|
The Biosafety Protocol negotiations ended with a limited victory for the majority of countries who wanted to ensure stringent regulations on transboundary movements of GMOs. Although New Zealand and Brazil had originally opposed the other 130 member countries who wanted "contains GMOs" labelling instead of the weak and unspecific "may contain GMOs", these two countries shifted their position during negotiations and supported the stronger language. However, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru, evidently under influence from industry and non-member countries such as the US, then blocked agreement and pushed for more GM-friendly language. Mexico ended up blocking proceedings almost until the very end, as negotiations carried on until late.
Ultimately, an agreement was reached, which allows the Biosafety Protocol to move forward in its objectives, however there has been compromise on both sides. NGOs called the final agreement a small step forward. The full implications of the agreed wordings are not yet clear, and more analyses are bound to emerge in the coming weeks. But in essence, "contains GMOs" was agreed on as the labelling language to be used by countries that have the capacity to monitor such things. However countries that do not have the required systems may still be allowed to use the controversial "may contain" language. It is this and other compromises that reflects the undermining influence of the industry and the US in the negotiations.
Outside of official negotiations, Latin American civil society continued to draw attention to the problems they have experienced from widespread GM soya growing. A Paraguayan mother told of her 11 year old son's death from Glyphosate poisoning as a result of Roundup Ready soya fields being sprayed nearby. An entire neighbourhood in Cordoba, Argentina, has suffered health problems due to the surrounding Roundup Ready soya fields and heavy spraying. And now it is revealed that Syngenta has been illegally planting its GM soya in an environmentally protected area in Southern Brazil. Peasants from the Landless Movement have therefore invaded the land, as part of their strategy of targeting multinational agribusiness in their push for land reform.
****************************************
1. Consensus Reached on 18.2(a)!
Web Blog from "Where did my genes go?" website. Date: 18 March 2006
http://wheredidmygenesgo.blogspot.com/
2. Biotech Foods: International Safety Laws Agreed
Press Release from Friends of the Earth International. Date: 18 March 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FRI20060318&articleId=2123
3. Mexico and Paraguay Block Agreement on Biosafety
Article from IPS News. Date: 17 March 2006
Roberto Villar Belmonte
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32548
4. Africans Missing at Key Biosafety Talks
Article from Panos. Date: 16 March 2006
Rod Harbinson
http://www.panos.org.uk/global/cbd2006_summit1.asp
5. I’m from Uganda, the Pearl of Africa…’
Article from Panos. Date: 17 March 2006
Ebenezer T. Bifubyeka
http://www.panos.org.uk/global/cbd2006_summit2.asp
6. Biotech Industry Cautions Govts That Unnecessary GMO Regulations Will Impede Trade
Press Release from Crop Life International. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.croplife.org
7. Brazil Peasants Occupy Swiss Farm: Peasants Accuse the Swiss Firm of Sowing GM Seeds
Article from BBC. Date: 16 February 2006
Tom Gibb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4811670.stm
8. Victims of Glyphosate
Article from IPS News. Date: 16 March 2006
Roberto Villar Belmonte
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32528
*************************************
1. Consensus Reached on 18.2(a)!
Web Blog from "Where did my genes go?" website. Date: 18 March 2006
http://wheredidmygenesgo.blogspot.com/
MOP 3 – The Third Meeting of the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol - has concluded with a successful consensus on Art 18.2 (a) – the documentation requirements for the transboundary shipments of GMOs.
Although the decision that was finally agreed upon late last night is not ideal and reflects the influence of industry and non-parties (eg US, Canada, Australia and Argentina), it also represents an enormous achievement: a clear consensus on a strong decision for documentation requirements showing the world community that the Protocol is alive, strong, and moving forward.
It will take us some time to figure out the exact implications of some of the wording of this decision. However, we do know that most of the language that came out of the chair’s recommended text was finally agreed to – and this represent a major step forward for the protocol and for biosafetey. The final decision includes the “contains” requirements where there exist adequate systems for identification and the “may contains” requirements where those systems do not yet exist. It also decides to consider a decision at its sixth meeting to require all exports to be accompanied by the “contains” language requiring the specific and detailed documentation of the genetically modified organisms in the shipments.
At the request of Mexico, an additional component was added stressing that the requirements of the protocol do not apply to transboundary movements between parties and non-parties – although, in accordance with Article 24 of the protocol, such transactions shall be “consistent with the objectives of the Protocol.” - That Mexico was arguing to add such text - which does not change the situation, and only makes it harder to try to increase requirements of non-parties - is indicative of the influence of industry and non-parties on Mexico and its cohort, Paraguay.
However, it also remains clear that this text states that the documentation of all transboundary movements must be in accordance with national biosafety laws. It is therefore of utmost importance to carry out the mandate of this text, to make the most of the successful conclusion of these negotiations, and to encourage governments to begin to implement stricter biosafetey regulations. As supported by this decision and the Protocol, such regulations will be consistent with international law and will effectively be able to promote protection against genetic contamination.
We have a right to know the genetically modified organisms that are entering our communities, and the decision reached last night confirms that the international community will stand behind countries as they work to uphold that right for the sake of the health and well being of its people and the environment.
*************************************
2. Biotech Foods: International Safety Laws Agreed
Press Release from Friends of the Earth International. Date: 18 March 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FRI20060318&articleId=2123
CURITIBA (BRAZIL), 17 March 2006 - United Nations talks on the global trade in genetically modified (GM) foods and crops ended here today with an agreement on the labelling of GM grains traded worldwide.
Friends of the Earth welcomed the agreement as a "small step forward" but attacked the biotech industry and the trade interests of a few countries for blocking progress towards better protection for developing countries and the environment.
The biotech industry consistently opposed clear identification and labelling requirements for GM crops. Without clear labelling many countries, especially developing countries with their limited resources, are unable to protect their food supply and environment from GM contamination.
Nnimmo Bassey, International Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth GM Campaign said:
"Protection of the environment and the public from genetically modified crops has taken a small step forward today. However it is clear that trade interests and the biotech industry stopped a better agreement from being made. Countries have the right to know what is being imported into their country and the right to say no to GM crops."
The UN Biosafety Protocol, which was originally agreed in January 2000, provides basic international rules that allow mainly developing countries to regulate the safety of GM foods, crops and seeds. It has been ratified by 132 countries but the three main countries that grow GM crops - the United States, Argentina and Canada - have refused to support it.
Ten years after the first significant planting of GM crops, no plants with benefits to consumers or the environment have materialized and GM crops have failed to deliver the promises of the biotech industry. More than 80% of the area cultivated with biotech crops is still concentrated in only three countries: the US, Argentina and Canada.
Friends of the Earth International recently published a report that concluded:
* GM crops are not green. Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the most extensively grown GM crop today, has led to an increase in herbicide use. The intensive cultivation of soybeans in South America is fostering deforestation, and has been associated with a decline in soil fertility and soil erosion.
* GM crops do not tackle hunger or poverty. Most GM crops commercialized so far are destined for animal feed, not for food, and none have been introduced to address hunger and poverty issues. In Argentina, the second biggest producer of GM crops in the world, only 2% of the soya stays in the country. Other developing countries, such as Indonesia and India, have experienced substantial problems with Monsanto’s GM crops, often leaving farmers heavily indebted.
* The biotech industry has failed to introduce the promised new generation’ of GM crops with consumer benefits. After 30 years of research, only two modifications have made it to the marketplace on any scale: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT
In Curitiba, Brazil
Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International / Friends of the Earth Nigeria Tel: +44 7785334200 (UK mobile) or email nnimmo@eraction.org
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe Tel +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile) or email adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org
In Europe
Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International Tel +34 6259 805 820 (Spanish mobile)
For more information: Background on biosafety: http://www.foei.org/gmo/biosafety.html
********************************************
3. Mexico and Paraguay Block Agreement on Biosafety
Article from IPS News. Date: 17 March 2006
Roberto Villar Belmonte
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32548
CURITIBA, Brazil, Mar 17 (IPS) - Mexico and Paraguay waited until Friday, the last day of the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (MOP3), to present new proposals to modify the text that has been under negotiation since Monday, thus prolonging the five-day gathering.
During the MOP3, which ran through Friday in the southern Brazilian city of Curitiba, Mexico put up the strongest resistance, with its delegates stating that the country does not want mandatory labeling for cross-border shipments containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The negotiators had discussed a proposal set forth by Brazil late Thursday night, and renewed the process of informal contacts at around 10:00 AM local time.
Shortly after noon, Norwegian delegate Birthe Ivars, chairwoman of the working group in charge of the talks on labeling, the most controversial issue in the negotiations, presented the proposal that the working group had reached agreement on.
But Mexican delegate Marco Antonio Meraz Ríos unexpectedly suggested placing brackets around the clause making it compulsory for signatories of the Cartagena Protocol to clearly label shipments containing GMOs, thus leaving the issue open to future negotiations.
"Is this a serious way to deal with matters, reinserting brackets that had already been removed?" protested Brazilian Ambassador Luiz Alberto Figueiredo Machado, co-chair of a contact group involved in the negotiations on labeling.
"We are dismayed. We thought Mexico was negotiating in good faith this week, but it decided not to express its position until the very last day," complained the Ethiopian delegate, to applause from the majority of the participating diplomats.
There are no conclusive studies showing that transgenic products are harmless to the environment and human health. The Protocol, in effect since September 2003, is aimed at protecting biodiversity from the risks that may be posed by living organisms modified by means of biotechnology.
Venezuela, the European Union (EU) and Japan expressed themselves in favour of the proposal that would give countries six years to adjust to the rule on mandatory labeling of GMOs in international transport, two years longer than Brazil had originally suggested.
Peru initially opposed the wording "contains GMOs" during the negotiations, and the Peruvian delegate was also applauded when he finally announced his government's support for the agreed-on text.
The clause that was still being discussed Friday night states that national labeling of transgenic products will be assessed at the MOP5, to be held in four years, since from now on, the conference will take place every two years.
The goal is to consider a decision during the sixth meeting, to ensure that the documentation that accompanies GMOs destined for direct use as food for human beings or animals, or for processing, clearly indicates that the shipment contains transgenics and includes the necessary detailed information.
The chairwoman of the working group called on the Mexican delegates to re-evaluate their stance and passed them the floor. The ensuing silence further raised expectations. This prompted Ivars to urge, "Mexico, please press the button," which elicited widespread laughter, amplified by the faulty sound system.
Once he finally got the microphone to work properly, the Mexican ambassador said that there should be no surprise regarding his country's proposal, since Mexico has consistently questioned the obligation to identify cross-border shipments.
The Paraguayan delegation then voiced its support for Mexico and called for the resumption of negotiations.
An hour and a half later, once a new version of the document - free of square brackets û had been presented by Ivars, Mexico once again conditioned its approval on changes to another part of the text, which calls on governments to adopt measures to guarantee the documentation accompanying products containing GMOs.
The EU protested the changes, describing them as a step backwards. For his part, Rubens Nodari from the Brazilian Environment Ministry remarked, "In practice, the Mexican proposals are aimed at eliminating the obligatory nature of labeling."
As of late Friday evening, the negotiations resumed behind closed doors had not resulted in an agreement. The executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Algerian Ahmed Djoghlaf, attributed the difficulties in reaching a consensus to the wide range of interests at stake, but said he was confident that an agreement would ultimately be reached.
Greenpeace, however, blamed the lack of agreement on pressures exerted by agribusiness corporations and the countries that export the largest quantities of transgenics, like the United States and Argentina, which are not parties to the Cartagena Protocol.
Given the fact that an "absolute consensus" is needed to adopt a decision, it is easy to co-opt one or a few countries and prevent the will of the large majority from prevailing, argued Sergio Leitao, Greenpeace director of public policy.
His fear is that the meeting will fail to produce any advances, or will end with a timid text that does not establish a secure system for identifying transgenics. "Only a telephone call from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to Mexican President Vicente Fox could save COP-MOP 3 from total failure," he remarked.
According to Djoghlaf, Brazil's proposal contributed significantly to the attempt to overcome the obstacles faced by the Cartagena Protocol, and he praised Lula's decision to endorse the adoption of a clearly worded "contains GMOs" labeling system, with a four-year deadline for implementation.
The 22 decisions adopted this week will make it possible to begin implementing the Protocol, said Djoghlaf, who stressed that over the next two weeks, in Curitiba itself, the world's largest meeting ever on biological diversity will take place.
A total of 2,669 participants have registered for the Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP8), including 96 government ministers. COP7 was attended by 2,300 delegates and 16 ministers.
So far, 2,086 official meetings have been held on the Convention, and the 192 decisions adopted are gathered in a volume that is 1,039 pages long. Now it is time for implementation, stressed Djoghlaf. (END/2006)
************************************************
4. Africans Missing at Key Biosafety Talks
Article from Panos. Date: 16 March 2006
Rod Harbinson
http://www.panos.org.uk/global/cbd2006_summit1.asp
Many Africans delegates, too poor to travel, have failed to turn up at a key international meeting in Brazil aimed at protecting our natural environment from Genetically Modified Organisms.
Experts warn that lack of participation may have grave implications for all developing countries, and their taxpayers.
CURITIBA - Many African countries are absent from the international Biosafety Protocol meeting in Brazil because they cannot afford to send their delegates to it, with major implications for the meeting's outcome for all developing countries.
"There just weren't enough [financial] pledges in" from developed donor countries, said a delegate from Namibia who wished to remain anonymous. "There were more [pledges] on Sunday but... it was too late."
"I have not seen my fellow delegates from Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Swaziland or Morocco," he added.
The meeting, which began on Monday, is the third of countries that are parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a global agreement that seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by genetic engineering.
The gathering will be followed by a larger and equally significant meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) from 20 to 31 March.
But developed countries have failed to stump up the cash in time to ensure full participation by developing countries, although they are expected to do so under article 28 of the Biosafety Protocol.
Ensuring a full house is considered necessary under the Protocol for the consensus decision-making process to receive adequate credence.
However, eminent Ethiopian environmental scientist and leader of the African group, Tewolde Egziabher, said: "Quite a few of the African group haven't turned up."
In an urgent letter to donors and developed countries on 3 March, Ahmed Djoghlaf, head of the CBD Secretariat, expressed "concerns about the lack of adequate financial resources for the participation of all developing countries" to CBD meetings. At the time just over half the expected money had come in leaving a $350,000 shortfall.
A number of participants warned that slow disbursement of funds from donor countries could influence the proceedings in Curitiba: "Some may arrive next week as there was more money pledged for biodiversity - which developed countries have an interest in," said one delegate.
"By then the important decisions on GMO labelling will have been made."
The Liability and Redress Working Group is a case in point with delegates from Venezuela, Cameroon and Ethiopia highlighting poor attendance leading to a stalled timetable towards progress on this tricky topic. Speaking at the plenary session on Tuesday, they complained about the lack of funding under article 28 - a point that was noted by Malaysia's Fatima Raya Nasron, who presided over the session.
Who is liable for harmful GM contamination, should it arise, and who should pick up the bill for potentially costly compensation are issues that remain contentious at negotiations on the Protocol.
The funding issue has also led participants to speculate about wider implications of the costs involved for full implementation of all the provisions of the Protocol. Building the capacities of developing countries for labelling, packaging, testing, policing and a host of other issues will need to be paid for.
Governments promoting GM have fought hard to avoid responsibility for these extra costs. They argue instead that if importers are concerned about GM material entering their country they should be prepared to pay for that information. With the GM industry also refusing to pick up the tab, some delegates said it appears likely that the cost will have to be borne by developing country taxpayers.
Another controversial topic that could figure in the CBD meeting is the current de-facto moratorium on what is commonly known as "Terminator Technology". This GM technique is designed to make seeds infertile after their first harvest to prevent sharing and re-use by farmers.
As many farmers in developing countries depend on seed sharing, it could potentially have a major long-term impact on their livelihoods. There are also safety implications should the terminator genes spread into the natural environment and render other plants infertile.
This article is free to all media to reproduce with appropriate credits to the journalist and Panos London (please notify media@panos.org.uk)
********************************************
5. I’m from Uganda, the Pearl of Africa…’
Article from Panos. Date: 17 March 2006
Ebenezer T. Bifubyeka
http://www.panos.org.uk/global/cbd2006_summit2.asp
When Ugandan journalist Ebenezer Bifubyeka went to report from the biosafety meeting in Brazil, he didn't expect to come under the glare of the media spotlight.
But that's what happened when he interviewed the country's environment minister, Marina Silva.
[CURITIBA, BRAZIL - PANOS] Journalists tend to shy away from being the subject of the news themselves. But yesterday, I - a journalist from a poor African nation - found myself under the glare of Brazil's media spotlight.
Dozens of the country’s journalists were not only startled but also stunned to see me interviewing a high-profile Brazilian minister at the global biodiversity meeting here.
The incident happened on 16 March when I stood in the way of environment minister Marina Silva at the convention centre in Curitiba where she had come to deliver a speech.
No sooner had I shaken her hand than a large crowd of Brazilian journalists began clicking away on their cameras - their flashbulbs going off around me like lightning.
The attention of what to me seemed like over 100 international journalists, all armed with heavy journalistic gadgets (video and digital cameras, cassette recorders, mobile telephones to name a few) turned to me.
This made me slightly nervous and I nearly forgot what I’d wanted to ask the minister. But I summoned up the courage to introduce myself as a journalist working for The New Vision newspaper in Uganda.
Speaking in Portuguese (Brazil’s official language - inherited from their former colonial masters), she swiftly said something to me. The strange language only increased my awe.
Thankfully her bodyguard immediately stepped in as a translator. He told me in English that the minister was asking what I wanted of her.
“I want your view about how the labels that tag GM food aid should be worded,” I said - an issue that is of considerable significance to those African countries that are recipients of food aid.
Silva said that she and her government supported labels reading: ‘this food contains GMOs’.
The debate on whether food aid labels should say ‘this food may contain GMOs’ or ‘contains GMOs’ is heating up at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Curitiba.
In negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru are supporting the ‘may contain’ language, whereas the entire African group and the Europeans want labels to definitively state that the food aid ‘contains GMOs’. The United States has not signed the Protocol.
As soon as my interview was over, a group of journalists surrounded me and started asking which country I came from. “Uganda - the Pearl of Africa,” I proudly told them. “Which medium are you representing?” a beautiful Portuguese woman asked me. “I work with The New Vision newspaper,” I replied.
“Congratulations! That was a great opportunity for you to talk to a Brazilian minister,” said the head of a Brazilian environmental campaign, as he pulled out his business card. “Let’s have a photograph together and we’ll exchange email addresses.”
“How did you manage to trap the minister?” Rod Harbinson, head of the environment programme at Panos London, the NGO that is sponsoring my visit, asked me later. “I just blocked her way,” I said.
Journalism is great fun... and so is Brazil!
**************************************
6. Biotech Industry Cautions Govts That Unnecessary GMO Regulations Will Impede Trade
Press Release from Crop Life International. Date: 14 March 2006
http://www.croplife.org
Curitiba, Brazil - As the 3rd Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (the Biosafety Protocol) kicks off today, the plant science industry urges governments to finally take a decision on a global documentation system for agricultural biotech products, but warns that unnecessary and costly requirements could severely restrict international trade.
"We hope that the 132 Parties to the Protocol recognize that current documentation systems used for international trade of these products works well. Going beyond this to require exporters to specify which biotech material is present and in what exact quantity, for each individual shipment is simply unworkable in today's highly efficient agriculture bulk handling system. It would not provide information that could be used to benefit biodiversity or advance any of the aims of the Protocol," stated Christian Verschueren, Director General, CropLife International.
"Biotech crops have been proven to be safe, both for the environment and human consumption. Any decisions regarding their passage across international borders should be based in science, not fear. New documentation regulations would create confusion, delays and impose costs across a variety of sectors, and ignore our vast experience and scientific understanding of these products," he continued.
"Most importantly, they would serve to prevent the millions of farmers around the world, as well as the industry groups, researchers and governments, who want to benefit from this technology, from doing so."
A study released last year by the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council showed that, while most of the additional costs of detailed documentation requirements would be borne by the handful of large countries that import the largest volume of food and feed grains, a disproportionate share of those costs would fall on consumers in smaller developing and least developed countries.
An updated study released last week and focusing on two countries - China and Brazil - showed that the Biosafety Protocol acts exactly like a tariff for importing countries, keeping trade down and forcing prices up. Costs would also rise for exporting countries,which would need to establish costly identity preservation systems. Both studies can be accessed at www.agritrade.org.
"Perhaps governments might consider how they dedicate the spend of taxpayers money, and avoid diverting limited resources from the protection of biodiversity to the establishment of unnecessary requirements based on hypothetical risks?" continued Verschueren.
"Implementation of the Biosafety Protocol should focus first on helping countries build their own regulatory and scientific capacities to use, control and import biotech products."
The Biosafety Protocol, which will be discussed in Curitiba, Brazil this week, is an international treaty under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and seeks to protect the world's biodioversity from any risks presented by biotechnology.
The Protocol calls on Parties to take measures to implement a global documentation system for shipments of biotech products under Article 18.2. Currently, an exporter of biotech crops destined for food, feed or processing must indicate that an export cargo "may contain" LMOs.
Parties will debate proposals to increase requirements to specify which LMOs are present, and, in what proportions, for each individual vessel. This will require vast changes in the way commodities are produced, harvested, transported and shipped, with cost implications for farmers, the biotech industry, export/shipping companies and consumers, and without any apparent benefits for biodiversity.
***************************************
7. Brazil Peasants Occupy Swiss Farm: Peasants Accuse the Swiss Firm of Sowing GM Seeds
Article from BBC. Date: 16 February 2006
Tom Gibb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4811670.stm
Several hundred peasant activists have occupied a research farm in southern Brazil owned by a Swiss multinational biotechnology company.
The Landless Movement says the move is part of a new strategy to target multinational agribusiness, which it accuses of pushing farmers off land.
It also says such companies are destroying the environment.
The Landless Movement has also occupied dozens of farms and cattle ranches to press for land reform.
At least 300 peasants from the Landless Movement took over the experimental farm belonging to the Swiss company Syngenta, accusing it of sowing genetically modified seeds close to a nature reserve.
The company denies breaking environmental rules.
The Landless Movement has long occupied farms to demand land reform from the government, which is the aim of most of the dozens of farm takeovers over the last week.
But leaders of the Landless Movement say they will now also target big agricultural companies in alliance with the international peasant movement, Via Campesina.
It is the second such protest in less than a week.
Last week about 1,000 women from the movement took over a tree nursery in southern Brazil, destroying around one million eucalyptus seedlings.
Brazilian government officials - who have been supportive of the Landless Movement in the past - strongly criticised the destruction.
The country's economic growth is dependent on agricultural exports, many of them channelled through multinational companies.
******************************************
8. Victims of Glyphosate
Article from IPS News. Date: 16 March 2006
Roberto Villar Belmonte
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32528
CURITIBA, Brazil, Mar 16 (IPS) - The pain and suffering of victims of toxic agrochemicals invaded the international negotiations on biosafety in Curitiba, Brazil this week with the accounts of a Paraguayan mother whose son died from herbicide poisoning and local residents of a neighbourhood in Cordoba, Argentina facing a severe health crisis caused by the fumigation of surrounding fields.
The Third Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (MOP3) is taking place Monday through Friday in this southern Brazilian city.
Ninety minutes before the start of a panel on "Victims of Agribusiness at the Biodiversity Summit" on Wednesday, Paraguayan activist Petrona Villasboa was describing to IPS the circumstances of the death of her 11-year-old son Silvino Talavera when Brazil's federal police interrupted her.
The police were trying to detain two foreign activists from the groups that organised the panel - the Rural Reflection Group from Argentina and the Network for a Transgenic-Free Latin America - on charges that they had entered the country illegally.
The police alleged that irregularities had been committed by people entering the venue where MOP3 is being held, and that they were thus checking the documents and entry visas of those taking part in the "Victims of Agribusiness" panel.
The police action was called off after Brazilian diplomats and officials from the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity intervened.
Because she was poor and lived in a community without health care, Villasboa was unable to save her son when he was poisoned by agrochemicals. The boy was directly sprayed when one arm of a machine fumigating a nearby field jutted into the road along which he was riding his bike.
The incident occurred on Jan. 2, 2003 in Itapua, in southern Paraguay, next to a field of transgenic soy belonging to Brazilian farmer Herman Schelender.
When he was sprayed, Silvino was carrying a package of meat that he had just bought. The contaminated meat was eaten by the family, and after the meal, Silvino said he had a stomach ache and felt nauseous.
Villasboa, a mother of 10, thought she had taken care of the problem with a home remedy. But four days later, toxic agrochemicals were sprayed by another local farmer, just 15 metres from the house, and the entire family was intoxicated.
The cumulative effect was too much for Silvino. "He told me that night that he no longer had pain in his stomach, but in his bones," said Villasboa. In the wee hours of the morning, spots of blood appeared on his body, and his desperate mother asked a neighbour to drive him to the nearest health clinic.
Although the doctor diagnosed acute poisoning with agrochemicals, he said he could do nothing because he did not have the necessary medication or equipment.
Several hours later, the boy's body was completely paralysed, and he was taken to a hospital in the city of Encarnación. His stomach was pumped, but in vain. His mother was beside him when he died.
In a panic, Villasboa rushed home to take her two-year-old daughter to the hospital, and the little girl's life was saved. She did the same with the rest of her children, who were taken to the hospital the next day in an ambulance.
Blood tests revealed that her children had been contaminated with three kinds of agrochemicals, including glyphosate, an herbicide used in the cultivation of Roundup Ready transgenic soy beans, which are produced by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto.
Villasboa decided to give her personal testimony at the MOP3 in order to seek international assistance in the face of the power of the rural producers who are responsible for poisoning her family.
A judge found the two farmers involved - Herman Schelender and Lauro Lautenlager - guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced them to two years in prison. The day after the verdict was handed down, Villasboa received a death threat. The farmers have appealed the ruling.
Villasboa is now the head of the National Coordinating group of Indigenous Women, an organisation of 4,000 rural women, in her province.
In the other case reported Wednesday, the victims are the 500 residents of a neighbourhood in the central Argentine city of Córdoba. The district, Ituzaingó Anexo, is surrounded by fields of transgenic soy, which are sprayed from crop-duster planes.
The number of cases of leukemia and other cancers, skin diseases, and birth defects has soared since glyphosate began to be used on the surrounding fields.
"Less than a month ago, Dr. Edgardo Schinden released the results of an independent study that states that our neighbourhood should be evacuated," said Sofía Gatica, a women's group activist. "But the government of Córdoba has not recognised the findings of the report, and has offered to pave the streets and set up a health post, rather than making any effort to eliminate the source of contamination."
Blood tests have detected several types of toxic chemicals in 30 children, she said.
"The authorities told us that the contamination is within acceptable limits. Is there a limit to how contaminated we can be? Is there a limit to the illnesses invading our families?" asked the activist.
Transgenic soy involves "farming without farmers, where the only thing you hear is the wind," said one of the organisers of the panel.
An ad produced by the Syngenta seed company, which was shown at the beginning of the panel's meeting, shows a map of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay, dubbed "The United Republic of Soy".
"The transnational agribusiness corporations are promoting a new colonialism in Latin America, and the worst thing about it is that all of these damages are caused just to feed livestock in Europe and China," said Jorge Ruli, an Argentine activist with the Rural Reflection Group.
At the MOP3, a global coalition of non-governmental organisations protested the New Zealand delegates' defence of the U.S. position in the negotiations on biosafety. The United States, which has not signed the Cartagena Protocol, is opposed to the labeling of transgenic crops in international trade, even though it implements strict controls itself on imports containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The Protocol, which entered into force in September 2003, is aimed at protecting biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living organisms modified by means of biotechnology.
The United States is the world's biggest producer of transgenic or genetically modified varieties of crops, which are produced in laboratories by inserting genes from different plants or even animals into a crop.
The environmentalists urged New Zealand not to block the negotiations on the Cartagena Protocol with its unexplained opposition to strict labeling rules that would clearly identify the presence of GMOs in cross-border shipments of foodstuffs and animal feed.
In a statement distributed to the press, the activists noted that the import laws in New Zealand itself are among the most stringent in the world, requiring zero contamination with GMOs and clear labeling for consumers. So why is that country trying to keep others from having similar controls? they asked, complaining about double standards.
Switzerland and Brazil chair the contact group set up to unblock the Cartagena Protocol negotiations on labels that would clearly state "contains GMOs".
Brazilian Ambassador Luiz Figueiredo Machado, the co-chair of the contact group, told IPS that a proposal set forth by his country was serving as the basis for the search for a consensus on the Protocol's clause on labeling, the most controversial aspect of the treaty. The proposal would give countries four years to adjust to the new rule on labeling and separation of transgenics. (END/2006)
*******************************************
|
