martes, febrero 28, 2006

GM soybean: Latin America's new colonizer

By Miguel Altieri and Walter Pengue
Seedling, Jan. 2006
From: http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=421

In Latin America, the frontiers to soybean production are being pushed back aggressively in all directions at a breathtaking rate. Driven by export pressures and supported by government incentives, soybean fields are taking over forests and savannah in an unprecedented manner. The implications of the monoculture model and its supporting machinery for the environment, farmers and communities are discussed below.

In 2005, the biotech industry and its allies celebrated the tenth consecutive year of expansion of genetically modified (GM) crops. The estimated global area of approved GM crops was 90 million hectares, a growth of 11% over the previous year (see map on p14). In 21 countries, they claim, GM crops have met the expectations of millions of large and small farmers in both industrialised and developing countries; delivering benefits to consumers and society at large through more affordable food, feed and fiber that are more environmentally sustainable. [1]

It is hard to imagine how such expansion in GM crops has met the needs of small farmers or consumers when 60% of the global area of GM crops is devoted to herbicide-tolerant crops. In developing countries, GM crops are mostly grown for export by big farmers, not for local consumption. They are used as animal feed to produce meat consumed mostly by the wealthy.

The Latin America countries growing soybean include Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay. The expansion of soybean production is driven by prices, government and agro-industrial support, and demand from importing countries, especially China, which is the world's largest importer of soybean and soybean products. Brazil and Argentina experienced the biggest growth rates in GM soybean expansion in 2005. [2] The expansion is accompanied by massive transportation infrastructure projects that destroy natural habitats over wide areas, well beyond the deforestation directly caused by soybean cultivation. In Brazil, soybean profits justified the improvement or construction of eight industrial waterways, three railway lines and an extensive network of roads to bring inputs and take away produce. These have attracted private investment in logging, mining, ranching and other practices that severely impact on biodiversity that have not been included in any impact assessment studies. [3]

In Argentina, the agro-industry for transforming soybean into oils and pellets is concentrated in the Rosario region on the Parana river. This area has become the largest soy-processing estate in the world, with all the infrastructure and the environmental impact that entails. Spurred on by the export market, the Argentinean government plans further expansion of the soybean industry, adding another 4 million hectares to the existing 14 million hectares of soy production by 2010. [4]

Etiquetas:

KRAKOW DECLARATION FOR A GMO FREE EUROPE

We, the participants of the conference entitled “A United No to GMO” held in the City of Krakow, Poland, representing farmers, local authorities, politicians and activists; call upon all National Governments and the European Commission to respect the voice of their citizen’s and to halt all imports, sales and planting of genetically modified foods and seeds.

To this end, we support the introduction of a TEN YEAR MORATORIUM against all GMO’s in Europe and a reorientation of current and future research and development funds towards the enhancement of diverse and ecologically sound land management systems that maintain and improve the long term fertility, biodiversity and overall health of our native soils, plants and animals.

Krakow, February 24th, 2006

Endorsed by 120 participants from 14 European Countries at the Krakow Conference ‘A United No to GMO’.



lunes, febrero 27, 2006

Invaden Uruguay


En el año 1998 se introduce el primer cultivo transgénico en Uruguay: la soja (RR) Round up Ready. Esta introducción se hizo sin el conocimiento de la sociedad civil, por lo que se negó la posibilidad de discusión del tema, tanto a las gremiales de productores, como a universidad, consumidores, y ONGs

Año a año ha ido aumentando vertiginosamente su cultivo, acompañado por el paquete tecnológico de los agrotóxicos. El uso masivo de agrotóxicos ha crecido en proporción al cultivo de soja transgénica, provocando enormes impactos en la salud de las personas y en el medio ambiente. Entre los agrotóxicos más usados se encuentran el glifosato, paraquat, 2,4 D y el endosulfán, todos ellos altamente tóxicos y prohibidos en muchos países, tanto en Europa como en Asia.

Cabe mencionar que otra de las consecuencias que ha provocado esta introducción ha sido el desplazamiento de otros cultivos tradicionales en Uruguay como el trigo y la cebada.

A la soja le sigue el maíz transgénico. En el año 2003 se comienza con el maíz Mon 810 y en el 2004 se introduce el maíz Bt11. La introducción del maíz estuvo cuestionada por organizaciones de la sociedad civil, que aún reclaman por tener una mayor información acerca de los impactos ambientales y sobre la vida humana de estos cultivos. A nivel parlamentario se cuestionó severamente la introducción del maíz Mon 810 interpelando al Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, por considerarse que este nuevo evento no tendría ningún beneficio para la agricultura ni tampoco económico; aún más, echaría por tierra el slogan que en ese momento estaba en auge: 'Uruguay país Natural'. Lamentablemente en el momento de votar la mayoría de los diputados presentes optaron por apoyar la autorización de este evento.

La sociedad civil organizada cuestionó duramente su introducción, pero el debate y la opción a participación de esta decisión estuvieron negados, en ambos eventos.

Tanto la soja como el maíz son básicamente producidos para ser exportados como alimento para animales, aunque la soja se utiliza cada vez más en alimentos procesados y en el caso del maíz Bt11 se comercializan variedades de maíz dulce.

Etiquetas:

viernes, febrero 24, 2006

Foro en pro de los transgénicos

Costa Rica: Foro promueve transgénicos sin tomar en cuenta riesgos ambientales y sociales

Con respecto al Foro “Cultivos Genéticamente Mejorados y Bioseguridad: oportunidades para los países en desarrollo”, convocado por la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR) y el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG) para hoy lunes 20 y mañana martes 21 de febrero de 2006, deseamos manifestar lo siguiente:

1) Es claro que esta actividad tiene como única intención promover el cultivo de transgénicos en el país. Eso se concluye por la terminología afirmativa y positiva del título de la actividad y de la convocatoria misma y por los expositores invitados.

2) Hablar de “oportunidades y beneficios”, sin mención alguna de los riesgos y peligros que se ha comprobado tiene esta tecnología para el ambiente, la salud y la agricultura criolla, es irresponsable y temerario.

3) Los llaman “Cultivos Genéticamente Mejorados”. Pretenden así darles la connotación de algo bueno, sano y positivo para la sociedad en general. Pero sabemos que es todo lo contrario. Nosotros preferimos entonces llamarlos por su nombre, Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (OGM), sin ocultar que se trata de cultivos creados en laboratorios con rasgos que nunca han existido en la naturaleza y ni en la agricultura y de los cuales desconocemos sus impactos futuros sobre la biodiversidad agrícola, el ambiente en general y la salud humana.

4) Ya lo hemos comprobado en Guanacaste, convertido por estas empresas y por el MAG en un enorme campo para multiplicar semillas transgénicas sin controles y a cielo abierto. Aquí la bioseguridad en la práctica no exíste.

5) Detrás de los OGM no están los intereses públicos. Más bien se trata de enormes empresas multinacionales interesadas en apropiarse de lo que la humanidad ha creado a lo largo de miles y miles de años de agricultura. Este negocio de los OGM viene creando poco a poco las condiciones para que, en todo el mundo, los campesinos deban comprar los llamados paquetes tecnológicos (semillas y agroquímicos) a estas empresas transnacionales para producir lo que comemos.

6) En el otro lado de la moneda están las semillas criollas que están desapareciendo rápidamente al compás de las nuevas tecnologías trasnsgénicas. Entonces, ¿oportunidades para quién? Desde luego que no son para la mayoría de los campesinos y habitantes en los países pobres. Oportunidades, serán, pero para la industria agrícola multinacional de los OGM.

7) Llama la atención además que estos intereses se reflejen tan claramente en la conformación de los paneles de este Foro. Por ejemplo, Richard E. Goodman, de la Universidad de Nebraska, ocupó cargos en la empresa Monsanto. Héctor Quemada, del Group Technology Consulting (agencia consultora), fungió como Director de la empresa Asgrow Seed Co., una de las empresas pioneras en semillas OGM. Paul Christou es editor de la revista “Transgenic Research” (“Investigación Transgénica”). Desde ese cargo publicó un editorial en contra de las investigaciones que señalaron la contaminación del maíz criollo por parte de OGM en México.

En conclusión, este tipo de foros no representa para el país ningún beneficio y más bien servirá para jugar con los riesgos y daños que causan y causarán en el futuro los OGM para el ambiente, la salud y la agricultura.

Comité Cívico de Cañas

Para más informes, comunicarse con Ana Julia Arana (Tel. 668-6490 o al correo electrónico ajabo@costarricense.cr)

Etiquetas: ,

jueves, febrero 23, 2006

BIO B.S.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6281

Easing fears of biotech food with bullsh*t

New Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO) man Sean Darragh is a former U.S. defense, national security and trade official.

The "new public face of the global agricultural biotechnology industry" is also a bullsh*t specialist par excellence and the newspaper interview he has given below has to be read to be believed!

Here's a couple of examples of Darragh, ducking and diving and laying it on thick:

Q: "Have you done studies over a long period of time to say whether people who eat more genetically modified foods get more cancers or get more of other diseases than people who eat more organically grown food? Have those sorts of studies been done?"

Darragh : Ten years have gone by without one documented case of any problem associated with the technology. ... I've never met anybody with a science degree, who has a Ph.D. in biology, ever, who was not comfortable with the safety of biotechnology."

"...If I had a conversation with anybody with a Ph.D. in biology and they could articulate why they were concerned about it and why this technology is any different than the stuff that's been happening for years - like Mendel's peas - then I could understand. But there's nobody out there."

Nobody out there?! Darragh really needs to get out more. He could try these for starters - none of them short of a Ph.d or two and some of them even to be found in America!

Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."

"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." - Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey

Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."

Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."

Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are noways of quantifying the risks... The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."

Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."

Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist and Professor of Food Safety at LeedsUniversity - one of the scientists who predicted the BSE disaster from early on - has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods because of "the essentially unlimited health risks."

Doctor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects onthe immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effectsare predictable."

Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe isutterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." He has also said, ""There is... a need to develop more effective and appropriate screening methods toalert companies and government agencies to the unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of genetic traits into plants." Professor James has also remarked that the current regulatory system is open to challenge simply because we are making all sorts of judgments with so little evidence at hand."

Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"

Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."

Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don't know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I'm more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."

Dr Vyvyan Howard, expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, "Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children"

Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".

Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at Guy's Hospital says, "The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Dr Antoniou has also warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"

For more like this:
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=3&page=1
---

miércoles, febrero 22, 2006

Ban Terminator
www.BanTerminator.org
Comunicado de Prensa,
21 de febrero de 2006

Monsanto podría comercializar Terminator, Reconsidera su postura en torno a la tecnología de semillas estériles mientras una alianza global convoca a su prohibición definitiva

Monsanto, la compañía de semillas y agrobiotecnología más grande del mundo, hizo en 1999 una promesa pública de no comercializar 'tecnología Terminator' -vegetales diseñados genéticamente para producir semillas estériles. Ahora Monsanto dice que, después de todo, sí podría desarrollar o usar las semillas suicidas. El compromiso revisado de Monsanto sugiere ahora que usaría semillas Terminator en cultivos no alimenticios y no descarta otros usos de Terminator en el futuro.(1) La modificación de la postura de Monsanto viene a la luz mientras la industria biotecnológica y de semillas confrontan movimientos de campesinos y agricultores, pueblos indígenas y aliados en una creciente batalla en Naciones Unidas sobre el futuro de Terminator.

En el año 2000, el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica de la ONU (CDB) adoptó una moratoria de facto sobre las tecnologías de semillas estériles, también conocidas como Tecnologías de Restricción del Uso Genético (TRUGs). Pero en la próxima reunión de alto nivel del CDB en Curitiba, Brasil (del 20 al 31 de marzo de 2006) la industria biotecnológica intensificará su presión para terminar con la moratoria de facto de seis años.

En respuesta, hoy más de 300 organizaciones declararon su apoyo para una prohibición global de la tecnología Terminator, argumentando que las semillas estériles amenazan la biodiversidad y destruirán las formas de supervivencia y las culturas de los 1,400 millones de personas que dependen de la semilla conservada de la cosecha.

"Los agricultores y pueblos indígenas del mundo no pueden confiar en Monsanto", dijo Alejandro Argumedo de la Asociación ANDES - Parque de la Papa, en Cuzco, Perú. "La promesa rota de Monsanto es una traición mortal porque los pueblos indígenas y los agricultores dependen de la semilla conservada de la cosecha para su seguridad alimentaria y su autodeterminación."

La tecnología Terminator fue desarrollada en primer lugar por el Departamento de Agricultura del gobierno de Estados Unidos y la compañía de semillas Delta & Pine Land para impedir que los agricultores conservaran y volvieran a usar la semilla cosechada, forzándolos a comprar nuevas semillas cada ciclo. (2)

En octubre de 1999, en respuesta a una oposición mundial, Monsanto se comprometió públicamente a no comercializar semillas Terminator. El entonces Director Ejecutivo, Robert Shapiro, escribió una carta abierta a la Fundación Rockefeller, afirmando: Le escribo para comunicarle que nos comprometemos públicamente a no comercializar tecnologías de esterilización de semillas, como la denominada 'Terminator'".

Ahora, Monsanto revisó su compromiso y dice que mantendrá Terminator fuera de los cultivos alimenticios -abriendo la posibilidad de usar Terminator en algodón, tabaco, cultivos farmacéuticos y pastos con genes de esterilidad. Al referirse a las nuevas versiones de las TRUGs, Monsanto afirma ahora que "no descarta el desarrollo potencial y uso de algunas de esas tecnologías en el futuro. La compañía continuará estudiando los riesgos y beneficios de esta tecnología en una base de caso por caso."

"La modificación de la política de Monsanto se relaciona muy fuertemente con las opiniones de unos pocos gobiernos ricos que están promoviendo Terminator en las reuniones de Naciones Unidas," señala Chee Yoke Ling de Third World Network, "Monsanto y otras corporaciones se encuentran tras la estrategia para liberar Terminator en las próximas reuniones del CDB."

La nueva postura de Monsanto sobre Terminator es parte de una estrategia de la industria a nivel global para eliminar la moratoria de facto. El mes pasado, delegados de los gobiernos de Canadá, Australia y Nueva Zelanda, trabajando de la mando de la industria biotecnológica, aprovecharon reuniones de Naciones Unidas para introducir nuevo texto que será considerado durante la reunión del Convenio de Diversidad Biológica el mes próximo en Brasil.(3) El nuevo texto recomienda que las tecnologías Terminator sean analizadas según una 'evaluación de riesgos caso por caso' -haciendo eco del lenguaje que usa Monsanto en su nuevo 'compromiso.' La intensión detrás del enfoque 'caso por caso' es regular Terminator igual que cualquier otro cultivo transgénico, ignorando los devastadores impactos sociales de la esterilidad genética de semillas.

"Terminator es un golpe directo a los agricultores, culturas indígenas y a la soberanía alimentaria y el bienestar de todos los habitantes del campo, principalmente los más pobres", dijo la indú Chukki Nanjundaswamy de Vía Campesina, organización que representa decenas de millones de agricultores y campesinos en todo el mundo. "Si Monsanto presiona en la ONU para que se permita la evaluación 'caso por caso' de Terminator, los agricultores serán expulsados de la tierra ataúd por ataúd."

"Estas compañías tienen una visión simple y clara de que nada debe cultivarse sin permiso de Monsanto y algunos otros amos de la esterilidad y la reproducción", explica Benny Haerlin de Greenpeace Internacional. "Luchan por su estrategia de 'paso a paso' o 'caso por caso', como ahora la llaman. Si los gobiernos en la reunión del CDB le permiten eso a Monsanto y debilitan la moratoria, mañana todos tendremos que pagar los costos y daños colaterales que sufran la integridad y la fertilidad de la naturaleza.

La campaña Terminar Terminator anuncia hoy los nombres de más de 300 organizaciones de todo el mundo que demandan la prohibición de la tecnología Terminator. La lista de organizaciones se encuentra en www.banterminator.org/endorsements
Estas organizaciones son de todas las regiones del mundo e incluyen movimientos campesinos y organizaciones de agricultores, de pueblos indígenas, de la sociedad civil, grupos ambientales, sindicatos, comunidades de fe, organizaciones internacionales de desarrollo y redes de jóvenes.

"Estamos particularmente alarmados de que en su promesa revisada Monsanto ya no rechaza la comercialización de esta peligrosa tecnología", dijo Lucy Sharratt de la Campaña Internacional Terminar Terminator. "Llamamos a los gobiernos de cada país a ignorar la táctica de Monsanto y optar por una prohibición total de Terminator. Invitamos a la sociedad civil y a los movimientos sociales a unirse a la campaña en la batalla contra Terminator el mes próximo en Brasil."

Para mayor información:


Canadá:
Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Ban Terminator Campaign
Pat Mooney, ETC Group
Jim Thomas, ETC Group
+1 613 241 2267
lucy@banterminator.org
jim@etcgroup.org
www.banterminator.org

EEUU:
Hope Shand, ETC Group.
+1 919 9605767
hope@etcgroup.org
www.etcgroup.org

Perú:
Alejandro Argumedo, Asociación ANDES.
+51 84 245021
andes@andes.org.pe
www.andes.org.pe


Brazil
Maria Rita Reis
Terra de Direitos
phone 55 (41) 32324660
mariarita@terradedireitos.org.br

Malasia:
Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network.
+ 60 4 226 6159
twnet@po.jaring.my
www.twnside.org.sg

India:
Chukki Nanjundaswamy, La Via Campesina.
+91 80 860 4640
chukki_krrs@yahoo.co.in
www.viacampesina.org

Greenpeace Internacional:
Benedict Haerlin, Greenpeace International.
bhaerlin@extra.greenpeace.org
www.greenpeace.org


Notas a los editores:

1. El nuevo compromiso de Monsanto sobre Terminator y las TRUGs se encuentra en línea en http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/media/pubs
/2005/pledgereport.pdf. Una copia de sus compromisos anteriores y nuevos está en: www.banterminator.org

2. Delta & Pine Land se refiere a Terminator como Sistema de Protección de la Tecnología (TPS). Actualmente está haciendo pruebas en invernadero y la empresa espera comercializar la tecnología en pocos años.

3. En febrero de 2005 en una reunión del Órgano Subsidiario de Asesoramiento Científico, Técnico y Tecnológico del CDB en Bangkok, delegados del gobierno canadiense quisieron revertir sorpresivamente la moratoria y que se permitieran las pruebas de campo y comercialización de Terminator. El mes pasado en otra reunión preparatoria en Granada, España, (la reunión del Grupo e Trabajo sobre el Artículo 8j), el gobierno de Australia, asesorado por un representante del Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos, también atacó la moratoria. Consulte el boletín de prensa del Grupo ETC del 5 de febrero de 2006: "Prácticamente anulada, la moratoria sobre Terminator", en http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=543

Etiquetas:

Ban Terminator
www.BanTerminator.org
News Release
21 February 2006

Monsanto May Commercialize Terminator Biotech Giant Revises Pledge on Sterile Seed Technology as Global Alliance Calls for a Ban.

Monsanto, the world's largest seed and agbiotech company, made a public promise in 1999 not to commercialize 'Terminator Technology' - plants that are genetically engineered to produce sterile seeds. Now Monsanto says it may develop or use the so-called 'suicide seeds' after all. The revised pledge from Monsanto now suggests that it would use Terminator seeds in non-food crops and does not rule out other uses of Terminator in the future. (1) Monsanto's modified stance comes to light as the biotech and seed industry confront peasant and farmer movements, Indigenous peoples and their allies in an escalating battle at the United Nations over the future of Terminator.

In 2000 the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a de facto moratorium on sterile seed technologies, also known as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). But at next month's high-level meeting of the CBD in Curitiba, Brazil (20-31 March 2006) the biotechnology industry will intensify its push to undermine the six-year old de facto moratorium.

In response, over 300 organizations today declared their support for a global ban on Terminator Technology, asserting that sterile seeds threaten biodiversity and will destroy the livelihoods and cultures of the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed.

"The world's farmers and Indigenous peoples cannot trust Monsanto," said Alejandro Argumedo from Asociacion ANDES - Potato Park in Cusco, Peru "Monsanto's broken promise is a deadly betrayal because Indigenous peoples and farmers depend on seed saving for food security and self-determination."

Terminator technology was first developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and US seed company Delta & Pine Land to prevent farmers from saving and re-using harvested seed, forcing them to buy new seeds each season. (2)

In October 1999, in response to worldwide opposition, Monsanto publicly pledged not to commercialize Terminator seeds. Then-CEO, Robert Shapiro, wrote an open letter to the Rockefeller Foundation, stating, "I am writing to let you know that we are making a public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies, such as the one dubbed 'Terminator.'"

Now, Monsanto has revised its commitment, pledging to keep Terminator only out of food crops - opening the door to the use of Terminator in cotton, tobacco, pharmaceutical crops and grass with sterility genes. Referring to new versions of GURTs, Monsanto's 'pledge' now says, "Monsanto does not rule out the potential development and use of one of these technologies in the future. The company will continue to study the risks and benefits of this technology on a case-by-case basis."

"Monsanto's revised pledge resonates closely with the actions of a few rich governments that have been promoting Terminator at the UN recently," points out Chee Yoke Ling of Third World Network. "It looks like Monsanto and other corporations are behind the strategy to unleash Terminator at the upcoming meetings of the CBD".

Monsanto's new stance on Terminator is part of an industry-wide attempt to undermine the de facto moratorium. In the past year, government delegates from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, working hand in hand with the biotech industry, have used UN meetings to introduce new text that will be considered at next month's CBD meeting in Brazil. (3) This text recommends Terminator technologies be approached on a "case by case risk assessment" basis - echoing the language of Monsanto's new 'pledge.' The intention behind the 'case by case' approach is to regulate Terminator just like any other genetically modified crop. This would ignore the uniquely devastating societal impacts of genetic seed sterility.

"Terminator is a direct assault on farmers, Indigenous cultures and on the food sovereignty and well-being of all rural people, primarily the very poorest," said Chukki Nanjundaswamy of India from La Via Campesina, an organization representing tens of millions of peasant farmers worldwide. "If Monsanto bullies the UN into allowing 'case by case' assessment of Terminator, it means farmers will be carried off the land coffin by coffin."

"These companies have a clear and simple vision that nothing should be grown without a license from Monsanto and a few other masters of sterility and reproduction," explains Benny Haerlin of Greenpeace International. "They pursue this strategy step by step or 'case by case' as they now call it. If governments at the CBD give in to Monsanto and erode the Terminator moratorium we will all have to pay the bill tomorrow and the collateral damage will be the integrity and fertility of nature."

The Ban Terminator campaign today announces the names of over 300 organizations worldwide that are demanding a ban on Terminator technology. The list of organizations is available at http:// www.banterminator.org/endorsements These organizations are from every region of the world and include peasant farmer movements and farm organizations, Indigenous peoples organizations, civil society and environmental groups, unions, faith communities, international development organizations, women's movements, consumer organizations and youth networks.

"We are particularly alarmed that Monsanto's edited pledge no longer rejects commercialization of this dangerous technology." said Lucy Sharratt of the international Ban Terminator Campaign. "We are calling on national governments to dismiss Monsanto's tactic in favour of an all-out ban on Terminator. We invite all civil society and social movements to join with us for the battle against Terminator next month in Brazil."

For more information contact:

Canada: Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator,
Ban Terminator Campaign
+1 613 252 2147 mobile
+ 1 613 241 2267
Pat Mooney, ETC Group
Jim Thomas, ETC Group
+1 613 241 2267
lucy@banterminator.org
jim@etcgroup.org
www.banterminator.org

USA:
Hope Shand, ETC Group.
+1 919 9605767
hope@etcgroup.org
www.etcgroup.org

Peru: Alejandro Argumedo,
Asociacion ANDES.
+51 84 245021
andes@andes.org.pe
www.andes.org.pe

Malaysia:
Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network
Lim Li Lin, Third World Network.
+603 23002585
twnet@po.jaring.my
www.twnside.org.sg

India:
Chukki Nanjundaswamy, La Via Campesina.
+91 80 28604737
chukki_krrs@yahoo.co.in
www.viacampesina.org

Greenpeace International:
Benedict Haerlin, Greenpeace International. bhaerlin@extra.greenpeace.org
www.greenpeace.org

Notes to editors:

1. Monsanto's new pledge on Terminator and GURTs is online at http:// www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/media/pubs/2005/pledgereport.pdf. A full copy of their new and old pledges is available at www.banterminator.org

2. Delta and Pine Land refer to Terminator as Technology Protection System (TPS). Terminator is currently being tested in greenhouses and Delta and Pine Land vowed to commercialize it within the next few years.

3. In February 2005 at a meeting of the CBD's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Assessment (SBSTTA) in Bangkok, Canadian government delegates made a surprise attempt to overturn the moratorium by allowing Terminator to be field tested and commercialized. Last month, at another preparatory meeting in Granada, Spain (known as the Working Group on 8j), the Australian government, coached by a US State Department representative, also attacked the moratorium. See ETC Group news release on 27th January 2006: "Granada's Grim Sowers Plow up the moratorium on Terminator" available at http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=542

Etiquetas:

martes, febrero 21, 2006

Ecología burocrática

Approving Genetically Modified Crops: A Bureaucratic Ecology

Prof. Joe Cummins, February 16, 2006

In the United States approval of genetically modified (GM) crops involves interaction of several bureaucratic domains. These include primarily the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a limited role in reviewing plant incorporated protection against pests. There seems to be rigid bureaucratic niches that are guarded by bureaucrats who seem willing to sacrifice the public and the environment to maintain the hegemony of their niche. The bureaucratic environment seems to consist of weasel holes leading to burrows or lairs providing protection from discomfort resulting from the ire of multinational corporations. An example of what I am trying to describer is the approval of lysine enhanced maize and the response to public comments , a part of the approval process.

Maize is a major food and feed crop worldwide. However, existing commercial maize lines are not a complete food or feed because they are deficient in the essential amino acid, lysine. For many years efforts have been made using traditional breeding to produce lysine enriched lines and advanced opaque lines have fulfilled that need. However, the Monsanto corporation developed a maize line using genetic engineering to introduce a bacterial gene into the maize that lead to enhanced lysine production in the GM maize. Maize was modified with a bacterial gene to enhance lysine production, that construct included a promoter from maize, an intron from rice, a chloroplast targeting sequence from maize and a transcription terminator from maize. The original genetic construction included adjoining lox recombination signals surrounding a CaMV promoter driving a paromomycin antibiotic resistance selection marker , a bleomycin antibiotic resistance marker along with a transcription termination signal from Agrobacterium. An ampicillin antibiotic resistance marker was present on the plasmid containing the integration cassette but that gene was not added to the maize chromoeomes. The original maize line included a gene for Cre recombinase which could be triggered to cut the integration cassette at the lox signal genes removing the antibiotic resistance amerkers from the maize. The cre recominase gene was removed from the final commercial maize line using crossing and selection (1,2).

FDA-APHIS approved the lysine enhanced maize for production as animal feed and that approval was rapidly followed by FDA approval of the maize for human consumption. Aphis undertook an environmental assessment which led to a finding of no significant impact but limited the review to the issue of the GM maize becoming a plant pest. FDA concluded their consultation for approval of high lysine maize allowing use of the crop for consumption in food and feed(4) APHIS undertook public consultation but limited the discussion to the issue of whether or not GM high lysine maize could be considered a plant pest. APHIS defines Pest: ³Any form of plant or animal life, or any pathogenic agent, injurious or potentially injurious to plants or plant products. Other injurious pests are those capable of causing damage to the agriculture, forestry, and natural resources of a country whether or not the pest is already established in the country².

Replying to comments APHIS declares ³The commenter suggests that APHIS has not adequately evaluated all possible unintended effects of integration or expression of the transgene. He further cites a specific example of an unintended effect due to posttranslational modification of the protein in the host organisms as compared to the native state that affected the allergenicity of the protein.² Strangely, APHIS seems to consider that allergenicity does not deem a plant to be a pest even though it is certainly an injurious trait and should have been considered. The FDA consultation (2) considered allergenicity but failed to deal with the case in which a bean gene specifying an enzyme was transferred to pea leading to the production of a modified enzyme that was immunologically active producing a strong inflammatory response in mammals fed the modified peas (6). Both APHIS (1) and FDA (2) considered allergenicity and both noted that the transgenic protein was immunologically active but neither agency took time to look for inflammatory responses or other immunotoxic effects which can be toxic to fatal in mammals. Certainly, crops that are fatal to mammals shouldbe considered pests, or one might think so.

APHIS further comments ³A similar point was made by another commenter regarding potential of Ogenome-wide¹ damage due to the use of Ocre¹ recombinase in the development of this variety. APHIS disagrees with these suggestions. Differences detected in such genome-wide analyses are only relevant to APHIS¹ assessment if they result in measurable phenotypic changes that affect plant pest risk. APHIS is satisfied that the phenotypic data submitted by the applicant is sufficient to determine that LY038 in no more likely to be a plant pest risk than the non-modified recipient organism.² Strangely, APHIS really made no effort to scrutinize phenotypic data which would result from chromosome instability. Normally, it would be common sense to examine the chromosomes of recombinant organisms and that would be easier than looking for phenotypic changes resulting from chromosomal instability.

In conclusion, APHIS preferred to ignore observation from public consultation that certainly fit their own definition of the term ³plant pest². Along with that both APHIS and FDA allowed submission of chicken feeding studies of the GM high lysine maize that showed the maize did not kill the birds outright and immediately but there was no necropsy data provided in the data set used to review the GM maize. The tissues and organs of the animals should have been examined by qualified veterinary pathologists.Both USDA/APHIS and FDA should have reviewed feeding studies with at least one mammal along with the chickens. Certainly, the data from which the GM maize was approved are not sufficient to insure that the GM maize is not a ³plant pest² according to the APHIS definition. Neither .the USDA/APHIS review nor the FDA review seem to be realistic appraisals of the human and environmental impacts of the modified maize and both dealt with immunological and genetic impacts in a cavalier manner. It would be better to have a single agency oversee the approval of GM crops and to have an adjudication of such approvals by an independent body.

Reference

1.Luca, D. Petition for determination of non regulated status for lysine maize LY038 2004 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html
2. FDA CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No. 000087 2005
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/bnfm087.html

3.USDA/AP{HIS Environment Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Petition for determination of non regulated status for lysine maize LY038 2005 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html
4. FDA CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety Biotechnology Consultation Agency Response Letter BNF No. 000087 2005
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/bnfl087.html

5. APHIS Definitions 2006
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pim/exports/glossary_definition.html#16
6. Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME, Foster PS, Higgins TJ and Hogan SP. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J
Agric Food Chem. 2005 Nov 16;53(23):9023-30
COUNTERPUNCH Weekend Edition
February 18 / 19, 2006

Less (and More) Than It Seems
WTO vs. Europe

By BRIAN TOKAR

In the late Spring of 2003, amidst the political fallout of "Old Europe's" refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threw down a gauntlet that threatened to permanently aggravate transatlantic hostilities. As a political favor to its agribusiness allies in the Midwestern farm belt, the administration filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) seeking to overturn Europe's de facto five-year moratorium on approvals of new genetically engineered crop varieties. The governments of Argentina and Canada also signed on to the complaint; together these three countries grow roughly 80 percent of the world's genetically engineered crops.

Just last week, the substance of the WTO's decision on this case was released to the parties involved, and almost immediately leaked to the press. As nearly everyone expected, the WTO's anonymous three-judge panel ruled that some of Europe's restrictions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) violate global trade rules, and that any attempt to regulate this technology requires strict compliance with the trade body's exacting and often industry-biased scientific risk assessment procedures. Perhaps more than any previous WTO decision, the ruling confirmed many people's fears about the role this secretive and unaccountable trade body would play in today's world.

The response to the decision from both sides of the global GMO debate was immediate. Supporters of the technology were quick to declare victory, and denounce European concerns about genetic engineering as mere protectionism for European vs. American agricultural products. They predicted that the WTO would impose penalties of over a billion dollars to compensate US companies for lost European exports, and claimed this decision 'proved' that opposition to GMOs has no scientific basis. Critics of the biotech industry denounced the WTO's violation of people's right to make appropriate choices about their food and how it is grown, and pointed out that Europeans would not begin consuming genetically engineered corn or soybeans as a result of this decision. Its main impact would be on other countries still struggling to address the implications of this technology. "[T]he WTO suit is clearly an effort to chill other nations from pursuing any regulations on GE foods," explained an alliance of 15 US-based NGOs in a statement that immediately preceded the ruling. African and Asian governments are by far the most conspicuous targets.

On one hand, the WTO panel ruled against the European Union (EU) in each of the three substantive areas addressed by the US complaint. First, the unnamed trade judges declared that Europe had indeed imposed a sweeping moratorium on new genetically engineered crop varieties, in violation of the international trade agreement on "Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures." Second, they ruled that approvals of 24 specific GMO crop varieties had been illegally delayed. Third, the judges declared that additional prohibitions imposed by six countries-Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Luxemburg-are inconsistent with these countries' obligations as members of the global trade body.

But on the other hand, the WTO officials were careful to point out that they had dismissed most aspects of the US complaint. This is clear from the concluding 22 pages of the 1050 page decision, the only portion that has been publicly released. The decision, for example, explicitly does not address the safety of biotech products, their similarity (or not) to conventional crop varieties, countries' right to require pre-market approval of GE varieties, nor even the European Union's specific regulatory procedures. The WTO panel affirmed that member countries have the right to consider all possible hazards of GMOs in their risk assessments, even those that are perceived to be "highly unlikely to occur."

The defending countries' principal violation was a "failure to complete individual approval procedures without undue delay," no more, no less. Other aspects of the US, Canada and Argentina's complaints were largely rejected. The EU was found to have acted inconsistently with only one clause of the international sanitary measures agreement, having to do with the timeliness of GMO approvals. In six other areas, including the scientific validity of Europe's regulations, the decision refutes US assertions that Europeans acted inconsistently with their WTO obligations. The claim that European regulations discriminated against US imports in a protectionist manner was explicitly rejected, and the panel upheld European regulators' non-approval of three GMO varieties developed by Aventis Crop Science, now part of Bayer.

The six countries with additional prohibitions on GMOs were found to have violated WTO rules by enacting measures that trumped EU risk assessment protocols. Thus the WTO implicitly endorsed the principle of pre-emption: that no member state can impose regulations more stringent than those of the European Union as a whole. There is no claim that countries introduced invalid or insufficient scientific evidence; their only offense was to enact a political decision that the interests of their people are best served by keeping many genetically engineered foods out of the country. It is precisely these kinds of precautionary political decisions that international trade rules aim to prohibit, even though a precautionary approach has been endorsed by parties to the United Nations' Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

European officials' defense was that they never actually imposed a moratorium on GMOs, only that companies were not complying with the existing approval process, leading to unanticipated delays. This argument was apparently rejected by the trade officials. However, during the three years that this case has been pending, EU officials clarified and streamlined their approval processes for engineered crop varieties. One new genetically engineered sweet corn has already been approved, though no one realistically expects it to be grown or marketed in Europe. The Union has implemented detailed GMO labeling and traceability rules designed to conform to WTO requirements. These protections still go far beyond anything seen in the US, and the Bush administration has repeatedly threatened a new complaint to challenge them. But first, according to Friends of the Earth, the EU will have 30 days to file a response to the WTO ruling, and is entitled to seek a "reasonable period of time" to comply, followed by another six-month review.

What does this decision mean for people who mainly want to know what's in their food? That still depends on where in the world you live. In Europe, genetically engineered ingredients have been virtually eliminated from processed foods, even products imported by US companies and sold under US brand names. Any ingredient that is more than 0.9 percent genetically engineered needs to be clearly labeled as such. European countries import engineered soybeans from the US and Brazil for animal feed, but there is growing pressure on meat processors and retailers to curtail this practice. Some 3500 cities, towns and regions in Europe have declared themselves GMO-Free Zones, and just last November, Swiss voters endorsed a measure that prohibits the growing of engineered crops for five years.

In the US, new varieties of genetically engineered corn, soy, canola and cotton continue to be marketed and approved for sale with only a cursory, and often voluntary, examination of company data by federal regulators. Most Hawaiian papayas are genetically engineered, as are just a few varieties of summer squash. Milk from cows injected with Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone also continues to be sold in many regions of the country. Nearly 100 New England towns have voted in favor of a moratorium and labeling of GMOs, and four California counties have banned the raising of engineered crops or livestock. But attempts to more comprehensively regulate this technology have languished under the pressure of Monsanto's potent political influence, especially at the federal level.

The rest of the world may be up for grabs now. People throughout Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America have raised a determined opposition to GMOs, viewing the technology as a fundamental threat to food sovereignty and the survival of traditional agriculture. Numerous countries have labeling and testing requirements that reach far beyond what is acceptable to Monsanto or the Bush administration. One hundred thirty countries (excluding the US) have ratified the UN's Biosafety Protocol, which requires prior informed consent before seeds or other living engineered organisms can be shipped into any country. It is in the so-called developing world that the pressure from the WTO's decision may be most felt, particularly in Africa, where Zambia and other countries have steadfastly resisted the introduction of GMOs, especially in the form of US food aid. "We made a decision based on facts and those facts have not changed," Zambian Agriculture Minister Mundia Sikatana told Reuters, "We do not want GM foods [and we] hope no one in Africa feels they have to change their views based on that ruling."

Brian Tokar's latest book is Gene Traders: Biotechnology, World Trade and the Globalization of Hunger (www.genetraders.org).

lunes, febrero 20, 2006

Las multinacionales saquean los recursos biológicos africanos

Europa Press

Decenas de multinacionales biotecnológicas y farmacéuticas occidentales se están haciendo ilegalmente con recursos biológicos de África para desarrollar en sus laboratorios productos muy lucrativos cuyos beneficios no revierten en sus países de origen, violando con ello la Convención sobre Biodiversidad de la ONU, según denuncia un informe conjunto estadounidense y sudafricano publicado hoy por el diario londinense 'The Independent'.

El informe revela que las multinacionales rastrean todo el continente africano en busca de muestras, tanto de plantas como de bacterias, que posteriormente procesan en sus propios laboratorios. Con esas muestras, las empresas desarrollan productos patentados particularmente lucrativos, ya sean plantas para los jardines de Europa, remedios naturales contra la impotencia o incluso productos que sirven para decolorar pantalones vaqueros de diseño.

La Convención Internacional sobre Biodiversidad, aprobada en 1992, establece que los Estados tienen plena soberanía sobre sus propios recursos naturales y aboga por el aprovechamiento justo y ecuánime de los beneficios procedentes del desarrollo de los recursos genéricos, según recordó al diario londinense un alto miembro del secretariado de la Convención (con sede en Canadá), Arthur Nogueira.

En algunos casos, citados por el informe, las propias compañías han aceptado que sus productos proceden de recursos naturales africanos, pero lo han justificado con el argumento de que los beneficios deben recaer en quienes los desarrollan biotecnológicamente y no en los países de origen de la materia prima. Por ello, según el informe, no hay indicios de que las empresas hayan compensado económicamente a los países de los que proceden.

"Es una nueva forma de pillaje colonial", declaró Beth Burrows, del instituto estadounidense Edmonds, una de las organizaciones autoras del informe. "El problema es que vivimos en un mundo en el que las empresas suelen apropiarse de lo que quieren y donde quieren, y nos transmiten la idea de que lo hacen por el bien de humanidad", añadió.

"Es una total falta de consideración y de respeto hacia los recursos de África. Nuestros descubrimientos son sólo el producto de un mes de investigación, imagine qué hubiéramos descubierto en dos años", afirmó Mariam Mayet, del Centro Africano de Biodiversidad, la organización sudafricana coautora del estudio.

COMPAÑÍAS CITADAS

Entre las compañías citadas en el informe figuran la firma británica SR Pharma, que se hizo con la patente de una bacteria recogida en Uganda durante los años setenta y que se utiliza para desarrollar un tratamiento contra enfermedades virales crónicas, incluido el sida. El director de SR Pharma, Melvyn Davies, confirmó a los autores del informe que la empresa en ningún momento ha ofrecido el producto o ni siquiera compensaciones financieras a Uganda.

"Si usted se encuentra una sustancia natural en la calle, ¿debemos suponer que pertenece al país en el que la encontró?", declaró. "La cuestión no es dónde aparece el producto, sino el trabajo que se ha invertido para desarrollarlo. ¿Debe llevarse Uganda los beneficios que ha generado si no ha invertido en su desarrollo?", añadió.

Otra compañía mencionada en el informe es Bayer, que consiguió un tipo de bacteria en el Lago Ruiru de Kenia con la que ha desarrollado un fármaco contra la bacteria, patentado como 'Precose' o 'Glucobay'. El producto ha generado 218 millones de euros, pero Kenia no ha recibido nada en compensación. Una portavoz de Bayer, Christina Sehnert, ha confirmado que el producto procede de una bacteria keniana, pero añadió que "no se está utilizando el original, lo que se ha patentado es el producto biotecnológico".

La californiana Genencor International también ha utilizado microbios procedentes desde 1992 de Kenia, concretamente del Valle del Rift, para desarrollar enzimas que se utilizan como decolorantes para pantalones vaqueros.

Otro caso citado en el informe es el de la compañía canadiense Option Biotech, que ha patentado semillas procedentes de Congo --'Aframomum stipulatum'-- para el desarrollo del medicamento contra la impotencia Bioviagra.

El estudio incluye también el caso de la planta 'Impatiens usambarensis', recogida en los montes Usambara de Tanzania y de cuya patente se ha apropiado la suiza Sygenta para la producción de una planta de jardín. En 2004, Sygenta obtuvo 85 millones de euros por su venta, pero el Gobierno de Tanzania no ha obtenido ningún beneficio de ello.

viernes, febrero 17, 2006

Hubris, that's all it is

Genetically modified hubris

by Tom Philpott

Gristmill, 16 Feb 2006
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/16/84730/1561

A couple of days ago, NY Times writer Andrew Pollack attempted to address the failure of biotech companies to "improve" fruits and vegetable crops -- that is, to bring a genetically altered fruit or vegetable strain (as opposed to grains like corn and legumes like soy) from seed to supermarket.

Unwittingly, the article illustrates the industry's hubris and the mainstream press's gullibility in covering the topic.

Pollack opens thusly:

"At the dawn of the era of genetically engineered crops, scientists were envisioning all sorts of healthier and tastier foods, including cancer-fighting tomatoes, rot-resistant fruits, potatoes that would produce healthier French fries and even beans that would not cause flatulence."

The only response to that statement is a horselaugh. Tomatoes already fight cancer; fruits like apples and oranges resist rot just fine (Does anyone seriously want, say, raspberries that last weeks? When we harvest them on my farm, they tend to disappear rapidly anyway); french fries can be plenty healthy, so long as you (like those skinny French people) fry them in good-quality fat and don't eat them in excess; and the answer to beans' flatulence problem lies not in the lab, but in the garden: Just add a bit of the hardy herb epazote to the pot. I've seen epazote thrive everywhere from a full-sun garden in Texas to a community garden in Brooklyn to a shady herb patch in North Carolina's mountains.

In other words, low-tech solutions already exist for most of the "problems" the biotech industry has set out to "solve." It's no coincidence that biotech ag companies are the mutant child of the pharmaceutical industry, which peddles a pill for every malady, including many you didn't know you had.

Pollack's next sentence contains another howler: "But so far, most of the genetically modified crops have provided benefits mainly to farmers, by making it easier for them to control weeds and insects."

That's enough to turn one's horselaugh into a full-on growl. How, precisely, have biotech's benefits flowed "mainly to farmers"? Let's review the industry for a second here. As Pollack notes, biotech has failed completely to bring a successful fruit or veg seed to market. Its only triumphs have been in heavily subsidized grain, legume, and fiber crops: specifically corn, soy, and cotton.

Since 1995, when Monsanto started to market GM seeds heavily, some $70 billion in direct government subsidies have flowed to corn, cotton, and soy farmers -- the most prolific decade for commodity subsidies ever. If biotech seeds have been such a boon to farmers, then why have the farmers that grow them needed such a monumental bailout?

Meanwhile, Monsanto's share price, like its bottom line, has surged.

Clearly, the big winners in the biotech boom have not been consumers or (pace Pollack) farmers, but rather shareholders in the seed giants.

Acción internacional contra transgénicos, abril 8


A WORLDWIDE EVENT is to be held on the 8th of April 2006, with the twofold aim of informing people and demonstrating the united front of concerned organizations against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs: both open-air plants and food). This action will be distributed over several Information Sites, possibly linked through Internet video connections. Saturday, April 8, 2006 coincides with the BIOTech Convention in Chicago, and the WTO (World Trade Organization) verdict concerning the USA-Europe dispute on GMO trading.

From April 8th to 12th, 2006, the (BIO) will hold their annual corporate mega-convention in Chicago. Activists in Chicago will be ready with grassroots opposition and a BioETHICS counter-convention!

jueves, febrero 16, 2006

Scary year

2005, a Scary Year for Genetically Engineered Crops

Spilling the Beans, Feb 14, 2006

http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/2005
_a_Scary_Year_for_Genetically_Engineered_Crops.shtml


By Jeffrey M. Smith, Author of the international bestseller Seeds of Deception

Genetically modified (GM)crops were introduced 10 years ago, but 2005 saw plenty of evidence that the technology was introduced long before the science was ready. Here are some of last year's highlights, so to speak.

At a conference in October, a leading scientist from the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that more than half (55.6%) of the offspring of rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. By contrast, only 9% of rats died whose mothers were fed non-GM soy. The study is preliminary, but the American Academy of Environmental Medicine asked the NIH to immediately repeat it. [1]

In June, a German court ordered Monsanto to make a study public, in which rats fed GM corn developed kidney inflammation, altered blood cell counts and organ lesions. These and other changes suggested possible allergies, infections, toxins, anemia or blood pressure problems. The rats were fed corn genetically engineered to produce a pesticide called Bt-toxin. A French expert who reviews GM safety assessments for the government says that these and other studies indicate that Bt crops create reactions similar to chemical pesticides. Monsanto, however, was able to convince regulators to overlook the findings using arguments that were widely criticized as unscientific.[2]

In November, a 10-year, $2 million GM pea project in Australia was abandoned when the peas were found to create immune responses in mice. The results, which indicate that the peas might create serious allergic reactions in people, were discovered only after scientists employed advanced tests that have never been used for evaluating GM food. If those peas had been studied in the normal way, they could have been approved. The findings suggest that undetected problems may be common in GM crops on the market.[3]

Medical reports from India say that farm workers handling Monsanto's GM cotton developed moderate to serious allergic reactions, forcing some to the hospital. There were also reports that numerous animals died after eating the Bt cottonseed.[4]

The Indian government confirmed that Bt cotton's disastrous yields cost millions. One state even kicked out Monsanto, after they refused to compensate farmers' losses. Tragically, hundreds of debt-ridden cotton farmers committed suicide.[5]

Monsanto was fined by the US Justice Department for bribing up to 140 Indonesian officials over several years, trying to get Bt cotton approved.[6] But widespread crop failure had left farmers in ruins there too, so even the bribes didn't work. [7]

A three-year UK study showed that GM crops damage biodiversity and threaten birds and bees.[8] Another study surprised scientists when GM crops cross pollinated with a distant relative.[9] And some Indian farmers found that after planting GM cotton, their fields became sterile and could not support subsequent crops.[10]

According to USDA statistics, much more Roundup herbicide is used due to Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM plants. Roundup was found to be far more toxic to humans and animals than previously thought. [11] Furthermore, its over use has resulted in the proliferation of herbicide-tolerant weeds in the US.[12]

Contamination was also a big issue.

* In March, the US government revealed that an unapproved GM corn variety by Syngenta had been sold for four years. By late December, Japan had rejected 14 contaminated corn shipments.[13]

* Illegal GM papaya showed up in Thailand. [14]

* Illegal GM varieties were about to be identified in Turkey, but the research project was mysteriously canceled.[15]

* According to a UK study, even when GM crops are grown in special government-supervised field trials for just a single year, unharvested seeds continue to grow and re-seed fifteen years later.[16]

* And farmer Percy Schmeiser, whose contamination by GM canola made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, has again discovered windblown GM seeds from passing trucks.[17]

The Danish government passed a law in which they compensate farmers for losses due to GM contamination and then seek to collect from the offending GM farmer. Vermont's proposed Farmer Protection Act, which passed the senate last April by 26-1, offered a different solution. It placed the financial responsibility on the biotech seed company. This allowed contaminated farmers to recover their losses while shielding GM farmers that had planted their crops in accordance with the seed company's directions. Biotech proponents who lobby around the world to make sure their companies don't pay for damage created by their products, flocked to Vermont's state house. Sure enough, on the first day of the 2006 session, a close house vote struck down the bill in a New Year's gift to industry. A conference committee of senators and representatives may yet take this up and reinstate strict liability for seed producers.

Unwilling to accept GM contamination at all, Switzerland passed a 5-year moratorium on planting GM crops. Likewise, 4500 European jurisdictions, and regions and countries in Africa, South America and Australia have passed bills or resolutions for GM free zones. By contrast, the US biotech industry rushed legislation through 14 states so far, preventing local governments from creating such zones.

Perhaps in the distant future scientists will be able to safely and predictably manipulate and control genes in plants. But for now, feeding the products of this infant science to millions and releasing them into the environment is foolish and dangerous. In the meantime, pregnant women and children in particular, may want to avoid eating GM foods.

Most of these 2005 stories are elaborated in Jeffrey Smith's free monthly column, Spilling the Beans, available at www.responsibletechnology.

***

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the bestselling book on GM foods Seeds of Deception and producer of the DVD Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals, available at www.seedsofdeception.com or by calling 888-717-7000. He is working with a team of international scientists to compile all known risks of GM foods.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org.

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at column@seedsofdeception.com to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly welcome your donations and support.

REFERENCES

[1] See Jeffrey Smith, Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy, Spilling the Beans, Oct 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org

[2] See Jeffrey Smith, Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up, Spilling the Beans, June 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org

[3] See Jeffrey Smith, Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice, Spilling the Beans, Nov/Dec 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org

[4] Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; webindia123.com, cattle dead, Bhopal, Nov 23 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health

[5]See Jeffrey Smith, Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food, Spilling the Beans, January 2006 at www.responsibletechnology.org

[6]Monsanto fined $1.5m for bribery, BBC News, Jan 7, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm

[7]Pests Attack Genetically Modified Cotton, Jakarta Post (Indonesia) 29 June 2001, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Pests-Attack-Cotton-Jakarta.htm

[8]See Jeffrey Smith, Genetically Engineered Crops Damage Wildlife, Spilling the Beans, March 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org

[9]Paul Brown, Weed discovery brings calls for GM ban, The Guardian, July 26, 2005, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1536021,00.html

[10]Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.

[11]Sophie Richard and others, Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113, Number 6, June 2005

[12]See for example, Investigation Confirms Case Of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Pigweed In Georgia, Sept. 13, 2005, http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/05/09-13-05.asp

[13]Japan finds 14th US corn cargo tainted with Bt-10, KTIC 840 Rural Radio, http://ellinghuysen.com/news/biotech.html

[14]Illegal GE papaya in Thailand has antibiotic resistant genes, Greenpeace press release, June 30, 2005

[15]Michael Kuser, Tests reveal presence of GM tomatoes in Turkey, Turkish Daily News, 26 May 2005, http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=14143

[16]Geoffrey Lean, GM crop 'ruins fields for 15 years’, The Independent, 09 October 2005

[17]Sean Pratt, Roundup Ready Canola back in Schmeiser's field. The Western Producer, October 26, 2005

Copyright 2006 by Jeffrey M. Smith.