Brazil set to use GM "terminator" seeds

[David Guyatt]

I just want to say that this is simply the craziest thing imaginable. The long-term consequences are simply appalling.

And, of course, the greed agribusiness just love it. Something provided free by nature converted to their copyright and outright ownership to sell and reap the profits.

Unease among Brazil's farmers as Congress votes on GM terminator seeds

Environmentalists warn approval could shatter global agreement not to use technology, with devastating repercussions

• Jonathan Watts in Rio de Janeiro and John Vidal
  
• theguardian.com, Thursday 12 December 2013 16.34 GMT
  

Brazil's national Congress is under pressure from landowning groups to green light GM 'terminator' seeds. Photograph: Ruy Barbosa Pinto/Getty Images/Flickr RF

Brazil is set to break a global moratorium on genetically-modified "terminator" seeds, which are said to threaten the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world.
The sterile or "suicide" seeds are produced by means of genetic use restriction technology, which makes crops die off after one harvest without producing offspring. As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds for each planting, which reduces their self-sufficiency and makes them dependent on major seed and chemical companies.
Environmentalists fear that any such move by Brazil one of the biggest agricultural producers on the planet could produce a domino effect that would result in the worldwide adoption of the controversial technology.
Major seed and chemical companies, which together own more than 60% of the global seed market, all have patents on terminator seed technologies. However, in the 1990s they agreed not to employ the technique after a global outcry by small farmers, indigenous groups and civil society groups.
In 2000, 193 countries signed up to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which recommended a de facto moratorium on this technology.
The moratorium is under growing pressure in Brazil, where powerful landowning groups have been pushing Congress to allow the technology to be used for the controlled propogation of certain plants used for medicines and eucalyptus trees, which provide pulp for paper mills.
The landowning groups want to plant large areas with fast growing GMtrees and other non-food GM crops that could theoretically spread seeds over wide areas. The technology, they argue, would be a safeguard, ensuring that no second generation pollution of GM traits takes place. They insist that terminator seeds would only be used for non-food crops.
Their efforts to force a bill to this effect through Congress, ongoing since 2007, have been slowed due to resistance from environmentalists.
The proposed measure has been approved by the legislature's agricultural commission, rejected by the environmental commission, and now sits in the justice and citizenship commission. It is likely to go to a full Congressional vote, where it could be passed as early as next Tuesday, or soon after the Christmas recess.
Environment groups say there would be global consequences. "Brazil is the frontline. If the agro-industry breaks the moratorium here, they'll break it everywhere," said Maria José Guazzelli, of Centro Ecológico, which represents a coalition of Brazilian NGOs.
This week they presented a protest letter signed by 34,000 people to thwart the latest effort to move the proposed legislation forward. "If this bill goes through, it would be a disaster. Farmers would no longer be able to produce their own seeds. That's the ultimate aim of the agro-industry," she said.
The international technology watchdog ETC, which was among the earliest proponents of a ban on terminator technology in the 1990s, fears this is part of a strategy to crack the international consensus.
"If the bill is passed, [we expect] the Brazilian government to take a series of steps that will orchestrate the collapse of the 193-country consensus moratorium when the UN Convention on Biological Diversity meets for its biennial conference in Korea in October 2014," said executive director Pat Mooney.
But Eduardo Sciarra, Social Democratic party leader in the Brazilian Congress, said the proposed measure did not threaten farmers because it was intended only to set controlled guidelines for the research and development of "bioreactor" plants for medicine.
"Gene use restriction technology has its benefits. This bill allows the use of this technology only where it is good for humanity," he said.
The technology was developed by the US Department of Agriculture and the world's largest seed and agrochemical firms. Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont together control more than 60% of the global commercial seed market and 76% of the agrochemical market. All are believed to hold patents on the technology, but none are thought to have developed the seeds for commercial use.
Massive protests in the 1990s by Indian, Latin American and south-east Asian peasant farmers, indigenous groups and their supporters put the companies on the back foot, and they were reluctantly forced to shelve the technology after the UN called for a de-facto moratorium in 2000.
Now, while denying that they intend to use terminator seeds, the companies argue that the urgent need to combat climate change makes it imperative to use the technology. In addition, they say that the technology could protect conventional and organic farmers by stopping GM plants spreading their genes to wild relatives an increasing problem in the US, Argentina and other countries where GM crops are grown on a large scale.
A Monsanto spokesman in Brazil said the company was unaware of the developments and stood by a commitment made in 1999 not to pursue terminator technology. "I'm not aware of so-called terminator seeds having been developed by any organisation, and Monsanto stands firmly by our commitment and has no plans or research relating to this," said Tom Helscher.
On its website, however, the company's commitment only appears to relate to "food crops", which does not encompass the tree and medicinal products under consideration in Brazil.

[Peter Lemkin]

A sad and suicidal action. Can only harm the farmers and the entire ecosystem. Nothing good can come of it.....NOTHING!::

[Magda Hassan]

It is so completely not needed on any level. Insanity. I would love to know the individuals in the Brasilian government who was pushing for this.

[Lauren Johnson]

It is so completely not needed on any level. Insanity. I would love to know the individuals in the Brasilian government who was pushing for this.

Whoever they are, you can count on some economic hit men/women plying their trade. You could call them lobbyists if it weren't for the fact that if and when they fail, then the jackals take over.

[Magda Hassan]

GM Crops Bring Brazil Lower Yields and Higher Chemical Use

Posted on Dec 22 2013 - 6:11pm






GM crops in Brazil have brought higher agrochemical use and lower yields and productivity, according to a new report based on government data.

In the new report, the president of the Brazilian Association of Agrarian Reform (Abra), Gerson Teixeira, analyzes ten years of cultivation of GM seeds in Brazil.

Source: EcoDebate (GMWatch Translation from Portuguese)

In the report, the researcher makes some clear points regarding the consequences of this technology: high dependence, increased monoculture, increased use of pesticides and decreased productivity.
It all started, Teixeira noted, from the smuggling of Monsanto's GM seeds, hitherto prohibited from use in Brazil.
Given this fait accompli', these products began to be released in the country under the pretext of "reducing costs, increasing productivity, reducing pesticide use, and many other advantages that turned out to predominantly materialise in our country in the form of huge profits for the big global agrochemical corporations."
The actual result was the complete opposite. In "homage to the prophets of the alleged technical and environmental virtues of this scientific event", the author deals more specifically with two of the "sirens' songs" of GMOs: reduced pesticide use and increased productivity.
Just to give you an idea, pesticide use has increased in Brazil by around 190% in the past ten years, while in the rest of the world the increase was 90%.
Yet soybean yield in Brazil, for example, grew by only 4% in the last decade, compared to 31% growth between 1992/2003 [prior to GM crop legalisation].

Meanwhile, GM Watch reported today that by a narrow majority of just three votes, the proposal to allow releases of terminator seed was not included in the Brazilian congressional hearings this time. [URL="http://www.mst.org.br/sites/default/files/ABRA%20-%20TRANSGENICOS%20-%20HOMENAGEM%20AOS%2010%20ANOS%20-%20DEZ%202013.pdf"]
[/URL]

Excellent news!

[Magda Hassan]

Was lawyer working for Monsanto behind Terminator legislation?

A report suggests that a lawyer working for Monsanto was behind a previous attempt to legalise Terminator seeds in Brazil.
Recently GMWatch published an article about the pressure being brought on legislators in Brazil to approve Terminator seeds.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/ar...2013/15216
The article quoted Monsanto as claiming it knew nothing about these latest developments and as standing by its previous commitment not to pursue Terminator.
However, an article (below) from the Brazilian press from 2011 reports that Monsanto was behind at least one of Brazil's previous attempted legislations of terminator seed, though the company was less than candid about its involvement.
According to the article, a lawyer who "serves Monsanto regarding this issue" even wrote the legislation.
---
---
Lawyer denies authorship of Terminator bill as contradictions become increasingly evident
Instituto Humanitas Unisinos (Brazil), 8 Jan 2011
http://www.ihu.unisinos.br/noticias/3968...-evidentes
Attorney Patricia Fukuma, from the office of Fukuma Lawyers, has denied that she was a coauthor of the bill of the government leader, Mr Candido Vaccarezza (PT-SP), on the release of the use of sterile seeds in Brazil. In a note forwarded to the [site?], the attorney states that she "does not know why" her name appears on the document obtained by this reporter.
The information was provided by the AS-PTA Newsletter of 07/01/2011 and was originally published by Congress in Focus website, 22/12/2010.
According to the document, the name of Patricia Fukuma was in the properties[?] of the Draft Law 5575/2009 file. The document was available for public access in the main hall until the publication of the report of the Congress in Focus. The lawyer was named on the document as the author.
"I repeat that I am not a co-author of the draft PL5575/2009 law, authored by Congressman Candido Vaccarezza, as I explained to the journalist Renata Camargo over three short phone conversations. I do not know why my name appears in the document obtained by the journalist," she says.
In a conversation recorded last Monday (20), Patricia said that she was not the sole author of the project, but gave "some opinions": "The authorship is not entirely mine."
The contextualized recording says: "Actually, it was sent to me so that I could take a look at the project. I looked around and gave some opinions. I actually reviewed the part on labeling and other matters. It is not entirely my authorship. I've reviewed it, let's say…," she said.
In the note forwarded to the site[?], Patricia also says she is not, and never was, a lawyer for Monsanto. The lawyer says that her name is not [included] "in any legal proceedings currently pending in Brazil and in which the company is a party". In the recorded conversation, a spokesperson for the multinational listed Patricia as one of the "people who serve Monsanto regarding this issue". The office of Fukuma Lawyers also confirmed by phone that the group is serving Monsanto. ( ... )
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/ar...egislation