Nano problemas

Nanotech problems pile up and the industry asks to be regulated

By Peter Montague

The year 2005 began brightly enough for U.S. evangelists of nanotechnology -- the science and engineering of things so small they are measured in billionths of a meter and are invisible even under a microscope. When substances are broken into nano-sized particles, their properties change dramatically -- metals may become transparent, inert substances may suddenly become chemically reactive, and dielectrics may begin to conduct electricity. The nano world turns ordinary reality topsy turvy -- all very mysterious and marvellous, really.

For at least 10 years the U.S. has been banking on nanotechnology to fuel a new industrial revolution, pump up flagging rates of economic growth and make boatloads of money for already-wealthy investors, with perhaps some benefits trickling down to ordinary earthlings. Indeed, many people have pinned their hopes for the future of the U.S. economy on nanotech. Of course, some nano evangelists go even further. In a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce, evangelists who are promoting this technology say it is "essential to the future of humanity" because it holds the promise of "world peace, universal prosperity, and evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment."[1] This is technological evangelism at its snake oil best.

Nanotech has in fact been expanding at breakneck speed. The U.S. is investing more money, securing more patents (more than 1000 per year), and publishing more scientific papers on nanotechnology than competitors in any other country. The National Science Foundation estimates that by 2015 (a short 10 years from now) nanotech will be a $1 trillion business employing perhaps 2 million workers. And that's just the beginning, they hope.[2]

However, in March the President's Council of Advisors on Science andTechnology issued a lengthy report on nanotech that raised serious safety questions. The President's Council made the point repeatedly that nanotech is already finding its way into products (sun screen, baby lotion, wrinkle-free trousers, tennis rackets, computer hard drives, and so on) -- but there has been almost no safety research and nanotechnology is entirely unregulated. The toxicity studies now under way are "a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done," according to John H. Marburger III, science advisor to PresidentBush.[3]

The federal government is pumping at least $1 billion per year of taxpayer funds into nano research and development (4% of it into safety studies), and the private sector worldwide is putting up another $8 billion per year.[2] In addition, individual states[4] are putting up an estimated $400 million per year, as they vie with each other to create the next "silicon valley" -- hoping to create jobs to replace the jobs that have been moved to China by the Wal-Martization of the economy.

In the rush to build this new industry, nanotechnology engineers have so far neglected to ask, What happens when nano products are discarded and become nanowaste? (Here we are seeing an exact replay of the nuclear industry.)

David Rejeski of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholarsthinks the "waste" question deserves an answer: "Who knows what happens when you grind this stuff up, incinerate it or it goes into a landfill? These products may be safe in the tennis racket, but all products become obsolete at some point -- if nothing else because they go out of fashion. Those teal-colored nanopants are going to be out of style next year," he said, only half-joking. "Then what?"[2] Good question. (The nuclear industry -- 65 years into the enterprise -- still has no answer.)

By year's end, even more serious questions had arisen about nanotech. One of the most popular nano materials is a molecule composed of 60 carbon atoms, which attach themselves together in the shape of a soccer ball. They are called fullerenes, or bucky balls, after the famous inventor Buckminster Fuller. Bucky balls have a huge surface area compared to their volume, so they are highly reactive in a chemical sense -- they readily glom onto almost anything nearby. Scientists have been hoping that bucky balls could be coated with medicines and injected into sick people to deliver specific remedies to specific parts of the body. Alternatively, EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] has been hoping bucky balls could be released into the environment to detoxify some of the billions of tons of toxic wastes left over from the previous industrial revolution (which was based on nuclear and petrochemical evangelism).[5]

Last year, nano researchers showed that bucky balls in water could migrate into the brains of fish.[6] In December, researchers at Vanderbilt University announced that bucky balls are soluble in water and will enter cells and probably bind with DNA -- the doubly- coiled molecule that transmits life from one generation to the next. Two engineers at Vanderbilt concluded that bucky balls "bind to the spirals in DNA molecules in an aqueous environment, causing the DNA to deform, potentially interfering with its biological functions and possibly causing long-term negative side effects in people and other living organisms." Uh, oh.

After this announcement, a chorus of complaints arose, urging safety studies of nano materials, in preparation for "regulating" the industry. No one in the chorus mentioned that the U.S. has never been able to effectively regulate the nuclear or petrochemical industries-- the vast majority of chemicals in commercial use today have never been safety-tested and 1800 new compounds enter commercial channels each year almost entirely untested for effects on human health and the environment. As a practical matter, the chemical industry is unregulated, and will remain so. As for the nuclear industry, its dangerous detritus has been spread all over the planet -- radioactive junk piles of astonishing proportions, under sea, in the artic, in the northwestern and southwestern deserts of the U.S.[7] Is there any reason to believe that the nanotech industry will be different?

Despite this, a substantial sector of the environmental movement is committed to the "regulatory approach" and they have teams of attorneys and scientists ready to spend tens of millions of dollars trying to impose largely-ineffective regulations on the nascent nano industry. It's a kind of symbiotic dance between the industry and the enviros, each helping the other pretend to be scientific and effective.

In June Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund,aka ED) joined with the American Chemistry Council (formerly the Chemical Manufacturers' Association, aka ACC) in making a joint proposal, "which calls for international efforts to standardize testing and risk assessment protocols for nanotechnology development, and the drafting of measures to protect human health and the environment while regulators, industry and the scientific community continue to research and develop the technology."[8] In other words, the chemical industry (which is the nanotech industry) is begging to be regulated and is proposing the terms of regulation -- we'll deploy the technology as fast as we can and you regulators will please develop "regulations" and "risk assessments" after the fact.

I suppose a silly sweetheart deal like this allows ED to look like it's still "a player," the ACC gets to look "reasonable," nothing new is required of anyone, and an unsuspecting public gains the reassuring-- though entirely false -- impression that something worthwhile is being done to protect their health and well being.

Even if the ED-ACC proposal produces its intended result, the best we can expect is a replay of the petrochemical century -- except that nanotechnology is far more powerful than anything that every came out of a 20th-century chemical lab. The failure to regulate the chemical industry, if replayed by the nanotech industry, will definitely not be pretty.

But we must ask ourselves, why would this industry ask to be regulated?

So far, the U.S. regulatory system has been even more lenient on nanotech than it has been on petrochemicals. So far U.S. regulators have declared that a nanoparticle of titanium or carbon is no different from a bulk quantity of titanium or carbon, and so no regulation is needed. Think about that for a minute. If there really were no difference between bulk quantities of a substance and the same substance in nano-sized particles, there would be no advantages to nano particles and therefore no nanotech industry. This U.S. regulatory foolosophy is clearly aimed at letting this new industry develop as rapidly as it can, without regard for consequences. Government regulators are helping the nano industry get products to market, create jobs, and grow large before anyone notices. After the industry grows large, then effective regulation will be impossible because jobs would be jeopardized, thus pitting working people against public health specialists (who would otherwise be natural allies). This "divide and conquer" strategy worked like magic with leaded gasoline, asbestos, and the nuclear industry (among many others), so there's no reason to think it will fail with nanotech.

However, even the evangalists of nanotech recognize there's wild card in this approach: the public.

Without safety testing of nano products, the nanotech industry "is setting itself up for the same kind of consumer backlash that has haunted genetically modified foods," Science magazine observed in December.[2] No doubt this is what's driving the ED-ACC proposal to develop "regulations" -- aiming to create the appearance that this industry is being hemmed in by "command and control regulation" (sounds strict and effective, doesn't it?) may keep the public dozing, at least for a time.

In addition to providing false but convincing reassurance to a worried public, "regulations" also serve two other purposes:

(1) When people begin to realize they've been poisoned by nanoparticles, the poisoners will say, "The government approved this, so I'm not liable." In other words, the regulatory system legalizes harm and provides industry an "out" when the stuff hits the fan. This is precisely the approach that won a $10 billion law suit for Altria Group (Philip Morris) last week in Illinois.[9] People harmed by tobacco products said Philip Morris had misled them by selling killer- cigarettes under the safe-sounding name, "Light." Philip Morris argued that government had approved the label so the deadly consequences of being snookered by the false label were the government's fault, not the cigarette maker's. The Illinois Supreme Court bought it. So regulation -- though it may be totally ineffective at protecting the public -- can protect the poisoners very well.

(2) The second reason why the ACC might want regulation is that it gives big firms a powerful advantage over their smaller competitors. Big firms may never say so in public, but they love complicated regulations -- the more complicated the better. They can afford to hire a staff of lawers and engineers -- "compliance specialists" -- who do nothing but read the regulations and fill out the burdensome paperwork, bellyaching all the way to the bank. Small firms cannot necessarily afford to hire "complianace specialists" so they are ensnared by the rules, tripped up, and waylaid. They spend a greater proportion of their available funds complying, compared to the big firms, which reduces their ability to compete.

In sum, the fact that the regulatory system doesn't protect the public is really beside the point -- the system was designed to serve other purposes. Big industrial firms need regulations to (a) to provide the public a false sense of security and lull them to sleep; (b) shift blame onto regulators when the public objects to being poisoned; and (c) put small firms at a competitive disadvantage. The enviro partners of the big polluters play right into this industrial strategy with eyes wide shut.

Safety testing and subsequent "risk assessments" to "prove safety" provide cover for polluters so that contamination of the planet with exotic materials can proceed unimpeded. We examined how this works, in some detail, in Rachel's #831. Initially, contamination of the planet was an unintended consequence of the risk-based regulatory system, but now everyone knows how it works, so continuing to rely on this failed regulatory approach can no longer be justified as accidental or unintended. We now know exactly what we're doing. We're making short-term profits at the expense of everyone else who inhabits the planet, including our children and grandchildren. The "regulatory system" makes this game possible.

It's not hard to figure out why industrial polluters do these things-- they have no choice. They have one -- and only one -- legal option: they must return a modest profit to investors, year after year. They are not permitted by law to do anything else, so their behavior is predictable. Their task is to shove as many of their costs onto the public as they possbly can and still remain within the bounds of the law.

But the big enviro groups are set up not-for-profit, so they are not bound by any fiduciary duty to investors. Therefore they must have other motives. As I say, this nanotech business is all very mysterious and marvellous, really.

[1] Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, editors, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, June, 2002.
[2] Robert F. Service, "Calls Rise for More Research on Toxicology of Nanomaterials," Science Vol. 310, No. 5754 (Dec. 9, 2005), pg. 1609.
[3] Rick Weiss, "Nanotech is Booming Biggest in U.S., Report Says," Washington Post Mar. 29, 2005.
[4] States with the greatest nanotech potential are California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Maryland, New York,Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington state close behind, according to Small Times magazine March 12, 2003. Available at http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=298 .
[5] Keay Davidson, "The promise and perils of the nanotech revolution," San Francisco Chronicle July 26, 2004.
[6] "Vanderbilt U. Engineers Question Safety of Nano-Buckyballs," Dec.5, 2005. Press release from Vanderbilt University.
[7] Arjun Makhijani, Howard Hu, and Katherine Yih, Nuclear Wastelands;A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and Its health and Environmental Effects (Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Press, 1995). This 660-page compendium does not include information about the medical and industrial uses of radioactive substances, which have created their own universe of expensive, long-lived problems. And of course the problem of rogue nuclear weapons falling into the hands of unstable governments -- Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and perhaps others -- poses yet another universe of dangers of incalculable proportion.
[8] "Industry, Environmentalists Offer Plan for Possible Nanotech Rules," Inside OSHA June 27, 2005.

Americans in the dark

Americans Remain in the Dark about GE Foods

The GMO Report Volume 6 Issue One January 2006

www.non-gmoreport.com

Americans’ knowledge of genetically modified foods and animals continues to remain low, and many say that they are particularly uncomfortable with animal cloning, according to anew survey released today by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.

The survey also found that people who are most informed about GM foods also oppose their introduction, and one-half of Americans oppose the introduction of GM foods to thefood supply. Using data from similar surveys released by the Pew Initiative on Food andBiotechnology in March 2001, September 2003, and September 2004 for tracking purposes, the analysis of the current poll and opinion survey provides an in-depth understanding of consumers’ attitudes regarding GM foods.

Peor que la bomba

¡Y teníamos miedo de la bomba!

Manú Dornbieder

El mes de octubre de 2005 es uno de los más nefastos que haya vivido la humanidad y... sin darse cuenta. En ese mes la Unión Europea, Canadá y Estados Unidos aprobaron la patente de la "tecnología Terminador, es decir la desaparición de muchas especies vegetales en el mundo

Ésta es la información que, a diferencia de muchas tonterías sin importancia, no logró la atención mundial, sólo los festejos del mundo del dinero: la patente de la controvertida tecnología Terminator, mediante la cual las plantas que son modificadas genéticamente producen semillas ESTÉRILES fue aprobada en Europa, Canadá y Estados Unidos, reveló Greenpeace. La patente Terminator EP775212B fue concedida a la compañía estadounidense Delta & Pine (1) y al Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos (USDA, en inglés).

Fascinating article. If you're too busy to read it in full, maybe print it off or bookmark it for later.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6076

Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice

Other GM Foods are Not Tested for This and May Be Harmful

By Jeffrey M. Smith

Spilling the Beans, November/December 2005

SUMMARY

Genetically modified (GM) peas under development created immune responses in mice, suggesting that they may also create serious allergic reactions in people. The peas had been inserted with a gene from kidney beans, which creates a protein that acts as a pesticide. When this protein is produced naturally in beans, it does not elicit a response from mice. When produced in the GM peas, however, it did cause a reaction. Using sensitive testing methods, scientists discovered subtle differences between the bean and the GM proteins - the added sugar chains were slightly different. They speculate that this difference caused the immune reactions. Based on the results of the study, the Australian developers abandoned their 10-year, $2 million project.

This study reveals serious and potentially deadly flaws in the regulations and assessments used to approve GM foods. GM crops on the market, like corn and soybeans, were never tested for immune responses using animals and never subjected to a similar analysis of their proteins. Thus, the transgenic proteins in GM foods may have subtle undetected differences that are causing health problems. It is sobering to note that if the GM peas were tested with only the methods used on soy and corn, it likely would have been approved as well.

The approvals of genetically modified (GM) food are largely based on four pillars. The first is the reliance on a long list of assumptions about food safety. Unfortunately, these assumptions are principally based on what was known about genetics 40 years ago, and many have been overturned.

The second pillar is that safety research on GM foods is primarily controlled by industry. Much of it is secret, and the few studies that have been made public are largely superficial—designed not to contradict the assumptions.

The third pillar is an ineffective regulatory system, often hijacked by people with close ties to industry. They accept unscientific assumptions and poor research, and ignore adverse findings.

The fourth pillar is spin - merciless, relentless, in-your-face spin - that magically flips facts to proclaim their opposite. Examples are forthcoming.

On November 17, those pillars took a considerable beating. GM peas under development were evaluated by tests normally applied to medicine—not to GM food.[1] The peas created a dangerous immune response in mice which, if found in humans, might be life threatening. The 10-year pea project, costing over $2 million dollars (US), was abandoned. If those same peas had been evaluated with tests used for other GM crops, however, they could have sailed through the approval process anywhere in the world.

The peas were developed by Australian scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) to assist the country’s $100 million pea harvest. They targeted the pea weevil, a pest that takes a hefty bite—up to 30%—out of yields. But if weevil larvae were to bite a GM pea plant, they would starve to death. That’s because the pea contains a protein called alpha-amylase inhibitor, an anti-nutrient that interferes with the bugs’ digestion. That protein is produced from a gene normally found in "common" (kidney) beans and when fully cooked is safe for humans. Scientists spliced the gene into peas, figuring it would be safe there as well.

"Ayuda" transgénica

La ayuda alimentaria en América Latina y los OGM

Por RALLT *

Las poblaciones de los países más pobres del mundo están recibiendo alimentos transgénicos a través de los programas de ayuda alimentaria. Ellos pertenecen a los grupos tales como niños, mujeres embarazadas o lactantes, en algunos casos pacientes HVI+ que viven en situaciones de estrés por la guerra o por haber sobrevivido desastres naturales.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6079

How United States intervention works - USAID's covert agenda in Africa

by Brewster Kneen

Ram's Horn #234:

November-December 2005

I have long been somewhat puzzled by the very aggressive role played by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in the promotion of biotechnology and genetically engineered crops around the world, particularly in Africa. The most obvious explanation: the US Government is simply exercising its neo-liberal function of promoting and financing corporate welfare. But this has never felt to me like an entirely adequate explanation.

Then, like a bolt of lightening, a thought struck me as I was reading an article by Philip Agee on "How United States Intervention Against Venezuela Works." Agee is a former CIA operative who left the agency in 1967 after becoming disillusioned by the CIA's role in Latin America.
In this article, Agee describes and documents how the US has carried out covert operations in various countries to try to keep them in line with US foreign policy and receptive to US business interests. He uses an analysis of US covert operations in Nicaragua as a template for his documented analysis of what the US has been and continues doing in Venezuela to bring down President Hugo Chavez.

What struck me was the thought that the aggressive US promotion of biotechnology worldwide, and particularly in Africa, might actually be a cover for even more evil intentions, namely, the nurturing of quasi-democratic governments in Africa that would not threaten the commercial and strategic interests of the US and its corporations. Perhaps Monsanto and Syngenta, along with USAID and 'NGOs' such as the Rockefeller/industry-funded ISAAA, are actually pursuing a more despicable agenda than simply the spread of biotech crops for control of the global food system and corporate profit.

All the biotech 'research' centres, educational programs, capacity building workshops etc. and all the contacts and networks established through these programs – with their salaries and gratuities (pay-offs) – may well be the vehicles of subversion to ensure that African governments are compliant with US government-corporate interests in mineral resources and OIL.

Vitoria

Árboles transgénicos en la reunión de Vitoria

La Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) informa que en 16 países del mundo se están llevando a cabo ensayos a campo de árboles transgénicos. La mayoría de estos ensayos se sitúan en Estados Unidos y los restantes están en Francia, Alemania, Gran Bretaña, España, Portugal, Finlandia, Suecia, Canadá, Australia, India, Sudáfrica, Indonesia, Chile y Brasil. Que se sepa, China es el único país que ha establecido plantaciones comerciales de árboles transgénicos, con bastante más de un millón de árboles plantados en diez provincias.

La mayoría de las investigaciones se centran en los álamos (47%), los pinos (19%) y los eucaliptos (7%). Los rasgos principales que se estudian son la tolerancia a herbicidas, la resistencia a insectos, la química de la madera (incluyendo la reducción del contenido de lignina) y la fertilidad.

Los impactos sociales y ambientales que podrían resultar de la liberación de árboles transgénicos a escala comercial incluyen el aumento de la conversión de bosques nativos en plantaciones, el aumento del uso de plaguicidas y herbicidas tóxicos y la pérdida de vida silvestre y fuentes de agua. Además, se predice que la contaminación de los bosques nativos con polen de los árboles transgénicos conllevará impactos tales como una mayor susceptibilidad de los bosques nativos a las enfermedades, los insectos y las presiones climáticas como el viento y el frío, la disrupción de los ecosistemas de bosques que dependen de los insectos, la exacerbación del calentamiento global provocado por la mayor mortalidad de los bosques y la pérdida de alimentos, medicinas, combustibles y culturas tradicionales de los bosques. En la Universidad de Duke, en Carolina del Norte, Estados Unidos, se han creado modelos que demuestran que el polen de los árboles puede viajar más de 1.000 kilómetros. Puesto que los científicos admiten que es imposible garantizar la esterilidad total de los árboles transgénicos, si éstos se liberan en el medio ambiente no podrá impedirse la contaminación generalizada de los bosques nativos.

Exceptuando a China, el avance más rápido hacia la comercialización de los árboles transgénicos parece estar ocurriendo en las Américas: en Estados Unidos, Chile y Brasil.

En Chile se está investigando el pino radiata con el fin de modificarlo insertándole el gen para la producción de la toxina Bt, que confiere resistencia a insectos. En la actualidad las plantaciones de pino constituyen el 80% de las plantaciones chilenas, cuya superficie continúa aumentando. El proyecto de la industria en Chile es liberar el pino radiata Bt para el año 2008. Monsanto Corporation predijo que Chile sería el primer país en comercializar árboles transgénicos, aunque China le ganó de mano. Dado que en Chile muchas de las plantaciones se concentran en tierras tradicionales de los Mapuche, en las comunidades Mapuche hay problemas generalizados de salud a causa de los productos químicos utilizados en las plantaciones y también de la severa polinización de las plantaciones de pino, que rodean por completo algunos poblados. La introducción de pinos Bt en esas plantaciones exacerbará estos problemas sanitarios.

En Brasil, Aracruz Cellulose y Suzano están involucrados en investigaciones sobre árboles transgénicos. Suzano, que maneja más de 3.000 km² de plantaciones de árboles en Brasil, se asoció con CBD Technologies, empresa basada en Israel, para un proyecto cuyo objetivo es acelerar el crecimiento de los eucaliptos. "Normalmente los eucaliptos se talan luego de siete años de implantados, y en ese lapso crecen hasta alcanzar unos 20 metros de altura. Los árboles tratados con CBD pueden llegar a esa altura en tres años o menos", declaró el Dr. Seymour Hirsch, director ejecutivo de CBD Technologies. El plan de CBD y Suzano es establecer una empresa conjunta para comercializar sus eucaliptos transgénicos una vez que hayan completado sus ensayos a campo. CBD insiste también en que los arboles transgénicos de crecimiento más rápido ayudarán a detener el calentamiento global: "Un bosque de una hectárea consume 10 toneladas de carbono por año con el CO2 que respiran los árboles. Claramente, un bosque que crece el doble de rápido consume el doble y contribuye a la disminución del agujero del ozono". [sic]

International Paper, que tiene 200.000 hectáreas de tierra en Brasil, también se ha involucrado en experimentos con árboles transgénicos en ese país. Además IP tiene participación en Arborgen, la principal corporación de árboles transgénicos del mundo. Los otros dos socios son Rubicon, de Nueva Zelanda, y MeadWestvaco, de Estados Unidos. Hace poco Arborgen anunció que desplazaría su centro de interés de la investigación y el desarrollo al mercado. Más específicamente, Arborgen hizo saber a través de su portavoz Dawn Parks que contratará un puñado de ingenieros y trabajadores de producción para diseñar y manejar la maquinaria capaz de fabricar mayores cantidades de plantines modificados en laboratorio que la empresa ha desarrollado.

Arborgen, cuya sede está en Summerville, Carolina del Norte, en el sudeste de Estados Unidos, está prestando gran parte de su atención al eucalipto en Brasil, que considera es "su geografía más importante". Arborgen estableció una oficina en Brasil y previamente había proyectado que para 2005 un ensayo a campo completo en tierras de clientes estaría en marcha en Brasil.

En 2002 Arborgen contrató como nueva jefa ejecutiva a Barbara H. Wells, ex ejecutiva de Monsanto. Anteriormente Wells había sido vicepresidenta para Latinoamérica de Emergent Genetics y, antes de eso, gerenta comercial de biotecnología en Brasil, lo que podría explicar por qué Arborgen mudó sus ensayos a campo de Nueva Zelanda a Brasil después de haberla contratado.

Arborgen está trabajando en el desarrollo de eucaliptos de "pulpado mejorado" [es decir, con bajo contenido de lignina] así como eucaliptos resistentes al frío. El desarrollo de eucaliptos resistentes al frío es de interés para las plantaciones tanto en Chile como en el sudeste de EEUU.

En su discurso de julio de 2005 ante los accionistas de su empresa, el director ejecutivo de Rubicon, Luke Moriarity, enfatizó el crítico papel de Brasil en la comercialización de los árboles transgénicos de Arborgen. Asimismo destacó el potencial de las plantaciones de eucaliptos transgénicos con bajo contenido de lignina en Brasil. Declaró que "... al reducir la cantidad de lignina que el propio árbol produce realmente puede lograrse una gran reducción en el costo total del proceso de producción de celulosa. Puede esperarse que los productores de celulosa paguen primas significativas por plantines de árboles que efectivamente tengan poca lignina".

Luego calculó el lucro potencial que podría obtenerse: "la cantidad que el proveedor de plantines de árboles obtendrá anualmente asciende [se proyecta] a unos U$S 38 millones, impuestos deducidos. La repetición de este nivel de ventas año tras año, sin considerar un crecimiento del mercado actual ni la penetración en otros mercados, se traduce para este único producto en un valor de alrededor de US$ 475 millones, impuestos deducidos".

Continuó en el mismo tono: "sin embargo, cuando empezamos a mirar las posibilidades más de cerca podemos ver que el potencial de valor es enorme. Como ocurre con la salud humana, aunque con perfil mucho más bajo, las ventas anuales por unidad de plantines para forestación ascienden a miles de millones, se repiten cada año y abarcan todo el globo. Y a diferencia de la salud humana, donde la competencia s intensa, ArborGen no tiene competidores mundiales en esta esfera. Por supuesto que a ArborGen le faltan todavía algunos años para empezar a vender el producto comercial y entonces, naturalmente, el mercado de acciones descuenta este valor probable con bastante agresividad en este momento. Sin embargo, como lo ilustra la gráfica a mis espaldas, podemos esperar que mientras ArborGen siga el camino de la comercialización con éxito, como lo ha hecho hasta ahora, este
descuento por "tiempo que hay que esperar hasta la comercialización" disminuirá y el valor de ArborGen aumentará en consonancia".

Como conclusión declaró: "Entonces espero que esto ilustre la naturaleza de este emprendimiento y les permita percibir algo de su enorme potencial. Como dice el dicho, sólo es cuestión de tiempo".

Interrogados acerca de los riesgos asociados a los árboles transgénicos, los investigadores que trabajan en la modificación genética de los árboles exponen muy a menudo dos inquietudes: la amenaza ambiental que supone el escape de polen o plantas transgénicas en los ecosistemas y bosques nativos y sus impactos sobre las especies no objetivo, y la percepción negativa de los árboles transgénicos por parte del público. Esta bien fundada preocupación acerca de la reacción pública a los árboles de ingeniería genética brinda una importante apertura estratégica para la campaña para detener los árboles transgénicos.

En EEUU y Canadá, 13 organizaciones nacionales, regionales y locales se han unido para la campaña STOP GE Trees Campaign (Detener los Árboles Transgénicos), cuyo fin es la prohibición de los árboles de ingeniería genética. Para lograr este objetivo, el grupo recurre a la disuasión económica, las presiones sociales y las barreras jurídicas contra los árboles transgénicos. Entre sus actividades se cuentan la educación pública, la organización de las comunidades, la difusión en la prensa y la distribución del video de un nuevo documental sobre árboles transgénicos: A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat, Genetically Engineered Trees (Un bosque silencioso: la creciente amenza de los árboles transgénicos), narrado por el Dr. David Suzuki.

La organización Global Justice Ecology Project también está comunicándose con las organizaciones y los movimientos del mundo que luchan contra las plantaciones en aquellos lugares donde tienen lugar la investigación y el desarrollo de la ingeniería genética, con el fin de brindar información sobre esta amenaza en ciernes y apoyar los esfuerzos realizados para impedir la introducción de los árboles transgénicos en las plantaciones. GJEP ha establecido su primer programa piloto en Chile con Konapewman, grupo Mapuche que coordina los esfuerzos para reclamar las tierras tradicionales de los Mapuche y para oponerse a peligros tales como las plantaciones industriales y los árboles transgénicos. GJEP piensa servirse de las experiencias de este programa piloto para llegar a otros grupos y comunidades en otras regiones amenazadas por los árboles transgénicos.

A nivel internacional, los grupos que trabajan contra los árboles transgénicos y a favor de la conservación de los bosques han denunciado la amenaza que implican los árboles transgénicos en
reuniones de Naciones Unidas realizadas en distintas partes del mundo.Grupos como el Foro por los Pueblos de los Bosques (Finlandia), Global Justice Ecology Project (Estados Unidos), el Movimiento Mundial por los Bosques Tropicales y Amigos de la Tierra Internacional han tomado la palabra en el Foro de Naciones Unidas sobre Bosques, tanto en Ginebra como en Nueva York, para informar a los delegados de los peligros que los árboles transgénicos suponen para los bosques nativos del mundo entero.

Sin embargo, al haber tenido poco o ningún indicio de colaboración tanto del Foro de las Naciones Unidas sobre Bosques como de la Convención sobre Cambio Climático, la campaña internacional contra los árboles transgénicos se ha vuelto ahora hacia el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica de la ONU para ver qué tipo de reglamentación internacional sobre los árboles transgénicos podría obtenerse a través de dicho convenio.

Hasta la Organización de la ONU para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) parece estar a favor de tales reglamentaciones internacionales. Su informe de julio de 2005 sobre árboles transgénicos concluye:

"las nuevas biotecnologías, en particular la modificación genética, plantean inquietudes. Es cierto que muchas preguntas siguen sin tener respuesta tanto para los cultivos agrícolas como para los árboles, especialmente aquéllas relacionadas con el impacto de los cultivos GM sobre el medio ambiente. Dado que la modificación genética de los árboles ya está entrando en la etapa comercial con el populus GM en China, es muy importante que se lleven a cabo estudios de evaluación del impacto ambiental con protocolos y metodologías acordados nacional e internacionalmente. También es importante que los resultados de dichos estudios tengan amplia difusión."

El Dr. David Suzuki, genetista de renombre internacional, señala que:

"No tenemos control sobre el movimiento de los insectos, las aves y los mamíferos, el viento y la lluvia que transportan polen. Los árboles transgénicos tienen el potencial de transferir a cientos de millas de distancia polen que lleva genes de rasgos como resistencia a insectos, resistencia a herbicidas, esterilidad y lignina reducida, y por lo tanto tienen el potencial de provocar un desastre en los bosques nativos de todo el mundo. Los árboles transgénicos podrían también repercutir en la vida silvestre, así como en las comunidades rurales e indígenas que dependen de los bosques nativos intactos para su alimentación, vivienda, agua, sustento y prácticas culturales".

"Como genetista pienso que hay demasiadas incógnitas e interrogantes sin respuesta para cultivar plantas modificadas genéticamente, sean cultivos alimentarios o árboles, a campo abierto. Los árboles transgénicos no deberían liberarse en el medio ambiente en las plantaciones comerciales y todas las parcelas de ensayo al aire libre y las plantaciones existentes deberían retirarse".

Por Orin Langelle y Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project,
correo-e: globalecology@gmavt.net

Well argued, carefully referenced letter - very useful.

Independent Scientists' letter for Joint International GMO Opposition Day

from: Dr Dominique Beroule, on behalf of the JIGMOD Coordinating Committee alter.campagne@laposte.net

Dear Colleague,

Attached is the Independent Scientists' Letter provided for the 8th of April 2006 Joint International GMO Opposition Day (JIGMOD; see: http://altercampagne.free.fr/ ). This letter will officially be read during the planned international video-conference, and notably used at the related demonstrations (9th of April in Chicago, 20th of April in Brussels). It is aimed at parlementarians, and possibly at exercising an influence over the corporate shareholders of Biotech multinationals. It was mainly written by Professor Arpad Pusztai, and reviewed by anonymous contributors.

For the sake of accessibility to non-specialists, it comprises a synthetic easy-to-read text completed with more technical references. You may also notice that it is focused on the health dimension, to which our decision makers are more particularly sensitive.

Currently circulated among the scientists who are likely to co-sign it, this letter will be proposed for signature to the participating organizations.

If you wish to be one of the signatories, you may simply send us an email indicating your professional position and coordinates, at the following address: alter.campagne@laposte.net
With our best regards,Dr Dominique Beroule, on behalf of the JIGMOD Coordinating Committee.

P.S. Could you please pass on this message to your circle, and spread the word over your grassroot contacts? Thank you in advance.---

MEMORANDUM

The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops uneccessarily risks the health of the population and the environment. Present knowledge is not sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant genome, and the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits. We urge you to stop feeding the products of this infant science to our population and ban the release of these crops into the environment where they can never be recalled.

The current technology was rushed to market long before the science was worked out. Its introduction was accompanied with rigged research, bribes,1 gagged scientists,2 cover-ups3 and regulatory agencies stacked with industry representatives. 4 With mounting evidence of serious health and environmental problems, we must act quickly to end the charade and this dangerous abuse of public trust.
Current safety assessments are inadequate to catch most of the harmful effects. When a foreign gene is artificially inserted into a living organism such as a GM crop, the preexisting natural gene of the organism can unintentionally be deleted, switched off, permanently switched on, mutated or fragmented. Hundreds of natural genes may change the way they generate their proteins (basic molecules that form living cells), and even the newly introduced protein may differ from what was intended.

· Key assumptions used as the basis for safety claims have been overturned and several adverse findings suggest that GM foods are unsafe. GM-fed animals had problems with their growth, organ development and immune responsiveness, blood5 and liver cell6 formation, as well as damaged organs (bleeding stomachs,7 excessive cell growth,8 inflammation in lung tissue9), sterility problems10 and increased death rates,11 including among the offspring.12

· Risks are increased by the fact that the genes inserted into GM food not only survive digestion, but transfer into body organs and circulation. Transgenes have been found in the blood, liver, spleen and kidneys.13 DNA can even travel via the placenta into the unborn.14 The only human clinical trial showed that transgenes from soy transfer into intestinal bacteria.15

· Claims that no one has gotten hurt from GM foods are misleading, since no one monitors human health impacts. We do know that soya allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent after GM soybeans were imported to the UK,16 and a GM food supplement killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000- 10,000 to fall sick.17

· Some GM crops create their own pesticide called Bt. Their approval relied on the assumption that Bttoxin is not bioactive in mammals. But Bt-toxin caused powerful immune responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth in mice. Filipinos living next to Bt cornfields developed mysterious symptoms during the time of pollination - three seasons in a row - and blood tests showed an immune response to Bt.18 A November 2005 report from India claims that Bt cotton also creates allergic responses.19 What if Bt genes transfer to gut bacteria like soya genes do? They could turn our internal flora into living pesticide factories.
Despite the Public Relation spin, GM crops increase the use of herbicides20, lower average yield, and endanger food security. They are detrimental to sustainable and organic farming, and trap farmers in a cycle of indebtedness and dependence. They endanger biodiversity21, harm beneficial insects22, damage soil bacteria23, contaminate non-GM varieties24 and may persist in the environment for generations.25
Insurance companies do not want to cover the risks inherent in GMOs.26 Consumers do not want them.27
Please act today to protect our health, our environment, and future generations.

1 Monsanto fined $1.5m for bribery (7 January, 2005) BBC
News(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm)
2 Delborne, J.A. (August 27, 2004) Transforming Scientific Dissent into Dissidence: Analysis of "The Pulse of Scientific Freedom in the Age of the Biotech Industry", Annual Conference of the Society for the Social Studies of Science, Ecole des Mines, Paris.
(http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/WebCSI/4S/download_paper/download_paper.php?paper=delborne.pdf)
3 GMO: French authorities wish confidentiality on sanitary studies: "OGM : les autorités françaises veulent la confidentialité sur les études sanitaires" (2005) (http://www.novethic.fr/novethic/site/article/index.jsp?id=95406)
4 Among many other cases, (May 2004) 'Independent and objective consultants servicing the agricultural, agricultural supply trade, rural and food industries' (http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=308&page=P )
5 French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn (March 24 2004), (http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308), Translation of Le Monde article (June 2005) "L'expertise confidentielle sur un inquiétant maïs transgénique," Confidential report on a worrying GM corn. Also see Spilling the
Beans, (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm)by Herve Kempf,
22.04.04,(http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-362061,0.html )
6 Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al (2002) "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean". Cell Structure and Function Vol. 27, No. 4
pp.173-18. (http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3622)
7 Pusztai, A. et al. (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D'Mello) pp.347-372. CAB International,
Wallingford Oxon, UK
8 Ewen, SWB & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354, 1727-1728.
9 Prescott V.E., Campbell P.M., Moore A., Mattes J., Rothenberg M. E., Foster P.S., Higgins T.J.V., and Hogan S.P. (November 16, 2005) Transgenic Expression of Bean-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas
Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Volume 53, Issue 23, , pp. 9023 –
9030(http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/pssp,,.html)
10 - Bt Corn Linked to Hog Breeding Problems (May 20, 2002), in http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/crops_bt.htm-
Sterility indirectly favoured by round-up ready GM crops : Richard S., Moslemi
S., Sipahutar H., Benachour N., and Seralini G.-E. (2005) Differential Effects of Gly phosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113, Number 6, June 2005.
(http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.pdf )
11 Report for the Chardon LL Hearing, Non-Suitability of Genetically Engineered Feed for Animals, Dr. Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility (May 2002).
(http://www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/animalfeel_all.pdf )
12 The study was presented at several conferences starting on October 10, 2005, but has not been published or subjected to peer-review. The results must be considered preliminary and unverified, but medical organizations and others are calling for the immediate repetition of the study, given the disturbing findings. See
www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Oct05RatsDieWhenMothersEatGMSoy/index.cfm
13 Pusztai, A. and Bardocz, S. (2005) GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In "Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals", R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.), Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-54O.
14 Doerfler W; Schubbert R (1994) "Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry," Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504.
15 Netherwood, et al (2 February 2004) Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number.
16 Townsend M. (March 12, 1999) "Why Soya is a hidden destroyer," Daily Express.
17 Smith J. (2003), Seeds of Deception, Chapter 4 Deadly Epidemic, Yes! Books 2003. See also www.seedsofdeception.com, L-tryptophan section.
18 Preliminary evidence presented at a conference by the Norwegian Institute for Gene Ecology, for delegates to the 2004 UN Biosafety Protocol Conference. See
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36 as well as several newspaper reports.
19 "Bt cotton causing allergic reaction; cattle dead" (November 23, 2005)(http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health)

20 Benbrook CM (November 2003) Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years, BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 6.
21 Independent Scientific Steering Committee (21 March 2005) Managing GM crops with herbicides: Effects on farmland wildlife (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/results/fse-summary-05.pdf )
22 Koechlin, F (March 1999) "Bt Crops and Their Impacts on Insects and Food Webs" (http://www.biotech-info.net/insects2.html )
23 Damage to soil bacteria, notably through horizontal transfer: Heinemann J.A, Traavik T. (2004) Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants.
Nat. Biotechnol. 22, pp 1105-1109.
24 Daniels R., Boffey C., Mogg R., Bond J. & Clarke R. (March 2004) The Potential for dispersal of herbicide tolerance genes from geneticallymodified, herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape crops to wild relatives, Final report to DEFRA, contract ref: EPG 1/5/151. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/pdf/epg_1-5-151.pdf )
25 Jager, M.J. & Tappeser, B. (April 10, 1995). Risk Assessment and Scientific Knowledge. Current data relating to the survival of GMOs and the persistence of their nucleic acids: Is a new debate on safeguards in genetic engineering required? - considerations from an ecological point of view. TWN-Workshop on Biosafety, New York. http://psrast.org/wanho.htm

26 "Survey reveals: insurance companies say no to MO" (October 9, 2003) (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/836 )
27 Warwick H., Meziani, G. (September 2002) Seeds of Doubt, UK Soil Association, based on an estimate by Charles Benbrook, former executive director of the US National Academy of Sciences'
Board on Agriculture.

Reply to biosafety questionaire

ISIS REPLY TO BIOSAFETY QUESTIONAIRE

First, it is essential to exclude the evaluation of pharmaceutical products such as oral vaccines, immune modulating proteins, hormones, antimicrobials and growth factors from the present considerations. Such products should be considered separately and reviewed independently from the current annex; they are inherently hazardous and require special consideration under a separate annex.

Plants modified for nutritional or health benefit should include only those with enhanced vitamins, minerals, antioxidants (for example plant phenolics (flavonoids) known to fight cancer) and enhanced primary metabolites such as essential amino acids and health promoting reduced linolenic fats. Recombinant genes derived from a plant used to modify another plant species should not automatically be deemed safefor humans. This is highlighted in a recent investigation in which a protein from bean was found immunogenic when expressed in pea [1]. Specifically, immunological assessments carried out for the firsttime on a transgenic protein revealed that post-translational processing subsequent to gene transfer into an alien species introduced new antigenicities that turned a previously harmless protein into a strong immunogen. In addition, the transgenic protein promoted immune reactions against multiple other proteins in the diet.

As practically all the transgenic proteins involvecross-species gene transfer, they will be subjected to different post-translational processing, and hence they too, will have the potential to become immunogenic. And yet, none of the transgenic proteins that have been commercially approved has been tested. This omission is a most serious public health issue, and the Independent Science Panel has already called for an immediate ban on all GM food and feed until proper assessment on the immunogenicity of the transgenic proteins has been carried out [2]. This should apply all the more so to GM crops coming to the market that are meant for human consumption.

Nutritional enhancement and traits for improved health may be developed using conventional breeding or marker assisted selection then those traits combined with recombinant traits such as herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. Monsanto’s Vistive soybean, for example, combines natural genes reducing the oil content of linolenic acid, but also has transgenes conferring the Roundup Ready trait. The transgene activity is known to affect the precursor pools leading to formation of trans fatty acids [3]. Thepoint is that when nutritional or health traits are combined with transgenic ones, the interaction of the two should be fully evaluated. Interactions between transgenic nutrition and health traits and other genetic modifications within a cultivar should be carefully evaluated, as should interactions between conventional nutritional or health traits with transgenes in recombinant strains with which they are combined. A number of nutritional- and health-related transgenic plants are being developed (see Box). We must ask if these developments provide real benefits for people,and whether there are safer, cheaper and moreeffective alternatives for producing thenutritional/health benefit. More importantly, in every single case, it is necessary to assess the GM plant, the transgene and protein for toxicity and immunogenicity, for reasons given above.

******

Animal studies should be undertaken with every modified crop or in crosses between modified crops and crops bearing genes for nutrients or health products that have been enhanced using conventional breeding or marker assisted breeding. It has become common practice to used crude measures of size to evaluate the outcome of feeding experiments. That is notacceptable. Full tissue and organ necropsy is required in every case to detect cell damage and to identify pre-cancerous lesions. In addition, immunogenic and toxicity tests must also be carried out.

Let them eat precaution

GM WATCH COMMENT

This new book (Let Them Eat Precaution: How Politics Is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture) is published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - a key promoter of the US's war agenda on Iraq.

Tellingly, the book, which is full of righteous indignation at the denial of the supposed benefits of GM to the world's poor, is promoted on the AEI's website alongside an advert for an article that blames America's black families for "the persistence of a large and criminal lower class"!http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23595/pub_detail.asp

The list of contributors to 'Let Them Eat Precaution' reads at times like a rogues' gallery.

Take, for instance, Monsanto's former Internet PR chief - Jay Byrne. Byrne is widely credited with designing the notorious Monsanto/Bivings' "Fake Persuaders" campaign, which utilised fake e-mail identities and a fake agricultural research center to post poison-pen attacks on Monsanto's critics.http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=27

Then there's AgBioWorld co-founders, C.S. Prakash and Gregory Conko. AgBioWorld was also party to the "Fake Persuaders" campaign, while Conko is a leading light of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which takes money from Monsanto, Exxon and Big Tobacco to aggressively promote the interests of all three! The AEI, incidentally, also takes Exxon's money and has even had Exxon's Vice President on its Board.http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=31

From Britain there's Tony Gilland, part of the far-right (Rwandan genocide and Serb war crimes denying) techno-utopian LM network - remember this is a book which claims that the GM issue has been contaminated by extremist political agendas!!
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78

And from Canada there's Patrick Moore. Moore is described in the AEI's press release (below) as a former Greenpeace man but as currently heading "the environmental group Greenspirit". What it doesn't tell you is that this particular "environmentalist" denies global warming, opposes Kyoto, supports nukes and the clear-cutting of old growth forests, and takes money from industry!http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6033

For more on the unsavoury American Enterprise Institute:http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=256

Profiles of other contributors to the book can be found here: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile.asp

MST pide a Gobierno de Brasil medidas contra entrada de maíz transgénico

'Amenazamos con que si no se adoptan medidas judiciales y policiales nosotros mismos vamos a destruir los cultivos de transgénicos', dijo el coordinador nacional del MST, Joao Pedro Stédile, en una reunión con corresponsales extranjeros en Río de Janeiro

El Movimiento de los Sin Tierra (MST) amenazó hoy al Gobierno brasileño si no adopta medidas para erradicar el contrabando de semillas de maíz transgénico que entran 'por toneladas' a través de la ciudad argentina de Misiones.

'Amenazamos con que si no se adoptan medias judiciales y policiales nosotros mismos vamos a destruir los cultivos de transgénicos', dijo el coordinador nacional del MST, Joao Pedro Stédile, en una reunión con corresponsales extranjeros en Río de Janeiro.

Denuncias anónimas recibidas por líderes del MST en los estados de Río Grande do Sul y Santa Catarina alertaron hace 15 días sobre la comercialización de este tipo de Organismo Genéticamente Modificado (OGM) entre pequeños agricultores de regiones del sur de Brasil.

El MST, organización que reclama una reforma agraria que beneficie a los 4,6 millones de familias de campesinos sin tierra, presentó una denuncia ante el Ministerio Público Federal, que a su vez confirmó la presencia de maíz Bt (modificado genéticamente) mediante análisis de laboratorio.

En Brasil está prohibida la comercialización de maíz Bt, pero el MST afirmó hoy que el Gobierno no tiene mecanismos para vigilar y detectar la presencia de dicho OGM.

El MST denunció el contrabando de semillas de maíz modificado procedente de Argentina en una reunión con el ministro de Justicia, Márcio Thomaz Bastos.
Argentina, Brasil y México son los países en América Latina que más potencial ofrecen para la expansión del cultivo de maíz modificado genéticamente, según el Servicio Internacional para la Adquisición de Aplicaciones Agrobiotecnológicas (ISAAA).

Argentina, con el 23 por ciento del total, es el segundo país después de EEUU, con mayor extensión de cultivos transgénicos.

Brasil y México ocupan el tercer y cuarto puesto en la lista de productores mundiales de maíz.

Stédile explicó que el cultivo de maíz Bt 'ofrece un serio peligro' porque esta planta también suele multiplicarse a través del viento.

El maíz es modificado para resistir a insectos, y tolerar el herbicida glufosinato de amonio.

De este producto modificado, la variedad Bt11, manipulada para que la planta resista mejor la plaga del taladro, no entraña riesgos para la salud, según estudios de la Autoridad Europea para la Seguridad Alimentaria (AESA).

Por contra, el consumo del Bt10, prohibido en el mercado estadounidense y en el europeo, tiene serias implicaciones para la salud de las personas.

Para Stédile, no hay pruebas firmes de que las semillas que llegan a Brasil sean las que menos riesgos ofrecen.

El ISAAA calcula que el uso de maíz transgénico puede reducir a la mitad la pérdida calculada del 9 por ciento de la cosecha global, debido a las plagas, y rebajar a la mitad, o en 5.000 toneladas, el uso de pesticidas, entre otras ventajas.

Para Stédile, 'el cultivo de transgénicos ofrece beneficios engañosos para el pequeño agricultor, pues los nuevos pesticidas terminarán teniendo efectos nefastos en la tierra. Habrá una mata en pie, pero un desierto alrededor. Eso, sin hablar de los efectos posteriores para la salud', puntualizó.

Fuente: Terra

Miles de hectáreas, dedicadas al cultivo de transgénicos en España

Un total de 71 organizaciones han enviado al presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero , una carta en la que le muestran su profunda preocupación por la política del Gobierno en materia de organismos modificados genéticamente (OMG); es decir, los transgénicos

En su carta, respaldada por 66 organizaciones de la sociedad civil (entre las que se encuentran, por ejemplo, la Federación Agroalimentaria de CCOO -FEAGRA-, la Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica -SEAE-, la Asociación de Comités de Agricultura Ecológica INTERECO, la Confederación Española de Consumidores y Usuarios -CECU-, Vida Sana, FACUA, ATTAC, la Assamblea Pagesa de Catalunya, Plataforma Rural o WWF/Adena), se recuerda que desde 1998 se vienen sembrando en España, cada año, miles de hectáreas de maíz modificado genéticamente, cuyo cultivo se realiza en unas condiciones técnicas, administrativas y legales insatisfactorias, sobresaliendo la absoluta ausencia de regulación de la responsabilidad en caso de problemas ocasionados por los transgénicos y la falta de medidas para impedir las contaminaciones.

Dadas las grandes incertidumbres sobre la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos tanto para la salud humana como animal, estas organizaciones consideran que el Gobierno debe adoptar una posición más precavida que proteja a la agricultura y a los consumidores, tal y como el PSOE prometía en su programa electoral.

Diariocrítico.com, Internet, 17-12-05

México: ignora derechos indígenas la iniciativa sobre recursos genéticos

Angélica Enciso

Centro de estudios sobre el tema analiza las inconsistencias de la propuesta legislativa. Poco clara, la distribución de beneficios a propietarios de los recursos, señala

La iniciativa de la ley federal de acceso y aprovechamiento de los recursos genéticos, que espera su aprobación en la Cámara de Diputados, no responde a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas reconocidos tanto en la legislación nacional como en los tratados internacionales, además de que no establece las normas para respetar y preservar el conocimiento indígena.

Esto lo señala un análisis realizado por el Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Rural Sustentable y la Soberanía Alimentaria sobre la iniciativa, la cual fue aprobada en el Senado en abril pasado y turnada a la Cámara de Diputados para su discusión y aprobación.
La iniciativa de ley, presentada en el Senado por el PAN, contiene una serie de inconsistencias, como pasar por alto que no existe una norma constitucional que declare que los recursos genéticos son propiedad de la nación.

Omite conceptos de justicia y equidad

Un tema clave, como la "distribución justa y equitativa de beneficios", sólo se menciona en algunas partes del documento, y en el apartado en el cual se aborda el tema se refiere únicamente a "la distribución de beneficios" y omite los otros dos conceptos mencionados.
Este es un punto básico porque son mayoría los casos de extracción de recursos genéticos y su uso comercial sin que los pueblos indígenas obtengan ningún beneficio.

En el documento el término se utiliza como una facultad de la autoridad estatal, no como derecho de los proveedores del recurso, los pueblos. Además "hay que decir que si la ley es de orden público o interés social no debería dejar a la voluntad de las partes lo que se deberá entender por distribución justa y equitativa, y establecer un mínimo de beneficios".

En cuanto a las modalidades de acceso a los recursos genéticos, menciona la bioprospección, la investigación científica y biotecnológica sin fines de lucro, siempre y cuando no pongan en riesgo la conservación de la biodiversidad, y en todos los casos se deberá efectuar al amparo de un proyecto de acceso.

La regulación de cada uno de estos casos sería a través de distintas leyes, y esta iniciativa sólo se haría cargo del acceso y aprovechamiento de los recursos genéticos en el caso de la bioprospección -actividad que extrae muestras para usarlas en la biotecnología con fines comerciales.

Frente a esto, el análisis sostiene que "no existe una razón lógica ni jurídica para que cada tipo de acceso a los recursos genéticos se regule de manera distinta".

Advierte que "opiniones de especialistas en biología afirman que una vez aliado el recurso genético no es posible saber de dónde fue obtenido, por lo que la investigación científica o tecnológica sin fines de lucro no tendría sentido si no se adoptan reglas para prohibir la comercialización de sus productos".

En el apartado del conocimiento tradicional y los pueblos indígenas, se aborda el punto de los requisitos para el acceso a los recursos genéticos, y establece que el consentimiento previo, expreso e informado, puede ser "otorgado por el Estado y, en su caso, los propietarios, ejidos, comunidades y pueblos indígenas en los que se distribuye la biodiversidad y que provean los recursos genéticos".

Al respecto, el estudio subraya que los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a acceder por ellos mismos al uso y disfrute preferente de los recursos que existen en los lugares que habitan, y no sólo a otorgar el consentimiento previo para que terceras personas accedan a ellos.

En este apartado, indica el análisis, no se responde a los derechos reconocidos por los pueblos tanto en la Constitución como en los tratados internacionales. "Una legislación acorde sobre esta materia debería impulsar un sistema sui géneris de protección y aprovechamiento de los recursos genéticos y el conocimiento tradicional asociado a ellos".

En conclusión señala que se debe revisar la constitucionalidad de ciertas acepciones y normas, como las referidas a los pueblos indígenas, el conocimiento tradicional y los recursos genéticos; y que en el apartado de infracciones y sanciones se contemplen delitos y faltas por responsabilidad objetiva, y no dejarlos en faltas administrativas derivas de responsabilidad civil.

La Jornada, México, 19-12-05

Rechazar las patentes sobre la vida

Hong Kong: La próxima batalla del comercio: rechazar las patentes sobre formas de vida

El acuerdo sobre Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC, o TRIPS por sus siglas en inglés) es uno de los que deja en situación más vulnerable a las comunidades locales de países en desarrollo, ante el poderío de las empresas transnacionales

Este acuerdo obliga a los 149 países miembro de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) a proteger los derechos de propiedad intelectual relacionados con variedades de plantas y procesos micro biológicos, utilizando patentes y otros sistemas similares. Amigos de la Tierra Internacional denunció que mediante ese acuerdo se consuma el despojo de los derechos de los agricultores, los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades a disponer de sus conocimientos tradicionales, medicamentos, alimentos y formas de vida, al otorgarle estos derechos a empresas transnacionales.

"El acuerdo TRIPS socava los derechos humanos fundamentales, al permitir que grandes compañías de biotecnología ‘compren’ y patenten semillas, cultivos, medicamentos y conocimiento tradicional de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales”, dijo Alberto Villarreal, integrante de la Campaña de Comercio de Amigos de la Tierra Internacional, que se encuentra en Hong Kong participando de las movilizaciones en rechazo a la VI Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC.

"Además de privatizar y comercializar los recursos y el conocimiento que forman parte de la herencia de las comunidades y los pueblos indígenas, el TRIPS provocó una mayor marginalización de estas comunidades", agregó Villarreal.

El TRIPS es un ejemplo más de las muchas formas en que las reglas de la OMC evitan el desarrollo de las sociedades justas y sustentables. Fomenta la biopiratería, la privatización y el uso no autorizado de recursos biológicos por parte de corporaciones farmacéuticas y agrícolas.

En lo que respecta a los sistemas agrícolas de países en desarrollo, en la mayoría de los casos son las mujeres las que más sufren los impactos de esta apropiación de los recursos, ya que en innumerables casos son las responsables de recolectar el alimento y las medicinas de sus familias, y desempeñan un papel fundamental en el sistema tradicional de guardar semillas.

Los gobiernos africanos, los pueblos indígenas y las organizaciones no gubernamentales han sostenido durante mucho tiempo que los beneficios de la biodiversidad y del conocimiento tradicional relacionado con la misma no pueden ser compartidos de forma justa y equitativa, en la medida en que el actual acuerdo obliga a los países a mantener y respetar las patentes (u otros sistemas rígidos de propiedad intelectual) que tienen este tipo de empresas sobre diversas formas de vida.

Fuente: Radio Mundo Real

GM Contamination Accelerating No Co-Existence Possible

Rhea Gala

Untried and untested GM crops are out of the bottle even in the UK where no GM crops are commercially grown.

GM crops, the vast majority engineered for just two traits - herbicide tolerance and Bt pesticide, or stacked with both - have been released on five continents for up to nine years, causing widespread contamination of food, feed, seed and the environment across the globe.

Genetically modified DNA from any part of a GM plant can enter the environment unobserved, for example, through pollen transfer to a conventional crop, through seed dispersal or plant decomposition and persistence in soil ecology. The toxins encoded in the DNA also kill wildlife and contaminate soil and water, as do herbicides such as glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium that are an essential component of the herbicide tolerant crop system.

Outcrossing between a GM crop plant and a wild relative and over dependence of the GM crop on herbicides to which the crop is tolerant, are causing a wave of "superweeds" to emerge in the US and elsewhere; the UK has reported a potential candidate earlier this year.

Una carta al editor

Letter to the Editor, 17 December 2005

Crop testing

Bill Freese, Washington DC, US

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825300.200;jsessionid=BAFLFMPDKMDE

New Scientist, issue 2530

When expressed in transgenic peas, an innocuous bean protein elicits immune reactions in mice, reviving concerns about the allergenic potential of genetically modified foods (26 November, p 3 and p 5). These "surprising results" from researchers in Australia raise several intriguing questions.

Should regulators require the use of animal models? Allergenicity assessments of transgenic proteins in GM crops are usually limited to in vitro tests of digestive stability, database searches for sequence similarities to known allergens, and in some cases a heat stability test.

While certainly cheap and convenient for GM crop developers, such tests provide no direct immunological information and cannot rule out allergenic proteins. Both the BALB/c mouse strain used in the Australian pea study and the brown Norway rat have shown promise as predictors of human allergic response.

Also, at present, all testing is performed on a bacterial surrogate of the protein, rather than that produced by the plant. GM crop developers complain that it is too inconvenient to extract sufficient quantities of transgenic protein from their plant. But if peas and beans - both legumes - can generate immunologically distinct proteins from the same gene, surely the same is true of bacterium and plant. Thus, results of testing on bacterial surrogates may not reflect the toxic or allergenic profile of the in planta protein people are exposed to.

Other factors also argue against use of bacterial surrogates. For example, allergenic proteins are often glycosylated, and plant glycosylation patterns have been implicated in allergenicity. Bacteria, in contrast, seldom glycosylate proteins.

Finally, perhaps regulators should demand full sequencing of the transgenic proteins in plants. At present, the standard practice is to sequence just 5 to 25 amino acids at the N-terminal as a demonstration of "identity", even if the putative protein is 600-plus residues long. Since the transformation process - the insertion of foreign DNA to a cell - can be sloppy and even point mutations can transform an innocuous protein into an immunogenic/aggregating one, it is unclear why this basic information is not required.

The editor writes:

These are excellent suggestions, and perhaps such a test regime should also be applied to new conventionally bred varieties. These can sometimes generate unexpected allergens or toxins too. For example, a potato variety called Lenape was withdrawn from the US market in the 1960s when it was found to contain dangerously high levels of potato toxins called solanidine glycosides.

And in the mid-1980s, American growers abandoned a variety of celery because it contained high levels of psoralens - chemicals which become irritants when activated by sunlight. Workers picking the celery developed skin rashes. Psoralens also occur in parsnips, and have been known to cause rashes through skin contact.

Biopiracy and GMOs: The Fate of Iraq's Agriculture

by Ghali Hassan

December 12, 2005

Centre for Research on Globalisation (GlobalResearch.ca)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAS20051212&articleId=1447

While the Iraqi people are struggling to end the U.S. military Occupation and its associated violence, the fate of their food sources and agricultural heritage is being looted behind closed doors. Unless the colonisation of Iraq ends, the U.S. Occupation of Iraq will continue to have lasting and disastrous effects on Iraq's economy and Iraq's ability to feed its people.

******

Upon purchasing the patented seeds, farmers must sign the company's technology agreement (Technology User Agreements). This agreement allows the company to control farmers' practices and conduct property investigation. The farmer becomes the slave of the company. Like U.S. farmers, Iraqi farmers will be "harassed for doing what they have always done." For example, Iraqi farmers can be sued by Monsanto, if their non-GMO crops are polluted by GMO crops planted in their vicinity. [5] The health and environmental consequences of GMO crops are still unknown. GMO-based agriculture definitely encourages monoculture and genetic pollution. Moreover, this will further increase the already polluted Iraqi environment as a result of tens of thousands of tons of 'depleted' uranium dust, napalm, chemical weapons, and phosphorous bombs.

Farmers will also be required to buy fertilisers, herbicides and insecticides, against plants disease. Iraqi farmers will be required to pay royalties for the new seeds and they will be forbidden from saving seeds. In other words, Iraqi farmers will become agricultural producers for export, a recipe for the introduction of hunger in Iraq, not unknown in many developing countries. Unless an independent sovereign Iraqi government repeals these edicts, they will override Iraq's original patent law of 1970, which, in accordance with the Iraqi constitution, prohibited private ownership of biological resources.

México: maiceados y desplegados

Silvia Ribeiro

Varios medios publicaron el 8 de diciembre pasado un desplegado de página entera firmado por quienes se dicen "agricultores mexicanos", urgiendo al gobierno a aprobar las experiencias con maíz transgénico "planteadas en el Proyecto Maestro de Maíz". En el desplegado, por el que alguien pagó cientos de miles de pesos, los pudientes señores aducen que "estas tecnologías en el maíz nos permitirán competir en mejores condiciones con los millones de agricultores en el mundo que ya gozan de sus grandes beneficios"

El mismo día, campesinos e indígenas de comunidades de Guerrero, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Michoacán, Jalisco, Chihuahua y Puebla concluían el taller Estrategias comunitarias frente a la contaminación del maíz nativo. Allí presentaron testimonios y cientos de fotos de maíces monstruosos que están apareciendo en las milpas campesinas.

Los resultados del análisis 2004-2005, organizado por el Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano y la red En Defensa del Maíz mostraron que 10 por ciento de esas plantas deformes están contaminadas con transgénicos. Según los participantes, el porcentaje podría ser mucho mayor, ya que posiblemente las construcciones transgénicas se rompen al cruzarse y ya no es posible detectarlas con análisis comerciales. Nunca habían visto algo así: plantas únicas deformadas hasta la monstruosidad, en medio de milpas sanas. Saben que cuando no se cuida bien el maíz, cuando la tierra se desgasta, maltratada por plaguicidas u otras causas, da plantas distintas que no denominan "deformes", porque las conocen y saben convivir con ellas. Pero la cantidad y forma en que se presentan ahora son ajenas a su historia y a sus milpas.

Sienten dolor, preocupación y coraje; nunca resignación. Al final del taller manifestaron: "El maíz es pilar fundamental de nuestra resistencia, y lo defenderemos con el esfuerzo de las mujeres, hombres, ancianos y niños, porque somos de maíz. Junto con nosotros han crecido diversidad de maíces que han enriquecido la agricultura mexicana y mundial, que sólo nosotros podremos y sabremos curar y descontaminar. El gobierno mexicano ha demostrado reiteradamente que sólo quiere proteger los intereses de las trasnacionales semilleras; para nosotros el maíz no es un negocio: es nuestra vida, y como tal lo defenderemos".

Estas realidades, respaldadas por millones de campesinos y 10 mil años de historia, no cuentan para los pocos "agricultores" y agroindustriales que firman el desplegado. Hasta ostentan sus nombres como recuerdo de quienes piden que aumenten la contaminación y las deformaciones del maíz campesino, aunque todas las semillas que usan hoy día se basan en la monumental contribución de campesinos e indígenas a la alimentación de todos.

Viendo el costo y el contenido del desplegado es inevitable recordar que Monsanto -principal beneficiaria de los agrotransgénicos- anunció en noviembre pasado que contrató a la empresa Estrategia Total, de Fernando Lerdo de Tejada, para "lavar su imagen" y conseguir que se libere el maíz transgénico en México. ¿Será mera coincidencia que cuando Monsanto paga para lavar la imagen (real) de que el maíz transgénico no es para ella sino jugoso negocio sin escrúpulos, aparezcan "agricultores mexicanos" pidiendo se aplique el Proyecto Maestro de Maíz, diseñado por Monsanto, Dupont y científicos mexicanos cuidadosamente elegidos, algunos de los cuales trabajan en proyectos financiados por esas empresas?

Llama la atención que tales agricultores digan que con transgénicos podrán competir con "millones de agricultores que ya gozan de sus beneficios". Al parecer ignoran que esos beneficios no existen. Ninguna de las promesas hechas por las seis empresas que monopolizan los agrotransgénicos se han realizado.

Las estadísticas globales del Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos muestran que en promedio los rendimientos de los transgénicos son menores que los convencionales y usan más químicos. Esto se debe, entre otras cosas, al surgimiento de supermalezas y plagas resistentes. Los mismos datos se confirman en sitios web de las propias empresas. Todas advierten que es necesario plantar "refugios" de 20 a 40 por ciento de maíz no transgénico para retardar estos problemas. Dupont publica listas que comparan el rendimiento de sus maíces convencionales (no transgénicos) con los de otras empresas, mostrando que sus maíces producen más. En otras tablas hace la misma comparación entre sus maíces transgénicos y los de otras empresas.

Comparando los dos cuadros, se observa, además, que los maíces convencionales producen en promedio más que los transgénicos. En el estudio del doctor Charles Benbrook ¿When does it pay to plant Bt Corn? (¿Cuándo es rentable sembrar maíz Bt?) el análisis de cinco años de maíz transgénico en Estados Unidos muestra que los rendimientos fueron casi iguales, pero como la semilla transgénica es más cara los agricultores perdieron 92 millones de dólares.

Asimismo, las empresas han hecho millones de dólares en cientos de juicios contra agricultores de campos contaminados, alegando que usan ilegalmente su patente. Monsanto da chamarras a quien denuncie a sus vecinos. Ahora, junto con otras empresas, presionan para legalizar las semillas homicidas Terminator para condenar a los agricultores a la dependencia perpetua y a que la polinización haga estériles también los campos de sus vecinos.

Es dramático ver cómo las multinacionales transgénicas promueven el conflicto entre agricultores. Es paradójico que agricultores que se benefician diariamente de la contribución campesina del maíz los desprecie haciendo el juego a Monsanto, siendo además que si lograran lo que pide se condenarán ellos mismos a la dependencia o a desaparecer en la competencia imposible con los agricultores subsidiados del norte.

Silvia Ribeiro es investigadora del Grupo ETC.

Fuente: La Jornada