14
April 2009 - Shimonoseki, Japan — Shrouded
in the early morning gloom, the Japanese
whaling fleet factory ship, Nisshin Maru,
crept back into port without the usual fanfare.
In fact, the only greeting party was comprised
of our activists.
The Nisshin Maru unloads
whalemeat here - the by-product of their
"science", which is chopped and
boxed on board the factory ship ready for
market as soon as they come into port.
We documented, as best
we could from a distance, the offloading
of the ship's cargo to monitor for further
signs of the whale meat embezzlement we
uncovered last year. An official request
to permit us to officially document what
precisely was unloaded from the ship was
turned down by the Fisheries Agency of Japan.
That's not surpising,
given the whalers' track record of censoring
information that should be public, and their
failure to respect the democratic rights
and civil liberties of their critics.
The contents and destination of these boxes
remain a mystery.
Exposed
Last year, boxes of embezzled whale meat,
some falsely labelled “cardboard”, were
offloaded and couriered to the homes of
the ship’s crew. Whistleblowers told us
that this was standard practice, but the
Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) publically
denied it. It was only later that the three
institutions which run the whaling programme
managed to get their stories straight and
claimed that the boxes of prime whale meat
were approved as “souvenirs”.
It is now one year since
our activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki
first exposed the embezzlement of whale
meat from the fleet. They are still awaiting
trial and facing up to ten years in prison,
yet nothing has been done to address the
scandal and the real criminals behind the
embezzlement.
The FAJ promised greater
transparency, but in January it again covered
up the truth by heavily censoring documents
containing whale meat sales data, released
to us following a Freedom of Information
request. We got, essentially, nothing but
blacked-out pieces of paper.
The Japanese public
paid 1.2 billion yen (12 million US dollars/
9 million euros) this year subsidising whaling
in the Southern Ocean. If whalemeat “souvenirs”
are indeed a legitimate practice, the public
has the right to know how much of their
money has been spent buying gifts for the
crew.
Government subsidies
of an unwanted, unneeded, and increasingly
secretive whaling programme is a slap in
the face for Japanese taxpayers at a time
when Japan is suffering the worst recession
for a generation.
The few bureaucrats
in the Japanese government who benefit from
whaling are trying to keep the industry
alive through actions which are an insult
to good business practice, which harm Japan's
reputation abroad, and which threaten civil
liberties domestically -- all to continue
a programme which a majority of Japanese
citizens don't support.
Disgraced
When the same ship left last year to begin
the hunt they did so without their usual
farewell party. The quiet departure and
subdued arrival is a fitting reflection
of the fact that the government has finally
come to understand that whaling is nothing
to be proud of.
"With warehouses
full to overflowing with whale meat from
previous years hunts, which can’t even be
given away, this years catch of 680 whales
is still 680 too many,” said Junichi Sato,
one of the Tokyo Two now facing trial. “This
must be the last of these so-called “scientific”
whaling expeditions.”
+ More
Germany bans Monsanto's
maize
15 April 2009 - Brussels,
Belgium — We're thrilled with an historic
victory against genetically engineered crops.
Germany has just announced that it will
become the sixth EU country to ban the cultivation
of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE)
maize MON810 - the only GE crop that can
be commercially grown in the region.
The German Minister
for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection,
Ilse Aigner, said "I have come to the
conclusion that there are legitimate grounds
to accept that genetically modified corn
from the MON810 strain constitutes a danger
to the environment."
MON810 is mostly cultivated
in the EU for animal feed – and is now due
for re-authorisation under EU rules after
the expiry of its ten-year license. Besides
Germany, five countries have already banned
the planting of it: France, Greece, Austria,
Hungary and most recently, Luxembourg.
Any government that
seriously examines the risks associated
with growing this maize can only reach one
rational conclusion: it must be banned.
Instead of trying to force countries to
lift national bans on this crop, the European
Commission needs to face the reality of
scientific findings. We're calling on Commissioner
Dimas to stop the re-authorisation of Monsanto's
maize in the EU.
One step for Germany,
one giant stride for mankind
The recent announcement
from the German Agriculture Minister has
resulted in our phones ringing off the hook.
An EU ban on this maize is something we
have been working towards for years and
having the two strongest countries in the
EU, France (as of last year) and now Germany,
agreeing on ban has brought us a lot closer
to our goal. This is a victory for the environment,
for consumers and farmers who want to avoid
GE crops as well as for independent science.
Scientific studies have
demonstrated that the pesticide-producing
MON810 maize, has negative effects on the
environment and on biodiversity. The Minister
based her decision on a safeguard clause
in EU law which allows Member States to
use the precautionary principle and prohibit
gentically modified organisms (GMOs) in
light of new evidence. Aigner's decision
sends a powerful message to bio-tech corporations
like Monsanto against taking control of
our global food chain.
Monsanto's not the only
threat
In another bid to control our food, Bayer,
the German chemical giant is hoping to get
EU approval for the import of their GE rice
variety LL62. Most countries have shied
away from allowing risky experimentation
with rice - the world’s most important staple
crop and at present, no GE rice is grown
commercially anywhere in the world. Bayer
has genetically manipulated rice to withstand
higher doses of a toxic pesticide called
glufosinate, which is considered to be so
dangerous to humans and the environment
that it will soon be banned from Europe.
In the coming weeks,
the European Union will also decide whether
or not this GE rice can enter EU countries,
appear on supermarket shelves and end up
on our dinner plates. If the European Union
approves the import of Bayer GE rice, farmers
in the US and elsewhere may soon start planting
the manipulated crop. Keeping rice GE-free
is not just about consumer choice or the
environment - it's a lot bigger than that.
It's a matter of global food security, human
rights and survival.
We hope that governments
around the world will follow the examples
of countries like Germany and France and
ban all risky GMOs.
+ More
What's inside your box
of Kleenex?
14 April 2009 - United
States — What’s it take to get the makers
of Kleenex to protect forests as vigilantly
as they protect profits? Kimberly-Clark,
the parent company of Kleenex, Scott, Cottonelle,
and Viva, will be holding its annual shareholder
meeting in Dallas at the end of April 2009,
and we plan to be there to push for forest
protection.
In the run up to the
meeting, we’ll be focusing a lot of attention
on Kimberly-Clark's destructive business
practices, starting with a video entitled
"What’s inside your box of Kleenex?"
The answer, of course,
is that every box of Kleenex is filled with
ancient forests.
Kimberly-Clark doesn’t
use recycled content in most of its consumer
paper products, and the “What’s inside your
box of Kleenex?”video shows just how much
forest destruction Kimberly-Clark is packing
into every box.
Tissue Guide provides
consumers with alternatives to Kimberly-Clark’s
forest destruction
We released the Greenpeace
Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide in
February to help consumers find alternatives
to Kimberly-Clark’s forest-destroying products.
The story was picked up by the New York
Times, The Guardian and other media outlets.
Kimberly-Clark continues
to wipe away ancient forests to make disposable
products because the company does not have
a comprehensive plan for protecting forests.
The company itself has admitted that recycled
fiber can provide “the product softness
and quality consumers have come to expect
from the Kleenex brand.” So why doesn't
Kimberly-Clark have a plan that ensures
it's not buying any virgin fiber from the
Boreal or any other endangered forests?
Kimberly-Clark’s annual
shareholder meeting brings executives, boardmembers,
and shareholders together to chart a course
for the company over the next year. It is
the most important meeting Kimberly-Clark
holds, so we plan on sending a strong message
about protecting forests.
You can help get that message through, and
let Kimberly-Clark know it's time they made
forest protection as integral to their plans
as profit protection.
