GMW: Biotech Crops Invade Latin America

[Guest guest]

GMW: Biotech Crops Invade Latin America

" GM WATCH " <info

 

 

Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:52:48 GMT

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

GMW: Biotech Crops Invade Latin America

 

------

EXCERPT: Resistance against GMO agriculture is manifesting in almost

all Latin American countries from diverse sectors: from indigenous

peoples who work to preserve their millenarian farming traditions and

protect

their seeds from genetic contamination, from environmental sectors that

warn about the environmental impacts of GMOs and industrial

agriculture, from farmers who seek to practice a truly ecological

agriculture, and

from progressive organizations and agrarian reform movements.

------

Biotech Crops Invade Latin America

By Carmelo Ruiz Marrero

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-23-03.asp

 

SILVER CITY, New Mexico, March 23, 2005 (ENS) - Latin America is being

invaded by genetically engineered (GE) crops. The promoters of these

crops say they will help fight hunger, reduce agrochemical use, and bring

prosperity to farmers and rural communities in Latin America. But so

far experience has demonstrated that these novel crops do not fight

hunger, do not reduce agrochemical use, do not benefit small farmers, and

also create new forms of economic dependence.

 

Argentina: Soy Republic

 

No Latin American country has embraced GE crops as wholeheartedly as

Argentina. Recent years have witnessed an explosive growth in Argentine

farmland devoted to soybeans. Soybean production has risen from 9,500

hectares in the early 1970s to 5.9 million hectares in 1996. The

introduction of GE soy in the late 1990s sparked a further expansion

of soy

production, which now surpasses 14 million hectares. At least 95 percent

of all this soy is genetically engineered. All GE soy grown in Argentina

is of the Roundup Ready variety, a product of the U.S. based

biotechnology corporation Monsanto.

 

Neoliberal ideologues and agribusiness people consider soy to be a

complete success and an economic boon for Argentina. They point out that

this crop brings large sums of badly needed foreign exchange to pay the

foreign debt. But the consequences of this " success " have been wrenching

for the environment and for the lives of the majority of Argentines.

 

Other agricultural production is being displaced and pushed to

extinction as the country's farmland converts to soy monoculture.

Fields of

lentils, yams, cotton, wheat, corn, rice, sorghum, leafy greens,

vegetables, fruit, dairy farms, and even the country's world-famous

cattle

ranches are disappearing before the advance of soy.

 

This country, that once could feed itself and export prime-quality

beef, now imports basic food staples. Imported food is more expensive and

out of reach for much of the large, poor population. From 1970 to 1980

the percentage of Argentines living below the poverty line rose from 5

percent to 12 percent. After the implementation of neoliberal structural

adjustment policies, the percentage went up to 30 percent in 1998, and

reached 51 percent in 2002. Today 20 million Argentines live in poverty

and 10 million of them go hungry.

 

More than 99 percent of Argentina's soy is exported to Asian and

European markets to feed cattle. The country has in effect sacrificed

its own

beef production, prized all over the world for its singular quality,

for the benefit of its European competitors. From 1998 to 2003 the number

of dairy farms decreased from 30,000 to 15,000.

 

In the words of agronomist and geneticist Alberto Lapolla, " The

Argentine nation has metamorphosed from being the world's breadbasket to

transform itself into a soy republic, a producer of forage crops, so that

countries with serious development policies can feed their cattle and

don't have to import it from other countries like ours. "

 

Farmers and landowners switch to soybeans in response to a number of

economic pressures. First, local producers cannot compete against massive

and cheap agricultural imports that result from free trade policies.

Moreover, the structure of government incentives and subsidies favors

soybean growers. To further tip the balance, Monsanto provides producers

with expert advisers, seeding machinery for mass soy production, and

herbicide--all on credit.

 

The Roundup-Ready GE soy is modified to be immune to glyphosate, the

active ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. The environmental

effect of this new agriculture has been devastating.

 

" The direct seeding system, with its high use of agrochemicals

(Roundup), has already produced in the monoculture zone a noticeable

biological

desertification, with the disappearance of birds, rabbits, crustaceans,

mollusks, insects, etc... particularly affecting the soil's microflora

and microfauna, altering the microbiology of the soil responsible for

the processes that develop and recover the soil's natural fertility by

exterminating bacteria and other microorganisms, allowing their

replacement by fungi, " warned Lapolla.

 

The expansion of soy has come at the expense not only of other crops

but also of forests and wilderness areas. To expand the monoculture, land

owners and agribusinesses are deforesting broad swaths of the forested

mountains at the foot of the Andes, known as the Yungas, and of the

Chaco, on the border with Bolivia and Paraguay.

 

In the province of Entre Rios, north of Buenos Aires and bordering

Uruguay, over one million hectares were deforested between 1994 and

2003 to

make way for soy. This deforestation has caused disastrous and

unprecedented floods, especially in the province of Santa Fe.

 

The economic effect has been no less devastating.

 

The direct seeding of Roundup Ready soy monocultures creates

unemployment since it hardly requires any labor. While a hectare of

apricots or a

lemon grove of the same extent require from 70 to 80 farm workers, soy

employs two people at most.

Those who have turned their backs on the soy model to engage in

traditional subsistence agriculture have found it nearly impossible

since the

clouds of airplane sprayed glyphosate travel great distances, leaving

trails of death and destruction in their wake.

 

In Colonia Los Senes, in the province of Formosa, families that grew

peanuts, beets, and plantains, and had chickens, ducks, and hogs, saw

their lives changed in 2003 when they were flown over by airplanes

spraying herbicide on nearby soy fields. The inhabitants suffered nausea,

diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pains, allergies, and skin eruptions. Painful

spots and sores appeared on the children, sometimes so painful they

could not get up. Plantain plants grew abnormally, animals died or gave

birth to deformed offspring, and there were reports of lakes filled with

dead fish.

 

Facundo Arrizabalaga and Ann Scholl, lawyer and social anthropologist

respectively, note, " Soy is causing disintegration not only of the very

essence of the land but also of society. Shanty towns are expanding on

the outskirts of major cities with farmers displaced by airplanes

loaded with glyphosate, while agroindustrial giants take over the

land. Soy

does not generate jobs, it is an agriculture with no people, no

culture. The rural exodus in recent years has increased at an alarming

rate:

300,000 farmers abandoned the countryside and almost 500 towns have been

left deserted. As a consequence, crime and violence are increasing day

by day, and with that, marginalization increases. "

 

Brazil: Lula's Pragmatism

 

The Roundup Ready soy monoculture is crossing Argentina's borders and

penetrating neighboring countries. In recent years, Brazil, the grain's

second worldwide producer, has experienced widespread smuggling of RR

soy seed from Argentina to the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul,

where soy production is concentrated.

 

This illegal seed contraband has enjoyed the complicity, at least

passive, of agribusinesses and land owners, although importation is

clandestine and does not go through the normal procedure of government

approval.

 

Civil society groups like the Landless Workers Movement hold that GE

crops should be submitted to an environmental evaluation, as required by

the Brazilian Constitution. They also point out that Brazil is

obligated to carry out such assessments since it signed the Cartagena

Protocol

on Biosafety, an international agreement that addresses the possible

risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

 

Another concern is that this GE crop invasion could spoil the

competitive advantage of Brazilian produce in international markets,

since

GMO-free products command higher prices.

 

During his electoral campaign, President Luiz Inacio " Lula " da Silva

promised to address the concerns of sectors that denounced the illegal

entry of GMOs into the country. Once in power, however, he leaned in

favor of pragmatism, and in October 2004 signed a bill that civil society

organizations claim favors the biotech industry and legitimizes the

violations of law committed by smugglers and illegal users of Roundup

Ready

soy.

 

A protest letter signed by numerous groups - including co-ops, social

movements like the Landless Workers Movement, rural labor unions like

the Family Farm Workers Federation, the Consumer Defense Institute,

ActionAid Brazil, and Pastoral Commission of the Earth - states that the

bill violates " the precautionary principle of the Biodiversity

Convention "

by liberating GE crops " with no previous study of the environmental

impact and risk to the health of consumers. "

 

According to the letter's signatories, the clandestine introduction of

Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed " prevented the Brazilian population from

having the opportunity to choose whether or not it wanted to consume

GMOs and expose them to the environment. It also prevented measures to

guarantee the segregation an labeling of GE products and in that way

protect farmers who want to plant conventional seeds or promote

agroecological farming. "

 

Landless Workers Movement leader Joao Pedro Stedile describes the

conflict, " On the one hand we have the profit and control motives of the

multinational companies' seed monopolies, like Monsanto, Cargill,

Bung, Du

Pont, Syngenta, and Bayer. On the other we have the interests of honest

farmers and of the Brazilian people. That is the true confrontation

that brews in the matter of GMOs. "

 

" If we can feed our people with products from other, safer and

healthier seeds, why take a risk with GMOs? Just to guarantee Monsanto's

profits? "

 

Paraguay: The Invasion of the Brasiguayans

 

Paraguay, the world's fourth exporter of soy, is already suffering from

the onslaught of GE monoculture, in spite of the fact that to this day

its government has not legalized such plantings.

 

This country has two million hectares planted in soybeans, of which

over half belong to the so-called " brasiguayans, " as the tens of

thousands

of medium and large landlords who migrated illegally from Brazil are

referred to. They break the law not only by settling illegally in the

country and setting up commercial farming operations, but also by

planting

GMOs, which in Paraguay are illegal.

 

With the soy monoculture came intensive glyphosate sprayings, repeating

the experience of deforestation, contamination, and poisoning that

Argentina is living.

 

Particularly dramatic is the case of the colony of Ka'aty Mirî, an

indigenous hamlet of 16 families in the department of San Pedro

practically

surrounded by soybean fields.

 

The National Coordinator of Indigenous and Rural Women Workers accuse

that in 2004, glyphosate sprayings resulted in the deaths of three

children and have also caused stomach and lung problems, headaches and

throat aches, diarrhea and skin eruptions among its inhabitants.

Premature

births and babies born with various illnesses have also been reported.

The colony also lacks access to clean water because the creek they used

to get the liquid is now poisoned with glyphosate.

 

The newsletter of the organization Rel-UITA describes a trip to Ka'aty

Miri, " As we moved toward the colonies, the landscape changed

drastically. There are hardly any more forests or areas with trees,

only endless

hectares planted with GE soy.

 

The small plants [cotton, cassava, and wheat] struggle to survive and

not die, destroyed by the highly poisonous effect of toxic

agrochemicals, while the [soy] crop enjoys good health. It was pitiful

to see how

some of the cotton leaves were 'burnt,' wilted and dry because of the

poison's action. Meanwhile, the growth of cassava plants stopped and now

are no larger than 10 to 15 centimeters, when what is normal in that

season is over 35 centimeters, according to the peasants. "

 

Mexico: Illegal Immigrants from the North

 

In Mexico the GMO invasion is manifesting itself in a different way.

The furtive arrival of GE corn from the United States to local farm

fields has been documented since 2001. Farmers used samples of the

imported

grain as seed without knowing what it was, and now it is spreading

uncontrolled, crossing with native and criollo maize varieties.

 

Peasant, environmental, progressive, civil society sectors, and

indigenous organizations warn that the consequences of this genetic

pollution

for the environment, human health, and global food security could be

dire.

 

Previous IRC Americas reports have described the impacts of GE corn in

Mexico and civil society responses. Here we present an update. In

December 2004 the Mexican Senate passed a biosafety bill that, like

the one

signed by the Brazilian president, is highly favorable to the

biotechnology industry and legalizes genetic contamination, according

to Mexican

civil society sectors.

 

The bill " is an aberration because it does not create a framework of

security for biological diversity, food sovereignty, or protect the crops

and plants of which Mexico is center of origin and diversity and that

form the basis of nourishment of the campesino and indigenous cultures

that created them. Instead, it offers security to the five transnational

corporations that control GMOs worldwide, of which Monsanto has 90

percent, " accuses Silvia Ribeiro of the Action Group on Erosion,

Technology

and Concentration.

 

Critics also point out that the approved law does not provide for

public hearings and yet gives corporations the right to appeal if their

applications for GE crop authorization are not approved. It also exempts

companies from any liability for the genetic pollution caused by their

seeds. " It does not even consider notifying those who could be

contaminated and, in fact, holds the victims responsible with no

safeguard, "

according to a report in the magazine Biodiversidad, Sustento y Culturas.

 

In June 2004 the North American Commission for Environmental

Cooperation, an entity created by the North American Free Trade

Agreement,

finished a scientific report on the contamination of Mexican corn. The

report, titled " Maize and Biodiversity: The effects of genetically

engineered

corn in Mexico, " proposes strengthening the moratorium on the

commercial planting of GE corn in Mexico and keeping U.S. corn imports

to a

minimum, as well as strengthening a monitoring system of traditional

crops

and labeling GE products.

 

It also recommended improvements on the methods for detecting and

monitoring the advance of genetic contamination of corn and its wild

relatives; that U.S. GE corn be labeled as such; and that those grains

that

cannot be guaranteed as GMO-free be ground up so that they cannot be used

as seed.

 

Puerto Rico: Good Political Climate

 

Puerto Rico is one of the biotechnology industry's favorite sites for

GE crop experiments. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data,

the island hosted 2,957 GE crop field tests between 1987 and 2002. This

figure is surpassed only by the states of Iowa (3,831), Illinois

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

 

The enormous size difference must be taken in account: Illinois and

Iowa each measure over 50,000 square miles while Puerto Rico has less

than

4,000 sq. miles. Experiments with GMOs in Puerto Rico are higher in

number than those carried out in California, which had 1,709 experiments,

although it is 40 times larger than Puerto Rico and has a much bigger

agricultural output.

 

" These are outdoor, uncontrolled experiments, " affirmed Bill Freese of

the environmental group Friends of the Earth, commenting on the

situation in Puerto Rico. " 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. "

 

Why Puerto Rico? Various answers to this question were offered in a

symposium organized by the Agricultural Extension Service on

biotechnology

held in the town of San German in 2002. According to " Claridad, " a

local newspaper, several symposium participants stated that the island's

friendly tropical climate allows up to four harvests a year, which makes

it ideal for agronomists and biotechnology corporations like Dow,

Syngenta, Pioneer, and Monsanto. These four companies joined together in

1996 to found the Puerto Rico Seed Research Association.

 

One of the participants gave a much more provocative reason - he said

that Puerto Rico has a " good political climate. " The island's general

population is ignorant of the existence of GE crops and foods in its

diets and fields, which contributes to the " good political climate " that

the speaker alluded to.

 

Resistance and Alternatives

 

Resistance against GMO agriculture is manifesting in almost all Latin

American countries from diverse sectors: from indigenous peoples who

work to preserve their millenarian farming traditions and protect their

seeds from genetic contamination, from environmental sectors that warn

about the environmental impacts of GMOs and industrial agriculture, from

farmers who seek to practice a truly ecological agriculture, and from

progressive organizations and agrarian reform movements.

 

These voices of protest are integrated into the movement of opposition

to the Free Trade Area of the Americas and the neoliberal agenda.

 

Ecological or organic agriculture is positioning itself as an

alternative to GMOs and to the whole industrial monoculture

agriculture model

controlled by transnational agribusinesses. Brazil in particular has

carved out a lucrative niche in the international market for organic

tropical produce, becoming a veritable export powerhouse.

 

Agribusiness corporations and their spokespeople allege that organic

farming is perfectly compatible with GE crops and that therefore both can

be employed. But organic producers and GMO opponents believe that the

two models of agricultural production cannot coexist and that as the GE

monoculture and agroecological production grow, the moment will come

when Latin America will have to choose between one of the two paths.

 

{Published in cooperation with the Americas Program at the

International Relations Center, formerly Interhemispheric Resource

Center, online

at www.irc-online.org.

 

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero is an analyst on biodiversity issues for the IRC

Americas Program. He is a Puerto Rican journalist, senior fellow of the

Environmental Leadership Program, a research associate of the Institute

for Social Ecology, and founding director of the Puerto Rico Project on

Biosafety.}

 

 

 

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