Discuten biocombustibles en Selingue

Los biocombustibles van desplazando a la producción de alimentos, alertan en Malí

LUIS HERNANDEZ NAVARRO

La preocupación por el medio ambiente tiene el signo de dólares, dicen en el foro mundial

Selingue, Mali, 25 de febrero. En los pequeños restoranes de Sélingué, como sucede en las comunidades remotas de México y en sus barrios populares, se sirve Nescafé y leche en polvo Nido. No importa que la ganadería local produzca leche y que en Malí se coseche café.

El arroz es uno de los principales alimentos nacionales, junto con el mijo. Se come hervido y mezclado con una salsa de tomate ligeramente picante a mediodía. En ocasiones se le añade un poco de carne, pescado o pollo. El grano se cultiva en los márgenes del río Níger, pero también se importa, a menor precio, de Tailandia.

La presencia de Nestlé, la trasnacional con base en suiza que labora el Nescafé y la leche Nido, ha provocado algunos escándalos en Africa. En una región en la que es difícil encontrar agua potable, nutrir a bebés recién nacidos con leche en polvo, en lugar de leche materna con anticuerpos, provocó muchas muertes infantiles. En Europa, Canadá y Estados Unidos se organizó un gran y efectivo boicot contra la compañía, uno de los primeros en su tipo, embrión de lo que hoy es el movimiento altermundista.

Un escándalo más fue el denunciado por José Bové en el Foro Mundial para la Soberanía Alimentaria. Como una muestra de cómo las grandes trasnacionales fijan la agenda de la Unión Europea en contra de países que no pertenecen a ella explicó que, a petición de Nestlé, recientemente decidió modificar la fórmula de elaboración reconocida para producir el chocolate, reduciendo el contenido de cacao para agregarle aceites vegetales. Como resultado de ello Senegal, uno de los países más pobres del mundo, ha reducido las exportaciones de este producto, vital para su economía, en 25 por ciento.

Pero lo que sucede en la mesa de los restoranes malienses, y en la de sus hogares, no es una excepción sino la regla. Las decenas de testimonios de casi todo el mundo presentados en el foro pintan un panorama desolador. Las exportaciones masivas de alimentos y fibras subsidiados en los países del norte, la acción de las trasnacionales agropecuarias, el modelo de agricultura industrializada están destruyendo tanto las agriculturas de los países más pobres como a los agricultores familiares de las naciones ricas.

En el mismo Senegal, denunció una de las delegadas de ese país al foro, las donaciones masivas de leche en polvo para combatir el hambre han devastado la ganadería local. Estos programas están, además, inundando la región de comida transgénica.

Es por ello que Joao Pedro Stedilé, el dirigente del Movimiento sin Tierra de Brasil, explica en la reunión que la comida no debe ser una mercancía más, sino un derecho de todas las personas, como lo debe ser, también, el agua, "que no debe ser propiedad de nadie". Según su perspectiva, el comercio agrícola no debe basarse en la lógica de la ganancia sino en las necesidades de los pueblos. Es necesario, asegura, valorar los cultivos locales y consumir lo que se produce localmente.

La Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) no tiene razón alguna para legislar sobre la producción de alimentos ya que, afirma, no representa los intereses del pueblo. Por ello, dice, "no es suficiente señalar que la agricultura debe salir de la OMC, sino hay que luchar contra ella".

El nuevo fantasma agrícola

Un nuevo fantasma recorre los campos y mercados agrícolas: el fantasma de los bioenergéticos. En distintas regiones del mundo se dedican cada vez más extensiones de terreno que antes se destinaban al cultivo de alimentos para producir materia prima para fabricar combustibles biológicos. En parte, por ello el precio del maíz y de la tortilla se elevó dramáticamente a comienzos de este año.

La delegada de la Confederación de Campesinos del Perú al foro emitió la señal de alarma: "los biocombustibles están desplazando la producción de alimentos."

Silvia Ribeiro, del grupo ETC, explica cómo es que esta ola productiva está asociando a grandes gigantes económicos: las industrias del petróleo, automotriz, de producción de semillas, de producción y comercialización de cereales. Irónicamente, en nombre de la defensa del medio ambiente, la nueva industria va a desplazar más a campesinos de sus tierras, va a estimular la siembra de monocultivos, el uso de fertilizantes elaborados con base en el petróleo y va a propiciar mayor deforestación.

La preocupación por el medio ambiente tiene en este caso el signo de dólares. Eric Holt-Giménez, director ejecutivo de Food First, un instituto especializado en temas rurales establecido en California, Estados Unidos, denunció cómo la British Petroleum donó a la Universidad de California y a la Illinois 500 mil millones de dólares para realizar investigaciones sobre bioenergéticos. ¿Por qué los hace esta petrolera? Porque necesita posicionarse frente al boom. Requiere llevar la delantera en la investigación. Esta compitiendo con otros titanes.

Joao Pedro Stedile matiza esta posición. Según él, hay que analizar la problemática de los nuevos combustibles; debe ser cuidadosamente analizada, y no puede ser vista al margen de un cambio en la matriz energética mundial. "El capital quiere sacar los alimentos de los pueblos para ponerlos en las burguesías del norte. Tenemos que luchar contra esto desde la raíz. El mundo tiene que cambiar su matriz energética de transporte. Debemos oponernos al transporte individual y luchar por el transporte colectivo", indicó

Su organización, los Sin Tierra, se opone a la siembra de grandes extensiones de monocultivos propios de las grandes plantaciones que abastecen las plantas que fabrican el biocombustible, pero están de acuerdo con producirlo en pequeñas explotaciones para abaratar el costo de los carburantes con los que funciona los tractores y la maquinaria agrícola.

Transgénicos

Sobre la ola de los bioenergéticos se han montado los grandes consorcios que producen semillas transgénicas y sus apologistas. Su tecnología, aseguran, servirá no sólo para resolver los problemas de hambre en el mundo, sino para solucionar la crisis del petróleo.

El asunto de los organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM) ha sido permanentemente discutido en el foro ¿Cuál es la relación entre la producción transgénica y la soberanía alimentaria? ¿Puede existir ésta sin aquella? El asunto es medular. Dirigentes campesinos como el francés José Bové, el vasco Paul Nicholson y cientos de campesinos indios han participado en acciones directas destruyendo campos de producción de semillas modificadas genéticamente en varios países, y enfrentan procesos judiciales por ello.

Para algunos, las semillas frankestein refuerzan la dependencia de los países más pobres a las grandes empresas trasnacionales que controlan su fabricación. Expropian a los campesinos las simientes con las que han trabajo durante centenares de generaciones, al tiempo que acaban con la diversidad genética existente. No hay pues, desde su lógica, compatibilidad alguna posible entre organismos genéticamente modificados y control soberano de la agricultura.

Unos cuantos, en cambio, sostienen lo contrario. Según ellos, no es posible que, manteniendo vigentes los principios de precaución necesarios, se busque el mejoramiento de la producción local haciendo uso de todos los recursos tecnológicos posibles. Más aun cuando el hambre realmente existente obliga a hacer más productivas las cosechas. Y entre esos recursos tecnológicos se encuentran los OGM. Esa es la posición personal, según aclaró el ministro de Agricultura de Malí.

Quienes objetan el uso de transgénicos argumentan que es falso que incrementen la producción, que reduzcan el uso de agroquímicos y que el problema del hambre en el mundo no es de falta de alimentos, sino que es resultado de la desigualdad en los ingresos. En el mundo sobra comida, lo que no hay, dicen, es justicia social para garantizar que todos tengan acceso a ellos. Además, insisten, están uniformando peligrosamente la variedad genética de los granos y dañando los saberes campesinos. Por ello, en lugar de nombrarlos OGM, dice el delegado indígena mexicano Aldo González, habría que llamarlos Organismos Genéticamente Transformados, o sea OGT, porque eso es lo que son, organismos ojetes.

La Jornada, México, 26-2-07

Seed saving is the key

Bamako Declaration | February 2007

PEASANT SEEDS ARE THE WAY FORWARD FOR AFRICA'S FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

Having met in Bamako between the 17th and 21st of February 2007, we farmers, pastoralists, representatives of civil society groups, social movements, and environmentalists from 17 countries, mainly from West Africa with representatives from Africa, Asia, South America and Europe have extensively discussed and exchanged on:

• the issues of privatisation of seeds and genetic engineering,
• the principles and practices of ecological farming, seed conservation and the food & cultural sovereignty of our countries, and
• the ability of traditional seeds to nurture and guide our food and farming future in ways that sustain nature and the livelihoods of the agrarian communities of our planet.

Our interaction has opened up new vistas on life-affirming agricultural practices based on seed and animal breed conservation, as well as on struggles for community food and seed sovereignty. It has reaffirmed our conviction in the strength of traditional knowledge systems and respectful intercultural dialogue. In the light of all these arguments and examples:

WE SUPPORT THE USE OF TRADITIONAL SEEDS AND ANIMAL BREEDS FOR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

We call upon all our national governments, particularly in West Africa to actively support national and regional efforts to save and retrieve the rich patrimony of traditional seeds in this region. Our region is making a transition from the concept of food security to food sovereignty through the process of local food self-sufficiency. This is critical to the survival of our communities with dignity and self esteem.

We call upon our leaders and governments to endorse these principles and incorporate the concept of Food Sovereignty in their national constitutions and Common Agricultural Policy, and vigorously pursue its implementation in their national and regional agricultural initiatives.

We affirm our conviction that traditional seeds combined with farming systems based on a rich agro-biodiversity and agro-ecological principles as well as local markets can successfully and sustainably feed our populations.

STOP THE PRIVATIZATION OF SEEDS AND BIOPIRACY

We strongly believe that the privatisation of seeds through research and intellectual property rights, and patents stand fundamentally opposed to food sovereignty. We have heard examples of the trap laid by arguments such as Access and Benefit Sharing systems which we believe drags us into a Faustian deal with corporations and snatches away our sovereign rights over our bioresources. Our governments must therefore do everything in their means to halt this privatisation.

During this Workshop, we have heard a number of examples of the destruction wrought by the genetically modified crops in Asia and Latin America as well as in South Africa & Europe. We also learnt about many examples of biopiracy that have robbed the genetic wealth of our nations. We are absolutely convinced that these practices should be stopped in West African countries and ask that out governments put in place mechanisms to prevent such developments in this region of the world.

In the West African context, the biggest danger that confronts us is privatisation of seeds through UPOV & Bangui agreements supporting plant breeder's rights to the detriment of farmers' rights over seeds and their knowledge. The same is true for other regional economic partnership agreements such as the ECOWAS, CILSS all of which are WTO-compliant. We demand that these agreements keep agriculture and seed privatisation out of their orbit and protect farmers and their seeds.

BAN GMOS ON THE LANDS OF AFRICA

Another big threat to our food sovereignty is posed by the aggressive policies of the biotech industry in Africa, and especially in West Africa. This industry is acting with the support of Northern governments and international bodies. In this context, we view with concern the multiple interventions of international bodies such as USAID, the World Food Program (WFP) and the Catholic Relief Service, in our national policies in the guise of food aid or building our capacity to frame bio-safety laws in our countries. We are certain that such bio-safety frameworks designed in the USA will be a trap to facilitate the free entry of GE crops.

The recent actors in this game are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as NEPAD. We are certain that these are Trojan Horses for the entry GMOs and corporate controlled biotechnology into Africa. They offer no solution for hunger and poverty in Africa. African governments must wake up to this danger and not sacrifice the safety of their people and lands because of the millions of dollars being poured in by these initiatives. All these initiatives are designed to pave the way for pro-biotech research that will work against the interests of our populations. We strongly demand that our governments wake up to this reality and use all possible means, diplomatic and otherwise, to ban the entry of Genetically Engineered crops from the lands of Africa.

In a remarkably democratic Citizens' Jury held in January 2006 in Sikasso, our sisters and brothers from Mali have firmly said 'No to GMOs and Yes to Traditional Crops and peasant farming'. We endorse the recommendations of this Citizens' Jury and demand that our governments accord this vibrant call the deepest respect it deserves and vigorously implement the recommendations of Malian farmers in their national laws and actions.

SUPPORT FARMER EXCHANGES AND INNOVATIONS

In terms of positive action, we urge all the West African nations to facilitate farmers' exchanges in the region through funding and support for regional networks such as ROPPA, COPAGEN, CNOP and such other farmers organizations. We believe that such exchanges will build a healthy network of farmers ideas and initiatives that can strengthen the farming communities of this region.

Given that similar processes of privatization of farmer seeds and knowledge are at work on all continents, and that appropriate responses to these threats can be generated through farmer exchanges on all five continents. We recommend that international farmer exchanges on seed and food sovereignty be supported and organized on a regular basis.

Village level, farmer led research, and participatory plant and livestock breeding done in this context, are other positive initiatives we strongly recommend to governments, farmers groups and civil society organizations. This has the potential to enhance the resilience of our agriculture without damaging our environment and livelihoods.

We call upon all national and international funding agencies to support such efforts at the farmers and civil society level.

Declaration of the Farmer Exchange on the Privatisation of Seeds, organized by the CNOP, BEDE and IIED. Preparatory process for the International Forum on Food Sovereignty of Nyeléni, Mali.

Bamako, 21st February 2007.

Cloned food

Why Cloned Food Should Be Inedible and Unacceptable

Family Farm Defenders

On Dec. 28th, 2006 the FDA determined that food from cloned animals was fine for humans to eat. Consumers have until April 2nd, 2007 to provide their feedback. Once again, the U.S. is trying to lead the world over another cliff...

The mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to protect the public's health through assuring the safety of our nation's food supply. The FDA's purpose is NOT to facilitate the dumping of dubious food products onto people's dinner plates for the sake of corporate profit. That is why it is so disturbing to hear about the FDA's Dec. 28, 2006 determination that cloned livestock byproducts are indeed safe for human consumption, and to read a subsequent wave of editorials clamoring for fullblown commercialization of cloned milk and meat.

Many people first learned about animal cloning back in 1997 when a sheep named Dolly was splashed across paper headlines and television screens. This sheep was created using a technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), involving the transfer of genetic material from one animal into the egg of another and the subsequent implantation into the womb of a host. Biotech companies and venture capitalists were quick to tout the potential benefits of livestock cloning for producing pharmaceuticals, human organ transplants, as well as milk and meat. Left unsaid was that the average Dolly never sees the light of day, since 90% of cloned fetuses die before birth along with up to 25% of the surrogate mothers. In order to keep these hosts alive, cloning also requires much higher than usual animal treatment with hormones and antibiotics.

There are many valid reasons to be opposed to the sale of such milk and meat that go beyond the ethical debate about cloning itself. First of all, the FDA's decision relies upon the discredited pseudo-science of substantial equivalence. Dairy farmers and milk drinkers may recall that the FDA first unveiled this shoddy notion back in 1993 when it railroaded through approval of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). Of course, now we know from a real scientific study (May 2006 Journal of Reproductive Health) that milk induced through genetic engineering is NOT the same as natural milk. But, because of the FDA's irresponsible rubberstamping, U.S. consumers are now suffering reproductive problems from having ingested rBGH dairy products for years with elevated levels of Insulin Like Growth Factor - 1 (IGF-1).

Statements by government officials and biotech apologists that cloned animals are simply genetic twins are also patently misleading. There have been numerous studies showing that once born cloned animals still suffer higher than normal morbidity and deformity rates. According to a leading cloning researcher, MIT Prof. Rudolph Jaensich, "You can not make normal clones. The ones that survive will just be less abnormal than the ones that die early." Basic science - let alone common sense - would suggest that this is symptomatic of other physiological problems and might not make a very healthy meal. Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists who created Dolly has publicly warned that even a slight imbalance in a cloned animal's hormone, protein, or fat levels could pose a danger to any would-be consumer. Nonetheless, one of the leading cloning outfits, ViaGen, has already entered into negotiations with Smithfield to put cloned pork into their products.

Worse yet, cloned animals are proposed for the production of industrial enzymes, pharmaceuticals, and other genetically engineered (GE) substances - aka biopharming. Longterm scientific studies have not been done to disprove concerns that biopharming residues will find their way into cloned meat/milk and then into people's mouths. It is bad enough having to worry about Mad Cow being served up with a hamburger, let alone GE spider webs.

Another criticism with the FDA's decision is that it undermines one of the fundamental principles of economic efficiency and marketplace competition, by failing to require labeling. Consumers can not make rational informed choices when they are denied the right to know about their food. By frustrating consumer sovereignty for the sake of corporate secrecy, the FDA is failing to serve the public interest. Given the sordid history behind rBGH, one would suspect that FDA approval of cloned food will give the green light to powerful corporations and their proxies to sue and/or fine smaller producers for daring to use the First Amendment and label their products as "clone-free." So much for the free market idea.

Once again , it seems the FDA is over eager to become an accomplice in the corporate forcefeeding of questionable byproducts to an unwitting populace. Whether it is genetic engineering, biopharming, nanotechnology, irradiation, or cloning, it is hard to escape the thought that U.S farmers and consumers are now guinea pigs caught up in some massive frankenfood experiment that the rest of the world is wise enough to watch from a safe distance.

Contact the FDA to Stop the Sale of Cloned Milk and Meat!

There is now a 90 day public comment period on the FDA's recent decision that cloned milk and meat are "substantially equivalent" to conventional livestock products and hence fit for human consumption. The deadline for public feedback is April 2nd, 2007. Please refer to Docket 2006P-0145 in any comments to the FDA.

By internet:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm?AGENCY=FDA

By mail:

FDA Div. Dockets Mgmt. (HFA-305) 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061 Rockville, MD 20857 By phone:

Toll free 1-888-463-6332

You can also contact your elected officials to demand mandatory consumer labeling and comprehensive safety testing of ALL food that is cloned or genetically engineered.

Congressional Switchboard: 1-202-224-3121

For more information:

Family Farm Defenders, 1019 Williamson St. #B, Madison, WI 53703 #608-260-0900 www.familyfarmdefenders.org Center for Food Safety, 600 Pennsylvania Ave #302 , Washington DC, 20003 # 202-547-9359 www.centerforfoodsafety.org Food and Water Watch, 1400 16th Street NW #225, Washington, DC 20036 # 202-797-6550 www.foodandwaterwatch.org

Bananos transgénicos

Taken from GM Watch:

Geoffrey Arinatwe, the Ugandan scientist who developed the GM banana featured in the article below, is part of a group of scientists based in Belgium who've been responsible for a whole series of attempts to massively hype GM bananas.

Arinatwe is quoted for example in a San Francisco Chronicle article, "Without a genetic fix, the banana may be History".
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/05/BUGF75VU791.DTL

These "only GM can save the banana" stories get expertly debunked each time they arise. GM is not the only way to conserve bananas or make them disease resistant quite apart from the fact that there's no evidence consumers want them – see:

UN FOOD AGENCY SAYS BANANAS NOT THREATENED
Bananas 'can't disappear by 2013'
Bananas about GM
'Yes, we don't want GM bananas'
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3235

In addition, James Smith, an African Studies specialist at the University of Edinburgh has produced telling evidence as to how biotech banana projects can be hyped to a truly spectacular degree.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5823

Part of the pattern that can occur involves biotech being presented as an almost miraculous solution to what is presented as a major and otherwise intractable problem. Smith notes that this type of crisis "narrative prevails amongst a whole range of literature supporting biotechnological development in Africa."

The project in neighbouring Kenya that Smith examined made misleading claims about not only the level of success delivered by biotech bananas but also the extent to which bananas contributed to food security, nutritional intake, and household incomes.

In view of that, it would only be wise to treat the claims made in this latest report with care until it's clear what kind of data is available to support them.
---

Uganda to introduce genetically engineered banana
Esther Nakkazi, Special Correspondent Nairobi
The East African (Nairobi, Kenya) http://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/current/News/News19020711.htm

Biocombustibles y transgénicos en Africa

OPENING PANDORA'S BOX: GMOS, FUELISH PARADIGMS AND SOUTH AFRICA's BIOFUELS STRATEGY

By Mariam Mayet African Centre for Biosafety, February 2007

"…the negative emissions approach shows a way ahead for sub-Saharan Africa. Addressing the problem of abrupt climate change and solving the problems of Africa can go hand in hand".

"Corn ethanol is helping to establish the alternative fuel infrastructure. It is paving the way for research in alternative sources of ethanol, including sugar beets, sugarcane, swithgrass and plant cellulose." Monsanto Company


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.INTRODUCTION

2.BIOFUELS AND GMOS

(a)Exponential Increase in GM Plantings in South Africa (b)Biotech/ Seed Industry becoming more dominant/powerful (c)Biosafety Concerns (d)Explosion of field trials of second generation GM crops

3.ENERGY BALANCE: UNSUSTAINABLE LIQUID BIOFUELS

4.CONCLUSION

5.ENDNOTES

El desierto verde de las Sojas transgénicas y el horror económico de la Globalización

Por Jorge Eduardo Rulli

El desierto verde de las Sojas transgénicas se ha impuesto sobre la complejidad del paisaje entrerriano, ha barrido los alambrados y hecho desaparecer la fauna y toda flora biodiversa que no sea la del yuyito verde que colma de alegría a los progresistas y a los exportadores. Ahora el panorama es una verdadera pinturita: solo sojales hasta el horizonte.

Africa habla

World Social Forum 2007 - Kenya

Africa's Wealth of Seed Diversity and Farmer Knowledge - Under threat from the Gates/ Rockefeller "Green Revolution" initiative

Source: World Food Policy @ http://www.worldfoodpolicy.org/

Statement from African civil society organisations at the World Social Forum 2007

Nairobi, Kenya - 25 January 2007

Africa is the source of much of the world's agricultural knowledge and biodiversity. African farming represents a wealth of innovation : for example, Canada's main export wheat is derived from a Kenyan variety called "Kenyan farmer"; the US and Canada grow barley bred from Ethiopian farmers' varieties; and the Zera Zera sorghum grown in Texas originated in Ethiopia and the Sudan. This rich basis of biodiversity still exists in Africa today, thanks to the 80% of farmers in Africa that continue to save seed in a range of diverse eco-systems across the continent.

The future of agriculture for Africa and the world will have to build on this biodiversity and farmers' knowledge, especially in the current context of climate change. The diversity of seed varieties continually developed by African farmers will be vital to ensure that they have the flexibility to respond to changing weather patterns. With the challenges that climate change will bring, only a wealth of seed diversity maintained by farmers in Africa can offer a response to prevent severe food crises.

However, new external initiatives are putting pressure on these agricultural systems. A new initiative from the Bill Gates / Rockefeller Foundation partnership, called the "Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa" (AGRA) is putting over $150 million towards shifting African agriculture to a system dependent on expensive, harmful chemicals, monocultures of hybrid seeds, and ultimately genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Another initiative funded by the G8 is pushing biotechnology in agriculture through four new major Biosciences research centres in Africa. And GM companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta are entering into public-private- partnership agreements with national agricultural research centres in Africa, in order to direct agricultural research and policy towards GMOs. These initiatives under-represent the real achievements in productivity through traditional methods, and will fail to address the real causes of hunger in Africa.

This comes at a time when the world is realising the need for organic agriculture; however these initiatives would promote the use of more chemicals, and less seed diversity in the hands of farmers. These initiatives will destroy the bases of biodiversity, knowledge and adaptive capacity - at a time when it is needed most.

This push for a so-called "green revolution" or "gene revolution" is being done once again under the guise of solving hunger in Africa. Chemical-intensive agriculture is, however, already known to be outmoded. We have seen how fertilisers have killed the soil, creating erosion, vulnerable plants and loss of water from the soil. We have seen how pesticides and herbicides have harmed our environment and made us sick. We know that hybrid and GM seed monocultures have pulled farmers into poverty by preventing them from saving seed, and preventing traditional methods of intercropping which provide food security. We vow to learn from our brothers and sisters in India, where this chemical and genetically modified system of agriculture has left them in so much debt and hunger that 150,000 farmers have committed suicide.

The push for a corporate-controlled chemical system of agriculture is parasitic on Africa's biodiversity, food sovereignty, seed and small-scale farmers. Farmers in Africa cannot afford these expensive agricultural inputs. But these new infrastructures seek to make farmers dependent on chemicals and hybrid seeds, and will open the door to GMOs and Terminator crops. Industrial breeding has in fact been driven by the industry's demand for new markets - not to meet the needs of farmers.

We know, however, that the agroecological approach to farming, using traditional and organic methods, provides the real solutions to the crises that we face. Studies show that a biodiversity- based organic agriculture, working with nature and not against it, and using a diversity of mixed crops, produces higher overall yields at far lower costs than chemical agriculture. A 2002 study by the International Centre for Research on Agroforesty (ICRAF) showed that Southern African farms using traditional agroforestry techniques did not suffer from the drought that hit the region so severely that year.

We reject these new foreign systems that will encourage Africa's land and water to be privatised for growing inappropriate export crops, biofuels and carbon sinks, instead of food for our own people. We pledge to intensify our work for food sovereignty by conserving our own seed and enhancing our traditional organic systems of agriculture, in order to meet the uncertainties and challenges that will be faced by present and future generations. Agricultural innovation must be farmer-led, responding to local needs and sustainability. We celebrate Africa's wealth and heritage of seed, knowledge and innovation. We will resist these misguided, top-down but heavily-funded initiatives from the North, which show little or no understanding or respect for our complex systems. We ask that we be allowed to define our own path forward.

Signed by African civil society organisations at the World Social
Forum in Nairobi, 2007.

70 organisations from 12 African countries

Chapela le contesta a Point Reyes Light

This letter by Dr Ignacio Chapela was sent in response to the recent editorial on genetic engineering published in a California local weekly paper, the Point Reyes Light. You can read the editorial here http://www.ptreyeslight.com/editorial.shtml

---

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms
The Editor: Robert Plotkin (The Point Reyes Light)
2007-02-13

To read your editorial of 13 February evokes quaint memories of decades past. Long ago --a quarter century, to be more precise-- your eulogy of genetic engineering could have passed for visionary science in popular magazines. Now, more than $350 billion later, it simply reeks of the stale propaganda of Russian Lysenkoism: a futile attempt at denying truth borne by factual evidence.

Thankfully, the arguments are well rehearsed elsewhere: Genetic engineering is not precise, is not controlled, cannot be contained, is not predictable once released in the environment, has not been properly tested in animal models or real environmental conditions, and has defeated multiple times the gold-standard of the US regulatory system formed by USDA, FDA and EPA. In short, the biological foundation of this mid-twentieth century obsession is already past its "best-by" date.

Economically, genetic engineering has proven also a major disaster: may I direct you to the analyses of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or such firms as Ernst and Young for the evidence? Better still: farmers have known long ago what the Deutsche Bank realized only in 1999, that genetic engineering could not fairly compete for markets on a premium basis, but would have to be foisted upon markets at a discount instead.

To accuse the enlightened population of West Marin of backwardness by such low rhetorical ploys as the racist move to compare them with presumed ignorant black Africans is not only insulting to your readers, but denigrating to your own intelligence. Straus and many other farms have moved on to the 21st Century together with many others in our Nation, many European, Asian, African and Latin American countries. This is the century of reckoning for the blunders of failed technofixes to serious environmental, cultural and economic problems created by the very practices you praise. Genetic engineering has done nothing more than delay progress towards this goal through its fixation on failed, half-baked practices. It is sad indeed to see a journal that once deserved a Pulitzer Prize thrown into the backwaters of anti-scientific propaganda.

Yours sincerely,
Ignacio H. Chapela, PhD
Associate Professor of Microbial Ecology University of California, Berkeley

Más sobre árboles transgénicos

Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees

Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

There is growing pressure to commercialise the numerous GM tree species that have been modified with a variety of transgenes. One major reason is that GM trees have been proposed for plantations on the mistaken assumption that they can offset carbon emissions, and more so, qualify for subsidies under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism . At the same time, rising worldwide demand for biofuels has opened up an opportunity for proponents to rescue genetically modified (GM) crops from chronic market failure by promoting them as ‘energy' crops (see Box 1). Unfortunately, energy crops, including GM tree plantations, are far from sustainable or environmentally benign [1-3] ( Biofuels for Oil Addicts , SiS 30; Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits , Biofuels Republic Brazil , SiS 33). But in the rush to exploit GM trees, caution will be scattered to the winds, like the pollen of the GM trees currently being tested.

Industry's spin on GM energy crops for saving carbon emissions

Biotech industry sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agrobiotechnology Applications (ISAAA) continues its yearly inflated estimates of area planted with GM crops [4] ( Global GM Crops Area Exaggerated , SiS 33), and makes unsubstantiated, very likely false claims on how GM crops can contribute to saving greenhouse gas emissions on the coat tails of the Stern report on The Economics of Climate Change [5] ( SiS 33). To set the record straight, the Stern report does not support GM crops nor does it favour biofuels from energy crops, and for good reasons (see main text).

Nevertheless, the ISAAA says that GM crops save carbon emissions by reducing pesticide use through insecticidal Bt crops and by sequestering carbon in the soil through conservation tillage with herbicide tolerant crops [4]. In 2005, it claims, the combined savings were equivalent to 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or removing 4 million cars from the road. And looking to the future, even greater contributions could be made through cultivation of additional areas of GM energy crops to produce ethanol and biodiesel.

GRAIN | Briefings | 2007 | The end of farm-saved seed?

Industry’s wish list for the next revision of UPOV

GRAIN

The big players in the world seed industry are grumbling about loopholes in the plant variety protection system, which was the alternative to patenting that they set up in the 1960s. The Europeans want to get rid of farmers’ limited entitlement to save seed. The Americans want to restrict the exemption by which breeders have the free use of each other’s commercial varieties for research purposes. In both cases, the point is to reduce competition and boost profits. In the short term, the victims will be farmers, who will probably end up paying the seed giants an additional US$7 billion each year. But in the long run, we will all lose from the growing corporate stranglehold over our food systems. This briefing traces the recent discussions within the seed industry and explores what will happen if a plant variety right becomes virtually indistinguishable from a patent.

Introduction

No more farm-saved seed and no more free access to protected varieties for breeding. In other words, remove the two main differences between plant variety protection and industrial patents. That’s the beginning of the seed industry’s wish list for a new revision of the UPOV convention. [1]

When plant variety protection (PVP) was first standardised by the UPOV convention in the 1960s, it was a mostly copyright-like form of intellectual property. The variety owner had a monopoly on the commercial propagation and marketing of the variety, but little control over other uses. Farmers were free to multiply seed for their own use for as long as they wished. Other breeders could freely use protected varieties to develop their own material.

This changed dramatically with the 1991 revision of UPOV. Based on successful lobbying from the global seed industry, the revision turned PVP into something very close to a patent. Farm-saved seed was allowed only as an optional exception, restrictions were put on further breeding, and monopoly rights were extended all the way to harvest products. This is the version of UPOV which is now being rapidly rolled out across developing countries as a result of the WTO TRIPS [2] agreement.

The industry, however, is still not content. Over the past few years, it has started gearing up its lobby machine for a final attack on the remaining “loopholes” in the PVP system. If it succeeds, it will certainly spell the end of farm-saved seed, probably the end of free access to PVP-protected material for plant breeding, and a general tightening of the ropes with longer terms, stricter enforcement and wider scope of monopoly rights.

This GRAIN briefing traces the recent internal discussions of the seed industry and tries to visualise what will happen if a plant variety right becomes a patent. Will UPOV become superfluous and slowly disappear? Not necessarily. The seed industry is promiscuous in its use of intellectual property rights (IPR). It likes to have many options. Judging from developments in the USA, the future lies not in opting for one form of IPR over another, but in combining two, three or more layers of legal monopoly on top of each other.

Jugando con la viruela

RED POR UNA AMERICA LATINA
LIBRE DE TRANSGÉNICOS
BOLETÍN 224

UNA LLAMADA A QUE SE PROHIBA LA INGENIERÍA GENÉTICA DEL VIRUS DE LA VIRUELA

El consejo de dirección del OMS se reúne desde el 22-30 enero del 2007 en Génova y considerarán un proyecto de resolución en la viruela que fue diferida de la quincuagésima novena asamblea de la salud del mundo (AMS) en mayo de 2006. En ese entonces, el AMS no podía estar de acuerdo en el texto de resolución en la destrucción del virus de la viruela, que se sostienen en depósitos autorizados por las Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) en los E.E. U.U. y Rusia.

Muchos países en vías de desarrollo, liderados por África, habían buscado una resolución que estableció una nueva fecha para la destrucción del virus (en junio del 2010), una prohibición a la ingeniería genética, una revisión sustanciosa anual en la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud (AMS) sobre investigación del virus, y el fortalecimiento de la posición de la OMS.

A pesar de que se dieron discusiones largas, no llegaron a ningún acuerdo. La negación de los E.E.U.U. a considerar una nueva fecha para la destrucción era problemática, y las ofertas de los países en vías de desarrollo también fueron rechazadas.

La Red del Tercer Mundo y el Proyecto Sunshine están impulsando dentro del consejo de dirección del OMS para que se haga una fuerte resolución en el tema de la viruela, incluyendo fijar una nueva fecha para la destrucción de los stocks existentes, prohibiendo experimentos con ingeniería genética, y revisando que las OMS controle la investigación del virus.

Varias indicaciones demuestran un aumento de la investigación ampliada con los genes del virus de la viruela, incluyendo la síntesis y el uso del virus del viruela por afuera de los depósitos de OMS autorizados. Es de preocupación particular los experimentos con los genes sintéticos de la viruela con ingeniería genética, dirigidos en otros organismos que han sido iniciados por el laboratorio de Sandia National en los E.E.U.U (SNL).

Un boletín de noticias de la campaña smallpoxbiosafety.org resume algunas de las cuestiones claves (artículo 2).
Para un documento actualizado del informe (enero de 2007) sobre la edición y más información, vea por favor http://www.smallpoxbiosafety.org/2007poxupdate1.pdf

Alfalfa

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Will Rostov, Center for Food Safety, 415-826-2770

(415) 307-2154 (cell)

Joseph Mendelson, Center for Food Safety (202) 547-9359

(703) 244-1724 (cell)

(Note: Individual farmers and representatives of organizations who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit are available for comment).

FEDERAL COURT FINDS USDA ERRED IN APPROVING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ALFALFA WITHOUT FULL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Precedent-setting Decision May Block Planting, Sales of Monsanto Alfalfa

Washington, DC (February 14, 2007)—In a decision handed down yesterday, a Federal Court has ruled, for the first time ever, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to abide by federal environmental laws when it approved a genetically engineered crop without conducting a full Environment Impact Statement (EIS).

In what will likely be a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California decided in favor of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists who filed a suit calling the USDA’s approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa a threat to farmers’ livelihoods and a risk to the environment. Judge Breyer ordered that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be carried out on “Roundup Ready” alfalfa, the GE variety developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics. The decision may prevent this season’s sales and planting of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa and future submissions of other GE crops for commercial deregulation.

Judge Breyer concluded that the lawsuit, brought last year by a coalition of groups led by the Center for Food Safety, raised valid concerns about environmental impacts that the USDA failed to address before approving the commercialization and release of Roundup Ready alfalfa.

In his ruling, the judge consistently found USDA’s arguments unconvincing, without scientific basis, and/or contrary to the law. For example:

· The judge found that plaintiffs’ concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate natural and organic alfalfa are valid, stating that USDA’s opposing arguments were “not convincing” and do not demonstrate the “hard look” required by federal environmental laws. The ruling went on to note that “…For those farmers who choose to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the possibility that their crops will be infected with the engineered gene is tantamount to the elimination of all alfalfa; they cannot grow their chosen crop.”

· USDA argued that, based on a legal technicality, the agency did not have to address the economic risks to organic and conventional growers whose alfalfa crop could be contaminated by Monsanto’s GE variety. But the judge found that USDA “overstates the law…Economic effects are relevant “when they are ‘interelated’ with ‘natural or physical environmental effects.’…Here, the economic effects on the organic and conventional farmers of the government’s deregulation decision are interrelated with, and, indeed, a direct result of, the effect on the physical environment.”

· Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant “superweeds” that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa. Commenting on the agency’s refusal to assess this risk, the judge noted that “Nothing in NEPA, the relevant regulations, or the caselaw support such a cavalier response.”

“This is a major victory for farmers and the environment,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Not only has a Federal Court recognized that USDA failed to consider the environmental and economic threats posed by GE alfalfa, but it has also questioned whether any agency in the federal government is looking at the cumulative impacts of GE crop approvals.”

“This is another nail in the coffin for USDA’s hands-off approach to regulations on these risky engineered crops,” said Will Rostov, Senior Attorney of The Center for Food Safety, which just last week won another judgment calling for USDA to provide more environmental documentation for any new GE field trials.

“This ruling will help protect my rights as a consumer to choose, and I choose organic foods whenever and wherever I can,” said Dean Hulse, Fargo, ND-based spokesperson for Dakota Resource Council and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. “The decision rejects Monsanto’s claims that transgenic crops are safe for the environment. Many people have been skeptical of those claims, and now we have a judge who’s skeptical as well – a judge who has actually studied the facts.”

The suit also cited the urgent concerns of farmers who sell to export markets. Japan and South Korea, America’s most important alfalfa customers, have warned that they will discontinue imports of U.S. alfalfa if a GE variety is grown in this country. U.S. alfalfa exports total nearly $480 million per year, with about 75% headed to Japan. The Court disagreed with USDA’s assertion that exports to Japan would not be harmed by deregulation of GE alfalfa.

“Today's ruling reinforces what Sierra Club has been saying all along: the government should look before it leaps and examine how genetically engineered alfalfa could harm the environment before approving its widespread use,” said Neil Carman of the Sierra Club’s genetic engineering committee. “That's just plain common sense.”

Alfalfa is grown on over 21 million acres, and is worth $8 billion per year (not including the value of final products, such as dairy), making it the country’s third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop. Alfalfa is primarily used in feed for dairy cows and beef cattle, and it also greatly contributes to pork, lamb, sheep, and honey production. Consumers also eat alfalfa as sprouts in salads and other foods.

“We applaud the decision of the Court,” said Bill Wenzel of the National Family Farm Coalition. “It’s unfortunate that we have to turn to judges to do what’s right for farmers while the USDA carries water for the biotech companies.”

Pat Trask of Trask Family Seeds, a South Dakota conventional alfalfa grower and plaintiff in the case stated: “It’s a great day for God’s own alfalfa.”

The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.

For more information, please visit www.centerforfoodsafety.org

El futuro post-humano

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, February 12, 2007

Contact: Darcey Rakestraw
(+1 202) 452.1992 x517
drakestraw@worldwatch.org

PROGRESSIVES URGED TO PREPARE FOR POST-HUMAN FUTURE IN MARCH/APRIL 2007 ISSUE OF WORLD WATCH

Washington, D.C.-Decisions we make now about rapidly developing genetic technologies could radically reshape human society and lead to radical libertarianism, quasi-religious patriarchy, or other undesirable cultural outcomes, according to the March/April issue of World Watch magazine. To avert these futures, sustainability-minded individuals and organizations must commit to bringing emerging genetic technologies under effective national and international oversight, Richard Hayes writes in "Our Biopolitical Future: Four Scenarios" (Register to download at: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4906).

"The ability to manipulate human nature...destabilizes both the biological and the social foundations of the human world," Hayes observes, describing the potential impacts of human genetic alteration on core progressive values. New frameworks are needed for progressives to envision a world in which abortion rights and medical research are protected, while applications of genetic science that open the door to profoundly undesirable outcomes are prohibited.

In recent years, developments concerning new human genetic technologies have been interpreted in many countries largely through the familiar frameworks of abortion politics and the culture wars. While religious conservatives were among the most vocal early opponents of human cloning, stem cell research, and related procedures, many liberals and progressives reflexively assumed that the enlightened position was to embrace these technologies.

"While understandable, this is nonetheless simplistic and misleading. The same genetic technologies that might be used to prevent or cure many widespread diseases and debilitating conditions will allow forms of genetic manipulation that could endanger equality, social justice, human rights, and other core progressive values," Hayes writes.

Hayes outlines four scenarios in which predominant values of libertarianism and communitarianism on both the left and right help shape visions of a "post-human" future. The more clear-sighted that individuals and organizations today can be about those possible futures, the easier it will be to figure out what we are called to do now, writes Hayes.

"After the horrific experience of the 20th century with eugenics and genocide, could any country call for creation of a genetically 'superior' population without immediate and massive international censure? One would hope not. But for the past decade reputable scientists, bioethicists, and others have been actively promoting a revival of eugenic sensibilities and practices, and have received plaudits rather than protests from their peers and the press. In a world that is far from overcoming its propensity for racism, xenophobia, and warfare, this is more than worrisome," says Hayes.

Grandes finanzas, malas ideas

Los benefactores de la biotecnología y el biocombustible de la U. de California: El poder de las grandes finanzas y las malas ideas

- Miguel A. Altieri, Profesor de la Universidad de California en Berkeley
- Eric Holt-Gimenez, Director Ejecutivo, "Food First", Oakland

Con gran alarde, la British Petroleum (BP) acaba de donar una enorme suma para fondos de investigación de la Universidad de California en Berkeley, los Laboratorios Lawrence Livermore y la Universidad de Illinois, a fin de que puedan desarrollar nuevas fuentes de energía: básicamente biotecnología para desarrollar plantaciones que generen biocombustible.

La donación se produce en el aniversario del infeliz negocio de Berkeley con la gigante de semillas Novartis para investigación, hace diez años. Sin embargo, con 500 millones de dólares, la donación de la BP representa diez veces más la inversión de Novartis. La presentación visual del anuncio fue inconfundible: el logotipo de la corporación BP está perfectamente alineado con las banderas de la Nación, del Estado y de la Universidad.

El director ejecutivo y presidente Robert A. Malone dijo que la BP se estaba "uniendo a algunos de los mejores talentos mundiales en ciencias e ingeniería para responder a la demanda por energías de bajo contenido de carbono, que estaremos trabajando para mejorar y expandir la producción de energía limpia, renovable, a través del desarrollo de mejores plantaciones". Esta asociación refleja un alineamiento global corporativo rápido, sin fiscalización, y sin precedentes de las más grandes empresas del mundo en el agro-negocio (ADM, Cargill y Bunge), la biotecnología (Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dupont), el petróleo (BP, TOTAL, Shell) y las industrias automotrices (Volkswagen, Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, SAAB). Para ellas es una inversión relativamente pequeña, ya que estas empresas se van a apropiar de la pericia académica construida a través de décadas de apoyo gubernamental, lo que se traduce en billones de ganancias para esos socios globales.

¿Esta sería una programación que sólo trae ganancias a la Universidad, al público, al medioambiente y la industria? Difícilmente. Además de sobrecargar la programación de las investigaciones de la Universidad, lo que los científicos que están detrás de este evidente negocio privado omiten mencionar es que la aparente "boca-libre" de combustible basado en plantaciones no puede satisfacer nuestra hambre de energía y que no será gratis, ni saludable desde el punto de vista ambiental.

Destinar toda la producción actual de maíz y soja de EE UU para la producción de biocombustibles sólo satisfaría el 12% de nuestra demanda de gasolina y el 6% de diesel. El total del área de EE UU para plantaciones alcanza 625.000 millas cuadradas. Para sustituir el consumo de petróleo de EE UU por biocombustible serían necesarias 1.4 millones de millas cuadradas para etanol de maíz y 8.8 millones de millas cuadradas de soja para biodiesel. Se estima que los biocombustibles van a transformar los estados de Iowa y Dakota del Sur en importadores de maíz hacia el 2008.
El equilibrio energético del biocombustible –la cantidad de energía fósil usada para producir las plantaciones de biomasa comparada con la que será producida– no es nada prometedor. Los investigadores Patzek y Pimentel identifican graves equilibrios negativos de la energía proveniente de biocombustibles. Otros investigadores encuentran un retorno de sólo 1.2 a 1.8 veces para el etanol, en el mejor de los casos, con dudas en relación a biocombustibles basados en celulosa.

Los métodos industriales de producción de maíz y granos de soja dependen de los monocultivos en gran escala. El maíz industrial exige altos niveles de fertilizante químico de nitrógeno (responsable en gran parte de la zona muerta en el Golfo de México) y el herbicida atrazine, un fragmentador endocrino. La soja exige cantidades masivas de herbicida no-selectivo Roundup, que desequilibra la ecología del suelo y produce "súper malezas dañinas". Ambos monocultivos producen una masiva erosión de la capa superficial del suelo y contaminación del agua superficial y subterránea debido a la evacuación de pesticidas y fertilizantes. Cada galón de etanol absorbe de 3 a 4 galones de agua en la producción de biomasa. La expansión de combustible "en espiga" para áreas más secas en el Centro-Oeste va a reducir el ya perjudicado acuífero Ogallala.

Uno de los motivos industriales más subrepticios del proyecto de los biocombustibles –y el motivo por el que Monsanto y compañía son actores clave– es la oportunidad de transformar irreversiblemente la agricultura en plantaciones genéticamente modificadas (GMOs en inglés). Actualmente, el 52% del maíz, el 89% de la soja y el 50% de la colza en EE UU son GMOs. La expansión de biocombustibles a través de "maíz programado", genéticamente adaptado para plantas especiales para el procesamiento de etanol, va a remover todas las barreras prácticas para la permanente contaminación de todas las plantaciones no genéticamente modificadas.

Obviamente, EE UU no puede satisfacer su apetito de energía con biocombustibles. En su reemplazo, los cultivos para combustibles estarán ubicados en los países en vías de desarrollo, sean estas plantaciones en gran escala de caña de azúcar, palmeras que producen aceite y granos de soja, que ya están sustituyendo bosques tropicales primarios y secundarios y pastos en Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador y Malasia. La soja ya causó la destrucción de más de 91 millones de acres de bosques y pastos en Brasil, Argentina, Paraguay y Bolivia. Para satisfacer la demanda del mercado mundial, sólo Brasil tendrá que talar 148 millones más de acres de bosque. La reducción de gases que producen el efecto invernadero se pierde, cuando los bosques que captan carbono son talados para dar paso a las plantaciones que producen biocombustibles.

A más de esto, centenas de miles de pequeños productores campesinos están siendo desplazados por la expansión de la soja. Muchos más perderán sus tierras debido a los biocombustibles. La expansión de tierras cultivables con plantaciones de maíz amarillo para etanol ya redujo el suplemento del maíz blanco para tortillas en México, provocando un aumento de los precios en un 400%. Eso hizo que los líderes campesinos presentes en el reciente Foro Social Mundial en Nairobi exigieran: ¡"Nada de tanques llenos cuando todavía hay estómagos vacíos!".

Con la promoción en gran escala de monocultivos mecanizados, que exigen la introducción de agro-químicos y máquinas, y conforme los bosques que captan carbono sean destruidos para dar paso a las plantaciones para biocombustibles, las emisiones de CO2 aumentarán y no disminuirán. La única manera de parar el calentamiento global es promover la agricultura orgánica en pequeña escala y reducir el uso de todos los combustibles, lo que implica disminuir los patrones de consumo y el desarrollo de sistemas masivos de transporte público, áreas que la Universidad de California debería estar activamente investigando y en las cuales la BP y los otros asociados en función de los biocombustibles nunca invertirán uno solo centavo.

Las consecuencias potenciales para el medioambiente y la sociedad del financiamiento de la BP son profundamente perturbadoras. Después del informe de la revisión externa del acuerdo entre la Universidad de California y Novartis, que recomendó que la Universidad no realizase tales acuerdos en el futuro, ¿como se pudo anunciar un negocio tan grande sin un amplia consulta al cuerpo docente de la Universidad?

La universidad ha sido conducida a una asociación corporativa que puede transformar irreversiblemente los sistemas de alimentos y combustibles del planeta y concentrar un enorme poder en las manos de unos pocos socios corporativos.

Cabe a los ciudadanos de California exigir a la Universidad se responsabilice de investigaciones que verdaderamente apoyen alternativas sostenibles para la presente crisis energética. Un debate público serio sobre este nuevo programa ya debió haberse realizado hace tiempo. (Traducción ALAI)

Monsanto's Seed of Hope campaign

Dear friends and colleagues

The African Centre for Biosafety offers this briefing paper to you, titled "Monsanto's Seed of Hope Campaign in South Africa".

In the briefing, we offer information about Monsanto's Seed of Hope Campaign in the Eastern Cape-the poorest of South Africa's nine provinces, where Monsanto's project was subsidised with huge chunks of public funds, which enabled it to penetrate extremely impoverished communities - first by introducing a Green Revolution type package as an important precursor to the introduction of its GM maize seeds, ably assisted by Bayer Cropscience, amongst other players.

During September 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation announced a donation of $150 million to contribute to a "Second Green Revolution" in Africa to alleviate poverty and hunger. The money will be used, amongst other things, to promote technology packages for small-scale farmers containing fertilizer and new seeds. The aims of this new Green Revolution for Africa is very similar to Monsanto’s Seeds of hope campaign and is likely to benefit the seed and fertilizer industries, while having negligible impacts on total food production and further marginalizing African rural areas.

The South African government has a close and intimiate relationship with Monsanto and other mulitnational corporations. However, we continue to struggle against injustice in South Africa. In April, South African NGO, Biowatch SA's appeal against Monsanto will be heard when Biowatch will try to overturn a court ruling that it must pay Monsanto's legal costs - "punishment because it won a legal case forcing the South African government to grant them access to information about GMO decision making in SA. We urge you to support our work in SA- to stop the onslaught of GMOs, the march of the Green Revolution in Africa, and the Biowatch court case.

Regards
Mariam Mayet
African Centre for Biosafety
www.biosafetyafrica.net

El mentado arroz transgénico

GE Rice Industry Facing Meltdown as Global Tide of Rejection Grows Bayer, global pusher of GE rice must admit defeat, says Greenpeace

AMSTERDAM - February 6 - The global rejection of genetically engineered rice is revealed today as 41 of the world’s biggest exporters, processors and retailers issued written commitments to stay GE free. The worldwide tide of opposition is reflected in the new Greenpeace report, ‘Rice Industry in Crisis.’ The report carries extracts of company statements covering Asia, Europe, Australia, and North and South America (1) and includes a commitment from the world’s largest rice processor, Ebro Puleva, to stop buying US rice. This follows a major contamination incident in 2006, when the world’s rice supply was contaminated with an experimental and illegal variety of GE rice produced by biotech company Bayer. “Bayer is aggressively pursuing commercial approvals for its GE rice globally, including in Europe and Brazil, yet refuses to accept responsibility for the major financial damage its unauthorised GE rice has caused in the US and elsewhere. Indeed, Bayer is blaming hardworking farmers or ‘acts of God’ for these problems when all signs point to Bayer being at fault,” (4) said Adam Levitt, a partner in the Chicago office of the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz – one of the law firms leading the prosecution of these cases against Bayer. “This global contamination and global market rejection of GE rice clearly shows the need for Bayer to withdraw from any further GE rice development,” said Jeremy Tager, Greenpeace International rice campaigner. “Bayer proves that GE rice is too risky. Through field trials alone Bayer caused massive financial damage to the global rice industry. The commercial growing of GE rice must never become a reality; the impact on the world’s most important food crop world be disastrous.” The report also examines the significant economic implications of the Bayer contamination, including when rice futures prices plummeted $150 million -- the sharpest one-day decline in years. Experts have predicted that US rice exports may decline by as much as16% in 2006/2007. (2) Several multi-million dollar class action lawsuits have been filed by US farmers who refuse to bear the financial burden of Bayer’s irresponsible and negligent conduct. The farmers claim that Bayer is responsible for the contamination of rice supplies and the economic losses the U.S. rice farmers have suffered as a result and must compensate farmers for the monetary and other losses that they have sustained as a result of Bayer’s improper conduct. (3) In addition to the class action lawsuits, several individual lawsuits have also been filed and there are also anecdotal reports that European traders contemplating legal action. As a result of the contamination of the rice supply with Bayer´s GE rice farmers, millers, traders and retailers around the globe are facing massive financial costs, including testing and recall costs, cancelled orders, import bans, brand damage and consumer distrust – distrust that could last for years. “Governments from around the world must respond to the economic, market and environmental damage caused by the 2006 GE rice contamination and reject outright any GE rice food and cultivation applications currently on the table,” said Tager. “GE rice should not be developed as genetic engineering is an unnecessary, unwanted and outdated technology that threatens the world’s most important staple food.” Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production grounded on the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health. Notes to Editor (1) Company statements received from the following countries: Japan, Switzerland, France, Hong Kong, Germany, Australia, Pakistan, Thailand, India, Brazil, Spain, Canada and the UK. For statements see pages 7 – 12 of the Rice markets report. (2) Elias P. 2006. California growers fear biotech rice threat. Washington Post. 15 October, 2006. (3) Weiss, R. 2006. Firm Blames Farmers, ‘Act of God’ for Rice Contamination. Washington Post. 22 November, 2006. www.washingtonpost.com/ActofGod Leonard, C. 2006. 13 Lawsuits Over Accidental Spread of Genetically Altered Rice Could Be Combined Into 1. Associated Press. 30, November, 2006. www.boston.com/LawsuitGErice (4) Countries in which Bayer CropScience has applied for authorization for cultivation or food/feed consumption. All approvals are for LL62 unless otherwise noted. 1. Australia – food and feed. Applied 2006 2. Brazil – cultivation, food and feed, seed import, additional field trials. Applied 2006 3. Canada – approval granted for food and feed 2006 4. European Union (25 states) – food and feed. Applied 2004 5. New Zealand – food and feed. Applied 2006 6. Philippines – food and feed. Applied 2006 7. South Africa – food and feed. Applied 2006 8. United States – approvals granted for cultivation, food and feed. Approvals – LL601, 62, 06 (2006, 2002)

Carta de Peter Rosset al New York Times

Dear Sirs:

The recent upward spiral of prices for corn tortillas, the basic staple of the Mexican population, has garnered a lot of international media attention ("Thousands in Mexico City Protest Rising Food Prices," NY Times, February 1, 2007).

Sadly, most stories have missed the point.

The current crisis is the result of two basic forces: almost 25 years of misguided policies, and a short-term coincidence of interests between neoliberal officials, grain companies like Cargill, and the biotech seed industry.

Since 1982 -- and especially in preparation for the 1994 signing of NAFTA -- successive Mexican presidents have implemented policies that, combined with the opening of the Mexican market to imports of cheap corn, have savagely undercut national corn production by peasant farmers. The result is that Mexico, where corn was domesticated 9,000 years ago by indigenous farmers, now imports one third of its needs, despite having the land to produce nearly double what it consumes.

Taking advantage of this loss of food self-sufficiently, free traders in the government have conspired with grain import-export companies and the biotech industry to create an artificial crisis. The pretext is rising corn prices in the US due to growing demand for bio-ethanol plants, but Mexican tortilla prices have risen far, far more than US prices. In fact, the grain industry was allowed to hoard the last harvest, driving prices way up, serving as the perfect pretext for the free traders to further open the country to greater tariff-free imports, which will further undercut national productive capacity. It has also allowed the biotech industry to demand permission for commercial planting of until-now banned genetically modified corn.

In fact, what Mexico needs is a "food sovereignty" policy -- one that combines diverse policy measures with a halt to tariff-free imports in order to rebuild national corn growing capacity. This is what Mexican farmer organizations are correctly calling for. If Mexico produces it's own corn, which it can easily do, then it won't matter when international prices fluctuate up or down, and peasant farmers will once again be able to make a living instead of being forced to migrate North.

Peter Rosset, Ph.D.
Center for the Study of Rural Change in Mexico (CECCAM)

BIOSAFETY PROJECT BLOG MAKEOVER

The Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety's blog (www.bioseguridad.blogspot.com/) is the only bilingual English-Spanish online resource devoted to critical perspectives on biotechnology- as well as closely related subjects like intellectual property rights, nanotechnology, biopiracy and sustainable agroecological alternatives.

In the last few days we gave the blog an overhaul. You'll notice it has a brand new look, plus most items are now tagged, which means that searches can now be made by subject, country and author. Tags include "Terminator", "Mexico", "Africa", "Synthetic Biology", "rBGH", "biofuels", "corn" and "soy".

The Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety needs your support! We are a small but determined action team/task force, a bilingual, multicultural endeavor to educate the people of the Americas on the issues of biotechnology, particularly genetically engineered organisms and products.

No, we're not 501 (c)3 yet, but since 2005 we are incorporated in the Puerto Rico State Department as a non-profit entity. Donations can be sent to our mailing address:

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero
Darlington Building, apt. #703
Munoz Rivera Avenue 1007
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00925-2723

(Please put my name in the envelope. The address is my home address, so I fear the smart alecky postman might send it back if he does not see my name on it.)

You can also transfer donations directly to our account in the La Borinqueña Savings Co-op. The account # is #151298 and the route number is 221-582-459.

Please feel free to ask us any questions about our organization. You can call (787) 771-4473 or email at carmelo_ruiz@yahoo.com.

And please subscribe to our list server! I'm sure you'll find it most useful if you are interested in biotech issues. You'll be getting regular postings in both English and Spanish. Your feedback will be welcome too. To subscribe, just access the home page and follow the instructions.

Group name: Proyecto de Bioseguridad
Group home page: groups.yahoo.com/group/proyectodebioseguridad
Group email address: proyectodebioseguridad@yahoogroups.com

The new pro-industry discourse

"Regulating Nanotechnology and Designing the NGOs of the Future"

This article parts from some very naïve and uninformed assumptions, which become painfully evident toward the end.

The last four paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

"There is a profound risk that NGO response to
nanotechnology will continue the approach it has so
far taken: simple opposition to the technology, being
merely a "No" in response to business' "Yes."
(Greenpeace has attempted to be smart about the issue
but unfortunately they don't have much company.) That
would be a disaster.

"As Stewart Brand says about biotechnology, "The best
way for doubters to control a questionable new
technology is to embrace it, lest it remain wholly in
the hands of enthusiasts who think there is nothing
questionable about it."

"We need a new generation of emerging technology
activists: not just NGOs and networks of citizens
concerned about nanotech, but also advocates for
better biotech, robotics, ubiquitous computing, space
programs, deep ocean exploration, climate
interventions and human life span extension
techniques.

"We need heroic geek NGOs that can wrestle with issues
we're only beginning to understand, and can both use
strategic anticipation to change the debate, and
strategic communication to help the rest of us
understand what's at stake. We, in turn, all need to
learn more about these technologies, to be able to
discuss them intelligently and to sway those working
in these fields to become partners in efforts to
unleash these revolutions the right way. Because
making smart choices about emerging technologies may,
in the end, be the tipping factor that proves the
difference between a bright green future, and no
future at all."


The article really does not question whether bio and nano technologies should be developed. The author's foregone conclusion is that these technologies will and must be developed. Since these technologies and their basic assumptions are not submitted to any serious questioning, there really is nothing here that would trouble the Monsantos and Syngentas of the world. They can live with this type of techno-geeky discourse.

How interesting that the author calls for "heroic NGO's" that can engage technology issues in an intelligent manner. Do they not exist? What about the 35 civil society organizations that launched an open letter on synthetic biology last May?

The fact is that the biotech industry has nothing to fear from this type of techno discourse that seeks to stake out a "middle ground" and advocates "responsible" bio and nano techs. It does not question or even address corporate power or faulty scientific assumptions. Ecologically sound alternatives like permaculture and agroecology are not even mentioned, the assumption being that they can be integrated into the brave new nanobio future.

I normally would not post to this blog writings that I consider shallow and uninsightful, but I feel this one should be studied carefully for I believe it is a good sample of the new pro-industry discourse we'll be encountering. On the surface it seems critical (especially to an uninformed reader), but upon closer examination it does not stray from the industry line in any significant way. Biotech corporations can embrace it and thus claim to be in a balanced and reasonable middle ground between the Florence Wambugus and CS Prakashes of the world and the "anti-tech extremists" (that would be us, basically).

CARMELO RUIZ-MARRERO
Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety