POISONING THE PLANET

Changing our purchasing habits to “organic” or “fair trade” is not enough. We must actively seek solidarity with those small farmers who are refusing to co-operate with the agribusiness paradigm.

By Miguel A. Altieri

In 2007, genetically modified (GM) crops were grown on 114.3 million hectares worldwide. Of the twenty-three countries which grow GM crops, Argentina and Brazil are the major players in South America , though the cultivation of transgenic crops is also expanding in Bolivia and Paraguay . The biotech industry claims that GM crops have met the expecta­tions of millions of farmers in devel­oping countries, delivering benefits to consumers and society through more affordable food that requires less pesti­cides to grow and hence leads to more sustainable farming.

What corporations fail to mention is that Roundup Ready (RR) soybean accounts for 70% of all GM crops and is tolerant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, glyphosate. Much of the soybean crop is grown by large-scale farmers for biodiesel and for export as animal feed to China and Europe . The impacts of soybean expansion in South America go beyond the typical effects of monocultures heavily sprayed with herbicides, but include deforestation, soil fertility mining, food insecurity and the expulsion of small farmers, thus exacerbating rural conflicts.

The expansion of soybean farming is accompanied by massive transporta­tion infrastructure projects that lead to the destruction of natural habitats over wide areas, well beyond the deforesta­tion directly caused by soybean cultiva­tion. In Brazil , soybean profits justified the improvement or construction of industrial waterways, railway lines and an extensive network of roads. These in turn have attracted logging, mining, ranching and other practices with severe impacts on biodiversity. The Rosario region on the Parana River in Argentina has become the largest soya agro-industrial processing area in the world, with all the environmental im­pacts that such infrastructure entails.

Soybean occupies the largest area of any crop in Brazil (14.5 million hec­tares). In Argentina about 16 million hectares are devoted to soybean, and the total production is more than 40 million tonnes. In Paraguay soybeans occupy more than 25% of all agricul­tural land. Soya cultivation has already resulted in the deforestation of 21 million hectares of forests in Brazil , 14 million hectares in Argentina , 2 mil­lion hectares in Paraguay and 600,000 hectares in Bolivia . In response to glo­bal market pressure for biofuels, Brazil alone will likely clear an additional 60 million hectares of land in the near fu­ture to grow more soybean for biodie­sel, and sugar cane for ethanol.

Soybean expansion also leads to extreme land and income dispar­ity. In Brazil , soybean cultivation dis­places eleven agricultural workers for every one who finds employment in the sector. Yearly, millions of people are displaced by soybean production, and these landless people move to the Amazon and other regions, where they clear pristine forests. In Argentina the situation is quite dramatic, as 60,000 farms went out of business while the area of GM soybean almost tripled. In one decade, the area of soybean cul­tivation increased by 126% at the ex­pense of dairy, maize, wheat and fruit production. For the country, this means more imports of basic foods, creating a loss of food sovereignty, and for poor small farmers and consumers, only in­creased food prices and more hunger.

As the cultivation of soybean rap­idly expands, so does glyphosate use. In southern Brazil , for every kilo re­duction of non-glyphosate herbicide during the period of expansion of GM soybean cultivation, the use of glypho­sate increased by 7.5 kilos. In Argenti­na , Roundup applications reached the equivalent of an estimated 160 million litres in the 2004 growing season, and herbicide usage is expected to increase as weeds start developing resistance to Roundup.

A recent study by Brazilian re­searchers found thirteen weed spe­cies that have developed resistance to glyphosate. In Argentina, resistant bio­types of Johnson grass, Ipomoea species and other weeds are also emerging, creating a typical treadmill in which glyphosate generates weeds that are harder to control, in turn requiring increased amounts of other herbicides such as 2,4-D. Instead of reducing the need for agrochemicals as proponents once claimed, GM technology has in­creased their use.

Biotech companies claim that 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 only 1% of what is sprayed reaches the crop — the rest ends up in the soil and water. The agribusiness companies contend that glyphosate degrades rapidly in the soil, does not accumulate in ground water, has no effects on non-target organisms, and leaves no residue in foods and wa­ter or soil, yet glyphosate has been re­ported to be toxic to some non-target species in the soil including beneficial predators such as spiders, mites, cara­bid and coccinellid beetles, detritivores such as earthworms, and mycorrhizae and other microfauna, as well as to aquatic organisms including microbial communities, frogs and fish.

Research has shown that glypho­sate seems to act in a similar fashion to antibiotics, altering soil biology in as yet unknown ways and causing ef­fects such as reduction of the ability of soybeans, clover and other legumes to fix nitrogen, and the rendering of bean plants more vulnerable to disease. During the first year of glyphosate applica­tion on RR soya, a severe sudden death syndrome epidemic occurred (an in­fection by the fungus Fusarium solani) in several RR cultivars, resulting in reduc­tion of the growth of beneficial soil-dwelling mycorrhizal fungi, and other changes to the microbial community.

All these effects can alter nutrient cycling and other important processes in the soil, thus reducing plant growth and health. In a study using outdoor tanks, researchers found that even when applied at concentrations that are just a third of the maximum rec­ommended concentrations, glyphosate killed 98% of all tadpoles within three weeks and 79% of all frogs within one day.

Researchers have also shown that the reduction of weed biomass and flowering and seeding parts under herbicide-resistant crop management causes changes in insect 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 smaller in transgenic crop fields. The number of invertebrates that are food for mammals, birds and other invertebrates were also found to be generally lower in herbicide-resistant crop fields. The absence of flowering weeds in transgenic fields can have se­rious consequences for pollinators but also for pests' natural enemies, which require pollen and nectar for survival; this in turn can lead to enhanced insect pest problems.

The expansion of soybean mono­culture threatens the ecological integ­rity and food sovereignty of countries as well as the rights of Indigenous and rural communities. This industrial ag­ricultural model violates economic, social, cultural and environmental rights and, as it expands, its destructive methods of operation degrade the en­vironment through deforestation, soil erosion and contamination of water bodies and push farmers out of their lands, resulting in rural migration and further impoverishment of rural popu­lations. The soya agro-industry is actu­ally expanding and becoming stronger through the growing markets for pro­cessed foods, industrial livestock and the production of biodiesel demanded by the North.

Rural social movements such as Via Campesina and Movimiento Socialists de Trabajadores (MST) reject corporate attempts for continual expansion of GM soya monoculture. Farmers' mo­bilisations have led to destruction of soybean fields and occupation of cor­porate facilities. For example, Syngenta Seeds' experimental research centre in Parani was taken over by MST in March 2006 after they discovered that the company was illegally growing GM soybeans within the boundary zone of Igua~u National Park.

The expansion of agricultural bio­technology into South America is exac­erbating agrarian conflicts and historic tensions over land. More mobilisation of rural movements can be expected, as the “grassroots” oppose the advance of biofuel agribusiness and GM tech­nology. Industrial farming threatens biodiversity and native seed varieties, violating the rights of consumers and small farmers by contaminating con­ventional and organic crops.

If consumers in the North of the world want to continue enjoying their fair trade coffee and bananas, as well as the “good, clean and fair food” from the South, they had better find ways to directly support these grassroots mo­bilisations, otherwise small farmers and the food they grow are in danger of genetic pollution and possible ex­tinction. – Third World Network Features

-ends-

About the writer: Miguel A. Altieri is a lecturer in agroecology at the University of California , USA .

The above article is reproduced from the UK-based Resurgence, No. 254 May/June 2009. It is an edited extract from The Slow Food Almanac 2008. (www.slowfood.com)

“The Failure of Science”: New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops

By Bonnie Azab Powell @ 12:19 pm on 3 June 2009.

“Doom and gloomers.” That’s what my father used to call people who talked about global warming not as chance to work on their tans, but as something that ought to be keeping humankind up at night. He’d toss the newspaper aside, or change the subject at dinner. He still does, in fact. Fortunately much of America — or at least the people we elected to run it — has accepted that climate change is not only a real and present threat, but that it’s imperative we revisit some of the assumptions that got us into this mess.

Alas, public debate about the safety of growing and eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remains stalled at where climate change was circa 1993, back when Al Gore published “Earth in the Balance” to a deafening silence. Americans tend to dismiss serious discussions about the risks of GMOs with a “doom and gloomers” shrug. They’re here, they’re queer, get over it.

This is a mistake. It’s one that Europeans, the Japanese, and plenty of other industrialized and developing nations have avoided. As with climate change, the longer American citizens refuse to learn about this issue, the hotter the water we frogs are sitting in gets. Writes technology reporter Denise Caruso in her excellent book, “Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet“: As long as scientists can justifiably “declare that we, the innumerate public, lack the mental capacity to understand what they, the experts, do…there can be no common ground for understanding between those who create risk and we who must bear it.” And if the current economic meltdown, caused by financial instruments too complex for any mere mortals other than hedge fund managers to understand, has taught us anything, it’s that an ignorant public is begging to get shafted.

A paper just published May 25 in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Society of Agriculture and Food gives people the tools with which to grasp the science behind transgenic food crops, what questions we should be asking, and a potential path out of this mess. In it Don Lotter, a UC-Davis trained scientist, makes a persuasive case that the transgenic seed industry is built on fundamentally flawed science, and that companies like Monsanto have used their vast market power to reshape university research, manipulate public opinion, and coerce regulatory agencies into reckless acceptance of risky technologies. And that scientists have looked the other way while they did so.

“The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science” paper ought to be required reading for any American citizen who didn’t sign the consent form about the risks of the “largest diet experiment in history,” as he calls it. That includes you, me, your kids, every member of Congress, and every researcher who still believes in independent science.

SOURCE: http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/06/03/lotter-gmopaper/