Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

GM Soya Disaster in Latin America

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

6 Sep 2005 16:01:22 -0000

GM Soya Disaster in Latin America

press-release

 

 

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php

========================================================

 

 

ISIS Press Release 06/09/05

 

GM Soya Disaster in Latin America

****************************

 

Hunger, Deforestation and Socio-Ecological Devastation

 

Prof. Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley

and Prof. Walter A. Pengue, University of Buenos Aires,

Argentina

 

The fully referenced version of this article is posted on

ISIS members' website

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/SDILAFull.php.

Details here

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

 

Hollow triumph of GM crops

 

In 2004, the biotech industry and their allies celebrated

the ninth consecutive year of expansion of genetically

modified (GM) crops. The estimated global area of approved

GM crops was 81 million hectares, a growth of 15 per cent

over the previous year. In 22 countries, they claim, GM

crops have met the expectations of millions of large and

small farmers in both industrialized and developing

countries; delivering benefits to consumers and society at

large through more affordable food, feed and fiber that

require less pesticide and hence more environmentally

sustainable [1].

 

It is difficult to imagine how such expansion in GM crops

has met the needs of small farmers or consumers when 60

percent of the global area of GM crops is devoted to Roundup

Ready herbicide-tolerant crops. In developing countries, GM

crops are mostly grown for export by big farmers, not for

local consumption. They are used as animal feed to produce

meat consumed mostly by the relatively wealthy.

 

The new soya republics in Latin America

 

The Latin America countries growing soybean include

Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay. The

expansion of soybean production is driven by prices,

government and agro-industrial support, and demand from

importing countries, especially China, which is the world's

largest importer of soybean and soybean products. The

expansion is accompanied by massive transportation

infrastructure projects that destroy natural habitats over

wide areas, well beyond the deforestation directly caused by

soybean cultivation. In Brazil, soybean profits justified

the improvement or construction of eight industrial

waterways, three railway lines and an extensive network of

roads to bring inputs and take away produce. These have

attracted private investment in logging, mining, ranching

and other practices that severely impact on biodiversity

that have not been included in any impact assessment studies

[2]. In Argentina, the agro-industry for transforming

soybean into oils and pellets is concentrated in the Rosario

region on the Parana river. This area has become the largest

soy-processing estate in the world, with all the

infrastructure and the environmental impacts that entails.

 

Soybean deforestation

 

The area of land in soybean production in Brazil has grown

on average at 3.2 percent or 320 000 hectares per year since

1995, resulting in a total increase of 2.3 million hectares.

Soybean today occupies the largest area of any crop at 21

percent of the cultivated land. The area has increased by a

factor of 57 since 1961, and the volume of production by a

factor of 138. In Paraguay, soybeans occupy more than 25

percent of all agricultural land. In Argentina, in 2000,

soybean cultivation area reached 15 million hectares and the

total production was 38.3 million tonnes. All this expansion

is at the expense of forests and other habitats. In

Paraguay, much of the Atlantic forest has been cut [3]. In

Argentina, 118 000 hectares of forests have been cleared in

Caco State, about 160 000 hectares in Salta, and in Santiago

del Estero a record 223 000 hectares. In Brazil, the cerrado

and the savannas are falling victim to the plow at a rapid

pace.

 

Expulsion of small farmers and loss of food security

 

Biotech promoters always claim the expansion of soybean

cultivation as a measure of the successful adoption of the

transgenic technology by farmers. But these data conceal the

fact that soybean expansion leads to extreme land and income

concentration. In Brazil, soybean cultivation displaces 11

agricultural workers for every one who finds employment in

the sector. This is not a new phenomenon. In the 1970s, 2.5

million people were displaced by soybean production in

Parana, and 0.3 million in Rio Grande do Sul. Many of these

now landless people moved to the Amazon where they cleared

pristine forests. In the cerrado region, where transgenic

soybean is expanding, there is relatively low displacement

because the area is not widely populated [4].

 

In Argentina, the situation is quite dramatic as 60 000

farms went out of business while the area of Roundup Ready

soybean almost tripled. In 1998, there were 422 000 farms in

Argentina while in 2002 there were only 318 000, a reduction

of a quarter. In one decade, soybean area increased 126

percent at the expense of dairy, maize, wheat and fruit

production. In the 2003/2004 growing season, 13.7 million

hectares of soybean were planted but there was a reduction

of 2.9 million hectares in maize and 2.15 million hectares

in sunflowers [5]. For the biotech industry, huge increases

in the soybean area cultivated and more than a doubling of

yields per unit area are an economic and agronomic success.

For the country, that means more imports of basic foods,

therefore loss of food sovereignty, and for poor small

farmers and consumers, increased food prices and more hunger

[6].

 

Millions of hectares of Roundup Ready soybean were planted

in Brazil in the period 2002-2003, while a moratorium was in

effect. How did the big multinationals manage to expand

cultivations of transgenic crop so extensively in developing

countries? During the early years of introducing transgenic

soybean into Argentina, Monsanto did not charge farmers

royalties to use the technology. But now that farmers are

hooked, the multinational is pressuring the government for

payment of intellectual property rights, despite the fact

that Argentina signed UPOV 78, which allows farmers to save

seeds for their own use. Nevertheless, Paraguayan farmers

have just signed an agreement with Monsanto to pay the

company $2 per tonne.

 

Soybean cultivation degrades the soil

 

Soybean cultivation has always led to erosion, especially in

areas where it is not part of a long rotation. Soil loss has

reached an average rate of 16 tonnes per hectare per year

(t/ha/y) in the US Midwest, far greater than is sustainable;

and soil loss levels in Brazil and Argentina are estimated

at between 19-30 t/ha/y depending on management, slope and

climate. No-till agriculture can reduce soil loss, but with

the advent of herbicide tolerant soybean, many farmers now

cultivate in highly erodible lands. Farmers wrongly believe

that with no till systems there is no erosion, but research

shows that despite improved soil cover, erosion and negative

changes in soil structure can still be substantial in highly

erodible lands if weed cover is reduced.

 

Large-scale soybean monocultures have rendered Amazonian

soils unusable. In areas of poor soils, fertilizers and lime

have to be applied heavily within two years. In Bolivia,

soybean production is expanding towards the east, and in

many areas soils are already compacted and suffering severe

soil degradation. One hundred thousand hectares of land with

soils exhausted due to soybean were abandoned for cattle-

grazing, which in turn further degrades the land. As land is

abandoned, farmers move to other areas where they again

plant soybeans and repeat the vicious cycle of soil

degradation.

 

In Argentina, intensive soybean cultivation has led to

massive soil nutrient depletion. It is estimated that

continuous soybean production has extracted about 1 million

metric tons of nitrogen and about 227 000 metric tons of

phosphorous. The estimated cost of replenishing this

nutrient loss via fertilizers is US$ 910 million [5].

Increase of nitrogen and phosphorus in several river basins

of Latin America is certainly linked to the increase of

soybean production.

 

A key technical factor in the rapid spread of soybean

production in Brazil was soybean's pseudo-symbiotic

relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria living in root

nodules that allowed soybean to be produced without

fertilizers. This claimed productive advantage of soybeans

in Brazil can quickly disappear in the light of findings

reporting direct toxic effects of the herbicide glyphosate

on the nitrogen-fixing rhizobium bacteria; which would make

soybeans dependent on chemical fertilizers for nitrogen.

Moreover, the common practice of converting uncultivated

pasture to soybeans results in a reduction of the

economically important rhizobia, again making soybean

dependent on synthetic nitrogen.

 

Soybean monocultures and ecological vulnerability

 

Ecological research suggests that the reduction of landscape

diversity caused by the expansion of monocultures at the

expense of natural vegetation has led to insect pest

outbreaks and disease epidemics. In such poor and

genetically homogenous landscapes insects and pathogens find

ideal conditions in which they can grow unchecked by natural

controls. This leads to increased used of pesticides, which

after a while are no longer effective due to the development

of pest-resistance or ecological upsets typical of the

pesticide treadmill. Pesticides also cause major problems of

soil and water pollution, elimination of biodiversity and

human poisonings. The humid and warm conditions of the

Amazon are also favourable for fungal growth, resulting in

the increased used of fungicides. In Brazilian regions under

tillage soybean production, the crop is increasingly being

affected by stem canker and sudden death syndrome.

 

Soybean rust is a new disease, increasingly affecting

soybeans in South America, requiring increased fungicide

applications. In addition, since 1992, more than 2 million

hectares have been infected by cyst nematodes. Many of these

pest problems are linked to the genetic uniformity and

increased vulnerability of soybean monocultures, and also to

the direct effects of Roundup on the soil ecology, through

the depression of micorrhizal fungal populations and the

elimination of antagonists that keep many soil-borne

pathogens under control [7].

 

A quarter of all pesticides applied in Brazil are used on

soybean, which in 2002 amounted to 50 000 tonnes. As the

soybean area rapidly expands, so does the growth in

pesticide use; it is now increasing at a rate of 22 percent

per year. While biotech promoters claim that one

application of Roundup is all that is needed for whole

season weed control, studies show that in areas of

transgenic soybean, the total amount and number of herbicide

applications have increased. In the USA, the use of

glyphosate rose from 6.3 million pounds in 1995 to 41.8

million pounds in 2000, and now the herbicide is used on 62

percent of the land devoted to soybeans. In Argentina,

Roundup applications reached an estimated 160 million litre

equivalents in the 2004 growing-season. Herbicide usage is

expected to increase as weeds start developing resistance to

Roundup.

 

Yields of transgenic soybean average 2.3 to 2.6 t/ha in the

region, about 6% less than conventional varieties, and are

especially low under drought conditions. Due to pleiotropic

effects (stems splitting under high temperatures and water

stress) transgenic soybean suffer 25 percent higher losses

than conventional soybean. Seventy-two percent of the yields

of transgenic soybeans were lost in the 2004/2005 drought

that affected Rio Grande do Sul, and a 95 percent drop in

exports is expected with dramatic economic consequences.

Most farmers have already defaulted on 1/3 of government

loans.

 

Other ecological impacts

 

By creating crops resistant to its herbicides, a biotech

company can expand the market for its patented chemicals.

The market value of herbicide-tolerant crops was $75

million in 1995; by 2000, it was approximately $805 million,

more than 10-fold increase. Globally, in 2002, herbicide-

tolerant soybean occupied 36.5 million hectares making it by

far the number one GM crop in terms of area [1]. Glyphosate

is cheaper than other herbicides, and although it reduces

the use of other herbicides, companies sell altogether much

more herbicide (especially glyphosate) than before. The

continuous use of herbicides and especially of glyphosate

(or Roundup, Monsanto's formulation) with herbicide-tolerant

crops, can lead to serious ecological problems.

 

It has been well documented that when a single herbicide is

used repeatedly on a crop, the chances of herbicide-

resistance developing in weed populations greatly increases.

About 216 cases of pesticide resistance have been reported

in one or more herbicide chemical families [8]

 

Given industry pressures to increase herbicide sales, the

acreage treated with broad-spectrum herbicides will expand,

exacerbating the resistance problem. The increased use of

glyphosphate will result in weed resistance, even if more

slowly. This has already been documented with Australian

populations of annual ryegrass, quackgrass, birdsfoot

trefoil, Cirsium arvense, and Eleusine indica [7]. In the

Argentinian pampas, eight species of weeds, among them two

species of Verbena and one species of Ipomoea, already

exhibit resistance to glyphosate [5].

 

Herbicide resistance becomes more of a problem as weeds are

exposed to fewer and fewer herbicides. Transgenic soybean

reinforces this trend on account of market forces. In fact,

weed populations can even adapt to tolerate or " avoid "

certain herbicides. For example, in Iowa, populations of

common waterhemp have demonstrated delayed germination,

which allows them to avoid planned glyphosate applications.

The GM crop itself may also assume weed status as

volunteers. For example, in Canada, volunteer canola

resistant to three herbicides (glyphosate, imidazolinone,

and glufosinolate) has been detected, a case of stacked,

multiple resistance. And now farmers have to resort to 2,4-D

to control the volunteer canola. In northern Argentina,

there are several " strong weeds " than cannot be controlled

with glyphosate, forcing farmers to resort to other

herbicides.

 

Biotech companies claim that when properly applied,

herbicides should not pose negative effects on humans or the

environment. In practice, however, the large-scale planting

of GM crops encourages aerial application of herbicides and

much of what is sprayed is wasted through drift and

leaching, affecting human beings as well as soil mycorrhizal

fungi and earthworms. The companies contend that glyphosate

degrade rapidly in the soil, do not accumulate in ground

water, have no effects on non-target organisms, leave no

residue in foods and water or soil. Yet glyphosate has been

reported to be toxic to some non target species in the

soil—both to beneficial predators such as spiders, mites,

and carabid and coccinellid beetles, and to detritivores

such as earthworms, including microfauna as well as to

aquatic organisms, including fish [9].

 

Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide (i.e. it is absorbed into

and moves through the whole plant), and is carried into the

harvested parts of plants. Exactly how much glyphosate is

present in the seeds of HT corn or soybeans is not known, as

grain products are not included in conventional market

surveys for pesticide residues. The fact that this and

other herbicides are known to accumulate in fruits and

tubers because they suffer little metabolic degradation in

plants, raises questions about food safety, especially now

that more than 37 million pounds of this herbicide are used

annually in the United States alone [8]. Even in the absence

of immediate (acute) effects, it might take 40 years for a

potential carcinogen to act in enough people for it to be

detected as a cause (see " Glyphosate toxic and Roundup

worse " and " Roundup kills frog " , SiS 26

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis26.php).

 

Moreover, research has shown that glyphosate seems to act in

a similar fashion to antibiotics by altering soil biology in

a yet unknown way and causing effects such as [8,9]

 

Reducing the ability of soybeans and clover to fix nitrogen.

 

Rendering bean plants more vulnerable to disease.

 

Reducing growth of beneficial soil-dwelling mycorrhizal

fungi, which are key for helping plants extract phosphorous

from the soil.

 

In the farm-scale evaluations of herbicide resistant crops

recently completed in the United Kingdom, researchers showed

that reduction of weed biomass, flowering, and seeding parts

under herbicide resistant crop management within and in

margins of beet and spring oilseed rape involved changes in

insect resource availability with knock-on effects resulting

in abundance reduction of several beetles, butterflies, and

bees. Counts of predacious carabid beetles that feed on

weed seeds were also smaller in transgenic crop fields. The

abundance of invertebrates that are food for mammals, birds,

and other invertebrates were also found to be generally

lower in herbicide resistant beet and oilseed rape [10].

The absence of flowering weeds in transgenic fields can have

serious consequences for beneficial insects (pest predators

and parasitoids), which require pollen and nectar for

survival. Reduction of natural enemies leads unavoidable to

enhance insect pest problems.

 

Conclusions

 

Soybean expansion in Latin America represents a recent and

powerful threat to biodiversity in Brazil, Argentina,

Paraguay and Bolivia. Transgenic soybeans are much more

environmentally damaging than other crops because in

addition to the effects from the production methods that

involve heavy herbicide use and genetic pollution, they

require massive transportation infrastructure projects

(waterways, highways, railways, etc), which impact on

ecosystems and make wide areas accessible to other

environmentally unsound economic and extractive activities.

 

The production of herbicide resistant soybean leads to

environmental problems such as deforestation, soil

degradation, pesticide and genetic contamination, as well as

socio-economic problems such as severe concentration of land

and income, expulsion of rural populations to the Amazonian

frontier and to urban areas, compounding the concentration

of the poor in cities. Soybean expansion also diverts

government funds otherwise usable in education, health, and

alternative, far more sustainable agroecological methods.

 

The multiple impacts of soybean expansion also reduce the

food security potential of target countries. Much of the

land previously devoted to grain, dairy products or fruits

has been diverted to soybean for exports. As long as these

countries continue to embrace neoliberal models of

development and respond to demand from the globalized

economy, the rapid proliferation of soybean will increase,

and so will the associated ecological and social impacts.

 

 

 

========================================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations.

 

ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation

dedicated to providing critical public information on

cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability

and ecological sustainability in science.

 

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML

please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our

mailing list at

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mailinglist/.php

========================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

 

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London

NW1 OXR

 

telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20

7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM

WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION.

FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT enquiries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...