El combate a la contaminación transgénica

Desde que los transgénicos se introdujeron por primera vez a mediados de la década de 1990, grupos de agricultores y ong advirtieron que contaminarían otros cultivos. Como se predijo, esto ya ocurrió. En este artículo analizamos que estrategias para combatir la contaminación están ideando en distintas partes del mundo las comunidades que la sufren.

GRAIN

[Los tres videos que acompañan este artículo pueden verse aquí].

Cuando se plantan cultivos genéticamente modificado (gm), el material transgénico contamina los demás cultivos. En lugares donde los cultivos transgénicos se plantan a gran escala se ha vuelto casi imposible encontrar cultivos de la misma especie que estén libres de material transgénico. Y la contaminación se esparce incluso a zonas donde los cultivos transgénicos no están oficialmente permitidos. [1] El Registro de Contaminación Transgénica, gestionado por GeneWatch del Reino Unido y Greenpeace Internacional, documentó en los últimos 10 años más de 216 casos de contaminación transgénica en 57 países, incluidos 39 casos en 2007. [2]

Monsanto y las otras empresas biotecnológicas han sabido siempre que sus cultivos transgénicos contaminan otros cultivos. Es más, esa fue parte de su estrategia para forzar al mundo a aceptar los organismos genéticamente modificados (ogm). Pero en todas partes la gente se está negando a dejarse atropellar y no acepta la modificación genética. Por eso la combaten, aun en los lugares que sufren la contaminación. De hecho, algunas comunidades que sufren esta contaminación están creando formas sofisticadas de resistencia a los cultivos transgénicos. Es común que comiencen con estrategias a corto plazo para descontaminar sus semillas locales, pero a menudo buscan el modo de fortalecer sus sistemas alimentarios y agrícolas tradicionales en el largo plazo.

Analizamos las experiencias de comunidades de distintas partes del mundo para ver cómo enfrentan la contaminación transgénica y qué perspectivas pueden ofrecer a otras personas que sufren situaciones semejantes. Cada situación es única y da origen a distintos procesos. Común a todas ellas es la importancia primordial de la acción conjunta —de las comunidades trabajando por abajo, en la base, para identificar sus propias soluciones sin depender de tribunales o gobiernos que tienden a alinearse con la industria cuando falta una fuerte presión social.

La experiencia de las comunidades de México

Para los pueblos indígenas de México y Guatemala, el maíz es la base de la vida. En la historia de la creación de los mayas, el maíz fue el único material en que los dioses pudieron infundir vida y lo utilizaron para hacer la carne de las primeras cuatro personas de la Tierra. Para otros pueblos de México, el maíz es en sí mismo una diosa. La planta ha sido el alimento fundamental de los mexicanos durante siglos, y miles de variedades brindan una gama increíble de nutrientes, sabores, consistencias, recetas y usos medicinales.

En enero de 2002, unos investigadores de la Universidad de California, en Berkeley, anunciaron que habían descubierto que las variedades locales de maíz en las montañas del estado de Oaxaca estaban contaminadas. Otras comunidades campesinas realizaron pruebas en sus propios cultivos y quedaron conmocionadas al descubrir que también mostraban contaminación. Fue un duro golpe a su cultura. No podían quedarse impávidos, había que hacer algo.

Al principio no sabían qué hacer. Los ogm eran algo nuevo. Comenzaron por unir a las comunidades cercanas que también podrían haber sufrido contaminación, y a las ong cercanas. Se organizaron talleres y las asambleas locales enviaron a sus representantes a debatir en nombre de sus comunidades. La estrategia fue colectiva desde el principio. Éste es el primer punto a señalar sobre la experiencia mexicana.

Un punto fundamental del acuerdo alcanzado bastante pronto fue que esta contaminación con transgénicos debía ser vista como parte de una guerra. No se trataba de un accidente o de un tema aislado sino parte de una guerra contra los campesinos y los pueblos indígenas —en sus palabras, una guerra contra la gente del maíz. Entonces debían responder como corresponde —defendiendo no solamente sus semillas sino sus medios de sustento, sus culturas, toda su forma de vida.

Inicialmente, sin embargo, la percepción social era que había pocas ideas prácticas de cómo descontaminar su maíz e impedir nuevos episodios de contaminación. Había gente preocupada de que tal vez las comunidades no tuvieran la capacidad técnica para manejar un problema tan complejo. Pero esas comunidades y las ong que trabajan con ellas tenían mucha experiencia en encontrar soluciones de abajo, de base, locales, a los problemas que les afectan y por eso, en lugar de buscar expertos foráneos le dieron la vuelta a la cuestión, y no se enfocaron en el maíz transgénico, al que no conocían, sino en sus propias variedades de maíz, que conocen íntimamente.

Comenzaron compartiendo sus propios saberes en torno al maíz y acerca de lo que el maíz necesita para ser y mantenerse saludable. El punto más básico era que para mantener al maíz vivo y en buenas condiciones debían sembrarlo y comerlo. En numerosas comunidades el maíz tradicional estaba desapareciendo porque la gente lo sembraba menos. El primer paso para defender su maíz, pues, era plantarlo más. Pensando en los transgénicos también fue el sentir general que cualquier semilla es peligrosa si no conocemos historial. Así que hubo acuerdo en que había que plantar las semillas únicamente cuando se conociera su historial o cuando provinieran de una fuente de confianza, que conocieran muy bien.

Al poner estos principios en práctica, las comunidades comenzaron a prestar mayor atención a los cultivos de sus campos y tomaron conciencia de cualquier tipo de malformación que presentaran. Analizaron las plantas deformadas y se encontraron con que tenían un elevado índice de contaminación, por lo que comenzaron a fijarse en plantas como ésas y a eliminarlas.

Otra cosa que las comunidades saben del maíz es que se cruza abiertamente así que, para impedir la contaminación transgénica debían evitar que el maíz transgénico se cruzara con su maíz. Comenzaron poniendo en práctica técnicas simples como plantar árboles alrededor de sus campos. Algunas de las técnicas que desarrollaron podrían ser aplicadas en cualquier lugar, mientras que otras son específicas de ciertas comunidades. Pero lo importante era que buscaron establecer un sistema para evitar la contaminación.

Hubo mucha discusión sobre qué hacer con las plantas contaminadas. Había una idea muy afianzada de que si una variedad muy antigua ha estado en tu familia durante generaciones y de repente se contamina, este maíz no debería destruirse así como así. El maíz contaminado está enfermo y necesita ser curado, no destruido. Tal vez lleve un año o 100 años curarlo, pero debe hacerse porque el maíz ha estado en las comunidades durante varias generaciones.

De todas las comunidades del mundo, las comunidades campesinas de México probablemente sean las que desarrollaron las estrategias más afinadas y profundas para enfrentar la contaminación genética. Pueden extraerse varias lecciones de su lucha, y tal vez las principales sean:

1. Es necesario ver la contaminación genética como parte de un ataque más amplio a los campesinos y a las comunidades locales. Defender tus cultivos significa también defender tu tierra y tu agua, y esto exige comunidades fortalecidas, sólidos procesos colectivos de toma de decisiones, y redes firmes con otros grupos a escala nacional e incluso internacional. Un enfoque tan amplio permite una mayor participación de la gente en la lucha. Aun cuando no todos pueden cuidar las semillas, hay otras cosas que sí pueden hacer.

2. Es importante no quedar constreñidos por parámetros de tiempo. Para las comunidades mexicanas, la contaminación transgénica es parte de una guerra librada contra ellos que es permanente y por eso su enfoque debe ser de largo plazo y capaz de ser permanente. Su decisión es defender su maíz, no importa el tiempo que les consuma. Para estas comunidades cuando se introducen plazos la gente se topa con lo que no puede hacer y es generalmente poco lo que puede hacerse en el corto plazo, de manera que transa. Las comunidades mexicanas se niegan a hacer eso.

3. Es vital analizar el asunto desde nuestra propia perspectiva. Las comunidades de México dedicaron mucho tiempo en los primeros talleres a discutir sobre su espiritualidad y sus visiones sobre lo sagrado y la creación. Conversaron sobre los rituales que podrían proteger al maíz. A las personas invitadas de fuera les resultó difícil explicar los tecnicismos de la ingeniería genética, porque el concepto parecía muy absurdo. Pero, al final, las comunidades llegaron a su propio entendimiento básico de que la ingeniería genética es un método para lograr el control externo de los medios de vida agrícolas, y esta comprensión fue mucho más importante que la información técnica.

4. Es necesario que las comunidades controlen el proceso. En México las comunidades pudieron mantener el control sobre los procesos porque siempre fueron sus propios procesos. Al lograr autogestionar las pruebas iniciales se guardaron los resultados para sí durante largo tiempo porque querían discutir primero entre ellas qué pasos adoptar. Y el hecho de que las decisiones fueran tomadas colectivamente, por mucha gente, ayudó a impedir que se cometieran grandes errores. Siempre va a haber errores, pero cuando hay mucha gente involucrada las posibilidades de que se cometan errores fundamentales son mucho menores. Cuando los científicos universitarios revelaron la contaminación, los procesos seguidos fueron totalmente diferentes.

5. Es necesario privilegiar las luchas sociales por encima de las luchas legales. Entre las comunidades mexicanas se discutió mucho sobre leyes de bioseguridad, leyes de semillas y otras leyes relevantes. En un taller reciente dedicado a los procesos legales se presentó una línea de tiempo de las diversas leyes aprobadas por el gobierno mexicano en los últimos 15 a 20 años. Viendo ese escenario, las comunidades llegaron a la clara conclusión de que la vía legal no es una vía importante para su lucha. Es posible que se pierda un juicio, pero si hay suficiente presión social tal vez se gane de otras formas. Para las comunidades, las opciones legales son efectivas únicamente cuando hay una presión social considerable sobre las autoridades. Así que la táctica no está descartada, pero no es central.

FUENTE:
http://www.biodiversidadla.org/Portada_Principal/Recomendamos/El_combate_a_la_contaminacion_transgenica

Soja protegida vale por dos: ¿Y cuánto vale la imagen del Uruguay natural-ganadero?

TOMADO DE RAP-AL URUGUAY

El día 9 de abril en Guichón, ciudad ubicada a 110 kms de Paysandú, se produjo un accidente al soltarse la abrazadera de un mangón del avión que se disponía a fumigar un cultivo de soja transgénica con los insecticidas endosulfan y cipermetrina.
El accidente ocurrió en pleno vuelo y una importante cantidad de ambas sustancias se derramó en un predio de cría de terneros de la Liga del Trabajo de Guichón, resultando en la muerte de cerca de 60 terneros. Afortunadamente, el avión pudo esquivar una casa vecina, pero una cantidad de ambas sustancias también cayeron sobre ese predio, donde pastaba ganado, causando la muerte a otros dos vacunos.
Después del accidente se pudo constatar la muerte de peces y otros animales en la zona afectada. En la semana siguiente al accidente, técnicos del Instituto Nacional Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Ministerio Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca (MGAP) y de la Liga del Trabajo de Guichón recorrieron la zona tomando muestras y hallaron peces muertos en la cañada.
Las autoridades han constatado que los tóxicos involucrados en este accidente son el endosulfan y la cipermetrina. Ambos tóxicos han incrementado su uso paralelamente al aumento del cultivo de soja.

******

Por un puñado de soja, un millón de destrucción

Si bien es cierto que lo ocurrido en Guichón fue un accidente, no deja de estar relacionado con el cultivo de la soja transgénica.
Lo que deja la soja es solo contaminación y destrucción de nuestro ambiente y de nuestra gente. El 5% de la soja producida en nuestro país es industrializada en el Uruguay, en tanto que el resto es exportada por los mismos que la producen, empresarios argentinos.
En esta instancia los ganaderos han sido los afectados por el uso masivo de agrotóxicos. La noticia de este accidente seguramente ha llegado a muchos países europeos o a posibles mercados extranjeros. La imagen del país ganadero natural puede verse comprometido y afectar la exportación de carne.
Pero esto no es todo. La pesca artesanal también está siendo afectada en distintos lugares del territorio desde hace bastante tiempo. Muchos pescadores rezan para que no llueva y escurra el veneno esparcido en los cultivos sojeros a las fuentes de agua, cañadas, arroyos y ríos y deje como resultado a cientos de peces muertos, impidiendo así llevar a cabo la pesca. Claro que el que los peces no estén muertos, no prueba que no estén contaminados.

¿Coexistencia?

En julio del año pasado se levantó la moratoria que implicó la no autorización de nuevos cultivos transgénicos por un período de 18 meses. Al levantarse la moratoria se decretó la llamada “coexistencia”, que apuesta a que los cultivos transgénicos y la producción agropecuaría convivan.
La coexistencia de los cultivos transgénicos y la agropecuaría no es posible. El cultivo transgénico es un modelo excluyente, que contamina y mata lo que está cerca: por su uso masivo de agrotóxicos, por su extensión en grandes monocultivos y por la expulsión de la agricultura. Es un modelo industrial sin trabajadores.
Además, ese tipo de cultivos agrícolas está terminando con la pesca artesanal, con la apicultura y ahora se ve afectada también la ganadería.

FUENTE: http://webs.chasque.net/~rapaluy1/endosulfan/Soja_protegida.html

Widespread Call Issued to Stop GM Alfalfa in Canada
80 groups to fight the commercialization of genetically modified alfalfa
Press Release April 28, 2009
Click here to see the full list of signatories.
Ottawa – Today, 80 groups including farmer associations and food businesses from across Canada joined the growing call to stop the introduction and field-testing of genetically modified (GM) alfalfa.
The alfalfa in question is genetically modified by Monsanto to be tolerant to the company’s brand name herbicide Roundup. Alfalfa would be the first perennial GM crop on the market.
“The contamination of alfalfa would be inevitable and irreversible. We’ve already seen an end to organic canola due to GM contamination and we can’t afford to lose alfalfa,” said Arnold Taylor of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate. “Because it’s pollinated by bees, genes from Monsanto’s GM alfalfa would spread out of control.”
Alfalfa is an important crop for all farmers, both organic and conventional, as a soil builder by fixing nitrogen, as a clean-up crop to end weed infestations, and as feed for dairy cattle and other animals. "Farmers universally see no reason for GM alfalfa. Monsanto is the only beneficiary. The company would gain by selling more Roundup and by controlling yet another crop through its gene patents, which in all other Roundup Ready crops in Canada, have disallowed farmers from saving seed," said Terry Boehm, Vice President of the National Farmers Union.
GM alfalfa was approved by the Canadian government in 2005 but cannot be commercialized until Monsanto and Forage Genetics International seek and meet registration requirements for the variety. In the U.S., a Federal court revoked approval for GM alfalfa, ruling that a full environmental assessment was needed, citing risks to farmers and the environment.
The 80 groups that signed the “No to GM Alfalfa” letter include farmer associations, farm businesses, sprouting and seed companies, food retailers, and public interest groups. The groups oppose the sale, trade and production of GM alfalfa and are asking the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to reassess its approval of GM alfalfa.
“The response from diverse groups across Canada in support of this position is huge. This is only the beginning of strong opposition to GM alfalfa as there is so much at stake for consumers and farmers alike,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, a coalition of 18 groups. “The government must recognize the predictable and devastating environmental and economic costs of GM alfalfa and revoke approval now, rather than wait until after its too late and farmers have lost their crops and livelihoods to contamination.”
Carmen Wakeling of Eatmore Sprouts & Greens Ltd. in BC said that, "Over time the availability of certified organic alfalfa seed would disappear, creating severe challenges for seed and sprout growers. Ultimately, GM alfalfa would have major repercussions on certified organic food producers throughout Canada and the U.S., no matter what they are making or growing".
Urban consumers are also extremely concerned about the introduction of GM alfalfa. “Canadian consumers are becoming more and more educated about GM foods and are increasingly looking for organic products,” said Dag Falck, Organic Program Manager for Nature’s Path, a major manufacturer of organic cereals in North America. “Its essential that we ensure consumers retain the option to buy non-GM foods."
“Our customers are very clear that they don’t want to eat GM foods, and that includes honey, milk and meat that would be effected by GM alfalfa,” said Julie Daniluk of The Big Carrot food store in Toronto.
The 80 groups will work together to stop the commercialization of GM alfalfa in Canada and have formed a “No to GM Alfalfa” campaign to protect the crop.
-30-
For more information:Arnold Taylor, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, cell: 306-241-6126 or 306-252-2783;Terry Boehm, Vice-President, National Farmers Union, 306-255-2880 or 306-257-3689;Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext 5, coordinator@cban.ca;Dag Falck, Organic Program Manager, Nature’s Path, 250 379 2244;Julie Daniluk, The Big Carrot, 416-771-4496.

Maíz transgénico: ilegal e inútil
Silvia Ribeiro*
Del 13 al 17 de abril, la Secretaría de Agricultura (Sagarpa) hizo públicas 12 solicitudes de Monsanto para la liberación experimental de maíz transgénico en Sinaloa, Sonora y Tamaulipas, pese a que el marco legal de bioseguridad en México está incompleto y plagado de irregularidades.
Ante esto, Greenpeace interpuso una demanda contra los funcionarios "que infringieron la Ley de Bioseguridad y Organismos Genéticamente Modificados, para modificar su reglamento y permitir las siembras de maíz transgénico en México, a pesar de que el país carece de un sistema de salvaguardas de bioseguridad eficiente y que es el centro de origen y diversidad del maíz". La denuncia penal interpuesta por Greenpeace es contra el presidente Felipe Calderón; el secretario de Agricultura, Alberto Cárdenas; el secretario de Medio Ambiente, Juan Elvira; y el secretario de Salud, Ángel Córdoba.
Es muy grave que además, la llamada "experimentación" no es tal, porque al realizarse a campo abierto, la contaminación por polen, insectos y viento, ocurrirá inexorablemente, alcanzando otros campos y milpas a corto o mediano plazo. Se inaugura así la era de la contaminación transgénica legalizada. A nivel global, hay más de 150 casos de contaminación transgénica "accidental", comprobados en 42 países. Hay estudios en México y otros países que muestran que las variables para contaminación son mucho más que las distancias de supuesto "aislamiento". Pero el gobierno mexicano, siguiendo los reportes de Monsanto, asegura que justamente aquí, en el centro de origen del maíz, nada de eso sucederá. El polen, viento e insectos se comportarán de acuerdo con los protocolos de Monsanto, aunque los factores de riesgo se multipliquen por mil debido a la enorme diversidad de maíces, de polinizadores y de geografías.
Contrastando con esta apertura tan irresponsable, el 14 de abril Alemania anunció que, por considerarlo una amenaza al medioambiente, prohíbe la siembra de maíz transgénico Bt (Mon810 de Monsanto), sumándose a otros siete países europeos que lo habían hecho antes. Monsanto respondió con un juicio contra ese país. Para las transnacionales, o hay funcionarios que acepten sus condiciones, como sucede en México, o los países no tienen derecho a decidir según su propio criterio.
El mismo día, la Unión de Científicos Preocupados de Estados Unidos (Union of Concerned Scientists-UCS), dio a conocer el informe "Failure to Yield" (Falta de Rendimiento), que analiza los rendimientos de los cultivos transgénicos en ese país –mayor productor mundial de transgénicos– durante 20 años de experimentación y 13 años de comercialización. Es el estudio más amplio y minucioso realizado hasta el momento. Su conclusión: pese a enormes costos, los transgénicos no han contribuido a aumentar la producción agrícola en Estados Unidos y en cambio, otros enfoques convencionales y orgánicos, han aumentado los rendimientos mucho más.
La UCS explica que en el caso de la soya, los transgénicos han disminuido el rendimiento, en el caso del maíz tolerante a herbicidas no aumentaron nada y en el caso de maíz insecticida con la toxina Bt, ha habido un ligero aumento, un promedio de 0.2-0.3 por ciento anual, lo cual significa un acumulado en promedio de 3-4 por ciento al final de los 13 años, registrado sobre todo en zonas de ataques muy frecuentes de las plagas para la cual están manipulados, que por cierto, no sucede en México.
El dato más significativo es que el aumento total del rendimiento del maíz en esos 13 años fue más de 13 por ciento, lo que quiere decir que 75-80 por ciento del aumento de rendimiento del maíz en Estados Unidos, se debió a otras variedades y otros enfoques de producción que no fueron transgénicos. O sea que si no se hubieran sembrado transgénicos en Estados Unidos, el total de producción de maíz hubiera sido mayor.
El reporte de la UCS está disponible en la red electrónica en inglés. Seguramente esto no es un impedimento para los funcionarios que aprobaron ilegalmente el reglamento de bioseguridad, ya que las solicitudes de Monsanto, en "consulta pública" en el portal de Senasica hasta el 13 y 20 de mayo, están parcialmente en inglés. Un hecho insólito, que muestra aún más claramente que la consulta es una farsa y no va a dirigida a los que realmente resultarán más afectados por la contaminación: los campesinos e indígenas creadores del maíz que Monsanto ha patentando, manipulado y ahora pretende usar como contaminante. A las autoridades no les importa lo que ellos y la mayoría de la gente piensen: sólo se aceptarán opiniones "sustentadas técnica y científicamente", según su propia definición de ciencia y técnica, obviamente.
Necesitan este tipo de farsa y manipulaciones legales, porque saben que ni ellos ni Monsanto pueden responder las cuestiones de fondo: ¿Por qué colocar en riesgo al maíz, patrimonio genético y cultural fundamental de México para "experimentar" con cultivos que son más caros, rinden menos, usan más químicos y generan mayor dependencia y costos a los agricultores? Hay un sinúmero de otras alternativas que son más sanas, más baratas, rinden más y no implican riesgos.
La Jornada, México, 25 de abril 2009
*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Failure to Yield

Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops

DOWNLOAD: Failure to Yield (2009) Oxfam Statement on "Failure to Yield"

For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according toFailure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

CLICK HERE TO READ COMMON QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT FAILURE TO YIELD

Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaignwarning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds… significantly increase crop yields…” The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, “Failure to Yield” considers the technology’s potential role in increasing food production over the next few decades. The report does not discount the possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. It does, however, suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.

“If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”

SOURCE: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

A message from Europe

Dear Friends of a GMO-free Europe!

Saturday concluded another successful and inspiring conference of the GMO-free regions in Europe. We have attached the concluding remarks and the final declaration of the participants of “Food and Democracy” which give a concise overview of the topics discussed and summarize the demands of the participants.

The presentations of the Conference can be found here: www.gmo-free-regions.org/food-democracy-april-2009/programme.html (more will be published in the coming days!)

Please check the www.gmo-free-regions-org website frequently for updates and send us news of any new GMO-free regions.

We hope to hear from you soon!

Final Declaration :

GMO Moratorium: The way forward for Europe

The participants of the 5th European Conference of GMO-Free Regions “Food and Democracy” call for an EU-wide moratorium on the authorization and the commercial planting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the wake of six EU member states banning the planting of MON810 and in light of the rapid increase in GMO-free regions in Europe, there has never been a better moment for a moratorium than now.

This moratorium should be used to:

• rethink EU legislation and strengthen regional self-determination;

• redefine risk assessment according to the precautionary principle while considering socio-economic impacts; and

• support GMO-free, diverse agriculture and ensure food sovereignty.

We call upon agro-chemical companies to no longer abuse the problem of world hunger in order to justify the introduction of GMOs. Practical experience belies this misleading propaganda, which we consider to be false and unethical.

The participants of the 5th European Conference of GMO-Free Regions conclude in the closing session of “Food and Democracy” that:

• GMO-free agriculture and food are in accordance with the will of the majority of citizens in Europe; and

• sustainable food production which eschews the use of genetic engineering is the best strategy for farmers and consumers, both today and tomorrow.

We are grateful to the citizens of Switzerland, who point the way for all of Europe with their democratic decision to instate a moratorium on the cultivation of GMOs.

This final declaration was adopted by the 250 participants from 28 countries.

Invitation to a global video conference on
Global Food Sufficiency
Towards sustainable food production and consumption

Dear Friends,

The world food crisis is a major threat and one of the main political challenges for the coming decades. Famines and subtle hunger are spreadingon a local and regional level, in rural as well as in urban areas. But thecauses for the crisis are globally connected and solutions must be found onthe local as well as on the global level.

With the upcoming conference on global food sufficiency we wish to raise thequestion how local, regional, national and global food systems can providesufficient and wholesome food for all. We wish to see how the currentconcepts of self sufficiency, food security, and food sovereignty cancontribute to political and practical solutions in the fight against hungeras well as reduce wasteful food consumption.

On 29 April the videoconference will simultaneously connect civil society and decision-makers from Asia (regional conference in Manila), Africa(regional conference in Dakar), Latin America (regional conference inBrasilia), and North America (regional conference in Washington, DC) with aregional conference in the European Parliament in Brussels.

Each regional conference will provide an analysis of proposals on the keyfood problems of the region, possible solutions to existing food insecurityand suggestions for common global action. Each region will have a one hourslot to make its points clear with question and answer time from the otherregions. If technically possible, the conference will be streamed on internet.

The format: The global video conference experiment

This conference is an experiment which uses video conferencing in order to connect simultaneous regional conferences dealing with the same issue: Howto achieve global food sufficiency. The format will allow avoiding large distance travel. Participants may not be able to communicate as if they were in the same room. But they may better grasp the dimension of the food crisis and agree on possible common action.

With just short time slots for contributions of each region, the conferenceformat demands a high focus on key messages and strict discipline of the participants to respect time limits of their presentations.The conference will be moderated from the European Parliament in Brussels, but it will offer to the parallel regional conferences in Asia (Manila, Philippines), West Africa (Dakar, Senegal), Latin America (Brasilia, Brazil), and the USA (Washington DC) to manage their one hour inputindependently.

The one hour slots include 30 minutes for short presentations or internal debates on reasons for food insecurity, possible solutions and suggestions for common global action between the regions.
Themes to be shared

The perspective of the Philippines may focus on the question of goodgovernance in the field of food security, the empowerment of small farmersand on the demand for a local and regional stock-keeping system in order tostabilize farm gate prices and agricultural markets.

The West African perspective may demand for the appreciation of alternativefood cultures such as family farms, local and regional markets and discussstrategies to make food production systems more sustainable regardingenvironmental threats.

The European perspective may focus on the negative impact of competitivenessand export oriented EU farm policy and the negative impact of feed imports,as well as on failures in the internal food system - the constant decreaseof farm revenues, increased market power of retailers and increased waste offood.

The Brazilian perspective may focus on contradictions and complementaritiesbetween family farming based food production and export oriented productionof commodities. The assembly of CONSEA on Zero Hunger programme of thegovernment may allow participants to analyse the options for farmers'organisations and consumers to achieve a fair deal.

The North American perspective may wish to discuss internal and externalfood aid and the role of the US farming sector in a global food sufficiencysystem. The impacts of the current financial crisis as well as thespeculation on food commodities on global food security will also be mainpoints.The conference will end in common conclusions and proposals for globalactions.

Looking forward to your participation and contribution,
With kind regards
On behalf of the organising team: Marek Poznanski and Hannes Lorenzen
Contact: friedrich-wilhelm.graefezubaringdorf@europarl.europa.eu
The conference will be webstreamed on
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/rubrik/6/6270.greensefa_org@en.htm

International Seeds Day on April 2620 April 2009
TITLE: International Seeds Day on April 26 to advocate for patent-free seeds, biodiversity, farmers' rights and to challenge Order 81 AUTHOR: Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies PUBLICATION: press release DATE: 3 April 2009 URL: http://www.ineas.org/20090426_PR.pdf
Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies 3 April 2009
INTERNATIONAL SEEDS DAY ON APRIL 26 TO ADVOCATE FOR PATENT-FREE SEEDS, BIODIVERSITY, FARMERS RIGHTS AND TO CHALLENGE ORDER 81
Cambridge, Massachusetts -- Organizations, activists, farmers and organic food advocates around the world have endorsed and will observe April 26 as International Seeds Day (ISD).
The purpose of the ISD is to educate the public and inform the media about:
- the importance of biodiversity and how to practice seed saving; - the dangers of genetically modified food and patent seeds; - Order 81 and how it had and will devastate the future of IRAQ's agriculture; and - how to resist the ability of giant agricultural corporations' to control seed resources.
Join us to educate about and advocate for patent-free seeds, farmers rights and mobilize to challenge the giant agricultural corporations and Order 81: http://www.ineas.org/events.htm.
Historically, the Iraqi constitution prohibited ownership of biological resources. Farmers in Iraq have operated in a mostly free-to-little-regulated, informal seed supply system. Farm-saved seeds and the free exchange of planting materials among farmers have long been the basis of agricultural practice in Iraq. Yet all of this has become history. On April 26, 2004, Paul Bremer, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), issued and signed Order 81, which prohibits farmers from reusing seeds harvested from new varieties registered under the law. When ownership of a crop is claimed, seed saving will be banned and farmers will have to be pay royalties to the registered, so-called seed owner. A "Greedy, unjust law is meant to be disobeyed": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-B1yU278zk
The Order arises from USAID program in Iraq, which confirms that foreign aid programs are mainly "commercial opportunity" programs designed to benefit companies in the USA and Europe. It fits perfectly into the US vision for the future of Iraqi agriculture following a system dependent on large corporations selling chemical inputs and seeds. The purpose of Order 81 is to facilitate the establishment of a new seed market in Iraq, one in which Iraqi farmers are forced to make their annual purchase of seeds, including those that are genetically modified, from transnational corporations.
The law awarded US Corporations complete control over farmers' seed for 20 years. Iraqi farmers had to sign an agreement to pay a "technology fee" plus an annual license fee. Plant Variety Protection (PVP) made seed reusing and saving illegal as well as "similar" seed plantings punishable by severe fines and imprisonment. Agribusiness wants the same rights everywhere, including in the USA. This will jeopardize the future of organic and independent farming.
Many developing countries in Africa and Asia particularly in Afghanistan, India and Iraq have been suffering from these unjust laws and the monopoly by the agricultural giants.
Therefore organizations, activists, organic food advocates, farm owners and farmers around the world are joining hand to advocate for patent-free seeds and biodiversity and to educate about the criminal practices by agricultural corporations and how their unjust laws have and will affect the future of agriculture.
More information:- Full text of Order 81: http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf- People's rights to water and food: http://www.navdanya.org/organic/index.htm- GM Science Exposed: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/Papers_on_GM_Hazards.pdf- The agenda in Afghanistan & Iraq: http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=217- International Seeds Day & Order 81: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/lathajishnu-order-81the-plunderfarming/353518/- The US Green Party endorses International Seeds Day on April 26, asks for repeal of Order 81 which makes Iraqi farmers dependent on US firms: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/the-green-party-endorses-international-seeds-day-on-april-26-repeal-of-order-81-making-iraqi-farmers-dependent-on-us-firms/- Merry Fitzgerald's speech at Third Iraqi Turkmen Media Council Conference in Istanbul on 10-12 April 2009. http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/third-iraqi-turkmen-media-council-conference-in-istanbul/

http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=564

FYI

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Awards Two-Year GrantTo J-School for Africa Agriculture Reporting Program

The University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism has received a two-year grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop an intensive training program designed to promote high quality media coverage of agricultural development issues in Africa.
"We are thrilled," said Professor and Dean Neil Henry, a former Africa correspondent for the Washington Post. "There are so many untold stories from Africa about this subject in the U.S. and international media. We're delighted and honored to be able to play an important reporting role on the continent at a very critical time."
Today, more than a billion people live on less than $1 a day, and nearly 1 billion live in hunger. A majority of these people rely on agriculture for their food and incomes. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, agriculture accounts for about two-thirds of employment. Building public awareness of hunger and the issues that surround it can provide political leaders with the mandate and support to take action.
Berkeley's $767,800 grant will support extensive work in the U.S. and Africa by groups of reporters, including the School's graduate students and select visiting scholars from Africa and other regions of the globe.
Michael Pollan, the University's Knight Professor of Science and Environmental Journalism, and the author of best-selling books about food and agriculture including the The Omnivore's Dilemma, The Botany of Desire, and In Defense of Food, will lecture in a yearlong intensive seminar examining food issues on the continent.
"How will Africa feed itself? is one of the most important food stories of our time," Pollan said, "and this grant will help make it possible for our students to cover it."
According to Professor Henry, the project's chief goal is to produce compelling narratives in all media formats about the roles of small farmers in Africa --most of whom are women-- for publication and broadcast to general audiences in the U.S., Africa, and around the world.
The project will feature teaching collaborations between the journalism school, the University's Center for African Studies, and researchers in departments including Agricultural and Resource Economics and the Center of Evaluation for Global Action.
A yearlong intensive background course will explore topics ranging from the effects of western aid and trade policies on African development, to the role of genetically modified food in addressing global hunger and poverty, to the geopolitical factors contributing to hunger.
"We believe that meaningful, original, and independent works of journalism about these issues can translate into a far more enlightened and engaged public, and hopefully better decision-making by government leaders," said Professor Henry. "It's a very valuable initiative especially at a time when so many mainstream media organizations are cutting back on foreign coverage."
This grant is part of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Development Program, which works to increase opportunities for people in developing countries to overcome hunger and poverty. The program's Policy and Advocacy initiative supports efforts to increase awareness of global development issues, identify and promote powerful solutions, and advocate for more and better investments, helping to accelerate progress against the world's most acute hunger and poverty.

SOURCE: http://journalism.berkeley.edu/press/africa_reporting/

April 14, 2009

The Dubious Revolution

Biofuels, the Next Generation

By CARMELO RUIZ-MARRERO

The promotion of biofuels is a central component of president Obama's energy policy. But biofuel crops, which are mostly corn, sugar cane, oil palm and soy, are in big trouble because of the overwhelming and continuously growing evidence of the environmental harm that they cause. And besides, all large-scale industrial agriculture requires large amounts of fossil fuel, so biofuels are hardly a cure for petroleum addiction.

The Obama administration and an increasing number of biofuel supporters acknowledge these problems but they wager that these will be solved by a new generation of biofuels made from cellulose.

And what's so great about cellulose? For one, it is everywhere. Cellulose is the most common organic compound on earth and a key structural component of the cell walls of green plants and many forms of algae. About one third of all plant matter in the world is cellulose.

In spite of the best efforts of scientists, the cellulose molecule stubbornly resists all cost-effective attempts at transforming it into fuel. So they are now looking to nature for answers: fungi and certain bacteria found in the guts of termites and ruminant mammals (such as cows) that produce enzymes that can digest cellulose.

The ability to turn cellulose into fuel would make it possible to use any vegetable matter, living or dead, to this end- corn stalks, suburban lawn clippings, dead wood, you name it. According to their enthusiastic supporters, the main advantage of cellulose-based fuels is that they will not compete with food crops. You can get a Nobel prize for less than this.

And that's where biotechnology comes in. The biotech industry proudly claims to be a major player in both the energy business and global warming prevention strategies by virtue of its cutting edge research and development into, among other things, cellulose biofuels.

The president's cabinet is equal to the task. When he was Iowa governor, current agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack was named Governor of the Year 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization for his passionate defense of the biotech industry and its products. And energy secretary Steven Chu was the main architect of a controversial $500 million dollar deal between the BP corporation and the University of California's Berkeley campus. This money, a sum that has no precedent in the history of academia, will be used to develop novel biofuels through biotechnology.

But some scientists and environmentalists warn that the cellulose boom will in no way solve the problems of the current generation of biofuels, and in fact will create new ones.

Last January a coalition of diverse groups, that included Food First and the Institute for Social Ecology, issued an open letter that denounced biofuels as a false solution to global warming and specifically contested the assertion that cellulose-based fuel production will not compete with food production.

The open letter's basic arguments are not new at all. Back in 2007 a group of eleven non-governmental organizations, from countries such as Argentina, Indonesia and Denmark, produced a report titled “Agrofuels: Towards a Reality Check”. The document was particularly emphatic in warning that using so-called agriculture “waste” to meet global energy needs is not a smart idea at all.

What the numerous objections to the biofuels revolution- whether the current generation or yet-to-exist biotech fuels- come down to is that the feedstock for this energy source must come from somewhere. Looking at the promo literature for new generation biotech biofuels one gets the impression that these are made out of thin air. But the fact is that all those fuels come from organisms, hence the prefix “bio”. And all those organisms, whether they be farm crops or engineered microbes, ultimately need to be nourished with physical inputs like nutrients and water, which are not cheaply available. They are renewable but not infinite.

So how much raw material would the cellulose boom require? The U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture set out to find the answer and in 2005 issued a joint report which concluded that the use of wood, grasses, and "plant waste" for the production of cellulosic ethanol would require 1.3 billion tons of dry biomass a year. Obtaining this amount would be possible only by removing most of the country's agricultural residues, planting an area three times the size of Missouri with perennial cellulose-rich crops like switchgrass, and putting all U.S. farmland under "no-till" agriculture, say the report's authors.

In these times of economic and ecological collapse it is hard not to get carried away by the lure of technological quick fixes, like biofuels. I beg to differ from most renewable energy advocates: this is not a matter of “bad” non-renewable energy sources vs. “good” renewable ones. The ultimate root problem behind environmental catastrophe and the energy crisis is the voracious and ever-increasing energy demand, which unfortunately many environmentalists and eco-entrepreneurs have come to accept as a given.

Rather than jumping headlong into a dubious biofuels revolution, our best bet for survival will be the realization that increased energy consumption and higher standards of living are not synonymous.

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero, a self-described renaissance hack and impractical humanist, is a Puerto Rican journalist, environmental educator and author. He is as Senior Fellow of the Environmental Leadership Program, a Fellow of the Oakland Institute, and directs the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety (http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/). Whenever he is not writing or working at a call center, he distributes farm produce for something that resembles a CSA. Ruiz-Marrero, a compulsive blogger, blogs away at: http://carmeloruiz.blogspot.com/

SOURCE:
http://counterpunch.org/ruiz04142009.html

Definición de Biotecnología en el proyecto de ley S202 para la promoción de la biotecnología agrícola (cultivos transgénicos) en Puerto Rico, sometido por el senador Berdiel Rivera el pasado 13 de enero:

Biotecnología Agrícola – uso de organismos vivos para solucionar problemas o desarrollar productos de utilidad. Puede tratarse de métodos de cruces tradicionales de plantas (fitomejoramiento) y animales o bioprocesos tales como la fermentación. También puede tratarse de la aplicación de la biología celular o molecular para atender necesidades del ser humano utilizando técnicas tales como: anticuerpos monoclonales, propagación somática (cultivo de tejido), biosensores, e ingeniería genética, así como cualquiera otra que pueda surgir.

Bajo esta definición, cualquiera es biotecnólogo: el que tumba cocos para hacer aceite, el que trasquila una oveja para hacer un abrigo de lana, el apicultor que saca miel de una colmena, o la ama de casa que sale a su patio a recoger hojas de recao. Ante este planteamiento, los biotecnólogos, pedantes y con el ego inflao, responden que "Oh no! Ellos no son biotecnólogos. Biotecnólogo soy yo, que tengo credenciales, horas de laboratorio y doctorado en tal o cual universidad". Pero no puede ser de las dos maneras, si sólo los científicos y académicos con título profesional y bata blanca de laboratorio pueden ser llamados biotecnólogos, entonces la biotecnología se limita a las actividades científicas que sólo ellos pueden realizar, como la ingeniería genética.

El estirar la definición de biotecnología para incluir técnicas como el fitomejoramiento y la fermentación no es ciencia, sino mercadeo y relaciones públicas. No tiene mérito científico meter los cruces tradicionales de plantas en la misma categoría que la ingeniería genética. La argumentación de que las dos técnicas tienen alguna equivalencia surge del interés de unos sectores en ofuscar y confundir cualquier discusión acerca de los riesgos de los transgénicos.

Earth Day: "No GMO" Challenge Launches Today
Food Blogosphere Targets GMOs as Top Environmental Threat
Consumers Asked to Buy Eco-Friendly Non-GMO Products

IMMEDIATE RELEASE – (Los Angeles, CA.) This Earth Day, co-sponsors Real Food Media and the Institute for Responsible Technology urge consumers to take the No GMO Challenge to protect themselves from one of history’s greatest man-made health and environmental threats – genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The No GMO Challenge begins with a spring-inspired cupboard cleanout and a 30-day commitment to eating as many non-GMO meals as possible. Organizers of the No GMO Challenge hope U.S. shoppers will flex their considerable spending power during the No GMO Challenge to buy only non-GMO products, starting Earth Day. People who have already signed up for the No GMO Challenge include moms, farmers, chefs, scientists, physicists, biologists, home cooks, retailers and food writers who regularly blog about healthier foods.
Consumer polls show that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM foods labeled so they can avoid buying them. Nearly two-thirds of products on supermarket shelves contain unlabelled genetically modified ingredients. A controversial Food and Drug Administration exception made in the 1990s, permits GMOs to enter the food supply without adequate safety testing, say watchdog groups.
To help get the word out about GM foods, organizers of the No GMO Challenge are asking people to pledge that for 30 days, they will avoid GMO food made from the 5 main GM crops: corn, soy, canola and cottonseed oil, and sugar from sugar beets.
Ann Marie Michaels, the founder the Real Food Media Blog Network says, “We are asking consumers to try to avoid these foods and to blog about it, tweet about it, post about it on Facebook, and get the word out as much as possible. At the No GMO Challenge site http://realfoodmedia.com/no-gmo-challenge/, we’ll have videos and news articles you can link to or blog about or tweet, and you can also just write about your experiences going GM-free.”
Bloggers can join a weekly blog carnival every Monday to share stories about GM food, and enter to win prizes every Thursday, from sponsors including US Wellness Meats, Zukay Live Foods and Tropical Traditions who will be giving away prizes like grass-fed meats, GMO-free salad dressings, and organic coconut oil.
The rolling No GMO Challenge, similar to the Eat Local Challenge launches today and will continue until GMOs are driven out the food supply, organizers say. Consumers are asked to organize, educate and build awareness about the dangers of GMOs until that goal is realized.
Jeffrey Smith, a leading expert on the health dangers of GMOs, says that Earth Day is the right time to draw attention to the environmental threat posed by GMOs. “GM crops concentrate corporate control of food, increase herbicide use without increasing average yields, endanger food security, are detrimental to sustainable and organic farming, and trap farmers in a cycle of debt and dependence. They shrink biodiversity, harm beneficial insects, damage soil bacteria, contaminate non-GM varieties, and persist in the environment. The presence of self-propagating genetic pollution might outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.”
Scientists warn that GM foods may set off allergies, increase cancer risks, damage food quality and produce lasting toxins in the environment. GMOs also increase the risk of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, due the use of antibiotic resistant genes in GM food.
Non-GMO Trend Accelerating
Worldwide concerns about GMOs have been accelerating. Recent government-funded studies in Austria and Italy linked GMOs to infertility, immune responses, and poorer health of new-borns. Other research links increased cancer risk to milk treated with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone has already forced most of the nation’s top dairies, plus Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Yoplait, and Dannon, to commit to stop using it in some or all their products.
Last week, Germany became the sixth European Union nation to ban the planting of Europe’s only approved GM seed—a corn variety by US biotech giant Monsanto, which is engineered to produce its own toxic pesticide. German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner concluded that it ”represents a danger for the environment."
Michaels, who is a rising star in the food blogosphere says, “The majority of Americans don’t trust GM foods and want them labeled. The sad thing is there’s so little information about it. Most of us are eating GMOs every day and we don’t even know it.”
No GMO Challenge co-sponsor, the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), wants to remedy that by providing free Non-GMO Shopping Guides for participants. Full of informative charts, tips, and non-GMO brand selections, the Guide makes buying non-GMO easy. . IRT’s executive director Jeffrey Smith says, “We expect the No GMO Challenge to magnify the current trend away from high risk GM foods.”
Blogger Sheri Ross Fogarty of MomsforSafeFood.org says, “The No GMO Challenge is particularly important for mothers, since children are most susceptible to the health risks of GM foods.”

###

Real Food Media is a blog network that publishes stories about food and
cooking, food politics, farming and producing food, health and nutrition, and
green living.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign
for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses,
and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically
modified foods.

…
No GMO Challenge Website: http://realfoodmedia.com/no-gmo-challenge/

Africa's Green Revolution rolls out the Gene Revolution

African Centre for Biosafety produces another Briefing paper, titled: "Africa's Green Revolution rolls out the Gene Revolution" by Mariam Mayet.

"The 'New Green Revolution in Africa', touted since the 1990s, was given renewed impetus two and a half years ago, when the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations launched the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Although AGRA itself does not incorporate genetically modified (GM) crops in its projects, the ominous presence of GM companies and GM technologies hovers over the Green Revolution push like a bad dream.
Millions of dollars have been poured into the coffers of a host of carefully selected role players, to lay the groundwork for the industrialisation of African agriculture and creation of markets for agribusiness giants. These AGRA players include US groups such as Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA) and the International Fertiliser Development Centre (IFDC). Both these groups are successfully enmeshing the corporate interests of Syngenta Crop Protection, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer CropScience, Du Pont Crop Protection and Monsanto within AGRA projects in select African countries.
It is also becoming extremely important to link the huge amounts of cash flowing into 'Green Revolution' coffers, to the enormous cash injections flowing from the Gates Foundation into biosafety projects in Africa. The beneficiaries of huge Gates Foundation biosafety grants are all linked directly with, or are funded by, the biotechnology industry. These projects strategically avoid the promotion of GM crops that are in commercial production and instead focus on 'pie in the sky' nutritionally enhanced GM 'biofortified' and 'climate-friendly' drought-tolerant crops. This is done to win over the hearts and minds of reluctant Africans, while paving the path for the gene giants to gain a firmer and more respectable foothold in Africa."
To download the whole document, please log on to: http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/gene_revolution_brief.pdf
This paper has been published in the Third World Resurgence, April edition.

SOURCE:
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/node/15

MENSAJE DE ANA FILIPPINI, DEL MOVIMIENTO MUNDIAL POR LOS BOSQUES

Gracias Carmelo por tu informe,

Es muy claro que la celulosa no es la solución a los problemas energéticos y que deben tomarse otras medidas como reclaman estas y muchas otras organizaciones.

Lo que parece no estar claro todavia es que la tendencia muestra que el etanol celulósico provendrá en gran medida de monocultivos de arboles a grandísima escala o directamente de bosques. Los mismos monocultivos forestales con gravísimos impactos sociales y ambientales que venimos denunciando por mas de 10 años. Monocultivos que en su mayoría además se establecen con financiamientos directos o indirectos de los gobiernos/ pueblos del Sur.
La misma deforestación a gran escala que las empresas en todo el mundo continúan realizando y que sirven como pretexto para luego establecer monocultivos (llámese "proyectos de reforestación" impulsados en la mayoria de los paises).

La cantidad de biomasa que los arboles pueden producir es mucho mayor de la que se puede esperar de cualquier otro cultivo. Además la cantidad de empresas que están involucradas en este negocio son una muestra de que esta tendencia será predominante.

Mas detalles pueden leerse en la reciente edicion del documento del WRM (lamentablemente todavia solo en ingles) "Ethanol from cellulose: a good idea that could spell disaster" en:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/publications/briefings/Ethanol.pdf

Un abrazo,
Ana


>
> http://claridadpuertorico.com/content/view/403734/32/
>
> La falacia de la celulosa
>
> Carmelo Ruiz Marrero/Especial para CLARIDAD

G8 Urged to Reject Another 'Green Revolution' U.S. working group on the food crisis urges G8 to reject failed green revolution policies for Africa

Posted April 17th, 2009 

"'Business as Usual' Will Not Solve Global Hunger Crisis"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - April 16 - The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis, a group representing anti-hunger, family farm, community food security, environmental, international aid, labor, food justice, consumers and other food system actors, urges the G8 at the upcoming Agricultural Ministerial in Treviso, Italy to reject the failed policies of the Green Revolution. A recent landmark report backed by the UN and World Bank argues for agroecological and sustainable agriculture, rather than reliance on chemical-intensive practices and genetic engineering.

The U.S. Working Group is deeply disappointed by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hasty passage of the Global Food Security Act (S. 384) on March 31. This bill would mark a significant shift in U.S. policy by specifically mandating foreign agriculture research for genetic engineering. Previously, we had criticized the Committee’s March 24 hearing on “Alleviating Global Hunger” that relied on testimonies from “Green Revolution” advocates for the industrial agriculture system. We urge the G8 summit to resist pressure from the biotech industry and embrace genuine solutions to the food crisis.

The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis’s vision for reforming agriculture policy to help end the global food crisis calls on governments to:

* Re-regulate commodity futures markets to end excessive speculation
* Halt expansion of industrial agrofuels in developing countries
* Stabilize commodity prices through international and domestic food reserves
* Establish fairer regional and global trade arrangements
* Direct farm policy, research, education and investment toward agroecological farming practices.

The United States should reject the approach of the Global Food Security Act, sponsored by Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Bob Casey (D-PA), and instead bring our agricultural research and foreign aid strategy in line with the findings of the acclaimed International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), backed by United Nations agencies, the World Bank and over 400 contributing scientists from 80 countries. The IAASTD found that the most promising solutions to the world’s food crisis include investing in agroecological research, extension and farming.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist at Pesticide Action Network and a Lead Author of the IAASTD report said, “Today’s global food crisis demands immediate action. But the Lugar-Casey Global Hunger Bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction. As numerous scientific reports from the UN have confirmed, African productivity can be most effectively increased through investment in organic and agroecological farming.” Ishii-Eiteman further cautioned the G8 not to focus simply on production: “The bigger, more fundamental challenge today is about restoring fairness and democratic control over our food systems. It is about increasing the profitability, well-being and resilience of small-scale and family farmers in the face of massive environmental and global economic challenges.”

Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy has released a policy brief on “Why the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act Will Fail to Curb Hunger”http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2412
Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director of Food First, said, “The Global Food Security Act, while commendable for its renewed focus on investing in agricultural development in Africa, mandates funding for genetically modified (GM) crop research. Past public-private partnerships on GM crops for Africa have proven to be colossal failures. The failed GM sweet potato project between Monsanto, USAID and a Kenyan research institute is a good example of 14 years’ worth of wasted money and effort. The G8 Conference should focus on solutions that actually work.”

Anti-hunger groups also criticized the Global Food Security Act’s approach and warned about the effects of promoting biotechnology on the poor. Bill Ayres, Executive Director of World Hunger Year, said, “The recent Global Food Security Act to improve the U.S. response to the world food crisis starts from a flawed premise. Indeed, the world – and the U.S. in particular – must refocus antihunger efforts to support aid and agricultural research for small farmers throughout the world. But the emphasis on genetically modified crops is misplaced. We saw Germany this week ban genetically engineered maize based on health and environmental grounds. GM maize has also been banned in France and Greece. We should focus on helping African farmers maintain control over their land and seeds, earn a living wage, and enhance – not degrade – the quality of their land and water.”

Faith groups also recommended a new approach to eliminating global hunger and warned that the G8 should not emphasize biotechnology. Andrew Kang Bartlett of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) said, “While the intentions behind the Global Food Security Act may be laudable, the question is whether poorer farmers left behind by the last Green Revolution will again be swept aside by a top-down approach that benefits mostly transnational corporations.” Dave Kane, of Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, a Catholic missionary organization with priests, brothers, sisters and lay people working in Asia, Africa and Latin America, added, “We have found GM technology to be disastrous for small farmers and rural communities. Our missioners in Latin America and Asia have seen farmers get deeper and deeper into debt as they struggle to pay for all the seeds, fertilizers and herbicides that GMO technologies require. The result: farmers lose their land and with it, the ability to feed themselves and their families.”

The National Family Farm Coalition, a North American member of La Via Campesina, the international peasants movement, will be pressing the G8 to reconsider policies that advocate for food sovereignty. Ben Burkett, a Mississippi farmer and president of NFFC said, “Farmers both here and in Africa know that the current industrial agriculture model—and the push to fast-track trade liberalization—has failed to alleviate global hunger and denied family farmers a sustainable livelihood. A recently released report this month by Union of Concerned Scientists titled “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops,” showed that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields while only driving up costs for farmers. In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results. The G8 needs to move away from Green Revolution monoculture practices and instead implement the IAASTD’s most promising options: support ecologically sound practices, more equitable trade rules and local food distribution systems to empower family farmers.”

###

The US Working Group on the Food Crisis is an ad hoc group of organizations from around the US, representing various sectors of the food system, including anti-hunger, family farm, community food security, environmental, international aid, labor, food justice, consumer, and other groups. We do not view the food crisis as an unexpected, sudden emergency of the last year, but as the inevitable consequence of the development of a long list of misguided agricultural and food policies over the last 30+ years.

CONTACT: US Working Group on the Food Crisis
http://www.usfoodcrisisgroup.org/

SOURCE: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2419