GM AND OMITTED HEALTH RESEARCH

The final version of a new paper by Dr Terje Traavik and Dr Jack Heinemann takes a critical look at the state of scientific knowledge about the potential human health effects of GMOS.

The authors identify some of the putative health hazards related to GM plants used as food or feed. They also identify numerous areas of omitted research, which need urgent investigation. This includes risks related to rearrangements of transgene inserts, the fate and consequences of DNA persistence and uptake in the mammalian gastro-intestinal tract, alteration in protein contents of GM food, the allergenicity of transgenic products, the implications of post-translational modifications and questions over the 35S CaMV promoter and the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes.

The authors call for publicly funded, independent biosafety research rooted in the Precautionary Principle, in order to address this situation. There is also a need to follow-up on "early warnings" of potential health and environmental impacts that are already in the literature.

The paper can also be found at Third World Network's Biosafety Information Centre, at

http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/719762120455431f1a3942.pdf
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7264

álamo transgénico

Más problemas: el álamo transgénico, la celulosa y el biocombustible

World Rainforest Movement/ Movimiento Mundial por los Bosques

La Dirección de investigaciones biológicas y ambientales del Ministerio estadounidense de Energía está financiando con USD 1.400.000 un estudio de tres años realizado por miembros de la Universidad de Purdue, con el fin de encontrar el modo de modificar la lignina y averiguar si estos cambios genéticos afectan la calidad de las plantas utilizadas para producir biocombustibles. Un álamo híbrido es el punto de partida de esta investigación, que se encuadra en el objetivo del Ministerio de reemplazar por biocombustibles el 30 por ciento de los combustibles utilizados cada año en Estados Unidos para el transporte.

Los científicos desean modificar genéticamente el álamo híbrido para lograr que la lignina no impida la extracción de la celulosa y su degradación en azúcares fermentables, los cuales pueden ser convertidos a su vez en etanol. La lignina es un polímero orgánico complejo y representa el 25% de la composición de las plantas; en su forma actual, su combustión puede servir de energía en el proceso de fabricación de etanol, pero no es posible transformarla a ese combustible alternativo.

Alterando la composición de la lignina o minimizando la cantidad presente en las paredes de las células, se podría facilitar el acceso de las enzimas. Los científicos suponen que, de esta forma, las enzimas podrían convertir la celulosa en azúcares de modo más eficiente. Para avanzar en la producción de combustibles no fósiles, los investigadores de Purdue están usando herramientas genéticas para modificar el álamo y estudiar luego el efecto de las alteraciones sobre las paredes de la célula, con el fin de crear árboles que se adapten a una producción de alto rendimiento de etanol.

Con su habitual estrechez de miras, los expertos en genética ven el árbol pero no el bosque (o más bien la plantación). La “solución” que le seguirá es fácil de anticipar: enormes extensiones de árboles transgénicos idénticos, que tendrán los ya previsibles efectos en los suelos, el agua y la diversidad biológica, más las consecuencias imprevisibles de una técnica cuestionada por su falta de solidez científica. Con “soluciones” de este tipo no sólo queda sin resolver el problema básico, la crisis climática mundial provocada por el consumo desmedido de energía, sino que la humanidad se ve enfrentada a una nueva amenaza.

Artículo basado en información extraída de: “GM tree could be used for cellulosic ethanol”, 24 de agosto de 2006, Mongabay.com, http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0824-purdue2.html.

GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reviews the latest findings on the hazards of GM food and feed amid a continuing campaign of denial and misrepresentation by our regulators

Female rats fed genetically modified (GM) soya produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups with over half of the litter dying within three weeks, and the surviving pups are sterile.

These alarming findings came from the laboratory of senior scientist Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The experiments began two years ago, and the initial findings hit the world press when Ermakova was invited to speak at the 11 th Russian Gastroenterological Week in Moscow in October 2005.

Preliminary results have been published in a Russian journal [1], in conference proceedings and official reports [2-7], and a fuller paper containing further results is in press [8]. Ermakova has also spoken at numerous public meetings and scientific conferences and in the popular media, both at home and abroad, but regulators have continued to ignore and dismiss her findings.

UK's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) has been systematically biased in favour of studies that fail to show significant effects of GM food and feed right from the beginning. Not surprisingly, it continued to cite research that's seriously flawed as evidence against Ermakova's findings [9], and Ermakova has lodged her own protest [10].

One particular study cited by the ACNFP to bolster its GM bias [11] used a batch of GM soya harvested in a middle of a certain field in South Dakota, processed by a commercial company, and fed to mice of indeterminate age and body weight. These factors alone would make the experiments invalid and totally unreplicable. Furthermore, the remarkable similarities in the composition of the GM and non GM diet - both supposed to contain 21.35 percent soya meal – is simply beyond belief. There were no standard deviations to the figures provided; 59 out of 78 of the figures were identical to 2 - 3 significant figures, and the rest differed so slightly that they would have been within standard errors. Could it be that the researchers have been feeding both groups the same diet? There is no evidence that the two diets were different, no DNA tests on the food samples were performed to ascertain that one was GM and the other non-GM.

This contrasts with the investigations carried out by Ermakova, who has been updating her results on her website ( http://irina-ermakova.by.ru/eng/ [12], and urging other scientists to repeat the experiments; all the more important now, as since publishing the initial results, her funding has been cut, and she is strongly discouraged from pursuing this line of research. Suppression and victimisation of honest, independent scientists has now become routine while obfuscation and misrepresentation are perpetrated at the highest levels, most recently by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who once again, blames the controversy over GM foods, along with MMR vaccine, stem-cells and BSE (!) on the “anti-science brigade” that “threatens our progress and our prosperity” [13]. Is Blair implying that BSE is not a hazard to human health? Ten years ago, the then UK government was forced to admit BSE was linked to the variant Creuzfeld Jacob Disease in humans, after having repeatedly proclaimed BSE-infected beef was safe for human consumption for 10 years previously [14] ( The Inside Story of BSE , SiS 32).

Carnes transgénicas

GM Food Animals Coming

Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Foods derived from genetically modified animals are likely to be contaminated by potent vaccines, immune regulators, and growth hormones, as well as nucleic acids, viruses, and bacteria that have the potential to create pathogens and to trigger cancer

Africa: FOOD INTO FUEL

TURNING FOOD INTO FUEL: GM DROUGHT TOLERANT SOYBEAN AND ITS USE IN THE PRODUCTION OF BIODIESEL

PREPARED BY

AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY

10 NOVEMBER 2006


TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOOD FOR FUEL

DROUGHT TOLERANCE

PLANT DROUGHT AND STRESS TOLERANCE MECHANISMS

CURRENT PROGRAMS TO ENGINEER DROUGHT TOLERANCE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GM DROUGHT TOLERANT SOYBEAN IN SOUTH AFRICA

BIOFUEL & BIODIESEL

TURNING FOOD INTO FUEL

REFERENCES

Parlamento europeo ultrajado

OMG: el parlamento europeo ultrajado por la justicia francesa

Aunque no está en condiciones de defender su inmunidad, el Parlamento Europeo ha decidido apoyar a su vicepresidente Gérard Onesta (Francia, Verdes). Este ha sido condenado por la justicia francesa a tres meses de prisión por haber participado, en julio de 2005, en la destrucción de un campo de maíz transgénico

La cuestión de los OMG es extremadamente delicada. Y el atentado a los derechos civiles que se deriva de la actuación del diputado europeo Gérard Onesta es profundamente lamentable. En estos términos el Parlamento Europeo ha adoptado por aplastante mayoría un informe que, sin proteger la inmunidad del diputado, dado el flagrante delito a que hace referencia la justicia francesa, hará lo que pueda para darle su apoyo.

La condena a tres meses de prisión cuando a la mayoría de los segadoresde OMG no se les han aplicado penas se presenta como un ultraje al Parlamento. Los diputados de Estrasburgo estiman que Onesta puede legítimamente llevar el asunto ante el Tribunal de Derechos del Hombre. También recuerda que la intención de su vicepresidente era llamar la atención sobre el hecho de que el Tribunal de Justicia se ha pronunciado contra Francia por no haber incorporado a su legislación la directiva 2001/18relativa a la liberación voluntaria de OMG.

Noticia enviada por Isabel Bermejo

ALERTA TRANSGENICA en COSTA RICA

ASOCIACIÓN DE ECOLOGÍA SOCIAL

ALERTA TRANSGENICA COSTA RICA

San José, 24 de noviembre del 2006


* VIENE BARCO CON POSIBLE CONTAMINACIÓN DE ARROZ TRANSGÉNICO NO AUTORIZADO PARA CONSUMO HUMANO.


* BAYER SERÍA LA RESPONSABLE DE CONVERTIR EN TRANSGÉNICO NUESTRO GALLO PINTO


Desde las oficinas de Greenpeace en Estados Unidos nos informan que el barco Peregrine proveniente de Estados Unidos, muy probablemente contiene un arroz que ha sido contaminado con una variedad transgénica denominada como Liberty Link 601 la cual no sido aprobada para consumo humano por ninguna agencia de regulación.

El barco Peregrine estará llegando este próximo 2 de diciembre a Costa Rica y atracando el día 8 del mismo mes en Puerto Caldera con 36 000 toneladas de arroz en granza.

Los antecedentes en relación al caso de la contaminación del arroz estadounidense con el arroz transgénico LL601 de la corporación Bayer Crop Science han de ser considerados para resguardar el bienestar de la salud de los y las costarricenses.

Antecedentes

Pasado 4 de septiembre del año en curso ECONEWS informó que la Corporación Nacional Arrocera (CONARROZ) pidió al Gobierno tomar acciones para evitar importaciones del arroz transgénico en cuestión. Así mismo, el jefe de fracción del Partido Frente Amplio, José Merino del Río, solicitó al Ministro de Producción, Alfredo Volio, que se impida la importación de arroz en la medida en que éste no sea debidamente certificado como “Libre del no autorizado arroz transgénico LL601”.

La Unión Europea y Japón han rechazado diversas embarcaciones de este arroz y han establecido sus propios mecanismos para analizar el arroz que sea exportado desde Estados Unidos ya que las certificaciones extendidas desde este país no garantizan la ausencia del arroz LL601 de la Bayer.


SOLICITAMOS LO SIGUIENTE:

Al Estado Costarricense.

Que dicha embarcación no se le permita descargar el arroz hasta tener información de un laboratorio confiable que garantice la ausencia de contaminación con arroz transgénico LL601.

Pronunciarse ante el departamento de agricultura de EEUU indicando el rechazo por parte del Estado Costarricense sobre el envío de “alimentos” transgénicos no autorizados para consumo humano.

La colaboración del departamento de Cuarentena Vegetal para poder tomar muestras del arroz contenido en el barco Peregrine. Dichas muestras serán tomadas por miembros de AESO ante la presencia de un notario público y evaluadas en laboratorios especializados para poder garantizar la inocuidad del grano en cuestión.

A la Corporación Nacional Arrocera.

Velar por la inocuidad de las importaciones de arroz al país y exigir al gobierno de Costa Rica mecanismos alternos, tal y cual la Unión Europea estableció, para garantizar la ausencia de transgénicos en la cadena alimentaría costarricense.

A las sociedad civil.

A manifestar de todas las formas posibles nuestra inconformidad ante tal amenaza sobre nuestra cadena alimentaria.

Para mayor información comunicarse con:
Fabián Pacheco
Asociación de Ecología Social
RALLT.
Tel: 283 6046

Biocombustibles y transgénicos

Biocombustibles y transgénicos

SILVIA RIBEIRO

Todas las empresas que producen cultivos transgénicos Syngenta, Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Bayer, BASF tienen inversiones en cultivos diseñados para la producción de biocombustibles como son el etanol y el biodiesel. Tienen, asimismo, acuerdos de colaboración en este rubro con Cargill, Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge, trasnacionales que dominan el comercio mundial de granos. En la mayoría de los casos, la investigación se orienta a obtener nuevos tipos de manipulación genética de maíz, caña de azúcar, soya, entre otros, conviertiéndolos en cultivos no comestibles, lo cual aumenta dramáticamente los riesgos que ya conlleva en sí la contaminación transgénica

A escala mundial, empresas y gobiernos están haciendo una intensa campaña para presentar los biocombustibles como alternativas ambientalmente amigables que ayudarían a combatir el cambio climático, al sustituir una parte del consumo de petróleo dedicado a combustibles para transporte. Mas la lógica de fondo no es abandonar el petróleo ni cambiar los patrones de consumo que producen el cambio climático, sino aprovechar la coyuntura para crear nuevas fuentes de negocios, promoviendo y subsidiando la producción industrial de cultivos para esos fines.

Ya hay estudios que muestran que los cultivos industriales de biocombustibles plantean muchos problemas. Brian Tokar, del Instituto de Ecología Social de Vermont, Estados Unidos, da cuenta de dos análisis recientes de las universidades de Cornell y de Minnesota que muestran que el ciclo completo de la producción de biocombustibles deja un saldo ambientalmente destructivo. Dado que el procesamiento de estos cultivos requiere una cantidad significativa de energía el aporte final de energía es muy limitado.

Aunque los biocombustibles sustituyan en algún porcentaje el uso de petróleo, se necesitan grandes áreas de producción agrícola industrial intensiva, incrementando el uso de agrotóxicos que erosionan y contaminan suelo y agua, además de disputar esas áreas a la producción de alimentos. Según el investigador Lester Brown (citado por Tokar), "ahora son los autos, no la gente, los que demandan la producción anual de cereales. La cantidad de granos que se requieren para llenar el tanque de una camioneta SUV con etanol es suficiente para alimentar a una persona durante un año".

Las productoras de transgénicos ven en todo esto una excelente oportunidad para aumentar sus ganancias y justificar la manipulación genética como si fuera en beneficio ambiental. Sus inversiones en biocombustibles incluyen el desarrollo de cultivos transgénicos con mayor contenido de azúcares (para convertir en etanol), de aceites (para biodiesel) y la insercion de genes que expresan enzimas para facilitar su procesamiento.

Syngenta trabaja en colaboración con Diversa Corporation para desarrollar un maíz que produce por sí mismo una enzima que lo convierte en etanol, la cual proviene de una bacteria extremófila que soporta altas temperaturas, tomada de la colección de bacterias que esa empresa ha recolectado en varios países del mundo. Diversa tiene una colaboración similar con Dupont, que a través de su subsidiaria Pioneer Hi-Bred desarrolla un maíz con mayor contenido de almidón y celulosa. Para ello están usando una enzima que proviene de una bacteria manipulada (Zymomonas mobilis), la cual se encuentra en forma natural en el agave. En ambos casos, la manipulación genética compromete el uso del maíz como cultivo alimentario, agregando riesgos a los casos de contaminación que pudieran ocurrir.

En este contexto es interesante recordar que Diversa tenía hasta 2001 un acuerdo "de bioprospección" con el Instituto de Biotecnología de la UNAM para explorar organismos extremófilos y bacterias únicas de México. Este contrato fue suspendido luego de que una amplia coordinación de organizaciones y personalidades inició una demanda popular denunciando el contrato como biopiratería. Pese a esto, Diversa nunca regresó a México las muestras que tomó durante la corta duración del contrato. Sería paradójico que las trasnacionales usaran microorganismos extraídos de nuestro país para primero manipular genéticamente el maíz y luego intentar venderlo aquí como un producto "ambientalmente amigable".

Lamentablemente, la iniciativa de Ley para el Desarrollo y Promoción de los Bioenergéticos, que ya han discutido ambas cámaras en el Congreso, con el aval de todos los partidos, promueve este desarrollo. La justificación de la iniciativa copia los clichés que se repiten en la propaganda de las industrias para fomentar esta farsa. Pero además se argumenta que esto debería significar apoyos para la producción agrícola de pequeña escala. O sea, si los campesinos que crearon el maíz estuvieran dispuestos a sembrar transgénicos con maíz no comestible, que contaminaría tarde o temprano su maíz nativo, inutilizándolo, les darían apoyo oficial. O, si fuera con otros cultivos, como caña de azúcar, tendría de todos modos que ser a expensas de la producción de alimentos en las condiciones, y según las demandas de las trasnacionales de los agronegocios, que comprarán a quien les ofrezca más barato en cualquier parte del mundo, para eso lo promueven simultáneamente en muchos países.

En lugar de soberanía alimentaria, lo que promueve son más subsidios para las multinacionales y más amenazas transgénicas para el maíz y las economías campesinas.

Silvia Ribeiro es investigadora del Grupo ETC.

Fuente: La Jornada

EU REFUSES TO FIGHT WTO RULING

Friends of the Earth Europe

Press Release

For Immediate Release: Tuesday 21st November

*******

EU REFUSES TO FIGHT WTO RULING ON GM FOODS

Dangerous precedent set for future disputes, says Friends of the Earth Europe

*******

Brussels/Geneva, 21 November - Friends of the Earth Europe has condemned today's decision by the EU not to contest a controversial ruling by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the transatlantic trade war over genetically modified foods. The environmental NGO has warned that accepting the ruling, which ignored international environmental agreements, sets a dangerous precedent for future environmental disputes.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The EU has made a disappointing decision not to appeal the WTO's ruling. It seems that the EU is happy for the WTO to trample over environmental laws and expose the public and the environment to business interests. This sets a dangerous precedent for future environmental disputes. It is not for the WTO to decide what we eat or how we protect our environment. Whatever the WTO says, Europeans will continue to reject genetically modified foods."

Friends of the Earth Europe is critical of the way the WTO handles international agreements to protect the environment. In this case, the UN's Biosafety Protocol was totally ignored by the WTO. The Protocol is the only international safety agreement for GM products and allows nations to use a precautionary approach, giving them the right to ban GM products if there are concerns about their impacts on health and the environment. The WTO totally ignored the Protocol because the complainants – the United States, Canada and Argentina – were not signatories, even though the EU is and is therefore obliged to follow its rules.

"This case clearly demonstrates that the WTO is the wrong forum to deal with environmental trade disputes and the international community must find an alternative before another case occurs. The WTO ignored international environmental laws, met in secret behind closed doors and barred any public involvement, totally ignoring the strong public opposition to GM foods in Europe," Mr Bebb concluded.

The WTO ruling was published on 29th September and gave the EU until today to launch an appeal. The ruling rejected most of the US-led complaints against Europe's stance on genetically modified (GM) foods:

* It refused to rule against the EU's strict regulations to control the use of GM food and crops;
* It refused to rule on whether GM foods are safe or different to conventional foods;
* It rejected US claims that moratoria are illegal and did not question the right of countries to ban GM foods or crops.

However, the WTO draft ruling did rule - on technicalities - that Europe's four year GM moratorium, which ended in 2004, broke trade rules by causing "undue delays", but stated that moratoria were acceptable under certain circumstances. The WTO said national GM bans also broke trade rules, but only because the risk assessments did not comply with the WTO requirements. Most of the products banned are no longer on the market.


******

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, GM Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel :+49 802 599 1951, Mobile : +49 1609 4901163, Email: adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel:+32 25 42 61 05, Mobile: +32 485 930515, Email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org

Rosemary Hall
Communications Officer
Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue Blanche 15 B-1050 Bruxelles Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 542 6105
Mobile: +32 485 930515
Fax: +32 2 537 5596
rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org
http://www.foeeurope.org

CAÑA DE AZÚCAR TRANSGÉNICA

BRASIL AVANZA EN INVESTIGACIONES CON CAÑA DE AZÚCAR TRANSGÉNICA

Radio Mundo Real

En la actualidad existen en Brasil más de 20 laboratorios que realizan investigaciones para el desarrollo de la caña de azúcar modificada genéticamente (transgénica), emplazados principalmente en el circuito azucarero del Estado de San Pablo.

La técnica consiste en transferir desde plantas de soja transgénica, una serie de enzimas que impiden la acción de las proteínas digestivas en los insectos, lo que según los científicos, hará reducir la utilización de herbicidas. Según afirmó el biólogo Márcio de Castro Silva “la técnica es totalmente natural, no tiene impactos ambientales y no perjudica al ser humano”. El lanzamiento comercial de las primeras variedades no demorará en producirse.

La variedad de usos a partir de la caña de azúcar, que incluye alcohol, azúcar, raciones, medicamentos o proteínas, hace que los impactos de la futura comercialización de variedades transgénicas no puedan ser cuantificadas ni ambiental ni económicamente.

Según Isaías de Carvalho Macedo, investigador de la Universidad de Campinas (Unicamp), "estamos en condiciones de colocar en el mercado en los próximos dos años, variedades resistentes a herbicidas, aparte de variedades que podrían garantizar mayores rendimientos a la caña”.

Entre los organismos promotores de las investigaciones se encuentra la Fundación de Amparo a la Investigación del Estado de São Paulo (Fapesp) y la Cooperativa de los Productores de Caña, Azúcar y Álcohol del Estado de São Paulo (Copersucar).

En el mes de abril del año 1999, ambas instituciones acordaron un proyecto denominado "Genoma Caña", por el cual por un plazo de cuatro años se aseguró un monto de 4 millones de dólares para las investigaciones. Ese fue el gran respaldo a los experimentos con caña de azúcar transgénica, que habían comenzado en 1997.

Brasil es uno de los principales productores mundiales de caña de azúcar, cultivándose más de cinco millones de hectáreas. Se estima que en Brasil radica el 25 % de los cultivos de caña de azúcar del mundo. La cosecha para este año se estima en los 350 millones de toneladas.

Entre las variedades de caña transgénica, se están desarrollando con mayor énfasis las pruebas en aquellas que aumentan productividad (mayores niveles de sacarosa), las que resistan tierras más áridas y soporten la falta de lluvias, y la resistente a la broca, larva que ataca la caña.

INDIA: Environmental disaster in the making

Environmental disaster in the making

Financial Express, November 20 2006
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=146846

Will GM crops reduce dependency on pesticides and protect the environment?

A recent Cornell University report has answered this question very well through a study done in China to assess Bt cotton that is in its seventh year of cultivation there. Growing secondary pest populations have slowly eroded the benefits of Bt technology, the study concludes, pointing out that total pesticide use and expenditure for Chinese Bt cotton farmers is the same as their conventional counterparts. The study shows a three-fold increase of pesticide use now compared to the initial years of Bt cotton adoption, taking back the Bt cotton farmers to nearly the same levels of pesticide use as before the advent of Bt cotton, thanks to such changes in farm ecology. This is inevitable, as any knowledgeable farmer would tell you.

Similarly, data from the US compiled from USDA data, 10 years after the adoption of GM crops, shows that the use of chemicals has only increased with GM crops even as super-weeds and super-pests (not easily controllable by the chemicals used earlier) are emerging.

Experience in India from various studies shows that sucking pests are higher on Bt cotton and the pesticide use has not come down as promised. Further, there are newer diseases emerging on Bt cotton - official monitoring by state governments records this.

It should be realised that even a few sprays of pesticides will damage the farm ecology by killing beneficial insects too and GM crops incidentally are not guaranteeing a complete elimination of such pesticides! They target only specific insects with their reductionist science. That is not the case with many non-chemical alternatives, however.

Very often GM crops are shown as part of an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) approach. A closer look will show that GM crops are actually defying many IPM principles. For example, IPM does not advocate a single chemical with the same mode of action and asks for alternation of methods/chemicals with different modes of action. In India, thanks to the generous giving away of the 'Bt' genes on a payment by some institutions, all major crops are being converted into Bt crops - Bt Brinjal, Bt Rice, Bt Tomato, Bt Cabbage, Bt Cauliflower, Bt Maize and so on. It does not take a genius to guess what kind of an environmental disaster this monoculture would lead to.

What is also interesting to note is that the biotech industry would like to paint itself environment-friendly while on the one hand, there are no guarantees against potential environmental hazards from GM crops and on the other, most major players in the biotech industry are selling agri-chemicals and have a major chunk in the pesticide industry themselves! The same players who thrust agri-chemicals down our throats are now saying that these chemicals are bad and therefore, GM crops should be adopted. How about getting accountable for the damage caused so far?

Important also is the recognition that pesticide reduction and elimination can be achieved through simple political will as the Indonesian example shows us. This does not require the answer of GM crops, which comes with a baggage of several undesirable, unpredictable and irreversible environmental and health hazards. One of the glaring problems with decision-making related to GM crops is that the rationale of pesticide use reduction is being employed for glossing over the many ill-effects that they bring along.

It should be realised that the basic problem that the farmer has begun with is pest management and not pesticide management. Our experience in thousands of acres of NPM (Non-Pesticidal Management of crops) shows that elimination of pesticide use itself is enough to restore farm ecologies and to improve the environment.

- The writer is consultant, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

La regulación de la nanotecnología, o la falta de

GRUPO ETC: En Estados Unidos, abierta irresponsabilidad para regular la nanotecnología

El verano pasado, la Agencia de protección al ambiente de Estados Unidos dio luz verde a 15 productos químicos nanoescalares, aunque anteriormente había sancionado el uso de nanopartículas para limpiar un tiradero de plaguicidas y había prometido consultar con el público la regulación de los productos

Sin tomar en cuenta el compromiso de la Agencia de protección ambiental de Estados Unidos (EPA por sus siglas en inglés) de consultar abiertamente el desarrollo de las regulaciones sobre nanotecnología, el gobierno de Estados Unidos dio luz verde a la introducción de más de 15 químicos nanoformulados. Adicionalmente, la propia EPA está experimentando con nanopartículas de hierro para limpiar agua subterránea en el marco de su programa de limpia de confinamientos supertóxicos en varias locaciones. Sin embargo, la composición de los nano químicos aprobados, sus potenciales usos comerciales, a incluso los nombres de los fabricantes, se ocultaron repentinamente con apego a las políticas de confidencialidad de la EPA (Confidential Business Information provisions). La agencia se reunirá con la industria y la sociedad civil este jueves y viernes en Washington, DC, para discutir sus planes de un “programa voluntario de manejo” de materiales de nanoescala.

Las partículas de nanoescala (aproximadamente de 100 nm de tamaño y más pequeñas) se comportan diferente a las de mayor tamaño aunque sean del mismo material. Al reducir su tamaño, los materiales pueden ser más fuertes o más ligeros o más resistentes al calor o conducir mejor la electricidad, pero también pueden ser más tóxicos. Los impactos de las nanopartículas manufacturadas en el ambiente y en la salud humana se desconocen y son impredecibles y la información sobre su toxicidad es muy escasa.

En agosto, el Bureau of Nacional Affairs (BNA) informó en su Daily Environment Report que había solicitado a la EPA explicara su evaluación de los químicos de nanoescala con apego a la norma Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), después que el Federal Register denunciara que una empresa comenzaría a fabricar nanopartículas de alúmina recubiertas con siloxano [BNA, Daily Environment Report, 16 de agosto de 2006, No. 158, pág. A-7.] Según los funcionarios de la EPA, sólo uno de los nanoquímicos revisados por la agencia mostró nuevas propiedades de importancia para los reguladores. “Los abogados de patentes de las compañías seguramente diferirían” dice Kathy Jo Wetter del Grupo ETC. “El gobierno ni siquiera tiene un acuerdo sobre los estándares para la medición o para la caracterización de las nanopartículas y la EPA no cuenta tampoco con las herramientas o el conocimiento para evaluarlas. Las empresas de nanotecnología dicen a los examinadores de las patentes y a los inversionistas que están aprovechando los efectos cuánticos de la nanoescala para crear materiales nuevos, al mismo tiempo que dicen a la EPA que sus productos químicos son “los de siempre, los viejos químicos de siempre.”

Jim Alwood, de la EPA, dijo a el Grupo ETC que la agencia no registra si los nuevos químicos se están fabricando en nanoescala, lo que hace muy difícil calcular cuántos químicos nanométricos están siendo producidos. Alwood piensa que actualmente hay “varios más” de los 15 que se reportaron en agosto. La confidencialidad que impone la TSCA (el marco regulatorio para la industria química) hace muy difícil saber quién está haciendo qué cosa.

Al preguntársele si la EPA estaba segura de que el gobierno no está autorizando materiales de nanoescala con nuevas propiedades, Alwood explicó que los reguladores confían en la información que les presentan las compañías en sus proyectos de manufactura. “A los mismos que crearon los tiraderos tóxicos, la EPA les confía ahora que limpien el terreno”, dice Pat Mooney, director ejecutivo del Grupo ETC. “Tal vez la EPA confía en ellos, pero el público no.”

Experimentación irresponsable: Además de pavimentar el camino para que las empresas produzcan y comercialicen químicos de nanoescala, la EPA contribuye activamente a la liberación al ambiente de nanomateriales diseñados. En enero, la agencia anunció un plan para limpiar uno de los tiraderos químicos prioritarios dentro de su programa, el Nease Chemical Superfund en el estado de Ohio, inyectando “hierro de valor –cero a la nanoescala” (NZVI, por sus siglas en inglés) en los mantos acuíferos. Ver aquí

“Hay creciente evidencia de que algunas nanopartículas pueden ser tóxicas en el ambiente y potencialmente peligrosas para los humanos. A pesar de esto, la EPA está experimentando con la liberación de nanopartículas de hierro en los mantos acuíferos para limpiar un confinamiento de plaguicidas”, denuncia Pat Mooney.

Hace sólo dos años que la Royal Society del Reino Unido recomendó sin ambigüedad prohibir “el uso de nanopartículas libres en aplicaciones ambientales como la remediación del agua subterránea.” El Grupo ETC consultó con el DR. Mark Wiesner, profesor de ingeniería civil y ambiental en la Universidad de Duke (Carolina del Norte) que estudia cómo se mueven las nanopartículas en el suelo y el agua, para verificar si existía consenso científico sobre la inocuidad de las nanopartículas de hierro en la remediación de los mantos acuíferos. El Dr. Wiesner explicó que si bien el hierro se encuentra de manera natural en las fuentes subterráneas de agua, no podemos saber todavía las implicaciones ambientales del hierro nanoformulado: existe la posibilidad de que el hierro, en nanopartículas o en su forma convencional, movilice algunos metales u otras sustancias en los mantos acuíferos que no fueran móviles anteriormente. No sabemos con certeza cuáles serían los efectos de la “medicina”.

“Lo que concluimos de esta experiencia” dice Kathy Jo Wetter, “es que la EPA no entiende el concepto de consulta y está dispuesta a confiar en la industria química antes que en su propia experiencia con respecto a la contaminación química.”

Para más información:
Pat Mooney (Ottawa) tel: +1 (613) 241-2267
etc@etcgroup.org

Kathy Jo Wetter (USA) tel: +1 (919) 960-5223
kjo@etcgroup.org

Boletín de prensa
Grupo ETC
18 de octubre de 2006
www.etcgroup.org

El Grupo ETC lanzó una competencia para el diseño de un símbolo que indique peligro nanotecnológico. Después de una preselección por un panel de jurados eminentes, los 10 diseños elegidos irán al Foro Social Mundial en Nairobi, Kenia, en enero del 2007 para que los participantes voten por su favorito. El diseño ganador será remitido a las agencias regulatorias nacionales e internacionales. Para mayor información, ver aquí

Fuente: Grupo ETC

Agrocidio en Argentina

El agrocidio argentino

Por Diego Domínguez

En gran parte de las regiones extrapampeanas, donde avanza la frontera agrícola por la sojización, no sólo crece la desocupación, y aumentan los demandantes de planes sociales, sino que se produce la contaminación por agroquímicos de vastas regiones, la degradación ambiental y la apropiación de tierras y agua.

Genetic engineering no magic bullet

Published in the Des Moines Register.


Genetic engineering no magic bullet for Africa's hunger

BY ERIC HOLT-GIMENEZ
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER


November 17, 2006

The Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation recently announced their joint $150 million Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa for the continent's 180 million impoverished farmers who - they claim - were bypassed by the Green Revolution.

What? For 25 years, the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research - the entity that brings together the key Green Revolution institutions - invested 40 percent to 45 percent of its $350 million-a-year budget in Africa. If these public funds were not invested in a Green Revolution, then where were they spent? If they were spent on the Green Revolution, then why does Africa need another one? Either the Green Revolution's institutions don't work, or the Green Revolution itself doesn't work - or both. The Green Revolution did not "bypass" Africa. It failed.

Why are Rockefeller, Gates, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and even U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan proposing more of the same? Some writers who contributed essays to the Register in conjunction with World Food Prize festivities called for a second Green Revolution, too, this time employing the magic bullet of genetic engineering. Why should we believe that another multibillion dollar super-seeds project will be any more successful at ending hunger in Africa? Why would it avoid the first Green Revolution's extensively documented - but less celebrated - failures?

Indian economist Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that hunger doesn't result primarily from a lack of food, but from the poverty of the hungry, who can't afford the food that is available. Around the world, poor people go hungry while their country exports grain. During the heyday of the Green Revolution (1970-90), the total food available in the world rose by 11 percent per person. However, (excluding China), the number of hungry people also increased by more than 11 percent, from 536 million to 597 million.

In South America, food per capita rose almost 8 percent, but the hungry increased by 19 percent. The rise in hunger clearly was not due to population increase because total food per person went up. Rather, it resulted from the tendency of the Green Revolution to exacerbate unequal access to food and food-producing resources. Throughout the 1980s, sub-Saharan Africa's exports grew faster than imports. By 1994, 11 countries in the region were net exporters of food. During the terrible droughts of the 1960s and '70s, the value of agricultural exports was three times that of imported grain. Even in India, the country's heralded 26 million-ton grain surplus could easily feed its 320 million hungry people, but does not. Why? Because starving villagers are too poor to buy the food.

Aside from inducing soil degradation and pest explosions on the marginal lands of poor farmers, Green Revolution crops are also water-intensive. In India, they are responsible for widespread, catastrophic declines in water tables, forcing farmers to return to rain-fed agriculture or give up farming altogether.

Industry spokespeople insist that genetically engineered crops are the only alternative to mass starvation - bashing concerned opposition as "elitist." This name-calling masks the truth: Genetic engineering is more about controlling seeds, selling more chemicals and reviving the sagging Green Revolution than about saving the world from hunger. More than 80 percent of the world's biotech crop acreage is planted to herbicide-tolerant varieties that have increased herbicide use in the United States alone by more than 100 million pounds since 1996, while genetically engineered soybeans suffer from lower yields. Hardly a solution to hunger.

Hunger will also be exacerbated by the criminalization of seed-saving. According to a 2005 report from the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., America's hard-strapped family farmers have already paid Monsanto more than $15 million in lawsuits for allegedly saving and replanting the company's exorbitantly priced genetically engineered seeds.

African farmers beware. The genetically engineered Green Revolution may lead to the enrichment of seed, fertilizer and herbicide companies - but it will not end hunger in Africa. Indeed, it might make things worse.

*ERIC HOLT-GIMENEZ* is executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), Oakland, Calif. For a policy report on the Green Revolution see www.foodfirst.org .

Panel este sábado: Ecología y Sociedad

Amigas y amigos,

Les invitamos al panel "Ecología y Sociedad: agricultura, educación y medicina verde", que se llevará a cabo el próximo sábado como parte de las actividades del primer Foro Social de Puerto Rico:

Sábado 18 de noviembre, de 4:00 a 5:20pm en el salón 238 del Edificio Ramón Emeterio Betances, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, UPR, Río Piedras.

Les animamos a asistir a nuestra actividadal las demás actividades del Foro. El programa completo de las actividades, que empiezan el viernes 17 a la noche y terminan el domingo 18, se puede leer en: http://www.forosocialpuertorico.org/

Por favor pasen esta invitación a sus amigos y redes en Puerto Rico.

Les esperamos,
Nelson Alvarez




Ecología y Sociedad: agricultura, educación y medicina verde

Descripción:

Un panel de discusión que propone una mirada a la ecología desde aspectos centrales del quehacer de la sociedad puertorriqueña.



* Agricultura y alimentación: Una mirada a las decisiones -individuales y colectivas- sobre cómo producimos/obtenemos nuestros alimentos y el tipo de agricultura que promovemos, y la resistencia ecológica y cultural como semillas de esperanza.

por Nelson Alvarez Febles, agricultura ecológica y desarrollo sustentable

alvareznelson@hotmail.com

* Educación ecológica: Ante el déficit de ‘contacto con la naturaleza’ y el enfoque urbanista dominante, desde la educación podemos y debemos (re)integrar al niñ@ como parte inseparable del medio natural en la comunidad de aprendizaje.

por Carmen Rosa Rivera Mirabal, Escuela Ecológica Niños

Uniendo al Mundo

carmenrosapr@gmail.com

* Medicina verde: Mediante un recuento de los valores manifiestos en la tradición de la medicina verde del pueblo puertorriqueño, exploramos las formas en que esa tradición nos apoya física y espiritualmente, a la vez que fortalece a las comunidades y nuestra relación con el medio ambiente.

por María Benedetti, etnobotánica y autora

benedetti@coqui.net


organiza: EcoSer


¡SE RUEGA PUNTUALIDAD!

HALOA

HALOA

by Walter Ritte and Bill Freese

http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=441
http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/seed-06-10-3.pdf

Genetic modification and bioprospecting threaten not only local farmers' control over their natural resources but also the culture that sustains their communities. Walter Ritte and Bill Freese describe the Hawaiian experience.

False & Destructive "Solutions" to Global Warming

PRESS RELEASE **For Immediate Release** 16 November 2006

False & Destructive "Solutions" to Global Warming:

Groups Condemn Large-Scale Biofuels, Genetically Engineered Trees & Crops, Monoculture Tree Plantations

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Nairobi, Kenya

UNFCCC: Nairobi, Kenya-The Gaia Foundation, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, the STOP GE Trees Campaign and World Rainforest Movement held a press conference today during the 12th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The event addressed the socially and environmentally devastating impacts of large-scale biofuel production, genetically engineered trees and crops, and carbon sink plantations, and explained why these schemes will not solve climate change.

The promotion of large-scale biofuel production as an alternative to fossil fuels, and of tree plantations to store carbon is becoming very popular at this year's UNFCCC. Genetically engineered (GE) [also called transgenic or genetically modified] crops and trees have also been promoted as a way to implement these co-called "solutions" to climate change.

"Not only will large-scale use of biofuels and genetic engineering technology not help to alleviate climate change, they may in fact exacerbate the problems of global warming while also causing environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, particularly in developing countries," stated Teresa Anderson of the London-based Gaia Foundation.

Using important agricultural land and water to grow biofuels instead of food for domestic consumption will have a detrimental effect on food security, especially in poor countries. In 2006, an increase in the use of grain worldwide for conversion to biofuels led to a 60% increase in global grain prices. "Soya plantations in Latin America and palm oil plantations in Indonesia, being developed for biofuels, are driving deforestation and pushing hundreds of thousands of farmers and indigenous peoples off of their lands," stated Miguel Lovera of Global Forest Coalition. "Once again the developing countries of the South are being asked to pay the price for the unsustainable lifestyle of the North."

In addition to their social and environmental impacts, the carbon-saving benefits of biofuel plantations are also being challenged. Biofuel studies, published in the U.S., found the fossil fuel energy required to produce and process biofuel crops like soya and maize is almost as much, or in some cases more than, the energy contained in the fuel produced.

Activists are also condemning tree plantations used to store carbon: "This Convention needs to move away from the complicated and fraudulent carbon trading schemes" stated Ana Filippini of Uruguay-based World Rainforest Movement "It should begin to address seriously the issues of how to phase out fossil fuels and how to stop deforestation".

While conventional monoculture tree plantations already have enormous documented social and ecological impacts, industry is now considering the use of genetically engineered trees in these plantations-which would greatly exacerbate these devastating impacts and also lead to new, unprecedented and unpredictable impacts.

Genetically engineered trees were approved for use in carbon sinks by the UNFCCC in 2003, despite a complete lack of research on the potential risks of these trees which may be engineered to kill insects, grow faster, be more easily pulped or be resistant to toxic herbicides.

"The release of GE trees in huge plantations to store carbon must be banned," stated Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project. "The escape of pollen or seeds from GE trees into native forests would cause severe and totally unpredictable ecological impacts that could impact the ability of forests to store carbon, worsening global warming". Andrew Boswell of the Large Scale Biofuels Action Group added " In the light of the precautionary decision on GE Trees made by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in March 2006, we urge the countries of the South to stay resolutely cautious about adopting these technologies that are not in their control, nor likely to be in their best interests."

In response to these ill-conceived schemes, organizations, indigenous peoples and others around the world have joined together to demand an end to false climate change "solutions" that include industrial tree plantations, genetically engineered crops or trees or large-scale and unsustainable production of biofuels.

Contacts on site: Orin Langelle, Global Justice Ecology Project, Nairobi mobile: 0724.130.511; International: +254.724.130.511

Miguel Lovera, Global Forest Coalition, Nairobi mobile: 0720.993.704; International: +254.720.993.704

FORO SOCIAL DE PUERTO RICO

Expropian transgénicos en Brasil

Gobierno de Paraná expropia posesión de Syngenta

Luís Brasilino

La transnacional Syngenta fue denunciada por plantar ilegalmente transgénicos en el Estado de Paraná, algo que no puede hacer en Suiza, su país de origen; en el área se instalará un centro de investigaciones agroecológicas.

El gobernador de Paraná, Roberto Requião, firmó el decreto el 12 de noviembre disponiendo la desapropiación de un área de 300 hectáreas de la Syngenta en Santa Teresa do Oeste (en el oeste paranaense). En marzo, 600 militantes de la Vía Campesina de Brasil ocuparon el terreno para denunciar el incumplimiento de las leyes federales y provinciales por parte de la transnacional suiza que produce pesticidas y transgénicos.

Agroecología y Soberanía Alimentaria

Agroecología y la Lucha para la Soberanía Alimentaria en las Américas

Avery Cohn, Jonathan Cook, Margarita Fernandez , Rebecca Reider y Corrina Steward, Editores.

Instituto Internacional para el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (IIED), la Comisión de la Política Ambiental, Económico, y Social (CEESP) de la UICN, y la Escuela de Estudios Forestales y Ambientales de Yale

Este nuevo libro explora alianzas emergentes entre organizaciones de pequeños agricultores y campesinos, ambientalistas, e investigadores que trabajan en la promoción de sistemas de agricultura y alimentos que son ecológicamente saludables y económicamente justos en las Américas.

Esta publicación incluye:

* Articulos y recommendaciones políticas de academicos trabajando en la intersecion de la conservación, comercio, y agricultura;
* Entrevistas con líderes de organizaciones de campesinos y pequeños agricultores al nivel nacional, regional, y local;
* Estudios de caso sobre iniciativas que promueven tanto la soberanía alimentaria como sistemas de agricultura ecologicamente saludables a traves de las Américas, desde la frontera Amazonica hasta las montañas de Mexico hasta la ciudad de Nueva York;
* Procedimientos del taller titulado “Soberanía Alimentaria, Conservación, y Movimientos Sociales para la Agricultura Sustentable en las Américas”. Este taller trajo a representantes de campesinos y pequeños agricultores, ambientalistas, y investigadores a la Universidad de Yale en el año 2004 para discutir sus trabajos, la definicion de “soberania alimentaria”, y como estos diferentes partes interesados se pueden ayudar para cambiar y mejorar las sistemas agro-alimentarias en las Americas.

Autores y contribuidores incluyen:

* Kathleen McAfee, University of California at Berkley
* George Naylor, National Family Farm Coalition
* Karl Zimmerer, University of Wisconsin
* Alberto Gomez Flores, Via Campesina North America and UNORCA-National Union of Autonomous Regional Peasant Organizations
* Eric Holt-Gimenez, Food First
* Silvia Rodriguez, GRAIN-Genetic Resources Action International
* Jesus Leon Santos, CEDICAM-Centro de Desarrollo Integral Campesino de la Mixteca
* Sergio Lopes, RECA-Reflorestamento Economico Consorciado e Adensado

El informe se puede descargar sin recargo en formato PDF, tanto en ingles como en español, a través de la página web www.yale.edu/environment/publications. Las copias impresas pueden pedirse en la misma página web por un precio razonable.

También se pueden pedir copias impresas a través del Instituto Internacional para el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo en la página web www.iied.org/pubs (palabra clave: "agroecology" para versión en inglés, palabra clave: "agroecología" para versión en español).

A los que participaron en el taller se ofrece un número limitado de copias impresas gratis. Si les interesa por favor de mandar su solicitud a margaritafernandez2@yahoo.com

No GE trees in Kyoto Protocol

For Immediate Release 15 November 2006

Organizations Around the World Demand Ban of Genetically Engineered Trees from Kyoto Protocol

World Rainforest Movement and Global Justice Ecology Project have presented a demand to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Nairobi, Kenya to ban the use of genetically engineered trees under the Kyoto Protocol. GE trees have been proposed for use in plantations developed as climate sinks or for biofuels.

At the Ninth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Milan in 2003, genetically engineered (GE) trees [also known as genetically modified or transgenic trees] were approved for use in plantations created to offset carbon emissions as a part of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. Research, however, actually shows:

* Native forests overall absorb and hold far more carbon than industrial tree plantations, which can also be responsible for net combined soil-carbon releases and carbon emissions during their life-cycle;

* Plantations bring many additional problems that contribute to global warming and ecological destruction, including water and nutrient depletion, increased soil salinity and acidity, increased fire risk and biodiversity loss;

* GE trees (e.g. Bt and reduced lignin trees) may actually worsen global warming by exacerbating problems caused by monoculture tree plantations, and by causing unprecedented new ones, including alteration of decomposition, insect and disease patterns.

For this reason, many organizations around the world in several official and unofficial events have called on the UNFCCC to ban GE trees from the Kyoto Protocol.

In addition, the UNFCCC must bring its policies in line with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which has taken a stand against GE trees.

On Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 during the Eighth Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, representatives from non-governmental organizations, social movements, scientists, indigenous groups, farmers, foresters and others were joined by CBD delegates from ten countries in calling for a moratorium on the release of GE trees into the environment.

As a result, the UN CBD made an historic decision, acknowledging for the first time the potential dangers-both social and ecological-of genetically engineered trees and urging countries to take a very cautious approach to the technology.

It is now the responsibility of the UNFCCC to end the contradiction between its own pro-GE trees decision and the UN CBD's cautionary decision. The UNFCCC must issue a new decision prohibiting the use of GE trees in carbon offset plantations under the CDM.

Genetically engineered trees do not offer a solution to global warming, rather they are a global distraction from finding real solutions to the problems of global warming. In addition, they threaten the world's forests and forest-dwelling communities.

For this reason, the above groups call on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to bring its policies in line with those of the UN CBD and prohibit the use of genetically engineered trees in carbon sink plantations.

Groups endorsing this demand include Bangladesh Krishok Federation, Carbon Trade Watch, Global Forest Coalition, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth-Nigeria, FASE-Espirito Santo, Brazil, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, Oilwatch International, STOP GE Trees Campaign, Timberwatch Coalition and The Corner House.

For the full text of the open letter, go to: http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/CCC/Nairobi/Open_Letter.html

Contact in Nairobi: Orin Langelle, Global Justice Ecology Project. Nairobi number: 0724.130.511; International number: +254.724.130.511

Biocombustibles y transgénicos

Open letter to African COP-12 delegates from a number of NGOs

13th November 2006

Dear Delegate

A warning for Africa at COP-12: Biofuels, Genetic Engineering and Climate Change

The issue of Biofuels is gaining increasing currency at the UNFCCC COP-12, and in talk of environment and development solutions for Africa. Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM) technology may also be promoted in the form of GM crops and GM trees, by those who see the technology as helping to achieve fast growth or more efficient fuel conversion.

A number of NGOs would like to urge caution, and point out some of the many flaws with these arguments, and urge UNFCCC delegations and national policy makers not to embrace unsustainable large-scale biofuel plantations and potentially risky GM technology. Dependence on Biofuels and GM technology may in fact exacerbate the problems of climate change, environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, particularly in Africa.

DID YOU KNOW:

Large-Scale Biofuels Threat to Food Security

* Using important agricultural land and water to grow biofuels instead of food for domestic consumption will have a detrimental effect on food security in Africa.

* The amount of grain required for one tank of bioethanol in a 4x4 SUV would feed one person for a year (1).

* In 2006, an increase in the use of grain worldwide for conversion to biofuels led to a 60% increase in global grain prices and speculator interest in what had previously been a stably priced commodity. (2)

* While African countries may yet explore the possibilities of small-scale farming of biofuel crops for local household and domestic grid energy use, the consequences of growing fuel for export to the wealthy developing countries instead of food for Africans could be severe.

Energy Inefficient

* Some studies from the US found that the amount of fossil fuel energy required to produce and process biofuel crops such as soya and maize (fertilizer, farm machinery, processing and transport) is almost as much as the amount of energy contained in the fuel produced. (3)

* Biofuels therefore give us very little carbon saving and low energy saving.

Deforestation and Destruction of Peatlands

* Soya grown in the Brazilian Amazon is driving deforestation.

* The forested regions of Indonesia and Malaysia are being cut down for Palm Oil plantations.

* Wetlands Intenational have shown that destruction of SE Asian peatlands for Palm Oil plantations, which cover 0.2% of the global land surface, is responsible for 8% of the global CO2 emissions. (4)

* The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) currently allows for peatland areas that have been burned and cleared to create biofuel plantations to be eligible for CDM funding.

* On Kalangala Islands in Uganda, large areas of tropical forest are being converted into BIDICO palm oil plantations, which will be used to produce biodiesel. BIDICO are currently lobbying government to be able to further expand their plantations into other forested areas.

Genetically Engineered Biofuel Crops?

* The Genetic Engineering industry is keen to use acceptance of biofuels as a strategy to speed up GM acceptance in Africa, and the industry is working on a number of GM biofuel crops.

* Currently South Africa is the only African country that grows GM crops commercially, as the rest of Africa has been wary of integrating a potentially dangerous technology into the core of food security policy.

* Most African countries have yet to develop biosafety policies on GM crops, and are cautious of the difficulties in regulating and monitoring this novel food system, which could easily cross-pollinate and contaminate conventional agriculture.

* If the UNFCCC were to endorse GE as a technology, this would reverse years of hard-fought resistance by African governments and citizens to prevent GM contamination of agriculture.

The Dangers of GM Crops:

* GM crops are patented by the corporations that sell them, making seed saving illegal.

* Monsanto corporation (which owns 95% of global GM crops) has successfully sued farmers for patent infringement when their crops were cross-pollinated by neighbouring GM farms. (5)

* In Africa, 80% of small farmers save their seed. Food security and livelihoods in rural areas are likely to be negatively affected with the advent of patented GM seed.

* GM crops can easily cross-pollinate with local varieties and wild relatives, which means that genes from other species may accidentally and irreversibly contaminate the food chain and environment. Local varieties will be lost, and scientists do not know what the impact of these GM genes will be on ecological systems.

* GM crops have barely been tested for human or environmental safety, in spite of the large possibility of new toxins or allergens created through the insertion of new genes. The few animal tests that have been carried out have raised cause for concern. (6,7)

* Consumers in Europe and Japan have rejected GM crops for food and agriculture. Due to the risk of contamination, these countries may reject imports from countries that are growing GM crops.

* If GM crops are developed for biofuel use, new genes will be inserted for the plant to create chemicals that are not intended for human consumption. The likelihood of these biofuel crops contaminating conventional crops is, however, very high and over a hundred cases of contamination have been officially registered around the world. (8)

* If second generation ligno-cellulosic technology is commercially developed, the processing will be GM-intense involving specially produced enzymes to break down cellulosic material– the effects of accidental or intentional release of such materials into the environment is also unknown.

GM Trees

* Genetically Engineered trees, with traits for insect resistance, fast growth, increased cellulose or reduced lignin are not yet grown commercially anywhere. However, GM tree plantations have been promoted by the US as carbon sinks, which may be grown in Africa.

* Tree pollen can travel for hundreds of miles and could cross-pollinate with non-GM trees, potentially spreading the genes for low lignin (which helps trees to stand up) or insect resistance.

* Trees have such a long growth cycle that we have little or no idea of what the impact on their ecologies will be.

* Trees provide the planet’s most important ecosystems for keeping climate in the balance. It seems insanity to use this untested technology as a so-called "solution" when there is a large chance that it could harm global forest systems and create even more long-term chaos.

* GM tree plantations are likely to have the same effect as many exotic tree plantations and carbon sinks in Africa, which have only replaced current forested areas and reduced biodiversity, drained water tables, and prevented local people from accessing the trees traditionally important to their livelihoods and cultures

Precautionary Decision on GM Trees at UN CBD COP-8 2006

* The social and ecological threat from GM trees was acknowledged at the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) in April 2006, urged a precautionary approach.

* The decision states in part: "The Conference of the Parties, recognizing the uncertainties related to the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, including long-term and trans-boundary impacts, of genetically modified trees on global forest biological diversity, as well as on the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities, and given the absence of reliable data and of capacity in some countries to undertake risk assessments and to evaluate those potential impacts… recommends parties to take a precautionary approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees."

We therefore urge delegates to oppose large-scale biofuel plantations and Genetic Engineering technology at the UNFCCC COP-12 negotiations, particularly as part of the CDM and technology transfer initiatives. While there may be a role for small-scale and local biodiesel production for domestic consumption (e.g. Jatropha), where it does not displace food crops, forest or indigenous people, the inherent damage caused by large-scale plantations must be considered. Furthermore, under no circumstances should GM technology be endorsed at the UNFCCC.

Sincerement

The Gaia Foundation, UK (Teresa Anderson, teresa@gaianet.org) Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay (Simone Lovera) Global Justice Ecology Project, US (Anne Petermann and Orin Langelle) Tropical Forest Group, Uganda (John Begumana) Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, UK (Andrew Boswell, andrew.boswell@yahoo.co.uk)

(1) Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, "Starving the people to feed the cars," 10 September 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801596.html?sub=AR

(2) "Speculators buy up drought-hit wheat crops to earn their daily bread." http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1933832,00.html

(3) Robert Rapier, "E85: Spinning Our Wheels", R-Squared, May 2006 – http://tinyurl.com/yclt89

(4) http://www.wetlands.org/

(5) Center for Food Safety report "Monsanto vs Farmers", June 2005

(6) New Scientist "GM pea causes allergic damage in mice" 21 November 2005 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347

(7) "Genetically Modified Soy Affects Posterity: Results of Russian Scientists' Studies" Regnum News Agency, Russia. 12 October 2005 http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html

(8) http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/