GMW:_Puerto_Rico's_Massive_Unregulated_Biotech_Harvest

[Guest guest]

GMW:_Puerto_Rico's_Massive_Unregulated_Biotech_Harvest

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:35:23 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> ------

> EXCERPTS: Puerto Rico has more such [GM] experiments

> per square mile than any state, with the possible

> exception of Hawaii. Puerto Rico also tops

> California, with 1,709 experiments, although

> [California] is approximately 40 times larger than

> [Puerto Rico] and has a vastly larger agricultural

> output.

>

> ...Next on my list was the USDA [uS Dept of

> Agriculture], which has to approve every open-air

> biotech crop field test. None of the Department's

> employees seemed to know anything about genetically

> engineered crops. After an exasperating and

> fruitless exchange, one of them provided me a USDA

> phone number in Washington, which turned out to be

> that of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Service.

>

> The local office of the U.S. Environmental

> Protection Agency proved no more helpful.

> -------

> Puerto Rico's Biotech Harvest

> By Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero

> AlterNet, July 13, 2004

> http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19220/

>

> Puerto Rico, known for its pineapples and its

> world-renowned coffee crop, now has a new crop: the

> biotech harvest.

>

> Much of the genetically engineered (GE) corn and

> soybean seed planted in the United States comes from

> this Caribbean island. Furthermore, Puerto Rico is

> also a preferred location for agricultural

> biotechnology experiments. According to data from

> the US Department of Agriculture, between 1987 and

> 2002, the island hosted 2,957 such experiments. This

> figure was surpassed only by Iowa (3,831), Illinois

> (4,104) and Hawaii (4,566).

>

> When one considers the vast difference in size

> (Illinois and Iowa have just over 50,000 sq. miles

> each, whereas Puerto Rico has less than 4,000 sq.

> miles) it becomes evident that Puerto Rico has more

> such experiments per square mile than any state,

> with the possible exception of Hawaii. Puerto Rico

> also tops California, with 1,709 experiments,

> although it is approximately 40 times larger than PR

> and has a vastly larger agricultural output.

>

> These experiments are mostly aimed at the two most

> widely used GE traits: herbicide resistance (like

> Roundup Ready crops) and insect control (like the

> insecticidal Bt corn). But they also include

> research on biopharmaceutical crops -- plants that

> produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals in

> their tissues -- and has also included the

> controversial " Terminator " crops, which produce

> sterile seed.

>

> Why Puerto Rico?

>

> The island's friendly tropical weather permits as

> many as four harvests per year, making it a favorite

> for seed breeders for agribusines and biotechnology

> corporations like Dow, Syngenta, Pioneer and

> Monsanto, which got together in 1996 to form the PR

> Seed Research Association (AISPR).

>

> But another reason for choosing Puerto Rico is its

> " good political climate. " Puerto Rico is not an

> independent country, nor is it a state of the

> American union. It is an " unincorporated territory. "

> Puerto Ricans are US citizens subject to US laws,

> yet they cannot vote in presidential elections and

> have no representation in Congress. There are no

> anti-biotech campaigns or protesters, not even the

> mildest criticism. If the American people are for

> the most part unaware of genetic engineering and

> food biotechnology issues, the people of Puerto Rico

> are blissfully in the dark.

>

> Is agricultural biotechnology safe?

>

> The US government and the biotech industry argue

> vehemently that biotech crops and products are safe,

> are extremely well tested and regulated, and present

> no new risks to public health or the environment.

> But many scientists, farmers and environmental NGOs

> beg to differ.

>

> Genetic Contamination

>

> " The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not

> regulate GE foods, " stated the environmental group

> Friends of the Earth USA (FoE USA) in a report

> issued in 2003. Instead, says the report, the FDA

> has a " voluntary consultation " process that allows

> biotechnology companies to decide which, if any,

> safety tests to conduct and how they will be

> performed. " The company determines which data, if

> any, are shared with regulators. In fact, the

> company even determines whether it will consult with

> the FDA at all. "

>

> Other groups, like the UK-based Institute of Science

> in Society and the US-based Center for Critical

> Genetics, claim that the scientific assumptions

> behind genetic engineering are plain wrong and

> obsolete.

>

> One of the biotech critics' main concerns is genetic

> contamination -- the uncontrolled proliferation of

> GE crops through pollination, inventory errors and

> other means. In late 2002 I gave a presentation at a

> symposium on biotechnology organized by the Puerto

> Rico Agricultural Extension Service in which I

> warned that it is only a matter of time before a

> biopharmaceutical crop (for example one that

> produces a powerful pharmaceutical substance)

> accidentally ends up on supermarket shelves, causing

> a biological Chernobyl, a public health emergency of

> horrific and unprecedented nature.

>

> After my talk, Dow corporation representative Victor

> Torres-Collazo, himself a former AISPR president,

> respectfully disagreed with me. He assured me that

> genetic contamination is not a problem because of

> very strict precautionary measures mandated by law.

>

> But fears of GE contamination are indeed well

> founded. In 2000, over 300 US supermarket products

> were found to be tainted with Starlink, a variety of

> GE corn that the FDA had deemed unfit for human

> consumption. Some 140 million bushels were

> contaminated, food processors and grain traders

> spent around $1 billion over six months trying to

> locate it and get rid of it, and even today traces

> of Starlink keep showing up occasionally in American

> corn exports.

>

> The following year GE corn was discovered growing in

> Mexico's rural communities, a development whose

> long-term consequences for biodiversity, agriculture

> and human health remain uncertain.

>

> In February 2004 the Union of Concerned Scientists

> (UCS) unveiled a pilot study that shows that

> breeders' varieties of corn, soy, canola and cotton

> seed in the United States are contaminated with GE

> material. This means that farmers in the USA -- and

> wherever American seed is exported -- could be

> planting GE seed without knowing it.

>

> " Seeds will be our only recourse if the prevailing

> belief in the safety of genetic engineering proves

> wrong, " warns UCS. " Heedlessly allowing the

> contamination of traditional plant varieties with

> genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge

> wager on our ability to understand a complicated

> technology that manipulates life at the most

> elemental level. "

>

> Uncontrolled Experiments

>

> The aforementioned genetic experiments in Puerto

> Rico are not carried out in sealed greenhouses or

> fermentation vats. " These are outdoor, uncontrolled

> experiments, " said Bill Freese, of FoE USA. " These

> experimental GE traits are almost certainly

> contaminating conventional crops just as the

> commercialized GE traits are. And the experimental

> GE crops aren't even subject to the cursory

> rubber-stamp 'approval' process that commercialized

> GE crops go through -- so I think the high

> concentration of experimental GE crop trials in

> Puerto Rico is definitely cause for concern. "

>

> I asked P.R. agriculture secretary Luis

> Rivero-Cubano if he thought GE crops were any reason

> for concern. He said that the GE fields here are

> " just experimental. " The agriculture secretary

> himself seemed unaware of the massive commercial

> production of GE seed right here in Puerto Rico.

>

> I then spoke with P.R. Farm Bureau president Ramon

> Gonzalez, who told a somewhat different story.

> According to Gonzalez, there are no GE experiments

> in Puerto Rico; all biotech crops grown here are for

> commercial use.

>

> Gonzalez himself grows GE corn and soy -- for export

> to the USA as seed -- in his farm in the town of

> Salinas. He claimed to be particularly happy with

> the soy, which is genetically engineered to be

> resistant to the Roundup herbicide. He said Roundup

> is " environmentally benign, " a claim disputed by

> environmentalists and organic farmers.

>

> Next on my list was the USDA, which has to approve

> every open-air biotech crop field test. None of

> Department's employees seemed to know anything about

> genetically engineered crops. After an exasperating

> and fruitless exchange, one of them provided me a

> USDA phone number in Washington, which turned out to

> be that of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Service.

>

> The local office of the U.S. Environmental

> Protection Agency proved no more helpful. Its

> spokesman Jose Font stated that agriculture does not

> concern the agency unless toxic pesticides are used.

>

> Finally, I tried the P.R. Environmental Quality

> Board. No dice. A spokeswoman said that since Puerto

> Rico has no laws or regulations for GM crops, it has

> no mandate to intervene or investigate.

>

> Civil society organizations?

>

> Forget it. Their leaders have no position on the

> issue, to the extent that any of them even know what

> biotech is. A " good political climate, " indeed.

>

> No protests, no opposition. Not yet, anyway.

>

> Puerto Rican journalist Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero directs

> the Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety. He is also a

> Research Associate of the Institute for Social

> Ecology, a fellow of the Environmental Leadership

> Program, and a senior fellow of the Society of

> Environmental Journalists.

>

>

>