SAGCOT: NEW GREEN (OR GREED) REVOLUTION FOR TANZANIA ?

MONSANTO, USAID and AGRA’s BLUEPRINT FOR A “GREEN REVOLUTION ” IN TANZANIA & SOUTHEASTERN AFRICA.

"SAGCOT is an initiative which I believe personally is the best model to fast track the green revolution in Tanzania.”Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, President of the Republic of Tanzania

Background

On January 2011, President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete of Tanzania alongside Hugh Grant – Chairman and CEO of Monsanto - and Rajiv Shah - USAID administrator - officially presented and inaugurated the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) Investment Blueprint at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.

In a foreword to the SAGGOT Investment Blueprint, President Kikwete said:

“Tanzania is, in essence, an agricultural country where agriculture means almost everything. Over 80 percent of the people live in the rural areas and agriculture is their main source of livelihood. Agriculture, therefore, holds a unique position with
respect to the socio-economic wellbeing of Tanzania and her people. It is a critical factor in efforts to reduce and, ultimately, eradicate poverty in the country. We cannot eradicate poverty, promote balanced socio-economic growth and achieve food
security without transforming our agriculture.

Since independence, transforming agriculture has been the focus of government policies and actions of all administrations. When we came into office in 2006, we completed the design of the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) and the Agriculture Sector Development Programme (ASDP). The former was the policy and the latter its action plan for a green revolution in Tanzania. The objective was to take bold actions to enable Tanzania to realize her aspirations of a modernized and highly productive agriculture.

In 2009, a new strategy called "Kilimo Kwanza‟, meaning „Agriculture First‟ was designed. The new strategy, properly anchored the involvement of the private sector in the development of agriculture. It underscored the critical importance of the private sector participating actively in agricultural production, provision of agricultural inputs, crop marketing and in the agricultural value chain.

It is in this context that, the Government welcomed the idea of the SAGCOT initiative. This is a public private partnership well-placed to achieve the objectives of Kilimo Kwanza…In the end, we will succeed to create a corridor of highly productive and competitive agriculture at the local, regional and global market place. Food security will be assured and wealth creation for the smallholder farmers would become a reality. We will also witness significant poverty reduction among the people who live in the corridor and its surroundings.

The southern agricultural corridor can be the breadbasket of Tanzania and beyond. We, in Government are convinced that the initiative supports our objectives for a
Tanzanian green revolution. "SAGCOT is an initiative which I believe personally is the best model to fast track the green revolution in Tanzania"1

Please also watch the following speech made by President Kikwete at a press conference during the inauguration of SAGCOT in January 2011 at the World Economic Forum in Davos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpOLkoqHw0E

What is the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT)…?

SAGCOT is a public-private agricultural “partnership” project between the Tanzanian government and a consortium of US and foreign biotechnology, chemical and other agribusiness multinational companies, local private stakeholders, banks, multilateral “donors” and the US and Norwegian government.

It is led by an Executive Committee co-chaired by the Minister of Agriculture of Tanzania, and the Executive Vice President (North and Central Africa) of Unilever. Both the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and USAID are members of its Executive Committee.

According to information published by the World Economic Forum:

“ The project is led by 17 global partner companies of the World Economic Forum who provide strategic leadership and championship of the initiative. These include: Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, The Coca-Cola Company, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Yara International.

A diverse network of global and local stakeholders are engaged in initiative dialogues and partnerships. The World Economic Forum manages the initiative, engaging a wide array of stakeholders in its dialogues, partnerships, and thought leadership activities. The Forum‟s Global Agenda Council on Food Security, a high-level multi-stakeholder group, provides advisory and leadership support to the initiative.” 2

The SAGCOT fits into the framework of the New Vision for Agriculture, a commercial, market driven, export-oriented agricultural policy developed and led by a consortium of private foreign multinational companies from the World Economic Forum.

An official press statement published on Monsanto’s website states:

“ Speaking at a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete announced the launch of a new initiative designed to alleviate hunger in his country and propel agriculture into a new era of productivity. The initiative, called A New Vision for Agriculture, is the result of joint efforts between 17 global partner companies and the governments of Tanzania, Vietnam and the United States.

Also participating in the press conference were Hugh Grant, Chairman and CEO of Monsanto, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and Rajiv Shah, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

In his opening address, President Kikwete described the challenges his country faces, including "ensuring food security, eradicating widespread rural poverty and promoting sustainable economic growth."

He also outlined the evolution of his thinking about cooperating with corporate partners. After realizing that most of Tanzania's existing agricultural interventions were solely government-led, Kikwete said he decided to seek assistance from business interests. "[I felt] we should find ways of involving the private sector in the development of agriculture in Tanzania. We came up with a new vision we called Kilimo Kwanza, which means „agriculture first.'"

According to Kikwete, the initiative promises to create more than 500,000 jobs and lift 2 million people out of poverty.

In his own remarks, Hugh Grant took the opportunity to put the world's agricultural challenges into perspective. "By the time we trudge home tonight through the ice and the snow, another 200,000 people will have arrived on our planet." To meet the needs of a growing population, A New Vision for Agriculture is designed to achieve what Grant called the "20-20-20" plan: increase crop production worldwide by 20%, reduce the emissions from agriculture by 20% and reduce rural poverty by 20%.

Wrapping up the press conference, Rajiv Shah announced that USAID was contributing $2 million to Tanzania's "catalytic fund," designed to help launch A New Vision for Agriculture.

"In the current environment of rising food prices, we believe it is smarter and more efficient to support agriculture in order to prevent the more costly and harmful famines, food riots and failed states that will result if we do not make these investments." 3 said Rajiv Shah.

“We are witnessing an unparalleled opportunity right now for innovative, large-scale private sector partnerships to achieve significant impact on global hunger and nutrition. USAID is committed to creating new public-private partnerships in Feed the Future focus countries to advance their national investment plans”

“ USAID will join multinational companies like Yara, General Mills, Monsanto, Syngenta and others in support of the investment blueprint for years to come, and hopes to expand the blueprint in the future to at least five additional African countries,” Rajiv Shah boastfully and confidently stated.4
Syngenta - the Swiss multinational biotechnology company – who is a corporate partner
in the SAGCOT stated:

“We are delighted to be a founding member of the SAGCOT initiative and are committed to making it a success,” said Robert Berendes, Head of Business Development at Syngenta. The development of farming in Africa, and especially for smallholder farmers is critical to ensuring food security in the region and globally. Syngenta aims to identify specific projects to invest in within the Tanzania corridor - a key focus will be on enabling access to inputs, sharing agronomic knowledge and developing appropriate technology.”

Syngenta will play a role in helping to provide opportunities for smallholder farmers to engage in profitable and sustainable agriculture. This will involve incentivizing stronger links between smallholders and commercial agribusiness, including „hub and outgrower‟ schemes that allow smallholders in the vicinity of large-scale farms to access inputs, extension services, value-adding facilities and markets.” 5

AGRA - who helped to fund the initial project study and sits on the Steering Committee of SAGCOT – was also present at the lauch of SAGCOT In Davos.

AGRA President Dr Namanga Ngongi stated that “Tanzania like so many African countries has enormous agricultural potential that is ready to be unlocked with the right investment. Agriculture in Tanzania and all of Africa can become a model of efficiency, high productivity, and sustainable development. This initiative is very much in line with AGRA‟s breadbasket approach and the CAADP compacts to catalyzing a Green Revolution.” 6

Official stated objectives of SAGOT

The SAGCOT Investment Blueprint states that its aims are to “convert smallholder farmers into commercial farmers” and “to establish a critical mass of profitable, modern commercial farming and agri-business, focusing on carefully selected areas and crops with high market potential.”

Building on existing operations and planned investments, the clusters will be centered on areas of particularly high agricultural potential and might include nucleus large-scale commercial farms and smallholder outgrower schemes; serviced farm blocks; processing and storage facilities available to commercial and smallholder farmers; and improved infrastructure to farms and local communities.” 7

The SAGCOT Concept Note further states:

“Southern Tanzania has significant “natural” potential for building a profitable agriculture sector. It has good soils, climate and water resources and a reasonable and improving “backbone” infrastructure providing access to local, regional and international markets

“ There is huge potential to develop a sustainable commercial farming sector in Tanzania serving regional and overseas markets, as recognised by the Kilimo Kwanza initiative.

Kilimo Kwanza calls for the private sector to mobilise new investment to promote a modern and profitable agriculture sector in Tanzania. It also calls for a transformation of smallholder farmers into commercial farmers.

SAGCOT will be the first major initiative to be launched under Kilimo Kwanza, and will establish a model for future agricultural growth partnerships that can be replicated throughout the country.” 8

The SAGCOT Investment Blueprint further explains:

“ Tanzania‟s southern corridor links the port of Dar es Salaam to Malawi, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It benefits from good „backbone‟ infrastructure – including road, rail and power – and passes through some of the richest farmland in Africa. The area could become a globally important producer of crops and livestock.
Today, however, its agricultural potential is largely dormant and the majority of the rural population remains poor and food insecure.

Building on Tanzania‟s “Kilimo Kwanza” („Agriculture First‟ strategy), the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint describes how $2.1 billion of private investment will be catalysed over a twenty year period, alongside public sector grants and loans of $1.3 billion. The result will be a tripling of the area‟s agricultural output. Approximately 350,000 hectares will be brought into profitable production, much of it farmed by smallholder farmers, and with a significant area under irrigation.

Over the next 20 years, SAGCOT will facilitate the development of agriculture clusters in the southern corridor. They will be centered on areas of high agricultural potential with shared infrastructure where economies of scale can rapidly develop. Cluster development will be driven by the private sector based on the needs and opportunity of each area. Additional clusters will be added as SAGCOT moves forward.” 9

The SAGCOT Investment blueprint was officially presented and inaugurated by President Kikwete at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland in January 2011. The project is now in its implementation phase and fully operational.

TANZANIA and SOUTHEASTERN AFRICA: NEW BRAZIL and ARGENTINA…?

Some personal observations and reflections:

The SAGCOT does not “only” aim to industrialize and privatize agriculture in Tanzania and in Southeastern Africa, but – worse – it will transform Tanzania and the entire region into vast private agro-industrial monoculture plantations to grow local grain and other food crops as raw material to produce agrofuels, animal feed, and other industrial and pharmaceutical products for export and consumption in affluent countries, using patented GM seeds on over five million ha of prime fertile and irrigated land in the targeted “southern corridor” of Tanzania (as a starter), that stretches from Dar es Salaam across Tanzania all the way into Malawi, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo ! (see detailed map in report)

In a nutshell, the real long-term objective of the SAGCOT is to reproduce the Brazilian and Argentinean agricultural “model” of privately-owned, export-oriented, industrial monoculture plantations of soya, maize, sugarcane, etc. using GM patented food seeds and crops.

Please watch this short 12 minutes documentary for an overview of the health and the socio-economic genocide and environmental ecocide resulting from this agricultural “model” in Paraguay/South America.

Killing Fields: The battle to feed factory farms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-gBRQSXp5s

In fact, the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint clearly and unambiguously spells out this objective:

Excerpts from the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint 9:

"There are similarities between the southern corridor ( of Tanzania) and the Cerrado region of Brazil as it was in the early 1970s, before it became a major global agriculture producer. Climatic and soil conditions are broadly comparable and many of the same crops can be grown (e.g. maize, soya, rice, sugarcane). SAGCOT has an advantage over the Cerrado in having direct access to the Port of Dar es Salaam and relative proximity to Asian markets

In the Cerrado, soya bean production increased fivefold from 9.9 million tones in 1975 to 51.4 million tonnes in 2005. The success of the Cerrado is commonly attributed to a combination of:

• public sector support for research, infrastructure and low-cost finance for farmers, supported by minimum price guarantees, and
• significant private investment, which created economies of scale and scope for all players in the agriculture value chain.

The Cerrado experience shows that, where the natural conditions are suitable, investment in commercial agriculture can result in rapid growth of profitable production and farm incomes. Brazil‟s success shows what can be achieved in a relatively short period of time if there is properly coordinated public and private investment in commercial agriculture.

But it also poses a challenge for Tanzania and other countries yet to realise the potential of their agriculture sectors: competition in international markets is intense. To compete successfully in those markets Tanzania will have to catch up with the likes of Brazil and match their levels of efficiency and scale."

However, rapid development and agricultural growth of the sort achieved in Brazil is accompanied by risks. For example, in the Tanzanian context rapid modernization of the farming sector could disrupt traditional livelihoods, exclude smallholder farmers and have unintended environmental impacts.

Although the report recognizes the negative socio-economic consequences and “risks” and environmental hazards associated with this agricultural “model”, it claims to “ promote a form of agricultural development that directly benefits smallholder farmers and rural communities” and that “ it will undertake careful environmental impact assessments” to address these “risks”. 9

The SAGCOT Investment Blueprint further explains the economic rationale of its agricultural “model”:

“African agriculture is attracting increased interest from the private sector. With a rapidly rising global population, the world‟s grain output must rise by around 70 per cent and meat output will have to double by 2050. With the right type of investment and political support, Africa could switch from being a net importer to a major exporter of agricultural products, in particular to markets in the Middle East and Asia.

However, for this to happen countries like Tanzania will have to become more competitive. There are other land-rich parts of the world – such as Brazil and Eastern Europe – which are already attracting the majority of private capital flows.

To illustrate the market opportunity, the diagram below compares Tanzania‟s current competitiveness against imported soya beans from Brazil. Although production costs are higher than Brazil‟s, the international freight and other shipment costs to East Africa far outweigh this disadvantage (Figure 1.4). It should therefore be possible for Tanzania to compete effectively with foreign imports. A similar picture emerges for crops such as wheat and rice.”10

Figure 1.4 Import substitution in short-term (CIF and landing charges, cost at Dar es Salaam)

GM SOYA BEANS COST:

 Tanzania $US 400/mt
 Brazil: $US 600/mt

See graphs on pg 13 of the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint for detailed comparative analysis and further details. 11

GMO’s:

The report carefully avoids to specifically mention the term “GMO’s”, although it does so subtly by using “new seed varieties” and “improved seeds” instead of “GMO’s”.
Excerpts from the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint:

“ The approval process for the commercial release of new seed varieties and plant material is cumbersome because of the many legislative requirements and the
numerous government departments involved. Improved seeds is often the easiest way to increase yields without incurring significant extra costs, but is an option unavailable to most Tanzanian farmers.

There are also policy areas that are important where SAGCOT will work with advocacy organisations such as the Agricultural Council of Tanzania: for example, streamlining processes for approval and release of new seed varieties; facilitating access to titled land; removing export bans where unnecessary or counterproductive; and improving incentives for commercial agricultural production through the taxation system.

Kilimo Kwanza already recognises the need for reforms in many of these areas. The challenge is to implement the reforms quickly and ensure that they lead to tangible changes on the ground, including at the Local Government Authority level where key decisions are made regarding approvals for commercial agriculture investments.”

The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania recognises the constraints on commercial agriculture and supports the Kilimo Kwanza initiative launched by the Tanzania National Business Council. The objectives of Kilimo Kwanza respond to many of the pressing needs for reform in the agricultural sector and the initiative acknowledges the pressing need to move from subsistence to commercial farming. A final requirement is to improve the business and policy environment such that it that supports, rather than hinders, the development of commercial agriculture.” 12

Furthermore, in a recent article published in Reuters, Jerry Steiner, Executive Vice President of “sustainability” at Monsanto (never mind the oxymoron) clearly states:
“The initiative's partners would first work with local governments to formulate policy and address infrastructure shortcomings, then assess the seed -- both conventional and genetically modified -- and other inputs appropriate for any given region.”13

"As a company we are positioned all the way along that supply chain for that integrated solution to get out there," 14 added Craig Binetti, who oversees DuPont's nutrition & health business.(never mind the oxymoron)

The presence of Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and BASF as corporate “partners” in the project makes the intended introduction of GMO’s into the SAGCOT obvious and inevitable.

Concluding remarks:

It thus becomes unambiguously clear from the above that the SAGCOT aims to produce local grain and food on vast privately-owned agro-industrial GMO monoculture plantations to be used as raw material to produce agrofuels, animal feed and other industrial and pharmaceutical products for export and consumption in affluent countries, NOT to feed hungry Tanzanians and Africans…

Furthermore, delocalizing and reproducing the Brazilian and Argentinean agricultural “model” in Tanzania and Southeastern Africa will result in environmental ecocide and in the health and socio-economic genocide of millions of Tanzanians, as testified by the empirical and scientific evidence resulting from imposing this agricultural “model” in South America.

It is also worthy and worrisome to note that the consortium of biotech, chemical and agribusiness multinational companies involved in the SAGCOT project are the exact same corporations involved in the production of GMO soya, maize, sugarcane and other GMO “food” crops produced in South America and exported as agrofuels, animal feed, etc. for consumption in affluent countries.

As Einstein rightly stated:

“ Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Converting millions of small holder subsistence farmers in Tanzania and in the region into so-called “commercial farmers” and transforming the smallholder-dominated agricultural sector in Tanzania and in the region into vast privately held, export-oriented, monoculture industrial plantations using expensive patented sterile GMO seeds and toxic chemicals is not a panacea for achieving President Kikwete’s stated objectives of “ achieving food security, eradicating widespread rural poverty and promoting balanced socio-economic development and sustainable economic growth.”

As Olivier de Schutter - UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food – clearly writes in his recent report:

“We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations” The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.” 15

The solution

AGROECOLOGY IS THE SOLUTION TO FEED TANZANIA, AFRICA AND THE ENTIRE WORLD.

As Olivier de Schutter writes in his recent report - Agro-ecology and the right to food 16 - presented on March 08, 2011 before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live - especially in unfavorable environments.”

“To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.”

“Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.”

“Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks. It simply is not the best choice anymore today,” De Schutter stresses. “A large segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation -- and this this is what is needed in a world of limited resources.”

“ Malawi, a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy program a few years ago, is now implementing agroecology, benefiting more than 1.3 million of the poorest people, with maize yields increasing from 1 ton/ha to 2-3 tons/ha.” “However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”

The report identifies a dozen of measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.

“Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services,” De Schutter says. “States and donors have a key role to play here. Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don‟t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.”

De Schutter also urges States to support small-scale farmer’s organizations which demonstrate a great ability to disseminate the best agroecological practices among their members. “Strengthening social organization proves to be as impactful as distributing fertilizers. Small-scale farmers and scientists can create innovative practices when they partner”, De Schutter explains.

“We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”

“If key stakeholders support the measures identified in the report, we can see a doubling of food production within 5 to 10 years in some regions where the hungry live,” De Schutter says. “Whether or not we will succeed this transition will depend on our ability to learn faster from recent innovations. We need to go fast if we want to avoid repeated food and climate disasters in the 21st century.”

Olivier De Schutter was appointed Special Rapporteur on the right to food in May 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights Council. He is independent from any government or organization.

The root economic and political causes of hunger & poverty in Africa

Poverty and hunger - the worst form of Violence - are a direct result of unfair global trading rules, exploitative economic practices and suicidal economic policies imposed on Africa by the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, blindly followed by so-called African "leaders" and governments which result in abject human poverty and hunger. There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone in Africa and around the world. The problem lies in its inequitable distribution and in the lack of financial resources required to purchase it by the vast majority of the African population.

Thus, simply increasing food production without addressing the root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and without distributional justice will NOT resolve hunger and poverty in Africa.

As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated: "There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."

Notes & references:
1. Foreword by president Kikwete to the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint
2. http://www.weforum.org/issues/agriculture-and-food-security/index.html
3. Monsanto press statement published on Monsanto’s website : http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/tanzanian-president-announces-new-vision-for-agriculture.aspx
4. Press release published on USAID’s website http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2011/pr110128.html
5. Press release published on Syngeta’s website
http://www2.syngenta.com/en/media/eventsandpresentations-WEF2011-SAGCOT.html
6. Press release published on AGRA’s website:
http://www.agra-alliance.org/content/news/detail/1238
7. SAGOT Investment Blueprint
8. SAGCOT Concept Note
9. SAGCOT Investment Blueprint
10. Ibid
11. http://www.agdevco.com/images/stories/pdf/TANZANIA/invest-blueprint-sagcot.pdf
12 SAGCOT Investment Blueprint
13 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-food-summit-agriculture-idUSTRE72E7Q020110315
14 ibid
15 Press release by Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food: http://www.unscn.org/layout/modules/news/documents/Agroecology_press_release.pdf
16 Ibid

You can download a PDF copy of the following reports at the following links:

SAGCOT Investment Blueprint:

Executive Summary:

http://www.agdevco.com/images/stories/pdf/TANZANIA/ibp_executive_summary.pdf
Entire report :

http://www.agdevco.com/images/stories/pdf/TANZANIA/invest-blueprint-sagcot_high_res.pdf

The SAGCOT Concept Note:

http://www.africacorridors.com/sagcot/documents/SAGCOT%20Concept%20Note.pdf
SAGCOT official website:

http://www.africacorridors.com/sagcot/

New Vision for Agriculture report from the World Economic Forum (WEF)

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/AM11/CO/WEF_AgricultureNewVision_Roadmap_2011.pdf

Agro-ecology and the right to food, report by Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food:

http://www.unscn.org/layout/modules/news/documents/Agroecology_report.pdf

BT COTTON: PANACEA or TROJAN HORSE...?

Collapse of the cotton sector in sub-Saharan Africa 

Background:

The cotton and textile sector in Africa has entirely collapsed following the IMF's infamous Structural Adjustment Program and the destructive tsunami of “liberalization” and privatizations (i.e. economic re-colonization) that followed. The cotton sector is the backbone of the economy in many African countries and provides employment to millions of cotton farmers and their families.

Bt cotton: Panacea to revive the cotton sector...?

There is intense political lobbying and pressure by Monsanto, the biotech industry and their cronies to introduce genetically modified Bt cotton in Africa as a “panacea” to revive the cotton sector.
The biotech industry and their cronies fraudulently claim that Bt cotton increases yields, decreases pesticide use and therefore increases farmers’ income and profitability by increasing output and reducing production costs while reducing environmental destruction.

In fact the exact opposite is true and several independent studies and empirical evidence have clearly and repeatedly debunked this fraudulent claim. In fact, cotton pests have naturally and predictably developed resistance to Bt cotton. As a result, cotton farmers have to increasingly use more expensive and toxic pesticides to combat pest resistance, which increases both their production costs and insecticide use leading to environmental destruction, while decreasing yields, income and profitability for cotton farmers. Many publicly available research papers have been written and published on these issues.

We have of course also heard and read about the infamous and tragic waves of mass suicides of Bt cotton farmers in India, rightly termed “genocide” by Vandana Shiva. In fact, according to official statistics from the government of India, over 200,000 indian cotton farmers have tragically committed suicide in India over the last decade.

As Vandana Shiva herself states: " Every suicide can be linked to Monsanto. Monsanto’s GMOs do not improve farmers’ lives. They have pushed farmers to suicide. Over 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last decade. 84% of the suicides in Vidharbha, the region with highest suicides are linked to debt created by Bt–cotton. While Monsanto claims its GMO Bt cotton gives 1500 Kg/acre, the average is 300–400 Kg/acre. The claim to increased yield is false because yield, like climate resilience is a multi–genetic trait. Furthermore, pesticide use has increased 13 times as a result of the use Bt cotton seeds in the region of Vidharbha, India. GMOs are non–renewable, while the open pollinated varieties that farmers have bred are renewable and can be saved year to year. The price of cotton seed was Rs 7/kg. Bt cotton seed price jumped to Rs 1,700/kg. This is neither ecological nor economic or social sustainability. It is ecocide and genocide." source: http://www.goal-2025.com/2011/02/26/climate-change-and-agriculture-by-dr-vandana-shiva/

Monsanto and the biotech industry of course vehemently deny any responsibility in this “genocide.” I will not debate this controversial issue in this paper since no amount of sterile debate or public outcry will bring an end to the ongoing “genocide” of cotton farmers in India. Instead I wish to move beyond the debate and the outcry to identify, address and resolve the root economic, structural and political causes behind the collapse of the cotton sector in Africa, India and around the world. In fact, Bt cotton does not address let alone resolve the root economic, structural and political causes behind the collapse of the cotton sector in Africa, India and around the world.

I therefore hereby wish to concentrate on identifying and briefly explaining the root economic, structural and political causes behind the global collapse of the cotton sector with a particular emphasis on the economics of Bt cotton. In fact, most of the research and public debate on Bt cotton has revolved around and been limited to contentious issues of yields, pest resistance and pesticide usage, and of course on the infamous and tragic suicides of cotton farmers in India. However, to my knowledge there has not been any research or public debate on the economics of Bt cotton.

I therefore wish to provide a brief overview and explanation on the economics of Bt cotton in this brief paper. I have tried to explain it as simply and as comprehensibly as possible for those with limited knowledge of economics. I hope that the debate on Bt cotton can shift from the contentious issue of yields, pest resistance and pesticide usage to an economic angle and debate so that practical solutions can be identified, developed and implemented to end the tragic plight, suffering and suicides of cotton farmers around the world.

As briefly mentioned above, the industry fraudulently claims and argues that Bt cotton increases yields and decreases pesticide use, and therefore increases cotton farmers’ income by increasing output and reducing production costs. Of course, Bt cotton has not been genetically modified to increase yields, and scientific research and empirical evidence indicates that it does not increase yields. Furthermore, offering to increase yields and production – using expensive patented and sterile seeds and a cocktail of toxic pesticides and herbicides - in a context of structural over supply of cotton on the world market significantly worsens the plight of both cotton farmers and cotton producing/exporting countries.

Vicious trap cycle

In fact, to make up for the loss in revenue resulting from structural over supply of cotton on the world market which result in constantly declining real prices of cotton, farmers produce and export more cotton, which in turn results in creating a further excess supply of cotton on the world market, further reducing both lint and farm gate prices of cotton, thus further marginalizing and impoverishing both cotton farmers and cotton producing and exporting nations, in conformity with King’s Law of Demand.

King’s Law of Demand

King’s Law of Demand clearly states that a surplus/deficit in a commodity will lead to a proportionally greater decline/increase respectively in the price of the said commodity relative to the surplus or deficit. In other words, a surplus of 10% in the supply of cotton will lead to a decline of more than 10% in the price of cotton, and vice-versa.

Therefore, increasing cotton yields and production will further increase the supply of cotton on the world market and translate into a further decrease of cotton prices, in conformity with King's Law of Demand, further impoverishing both cotton farmers and cotton producing/exporting countries. Increasing cotton yields and production will therefore worsen the plight of cotton farmers and cotton producing/exporting countries. Therefore, simply increasing yields of Bt cotton will not resolve the plight of cotton farmers and/or of cotton producing/exporting countries, contrary to deceitful claims made by Monsanto, the biotech industry and their cronies.

This flawed and deceitful argument promoted by Monsanto and parroted and forcefully imposed and dictated by the IMF, the World Bank and so-called “donors” to countries producing and exporting unprocessed so-called “cash crops” such as cotton , coffee, cocoa, etc., is used to loot and export valuable raw materials for processing and consumption in affluent countries and to further plunge entire countries and continents into debt slavery and economic servitude.

 As the Brandt Commission warned over 30 years ago: “ Structural over-supply in the commodities markets lies at the heart of global poverty and instability” (Willy Brandt, Brandt Report). 

Furthermore, there are several other exogenous economic, structural and political factors which individually and collectively influence and determine the price of cotton on the world market and the profitability of cotton farmers, which Bt cotton does not address let alone resolve. I have briefly outlined and explained some of these factors below:

US/EU (illegal) cotton subsidies

- + $US 5 billion/year; artificially stimulates production in the US/EU which leads to structural overproduction of cotton on the world market (Supply > Demand). Excess production “dumped ” on the world market ( i.e. sold below cost of production).

Results: - Collapse of both cotton lint prices on the world market and collapse of farm-gate cotton prices. As a result, hundreds of millions of small-scale (non-subsidized) cotton farmers cannot profitably produce and sell their cotton on the world market, despite having an Absolute Comparative Advantage in producing cotton, and sink deeper into endless poverty, hunger and misery.

$US Exchange Rates

- Cotton lint sold in US dollars on the world market. Thus, a devaluation in the US dollar translates into further loss in revenue for both cotton farmers and for cotton producing/exporting countries.

Increase in the price of oil & inputs

- Inverse relationship between the US dollar and oil prices (i.e. a devaluation in the value of the US dollar leads to an increase in the price of oil – to offset the loss in export revenue from the devaluation of the US dollar.)

Results:

Increase in the price of transport and oil-based farm inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) resulting from an increase in the price of oil and from unfair Terms of Trade. Furthermore, an increase in the price of oil translates into an increase in the cost of transport, thereby increasing production and shipping costs. Thus, the inverse relationship between a devaluation of the US dollar and the increase in the price of oil increases the cost of production of cotton farmers on the one hand, while significantly decreasing both the real price of cotton and therefore the revenue and profitability of cotton farmers.

Political Factors:

- IMF Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) which have dismantled local subsidies to African cotton farmers/agriculture and privatized the sector, added to World Bank suicidal economic policies dictated and imposed on African countries and blindly followed à la lettre by so-called African "leaders", which deliberately promote the monoculture, overproduction and export of cotton which keeps African economies and countries trapped in the Colonial Pact and in the vicious trap cycle of debt slavery, economic servitude, so-called "aid" and unending poverty, hunger and endless misery.

Internal/political factors:

- Total deficit of intelligent leadership, intelligent economic policies and political will from so-called African “leaders” and governments to revive the sector. Total deficit of intelligent government policies to protect and support local cotton farmers and to promote local value addition and consumption of local cotton/textiles to revive the local cotton and textile industry.

- Absence of public and industrial infrastructures (energy, inexistant/outdated industrial cotton processing machinery, roads, etc.) which translates into high energy costs, high production/processing costs, high transport costs, high taxes, etc., which result in loss of competitiveness and profitability for cotton farmers, ginners, weavers and for the entire textile sector.

- Dumping of "kifua" ( used imported clothing which literally translates into "dead white mens' clothing in Swahili/Tanzania) on the local market which destroys the local cotton and textile industry.

No local value-addition

- Cotton lint exported raw (non-processed) and thus the price of cotton lint is subjected to the dictate of the world market/casino, distorted by Western cotton subsidies and the “ invisible hand ” of speculators and multinationals through IMF & World Bank policies that deliberately promote overproduction and export of monoculture so-called "cash" crops ( i.e. cotton, coffee, cocoa, etc.) to repay the so-called “debt”...

- No local value-addition in cotton producing countries ( over 80-90% of cotton exported raw/nonprocessed) = no local employment creation, no revenue generation, no wealth creation, no economic growth generated within the sector and in the economy as a whole.

Reliance on lint exports: vicious trap cycle

- Thus, Africa’s exclusive reliance on cotton lint exports (+80%-90%) makes it entirely dependent on the dictates of the world market and on exogenous economic/structural/political factors over which Africa has no control ( i.e. Western cotton subsidies, structural oversupply, $US exchange rate, oil prices, input costs, price of cotton lint on the world market, etc.)

- Cotton sector trapped in the “ Colonial Pact ” ( i.e. export raw cotton and import (used) clothing at a loss (to add insult to economic injury.)

Example: Cotton sector in Tanzania - "Kifua" economy...

According to statistics published by the Tanzanian Cotton Board, the cotton sector in Tanzania used to provide employment to over 40% of the population, contribute 15%-20% to the GNP and was the second largest source of foreign exchange, before the IMF's infamous Structural Adjustment Program completely bankrupted, liberalized and privatized the sector.

Tanzania cotton & textile trade

Over 80% of the cotton produced in Tanzania is exported raw (non-processed ) in the form of lint. According to statistics published by the Tanzanian Cotton Board, the Tanzanian government generates on average $US 40 million annually in cotton lint exports, but annually imports over $US 80 million of textiles and garments, out of which 62% constitutes used imported clothing known as“kifua.”

Thus, such self-defeating and mediocre economic policies not only generate huge financial loses for the people of Tanzania, but also floods the market with cheap " kifua/dead white mens' clothing " which destroys the local textile industry. Furthermore, lack of local processing and local value addition fails to create crucially lacking and desperately needed local employment and generate income within the sector and economic growth within the economy. To add insult to economic injury, local inhabitants are left with no other alternative than to wear their humiliation daily in the form of “ kifua”

As the late President of Tanzania Julius Nyerere rightly said: « Africans produce what they do not consume and consume what they do not produce. That has become the basis for African economic enslavement. »

In fact, the architecture of African economies has not changed over the last +100 years, since the infamous Berlin Conference. Indeed, Africa is still in its essence a plantation (and a mining) colonial economy trapped in the Colonial Pact. And sadly, over fifty years after so-called "independence", Tanzania and other African countries still “ produce what they do not consume and consume what they do not produce.”

In conclusion

As briefly explained in this paper, simply increasing cotton yields without addressing the root economic, structural and political causes behind the collapse of the cotton sector will not put an end to the plight, suffering and mass suicides of cotton farmers. On the contrary, it will further worsen their plight. We must therefore urgently shift the global debate on Bt cotton from the contentious issues of yields, pest resistance and pesticide usage to an economic debate to identify, address and resolve the root economic, structural and political causes behind the collapse of the cotton sector in Africa, India and around the world. 

OPEN LETTER TO DANIEL MATERUKA - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AATF - REGARDING THE OPEN-FIELD TESTING OF MONSANTO'S WEMA GM MAIZE IN EAST AFRICA

OPEN FIELD TRIALS OF MONSANTO’S (so-called) “DROUGHT TOLERANT” GM MAIZE TO BEGIN IN EAST AFRICA

GM maize trials to begin in East Africa

By Katy Migiro

NAIROBI, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Confined field trials of genetically modified maize will begin in Kenya and Uganda this year once regulators approve it, the U.S.-based non-profit African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) said.

Scientists from Kenyan and Ugandan government research bodies, Monsanto (MON.N) and research body International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) developed the 12 varieties of Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) due to be planted.

Maize is the most widely grown staple food in Africa and is badly affected by drought. The scientists aim for the drought-resistant GM maize to increase yields by 24 to 35 percent.

"Everything we have seen in the simulated trials shows that we can safely test transgenic maize varieties in carefully controlled and confined field trials in Africa," James Gethi, the WEMA-Kenya country coordinator, said in a statement seen by Reuters late on Thursday.

Scientists conducted mock trials in simulated conditions in Kenya and Tanzania in 2009. The transgenic maize will now be planted in 1-2 hectare confined fields once Kenya and Uganda give regulatory approval.

The world's poorest continent, where agriculture contributes up to a quarter of GDP in some countries and is an important source of foreign exchange, is increasingly turning to genetically modified crops to bolster food supplies.

But critics and consumers, mostly in Africa and Europe, have questioned the safety of GM foods and have banned their import or cultivation due to fears they could harm humans and wildlife.

If the maize is approved, it will be licensed to AATF, which is funded by the United States and British governments.

"The expected WEMA transgenic drought-tolerant maize seed will be sub-licensed to local seed companies royalty-free for a term or duration to be determined based on future product deployment agreements," AATF Communications Officer Grace Wachoro said in a statement to Reuters.

"The confined field trials will enable the project to address safety issues."
AATF said the resulting trial maize crop will be destroyed in accordance with Kenyan and Ugandan research regulations.

Trials are also planned for South Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania.

More than 30 countries, including all of the European Union, have restricted or banned the production of GM crops because they are not considered proven safe.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69D1Q320101015

I am deeply concerned and worried about the serious health hazards, the irreversible environmental damage and the negative socio-economic consequences that could result from open-field trials (to be followed by commercial cultivation) of the WEMA GM maize in Tanzania and throughout the region.

In fact, there is ample independent scientific and empirical evidence from around the globe which clearly links GM maize - and GMO’s in general - to serious human and animal health hazards, irreversible environmental and ecological destruction and negative socio-economic consequences for both farmers and countries growing GMO’s.

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, scientists have linked three of Monsanto's GM maize to organ damage.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Furthermore, several EU states and other countries around the world have banned GM maize and other GMO crops based on independent scientific and empirical evidence which link GM maize and other GMO crops to serious negative health hazards on both human and animals and to serious irreversible damage and destruction to the environment and the entire ecosystem. The German government has recently banned Monsanto's GM Maize (MON 810)- the only GMO crop authorized by the EU - calling it "a danger to the environment.."

Tragically, however, at the same time East African countries are set to begin open-field testing of Monsanto's so-called "drought-resistant" GM maize to " fight hunger and poverty..." The AATF is blindly pursuing regulatory approval for open field testing of its WEMA GM maize in Tanzania and throughout the region, irrespective of the documented scientific and empirical evidence on the hazards and consequences associated with GM maize/GMO’s, and in violation of the Precautionary Principle contained in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which Tanzania has ratified.

I have written to the Executive Director of the AATF – Mr. Daniel Mataruka – to express my worries and deep concern about this issue. Unfortunately - although not surprisingly - I have not yet had a response from the AATF. I am enclosing a copy of my email below for your information.

Daniel Mataruka
Executive Director
The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF)
P.O. Box 30709
Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Email: aatf@aatf-africa.org
Cc: n.muchiri@aatf-africa.org

Re: Safety of open-field testing of Monsanto’s WEMA GM maize in East Africa

Mr. Mataruka,

I am writing to you regarding the open field trials of the 12 so called ‘drought tolerant” varieties of Monsanto’s Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) scheduled to begin this year in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania, as indicated in a press release by the AATF published on your website.

Source: http://www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/PressRelease-WEMA-CFT.pdf

I hereby wish to briefly share with you and draw your attention to the following documented independent scientific evidence linking GM Maize to grave human and animal health hazards and to inevitable and irreversible environmental genetic pollution and environmental destruction, before you open Pandora’s box with your dangerous experiments…

NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH GM MAIZE & GMO’s

Scientific study links Monsanto’s GM Maize to organ damage

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, an independent scientific study published by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini - a molecular biologist at the University of Caen (France) and President of the Scientific Council of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering - in the International Journal of Biological Sciences has linked three of Monsanto’s GM maize with organ damage.

Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that Professor Seralini and other researchers used and studied to link Monsanto’s three GM maize varieties with organ damage.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Séralini.

Link to the study: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

This latest study conforms with a 2007 study by professor Seralini on Monsanto’s (Mon 863) maize, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data. (see below)

In May 2005, a report by the Independent in the UK revealed that secret research conducted by Monsanto on its GM maize MON863 showed significant variations between the rats fed with conventional maize and those fed with MON863 . These included an increased number of white blood cells in the males, reduced immature red blood cells in females, a significant increase in blood sugar in the females or a higher frequency of physical irregularities in the kidneys of the males, such as reduced weight and inflammation.

Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini has conducted an analysis of the Monsanto study, the results of which are briefly summarized below:

The study revealed that rats fed the GM maize for three months showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes.

Professor Seralini writes:

"Our counter-evaluation show that there are signs of toxicity and that nobody can say scientifically and seriously that consumption of the transgenic maizeMON863 is safe and good for health," "We have the first signs of toxicity that appear at the level of body weight, the kidneys, and the liver, and that are also different between the sexes indicating deeper effects at the hormone level."

"Considering that the human and animal populations could be exposed at comparable levels to this kind of food or feed that has been authorised by several countries, and that these are the best mammalian toxicity tests available, we strongly recommend a new assessment and longer exposure of mammals to these diets, with cautious clinical observations, before concluding that MON863 is safe to eat," "The GM maize should not be allowed to be licensed as food or feedstuff in EU countries," said lead author of the study, Professor Gilles Eric Séralini

Environmental group Greenpeace has demanded an immediate and complete recall of MON863 from the global market, and also called on an urgent reassessment of all other authorised GM foods by governments.

"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-review journal, proves that a GMO authorised for human consumption presents signs of toxicity," said Arnaud Apoteker from Greenpeace France.

The study is published on-line in the peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/Serious-concerns-raised-over-

Furthermore, several other independent scientific studies have found serious negative human and animal health effects associated with GMO consumption.

In fact, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has issued and published an alarming statement which states that “ there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.”

The AAEM writes:

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system."

"The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans " concludes the AAEM

ENVIROMENTAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH GM MAIZE & GMO’S

Furthermore, several EU states and over 30 countries around the world have declared a moratorium and banned GM maize and other GMO crops based on documented independent scientific and empirical evidence which link GM maize and other GMO crops to grave negative health effects on both human and animals and to serious irreversible hazards to the environment and the ecosystem as a whole.

Germany bans Monsanto’s GM Maize, calling it “ a danger to the environment.."

The German government has banned Monsanto's GM Maize (MON 810) last year - the only GMO crop authorized by the EU - calling it "a danger to the environment.."

“The decision was announced on by German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner, writes the BBC. Ms Aigner, said she had concluded that "there is a justifiable reason to believe that... MON 810 presents a danger to the environment". Ms Aigner said the decision to ban it now, based on new data, was purely scientific, not political.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998181.stm

France, Greece, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria and Hungary have all banned Monsanto's genetically modified maize using the EU’s precautionary principle because of serious scientific concerns on the long-term effects of the GM maize on the environment. The cultivation of all other GM crops is banned in the EU.

GENETIC CONTAMINATION “INEVITABLE” & IRREVERSIBLE

Genetically modified maize contaminates crops in seven German states
Despite a Europe-wide ban

Genetically modified maize has contaminated local maize crops in seven German states, according to research from Greenpeace. The state's agriculture ministry confirmed the research on Sunday. "This is, to date, the largest scandal concerning genetically modified seeds in Germany," said Alexander Hissting, an agriculture expert with Greenpeace.

The scandal occurred in March of this year, when Pioneer and other agribiotech corporations sold 23 different varieties of maize seeds contaminated by Monsanto’s illegal NK603 to farmers who cultivated them on 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) in seven states in Germany, where contaminated farmers had to destroy their crops. [6] According to the German-based Foundation on Future Farming [7], the seed companies refused to accept liability and have not compensated farmers for up to hundreds of millions of Euro in economic losses.

Greenpeace says the corn already growing in the fields must now be destroyed, which could lead to millions of euros in losses for farmers. According to the organization's research, blood tests in animals have shown genetically modified corn to have a significant effect to the liver and kidneys.

"Putting the consumer at risk is not up for discussion," said Hissting.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5657053,00.htm

“Massive Genetic contamination” of local maize in Spain

A report published by Greenpeace titled “ Impossible Coexistence” warns about the health and environmental hazards of GM Maize commercially grown in Spain and the “massive genetic contamination” of local maize crops:

The commercial cultivation of GM maize in Spain is causing “massive genetic contamination” according to Greenpeace.

“ The first cases of GE contamination have already occurred in Spain. In 2001, organically grown maize in the Navarra region was contaminated by Bt176 maize and, as consequence, farmers suffered losses since the crop couldn't be marketed as organic produce.

"In several cases the affected farmers suffered economic losses, as they were not able anymore to sell the contaminated maize at a premium market value,"claimed the report.

"Despite guarantees by various Spanish governments that guidelines and controls would ensure safety, farmers and consumer choice the reality has been the opposite.
"The Spanish experience demonstrates that GM and non-GM co-existence is a fallacy," said Ritsema.

"Testimonials from farmers demonstrate that the unabated growth of the GM industry now represents the single largest threat to their livelihoods, especially in the regions Aragn and Catalonia where GM crops are mainly cultivated."

Greenpeace claims that the report, written in cooperation with farmer organisation Assemblea Pagesa and civil society group Plataforma Trangnics Fora!, is based on research including laboratory tests of samples taken from the maize fields of 40 Spanish organic and conventional farmers.

It claims to show that in almost a quarter of the investigated cases, unintended and unwanted presence of GM maize was found in the maize fields of non-GM farmers. The pressure group says that contamination was as high as 12.6 per cent.

The Spanish situation highlights the need for measures to prevent the genetic contamination of conventional and organic crops and should serve as a warning for the other European countries.

"This report should be taken as a warning to the Commission and Europe in general of the dangers of GM production, " said Greenpeace campaigner Geert Ritsema

Allowing contaminated seeds to be put on the market would lead to a creeping and unmonitorable contamination of all European farmlands by GMOs that would make it impossible to sustain a GE-free supply after a few years. GE companies should instead be made legally and financially liable for the environmental and economic damages their products can cause.

Preventing genetic contamination and other negative effects of GE crops should now be the number one priority for the Spanish Government instead of actively promoting GE agriculture in Spain. We call on Spain to apply the precautionary principle and to stop the growing of GE crops. The Spanish example should be a warning signal to other European countries not to allow GM crops.

As a result, Greenpeace is calling on the Spanish authorities to suspend the cultivation of GM in Spain. It is also calling on EU ministers and the European Commission to prevent the cultivation of GM crops in other EU countries.

Link to the report:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/new-report-slams-gm-maize-in-s/

Genetic contamination of local maize in Mexico

Furthermore, a scientific study published in decembre 2008 in the Journal of Molecular Ecology confirms the genetic contamination of native Mexican corn in southern Mexico, as reported earlier by Chapela and Quist in 2002 (see below). The study found evidence of the 35S Promotor, a trait widely used in genetically modified crops to promote herbicide or disease resistance.

Source : http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17133.cfm

link to study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03993.x/pdf

On 17 September 2001, Mexico’s Secretary for Environmental and Natural Resources released partial results of its own study, confirming that transgenic maize had been found in 15 of 22 areas tested in Oaxaca and nearby Puebla. [15]

Just over two months later, Chapela’s team published in Nature. ‘We report’, wrote Chapela and Quist, ‘the presence of introgressed transgenic DNA constructs in native maize landraces grown in remote mountains in Oaxaca, Mexico, part of the Mesoamerican centre of origin and diversification of this crop’. In plain English, they were reporting contamination of native corn by its GM equivalent.

‘Whatever the source, it’s clear that genes are somehow moving from bioengineered corn to native corn’, says Chapela. ‘This is very serious because the regions where our samples were taken are known for their diverse varieties of native corn, which is something that absolutely needs to be protected. This native corn is also less vulnerable to disease, pest outbreaks and climatic changes.’ [17]

In January 2002, the Mexican Ministry of the Environment confirmed their findings from the previous year and said that in some remote regions of Oaxaca and Puebla, between 20–60 per cent of tested farms had traces of transgenic material. [53]

In April, Jorge Soberon, the executive secretary of Mexico’s National Commission on Biodiversity, announced the findings of the Mexican government’s research at the International Conference on Biodiveristy at The Hague. Soberon confirmed that the tests had now shown the level of contamination was far worse than initially reported in both Oaxaca and Puebla. A total of 1876 seedlings had been taken by government researchers and evidence of contamination had been found at 95 per cent of the sites. One field had 35 per cent contamination of plants alone. [86]

There have now been episodes of GM contamination in Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, India, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Thailand, the UK and the USA, amongst others. [95]

In fact many biotech scientists have signed on to a statement that says that GM contamination is inevitable and scientific evidence confirms the “inevitable” and irreversible hazards of genetic contamination of local food crops by GM crops.

Nature Biotechnology candidly pointed out, ‘gene containment is next to impossible with the current generation of GM crops … gene flow from GM crops to related plants thus remain a primary concern for regulators and one that companies need to address’. [91]

Even C.S. Prakash from agbioworld.com– the pro-biotechnology industry’s spokesperson par excellence – has stated that the fact that GM contamination has occurred is now not disputed by the GM opponents. ‘Quist and Chapela have subsequently presented data that further supports the presence of transgenes in maize landraces – a point that has not been disputed’, argued Prakash [85] ‘It is important to recognize that the kind of gene flow alleged in the Nature paper is inevitable...’ [90]

My question to you Mr Daniel Mataruka regarding the safety of open-field testing of WEMA GM Maize in East Africa:

In view of the above independent scientific evidence documenting the health and environmental hazards associated with GM maize and the “inevitable” and irreversible genetic contamination of local maize crops by GM maize:

a) How can you guarantee the safety of the WEMA GM maize on both human & animal health, the environment and the ecosystem?

b) Have you carried out independent scientific health and environmental risk assessment studies for each one of the 12 varieties of the WEMA GM maize as legally required by article 15 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?

Article 15 RISK ASSESSMENT

1. Risk assessments undertaken pursuant to this Protocol shall be carried out
in a scientifically sound manner, in accordance with Annex III and taking into
account recognized risk assessment techniques. Such risk assessments shall be
based, at a minimum, on information provided in accordance with Article 8 and
other available scientific evidence in order to identify and evaluate the possible
adverse effects of living modified organisms on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to
human health.

As stated in Annex III of the Protocol : RISK ASSESSMENT -Objective

The objective of risk assessment, under this Protocol, is to identify and
evaluate the potential adverse effects of living modified organisms on the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the likely potential
receiving environment, taking also into account risks to human health.

c) What regulatory, precautionary and preventive measures have the ATFF, Monsanto and its institutional partners put in place to prevent and protect the local maize crop from “inevitable” (and irreversible) genetic contamination resulting from the open field testing of the WEMA GM maize in East Africa?

d) And finally, who will be legally and financially liable in case of damage to both human & animal health and to the economy, the environment and the ecosystem as a whole resulting from the open-field testing (and planned commercial planting) of the WEMA GM maize?

I thank you for shedding some light into my interrogations, and I look forward to your response.

Note: Although the AATF has acknowledge receipt of my letter (see below), they have not yet responded to my inquiry.

RE: Safety of WEMA Maize...Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:54 AM
From: "Muchiri, Nancy (AATF)" View contact details
To: arya@yajnacentre.com
Cc: "Wachoro, Grace (AATF)"

Dear Arya,

This is to confirm receipt of your mail and enquiry to which we will respond as soon as possible.

Kind rgds for now

Nancy Muchiri
Communications and Partnerships Manager,
P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya
Tel: 254-20 422 3700 • Direct line 254-20 422 3733 • Fax 254-20 422 3701
Via USA – Tel: 1 650 833 6660 • Fax: 1 650 833 6661 • Cell 254 735992206
E-mail: n.muchiri@aatf-africa.org
www.aatf-africa.org

Notes & references

4. Testimonies of Contamination, Greenpeace, 15 October 2009. This report documents the socioeconomic and human impacts of GM contamination, based on testimonials from farmers and food producers who have been directly or indirectly harmed as a result of contamination in Spain, the only EU Member State whose government allows the commercial cultivation of GM maize. The testimonials depict the stark reality of serious contamination of conventional and organic crops and the food chain. Download report: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/reports/testimonies-ofcontamination-15-10-09.pdf
6. These include five seed varieties sold by Pioneer Hi-Bred and 18 by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences and other agri-biotech companies. The contamination was discovered by Lower Saxony’s Ministry of Agriculture at the beginning of March 2010. For details see:
7. Foundation on Future Farming: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/foundation.html
14 Quist and Chapela (2001) op cit, p541.

15 Dalton (2001) op cit.

16 Quist and Chapela (2001) op cit, p543.

17 Yang,S (2001) Transgenic DNA Discovered in Native Mexican Corn, According to a New Study by UC Berkeley Researchers, University of California Press Release, 29 November.
53 ETC Group (2002) GM Pollution in the Bank? Time for “Plan B”, News Release, Winnipeg, 4 February; Magallon Larson, H (2002) Interview with Author, 5 March.
86 Brown, P (2002) ‘Mexico’s Vital Gene Reservoir Polluted by Modified Maize’, The Guardian, London, 19 April.

90 Prakash, C (2002) Joint Statement of Scientific Discourse in Mexican GM Maize Scandal, 24 February.

91 Nature Biotechnology (2002) op cit, p527.

95 Villar, J (2001) GMO Contamination – Around The World, Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam; Hager, N (2002) Seeds of Distrust, Craig Potton, Nelson, pp12–20.

LE GENOCIDE HUMAIN ET ENVIRONNEMENTAL DU SOJA OGM DE MONSANTO EN AMÉRIQUE DU SUD

Photo d'un bébé au Paraguay contaminé par les herbicides ( Round Up Ready de Monsanto) pulvérisés dans les plantations industrielles de soja OGM en Amérique du Sud, exporté en Europe pour nourrir le bètail... ( Source: GM Watch)

LE SOJA OGM DE MONSANTO DETRUIT LES HUMAINS, LES ANIMAUX, L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET LA PLANETE TOUTE ENTIERE

MonSatan et l’industrie agro-alimentaire américaine et brésilienne ( Cargill, ADM, Bunge, etc.) doivent être tenu responsable et jugé pour Génocide et Crime contre l’Humanité et Crime contre la Nature.

Un rapport scientifique publié en septembre 2010 dresse un bilan désastreux de la monoculture industrielle du Soja OGM de Monsanto cultivé à grande échelle en Amérique du Sud et exporté au sein de l’UE pour nourrir le bétail dans les pays Européens et pour produire des agrocarburants – au détriment de la production vivrière locale – en empoisonnant et en chassant les petits paysans de leurs terres et en détruisant et en polluant l’environnement tout entier ( déforestation, pollution des terres, de l’eau et de l’écosystème tout entier)

Les consommateurs européens qui consomment de la viande nourries avec du soja et du mais OGM ( bœuf, porc, volailles, etc.) ainsi que les produits issus de ces animaux ( lait, fromage, œuf, etc) sont directement responsable de ce génocide humain et environnemental – soit par ignorance ou pire par indifférence…

Le SEUL moyen efficace de mettre en terme à ce génocide humain et écologique, c’est de boycotter et de ne plus acheter la viande et les produits des animaux nourris avec du soja et autres « aliments » OGM…

Malheureusement, la législation européenne actuellement en vigueur au sein de l’UE n’exige pas l’étiquetage des animaux nourris aux OGM ni des produits issus de ces animaux.

Donc, les européens doivent faire pression sur les politiques afin de rendre l’étiquetage des animaux nourris aux OGM obligatoire et éviter comme la peste d’acheter et de consommer les viandes et les produits issus des animaux nourris aux OGM.

Ainsi, tout l’industrie du soja OGM s’écroulera (sans violence) et l’on pourra mettre un terme au génocide humain et environnemental de la culture du soja OGM en Amérique du Sud.

Voir les documentaires suivant sur les conséquences socio-économiques, sur la santé et sur l’environnement de la culture du soja OGM au Paraguay :

Les champs de la mort

www.feedingfactoryfarms.org/index.php?id=36

Paraguay’s painful harvest :

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3778190655853164866#

www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3073077

Extrait du rapport scientifique sur les conséquences de la culture du soja OGM en Amérique du Sud : Le Soja OGM: Durable? Responsable?

Effets du glysophate ( ingrédient actif de l’herbicide Round Up Ready de Monsanto pulvérisé sur les plantations de soja) sur la santé et l’environnement

Une nouvelle étude confirme le lien entre le glyphosate et les malformations congénitales

" En 2009, un scientifique du secteur public argentin, le professeur Andrés Carrasco, a révélé dans ses conclusions que, à des doses largement inférieures à celles utilisées en agriculture, les herbicides à base de glyphosate causent des malformations chez les embryons de grenouilles. De plus, des embryons de grenouilles et de poulets traités aux herbicides à base de glyphosate ont présenté des malformations semblables à celles observées chez les bébés humains exposés à ce type d’herbicides.

Le professeur Carrasco a relevé que « les conclusions du laboratoire sont comparables aux malformations observées chez les humains exposés au glyphosate pendant la grossesse. » Il a ajouté que ses conclusions ont des graves implications pour les humains parce que les animaux de laboratoire ont des mécanismes de croissance semblables à ceux des humains.

Le professeur Carrasco a observé des malformations chez des embryons qui ont reçu une injection de 2,03 mg/kg de glyphosate. La limite maximale de résidus autorisée dans le soja dans l’Union Européenne est de 20 mg/kg, soit une teneur 10 fois supérieure
Études épidémiologiques sur le glyphosate

Des études épidémiologiques sur l’exposition au glyphosate montrent un lien avec de graves troubles de santé, notamment:

• naissances prématurées et fausses-couches,32
• myélome multiple (un type de cancer),33
• lymphome non-Hodgkin (un autre type de cancer),34 35
• altération de l’ADN.36

Des études montrent que le glyphosate a des effets toxiques graves sur la santé et l’environnement. Les ingrédients ajoutés ou les adjuvants du Roundup accroissent sa toxicité. Les effets nocifs du glyphosate et du Roundup ont été constatés même avec les teneurs couramment utilisées en agriculture et trouvées dans l’environnement.

Les conclusions sont notamment:

• Dans les cellules humaines, le Roundup cause la mort totale des cellules en 24 heures. Ces effets sont observés avec des teneurs largement inférieures à celles recommandées pour l’usage agricole et correspondant aux faibles teneurs de résidus retrouvés dans les aliments pour humains ou animaux.6
• Les herbicides à base de glyphosate sont des perturbateurs endocrinaux (c’est-à-dire des substances qui interfèrent avec le fonctionnement hormonal) dans les cellules humaines. Ces effets sont constatés avec des teneurs jusqu’à 800 fois inférieures aux teneurs de résidus autorisées dans certaines cultures utilisées dans l’alimentation animale aux états-Unis. Les herbicides à base de glyphosate endommagent l’ADN des cellules humaines à ces teneurs.7
• Les adjuvants du glyphosate et du Roundup endommagent les cellules placentaires humaines à des concentrations inférieures à celles recommandées en agriculture.8 9 10
• Le glyphosate et le Roundup endommagent les cellules embryonnaires et placentaires humaines à des concentrations inférieures à celles recommandées en agriculture.11
• Le Roundup est toxique et mortel pour les amphibiens, chez lesquels il a causé une chute de 70 pour cent des variétés de têtards.12 Une expérience utilisant des concentrations plus faibles a provoqué une mortalité de 40 pour cent.13
• Les herbicides à base de glyphosate et l’AMPA, principal métabolite du glyphosate (produit de décomposition du glyphosate dans l’environnement), modifient les points de contrôle du cycle cellulaire chez les embryons d’oursins de mer en interférant avec le mécanisme physiologique de réparation de l’ADN.14 15 16 17 On a observé que cette perturbation entraîne une instabilité génomique et éventuellement à l’apparition de cancers chez l’homme.
• Le Roundup est toxique pour les rats femelles et cause des malformations du squelette chez leurs foetus.18
• L’AMPA, principal produit de décomposition du glyphosate dans l’environnement, altère l’ADN dans les cellules.19
• Ces conclusions montrent que le glyphosate et le Roundup sont très toxiques pour bon nombre d’organismes et pour les cellules humaines.

Le soja OGM RR est-il propre pour la consommation ?

Depuis que le soja OGM RR a été approuvé pour la commercialisation, des études ont révélé des effets pervers chez les animaux de laboratoire nourris à ce soja, contrairement aux groupes témoins nourris aux aliments non-OGM:

• Les souris nourries au soja OGM RR ont présenté des changements cellulaires dans le foie, le pancréas et les testicules;61 62 63
• Les souris nourries au soja OGM ont montré des signes plus aigus de vieillissement dans leur foie;64
• Les lapins nourris au soja OGM ont présenté des troubles enzymatiques dans les reins et le coeur;65
• Des changements dans l’utérus et les ovaires ont été observés chez les rates nourries au soja OGM.66
• Dans une étude multigénérationelle sur des hamsters, la plupart des individus nourris au soja OGM avait perdu leur fertilité à la troisième génération. On a également constaté une croissance plus lente et une mortalité plus élevée parmi les chiots.67
• Les conclusions semblent indiquer que le soja OGM RR pourrait poser des risques graves pour les humains. Les différences observées entre les animaux nourris aux OGM et aux aliments non-OGM contredisent l’hypothèse selon laquelle le soja OGM est en substance équivalent au soja non-OGM.

Du soja OGM RR caché dans les aliments animaliers

Environ 38 millions de tonnes de produits de soja sont importés chaque année en Europe, dont l’essentiel est utilisé pour les aliments pour animaux. Seuls 5 millions de tonnes sont certifiés sans OGM. Les produits d’animaux élevés à base d’aliments OGM n’ont pas besoin de porter une étiquette OGM, en avançant les hypothèses que:

• l’ADN des OGM ne survit pas au processus de digestion des animaux;
• les animaux nourris aux OGM ne sont pas différents des animaux nourris aux aliments non-OGM;
• la viande, le poisson et les oeufs des animaux nourris aux aliments OGM ne sont pas différents des produits des animaux nourris aux aliments non-OGM.
Mais ces hypothèses sont fausses. Diverses études montrent qu’on trouve des différences dans les animaux alimentés au soja OGM RR par rapport aux animaux alimentés sans OGM, et qu’on peut détecter de l’ADM OGM dans le lait et les tissus (c’est-à-dire la viande) de ces animaux.
• L’ADN des plantes ne se décompose pas entièrement dans l’appareil digestif, mais se retrouve dans les organes, le sang et même dans les petits des souris.68 L’ADN des OGM ne peut pas faire exception.
• L’ADN OGM provenant du maïs et du soja OGM a été observé dans le lait des animaux nourris aux produits des cultures OGM. La pasteurisation ne détruit pas l’ADN OGM.69
• L’ADN OGM issu du soja a été trouvé dans le sang, les organes et le lait des chèvres. On a observé une enzyme, la déshydrogénase lactique, à des concentrations très élevées dans le coeur, les muscles et les reins des agneaux nourris au soja OGM RR.70 Cette enzyme s’échappe de cellules endommagées, signe que des cellules ont peut-être été touchées.

Ces études montrent que des différences peuvent être observées chez des animaux nourris au soja OGM RR et ceux élevés à base d’aliments non-OGM, et que de l’ADN des OGM peut être détecté dans le lait et les tissus corporels (viande) de tels animaux.

Le soja OGM RR a-t-il un meilleur rendement ?

Les médias répètent souvent, sans faire preuve d’esprit critique, que le soja transgénique a un meilleur rendement. Mais ce n’est pas exact.

Au mieux, les cultures OGM ont une productivité équivalente à celle des cultures conventionnelles, mais le rendement du soja transgénique est constamment plus faible. Un examen de plus de 8 200 essais de variétés de soja réalisés dans des universités aux États-unis a montré une diminution du rendement de 6 à 10 pour cent du soja OGM RR par rapport au soja non-OGM.71 Des essais sur le terrain du soja OGM et non-OGM montrent que la moitié de la baisse de productivité est imputable à l’effet perturbateur du processus de transformation génétique.72 Cependant, on a aussi observé que le glyphosate réduit la résistance et le rendement des cultures (voir « Le glyphosate a des effets négatifs sur les sols et les cultures »).Des données venant d’Argentine montrent également que les rendements du soja OGM sont équivalents ou inférieurs à ceux du soja non-OGM.

Conséquences environnementales

Le soja OGM RR stimule l’explosion de « super mauvaises herbes »

Les mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate (super mauvaises herbes) sont le principal problème des agriculteurs qui cultivent le soja OGM RR. Les monocultures du soja axées sur l’usage d’un seul herbicide, le glyphosate, créent les conditions d’une plus forte utilisation d’herbicides. Au fur et à mesure que les mauvaises herbes deviennent résistantes au glyphosate, il faut plus d’herbicide pour les détruire. On atteint un point où le glyphosate perd toute efficacité et où les agriculteurs sont obligés de revenir à des herbicides plus anciens et toxiques tels que le 2,4-D. Cela accroît les coûts de production et aggrave la dégradation de l’environnement.

De nombreuses études confirment que l’usage généralisé du glyphosate sur le soja RR a entraîné une explosion des mauvaises herbes résistantes en Amérique du Nord et du Sud, ainsi que dans d’autres pays.

Le soja OGM RR réduit-il l’usage des pesticides/herbicides ?

La réduction de l’usage de produits agrochimiques est un principe fondamental de la durabilité. L’industrie des OGM a longtemps prétendu que les cultures OGM ont permis de réduire l’usage de pesticides (« pesticide » est utilisé ici dans un sens technique pour inclure les herbicides, les insecticides et les fongicides. Les herbicides font partie des pesticides).

Amérique du Nord: dans un rapport publié en 2009, le Dr Charles Benbrook, agronome, a étudié les allégations selon lesquelles les cultures OGM réduisent l’usage de pesticides, en utilisant des données du ministère de l’Agriculture américain (USDA) et du National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) de l’USDA.92 Benbrook a constaté que par rapport à l’usage de pesticides en l’absence de cultures tolérantes aux herbicides OGM et Bt, les exploitants agricoles ont appliqué environ 318 millions de kilogrammes de pesticides de plus suite à la plantation de semences OGM au cours des 13 années de leur commercialisation. En 2008, les espaces occupés par les cultures OGM exigeaient plus de 26 % de pesticides supplémentaires par hectare que ceux couverts par les variétés non-OGM.

Les cultures tolérantes aux herbicides OGM ont fait monter l’usage des herbicides de 382,6 millions de kilogrammes en 13 ans - annulant complètement la modeste baisse de 64,2 millions de kilogrammes de l’usage des insecticides chimiques attribuable au maïs et au coton Bt
le Dr Benbrook calcule une augmentation de 41,5 millions de kilogrammes de l’usage d’herbicides en 2005 due à la culture du soja OGM RR, par rapport au soja non-OGM. Au cours des 13 années concernées, l’usage d’herbicides sur le soja OGM RR a augmenté de 175,5 kilogrammes (soit environ 0,55 kg par hectare). Le soja OGM RR est à l’origine de la hausse de 92 pour de cent de l’usage d’herbicides sur les trois cultures tolérantes aux herbicides.

Amérique du Sud: En Argentine, selon Monsanto, le soja OGM RR représente 98 pour cent des plantations de soja. Le soja OGM RR a entraîné une montée en flèche de l’usage de produits agrochimiques dans le pays.

Le Dr Charles Benbrook a analysé les changements de l’usage d’herbicides en Argentine dus à l’expansion du soja OGM RR cultivé par semis direct entre 1996 et 2004, en se basant sur les données de la CASAFE (association argentine de l’industrie des produits phytosanitaires).97 Il a constaté que parallèlement à l’expansion du soja RR, les taux d’application du glyphosate sur le soja par hectare ont constamment augmenté. Chaque année, les agriculteurs ont été obligés d’appliquer plus de glyphosate par hectare que l’année précédente pour lutter contre les mauvaises herbes. La quantité moyenne de glyphosate utilisé sur le soja a augmenté de façon constante chaque année, passant de 1,14 kg/hectare en 1996/97 à 1,30 kg/hectare en 2003/04.

Les agriculteurs ont également dû pulvériser plus souvent. Le nombre moyen d’applications de glyphosate sur le soja a augmenté chaque année, passant de 1,8 en 1996/97 à 2,5 en 2003/04.98 Cela s’expliquait par la prolifération des mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate, car les agriculteurs ont été obligés d’utiliser de plus de plus de glyphosate pour essayer de lutter contre les mauvaises herbes. Ceci est une approche fondamentalement non durable de la production du soja.
On prétend souvent que l’essor de l’usage de glyphosate est positive parce qu’il est moins toxique que les autres produits chimiques qu’il remplace.99 Cependant, les conclusions des études détaillées ci-dessus (« Effets du glyphosate sur la santé ») montrent que le glyphosate n’est pas inoffensif.

De plus, depuis 2001 en Argentine, les quantités d’autres herbicides, y compris le 2,4-D et le dicamba, produits toxiques, n’ont fait qu’augmenter. Ceci est dû au fait que les agriculteurs recourent aux herbicides qui ne sont pas à base de glyphosate pour essayer de lutter contre les mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate.10
Le soja OGM RR en Argentine: problèmes écologiques et agronomiques
Le modèle de culture du soja OGM RR - semis direct et usage abondant des herbicides - a eu de graves effets environnementaux et agronomiques en Argentine, notamment:

• la prolifération des mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate;
• l’érosion des sols;
• la perte de la fertilité des sols et des nutriments;
• la dépendance d’engrais synthétiques;
• la déforestation;
• une désertification potentielle;
• la disparition d’espèces et une baisse de la biodiversité.

La production du soja OGM RR appauvrit les sols en Amérique du Sud

L’expansion de la monoculture du soja en Amérique du Sud depuis les années 1990 a entraîné l’intensification de l’agriculture à large échelle. Cela a eu pour conséquence une baisse de la fertilité des sols et l’augmentation de l’érosion, ce qui a rendu certains sols inutilisables.103 Une analyse des nutriments des sols en Argentine laisse entrevoir qu’ils seront entièrement épuisés dans 50 ans au rythme actuel d’appauvrissement de ces éléments nutritifs et d’accroissement des champs de soja.104 Les agriculteurs ont abandonné leur pratique traditionnelle de la conservation des sols par la rotation des cultures pour s’adapter à l’expansion rapide du marché du soja.

Les régions où les sols sont pauvres nécessitent de grandes quantités d’engrais synthétiques et minéraux après deux années de culture.106 C’est une approche non durable de la gestion des sols tant du point de vue économique qu’écologique.

Conséquences socio-économiques

Argentine: l’économie du soja

L’Argentine est souvent citée comme un exemple de la réussite économique du modèle du soja OGM RR. Plus sérieusement, les critiques de l’économie du soja affirment qu’elle a eu des conséquences sociales et économiques graves sur les personnes ordinaires. Ils déclarent que le soja a affaibli la sécurité alimentaire nationale et le pouvoir d’achat alimentaire dans une grande partie de la population, et aggravé l’inégalité dans la distribution des richesses.

Une étude de 2005 menée par Pengue a montré que la production du soja RR a provoqué de graves problèmes sociaux en Argentine, notamment:

• l’exode de populations traditionnellement agricoles vers les villes d’Argentine;
• la concentration de la production agricole entre les mains d’un petit nombre de grands exploitants agrocommerciaux;
• la réduction de la production alimentaire et la perte par une grande partie de la population d’un accès sûr et fiable à un régime alimentaire diversifié et nutritif.

Il a relevé que l’introduction du soja RR en Argentine a eu des effets dévastateurs sur la sécurité alimentaire en détournant les cultures alimentaires. La production du soja a, dans les cinq ans précédents, détourné 4 600 000 hectares de terres autrefois réservées à d’autres domaines deproduction tels que la laiterie, les arbres fruitiers, l’horticulture, le bétail et les céréales.139

Sans aucun doute, l’économie du soja n’a pas réussi à alimenter la population argentine. Les statistiques du gouvernement montrent qu’entre octobre 1996 (année d’introduction du soja OGM) et octobre 2002, le nombre de personnes n’ayant pas accès au « Panier alimentaire de base » (la référence du seuil de pauvreté pour le gouvernement) est passé de 3,7 à 8,7 millions, soit 25 pour cent de la population. Au second semestre 2003, plus de 47 pour cent de la population vivait en dessous du seuil de pauvreté et n’avait pas accès à une alimentation équilibrée.140
La production du soja OGM RR est une forme « d’agriculture sans agriculteurs » et est source de chômage. Dans les monocultures de soja RR, la quantité de travail exigée baisse entre 28 et 37 pour cent par rapport aux méthodes de culture conventionnelles.141 En Argentine, la production du soja RR par la haute technologie ne demande que deux travailleurs par 1000 hectares par an.142

VIOLATIONS DES DROITS HUMAINS

Paraguay: déplacement violents de populations

Le Paraguay est l’un des principaux producteurs mondiaux du soja OGM RR, avec une production estimée à 2,66 millions d’hectares en 2008, une hausse par rapport aux 2,6 millions d’hectares en 2007. Le soja OGM RR représente environ 95 pour cent des cultures de soja.

L’expansion du soja dans le pays est liée à de graves violations des droits humains, notamment la confiscation de terres. Un documentaire de la chaîne de télévision britannique Channel 4,, intitulé Paraguay’s Painful Harvest (La Douloureuse récolte du Paraguay), a décrit la façon dont la culture industrielle du soja OGM RR a entraîné de violents affrontements entre les paysans (campesinos), les propriétaires terriens étrangers et la police.158

Certains paysans déplacés essaient de regagner leurs terres par des initiatives d’« invasions de terres. »159 Selon le Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, le gouvernement du Paraguay a utilisé l’armée pour les réprimer.160

Le résumé et le rapport scientifique complet est disponible au lien suivant:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/component/content/article/12479-reports-reports

Voir aussi les documentaires suivants sur les violations des droits humains et les conséquences socio-économiques de la culture du soja OGM au Paraguay:

Les champs de la mort

www.feedingfactoryfarms.org/index.php?id=36

Paraguay’s painful harvest :

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3778190655853164866#

www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3073077

A méditer et couts à intégrer dans le « prix aubaine » la prochaine fois que vous achetez/mangez votre steak/hamburger, lait, fromage, poulet, œuf, etc.

En effet, tous ceux qui mangent de la viande nourries aux OGM ainsi que leurs produits sont directement responsable – par ignorance ou pire par indifférence - du génocide humain et écologique de la culture du soja en Amérique du Sud…

Bon appétit !