lunes, diciembre 26, 2011

Video: David vs Monsanto



See Full Film Here: http://www.booserver.com/projects.php?ProjectID=3569

Imagine that a storm blows across your garden and that now, genetically-manipulated seeds are in your crops. A multi-national corporation pay you a visit, demand that you surrender your crops - and then sue you for $200 000 for the illegal use of patented, GM seeds. In this definitive David and Goliath battle, one farmer stands up against a massive multinational, and their right to claim ownership to a living organism.

Etiquetas: , , , ,

sábado, diciembre 24, 2011

Monsanto gana más dinero con el glifosato que con la soja transgénica

NEGOCIO TOXICO

Monsanto gana más dinero con el glifosato que con la soja transgénica

Descargar: MP3 (8.7 MB)

El modelo de agricultura industrial que se ha venido extendiendo en diferentes puntos del planeta está sustentado en utilización de agrotóxicos, señaló Carlos Vicente, de la organización GRAIN, en el marco de una actividad por el día mundial del No Uso de Plaguicidas, en Argentina.

“No puede existir este modelo de agricultura sin que existan los agrotóxicos (…) Monsanto, que es la mayor empresa biotecnológica y la impulsora y promotora de la soja transgénica, gana muchísimo más dinero vendiendo Glifosato que vendiendo soja transgénica, para ellos ahí está el negocio”, graficó el especialista.

En su intervención, Vicente leyó el discurso presentado ante el Parlamento de Estocolmo, con motivo de haber recibido GRAIN el Premio Nobel Alternativo 2011. En esa ocasión, y con la consigna “Es tiempo de repudiar a los acaparadores de tierra”, desde la organización se dijo que “nunca antes se había invertido tanto dinero en el sistema alimentario industrial”.

“En la última década fuimos testigos de un espectacular incremento en la especulación en los mercados de alimentos básicos de exportación, lo que disparó los precios en todas partes. Con las actuales crisis financiera y económica a nivel global, el capital especulativo busca sitios seguros donde multiplicarse”, manifestó Vicente.

Según dijo, ese dinero “fluye directamente” hacia la agricultura industrial y las adquisiciones de tierra: en este modelo los bancos, los fondos de inversión y los fondos de pensiones se utilizan activamente para comprar tierra por todo el mundo.

“Los datos y los contratos son muy difíciles de obtener, pero los cálculos actuales nos hablan de entre 60 y 80 millones de hectáreas que han pasado a manos de los inversionistas extranjeros para producir alimentos tan sólo en los últimos años. Esto es igual a la mitad de las tierras agrícolas de toda la Unión Europea. La mayor parte de esto ocurre en África, donde los derechos consuetudinarios de los pueblos a la tierra están siendo ignorados de manera flagrante”, manifestó el integrante de GRAIN.

Etiquetas: , ,

miércoles, diciembre 21, 2011

MEXICO: Cientificos comprometidos con la sociedad

"Nos parece imprescindible y urgente, que se cancelen todos los permisos de siembra de maíces genéticamente modificados en México a cualquier escala."
www.uccs.mx
Comentarios al Anteproyecto de “Acuerdo por el que se determinan los Centros de Origen y los Centros de Diversidad Genética del Maíz en el Territorio Nacional” publicado el 17 de noviembre de 2011 http://www.cofemer.gob.mx/

Etiquetas: , ,

jueves, diciembre 15, 2011

PUERTO RICO: Experimento caribeño de Monsanto

El experimento caribeño de Monsanto

Escrito por Eliván Martínez
Viernes 18 de Noviembre de 2011

La principal productora de semillas transgénicas del mundo alquila parte de las mejores tierras agrícolas de la Isla con un esquema de legalidad cuestionable, mientras recibe incentivos de la administración Fortuño.


Cuando el ecologista Juan Rosario viajó a una comunidad de los religiosos amish en Illinois, para aprender a hacer composta, allí en medio de una extensa planicie sembrada de maíz, se sorprendió de que ésta tuviera un laboratorio y hasta los servicios de una experta en química. ¿Qué hacía la científica en un pueblito donde los habitantes se alejan de la tecnología y practican agricultura ecológica con los métodos más simples?

Un amish vestido a la usanza, con sombrero de ala ancha, camisa blanca, pantalones y chaqueta negra, señaló a un extenso maizal que crecía en una finca aledaña. “La científica nos ayuda a estudiar el agua de escorrentía que llega desde allí, donde Pioneer Hi-Breed siembra maíz modificado genéticamente, y usa muchos químicos”.

“¿Cómo ustedes permitieron que ellos sembraran eso ahí?”, preguntó Rosario.

El amish replicó: “Es el mismo maíz que la compañía desarrolla en Salinas. ¿Cómo ustedes permiten eso?”.

Etiquetas: , ,

martes, diciembre 13, 2011

MONSANTO ES CHISTE PARA FORTUÑO

http://pesquisaboricua.com/2011/12/13/chiste-para-fortuno-posible-violacion-constitucional-de-monsanto/

CHISTE PARA FORTUÑO POSIBLE VIOLACION CONSTITUCIONAL DE MONSANTO

Posted: 13/12/2011

Quantcast

El gobernador, Luis Fortuño, contestó con un chiste a la pregunta de un periodista sobre el hecho de que el gobierno de Puerto Rico permita la renta de sobre 500 acres de parte de la multinacional de alimentos, Monsanto, en posible violación al artículo seis de la Constitución que prohibe el dominio de las tierras en favor de una sola corporación agrícola, mientras los agricultores en Puerto Rico tienen serios problemas de subsistencia.

“Si pero son dueños…yo no estoy de acuerdo con esa interpretación. No te se decir cuantas tienen. ¿Tu sabes el cuento de los abogados?…llegas a la oficina del abogado y te dice, tu caso, tu ves todos esos libros que están ahí, prueban que no tiene posibilidades. Bueno pero es que yo le iba a pagar tanto – le dice el cliente – todos estos libros que ves en en esta otra pared…dicen que si tiene posibilidades”, le dijo Fortuño al colega periodista Eliván Martinez, del Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, sobre la serie especial, El experimento Caribeño de Monsanto, ante la presencia de ésta y otras corporaciones en la Isla utilizando las tierras del sur como laboratorio de semillas de maiz, soya y sorgo, alteradas geneticamente.

Martínez reveló el audio de la entrevista a Fortuño en el episodio 35 de Pesquisa Boricua por Bonita Radio, en la que compartió detalles del trabajo investigativo que realiza para el CPI.

Además, el gobernador no pudo responder a la pregunta de cuantas tierras desarrollan hoy con semillas transgénicas, las llamadas “semilleras del sur”, entre ellas Monsanto, corporación que recibió en el 2010, unos $500,000 en subsidios gubernamentales para operar. Se asegura que la multinacional renta sobre 1,500 acres. La Constitución permite hasta 500.

“La verdad es que no te ser decir, pero con gusto te consigo al secretario de Agricultura para que te de ese detalle”, contestó Fortuño a la pregunta del periodista Martinez, sobre los hallazgos contenidos en la serie especial “El experimento caribeño de Monsanto”, sobre la presencia de ésta y otras corporaciones en la Isla, utilizando las tierras del sur como laboratorio de semillas de maiz, soya y sorgo, alteradas geneticamente.

Fortuño firmó una ley, aprobada por la Legislatura que preside Thomas Rivera Schatz, en agosto del 2009, que abre la puerta a que corporaciones como Monsanto se sirvan con la cuchara grande de las tierras de la Isla en detrimento del trabajo de los agricultiores locales.

De hecho, el presidente de la Asociación de Agricultores, Ramón González, le renta tierras a corporaciones semilleras foráneas a razón de $650 por acre al año.

La Ley 62 propone “la Promoción y Desarrollo de Empresas de Biotecnología Agrícola de Puerto Rico”; establecer la política pública del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, para fomentar el establecimiento y crecimiento de empresas orientadas en la biotecnología agrícola; definir sus propósitos y alcances; y delegar en el Departamento de Agricultura y el Departamento de Desarrollo Económico y Comercio su implementación; y para otros propósitos relacionados”.

El secretario del Departamento de Agricultura, Javier Rivera Aquino, no ha contestado preguntas relacionadas ni tampoco el presidente del Banco Gubernamental de Fomento, José Pérez Riera.

Accede aquí a los tres articulos de la serie investigativa.

Etiquetas: , ,

domingo, diciembre 11, 2011

Perú aprueba ley que prohíbe ingreso y producción de transgénicos por 10 años


El presidente Ollanta Humala y el congreso peruano escuchan el clamor de los agricultores y vetan por diez años los transgénicos, en una medida encomiable.

Los efectos que tienen los alimentos transgénicos sobre las
personas que los consumen y sus cultivos sobre la tierra generan enorme polémica. En esta tesitura Perú ha tomado una importante medida para proteger a sus productores de alimentos locales, estableciendo una moratoria al ingreso y producción de organismos modificados genéticamente. Esta ley, que fue aprobada el 4 de noviembre, fue publicada este 9 de diciembre en la gaceta oficial.

El presidente de Perú, Ollanta Humala dijo que para tomar su decisión escuchó ”el clamor de las
organizaciones agrarias y la sociedad civil, para dar este paso importante en la defensa de nuestra biodiversidad”.

Los organismos vivos modificados (
OVM) destinados a la investigación están excluidos de la norma, así como los que son usados como productos farmacéuticos y veterinarios que se rigen por normas específicas.

También los OVM o sus derivados importados destinados para la alimentación directa humana y animal, o para su procesamiento, señala la norma En este primer grupo entrarían los alimentos industrializados, como harinas lácteos, que
hayan sido fabricados usando transgénicos.

El congresista
Jaime Delgado, que fue el impulsor de la norma, afirmó, en un comunicado, que la ley establece la moratoria en respuesta a la necesidad de evitar un daño irreparable a la biodiversidad nacional y para lograr un ordenamiento territorial ambiental previo.

La
Convención Nacional del Agro Peruano (Conveagro) también manifestó su satisfacción por la promulgación de la ley y saludó que Humala haya tomado la decisión “sin ceder a las presiones de los grupos de poder”. En un comunicado, aseguró que Humala “escuchó el clamor de las organizaciones agrarias y la sociedad civil, para dar este paso importante en la defensa de nuestra biodiversidad”.

La presidente de Conveagro, Lucila
Quintana, dijo:”Ahora nos toca
aprovechar el potencial diverso que tiene Perú en la agricultura, la
gastronomía y el turismo, para, en el marco de un sistema nacional de bioseguridad, trabajar razonablemente la
producción agraria y garantizar nuestra seguridad alimentaria”.

Etiquetas: ,

NO A LA PIÑA TRANSGÉNICA EN COSTA RICA
SOLICITUD DE APOYO PARA CAMPAÑA INTERNACIONAL CONTRA LIBERACIÓN DE
PIÑA TRANSGENICA EN COSTA RICA

Desde Costa Rica solicitamos reenviar la carta adjunta propuesta (siéntanse en libertad de modificarla o cambiarla) a las siguientes direcciones electrónicas del
gobierno de Costa Rica:

despachoministra@mag.go.cr,
viceministra-tlopez@mag.go.cr
zquezada@mag.go.cr, alexmay@sfe.go.cr

y de ser posible a los siguientes Faxes: (506) 22322103, (506) 22966750,
(506)22325054

CARTA MODELO
Diciembre del 2011

Sra. Ministra Gloria Abrahán
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG)
República de Costa Rica

Sr. Viceministra Tania López.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG)

Sr. Alex May Montero
Departamento de Biotecnología, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG)

Cordiales Saludos desde ……país ……….Desde nuestra organización hacemos un vehemente llamado para que interpongan sus oficios y de esta forma pueda ser implementado el principio precautorio en Costa Rica ante la solicitud de la empresa LM Veintiuno S.A. hacia el Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado sobre la ampliación de las áreas de piña transgénica llamada “Piña Rose”.

Sabemos que la Comisión Técnica Nacional en Bioseguridad emitió un dictamen de mayoría favorable sobre la siembra de este cultivo en los terrenos de PINDECO. Desde nuestra organización tal…………….. le pedimos al Departamento de Biotecnología, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado que evea el caso y pedimos no autorizar dichas siembras considerando los siguientes aspectos ya externados por la Federación Ecologista.

Es inaceptable autorizar la liberación de 10 líneas de piña transgénica sin contar con estudios técnicos objetivos que garanticen la inocuidad de dichos cultivos transgénicos. Dentro de los estudios técnicos que como mínimo la empresa debe de presentar se encuentra un estudio de equivalencia sustancial para cada línea transgénica que se quiera liberar. Además se deberían presentar estudios cromatográficos que evidencien la no existencia de metabolitos secundarios que puedan tener efectos adversos sobre la salud humana.

Se debe de comprender con mayor profundidad sobre la interacción de los genes marcadores o vectores de organismos patógenos (como virus y bacterias); Debería existir un estudio de cada uno de los genes y las proteínas, como éstas se expresan en las plantas transgénicos y sus potenciales impactos en la salud humana, los microorganismos del suelo; la flora y fauna nativa, especialmente en otros organismos benéficos como agentes de control biológico, polinizadores y descomponedores.

Hace falta un estudio económico. Por ejemplo qué impactos puede tener en las exportaciones de piña el que se hagan pruebas con variedades transgénicas en CR. Europa, uno de los principales importadores de piña de Costa Rica, no le gustan los transgénicos.

La ausencia de análisis clínicos o biológicos que evidencien la inocuidad de estos productos es un aspecto que preocupa y alarma, sobre todo considerando la magnitud del área de siembra solicitada por la empresa (hasta 200 hectáreas). Deben de descartarse todas las posibilidades de riesgos sobre la salud humana. Sobre todo considerando la inmensa posibilidad de contaminación en la cadena alimentaria dadas las proporciones del área de siembra. Hay que descartar posibles efectos de toxicidad en la salud humana y determinar el potencial alergénico de estas líneas de piña transgénica.

Los transgénicos tienen serios riesgos ambientales y sobre la salud humana, sembrar estas líneas de piña transgénica es un acto irresponsable y burlaría el Principio de Precaución establecido en la legislación de Costa Rica. La ausencia de elementos técnicos que garanticen la inocuidad
de estos cultivos de piña transgénica es un elemento que no puede ser obviado por el Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado.

Sin más por el momento se despide atentamente:

-----------------------------------
FIRMA

Etiquetas: , , ,

ARGENTINA: PEASANT ORGANISATIONS IN THE CLUTCHES OF THE AGRO-EXPORT AND EXTRACTIVE MODEL


We believe that it is necessary to set out our position in relation to the concept of Food Sovereignty, Territories, and the role of indigenous and peasant organisations in the face of the Agro-export and Extractive model.

The main issue is that territorial resistance groups have retreating in the face of the advances of soya and mining. More importantly, the leading groups are accepting state funds and work in state subsidised programs, without worrying about any opposition, but they become victims when blood is shed within their organisations. At the same time, they do not question the rationale for production beyond the impact of agribusiness in their territories, perhaps thinking that they will protect pockets of ‘family farms’ and autonomous areas inhabited by indigenous people and peasants. These only serve to show the very few exceptions to the rule which are put forward as examples of the government’s concern to the affected minorities.



Without doubt, there is a substantial synergy between the unrelenting acceleration of the model (crudely set out in policy making with the Agro-food and Agro-industry Strategic Plan, the PEAA, and the emerging Land Law), and the incorporation of the peasant movements to the state apparatus through the important financial assistance that it provides, swallowing up large parts of the leadership of peasant movements and agricultural non-conformists1. In this way, the double role of being a non-conformist and a remunerated official becomes the norm.

It follows that, for years, we have witnessed an enormous deception that has put organisations like MNCI (the national movement of indigenous peasants) and its mentor, MOCASE (the peasant movement of Santiago del Estero) at the forefront of the peasant struggle, tied to the enormously prestigious international VIA CAMPESINA. This fact tends to make the actions and position statements of these Argentinian organisations be seen as genuine expressions of national agrarian resistance. It is a binding of symbolism and demands which causes instant reverberations in the media which creates the feeling that they are the authentic representatives of the oppressed minorities, the victims of the agro-export extractive model. A prestige which conceals the serious ideological limitations of a philosophy linked to the anti-imperialist slogans of past decades and actions focussed on setting up scenarios of autonomous indigenous production. Its objective is to demonstrate a presence, but despite so much economic and political, regional and international support, the results obtained are poor2. The Agricultural Reforms and Food Sovereignty, which are fundamental to the campaigns of Via Campesina International, conceal a landscape devastated by the advances of soya in the territories of the leaders of the peasant movements. The figures for the advance of soya in Santiago del Estero demonstrate this: (area harvested in 2005/2006: 719.508-2010/2011:1.100.000)i. . Meanwhile, in Argentinian universities, students who enthusiastically champion the revolutionary propaganda of ruralisation are eager to travel on a journey of discovery to the areas of the rural autonomies and agro-ecological produce.


In the last few years, with the consolidation of the production of GM monocultures and the high profitability of commodities, there has been an increase in the types of welfare and social controls over the affected communities and the devastated lands. From that production philosophy, many strategies and plans emerged, which necessarily included the active participation (or complicity) of those who, in other times, would have been non-conformists. The intention of this was to smoothe over the serious consequences of the system.

We are not asking them to abandon their radical slogans. We ask more than this. We encourage them to denounce the violations, to ban crop spraying near centres of population, to stop the ‘abuse’ of glyphosate, and to bring territorial disputes to court. These are all indirect effects which, when taken on individually as slogans, do no more than confuse and cover up the corporate and institutional core of programmed plundering.


We take part in substantial discussions about legitimate demands, but these are intentionally disrupted to cover up the reality of a complex model of neo-colonial power determined to sweep issues under the carpet in order to present the model as sustainable and responsible.


If the necessary strategy was to gather forces in the territories under threat and to focus campaigns in the rural and indigenous communities, we can say that this has failed. Not only have human lives been lost in these encounters, but also immense tracts of land have been given away. They are trapped in a situation in which at the same time as resisting the advance of commercialism they accept money and positions from a government that is expert in dividing and manipulating its opponents.


For many years, the GRR has campaigned for rural communities and local resistance. But we have also denounced, through all possible means, the tremendous impact of globalisation and neo-colonialism within our countries which today are subjected to multi-polarity and regional dominance by the so-called emerging powers. We have systematically maintained our solidarity with the rural communities and local producers. We carry out campaigns against crop spraying and the forced acquisition of land. Guided by the principle that Political Sovereignty in Argentina today is Food Sovereignty and that defence of the nation is inalienable, because it affects all Argentinians, not just rural and indigenous communities. We also understand that these campaigns need to be fought at the very centres of power. That is where corporate policies are decided and where the technological designs for GM and biotechnology are created. Commercial science overrides research and learning in our universities and state organisations in order to attend to specific private interests.


For us, it is about putting ourselves in front of the bulldozers, about cutting the barbed wire fences, defending our forests and jungles, whether in the Yungas of the Salto, the Jujuy regions, the Impenetrable, a native forest in the Chaco region, or the valleys and steppes of Patagonia. It is about publicly exposing the negotiations of the Chinese state companies and of Arab capital within our territory. It is also about finding evidencing for the collusions between Monsanto and the church, and also the corporate lobbying of the universities, the INTA (National Institute of Agricultural Technology), INTI (National Institute for Industrial Technology), CONICET (National Council for Scientific and Technical Research) and the Ministry of Agriculture. We believe that it is naïve, if not complicit, to debate Food Sovereignty and Land Ownership in the academic institutions when in these same spheres they train the future employees of the large soya companies and agro-exporters.


It is a dangerous game to encourage peasant campaigns in the affected territories and to denounce agribusiness while at the same time associating with the many State apparatus which wastefully distribute public money and public office posts. Even the most ardent local enemies of the State are engaged in this. This is a game in which we have never taken part. We note with unease that those who say that they oppose the model and that they defend victims, simultaneously close ranks with the “progressive” government and maintain the pretence of attempting to slow the unrelenting plunder. This takes place within the same State apparatus without the slightest acknowledgement of extractive Capitalism, the well-known Theory of Contradiction and the popular hegemonies.


We have patiently developed our thoughts in the hope of a necessary change that has not materialised. Furthermore, the leaders of the campesino movements and their intellectual allies, who continue along this path, have been encouraged by the recent electoral narrative to think that they are protecting themselves from the imminent global catastrophe.


When the blood of our brothers is spilled, it hurts us deeply. More so if it falls on soil made barren and desolate by the avarice of the soya industry. This solidarity also implies a confrontation with the successes of the model: the expulsion and forced urbanisation of the rural population, confusing the happiness of our people with the seduction of consumerism, surrendering Sovereignty, Independence and Justice in order to raise the colonial banners of Science, Technology and Productivity. Let us not ask for Capitalism when it is already in place, with its long lines of victims and destroyed ecosystems. A true National Project demands a return to the land that feeds us, to take back the strategic mechanisms of a Sovereign State and to disconnect ourselves from the unrelenting force of Modernity that drags us towards the abyss.


GRUPO DE REFLEXION RURAL

23th November 2011


1 i.e Primer Congreso Campesino en Buenos Aires:2010


2 See for example proposed peasant demonstration for 15/12/11 in partnership with-among-others Green-Peace and El Ceibal, the later cooperating with the Argentinean WWF and AVINA )



i Sistema integrado de informacion agropecuario

http://www.siia.gov.ar/sst_pcias/consultaB_pcia.php


ii Primer Congreso Campesino en Buenos Aires:2010: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1303124-primer-congreso-campesino-en-buenos-aires.

About joint demonstration and dialogue with the Government:

http://diariodesantiago.com/2011/10/importante-convocatoria-de-las-organizaciones-campesinas/

El Ceibal cooperation with vida Silvestre( WWF) and Avina

http://www.elceibal.org/articulacion.html


Etiquetas: , , ,

miércoles, diciembre 07, 2011

Bt resistance on the rise

http://blog.ucsusa.org/is-this-sustainable-agriculture-resistance-to-engineered-bt-corn-on-the-rise

Is This Sustainable Agriculture? Resistance to Engineered Bt Corn on the Rise



EPA has responded to reports of resistance by one of the worst insect pests of corn, called rootworm. In the past, about a billion dollars’ worth of chemical insecticides per year were used to control this pest in the U.S.

Starting in 2009, according to EPA monitoring records, possible increases in resistance to the Bt toxin Cry3B were noted. In at least one case, Monsanto appears not to have done needed follow-up studies to determine resistance to its gene.

As I reported earlier, recent research has found strong evidence of Cry3B Bt-resistant rootworms, which is causing failure to control the pest on some farms. One important implication of this is that more chemical insecticides may be used to control the resistant rootworms.

Entomologist Aaron Gassmann (left) of Iowa State University identified rootworms resistant to Bt. Photo by Stephen Ausmus, USDA.

The good news is that the agency is recommending remedial action, maybe for the first time for GE crops, to address the problem. EPA recommends that farmers that experience failure of Bt corn use other means to kill rootworms, rather than exacerbating the resistance problem by continuing to use Bt corn. EPA also recommends beefed-up monitoring of farm fields to better detect resistance.

Unfortunately, EPA’s response may be a case of too little too late. More aggressive action is needed if this problem is to be corralled.

What EPA should do

When EPA was originally considering approving corn containing Cry3B, scientists recommended that only 50 percent of corn acres on a farm contain the Bt gene. This “refuge strategy” was to prevent or delay resistance by increasing the probability that rare resistant insects mated with non-resistant individuals from the non-Bt parts of the farm. The resulting offspring would not be resistant.

EPA instead sided with industry and a minority of scientists and went with a 20 percent refuge, which probably has contributed to the current problem.

EPA should require a larger refuge to delay this problem in areas where resistance has not yet emerged.

EPA should also withdraw the still-smaller five percent refuge for corn that contains two Bts to control rootworm— Cry3B and Cry34/35—so-called “SmartStax”. Where resistance to one Bt already exists, the likelihood of resistance developing to the second Bt is greatly increased.

Widespread loss of both Bts would likely result in greatly expanded use of chemical insecticides.

In discussion with Bruce Tabashnik, entomologist with the University of Arizona and a widely acknowledged expert on Bt, he said that there is currently enough data on rootworm resistance to Cry3B to substantially raise concerns about the use of a five percent refuge for corn containing Cry3B and a second toxin that targets rootworms.

Third, EPA’s focus on remedial action by individual farmers is not likely to prevent the spread of resistance. It is highly likely that the problem is more widespread than has been officially reported. And although rootworm beetles do not move as far as many other insects, they will certainly not stay on individual farms. So EPA needs to consider a regional approach for controlling the spread of resistant insects.

EPA should also convene a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to get more formal input on what to do.

The “root” of the problem—too much corn

The resistant rootworm issue is really just a symptom of a much bigger and more fundamental problem: Midwestern U.S. agriculture is not sustainable. This is because good agroecological practices like alternating, or rotating, crops are not widely practiced due to the drive for shortsighted gains in efficiency.

Crop rotation and other practices greatly reduce pest problems, and rootworm in particular would not even be a big problem if diverse crop rotations were used. But growing demand for ethanol from corn has increased corn acres, pushing more corn-on-corn and fewer corn-soy rotations (let alone more robust rotations that include multiple crops).

Current practices, including genetic engineering, have been pushing us toward greater simplification of our cropping systems—the opposite of diverse, biologically-sound agriculture.

Until we embrace a truly sustainable agriculture, the types of remediation recommended by EPA will merely be a band-aid on a severely wounded patient.

Posted in: Food and Agriculture

About the author: Doug Gurian-Sherman is a widely-cited expert on biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. He holds a Ph.D. in plant pathology.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Etiquetas: , , ,

martes, diciembre 06, 2011

PATENTANDO GENES Y PLANTAS. LOS DERECHOS DE PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL TRANSFORMAN LA INVESTIGACIÓN Y LA INNOVACIÓN AGRÍCOLA
biodiversidadla.org
‎"El creciente uso de patentes ayuda a la consolidación de las compañías semilleras, agroquímicas y biotecnológicas, teniendo como consecuencia la dependencia progresiva de la alimentación y de la agricultura en un pequeño número de poderosas corporaciones multinacionales". Boletín N° 450 de la Red por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos

Etiquetas: , ,

lunes, diciembre 05, 2011

GM Bananas in South Africa – Issues and Concerns


THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE


Dear Friends and colleagues,

RE: GM Bananas in South Africa – Issues and Concerns

The University of Pretoria has submitted an application seeking permission to conduct the first ever field trials in South Africa involving GM bananas. The aim is to combat Fusarium wilt, caused by a soil borne fungi. Fusarium oxysporum f.sp cubense (Foc). The banana is genetically engineered by inserting a rice gene (NPRI homolog (NH1)) to confer resistance to the said Foc.

The African Centre of Biosafety (ACB) however, has its reservations and has issued a paper raising critically important biosafety concerns that have been overlooked in the application.

ACB is of the view that GM disease resistant bananas cannot overcome the current problems being experienced, ranging from land tenure to competition from more ecologically suitable production areas such as those in Mozambique.

Given the lack of public interest or commercial justification for the proposed trials as well as the numerous biosafety concerns and unanswered questions highlighted in the paper, the ACB calls on the authorities to reject the application.

The full briefing paper is available at:
http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20111003365/GM-Banana-Slips-in-South-Africa-Key-Issues-and-Concerns/menu-id-100026.html

With best wishes,


Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sg
To subscribe to other TWN information lists: www.twnnews.net

Etiquetas: , , ,

sábado, diciembre 03, 2011

Bayer sigue matando abejas

www.biodiversidadla.org
La preocupante muerte de poblaciones de abejas en todo el mundo es probable que continúe ya que la compañía agroquímica alemana Bayer sigue fabricando y vendiendo plaguicidas neonicotinoides.

Etiquetas: , ,

México: sembrando viento, maíz transgénico

Este anuncio no tiene sentido fuera de allanar el camino a Monsanto y otras corporaciones que presionan por abrir la siembra comercial de maíz transgénico en México.
www.biodiversidadla.org
El pronóstico de reducción de la producción de maíz en México en tres y medio millones de toneladas, provocado por el retraso de las lluvias y las heladas tempranas en el altiplano, junto con la merma en los niveles de agua en las presas del noroeste –que limitan a menos de la mitad las posibilidade...

Etiquetas: , ,

Bt-Resistant Rootworm

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
ISIS Report 31/10/11
Bt Resistant Rootworm Spreads
The emergence of more Bt-resistant pests is further proof of the futility of Bt crops Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji
A fully referenced version of this report is posted on ISIS (Institute of Science in Society) members website.
Bt is a toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a large family of similar proteins that target different insect pests; and quite a few of them have been incorporated in genetically modified crops to act as ‘biopesticides’. Unfortunately, the pests soon develop resistance to it.
Bt resistance has not only been documented in the laboratory, but also in the wild, with at least 8 populations of insects have developed resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops [1-10].
The emergence of resistance has pushed GM scientists to attempt new strategies of delaying its spread. New strategies include the genetic modification of the Bt toxin to kill pests that have already acquired resistance. Bruce Tabashnik and his colleagues at the University of Arizona, along with collaborators in Mexico, China and Germany, published a study in Nature Biotechnology this month showing that these modified toxins bypass their usual interaction with cadherin, a receptor in target insects that binds the Bt toxin in the first of a multi-step process causing bursting of cells in the insect gut [11]. As some Bt resistant insects have been found to carry mutations in the cadherin receptor, they hypothesised that making Bt toxicity independent of cadherin binding would make pests susceptible to Bt once again. What they found however, was the opposite. Modified Bt toxin provided ‘little or no advantage’ against pests with cadherin mutations, while increasing Bt potency in pests where resistance was independent of cadherin mutations. The agrobiotech business Pioneer has significantly invested in these modified toxins despite the authors conclusions that ‘insects can probably adapt to modified Bt toxins used alone, or in combinations with other toxins’. This study exposes the lack of scientific understanding of Bt resistance as well as our inability to control it. As researchers search for ways of delaying resistance, resistance is evolving in the fields.
Resistant rootworms in Iowa fields
The first evidence of Bt-resistant western rootworm in the wild has been reported by a team of scientists in Iowa State University [9]. Bt resistant pests have been emerging over the last few years, but as many scientists had warned, evidence now suggests that their resistance might not be recessive, i.e. need two copies of the Bt resistance gene to survive Bt crops. Instead, only one copy will do. This is hugely significant in terms of controlling the spread of Bt resistance through the pest populations. It also diminishes the efficacy of natural Bt toxin sprays used by organic farmers for pest control.
Following reports by farmers that their Bt maize fields (containing the
Cry3Bb1 toxin) were showing signs of severe rootworm injury, Aaron Gassmann and his colleagues at Iowa State University decided to investigate the possibility of resistance to Bt toxin evolving in these pests. Their research is important, particularly in Iowa where the western rootworm is abundant. Further reports of Bt resistance in neighbouring Minnesota has also been documented [12].
To assess whether the rootworms found in the damaged fields were resistant to Bt toxin, the researchers performed survival bioassays. This was done first by collecting samples of rootworm from damaged Bt maize fields as well as healthy Bt and non Bt-maize fields as controls. These sample populations of adult beetles were maintained in the lab, allowed to lay eggs, and the newly emerged larvae transferred to Bt maize producing Cry3Bb1 toxin and other maize varieties. The numbers surviving after 17 days were recorded, at which point they would have completed the larval developmental stage. The survival rates of larvae collected from problem fields averaged 3 times that of larvae from healthy fields. Furthermore, there was significant positive correlation between the numbers of years Cry3Bb1 Bt maize had been grown. All the problem fields had grown Cry3Bb1 Bt maize for at least 3 years. This is the first detection of Bt resistance in one of North America’s most destructive maize pests. Based on the speed with which resistance had evolved, the scientists speculate that the resistance in these fields was due to non-recessive genes, and/or the fact that 50 percent of farmers in the US are not complying with the requirement to cultivate adjacent non-Bt maize fields as refuges, which is intended to slow down the evolution of resistance.
Rootworm resistance to Cry3B1 toxin only
Bt crops have been created to express one or more Cry toxins. There are 54 known Cry toxins produced by various strains of Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) bacteria, each differing in their DNA sequence as well as the type of insect they target. Cry1A and Cry2A toxins are effective in targeting Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) including the cotton bollworm and the European cornborer, while Cry3Bb toxins, grown in the Iowa fields that were analysed, target coleopteran (beetles) such as the corn rootworm. The toxins work through binding to cadherin proteins, on the cell surface of the insect midgut, leading to lysis of the cells and death of the insect. The effectiveness of these toxins depends on the susceptibility of targeted insects.
Insect adaptation to Bt toxins is expected, even by Monsanto
With Bt crops, high selection pressures are being placed on target insects to adapt, especially considering their widespread cultivation. Resistance is not a controversial issue, but an acknowledged evolutionary process. Even Monsanto stated that [13] “resistance is natural and expected, so measures to delay resistance are important.”
Previous findings of Bt resistance across the globe
This is not the first report of resistance to Bt toxins, although it took a few years for reports to emerge. It can be expected that resistance takes a few years to develop, and now we are beginning to see evidence of that. In 2009, cotton bollworm in four states of India devastated cotton crops, which was acknowledged by Monsanto [13]. Field studies in Northern China and Australia have also documented resistance to Bt cotton crops in 2010 [14, 15].
Bad science has led to non-recessive resistance
As shown in the study in Iowa [9], current insect management systems are not successful in controlling resistance. Such adopted strategies include the ‘high-dose/refuge strategy’ where doses of Bt toxin are expressed at
25 times the level required to kill 99 percent of susceptible pests. This high dose is designed to kill any heterozygote insects (with one copy of resistance gene) that have partial resistance, thereby making the resistant trait functionally recessive. By concomitantly cultivating a high-dose Bt crop next to a non-Bt crop refuge, resistant pests from the Bt fields can breed with susceptible pests living on the refuge, resulting in susceptible heterozygote offspring.
The success of the high-dose/refuge strategy depends on the size of the refuge and most critically, the resistant gene being recessive. If dominant resistance develops, then a refuge is ineffective in delaying it from spreading, as heterozygotes will be resistant and therefore the trait will spread more rapidly through the population. One may even argue that a refuge is counter-effective with dominant resistance, as the refuge may provide more potential breeding mates when initial numbers of resistant insects is low in the population. It is hard to determine the soundness of this strategy, as little long-term field studies have been performed to test the hypothesis.
Experiments performed by Monsanto and independent scientists showed that the dose of the Cry3Bb1 maize, which was released in 2003, is not high enough to make resistance functionally recessive [16]. In fact, around half of susceptible larvae are able to survive on this plant. This was known before the release of the crop, and scientists recommended that the EPA impose a 50 percent refuge strategy to try and reduce selection pressure for resistance to develop. But the EPA followed Monsanto’s recommendation and implemented a 20 percent refuge as compulsory with Bt Cry3Bb maize lines, making the crop more economically viable for Monsanto [17], but not for farmers. Further, resistance to Bt crops may well be exacerbated by the documented variability in expression of Bt toxins throughout their lifetime, as well as in different parts of the plant. Low levels of expression allow partially resistant insects to survive. Bt crops also have prolonged expression of the Bt transgene, which increases selection pressure on pests to adapt. This is in contrast to Bt sprays that degrade in the sunlight and can be applied only when necessary.
Other evidence for dominant resistance in rootworm
Potential for dominant resistance to Bt toxin was shown back in 1998 in laboratory experiments with the European corn borer. Corn borers showed partial dominant resistance to the Bt toxin spray Dipel ES [18]. More recently, a lab study analysed rootworm resistance to Cry3Bb1 Bt maize, the same Bt crop studied by Gassmann’s group. Increased survival of rootworm developed over just three generations, and resistance was not recessive. Survival for resistant rootworms was 11.7 times that of larvae that had not been exposed to Bt maize after 6 generations [19]. Genetic experiments on field-evolved resistant pests will need to be done to confirm the mode of inheritance in the wild.
Delays in the emergence of resistance is expected
Although industry and GM crop proponents are claiming that the lack of documented resistance to date is proof that their strategies were working, the delay in resistance seen until now can be explained by the fact that there are a number of Bt toxins expressed in different crops, and cross resistance appears to be low, even though it is possible that pests could develop a devastating resistance to all Bt toxins. Broad-spectrum resistance to Bt toxins has indeed been documented in lab studies of the cotton bollworm, but such cases are rare [20]. Another factor is the spraying of insecticides on refuge sites as well as Bt crops. This practice has been encouraged by regulators and actually diminishes the whole rationale for using Bt crops in the first place, but may have killed off any resistant pests that were developing in the fields (see [21] No Bt resistance? SiS 20).
New industry strategies to combat resistance are futile
As it appears that even Monsanto expects resistance to develop at some point, newer GM crops have now been commercialised that express more than one toxin, taking advantage of the low level of cross-resistance observed in pests. Second generation GM cotton Bollgard II express both Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab, whereas the first generation Bollgard expressed only Cry1Ac. In Australia, Bollgard II was released in 2004/2005 season. However, resistance to Bollgard II has already been reported in Australian fields [6]. The latest Smartstax varieties have 8 GM traits ‘stacked’ together, 6 for insect resistance and 2 for herbicide tolerance (see [22] SmartStax Maize a Medley of Transgenes with Problems, SiS 46). It is a matter of time before resistance to multiple toxins will emerge.
To conclude
Bt crops are fast becoming futile. They do not reduce pesticide use, as they are not always toxic enough to kill pests, and now resistant populations are emerging in numerous continents. Alternative organic, sustainable methods of farming provide a realistic alternative, independent of reliance on agrobiotech corporations (see [23] Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS publication).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia
Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sg To subscribe to other TWN information lists: www.twnnews.net

Etiquetas: , ,

viernes, diciembre 02, 2011

Impacto ambiental de Monsanto

El impacto ambiental de Monsanto (tercero de tres artículos)

Escrito por Eliván Martínez
Viernes 18 de Noviembre de 2011


El estadounidense John Francis Queeny se inspiró en una mujer boricua para nombrar, en 1901 en Misuri, a la empresa Monsanto, que inició como una farmacéutica. Queeny bautizó la empresa en honor a su esposa Olga, hija de Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto, quien a su vez financió los primeros pasos de la corporación. Ésta iba a convertirse en fabricante de agente naranja, el defoliante y herbicida que se probó en las granjas de Aguadilla en los años 50, y que se usó a gran escala para pelar la selva bajo la que se escondía el enemigo de Estados Unidos durante la guerra de Vietnam.


Hoy, Monsanto es la primera productora de semillas transgénicas del mundo, y usa a Puerto Rico como un inmenso laboratorio para desarrollar maíz, soya, sorgo y algodón transgénico. Como corporación agrícola, ocupa más de los 500 acres que permite la Constitución, cuyo artículo VI pretendía evitar el monopolio y el desplazamiento de los pequeños agricultores locales, como sucedía a principios del siglo pasado, cuando reinaba el imperio de la caña de azúcar, que don Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto por otro lado, financiaba en Vieques y en las Islas Vírgenes, en San Thomas.

Etiquetas: , ,