domingo, octubre 26, 2014

Study Finds that Monsanto’s GM Soybean May Increase Insect Pest

16 October 2014


THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soybean ‘Intacta’ (MON 87701×MON 89788) has both an insect resistance trait and a herbicide (glyphosate) resistance trait. Insect resistance comes from the expression of Cry proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). 
Although the Bt soybean has been found to be effective against Lepidopteran pests, it is not effective against the southern armyworm, Spodoptera eridania, a non-target organism which feeds on soybean leaves and pods. Such organisms are becoming economically significant soybean pests. A recently published scientific study in Brazil, co-authored by Monsanto employees, has evaluated the impact of Intacta on Spodoptera eridania and on the development of Telenomus remus, which parasitizes the former’s eggs (Item 1). 
The study found that the Bt soybean reduced S. eridania’s larval development duration by two days and lengthened the adult male lifespan by three days. The researchers describe this as “favorable to pest development”. This was attributed to be a likely result of unintended changes in plant characteristics caused by the insertion of the transgene. Thus, the results represent a warning that farms planting the Intacta soybean may see an increase in S. eridania populations. However, the Bt soybean had no effect on T. remus, which can help prevent S. eridania outbreaks. 
In the European Union, Intacta soybean has been approved for import and processing of food and feed. Testbiotech and other organisations have filed a lawsuit at the European Court of Justice opposing this approval. "The EU approval for the Intacta soybean should be withdrawn, since there is an obvious need for thorough reassessment and further investigations, "says Christoph Then for Testbiotech. "The newly published findings have unknown causes and could affect food safety." (See Item 2) 
With best wishes
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net 
 Item 1 
DEVELOPMENT AND REPRODUCTION OF SPODOPTERA ERIDANIA (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) AND ITS EGG PARASITOID TELENOMUS REMUS (HYMENOPTERA: PLATYGASTRIDAE) ONTHE GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYBEAN (BT) MON 87701×MON 89788 
Abstract 
Genetically modified crops with insect resistance genes from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt-plants) are increasingly being cultivated worldwide. Therefore, it is critical to improve our knowledge of their direct or indirect impact not only on target pests but also on non-target arthropods. Hence, this study evaluates comparative leaf consumption and performance of Spodoptera eridania (Cramer), a species that is tolerant of the Cry1Ac protein, fed with Bt soybean, MON 87701×MON 89788 or its non-Bt isoline. We also assessed the comparative performance of the egg parasitoid Telenomus remus Nixon on eggs of S. eridania produced from individuals that fed on these two soybean isolines as larvae. Results showed that Bt soybean reduced by 2 days larval development and increased by 3 days adult male longevity. Therefore, we conclude that the effect of Bt soybean MON 87701×MON 89788 on S. eridania development and reproduction is small, and favorable to pest development. These differences are less likely to directly result from the toxin presence but indirectly from unintended changes in plant characteristics caused by the insertion of the transgene. Our results should be viewed as an alert that S. eridania populations may increase in Bt soybeans, but on the other hand, no adverse effects of this technology were observed for the egg parasitoid T. remus which can help to prevent S. eridaniaoutbreaks on these crops.
Keywords: plant resistance, non-target pests, natural enemy, egg parasitoid, genetically modified organisms (GMO) 
Item 2
MONSANTO WARNING ON NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GROWING ITS GM SOYBEAN “INTACTA”
by Testbiotech
http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/1099

A new scientific publication co-authored by Monsanto employees, is warning that the cultivation of the genetically modified soybean Intacta (MON 87701 × MON 89788) could promote the spread of specific pest insects. According to the authors, the effects are likely to be caused by unintended effects in the plants, possibly arising from the insertion of the additional DNA. The genetically engineered soybean produced by Monsanto is resistant to herbicides containing glyphosate and produces a Bt insecticide. Brazilian scientists in collaboration with Monsanto employees have discovered that certain pest insects (Spodoptera eridania, southern armyworm), which can cause considerable damage in soybean fields, develop faster and live longer if their larvae feed off the plants.

Etiquetas: , , , ,

jueves, abril 24, 2014

High residues of glyphosate accumulate in Roundup Ready soybeans

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1063

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE  


Dear friends and colleagues, 

Re: High residues of glyphosate accumulate in Roundup Ready soybeans 

Research published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Chemistry has found residues of glyphosate (and its breakdown product AMPA) in high concentrations in GM soybeans, but not in conventional or organic soybeans. The study examined 31 samples of soybeans grown within a defined area within the state of Iowa, USA.  

GM soy engineered to be glyphosate resistant is the number one GM crop plant. The herbicide glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide globally. For herbicide-resistant GM plants, herbicide co-technology is an integral part of the production system and will always be used by the farmer.  

However, little attention has been given to the residues of herbicides and their metabolites that can potentially accumulate in the final product. Chemical residues, if present, are important because they are clearly a part of a plant’s composition, and they may add toxic properties to the final plant product either by itself or by affecting the plant metabolism. (There has been increasing research demonstrating the potential health impacts of glyphosate.) 

The authors suggest that the increased use of glyphosate on Roundup Ready soybeans in the US, which has contributed to the selection of glyphosate-tolerant weeds, and resulted in a response of increased doses and/or more applications used per season, may explain the plant tissue accumulation of glyphosate.  

Lack of data on pesticide residues in major crop plants is a serious gap of knowledge with potential consequences for human and animal health. The authors therefore recommend the following:

(i)                 increased effort on sampling and testing crop material from the market;

(ii)   testing for possible dose-response effects of chemical residues in long-term feeding studies;

(iii) inclusion of pesticide residue measurements and safety testing in the regulatory system for risk assessment of GM crops; and

(iv) further research on the indirect ecological effects of herbicides and pesticides.  

The study also showed that different agricultural practices may result in a markedly different nutritional composition of soybeans, with organic soybeans having the healthiest nutritional profile compared to GM and conventional soybeans.  

In sum, the data demonstrated that different agricultural practices lead to markedly different end products, i.e. there is no substantial equivalence between the three management systems of herbicide resistant GM, conventional and organic agriculture.  

Etiquetas: , , ,

lunes, abril 14, 2014

Argentina the bad seeds

viernes, agosto 24, 2012

Report on Soybean Production in South America

http://www.genok.com/news_cms/2012/july/report-soybean-production-in-the-southern-cone-of-the-americas-update-on-land-and-pesticide-use/158


Report: Soybean Production in the Southern Cone of the Americas: Update on Land and Pesticide Use

23.07.2012

The history of the soybean production in the Southern Cone of the Americas goes back for more than 100 years. However, it has been in the past 40 years, particularly in the last two decades, that it has experienced an accelerated transformation and expansion through a pattern of industrialized agriculture.

The introduction of genetically modified (GM) varieties in the region has marked a new phase of expansion in soybean production. In the first 14 years after the approval of GM varieties, soybean production grew by 25 million hectares (1996 to 2009), in comparison with the increase of 17 million hectares over the previous 25 years (1971-1995).



Etiquetas: , ,

sábado, noviembre 05, 2011

Health Problems Associated With RR Soy

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear Friends and colleagues,
RE: Argentinian Doctors Identify Major Health Problems Associated With RR Soy
A report by Argentine physicians points to the major health problems arising from the increasing use of GM Roundup Ready (RR) soy in the country. It is the product of the 1st National Meeting Of Physicians In The Crop-Sprayed Towns organized by the Faculty of Medical Sciences at the National University of Cordoba and held in August this year. The meeting was attended by more than 160 participants from the provinces in Argentina as well as from six national universities.
Presentations and stories of the participants matched the clinical observations of a range of diseases and health conditions on people subject to Roundup herbicide sprayings. These include acute poisoning, exceptionally high incidences of miscarriages and birth defects in newborns in the crop-sprayed towns. There is also an increased detection of cancers in children and adults, and serious illnesses, such as Henoch–Schönlein purpura, toxic liver disease, and neurological disorders.
The physicians, many of whom have served for more than 25 years, found that such health problems were quite unusual and strictly linked to systemic sprayings of pesticides. The report also contains a lot of details about DNA damage, confirming laboratory research on glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA, and neurological development problems.
The report can be downloaded from
With best wishes,
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: , , ,

lunes, junio 20, 2011

The true cost of GM soy

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Friends and colleagues,

RE: The High Costs of GM Soy

The rapid adoption of GM soy may have brought about wealth to those who grow the crop but the “green gold” is also the source of despair to many living in its midst and to the environment.

Since GM soy came onto the scene in South America it has become common to hear of reports of people suffering from the devastating consequences of herbicide intoxication. Most of the GM soy grown is resistant to the herbicide RoundUp which therefore allows for its widespread use to kill weeds without harming the soy crop.

Besides the health effects the enthusiasm for the crop has also meant that more and more land is needed, often crowding out many rural communities and indigenous peoples from their land as well as resulting in encroachment on forests and natural habitats leading to biodiversity loss.

Such effects are happening in Paraguay (Item 1) and Argentina (Item 2) but the story is easily replicated across many parts of South America where GM soy has come to rule the vast lands in the continent.

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 mailing lists: www.twnnews.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 1

GM soy: the high cost of the quest for 'green gold'
Louise Gray
The Telegraph, 17 May 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8518048/GM-soy-the-high-cost-of-the-quest-for-green-gold.html

*Scientists and villagers in rural Paraguay are questioning the health and environmental impact of GM soy. Louise Gray reports.

The green shack where Petrona Villasboa lives in Itapua is surrounded by shimmering fields. It represents a lucrative golden harvest for some but, for this grieving mother, it has become a symbol of death. The crop that dominates this impoverished area of rural southern Paraguay is genetically modified (GM) soy, and she blames it for her son's death. "Soy destroys people's lives," Petrona says. "It is a poison. It is no way to live."

Sitting outside her home, the mother of eight describes the day in January
2003 when 11-year-old Silvino Talavera arrived home. He had cycled to the stalls by the nearest main road to buy some meat and rice for a family meal.

"I was washing clothes down by the river, and he came to tell me that as he'd ridden along the community road, which runs through the soy fields, he'd been sprayed by one of the 'mosquitoes'," she says. (''Mosquitoes'' are what locals call the pesticide or herbicide crop-spraying machines pulled by tractors.) "He smelt so bad that he took his clothes off and jumped straight in the water."

Petrona did not think much more about it. For peasant communities living amid the soy fields, chemical spraying is a frequent occurrence. But later that day, she says the whole family fell ill after eating the food that Silvino had bought.

"Silvino was violently sick. He said, 'Mummy, my bones ache' and then his skin went black'," she says.

By the time they had begged a lift to the nearest hospital. Silvino was unable to move. His stomach was pumped, but he had lost consciousness. Petrona was told her son was ''paralysed by intoxication''. All doctors could do was to offer pain relief. Within a few hours he was dead.


Item 2

15 years of GM soybeans in Argentina
The true cost of monoculture

Dario Aranda and Nina Holland
Mondiall News, 7 June 2011
http://www.mo.be/en/article/15-years-gm-soybeans-argentina

*Intoxication, massive clearing, loss of biodiversity, forced evictions, land concentration and murder. The dark sides of 15 years of soy monoculture, a model driven by businesses and governments.

The only scientific evidence for the approval of GM soy in Argentina were research data provided by Monsanto. Monsanto produces both soy seed as well as the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), a product that GM soy has been made resistant to. The “scientific” dossier with data on Roundup Ready soy's safety counts only 146 pages. The approval took place in record time: 81 days during the summer of 1996. Since then, RoundupReady soy is cultivated on a large scale - and the use of Roundup has also increased exponentially.

Etiquetas: , , ,

jueves, mayo 12, 2011

Dr. Huber's warning

On January 17, internationally-recognized plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack warning of the discovery of a new pathogen, a possible link between Roundup Ready (GMO) corn and soybeans, and severe reproductive problems in livestock as well as widespread crop failure.

Less than 3 weeks later, the Obama administration approved 2 new Roundup Ready GMO crops, set to be planted this spring.

Watch Food Democracy Now's interview with Dr. Huber

Etiquetas: , , , , ,

miércoles, octubre 20, 2010

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/12479-reports-reports

A group of international scientists has released a report detailing health and environmental hazards from the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy and the use of glyphosate (Roundup®) herbicide.

The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?,[1] highlights new research by Argentine government scientist, Professor Andrés Carrasco,[2] which found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.

“The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” said Carrasco.

Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina, is a co-author of the new report. The report is released with testimonies of Argentine villagers whose lives have been radically disrupted by the cultivation of GM soy.[3]

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

Carrasco said people living in soy-producing areas of Argentina began reporting problems in 2002, two years after the first big harvests of GM Roundup Ready soy. He said, "I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases this can be a powerful poison."

Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment.

Scientists and others who speak out against Argentina’s GM soy agricultural model report censorship and harassment. In August 2010 Amnesty International called for an investigation into a violent attack by an organized mob on an audience assembled to hear Carrasco talk about his research in the agricultural town of La Leonesa.

“Responsible” soy?

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? challenges commercial claims that GM soy cultivation is sustainable and that the glyphosate herbicide it is sprayed with is safe. In 2011 the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), a multi-stakeholder forum on sustainable soy production, will launch a voluntary label for “responsible” soy that will reassure ethically minded traders and consumers that the soy was produced with consideration for people and the environment.[4] It will label GM soy sprayed with glyphosate as responsible.[5]

RTRS members include multinational companies such as ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Monsanto, Syngenta, Shell, and BP, and NGOs such as WWF and Solidaridad.

Claire Robinson of GMWatch, a group that campaigns against GM foods and crops, said, “It is a cruel farce to call the GM soy with glyphosate farming model sustainable and responsible.

“The RTRS criteria are so weak that they don’t protect people from the known health hazards of GM soy and glyphosate shown in the new report.[6][7]

“The RTRS also ignores serious social problems caused by GM soy monocultures. Livelihoods and food security have been lost as land that used to grow food for people to eat is given over to toxic GM soy monocultures.

“Over 200 civil society organizations have condemned the RTRS criteria as corporate greenwash.[8] It’s time for responsible members of the RTRS to abandon this discredited body.”

Europe imports around 38 million tons of soy per year, which mostly goes into animal feed.[9] Food products from GM-fed animals do not have to carry a GM label.

The maximum glyphosate residue limit allowed in soy in the EU is 20 mg/kg. Carrasco found malformations in embryos injected with 2.03 mg/kg glyphosate, nearly 10 times lower.[10] Soybeans have been found to contain glyphosate residues at levels up to 17mg/kg.[11]

Etiquetas: , ,

viernes, septiembre 24, 2010

Genetically Modified Soy Diets Lead to Ovary and Uterus Changes in Rats

By Jeffrey M. Smith

Found on Huffington Post

If you're still eating genetically modified (GM) soybeans and you plan on having kids, a Brazilian study may make you think again about what you put in your mouth. Female rats fed GM soy for 15 months showed significant changes in their uterus and reproductive cycle, compared to rats fed organic soy or those raised without soy. Published in The Anatomical Record in 2009, this finding adds to the mounting body of evidence suggesting that GM foods contribute to reproductive disorders (see summary at end).

Unlike women whose menstrual cycle starts automatically at puberty, female rats need to be "inspired." Their (estrous) cycle conveniently kicks in only after being introduced to male rats. Since no males were present in this study, the females fed organic soy or no soy were appropriately untriggered (diestrus). For some odd reason, however, those fed GM soy appeared to have their ovulation cycle in full gear.

Although the researchers did not perform a check on the estrous cycle directly, their microscopic analysis of ovaries and uterus tissue showed that the hormone-induced changes (i.e. early ovulation and formation of corpus luteum) were well underway. In addition, the lining of the uterus (endometriim) had more cells than normal and the glands were dilated. In simpler terms, according to senior UK pathologist Stanley Ewen, something in the GM soy diet was "wrecking the ovary and endometrium" of the rats.

Hormonal imbalance and disease risk

Dr. Ewen speculated on the significant hormonal changes in the rats and their implications for women who eat GM soy. He said that the proliferative growth (hyperplasia) of the (endometrial) cells lining the uterus implies changes in important reproductive hormones. There might include excessive production of estrogen, follicle stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone, or even damage to the pituitary gland itself.

The presence of the corpus luteum, which is normally formed during the estrous cycle, means that the rats likely have higher amounts of progesterone. This hormone could increase the number of eggs released from the ovary, as well as increase their tendency to implant and be viable. If eating GM soy increased progesterone in women, this might improve their fertility.

On the other hand, if women also experienced similar changes in the uterus lining and altered hormonal levels, Dr. Ewen said it might increase the risk of retrograde menstruation, in which menstrual discharge travels backwards into the body rather than through the uterus. This can cause a disease known as endometriosis, which may lead to infertility. The disorder can also produce pelvic and leg pain, gastrointestinal problems, chronic fatigue, and a wide variety of other symptoms. The cause is unknown.

Dr. Ewen also pointed out that the changes in the rats, if extrapolated to humans, might lead to abnormally heavy or longer menstrual periods (menorrhagia).

He was quick to point out that more studies are needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn, particularly because such a method of study, called histology, "is a static observation—only a snapshot." In addition, follow-up studies may be able to better rule out other variables. In this study, an amino acid (cysteine) was added only to the organic soy diet but not the GMO (although even a cysteine-deficient diet would not explain the reproductive issues). Also, the soybeans used in both diets were purchased commercially. It is much better to use similar genetic varieties grown side by side in the same climatic conditions. Unfortunately, Monsanto doesn't usually make the similar varieties (isolines) available for research.

The variable that Dr. Ewen wants looked at the most is the weedkiller used on GM soybeans, as he mentioned over and over that it is a probable cause of the disruption.

Is Roundup herbicide causing us reproductive problems?

Genetically modified soybeans are called Roundup Ready. They are inserted with a bacterial gene, which allows the plants to survive a normally deadly dose of Roundup herbicide. Although the spray doesn't kill the plant, its active ingredient called glyphosate does accumulate in the beans themselves, which are consumed by rats, livestock, and humans. There is so much glyphosate in GM soybeans, when they were introduced Europe had to increase their allowable residue levels by 200 fold.

Although there is only a handful of studies on the safety of GM soybeans, there is considerable evidence that glyphosate—especially in conjunction with the other ingredients in Roundup—wreaks havoc with the endocrine and reproductive systems. "I think the concentration of glyphosate in the soybeans is the likely cause of the problem," says Ewen.

Glyphosate throws off the delicate hormonal balance that governs the whole reproductive cycle. "It's an endocrine buster," says Ewen, "that interferes with aromatase, which produces estrogen." Aromatase is required by luteal cells to produce hormones for the normal menstrual cycle, but it's those luteal cells that have shown considerable alterations in the rats fed GM soybeans.

Glyphosate is also toxic to the placenta, the organ which connects the mother to the fetus, providing nutrients and oxygen, and emptying waste products. In a 2009 French study at the University of Caen, scientists discovered that glyphosate can kill the cells in the outer layer of the human placenta (the trophoblast membrane), which in turn can kill the placenta. The placenta cells are, in Ewen's words, "exquisitely sensitive to glyphosate." Only 1/500th the amount needed to kill weeds was able to kill the cells. The amount is so small, according to the study authors the "residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R[oundup] formulation-treated crops" could be enough to "cause cell damage and even [cell] death." Furthermore, the effect of the toxin may bioaccumulate, growing worse with repeated consumption from Roundup laden foods.

Ewen says, "If the endocrine functions of the placenta are destroyed by glyphosate in the test tube, by extrapolation, ovarian and endometrial function would be expected to suffer." The implications for pregnant woman consuming glyphosate, he says, could be abortion.

Indeed, in a Canadian epidemiological study, which looked at nearly 4000 pregnancies in 1,898 couples, women exposed to glyphosate during the three months before getting pregnant had a significantly higher risk of abortions, especially for those above 34 years of age.

Dr. Ewen regrets that he didn't follow up a referral by a local gynecologist about 20 years ago, who told him that women were having abortions when the fields next door were sprayed. He doesn't know what was sprayed.

Fathers exposed to glyphosate also increase reproductive risks

In the Canadian study above, even fathers who were exposed to glyphosate before their wives got pregnant showed an increase in early delivery and abortions. In addition, a study of male rabbits showed that glyphosate can cause a reduction in sexual activity and sperm concentration, and an increase in dead or abnormal sperm.

Birth defects increased in humans and animals

Numerous indigenous people and peasant communities in Argentina have blamed aerial spraying of Roundup on a significant rise of birth defects. Dr. Andreas Carasco of the Embryology Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine in Buenos Aires, decided to investigate. He exposed amphibian embryos to a tiny concentration of glyphosate (diluted 5000 fold). According to an excellent summary of glyphosate-related effects by the Pesticide Action Network,

"Effects included reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, increased death of cells that help form the skull, deformed cartilage, eye defects, and undeveloped kidneys. Carrasco also stated that the glyphosate was not breaking down in the cells, but was accumulating. The findings lend weight to claims that abnormally high levels of cancer, birth defects, neonatal mortality, lupus, kidney disease, and skin and respiratory problems in populations near Argentina's soybean fields may be linked to the aerial spraying of Roundup."

Although human embryos are not directly treated with glyphosate in the same way that Carrasco treated his amphibian embryos, it is known that glyphosate does cross the placenta and enters the fetal circulation.

In his article, Dr. Carrasco describes some disturbing findings in Argentina, where more than 50 million gallons of glyphosate-based herbicide is used on more than 45 million acres of GM soy.

In Argentina, an increase in the incidence of congenital malformations began to be reported in the last few years. In Co´rdoba, several cases of malformations together with repeated spontaneous abortions were detected in the village of Ituzaingo´, which is surrounded by GMO-based agriculture. These findings were concentrated in families living a few meters from where the herbicides are regularly sprayed.

Glyphosate may also cause reproductive disorders in the offspring of those exposed. When pregnant rats, for example, were exposed to glyphosate, their male offspring suffered reduced sperm production, increased abnormal sperm, and decrease in testosterone, in puberty and/or adulthood.

Other evidence of reproductive problems from GMOs

The changes in the rat uterus and ovulation cycle are by no means a smoking gun. But they are now part of a pattern of multiple reproductive disorders found in GMO feeding studies.
Professor Vyvyan Howard, a toxico-pathologist of the University of Ulster, says, "Several new hazards can now be identified." The growing body or research showing problems, he says, "provides ample evidence that the producers of GMO crops are not performing risk assessments for some of the hazards that independent scientists are identifying and testing." Dr. Howard, who specializes in the effects of toxins on the fetus and infants, asks, "What will be the effect on the fetus in the womb of women eating these foods? This needs to be tested."

The few tests that have been done on animals are more than sobering. In April 2010, researchers at Russia's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three generations, by the third generation most lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate among the pups, and a high incidence of a rare phenomenon of hair growing inside their mouths.

When I reported the results of the hamster study, I included the following review of other GMO-related reports of reproductive disorders:

In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.
In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.
Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.
In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Biotech advocates usually deny or try to discredit the evidence, and often attack scientists who discover it. But they rarely call for follow-up studies. With little or no money to follow up on these findings, we won't know for sure if GMOs are the cause, or if it is glyphosate, or something else. But numerous medical doctors aren't waiting for more research. They are telling their patients, especially those pregnant or planning to have kids, just say no to GMOs.

So if you were still eating GMOs before you read this, perhaps it's time to take the doctors' advice.

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat every day. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Etiquetas: ,

sábado, septiembre 04, 2010

Soya - Gates Foundation & Cargill Paper

Biosafety in Africa - Briefing Papers


The SOYA MODEL implies a war against the population, the emptying of the countryside, and the elimination of our collective memory in order to shoehorn people into towns and convert them into faithful consumers of whatever the market provides.
The impacts of this model go beyond the borders of the new Soya Republics.
The dehumanisation of agriculture and the depopulation
of rural areas for the benefit of the corporations is
increasing in the North and in the South.

Javiera Rulli in United Soya Republics. The Truth about Soya Production in Latin America



The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has announced a new project to develop the soya value chain in Africa in partnership with American NGO, TechnoServe and agricultural commodity trading giant Cargill. The US$8 million project will be implemented as a four year pilot in Mozambique and Zambia with the intention of spreading the model to other regions in the future.

The Gates Foundation continues to back agricultural strategies that open new markets for strong corporate interests while assisting in the creation of policy environments to support foreign agribusiness’ interests. The programme will yoke African farmers into the soya value chain and open the door for major agribusiness players such as Cargill, while displacing African agricultural practices and traditional crops. In addition, there is a very real threat that this project could be a foot in the door for the introduction of genetically modified soya onto the Continent.

Since the green revolution of the 1960’s, soya bean has become the number one forage crop on the international market. About 85% of the world’s soybeans are processed into soya bean meal and oil, about 98% of that meal is further processed into animal feed, the balance is used to make soya flour and proteins. Approximately 95% of the oil is consumed as edible oil with the rest being used for industrial products such as fatty acids, soaps and agrofuel. In the last 40 years, production of soya bean has increased by over 500%, driven by the growing affluence of Chinese consumers, who are now eating more meat than ever before, as well as a significant increase in demand for soya beans as feedstock for biodiesel. In addition, soya beans fix nitrogen in the soil, thereby improving soil fertility and making it an excellent rotation crop.

The United States, Argentina and Brazil are the three major producers of soya in the world. The aggressive expansion of soya monocrops in Latin America has wreaked socio-economic and environmental disaster - in 2008 over 30 million hectares of soya was grown in Brazil and Argentina, where soya monocrops are notorious for displacing rural populations and causing mass deforestation. In April 2006, Greenpeace announced that in the 2004/2005 growing season, 1.2 million hectares of the Amazon rainforest was deforested as a consequence of soya expansion.

The vast majority of global soya crops are genetically modified to withstand applications of herbicides. (Approximately 93% of soya production in the USA is GM, 98.9% in Argentina and 70.7% in Brazil). The introduction of herbicide tolerant soya has created a sharp increase in the use of highly toxic herbicides – in the USA the use of herbicides has increased by 382.6 million pounds over the past 13 years, with herbicide tolerant soya beans accounting for 92% of that increase.

No multinational on the planet has greater interests in soya production and trade than the American corporation Cargill. Cargill’s business operations include purchasing, processing and distributing grain and agricultural commodities, the manufacture and sale of livestock feed and ingredients for processed foods and pharmaceuticals. Their assets and business operations in Latin America are staggering; it is responsible for over 75% of Argentina’s grain and oilseed production. It also has great interest in fertiliser production, having a two-thirds stake in one of the world’s leading fertiliser companies, Mosaic. Their business interests in Africa are scant in contrast. It has now partnered with the Gates Foundation to introduce a soya value chain in Africa.

The four year project will introduce soya production to 37 000 small-scale farmers in Mozambique and Zambia and aims to spread the model to other regions in the future. The project will target smallholder farmers and facilitate their access to agricultural inputs and new technology, facilitate market access, assist in infrastructure development and in developing enabling policies for investment.The cultivation of soya in Africa is negligible, with Africa contributing to less than 1% of global soya bean production. African countries that produced over 100 000 tons of soya bean in 2008 are Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Nigeria is the biggest producer of soya beans on the continent, harvesting a relatively modest 591 000 tons in 2008, mostly for domestic consumption. Egypt is the 13th biggest importer of soya bean in the world, importing 1.2 million tons in 2008 and producing 219 800 tons of soya bean oil. Morocco also imports soya for the production of oil and was the 19th largest importer of soya bean in 2008. Demand for soya outstrips production in Africa, creating the need to look outside of the region for commodities, predominantly soya bean cake for animal feed, but also for oil, meal and soya-derived products.
As demand for soya feed for the growing global livestock sector increases, along with a growing interest in the crop for biofuel production, soya is gaining influence as an attractive crop that is worthy of investment. Global prices for vegetable oil are good and this too, is attracting investment. There have been recent major private investments in oil processing plants in Uganda and Mozambique and investors are keen to contract local farmers to supply raw materials. This model threatens to bring farmers into a high-risk global market and shift agricultural practices from using local inputs to reliance on agribusiness products.

A further threat is the introduction of genetically modified soya into Africa. South Africa is the only country on the continent that is growing genetically modified soya and has been doing so since 2001. In 2006, about 75% of the area planted to soya was genetically modified and in 2008, approximately 88% of soya seed purchased was GM[i] <#_edn1> . In 2010, South Africa has begun exporting genetically modified commodities to the rest of Africa for the first time. This is as a result of the finalization of African biosafety legislation that allows for the cultivation and import of GE crops and commodities. In early 2010, the Mozambican government allowed for the commodity import of 35,000 MT of GM soybeans[ii] <#_edn2> . This is the first such permit authorised by the Executive Council in South Africa.

As the major global producers of soya have almost completely adopted GM in their production, it is likely that there will be great pressure for African farmers to adopt these seeds. The acceptance by the Mozambican government of the first GE shipment of soya from South Africa shows that their door is now open for African trade in GM soya, although the road to environmental releases of crops will be a longer and more arduous process. Zambia has traditionally been one of the strongest forces against genetically modified seed on the continent, taking an extremely cautious approach in its biosafety legislation. In 2002, the Zambian government rejected the import of GM food aid for almost 3 million starving people[iii] <#_edn3> . It was an extremely controversial decision, but after despatching a group of scientists to investigate the safety of the crop, President Levy Mwanawasa held to his convictions in the face of massive international pressure. Could this support for the introduction of soya into the country be the beginning of the erosion of that caution?

[i] <#_ednref> ibid

[ii] <#_ednref> ibid

[iii] <#_ednref> BBC New 29 October 2002 Famine-hit Zambia rejects GM food aid http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2371675.stm accessed 26 August 2010



Etiquetas: , , , ,

miércoles, mayo 26, 2010

“Responsible” Soy in trouble

CARMELO RUIZ-MARRERO

CIP Americas Policy Program, http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/2442

The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), an agro-industry initiative to legitimize soy monocultures in South America, is on shaky ground now that one of its key members has withdrawn and the Dutch government is reconsidering its support. The Round Table is a working group that brings together businesses and civil society groups in order to formulate criteria for environmentally sustainable and socially responsible soy production in order to achieve its acceptance in European markets. Its members include Syngenta and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

But numerous sectors of civil society and NGOs have condemned this initiative since its inception. In April 2009, 90 organizations and activist networks signed a protest letter against the RTRS in which they declared emphatically that soy monocultures can never be sustainable or responsible.

ABIOVE, the Brazilian Vegetable Oil Industry Association, withdrew from the Round Table at the beginning of April. A short time later it announced the creation of its own certification scheme, called Soja Plus, which is supposedly even more favorable to industry.

Last year APROSOJA, the association of large soy producers of Brazil, withdrew due to disagreement with the Round Table’s deforestation clause. As a result, the Round Table has practically no representation in Brazil, the main soy exporting-country in the world.

The Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reports that the Round Table received another very hard blow in April when the Dutch government decided not to invest 68 million Euros in a “sustainable business” proposal that included the RTRS.

In the meantime, one of the members of the Round Table, the Argentinean agrofuel company Patagonia Bioenergy, hired the public relations firm Burson Marsteller to exert influence on the European Union so that its sustainability criteria will be more favorable to agrofuels. Burson Marsteller represented the military dictatorship that governed Argentina during the 1970s and 1980s.

Source:

Corporate Europe Observatory. “Round Table on Responsible Soy Suffers Setbacks” April 8, 2010. http://www.corporateeurope.org/agribusiness/blog/nina/2010/04/08/setbacks-round-table-responsible-soy

Etiquetas: , , , ,

domingo, abril 11, 2010

Round Table on Responsible Soy suffers setbacks

The RTRS lost one of its key members this week when the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries ABIOVE announced they would leave. ABIOVE has disappeared from the RTRS membership list, but according to TraceConsult,“ABIOVE will not go public with this information as they do not intend to discredit the RTRS.”[1] Another important RTRS member, APROSOJA, representing large Brazilian soy producers, already left last year because of the ‘deforestation clause’ included in the round table's basic set of Principles and Criteria. As TraceConsult points out, “With APROSOJA defecting already lastyear and ABIOVE tip-toeing out now, the world’s second largest soy producing country, Brazil, is hardly represented in the RTRS any longer.” It is no coincidence that ABIOVE, also this week, has announced its own certification:SOJA PLUS. The objectives of SOJA PLUS are clear: an even cheaper and simpler certification system to repair the damaged image of Brazilian soy producers.

******

Another RTRS member, Patagonia Bioenergia, has hired one of Brussels’ mostcontroversial PR agencies, Burson Marsteller, to set up meetings with Membersof European Parliament. Laetitia Bourgeix of Burson Marsteller wrote to severalMEPs on behalf of Federico Pochat, CEO at Patagonia Bioenergia S.A andExecutive Director of CARBIO (Argentinean Chamber of Biofuels) to arrangemeetings in mid-February. Bourgeix mentioned that Mr Pochat would like todiscuss “... aspects of the Renewable Directive like default and actual values,sustainability criteria and trade issues”.[4] “As a key player in theArgentinean biofuels industry and member of the Round Table of Responsible Soy(RTRS), he would like to explain that Argentinean biodiesel is one of theworld’s most competitive and sustainable biofuels, adhering to the highestinternational environmental standards”, the Burson Marsteller lobbyist wrote.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/agribusiness/blog/nina/2010/04/08/setbacks-round-table-responsible-soy

Etiquetas: ,

viernes, octubre 09, 2009

South American GM Soy close to get Carbon credits - Agribusiness lobby in the Climate negotiations

September 2009 - Javiera Rulli

As the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) gets closer, a new agreement has to be signed for the period after 2012. It is becoming clear how agribusiness attempts to gain profits from the massive carbon credits market. Under the term “Conservation Agriculture”, Monsanto and other biotech allies have penetrated the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming to get carbon credits for agribusiness. A voluntary ‘responsible’ label for Roundup Ready soy sponsored by World Wild Life Fund (WWF), and a newly approved Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) methodology are important steps for Agribusiness to get access to this three billion dollar business.

Proposals to include agriculture in carbon offsetting focus on changes in tillage practices and reductions in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. All these practices are included in the concept of “Conservation Agriculture”, which is based on three principles: minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotations . However, in the name of Conservation Agriculture and with the explicit consent of FAO and UNFCCC, very different agricultural methods are included. Under this label a range of systems from biological agriculture to No-till GM industrial agriculture can be labelled as sustainable and so receive carbon credits.

No-till is an agricultural technique that requires no ploughing or digging of the soil. When sowing, seeds are drilled into the soil. In general, No-till is considered a conservation practice that increases levels of soil organic matter and reduces soil erosion, but in RR soy industrial monocultures it part of this technique is used in conjunction with very harmful environmental practices.

In practice, Carbon credits for No-till could mean a massive economic support for Genetically Modified (GM) soy monocultures in South and North America and a promotion of this agribusiness model in other Southern Hemisphere regions.
GM soy monocultures are a production model which is not sustainable in any way. In South America, soy production of this kind is one of the main drivers of deforestation, land use change, biodiversity destruction and human rights violations . Moreover, these monocultures sustain the industrial feed industry which is a main cause of climate change as well. To label these agricultural production models as “sustainable” only because they involve less ploughing (no tillage or No-till) means falling into a trap of absurdly reductionism and blindness.

The report “Agriculture and Climate Change: Real Problems, False Solutions” presented in June 2009 reveals the main agriculture-related proposals in the negotiations for a post -2012 climate agreement. It provides an informative panorama on how current and proposed agricultural practices for the post Kyoto agreements really impact on climate change . However, in this article we will focus specifically on some cases related to soy monocultures.



TO READ THE REST: http://lasojamata.org/es/node/397

Etiquetas: , ,

lunes, mayo 25, 2009

An urgent call from South America

"Responsible" soy process must be abandoned -- International call


Over sixty organizations from across the world have signed an open letter to the participants of the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) [1] calling for it to be abandoned. They are taking this action because criteria to be launched by the Round Table in late May 2009 encourage soy monocultures, seek to include GM soy as sustainable and are too weak to protect vital ecosystems such as Amazon, Cerrado, and Chaco.

Signatories of the letter include Friends of the Earth International, FIAN International, Global Forest Coalition, the Scottish Green Party, Soya Alliance, the Soil Association, and Via Campesina European Coordination, as well as GM Freeze and GMWatch.

Organisations can sign the open letter by sending a message (with name, organisation, place) to Claire Robinson, GM Watch, clairejr@sky.com . Individuals can still also sign the petition on http://www.toxicsoy.org/.

The open letter (see below in English, Spanish and Portuguese) is very critical of the RTRS [2] proposals for allowing:

* GM soy to be included and continue unchecked
* Expansion of soy monocultures
* Continuing damage to major forest and other ecosystems
* Major social, health and human rights issues to go unchallenged

RTRS corporate members include Marks and Spencer, Unilever, Somerfield (now owned by the Co-op), Danisco, Carrefour (a French supermarket chain), Ahold (a Dutch supermarket chain), BP International and Shell International. Major companies driving soy expansion and GM crops are also members, including Cargill, Bunge, Monsanto and Syngenta.

The open letter pays particular attention to how the RTRS ignores more sustainable solutions such as land reform in South America, development of local markets and finding alternatives to soybeans in animal feed production. The increasing use of soy in producing agrofuels simply intensifies the problem.

Commenting, Claire Robinson of GMWatch, one of the open letter signatories, said

“We regard the RTRS as a massive public relations exercise for the soy industry, which has been one of the major driving forces behind the destruction of natural habitats in South America, native people losing their land and for thousands of mixed family farms being lost. GM soy has made matters much worse for the environment and local people, as the herbicides used on the crops fail as weed resistance emerges, and the only solution seems to be more chemicals, often applied from the air.”

Notes:
1. Full text of the open letter to the RTRS with signatories is at: http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/64-Letter-of-critical-opposition-to-the-Round-Table-on-Responsible-Soy.html – and at: http://www.bangmfood.org/take-action/23-take-action/36-letter-of-critical-opposition-to-the-round-table-on-responsible-soy
2. RTRS is multi-stakeholder dialogue that intended to promote the use of a responsible standard of soy production, processing and trade”. It was proposed by WWF and Coop Switzerland in 2005 after their previous attempts known as the Basel criteria failed to gain support. For more information on the RTRS see briefing enclosed as attachment.

Letter of critical opposition to the “Round Table on Responsible Soy”
Carta de oposición crítica a la “Mesa redonda sobre Soja Responsable” / Carta em oposição à “Mesa Redonda de Soja Responsável”

April 2009

We, the undersigned, call for the abandonment of the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), on the following grounds:

1. RTRS allows and encourages the expansion of soy monocultures

The expansion of soy monocultures is resulting in:

*Environmental degradation, including: loss of forests and savannahs due to direct destruction by soy monocultures or displacement of existing agriculture (particularly cattle ranching and small holder agriculture); related losses of biodiversity; release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through land-use changes, fertiliser use including NOx emissions; soil erosion and disruption of surface and ground water and rainfall patterns;

*Socioeconomic problems such as land conflicts leading to human rights violations, loss of livelihoods, and expulsion of rural communities, small farmers and indigenous peoples from their land. Such expulsions are effectively forcing displacement of the local population into urban poverty or previously undisturbed natural areas, violating communities’ fundamental right to food, increasing concentration of land ownership by big companies, and feeding rises in related rural unemployment, low employment and slavery-like conditions on industrial farms, poverty, malnutrition, rising food prices and loss of food security and sovereignty due to displacement of staple food crops and increasing corporate control over food production; and

*Severe health problems and poisoning in the local population due to the over-use of agrochemicals.

2. RTRS promotes GM soy as “responsible”

The RTRS will enable the certification of genetically modified (GM) soy as "responsible", even though there is increasing evidence that after a few years of GM soy cultivation, both overall agrochemical use and resistance problems increase substantially.

Brazil recorded nearly an 80 per cent increase in the use of the herbicide Roundup (based on glyphosate) between 2000 and 2005, and a 15-fold increase was recorded in the United States between 1994 and 2005.[1] This has led to an increase in herbicide-resistant weeds in Brazil,[2] Argentina,[3][4] and the United States,[5] pushing farmers onto a new pesticide treadmill of increasing applications of glyphosate-based herbicides in addition to other herbicides (such as the more dangerous Paraquat).[6][7] As a result, GM soy has increased production costs and environmental degradation rather than decreasing them as promised by GM companies. Neither does GM soy increase yields[8] or increase ability to crop in dry or salty land, as often cited by supporters.[9]

Use of Roundup Ready (RR) soy (genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate-based herbicide) has also facilitated indiscriminate fumigations (often by aerial spraying) affecting human health, food crops and the environment. A report by the Rural Reflection Group (Grupo de Reflexión Rural, or GRR, from Argentina) documents how spraying glyphosate-based herbicides on RR soy leads to an increase in health problems in the countryside such as cases of cancer at early ages, birth defects, lupus, kidney problems, respiratory ailments and dermatitis, evidenced by the accounts of rural doctors, experts and the residents of dozens of farming towns.[10]

GM crops are rejected by millions of consumers, NGOs and governments all over the world for many reasons. This means the vast majority of the GM soya crop can only be sold as animal feed and meat, dairy products and eggs produced using GM feed are sold unlabelled in the countries that reject GM as food for humans. There is mounting scientific controversy as to the adverse impacts of GM on health and the environment, as seen by recent studies produced in France,[11] Austria,[12] the US,[13][14] and Sweden.[15] These studies demonstrate that we do not yet fully understand the impacts of GM cultivation and use on human and animal health, soil structure, and biodiversity. Their widespread use should therefore be halted to prevent irrevocable harm.

3. RTRS principles and criteria are too weak to protect the integrity and biodiversity of the Amazon, Cerrado, Chaco and other regions from immediate, severe, and irreversible degradation

The Amazon, Cerrado, Chaco and other regions are under immediate threat from a constellation of damaging agricultural practices and social impacts, as described above, for which soy cultivation is a core enabling factor. The RTRS principles and criteria cannot and will not effectively address these issues.

Unless these immediate crises are addressed promptly, which cannot be done through voluntary certification, these regions will be reduced from farmland to wasteland, and the smallholders and indigenous people of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and elsewhere will be displaced and become the new urban poor.

By providing a cover of “sustainability” for an inherently unsustainable system of production, the RTRS is an obstacle to progress. We call on governments, civil society and companies to tackle the real problems (e.g., over-consumption, inequitable distribution of resources like land and water) and to promote real solutions such as:

*phasing out GM and intensive non-GM soy in favour of agricultural practices which work with nature instead of against it, like organic agriculture and integrated crop management;

*executing land reforms in producing countries, which will address highly inequitable land ownership and concentration;

*substituting soy in animal feed with locally-grown protein crops in importing countries;

*stopping the promotion of large scale agrofuel production as a sustainable solution;

*developing better transport systems that reduce demand for energy and fuel; and

*increased government support for diversification of production and stimulation of local production for local markets that contribute to food security and food sovereignty in producer and consumer countries.

The RTRS process will not deliver improvements in these or a host of other areas and should be abandoned.



SOURCE: http://lasojamata.org/es/node/373

Etiquetas: ,

martes, abril 14, 2009

One of the most destructive developments in agriculture over the past two decades has been the boom in soya production in the southern cone of Latin America. The corporations that led that boom are now moving aggressively into sugar cane, focusing on large tracts of land in southern countries where sugar can be produced cheaply. If these developments are not resisted, the impacts are likely to be severe: local food production will be overrun, workers and communities will face displacement and exposure to increased levels of pesticides, and foreign agribusiness will tighten its grip on sugar production. We look at the intersection between the development of genetically modified (GM) sugar cane and transformations in the global sugar industry.

Corporate candyland

The looming GM sugar cane invasion

Within a span of only 10 years, nearly the entire Argentine pampas and huge swathes of forest and farm land in Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay have been converted into green deserts of soya monoculture. [1] Latin America’s soya boom was, and continues to be, a bonanza for agribusiness. It provided the handful of global grain giants who dominate the international oilseed trade and commercial feed market with a cheap and abundant site of production for the expansion and consolidation of their global operations. These same companies, such as Cargill, ADM and Bunge, have also made billions in selling the required chemical fertilisers, while other big foreign companies, such as AGCO and John Deere, have cashed in on sales of tractors. Monsanto and Syngenta have raked in record profits selling their genetically modified seeds and chemical pesticides.

The soya invasion was based on a model of production revolving around the use of seeds genetically modified to withstand huge doses of chemical herbicides. Monsanto provided both the seeds and the herbicides while a new generation of agricultural companies, run mainly by businessmen in the cities, leased or took over large areas of land and handled the farming. Wherever this model has been deployed small farmers have been driven out and local communities have been devastated by the rural exodus and chemical contamination.

As for the big agribusiness TNCs, the experience with soya in the southern cone has shown how to profit from the expansion of industrial agriculture into developing countries. It has opened the door to a new era of conquest. Sugar, a crop with a long history of environmental and cultural destruction and sheer human exploitation, might well be next in line for a soya-style boom, especially with new genetically modified sugar crops already in the fields.


SOURCE: http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=589

Etiquetas: , , ,