lunes, marzo 31, 2008

Hawaii organic

Image:Hawaii Islands2.png
Posted: Thursday, Mar 27, 2008 - 11:05:10 pm HST
'It's a rebellion of sorts'

Organic corn 'outbreak' reported


by Rachel Gehrlein - THE GARDEN ISLAND

In an attempt to make a statement about genetically modified corn on Kaua'i, a loose conglomeration of community members has started to distribute organic corn seeds and corn seedlings island-wide.

According to Lauren Shaw-Meek, a manager at Vim & Vigor in Lihu'e, the idea of the organic corn "outbreak" is to bring attention to what the group sees as the perils of GMO corn. By poking fun at the possibility of an organic corn "outbreak" the message is a little lighter and may reach a wider audience.

"It's a rebellion of sorts," Shaw-Meek said.

The idea that the organic corn can cross-pollinate with GMO corn puts those at risk who do not want to eat the GMO corn, Shaw-Meek added.

"The GMO companies do open-air testing with pesticides and herbicides," Westside resident Diana LaBedz said. "The ground becomes sterile, destroying the land for future generations."

LaBedz, a member of the Kaua'i chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, said she is participating in the corn outbreak to help educate people on what is going on around the world on the GMO front.

"World citizens have lost the right to know if corn bought to feed families has been chemically modified (contains the pesticide in the corn)," LaBedz said in a e-mail. "There is a concern that our corn will be contaminated by the GMO crops that pepper Kaua'i island, next to schools, rivers and in our neighborhoods. Kaua'i's citizens reject the philosophy that we must poison our environment and use the radical genetic engineering of plants and animals to produce enough food for everyone."

Because of this belief, organic seeds, plants and even organic popcorn have been given out around the island.

During Monday night's movie night at Small Town Coffee in Kapa'a, organic popcorn was handed out to moviegoers. The Storybook Theatre in Hanapepe plans to distribute the organic popcorn during their family movie night on April 4.

A view of the Hanalei Valley which is in Northern Kauaʻi.  The Hanalei River runs through the valley and 60% of Hawaii's taro is grown in its fields.
A view of the Hanalei Valley which is in Northern Kauaʻi. The Hanalei River runs through the valley and 60% of Hawaii's taro is grown in its fields.

A view of the Nā Pali coastline from the ocean.  It is part of the Nā Pali Coast State Park which encompasses 6,175 acres (20 km²) of land and is located on the northwest side of Kauaʻi.
A view of the Nā Pali coastline from the ocean. It is part of the Nā Pali Coast State Park which encompasses 6,175 acres (20 km²) of land and is located on the northwest side of Kauaʻi.

Free organic corn seeds were given out at the Lotus Root in Kapa'a, Farsyde Tattoo in Hanapepe, Koloa Natural Foods, Papaya's in Kapa'a and Vim & Vigor in Lihu'e.

Shaw-Meek said the free organic corn seeds "went like hotcakes" at Vim & Vigor.

"They went over amazingly well," Shaw-Meek said. "I'm not surprised the seeds flew out of here because people are excited about the planting season."

According to LaBedz, most locations are already "sold out" of seeds.

"We have more seeds, we just need to distribute them," she said.

Agreeing that the group is within its rights to express its message, one research scientist would like to work with them. According to Sarah Styan, a research scientist with Pioneer Seeds and president of the Hawai'i Crop Improvement Association, farmers around the world are demanding biotec agriculture.

"The whole basis of our business is selling seeds of genetic purity and maintaining the genetic integrity of agriculture," Styan said. "And just like any business, we are getting product out as fast as possible."

Styan added that all types of agriculture, including organic, biotec and conventional, are needed to maintain sustainability.

"We need everybody working together," Styan said. "If we work together, we can make agriculture stronger and improve sustainability."

LaBedz said Kaua'i can't be sustainable with GMO crops.

"If you can't protect your air, water and land we can't be sustainable," LaBedz said. "What they (GMO companies) are doing is permanent. We can't roll back and undo it."

• Rachel Gehrlein, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 225) or rgehrlein@kauaipubco.com.
Image:Map of Hawaii NA.png

Etiquetas: ,

La bioseguridad según Monsanto
Silvia Ribeiro
La Jornada
No es novedad que la Ley de Bioseguridad y Organismos Genéticamente Modificados se redactó a favor de las empresas trasnacionales de los transgénicos. Por eso se le conoce como Ley Monsanto. El 24 de marzo entró en vigor el reglamento de dicha ley, elaborado a puertas cerradas, que retoma y empeora todos los aspectos negativos de la ley, para facilitarle a las trasnacionales los trámites para vender sus semillas transgénicas en el país, legalizando así la contaminación.

Como señaló Alejandro Nadal, si un agricultor sufre daños por contaminación, no tendrá ninguna defensa para exigir reparación por daños (La Jornada, 26/10/2008). Aún peor: las víctimas de la contaminación podrían ser demandadas por las empresas por “uso indebido” de sus genes patentados, tal como ya ha ocurrido en cientos de casos en Estados Unidos.

El reglamento establece también que las decisiones podrán ser apeladas por las empresas, pero nunca por la gente común, por ejemplo, los campesinos e indígenas que verán su maíz milenario contaminado. Es curioso, por decirlo de alguna manera, que el único párrafo que nombra los posibles impactos socioeconómicos (artículo 16.5.d), está referido a que las empresas pueden presentar información adicional que será tenida en cuenta por las secretarías. Monsanto, Syngenta o DuPont pueden alegar lo positivos que serán los cultivos frankenstein, según su propia y particular interpretación, pero los 100 millones de habitantes de México que podrían mostrar que los transgénicos enajenan la soberanía alimentaria, empeoran sus condiciones de vida y contaminan sus cultivos y alimentos no tienen derecho a apelación.

El aspecto central –y el más peligroso– del reglamento es que se deja en manos de las propias empresas solicitantes presentar, documentar y analizar los riesgos, impactos ambientales, a la salud, a la diversidad biológica, e incluso la evaluación, monitoreo y control de los riesgos que conllevarán sus cultivos transgénicos. O sea, es la parte interesada que dirá si las semillas que nos quieren vender tendrán algún problema. Teóricamente, esto será revisado por una comisión de expertos, pero las empresas ni siquiera tienen que presentar la documentación de sus fuentes, solamente indicarlas. A ello se suma que las empresas definirán qué partes de la solicitud son consideradas “confidenciales”. Esto quiere decir que ellas definen qué puede ver el público, pero también, que lo marcado como confidencial ni siquiera se distribuirá entre los miembros del comité evaluador, solamente lo verá una sola persona, que será quien coordina este comité.

Es posible entonces que una sola persona, basada en las informaciones de la parte interesada por razones de lucro, sea quien decida sobre la experimentación con maíz transgénico en México, el centro de origen del cultivo, producto del trabajo, sabiduría y conocimiento de millones de personas durante más de diez mil años.

Huelga decir que los argumentos de las partes interesadas siempre serán parciales en su propio beneficio. Por ejemplo, Monsanto, para lograr la aprobación de la hormona transgénica rBGH que se inyecta a las vacas para producir más leche, reportó en la solicitud a las autoridades regulatorias de Estados Unidos, que las vacas sufrían más enfermedades y que tenían un aumento significativo de otra hormona, la IGF-1. Pero sus conclusiones afirmaban que eso no tendría ningún impacto sobre la salud humana. Informes científicos independientes posteriores mostraron lo contrario, que el consumo de esa leche lleva a aumentos de la hormona IGF-1 en humanos, lo que está asociado a cáncer de seno, próstata y colon. El mismo proceder tuvo Monsanto con experimentos con ratas de laboratorio que indicaron graves anomalías en los órganos internos y sangre, al ser alimentadas con un tipo de maíz transgénico. En las conclusiones presentandas a las autoridades dice que son datos irrelevantes y que son “variaciones normales entre ratas”. Estos son apenas algunos de los casos que salieron a la luz. La verdad es que los comités de expertos deberían pasar la vida estudiando y poder realizar estudios independientes, para poder realmente fiscalizar los datos de las propias empresas, cosa que obviamente no sucederá. No existen ni los recursos ni la voluntad política para que esto ocurra.

En su lugar, lo que hay es una vergonzosa farsa leguleya para disimular que se entrega sin condiciones la soberanía alimentaria y el patrimonio genético más importante de México –el maíz– para que las transnacionales de las semillas puedan aumentar sus ganancias. De ninguna manera es el último capítulo. Con o sin reglamento, la resistencia social contra los transgénicos continuará.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Etiquetas: , ,

Planet Diversity Congress

Planet Diversity World Congress on the Future of Food and Agriculture

Coming together for a diverse future

Planet Diversity: some background

Reasons for Acting

Loss of biodiversity and climate change caused by man are arguably the most formidable ecological threats humankind has ever faced. The effects of these two, closely interdependent phenomena may be encountered as natural catastrophes threatening our civilisation. However, they are themselves the effects of a presently dominant concept of civilisation. Can these truly global challenges be met by the same set of technological and political principles and means that actually led us to this critical point of human as well as natural history? Food and agriculture lie at the very heart of the problem. Further acceleration of present trends to industrialise, homogenize and globalise industrial food production are certainly not the solution but rather a recipe for disaster.

We will organise a global festival and congress of Diversity in May 2008, during the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and their Protocol on Biosafety in Bonn, Germany. In holding the event parallel to these significant international meetings, we also aim to impact and lobby the government negotiations, especially those on liability and redress for damage caused by GMOs. "Planet Diversity" will celebrate natural and agricultural biodiversity, the cultural diversity of food and agriculture. Its primary goal is to discuss how farmers, consumers, food producers and their communities can cooperate to enrich and defend this diversity.

We see a global movement from different directions coming together for the common cause of defending diversity against destructive and threatening tendencies in agricultural production, land use and food production. The initiative for this “World Summit” sprang from the 3rd European Conference of GMO-Free Regions, Biodiversity and Rural Development in April of 2007. Its goal is to offer an opportunity for enhanced collaboration and to deliver a joint message to the representatives of governments meeting in Bonn to discuss biodiversity and biosafety.

Diversity of Movements

Global control and standardisation of agricultural products and seed stand in direct contradiction to the concept of local and regional diversity in agriculture and agricultural research. This dichotomy is manifest in diverse movements. An important common denominator remains the rejection of genetically-modified crops and livestock in agriculture and food stuffs. This is based on a multi-faceted and diverse movement of local and global debates on food and its production.

Beginning in Europe - but increasingly worldwide - regions, communities and farmers’ alliances have declared their soil to be GMO-free regions. They demand self-determination in rural development and emphasize local diversity and their agricultural traditions and heritage foods.

The majority of consumers throughout the entire world reject genetically-modified foods and want to decide for themselves what they will eat. Many of them demand sustainable and unaltered products from their own regions and are willing to take on this responsibility. They seek dialogue with producers and want to promote healthful, savoury and fair alternatives to destructive, industrial agriculture and animal husbandry. Some consumers, such as Slow Food, aim to act as co-producers of good, clean and fair food and actively participate in local and regional farming, not least in order to regain access to a level of quality and delicacy they no longer find in supermarkets.

Agricultural development plays a decisive role in combating world hunger and poverty, most of which appears in rural areas. This is primarily a question of whether agricultural production and food processing afford people living in rural areas access to food and knowledge or whether they are considered bothersome elements to be displaced by thoroughly streamlined, industrial production. However, their labour is no longer needed in the unsustainable mega-cities of the world and their slums.

Land, which is worked according to the principles of organic farming, makes up the most significant “GMO-free zones.” This movement embodies perhaps the most important revolution concerning the ecological foundation of agriculture and its continued further development. State-monitored and global standards for labelling and distribution of organic products capture but a fraction of actual foods produced according to organic principles and do not yet capture important eco-agricultural enrichments, improvements and innovations.

Growing numbers of farmers and gardeners are directing their networks against the patenting and privatisation of seed in the hands of a few multinational corporations. These networks aim to preserve one of mankind’s oldest cultural assets for the common good and future generations. This is not only a matter of the seed itself, but also of the knowledge and culture contained within the seed. In this sense, seed preservationists and breeders are part of a much more far-reaching movement for the free exchange of and access to knowledge and experience in all areas, for example as in the development and distribution of software.

Women perform most farming work in the world. Traditionally, women have the most knowledge concerning preservation of seed and the diverse nutritional and medicinal uses of plants. However, their access to means of production (land, property, technology, knowledge) is often cut off in traditional as well as industrial farming. Overcoming this fundamental injustice is the goal of women's movements and networks around the world and promises at the same time to unleash what could be the greatest potential for innovation in fighting poverty and improving food production and rural development.

Global data on agricultural production (of which less and less is used for food) suppress or underestimate the amount of food produced for immediate consumption in families and communities. Subsistence farming, especially of local and neglected varieties, continues to play a significant role in food production. It not only exists in so-called developing countries, but rather takes place everywhere in the world, particularly in crisis situations. Because it stands in the way of global trade and industrial farming, subsistence farming is depicted as backward. Some of these efforts should be celebrated as Gardens of the Future, preserving important options, traditions, and knowledge, providing the most ecologically-efficient self-provision at low energy and high labour input and holding an enormous potential for innovation.

At the same time, private gardening plays an increasing role in industrialised countries in the preservation of varieties that have disappeared from the market. Freshness and taste and recreational reclaiming of direct relations to the food we enjoy are strong motivations for this type of luxury subsistence gardening.

During the last decade, strong criticism of the mechanisms and consequences of the globalisation of trade and production has developed, including a critical and confrontational scrutiny of the World Trade Organisation WTO and the elitist club of G8 governments. Out of this dissatisfaction emerges a new global movement in search of a fair and sustainable world order beyond corporate and military control. Also, practical alternatives such as the fair trade movement, providing development opportunities through more direct and just relations between consumers and producers represent a common desire to alter the pace of globalisation.

"Food Sovereignty" has become a dazzlingly diverse common reference for these and other social movements throughout the world in which small farmers and their organisations play a pivotal role.

Diversity and Complexity

The common thread running through all of these initiatives is that in their struggle to overcome the daunting challenges facing humankind in the future (i.e. hunger and poverty, environmental degradation, climate change, destructive trends in food production and the structure of agriculture) is, that these movements have turned to the only proven principle of adaptation to changing circumstances that natural history has provided us: diversity.

Diversity constitutes complexity, not only in ecosystems, but also in social relationships. It is a cultural, economic and scientific challenge for us to better understand this complexity and handle it with the necessary stewardship and appropriate respect - to conform to its reality and use it for the common good.

In effect, we are talking about the diversity

  • of flora and fauna which we directly and indirectly exploit in agriculture and food production;
  • of regional and cultural traditions in food and agricultural practices;
  • of knowledge and its conduits; and
  • in the innovation and development of sustainable solutions.

Diversity and complexity based concepts may jar with the simplest, most effective market solutions. The simplification of challenges by reducing them to a few dominant aspects, for example the maximum profit, the quickest effect, the maximum yield increase or the largest possible distribution of a single product on the global market, usually leads to the maximization of resulting problems. What at first blush appears as the "silver bullet" frequently proves to only complicate and actually increase the problem. Complications arising from large hierarchical systems are not the same as but actually the opposite of the complexity of non-hierarchical systems. They much resemble the difference between command and participation, between control and feedback-loops.

This is equally relevant for many scientific approaches and technologies as well as political and economical concepts of agriculture and food production in development assistance and in environmental protection. Fads such as genetic engineering, the irrational belief in the blessings of agro-fuels and energy plants, neo liberal recipes for the recovery of economies and world trade, monocultures which serve the short-term optimisation of crop yields, or gigantic water projects and other forms of infrastructural megalomania seem to all be plagued by the same malady: over simplification and ignorance regarding the actual complexity of ecological, economic, regional and cultural networks and their dependencies.

Diversity is Beautiful !

The commitment to diversity and complexity of local and regional networks on the one hand and the global context on the other – the much touted “think global, act local” – is not only an antipode to multinational corporations and the geo-political, military power play of individual states. Diversity is also a revolution in how we perceive problems and how we search for possible solutions within each of our own minds. It calls into question human standards and limitations on power according to the valuation of each and every individual and every life form. It is the belief that the preservation of diversity is the best insurance against human ignorance and arrogance but also the best way to secure the greatest possible variety of options for ourselves and future generations.

Download this text in english en français auf deutsch en español

Etiquetas:

domingo, marzo 30, 2008

The trees

Thank you for being a part of the effort against genetic engineering.

If you represent an organization, we would like to issue an invitation to join as a member organization of the STOP GE Trees Campaign. For more details about the campaign, go to http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/stopgetrees_who_we_are.php

Industry is moving rapidly forward with plans to commercially release GE trees. The Campaign to stop them is building and we are going to the United Nations in May to demand a ban on the release of GE trees into the environment. It is critical that we show widespread support for the campaign to bolster this effort.

Please join us in the fight to stop GE trees. We will list your organization on the STOP GE Trees Campaign website* with a link to your organization's own website. Press releases will include a link to the page on our website that lists all of the member groups of the STOP GE Trees Campaign. Simply reply to this email with your organization name and weblink.

If you know of other organizations that might be interested, feel free to forward this invitation.

Thanks,

Anne Petermann & Orin Langelle

Co-Directors

Background Information on GE trees:

The timber industry has joined forces with the oil industry and the biotechnology industry to rapidly advance their work to commercialize GE trees for pulp and paper as well as agrofuels. They plan to develop huge plantations of genetically engineered with traits such as reduced lignin and insect resistance. GE tree plantations will have catastrophic implications for forests, forest-dependent peoples and wildlife.

The agrofuels boom is driving this rapid advancement of GE tree technology. GE tree-based agrofuels are being promoted as the answer to climate change, though use of GE trees for agrofuels will damage forests and their ability to store carbon, accelerate deforestation around the world and lead to more and larger monoculture tree plantations. All of these will worsen climate change.

Please join the STOP GE Trees Campaign and help us stop the commercial release of GE Trees.

For the latest breaking news on GE trees, please join our "Frankentrees" information-only listserve.

* The STOP GE Trees website is being re-developed. It was hacked into and damaged last summer and we are in the process of revamping it. It will be completed by late-April.


--
Anne Petermann
Co-Director
Global Justice Ecology Project
P.O. Box 412
Hinesburg, VT 05461
+1-802-482-2689 ph/fax
+1-802-578-0477 mobile

globalecology@gmavt.net
http://www.globaljusticeecology.org

Global Justice Ecology Project Mission Statement: Building local, national and international alliances with action to address the root causes of social injustice, economic domination and environmental destruction.

Global Justice Ecology Project is the North American Focal Point of the Global Forest Coalition
http://www.globalforestcoalition.org

Etiquetas:

sábado, marzo 29, 2008

Expansion of Biotechnology in Brazil Brings Violence

READ THE REST: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5070

Expansion of Biotechnology in Brazil Brings Violence

Isabella Kenfield | March 14, 2008



Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP)

On March 7th—International Women's Day—dozens of Brazilian women occupied a research site of the U.S.-based agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, destroying the greenhouse and experimental plots of genetically-modified (GM) corn. Participants, members of the international farmers' organization La Vía Campesina, stated in a note that the act was to protest the Brazilian government's decision in February to legalize Monsanto's GM Guardian® corn, just weeks after the French government prohibited the corn due to environment and human health risks.

La Vía Campesina also held passive protests in several Brazilian cities against the Swiss corporation Syngenta Seeds for its ongoing impunity for the murder of Valmir Mota de Oliveira. Mota was a member of the Movement of the Landless Rural Workers (MST)—the largest of the seven Brazilian movements in La Vía Campesina—who was assassinated last October in the state of Paraná during these organizations' third occupation of the company's illegal experimental site for GM soybeans. While Brazil already has a high number of land activist murders, Mota's was significant because it was the first to occur during an occupation organized by La Vía Campesina, and the first assassination in Brazil to occur on the property of a multinational agribusiness.

The expansion of agricultural biotechnology into Brazil is leading to increasing agrarian conflicts and exacerbating historic tensions over land. The movements in La Vía Campesina reject seed patenting, claiming the practice traps poor farmers in a cycle of debt to corporations that own the seed patents, and undermines small farmers' autonomy to save and share seeds. They claim that GM technology threatens biodiversity and native seed varieties, and violates the rights of consumers and small farmers by contaminating conventional and organic crops. In the United States, where more than half of the world's GM crop acreage is grown, widespread contamination of conventional and organic crops by GM varieties is threatening the organic foods industry, which is finding it increasingly difficult to certify products. According to Greenpeace International, there were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years.1

These claims threaten a multi-billion dollar industry. In the midst of global economic downturn, Monsanto and Syngenta are realizing unprecedented profits—thanks largely to the agrofuels boom. In January, results showed Monsanto's stock appreciated 137% in 2007,2 hitting a record on the New York Stock Exchange.3 In February, Syngenta—the world's largest producer of herbicides and pesticides with control of one-third of the global commercial seed market—announced its 2007 sales amounted to $9.2 billion. Latin America was Syngenta's "star performer" in 2007, where sales of herbicides, pesticides, and seeds increased by 37% respectively, and sales in Brazil increased for all product lines.4

An agricultural superpower, Brazil is the world's largest exporter of ethanol, the largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, the second largest producer of soybeans (the country produced almost a fourth of the world's soy crop in 2007), and the third largest producer of corn. The country holds particular strategic importance to the biotechnology industry's expansion. As global demand—and financial speculation—for Brazil's agricultural commodities ramps up due to agrofuels and increasing food scarcity, Monsanto and Syngenta are determined to expand sales and market control of GM seeds, herbicides, and pesticides in Brazil—at whatever cost.

Etiquetas:

viernes, marzo 28, 2008

Ten reasons


http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8883

1. 10 Reasons Why Organic Can Feed the World
2. And 10 reasons GM won't

NOTE FROM GM WATCH: The following articles come from the SPECIAL REPORT: 'The death of food as we know it' in the current issue of The Ecologist magazine.

The premise of 'The death of food...' is that an entire culture of cheap mass-produced food is about to be brought to a grinding halt. Various contributors, including Vandana Shiva, Joanna Blythman and Tim Lang, explore what will take its place. More information at http://www.theecologist.org/current.asp

Although the information in some of the articles is heavily orientated towards readers in the UK, there's still lots of detailed information of general relevance. For instance, in the section on greenhouse gas emissions from organic agriculture, the authors note how easily methane from cows can be dramatically cut simply by changing the pasturage on which they graze. This is of particular note given the various attempts to genetically engineer plants, or even genetically engineer cows, as a means of tackling this problem.

Etiquetas: ,

jueves, marzo 27, 2008

Uncertain Peril

Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds
ISBN: 978-080708580-6
Pages:
240

Size:
5.5" X 8.5" Inches

How genetic engineering threatens seeds, and the story of those trying to save this most basic environmental resource
Visit Claire Hope Cummings's website at www.clairehopecummings.com.
Life on earth is facing unprecedented challenges from global warming, war, and mass extinctions. The plight of seeds is a less visible but no less fundamental threat to our survival. Seeds are at the heart of the planet's life-support systems. Their power to regenerate and adapt are essential to maintaining our food supply and our ability to cope with a changing climate.

In Uncertain Peril, environmental journalist Claire Hope Cummings exposes the stories behind the rise of industrial agriculture and plant biotechnology, the fall of public interest science, and the folly of patenting seeds. She examines how farming communities are coping with declining water, soil, and fossil fuels, as well as with new commercial technologies. Will genetically engineered and "terminator" seeds lead to certain promise, as some have hoped, or are we embarking on a path of uncertain peril? Will the "doomsday vault" under construction in the Arctic, designed to store millions of seeds, save the genetic diversity of the world's agriculture?

To answer these questions and others, Cummings takes readers from the Fertile Crescent in Iraq to the island of Kaua'i in Hawai'i; from Oaxaca, Mexico, to the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. She examines the plight of farmers who have planted transgenic seeds and scientists who have been persecuted for revealing the dangers of modified genes.

At each turn, Cummings looks deeply into the relationship between people and plants. She examines the possibilities for both scarcity and abundance and tells the stories of local communities that are producing food and fuel sustainably and providing for the future. The choices we make about how we feed ourselves now will determine whether or not seeds will continue as a generous source of sustenance and remain the common heritage of all humanity. It comes down to this: whoever controls the future of seeds controls the future of life on earth.

Uncertain Peril is a powerful reminder that what's at stake right now is nothing less than the nature of the future.

Etiquetas: ,

miércoles, marzo 26, 2008

And the beat goes on... [extract]
GM Watch
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7934

While Rachel Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and is to be found listed amongst Time magazine's 100 greatest scientists and thinkers who've changed our world, when Carson's book was first published, she was the subject of ferocious attack.

To the fore was a corporation whose tactics against its critics continue to attract controversy:

'Monsanto tried to destroy her. They mounted a tremendous advertising campaign to discredit her and invalidate her work. They wanted to ruin her in every possible way they could.' (Common Ground Interview with John Robbins) http://www.foodrevolution.org/commonground.htm

As well as coming under personal attack, efforts were made to silence her publishers (see The campaign against Rachel Carson). Rachel Carson was, of course, far from the last to be lined up to be silenced in this way.

In 1997, for example, Monsanto succeeded in pressurising Fox TV into not showing a report that two award-winning investigative journalists had made about Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, rBGH. The report was pulled virtually on the eve of broadcast, after Monsanto hired a renowned New York attorney to complain to Fox TV. Under pressure from Monsanto, the journalists were ordered to rewrite their report and when they then refused to - in their own words, 'broadcast false information and slant the truth to curry the favor or avoid the wrath of special interests', they were sacked.
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh2.htm

Then there was, Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food by Dr Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey. Just three days before the book was due to be published by a major publisher, Monsanto sent a threatening letter and the publisher pulled out.
http://www.cetos.org/articles/monsantorespond.html

Happily, Against the Grain went on to be published by Common Courage Press in 1998. That same year, though, the printers for The Ecologist - a firm that had worked successfully with the magazine for over twenty-five years - unilaterally pulped the 14,000 copy print run of its special edition, The Monsanto Files.

And even when the special issue went on to be printed by a different firm, two leading UK newsagent chains refused to stock it for fear of the consequences. The Ecologist's editor, Zac Goldsmith, spoke of 'de facto censorship' and said of Monsanto, 'It goes to show what a powerful force a reputation can be.'
http://www.france.attac.org/spip.php?article2867

The vilification of Rachel Carson herself also bears witness to the fact that it is not just printers, publishers and retailers who have to mind their backs. In 2002 research by GM Watch helped to expose a Monsanto-initiated smear campaign against Dr Ignacio Chapela, following the publication by the journal Nature of research by Quist and Chapela showing GM contamination of native Mexican maize.

Our research also showed that the campaign of character assassination Chapela faced was part of a wider campaign to get fellow scientists to put pressure on Nature to retract his article. We tracked how the whole campaign was initiated and fuelled by Monsanto and its PR agency, the Bivings Group, using third party fronts and proxies to make the campaign appear unconnected to the corporation.
http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit_index.html

Even though the PR tactics deployed may have been less sophisticated at the time of the publication of Silent Spring, Monsanto and the other chemical corporations involved could still rely on support for their campaign of attack from willing third parties. And this involved not just their friends and supporters in government and the media, but also those in academia.

It's no wonder then that Rachel Carson felt it worth drawing attention to the financial ties between the corporations and the universities, as well as to ask, 'When the scientific organisation speaks, whose voice do we hear - that of science? Or of the sustaining industry?'

Etiquetas: ,

La amenaza de los árboles transgénicos

Silvia Ribeiro
Mientras que los cultivos transgénicos siguen siendo objeto de arduas polémicas y resistencias en todo el mundo, al tiempo que se acumulan cada vez más datos sobre contaminación, fallas de rendimiento, aumento de uso de agrotóxicos e impactos a la salud y el ambiente, nuevas amenazas se abren en el horizonte, con la presión creciente de las empresas para introducir árboles transgénicos. El motor principal de la industria es producir materia prima más barata para papel y celulosa para etanol, a costa de aumentar los fuertes impactos que ya tienen los monocultivos forestales en el ambiente, los bosques, las comunidades indígenas, negras y campesinas.

Frente a esta presión, y en función de los potenciales impactos sobre la biodiversidad, la octava Conferencia de las Partes del Convenio de Diversidad Biológica, que se reunió en Brasil en marzo de 2006, tomó una resolución donde se invita a los países a "aplicar el enfoque de precaución a la utilización de árboles genéticamente modificados". Pese a que la resolución es tímida, fue suficiente para que la industria movilizara sus baterías para prevenir por todos los medios que el Convenio avance hacia una recomendación más contundente en su próxima reunión en mayo de este año, en Bonn, Alemania. Pero también las organizaciones de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo se están movilizando activamente, y frente a la reunión del cuerpo técnico-asesor del CBD, que se acaba de reunir en Roma a mediados de febrero, 138 organizaciones de los países donde se están realizando investigaciones con árboles transgénicos, incluyendo ambientalistas, campesinas, indígenas y otras, suscribieron una carta abierta donde expresan sus principales preocupaciones.

En primer lugar, explican, este tipo de investigación se realiza para "consolidar y expandir un modelo de monocultivos de árboles que ya ha demostrado resultar en graves impactos sociales y ambientales en muchos de nuestros países". Analizan a continuación los impactos que tendrían los diferentes tipos de investigación que se están realizando.

Las investigaciones que apuntan a lograr árboles de crecimiento más rápido significarán una absorción mayor de nutrientes del suelo, agotándolos más rápido, y al mismo tiempo un impacto más grave sobre el agua del que ya han demostrado causar los monocultivos de árboles. La investigación para árboles manipulados genéticamente para resistir bajas temperaturas, con el objetivo de avanzar sobre regiones más frías y zonas más altas de montaña, erosionará nuevos ecosistemas y el sustento de comunidades en zonas que aún no han sido afectadas por los actuales monocultivos. Los árboles con propiedades insecticidas, podrían resultar en la mortandad de una cantidad de otras especies de insectos no objetivo, con los consiguientes impactos sobre las cadenas alimenticias de la fauna local. Los árboles con resistencia a herbicidas, implicarían impactos sociales y ambientales aún mayores, destruyendo flora y fauna local [WINDOWS-1252?]–en el lugar de la plantación y aledaños, ya que la fumigación necesariamente es [WINDOWS-1252?]aérea– y sobre la salud de los habitantes en esas regiones. Finalmente, argumentan las organizaciones firmantes, los árboles manipulados para facilitar el procesamiento de celulosa, con menor contenido de lignina [WINDOWS-1252?]–componente que les da fuerza estructural a los [WINDOWS-1252?]árboles–, creará árboles débiles y enfermizos, que los hará susceptibles a daños graves al entorno, frente a tormentas y fenómenos climáticos cada vez más extremos.

A todo esto, hay que sumar el hecho de que la contaminación transgénica producida por el polen de los árboles puede alcanzar cientos de kilómetros y llegar a los bosques naturales ya que a diferencia de los cultivos agrícolas que se plantan por una estación, los árboles permanecen emitiendo polen durante décadas o siglos. Por esta razón tampoco tiene sentido (sentido común, aunque sí en la lógica de lucro de las empresas) "experimentar" con árboles transgénicos, ya que la contaminación sería de un rango tan extenso, que los propios investigadores afirman que sería imposible intentar estudios de impacto ambiental, ya que la zona a cubrir sería imposible de abarcar.

Pero en la lógica perversa de las empresas, esto se podría "solucionar" agregando a estos árboles genes "Terminator" para que sus semillas sean estériles. De paso, justificar que se "legitime" esta tecnología suicida, abriendo la puerta para aplicarla también a las semillas agrícolas. Científicos como la doctora Ricarda Steinbrecher, han mostrado que si en los cultivos agrícolas, esta tecnología nunca podría funcionar completamente (sumando entonces los problemas de la contaminación a los problemas de la esterilidad), en los árboles sería aún más riesgoso, porque nadie puede prever los cambios metabólicos y mutaciones que puede sufrir un árbol durante toda su vida, a causa de cambios en el clima, el suelo o el ecosistema, haciendo imprevisible como expresarán los árboles estos constructos genéticos.

Quizá lo más paradójico de esta nueva amenaza que nos quiere imponer las industrias de plantaciones y biotecnológicas, es que más de las tres cuartas partes del uso de papel que se produce con estos árboles, será para empaques y propaganda de las cadenas transnacionales, que no serían necesarios si se apoyara la soberanía alimentaria y el consumo local y descentralizado. Abordaremos este aspecto en un próximo artículo.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

(La carta citada y otros documentos se pueden ver en el sitio del Movimiento Mundial de Bosques wrm.org.uy)
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/03/01/index.php?section=opinion&article=021a1eco

Etiquetas: ,

lunes, marzo 24, 2008

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/

Biofuelwatch campaigns against the use of bioenergy from unsustainable sources, i.e. biofuels linked to accelerated climate change, deforestation, bio-diversity losses, human rights abuses, including the impoverishment and dispossession of local populations, water and soil degradation, loss of food sovereignty and food security.

Read more about us, find out why biofuels can be a problem, look at our resources, or take part in our email action alerts..

quemadelcampamento

Replacing even a fraction of fossil fuels with biofuels requires vast areas of land - with governments planning to convert tens of millions of hectares to agrofuel monocultures. Land conversion on this scale requires taking over land on which communities depend for growing food and/or for grazing - often classed as 'wasteland' - or the destruction of important ecosystems, including rainforests (which are also home to hundreds of millions of people). Land grabs for agrofuels are happening across Asia, Latin America and Africa, and often involve violence. Some 150,000 families in Argentina and 90,000 families in Paraguay have already been displaced by soya. The accelerating rate of soya expansion due to the agrofuel boom is associated with increasing frequency of evictions. In Tanzania, the UK-based Sun Biofuel Plc are having over 11,000 villagers evicted for jatrtopha biodiesel. In Indonesia, the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has warned that millions of indigenous peoples will soon become biofuel refugees.

Etiquetas:

| |

¿Un nuevo intento de privatizar la biodiversidad? Una mirada sobre la COP-9

¿Un nuevo intento de privatizar la biodiversidad? Una mirada sobre la COP-9

Descargar (8:48 minutos, 6.05 MB)

En el mes de mayo, tendrá lugar en la ciudad de Bonn, en Alemania, la novena Conferencia de las Partes firmantes del Convenio de Diversidad Biológica (COP-9), el cual es el ámbito de decisión más importante del convenio. En esta conferencia, se llevarán a cabo reuniones en donde la discusión estará centrada en los árboles transgénicos y los agrocombustibles; sin embargo, desde varios frentes de la sociedad se está alertando que latente en las discusiones estará nuevamente la aprobación o prohibición de lo que Naciones Unidas denomina “tecnologías de restricción de uso genético”, y que en el lenguaje de las organizaciones sociales, campesinas, y ambientalistas se conoce como las estrategias de la “privatización de la biodiversidad”.

| |

Brasil: el 59 por ciento de los cultivos de soja es transgénica

Brasil: el 59% de los cultivos de soja es transgénica

Descargar (3:08 minutos, 2.16 MB)

En la actualidad, Brasil es el segundo productor mundial de soja y dicho crecimiento va de la mano de la expansión de los cultivos transgénicos.

Un informe de la firma privada Agroconsult divulgado esta semana indica que en ese país el 59 por ciento de la producción sojera es con semillas transgénicas; y que la producción total de ese grano en la cosecha que terminará entre mayo y junio de este año alcanzará las 62,41 millones de toneladas, sobre aproximadamente 21,29 millones de hectáreas plantadas.

Estos resultados surgen de un relevamiento de campo llamado “Rally de la Zafra 2008”, que técnicos contratados llevaron a cabo entre el 17 de febrero y el 4 de marzo de este año en 12 Estados brasileños.

Etiquetas: , , , , ,

domingo, marzo 23, 2008

MEXICO: New Rules Pave the Way for Transgenic Crops
By Diego Cevallos, Inter Press Service, March 20 2008
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41677

MEXICO CITY, Mar 20 (IPS) - After a three-year-long process, Mexico is about to clear the way for legal cultivation of transgenic crops, in spite of resistance from environmentalists and several small farmer associations.

The Rules for the 2005 Biosafety Law on Genetically Modified Organisms were published Wednesday, and by the end of this year a national biosafety system and special guidelines for experimental sowing of transgenic maize will be in place.

According to some scientists and the government, constructing this legal edifice was appropriate and necessary, as in their view it ensures legality and regulates the study, experimental planting, and potential sale of genetically modified (GM) crops.

Trangenic organisms are modified in the laboratory by introducing genes from other plant or animal species, in order to improve their characteristics, such as yield or resistance to environmental conditions.

In the natural environment, GM crops can cross-fertilise with wild, native species or traditional hybrids and alter their genes, which environmentalists call 'genetic pollution.'

There is no conclusive evidence about the health effects of consuming foods containing GM ingredients, although there have been a few cases of health problems.

Environmentalists and several campesino (small farmer) groups say that Mexico could pay a high price if the wealth of its biodiversity were adversely affected by the release of transgenic crops.

Aleira Lara, the coordinator of Greenpeace Mexico's sustainable agriculture campaign, told IPS that the entire regulatory framework is designed to promote biotechnology at the expense of the precautionary principle. 'The Rules are one more step in that direction,' she said. The precautionary principle advocates avoiding the possibility of harm to the environment or human health, by prohibiting actions when doubts remain about their safety.

Environmentalists refer to the Mexican biosafety law as the 'Monsanto Law', after the U.S. biotech giant that is the world leader in transgenic seed production, which has publicly backed the legislation.

Miguel Colunga, leader of the Democratic Campesino Front of Chihuahua, a state in northern Mexico, says his country 'is still in time to reverse' the authorisation of GM crops.

'Transgenic crops are not safe, and we will lose our sovereignty, because the GM seeds belong to just a few transnational corporations,' Colunga told IPS.

Using seeds patented by companies like Monsanto forces farmers to buy seed every planting season, paying the corporations each time, and puts an end to thousands of years of the traditional practice of saving the best seeds from the harvest to use for the next sowing.

The Biosafety Law on Genetically Modified Organisms, with its 124 articles, 33 pages and dozens of footnotes, and the 64 articles and 30 pages of Rules that accompany it, lay the basis for biotechnological research and create monitoring mechanisms for importing GM products and growing GM crops.

They also establish the intention of confronting the potential negative environmental impacts of GM organisms, while benefiting from their presumed advantages. The scheme under which transgenic crops will be authorised to enter Mexico is 'case by case, and step by step.'

The Biosafety Law and its Rules are adequate, because they ensure and guarantee that what happened in Brazil will not happen in Mexico, Luis Herrera, a renowned Mexican biotechnologist, told IPS.

The Brazilian government accepted GM crops after discovering that they were already being grown, illegally and without prior research, he pointed out.

The Mexican regulations will allow experiments and assessments to be carried out, to establish with certainty the safety of planting GM maize, soybean, cotton or any other transgenic crop, said Herrera, who is avowedly in favour of the technology.

The scientist, who along with other researchers produced the first transgenic plant at the University of Ghent, Belgium, in 1983, is now the director of the National Laboratory of Genomics for Diversity at the state Centre for Research and Advanced Studies.

Limited trials of transgenic potatoes, squash, papaya, soybean and other crops have been carried out experimentally in Mexico over the past few years, without any clear rules to regulate them.

The main concern of opponents of GM crops is the possibility that transgenic maize will be introduced and released in the country, an action which has been expressly prohibited by law since 1999.

One of the transitory rules attached to the biosafety law stipulates that by May 19 specific regulations should be drawn up to define where and how experiments may be carried out with GM maize.

The possibility that transgenic maize may be grown in Mexico, even on an experimental basis, raises hackles among opponents of GM foods. Maize is the staple food in Mexico, where it was domesticated 9,000 years ago, and is of immense cultural value.

'We are hoping that Mexico as a whole will be declared the centre of origin of maize, so that experiments and cultivation of GM maize are banned in the country,' said Greenpeace activist Lara.

Mexico produces about 20 million tonnes of maize a year, on an area of 8.5 million hectares. Over three million local campesinos, most of whom are poor, grow maize using native seeds, or seeds that have been improved by methods other than genetic manipulation. There are dozens of sub-species of maize.

IPS was informed by official sources that the authorities and their advisers intend to allow experiments with transgenic maize to be carried out in the north of the country, where there is less biodiversity, and the connection between farmers and maize is not as strong.

In addition, campesino associations in the states along the border with the United States have been asking for several years to be allowed to grow GM maize, on the grounds that it is the only way they can compete in the marketplace with U.S. farmers.

'It's a myth that transgenic crops are more productive. Here in Chihuahua, many of us grow hybrid maize (improved by traditional techniques) and we can prove that it's better than the transgenic kind,' said Colunga, of the Democratic Campesino Front.

'We can modernise our farming with our own maize. It's safe, it doesn't harm the environment, and it doesn't make us dependent on Monsanto or other companies,' he said.

These companies take legal action against those who use their seeds without contracts and payments.

The companies state that GM crops do not harm the environment and are suitable in every way, and millions of hectares all over the world are now planted with transgenic crops.

However, there are documented examples of potentially dangerous GM maize. In the United States, Starlink maize was withdrawn from the market in 2000 after consumers experienced allergic reactions.

And transgenic MON-863 maize, belonging to Monsanto, which was authorised for human consumption in Mexico, harmed rats in experiments, according to a confidential report by the company itself which was made public in 2005 by a court order.

In 2007, the worldwide area sown with transgenic crops amounted to 114.3 million hectares, 'benefiting 12 million farmers,' according to a report by the International Service for Acquisitions of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a U.S. not-for-profit organisation that promotes GM crops.

Less than 20 years ago, the area sown with transgenic crops was insignificant.

In the U.S. where, unlike in Mexico, transgenic maize as well as traditional varieties are grown, maize occupies 32 million hectares and production is over 300 million tonnes a year, 15 times more than in Mexico.

Mexico imports large quantities of maize from the United States to make up for the deficit in its own production. GM maize is included in these purchases, and the authorities do nothing to prevent it, environmentalists complain.

If the deadlines are met, by the end of 2008 trials of transgenic maize will be under way, which is good news, Monsanto spokesman David Carpintero told the Reforma newspaper. (END/2008)

Etiquetas: ,

sábado, marzo 22, 2008

El Movimiento de Mujeres en Lucha de Gral. Roca rechaza y alerta ante el avance de las bondades de los bio-combustibles, promocionadas por el Gobierno Provincial desde el Ministerio de la Producción y la Secretaria de Fruticultura, realizando charlas como la que se dará el dia de hoy en la Cámara de Productores de esta ciudad. Estas no son las políticas agropecuarias que desde hace tiempo venimos requiriendo, para solucionar la problemática del pequeño y mediano agricultor familiar, nos negamos a que nos quieran vender espejitos de colores, queremos producir alimentos, que no falte comida a nuestro pueblo, no mantener tanques llenos en los autos de los ricos de los países del primer mundo.

EN DEFENSA DE LA SOBERANIA ALIMENTARIA Y LA BIODIVERSIDAD

Nos oponemos a una segunda “conquista del desierto” a través de los Agrocombustibles

Las organizaciones y personas abajo firmantes, reunidas en la 1º Jornada Patagónica sobre Agro combustibles, en conocimiento de la realidad social, económica y ecológica de vastas regiones del país, donde padecen las víctimas de la expansión de de la soja, y ante el reciente anuncio por parte de los gobiernos de las provincias de Chubut, Río Negro y Neuquén que pretenden fomentar la producción de agro combustibles disponiendo, para los correspondientes cultivos (soja, colza, árboles), enorme cantidad de tierras potencialmente irrigables o convenientes por razones climáticas, queremos manifestar lo siguiente: Rechazamos esta segunda “conquista del desierto” que intenta expandir las fronteras, no ya para sumar territorio a la producción ovina, como ocurrió a fines del Siglo XIX y así favorecer a la oligarquía pampeana e intereses comerciales primordialmente británicos, sino a favor de una verdadera invasión de monocultivos en la Patagonia, esta vez destinados a la producción de agro combustibles. La palabra “desierto” implicaba, para el gobierno de Buenos Aires en 1879, un territorio despoblado que podía ser repartido y utilizado discrecionalmente.

Hoy, con más elegancia política, gobiernos y sectores directamente interesados hablan de “crecimiento”, inversiones”, “tecnología”, “desarrollo” y “potencialidades”, pero repiten el mismo esquema: el brutal saqueo, un saqueo que esta vez multiplica focos de contaminación, modos de explotación humana y consecuencias ambientales y sociales en gran escala.

Rechazamos no sólo éstas formas de obtener energía sino también, y en primer lugar, las hipótesis de demanda energética y usos que se publicita en los medios, en la folletería empresarial, en programas universitarios subordinados a intereses privados y en los proyectos gubernamentales, fuertemente condicionadas por los objetivos de grandes grupos industriales y especuladores bursátiles. Las demandas de las corporaciones, por grandes que sean, ni son justificadas ni constituyen las demandas de “la humanidad”, sino que deben ser interpretadas como parte de una carrera de acumulación, competencia y conflictos (incluyendo guerras) que implica, justamente, no menos sino más derroche en gran escala. Para cumplir con sus metas y mantener consenso prometen mantener el nivel de consumo y privilegios en algunas regiones, sembrando en cambio pobreza mezclada con palabras bonitas y estadísticas sin respaldo empírico en el resto del mundo.

Rechazamos la pretensión de desarrollar los agro-combustibles, por ser éste un mega-negocio que, en el primer lugar, beneficia a grandes empresas agroexportadoras, patentadores de semillas, fabricantes de pesticidas y a un reducido número de intermediarios y promotores, en detrimento de los pequeños y medianos productores, de la diversidad biológica y de la producción, distribución social y consumo abundante de alimentos sanos. Mas aún, rechazamos toda decisión tomada en este sentido, y las futuras acciones que los gobiernos llevan adelante sin la consulta a las comunidades y organizaciones de pequeños y medianos productores, sociales y ecologistas.

Rechazamos la pretensión de destinar grandes extensiones de territorio a monocultivos (transgénicos o no), excluyendo de este modo otros usos como es la producción de alimentos, lesionando la diversidad y la soberanía alimentaría.Es por estos motivos, y sólo como un ejemplo cotidiano, que

Rechazamos La entrega de comida pre-elaborada en comedores escolares y otros por contener soja o derivados de la soja, que contribuyen a la desnutrición infantil, atentando contra una nutrición adecuada. Proponemos en cambio que la millonaria cifra que se destina a ese fin sea volcada directamente a la compra de productos locales y/o se subsidie con ese monto a los productores pequeños y medianos.

Rechazamos cualquier forma de producción que tenga como consecuencia el endeudamiento del productor rural, el desplazamiento de la población rural y la concentración de la tierra en pocas manos, sean de personas o sociedades nacionales o extranjeras. Rechazamos por inconsistentes los argumentos para justificar el negocio de los agrocombustibles, como por ejemplo: que generan empleo, que posibilitan diversificar cultivos, alimentar ganado, que contribuyen a mitigar el calentamiento global, y a resolver (¿cuál?) crisis energética,etc.

Rechazamos el financiamiento y la intervención de cualquier empresaTransnacional (Monsanto, Repsol, Cargill, Telefónica, Aquiline, etc) en instituciones públicas, por ej. escuelas, programas educativos, centros de investigación, organismos estatales en general y con cualquier otra manera de incidir políticamente, por medio de fundaciones y ONGs para promocionar la llamada “responsabilidad social empresaria” y otros programas de relaciones públicas que tengan como fin legitimar socialmente formas extractivas de bienes comunes y desalentar el control social sobre la economía.

Rechazamos las consultas públicas realizadas por países de la Unión Europea y la Comisión de la Unión Europea en relación a la producción “sostenible” de agro combustibles, incluyendo nuestro territorio, dando por supuesto nuestro apoyo, cuando no hemos sido consultados y nos oponemos a alimentar el transporte de los países ricos a costas de nuestras tierras. Adherimos a la moratoria global de agrocombustibles con el fin de frenar la devastadora expansión de cultivos de biomasa energética y lograr que, de una vez por todas, los gobiernos de la comunidad europea se dispongan a oir otras voces que la de las industrias interesadas y las ONGs del norte y del sur financiadas por las mismas.

Reclamamos Asimismo que, durante esta moratoria, la población supuestamente “beneficiada” con el consumo en gran escala de los agrocombustibles sea informada sin intermediarios sobre las consecuencias sociales, económicas, culturales y ambientales que ya se han observado con la producción de monocultivos de biomasa energética. Las consecuencias de la expansión de esos mismos monocultivos para la industria alimenticia, sabemos, ya han sido devastadoras y haría falta un inmenso plan de ocultamiento mundial para seguir esa trayectoria.

Etiquetas: ,

La lucha global contra Cargill

Rainforest Action Network continuará desafiando a las corporaciones norteamericanas que violan los derechos humanos y destruyen el medio ambiente por todo el planeta. Nosotros permaneceremos junto a las comunidades, los militantes y activistas y las ONGs de todo el mundo que estén confrontando a Cargill y otras corporaciones de los agronegocios que están jugando un papel principal en la expansión de los monocultivos de commodities, específicamente los monocultivos de aceite de palma y soja, y están generando graves impactos en la población, el medio ambiente y el clima.

Resumen de la exposición de Andrea Samulon en la conferencia “La lucha global contra Cargill: Experiencias de Estados Unidos, Brasil y Paraguay”[1].

Me llamo Andrea Samulon, y trabajo en Rainforest Action Network (Red de Acción por los Bosques) con sede en San Francisco, California (EE UU). Rainforest Action Network (RAN, por su acrónimo en inglés) trabaja para proteger los bosques de la Tierra y otros ecosistemas importantes y apoya los derechos humanos de los habitantes con educación, y organizando a pobladores autóctonos para emprender acciones directas sin violencia.

RAN cumple con esta misión realizando campañas dinámicas y de gran impacto que ayudan a que las políticas empresariales y del gobierno estén acordes con el sentir popular en pro de la conservación del medio ambiente y respeto a los derechos humanos. RAN trabaja en conjunto con grupos ambientalistas y de derechos humanos alrededor del mundo, incluyendo comunidades indígenas, organizaciones campesinas y organizaciones no gubernamentales.

Hoy voy a hablar sobre Cargill, su rol en el mundo, y la resistencia que existe en contra de esta gran multinacional. En octubre del año pasado nuestra organización lanzó una campaña en contra de tres grandes empresas de agronegocios norteamericanas, ADM, Bunge, y Cargill. Voy a explicar al final de la presentación un poco más sobre esta campaña.

Introducción

Aunque Cargill es el grupo empresario agrícola y de comercialización de alimentos más poderoso del mundo, pocas personas conocen su papel. A pesar de que Cargill es una empresa norteamericana, con su cuartel en la ciudad de Minneápolis, Estado de Minnesota, la mayoría de los norteamericanos ni conocen quién o qué es Cargill.

Además, Cargill es una empresa privada. El escritor, Brewster Kneen, denominó a Cargill el “Gigante Invisible”. Cargill se fundó en 1865 y desde entonces ha venido creciendo y ampliando sus negocios. Tiene una gran inversión en la empresa Mosaic, una de las más poderosas empresas de fertilizantes del mundo. Cargill es un gran impulsor de las políticas de libre comercio, y su posición está basada firmemente en principios económicos neoliberales. Ellos siempre buscan dónde hacer negocios, y los hacen donde las barreras arancelarias son muy bajas. Por lo tanto, el costo de su producto es más barato, y esto asegura que más gente compra su marca.

Algunos datos más para comprender el alcance de Cargill:

· En el año fiscal 2007, Cargill declaró ingresos de 88.3 billones de dólares, y ganancias de 2.34 billones de dólares.

· Es responsable del 25% de toda la exportación de granos de los Estados Unidos.

· Es proveedor de aproximadamente el 22% de la carne que se consume en el mercado doméstico de los Estados Unidos

· Emplea un poco mas de 158.000 personas en 1.100 localidades de 66 países

· Cargill es el mayor exportador de productos de Argentina

· Es el más grande productor de aves en Tailandia.

· Todos los huevos usados en los McDonald’s en los Estados Unidos han pasado por las plantas de Cargill.

Cargill con problemas alrededor del mundo

En julio de 2005, el Fondo Internacional de Derechos del Trabajo llevó a juicio a Cargill, Nestlé y Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) ante la Corte Federal de Los Ángeles (California) en representación de un grupo de niños de Malí que fueron traficados desde Malí hasta Costa de Marfil para trabajar forzadamente de doce a catorce horas por día sin sueldo, sin comida, ni paga, y golpes frecuentes. Los 3 niños que representaban a sus compañeros estaban haciéndolo de forma anónima, por el miedo a la venganza de los dueños de los cultivos donde trabajaban. La denuncia implica tráfico, tortura y trabajo esclavo de niños que cultivan y cosechan cocoa para las compañías que importan desde África.

La Fundación de Justicia Medioambiental nombra a Cargill como el mayor comprador de algodón de Uzbekistan, que es producido mayormente por trabajadores que no son pagados y a los cuales se les han violado los derechos humanos. Cargill alega que tampoco tiene conocimiento de este caso.

En 2005, Cargill llegó a un acuerdo con el gobierno de los Estados Unidos para pagar 130 millones de dólares como multa por haber subestimado las emisiones tóxicas de sus 27 plantas que procesan maíz, trigo, soja, y otros productos para la alimentación, combustible, y etanol.

En noviembre de 2007, Cargill, uno de los más grandes productores de carne en el mundo anunció que retiraba del mercado más de un millón de libras de carne picada porque había una posible contaminación con la bacteria E. Coli. En octubre de 2007, Cargill tuvo otra vez que retirar más de ochocientas mil libras de carne picada por la misma razón.

En 2008, se ha iniciado un debate sobre la propuesta de Cargill de secar una salina y un humedal, Bay Area Salt Ponds, que existe en la bahía de San Francisco y la población local se opone a esta obra.

******

En Brasil, Cargill tiene una presencia muy grande, particularmente en la producción de soja. Hace algunos años, Cargill decidió construir un puerto en la ciudad de Santarem en la Amazonía, al lado del río Amazonas. La construcción de este puerto fue totalmente ilegal. Cargill no gestionó los permisos ambientales necesarios para construir el puerto en ese lugar, pero el gobierno de Brasil le ha permitido mantenerlo abierto. Esto a pesar de que la Corte Suprema de Brasil inició un juicio contra Cargill por haber construido el puerto sin los permisos requeridos por la ley. Se han realizado varios estudios que documentan un gran aumento de la deforestación en la región y la aparición de más plantaciones de soja como resultado de la construcción del puerto ilegal de Cargill en Santarem.

http://www.biodiversidadla.org/portada_principal/documentos/la_lucha_global_contra_cargill

Etiquetas: