Archive forMarch, 2007

Water pollution, a grim reality?

Liquiddrippingfromapipeab2Today’s celebration of World Water Day with the
theme “Coping with water scarcity” is a reminder of the need to
conserve and protect the world’s fresh water sources, if we are to
avert an impending crisis concerning humankind’s most valuable
resource.
   
       
      

Water sustains life. The extremely
rich biodiversity of Southeast Asia is a testament to the abundance of
freshwater systems and high rainfallthat support life. The Mekong River
of Mainland Southeast Asia, Chao Phraya of Thailand, and the other
rivers and lakes of the region are important sources of food, water for
various uses, medicines, energy, minerals, etc. More importantly, these
surface waters as well as the underground aquifers provide communities
with drinking water.

Unfortunately, the development path
that countries in Southeast Asia have taken is one that is highly
disruptive to the hydrological cycles. Aquifers, which store precious
ground water, have lost their water-holding capacities due to massive
deforestation such as those experienced in Indonesia and the
Philippines. Over-exploitation of water sources for industrial and
domestic purposes has contributed to the rapid depletion of already
limited freshwater resources. These disruptions have severely
compromised the ability of the forests to “catch” and then “shed” the
water into streams, rivers and reservoirs, as well as the capacity of
aquifers to recharge.

Data from the World Bank shows global
per capita renewable freshwater resource of 7,045 cubic meters per
year. Within Southeast Asia, there is a wide disparity among countries.
Lao PDR and Malaysia have the highest per capita renewable freshwater
resource per year at 35,049 cubic meters and 26,074 cubic meters,
respectively. Thailand and the Philippines are among the lowest with
1,907 and 1,854 cubic meters, respectively. Meanwhile, Singapore has no
renewable freshwater resource and is importing its water to meet its
demands.

Thus, water scarcity is an issue that communities
and governments must face and address in the next few years. Some
quarters speculate that the next world war will be fought over water.
Hostilities are starting to erupt not only in water-starved regions in
the world but also in areas where abundant freshwater sources have
conflicting uses such as in the Mekong River. At a smaller scale,
communities are now battling companies for rights and access to
drinking water.

But an equally alarming reality is that water quality has been steadily
declining through the years. Siltation from deforestation, mining and
other land conversion activities, saltwater intrusion from
over-extraction of water from underground aquifers, biological
pollution from untreated sewage, chemical pollution from industrial and
agricultural sources, as well as indiscriminate dumping of garbage on
water bodies, have all contributed to degrading water quality.
Pollution has made already scarce water resources even scarcer.
According to the Asian Development Bank, one out of three Asians still
do not have access to a sustainable source of safe drinking water and
50% still do not have sanitation services.

With dirty, polluted water come increasing cases of water borne
diseases as well as other sickness caused by chemical pollution.  In
1992, the World Health Organization pegged the number of infant deaths
per year from exposure to contaminated waters at 500,000 in Southeast
Asia, while a study in 1997 by the ADB identified lead from industrial
sources as the major contaminant in water sources.

While
there have been many efforts to clean up dirty bodies of water and
waterways, and many governments have made attempts to enforce water
standards (such as the Philippines’ Clean Water Act, or Thailand’s
Pollution Control Act), these can be at best only interim measures.

If
we are to protect our valuable water resources, changes have to be made
in the way we see and treat our environment. The real solutions to
protecting water quality must begin at the sources of pollution. One
such effective and lasting measure is the implementation of clean
production processes. By eliminating the use of toxics from the very
first steps of production, pollution of water sources can be
effectively prevented.

Our constant exposure to polluted
fresh water sources—clogged, or foul smelling river and lakes, as well
as contaminated groundwater—have made water pollution a given, a
reality we have learned to accept. Thus, we focus on technology meant
to ‘clean up’ pollution rather than prevent it, and draft laws that
merely regulate the extent of toxicity in water, rather than prohibit
it completely.

We must learn to
unlearn this ‘reality.’  Clean water is the given we must protect if we
are to ensure that our water will continue to sustain life well into
the future.   

   

   

— Beau Baconguis, Toxics Campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia
http://www.greenpeace.org.ph

Comments

Take action: Stand up for your rice, on World Consumer’s Day!

Txtmessage
Let’s keep our rice GMO-free.

Join our Stand Up For Your Rice campaign!
   
   
      Let’s keep our rice GMO-free.

Join our Stand Up For Your Rice campaign!

Let your voice be heard on March 15, World Consumer’s Day.

Txtnumber

Send a text message to Secretary Yap of the Department of Agriculture.

Type:

I LOVE MY RICE GMO-FREE. REJECT BAYER’S LL62 APPLICATION

And send it to Secretary Yap’s number

His number is: +63917 555 5229

Greenpeace is opposed to the approval of the GMO Bayer LL62. Greenpeace
believes that GMO rice should never be allowed to enter our food
supply—its impact on our most important food crop would be disastrous.

Smsbannerforrice

visit www.greenpeace.org.ph for more information

Comments

GMO corn approved in RP shows signs of toxicity, study reveals

Gmmaizeadangerousexperime
A genetically-modified (GM) corn strain approved
for food, feed and processing in the Philippines shows
signs of toxicity to mammals, a new study released today reveals. The
study, and written by a panel of three independent scientists in
France,
showed that laboratory rats fed with the GMO corn Monsanto (MON) 863
YieldGard Rootworm displayed kidney and liver toxicity. MON 863 is corn
genetically manipulated to produce its own insecticide called ‘modified
Cry3Bb1′ to kill rootworm insects in the soil, and contains gene coding
for antibiotic resistance.
       
      

Entitled ‘New Analysis of a Rat
Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of
Hepatorenal Toxicity,’ the study is published this week in the
scientific journal "Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology." The study analyzed results of safety tests submitted by
Monsanto to the European Commission (EC) when the company was seeking
authorization to market MON 863 in the European Union. The data shows
that significant health risks were associated with the GMO corn; still,
the EC granted licenses to market MON 863 for consumption by both
humans and animals. The incriminating data was obtained by Greenpeace
following a court case, and was passed on for evaluation by a team of
experts headed by Professor Gilles Eric Séralini, a governmental expert
in genetic-engineering from the University of Caen in France(1).

"This
case is especially significant to the Philippines right now in the
light of the Bureau of Plant Industry’s (BPI) claims this week that
they enforce stringent regulatory systems for the approval of GMOs. MON
863 is approved in several countries around the world and was approved
in the Philippines by the BPI in October 2003," said Greenpeace
Southeast Asia Genetic Engineering Campaigner Daniel Ocampo.

"However,
the approval of a GMO is not a guarantee of its safety. The BPI can
repeatedly assure the public that GMOs have passed their standards–but
as this latest evidence shows, these remain empty boasts. Genetic
manipulation of organisms is dangerously unpredictable; no GMO has ever
undergone long-term testing. The MON 863 case is the first time that a
GMO product authorized for use as food for humans and animals has been
shown to have adverse effects on internal organs. It is a clear warning
of the inherent risks of GMOs," Ocampo added.

The data in
question has been the subject of fierce debate since 2003, when
significant changes were identified in the blood of tested animals fed
on MON 863. MON 863 was approved by the EC, despite opposition by a
majority of EU member states who raised concerns over the GMO’s safety.
Professor Séralini’s analysis now scientifically confirms these
concerns. As the study states, "with the present data, it cannot be
concluded that GMO corn MON 863 is a safe product."

In a joint
press conference with Greenpeace in Berlin yesterday, Professor
Séralini also questioned Monsanto’s analyses of MON 863 which was used
as a basis for the approval. "Monsanto’s analyses do not stand up to
rigorous scrutiny–to begin with, their statistical protocols are
highly questionable. Worse, the company failed to run a sufficient
analysis of the differences in animal weight. Crucial data from urine
tests were concealed in the company’s own publications."

Greenpeace
is demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of MON 863 corn from
the global market and is calling upon governments to undertake
an
urgent reassessment of all other authorized GE products, and a strict
review of current testing methods. Greenpeace is also calling for a
moratorium on the approval of GMOs for human consumption.

In the
Philippines, 25 GMO food crops (including corn, soybean, sugar beet,
alfalfa, potato, and cotton) have been approved by the BPI for direct
use in food, feed, and processing, while four GMO corn crops are
approved for propagation Twenty-four of the 29 GMOs approved in the
country are owned by Monsanto. At present, the BPI is reviewing an
application for a GMO strain of rice, LL62, developed by Bayer
Cropscience. Greenpeace has been actively blocking the approval of
Bayer LL62, asserting that the entry of GMO rice in the country’s food
chain will have disastrous consequences on the country’s–and the
world’s–most important food crop.

"This is the final nail in
the coffin for the credibility of the current authorization system for
GMO products. Now that it’s known that a system designed to protect
human and animal health has approved a high-risk product despite clear
evidence of its dangers, we need to start ’strip-searching’ all GMOs in
the market," said Ocampo

"No GMO has ever been proven safe for
human consumption. The risks these manipulated organisms pose to the
environment and human health are
simply unacceptable. Clearly, GMOs
are not a sound basis for the futureof agriculture. It is time that our
government realized that the future of farming must be grounded on the
principles of sustainability and biodiversity, and which provides all
people access to safe and nutritious food. The MON 863 case is a clear
demonstration that GMOs can never be a viable option," added Ocampo.

Greenpeace
campaigns for GE-free crop and food production grounded on the
principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity, and providing
all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic-engineering is
an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the
environment, threatens biodiversity, and poses unacceptable risks to
health.

www.greenpeace.org.ph

Comments