GM soybean: Latin America's new colonizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

KRAKOW DECLARATION FOR A GMO FREE EUROPE

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

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

Krakow, February 24th, 2006

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

Invaden Uruguay

La invasión de Transgénicos en Uruguay

Terre Libere

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foro en pro de los transgénicos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comité Cívico de Cañas

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

BIO B.S.

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

Easing fears of biotech food with bullsh*t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Para mayor información:


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Notas a los editores:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information contact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes to editors:

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

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

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

Ecología burocrática

Approving Genetically Modified Crops: A Bureaucratic Ecology

Prof. Joe Cummins, February 16, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

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

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

COUNTERPUNCH Weekend Edition
February 18 / 19, 2006

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

By BRIAN TOKAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Las multinacionales saquean los recursos biológicos africanos

Europa Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPAÑÍAS CITADAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hubris, that's all it is

Genetically modified hubris

by Tom Philpott

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

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

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

Pollack opens thusly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acción internacional contra transgénicos, abril 8

April 8, 2006: GMOpposition Day of Action!

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

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

Scary year

2005, a Scary Year for Genetically Engineered Crops

Spilling the Beans, Feb 14, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contamination was also a big issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2006 by Jeffrey M. Smith.

New Suspicions about GMOs

By Herve Kempf

Le Monde, 9 February 2006

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006H.shtml

Do transgenic plants have a negative effect on health? Ever since their commercialization in 1996, the question has agitated circles of experts and ecologists, without any indisputable proof allowing an affirmative response. Now, several recent studies effected by credible researchers and published in scientific reviews tally with one another to throw doubt on GMOs' complete harmlessness. They don't assert that GMOs generate health problems. But at the very least they suggest that GMOs provoke biological impacts that must be more widely studied. This new questioning arises just as the Council of Ministers adopted a proposed law on GMO Wednesday, February 8, and as the World Trade Organization (WTO) handed over an interim report February 7 to the parties in a conflict that opposes the United States, Canada, and Argentina to the European Union on the issue of transgenic plants.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/020806HB.shtml#1"target=_blank

In November 2005, Australian researchers published an article in a scientific review (Vanessa Prescott et al., Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 2005, p. 9023) explaining that the transfer of a gene that expresses an insecticide protein from a bean to a pea had provoked unexpected problems: among the mice fed the transgenic peas, CSIRO (the Australian equivalent of the French National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS) researchers observed antibody production, markers of an allergic reaction. The affair, which made headlines in the Australian and English press, led Csiro to stop development of that transgenic pea, while West Australia Minister of Agriculture Kim Chance announced that his government would finance an independent study on feeding animals with GMO: "The state government is aware of the anxiety concerning GMO safety, while most of the research in this domain is conducted or financed by the very companies promoting GMO," Mr. Chance explained in a November 2005 communique.

During the summer of 2005, it was an Italian team led by Manuela Malatesta, cellular biologist at the Histological Institute of the University of Urbino, that published intriguing results (European Journal of Histochemistry, 2005, p. 237). In prior studies, that team had already demonstrated that absorption of transgenic soy by mice induces modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. This summer's publication proved that a return to non-transgenic food made the observed differences disappear. It also showed that several of these changes could be "induced in adult organisms in a very short time."

In Norway, Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromsso's Institute of Genetic Ecology, just published a study in European Food Research and Technology (January 2006, p. 185): he demonstrates that an element of the genetic structures used to modify a plant, the catalyst 35S CaMV, can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Now, according to GMO promoters, that catalyst normally only operates that way in plants.

The increase in these experiments led the FAO (the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization) to organize a seminar on the safety of transgenic food in October 2005, bringing together the best specialists on the question. "What came out of it was that we have to pay attention to this type of study," said FAO seminar coordinator Ezzedine Boutrif. "In several cases, GMOs have been put on the market when the safety issues were not very clear."

The researchers involved in these recent studies declare their neutrality. "I had no preconceived idea about GMOs when I began my research in 2000," says Manuela Malatesta. "I thought they weren't dangerous because we had been eating them for a long time. But there was virtually no scientific literature on the subject. Consequently, we thought it was useful to undertake some studies." For Terje Traavik, the initial motivation was different: "I was doing cancer research using transgenesis. My colleagues and I knew that it would pose a problem if it left the laboratory. That concern convinced us that we needed to study this type of risk."

This work attracts all the more attention in that, in the United States as well as in Europe, research on the impacts of GMO has not been encouraged by governments. Toxicological studies were effected by the companies promoting GMOs, the impartiality of which is debatable, and subsequently examined by commissions. But the latter never reproduced the experiments, which remain secret. Yet those studies sometimes also show notable biological impacts.

On April 23 2004, Le Monde revealed that experts from the Commission on Biomolecular Genetics (CGB) were divided over the effects of a Monsanto corn, MON 863. In the toxicological study that had been communicated to them, it seemed that rats fed with the GMO presented several anomalies: an increase in white blood cell count, blood sugar changes, reduction of red blood cell count, etc. A debate followed between the agencies concerned that led to a favorable CGB opinion. Although the experts re-examined the file, they did not, however, take a new look at the statistical analysis presented by Monsanto.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121504H.shtml

Associations including Greenpeace demanded publication of the toxicological file so that they can submit it to a second opinion. On June 9, 2005, the Munster, Germany, Court of Appeal ordered its publication. Greenpeace then consigned two French researchers, Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen, to prepare a statistical second opinion of the case. They are supposed to publish the results of their study in February. "Monsanto's statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial," observes Dominique Cellier, who is a biocomputer specialist. "They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and hematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs."

This study should provoke new debates. But already, official experts recognize that the toxicological evaluation procedures for GMOs are not perfect. "The discussion about MON 863 was very positive," says Jean-Michel Wal, a member of the European Authority on Food Security's GMO group. "It has allowed us to deepen our evaluation methods. In fact, 90 day toxicological studies on rats are very difficult to execute and interpret. We don't know how to study a food overall, whether it's a GMO or not; there's no norm." And the increase in questions about the biological impacts of GMOs, at the very least, calls for more open scientific debate and public research, which, at the moment, is very rare.

Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent

mailto:leslie@truthout.org Leslie Thatcher.

The US plan

America's masterplan is to force GM food on the world

The reason the US took Europe to the WTO court was to prise open lucrative markets elsewhere

by John Vidal

The Guardian, February 13, 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,,1708375,00.html

Just a few years ago, World Trade Organisation officials used to act hurt when described by social activists as irresponsible, secretive bureaucrats who trampled over national sovereignty and placed free trade over the environment or human rights. But that was when the global-trade policeman ruled on disputes that had little bearing on Europeans.

The WTO court's latest ruling will greatly increase the number of people who believe the organisation needs radical reform, if not burial. This week three judges emerged after years of secret deliberation to rule that Europe had imposed a de facto ban on GM food imports between 1999 and 2003, violating WTO rules. The court also ruled that Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg had no legal grounds to impose their own unilateral import bans. "Europe guilty!" shouted the US press. "This is glorious news for the Bush administration," said one blogger.

Actually, the judges said much more, but in true WTO style no one has been allowed to know what. A few bureaucrats in the US, EU, Argentina and Canada have reportedly seen the full 1,045-page report, and an edited summary of some of its conclusions has been leaked. But no one, it seems, will take responsibility for the ruling, which may force the EU to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate some of the world's most heavily subsidised farmers, and could change the laws of at least six countries that have imposed GM bans.

In fact the US has mostly won a lot of new enemies. Rather than going away, as the biotech companies and Washington fervently hoped, the opposition to GM foods seems to have been growing since 2004 when the case was brought to the WTO. Europe, its member states and its consumers all rejected the ruling last week, making the WTO look even more out of touch and incompetent to rule on issues about the environment, health and consumer choice.

The European commission, which has been trying to force GM crops into Europe over the heads of its member states, says the ruling is "irrelevant" because its laws have already been changed. Meanwhile, individual countries who dislike being told what to eat or grow by the EC as much as the WTO say they will resist any attempts to make them accept GM.

In the past few days Hungary has declared that it is in its economic interests to remain GM-free, and Greece and Austria have affirmed their total opposition to the crops. Italy has called the WTO ruling "unbalanced" and Poland's prime minister has pledged to keep the country GM-free. Local government is even more opposed: more than 3,500 elected councils in 170 regions of Europe have declared themselves GM-free.

There is little the WTO, the EC or the US can do in face of this coalition of the unwilling. If the US again tries to impose its GM products on Europe - as it did in the 90s, sparking the whole debacle - the attempt will backfire. Europe's biotech industry may now try to force the EC to use the WTO judgment to get the six countries with import bans to repeal anti-GM laws, but it will meet an even broader, more determined movement.

In fact, Washington and the US companies are not that bothered by Europe's predictable reaction. Europe has all but dropped off the world's GM map. The companies and the supermarkets know there is little or no demand for GM crops, and that Europe's subsidised farmers are reluctant to alienate the public further by growing them.

It is now clear that the real reason the US took Europe to the WTO court was was to make it easier for its companies to prise open regulatory doors in China, India, south-east Asia, Latin America and Africa, where most US exports now go. This is where millions of tonnes of US food aid heads, and where US GM companies are desperate to have access, buying up seed companies and schmoozing presidents and prime ministers.

More than two-thirds of exported US corn now goes to Asia and Africa, where once it went to Europe. As the Monsanto man said this week about the WTO ruling: "Our feeling is that it's important for countries other than the EU to have science-based regulatory frameworks."

Like the tobacco industry, GM companies are now focusing almost exclusively on developing countries. But here the industry is meeting stiff opposition from powerful unions and farming groups. Brazil has caved in, but Bolivia may shortly become the first Latin American country to fully reject GM. Some Indian states are deeply opposed, and there have been major demonstrations in the Philippines, Korea, Indonesia and elsewhere. India's largest farmers' organisation this week said the result of the WTO verdict would be that the US would become more aggressive in dumping GM food on to developing countries.

The US maintains that through the WTO it has won a great victory for free trade, and passed a significant milestone in US attempts "to have GM crops accepted throughout the world". Perhaps, but the battle is far from won, and in the meantime anyone opposing the crops is being reclassed as an enemy of America.

Within hours of the WTO decision, Jose Bove, the French farmer who has led European protests, arrived in New York to give an invited talk to Cornell students about GM food - and was immediately sent back to France by the US government.

john.vidal@guardian.co.uk

Costa Rica

Bioseguridad costarricense

Por Fabián Pachecho

El Departamento de Biotecnología del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado ha sido incapaz de monitorear adecuadamente los cultivos de organismos genéticamente modificados que se desarrollan en Costa Rica, por lo cual la bioseguridad nacional enfrenta una situación de caos, que pone en peligro tanto a agricultores como a consumidores.

Paraguay: La soja mata

PARAGUAY: La maquinaria sojera amenaza con matar otra vez

Los labriegos paraguayos vuelven a movilizarse contra las fumigaciones intensivas con agroquímicos ante la inminencia de la temporada de cultivo de la soja transgénica.

La Federación Nacional Campesina (FNC), una de las más combativas del país, anunció que resistirá hasta el final las pulverizaciones, que producen efectos devastadores sobre sus cultivos de subsistencia y la salud de sus comunidades. Entre tanto, los productores sojeros se aprestan a iniciar el cultivo de 2 millones de hectáreas de soja transgénica en la Región Oriental del país.

Una vez más, la FNC manifestó su oposición al modelo agroexportador de la soja y fustigó al gobierno por negarse a poner en práctica un plan de desarrollo integral que permita acabar con la pobreza y retornar al cultivo de productos tradicionales como el algodón, la yerba mate, los cítricos, la caña de azúcar y los rubros de subsistencia.

La dirigencia de la Federación, encabezada por su secretario general Odilón Espínola, señaló que sólo con la organización de los sectores representativos de la sociedad y una toma de conciencia de parte de la ciudadanía será posible hacer frente al modelo agroexportador de la soja.

Se estima que dentro de un año la superficie cultivada de soja ascendería a 2.500.000 hectáreas y en un máximo de cuatro años a 4 millones de hectáreas. De verificarse estas previsiones habría severos impactos negativos en el plano social y sobre el medio ambiente, como la pérdida de la biodiversidad (fauna y flora), cambios en los regímenes climáticos, deterioro de los suelos (erosión, pérdida de nutrientes), la contaminación de los recursos hídricos tanto superficiales como subterráneos y la desaparición de los cauces naturales a causa de procesos de sedimentación y colmatación.

El cultivo extensivo de la soja que promueve el gobierno conlleva el aumento de las fumigaciones intensivas con glifosato, un químico que produce intoxicaciones severas, alentando la migración del campo a la ciudad y el consiguiente incremento de los bolsones de pobreza en las grandes urbes.

“Estamos dispuestos a iniciar una campaña para que la ciudadanía comprenda las consecuencias negativas que la producción sojera deja no sólo para el sector rural sino también para las poblaciones urbanas. El modelo de desarrollo económico que nosotros queremos para Paraguay nada tiene nada que ver con el modelo agroexportador defendido por el gobierno”, expresó Odilón Espínola.

Transgénicos en Uruguay: animales más protegidos que seres humanos

María Isabel Cárcamo

La discusión y evaluación de estos cultivos se debe de dar a nivel de la sociedad en su conjunto. La elaboración de un marco regulatorio y políticas claras podrían ayudar a que hubiese una mayor transparencia y se llenase ese vacío legal en el cual todos los uruguayos nos encontramos, y mientras tanto estamos siendo contaminados e invadidos tanto visualmente como en nuestro plato por estos cultivos. Pero el problema de los cultivos transgénicos va mucho más allá de la mera reglamentación y el objetivo final debe ser su completa eliminación

Celebran la traición

La Jornada, México, 11 de febrero de 2006

Maíz transgénico: celebrando la traición

Silvia Ribeiro *

El 16 de febrero de 1996 el gobierno mexicano firmó con el EZLN los Acuerdos de San Andrés, donde se comprometía a reconocer los derechos y la cultura indígenas. Nunca los cumplió, y peor aún, varios años después aprobó una ley contraria a éstos. El expediente sigue abierto.

Como festejo de conmemoración del décimo aniversario de esa farsa del gobierno, exactamente el 16 de febrero de 2006, culmina otra farsa de enorme impacto para los derechos y las culturas indígenas de México: ese día se cierra lo que el gobierno, a través de la Secretaría de Agricultura (Sagarpa) llama una "consulta pública" sobre la liberación de maíz transgénico en México, centro de origen del cultivo. Esta vez la traición va mucho más allá de los pueblos indios: además es una traición a todos los campesinos y todos los que trabajan, consumen, y viven con el maíz.

Esta mal llamada "consulta pública" se refiere a las solicitudes que presentan tres empresas multinacionales, Monsanto, Pioneer-Dupont y Dow, para experimentar con siete tipos de maíz transgénico, para colmo, en campos de dos instituciones públicas: el Cinvestav y el Inifap. Las solicitudes son la punta del iceberg del Proyecto Maestro del Maíz, plan diseñado por las mismas empresas multinacionales junto a investigadores mexicanos elegidos selectivamente, en discretas reuniones realizadas desde octubre de 2004, a convocatoria formal de Luis Herrera Estrella, director del Cinvestav en colaboración con otros investigadores y operadores políticos con estrechas relaciones, incluso económicas, con las multinacionales.

Ese proyecto, como dijeran los indígenas y campesinos de la Red en Defensa del Maíz en diciembre pasado, no tiene nada de "maestro" ya que no hay nada que les pueda enseñar a los que tienen 10 mil años de experiencia con el maíz. Más adecuadamente, agregan, se le podría llamar "Proyecto de Muerte del Maíz", ya que es una coartada para permitir que las empresas multinacionales legalicen la contaminación transgénica del maíz nativo con sus semillas patentadas que han provocado deformaciones en las plantas y conllevan riesgos de salud para todos.

Cada día surgen nuevas evidencias de que los transgénicos tampoco cumplen ni con las promesas propagandísticas de las propias empresas, ya que rinden menos que las variedades convencionales, usan más agrotóxicos y son más caros. Peor aún: no son inocuos a la salud y por presión de las empresas en las agencias reguladoras, tampoco se hacen las pruebas necesarias para averiguarlo.

En noviembre del año pasado, la institución de investigación científica más importante de Australia cerró un proyecto de 10 años y más de 2 millones de dólares, luego de comprobar que un transgénico que estaban desarrollando creaba alergias, hipersensibilidad cutánea y hasta daños pulmonares en ratas de laboratorio. La conclusión más alarmante fue que el tipo de pruebas que habían realizado para tomar la decisión de cerrar ese proyecto no se han aplicado a ninguno de los cultivos transgénicos que las empresas tienen en circulación.

Repitiendo casi exactamente lo que hicieron con la introducción subrepticia del algodón transgénico en México, las empresas quieren comenzar con cultivos experimentales disimulados en estudios de instituciones públicas, para que luego las empresas puedan solicitar directamente la liberación y comercialización en el resto del país.

En su atropello para garantizar sus inversiones en detrimento de los intereses de campesinos, indígenas y la soberanía alimentaria del país, ni siquiera han guardado las formas que generosamente les permite la Ley Monsanto (mal llamada de bioseguridad). Por eso luego de aprobar las siete solicitudes el año pasado, gracias a un recurso legal de Greenpeace, la Sagarpa tuvo que retirar estos permisos y llamar a esta farsa de "consulta pública". Como bien lo demostró Alejandro Nadal, tampoco esta consulta es legal, ya que no tiene sustento en dicha ley, sino en una norma anterior que no está vigente (La Jornada, 8/2/2006).

Pero aún si estuviera dentro del marco legal aprobado en favor de las empresas, definitivamente es ilegítima. ¿Cómo podría considerarse legítima una "consulta pública" de la cual virtualmente nadie del "público" mexicano está enterado y que para saberlo tiene que ir al sitio Internet de la Senasica/Sagarpa, en los míseros 20 días que está abierta tal "consulta" y además elaborar una carta "sustentada técnica y científicamente"? ¿Será que los campesinos e indígenas de México, principales interesados y afectados, tienen una computadora conectada en sus milpas, visitando diariamente el sitio de Senasica para poder enviar sus preocupaciones? ¿Será que para los funcionarios tendría algún valor, que quienes han creado el maíz y es sustento de sus vidas y culturas resuman su vastísimo conocimiento expresando, como el pueblo huichol que "el maíz es nuestra madre, el maíz es nuestro alimento, el maíz es sagrado. No sabemos hablar bien el español, pero sí sabemos hablar con el maíz", y que por eso se nieguen rotundamente a que ese maíz sea violado con transgénicos?

Existen innumerables testimonios de campesinos, indígenas, ambientalistas, intelectuales, artistas, académicos y otros que ya han expresado mucho más públicamente que esta consulta que México no quiere ni necesita maíz transgénico. Si usted quiere recordárselo a los receptores de esta "consulta", puede enviarle su opinión a amada.velez@sagarpa.gob.mx, y al director de Senasica, Javier Trujillo, trujillo@ senasica.sagarpa.gob.mx

* Investigadora de Grupo ETC

Senasica: Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria, de la Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación.

Aceleración de la contaminación GM, ninguna coexistencia posible.

ISIS

Los cultivos GM, la vasta mayoría de los cuales están diseñados para obtener específicamente dos rasgos - la tolerancia a herbicidas y al plaguicida Bt, o compilados con ambos - han sido liberados en cinco continentes durante más de nueve años, causando la contaminación extendida de alimentos, forrajes, semillas, y del medioambiente a lo ancho del planeta. El ADN modificado genéticamente de cualquier parte de una planta GM puede introducirse inadvertido en el medioambiente, por ejemplo, a través de la transferencia de polen a un cultivo convencional, a través de la dispersión de la semilla o de la descomposición de la planta y la persistencia en la ecología del suelo.

Declaración del GRR

Si se aprueba la ley de promoción de la biotecnología se legitima el modelo neocolonial agroexportador de la republiqueta sojera

Por GRR *

El Senado de la Nación tratará entre los primeros proyectos de Ley de este período de sesiones, tres que quedaran pendiente del año anterior y que promocionan la Biotecnología.

El Senado de la Nación tratará entre los primeros proyectos de Ley de este período de sesiones, tres que quedaran pendiente del año anterior y que promocionan la Biotecnología. Ellos son el Expediente 429 del Poder Ejecutivo, el 657 de Diputados y el 1070 del Senado, todos del año 2005. Recordemos que el primer proyecto fue presentado en un salón de la propia casa Rosada por el Ministro de Economía Lavagna y con la presencia en primera fila de importantes empresarios de la nueva burguesía gerenciadora de proyectos sojeros tales como Gustavo Grobocopatel. Estos proyectos que se proponen, y que en su conjunto podríamos llamar la Ley MONSANTO, intentan legitimar, darle un marco y promover aún más todavía al modelo impuesto a nuestro país desde los años noventa como resultado de la Deuda Externa, y para satisfacer las necesidades de forrajes de los países europeos primero, y luego de la República de China.

Con ese modelo, la Argentina, que alguna vez pretendiera denominarse la granja del mundo, hoy ha devenido en una Republiqueta forrajera y no tiene la capacidad de alimentar a su propia población, ni puede resolver el gran problema de la falta de empleo, porque su economía está diseñada para favorecer a las exportaciones primarias. Con cerca de 16 millones de Hectáreas de cultivos transgénicos, nos hemos transformado en el segundo productor de Soja del mundo y esa elección, que prioriza el crecimiento al desarrollo, y que opta por mantener un modelo de enormes monocultivos, posibilita mediante las retenciones a la Soja el crecimiento de las prácticas parasitarias y clientelares desde el Estado, y que más allá del reclamo de algunos productores insaciables, dibujan una sociedad que se supedita a los proyectos de las grandes corporaciones cerealeras.

En un país donde los cambios no ya de partidos políticos en el ejercicio del Gobierno, sino también el reemplazo en puestos de gobierno de líneas internas de un mismo partido e inclusive de meros funcionarios enfrentados por cuestiones personales, implican cambios totales de las políticas, en un país donde existe absoluta falta de continuidad de las políticas públicas, atadas cuando mucho a la posibilidad de una reelección presidencial, el modelo de la Soja expresa en cambio claramente una política de Estado. Una política de Estado que permanece más allá de los reemplazos, de los discursos y de los cambios ideológicos, y que tiende a profundizarse en un modelo de país que jamás fue consensuado públicamente ni siquiera asumido como destino por los mismos que llegados al ejercicio de los cargos públicos que, con otras promesas, ahora lo respaldan. Esta política de Estado es la que se va a legitimar con la Ley MONSANTO que se nos propone.

El modelo de la Soja ha despoblado el territorio, liquidado las poblaciones rurales y destruído la tradición, la cultura y el arraigo de millones de argentinos. Este modelo ha convertido nuestras ciudades en megalópolis inseguras y al borde del colapso. Ha barrido nuestros bosques nativos, contaminado por agrotóxicos las grandes cuencas hidráulicas, ha deteriorado los suelos y amenaza gravemente nuestra biodiversidad y nuestros patrimonios filogenéticos. Desde perspectivas epidemiológicas el modelo ha impactado fuertemente sobre las poblaciones, no solo con hambre e indigencia, no solo con las consecuencias propias de extendidos estados de desnutrición infantil que para peor, se intentan paliar con la ingesta de la misma soja transgénica que los ha provocado y que añade entonces a los muchos males del modelo los desequilibrios hormonales, la osteoporosis y la madurez prematura de las niñas. El modelo ha provocado disturbios profundos e imprevisibles en los ecosistemas y al barrer con los hábitats silvestres ha obligado a los pájaros y a los roedores a encontrar nuevos hábitat en la ciudad, empujando sobre las poblaciones enfermedades como el chagas, la lechmaniasis, diversas parasitosis y todo tipo de nuevas plagas como consecuencia de la destrucción ambiental y de los profundos desequilibrios provocados en el medio ambiente. Todo ello es lo que va a legitimar la Ley MONSANTO que se nos propone.

Pero el avance de los monocultivos no sólo ha barrido las poblaciones rurales, ahora se extiende sobre los cinturones semirurales donde antes crecían las quintas y los tambos, y asedia a las poblaciones urbanas sometiéndolas a los devastadores impactos de las aerofumigaciones con los paquetes agroquímicos que acompañan a las Sojas y a los Maíces de MONSANTO. Millares de pobladores inadvertidos han sido víctimas de cánceres y de enfermedades terminales y son contaminados cada día porque la agricultura industrial alcanza las primeras calles de los barrios periurbanos y el afán de lucro en los sojeros les lleva a cerrar los ojos ante el creciente genocidio que provocan. Esto también va a ser legitimado por la Ley MONSANTO de promoción a la Biotecnología que se nos propone.

Pero hay mucho más todavía. El modelo de país neocolonizado que provee piensos a los grandes rodeos europeos y chinos, ese país primarizado cuyas principales exportaciones son actualmente la soja, el petróleo crudo y los zumos de limón, no cierra con las expectativas de una clase política que provista de un discurso progresista y hasta de izquierda, ambiciona tener algún reconocimiento en los marcos del Capitalismo Globalizado. Esta clase política necesita un proyecto a la miserable medida de sus ambiciones de casta parasitaria, un proyecto pensado para darle un rol en el mundo a su propia descendencia, aunque el resto de la población argentina sea condenada al hambre y la indigencia. Ese proyecto de clase que ellos denominan pomposamente del Poder del Conocimiento, es la Biotecnología y más concretamente aún, la ingeniería genética. Se trata de un nicho en la privatización y apropiación de la ciencia y de las tecnologías que, en estrecha alianza con las grandes corporaciones, les permita ser reconocidos y poder asociarse con el Poder globalizado. Se propondría una privatización empresarial de nuestras instituciones científicas y técnicas, instituciones que, como el INTA, el CONICET y muchos ámbitos académicos, se supeditarían paulatinamente a los proyectos de Biotecnología. Esa política de sumisión del Estado a las grandes corporaciones, también será legitimada por la Ley MONSANTO.

Esta Ley legitimará a la Republiqueta sojera y también al pretencioso proyecto científico empresarial de una supuesta Biotecnología Nacional, quimera pseudo científica que no hace sino encubrir el ofrecimiento miserable del propio país como laboratorio y a la propia población como masa de ensayos para todo tipo de eventos provenientes de la ingeniería genética. Al legitimar este modelo se estrechan las posibilidades de recuperar nuestra Soberanía Alimentaria, se cierran caminos para el ejercicio pleno de una Democracia participativa en que sea la población quien decida el propio destino y se ocluyen las posibilidades para todo tipo de debates sobre los proyectos de país que queremos para nuestra descendencia.

Las actuales disputas con la empresa MONSANTO por el pago de regalías del gen RR y la demanda de la empresa en Europa a importadores de granos argentinos, disputas menores que empañan el modelo de neocolonización de la Republiqueta Sojera, se resolverán en el marco de la nueva legitimación que se nos propone porque aceptaremos reordenar nuestra dependencia en los marcos globales de los sistemas de respeto y de subordinación a los grandes sistemas de patentamiento. Por ello también, es que insistimos en denominar a esta ley como una Ley MONSANTO.

Es redituable electoralmente para la dirigencia política abrir, asimismo, polémicas con la Sociedad Rural Argentina y con otros exponentes de las viejas oligarquías pastoriles, tal como se hace en estos días, cuando en realidad esos sectores solo guardan poder en el imaginario colectivo, mientras tanto se entrega el destino nacional a los grandes sojeros y a los agroexportadores que son hoy los verdaderos dueños del País. Este cambio en las relaciones del Poder político y económico, también será legitimado por la Ley MONSANTO que se nos propone.

Una Argentina agro exportadora que ha permitido el desarrollo de inmensos monocultivos transgénicos, que ha posibilitado cientos de proyectos de minería por cianurización a lo largo de la zona cordillerana, que impulsa monocultivos de eucaliptos y de pinos para pasta de papel, en reemplazo de los ecosistemas nativos, y que además imagina para una minoría de técnicos y científicos un rol de investigación y de producción de transgénicos en alianza con las transnacionales, es una Argentina neocolonial que ha optado por un rol de subordinación al Capitalismo Globalizado y que ha renunciado a toda opción ética que conduzca a modelos de independencia y de soberanía. Y esto es lo que habrá de legitimar la Ley MONSANTO que se nos propone.

Denunciamos como GRR este proyecto de país que a nuestro entender se gestó en la penumbra de los despachos oficiales y a espaldas de nuestro pueblo, y que hoy amenaza con legalizarse en el Senado de la República a través de la Ley que se nos propone. Anticipamos que estamos aún en la antesala de males mayores que sobrevendrán inevitablemente por el propio desarrollo del modelo. Hacer de la agricultura una fuente de Biodisel para exportación cuando millones de argentinos se van a dormir sin haber saciado su hambre y cuando Repsol se sigue llevando nuestro petróleo crudo, es parte de una configuración propia del modelo neocolonial. Promover la extensión de procesos de ingeniería genética a la pequeña empresa y a los desarrollos locales para desarrollos de enzimas, levaduras, fermentos o medicamentos transgénicos, es una estrategia perversa que como en Brasil trata de ampliar los agronegocios con agronegozinhos que compliquen a sectores más amplios de la población. Ser laboratorio de eventos GM es otra de las situaciones que se agudizarán con la aprobación de la Ley de Biotecnología y en momentos en que en los foros internacionales las empresas presionan para liberar el gen “Terminador” de MONSANTO, gen inhibidor de la germinación de las semillas, presentado ahora como una solución a la pavorosa contaminación de transgénicos que se ha producido en el mundo, consecuencia de la determinación de las corporaciones de aumentar sus lucros a todo riesgo de la vida sobre el Planeta.

Por todo lo anterior queremos hacer conocer a los Señores Senadores y al Pueblo en general, nuestra posición y anticipar lo que viene inexorablemente por el camino que fija la Ley MONSANTO. Estamos convencidos que la legitimación de este modelo provocará males mayores y acrecentará la resistencia y la rebeldía de las innumerables víctimas que aumentan a diario, porque las corporaciones y las empresas sojeras son insaciables.

Debemos reinstalar la idea de la Soberanía, de la justicia social y de un desarrollo independiente del capitalismo globalizado, porque estamos convencidos que ese país es posible y que más allá de que se intente legitimar el modelo impuesto, continuaremos luchando para hacer realidad el sueño de una Argentina con Soberanía Alimentaria. www.ecoportal.net

GRR Grupo de Reflexión Rural
Febrero de 2006
www.grr.org.ar

GM Ban Long Overdue

Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

In July 2003, a farmer living in a small village in the south of Mindanao Island of The Philippines, found himself and his entire family suddenly falling ill with fever and respiratory, intestinal and skin ailments. They were not alone; at least fifty-one residents of Sitio Kalyong (Barangay Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato Province) had similar complaints at around the same time. They all lived within 100 m of a field planted with GM maize, and their illnesses coincided with the GM maize flowering time.

Another resident of Sitio Kalyong, said [1] that the GM-maize pollen made him dizzy, gave him severe headaches, chest pains and caused him to vomit.

The field in Sitio Kalyong belonged to a local official who bought five bags of Monsanto's Bt maize seed (Dekalb818YG with Cry1Ab from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis ), enough to plant 5 hectares. He paid 4 500 pesos per bag, which was more than twice as much as the non-GM variety at 2 200 pesos per bag. The premium price included the promise of a small vehicle if the harvest turned out to be good, as it was supposed to. In the event, the promise was broken on both counts: the harvest of 93 sacks compared poorly with the usual 150 sacks per ha, and the small vehicle was never delivered. The local official stopped planting the Bt maize after 2003.

As part of an investigation to determine what made the villagers ill, one of the farmers was “volunteered” to venture inside the Bt maize field in the presence of more than 10 witnesses, as he explained to me via an interpreter. “Within 5 minutes, I could not breathe and felt something extraordinary on my face,” he recalled. The others could see that his face had swollen up and remarked that it was “very dangerous”.

In fact, the farmer is ill to this day. Every now and again, he feels weak in his limbs and numb in his hands and feet. He held up the back of his right hand to show me the index finger. A yellowish-brown discoloration and thickening of the fingernail had developed since he was exposed to the GM pollen.

In October 2003, blood samples were taken from the affected villagers who still had symptoms, which were then frozen and analysed. Antibodies to the Bt toxin Cry1Ab expressed in the GM maize were found in all the blood samples taken from the 38 individuals.

Many if not all of the villagers exposed to GM-maize pollen in 2003 have remained ill to this day. Furthermore, there have been five unexplained deaths in the village. In total, 96 people got sick. In addition, nine horses, four water buffalos, and 37 chickens died soon after feeding on GM maize .

Luchar contra agrotóxicos y transgénicos

FSM 2006: RAP-AL convoca a luchar contra agrotóxicos y transgénicos

Alrededor de cien personas de distintos países latinoamericanos participaron en el Seminario “Plaguicidas y transgénicos: los costos ocultos de la agroexportación en América Latina”, realizado el 27 de enero en la Universidad Central de Venezuela, de 12 a 15 horas, durante el VI Foro Social Mundial y II Foro Social de Las Américas

El evento fue organizado por la Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para América Latina (RAP-AL) y la Red por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos (RALLT). Un público atento y participativo, constituido mayoritariamente por jóvenes e integrantes de organizaciones campesinas, llenó el aula universitaria. Incluso muchos participantes debieron acomodarse en el suelo.

El seminario, coordinado por María Isabel Cárcamo, de RAPALUY (Rap-al Uruguay), comenzó con el estreno del video “Por una América Latina libre de plaguicidas y transgénicos”, producido por RAP-AL, y con la intervención de la coordinadora regional de esta red, Elsa Nivia, de RAPALMIRA (Colombia), quien relevó las dramáticas consecuencias del uso de agrotóxicos en la salud de la población y en el medio ambiente. Luego, Elizabeth Bravo, de RALLT y Acción Ecológica, expuso los enormes costos que está teniendo la introducción y expansión de los cultivos transgénicos en los países de la región.

A continuación, Lorna Haynes, de RAPAL-Ve (Venezuela), fundamentó las principales razones que explican por qué la lucha contra plaguicidas y cultivos genéticamente modificados es una sola. Destacó que ambas prácticas y tecnologías son parte del mismo modelo agrícola que antepone los intereses económicos de las transnacionales al derecho de la población a la seguridad alimentaria, lo que va asociado al deterioro de las condiciones sociales, laborales, económicas y ambientales en nuestros países.

El programa prosiguió con la intervención de Fernando Ramírez, coordinador de RAP-AL en la región de Mesoamérica y el Caribe, quien expuso el daño ocasionado por los agrotóxicos en importantes cultivos de Costa Rica, su país. En seguida, Jorge Rulli, del Grupo de Reflexión Rural (Argentina), describió las graves consecuencias de la extensión de cultivos de soja transgénica en suelo argentino.

Las exposiciones fueron seguidas por un vibrante diálogo en el que intervinieron mujeres y hombres -jóvenes y viejos- participantes en el seminario. Luego, ante una invitación de RAP-AL y RALLT, firmaron sin titubeos la Declaración “Por un mundo libre de transgénicos y agrotóxicos”. (Texto completo aquí) (Caracas, 28 de enero de 2006)

Fuente: RAP-AL

Declaración de RALLT

Declaración de la RALLT en Caracas: por un mundo libre de transgénicos y agrotóxicos

América Latina es la región con mayor biodiversidad agrícola del mundo, factor muy importante para la sustentabilidad de la agricultura. Esto es fruto de miles de años de trabajo de comunidades indígenas y campesinas que ha dado como resultado el desarrollo de sistemas productivos únicos. Sin embargo, como consecuencia de la deuda externa y de otros factores estructurales, se ha impuesto en América Latina un modelo de monocultivos destinado a la agroexportación de “commodities”. Este modelo ha contribuido a la expansión de cultivos transgénicos acabando con la soberanía alimentaria de nuestros pueblos y nuestra biodiversidad, y favoreciendo a empresas transnacionales como Monsanto, Cargill y ADM, entre otras

VI Foro Social Mundial

La agricultura transgénica es una extensión de la revolución verde, modelo de agricultura establecido después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial que se basa en monocultivos, uso indiscriminado de plaguicidas y fertilizantes químicos importados, y alto consumo de agua y energía. Este modelo de producción agrícola ha conducido a la desaparición de variedades de plantas nativas y tradicionales, afectando la biodiversidad, al tiempo que ha multiplicado las plagas y enfermedades de los cultivos de importancia económica. Asimismo, ha causado erosión, salinización y compactación de los suelos, erosión genética y cultural, además de mayor dependencia de las empresas que impulsaron el modelo.

La salud de la población, particularmente de las comunidades rurales, está siendo seriamente afectada por la exposición a los agrotóxicos, los cuales continúan causando intoxicaciones y muertes, enfermedades crónicas, cáncer, malformaciones congénitas, abortos y otros problemas reproductivos, violando los derechos humanos a la salud, a la vida y a un ambiente sano para hombres y mujeres, adultos y niños en América Latina.
La introducción en la agricultura de semillas transgénicas que las transnacionales han protegido con patentes de genes, que arbitrariamente han saqueado de variedades tradicionales, agudiza los problemas de la revolución verde y genera otros impactos inherentes a la ingeniería genética. Esto expone nuestras variedades tradicionales a la contaminación genética, hace a los agricultores totalmente dependientes de las transnacionales, favorece el agronegocio y conduce a la pérdida irreparable de la soberanía alimentaria.

A través de los tratados de libre comercio con Estados Unidos, varios países se están convirtiendo en importadores de alimentos transgénicos, poniendo en mayor riesgo la salud y la biodiversidad. La forma más aberrante es la importación de alimentos transgénicos como ayuda alimentaria, pues está dirigida a los sectores más vulnerables de la sociedad.

El PNUMA GEF está promoviendo la adopción de medidas nacionales de bioseguridad que facilitarán el ingreso de transgénicos en más de 120 países del Tercer Mundo, a favor de la industria biotecnológica.

De acuerdo con las anteriores consideraciones, declaramos lo siguiente:

1. Rechazamos la complicidad de facto de gobiernos latinoamericanos con las transnacionales para promover y favorecer un modelo agrícola y alimentario basado en el uso de agrotóxicos y en cultivos transgénicos.
2. Rechazamos los proyectos para la elaboración de Marcos Nacionales de Bioseguridad promovidos por el PNUMA GEF, ya que son diseñados para uniformar las legislaciones de bioseguridad en el Tercer Mundo, y para facilitar el ingreso de transgénicos.

3. Exigimos a los gobiernos de América Latina asumir una posición firme en la aplicación del Principio de Precaución establecido en el Protocolo de Bioseguridad.

4. Exhortamos a los gobiernos latinoamericanos, en cumplimiento del PRINCIPIO DE PRECAUCION, a suspender toda importación de alimentos transgénicos, especialmente aquellos destinados a ayuda alimentaria.

5. Hacemos un llamado a la sociedad civil y a los gobiernos a promover y fortalecer las prácticas agrícolas sustentables y tradicionales, como también a proteger las semillas nativas y la soberanía alimentaria.

6. Nos comprometemos a trabajar por un mundo libre de transgénicos y agrotóxicos.

Caracas, Venezuela, 27 de enero de 2006

RALLT / notransgenicos@accionecologica.org

RAP-AL / rapalmira@telesat.com.co

Joint statement

Gene Altered Foods Will Remain a Losing Proposition for U.S. Farmers, Despite WTO Decision

A Joint Statement on the Forthcoming WTO Decision in the U.S.-- E.U. Gene Food Dispute

Early in 2006, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is expected to rule on a Bush Administration challenge to European delays in approving new varieties of genetically engineered (GE) foods and on EU member state bans on certain GE varieties. In anticipation of this ruling, the undersigned U.S. organizations condemn the Bush Administration¹s aggressive tactics in attempting to force-feed unwanted gene altered varieties to consumers around the world.

The Bush Administration claims that European Union delays in granting new GE crop approvals has resulted in lost markets for American farmers. But clearly consumers' preference for non-GE food, and not regulatory issues, are the true engine of the market collapse for American crops. Even before new GE approvals began to slow in the late 1990¹s, the advent of GE corn resulted in a drop of U.S. corn sales to Europe of more than 50%.

Consumers in Europe or elsewhere cannot be forced to buy and eat food that they do not want. Since the United States has no real hope of boosting sales of GE foods to unwilling Europeans, the WTO suit is clearly an effort to chill other nations from pursuing any regulations on GE foods. But increasing scientific study is showing the necessity of rules to guard against the public health and environmental hazards associated with these inadequately tested foods.

We support global regulations of GE foods, mandatory labeling, and the right to restrict where GE crops are grown. We support right of nations to regulate GE foods for the welfare of the public and the environment. We note that even in the United States, many counties and states have enacted or are developing regulations of these products in the absence of leadership from the federal government.

Regardless of the outcome of the WTO case, consumers in Europe and in much of the world will continue to prefer non-GE food. Indeed a WTO ruling in favor of the United States is sure to generate even more hostility against GE foods. Ultimately American farmers will suffer the most as the Bush Administration¹s arrogant stance on GE food increasingly alienates our food trading partners. South Korea was once the number two buyer of U.S. corn but now buys non-GE corn elsewhere, and China looks to Brazil for non-GE soy.

While Europe and much of the rest of the world, including Australia, Japan, Korea, China and several other countries have mandatory safety assessment rules for approval of GE food, and mandatory labeling to insure consumer choice, in the U.S. deregulated GE foods are sold without labels to unwitting Americans. The Bush Administration should stop threatening free choice and food safety through contentious international trade disputes, and instead start working to provide Americans with the same protections for safe food choices that European and other governments around the world have established.

In a similar WTO case, the U.S. prevailed against Europe¹s ban on hormone-treated U.S. beef. Yet while the U.S. "won" the beef-hormone dispute in 1999, Europe has still not opened its markets to U.S. beef. The beef hormone and GE food cases show that in a global market, the U.S. will have more success selling its agricultural products by focusing on providing food that global consumers want to buy, rather than trying to shove whatever farmers produce down foreign throats regardless of consumer demand.

We regret the course the Administration has taken in pursuing this global food fight, and suggest that the interests of Monsanto and other GE crop producers should no longer dictate our policies on food trade or food production. Instead, policy should be aimed toward providing Americans and our export customers with the kind of safe, healthy, sustainably-produced food that they want to eat. Regardless of the outcome of the decision of the U.S. case at the WTO, the global battle over GE food will only end when the Administration learns the basic economic lesson, " the customer is always right."

Center for Food Safety
Washington, DC

National Family Farm Coalition
Washington, DC

Consumers Policy Institute, Consumers Union
Yonkers, NY

Public Citizen
Washington, DC

Western Organization of Resource Councils
Billings, MT

Oakland Institute
Oakland, CA

Organic Consumers Association
Little Marais, MN

Institute for Social Ecology
Plainfield, VT

Friends of the Earth USA
Washington, DC

Food & Water Watch
Washington, DC

Partnership for the Land and Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples Shepherdstown, WV

Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Victor, MT

Sustainable Living Systems
Corvallis, MT

Occidental Arts & Ecology Center
Occidental, CA

The Edmonds Institute
Edmonds, WA

PIRATES WANTED! A CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR THE 2006 CAPTAIN HOOK AWARDS FOR BIOPIRACY!

Name and shame the biopirates & celebrate the resistance at www.captainhookawards.org

---Please pass on, share and post widely----

At the 2006 meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (March 20th-31st in Curitiba, Brazil) civil society organisations from The Coalition Against Biopiracy (CAB) will be awarding prizes to the individuals, corporations and governments who either committed biopiracy* or fought against it in the last few years. The Captain Hook awards for Biopiracy is a biannual event exposing the ongoing theft of our biological and cultural heritage through life patenting, new technologies and corporate plunder. We need your nominations now.

Point out the pirates! What is the most outrageous biopiracy case in your country? Who is ripping off indigenous knowledge in your community? Who is grabbing your genes, patenting your plants or monopolizing your molecules? Has anyone co-opted your culture? Trademarked your patron saint? Claimed ownership of your language? Help put the spotlight on the greediest biopirates from across the globe by nominating them for the Captain Hook Awards for Biopiracy. Only the nastiest offenders will skulk away as winners.

Reward the resistance! It's not all skulls and crossbones. The CAB also awards those who have fought bravely and successfully to defend the commons. You can also nominate those who have fended off acts of biopiracy, repelled patents or defended people's rights. The winners will receive a "Cog" award (named after 'cog' ships designed to ward off pirates).

Previous 2004 winners of Captain Hook and Cog awards include: Monsanto - Worst Corporate Offender- for patenting an Indian variety of soft milling wheat. Yang Mengjun - Worst Nanopiracy - for patenting nanoscale versions of over 400 Chinese herbal medicines. President Lula of Brazil - Worst Betrayal - for opening up the Amazon to GM crops and supporting Terminator Technology. Peruvian Coalition Against Biopiracy in the Andes - Best Peoples' Defense - for opposing patents on traditional Peruvian maca. Percy Schmeiser - Best Advocate - for fighting Monsanto through the courts after the Gene Giant sued him for patent infringement when, in reality, Monsanto's technology had contaminated his crops.

To see all previous winners check: www.captainhookawards.org/winners

How to nominate: Submit a brief description of the case with supporting documentation to: hook@captainhookawards.org or nominate online at www.captainhookawards.org/nominations

You may choose an existing category or create your own - be creative!

Nominators may remain anonymous.

Verified nominations will be posted at www.captainhookawards.org/
nominations

Nominations deadline: March 1st 2006 Award Ceremony: During the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil.

* Biopiracy refers to the monopolization (usually through intellectual property) of genetic resources and traditional knowledge or culture taken from Peoples or farming communities who have developed and nurtured those resources. Biopiracy includes bioprospecting, patents on nature (genes and molecules) and the trademarking of cultural knowledge.

The Captain Hook Awards is hosted by the Coalition Against Biopiracy (founders: SEARICE, Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network and ETC Group)

Indian Cotton Farmers Betrayed

Rhea Gala travels to Andhra Pradesh to find out why small farmers are still planting GM Bt cotton when it has failed miserably since its introduction four years ago

Agricultural scientists Dr Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakkhari conducted the first independent study on Bt cotton and released their report Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh: A three year assessment in 2005. The study involved a season-long investigation in 87 villages of the major cotton growing districts - Warangal, Nalgonda, Adilabad and Kurnool. It found against Bt cotton on all counts and was vital in getting the hybrids involved banned in AP:

It failed miserably for small farmers in terms of yield; non-Bt cotton surpassed Bt by nearly 30 percent and at 10 percent less expense
It did not significantly reduce pesticide use; over the three years, Bt farmers used Rs2 571 worth of pesticide on average while the non-Bt farmers used Rs2 766 worth of pesticide
It did not bring profit to farmers; over the three years, the non-Bt farmer earned on average 60 percent more than the Bt farmer
It did not reduce the cost of cultivation; on average, the Bt farmer had to pay 12 percent more than the non-Bt farmer
It did not result in a healthier environment; researchers found a special kind of root rot spread by Bollgard cotton infecting the soil, so that other crops would not grow.

Co-author of the study, Kiran Sakkhari, told me that farmers buy the Bt cotton because of the extreme hype. “Farmers have been cheated before by being sold dud pesticide that looked like the real thing, and now they are trying to avoid pesticide altogether by using Bt. But the Bt gene is only partially effective against bollworm and ineffective against the dozens of other pests that routinely attack cotton, so pesticide use will continue to increase with Bt cotton. For example, the tobacco caterpillar ( Spodoptera litura) , which has caused havoc on the Bt cotton this year; though not on the non-Bt cotton, has done as much damage as any primary cotton pest.”

He also reiterated that Bt plants are intolerant of biotic and abiotic stress. “Wilt, a physiological disorder prevalent this year, is found only on the Bt crop, and tobacco streak virus, spread by the sucking pest, thrips, is a big problem; and while the non Bt cotton recovered well from excessive rain this season, the Bt crop is a shambles.” He thinks that the Bt cotton may give a good yield in laboratory conditions; but that cannot be extrapolated to larger areas. He admits this is a most generous assessment of the situation; and that many people, including himself, think that there is something basically wrong with the parent lines or the Bt technology per se .

WTO: Hands off our food!

Draft ruling imminent on trade dispute between EU and US

Media advisory

3 February 2006- For immediate release

A special media briefing on the GM trade dispute is available at http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_interim
_briefing_Feb2006.pdf as well as a fact sheet on GMOs and the WTO, see http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/GMO_and_WTO_QA
_Feb2006.pdf

Brussels/Geneva, 3 February 2006 - Opposition to genetically modified (GM) foods) is likely to increase if the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules in favour of a US-led complaint against European GM policy, Friends of the Earth Europe warned today. A draft final WTO ruling is expected next week.

The international environmental group accused the WTO of being secretive, undemocratic and biased towards business interests, and charged that it is the wrong institution to settle disputes of this kind.

The United States, Canada and Argentina launched a trade dispute with the EU through the WTO in May 2003. They have been arguing that Europe's reluctance to embrace GM foods damaged their farmers and was a barrier to trade. In line with WTO secrecy, the draft ruling will only be sent to the countries in the dispute. A final ruling is expected later in the year.

Friends of the Earth Europe’s Trade Co-ordinator Alexandra Wandel said: "The World Trade Organisation should keep its hands off our food. Protecting Europe's wildlife, farmers and consumers from the threat of genetically modified crops is far more important than free trade rules. The WTO is secretive, undemocratic and unfair. It should not decide what the public eats and how we protect our environment."

Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "Opposition to genetically modified foods is likely to increase if the WTO decides that European safeguards should be sacrificed to benefit biotech corporations. The number of bans by countries in Europe against GM foods is increasing, and the number of regions declaring themselves GM Free has soared. The WTO, the US administration and biotech firms should stop their bullying and let Europeans decide what food we eat."

Friends of the Earth has published a fact sheet and briefing on the dispute today [1] which highlight:

*Opposition to GM foods and crops in Europe has increased since the beginning of the trade dispute - There are now over 170 regions and 4,500 smaller areas that want to be GM-free.

*An alternative dispute settlement procedure is needed to solve trade nd environmental conflicts. This could be the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Additionally, the UN Biosafety Protocol is an international agreement already in place that deals with trade in GMOs. Unfortunately, the US has refused to sign it.

*The first ten years of GM crops have failed to deliver the benefits promised by the biotech industry and have played no role in tackling poverty and hunger [2].

An international campaign against the WTO dispute called "Bite-back - WTO: Hands off our food!" is supported by 750 organisations representing some 60 million people (see http://www.bite-back.org). The coalition states that the industry-friendly WTO is not the right place to decide what food Europeans should eat.

The "Bite Back" citizens' objection was initiated by Friends of the Earth International with the support of consumer, development and Farmers' groups, trade unions, research institutes and citizens from over 100 countries.

[1] A special media briefing on the GM trade dispute is available at http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/
GMO_and_WTO_interim_briefing_Feb2006.pdf as well as a fact sheet on GMOs and the WTO, see http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/
GMO_and_WTO_QA_Feb2006.pdf

[2] Who benefits from GM crops http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/
who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf

CONTACT:

Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth WTO expert, +49 172 748 3953 Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth GMO expert, +49 1609 490 1163

GMO crops in Puerto Rico

Press release
Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety

PUERTO RICO HOST TO BIOTECH CROP EXPERIMENTS

(Thursday, February 2 2006) The establishment of the AgReliant Genetics company in the municipality of Santa Isabel reinforces Puerto Rico's role as a laboratory for experiments with genetically engineered (GE) crops, exposing the Caribbean island to multiple environmental and human health risks and compromising the integrity of its agriculture, warned the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety.

The establishment of biotechnology companies in Puerto Rico forms part of the so-called "knowledge economy" that the current administration is promoting, as evidenced in the governor's speech last Monday.

"We are gravely concerned by governor Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá's policy of fast track approval for every type of biotechnology-related activity in Puerto Rico, without the most minimal precautionary measures to determine what impacts these could have on our ecology, public health and agriculture", declared the Project on Biosafety.

"The technology of genetic engineering is inherently risky, unstable and unpredictable", said environmental educator Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero, the organization's director and founder. "To this day there is not a single independent peer-reviewed scientific study that says that genetically engineered foods are safe for human consumption, and for this reason these novel products should be treated with extreme caution."

The Puerto Rico Project of Biosafety was founded in 2004 to educate the citizenry about the impacts ot genetically engineered products.

US Agriculture Department documents show that, with the exception of Hawaii, no state of the American union has as many experimental GE crop test plots per square miles as Puerto Rico.

The non-governmental organization advises that Puerto Rico could have an ecologically sound agriculture, with justice for farmers and serving the best interests of the Puerto Rican consumer, but that such an advanced form of agriculture is incompatible with the model promoted by the government, which is environmentally risky, intensive in the use of toxic agrochemicals, and benefits only transnational agribusiness corporations.

For more information:

"Puerto Rico's Biotech Harvest", by Carmelo Ruiz Marrero http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19220/


Contact:

CARMELO RUIZ-MARRERO
(787) 771-4473, 203-2615
e-mail: carmelo_ruiz@yahoo.com
Internet: http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com

Darlington Building, apartment #703
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00925

Traducido al español por Carmelo Ruiz

Comunicado de Prensa de la Campaña Internacional Terminar Terminator y el Grupo ETC

Los Sembradores Ruines de Granada Aran Sobre La Moratoria a Terminator, Despejando el camino para su aprobacion por la ONU

Los oponentes de Terminator se preparan para batallar en la Octava Conferencia de las Partes (COP8) en Curitiba, Brasil, 20 al 31 de marzo de 2006

Los pueblos indígenas fueron atropellados y los derechos de los agricultores pisoteados en una reunión de las Naciones Unidas esta semana, en la que los gobiernos de Australia, Nueva Zelanda y Canadá-guiados por el gobierno de Estados Unidos y una cofradía de gigantes corporativos de la genética- tomaron un paso importante hacia socavar la moratoria existente a la tecnología Terminator (plantas que son genéticamente modificadas para producir una cosecha de semillas estériles). Las dañinas recomendaciones que salieron de la reunión en Granada, España, ahora van a la reunión bienal de la Convención de Biodiversidad (CBD) de la ONU en Curitiba, Brasil, del 20 al 31 de marzo.

El "Grupo de Trabajo sobre Artículo 8(j)" de la CBD que se dio cita en Granada esta semana fue establecido para proteger el conocimiento tradicional, innovaciones y prácticas de pueblos indígenas y agricultores campesinos. Sin embargo, los grupos de sociedad civil y pueblos indígenas miraron con asombro mientras los gobiernos ignoraron los profundamente negativos impactos sociales, económicos y ambientales de las "semillas suicidas" destacados en numerosos estudios de la CBD al igual que en sumisiones oficiales de pueblos indígenas y organizaciones de agricultores. El resultado ahora amenaza la biodiversidad, el futuro de la práctica de guardar semilla, y la agricultura adaptada a condiciones locales por el mundo entero.

"Terminator representa una amenaza para nuestro bienestar y soberanía alimentaria y constituye una violación de nuestro derecho humano a la autodeterminación", dijo Mariano Marcos Terena de Brasil a nombre del Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad.
Aunque la reunión "reafirmó" la frágil moratoria a Terminator, las nuevas recomendaciones adoptadas en Granada podrán ser usadas para impedir el enfoque precautorio de la CBD cuando los gobiernos se reúnan en marzo en Brasil. No solamente falló la reunión en condenar a Terminator como inmoral y anti-agricultor. Australia y Estados Unidos alegaron falsamente que Terminator, que crea esterilidad, "aumentaría la productividad".

Con un oficial del gobierno de Estados Unidos asesorándola a su lado, la negociadora australiana insistió en omitir las referencias al "enfoque precautorio" y usó esto como ficha de negociación para obtener un lenguaje controversial que facilita una "evaluación de riesgo caso por caso" de Terminator. "La nueva referencia a evaluación caso por caso es chocante y extremadamente dañina porque sugiere que es posible la reglamentación de Terminator a nivel nacional", advierte Hope Shand del Grupo ETC.

"La movida descarada de Australia confirma que hay una alarmante estrategia de gobiernos e industria para derogar la moratoria de la ONU a Terminator", dijo Lucy Sharrat de la Campaña Internacional Terminar Terminator. "El proceso y el resultado desestiman las contribuciones de pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales."

A pesar del impulso inescrupuloso por parte de un puñado de países ricos para poner las ganancias de la industria por encima de los derechos de los agricultores, la mayoría de los gobiernos en la reunión permanecieron sólidamente opuestos a la tecnología Terminator y comprometidos con la moratoria existente. En su mensaje de bienvenida la Ministro del Medio Ambiente de España reconoció los peligros de la tecnología Terminator. Durante la reunión, el Grupo Africano, Egipto y las Filipinas dieron apasionados discursos acerca de los impactos potencialmente devastadores de Terminator sobre la biodiversidad y seguridad alimentaria, y la necesidad de prohibiciones nacionales. Noruega, Paquistán, Kenya y la Unión Europea defendieron la actual moratoria. India y Brasil hicieron referencia a sus leyes nacionales que prohiben la tecnología de esterilización de semillas. A pesar de esta fuerte oposición a Terminator, la postura extrema de Australia y su empeño en bloquear el consenso dejó a los gobiernos con poco espacio para negociar.

En el Salón de la Infamia: A pesar de haberse comprometido públicamente a no desarrollar la tecnología Terminator, los gigantes genéticos Syngenta y Monsanto cabildearon agresivamente a favor de ésta a lo largo de la semana. Harry Collins de Delta and Pine Land, la mayor compañía de semillas de algodón del mundo- que ahora está probando Terminator en invernaderos- asistió como representante de la Federación Internacional de Semillas. Roger Krueger de Monsanto hizo un papel doble como representante de la Cámara Internacional de Comercio. Y en los pasillos se les unió Croplife International, un lobby pro-pesticidas que representa la "industria de ciencia de plantas".

Afuera de la reunión de la ONU españoles de todas las edades se congregaron para recordarle a los gobiernos de la fuerte resistencia pública contra la tecnología Terminator. Ecologistas en Acción organizó eventos públicos, protestas callejeras y exhibiciones educativas en la calle durante toda la semana como parte de la Campaña Internacional Terminar Terminator (www.banterminator.org). Cuando las noticias de lo ocurrido en Granada llegaron al pleno del Foro Social Mundial en Caracas, Venezuela, hubo rugidos de furia por parte de miles de agricultores congregados.

"Permitir la aprobación de Terminator caso por caso significa la muerte lenta para los agricultores, ataúd por ataúd", explicó Silvia Ribeiro del Grupo ETC, hablando en Caracas.

La Campaña Internacional Terminar Terminator trabajará con grupos y movimientos por el mundo entero para fortalecer la resistencia global para detener a Terminator. La pelea ahora continuará en la reunión COP8 en Brasil del 20 al 31 de marzo.

La transcripción del bosquejo de recomendación sometido por el Grupo de Trabajo se puede leer accediendo a la página de internet del Grupo ETC http://www.etcgroup.org/
documents/8jWorkingGroupRecommendations.pdf