A los muchos impactos negativos que conllevan los transgénicos, se suma ahora el golpe contra la producción apícola nacional, porque la miel está contaminada –o podría estarlo en el futuro cercano– con polen transgénico. Es otra tragedia anunciada –como la contaminación transgénica del maíz y otros cultivos– que las autoridades mexicanas decidieron ignorar, para favorecer las ganancias de unas pocas transnacionales.

En esa misma línea, Juan Elvira, Secretario de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, afirmó recientemente que se podrían sembrar grandes superficies de maíz transgénico en el norte del país, sin colocar en riesgo los maíces nativos o la biodiversidad. Un aporte más al concierto de falsedades que repiten las autoridades de que los transgénicos servirían para aumentar la producción o para enfrentar el cambio climático, cuando la realidad –no los mitos y la propaganda pagada– muestran lo contrario.

El tema de la contaminación transgénica de la miel se puso de manifiesto luego de que el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sentenciara el 6 de septiembre 2011 que la miel que contenga más de 0.9 por ciento de polen transgénico deberá ser etiquetada como producto que contiene transgénicos, o si contiene polen transgénico de variedades no autorizadas para el consumo humano (como el maíz Bt Mon810 de Monsanto ) no se podrá comercializar.

El caso fue presentado por un apicultor de Baviera, Alemania, cuyas colmenas se contaminaron con polen de maíz Bt Mon810 proveniente de un cultivo experimental, es decir, ni siquiera por grandes superficies, y supuestamente, en condiciones de “bioseguridad”.

En México, gracias a los dictámenes de la Semarnat y la Sagarpa, se han aprobado 19 siembras experimentales de maíz transgénico que contienen ese cuestionado gen Mon810, así como decenas de miles de hectáreas de otros transgénicos que amenazan la biodiversidad, el futuro de la apicultura mexicana y a las miles de familias campesinas que dependen de ella.

Con este trasfondo y con gran preocupación, la Organización Nacional de Apicultores (ONA) convocó el 9 de noviembre 2011 el Foro “Organismos genéticamente modificados y su impacto en la apicultura”, con el apoyo de la Comisión Especial de Seguimiento a las Evaluaciones del Programa Especial Concurrente para el Campo, de la Cámara de Diputados. En el evento expusieron diversos expertos en los temas de transgénicos, biodiversidad y apicultura. Monsanto fue invitada al panel pero no se presentó, solamente se le ve en foros empresariales y de altos niveles políticos, donde asisten sus aliados y los que podría comprar en el futuro. En el foro de la ONA los asistentes eran mayoritariamente apicultores campesinos –sus próximas víctimas.

Al igual que en el caso del maíz, más del 80 por ciento de los productos apícolas en México son campesinos que usan métodos tradicionales. La polinización que hacen las abejas es un elemento fundamental de la producción agrícola y de la biodiversidad.

Miguel A. Munguía de la sociedad cooperativa Educe de Yucatán, explicó que México es el tercer exportador de miel a nivel mundial y 40 por ciento de ésta se obtiene en la península de Yucatán, zona donde el 98 por ciento de la miel se exporta a Europa, proveyendo sustento a 25 mil familias campesinas, en las épocas de mayor necesidad, cuando baja la producción de cultivos.

En esa zona se han aprobado en los últimos años varias experiencias con transgénicos, en áreas cada vez mayores. Para 2011-2012, Monsanto solicitó la siembra piloto de 30 000 hectáreas  de soya transgénica en varios municipios de producción apícola campesina (“piloto” es un eufemismo, en realidad es comercial porque es a campo abierto y se puede vender). Esto equivale a condenar a muerte la exportación de miel desde esas áreas.

Además de la contaminación de miel por polen transgénico, que se aumentaría exponencialmente en el caso del maíz, los transgénicos también aumentan el uso de glifosato y otros agrotóxicos que dañan la producción apícola y la biodiversidad, además de contaminar tierra, fuentes de agua y tener impactos severos a la salud de los pobladores, especialmente de los niños.

En el foro se presentaron también datos científicos basados en el análisis de más de una década de producción en Estados Unidos, el mayor productor mundial de transgénicos,  que confirman que la soya transgénica produce menos que la híbrida. En el caso del maíz, la producción es similar a la de los híbridos, pero el precio de la semilla y los riesgos a la biodiversidad son mucho mayores.  Además, la producción actual de maíz en México es sobradamente suficiente para las necesidades alimentarias de la población y también gran parte de la pecuaria y otros usos. Las importaciones de maíz transgénico son solamente por la demanda de transnacionales de la industria pecuaria que operan en México, y no serían necesarias si la producción pecuaria  fuera en pequeña escala, con forrajes diversificados.

Se aportaron muchos más datos , pero a modo de resumen, se mostró claramente que los transgénicos no se necesitan, que no producen más, que usan más tóxicos y que colocan en riesgo el maíz en su centro de origen, la biodiversidad y ahora además, la apicultura y la miel, un importante producto de exportación del país. Por todas estas razones, los apicultores se suman a la vasta mayoría de la población que exige que se deben frenar los transgénicos en México.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Publicado en La Jornada, México, 19 de noviembre de 2011

Cuándo sus defensores hablan de la “economía verde”, gran parte de lo “verde” que tienen en mente es literalmente de color verde. Las hojas, brotes, ramas, algas, hierbas y otras materias vivientes que el planeta genera en aparente abundancia es ahora un blanco de primera línea para la explotación comercial, desde la visión industrial emergente de la llamada bio-economía (bio-based economy).  Para los nuevos bioindustriales de la economía verde, toda esa materia viva que antes se llamaba la “biodiversidad” tiene un nuevo nombre – hoy en día se lo conoce como “biomasa”. La Tierra produce 230 mil millones de toneladas de biomasa cada año y en las próximas décadas podemos esperar apropiaciones de tierras, batallas legales y guerras, a medida que las industrias y las naciones luchen por controlar el acceso a la última partícula de esta profusión verde.

Conozca la economía de la biomasa: un orden económico emergente basado en un simple cambio en la química. Pues, la economía mundial opera actualmente sobre la base de materias primas de hidrocarburos extraídos de las profundidades -principalmente carbón, petróleo y gas-. A medida que esas fuentes de “carbón negro” se vuelven más costosas, las empresas comienzan a ver mucho más atractiva la explotación del “carbono verde” de la biomasa, almacenada encima del suelo en los bosques, los campos agrícolas y los océanos.

En términos moleculares este carbono de la superficie es compuesto principalmente de carbohidratos (azúcares) como la celulosa. Los carbohidratos son como los hidrocarburos, pero con unos átomos adicionales de oxígeno. Es plenamente posible operar las economías industriales a base de carbohidratos, sin embargo también es posible usar la química y la biotecnología para transformar los carbohidratos en hidrocarburos: o sea, convertir árboles, cultivos o pastos en petróleo y plásticos a los que nuestra economía está adicta. Ese recambio tecnológico permite un giro de estrategia de las compañías petroleras, que recurren a la biomasa para producir los mismos productos que ya fabrican y para liquidar los bosques y tierras de cultivo, en lugar de hacer perforaciones en las profundidades del océano.

El cambio a la biomasa podría ser sumamente rentable. El cultivo, la cosecha, la comercialización y la transformación de la biomasa en productos y servicios comerciales ya está generando miles de millones de dólares. El Foro Económico Mundial estima que la economía de la biomasa tendrá un valor de unos 300 mil millones de dólares en 2020, pero la cifra real bien podría alcanzar medio billón de dólares.

Las industrias que ahora están adoptando el modelo de producción con biomasa incluyen desde empresas de química, las grandes petroleras, y corporaciones gigantes de la biotecnología, silvicultura y agroindustria, hasta los productores de perfumes, textiles, el sector de la construcción y el comercio de carbono: industrias cuyo valor neto total suma más de 17 billones de dólares. Un comercio mundial de la biomasa (astillas, aserrín y pellets o gránulos) está emergiendo muy rápidamente y para el año 2015 podría estar distribuyendo no menos de 19 millones de toneladas de biomasa. Las siguientes tres áreas industriales de la economía de la biomasa son las que más rápidamente están creciendo:

Bio-electricidad: La forma más económica y sencilla de extraer valor de la biomasa es quemarla. En la actualidad existe una ofensiva masiva en todo el sector eléctrico para reemplazar o complementar la quema de carbón, gas y petróleo para la generación de electricidad, con la quema de biomasa. Las plantas de generación de energía con biomasa suministran más de 54 GW de electricidad en todo el mundo en más de 50 países, consumiendo grandes cantidades de madera y otras materias primas.

Aparte de engullir grandes extensiones de bosques y plantaciones para satisfacer estas demandas, la quema de biomasa también presenta riesgos significativos para la salud de las comunidades situadas cerca de las plantas de energía. El humo de madera, por ejemplo, contiene muchos compuestos tóxicos, agrava las enfermedades respiratorias y libera partículas contaminantes peligrosas. Ya se cuenta entre 2,7 y 3 millones de personas que mueren anualmente a causa de la inhalación de humo de leña. Tampoco la quema de biomasa reduce las emisiones de dióxido de carbono, más bien produce incluso más CO2 en la chimenea por unidad de energía que el carbón que reemplaza. Eso es antes de evaluar la liberación de carbono por la tala de bosques, el cultivo de biomasa y el transporte de la materia vegetal. Teniendo en cuenta los costos de las emisiones de carbono para la producción y recolección de materias primas de biomasa, afirmar que la energía de biomasa es neutra -o incluso negativa- en emisiones netas de carbono, es simplemente un mito.

Biocombustibles: La producción de combustibles líquidos (los llamados biocombustibles o agrocombustibles) a partir de la biomasa es el arquetipo de la nueva bio-economía y también la parte más controvertida. Cifras del Banco Mundial revelan que hasta un 75% del aumento global en los precios de los alimentos en 2008, que provocó hambre y disturbios masivos a través del mundo, se debió a las políticas sobre biocombustibles de los EE.UU. y Europa que canalizaban maíz, soja y otros productos alimenticios hacia la producción de combustibles.

Hoy, el tren de los biocombustibles de nuevo arranca a todo vapor, con las inversiones dirigidas a los llamados “de nueva generación”. Estos incluyen a los biocombustibles extraidos de materias primas no alimentarias, como la caña de azúcar y la jatropha (un arbusto que produce nueces), biocombustibles avanzados que son hidrocarburos y se comportan de manera muy similar al petróleo, así como nuevos combustibles que se hacen de árboles, pastos y las partes leñosas de las plantas (llamados biocombustibles de celulosa), o de algas de estanque (combustible algal). Al menos 200 empresas están trabajando en el desarrollo de estos biocombustibles de “nueva generación” y las empresas más avanzadas están ahora bajo la propiedad o asociadas con las grandes empresas petroleras como Shell, BP, Chevron, Total y Exxon. Muchas de ellas también están empleando una forma extrema de ingeniería genética, de alto riesgo, conocida como biología sintética, donde microbios artificiales se utilizan para fermentar la biomasa en combustibles.

Bio-químicos y plásticos: Si no es ético convertir los alimentos en combustibles, debería ser doblemente motivo de preocupación que se conviertan en bolsas de plástico y botellas de champú, pero esa es exactamente la estrategia seguida por la industria química. El Foro Económico Mundial predice que el 9% de todos los productos químicos se fabricarán a partir de biomasa en lugar de petróleo, para el año 2020, con el sector de bioplásticos a la cabeza. Se estima que cerca de 3.2 millones de toneladas métricas de plásticos tendrán una base biológica para el año 2015. ADM, Cargill, Coca Cola, Procter and Gamble y otras están impulsando el mercado de los bioplásticos. Los venden como una opción “verde” para los consumidores, a pesar de que muchos bioplásticos no pueden ser reciclados ni son biodegradables, y en algunos casos llevan la misma amenaza de toxicidad que los plásticos a base de petróleo.

Una amenaza a los ecosistemas

En el contexto de la economía verde, es importante reconocer que lo que parece un recambio bien intencionado del uso de las materias primas fósiles, es en realidad un acaparamiento: de tierras, medios de subsistencia y ecosistemas. El abastecimiento de biomasa para un cambio tan importante en la economía global va a requerir la conversión de grandes extensiones de tierra para la producción de materia prima de biomasa -particularmente la expansión de monocultivos de caña de azúcar y de celulosa- un cambio de las prioridades agrícolas de los alimentos a nuevos cultivos de rápido crecimiento como el miscanthus y el bambú y un gran aumento en el cultivo de algas en los desiertos y las regiones costeras.

La biomasa no está distribuida uniformemente en todo el planeta. El 86% de la producción anual de biomasa se encuentra en los trópicos, por lo que es a las zonas tropicales de América Latina, África Subsahariana y el Sudeste de Asia que los nuevos dueños de la biomasa están volcando su atención. El Banco Mundial calcula que el 21% de la apropiación de tierras en el mundo en los últimos años es impulsado por la necesidad de tierra para cultivar materias primas de biomasa. Mientras tanto, las comunidades que viven en la selva están reportando un aumento de la destrucción de los bosques para producir astillas de madera para el nuevo comercio de biomasa. A medida que las comunidades tradicionales son desplazadas de sus tierras, a veces a la fuerza y con violencia, la nueva economía industrial de la biomasa desaloja formas de sustento más antiguas y verdaderamente sostenibles, basadas en la biomasa.

Por supuesto, a la nueva industria de la biomasa le gusta presentarse como “sostenible” y basada solo en recursos renovables abundantes; sin embargo, la civilización humana ya se apropia del 24% de toda la biomasa mundial y el resto no es suficiente para cumplir con las tareas de limpiar el aire, mantener el ciclo del agua, capturar el carbono y proporcionar las funciones ecológicas esenciales requeridas para mantener la integridad ecológica. De acuerdo con una forma de medición (La Huella Global), ya estamos usando un 50% más de la cantidad de biomasa que se puede eliminar de forma sostenible de los ecosistemas del planeta. Para el año 2050 probablemente se elevará al doble la cantidad de biomasa cuya eliminación sería sustentable. Es una proposición insostenible, que acumulará una deuda ecológica de la que la naturaleza no tiene ninguna manera de resarcirse. Lejos de salvar el planeta, la defensa central de biomasa en la visión de la economía verde podría profundizar en forma catastrófica nuestras crisis ambientales, a la vez que despojar a las mismas comunidades que ofrecen un modelo de vida de utilidad real, con base biológica. (Traducción ALAI).

Jim Thomas – es miembro del Grupo ETC, capítulo Canadá.

Para una mirada más profunda a la amenaza de la economía de la biomasa, consulte: “Los nuevos amos de la biomasa. Biología sintética y el próximo asalto a la biodiversidad.” http://www.etcgroup.org/es/node/5253

Publicado en ALAI, Ecuador, 11 de octubre de 2011

Thank you. I will begin by confessing that I am not an expert on biofuels. I feel as though my life has been hijacked by biofuels over the last few months.

I know something about food security or global food and agriculture issues. I guess
that is why I have an opportunity to appear before you today and I appreciate being
before you.

Maybe I should say the issue of biofuels has been a bit of a shock for me. I have
been in three international meetings in the last few months where the topic was not
biofuels but, suddenly, the whole international discussion became biofuels. One
meeting was a major conference that took place on agriculture biodiversity that was
held in Bonn, Germany, in May. It was a two-week conference, known officially as
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or COP 9,
which Canada hosts in Montreal, though the meeting was in Germany.

The entire debate turned out to be about biofuels and whether they were good or
bad for the environment and whether they were good or bad for energy issues, even.
Certainly, a major concern expressed by governments there was that biofuels were a
real problem for food security.

However, that was a biodiversity convention meeting. I went right from the Bonn
meetings to the World Food Summit held in Rome at the beginning of June. Biofuels
and bio-energy were on the agenda. There were three topics, including, first and
foremost, the food crisis and how that links to bio-energy issues and climate change.
It was a large summit with 181 countries present. It became hijacked by the fight
over whether biofuels were good or bad for food security and for the environment. I
felt to such an extent that other issues were not addressed. The other really important
questions around that, especially the issue around climate change, were not discussed.

I was more surprised in an earlier meeting in April. I was invited by a major
conference called BioVision that is held every year. It is a global meeting of scientists;
about 2,000 scientists come together every year. There is a strong industry and
government representation in it to look at the current state of play of biotechnology. I
was invited to speak about nanotechnology, not about biofuels or biotech. However,
again, at this global meeting of 2,000 scientists, the only resolution that was finally
passed at the end of the conference – in a conference that does not allow resolutions –
was a resolution that opposed biofuels. There was such a range of scientists and
political actors at the table that I was astonished that biofuels became the topic.

I would urge the Senate to delay a decision here and spend more time looking at
this issue. I think the scene is changing day by day and week by week. There is a new
report we have seen a draft of coming out of the U.K. that was released to the
Guardian a couple of days ago. It will be out either tomorrow or it might be delayed
until next Monday. Apparently, it will force a major change in the U.K.’s position on
biofuels. We are hearing of other reports all along the way being developed by the
World Bank or by Food and Agriculture Organization. I am on one committee itself
that FAO has organized on this issue that will have a meeting on the topic next year.

I think the scene is changing and it is important not to rush into an issue where, at
the end of the day, when you look at ways out from who is on which side on the topic,
that is changing itself. Neither side seems to be able to deliver a sort of knockout blow
that says, “Here is the clear evidence, the absolute proof, that this is really good for us;
this will be beneficial.”

You would think that, after all of these years and discussion and experimentation in
Brazil and in Canada and the West, as well, if there was a clear knockout case to be
made for biofuels, it would have been made and we would know. We would not be
arguing whether it is a ratio of 1.2 to 1 or 1.25 to 1; that kind of discussion would be
resolved. It is not. It continues to appear in the press and scientific journals
constantly.

That should worry us.

At the biodiversity convention meetings in Germany, we had this strange feeling
that all of Africa as a block was asking for a moratorium against any development of
biofuels. They were saying, “Please go no further.” They are asking for an end to
subsidies in Europe. On the other side, we had the European Union – 27 countries –
that wanted to change their position. We talked to them individually. They wanted to
shift from supporting biofuels but they could not. Brussels, as a group, had made the
decision months before for the negotiations and they could not turn the ship around
that fast.

One country after the other is saying they know it is a problem and they know they
have to address this.

Africa is the hungry continent; the continent for whom it was a problem. The world
is saying to them that this is an industry that they can develop and take to their hearts
as Africans. Africa is saying, “We do not want this. We do not trust how this will play
out for us.”

Everyone basically ignored Africa. It was Brazil, the United States, Canada and the
European Union that pushed through their position. Even then, with enormous caveats
saying, “We are not so sure about this; it needs to be studied more” and so on.
However, they did not agree to the moratorium.

The same situation arose at the World Food Summit. We had Brazil, the United
States and the biofuels industry as the protagonists and Europe on the other side that
after a week of gaining more experience and developing more uncertainty becoming
rather quiet on the topic, not wanting to push too hard on the issue.

Again, Africa was saying they did not want this. It was dangerous for them and is a
great risk for their food security. They did not want anyone to go in that direction.
I was invited by the FAO to debate the issue with British Petroleum and the former
President of Niger to discuss the range of issues for governments. Three points stood
out in the debate. I would suggest these three points should be looked at by the Senate
committee and, I hope, by the Canadian public very broadly.

First is that we always tend to want to say we are only doing something for our
country. It will only be for Canada or Brazil and will not have an impact beyond that.
Having dealt with agricultural commodities for the last 40 years, I find that
remarkable. There is never a time when what we decide to do about agriculture in
Canada does not affect the rest of the world. There is always a knock-on effect from
what Canada does in wheat, corn or canola production, et cetera that affects global
food prices and stocks and who grows what where.

I talked to a colleague from Paraguay a few days ago who told me that soybean
production is moving into the forest lands in Paraguay. Soybeans are not used for
biofuels; therefore, I could not see the connection. She answered that the connection is
that corn is being grown in the old soybean producing areas for biofuels and soybeans
are being pushed into the forest areas.

Those kinds of links and connections are happening around the world and they can
have an enormous impact. Unless we can be assured that the unimaginable has
happened, that is, we can isolate Canadian agriculture from the rest of the world,
whatever we decide in Canada regarding fuel and food crops, it will have an impact on
the rest of the world and an impact on food prices.

Looking at the arguments about pricing in the world’s food supply and how much of
it is influenced by biofuels or other factors, look at who is saying what on this topic.
On one side, you have the United States government and the fuel industry saying only
2 per cent or 3 per cent of the increase in prices can be traced back to biofuels. On the
other side you have the IMF, the International Food Policy Research Institute which is
supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research affiliated
with the World Bank and the World Bank themselves saying that biofuels impact on
food prices is 30 per cent and up to 65 per cent under some conditions.

I do not understand why the World Bank and the IMF would bite the hand that
feeds it in regard to the United States government if it did not have to. They are saying
those things because they have a point. Biofuels are a major impact on food prices.
Logic says that you look at who is saying these things and what are their interests. I
do not see what interest the IMF and the World Bank have not to try to support to the
United States. Basically, they could not because biofuels have a large impact.

The second issue is that of climate change.

We see ourselves in a food emergency, which will last for decade by all
considerations. It is not only a year or two. It will last for the next 10 or 20 years.

Within that time frame, we know there is this food emergency and we know that
food stocks are the lowest they have been in decades. However, we also know that
climate change is coming and we do not know what will happen to food production
because of climate change.

A few days ago I heard remarkable testimony here from industry representatives
suggesting that there is much more land available. They said the FAO suggests there
is all this land we can use. That is true if you cut down all the forests and get rid of the
protected areas, national parks and the tsetse fly in Sudan. Then there is land.

Otherwise the land is used. It is not there.

We simply do not know what will happen with crop production in the years ahead.
When I was in Rome at the World Food Summit, I was shown data by the FAO saying
that by 2030 — in 20 years time — corn or maize will not be grown in Africa as a crop.
It simply cannot be grown because conditions will make it untenable. Yields will drop
so low that there will be no point in growing maize. Currently, that is their major
staple crop.

In regard to the Canadian Prairies, I was in Saskatchewan a few weeks ago. People
there were telling me that the bottom half of the province will be a dust bowl.

When someone says do not worry, we have extra land and opportunities here, we
do not know what will happen with climate change. Therefore, to impose upon an
extraordinarily fragile food security situation by adding a whole new factor is simply
incredibly risky and dangerous. It is a new pressure that we will not be able to reverse
once it is established because the demand in the industry will be structured for it.

We must be sure what we are doing because if we are not sure, people will starve.
The estimate now is that we have 100 million more people who are hungry in the
world than we had 6 months ago. Some estimates indicate that it will increase to
290 million more hungry people by the end of this year.

To add to that pressure and to throw the factor of biofuels into this equation does
not make sense to me.

Whether it is at scientific or biodiversity conferences or the World Food Summit,
there seems to be a consensus emerging that the current situation is not good.
Generation one biofuels do not work very well, but we should not worry because
generation two biofuels are coming down the road. We can relax because that will
take care of all the problems for us.

I have some worries about that. It was interesting to hear the industry
representatives here talk about how you can convert rubbish and algae into fuel.
Without question, that is very interesting. It is absolutely fascinating. I hope it works,
but we do not know for sure that it will.

That is not what is being done now. We are talking about the land area in corn and
canola production, which is the big issue. It was unusual to have an industry lobbyist
present to you what is not happening yet. He did not talk to you about what is
happening, which is about corn, canola and sugar cane production around the world
today. This is where the impact will be for the next 15 to 20 years. The scientists and
governments I talk to about these generation two biofuel developments believe that
commercial yields — if the process works at all — are that far down the road.
We will continue to have the current problem of taking biofuels from major food
crops for a long time to come. This will all occur in the context of the current food
emergency and climate change.

Is that rational, then, to assume generation two biofuels will come? I cannot
imagine that it is. It does not make sense to me that we rely on this theoretical thing
that we are not quite sure what it will be exactly. Will it be an enzyme manufactured
that will gobble up cellulosic fibre? Will it be restructuring of the corn plant itself so
the stalk is more consumable as is being developed in California?

There are several possibilities. No one can put their finger on which it will be, how
it will work and what its impact will be. However, let us trust it, let us have faith and
pie in the sky when we die. That does not make sense.

How can we do this to ourselves? I have sat through and been part of many food
summits over the decades. I have heard these forecasts not to worry, hunger will not
be a problem in the future and we will take care of that. I was in high school in
Winnipeg in the 1960s, when I heard John F. Kennedy say we have the means and the
capacity to wipe hunger and poverty from the face of our earth in our lifetime; we need
only the will. He was wrong. It did not happen.

I was at the World Food Summit in Rome in 1974, which was a very political
summit during the last food crisis, and heard Henry Kissinger say that within 10 years
no child will go to bed hungry. That is not true. That did not happen.

I was at the World Food Summit in 1996 in Rome when our government joined
other governments in saying that by the year 2015 we will have half the number of
hungry people we have today. It was to go down to 415 million from 830 million.
Today, the number of hungry people is 862 million. It has gone up, not down.
The estimate is that by the year 2020, there will be 1.2 billion people who are
hungry on this planet. Instead of reducing the number by half, we will increase the
number of people who are hungry by one-and-a-half times.

I have heard governments say for a long time that they will solve the problem of
world hunger, that there is lots of land, that they will increase crop yields or that they
will take care of the water problem. It has never happened.

What has happened is that energy consumption has increased and the hungry have
increased in numbers during that time. I would like to see proof that what is being
decided today, perhaps by the Senate, will truly be something that will not impede
upon the health and well-being of that 1.2 billion people who are becoming hungry.
I doubt that will happen. I worry that we will grab at straws and hope our usage of
fossil fuels will be reduced by 0.65 per cent or 0.7 per cent by the biofuels industry
because of this bill. It is so marginal. We could reduce fossil fuels that amount by
simply slowing down our cars by one mile per hour. Yet, it would cost $2.2 billion to
do it in terms of the bill. Pumping up our tires could have the same effect without
costing that kind of money.

With this bill, we would be setting in place the infrastructure and an industry that
will not get rid of the problem in 5 or 10 years. It will still be there. If Saskatchewan
or Alberta were to dry up and could not produce the required yields, the infrastructure
would disappear and we would have to turn to California or Brazil or Indonesia. Some
of the governments in Africa at the food summit said to us, please do not do this.

The press release is available here:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2008/25/c7668.html

Update: Bill C-33 was passed in the Canadian Senate on June 26, 2008.

However, no sooner was the jamboree over than fresh news about a new initiative in California served as a sharp reminder of Syn Bio’s new corporate masters.

The Joint Bio Energy Institute (JBEI), announced yesterday, is a 125 million dollar collaboration between six Californian research labs. It will be headed up by Synthetic Biologist Jay Keasling. The JBEI will focus on synthetic biology and metabolic engineering work to develop new fuels. The six partners are the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia), the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the University of California (UC) campuses of Berkeley and Davis, and Stanford University.

What is notable is the agressively commercial language of the announcement in which Keasling, now styled as CEO, boasts “The DOE JBEI will be organized like a biotech startup company”, promising to “seek collaborations with companies that have relevant scientific and market capabilities in energy, agribusiness, and biotechnology.”

In addition to maintaining an Industry Partnership Program, the JBEI research will be guided by an Industry Advisory Board whose membership will come from key sectors, including feedstocks, enzymes, fuels production, biotechnology, genetics and chemistry.

Keasling further adds that “This organizational structure and culture is intended to ensure rapid commercialization of the DOE JBEI R&D,” – The message from these publically funded synthusiasts is clearly “open for business”.

At Synthetic Biology 3.0 there was some real concern amongst attendees about the parrallel proposed 500 million dollar deal being negotiated between the University of Berkeley in California and oil giant BP Amoco. BP who are setting up an Energy Biosciences Institute (along with CEO Keasling) are buying access and exclusive rights to Berkeley’s SynBio research and capabilities.

There is a strong Stop BP-Berkeley campaign which wants to do exactly what its name suggests (ie stop the deal). Curiously that wasn’t the message that had been carried to Zurich. Lawyer Stephen Maurer, who last year spearheaded the synthusiasts attempt at self governance, was this year lobbying for “a better deal for Berkeley”… entreating other concerned souls not to oppose the corporate takeover of academia but to lobby instead for a “better” (kinder, gentler?) corporate takeover of the academy.

The BP-Berkeley deal, the new Joint Bio Energy Institute, and also the recent job hop by John Melo of BP fuels to Amyris Biotech – are all extra strings tying the interests of the Syn Bio community ever closer to the interests of big business. It should be noted that in each of thse cases CEO Keasling plays a central role. The same man who claims to be developing Synthetic Biology to serve the worlds poor (via synthetic artemisinin) seems to be rather busy these days serving the fabulously rich.

The staff at the Starship Venterprise (aka the J Craig Venter Institute – but it changes its name every few months) are notoriously tight lipped about this sort of thing but when the UK’s Daily Telegraph asked whether the world’s first synthetic bug was thriving in a test tube in the Venterprise’s labs in Rockville USA, all Darth Venter would say is: “We are getting close.”

Venter’s financial backers are a little less reserved. At a recent Silicon Valley event Steve Jurvetsen of Draper Fisher Jurvetsen (who has invested in Venter’s Synthetic Genomics inc) claimed that “within a year we’ll see the creation of a bacteria-sized synthetic organism designed for either a biofuel or medical application.”

And Venter’s lawyers are certainly feeling confident. Yesterday ETC Group exposed their most recent patent application on a synthetic lifeform. While the patent is short on details of how to build a functioning Syn organism its clear on claiming a legal monopoly nonetheless. Claims 20, 21 and 23 of the patent on a ‘minimal bacterial genome’ claim a synthetic “free living organism that can grow and replicate”. P 22 of the patent makes it clear that the synthetic genome of such an organism is “constructed hierachically from chemically synthesized oligonucleotides”. Craig’s lawyers grandly call his new species Mycoplasma Laboratorium. We suggest that “Synthia” might be a catchier name although the comment posters at Wired are undecided about that name.

Regardless whether Synthia is already waiting to surprise the world in some test-tube in Rockville, Venter himself is surprising nobody with this broad patent grab as his company attempts to become the “microbesoft” of synthetic biology. In a recent interview in Newsweek Venter boasted that the world’s first syn organism could prove to be “a trillion dollar organism” that they would “definitely patent”. No wonder Steve Jurvetson is so excited.

Advocates of an open source approach to Synthetic Biology are trying to shake off the implications of this patent, claiming there are still other routes and other ‘non-synthetic’ organism that they can use for their lab life-forms but MIT’s Tom Knight acknowledges that “It�s the philosophical stake in the ground that will really tick people off,” (New Scientist again)…

Meanwhile there is a lively discussion over at Slashdot on the stupidity or otherwise of such a patent – worth checking out and joining in..

ETC Group has been receiving lots of emails and phone calls in the past few days about the defeat of Monsanto’s soybean patent one week ago. While most have been congratulatory a few have asked whether this wasn’t in fact a hollow victory since the patent challenge was won on technical merits rather than fundamental principles of morality. Will it even affect Monsanto’s patent portfolio? One US activist asked:

“What did Monsanto get? Thirteen years of patent protection and nothing that would threaten their other patents… In return for spending a minuscule proportion of their profits on legal fees, Monsanto got to tie up the legal resources of its opponents and bleed them dry for thirteen years. That’s not a defeat for Monsanto. That’s a victory for Monsanto.”

It’s a fair point and one that we partly agree with. ETC Group has been quite clear from the get-go: The real lesson from this 13-year legal battle is that the patent system is broken and hopelessly incompetent. It took 9 years for the EPO to schedule its first opposition hearing on the patent, it took 4 more years for us to win on appeal.

Is it merely a pyrrhic victory? We think it’s quite significant that one of Monsanto’s biggest, baddest and broadest patents has been shot down. After all, we’re talking about the world’s largest seed and agbiotech corporation. We undertook the legal challenge in 1994 because the patent was unprecedented in scope. Not just a claim to all genetically modified soybeans, not just GM soybeans engineered with a gene gun, but all transgenic soybeans regardless of how they were engineered, no matter what genes were employed. The patent’s claims also extended beyond soybeans to other plants – but that claim was knocked down by EPO in 2003.

ETC Group spent what seems to us like a small fortune fighting this patent (about $40,000). We usually don’t engage in legal battles – it’s not our style and not the way we like to use our limited resources. But we couldn’t allow the patent to stand, the precedent was simply too dangerous. Do we think it’s a good idea to engage in a long-term legal strategy to slap down bad patents, one-by-one? Absolutely not.

Yes, it’s outrageous that it took 13 years to defeat this patent, which was due to expire in little over a year – but the ruling will have a very real effect on Monsanto’s patent portfolio and those of other Gene Giants. The EPO ruling establishes new case law that will affect any company’s similarly broad claims on plants and seeds.

The patent was overturned on technical grounds, but ETC Group has strived to use this case (and many others) as a vehicle to raise awareness and action relating to biopiracy and the immorality of the patent system. At the hearing in Munich last week, a representative from the EPO admitted to me that the Monsanto patent had become a political embarrassment for the patent body – they were anxious to see the controversy go away.

Over the years, we’ve had some important successes knocking down egregious patents – and they were fought largely on political turf – not on technical grounds. Here are just a few examples of unjust, predatory and immoral patent claims that were defeated by ETC Group and many other peoples’ organizations and civil society organizations worldwide:

Biotech company Agracetus (a subsidiary of W.R. Grace, acquired by Monsanto in 1996) won its first species-wide patent on biotech cotton. Reacting to a scathing indictment of the patent we released in our February 1994 Communique, the Indian government summarily revoked W.R. Grace’s “species patent” on transgenic cotton “because of its far-reaching implications for India’s cotton economy.”

Remember the outrageous patents and/or patent applications on human cell lines of indigenous peoples? After a lengthy global campaign led by ETC Group (then as RAFI), the US National Institutes of Health “disclaimed” its notorious US patent on the human cell line of a Hagahai indigenous person from Papua New Guinea (#5,397,696) in December 1996. NIH’s forfeit of the patent was directly provoked by severe criticism it was receiving from foreign governments, indigenous peoples organizations, and CSOs.

In 1998, following a successful campaign by farmers and indigenous peoples in Bolivia, Colorado State University professors were forced to drop their patent on quinoa.

In 2005, ETC Group blasted Syngenta for its attempt to win multi-genome monopolies – not just control of rice genome sequences but those of 40 plant species. A short time later, Syngenta agreed in writing that it would not pursue its multi-genome patents – although we’re still monitoring them.

To conclude, the victory in Munich last week was by no means a fatal blow to Monsanto – not even close. But taken together with lots of other acts of resistance – big and small – all over the globe, it’s a successful blow against runaway corporate monopoly and a predatory patent system. And it’s not every day that you can say you beat Monsanto!

A Jubiliant legal team (left to Right) Lawyer Tim Roberts, Scientist Ricarda Steinbrecher, Barrister Daniel Alexander and ETC Group’s Hope Shand.

Daniel Alexander and Tim Roberts (ETC Group’s lawyers) made brilliant arguments. the patent’s claim to novelty and sufficiency were knocked down and the entire patent unraveled afterwards.

One of the key arguments that won the day was using Monsanto’s original 1994 opposition statement – -the famous Hinchee Declaration. Monsanto originally opposed the patent when it was first granted to Agracetus (see below). They then dropped their opposition when they bought Agracetus and have since used it to bully farmers, grain traders and even countries. It is the most delicious irony that Monsanto’s own arguments against the patent (1994) were key in defeating it ultimately. We guess Monsanto used to have smarter lawyers than they do now!

The defeat of the soybean species patent could mark the end of species patent claims by the multinational seed industry. However, the defeat comes barely 2 months before the patent was to die from natural causes. First applied for in 1987, the patent was granted to Agracetus in 1994. At that time, both ETC Group (then RAFI) and Monsanto challenged the claim. Then, Monsanto bought Agracetus and defended the patent. Old-timers will recall that there was a second Agracetus � cotton -species patent back then but in the United States. ETC Group (unusually, supported by USDA) blocked the cotton species patent. It was one of the few times that the USDA actually thanked ETC (actually, Hope ) for alerting them to the monopoly risk.

Even at this late hour, the overturning of the second species patent may put an end to such sweeping biotech claims.

The bad news, of course, is that this 20 year battle exposes the hopeless incompetence of the patent system. It has been obvious to just about everybody since the patent was first applied for that the claim should never have been accepted. Despite that, ETC Group has had to go to Munich twice and spend probably $40,000 in legal and travel expenses to halt the patent. Even as we celebrate, we are still engaged in a seemingly endless battle in the US PTO over the Mexican yellow bean (�Enola�) claim won by Podners company in the US in 1999. Once again everybody agrees that the claim is a prime example of biopiracy but it is held up in the courts and still drags on for another year or two while Podners continues to extract royalties and block Mexican farmers from their traditional US market.

Anyway, back to the Galapagos Islands!

more news to come…

It’s a deceivingly simple list � but it took many hours to compile. Why? Well, a few companies � like Monsanto � which now defines itself as a seed and biotech trait company (rather than a chemical company), provides easy-to-find figures on their seed revenues. But for many other companies, it’s not-so-straightforward because some companies don’t provide a separate breakdown of seed revenues. In many cases we were forced to call the companies and track down the individual (most of whom don’t want to be named) who could provide us with the correct information. Some of the companies were very obliging. In other cases, we were out of luck. Japanese company, Takii, for instance � does not appear on this year’s list because we couldn’t get hold of 2006 seed revenues. (Takii is a private company.) Despite several attempts to get seed revenues from Dow Agrosciences, the company does not release separate information on seed revenues. (Dow doesn’t appear on our list � and it’s probably not in the top 10 anyway.) If anyone knows anything about Takii, please let us know.

One of the noteworthy things about this year’s list is that Monsanto has moved so far ahead of the pack � way ahead of its closest competitor, Dupont (Pioneer). It’s remarkable, considering the fact that, one decade ago, Monsanto’s name didn’t even show up on our ranking of the world’s largest seed companies! According to one of its competitors, Monsanto’s seed revenues are inflated because the company includes trait royalties that are actually paid by other companies.

This year we want to thank the guys at the Des Moines, Iowa-based Context Network, seed industry analysts. We’re using their figure on the value of the world’s seed market, and the value of the proprietary seed market. (Personal communication with Mark Nelson.) Find Context Network here: http://www.contextnet.com/

However, we hasten to add that Context Network is not in any way responsible for ETC Group’s list (below), or our analysis � we only used their figures on the global value of the seed industry.

Later this year, ETC Group will release other top 10 lists (for agrochemicals, animal pharma, biotech, genomics, grocery retailers, food processors, and more). Please stay tuned.

The World’s Top 10 Seed Companies

World’s Top 10 Seed Companies
Based on 2006 Seed Revenues

Company
2006 seed revenues
US $ millions

1. Monsanto (US) $4,028

2. Dupont (US) $2,781

3. Syngenta (Switzerland) $1,743

4. Groupe Limagrain (France) $1,035

5. Land O’ Lakes (US) $756

6. KWS AG (Germany) $615

7. Bayer Crop Science (Germany) $430

8. Delta & Pine Land (US) (acquisition by Monsanto pending) $418

9. Sakata (Japan) $401

10. DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) $352

Source: ETC Group

Based on 2006 revenues, the top 10 seed corporations account for 55% of the
commercial seed market worldwide.

Concentration Trend Continues: According to estimates provided by industry analysts, Context Network, the value of the overall commercial seed market was $22,900 million in 2006 (includes seeds purchased from public breeding programs). (1) By contrast, just two years ago, ETC Group reported that the top 10 accounted for 49% of the worldwide market. In 1996 – one decade ago – the top 10 seed companies accounted for 37% of the worldwide market – and Monsanto did not even appear on the list.

The market share of the top 10 seed companies is even greater when looking at the proprietary (that is, brand name commercial seed � most of it subject to intellectual property) seed market. According to Context Network, the global proprietary seed market was worth $19,600 million in 2006.

* In 2006, the top 10 companies account for $12,559 million – or 64% of the total proprietary seed market.

* Monsanto – the world’s largest seed company – accounts for more than one-fifth of the global proprietary seed market.

* The top 3 companies – Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta – account for $8,552 million – or 44% of the total proprietary seed market.

* The top 4 companies account for $9,587 million – or almost half (49%) – of the total proprietary seed market.

1 The Context Network. http://www.contextnet.com/

It would have been nice to hear a suburban Dad tell the FDA that he wants the agency to require sunscreen companies to label their nano-scale ingredients because his three-year old daughter � slathered in sunscreen � loves to spend entire summer days splashing in the kiddie pool, but it wasn�t that kind of public meeting. It was the kind of meeting where people affiliated with organizations � already involved in a debate that only a tiny percentage of the public knows anything about � state their views for the record.

ETC Group was in good company. Several other civil society groups � including Consumers Union, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Working Group and the International Center for Technology Assessment � strongly criticized FDA for its failure to act on the scientific consensus that nanotech�s size-dependent property changes could have implications for public health. So far, FDA has maintained that �particle size is not the issue� and that its existing battery of pharmacotoxicity tests is �probably adequate� for �most� products the agency regulates.

The Cosmetics Industry (CTFA) was on hand to deliver its own crystal clear message � the industry doesn�t see a need for a regulatory makeover; everything is just fine, thank you � but when Dr. Norris Alderson of the FDA asked if companies would then be willing to hand over their safety studies upon request, it took two CTFA reps to make sure the answer was sufficiently evasive and opaque.

The challenge � and for some, the impossibility � of regulating the products of a technology that doesn�t have a clear definition came up several times throughout the day�s meeting. Should FDA assess sunscreen or cosmetic ingredient particles that are 101 nm in size differently from those that are 99 nm? It seems like a good question and, in one sense, FDA is right that particle size is not the issue � the real issue is size-dependent property changes. And those changes, regardless of whether they occur in particles slightly larger or smaller than 100 nm, should serve as FDA�s wake-up call to demand substantiation of safety. Perhaps FDA has been asking the wrong question: Instead of asking companies if they will share their scientific safety data, maybe FDA should be asking them to submit their patent portfolios � patent attorneys seem to suffer less from the crisis of uncertainty about whether or not they�re dealing with a novel material.

ETC Group’s September 2006 report on nanomedicine, Nanotech Rx, requires some updating. After all, it’s nearly 30 days old. Our report mentions the nano-drug Abraxane, and it acknowledges that approval of the cancer drug was a watershed event for the nanotech industry. But important details are emerging. On October 1 the
New York Times featured a blockbuster expos� of nano-enabled Abraxane written by Alex Berenson.

When the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) gave regulatory approval to nanotech drug Abraxane in January 2005 it was hailed as “a giant leap for nano.” Abraxane is a nano-formulated drug to treat late-stage breast cancer developed by American Pharmaceutical Partners – which morphed into Abraxis BioScience earlier this year. The company’s stock soared after Abraxane received FDA approval, and it made the company’s chairman (who owns over 80% of the company’s stock) a multi-billionaire.

But the nano cancer drug is not-so-new, at least in some respects. Abraxane is a nano-formulated version of Taxol – the cancer drug derived from the bark of the Yew tree and patented by Bristol-Myers Squibb. When the patent on taxol expired in 2000, a generic version – paclitaxel – became available at about $150 a dose. Abraxane is distinct because it’s formulated at the nano-scale and encased within an albumin-coated “shell.” Because the albumin coating is a naturally occurring protein, patients have fewer allergic reactions, an adverse (and often severe) side-effect of paclitaxel (taxol). The company charges $4,200 a dose for Abraxane – 28 times the cost of generic Taxol.

But the expos� by Alex Berenson reveals that Abraxane and other new Taxol-like formulations have not actually extended patients’ lives any longer than Taxol. And, according to several cancer drug specialists interviewed by Berenson, Abraxane is not a new class of drug with significant advantages over older, cheaper medicines. Dr. Ramaswamy Govindan told the New York Times, “In general, the novel formulations so far have not stood out as distinctly superior.”

Industry analysts predict that Abraxane’s annual sales could reach $1 billion by 2010.

This scenario underscores one of the points we make in Nanotech Rx: Nanotech-enabled drugs will play a role in securing and extending exclusive monopoly patents on new versions of existing drug compounds and older, under-performing drugs. In the words of NanoMarkets research firm, reformulation of drugs at the nano-scale “may increase profitability, expand a firm’s intellectual property estate, and discourage competition during a drug’s most valuable years.”

Like so much of Big Pharma these days, new, nano-formulated drugs may have very little to do with innovation, and everything to do with patents, profits and corporate greed.