Dear friends and colleagues,

RE:  AGRIBUSINESS ON PR BLITZ IN LATIN AMERICA

Agribusiness giants Syngenta and Monsanto have gone on an aggressive PR campaign in Latin America to push for the widespread adoption and acceptance of GM crops in the continent where there is growing unrest among small farmers, concerned scientists and non-governmental organisations. Large scale agriculture with intensive use of chemicals, displacement of small farmers with land concentration in a small group of landowners, export oriented crops that face market barriers in developed countries have all contributed to major problems. The advent of GM crops is adding to the socio-economic tensions whole introducing environmental and health risks.

Recent reports from Argentina and Brazil show that multinational agribusiness continue to promote GM crops as benign to the environment and serves food security. An advertisement in a local Argentinian newspaper had Syngenta proudly displaying a map of the continent with a transboundary region marked the "United Soya Republic". Emotionally-charged language is used by Monsanto in Brazilian.

But behind the unsubstantiated claims and propaganda is a reality that is a completely different picture - one that shows how GM crops are threatening the livelihoods of peasants as their lands are being taken away from them, where forests are being devastated, and cattle and crops are being killed and people's health are put in danger due to the fumigation of GM crops.

There is no evidence yet which shows that GMOs benefit nature, air or water as these companies claim. Instead these plants tend to need a greater quantity of herbicides which also kills beneficial insects, thus further contaminating nature and disrupting its balance.

We attach below two articles below for a look at the real picture of what is happening on the ground. One is by Dr. Lilian Joensen of the Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina) and the other by the Campaign for a Brazil Free of GMOs.

With best wishes, Lim Li Lin and Chee Yoke Heong
Third World Network 121-S Jalan Utama 10450 Penang Malaysia Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Website: www.twnside.org.sg

___

Item 1
Syngenta goes on RR soya blitz
By Lilian Joensen
Molecular Biologist, Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina)
REF: Doc.TWN/Biosafety/2004/F

"Republiqueta Sojera" (Soya Republic), is the name that NGOs in Argentina have used to warn the population of the dangers of the aggressive Roundup Ready Soya expansion, that has been sweeping across the country over the last 10 years. This name was used in an ironic way as a critique to the export oriented agricultural model being adopted.

But on December 27th 2003 an advertisement sponsored by Syngenta in the rural section of the Argentine "La Nación" newspaper came as a shock to us. The advert shows a map of the "República Unida de la Soja" (United Soya Republic) -- a territory spanning Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil that is covered by RRsoya. It was to represent Syngenta's vision that soya knows no boundaries and neither is the information from the Syngenta "Centinela" advisory service regarding soya.

This advert clearly shows the move from the agribusiness, that dares to mock the resistance from the local movements that oppose the RRsoya neoliberal agro-export model, promoted by the seed and agrochemical-industry. Against this virtual map of Syngenta's, there is a real world where peasants are being threatened, their land are being taken away from them, their forests are being devastated, their cattle and crops are being killed and the peoples health are put in danger by RRsoya producers' fumigation. This map does not take into account the fight against RRsoya production by the peasants that have been living in these areas for years because they are in the way of the agribusiness.

But a new map should be drawn which also shows that Peasant Movements have no boundaries either. Peasants from the MOCASE, MOCAFOR (both in Argentina), Organización Comunitaria (Paraguay), MST (Brazil) and many others live in the same areas covered by Syngenta's map.

While Monsanto profits on seed, glyphosate and other increased pesticides sales, Syngenta has also found a niche in the RRsoya business. In another advertisement in the same newspaper, Syngenta says "soya is a weed" in reference to the RRsoya that is left behind from prior harvest and grows during the non-planting season. In order to solve this "weed" problem, they promote the use of the highly toxic paraquat marketed by Syngenta.

Contrary to what the agribusinesses and their allies - the economists and scientists -- say, RRsoya has increased the use of pesticides several times over. This has been documented by reports from scientists working in the National Institute of Agriculture Technology (INTA), Argentina. Those who wants to know more about this, can find the information on the Internet. These facts counter the propaganda that is being popularly promoted by the agribusiness companies that RRsoya reduces the use of pesticides.

Meanwhile, agribusiness is also using renowned neoliberal economists and scientists in Europe to lobby European people and NGOs, pleading that there is no good in supporting the struggle against GMOs in the Third World. They argue that many countries in the Third World depend on the export of GMOs and that free trade and GMOs are the realities, which are here to stay. So, if Europe wants to help the Third World, the argument goes, it should educate those ignorant peasants on the benefits of GMOs and remove the barriers to the import of new GMOs, which will surely be produced in the Third World in the future.

There are no limits to the blindness of neoliberal economists and scientists either. They prefer to ignore the facts and insist that the Third World adopt GMOs even though opposition against GMOs are increasing as they threaten the loss of food security and sovereignty in the Third World.
___

Item 2
US Company Ads Vex Brazilians

Using emotionally-charged ads in the Brazilian media, American-based company Monsanto is trying to get the consumer to  believe that transgenic production promotes food and environmental security, citing the benefits that biotechnology can bring. The  commercials are getting a barrage of criticism.  

"Imagine a world which preserves nature, the air, the rivers. Where we can produce more with fewer pesticides, without destroying the forests. Imagine a world with more food, with more nutritious food, and people with better health. Can you imagine it? Ah, but you never imagined that GMO's could help us do this. Have you ever thought of a better world? You should think like we do. A Monsanto initiative with the support of the Associação Brasileira de Nutrologia."

(From a Monsanto ad campaign)

The Campaign for a Brazil Free of GMO's now publicly manifests its opposition to the propaganda Monsanto has produced on Brazilian TV, radio and press regarding GMO's. With emotional appeal, Monsanto is trying to form public opinion based on a nonexistent relationship between transgenic production and the conservation of the environment. The commercial tries to get the consumer to believe that transgenic production promotes food and environmental security, citing the benefits that biotechnology can bring.

Let us analyze a few points of the advertising.

1. The commercial implies that transgenic production can help to "preserve nature, the air, the rivers." It is important to establish that there are two types of transgenic plants that are being produced commercially today. The first class makes up 75 percent of all transgenic plants. These plants are herbicide-resistant. In other words, with proper care, the farmer can spray as much herbicides over the fields as he needs, and all the plants except those that are transgenic will die. It is important to note here that Monsanto, which produces the seeds for these plants, also produces the herbicide to which these plants are resistant.

The second type makes up 17 percent of transgenic plants. These plants receive genes from a bacteria in the soil and then produce toxic insecticides. An insect eats part of the plant, then dies. The other 8 percent are a combination of these two technologies.

Up until now, no tests have shown that GMO's benefit nature, air or water. Quite the contrary. These plants tend to need a greater quantity of herbicides, thus contaminating even more nature. The second type of GMO's also kills beneficial insects, thus disturbing the balance of nature.

2. The propaganda goes on to insinuate that transgenics can produce more with less chemicals. According to studies done in the US, genetically modified soy beans produce 5-10 percent less than conventional soybeans. Concerning other types of plants, production has been less or at most equal to that of conventional crops.

As noted above, there has been no less use of chemicals in transgenic production. It is also relevant to note that the use of glyphosate (the main component of Monsanto's herbicide Round-Up) has tripled in the state of Rio Grande do Sul-exactly during the period when the cultivation of these illegal transgenic plants began to spread (1998-2001).

It is equally unacceptable to say that transgenic plants help to prevent deforestation. Most cultivation of GMO's (soy, corn and cotton) are export commodities and require vast areas of land. Large farmers continue to buy forest lands throughout Brazil in order to increase their production of soy.

3. The commercial implies that GMO's make for healthier food and healthier people. Concerning this claim, no country in the world has properly evaluated the effects of GMO's on people's health.

As if this were not enough, Monsanto is soliciting Anvisa (the Brazilian Food and Safety department) to increase by 50 percent the Maximum Limit of Residues (MLR) of glyphosate on its soybeans. In addition, Monsanto has refused to do environmental impact studies since 1998 when the Justice Department ordered the company to do so. At the same time, Monsanto is fighting against a law which would require companies to label products which contain GMO's.

If Monsanto is so sure about the safety of transgenic plants, why do they refuse to do impact studies to evaluate the risks. Why are they trying to change Brazilian laws without doing any evaluations?

Good for Babies

 4. We find it disturbing that in their TV ads Monsanto presents images of pregnant women and children, implying that GMO's are good for mothers and infants. In 2002, the Studies of the Royal Society of the United Kingdom recommended that special attention be given to transgenic food destined for babies because of the risks GMO's have: "Babies fed with a bottle might become undernourished if they are fed infant formula made with GMO's as there is inadequate regulation and regimented tests for transgenic foods" (Daily Telegraph, February 5, 2002)

5. Besides being deceitful, Monsanto is producing propaganda for products prohibited in the country. In spite of Provisionary Measures 113 and 131 which authorized the commercialization of transgenic soy, the sale of transgenic seeds continues to be prohibited by the Justice Department.

All this being the case, we urge the Brazilian authorities to suspend Monsanto's deceitful advertising and oblige the company to pay for ads which will correct their misinformation and present clearly the facts concerning transgenics.

This material was written by activists from Campanha por um Brasil Livre de Transgênicos and supplied by Sejup, which has its own Internet site: http://www.oneworld.net/sejup