NEWS FROM
BRAZIL
supplied by Brazil Justice Net
Number 624, February 5, 2010
Visit our home page at: http://www.braziljusticenet.org
In this week's News from Brazil:
Science According to CTNBio
By Verena Glass
It is possible that Brazil may gain a sad new title in 2010:
the first country in the world to license the commercial planting of a
new variety of genetically-modified rice, Bayer’s
LL62. If CTNBio (National Technical Commission on
Biosecurity) approves the proposal at a meeting later this month, the
rice will be the 20th genetically-modified product grown commercially
in the country.
CTNBio has maintained a steady flow of approval of GMO
(genetically-modified organisms) licensing requests over the last
years. Between 2005 and 2009, CTNBio gave licensing for two
varieties of soy, eleven varieties of corn and six of cotton.
There seems to be little doubt that the commission will continue this
trend and approve the rice, except for one thing: this time
there is a generalized opposition to the rice from various sectors,
such as researchers, consumer groups, environmental groups, and even
groups that have traditionally been pro-transgenic, such as Embrapa
(Brazilian Agricultural Research Company, a public entity which has
supported GMOs), Farsul (Agricultural Federation of Rio Grande do Sul),
and Federarroz (Federation of Rice Grower Associations of Rio Grande do
Sul).
According to Embrapa and Southern rice farmers, the major threat of
Bayer’s rice is the possible transference of a genetic
mutation of red rice, with is considered the most invasive plant of
irrigated rice farming. With contamination, this plant, which
already causes damages to productivity and quality of the rice in areas
which are highly infested, will become resistant to chemical
control. In other words, according to Embrapa, if transgenic
rice is licensed, it will be a threat to food security, capable of
contaminating other varieties of rice in the country.
Thus, if researchers (concerned with scientific evaluations), producers
(concerned with economic questions), and consumers (concerned with what
they eat--Greenpeace has already gathered 20,000 signatures against the
transgenic rice) are opposed to the proposal, then one could ask the
question, To whom is the CTNBio catering if it votes in favor of
Bayer’s rice? Perhaps it would be imprudent to
suggest that the sales of multinational transgenic companies is related
to the licensing of GMOs in Brazil. But the fact is,
according to Exame magazine, Monsanto, which has had nine varieties of
GMOs approved, earned in sales US$783.9 million in 2006, US$899.2
million in 2007, and US$954.8 million in 2008.
According to the Law of Biosecurity, the commission, created in 2005,
was to “give technical and consultative support to the
federal government in formulating, updating, and implementing the
National Policy of Biosecurity, relative to GMOs, such as the
establishment of technical norms and technical partners in regard to
the protection of human health, other organisms and the environment,
and activities which involve the construction, experimentation,
farming, manipulation, transportation, commercialization, stocking,
consuming, licensing and disposal of GMOs and their derivatives.
“ In order for a GMO to obtain commercial
licensing, fourteen of the 27 members of the commission must approve
the product.
According to entities of civil society who have watched over the work
of CTNBio, many of the technical analyses in the processes of licensing
GMOs have lacked scientific rigor and have not followed the
principles of caution as outlined in the Protocol of Cartagena
regarding Biosecurity. In addition these processes have
lacked research on national soil that proves the security of the
commercial planting of the varieties that were licensed. On
the contrary, a strong characteristic of the majority of the
commission’s members is that they favor GMO
technology. In 2003, eight of the current members of CTNBio
wrote an open letter in which they affirmed that “Brazil
cannot let go of transgenic technology” as it is
“essential for sustainability and keeps agribusiness and
small family farms competitive, and brings innumerous social and
economic benefits to the country.”
Among current members, there are various who have or have had some
personal relation with biotech companies or with the pro-transgenic
lobby groups of Basf, Bayer, Cargill, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, Pioneer,
Syngenta, and others.
Regarding observance of adequate scientific criteria in the process of
licensing GMOs, or in the establishment of security norms for
protection against contamination of non-transgenic fields by GMOs,
CTNBio has been repeatedly challenged by diverse
institutions. In 2007, the licensing of Bayer’s
transgenic corn Liberty Link and Monsanto’s MON 810 (outlawed
in France, Austria, Greece, Luxemburg, Hungary, Italy, Poland and
Germany) was questioned by Anvisa (National Sanitation Agency) and
Ibama (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural
Resources). Both entities pointed out errors in the technical
reports which were fundamental in the licensing. In the case
of Bayer’s corn, Anvisa pointed out the insufficient data
around proof of the security of transgenic corn for human
consumption. According to Ibama, CTNBio ignored the
inexistence of environmental impact studies and an analysis of
risk. The Minister of the Environment also pointed out the
absence of “studies or literature which prove the absence of
environment damage, something alone which should have impeded the
licensing.”
Shortly after these denouncements were made, entities filed a civil
suit which forced the Justice Department to demand of CTNBio the
creation of norms which would in theory protect non-GMO corn fields
from contamination. In this case, minimal distances were
established to protect non-GMO corn fields from transgenic corn--20 to
100 meters depending on different types of barriers.
But over the past three years, various entities have reported the
contamination of non-GMO corn fields. The Department of
Inspection and Agriculture Defense officially confirmed these
accusations in 2009, proving that the CTNBio’s norms are
inadequate. “The preliminary reports indicate that
under the present norms it is impossible to secure the coexistence of
GMO fields, conventional fields, and organic fields, as at the present
moment all areas monitored show cross-pollination at a distance much
greater than the current norm provides,” affirmed the
Secretary of Agriculture.
Given this information, at the end of October 2009, various
organizations of civil society promoted a civil law suit that
ask for the suspension of the licensing for commercially planted
transgenic corn until an adequate norm can be established.
The suit currently is awaiting a decision from a judge in Parana.
In response to this issue, a representative of the Science and
Technology Ministry, Luiz Antonio Barreto de Castro, acknowledged the
contamination of non-GMO corn, but stated, “the norms of
CTNBio were established taking into consideration that not always would
the contamination result in damage for the farmers who produce
varieties called heirlooms…even if contamination occurs, it
will be to the advantage of the farmer.” But
contrary to Castro’s assertion, damages caused by
contamination from GMO fields are recurrent in Brazil and in the rest
of the world. In 2004, for example, Eco Brazil Organics Ltda
in the state of Parana had its production paralyzed after their fields
were contaminated--three million dollars worth of damage. In
2006, Bayer’s experimental fields for transgenic rice
contaminated conventional fields and caused damages of one billion
dollars around the world, according to a report issued by Greenpeace
International.
CTNBio’s generosity towards transgenic has already had its
collateral effects. Biotech companies originally argued that
their technology would mean less use of chemicals and
pesticides. Yet one study shows that the use of herbicides on
soy, for example, has actually increased. In 2004, 129.6
thousand tons of herbicides were poured into soy fields. In
2008 the volume was raised to 192 thousand tons. It is
important to remember here that Brazil has become the biggest world
consumer of agricultural chemicals, using nearly 673,890 tons per
year. The collateral effects of this: 6.3 thousand
cases of human intoxication in 2007 resulting in 162 deaths.
Source: Brasil de Fato, January 7-13,
The
reproduction of this
material is permitted as long as the source is cited. If you wish to
contact us, send a message to bjn@braziljusticenet.org.
