Los cultivos transgénicos no representan solamente una amenaza al medio ambiente y la salud. Además son un mal negocio, para cualquiera, salvo las seis trasnacionales dueñas de las semillas transgénicas a nivel global y algunos de los funcionarios y científicos que reciben prebendas para que ellas puedan continuar con sus ganancias.

En los últimos años se han publicado varios estudios independientes sobre los resultados económicos de los transgénicos, que convergen en demostrar pérdidas significativas para los agricultores. Greenpeace México publicó recientemente el informe Cultivo$ transgénico$, cero ganancias, basado en un informe elaborado por Edward Hammond, acrecentado y adaptado al contexto mexicano.

Esas pérdidas afectan directamente a los agricultores de varias maneras (semillas más caras, menor rendimiento, resistencia en insectos y malezas, mayor laboreo para deshierbe, juicios por contaminación, pérdida de mercados) pero también significan costos importantes que al ser absorbidos por instituciones públicas, se trasladan a todos.

Uno de los casos referidos es la contaminación con el arroz transgénico LL601 de Bayer. El departamento de agricultura de Estados Unidos detectó en 2006 que la contaminación con este arroz transgénico no aprobado para consumo humano, había llegado al suministro de alimentos. Ante el anuncio, inmediatamente cayó el precio del arroz estadunidense en los mercados de futuros, provocando una pérdida promedio de 70 mil dólares por granja arrocera. Japón y Europa cerraron sus puertas a la importación de arroz procedente de ese país. Pese a ello, se encontró contaminación en países europeos y luego de África y Asia, desde Filipinas a Ghana. El informe detalla las pérdidas que les significó a los agricultores estadunidenses, estimadas entre 740 y mil 290 millones de dólares en total, debido a caída de precios, pérdida de mercados y limpiezas de sus campos y graneros. Esos costos no incluyen los de pruebas de detección ni tampoco los gastos legales para demandar a Bayer, trámites que aún siguen. No se permitió una acción de clase (o sea, que el juicio contra Bayer fuera válido para todos los afectados, sino solamente para los que entablan el juicio). Bayer no explicó nunca cómo había llegado la contaminación a los alimentos y pese a que se le sentenció por su conducta laxa en bioseguridad, la empresa afirmó que había excedido los estándares de la industria para evitar contaminación y que ni las mejores prácticas pueden garantizar la perfección.

El caso debería ser aleccionador para México, porque aquí las empresas se comportarán de la misma o peor manera frente a la contaminación transgénica, que será inevitable si el maíz se siembra a campo abierto. Cualquier costo relacionado con la contaminación será automáticamente transferido a los agricultores y campesinos (que deberán afrontar cualquier costo legal por sí mismos). Seguramente habrá menor fiscalización que en Estados Unidos, porque los contaminados serán sobre todo campesinos y maíz nativo, que no es considerado valor monetario a proteger. Las empresas dirán que el problema de la contaminación en ningún caso es de ellos, porque el gobierno y los agricultores son responsable de las medidas de bioseguridad, no ellas.

Otro ejemplo tomado en el informe son los costos por la resistencia de las hierbas invasoras. Como la mayoría de los transgénicos son manipulados para ser resistentes a herbicidas, el uso de éstos aumenta considerablemente, generando resistencia en las hierbas que se pretende combatir. A nivel global, hay 16 hierbas que se han tornado resistentes a glifosato. El departamento de agricultura de Estados Unidos reconoce 9 como problema serio. El documento toma el caso del quintonil, una amarantácea que existe y se consume en México, prima hermana del amaranto blanco ampliamente difundido en el país, con el que se elaboran los dulces de amaranto. El quintonil es considerado hierba invasora en los cultivos industriales, en Estados Unidos se ha hecho resistente al glifosato (debido a los transgénicos) y ha invadido de tal modo los campos de algodón, maíz y soya, que en varias zonas, principalmente algodoneras, ya sólo se puede hacer deshierbe manual. Para los agricultores, significó pagar mayor costo de semilla, mayor costo por herbicidas (por precio y mayor volumen) y terminar haciendo o pagando el deshierbe manual.

En México además de los impactos sobre los agricultores industriales, significará arruinar junto al maíz al amaranto, otro de los cultivos nativos del país, esenciales para la vida campesina y elemento altamente nutritivo parte de la alimentación popular.

El reporte nombra varios otros ejemplos que dan una sólida muestra de las pérdidas económicas que significan los transgénicos. Otro informe publicado en 2010, titulado Quién se beneficia con los cultivos transgénicos, de Amigos de la Tierra, complementa el panorama.

Quizá se pregunte por qué los agricultores siguen cultivando transgénicos si dan pérdidas. En parte, porque los agricultores industriales no tienen semillas y dependen totalmente de lo que les ofrezcan las trasnacionales. Éstas controlan el mercado de transgénicos pero también el de las semillas comerciales. Prefieren vender transgénicos, porque cobran la semilla mucho más cara y pueden cobrar extra por otros rubros.

Adicionalmente, las empresas gastan decenas de millones de dólares anuales en influir a los gobiernos y reguladores a su favor. Según Business Week (21/6/10) sólo en el último trimestre de 2009 y primero de 2010, Monsanto gastó 4.99 millones de dólares en cabildear al gobierno de Estados Unidos. ¿Sería necesario si el producto fuera bueno?

*Investigadora de Grupo ETC

Publicado en La jornada, México, 31 de julio de 2010

Es grave e irresponsable el intento de FAO de legitimar los transgénicos como solución al hambre y la crisis climática en el tercer mundo, cuya expresión más reciente es la conferencia Biotecnologías agrícolas en los países en desarrollo (Guadalajara, México, 14 de marzo). Frente a las críticas que van en aumento, los funcionarios de FAO (Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura) declararon que la biotecnología es más que transgénicos y ellos sólo plantean opciones. Pero los documentos que coordinó la FAO para la conferencia no recogen cuestiones fundamentales sobre biotecnología, como el dominio de las empresas trasnacionales sobre todo el sector. Ignoran también los resultados a la vista del uso de biotecnología agrícola: la contaminación transgénica de las variedades campesinas, el aumento del uso de agrotóxicos de esos cultivos (que empeora el cambio climático) y otros impactos sobre el ambiente y la salud de los consumidores.

Si FAO hubiera querido realizar un proceso de discusión sobre opciones, no podría haber organizado una conferencia sesgada, sin la participación de los actores fundamentales, y desechando las posiciones críticas. Ahora, lo que hace la FAO es condonar la apropiación de las semillas y la cadena alimentaria del planeta que crece por parte de unas pocas trasnacionales de transgénicos, lo cual agravará el hambre y el caos climático.

La conferencia partió de un proceso errado desde el inicio: no estaban –y siguen sin estar– los campesinos y agricultores familiares y sus organizaciones, que son nada menos que los que producen la alimentación de la mayoría del planeta y son la clave más importante para enfrentar la crisis climática y alimentaria. Este rol fundamental de las campesinas, pastores, pescadores artesanales y otros pequeños productores ha sido confirmado con nuevos datos en varios reportes recientes. (Por ej. ¿Quien nos alimentará? Preguntas ante la crisis climática y alimentaria, del Grupo ETC www.etcgroup.org/es/node/4952)

Pero la FAO no se preocupó por esta notable falta, sino que consideró que invitando a una decena de individuos de organizaciones no gubernamentales internacionales cumplía con la formalidad participativa. La mayoría de esos invitados seleccionados por FAO son de organizaciones de las trasnacionales de la industria de los transgénicos (como Croplife y Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO) u organizaciones de grandes agricultores industriales y ONG e instituciones que son favorables o turbiamente ambiguas a los transgénicos. Como excepción, Pat Mooney, director del Grupo ETC, aceptó integrar el comité de pilotaje de esta conferencia, luego de mucha insistencia de parte del secretariado de la FAO que aseguró sería un proceso justo y neutral.

El 23 de febrero 2010, Pat Mooney, Premio Nobel Alternativo y uno de los más profundos conocedores del trabajo de la FAO desde hace 40 años, renunció públicamente a este comité, luego de constatar que en todo el proceso, la FAO nunca tomó en cuenta ninguna de sus observaciones y recomendaciones, pero sí usó su nombre para justificar ante organizaciones mexicanas que no les permitirían participar en la conferencia, pero que Mooney representaba sus preocupaciones.

Entre muchas otras ausencias graves en los documentos, una de las más ofensivas es el hecho de que aunque la conferencia se realiza en México, centro de origen del maíz, la FAO no se ha dignado incluir en el reporte ni pedir cuentas al gobierno mexicano sobre la contaminación transgénica de variedades nativas. Ni sobre la ya ocurrida ni la que ahora promete el gobierno con la aprobación de 24 siembras experimentales de maíz transgénico a favor de las trasnacionales Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer y Dow.

Uno de los principales organizadores de la conferencia, Shivaji Pandey, por décadas funcionario del Centro Internacional del Investigación Agrícola sobre Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) ubicado en Texcoco, México y actualmente presidente del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Biotecnología de la FAO, contestó con una breve y aséptica nota a las preocupaciones que dirigieron a la FAO más de mil 500 organizaciones de 70 países demandando que la FAO debía llamar la atención del gobierno mexicano ante la escalada de contaminación y restablecer la moratoria, por ser centro de origen del maíz. Pandey contestó con su mantra de que la biotecnología incluye muchas tecnologías, que tienen mucho potencial y los transgénicos sí, algunos riesgos, pero que en definitiva era un problema nacional. ¿Cómo puede un funcionario de la FAO considerar el centro de origen del maíz del mundo –siendo además uno de los cuatro principales cereales bases de la alimentación de toda la humanidad– un problema nacional?

No hay en los documentos para la conferencia ninguna mención a la gravísima contaminación transgénica en centros de origen y diversidad como México. Sin embargo, los mismos funcionarios de Cibiogem que en México aprobaron en forma irresposable condonar la contaminación trasgénica pasada y aumentarla para permitir el lucro de las trasnacionales, serán ponentes en la conferencia de la FAO ¡en el tema de bioseguridad! Seguramente no mostrarán las críticas que han recibido de más de 700 científicos contra la aprobación de siembras de maíz transgénico (www.uccsnet.org).

Mientras tanto, afuera, en calles, plazas y centros de Guadalajara y otras partes del mundo, habrá una gran variedad de actividades de la sociedad civil y organizaciones campesinas para denunciar estas falacias y defender, realmente, las alternativas campesinas que necesitamos para enfrentar las crisis. Definitivamente, no incluyen transgénicos.

Publicado en La Jornada, México, 27 de febrero 2010

El 6 de marzo, el gobierno mexicano anunció que consideraba terminado (en todos los sentidos de la palabra) el marco legal de bioseguridad en México, abriendo las puertas a la experimentación con maíz transgénico. Un delito histórico, que marca la decisión del gobierno de enajenar y colocar en alto riesgo el patrimonio genético alimentario más importante del país.

Los funcionarios eliminaron de facto el establecimiento de un Régimen Especial de Protección al Maíz, al que están obligados por la Ley de Bioseguridad y Organismos Genéticamente Modificados, incorporando en su lugar unos cuantos párrafos en el reglamento de dicha ley. Como lo han argumentado sólidamente especialistas en la materia, esta medida viola la ley en varios puntos. (Alejandro Nadal, Maíz transgénico, funcionarios delincuentes, La Jornada, 11/3/2009).

Obviando la ilegalidad, los funcionarios argumentan que esta apertura es necesaria porque el maíz transgénico aumentaría la producción y además, no pondrá en riesgo las zonas que definan como centro de origen del maíz. Se trata solamente de experimentos, puntualizan, que serán evaluados antes de autorizar plantaciones comerciales.

Son argumentos falsos, empezando porque todo México es centro de origen y diversidad del maíz, entonces no debería haber maíz transgénico en ninguna parte. Pero fundamentalmente, ocultan la discusión sobre el punto nodal de los transgénicos. Todos los transgénicos están patentados y son propiedad de 6 transnacionales. Monsanto controla el 86 por ciento de éstos, y con Syngenta y DuPont-Pioneer, cerca del 95 por ciento. Un grado de concentración corporativa sin precedentes en la historia de la agricultura y la alimentación. Cuando hablamos de transgénicos, el punto de partida es la entrega de la soberanía alimentaria, dándoles la llave de toda la red alimentaria a unas pocas trasnacionales.

La falacia de que los transgénicos aumentan la producción, no se sostiene en las estadísticas oficiales de Estados Unidos, el mayor productor mundial de transgénicos. En promedio, los transgénicos han bajado los rendimientos. En el caso del maíz, la producción ha sido igual o casi imperceptiblemente mayor, pero como las semillas transgénicas son más caras, el productor siempre pierde, porque el supuesto aumento no compensa nunca el gasto. Las empresas arguyen que si fuera así, no seguirían plantando. La realidad, también basada en informes de la Secretaría de Agricultura de Estados Unidos, es que no pueden hacer otra cosa. Los agricultores han perdido sus semillas, y las mismas empresas de transgénicos controlan también el resto de las variedades no transgénicas. Aún cuando esas produzcan más, no las multiplican para la venta en suficiente cantidad, porque quieren vender transgénicos. La razón: son más caros, están patentados, la contaminación es inevitable (por viento, insectos o cadenas de distribución), y es detectable al tener genes extraños al maíz. Así pueden demandar a las víctimas de la contaminación por uso indebido de patente, una ganancia extra, y obligan a todos a comprarles semillas cada estación.

El argumento de que sólo es experimentación, es penosamente falso. Aún si los criterios de experimentación fueran muy estrictos (que no lo son), por ejemplo plantar en confinamiento o con muy extensas áreas de aislamiento, barreras de viento, retirar la espiga antes de polinizar, etc., ninguno de estos criterios se mantendrán en la siembra comercial. Los productores nunca repetirán esos criterios –son complicados, aumenta más los costos y el trabajo– y además la ley de bioseguridad no prevé ni avisar a los vecinos ni ninguna sanción real a quienes contaminen. Por lo tanto, llamarle experimental no es más que un eufemismo para la posterior plantación comercial sin ningún control.

Pero además, estamos en México, centro de origen del maíz, donde siguen viviendo en sus comunidades, millones de los campesinos que crearon la enorme riqueza y diversidad genética del cultivo, para bien de toda la humanidad. A la condena de dependencia económica y alimentaria, se suma la condena de la contaminación de la biodiversidad y del maíz campesino. Un hecho inherente a los transgénicos, comprobado en México y muchos otros países. Una vez en campo, el viento y los insectos no diferencian si es experimental o si no debieran polinizar otra planta: la contaminación es inevitable. Justamente al contrario de las cínicas declaraciones de Agrobio, agrupación de las multinacionales, de que Los activistas querían decidir por todos los agricultores mexicanos al rechazar la experimentación (Diego Cevallos, IPS 11/03/09), los transgénicos son los cultivos más imperialistas de la historia. Cualquier plantación de maíz transgénico, condena a corto o largo plazo, a todos los demás a la contaminación.

La absurda respuesta de los funcionarios gubernamentales es que también eso será un negocio: florecerán las empresas de detección –que públicas o no, para funcionar ¡deben pagar a las trasnacionales de transgénicos para usar sus genes!

Tanta falsedad contrasta con la sencilla verdad de los campesinos: tienen 10 mil años de experiencia en la creación y la resistencia y no piensan someterse a esta condena.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC
Publicado en La Jornada, 15 marzo 09

As G8 leaders meet this week in Japan, their ears will still be ringing from the bombshell dropped last week in a leaked World Bank report declaring that biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 per cent, far higher than previously estimated.

The food crisis will be a major topic for world leaders, as millions of the world’s most vulnerable people call for help. According to World Bank president Robert Zoellick, who wrote a letter to G8 leaders last week, the world “is entering a danger zone” that will require $10 billion for emergency food aid and to help countries deal with the double impact of rising food and fuel prices.

Many of the G8 countries, including Britain, members of the EU and the United States, have brought in policies dramatically expanding the use of biofuels through mandatory minimum biofuel content in domestic gasoline. Some have speculated that the World Bank’s findings have been kept under wraps to avoid embarrassing U.S. President George W. Bush, whose administration has argued that biofuels are responsible for only 3 per cent of the rise in food process.

In Canada, Stephen Harper’s government, with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s support, is poised to set a 5 per cent minimum biofuel content level in our gasoline, adding fuel to the food crisis fire.

But unlike other governments, many of which moved too quickly to promote biofuels, the Canadian government has the opportunity to consider the growing evidence that mandatory biofuel content requirements do more harm than good.

Coming on the heels of these findings by the World Bank is the Gallagher Report, which will be released in the U.K. in the coming days.

Like the World Bank’s secret report, it points an accusing finger at biofuels as playing a “significant” role in the dramatic rise in global food prices that has left 100 million more people without enough to eat, the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper has learned. It also urges that far more research be conducted into the indirect impact of biofuels on land use and food production before the government sets targets for their use in transport.

The report, produced by a panel of government experts chaired by Professor Ed Gallagher, head of the Renewable Fuels Agency, is expected to trigger a review of British and EU targets for the use of plant-derived fuels in place of gasoline and diesel. It may even compel Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who campaigned on expanding the use of biofuels, to reverse course.

The World Bank’s sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, has confirmed that biofuel production puts pressure on food supplies as crops are increasingly grown for fuel, not food. The increasing demand for food has contributed to higher prices, which the IMF says have risen by 50 per cent this year. Particularly hard hit are Asia, the former Soviet Union, southern Africa and parts of Latin America.

Canadian policy-makers should also consider the fact that even U.S. food producers are calling on the Bush administration to ease minimum biofuel-content regulations for American gasoline.

Keith Collins, former chief economist in the agriculture department, released a study last month, funded by Kraft Foods, saying that as much as half of the sharp increase in corn prices over the last few years is due to the demands of corn-based ethanol production.

“We’ve seen a tremendous range of unintended consequences” from the requirement that increasing amounts of biofuels such as ethanol be blended into gasoline, Collins told the New York Times.

Texas has already lodged its complaints, and more states will follow. In April, Texas Governor Rick Perry said the “misguided” mandate was devastating the livestock industry in Texas. He asked for a large decrease in ethanol requirements in order to free corn for use as animal feed.

Given all of this new evidence casting doubt on biofuel regulations, it is utterly reasonable for the Canadian government to take the time needed to fully consider all aspects of the proposed minimum biofuel content regulations for Canadians’ gasoline.

Let’s be sure that the legislation is helping, rather than harming, Canadians, the environment, and the world’s most vulnerable people.

Pat Mooney is executive director of the ETC Group, an international organization addressing the impact of new technologies on rural communities.

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.

By Silvia Ribeiro

All the companies which produce transgenic crops -
-Syngenta, Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Bayer, BASF- have investments in crops designed specially for the production of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. They also have collaboration agreements in a similar vein with Cargill, Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge, transnacional companies which dominate the global trade in grains.

In most cases, research is geared towards obtaining (amongst other things) new types of genetically modified maize, sugar cane, soya – making these crops inedible. This drastically increases the inherent risks of transgenic contamination.

At the global level, companies and governments are waging an intense campaign to present biofuels as environmentally friendly alternatives which could help to combat climate change, substituting a part of the petrol consumption dedicated to fuel for transport.

However, the inner logic is not to abandon petrol, nor to change the consumption patterns which produce climate change, but to take advantage of the situation to create new sources of business, promoting and subsidizing the industrial production of crops to serve these goals.

Studies exist which show that industrial cultivation of biofuels pose many problems. Brian Tokar, from the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont, USA, draws attention to two recent studies from Cornell and Minnesota Universities. The studies show that the complete production cycle for biofuels leaves a destructive environmental balance sheet. Given that the processing of these crops requires a significant quantity of energy, their net energetic contribution
is very limited.

Although biofuels can replace a large proportion of petrol, they require large areas of intensive industrial agricultural production, increasing the use of agrotoxic chemicals which erode and contaminate the soil and water, as well as entailing competing for use of the land with food production. According to researcher Lester Brown (quoted by Tokar), “Now it is cars, not people, which set the annual demand for grains. The quantity of grains which is required to fill the tank of a single SUV [Sport’s Utilities Vehicle] with ethanol is enough to feed one person for a whole year.

The producers of transgenics see an excellent opportunity in all this to increase their profits and to justify genetic engineering as something that is environmentally beneficial. Their investments in biofuels included the development of transgenic crops with a high sugar content (in order to convert into ethanol), high oil content (for biodiesel), and the insertion of genes which emit [Tr: expresan in Spanish original] enzymes in order to make fuel-processing easier.

Sygenta is working in collaboration with Diversa Corporation to develop maize which produces on its own an enzyme which converts the maize into ethanol, originating from an extremofila bacterium which can survive in high temperatures. The bacterium has been taken from the collection of bacteria which the company has garnered from around the world. Diversa has a similar collaboration with Dupont, by way of its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred, developing a maize which has a higher cellulose and starch content.

They are using an enzyme which comes from a manipulated bacterium (Zymomonas mobilis), which is found naturally in the agave cactus. In both cases, the genetic manipulation compromises the use of maize as a food crop, increasing the chances that contamination could occur.

In this case it is interesting to recall that until 2001 Diversa maintained a bioprospecting agreement with Biotechnology Institute of the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) to search for extremofilic organisms and bacteria that are unique to Mexico. This contract was later suspended due to the efforts of a broad coordination of organizations and celebrities which started a broad popular rejection of the contract, denouncing it as biopiracy.

Despite this, Diversa never returned to Mexico the samples it had takend during the short amount of time that the contract was in place. It would sem. paradoxical that the transnational companies would use microorganisms extracted from our country in order to first genetically manipulate the maize and later try to sell it here as an “environmentally friendly” product.

Regrettably, the initiative of a Law for the Development and Promotion of Bio-energy, which has already been debated in both chambers in the Mexican Congress, promotes this form of development, and is supported by all the political parties. The justification of the initiative simply regurgitates the already endlessly repeated clichés used in industry propaganda in order to continue with the farce. What is more, it is argued that this form of development should indicate a support for small scale agriculture.

In other words, the peasants who created the maize should be ready to sow transgenic seeds of inedible maize, which will sooner or later contaminate the indigenous maize varieties, thus making it useless, are being asked to give it [the transgenic maize] their official endorsement. Or as if with the other crops, such as sugar cane, had to be at the costs of food production in conditions imposed and according to the demands of the agribusiness companies, which would by those who offer the cheapest price from any part of the world. This is why they promote such laws and programs simultaneously in many different countries.

Instead of food sovereignty, we will have more heavily subsidized multinational companies and more transgenic threats for the maize and for peasant economies.

Originally published in La Jornada, México,
November 23, 2006.
Silvia Ribeiro is researcher at ETC Group.

Una de las muestras más claras de las lógicas perversas del capitalismo es el empuje que desde gobiernos y trasnacionales se da a la producción industrial de agrocombustibles, principalmente etanol y biodiesel. La mayoría de los enunciados de esta campaña -mediática, política y subsidiada con recursos públicos- son falsos. Lo que sí es verdad es que el capitalismo aprovecha los desastres que provoca para generar nuevos negocios. Y como éstos generan nuevos desastres, entonces habrá nuevos negocios.

Los agrocombustibles se presentan como una alternativa ambientalmente amigable, frente a los efectos del calentamiento global y el consecuente cambio climático -que es un desastre auténtico y una amenaza seria para los pueblos y los ecosistemas, principalmente para campesinos, pescadores artesanales y pastores, es decir, los que proveen al mundo de la mayor parte de los alimentos y son al mismo tiempo los más desposeídos del planeta.

Pero aunque existe debate al respecto, las cifras de eficiencia de tales combustibles no son halagüeñas. Según David Pimentel y Tad Patzek, de la Universidad de Cornell y de California en Berkeley, respectivamente, por cada unidad de energía fósil usada en la producción de agrocombustibles, el retorno es de 0.778 en el caso de metanol de maíz, 0.636 en el etanol de madera y 0.534 en biodiesel de soya. O sea, el balance es negativo. En lugar de aliviar el problema ¡lo aumenta! Estos cálculos se basan en la cantidad de insumos que son necesarios para la producción industrial de agrocombustibles, incluyendo cultivo y procesamiento.

Por supuesto, quienes promueven los agrocombustibles se han dedicado a denostar estos estudios, pero aún en los cálculos alegres de otros investigadores, la ganancia neta de energía no mejora considerablemente. Pero ni en los estudios de Pimentel y Patzek ni de quienes los critican se incluyen los altos costos ambientales y sociales, producto de la erosión y contaminación de suelos, el aumento de uso de agua -un recurso ya en crisis y disputa-, la pérdida de biodiversidad por el avance de la frontera agrícola sobre áreas naturales y ecosistemas únicos, y la disputa de tierras que en lugar de producir alimentos se usan para alimentar autos.

En el caso de Brasil, donde la eficiencia del etanol producido a partir de caña de azúcar aparenta dar mejores resultados, se oculta el dato brutal, denunciado por Vía Campesina, el Grito de los Excluidos y otros movimientos sociales de ese país, de que la producción de caña de azúcar, desde la Conquista se basa en trabajo esclavo, y ahora semiesclavo, en condiciones humanas y laborales deplorables, a las que se agrega la devastación ambiental producida por los grandes monocultivos y las refinerías de etanol.

Sin embargo, Estados Unidos y Europa han adoptado regulaciones para que se tenga que incluir porcentajes de agrocombustibles en el consumo de sus automóviles en el curso de la próxima década, teóricamente, como contribución para disminuir las emisiones de bióxido de carbono.

El G8 solicitó al Banco Mundial que abriera créditos para apuntalar el desarrollo de este tipo de cultivos en los países del sur, lo cual ha hecho, así como también los bancos regionales de desarrollo. De una primera ojeada podría ser difícil entender por qué los países industrializados del Norte global empujan este tipo de producción, cuando los datos de su eficiencia son tan controvertidos, y además no existen en esos países s tierras disponibles para ello -o directamente, no las quieren utilizar y cuentan con que el tercer mundo usará sus tierras para producir los agrocombustibles que necesitan.

Un conjunto de razones explican este “negocio redondo”. Los inversores principales son la gran industria automovilística y petrolera -las mayores empresas del planeta-, junto a las trasnacionales que controlan el monopolio de la distribución de cereales y las que dominan el sector de semillas y agrotóxicos, que son las que a su vez producen transgénicos.

Como explica el economista Andrés Barreda, de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, la industria automovilística tiene una sobreproducción anual. Existen cerca de mil millones de vehículos en el planeta -con una población de 6 mil 600 millones de personas. Se producen alrededor de 80 millones de nuevos autos cada año, pero el consumo de los últimos años es algo más de 60 millones. Esta poderosísima industria, que está entre las más grandes del planeta y es la causante principal del calentamiento global, ve ahora una oportunidad excelente de aumentar sus ventas, sin detener el crecimiento de la industria y con un argumento “ambiental”. Con la obligatoriedad de incorporar una mezcla de agrocombustibles en la gasolina debido a las nuevas regulaciones -más con el hecho consumado de la transformación progresiva de los proveedores- los automóviles deberán ser necesariamente cambiados por otros que se adapten a ello.

Con los porcentajes que han decidido los gobiernos, los agrocombustibles no competirán realmente con la gasolina, pero de todas formas las petroleras están en el negocio para controlar también este insumo, utilizando sus mismas redes y en connivencia con la industria automotriz.

Por su parte, las grandes cerealeras avizoran excelentes negocios, debido al aumento de la producción y los subsidios para producir agrocombustibles: ADM ya controla 30 por ciento del mercado de etanol en Estados Unidos, mientras que Cargill y Bunge buscan consolidarse en los mercados latinoamericanos. Las trasnacionales de semillas y agrotóxicos, que son las mismas que nos han castigado con los transgénicos, ya están ganando con el nuevo impulso agrícola, pero, además, ellas sí “reconocen” que actualmente los agrocombustibles no son eficientes, y por están todas desarrollando cultivos transgénicos que prometen serán más efectivos. Aunque en el camino dejen de ser comestibles y provoquen desastres de contaminación.

Muchos gobiernos del sur avanzan en introducir legislaciones que posibiliten la conversión a la producción y consumo de agrocombustibles -en muchos casos subsidiados con préstamos que van a engrosar las deudas externas y por tanto pagamos todos. Toma así nuevo impulso la producción para exportación, en desmedro de la producción agrícola diversificada de pequeña escala y para la soberanía alimentaria.

Y todo esto, afirman los contaminadores, es una solución ambientalmente amigable

*investigadora del Grupo ETC.
Publicado en La jornada, México
14 de abril de 2007

Malí, que alojó en febrero 2007 el Foro Mundial de Soberanía Alimentaria “Nyéléni”, es uno de los diez países más pobres del mundo, si se mide en dinero. Sin embargo el país tiene recursos como oro y algodón —del cual es uno de los principales productores del continente—, pero la herencia colonial y las imposiciones de la Organización Mundial de Comercio, el FMI y el Banco Mundial han sumido a su población en la miseria. Aún así, Malí sigue siendo un país rico. No por esos recursos, muy vulnerables a cambios tecnológicos y de mercado, sino por otros tesoros: el ochenta por ciento de la población sigue ejerciendo cotidianamente la compleja sabiduría de cuidar y producir, en formas diversas y locales, sus alimentos y medicinas y los de sus animales, la fibra de sus vestidos y tejidos y los materiales para sus viviendas, pese a climas de intenso calor y sequía y a las múltiples capas de dominación externa.

Por esa riqueza y contrastes, Malí fue un escenario adecuado para que más de 500 delegados de 118 países y de diversos movimientos sociales –campesinos, trabajadores sin tierra, migrantes, mujeres, pastores, pescadores artesanales, consumidores, ecologistas, indígenas— se encontraran para avanzar análisis y estrategias comunes hacia la soberanía alimentaria, concebida como el derecho y la capacidad de los pueblos, desde sus bases, a producir sustentablemente y en forma diversa y adecuada a sus culturas, alimentos de calidad, suficientes y accesibles para todos.

Pese a las dificultades para llegar a Malí, a la debilidad o falta de presencia real de algunos movimientos importantes en el tema —como los indígenas— y la contradicción de hacer una reunión global para discutir un tema que necesariamente nace y se realiza en la diversidad local; el encuentro fue un hito importante, sobre todo como germen de la colaboración entre movimientos, tanto para la construcción como para la resistencia.

Entre los movimientos allí presentes existen los conocimientos, experiencias y en varios casos, colaboraciones de redes locales y/o que se enlazan a nivel internacional, en temas como la resistencia contra los tratados de libre comercio, los transgénicos, la privatización de conocimientos, semillas, tierras y agua, la devastación de suelos zonas pesqueras y de pastoreo tradicional, la migración forzada y criminalizada, la imposición de normas legales para impedir que los pequeños productores puedan llegar a los mercados y otras. Nyéléni fue una oportunidad para rehacer mapas, reafirmar y fortalecer acciones comunes y construir nuevas.

Entre éstas últimas, surgió con fuerza la denuncia de las amenazas que representan los agro-combustibles, mal llamados “biocombustibles”. Delegados de las Américas, de Asia y de África, aportaron sus conocimientos para armar el rompecabezas de esta nueva trampa, así como la construcción de un amplio frente de resistencia a ella.

Al contrario de lo que afirman sus promotores, como Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, que serían una respuesta ambientalmente amigable frente al cambio climático producido por los combustibles derivados del petróleo, esta nueva ola de monocultivos industriales no mitigarán ninguno de los problemas existentes y creará nuevos.

Aunque la cantidad de biodiesel o etanol que se puede obtener, varía con el tipo de cultivo, se necesitan enormes extensiones de tierra cultivable para producirlos. Con la cantidad de cereales que se necesitan para llenar el tanque de una camioneta se puede alimentar una persona un año entero. Además, la mayor parte de la energía producida, se consume en el cultivo y el procesado –en petróleo, agrotóxicos, riego, maquinaria, transporte, refinamiento. Según las condiciones y el cultivo, puede incluso dar saldo negativo. Si se incluyen en la ecuación la destrucción de ecosistemas como bosques y sabanas, o el hecho de que las refinerías de etanol y las plantas de procesamiento de celulosa son una fuente de contaminación del ambiente y la salud de los habitantes cercanos, el saldo definitivamente es negativo. Irónicamente, las industrias argumentan que los cultivos normales no rinden lo suficiente, e intentan justificar cultivos y árboles transgénicos –para producir etanol a partir de celulosa—, que agregarían otra gama de amenazas.

Las industrias y gobiernos del Norte necesitan que la producción sea en los países del Sur, en parte porque no disponen de tierra o no quieren usarla para esto, y porque asumen que en esos países los problemas ambientales son obviados por gobiernos ávidos de “inversión” extranjera y de promover la agricultura intensiva de exportación, en desmedro de sistemas locales integrales que constituyan su propia soberanía alimentaria. Las instituciones financieras internacionales (Banco Mundial, Banco Interamericano) ya anuncian que “apoyarán” esta conversión, metiendo en la trampa a pequeños y medianos productores y aumentando las deudas externas de los países.

Claramente hay un proyecto geopolítico de Estados Unidos para disminuir su dependencia de las naciones petroleras, pero además, un interés propio de las empresas que están detrás de esta nueva devastación agrícola: para las industrias que controlan los agrocombustibles (grandes distribuidores de cereales como Cargill, ADM y Bunge, productores de semillas transgénicas como Syngenta, DuPont, Monsanto, Bayer,Dow y las automotoras, todo son ganancias: reciben subsidios directos o indirectos, leyes a su favor y una significativa extensión de las tierras y agricultores dedicados a producir las materias primas que necesitan, al precio que definen, y cada vez más controlarán al aumentar la competencia entre países.

Los agro-combustibles constituyen así un proyecto de recolonización imperial, en un nuevo asalto de las industrias transnacionales a las economías campesinas y a la soberanía alimentaria.

*investigadora del Grupo ETC
Publicado en La Jornada, México, 6 marzo de 2007

Reacting to the takeover approval, John Boyd, president of the US-based National Black Farmers Association, told Reuters:
“This is a sad deal for us. We wanted the DOJ to step up to the plate,” said Boyd. “Now we producers will be faced with astronomical prices on seeds with Monsanto taking control of the whole industry.”

Here’s what ETC Group wrote about the takeover when it was first announced in August 2006.

One sure sign that DOJ’s conditional approval is a mighty good deal for Monsanto is that Dupont (the world’s second largest seed company) is not pleased. According to Reuters, Dupont “may pursue litigation to block the deal.”

ETC Group has been tracking seed industry consolidation for some time, and in April we released our list of the world’s top 10 seed companies, based on 2006 seed revenues.

With the takeover of D&PL, not only is Monsanto the global king of cotton seed, it’s by far the largest seed company in the world — with pro forma revenues $1.6 billion dollars greater than its closest competitor — Dupont (Pioneer Hi-Bred).

With the takeover of D&PL, we estimate that Monsanto will account for about 23% of the proprietary seed market worldwide. (According to Context Network, the 2006 proprietary seed market was valued at $19,600 million)

The astonishing thing is that Monsanto wasn’t even considered a seed company 10 years ago.

And Monsanto’s buying binge continues. Last year, Monsanto created a holding company called International Seed Group Inc. (ISG), in order to purchase regional seed companies around the world. In January, ISG bought a small French seed company, Poloni Semences. Just last month, ISG announced it was buying Western Seed, a Dutch hybrid vegetable seed company.

With Monsanto’s market share rapidly approaching one-quarter of the world’s proprietary seed market, farmers (and ultimately consumers) are already seeing fewer choices and higher prices. Not only for cotton, but for major field crops (i.e. corn and soybeans) as well as vegetables — all seed sectors where Monsanto dominates. Monsanto’s market share should set off alarm bells because seeds are the first link in the food chain. Quite simply, it’s a dangerous proposition to have so much of the world’s commercial seed supply in the hands of a single corporation.

Delta & Pine Land is notorious for its vow to commercialize Terminator seed technology — plants that are genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest — forcing farmers to return to the commercial seed market every year. With the takeover of Delta & Pine Land, Monsanto has acquired a research program devoted to commercializing Terminator seeds, as well as US, European and Canadian patents on genetic seed sterilization technology.

Monsanto’s former CEO, Robert Shapiro, publicly pledged in 1999 that his company would not commercialize sterile-seed technology. But the company’s revised 2005 pledge states that the company will not “commercialise sterile-seed technologies in food crops” (our emphasis) – suggesting that it would use Terminator seeds in non-food crops. The pledge also states that “Monsanto people constantly reevaluate this stance as technology develops.” The pledge is available here.

In February 2006 Diane Herndon, Monsanto’s Director of Public Policy, wrote to the international Ban Terminator Campaign: “We apologize for any confusion caused by the added language “in food crops” that appeared in the discussion of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) in our last Pledge Report. We stand by our commitment to not use genetic engineering methods that result in sterile seeds. Period.” Although Herndon assured us that the company “would remove the confusing language” — we note that it has not been removed to date. The company’s 2005 pledge also makes clear that the company does not rule out future development of the technology and allows the company to change its position at any time. Not-so-reassuring. See correspondence here.

The ambiguity about Monsanto’s role in commercializing Terminator seed is especially relevant because in March 2006 governments meeting at the biennial meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity unanimously reinforced and strengthened the United Nations’ de facto moratorium on Terminator seed technology. Go here for details.

The biotech company Ventria Biosciences sponsored tests, on babies and children hospitalized at two pediatric institutes in Peru, of two new experimental drugs derived from transgenic rice that was genetically engineered with synthetic human genes to produce artificial human milk proteins.

The experiments – results of which were revealed this May in the US – were carried out at the Institute for Child Health and at the Nutrition Research Institute, both in Lima, Peru. The Peruvian public found out about the experiments when they were denounced by the Peruvian Human Rights Association and the Network for a GMO-Free Latin America.
Ventria is a biotech company that specializes in so-called “Pharming,” which refers to planting genetically-modified crops that are cultivated to produce pharmaceutical agents or chemicals. Such plant varieties are even more controversial than the GM (genetically-modified) crops designed for agricultural use. This is because the “Pharm” crops could contaminate food crops, via the movement of pollen or accidental mixing of crop residue, with significant health risks, particularly if they enter the human food chain.

So far, no drug produced by transgenic crops has been approved for human use in the US or anywhere else in the world. Ventria began planting GM pharma crops in California, but was forced to move them to Missouri and then to North Carolina in response to resistance by farm groups and by consumer and environmental organizations.

Because of the long and uncertain approval process for new drugs, especially those of this type, the company apparently decided to carry out their experiments on children in the Third World, where regulations are more lax and where it seems easier to find institutions that lack adequate funding (or ethics).

In a recent public relations move to makeover its image, Ventria now calls these products “medical foods,” most likely in order to evade the stricter regulations for drug approvals. The company is carrying out experimental production of two recombinant human proteins, Lactoferrin and Lysozyme, which are present in their natural forms in mothers’ milk, saliva, semen and other human bodily fluids. The recombinant versions are produced in genetically engineered rice, which contains the synthesized human gene sequences responsable for their production. Two of these, extracted from the modified rice, were tested on Peruvian children.

Ventria experimented with 140 children from the age of 5 months to 3 years who were suffering from diarrhea and were hospitalized at the above mentioned pediatric institutes. The tests lasted 48 hours in the hospital, with two follow-up visits during the following two weeks. The children were divided into three groups. One so called “control group” received an oral glucose-based re-hydration solution, a second group received a (non transgenic) rice-based solution, and a third group got the same rice solution with the addition of the recombinant Lactoferrin and Lysozyme.

According to the brief summary of the results that was published by the company, the children who received the recombinant treatment took an average of 3.67 days to recover, while the control group took an average of 5.21 days. Ventria announced the results while ignoring the fact of having used Peruvian children as guinea pigs, when they wouldn’t have been allowed to administer the same tests in their own country. The purpose of the tests is to hasten approval and attempt to gain moral legitimacy for the commercial use of their controversial product, which they now say is mostly for the Third World.

Nevertheless, their preferred market is not that of children in poor countries suffering from diarrhea, but rather the more lucrative market for so-called “nutriceuticals”, including sports drinks and dietary supplements, among others. The Third World children simply offer more public relations value for the company.

According to US pediatrician Jim Diamond, a surprising aspect of the results published by Ventria is that they used a group of children given a glucose solution as a control group, when there is an abundant medical literature showing that rice-based (non-transgenic) solutions work faster and more effectively in treating acute diarrhea.

This means that the company, with the complicity of the Peruvian institutes, may have intentionally used a less effective control for comparison purposes, in order to make the positive effects of their product appear more dramatic. On the one hand, they exposed one group of children to unapproved transgenic drugs, while on the other, another group may have had their recovery delayed, because of an inferior treatment, for the purpose of obtaining better looking results.

There are many scientific articles — readily available on the Internet — that reveal cases of adverse reactions like allergies, formation of anti-bodies, etc. caused by exposure to transgenic human proteins, such as anti-coagulants, growth hormones and insulin. In some cases this has led to the removal of products from the market.

During the process of public consultation motivated by Ventria’s experimental use applications to grow experimental field trials of pharma crops in the US, a number of organizations, including Consumers Union, the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth-USA, provided authorities with comprehensive reports, referencing the scientific literature, in which they described in detail the possible adverse health effects of Ventria’s recombinant Lactoferrin and Lysozyme. (1) They pointed out that the recombinant proteins are not identical to their natural counterparts, which means they could provoke immune system disorders or allergic reactions. The increased levels of Lactoferrin and Lysozyme could also favor the growth of pathogens, like the Helicobacter pyloris bacteria, which can cause gastritis and stomach cancer, the bacteria that cause meningitis, and others that cause illnesses that are difficult to treat because of antibiotic resistance.

Obviously Ventria knew about these reports when they decided to go ahead and place Third World children and infants at risk in experimental drug trials. If the Peruvian institutes also knew about these reports, then their complicity is criminal. If they didn’t carry out due diligence concerning risks, then their negligence is of the same order.

*This article is an English translation from the Spanish, which appeared in La Jornada (Mexico City) on July 1, 2006. Translated by Peter Rosset.

(1) Consumers Union’s Comments on USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Environmental Assessment for Field Test of Permit of Ventria Bioscience rice genetically engineered to express human lactoferrin, USDA/APHIS Docket No. 05-006-1, http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/2005/03/002090print.html

Freese, Bill; Hansen, Michael and Gurian-Sherman, Doug. “Pharmaceutical Rice in California”, July 2004, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CARiceReport7.2004.pdf

Bill Freese at the Center for Food Safety has written an excellent summary on this issue.
The briefing paper “An Assessment of Genetically Engineered Pharmaceutical Rice and Its Potential Use in Oral Rehydration Solutions to Treat Severe Diarrhea” will soon be available at www.centerforfoodsafety.org