Europe, Transgenics and Agroecological Responsible Consumption. June 2004 to May 2007

Europe, Transgenics and Agroecological Responsible Consumption. June 2004 to May 2007

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By Area of ​​Agroecology and Responsible Consumption of MAG

Although it still maintains a certain distance from the much more aggressive modernization model of the United States, the CAP is not a social, sustainable policy that defends food security, promotes a living rural world and protects an agricultural model linked to the territory. and cohesive within the EU. The CAP does not promote food sovereignty and security of the European peoples, but rather the competitiveness of the capitalist bloc of the EU against that of the US.

The European social consultation "The common agricultural policy and food security in the Europe of capital" (13 June 2004). Initiative promoted by various groups from the Agroecology and Responsible Consumption Area of ​​the Movement against Globalization, the Europe of Capital and War.

On June 13, at the same time that the elections to the European Parliament were being held, various social groups of the Anti-Globalization Movement (MAG), we had planned to hold a European Social Consultation (CSE). But the Central Electoral Board communicated, 4 days before, that any public act near the polling stations was prohibited. Although most of the tables were not in this situation, 80% were raised, preventing a right of free expression for citizens.

In the year 2000, the CSE was allowed (more than 10,000 militants were mobilized throughout the state and more than 1,400,000 votes were collected) but those were other times. The MAG was smaller but more unified and supported the Christian networks applied to the claim of 0.7% and the foreign debt. In 2004, the Movement against the Europe of Capital, Globalization and War (MAG) has greater depth, but it is also more fragmented, because having been a great popular movement, it has aroused the interest of the capitalist left and has suffered a enormous penetration by groups linked to social democracy, which has led to a division of the anti-globalization movement. As regards the CSE in Madrid, the structure that most controlled its organization is the part that depends on the Madrid Social Forum, a platform hegemonized by the PSOE to intervene in the movement. As the new government is not interested in parallel elections to the European Parliament, it does not use the media force it controls to publicize this campaign, as it did, for example, in the massive demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq. As a result, as it did not have the media speaker of the Prisa group, the 2004 CSE had very little repercussion and follow-up.

Despite everything, some groups of the Anti-Globalization Movement did carry out the consultation. Among them, the thematic areas of "Freedoms" and "Agroecology and Responsible Consumption" of the MAG organized their participation in the Consultation on two fronts: on the one hand, individually collecting the responses of close people (coworkers, collective, family members , neighbors ...), that the members of each area, collected among their relatives; On the other hand, both areas had planned to set up their tables at the Book Fair, as it was an enclave that would give visibility to the Consultation in the face of the number and diversity of people who attend the fair. We had planned to place tables and banners "ad hoc" for each area, in the case of food "CSE. VOTE FOR FOOD SECURITY, AGAINST GMOs AND JUNK FOOD ”. But, given the impossibility of setting the tables, we changed our strategy and passed the questionnaires through the booths to collect them before closing.

The questionnaire consisted of both common and area-specific questions. Between both procedures, the personal consultation and the consultation at the book fair, 308 valid ballots have been collected, 191 from agroecology (88 book fair ballots and 103 from personal consultation) and 117 from liberties (85 from book fair and 32 for personal consultation). Here we are going to comment only on the results related to the Area of ​​Agroecology and Responsible Consumption. We will dwell more on the interpretation of the results of the consultation carried out at the book fair, considering that this may be more representative of the general feeling in Madrid than the personal consultation.

1.- Common Agricultural Policy

The Common Agrarian policy only pursues economic benefit through industrial food production, its world trade and control of the food chain in a few companies. It destroys the peasant economies of the countries of the South and of the new community partners. It eliminates population and peasant activity, promotes the illegal hiring of migrant laborers in slavery conditions, endangers food security (mad cows, dioxins in chickens, foot-and-mouth disease) and risks the health of people and nature with chemical fertilizers , pesticides and transgenics. In addition, it encourages multinationals to take over world control of food, which means hunger in the countries of the South and the generalization of junk food.

Would you be willing to support legislation that favors the right, in both rich and impoverished countries, to produce sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food for their own population, preventing the control of world food production and trade? by multinationals?

Personal consultation: YES: 96.1%, NO: 1%, NS / NC: 2.9%

Book fair consultation: YES: 82.6%, NO: 8.1%, NS / NC: 9.3%

2.- Food safety and responsible consumption

Responsible consumption faces wasteful consumerism that does not value its own consequences. It promotes the consumption of seasonal food, produced or processed by nearby small peasant farms, without chemicals or genetic engineering and respecting natural cycles, rural culture and dignified life in the countryside, that is, agro-ecological food. It pursues reasonable prices for consumers and sufficient for farmers in order to dignify and sustain a peasant activity of resistance to rural depopulation produced by the Common Agricultural Policy and multinationals. Knowing all this;

Would you be willing to change your own consumption habits, rejecting junk food and buying it in large food chains?

Personal consultation: YES: 84.5%, NO: 7.75%, DK / NA: 7.75%

Book fair consultation: YES: 73.6%, NO: 13.8%, NS / NC: 12.6%

Would you bet on the acquisition of agro-ecological food through markets, neighborhood stores or consumer groups?

Personal consultation: YES: 95.1%, NO: 2%, NS / NC: 2.9%

Book fair consultation: YES: 73.9%, NO: 12.5%, NS / NC: 13.6%

As might be expected, there is still a dissociation in the population between political decisions that must be made at a high level and their day-to-day experience. In this sense, the percentage of those who support a change in the legislation that favors a fairer production and distribution of food, guaranteeing sufficient and healthy food for all and controlling multinationals, is considerably higher than that of those willing to change their own consumption habits. In spite of everything, in consumer habits, in terms of personal behavior and in the space in which people intervene directly, the percentage of positive responses falls, but is still high. This difference is very interesting because it denotes the gap between our behavior and its consequences in the economic and social system. Those who are going to buy from large stores do not take into account the effects that their small behavior has on the general group. But the fact that almost three out of four people express the will not only to change their consumption habits, but also to bet on agro-ecological food through small businesses and consumer groups, that is, they would be willing to do something for themselves and not only to delegate, it is stimulating for the Area of ​​Agroecology and Responsible Consumption.

Although there is a way to go between intentions and actions, this will is expressed in a very critical way with respect to advertising and cultural models that stimulate individualistic and consumer behavior, ignoring everything else. A work to raise awareness about the consequences on our health, but also its relationship with the increase in poverty, the hunger of the majority and the ecological deterioration of the planet, could mobilize these wills towards a real change in their actions. Even if there were few people, they would undoubtedly strengthen alternative agroecological consumption networks in the cities and thereby stimulate the emergence of agroecological food producers in the field. These results stimulate the need to continue working on the culture of responsible consumption, linking, in a cooperative effort, from below, the countryside and the city, agroecological production and responsible food consumption and reciprocal support between the different thematic areas of MAG , as we have done in this European Social Consultation. (The complete result of the CSE can be consulted at

Campaign against the European Constitution. Referendum (20-2-2005)

Faced with this campaign, from the CAES GAK we decided to participate by elaborating our reasons for opposing the European Constitution through a document entitled “From Agroecology and Responsible Consumption: NO to the European Constitution”. We also dedicate the editorial of the February newsletter to this topic in a smaller format that we reproduce below.

From agroecology and responsible consumption… No to the European Constitution

On February 20, 2005, the Government calls a referendum on the European Constitution (E.C.). This C.E. it is, in fact, a Treaty (agreement between governments) that incorporates more than 17 years of Community legislation. The European Union since its inception as C.E.E. (1957), has elaborated Treaties such as Maastrich (1992) and Amsterdam (1997) that set the process and conditions for the single currency and monetary policies to constitute the backbone of the EU, subordinating economic and social policies. The PSOE government wants to show its support for the Franco-German axis, obtaining the support of the Spanish population in the referendum.

In the field of agriculture, food and the rural world, this "European Constitution" does not speak of food policy, or agrarian policy, but rather of agricultural policy (Section 4, Title III, Articles 121-128) in the which include agriculture, livestock and fishing. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was the first common European policy, with a community budget and the origin of the European common market. The C.E. ratifies the commercial vision of the 1st CAP. It limits itself to considering farm products as merchandise (Art. III-121 and 122), regulating its space for exchange, in a single market, through the stability of production and control, that is, a reduction in prices. For this, it is necessary to “increase agricultural productivity” (art. III-123), which is the origin of the expulsion of peasants, ecological deterioration and food insecurity. The regulations are articulated through Common Market Organizations that are also governed by products, without distinction of social, ecological, territorial conditions or the size of the agricultural exploitation, and where the market levels in favor of the largest and most competitive, which at in turn, they receive more incentives from the CAP, via aid.

The social conditions of the countryside disappear (not a word about day laborers and immigrants) and are diluted in an economic term, income, and in an ambiguous language "guaranteeing an equitable level to the agricultural population" that is achieved, precisely, by reducing agrarian numbers (workforce and small farmers eliminated by competition) or making their conditions precarious until the slavery of immigrants. does not use environmental “makeup” in the CAP: support for areas deprived by structural or natural conditions is for the market (art. III-126). The European Parliament does not run the CAP, the European Council does. Although it still maintains a certain distance from the much more aggressive modernization model of the United States, the CAP is not a social, sustainable policy that defends food security, promotes a living rural world and protects an agricultural model linked to the territory. and cohesive within the EU. His reforms have supported the international trade policies set by the WTO as if they were unavoidable conditions ”. These policies are responsible for hunger in impoverished countries and junk food, childhood obesity, ecological deterioration and the disappearance of small family and community farms in developed countries such as Spain. The CAP does not promote food sovereignty and security of the European peoples, but rather the competitiveness of the capitalist bloc of the EU against that of the US.

From the cooperation and mutual support between agroecological experiences and responsible consumption, we try to recover a solidary and direct relationship between groups of the countryside and the city, opposing that food be treated as merchandise and the confrontation of interests between producers and consumers. Consistent with this activity, there is only REJECTION of the Constitution of the Europe of Capital and War. But there are different ways of saying NO. We promote a REJECTION that contributes to opposing not only the text and the social context of the C.E. of the Europe of Capital, but also to the humiliating and manipulative campaign of the Government in favor of yes. We promote this Expanded NO, in ABSTENTION, while we continue to contribute, with our daily activity, to strengthening autonomy, mutual recognition and cooperation between the different anti-globalization social struggles from below.

Campaigns against GMOs, patents and sterile seeds

Our concern with GMOs and patents predates the GAKs. Some of us have dedicated time and efforts for several years to these issues from our professional activity, when public opinion was unaware of their existence, first in the Rural Platform and then in the COAG. This background has made us bear in mind the importance of knowing and transmitting information and that, as consumers, we must take sides to prevent the development of transgenic crops and foods, not only because of their risks, but especially because of the kidnapping they cause of food, seeds and patents and because they make the return to an agroecological form of production and food irreversible, preventing the peoples' food sovereignty.

From the GAKs we have supported how many campaigns have been carried out to prevent the development of transgenics. But the landscape has changed radically in the last two years. As we reflected in a recent article, although “For almost a decade, the main environmental NGOs in the Spanish State (Friends of the Earth, Ecologists in Action and Greenpeace), in application of the 'precautionary principle' in the field of transgenics, They have defended a moratorium (stoppage of its use) in the face of the risks that transgenic crops and foods could cause on health and the environment. As of March 2005 and without explicitly reneging on the precautionary principle, they abandoned the demand for a moratorium and carried out a campaign to attract adherents in favor of a regulation of coexistence of transgenic crops [1]. The reason for this change was the call to negotiate, by the PSOE Government, the minimum contents of this regulation for the coexistence of transgenic crops with non-transgenic ones. " [2] Likewise, the European context has changed when the moratorium was lifted, between 1998 and 2004, and the precautionary principle was replaced by the regulated coexistence between transgenic and non-transgenic crops.

The CAES GAK, we joined the request for the withdrawal of the draft ministerial order of March 2004 and disseminated, with nuances, the less forceful call from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth of December 2004. But we did not do it with the document of minimums promoted in March 2005 and entitled "Minimum considerations to include in the Spanish regulations on coexistence between genetically modified crops, conventional and organic crops". Not only have we stopped adhering ourselves. There have been other groups, active defenders of a GM-free agriculture and diet, who, although they supported the document of spring 2004, have not supported it. It is convenient to ask oneself about the reasons for this refusal and not only to assess the new accessions. In our case, we did not sign because we consider that it contained the acceptance of transgenics by:

1) not claim the withdrawal of transgenic corn authorized for planting this season and which are responsible for the reported cases of contamination;

2) not maintaining the need for a moratorium on crops, open field experimentation and transgenic foods, when the strengthening of the European evaluation regulations does not guarantee that the authorized events are safe (in the case of Bt11 maize among others), and are carried out with an important democratic deficit (before the tie of the Governments, the Commission decides, with a majority of the citizens against growing and consuming transgenic foods);

3) leave alone initiatives that, based on the lack of solutions to the real problems of contamination of organic farmers, were claiming the previous points in addition to the defense of GM-free areas.

Various groups that had supported all the previous campaigns, disappointed and perplexed, did not subscribe to this change of course and some of us denounced this "Copernican turn" in the path of opposition to GMOs that, in the form of reaching out to the PSOE government, accepting "a minimum of unavoidable contamination" as good, had as a consequence, at a time when there was already evidence of contamination in Navarra, Aragon and Catalonia, the weakening and division in the fight against transgenics. [3]

The unitary opposition of the entire agroecological sector to the advance of transgenic crops, widely founded, was based on considerations such as the following: “One of the recognized problems of genetic engineering is the instability of implanted genes. It is inevitable that transgenic crops, in the case of corn through cross-pollination, transfer the new genes from one plant to another, from one field to another and along the food chain. Therefore, the normalized coexistence of transgenic crops with non-transgenic ones means accepting the safe contamination of the former over the latter and also the transfer of genes resistant to antibiotics and pesticides, from transgenic seeds to other plants and living beings. This sequence increases the risks to the health of people and of the ecosystem itself, of which the fields and livestock are part. Once contamination is accepted as unavoidable, the “precautionary principle” is invoked to no avail and regulations are limited to regulating such contamination through various solutions that are part of the problem. " [4]. The absence of arguments to counteract these reasons, on the part of those who have broken the unit, allows us to speak of an unjustified reduction of content and lacking confessable motivations.

The Konsumo Self-Managed Groups (GAKs), faced with the initiative to negotiate coexistence in March 2005, questioned its viability, its reasons and the weakening of the movement to fight transgenics. From here we have been supporting the initiatives that contained a rejection of coexistence, but also pointing out the problems of this follow-up strategy of the PSOE and its easements [5].

The dominant approach in the movement against GMOs led by environmental NGOs and their partners, in favor of “peaceful” coexistence in the face of the imposition of transgenic crops and foods [6], is confirmed as insufficient to address the problems of food insecurity, for several reasons:

1) It is enclosed in the internal logic of transgenics and dedicated to responding promptly to each legalization, each regulation, each case of contamination, which prevents facing the problems of agriculture and food by seeking a strategic solution.

2) It points out the transgenic contamination on conventional agriculture, separating it from the chemical contamination of the latter on the environment and human health, the damage of which has been showing for 50 years, although it occurs as in transgenics, in the medium and long term and by accumulation .

3) The only argument for participation put forward against the imposition of transgenics is the "right to decide". [7]

The rectification of environmental organizations is urgent. Both in the institutional desire, and in decision-making from very select and politicized leaderships. The contamination of transgenics is advancing and to stop it, the unity and pluralism of social movements is necessary. “Neither 50 nor 220 meters, coexistence is impossible. In application of the precautionary principle, prohibition of transgenic crops and foods ”.

Campaign of opposition to the draft law on patents on the life of the PP government (February 2004)

On the occasion of the discussion of the Patent Law on Genetic Resources and to support the Campaign of signatures against it organized by Ecologists in Action, we prepared our own text that argued the need to oppose patents and, therefore, to disseminate this initiative and collect as many signatures as possible against said project. The document of this initiative can be consulted at

Campaign against terminator seeds and the global food trade (February-March 2005)

At the Biodiversity Summit meeting that was held in Curitiva Brazil (20-31 / 3/2006) the moratorium on the development of transgenic and sterile seeds known as Terminator [8] was in danger. Given these facts and to support the initiative of the International End Terminator Campaign, which encouraged CAES GAK to join groups and organizations around the world, we developed a campaign linking transgenic terminator seeds with the global food trade, and encouraging with This to the development of similar initiatives throughout the State. We published an article in the magazine We Ask for the Word on this issue and dedicated the editorial of the bulletin from April 2006, just in the days when the lifting of the moratorium was finally stopped, although the threat continues. [9]

Madrid Book Fair 2007, GMO Free Zone

On Saturday May 26, 2007, the Konsumo Self-Managed Groups (GAKs) of Madrid carried out an informative action against transgenic crops and foods at the Book Fair. The objectives were:

a) Collect signatures from bookstores, publishers and booth employees in support of Josep Pàmies, a farmer from the Assemblea Pagesa prosecuted for an action against an experimental crop of the multinational Syngenta which, moreover, did not meet the requirements required by law. Promoted by Assemblea Pagesa and Ecologistas en Acción de Aragón on September 13, 2003, the action consisted of the harvest of said illegal transgenic corn crop and the subsequent delivery of a sample of said harvest and a manifesto in the Lleida County Council for denounce the illegality of such cultivation.

b) Promote the adhesion of booksellers, editors and union workers to the complaint of transgenics by placing in their booth a poster with the following content: “CASETA DE LA LIBRO DE LA LIBRO DE MADRID FREE DE TRANSGÉNICOS. COEXISTENCE WITH TRANSGENIC, NO, NO AND NO. CAMPAIGN OF THE SELF-MANAGED GROUPS OF KONSUMO DE MADRID GAKS ”.

c) To publicize the defenselessness of the citizen before the imposition of transgenic crops and foods by the complicity of multinationals and governments. Denounce the repression as the only response of the public powers against those who dare to denounce the illegality with which commercial and experimental crops are developed, contaminating neighboring fields, organic crops and feed and native seeds.


Along this route, we distributed thousands of manifestos to the visitors of the Fair. During the almost four hours that the action lasted, we had the opportunity to talk with hundreds of people since, many of them stopped to read the posters, asked us for the manifesto and asked us about the contents of the posters. Simultaneously, groups of GAKs militants spoke with the people who were in charge of the 350 booths, one by one, handing them the manifesto, asking for solidarity with Josep Pamies through his signature and inviting them to put up the above-mentioned poster with the petition central: "COEXISTENCE WITH TRANSGENIC NO, NO AND NO".

Towards the middle of the journey, we were questioned by municipal police, arguing that we could not display these posters without authorization. We counted on it. The municipal police of Madrid and other cities belonging to the Autonomous Community are at the forefront of eliminating any non-commercial message from the streets. After reminding them that such authorization was not necessary as they were assisted by the right to free expression of our opinions, without interfering with the movement of people or the activity of the Fair, they understood that they would have to take us into custody if they wanted us to cease our activity and later, to respond for the excess of their functions and the abuse of power in order to obstruct the exercise of fundamental freedoms. All this with photographic evidence that was being taken and with numerous people who would come as witnesses. They did their calculations and decided to go on their way. And we ours.

The task we had set ourselves was superior to what the 23 people from the GAKs involved in it could carry out. During the morning we only had time for a slow procession through the Fairgrounds, dialogue with passers-by and the inhabitants of the booths. Collecting signed documents, returning “when the boss was there”, replacing lost documents and posters, it took us 4 more days.

We have been able to verify that our campaign against transgenics at the Book Fair, being linked to the defense of the protagonists of direct action, has inhibited the most conservative sectors from signing or putting up the poster. However, the priority was solidarity with Josep Pàmies and we have thousands of opportunities to campaign against the "softer" transgenics. Despite everything, the result of this action is as follows:

a) 24 booths that sign as entity;

b) 29 people running the booths who sign the manifesto on a personal level;

c) 186 signatures of booth workers;

d) 36 posters with the text “CASETA LIBRE DE TRANSGÉNICOS…” among those delivered and posted;

e) Several booksellers in Madrid asked us for manifestos to include in the bag of each person who bought them a book.

We have left no less than 1500 copies to these booths to which we express our gratitude. In addition to spreading our slogans before the tens of thousands of people who packed the Fair, we have spoken with hundreds of passers-by and, in particular, with at least 500 people from the booths belonging to the Book Guild.

All the adhesions have been sent (the original documents) to the colleagues of the Assemblea Pagesa. At the same time, the GAKs, together with other groups and social networks in Madrid, have collected a multitude of signatures that have been sent to them in a decentralized manner.

Now that the evidence of the inevitable transgenic contamination is overwhelming, beyond any regulation of coexistence between transgenic and non-transgenic crops, we must increase our efforts to favor the rectification of those who have played to put one candle to God and another to the devil. We must look forward without resentment, but also without forgetting the negative of some undemocratic and even repressive behaviors against those of us who did not dance to the sound of negotiations with the PSOE government. The objective today is the reconstruction of a united front against transgenics based on:

1) the withdrawal of any proposal for coexistence regulations for a true application of the precautionary principle;

2) the ban on the commercial cultivation of MON-810 transgenic corn;

3) a European moratorium on transgenic crops and foods;

4) el sobreseimiento inmediato de todas las causas pendientes de los ciudadanos conscientes que se han arriesgado a enfrentarse personalmente contra los abusos de las multinacionales y la complicidad de las autoridades;

5) la declaración de millones de “Zonas Libres de Transgénicos. Coexistencia ¡NO, NO y NO!”

Agroecology and Responsible Consumption Area of ​​MAG – Mayo de 2010 – 14º ENTREGA DE LA CAMPAÑA CONTRA LA PRESIDENCIA ESPAÑOLA DE LA UE –

Fuente: extraído del libro “Agroecología y Consumo Responsable. Theory and practice ”VVAA. Ed. Kehaceres. Madrid, 2006. Páginas 173-181. You can find it in the CAES Associative Library. C/Atocha, 91 2º 28012-Madrid. Y del artículo “Nuevos aires en la lucha contra los transgénicos” (Junio 2007) que puedes encontrar en la sección Transgénicos de la web de La Garbancita Ecológica.

Para ver la totalidad de documentos producidos por el Area de Agroecología y Consumo Responsable del Movimiento contra la Europa del Capital, la Globalización y la Guerra durante la III Presidencia Española de la UE (primer semestre de 2002)…)

Para la campaña actual durante la IV Presidencia (¡er semestre de 2010)…)

Para un análisis detallado del movimiento contra los transgénicos en el Estado Español en los últimos 5 años, sus actores y sus documentos, ver la sección de Transgénicos de la web de La Garbancita Ecológica.…)


[1] “Consideraciones básicas a incluir en las normas españolas sobre coexistencia entre cultivos modificados genéticamente, cultivos convencionales y ecológicos” (30/3/2005). Puede obtenerse en Foro Transgénicos

[2] GAKs “Transgénicos un año después, otra coexistencia es imposible”, mayo de 2006

[3] GAKs ibidem, mayo de 2006

[4] P. G. “La unidad de la izquierda y los transgénicos: una victoria pírrica”. Publicado en Viejo Topo, jul-ago 2005.

[5] A continuación incluimos enlace con textos que ilustran los límites de la negociación con el Gobierno en materia de coexistencia:

  • El fin de la moratoria europea de transgénicos ¿A quién beneficia? (20/6/2004)…) ;
  • No a los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos. Carta a la ministra de medio ambiente (24/11/2004)…)
  • Apoyo a la iniciativa de Greenpeace y Amigos de la Tierra contra la normativa del gobierno en materia de coexistencia de cultivos transgénicos (23/12/2004)…);
  • No a los transgénicos. Desde una iniciativa que potencie una agroecología y consumo responsables y una amplia participación social (20/4/2005)…) ;
  • La unidad de la izquierda y los transgénicos: una victoria pírrica (17/5/2005)…);
  • Los daños colaterales de la alterglobalización en la agroecología y el consumo responsable (30 de julio de 2005)…);
  • Carta a Zapatero sobre su política de transgénicos (30/11/2005)…);
  • Contra las semillas Terminator y el comercio global de alimentos (16/2/2006)…);
  • Transgénicos, un año después. Otra coexistencia es imposible (18/5/2006)…).
  • Para más información, ver Foro de transgénicos en…)

[6] Hace un mes Greenpeace se desmarcó de la coexistencia, con un informe elaborado junto con la Asamblea Pagesa y la Plataforma Trasngenic Fora cuyo título era “La Imposible Coexistencia”. Pero, en un nuevo giro hacia el pragmatismo, en estos momentos lidera, junto con la COAG, las alegaciones al último borrador de coexistencia (julio de 2006). Este es el doble lenguaje de las burocracias de las grandes ONGs ecologistas

[7] Texto extraído del último artículo sobre transgénicos elaborado por los GAKs antes del cierre de edición del libro (agosto de 2006) “NI 50 ni 220 metros. Prohibición de cultivos y alimentos transgénicos”. Este artículo ha sido publicado en las páginas de Ecoportal y Biodiversidad

[8] Hemos desarrollado este asunto en el capítulo 2, pág. 67 del libro "Agroecología y Consumo Responsable. Teoría y Práctica". Madrid, 2006.

[9] Para más detalles sobre contenidos de esta campaña puede visitarse la web y la web sección transgénicos.

Video: SDG 12: Explaining responsible consumption and production (June 2022).


  1. Tujar

    What the right words ... super

  2. Kenley

    No matter how hard you work, there is always a goat who works less and gets more. A bear on the Diplomat server is a person who can send you to xy @ in such a way that you will be looking forward to the trip. Aphorism in defense of marital fidelity (in response to? 10 on June 2): "Any nail will bend from the frequent change of holes." If your wife stopped fucking your brains - be on your guard, for surely someone started fucking your wife.

  3. Morholt

    I find this to be the error.

  4. Rally

    Of course, I'm sorry, but this option does not suit me.

  5. Mansur

    You are wrong. I can defend my position. Write to me in PM.

Write a message