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-