What is in discussion here are two models of rural development.  One of them is centered on large landholdings controlled by multinational groups and focused on chemical input-dependent monoculture production.  The other is centered on small and medium sized agricultural production units organized in cooperative networks, local agro-industries, national companies, strategic public companies, and based in the diversification of production and in organic and agro-ecologic technologies.

Transgenic crops – An Important Debate

* Sérgio Antônio Görgen

 The question of transgenic crops has been at the center of national debate for several years.  Transgenic soy smuggled out of Argentina was clandestinely planted in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.  A bio-security law has long been debated.  It is important not to lose the central points of this debate.

 This is not a question of a blunt and infantile position against the legalization of transgenic crops nor is it for limiting research about them.  What is under discussion is creating and guaranteeing basic bio-security through safeguards for the protection of human health, the environment, and against the contamination of our environment. All these must come as a condition for commercial liberalization or norms for appropriate commercial use. 

 The multinational industry lobby, with the help of some naïve farmers (along with some who are not so naive) is for the releasing transgenic crops with no kind of control.             

 For this reason they defend:

-         All the powers of CTNBio,

-         No field testing on national soil

-         The annulment of the legal functions of ANVISA (The National Agency of Sanitation) and IBAMA (The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources)

-         No labeling

-         No control over charging royalties

-         Opening the gates to multinationals to monopolize seeds and agricultural inputs

 The Powers of CTNBio

  The CTNBio (National Technical Bio-security Commission) is a group of scientists that meet sporadically to make decisions about the authorization of research and commercial liberation of GMOs, including transgenic crops.  It is a technical commission without an organic or administrative structure to follow up on tests or even to ensure that its decisions are complied.  Its members are not paid or professionalized for fulfilling their tasks in due time.  As a committee of scientists and specialists with various areas of expertise, its existence is very important to shed light on what is known so far.  However, to give the committee absolute power in definitive decisions about such a controversial technology without the least bit of follow-up structure, evaluation or field monitoring, is a frightening misadventure, even for the scientists on the committee.

  The Fear of Tests

The transgenic crops that some wish to liberate in Brazil were “engineered” (produced in a laboratory with genetic engineering technicians) in northern countries, mostly in the United States, using the genetic material of bacteria and viruses adapted to colder climates and relatively lower biological variability.  Our climate is tropical and sub-tropical and our biodiversity is enormous.  The microbiology of our soils is different and the interaction between micro-organisms is also different.  This is why these products must be tested here, and evaluated with the entire technological package and cultural treatments that they will be submitted to in real terms, when they are cultivated in the field.

 If scientific reports from the North are not enough, neither is information provided by companies with special interests.  Information from scientists who are paid by the companies that own this technology is simply insufficient.  These substances must be tested by someone who has legal stature and who is judicially responsible for what is written in official reports.  According to Brazilian legislation, it is ANVISA (The National Agency of Sanitation) whose role it is to investigate health implications, IBAMA (The Brazilian Institute of Environment) that should investigate the effects on the soil, water and nature in general, the Ministry of Agriculture that should deal with certification of seeds, and the Fisheries Ministry that should deal with the production of transgenic fish. 

 It is difficult to understand why there is so much fear of testing transgenic crops in the Brazilian soil, climate and environment.  Could it be because the promoters of transgenic crops themselves already know that there are serious problems with their product, as has already been noted by many independent scientists in various parts of the world?       

Field Evaluation

  Opinions that are formulated exclusively in offices or in closed technical commissions can be misleading.  Let’s go to a concrete example.             

 The ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency) approved the construction of the Barra Grande Dam on the Pelotas River on the border of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina next to the city of Vacaria.  In the preliminary study of Environmental Impact, which was done by a private company and without field work on the part of the environmental department, nothing was detected that might impede the construction of the dam.  ANEEL, based on the reports and failing checking the field data, authorized the construction of the dam.  Now, as the dam is almost ready, technicians from IBAMA who were called to the site found 8000 hectares of forest native to the Brazilian araucaria, a species in grave risk of extinction.  How to solve this problem?   Realistically, there is nothing more to be done.  After all, the dam is almost done.  The same type of problem can happen with GMOs.

The End of Enchantment

 There is not a huge amount of enthusiasm with transgenic soy anymore in Rio Grande do Sul.  Disappointment has not yet set in but the initial enchantment is over.  Costs have gone up.  Boats have gone home because the soy was rejected by important buyers.  Prices have fallen.  The efficiency of the Roundup pesticide diminishes each year.  New pests arise.  Orchards and gardens close to the soy have been poisoned and declined.   Transgenic soy suffered more with the dry period of 2004 then conventional soy.  Royalty charges were really enforced and did not turn out to be made up stories by those who opposed the technology.  The wave of fanaticism that blinded so many producers is giving way to a calmer, more grounded evaluation. 

The Interests in Play

 Some multinationals want to monopolize each point of the principal steps in the production of food.  The multinationals control over the seeds and inputs is a strategic step in achieving this objective. 

National Sovereignty

 On the other side of the discourse, a nation with enormous agricultural potential like Brazil must manage rural development in order to best use the potential of its great biodiversity, peasant production systems and livelihoods within the local agro-ecosystems, and technological scientific, and industrial independence.  This area is vital for our sovereignty and development.

The Fear of Labels

 Part of the food industry is favorable to transgenic crops but runs from labeling like the devil from the cross.  However, if these transgenic crops are so good and secure, why is there so much fear of labeling them? Why don’t they make it an advertising point like “Eat transgenic crops, they are safe, tasty and cheap?”  Labeling has not come to the shelves of Brazilian supermarkets even though it was mandated by law more than a year ago. 

Human Rights

 In the area of human rights including economic, social and cultural rights, which have already been consecrated internationally, the way that transgenic crops are being imposed on Brazilian society has negative impacts on fundamental rights.

-         The right to a healthy environment, pure and free of contamination that causes its degradation;

-         The right of the farmer who decides not to plant transgenic crops to not have his or her fields contaminated;

-         The right of peasants to maintain their culture and their seeds free of transgenic contamination;

-         The right to health as well as the right not to be exposed to unknown risks for lack of independent research and tests (let’s not forget that 40 years ago it was said categorically that smoking was good for your health);

-         The right to information;

-         The right to choose and the right to have options about what to eat (guarantees of labeling and diversity in agricultural production);

-         The right of the Brazilian population to have food sovereignty

An Important debate

 The struggle is hard and will be long. The bio-security law is just one battle.  We are not just disputing the use of some knowledge or a technological instrument.

 What are in question here are two models of rural development.  One of them is centered on large landholdings controlled by multinational groups and focused on chemical input-dependent monoculture production.  The other is centered on small and medium sized agricultural production units organized in cooperative networks, local agro-industries, national companies, strategic public companies, and based in the diversification of production and in organic and agro-ecologic technologies.

  This important debate is what guides the immediate questions.  Multinational corporations know what they want and where they want to arrive.  Transgenic crops are only one more important front of the battle for them. On the other hand, many organizations want to see a sovereign Brazil, with strong peasant agriculture that produces healthy varied food in great quantity for our nation and for the world.

* Brother Sérgio Antônio Görgen is a state Congressman, for the Worker’s Party in Rio Grande do Sul.