|
Biotech Crops Invade Latin
America
By Carmelo Ruiz Marrero |
March 22, 2005
|
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 ha. in 1996. The introduction of
GE soy in the late 1990s sparked a further expansion of soy production,
which now surpasses 14 million ha. At least 95% 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.1
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% to 12%. After the
implementation of neoliberal structural adjustment policies, the percentage
went up to 30% in 1998, and reached 51% in 2002. Today 20 million Argentines
live in poverty and 10 million of them go hungry.2
More than 99% 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."3
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.4
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.”5
Brazil: Lula’s Pragmatism
The Roundup Ready (RR) 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 (MST) 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 RR soy.
A protest letter signed by numerous groups--including co-ops, social
movements like the MST, 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 RR 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 and labeling of GE products and in that way protect farmers who
want to plant conventional seeds or promote agroecological farming."
MST leader Joao Pedro Stedile describes the conflict thus: “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 2 million ha.
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, thus 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 (CONAMURI) 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 Mirî
thus:
“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.6 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%,”
accuses Silvia Ribeiro of the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and
Concentration.7
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.8
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.”9
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.
Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero is an analyst on biodiversity issues for the IRC
Americas Program (online at
www.americas.irc-online.org). 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.
Resources
Rosalía Ciciolli. "La soja transgénica: origen de la ira y el dolor
campesino.” Rel-UITA Newsletter, February 10, 2004.
http://www.rel-uita.org/agricultura/transgenicos/paraguay.htm
Declaration of the Foro de la Tierra y la Alimentación, second edition.
March 2004. " Del granero del mundo a la republiqueta sojera, Por qué
estamos en contra del modelo transgénico.”
Grupo de Reflexión Rural. "El gatoverdismo empresario de la industria sojera."
Public Interest Research Group y Genetically Engineered Food Alert. “Raising
Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.”
Endnotes
Lilian Joensen and Stella Semino. " Argentina's torrid love affair with the
soybean.” Seedling, October 2004.
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=302.
Alberto J. Lapolla. "El monocultivo de soja transgénica amenaza gravemente
la sostenibilidad del ecosistema agropecuario argentino;" Joensen and Semino.
Alberto J. Lapolla. "El monocultivo de soja transgénica: ¿Gran negocio o
política de dominación colonial?"
David Jones. "Bienvenidos a la república de soya: testimonio de un
periodista inglés en Argentina.” Boletín de la Red por una América Latina
Libre de Transgénicos, issues 94 and 95.
Ann Scholl y Facundo Arrizabalaga "La soja, un mal augurio."
http://www.adital.org.br/site/noticia.asp?lang=ES&cod=9577.
Ramón Vera Herrera. “In Defense of Maize (and the Future).”
http://www.americaspolicy.org/citizen-action/series/13-maiz.html;
Carmelo Ruiz Marrero. “Biodiversity in Danger: The Genetic Contamination of
Mexican Maize.”
http://www.americaspolicy.org/articles/2004/0406contam.html.
Silvia Ribeiro. "La ley Monsanto: parece mala pero es peor." La Jornada,
January 22 2005.
Revista Biodiversidad, Sustento y Culturas. "Sin nuestros maíces no somos
pueblo.” January 2005. (unsigned article).
Bill Freese. Interview with Ruiz Marrero, June 2004.
|
|
|
