menyiptakan lingkungan yang mendukung (requires States to provide an enabling environment) bagi warganya untuk menyukupi pangannya bagi dirinya, keluarganya, dan masyarakat konsumen, tetapi ternyata gagal direalisasikan. Rumah kompos adalah salah satu bagian dalam perspektif lingkungan yang mendukung, dan bagian dari partisipasi masyarakat (non-state actors) bagi masyarakat pertanian organik.

Kasus, kedua, ialah terlantarnya puluhan ribu TKI di Arab Saudi yang (ketika itu) terpaksa “bermukim” di kolong jalan layang, tidak terakomodasi hak atas pangannya dalam RUU Pangan. Tidak jelas pula bagaimana mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa penggugatan hak atas pangan.

Dari info ringkas di atas, jelas, bahwa RUU Pangan tidak mengakomodasi azas Justisiabilitas.

Info ringkas

Kedaulatan pangan mencakup

# Political concept

# Alternative policy framework as a

# Challenge to the mainstream liberal trade-based food security paradigm

# Using rights language to support political demands

Six pillars of Food Sovereignty

# Focuses on food for people

# Values food providers

# Localises food systems

# Puts control locally

# Builds knowledge and skills

# Works with nature

---o0o---