| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I shall curtail my comments to allow other hon. Members to speak. As a result, my speech will be slightly less balanced that it would otherwise have been--[Hon. Members: "Oh, no."] Believe it or not, it is true.
The issue is not whether the rules have been interpreted properly--although that is a cogent argument, which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and other hon. Members--but whether the rules are right. In my view, the rules are not right because there is inherent conflict between the World Trade Organisation rules and the convention on biological diversity.
The World Trade Organisation is a powerful organisation with rules that can be enforced, but the environmental arm of international agreements is not so powerful and cannot be enforced. The biosafety protocol negotiations broke down because, as the Financial Times reported:
I draw the attention of the House to what can happen if one multinational company seeks to abuse its position in the international market in order to cajole its friends in power to use the WTO to maximum effect. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, that is what has happened with Monsanto. The company does not have a proud record. We have had problems with bananas and knitwear, but, as someone at the WTO meeting I attended said, GMOs will make bananas look like peanuts. We will have to address GMOs and bovine somatotropin further down the line. It is not simply about bananas, but about what we will do in the future. If we do not resolve this dispute properly, we will sell the pass. We will have not free trade, but trade on the terms of a small number of multinational companies that happen to be in a position to influence trade arrangements.
Is the system free and fair? No, it is not--Monsanto and other companies are making sure of that. Monsanto has said that we must accept BST. However, an independent European Union veterinary investigation was undertaken by Professor Donald Broom, who said that the drug should remain banned because claims for its safety are flawed. He said:
The fact is that the World Trade Organisation does not take sufficient account of the environment and trade. Both those elements must be considered when the Government renegotiate the rules of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle later this year. I want the Government to confirm tonight that they will seek to include environmental, social and animal welfare issues in the discussions and will give them proper status within the WTO rules. We cannot
enforce the rules regarding the shrimp-turtle case or leg-hold traps and, as it stands at present, WTO means "welfare taken out".
Monsanto has made itself public enemy No. 1. It has bulldozed elected Governments across the world and forced its wretched products on to the world's population, whether we want them or not. Monsanto must be brought urgently under democratic control. If the WTO rules permit such activities, they are wrong and must be changed. If we are not careful, Monsanto will become the bad news story of the 21st century. The company must be stopped.
Monsanto has deliberately refused to segregate GM and non-GM crops in order to deny consumer choice--something to which all hon. Members are committed. Monsanto also wishes to introduce GM crops, regardless of the possible environmental consequences. We know from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, other Government advisory bodies and the EU that there are significant environmental concerns about GM crops. Monsanto does not want to wait: it wants to steamroller those crops through and give us no alternative. When the crops are planted and problems arise, Monsanto will say, "Never mind, let's deal with it now."
The company wants to undermine alternative sources of non-GM crops. It is trying to stop us buying non-GM soya from Brazil by buying up Brazil and halting alternative supplies from that country. Monsanto is the antithesis of democracy. It is not worried about labelling; it is trying to persuade us that it is not necessary and that it is somehow a barrier to free trade. What nonsense. We are entitled to know what we are buying. To be fair, the Government have accepted that. They have always been committed to labelling. Monsanto does not want labelling: it wants its products to carry as little information as possible. It knows that if its products are labelled accurately--and they are not, because most GM material is not labelled under the present regulations--people will not buy them, and it does not want that.
Monsanto has been forcing crops into India and on to the developing countries of the third world. It has intimidated farmers in the United States by hiring private investigators and then fining farmers when a Monsanto seed is found in their soil.
In this country, Monsanto has been condemned by the Advertising Standards Authority, which found it guilty of making
How does Monsanto manage to do all that? It uses the revolving door policy, and makes sure that personnel from Monsanto and Government agency advisory bodies frequently switch positions. Marcia Hale, the former adviser to the US President, is now the director of international government affairs for the Monsanto corporation. Michael Kantnor, the former secretary to the US Department of Commerce is now a member of the Monsanto corporation board. Josh King, the former director of production for White House events, is now the director of global communications for the Monsanto corporation. Margaret Miller, the former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, is now the deputy
director of the new animal drug evaluation office in the US Food and Drug Administration. We have seen confidential European Union documents that have been passed to Monsanto by Dr. Nick Weber of the FDA, and a former Monsanto analyst.
Monsanto is abusing and twisting the system and getting from it as much as it can. It is getting the Food and Drug Administration on board and it is getting the US to fight its corner. I am in favour of free trade and the World Trade Organisation, but I am not in favour of one company so using its muscle and contriving matters for its own ends that the opportunity for consumer choice and Government decisions by democratic bodies is effectively removed.
Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth):
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on raising this issue and giving us all an opportunity not only to express the concerns of the UK cashmere industry and others, but to have a fascinating debate about world trade and its future prospects.
I disagree with everything that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said in his speech, but particularly his earlier remarks. I say that not to win the sycophant of the week competition--I note that the diary sketchwriters are not with us this evening, perhaps because this is an important debate--but because the hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for their alleged inaction until the statement of 4 March. The work of the clothing and textiles all-party group has brought me into contact with employers, trade unions and hon. Members from both sides of the House. Since before Christmas, the industry has been supporting the Government in their actions and saying how well they have been doing, given the huge obstacles that they face. Those points were made by hon. Members from all parties in an Adjournment debate raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
The speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch contained a paradox in his tendency to attack the European Union for whatever it does and his wish to stand up for British industry. He is trapped in a cleft stick because he realises that, if he attacks the EU, his constituents will think that he supports the United States in this dispute. This debate has helpfully brought into the public domain the relationship between our industry and the EU on the one hand and the broader context of the US and the World Trade Organisation on the other.
"The US has warned that hundreds of billions of dollars of agricultural trade could be at stake in a controversial international agreement on the safety of genetically modified organisms".
Although the Americans were not a party to the agreement, it got Canada to scupper it for them. The consequences of the World Trade Organisation being more powerful than the CBD are significant.
"There is too much mastitis, leg disorders, reproductive disorders and injection site problems--and this is not a medicine, this is a substance that doesn't have to be used, and we think it shouldn't be used."
Those are the views of professionals in the European Union. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?
"wrong . . . unproven, misleading and confusing claims"
in a £1 million campaign.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |