Showing posts with label Monsanto Bt cotton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monsanto Bt cotton. Show all posts

Monday, November 30, 2009

GMO's FAIL TO REDUCE PESTICIDES...


"Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years"

November 2009

Author(s): Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist
The Organic Center

"GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds."

Genetically-engineered corn, soybeans, and cotton now account for the majority of acres planted to these three crops. A model was developed that utilizes official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.

The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.

GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

The full report is 69 pages, and is accessible at the link posted below. The Executive Summary is posted separately (15 pages). The Supplemental Tables listed in the report's Table of Contents are also posted below.

http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159

FRANCE SUPREME COURT FINDS MONSANTO GUILTY OF FRAUD


source: http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/france_finds_monsanto_guilty_of_lying_211120090805.html

France's highest court has ruled that U.S. agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean." Roundup is the world's best-selling herbicide.

French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" by the European Union.

In the latest ruling, France's Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008, the AFP news agency reports.

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics, including ruthless legal battles against small farmers, is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Monsanto is a very dark cloud hanging over the future of health and food safety in the United States. This powerful entity has already managed so many reprehensible acts it boggles the mind, including:

Leading the world into a new age of potentially hazardous genetic modification of seeds.

Patenting not only their own GMO seeds, but also a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time -- without a vote of the people or Congress.

Not allowing farmers to save their seeds to replant the next year -- a practice that has been done for generations. Instead, they aggressively seek out and sue farmers they suspect of doing so.

Suing farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of Monsanto’s GE pollen or seed onto their land for patent infringement!

Producing two of the most toxic substances ever known -- polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin (Agent Orange).

Now France's highest court has confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto falsely advertised its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable" and said it "left the soil clean" -- claims that could not be further from the truth.

The Reality about Roundup

Monsanto long used the slogans, “It's Safer than Mowing," "Biodegradable," and “Environmentally Friendly" to describe Roundup -- until the real effects of this toxic herbicide were revealed and they were forced to discontinue their deceptive advertising.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, is the most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers in California. Additionally:
The surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, and the combination of the two is even more toxic.

Glyphosate is suspected of causing genetic damage.

Glyphosate is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance.

Laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.

In one animal study, rats given 1,000 mg/kg of glyphosate resulted in a 50 percent mortality rate, and skeletal alterations were observed in over 57 percent of fetuses!

This is very concerning because millions of pounds of Roundup are used every year on U.S. gardens, lawns and farms, especially on GM crops that are engineered to be Roundup resistant. Roundup works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase, which is necessary for plants to grow. Without it, plants are unable to produce essential proteins so they slowly yellow and die.

Monsanto developed a cash cow when they created not only Roundup, but also their genetically modified “Roundup Ready” crops.

Roundup Ready soybean, cotton and corn crops are the world’s largest group of genetically modified crops. In fact, the GM Roundup Ready gene is part of more than 75 percent of soybeans, 65 percent of cotton and 10 percent of corn grown in the United States.

This particular variety of GM crops became so popular because it allows farmers to spray Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide directly onto their fields without harming the crops. Ordinarily, if you were to spray Roundup, or any other glyphosate-based herbicide, onto a plant, it would die.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, however, produce an enzyme that has the same function as EPSP synthase, but is not affected by Roundup.

As you might imagine, the use of Roundup herbicide has increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready crops were introduced, and serious problems have been reported ever since.

Roundup Residues are Toxic

It’s widely known that GM Roundup Ready crops, which are very common in the United States, contain Roundup residues. A study published earlier this year even showed, for the first time, just how toxic these residues may be to your health.

The study found that residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed can cause cell damage and death, even at very low levels. The authors of the study said their research "... points to undesirable effects which are currently masked or hidden from scientific scrutiny."

Even when researchers tested formulations of Roundup that were highly diluted (up to 100,000 times or more) on human cells, the cells died within 24 hours.

They also found damage to cell membranes and DNA, along with an inhibition of cell respiration.

Further, the researchers discovered that the mixture of components used as Roundup adjuvants actually amplified the action of the glyphosate, making at least one of its metabolites even more toxic. The researchers wrote:

“This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from Roundup formulation-treated crops.”

With findings like these, you can see just how outrageous Monsanto’s claims really were. Roundup is not “biodegradable,” safe or in any way good for people or the environment.

Not by a long shot.

Monsanto’s Sordid Past

It does not come as a surprise that Monsanto lied about Roundup, given their extremely under-handed track record. There is easily enough “dirt” on Monsanto to fill an entire book.

Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply is what’s known as terminator technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.

The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.

If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!

Monsanto -- the convicted liar’s club -- has also worked its way into varying high-level positions in the U.S. government, ironically in positions that are meant to protect your food safety!

The New Senior Advisor for the FDA is a Former Monsanto VP!

Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policy and chief lobbyist at Monsanto Company, is the new senior advisor for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Who is Michael Taylor? He is the person who “oversaw the creation of GMO policy,” according to Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods.

Smith continues:

“If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.”

The FDA policy being referred to is the 1992 GMO policy, which stated:

"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods [genetic engineering] differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."

In reality, there was major concern among FDA scientists that GM foods were in fact different than natural foods, and that their creation could prompt unknown and unpredictable health problems.

Along with being a key player in the initial pushing of GM foods onto Americans’ plates (without any required safety studies), Taylor also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST).

This growth hormone, which has been banned in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand because of cancer risks and other health concerns, was approved in the United States while Taylor was in charge at the FDA. Smith writes:

“Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.”

Taylor’s white paper, which again was untrue as even FDA scientists acknowledged differences in the rbGH milk, allowed Monsanto to sue dairies that labeled their products rbGH-free.

Unfortunately, the connections do not end there. You can find out more about all of Monsanto’s key players who are now part of the Obama administration here.

You Can Fight Back Against Monsanto

By boycotting all GM foods and instead supporting organic (and local) farmers who do not use Monsanto’s GM seeds, you are using your wallet to make your opinions known. This means abstaining from virtually all processed food products (most are loaded with GM ingredients) and sticking to fresh, locally grown, organic foodstuffs instead.

Monsanto reported a fourth quarter loss of $233 million in October 2009, largely due to a drop in sales of its Roundup brand -- so I am confident that many are wising up to the underhanded dealings of this evil company.

If you want to help keep Monsanto from expanding their stronghold on the world’s food supply, please also continue to stay informed.

Monsanto is the poster child for manipulation and corporate greed, so please, forward this article on to your circle of influence, and make the choice to boycott any product that this unethical company is associated with.

MONSANTO'S ROUNDUP DETRIMENTAL TO HUMAN HEALTH!


Press Release CRIIGEN - May 2007

Effects of the herbicide Roundup on human embryonic cells

Professor Séralini’s group (1), in the University of Caen, France, just published a study on the previously unknown toxic effects of Roundup on human embryonic cells.
Roundup is the major herbicide in use worldwide, including on GMOs for food and
feed. The embryonic cells are from a line cultivated in the laboratory and their use does not necessitate embryo destruction. The group wanted to confirm and detail the understanding of the effects already observed on placental cells, as published by Séralini’s group in 2005.

Following comparison, it appears that embryonic cells are far more sensitive. The
deleterious results of Roundup are noticed at very week doses (the product sold in stores is diluted up to 10,000 times). Sensitivity is confirmed in particular for the disruption of sexual hormones at non toxic levels, especially on fresh placental extracts. The maximal active dilutions correspond to less than the residues in discussion to be authorized in GMO feed in the United States.

It is evidenced that the herbicide Roundup, as sold on the market, is far more toxic than the product which is known and approved to be its active ingredient: glyphosate. The gaps in European legislation to study the effects of mixtures and hormonal disruptions are underlined.

This work may be of help in better understating the problems of miscarriages, premature births or sexual malformations of babies, in particular in agricultural workers families.

The paper published on line first (1) on the website of the journal « Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology » directed by Dr. Doerge from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in USA, will appear in the July 2007 issue.

This work is funded by the Human Earth Foundation, the Denis Guichard Foundation, the
CRIIGEN and the Regional Council of Basse-Normandie.
Contact : Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. Telephone: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31-56-53-20. Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN. E-mail: criigen@unicaen.fr

(1) Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells
by Nora Benachour, Herbert Sipahutar, Safa Moslemi, Céline Gasnier, Carine Travert, Gilles-Eric Séralini.

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/d13171q7k863l446/fulltext.html

OGM: HAUSSE EXPONENTIELLE DES HERBICIDES...


Aux Etats-Unis, les cultures OGM ont provoqué une hausse de la consommation d'herbicides par les agriculteurs : + 172 000 tonnes entre 1996 et 2008, selon le rapport d'une association spécialisée dans la sécurité alimentaire, The Organic Center.

Dans son rapport intitulé "Impacts des cultures génétiquement modifiées sur l'emploi de pesticides aux États-Unis", basé sur les données du ministère de l'Agriculture américain, The Organic Center déclare que l'utilisation d'herbicides a flambé au cours des dernières années, augmentant de 172 000 tonnes entre 1996 (année de l'autorisation des premiers OGM) et 2008. Près de la moitié de cette augmentation est survenue en 2007 et 2008. En revanche, les quantités d'insecticides épandues ont baissé de 29 000 tonnes. La balance des pesticides reste donc largement négative. Et la tendance s'accentue.

Les super-mauvaises herbes

En cause, les méchantes super-mauvaises herbes, qui ont développé des résistances aux herbicides, naturellement ou par transfert de gènes. Les agriculteurs confrontés à ce nouveau fléau sont donc amenés à multiplier les traitements. D'une part, ils paient les graines trois fois plus cher (l'innovation a un prix), d'autre part, le coût des traitements phytosanitaires grimpe à vue d'oeil. Ce qu'on appelle un fiasco total, pour une technologie censée réduire les intrants et les coûts de production ?

Aucun problème, rétorquent les semenciers, "si un agriculteur a le sentiment qu'une culture apporte plus de problèmes que d'avantages, ils cesseront de l'utiliser" a déclaré Mike Wach, directeur général de Biotechnology Industry Organization, un groupement de semenciers. Monsanto s'est en outre refusé à tout commentaire. Circulez...

Les agriculteurs paient, les consommateurs trinquent, les firmes jubilent...

Pas vraiment convaincu, Charles Benbrook, responsable de l'étude au sein de The Organic Center, avance qu'"avec les mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate [molécule active du Roundup] qui infestent aujourd'hui des millions d'hectares, les agriculteurs font face à une augmentation des coûts combinée parfois avec des pertes de rendement importantes". "Ce rapport confirme ce que nous disons depuis des années", a aussi déclaré Bill Freese, analyste du Center for Food Safety (observatoire de la sécurité alimentaire). Les "cultures génétiquement modifiées entrainent l'utilisation accrue de pesticides [ce qui engendre] une épidémie de mauvaises herbes résistantes, et une hausse des quantités de résidus chimiques dans nos aliments. Cela est peut être rentable pour les fabricants de pesticides et d'OGM, mais ce sont des mauvaises nouvelles pour l'agriculture, la santé humaine et l'environnement".

Le rapport complet est disponible sur le site de Organic Center au lien suivant:

http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159

[Interviews réalisées par Reuters]

(Article publié sur le site "Les mots ont un sens")

source:http://www.lesmotsontunsens.com/les-ogm-augmentent-nettement-la-consommation-de-pesticides-6263

ROUNDUP DE MONSANTO: EFFETS TOXIQUES SUR LA SANTE HUMAINE


Etude sur les effets du Roundup sur des cellules humaines - Avril 2007

L’équipe du Professeur Séralini à l’Université de Caen vient de publier un article sur les effets toxiques jusqu’alors inconnus du Roundup sur des cellules embryonnaires humaines. Le Roundup de Monsanto est le principal herbicide utilisé au monde, y compris sur OGM alimentaires...

Les cellules embryonnaires sont issues d’une lignée cultivée au laboratoire qui ne nécessite pas de destruction d’embryon. L’équipe a voulu confirmer et approfondir la compréhension des effets déjà observés sur les cellules provenant de placenta, auxquelles elles ont été comparées, et sur lesquelles la même équipe avait publié en 2005. Les cellules d’embryon sont bien plus sensibles. Les actions délétères du Roundup sont relevées à partir de doses très faibles (le produit vendu en magasin est dilué jusqu’à 10.000 fois) et elles sont confirmées, en particulier au niveau de la perturbation des hormones sexuelles à des doses non toxiques, notamment avec des extraits de placenta frais. Ces doses correspondent aux doses discutées pour être autorisées dans certains OGM tolérants au Roundup aux Etats-Unis.

Il est mis en évidence que c’est le produit Roundup tel que vendu qui est beaucoup plus toxique que le produit qui est connu et homologué pour être son principe actif, le glyphosate. Les lacunes de la réglementation européenne sur l’étude des mélanges et des perturbateurs hormonaux sont soulignées. Ces travaux pourront peut-être permettre de mieux comprendre les problèmes de fausses couches, de naissances prématurées, ou de malformations sexuelles chez les bébés, entre autres de couples d’agriculteurs.

L’article publié en ligne en avant-première (lien ci-dessous) sur le site de la revue « Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology » dirigée par le Dr Doerge de la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aux USA, paraîtra dans le numéro de juillet 2007.

Ces travaux sont soutenus par la Fondation pour une Terre Humaine, la Fondation Denis Guichard, le CRIIGEN et le Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie.

Contact : Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, Biochimie, Institut de Biologie, Université de Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. Téléphone: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31-56-53-20. Corinne Lepage Présidente du CRIIGEN. E-mail: criigen@unicaen.fr.

(1) Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells by Nora Benachour, Herbert Sipahutar, Safa Moslemi, Céline Gasnier, Carine Travert, Gilles-Eric Séralini.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

BIOTECHNOLOGY, GENETICS, HUMAN CLONING & THE FUTURE OF MANKIND...


TECHNOCALYPS is a frightening non-fictional documentary about the grim and dark future of mankind in the third millenium resulting from scientific and technological progress in the field of biotechnology, genetics, cloning, robotics, artificial intelligence, computer technology, nanotechnology, etc. on the one hand, and spiritual & moral bankruptcy on the other...

What is painfully obvious is that science divorced from morality and spirituality is a mortal recipe which will annihilate human life and all life on the planet.

As Einstein and Martin Luther King lucidly said:

" It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. MORALITY is of the highest importance, but for us, not for God. If we are good only because we fear punishment and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

Albert Einstein

" Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power; we have guided missiles and misguided men...; if we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values: that all reality hinges on MORAL foundations and that all reality has spiritual control...The Moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice."

Martin Luther King

And as Billy Meier - the true prophet of the New Age - has prophetically written in the Henoch Prophecies:

Horrifying weapons and a possible world war

Due to the fault of scientists, enormous power will be seized by the power-hungry and their military, their warriors and terrorists, and power will be seized as well through laser weapons of many types, but also via atomic, chemical and biological weapons. Also concerning genetic technology, enormous misuse will occur, because this will be unrestrainedly exploited for the purposes of war, not lastly due to the cloning of human beings for warring purposes, as this was practised in ancient times with the descendants of Henoch in the regions of Sirius.

However, this will not be all of the horrors; as besides the genetic technology and the chemical weapons, far worse and more dangerous and more deadly weapons of mass destruction will be produced and will be used. The irresponsible politicians will unscrupulously exercise their power, assisted by scientists and obedient military forces serving them, who together hold a deadly sceptre and will create clone-like beings which will be bred in a total lack of conscience and will be scientifically manipulated to become killer machines. Division by division and devoid of any feelings, they will destroy, murder and annihilate everything.

If the Third World War will actually happen—as calculations and observations appear to indicate to be probable now and also during the approaching few decades—then, as now, the civilian population will above all have to bear the brunt of the enormous suffering in tremendous numbers in this entire catastrophe and, last but not least, the fault of the irresponsible scientists who by cloning will create human machines for military purposes, devoid of conscience and feelings, and will create immensely deadly and all-annihilating computer-like weapons. At the same time, the danger could become reality that the human combat machines, the military clones, will gain their independence and under their own management will bring death, devastation, destruction and annihilation to the human beings of Earth and to the planet.

...evil military powers will wreak havoc with computerised and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, whereby it will also happen that computerised weapons become independent and cannot be controlled any longer by human beings. Overall, this is the most important part of Henoch's prophecies.

You can read the entire Henoch Prophecies on this blog at the following link:

http://yajnacentre.blogspot.com/2009/08/prophecies-predictions-for-humanity-for.html

Please click on the title link above to view the documentary.

Monday, July 20, 2009

LES "DIRIGEANT" OUEST AFRICAINS A LA SOLDE DU LOBBY OGM


L’Afrique s’offre au coton transgénique

par Colette Thomas

source: http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/078/article_44575.asp

A l’occasion d’un séminaire à Ouagadougou, huit pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre, annoncent qu’ils vont se lancer dans la culture de coton transgénique. Bénin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Tchad, Cameroun, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana et Togo veulent diversifier leur production. L’idée est également de travailler à l’échelle régionale dans le domaine de la recherche.

Les ministres du Commerce et de l’Agriculture du Bénin, du Burkina Faso, du Mali et du Tchad ont assisté à ce séminaire à Ouagadougou ainsi que des représentants du Cameroun, de Côte d’Ivoire, du Ghana et du Togo. Tous ont un secteur cotonnier important. Cette réunion était organisée par la Banque mondiale et l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) pour parler de la filière et chercher à renforcer ses atouts. Il a été notamment décidé de passer, en partie, au coton génétiquement modifié.

Un centre régional de biotechnologie sera créé dans l’un de ces pays producteurs ainsi qu’un observatoire régional des intrants agricoles, c’est-à-dire des additifs utilisés tout à la fois pour augmenter les rendements et supprimer les parasites et les mauvaises herbes. Une des recommandations adoptées à l’occasion de ce séminaire indique qu' « en plus des engrais, il y a lieu d’intégrer la question des semences et le passage aux OGM (organismes génétiquement modifiés) ». Le centre permettra donc d’observer l’évolution de la qualité des terres et la productivité. Ce centre de recherches étudiera toutes les pratiques agricoles en allant des plus traditionnelles utilisant des produits chimiques jusqu’aux plus novatrices utilisant des plants de coton transgéniques.

La possibilité de mener ces études agronomiques séduira probablement bien des chercheurs africains souvent tentés de partir dans les pays du Nord pour progresser dans leurs travaux. Pourtant, ce futur centre de recherche représente probablement la contrepartie offerte par les bailleurs de fonds aux pays producteurs de coton pour qu’ils se lancent dans la culture de coton génétiquement modifié.

L’exception du Burkina Faso

Jusqu’à présent, de tous ces pays, seul le Burkina Faso a commencé, en 2003, des cultures expérimentales de coton transgénique en collaboration avec le groupe américain Monsanto. D’autres pays producteurs se sont interrogés, comme le Mali. Pour commencer, Bamako a regardé l’expérience sud-africaine. Dans ce pays d’Afrique australe, les quatre-cinquièmes de la production de coton sont d’origine OGM. Et c’est Monsanto, l’un des rares groupes mondiaux à avoir mis au point des semences OGM, qui a convaincu le gouvernement de passer aux organismes génétiquement modifiés. Car l’Afrique du Sud plante également du soja et du maïs transgéniques en moins grande proportion.

A part le Burkina Faso, aucun des autres pays présents à cette réunion de Ouagadougou n’avait donc fait le pas. Lors d’une précédente réunion il y a tout juste deux ans, toujours à Ouagadougou, quatre chefs d’Etat ouest-africains s’étaient déclarés « favorables » à l’utilisation des organismes génétiquement modifiés dans leur agriculture, tout en voulant d’abord s’assurer que cette technologie agricole ne représente « aucun danger pour les populations et l’environnement ». Amadou Toumani Touré du Mali, John Kufuor du Ghana, Mamadou Tandja du Niger et Blaise Compaoré du Burkina Faso avaient donc dit « oui mais » à l’occasion de cette réunion organisée par le gouvernement américain. John Penn, le vice-ministre de l’Agriculture, était venu en personne présenter aux leaders africains « les avantages » de la biotechnologie.

Le Niger n’est pas venu au tout dernier rendez-vous. Lors du précédent, celui de 2004, le président Tandja avait déclaré : « C’est la vérité que la biotechnologie a révolutionné l’agriculture et pourrait tout aussi bien être utilisée pour améliorer les performances de l’agriculture africaine. Mais il me paraît fondamental que soient minutieusement étudiés et mis en exergue tous les contours de cette délicate question afin de nous édifier sur les impacts environnementaux, économiques et sociaux de cette matière encore peu connue de nos pays ».

Aller de l’avant

Un collectif d’organisations non gouvernementales burkinabé avait, il y a deux ans, présenté les OGM comme un « danger » pour l’Afrique, demandant un moratoire de cinq ans avant l’introduction de cette technologie agricole dans leur pays. Aujourd’hui le ministre de l’Agriculture du Burkina Salif Diallo souligne qu’« il est urgent d’aboutir à des décisions rapides et courageuses pour éviter de tomber dans le paradoxe des débats interminables ».

Car au-delà du choix des OGM, la filière africaine du coton a du mal à s’en sortir. Comme dans les autres secteurs économiques, le prix du baril de pétrole augmente les coûts. Et les producteurs américains et européens sont encore trop subventionnés, ce qui empêche les Africains de trouver leur place sur le marché mondial. Le ministre burkinabé de l’Agriculture a donc appelé de ses vœux la création d’un fonds de « lissage », demandant aux Etats-Unis et à l’Union européenne de prendre une part active à la création de ce fonds. Son objectif serait de « permettre au petit paysan de maintenir un prix acceptable pour son coton, de ne pas mourir avant que les négociations (à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce) ne se terminent ».

Plusieurs pays africains se sont depuis peu lancés dans le coton labellisé Max Havelaar, donc presque bio, le respect de l’environnement faisant partie des critères de labellisation du commerce équitable. Les producteurs sont donc en train de faire le grand écart entre une agriculture à connotation sociale et une autre, la plus technologique qui soit.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

WARNING: AVOID GM FOODS say doctors...!



The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that “GM foods pose a serious health risk” and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes “there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects” and that “GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health. Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health,” said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM.


Please read the following article published by Jeffrey Smith on the report.

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

By Jeffrey M. Smith

source: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2989

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.


When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]


Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.

www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007

[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.

[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.

[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008

[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006

[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.

[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).

[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.

[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.

[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008

[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf

[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008

[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.

[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005

[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).

[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp

[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.

[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007

[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.

[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf

[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.

[27] See memos at www.biointegrity.org

[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733

[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.

[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25


© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2009.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, www.responsibletechnology.org, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

Saturday, June 06, 2009

MONSANTO A L'ASSAUT DU BURKINA FASO


L’introduction du coton transgénique provoque la colère des paysans africains

La crise alimentaire de 2008 a relancé le débat sur les biotechnologies, censées accroître la productivité de l’agriculture africaine. Mais, comme leurs homologues altermondialistes occidentaux, les paysans du continent noir se méfient des conséquences sanitaires et sociales des organismes génétiquement modifiés. Le semencier américain Monsanto a donc décidé d’employer les grands moyens pour les imposer, avec l’aide du président burkinabé Blaise Compaoré. La résistance s’organise.

Par Françoise Gérard

Le Monde Diplomatique, Fevrier 2009

Source: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2009/02/GERARD/16793

Petit Etat parmi les plus pauvres du monde, le Burkina Faso s’est discrètement lancé dans la culture des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM), en l’occurrence le coton Bt (1). Révélé au grand public en 2003, le partenariat de Ouagadougou avec le semencier américain Monsanto suscite d’autant plus la controverse parmi les paysans et les associations locales qu’il représente un test pour le développement des OGM dans toute l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Comment le Burkina Faso en est-il venu à travailler avec une entreprise célèbre pour son herbicide Roundup et son « agent orange » (2) ? La sacro-sainte « lutte contre la pauvreté » à laquelle les OGM apporteraient leur contribution en dynamisant l’agriculture burkinabé semble avoir bon dos, et les motivations réelles des partenaires commencent seulement à se faire jour sous la pression des associations...

C’est dans le plus grand secret que les premiers essais de coton Bt ont démarré au Burkina Faso, en 2001, en violation de la convention sur la diversité biologique de 1992 et le protocole de Carthagène sur la biosécurité de 2000. Ces traités internationaux stipulent que les pays concernés doivent se munir d’un cadre législatif et prendre les plus grandes précautions avant de commencer la culture d’OGM. En outre, les signataires s’engagent à informer la population des dangers et à ne prendre aucune décision sans une large concertation publique.

Pourtant, ce n’est qu’en 2003, lors d’un atelier sur la biosécurité à Ouagadougou, que la Ligue des consommateurs apprit l’existence de ces essais et divulgua ce que l’Institut de l’environnement et de la recherche agricole (Inera) avait dissimulé. Monsanto prétendit que les essais étaient effectués dans des « espaces confinés ». En réalité, il s’agissait de parcelles entourées de filets déchirés.

C’est donc « après coup » que le Burkina Faso se mit en règle, faisant ratifier par le Parlement, en avril 2006, le régime de sécurité en biotechnologie. Les soixante-quinze articles de cette loi auraient pu rassurer les opposants aux OGM, s’il n’était stipulé que son but est « de garantir la sécurité humaine, animale et végétale, et la protection de la diversité biologique et de l’environnement » (art. 22), l’Agence nationale pour la biosécurité (ANB) étant chargée de l’évaluation des risques. Or, d’après leurs opposants, c’est précisément parce que les risques sont incontrôlables que les cultures OGM sont contestées (3)...

Si Monsanto a choisi le Burkina Faso, c’est d’abord parce qu’il est le plus gros producteur de coton d’Afrique de l’Ouest, devant le Mali, le Bénin et la Côte d’Ivoire. En outre, sa situation géographique en fait le cheval de Troie des biotechnologies dans la région. Les frontières sont poreuses : on sait que les usines d’égrenage favorisent des échanges involontaires. La contamination « accidentelle » des plantes par les OGM profite aux firmes conquérantes, une plante contaminée ne pouvant revenir à son état antérieur et rien ne distinguant à l’œil nu une plante génétiquement modifiée d’une autre.

De plus, les contrôles techniques, très coûteux, ne sont pas à la portée des communautés rurales. Tout doucement, les OGM sont donc en train de s’imposer à l’insu des citoyens. Si le Bénin a renouvelé pour cinq ans un moratoire sur les OGM, le Mali vient de céder à la pression et d’autoriser les essais de coton Bt.

Le Burkina Faso était le maillon faible de la région : son président Blaise Compaoré cherchait à renouer avec la « communauté internationale » après avoir soutenu activement l’ancien président du Liberia, M. Charles Taylor (4), pendant la très meurtrière guerre civile dans les années 1990. Il était soupçonné d’avoir alimenté le trafic d’armes et de diamants dans la sous-région. En quelques années, son pays est devenu un élève modèle des institutions financières internationales et de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Le partenariat avec Monsanto a ainsi constitué un geste politique envers les Etats-Unis, très mécontents de l’attitude de M. Compaoré.

A partir de 2003, le ministre de l’agriculture Salif Diallo fit du coton OGM son cheval de bataille. L’Union nationale des producteurs de coton du Burkina (UNPCB), dirigée par M. François Traoré, après avoir manifesté ses inquiétudes, modifia ses positions en échange de 30 % des parts de la Société des fibres textiles (Sofitex), la principale société cotonnière burkinabé, privatisée à la demande de la Banque mondiale. Des paysans dissidents créèrent alors, en 2003, le Syndicat national des travailleurs de l’agropastoral (Syntap), farouchement opposé aux OGM. Un leader paysan, M. Ousmane Tiendrébéogo, s’insurge : « Chez nous, il n’y a que l’agriculture ; on n’a pas le droit de jouer à la roulette russe avec notre avenir. »

Face à l’UNPCB se trouvent trois sociétés cotonnières : la Sofitex, dans la région Ouest, la Société cotonnière du Gourma (Socoma, ex-Dagris), dans la région Est, et Faso Coton, dans la région Centre. Elles fixent avec l’UNPCB le prix annuel : 165 francs CFA (0,25 euro) le kilo de coton « premier choix » pour 2008. Elles fournissent — à crédit — les intrants, les insecticides et les herbicides nécessaires puis, quand la récolte est faite, viennent la collecter dans les champs pour l’amener à l’usine d’égrenage.

Cette « prise en charge » héritée du système colonial est à double tranchant, car elle ne laisse guère d’autonomie au producteur. Propriétaire de sa parcelle, il peut théoriquement abandonner le coton s’il estime le bénéfice insignifiant, et adopter une autre culture de rente, comme le sésame (5). Mais, en réalité, son endettement, son faible niveau d’instruction ainsi que les produits fournis par les sociétés cotonnières le rendent très dépendant du système. M. Yezuma Do, producteur, raconte : « Ils sont venus avec les autorités et les gendarmes pour nous dire que l’année prochaine nous ferons tous du Bt, parce que c’est mieux pour nous. Mais ils ne nous disent pas le prix des semences. Et si nous refusons, l’UNPCB nous prévient que nous ne pourrons pas égrener notre coton conventionnel dans la région. » De guerre lasse, M. Do envisage, avec de nombreux voisins, de renoncer à la culture du coton.

L’UNPCB et les sociétés cotonnières se sont constituées en Association interprofessionnelle du coton au Burkina (AICB). En concertation avec les chercheurs de l’Inera et Monsanto, l’AICB supervise la formation des techniciens et des producteurs. C’est elle qui fixera le prix de la semence Bt pour 2009... La boucle est bouclée. En 2008, douze mille hectares de coton Bt, type Bollgard II, ont été mis en culture afin de procurer les semences pour trois cent mille à quatre cent mille hectares, l’ANB ayant autorisé la production commerciale du coton Bt pour 2009.

Qu’en sera-t-il réellement ? Si la semence de coton conventionnel prélevée sur la récolte ne coûte que 900 francs CFA (1,37 euro) l’hectare, en revanche les droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) dus à Monsanto risquent de dépasser les 30 000 francs CFA (45 euros) à l’hectare (6). On se contente de rassurer les paysans en leur promettant que le prix n’excédera pas leurs moyens.
Un front anti-OGM

Un front anti-OGM rassemblant des associations s’est constitué : la Coalition pour la conservation du patrimoine génétique africain (Copagen). Des groupements de pays voisins en font partie (Bénin, Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, Niger, Togo et Sénégal). Bien que ses capacités financières soient restreintes, la Copagen a organisé en février 2007 une caravane à travers la sous-région afin de sensibiliser et d’informer les populations du danger qui les menace. Cette manifestation s’est achevée par une marche de protestation dans les rues de Ouagadougou. Sur les pancartes, on pouvait lire : « Non au diktat des multinationales » ; « Cultiver bio, c’est véritablement protéger notre environnement » ; « Les accords de partenariat économiques (7) et les OGM ne sont pas des solutions pour l’Afrique, ils sont même contre nous : stop-réfléchis-résiste ».

Un participant résumait ainsi le problème : « Si c’est ça les OGM, nous n’en voulons pas ! Est-ce que nos responsables travaillent vraiment pour notre bien ? Il faut dès à présent introduire partout l’information et la sensibilisation sur les OGM ; ils ne passeront jamais par l’Afrique... » Et de s’inquiéter des effets de la « propagande » des partisans du coton transgénique.

Il vrai que le front pro-OGM ne lésine pas sur la dépense, bénéficiant du soutien du gouvernement : conférences de presse, voyages d’études entièrement payés, sorties sur le terrain, films d’« information »... Les dépliants sur papier glacé de Monsanto décrivent un monde idyllique à l’aide des statistiques de l’Inera. Ils prétendent que les semences OGM Bollgard II apporteront : une augmentation moyenne de rendement de 45 %, une réduction des pesticides de six à deux passages, une réduction des coûts de 62 %, d’où une économie de 12 525 francs CFA par hectare (soit 20 euros) et, par conséquent, un bienfait pour la santé des cultivateurs et pour l’environnement.

Or rien ne paraît plus aléatoire que le « rendement moyen » dans un pays soumis à une pluviométrie capricieuse. S’il ne pleut pas, il arrive que les paysans soient obligés de procéder jusqu’à deux ou trois semis successifs. Lorsque le prix des semences est négligeable, il s’agit « seulement » d’un surcroît de travail. Mais, si on doit acquitter les DPI, à combien reviendra un hectare de coton ? En outre, il s’avère que le gène miraculeux reste sensible à la sècheresse et qu’il dégénère à mesure que la plante croît. Dernière déconvenue : lors d’un atelier animé par l’Union européenne auquel participait M. Traoré, on a enjoint aux producteurs de coton de garder un stock de pesticides de sécurité « au cas où ». Ce qui signifie que le recours aux produits chimiques ne diminue pas à coup sûr.

En effet, deux phénomènes peuvent se produire : l’apparition de chenilles résistantes au gène (en quatre ou cinq ans) et de ravageurs secondaires non maîtrisés par le gène. Les Etats-Unis et l’Inde ont été confrontés à ce problème. Curieusement, si le Comité consultatif international du coton (CCIC) (8), réuni à Ouagadougou du 17 au 21 novembre 2008, a vanté la réussite spectaculaire du coton Bt indien (six années consécutives de rendements croissants), aucune mention n’a été faite de la vague de suicides chez les petits producteurs ruinés par une production bien inférieure à ce qu’on leur avait fait miroiter.

Quant à la réduction des coûts, il est bien hasardeux d’avancer un chiffre alors que Monsanto garde jalousement le secret du prix des DPI, qui s’ajoutera à celui des intrants et des herbicides. A supposer que les rendements soient meilleurs (9), la différence ne permettra guère plus que d’éponger le surcoût des DPI.

L’argument auquel les cultivateurs sont le plus sensibles reste la diminution des pesticides que Monsanto fait miroiter. En effet, pendant les jours d’épandage, il est fréquent que les agriculteurs dorment dans leurs champs avec toute leur famille, s’exposant ainsi à la toxicité importante de ces produits. Or on peut utiliser un insecticide naturel tiré du margousier, un arbre courant en Afrique de l’Ouest. Un encadrement technique suffit, comme le montrent des expériences menées au Mali sur 10 % des surfaces cotonnières par la Compagnie malienne pour le développement des textiles (CMDT). En 2001, l’Organisation des Nations unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO) a, de son côté, lancé un projet de gestion intégrée de la production et des déprédateurs (GIPD) visant à réduire, voire à supprimer, l’utilisation des pesticides. Cependant, rien n’est fait pour que ce programme GIPD dépasse le stade des essais pilotes. De plus, « l’UNPCB se comporte comme une milice au sein du monde paysan en renforçant la politique de la Sofitex qui nous impose des intrants et des insecticides, sans nous donner la possibilité de les refuser », proteste M. Do.

Parmi les solutions de rechange aux OGM, il existe le coton bio et équitable que l’association Helvetas a lancé au Mali en 2002, au Burkina Faso en 2004 : aucun produit chimique, fumure organique (gratuite), récolte de première qualité... Le sol se régénère au lieu de se dégrader. Le kilo de coton est payé 328 francs CFA (0,50 euro) au producteur, contre 165 francs CFA (0,25 euro) pour le coton conventionnel. La filière regroupe déjà quelque cinq mille petits producteurs sur environ sept mille hectares répartis sur les trois régions, Ouest, Centre et Est, du Burkina. Mais plusieurs facteurs semblent freiner son expansion : outre les interventions sonnantes et trébuchantes de Monsanto, allié aux institutions financières internationales, le transport du fumier organique nécessite un âne et une charrette. Rares sont les paysans qui disposent de ces moyens.

Selon M. Abdoulaye Ouédraogo, responsable de la filière coton à Helvetas Burkina, « ici, il n’y a pas d’avenir pour les OGM. D’abord pour des raisons climatiques. Ensuite parce que les petits producteurs n’appliqueront jamais les consignes. Ils se préoccupent d’abord de remplir les greniers pour nourrir la famille : le coton vient seulement après. Ce n’est pas comme aux Etats-Unis, où l’on pratique la monoculture à perte de vue... ».

L’acharnement pro-OGM s’explique alors non seulement par la volonté des transnationales, mais aussi par l’enrichissement qu’en retire une classe privilégiée au détriment de l’intérêt du pays.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

ENJEUX DES OGM EN AFRIQUE


OGM: GENOCIDE ECONOMIQUE, SOCIAL ET ECOLOGIQUE DE l'AFRIQUE ET DE L'HUMANITE

La terre n’appartient pas à l’Homme.
C’est l’Homme qui appartient à la terre.


I. Enjeux et conséquences du coton Bt de Monsanto sur la filière cotonnière au Mali et dans la sous-région.

Le coton Bt génétiquement modifié (GM) de Monsanto

• Le dernier clou dans le cercueil des cotonculteurs et le cheval de Troie des multinationales de biotechnologie (Monsanto, Syngeta, Dow Agro Science, Bayer, etc.) pour le contrôle total de la filière et de toute l’agriculture vivrière au Mali et dans la sous-région.

Comme écrit GRAIN dans son rapport sur l’introduction du coton GM au Mali et dans la sous-région :

« Le coton Bt ( de Monsanto) est le cheval de Troie des multinationales ; leur porte d’entrée en Afrique de l’Ouest, pour assurer leur mainmise sur les semences cotonnières, et, éventuellement, pour contrôler toute l’agriculture de la sous-région. Le but est d'introduire en Afrique de l'Ouest les cultures génétiquement modifiées brevetée. »

Source : www.grain.org

Enjeux socio-économiques :

SPIRALE D’ENDETTEMENT ET FAILLITES DES COTONCULTEURS

• Culture de coton GM non-rentable pour les petits producteurs de coton en Afrique et dans les pays du Sud.

Coûts de production

• Coûts de production du coton GM largement supérieurs au coton bio et au coton conventionnel

• Coûts des semences largement supérieurs aux prix de semences bio et conventionnelles. (coût des semences Bt varie en fonction des pays)

a) Ex : Coûts des semences du coton Bt de Monsanto (Inde):

• OGM : 45 euro/ha
• Bio : 6 Euro/ha
• Conventionnel : 1.5 euro/ha

b) Coûts d’utilisation liés au brevet : (Bollgard 2: $100/ha = 45000- 50,000 FCFA/ha)

• Pas de réduction significative dans l’utilisation et dans le coût des insecticides:

• coût des semences GM (29,500 fcfa/ha) + coût du brevet du coton bt de Monsanto (45,000-50,000 fcfa/ha) largement supérieurs au cout des insecticides au Mali : 30,000-35,000 fcfa/ha

• Coton Bt ne combat pas tous les insectes ravageurs du coton, notamment les principaux qui prolifèrent au Mali et dans la sous-région.

• Requis 2 fois plus d’eau! En cas de sécheresse, faillite des cotonculteurs!

Rendement:

• Rendement inférieur au coton conventionnel : -35% en Inde ; 50 capsules contre 100 capsules pour le coton conventionnel.
• Les semences de coton Bt n’ont pas été génétiquement modifiées pour accroître les rendements.

Qualité

Qualité médiocre de la semence, de la graine de coton et de la fibre

• Témoignage publique de *William Dunavant ( *Président de la plus grande entreprise américaine de négoce du coton): « Je suis d’avis que la semence du coton bt est un problème très sérieux et beaucoup de gens partagent mon avis. »

Prix de vente

• Prix du coton Bt inférieur au prix du coton conventionnel à cause de la qualité inferieure de la fibre.
• Prix dicté par le marché mondial, manipulé par les spéculateurs et les multinationales en leur faveur (mécanisme économique et politique favorisant la surproduction) et influencé de manière préjudiciable par les subventions.

Coton GM ne résout pas le fond du problème de la filière:

• Subventions EU/UE => surproductions = chute des cours de la fibre
• Dévaluation du $US (conséquence de la politique monétaire frauduleuse de la Banque Fédérale Américaine (FED))
• Augmentation constante et exponentielle du coût des intrants.
• Conjugaison de ces facteurs (exogènes) est à la source de l’effondrement du secteur.
• Au contraire, le coton Bt de Monsanto ACCENTUE le problème en proposant comme solution à l’effondrement du secteur d’augmenter les rendements, dans un contexte de surproduction qui fait chuter les cours et qui est à la source de l’effondrement du secteur!

Perte et destruction de marché

• Perte et destruction des marchés dans les pays importateurs (UE, etc.) interdisant les produits OGM (ex: coton, café, cacao, etc. = principales cultures d’exportations de l’Afrique vers l’UE)

CONTAMINATION ET BREVETAGE DES SEMENCES

• Contamination génétique de toutes les semences cotonnières conventionnelles, bio, variétés sauvages, etc. = contrôle de toute la filière cotonnière au Mali et dans toute la sous-région à travers la contamination et la disparation progressive et la confiscation des semences traditionnelles contaminées à travers le mécanisme de brevetages des semences.
• Cotonculteurs interdits de sauvegarder et de replanter les semences l’année suivante :
• Légalement contraint d’acheter chaque année les semences et les produits phytosanitaires auprès de la multinationale qui détient le brevet sur les semences GM (Monsanto).
• Dépendance imposée par le biais du mécanisme de la semence « Terminator Seed» qui a été génétiquement manipulée pour devenir stérile après la première récolte.

Résultat:

• Dépendance totale des cotonculteurs auprès de Monsanto qui contrôle la semence GM, les produits phytosanitaires, et le prix d’achat du coton. Le cercle de la dépendance totale est bouclé.
• Spirale de l’endettement, faillite économique, saisi et privatisation des terres.
• Exemples: Suicides de + 150,000 cotonculteurs en Inde qui ont semés les « graines de la mort » depuis 2003.

Enjeux sanitaires et Ecologiques

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

• Ignorances et incertitudes scientifiques absolues sur les conséquences de la manipulation génétique des organismes vivants et des semences sur la santé humaine, les animaux, l’environnement et sur l’ensemble de la biodiversité.
• Modifications des Lois de la Nature et de la Vie…: avec quelles conséquences…???
• Irréversibilité: flux de gènes bt dans l’environnement irréversibles!

CONFISCATION ET PRIVATISATION DES TERRES

Confiscation et privatisation des terres des paysans à travers 2 mécanismes :

1) Endettement et faillite économique des cotonculteurs:

• contrôle et coût exorbitant du prix des semences et des intrants + prix d’achat non-rémunérateur du coton fibre = non-rentabilité des paysans = endettement, faillite économique => saisis des terres.

2) Poursuites judiciaires

• Poursuites et actions juridiques contre des paysans - dont les champs et les cultures ont été involontairement et à leur insu contaminés par un flux de gènes Bt - pour violation des clauses juridiques relatives à l’utilisation du droit de brevet détenu par Monsanto sur la semence Bt. ( ex ; Persey Scheimer contre Monsanto, Court Suprême du Canada, $200,000 amendes!)

MONOPOLE DE LA CULTURE INDUSTRIELLE DU COTON AU MALI ET EN AFRIQUE PAR MONSANTO

• Contrôle total de la filière : les semences, les intrants, les terres, l’égrenage (privatisation sociétés cotonnières : ex-CMDT), et le prix et la vente de la fibre.

Conséquences :

• Cotonculteurs dépossédés de leurs terres, sans semences, sans emplois, sans revenus et sans avenir. (+ 10 millions en Afrique)

CONSEQUENCES PROBABLES DU MONOPOLE DE LA CULTURE DU COTON EN AFRIQUE PAR MONSANTO:

PLANTATIONS DE COTON CULTIVES AVEC LA MAIN D’ŒUVRE LOCAL

• paysans dépossédés de leurs terres seront recrutés comme travailleurs agricoles pour produire du coton sur les terres saisies.
• OGM: Permettent d’éliminer les subventions cotonnières et agricoles et de conclure l’accord commercial de l’Uruguay Round au sein de l’OMC pour la libéralisation mondiale de l’économie. note: Budget Farm Act 2009: Obama a demandé (en mars 2009) au Congrès américain la suppression des subventions cotonnières… !
• OGM: 1 pierre/2 coups: permet le contrôle de la filière cotonnière et de toute l’agriculture vivrière dans les pays du Sud et la libéralisation du commerce mondial. (OMC/Uruguay Round)

CONSEQUENCES : RETOUR A L’ESCLAVAGE DANS LES PLANTATIONS DE COTON!

• Les subventions cotonnières américaines avaient remplacées les esclaves africains sur les plantations de coton au Etats-Unis.
• Le coton Bt de Monsanto restitue l’esclavage dans les champs de coton en Afrique, 160 ans après l’abolition (officielle) de l’esclavage !
• L’Histoire se répète tragiquement, avec – une fois de plus – le soutien et la complicité des « dirigeants » africains…

II. Enjeux et conséquences des OGM sur l’agriculture vivrière et sur les populations africaines.

Mécanisme: contamination et brevetages des semences

• Contamination de toutes les semences et cultures vivrières à travers le coton GM et le brevetage des semences contaminées.

Note : les zones cotonnières du Mali et de la sous-région sont en même temps le « grenier » de la production vivrière…

Résultat:

• Contamination de toute l’agriculture vivrière au Mali et dans toute la sous-région à travers le coton Bt par la contamination et la disparation progressive des semences traditionnelles vivrières et de la confiscation et de l’appropriation des semences vivrières contaminées à travers le mécanisme du brevetage des semences.

Conséquences:

CONTROLE TOTAL DE L’AGRICULTURE VIVRIERE AU MALI, DANS LA SOUS-REGION ET SUR L’ENSEMBLE DU CONTINENT AFRICAIN PAR UNE POIGNEE DE MULTINATIONALE DE BIOTECHNOLOGIE!

• Disparition progressive et totale de toutes les semences vivrières traditionnelles à travers la contamination génétiques.
• Dépendance totale des paysans sur une poignée de multinationales de biotechnologie pour s’approvisionner en semences (5 multinationales détiennent actuellement +90% des semences vivrières génétiquement modifiées dans le monde (OGM))
• Contrôle de toute l’agriculture vivrière et donc de la vie de toutes les populations africaines entre les mains de ces multinationales…
• Contrôle des semences = contrôle de la nourriture = contrôle de la vie!

SAISI & PRIVATISATION DES TERRES

Saisi et privatisation des terres à travers les mécanismes suivants :

• contrôle et augmentation des prix des semences, des intrants, manipulation/baisse du prix d’achat des produits agricoles = non-rentabilité des paysans, endettement, faillite économique, saisis des terres.
• Poursuites et actions juridiques contre des paysans - dont les champs et les cultures ont été involontairement et à leur insu contaminés par un flux de gènes brevetés - pour violation des clauses juridiques relatives à l’utilisation du droit de brevet détenu par les multinationales de biotechnologie.

MONOPOLE ET CONTROLE TOTAL DE L’AGRICULTURE VIVRIERE

• Monopole des semences vivrières + privatisation des terres = contrôle de toute l’agriculture vivrière au Mali, dans la sous-région et sur l’ensemble du continent africain par une poignée de multinationales…

Résultat:

• Des millions de paysans vont se retrouver dépossédés de leurs terres et sans semences...( +80% des populations africaines vivent de la terre = + 700 millions personnes !)
• Comment vont-ils se nourrir… ? Que vont-ils faire pour vivre… ? Ou vont-ils aller… ?
• Dépendance totale de toute la population africaine sur une poignée de multinationales pour manger et donc pour vivre…
• Contrôle absolue sur la vie de millions de personnes en Afrique par une poignée de multinationales…
• Misère et chaos INDESCRIPTIBLE, famines, révoltes, guerres, etc.…

PRODUCTION DE BIO-CARBURANT

Les multinationales de biotechnologies vont privilégier la production de biocarburants sur les terres saisies et privatisées au détriment de la production vivrière pour servir les intérêts géopolitiques des Etats-Unis et des pays du G8:

• indépendance énergétique: Biocarburant (pourghere/jatropha).
• « arme alimentaire »: contrôle de la chaine alimentaire mondiale
• réduction des populations jugées « inférieures » et non désirables à travers la famine (politique de l’eugénisme)
• contrôle et accaparement des ressources géostratégiques des pays du Sud, etc. (Rockefeller/Kissinger, etc. (lire > NSSM 200, Henry Kissinger)

CONSEQUENCES DU COTON GM ET DES OGM EN AFRIQUE ET DANS LE MONDE.

PLUS GRAND GENOCIDE ECONOMIQUE, SOCIAL ET ECOLOGIQUE DE L’AFRIQUE ET DE L’HUMANITE !

Saturday, March 07, 2009

MONSANTO'S BT COTTON KILLS BOTH FARMERS & THE SOIL

A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus.

Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food.

The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils.

The impact of GMO’s on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms.

The government of India is trying to grant approval to Bt Brinjal without Bio safety studies on impact on Soil organisms. The European Commissión is trying to put pressure on GMO free countries to introduce Mon 810.

The Navdanya study the first that has looked at the long term impact of Bt cotton on soil organisms is a wake up to regulators worldwide. It also shows that the claims of the Biotechnology industry about the safety of GM crops are false.

To read a copy of the report, pls click on the title link above.

For further information, please contact -

Navdanya A-60, Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110 016
Phone : 91-11-26535422 / 26532124
Email : vandana@vandanashiva.com Website : www.navdanya.org

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

GMO's: SEEDS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL & ECOLOGICAL GENOCIDE


Seeds of Destruction

The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation


by F. William Engdahl

Seeds of Destruction: The Geopolitics of GM Food,

www.globalresearch.ca

In June 2003, President George W. Bush made the issue of lifting an 8-year European Union ban on genetically modified (GM) plants a matter of US national strategic priority. This came only days after the US occupation of Baghdad. The timing was not accidental. Since that time, EU resistance to GM plants has crumbled, as has that of Brazil, and other key agriculture producing nations. One year before, the future of GM crops was in doubt.

Now, some months and enormous pressure later, the strategists of GM food hegemony are on the verge of a control over the global human and animal food chain never held by any single nation or power.

The present debate over the nature of biotechnology and genetic modification of basic food such as maize or soybeans, misses the most essential point. The conversion of world agriculture by a small elite of biotech companies, most US-based, has little to do with corporate greed. It has very much to do with geopolitics and plans of some people to control world population growth over the coming decades.

The nature of American power projection in the world today rests on the development of key strategic advantages which no other combination of nations can challenge, what the Pentagon planners term, "full spectrum dominance." This includes global military dominance. It includes dominance of the world's limited, and rapidly depleting petroleum supplies. It includes control of the world's reserve currency, the dollar. And today it most definitely includes future control of world agriculture through control of GM patents and GM crops.

Before the end of the decade, if present trends continue, US global dominance will be based on control of the food supply of most of this planet, far more than military or even energy control. The geopolitical dimension of this prospect bears careful examination.

A Rockefeller Trojan horse

The agency at the center of the GM controversy is the Rockefeller Foundation in New York. Over the past decade, this influential private foundation has spent more than $100 million in sponsoring research and development of GM crops to be deployed in world food production. They have specifically targeted key developing nations in their effort.More on Monsanto

Their public statements suggest noble motives: "The Rockefeller Foundation is a global foundation with a mandate and a commitment to enrich and sustain the lives of the poor and excluded throughout the world," said foundation president, Gordon Conway, in a 1999 speech to the Monsanto Company, the world's largest producer of GM seeds and pesticides. Conway cites as justification for the GM revolution in agriculture the projections of an added 2 billion people in the world by 2020, amid a decline in existing agriculture yields, and increased degradation of soils and ecology. All indications suggest this is not the real reason GM plants are being promoted with a fervor.

Over the past 18 years, the Rockefeller Foundation has played a decisive role worldwide in spreading the acceptance of radical practices of genetic modification to countries and laboratories where a direct US Government research program would be greeted with greatest suspicion. The Rockefeller Foundation is, in effect, the Trojan Horse of GM proliferation.

It has gained entry in key countries in part by selecting key scientists from select developing countries to be educated and trained in the US or other industrial countries under foundation programs and auspices. It has done this by funding GM research and by using its influence in government and other agencies and NGO's. To date more than 400 leading scientists from the Philippines to Thailand to Kenya to China have been trained and cultivated by the foundation.

The Rockefeller Foundation has a murky past, since its creation in 1914 out of the Rockefeller family Standard Oil Trust fortune. Well before 1945, the foundation had been a leading funder of eugenics research, work made infamous by the Nazi race purity experiments. This included Rockefeller support to the American Eugenics Society and the Population Council. As the race breeding policies of the German Third Reich came to light after the war, Rockefeller strategists shifted profile to champion the causes of environment, resource scarcity and over-population. The policy remained one of global population reduction. (1).

Kissinger and NSSM 200

Since more than a quarter century, Rockefeller Foundation energy has been focused on biotechnology and genetic engineering research and promotion. This comes after decades of involvement in various population control schemes for the developing world. There is no contradiction.

In 1972 President Nixon named foundation board member, John D. Rockefeller III, to chair a Presidential Commission on "Population and the American Future." The same Rockefeller created the Population Council in 1952, and openly called for "zero population growth."

Rockefeller's Commission on Population and the American Future laid the foundation for Henry Kissinger's National Security memorandum, NSSM 200, of April 1974, which cited population growth in strategic, raw materials rich developing countries as a US national security concern of the highest priority.

During the 1970's, when Kissinger was National Security Council director as well as Secretary of State, food and oil emerged as strategic US national security commodities. Kissinger initiated the controversial "oil-for-food" strategy in which a food-deficient USSR imported vast sums of US grain and paid it with large export of Soviet oil for dollars. US domestic oil production, outside Alaska, had peaked in 1970 and began a steady decline. The US was becoming increasingly an oil import nation. National security became tied to security of cheap imported oil, and food was a weapon in the US security arsenal from that time on. Kissinger's Cabinet colleague, Agriculture Secretary, Earl Butz, reflected the Kissinger policy when he stated, "Hungry men listen only to those who have a piece of bread. Food is a tool. It is a weapon in the US negotiating kit." Kissinger was then chief negotiator.

In 1974, Kissinger submitted the NSSM 200 memorandum to President Nixon, naming population growth in key raw-materials rich developing countries as, a US "national security threat." Since that time, control of economic growth rates and population growth in key developing countries has been US national security priority.

Kissinger owed his political career since the late 1950's to his stint as a researcher for the Rockefeller family, and owed his rise to power to their backing. The Rockefeller family had been at the center of US oil and raw materials geopolitics since early in the 1900's, when the Standard Oil Trust was built. Kissinger was well aware of the importance of food and energy to US national interests.

With Kissinger's NSSM 200, Washington official policy was to impose restrictions on fast-growing developing countries, policies which would significantly cut population growth. In NSSM 200, Kissinger implied that famine might be an effective way to reduce population: "…large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades - a kind the world thought had been permanently banished," was foreseeable, he wrote. He remarked that the US and other donor countries would not be likely to provide necessary food export to the afflicted regions.

In 1975, Kissinger's successor as National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, later a Kissinger business partner, wrote, "United States leadership is essential to combat population growth, to implement the World Population Plan of Action and to advance United States security and overseas interests. The President endorses…NSSM 200…," Scowcroft added.

Kissinger's NSSM 200 document, classified secret and not made public until 1989, took estimates of world population growth to the end of the century and beyond, and the impact on the need for food and raw materials, notably energy. "Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDC's," Kissinger stated. "World needs for food rise by 2.5% or more a year at a time when readily available fertilizer and well-watered land is already largely being utilized. Therefore, additions to food production must come from higher yields," the Government memo declared. It was at this time that the Rockefeller Foundation also began large research in genetic engineering of plants, including rice, ostensibly to raise yields.

With NSSM 200, Washington made implementation of population control programs a pre-condition for US financial aid, even famine relief. Washington ensured that birth reduction was adopted as official policy by the IMF, World Bank and the UN. Beginning the mid-1970's all IMF and World Bank aid to developing target countries was tied to their willingness to accept population control policies dictated by Washington.

NSSM 200 explicitly listed 13 countries as "key countries" in which the US held a "special political and strategic interest." These were: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, Philippines, Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. Their population growth was deemed especially worrisome to US national interests, according to Kissinger. Notably, every key country has been subjected to major social, economic and military upheaval since 1974. US food aid, even in famine, was withheld from countries refusing to adopt US-mandated birth control or population reduction policies. (2).

NSSM 200 continues as unofficial US Government policy to the present day, despite public Bush Administration concessions to Catholic Right to Life groups. In this, the role of the Rockefeller Foundation is central to Washington policy regarding genetic engineering in world agriculture, especially that in key developing nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Rockefeller's GM proliferation network

In 1971 the Rockefeller Foundation, together with the Ford Foundation and the World Bank, established the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which runs 16 research centers around the world, most in developing countries, spending some $350 million annually. The focus of CGIAR is the spread of GM crops in the developing world.

CGIAR today operates under the umbrella of the World Bank, and has drawn 20 developing countries in as sponsors. World Bank aid is administered on the basis of a recipient agreeing to impose population control policies, the present form of NSSM 200, but with Washington officially in the background. Thus, the Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, Monsanto and other agri-giants and the US Government, all meet under CGIAR auspices.

The CGIAR mission is to promote "sustainable agriculture for food security." To do this, CGIAR has used its funds and government influence to take control of one of the world's largest collections of plant genetic resources. CGIAR then makes the materials available to companies like Monsanto and Syngenta, "so that new gene combinations can be used to increase productivity, sustainably," as they state. In turn, CGIAR mobilizes biotechnology proliferation in developing countries. CGIAR trains the most promising national scientists and researchers in biotechnology, insuring that cadre of pro-GM national researchers will promote the spread of GM agriculture and biotechnology back home.

In addition to its role in establishing CGIAR, the Rockefeller Foundation has been a major donor to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications or ISAAA.

Every US President since George H.W. Bush in 1992, has made support of genetically engineered crops a matter of highest national priority. The example of US-AID backing for the Rockefeller Foundation's ISAAA is exemplary.

The ISAAA was originally founded with Rockefeller Brothers' Fund money for the sole purpose to "facilitate the delivery of proprietary biotechnologies from the corporate labs of the industrialized world into the food and farming systems of the South."

How this works becomes clear when the current financial sponsors of the ISAAA are known. In addition to the Rockefeller Foundation, sponsors include Monsanto (USA), Syngenta (Swiss), Dow AgroSciences (USA), Pioneer Hi-Bred (USA), Cargill (USA), Bayer CropScience (Germany), and a mysterious "Anonymous Donor "(USA), and US-AID of the State Department.

The argument of the institutions behind ISAAA is that the developing world is where a rising population makes growing food demand most acute, but where economic resources are least able to meet the needs. Hence, ISAAA enables the introduction of corporate GM technologies and crops from the industrial world into the South, acting as "honest brokers" in their words.

As the Kissinger NSSM 200 targeted 13 developing countries in 1974 for population reduction, the ISAAA targets 12 countries for introduction of GM crops. Six of these countries are the same as Kissinger listed in 1974: Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Egypt. In addition, ISAAA lists Malaysia, Vietnam, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Argentina and Costa Rica.

By their own admission, the ISAAA launches propaganda offensives to counter hostility to GM crops, and they train science elites from the target countries, often bringing them to USA or other leading GM research centers such as the Monsanto Life Sciences Research Center, to learn the world of GM elite research. Randy Hautea is head of the group's SEAsia Center in the Philippines, based in the center established by the Rockefeller Foundation's International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Hautea recently stated that his group has targeted Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam because, "they all have the political will to pursue and adopt biotechnology applications." What Hautea did not say was that introduction of GM seeds means introduction of costly GM pesticides and other policies which only global agribusiness companies are able to carry out.

Food production of target countries is being transformed into the global agribusiness market, not longer available for national food security. Hautea does not say how biotechnology brought in to, say, Indonesia or Malaysia by Syngenta or Monsanto, contributes to the benefit of small farmers, the heart of their food production. To date, in fact, there exists no proof of any benefit from GM crops for family farmers. In fact the opposite is the case. Farmers are often coerced or forced to buy Monsanto GM seeds or other GM seeds by their governments.

Through ISAAA and related networks of organizations, the Rockefeller Foundation is at the center of the worldwide actions of Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill and Dow Agri-sciences, Syngenta, Bayer AG and other major biotech giants, dominating the ongoing "new Green Revolution" as Rockefeller's Conway terms it. (3).

Spreading the GM control

The list of major GM plants today includes GM rice, soybeans, corn, oilseeds, and numerous other basic food crops. The Rockefeller Foundation has played a key fostering role in the development of most major new types.

More than 70% of all processed foods Americans consume comes today from GM products. Almost all the animal feed used to feed cattle, and other animals in the US and in major world markets today is GM feed, mainly soymeal and corn.

Most Americans are ignorant of what they eat. The US government has refused to label food that contains GM inputs. A new EU food labelling law also does not require producers to identify animal products fed on GM feed, leaving consumers ignorant of what GM products they eat. In 2003, the total acreage planted to GM seeds worldwide was 167 million acres or 68 million hectares according to ISAAA data. This was a 15% rise in one year. The United States is the largest GM grower with 106 million acres of genetically modified soybeans, corn and cotton. Worldwide, 55% of all soybeans grown now are GM crops. Soymeal is one of the most essential and richest protein sources for animal and human consumption. Every bite of a McDonald's hamburger contains as much as 30% of GM soyameal.

Without even realizing, most people in North America, East Asia and Europe regularly eat products or animals fed from GM crops. What is most remarkable is the fact that farmers in North America, Australia, Argentina, and more recently after a long battle, in Brazil, have surrendered their control over seeds to a handful of multinational biotech giants who have a deliberate strategy to dominate and control the planting of basic food crops worldwide.

The terminator not dead

If emerging nations from China to India to Indonesia and beyond, were to manage to create a food self-sufficiency independent of reliance on US or OECD food suppliers, the ability of the United States to remain the dominant power would diminish, regardless of military might.

What better way to control the destiny of China, India, East Asia and the rest of the world than to establish permanent control over their ability to grow food? Enter Monsanto and the agriculture biotechnology cartel, who dominate GM crops globally. Just two years ago it seemed Monsanto might be headed into financial ruin. Today, it is on the verge of becoming the one of the single most powerful corporations in the world.

Interestingly, it was the direct intervention of the Rockefeller Foundation in October 1999, which was responsible for the widely-touted decision of Monsanto "not to commercialize" its 'terminator technology' for GM seeds. Monsanto president Robert Shapiro wrote to the Rockefeller Foundation that it would "shelve" or put on hold its "sterile seed" technology, formally called Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). The Monsanto decision was a tactical ploy, taken on advice of Rockefeller's Conway, to defulse growing opposition to GM crops, especially in Europe. Monsanto's terminator seed technology, in which the US Department of Agriculture also holds part patent rights, has been called the ultimate weapon, the 'neutron bomb' of agriculture, rightly so.

Terminator seeds would solve a major problem for Monsanto and other GM giants in collecting seed fees in the developing world for patented GM seeds, something made possible a few years ago by GATT trade talks on patent rights.

Free trade in agriculture is today at the heart of the WTO. Under the treaty of the World Trade Organization, created by the GATT Uruguay trade round in the early 1990's, multinational corporations now have the right, enforced by WTO sanctions, to collect royalty payments for "intellectual property."

The Uruguay agreement, ratified by all GATT member countries under enormous US pressure, allows a corporation for the first time, to patent a specific plant variety, even though that plant sort might have been in the public domain in a country such as Pakistan or Peru for thousands of years. The WTO term is Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPs. Washington pushed the controversial TRIPs agreement through GATT, accusing developing countries of 'piracy' in not paying due royalties to multinationals, claiming US companies were losing hundreds on millions in unpaid fees for fertilizer and seeds or drugs. Mickey Kantor, US Trade Representative who negotiated the Uruguay Round talks, today sits on the board of Monsanto.

The TRIPs WTO agreement includes patent rights on GM plants. Under TRIPs the Swiss agri-tech company, Syngenta, holds control potentially of most of the rice in Pakistan, India and Asia. Monsanto dominates patents on soybeans, corn, cotton and other major crops. Their only problem is how to collect royalty payments from millions of small peasant farmers. Collecting patent payments for GM seeds in many developing countries is extremely difficult.

Not so, if terminator seeds are sold. Terminator technology, which Monsanto paid $1.6 billion to acquire, allows introduction of a 'suicide gene' into plants such as corn or cotton or soya or potentially, even wheat. A farmer using terminator seeds no longer will be able to share seeds with other farmers or plant his own in following years. He will be forced to turn to Monsanto each season to buy his existence, in the form of more suicide seeds, as well as the special herbicides Monsanto has developed to be used with it. The original developers of terminator technology, Delta & Pine Land Seed, which Monsanto bought in 1998, specifically noted that the rice and wheat markets of China, India, Pakistan and such major population countries was the target of terminator. The political implications of such a development are easy to imagine.
Rockefeller Foundation funds vaccines with hidden birth-control hormones

The Rockefeller Foundation is among the funders of a WHO program in "reproductive health" which has developed a tetanus vaccine that allegedly contains hidden birth-control hormones.

According to a report from the Global Vaccine Institute, the WHO has overseen massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines since the early 1990's. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Catholic organization, tested numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. When combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulates formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones have come from the Philippines and Nicaragua.

The organization confirmed several other curious facts about the WHO vaccination programs. Tetanus vaccine was given only to women, between ages 15-45, not men or children. The presence of hCG is a clear contamination of the vaccine. It does not belong. With financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the Population Council, Ford Foundation, among others, the WHO has been working for 20 years to develop an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG with tetanus and other vaccines, according to scientific articles published on the effort by WHO. This has been documented by WHO and others, including the respected British medical journal, The Lancet, June 11, 1988, "Clinical Trials of a WHO Borth Control Vaccine."

To mid-1993 the WHO had spent a total of $365 million of such research funds on "reproductive health" including research on implanting hCG into tetanus vaccine. WHO has been unable to answer why women vaccinated were found with anti-hCG antibodies. They feebly replied it was "insignificant." The vaccine was produced by Connaught Laboratories Ltd of Canada and Intervex and CSL Laboratories of Australia.

Since the 1920's the Rockefeller Foundation has been among the leading sponsors of population reduction programs worldwide. If the reports of birth control vaccines are true, it is not difficult to suspect the Rockefeller Foundation is also among those planning to use genetically modified seeds technology as a potential means to control world population growth through future control of food supply.




The Rockefeller-Monsanto public relations maneuver "not to commercialize" terminator seeds was clearly designed to defuse growing opposition to proliferation of GM seeds, to buy time while allowing them to spread GM crops to the world's largest growing areas - North America, Argentina, Brazil and now, the EU. Once spread, it is simple to shift to terminator.

In February 2003, at a meeting of the International Seed Federation in Lyon France, Monsanto's Roger Krueger released a paper titled, "The Benefits of GURTs." It argued that terminator in fact would benefit poor farmers. Monsanto argues in a new ploy, that terminator would in fact hinder spread of unwanted GM genes to non-GM plants, promoting the same idea in new clothes as a "biosafety" tool. Clearly they believe opposition to terminator and GM is falling. Reports are that Monsanto would be ready to introduce commercial terminator or GURT seeds in 3-4 years.

Dual use and GM crops: Biowarfare?

The days are long past when the USDA represented the interests of America's family farmers. Today, US agri-business, dominated by a dozen or more giant international concerns, is the second most profitable industry next to pharmaceuticals, and has annual value of well over $800 billion. The USDA today is the organized lobby of agri-business giants, none more influential than Monsanto. Bush Administration official, Ann Veneman, USDA Secretary, is a former board member of a Monsanto company and, not surprisingly, a strong advocate of GM. Several other Bush officials have ties to Monsanto as well.

Terminator and related GM technologies in the hands of Monsanto and less than half-a-dozen corporations worldwide, backed by the USDA, Defense Department and State Department, could open the door to potential forms of biological warfare against entire populations not imagined before. A recent US Air Force study states that "biological weapons offer greater possibilities for use than do nuclear weapons."

Washington US-AID food assistance for Africa in recent months has been linked to willingness of a country to accept US GM crops. US assistance to combat AIDS in Africa has similar strings. GM has clearly become a strategic, geopolitical tool for Washington.

Defenders of GM technology argue that no one in their right mind would consider such a drastic use of GM crops as to control entire areas of world food supply. "We're tempted to say that nobody in their right mind would ever use these things." Stanford biology professor Steven Block stated in another context. Block hastened to add, "But not everybody is in their right mind!" Block, a leading consultant to the US Government, went on to warn, "Any technology that can be used to insert genes into DNA can be used for either good or bad." Genetic engineering can create rice with enhanced vitamin A, but can just as well create seeds containing highly toxic bacteria. US researchers first did this in 1986. Genetic engineering of more toxic and harder to detect bioweapons was a major motivation for nations to call for a stronger convention on bioweapons.

The US Government's controversial drug eradication program in Colombia, since discontinued, would spray crops with deadly glyphosate. Glyphosate, under the patent name, Roundup, is the GM herbicide sold by Monsanto also for its GM plants. The Bush Administration has repeatedly refused to back a legally binding Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, arguing it needs the freedom to develop defense against biowarfare. Freedom can work both ways however.

Genetic manipulation opens the possibilities in the hands of a malevolent power, to unleash untold harm on the human species. Even were it to be the case that GM plants increase yields, which is not at all proven, this potential for control of the food supply of entire nations is too much power to give to any single corporation or government. Essential foods, like fresh water, are no ordinary commodities to be sold under rules of an imposed free market. They are basic human rights as the right to breathe. We should not tempt any government with the power that present GM strategists advocate over our food security.

References

1. B.K. Eakman, "The Cloning of the American Mind," gives information on Rockefeller Foundation funding of eugenics.

s. Jim Heron, "Population Politics and the Shambles of Africa in http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0005.html.

2. National Security Strategy Memorandum, NSSM 200, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," National Security Council, April 24, 1974, Henry Kissinger, director, National Security Council. "The Over-population cabal" in Mindszenty Report, Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, April 1999, www.mindszenty.org.report/1999/April1999.html .

3. "ISAAA in Asia promoting corporate profits in the name of the poor," October 2000, in www.grain.org/publications/reports/isaaa.html.

4. The Monsanto terminator seed plans are described in "Monsanto Breaks Promise to Abandon Terminator Technology," April 23, 2003, http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/promise042403.cfm. "Biological warfare against crops," by Simon Whitby, reviewed in www.rainbowbody.net/Ongwhehonwhe/plantwar.htm notes the US use of Roundup against crops in Colombia. "Biological warfare emerges as 21st Century threat," by Mark Schwartz in Stanford Report, January 11, 2001, details the warnings of Block, a member of the top-secret Government research group, Jason. The US Air Force has published on the subject, "Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare," by Lt. Col. Robert Kadlec who speaks of "using biological warfare to attack livestock, crops or ecosystems." In www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/battle/chp10.html, also www.sunshine-project.org/bwintro/gebw.html.

source: http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2004/05/20040505.php 5mar2005



To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here
The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org
Please see our Fair Use Notice