GMO FOOD - WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS?

[Guest guest]

WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS? MONSANTO AND ITS CORPORATE DRIVEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP REVOLUTIONKEY FACTSBy Friends of the Earth International, January 2006A. TEN YEARS OF GM CROPSThe first significant planting of genetically modified (GM) crops took placein 1996. Ten years on, GM crops have failed to deliver the promises made bythe biotech corporations. Moreover, the introduction of GM crops hasincreased the biotech industry�s control over the seed supply, most notablyby Monsanto, the world�s biggest seed company. The last decade also showsthat Monsanto has an undesirable influence over agriculture and foodpolicies in many countries.B. WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS?1. Rapid penetration is the result of aggressive biotech industry strategies.The increase in GM crops in a limited number of countries has largely beenthe result of the aggressive strategies of the biotech industry,particularly Monsanto, rather than the consequence of the benefits derivedfrom the use of this technology. The GM crops commercialized to date areorientated towards maximizing benefits for the agribusiness and seedindustries that control GM traits and the chemical products associated withGM crops.2. GM crops have failed to tackle hunger and poverty. Most GM cropscommercialized so far are destined for animal feed, not for food, and nonehave been introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. GM crops indeveloping countries have been grown mainly as export cash crops, sometimesat the expense of local food production. In Argentina, the second biggestproducer of GM crops in the world, only 2% of the soya stays in the country.Other developing countries, such as Indonesia and India, have experiencedsubstantial problems with Monsanto�s GM crops, often leaving farmersheavily indebted. Monsanto continues to introduce aggressive royaltyinitiatives in South America to increase its profits.3. No benefits for consumers. GM crops are not cheaper, are not better inquality and do not present any benefits for consumers. This is now evenrecognized by some parts of the biotech industry. After 30 years of researchand public money, only two modifications are grown commercially to anyextent: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.4. No benefit for the environment. Monsanto�s Roundup Ready soybeans, themost extensively grown GM crop today, has led to an increase in herbicideuse. Independent reports from the US shows that since 1996, GM corn, soybeanand cotton have led to an increase in pesticide use of 122 million pounds(55 million Kg). The intensive cultivation of soybeans in South America isalso fostering deforestation, and has been associated with a decline in soilfertility and soil erosion.5. No benefit for the animal feed industry. Despite the fact that virtuallyall GM crops are destined as animal feed, the feed industry itself is notgetting any benefit directly related to the genetic modification. InNovember 2005 the European feed industry (FEFAC), a major importer of soyafor animal feed, declared that it "has no direct advantage from the presenceof residues of herbicide resistant genes in the products they buy. Theindustry is therefore not prepared to pay for the use of this technology."C. FEW CROPS, FEW COUNTRIES, LIMITED USES FOR LIMITED MARKETS1. Few GM crops, most for animal feed and highly processed products. Over 95%of the GM crops commercialized today are GM soy, maize and cotton. GM soyconsists in over 60% of the total area, maize over 20% and cotton the rest.The technology is limited to those three crops and two GM traits: herbicidetolerant and insect resistance. Most production of GM soya and maize in theworld is destined to animal feed or heavily processed food products.2. Few countries. During the first seven years of cultivation, between 1996and 2002, over 90% of the global surface of GM crops was concentrated injust three countries: the United States, Argentina and Canada. In 2004, morethan 84% of GM crops were still concentrated in these same three countries,although the areas under cultivation in Brazil, China, and India has grownprogressively over the past three years.3. Corporate concentration. Three companies - Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer� are responsible for virtually all of the commercially released GM cropsin the world today. Monsanto is by large the top GM crop leader. The companyis responsible for around 90% of all GM traits used around the world, andhas now become the world�s biggest seed company.D. CURRENT SITUATION IN THE WORLD TODAY: MONSANTO CLAIMS AND PLANS1. Monsanto at the forefront of the worldwide GM crop push. In order tomaximize profits from its GM seed business, Monsanto is at the forefront ofthe push for regulatory clearance for GM products in numerous countries.The company aims to aggressively displace conventional seeds with itspatented GM varieties, particularly soy, corn, canola and cotton. It isstriving for a world in which the only agriculture is genetically modified,and predicts that "full adoption of GM crops globally would result in incomegains of US$210 billion per year within the next decade, with the largestpotential gains occurring in developing countries at a rate of 2.1 percentgross national product per year".2. Monsanto has an undesirable influence over national and internationalgovernments. Monsanto has been in the driver's seat when the US, Brazil andother countries developed GM legislation, resulting in industry-friendlypolicies. In Paraguay, India and Brazil Monsanto products were grown inareas where they were forbidden, paving the way for eventual legalauthorisation. In Indonesia the company bribed government officials toobtain regulatory approval for its crops. Many governments have adopted thecompany's claims that GM products are good for the environment and willcontribute to the alleviation of poverty and hunger.3. North America- Few crops and traits commercialized. Very limited range of GM crops grown.As of July 2005, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had approved 66distinct biotech 'events' for commercial use, but since the 1990s only fourcrops with two traits have been grown to any significant extent. The numberof permits granted for field trials of GM crops in the US climbed steadilyfrom 1987 to 2002, but has since leveled off.- Monsanto and the biotech industry have designed the US regulatory system.The US regulatory system has been driven by biotech industry lawyers. As theformer official responsible for agricultural biotechnology at the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration affirmed: "in this area, the US government agencieshave done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told themto do".- Lack of results: failure to introduce new generation of GM crops. Thebiotech industry has failed to introduce new �second generation� GM cropswith consumer benefits, and a �third generation� with pharmaceutical drugsand industrial compounds. After 30 years of research, only two modificationshave made it to the marketplace on any scale: herbicide tolerance and insectresistance. The biotech industry continues to focus its development effortson the same traits, crops and applications that it did in the 1990s, andanimal feed is the exclusive or primary intended use of most next-generationGM crops.- The assault on US farmers. Monsanto continues to harass and sue farmers fordoing what they have been doing for centuries: saving seeds. Thousands offarmers have been investigated by Monsanto: some have settled, but othershave landed in court, where they face a very unbalanced situation, as theirlegal resources are far less than those of the multi-billion dollar company.4. Latin America.- Taking over the main soy exporters. Monsanto has been aiming at takingover the largest producers and exporters of soy. The top producers besidesthe US are in South America: Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. Monsanto�s GMsoy expanded rapidly in Argentina since 1996, but was not authorized forseven years in Brazil and Paraguay. Despite the lack of authorization, defacto contamination from illegal growing of Monsanto seeds led to theapproval of GM soy in 2003/4.- Monsanto taking over farmers rights: the battle over royalties. Monsanto ispursuing an aggressive strategy of obtaining royalties from the use of itsGM soy. It has targeted the main world soy exporters and producers in SouthAmerica, and whilst several temporary agreements have been reached inParaguay, Uruguay and some Brazilian states, protests are growing. TheArgentinean government opposes Monsanto�s proposals, accusing the companyof abuse. In July 2005 the Seed Producers Association of Rio Grande do SulState (Apassul) in Brazil rejected a royalty agreement initially agreedbefore between Monsanto and the Brazilian Association of Seeds.- Taking Argentina to European Courts for presence of Monsanto�s gene insoybean products. In June 2005 Monsanto filed lawsuits regarding theshipment of Argentinean soybean products to the Netherlands and Denmark,arguing a possible infringement of its patent rights on the Roundup Readygene in Europe. Monsanto took samples of Argentinean soy meal as transportships arrived at customs points, claiming property rights not just for theseeds themselves but for the products obtained from the seeds.- Human rights violations. In Paraguay, soy cultivation � most of it GM -expels thousands of small farmers from their land each year. Human rightsviolations and forced evictions of peasant communities by soy landlords havebeen documented in recent years.5. Asia.- Monsanto abandons commercialization of Bt cotton in Indonesia. InIndonesia, despite the promises of Monsanto and the propaganda over thebenefits of Bt cotton, GM crops ended in failure. Many farmers complainedabout the claims of the superiority and performance of the geneticallyengineered cotton, and criticized Monsanto for its false promises. In 2003Monsanto abandoned the commercialization of Bt cotton in the country.- Monsanto used bribery. An investigation by the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission revealed that over US$700,000 in bribes was paid byMonsanto to at least 140 current and former Indonesian government officialsand their family members between 1997 and 2002, financed through theimproper accounting of Monsanto's pesticides sales in Indonesia.- The three first varieties of Bt cotton introduced in India have been bannedin the State of Andhra Pradesh. In India Bt cotton was introduced amidstcontroversy and a contamination episode at the end of 2001, catalyzing itsapproval a few months later in 2002. In May 2005, India�s GeneticEngineering approval committee (GEAC) refused to renew the licenses for thesale in Andhra Pradesh of Monsanto�s first three GM cottonseed varietiesauthorized for commercialization in India. Farmers have complained abouttheir poor performance.- Royalty controversy ignited in Asia. In India on the 2nd January 2006 theAndhra Pradesh Government complained to the Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Commission against Monsanto on what they considered an"exorbitant" royalty collection for Bt cotton. The Minister of Agricultureof Andhra Pradesh Mr. N. Raghuveera Reddy said that "The company �Monsanto - is compelling cotton farmers at gun point to pay the extraamount, even as it collected lesser and variable royalties in othercountries."6. Europe.- No new GM crops since 1998. No new GM crops have been authorized forplanting in the EU in the last seven years. Despite its public image,Monsanto remains the leading applicant for GM foods and crops in Europe. InNovember 2005 Monsanto made predictions to its investors that it could takeover all 90 million hectares of the continents maize production in the next4 years.- Commercial growing decreasing. The only country growing GM crops on anyscale is Spain which has reduced the number of GM events permitted to justone. Future EU members, Bulgaria and Romania, have recently introducedpolicies that reduce the cultivation of GM crops in order to join theEuropean Union.- Moratorium enforced in Switzerland. In November 2005 Switzerland amendedits constitution to prohibit the growing of GM crops for 5 years followingthe results of a clear-cut referendum.- GM free regions and national bans. The number of countries banning GMproducts has increased in an attempt to stop the cultivation of a MonsantoGM maize. Similarily, the number of regions in Europe declaring themselvesGM Free zones has grown to 165 with 4500 smaller areas declaring themselvesalso GM free.- Europeans continue to reject GM foods. Public opinion in Europe remainssteadily opposed to GM foods. European polls show that 70% of the public donot want to eat GM foods, and around 95% demand labeling in order to be ableto make a choice. All major food manufacturers and retailers prohibit theuse of GM ingredients in their products, in particular Monsanto�s GM soya.7. Africa.- GM crops in Africa will not solve hunger. No GM crops have been introducedto address hunger.GM Bt cotton in South Africa Makhathini Flats in SouthAfrica has been widely promoted by Monsanto as an African small farmer/GMsuccess story, to raise them out of poverty. However, since 2000 the numberof Bt cotton farmers in South Africa has gone down, many of them incurringlosses and defaulting on their loans, raising strong questions about theimpact of GMOs on poverty reduction- Monsanto-funded Kenyan sweet potato fails. GM sweet potato in Kenya waspresented as a key GM crop to help African agriculture. However by the endof January 2004, and more than US$10 million later, the results of thetrials were quietly published in Kenya, showing that none of the claims weretrue. The results revealed that the non-GM sweet potatoes had yieldedsignificantly more than the GM variety.- A moratorium in South Africa. In November 2005, despite having introducedGM crops in several hundred thousand hectares, the South African governmentcommunicated that it had placed a moratorium on import approvals, pendingthe outcome of a socio-economic study that the Department of Trade andIndustry is now in the process of conducting.E. THE GMO CROP HYPE: UNRELIABLE MONSANTO AND ISAAA CLAIMS1. ISAAA misrepresents GM crop reality. The industry-sponsored InternationalService for Acquisition of Agribiotech Application's annual reports (ISAAA),published at the beginning of every year since the late 1990s, havemisrepresented the performance of GM crops. They have lauded the benefitsthat have accompanied the introduction of GM crops everywhere, and haveignored the negative impacts and new problems that have accompanied theintroduction of GM crops.2. ISAAA has inflated its figures. There is a lack of accurate statisticaldata in most countries about GM crop plantings such as in South Africa, thePhilippines and Brazil. Analyses by several authors have found ISAAA data tobe vastly inflated in countries such as South Africa, Asia and even the US.3. Farmers used as propaganda pawns. Monsanto and pro-biotech organizationsare renowned for using so-called 'small farmers' from developing countriesto promote the success of GM crops. One of the best known is TJ Buthelezi,who is promoted around the world as a poor farmer but in reality appears tobe a wealthy South African farmer from the Makhatini Flats. Buthelezi evenmade an appearance at the launch of the US complaint against the Europeanmoratorium on GM foods at the World Trade Organization in 2003.---- ECOTERRA Intl. nodes Cairns * Calgary * Cassel * Cebu * Curitiba * London * Nairobi * Roma * Paris * Wien ECOTERRA - FIRST PEOPLES & NATURE FIRST ! FREEDOM & FUTURE for PEOPLE & NATURE 24 h EMERGENCY RESPONSE: +254-733-633-000 http://www.ecoterra.org.uk http://www.ecoterra.net http://www.ecoterra.de http://www.ecoterra.info Marine Group: http://www.ecop.info Eco_Alert · Eco_Alert/ green is good - environmentalism is not political - it is sanity !