|
|
 
|
GM soya disaster in Latin America: Hunger, deforestation and socio-ecological devastation
(Friday, Sept. 9, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. Monsanto's switch to seeds boosts earnings 1. Monsanto's switch to seeds boosts earnings (MSNBC.com, September 4, 2005) Nearly a decade ago when Monsanto's agricultural herbicide patents were running out, the company began to switch its focus from herbicides to seeds. The transformation was completed a couple of years ago when genetically modified seeds and traits bypassed herbicides to become Monsanto's largest moneymaker. By the end of 2004, 17 countries had approved the use of Monsanto's GM seeds, accounting for 199 million planted acres worldwide, up from 166 million acres in 2003. The seed business has upped Monsanto's profits and stock. Company stocks were up nearly 20 percent from the beginning of the year to the Aug. 31 close of $63.84 a share. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com) 2. Monsanto's American Seeds buys 5 regional seed companies 9/02/2005, 5:18 PM CDT Monsanto Company's American Seeds, Inc. (ASI) subsidiary announced today it has made five additions to its family of regional seed companies in cash transactions totaling approximately $52 million. The five companies together represent 1% of the US corn seed market. The specific terms of the individual transactions were not disclosed. ASI separately acquired four companies that are the shareowners of the CORE Group: Fontanelle Hybrids, based in Fontanelle, Nebraska; Stewart Seeds, based in Greensburg, Indiana; Trelay Seeds, based in Livingston, Wisconsin; and, Stone Seeds, based in Pleasant Plains, Illinois. CORE group is an association of family-based seed companies in the Corn Belt. In a fifth transaction, ASI acquired Specialty Hybrids, which serves the Eastern Corn Belt. The four CORE Group companies will be combined into a single independent operating company within ASI. Specialty Hybrids will retain its current structure and become an independent operating company in the ASI organization. "The ASI model is entirely unique within this industry," said Kerry Preete, vice president of US crop production at Monsanto Company. "This model fully utilizes the capabilities we've developed in our technology platforms placing it squarely behind local seed brands that can serve farmers with a unique personal touch." "Because of its uniqueness, there is a great deal of opportunity for ASI to grow, and acquisitions like the CORE Group and Specialty Hybrids fit nicely into the type of investments we're committed to make to continue the acceleration of ASI's growth," said Preete. 3. Global Seed Industry Concentration - 2005 News Release The ETC Group today releases a new Communique on seed industry consolidation that shows a
recent upsurge in seed industry takeovers and a shake-up in rankings. According to ETC Group, the top 10 multinational seed firms control half of the world's
commercial seed sales. With a total worldwide market of approximately US$21,000 million
per annum, the commercial seed industry is relatively small compared to the global
pesticide market ($35,400 million), and it's puny compared to pharmaceutical sales
($466,000 million). But corporate control and ownership of seeds - the first link in the
food chain - has far-reaching implications for global food security. A single firm,
Monsanto, now controls 41% of the global market share in commercial maize seed, and
one-fourth of the world market in soybean seeds. The same company's seeds and biotech
traits accounted for 88% of the total area planted in genetically modified seeds
worldwide in 2004. ETC Group's report includes a table listing many of the world's top 20 seed companies and
their acquisitions and/or subsidiaries. The full text of the 12-page Communique is available free of charge for download on the
ETC Group website: http://www.etcgroup.org IMPACT: With control of seeds and agricultural research held in fewer hands, the world's
food supply is increasingly vulnerable to the whims of market maneuvers. Corporations
make decisions to support the bottom line and increase shareholder returns - not to
insure food security. Ultimately, seed industry oligopoly also means fewer choices for
farmers. A new study by the US Department of Agriculture examines the impact of seed
industry concentration on agbiotech research. The study concludes that reduced
competition is associated with reduced R&D. Despite seed industry claims to the contrary,
concentration in the seed industry is resulting in less innovation - not more. PLAYERS: A fistful of transnational firms, the Gene Giants, dominates global seed sales.
Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta - all among the world's top-ranking pesticide firms - lead the
pack. POLICY: Seed industry concentration is already high on the agenda of civil society and
farmers' organizations that are working to support and maintain peasant and
farmer-controlled seed systems and against policies and technologies that seek to further
privatize seeds. The implications of seed industry consolidation for food security and
biodiversity must also be urgently addressed by governments at the FAO biennial
Conference in November and by the Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the UN Convention
on Biological Diversity (20-31 March 2006, Curitaba, Brazil). World's Top 10 Seed Companies + 1 For more information, contact:
4. Debate heats up over county GMO initiative August 31, 2005 The two groups, firmly planted on opposite sides of a rural Sonoma County
fence, each depict themselves as dedicated friends of "the people" seeking to
boost agricultural production, the economy, health and human rights, and often
portray their opponents as ignorant, self-serving rascals whose scare
tactics leave people shaking in their boots. Actually, both groups have done extensive research and are working around
the clock to spread their viewpoints to Petalumans and other county residents
on a highly charged issue that they agree has extraordinary short- and
long-term implications. Underlying these general similarities, however, lie extremely different
perspectives on an ordinance that seeks to prevent agricultural and environmental
contamination from genetically engineered (transgenic) organisms -- plants,
animals or microorganisms whose genetic code has been altered to give them
characteristics that they naturally don't have. Although much of the general public still is unfamiliar with the GMO debate,
it has become one of the hottest squabbles in recent memory, sometimes
bitterly dividing communities and even households. Several countries, including
Australia, Brazil, China, the 25 nations of the European Union, Indonesia,
Japan, Mexico, Russia and South Korea, already have legal bans or restrictions on
the planting of transgenic crops. Marin and Mendocino counties recently
passed similar ordinances, while several other California counties rejected them. "Sonoma County needs to pass this initiative because the federal and state
governments are asleep at the wheel in regulating GMOs," Henson said.
"Contaminating the genetic source of food products threatens food security, and by
comparison dwarves other environmental threats." GE foods were introduced into the United States in the mid-1990s. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ruled that these foods are "substantially
equivalent" to other foods, but many government scientists caution that the genetic
engineering process is unpredictable and could present new hazards to human
health and the environment. "I do not contend that all genetic technologies are bad, or that they all
lead to a threat of ecological or agricultural contamination," he said. "Much
of the research into transgenic technologies is very exciting, and may offer
great potential to farmers and others around the globe. "However, the current GE crops being grown -- mainly corn, canola, soy and
cotton -- have, in fact, proven to be seriously harmful to our U.S.
agricultural economy, to our farmers' rights and to our natural ecosystems almost
everywhere they are grown." Henson feels that without regulations, farmers' rights are violated because
GE crops from neighboring farms will contaminate other farmers' crops and
seed stacks through pollen or seeds brought by wind, winter, animals, birds,
insects and trucks and farm machinery. "Farms from miles away can be affected," he said. Advocates claim that people's health could be impaired by inhaling GE
pollen, eating GE plants and being exposed to toxic herbicides and pesticides that
are used to kill new "super weeds" and "super bugs" that emerge as farm pests
evolve resistance to GE crops. "We would have herbicide-tolerant super weeds growing by the side of the
road in Petaluma and other places. This initiative isn't just about agricultural
crops," Henson said. He contends that the initiative would help protect Sonoma County's
ecosystems from irreversible genetic contamination by GE plants, fish and trees.
"From an ecological perspective, genetic engineering can be disastrous. It
boggles the mind to think about the consequences, because it could impact all
domestic food products. Some back-crossing of DNA from genetically engineered
crops to native relatives already has occurred in corn, cotton and canola,"
he said. Henson emphasizes the possible long-term risks of using transgenic
organisms. "Once they enter the environment, there's no turning back because they start
spreading and contaminating other crops and wild plants," he said, adding
that Monsanto and the handful of other chemical companies creating GE products
have been driven by greed rather than public welfare. Lex McCorvey, the executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and
the Sonoma County Family Farmers Alliance, which was created to defeat the
initiative, is on the other side of the big fence from Henson, and it's clear
that their ideas haven't cross-pollinated. "After a lengthy analysis, the SCFB believes that the benefits of genetic
engineering far outweigh any of the perceived risks," he said. "It will benefit
the local agriculture, environment, economy and health care." He contends that the initiative would stifle the agricultural industry, and
that local farms could suffer a competitive disadvantage. "In agriculture, people need to deal with many outside influences, and any
effort we can make that allows them the tools they need to stay in business is
positive," he said. "Also, we haven't found any negative long-term
ramifications to consuming genetically engineered products. Companies need to go
through an eight-to-12-year regulatory process before these products are
approved." McCorvey feels that the county's grape industry would be at a competitive
disadvantage if it couldn't use a disease-resistant vine stock being developed
and that dairies would suffer because they wouldn't be able to grow their own
genetically modified silage. "We have a lot of dairy farms in Petaluma, and this initiative could be very
damaging to them," he said. McCorvey also feels that genetic engineering can help, rather than harm, the
environment. "I haven't seen any evidence that it will harm ecosystems," he said. "I'm
more concerned with deforestation and how it can destroy redwood trees. We need
to find new ways to protect the integrity of ecosystems. "Jonas Salk wouldn't have developed a polio vaccine if people were prevented
from doing something unless it has been conclusively proven without
exception." While supporters of the initiative claim that all enforcement costs would be
paid by violators, McCorvey estimates that it would be difficult to enforce,
and could cost around $250,000 annually to implement. He also criticizes
proponents' claim that the initiative allows for medical research in a contained
environment. "Most communities require only a level-1 laboratory. A contained environment
is a level-3 laboratory, and no biotech company would want to build one here
when it isn't required anywhere else in the world," he said.
Despite the strong disagreements, Henson and McCorvey share one common view. Many people don't understand the impact that the initiative will have, and
need to become better informed, they both said, still standing on opposite
sides of the fence. (Contact Dan Johnson at djohnson@arguscourier.com) http://www.arguscourier.com/news/news/gmoinitiative050831.html
5. GM Soya Disaster in Latin America: Hunger, Deforestation and Socio-Ecological Devastation http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php The fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. In 2004, the biotech industry and their allies celebrated the ninth consecutive year of
expansion of genetically modified (GM) crops. The estimated global area of approved GM
crops was 81 million hectares, a growth of 15 per cent over the previous year. In 22
countries, they claim, GM crops have met the expectations of millions of large and small
farmers in both industrialized and developing countries; delivering benefits to consumers
and society at large through more affordable food, feed and fiber that require less
pesticide and hence more environmentally sustainable [1]. It is difficult to imagine how such expansion in GM crops has met the needs of small
farmers or consumers when 60 percent of the global area of GM crops is devoted to Roundup
Ready herbicide-tolerant crops. In developing countries, GM crops are mostly grown for
export by big farmers, not for local consumption. They are used as animal feed to produce
meat consumed mostly by the relatively wealthy. The new soya republics in Latin America The Latin America countries growing soybean include Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay
and Uruguay. The expansion of soybean production is driven by prices, government and
agro-industrial support, and demand from importing countries, especially China, which is
the world’s largest importer of soybean and soybean products. The expansion is
accompanied by massive transportation infrastructure projects that destroy natural
habitats over wide areas, well beyond the deforestation directly caused by soybean
cultivation. In Brazil, soybean profits justified the improvement or construction of
eight industrial waterways, three railway lines and an extensive network of roads to
bring inputs and take away produce. These have attracted private investment in logging,
mining, ranching and other practices that severely impact on biodiversity that have not
been included in any impact assessment studies [2]. In Argentina, the agro-industry for
transforming soybean into oils and pellets is concentrated in the Rosario region on the
Parana river. This area has become the largest soy-processing estate in the world, with
all the infrastructure and the environmental impacts that entails. Soybean deforestation The area of land in soybean production in Brazil has grown on average at 3.2 percent or
320 000 hectares per year since 1995, resulting in a total increase of 2.3 million
hectares. Soybean today occupies the largest area of any crop at 21 percent of the
cultivated land. The area has increased by a factor of 57 since 1961, and the volume of
production by a factor of 138. In Paraguay, soybeans occupy more than 25 percent of all
agricultural land. In Argentina, in 2000, soybean cultivation area reached 15 million
hectares and the total production was 38.3 million tonnes. All this expansion is at the
expense of forests and other habitats. In Paraguay, much of the Atlantic forest has been
cut [3]. In Argentina, 118 000 hectares of forests have been cleared in Caco State, about
160 000 hectares in Salta, and in Santiago del Estero a record 223 000 hectares. In
Brazil, the cerrado and the savannas are falling victim to the plow at a rapid pace. Expulsion of small farmers and loss of food security Biotech promoters always claim the expansion of soybean cultivation as a measure of the
successful adoption of the transgenic technology by farmers. But these data conceal the
fact that soybean expansion leads to extreme land and income concentration. In Brazil,
soybean cultivation displaces 11 agricultural workers for every one who finds employment
in the sector. This is not a new phenomenon. In the 1970s, 2.5 million people were
displaced by soybean production in Parana, and 0.3 million in Rio Grande do Sul. Many of
these now landless people moved to the Amazon where they cleared pristine forests. In the
cerrado region, where transgenic soybean is expanding, there is relatively low
displacement because the area is not widely populated [4]. In Argentina, the situation is quite dramatic as 60 000 farms went out of business while
the area of Roundup Ready soybean almost tripled. In 1998, there were 422 000 farms in
Argentina while in 2002 there were only 318 000, a reduction of a quarter. In one
decade, soybean area increased 126 percent at the expense of dairy, maize, wheat and
fruit production. In the 2003/2004 growing season, 13.7 million hectares of soybean were
planted but there was a reduction of 2.9 million hectares in maize and 2.15 million
hectares in sunflowers [5]. For the biotech industry, huge increases in the soybean area
cultivated and more than a doubling of yields per unit area are an economic and agronomic
success. For the country, that means more imports of basic foods, therefore loss of food
sovereignty, and for poor small farmers and consumers, increased food prices and more
hunger [6]. Millions of hectares of Roundup Ready soybean were planted in Brazil in the period
2002-2003, while a moratorium was in effect. How did the big multinationals manage to
expand cultivations of transgenic crop so extensively in developing countries? During the
early years of introducing transgenic soybean into Argentina, Monsanto did not charge
farmers royalties to use the technology. But now that farmers are hooked, the
multinational is pressuring the government for payment of intellectual property rights,
despite the fact that Argentina signed UPOV 78, which allows farmers to save seeds for
their own use. Nevertheless, Paraguayan farmers have just signed an agreement with
Monsanto to pay the company $2 per tonne. Soybean cultivation degrades the soil Soybean cultivation has always led to erosion, especially in areas where it is not part
of a long rotation. Soil loss has reached an average rate of 16 tonnes per hectare per
year (t/ha/y) in the US Midwest, far greater than is sustainable; and soil loss levels in
Brazil and Argentina are estimated at between 19-30 t/ha/y depending on management, slope
and climate. No-till agriculture can reduce soil loss, but with the advent of herbicide
tolerant soybean, many farmers now cultivate in highly erodible lands. Farmers wrongly
believe that with no till systems there is no erosion, but research shows that despite
improved soil cover, erosion and negative changes in soil structure can still be
substantial in highly erodible lands if weed cover is reduced. Large-scale soybean monocultures have rendered Amazonian soils unusable. In areas of poor
soils, fertilizers and lime have to be applied heavily within two years. In Bolivia,
soybean production is expanding towards the east, and in many areas soils are already
compacted and suffering severe soil degradation. One hundred thousand hectares of land
with soils exhausted due to soybean were abandoned for cattle-grazing, which in turn
further degrades the land. As land is abandoned, farmers move to other areas where they
again plant soybeans and repeat the vicious cycle of soil degradation. In Argentina, intensive soybean cultivation has led to massive soil nutrient depletion.
It is estimated that continuous soybean production has extracted about 1 million metric
tons of nitrogen and about 227 000 metric tons of phosphorous. The estimated cost of
replenishing this nutrient loss via fertilizers is US$ 910 million [5]. Increase of
nitrogen and phosphorus in several river basins of Latin America is certainly linked to
the increase of soybean production. A key technical factor in the rapid spread of soybean production in Brazil was
soybean’s pseudo-symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria living in root
nodules that allowed soybean to be produced without fertilizers. This claimed productive
advantage of soybeans in Brazil can quickly disappear in the light of findings reporting
direct toxic effects of the herbicide glyphosate on the nitrogen-fixing rhizobium
bacteria; which would make soybeans dependent on chemical fertilizers for nitrogen.
Moreover, the common practice of converting uncultivated pasture to soybeans results in a
reduction of the economically important rhizobia, again making soybean dependent on
synthetic nitrogen. Soybean monocultures and ecological vulnerability Ecological research suggests that the reduction of landscape diversity caused by the
expansion of monocultures at the expense of natural vegetation has led to insect pest
outbreaks and disease epidemics. In such poor and genetically homogenous landscapes
insects and pathogens find ideal conditions in which they can grow unchecked by natural
controls. This leads to increased used of pesticides, which after a while are no longer
effective due to the development of pest-resistance or ecological upsets typical of the
pesticide treadmill. Pesticides also cause major problems of soil and water pollution,
elimination of biodiversity and human poisonings. The humid and warm conditions of the
Amazon are also favourable for fungal growth, resulting in the increased used of
fungicides. In Brazilian regions under tillage soybean production, the crop is
increasingly being affected by stem canker and sudden death syndrome. Soybean rust is a new disease, increasingly affecting soybeans in South America,
requiring increased fungicide applications. In addition, since 1992, more than 2 million
hectares have been infected by cyst nematodes. Many of these pest problems are linked to
the genetic uniformity and increased vulnerability of soybean monocultures, and also to
the direct effects of Roundup on the soil ecology, through the depression of micorrhizal
fungal populations and the elimination of antagonists that keep many soil-borne pathogens
under control [7]. A quarter of all pesticides applied in Brazil are used on soybean, which in 2002 amounted
to 50 000 tonnes. As the soybean area rapidly expands, so does the growth in pesticide
use; it is now increasing at a rate of 22 percent per year. While biotech promoters
claim that one application of Roundup is all that is needed for whole season weed
control, studies show that in areas of transgenic soybean, the total amount and number of
herbicide applications have increased. In the USA, the use of glyphosate rose from 6.3
million pounds in 1995 to 41.8 million pounds in 2000, and now the herbicide is used on
62 percent of the land devoted to soybeans. In Argentina, Roundup applications reached an
estimated 160 million litre equivalents in the 2004 growing-season. Herbicide usage is
expected to increase as weeds start developing resistance to Roundup. Yields of transgenic soybean average 2.3 to 2.6 t/ha in the region, about 6% less than
conventional varieties, and are especially low under drought conditions. Due to
pleiotropic effects (stems splitting under high temperatures and water stress) transgenic
soybean suffer 25 percent higher losses than conventional soybean. Seventy-two percent of
the yields of transgenic soybeans were lost in the 2004/2005 drought that affected Rio
Grande do Sul, and a 95 percent drop in exports is expected with dramatic economic
consequences. Most farmers have already defaulted on 1/3 of government loans. Other ecological impacts By creating crops resistant to its herbicides, a biotech company can expand the market
for its patented chemicals. The market value of herbicide-tolerant crops was $75 million
in 1995; by 2000, it was approximately $805 million, more than 10-fold increase.
Globally, in 2002, herbicide-tolerant soybean occupied 36.5 million hectares making it by
far the number one GM crop in terms of area [1]. Glyphosate is cheaper than other
herbicides, and although it reduces the use of other herbicides, companies sell
altogether much more herbicide (especially glyphosate) than before. The continuous use of
herbicides and especially of glyphosate (or Roundup, Monsanto’s formulation) with
herbicide-tolerant crops, can lead to serious ecological problems. It has been well documented that when a single herbicide is used repeatedly on a crop,
the chances of herbicide-resistance developing in weed populations greatly increases.
About 216 cases of pesticide resistance have been reported in one or more herbicide
chemical families [8]
Given industry pressures to increase herbicide sales, the acreage treated with
broad-spectrum herbicides will expand, exacerbating the resistance problem. The increased
use of glyphosphate will result in weed resistance, even if more slowly. This has already
been documented with Australian populations of annual ryegrass, quackgrass, birdsfoot
trefoil, Cirsium arvense, and Eleusine indica [7]. In the Argentinian pampas, eight
species of weeds, among them two species of Verbena and one species of Ipomoea, already
exhibit resistance to glyphosate [5]. Herbicide resistance becomes more of a problem as weeds are exposed to fewer and fewer
herbicides. Transgenic soybean reinforces this trend on account of market forces. In
fact, weed populations can even adapt to tolerate or "avoid" certain herbicides. For
example, in Iowa, populations of common waterhemp have demonstrated delayed germination,
which allows them to avoid planned glyphosate applications. The GM crop itself may also
assume weed status as volunteers. For example, in Canada, volunteer canola resistant to
three herbicides (glyphosate, imidazolinone, and glufosinolate) has been detected, a case
of stacked, multiple resistance. And now farmers have to resort to 2,4-D to control the
volunteer canola. In northern Argentina, there are several "strong weeds" than cannot
be controlled with glyphosate, forcing farmers to resort to other herbicides. Biotech companies claim that when properly applied, herbicides should not pose negative
effects on humans or the environment. In practice, however, the large-scale planting of
GM crops encourages aerial application of herbicides and much of what is sprayed is
wasted through drift and leaching, affecting human beings as well as soil mycorrhizal
fungi and earthworms. The companies contend that glyphosate degrade rapidly in the soil,
do not accumulate in ground water, have no effects on non-target organisms, leave no
residue in foods and water or soil. Yet glyphosate has been reported to be toxic to some
non target species in the soil—both to beneficial predators such as spiders, mites, and
carabid and coccinellid beetles, and to detritivores such as earthworms, including
microfauna as well as to aquatic organisms, including fish [9]. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide (i.e. it is absorbed into and moves through the whole
plant), and is carried into the harvested parts of plants. Exactly how much glyphosate
is present in the seeds of HT corn or soybeans is not known, as grain products are not
included in conventional market surveys for pesticide residues. The fact that this and
other herbicides are known to accumulate in fruits and tubers because they suffer little
metabolic degradation in plants, raises questions about food safety, especially now that
more than 37 million pounds of this herbicide are used annually in the United States
alone [8]. Even in the absence of immediate (acute) effects, it might take 40 years for a
potential carcinogen to act in enough people for it to be detected as a cause (see
"Glyphosate toxic and Roundup worse" and "Roundup kills frog", SiS 26). Moreover, research has shown that glyphosate seems to act in a similar fashion to
antibiotics by altering soil biology in a yet unknown way and causing effects such as
[8,9]
Reducing the ability of soybeans and clover to fix nitrogen. In the farm-scale evaluations of herbicide resistant crops recently completed in the
United Kingdom, researchers showed that reduction of weed biomass, flowering, and seeding
parts under herbicide resistant crop management within and in margins of beet and spring
oilseed rape involved changes in insect resource availability with knock-on effects
resulting in abundance reduction of several beetles, butterflies, and bees. Counts of
predacious carabid beetles that feed on weed seeds were also smaller in transgenic crop
fields. The abundance of invertebrates that are food for mammals, birds, and other
invertebrates were also found to be generally lower in herbicide resistant beet and
oilseed rape [10]. The absence of flowering weeds in transgenic fields can have serious
consequences for beneficial insects (pest predators and parasitoids), which require
pollen and nectar for survival. Reduction of natural enemies leads unavoidable to enhance
insect pest problems. Conclusions Soybean expansion in Latin America represents a recent and powerful threat to
biodiversity in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia. Transgenic soybeans are much
more environmentally damaging than other crops because in addition to the effects from
the production methods that involve heavy herbicide use and genetic pollution, they
require massive transportation infrastructure projects (waterways, highways, railways,
etc), which impact on ecosystems and make wide areas accessible to other environmentally
unsound economic and extractive activities. The production of herbicide resistant soybean leads to environmental problems such as
deforestation, soil degradation, pesticide and genetic contamination, as well as
socio-economic problems such as severe concentration of land and income, expulsion of
rural populations to the Amazonian frontier and to urban areas, compounding the
concentration of the poor in cities. Soybean expansion also diverts government funds
otherwise usable in education, health, and alternative, far more sustainable
agroecological methods. The multiple impacts of soybean expansion also reduce the food security potential of
target countries. Much of the land previously devoted to grain, dairy products or fruits
has been diverted to soybean for exports. As long as these countries continue to embrace
neoliberal models of development and respond to demand from the globalized economy, the
rapid proliferation of soybean will increase, and so will the associated ecological and
social impacts. | |
