1.ARGENTINA: "I expected a reaction but not such a violent one"
2.BRAZIL becomes world's biggest consumer of pesticides as GM acreage expands
3.PERU: Illegal GM corn confirmed
4.BRAZIL: World's largest soy growing operation buys non-GMO grain firm to expand trade in Europe
5.MEXICO: Monitoreo infecto
---
---
1."I expected a reaction but not such a violent one"
GRAIN, Seedling, July 2009
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=618
In April 2009 Andres Carrasco, an Argentinian embryologist, gave an interview to the leading Buenos Aires newspaper Pagina 12, in which he described the alarming results of a research project he is leading into the impact of the herbicide glyphosate on the foetuses of amphibians. Dr Carrasco, who works in the Ministry of Science's Conicet (National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations), said that their results suggested that the herbicide could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in the foetuses. Glyphosate is the herbicide used in the cultivation of Monsanto's genetically modified soya, which now covers some 18 million hectares, about half of Argentina's arable land. [1]
Carrasco said that the doses of herbicide used in their study were "much lower than the levels used in the fumigations". Indeed, as some weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, many farmers are greatly increasing the concentration of the herbicide. According to Pagina 12, this means that, in practice, the herbicide applied in the fields is between 50 and 1,540 times stronger than that used by Carrasco. The results in the study are confirming what peasant and indigenous communities the people most affected by the spraying have been denouncing for over a decade. The study also has profound consequences for the USA's anti-narcotics strategy in Colombia, because the planes spray glyphosate, reinforced with additional chemicals, on the coca fields (and the peasants living among them).
Three days after the interview, the Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition with the Argentine Supreme Court, calling for a ban on the use and sale of glyphosate until its impact on health and on the environment had been investigated. Five days later the Ministry of Defence banned the planting of soya in its fields. This sparked a strong reaction from the multinational biotechnology companies and their supporters. Fearful that their most famous product, a symbol of the dominant farming model, would be banned, they mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats. He was accused of inventing his whole investigation, as his results have not yet been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious scientific journal.
Carrasco was firm in his response: "When one is dealing with a subject of limited public interest, one can keep the study secret until all the last details have been resolved. But when one uncovers facts that are important for public health, one has an obligation to make an effort to publish the results urgently and with maximum publicity." Even so, he was clearly taken aback by the strength of the reaction. "It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction", he said. "I hadn't even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached. One has to remember, too, that the study originated in contacts with communities that have suffered the impact of agro-chemicals. They are the undeniable proof of the impact." He is not intimidated: "If I know something, I will not shut my mouth."
[1]”‚See: GRAIN, Twelve Years of GM Soya in Argentina a Disaster for People and the Environment, Seedling, January 2009, http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=578
---
---
2.Brazil becomes the world's biggest consumer of pesticides
GRAIN, Seedling, July 2009
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=618
Brazil's consumption of pesticides and herbicides grew by 25% in 2008 to 734 million tonnes, worth US$7.1bn. For the first time ever, the country overtook the previous world champion, the USA, which consumed 646 million tonnes, worth US$6.0bn. In what few would see as a coincidence, that same year Brazil recorded its largest area ever planted with GMOs, almost of all of which are crops that have been genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides. Indeed, 45% of the herbicides and pesticides were used in the cultivation of soya, most of which is genetically modified.
One might have expected the Brazilian authorities to be concerned about the impact on public health of such extensive use of poisonous substances on the country's farming land. After all, Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria), the country's biosafety agency, recently said that 15% of the country’s foodstuffs contained excessive chemical residues. According to official figures, 5,300 people were made ill and 162 people were killed by agricultural chemicals in 2007. But, remarkably, the increase has been celebrated, at least by the industry. José Otávio Mentem, a lecturer at the University of São Paulo and the executive director of ANDEF (Associação Nacional de Defesa Vegetal), the body that represents the herbicide manufacturers, said: “the fact that Brazil is leading the world in its use of herbicides shows ”¦ that the country is achieving the much-needed sustainability in the economic, social and environmental fields by generating work in the countryside, by promoting food security and, moreover, by supplying energy from renewable raw materials.”
---
---
3.GM corn confirmed [in Peru]
Latin America Press, 23 July 2009
http://www.lapress.org/articles.asp?art=5906
*Government is analyzing data showing transgenic corn in five key valleys.
Peru's government is reviewing a study that shows genetically-modified corn has been detected in five key agricultural valleys. Peru´s decade-old biosafety law still lacks the supplemental legislation required to empower the government, particularly health and agricultural authorities, to regulate genetically-modified products is still pending.
Currently, genetically-modified products in Peru, a signatory of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety cannot be planted, harvested or sold, because of the legislative void, even though there is no established penalty for doing so.
In a report published by El Comercio newspaper on July 13, said the National Institute of Agrarian Innovation, or INIA, a branch of the Agriculture Ministry that is tasked with supervising the entry and sale of transgenic products in Peru, is evaluating the study by Antonietta Gutiérrez, a biosafety expert at the Agrarian University of La Molina.
In the study, Gutierrez, who has studied genetically-modified organisms for some 15 years, examined 319 samples from dried corn storage centers in five regions ”” the northern Piura, Lambayeque and La Libertad departments, and the central-coastal Ancash and Lima departments.
She found genetically-modified corn in five major Peruvian valleys, particularly in the Barranca Valley, north of the capital. Two varieties included MON863 and MON810, produced by Monsanto, the world´s largest seed producer.
Most of Peru's imported corn comes from Argentina and the United States. A free trade agreement with the United States went into effect on Feb. 1, worrying some about a flood of genetically-modified corn entering Peru, fears partly based on the infiltration of transgenic corn in Mexico, where corn is the most important crop.
Still, if the government does back Gutierrez's findings, it does not yet have the authority to take action.
"If the presence of transgenic corn is proved in Barranca, INIA will be limited to exercise its legal authority because it we still do not have regulations," Susi Salazar, an Agriculture Ministry agronomist was quoted as saying in the report.
---
---
4.Brazil's Amaggi buys Norwegian non-GMO grain firm
Reuters, July 13 2009 [shortened]
http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN1317759420090713
SAO PAULO - Brazil's Amaggi Exportacao e Importacao, the world's largest soybean growing operation, said on Monday it bought a 51 percent equity stake in Norwegian non-GMO oilseed company Denofa to expand operations abroad.
Denofa has a 430,000-tonne-per-year soy crusher in Fredrikstad, Norway, and a rapeseed oil processor in Poland. The value of the deal was not disclosed.
The Brazilian company, which handles grains trading and soy crushing, set up a European division last year, with a first office in Rotterdam.
"This acquisition is in accordance with Amaggi's strategical plan of increasing its non-GMO program," the company said in a statement.
---
---
5.Monitoreo infecto
Silvia Ribeiro*
La Jornada, México, 1 de agosto 2009
El 27 de julio pasado, el Secretario de Agricultura Alberto Cárdenas Jiménez presentó otro componente de la farsa de bioseguridad en México: la Red Mexicana de Monitoreo de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados, otra forma de subsidiar con recursos públicos a las trasnacionales de los transgénicos.
Cárdenas Jiménez aprovechó para garantizar a las trasnacionales que para el próximo ciclo otoño-invierno comenzarán las primeras plantaciones de maÃz transgénico, que han sido aprobadas por la secretarÃa de agricultura (Sagarpa) ignorando los sólidos argumentos en contra que enviaron agrónomos independientes, técnicos del INIFAP (instituto nacional de investigaciones agrÃcolas), la Unión de CientÃficos Comprometidos con la Sociedad y muchas organizaciones campesinas y ambientalistas. Solamente falta, dijo Cárdenas, que la secretarÃa del ambiente (Semarnat) “cumpla su tarea” y dé su visto bueno, lo cual no pone en duda: “Saldremos siempre juntos y de la mano” (Reforma, 28/7/09). Agregó que “Para la seguridad alimentaria (”¦) hay que aumentar la producción de alimentos. La biotecnologÃa es pilar en paÃses desarrollados para asegurar la seguridad alimentaria”. (Crónica, 28/7/09)
Reveló nuevamente que su única fuente de información es la propaganda de las empresas trasnacionales. ¿Por qué, si no, afirmar algo tan ignorante? El estudio cientÃfico más amplio y minucioso sobre rendimientos de los cultivos transgénicos en Estados Unidos por amplio margen el mayor productor de transgénicos en el mundo fue publicado en abril del 2009 por la Unión de CientÃficos Preocupados (UCS) de ese paÃs. Analiza 20 años de experimentación y 13 de comercialización de transgénicos y muestra que dichos cultivos disminuyen la producción. Corroboran evidencias similares presentadas en años anteriores por las Universidades de Kansas y Nebraska. En todos los estudios es clara la fuerte disminución del rendimiento de la soja transgénica frente a la convencional. En el caso del maÃz, el estudio de la UCS muestra que el maÃz transgénico aumentó un el rendimiento un descartable 0.2-0.3 por ciento anual (lo cual no compensa en forma alguna el costo mucho más alto de la semillas transgénicas frente a las convencionales, causando una pérdida para los agricultores). Sin embargo el aumento total de producción del maÃz en Estados Unidos fue de 13 por ciento, debido a enfoques agronómicos no transgénicos. Es decir, si la producción de maÃz aumentó en Estados Unidos, fue a pesar de los transgénicos.
La única razón por la que los agricultores estadunidenses siguen plantando trasngénicos es que no tienen opción: no tienen semillas propias y deben comprarlas a las trasnacionales que controlan férreamente el mercado, que son las mismas dueñas de los transgénicos. Esas empresas, entre ellas Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, son las que ahora pretenden expandir sus lucros inmorales con maÃz transgénico en México.
Los transgénicos además aumentan el uso de agrotóxicos, implican serios problemas de salud y colocan en riesgo la biodiversidad y el patrimonio genético, alimentario, económico y cultural más importante del paÃs: el maÃz nativo. Sin embargo, para el gobierno es más importante favorecer los intereses de un puñado de trasnacionales que atender todo esto.
La anunciada Red Mexicana de Monitoreo de OGM, aparece luego de años de contaminación de maÃz nativo, frente a la que el gobierno se hizo cómplice y trató de acallar. ¿Por qué ahora?
Primero, porque el gobierno sabe que la contaminación del maÃz nativo o comercial no transgénico, aumentará exponencialmente si se autoriza la siembra maÃz transgénico. Segundo, le sirve para aparentar “preocupación” por la contaminación, financiando con dinero público a laboratorios y empresas privadas de detección de transgénicos, que necesariamente deben pagar sondas patentadas de las multinacionales de transgénicos (otro favor para ellas). Tercero, porque la contaminación transgénica en Estados Unidos y Canadá es un negocio para las mismas multinacionales: le permite saber donde están las vÃctimas, y llevarlas a juicio para cobrarles regalÃas por “uso indebido” de sus genes patentados. Es una práctica regular en Estados Unidos, donde Monsanto ya cobró por juicios, más de 21 millones de dólares a agricultores contaminados y más de 160 millones adicionales en “arreglos fuera de juicio”, por el temor que tienen los agricultores contaminados de tener que pagar aún más. Cuarto, porque esta Red de Monitoreo, si detecta contaminación en milpas campesinas, dará al gobierno una excusa para hacer “limpieza étnica” de semillas, forzando a los campesinos a cambiar sus propias semillas y poco a poco, quedar en dependencia con semillas comerciales, mercado dominado por las mismas transnacionales. Quinto, porque esta red tan amigable con el gobierno, puede manipular los resultados, tal como ha hecho el gobierno los años pasados, publicando los datos que le convienen y ocultando los demás. Por ejemplo, que la mayorÃa de las semillas hÃbridas importadas que se venden y/o entregan en programas del gobierno, están contaminadas con transgénicos.
Por todo ello la Red en Defensa del MaÃz expresó su firme rechazo al monitoreo digitado desde el gobierno contra las milpas campesinas, en una declaración contra la siembra de maÃz transgénico en México que ha recibido el apoyo de más de 800 organizaciones de 60 paÃses (www.endefensadelmaiz.org). Reafirman además, el compromiso de seguir “defendiendo, sembrando, guardando e intercambiando semillas propias, asà como a ejercer el derecho sobre sus territorios e impedir la siembra de maÃz transgénico”.
*investigadora del Grupo ETC