Action Alert--Tell President Lula of Brazil to Ban GE Crops

>From <gaia@gaianet.org> March 9, 2005

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Brazil's parliament has just passed a Biosafety Bill that would allow GM
crops to be grown in the country. All that remains is for President Lula to
sign the bill for it to become law.

But environmental groups are outraged because the Biosafety Bill included
legislation on Stem-Cell research for a range of diseases. Disabled
campaigners waited outside the Chamber, pulling on politicians'
heartstrings, and overshadowing the concerns about GMOs. It is obviously
ridiculous that the two issues were part of the same Bill, but ingenious
work by Monsanto.

GM soya has been growing illegally in some parts of the country, and for the
last two years, President Lula has allowed temporary permission for GM soya
harvests to be sold within the country, until the Biosafety Laws were
decided. This is the complete reversal of his position before he was
elected president. During his campaign, he pledged to keep Brazil GM-Free,
and was fiercely critical of the effects of GM crops on farmers. Now, it
appears that the influence of US foreign policy and Monsanto corporation
have changed his mind.

Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil are asking for letters to be sent to President
Lula, outlining objections to the proposals, including how the regulatory
body, CTNBio, is set up. Please see below for details.

Best wishes,

Teresa

*********************************
1. Brazil Oks Genetically Modified Crops
Article from Associated Press. Date: 3 March 2005
Alan Clendenning
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/11035178.htm
2. Urgent: Please write to President Lula
News and analysis from Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil
Date: 4 March 2004
3. End of Brazil GMO Ban to Curb Rampant Black Market
Article by Reuters. Date: 1 March 2005
Reese Ewing
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/biotech/2005-03-01-brazil-gmo-ban_x.htm
4. Deputies and the Biosafety Plan Bill
News and analysis from the Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil
Date: 25 February 2005
***********************************

1. Brazil Oks Genetically Modified Crops

Article from Associated Press. Date: 3 March 2005
Alan Clendenning
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/11035178.htm

SAO PAULO, Brazil - In a victory for U.S.-based biotechnology firm Monsanto
Co., Brazil's lower house of Congress overwhelmingly approved a law
Wednesday creating a framework to legalize biotech seed sales in Latin
America's largest country.

The move hotly protested by environmentalists clears the way for rules to be
set that would allow Monsanto to sell genetically modified soy seeds in
Brazil, where soy production has boomed over the last decade.

The modified seeds were banned in Brazil, but their use has been widespread
for years by Brazilian farmers who use cloned or smuggled versions of the
company's popular Roundup Ready seeds to cut production costs.

Monsanto has complained for years that it was being robbed of profits from
the widespread illicit use of a seed it developed.

The bill passed by a vote of 352-60. It has already been approved by
Brazil's Senate and is expected to be signed into law by President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva.

Brazil is second only to the United States in soy production, but easily has
the potential to become the world's largest soy producer because of cheap
land, low labor costs and plentiful water.

International demand for soy has skyrocketed in recent years, driven by
ever-increasing purchases by China for soy used in products ranging from
animal feed to cooking oil.

Monsanto's soy seed is engineered to withstand the spraying of herbicides,
which saves farmers money by cutting down on the number of workers and weed
killers needed. Brazil's ban on such crops did little to stop farmers,
because it was rarely enforced.

The St. Louis-based company disputed claims that GM crops harm the
environment, saying many Brazilian farmers have boosted their profits while
significantly reducing the amount of herbicides used to kill weeds.

Experts estimate about 30 percent of Brazil's soy is grown with genetically
engineered seeds, but the figure is near 90 percent in Brazil's southernmost
state, where the seeds were first introduced in the 1990s after being
smuggled in from neighboring countries with no bans on them.

****************************

2. Urgent: Please write to President Lula

News and analysis from Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil
Date: 4 March 2004

Periodical news & analysis of the Campaign For a GM-Free Brazil
Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, March 04, 2005

Biosafety or biotech interests?
The voting of the Biosafety Bill, on Wednesday at the Deputies Chamber,
calls for a debate around the real interests involved on its objectives

The approval of the Biosafety Bill (the Senate?s version), on Wednesday at
the Deputies Chamber, was not a surprise, really. Surprising was the tactics
used by the agribusiness deputies to end up looking like the heroes of the
whole process for their "goodwill" in voting the project. This is due to the
inclusion of the Article number 5 to the Bill, allowing the researches with
embryonic stem-cells (independently of knowing if these researches may
represent or not a process of cure for a range of diseases), which made it
clear that the presence of the article in the Bill was a very smart way to
guarantee the approval of the Biosafety Bill on the terms of the
representatives of the big commercial farmers. Dozens of disabled people
spent the whole day at the Chamber, wearing T-shirts with slogans like
"Hope", waiting for the result of the voting, which happened late at night.

Although the deputies seem much concerned about the life quality of
thousands of people that may have a potential benefit from the research of
stem-cells to treat their diseases, they do not show the same worry about
the threat that the genetic modified organisms (GMOs) may represent to the
environment or to human and animal health and food security. Research
reveals that in the USA transgenic Soya harvests use 86% more pesticides
than the regular ones, after a period of nine years of cultivation. In Argentina,
the amount is 14% higher.

The defenders of the GMO's liberation allege that there is not enough proof
of the potential risks that the transgenics may represent. Notwithstanding,
the consequences for the environment and health may take longer to emerge in
a more conclusive way, but, whenever they do, the chances for them to be
reversible or even controllable are very low.

Another justification for the agribusiness sector's claims was that
supposedly higher productivity of the genetic modified Soya. Results from a
survey carried out by USDA (United States Department of Agriculture),
however, had demonstrated that the modified varieties produce from 5% to 11%
less than the non-GM Soya.

The approval for the Bill was given a week later than the country had been
chosen as the theme of Biofach, the biggest event on organic agriculture in
the world, in Germany. Brazil was chosen due to the tremendous growth on
this market, not just internally, but also for exportation. During the
event, though, the country was criticized by experts on the subject for its
intentions of liberating the GMOs, which will definitely mean a great risk
to conventional and more sustainable forms of agriculture, physically and
commercially.

Indeed, it will also increase the number of farmers being prosecuted by
Monsanto and others major biotech companies for the supposedly improper use
of their technology, following what is already happening in the USA and
Canada.

Candidate Lula knew all these facts here presented, and even agreed to them
once. Nevertheless, this was before the elections. At that time, Lula dared
to say that the use of transgenics in Brazil would only benefit the biotech
companies, generating dependency of the farmers, affirmed that the harm to
human and animal health was very unpredictable and that he supported the
Campaign For a GM-Free Brazil. At some point, he would go further in
recommending a moratorium to genetic modified organisms.

Although the "Candidate Lula" had asserted, "to liberate the transgenics is
Nonsense", now the "President Lula" justifies his shifting of position in
the name of a "major flexibility in politics" and due to "scientific
reasons", but it seems that he had been listening to the GM defenders only.
To become a law, the Bill now needs to be signed by the President Lula

Biosafety Bill disrespects the Federal Constitution

The CTNBio (The National Technical Committee on Biosafety) is a body
composed by 27 members, amongst scientists and government representatives,
which decides solely about the liberation of GMOs either for commercial and
research purposes. This Committee also may exempt the necessity of
presenting environmental and health risk assessments before any transgenic
releases. Another aggravating circumstance is that this Committee (created
on the previous legislation, and now extinct now), was composed, on its
majority, by researchers related to biotechnology, not biosafety.
Beyond the concerns with health and environment, the Biosafety Bill also
disrespects the Federal Constitution in a range of diverse aspects, but the
most problematic ones regard to the role of CTNBio. The new law, regarding
the Committee, contradicts the Constitution in two different points:

Disrespect of Articles 76 e 87 of the Constitution

The Ministries of State have the constitutional duty of "performing the
orientation, coordination and supervision of the federal institutions within
their scopes" and "dispatching instructions for the execution of laws,
decrees and regulations", among other obligations.

Laws n.8490/1992 and n.9649/1998 determines that it is the scope of the
Ministry of Health to take care of the national politics on general health,
environmental health and their respective actions of promotion, protection
and recovery. Amongst the duties of Ministry of Environment are included the
planning, coordination, supervision and control of the actions related to
the environment; and the working up of the national environmental politics,
which includes preservation, conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems,
biodiversity and forests.

The new law withdraws the competence of the referred ministries on the
subject of genetic modified organisms (GMOs) and corrupts the hierarchy of
federal government once it places the CTNBio in a superior position, above
the Ministries of Health and Environment, and makes it the only institution
with competence and deliberative power on subjects related to health and
environment.

Disrespect of Articles 1?., 18, 23, II e VI, 25 e 200 of the Constitution

Brazil is a Federal Republic. It is federal because is granted to the States
the necessary autonomy for their self-organization, self-governing, and
self-administration (according to the Articles 18 and 25, paragraph 1 of the
Constitution).

It is the duty of the Federal Union, States and City Councils to watch over
the public health (Article 23). The Public Health System, which assignments
are part of the scope of these three units, has the constitutional duty of
controlling and inspecting the procedures, products (including food) and
substances on the regard of public health, and also to co-operate with the
environment protection (Article 200, I. VI and VIII). All these duties will
be drawn back by CTNBio, disrespecting the Constitution.

It is a common duty of the States, the Federal Union and the City Councils
to protect the environment and to strive against pollution in any of its
forms (Article 23, VI).

The Biosafety Bill leaves to CTNBio the final word on the issue of GMOs.
This absolute power of decision-making represents an assault to the
"participative" competence established by the Constitution. It is not
admissible that the Federal Union may remove the process of environmental
and health administration from the other members of the federation system,
under the penalty of disrespecting the federal pact.

If you would like to help us to reject the clause that gives autonomy for
the CTNBio, please, write a paragraph to presidente Lula with the arguments
about CTNBio mentioned above, asking for the veto of the articles related to
the Committee (Artigo 14, inciso XX e par?grafos 1 e 2 ; e Artigo 16,
par?grafos 2 e 3) and send it to following e-mail addresses:

sg@planalto.gov.br,
casacivil@planalto.gov.br,
marina.silva@mma.gov.br,
josedirceu@planalto.gov.br,
vpr@planalto.gov.br,
protocolo@planalto.gov.br,
scpai@planalto.gov.br,
pr@planalto.gov.br ,

writing on the top of the letter "Veto aos Artigo 16, paragrafos 2 e 3 e
Artigo 14, inciso XX e par?grafos 1 e 2", that relates the articles.

GM-FREE BRAZIL - An international periodical news & analysis bulletin on the
development of the struggle against GMOs in Brazil. Published by Assessoria
e Servicos a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA). Editor: Sabrina
Petry. The Campaign For a GM-Free Brazil is a collective of Brazilian NGOs
and social movements. AS-PTA main office: Rua da Candelaria, 9/6o / Centro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Phone: 0055-21-2253-8317 Fax: 0055-21-2233-363
E-mail: imprensa@aspta.org.br

*********************************

3. End of Brazil GMO Ban to Curb Rampant Black Market

Article by Reuters. Date: 1 March 2005
Reese Ewing
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/biotech/2005-03-01-brazil-gmo-ban_x.htm

SAO PAULO, Brazil ‹ Brazil, with an agricultural potential rivaling the
United States, is about to legalize genetically modified (GMO) crops, before
its black market in the coveted farm technology gets any bigger.

Over the last decade, environment and consumer groups have successfully won
in the courts against biotech seed companies, the scientific community,
farming interests and even the government, thus keeping Brazil the world's
largest food exporter still to ban GMOs.

But this prohibition is coming to an end.

"The ban on GMOs has hobbled Brazil agriculturally, undermined its
advantages as a leading world producer and researcher," Ivo Carraro,
executive director of Brazil's farm research cooperative Codetec, said.

So sought after is the cost-cutting technology on the black market that over
a third of Brazil's massive soybean crop - the main farm export worth 10% of
total trade revenues - is seen planted with pirated GMO seeds. And nearly
all the country's cotton seed has been contaminated by GMOs.

"There is strong demand, industrially and scientifically, for biotechnology
in Brazil," Jorge Guimaraes, president of Brazil's CTNBio biotechnology
regulator, told Reuters.

In 2003, faced with cracking down on the entire No.3 soy producing state of
Rio Grande do Sul and thousands of other producers in other states, the
government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after taking office opted
to push for legalization and regulation of GMOs.

A bill that defines a regulatory framework for commercial use of GMOs, and
should clear the way for GMO soybeans first, is expected to pass a final
lower house vote in the coming weeks, if not days, after the Senate approved
it in late 2004.

"I'm certain that the black market will shrink once this new law passes and
our seed industry will recover," Ywao Miyamoto, president of Brazil's Seed
Producers Association Abrasem, said.

Soybean seeds

In anticipation of the new law, biotech seed companies are already ramping
up their multiplication of GMO soybean seeds, which are based on Monsanto's
Roundup Ready soy technology, for the October planting season.

Four companies - Codetec, the state crop research agency Embrapa, Monsoy
(the local firm of Monsanto) and Pioneer - are currently harvesting 54
varieties of GMO soybeans, designed for all tropical and subtropical growing
regions in Brazil, to be sold as seed.

"There should be about 5 million (40-kg) bags ready for sale by October,"
Carraro said, whose Codetec should account for 60% of these seeds. "I'm not
sure that will be able to meet market demand initially though."

Agronomists estimate one bag will seed a little more than a hectare. Brazil
has 22 million hectares planted to soy.

As the biosafety bill worked through Congress, the government began issuing
yearly decrees that allow producers to sell GMO soy without prosecution, if
they registered their black market biotech soy with the agriculture
ministry.

In initial government estimates, registered GMO soy plantings grew 11% to
92,875 producers this season, but final numbers are expected to come in over
100,000 and there are believed to be still many unregistered GMO soy
producers.

But the sale of GMO soy as seed has been strictly forbidden. Producers have
had to rely on GMO soy from their previous crop. Monsanto and local GMO seed
developers, such as Embrapa and Codetec, haven't been able to sell GMO soy
seeds.

Since soy producers began planting GMOs about a decade ago, and more
recently cotton producers, certified seed producers have seen sales of
certified conventional seeds fall yearly to the internal black market.

It is now estimated that nearly all of the cotton seed on the market has
been contaminated by some form of GMO variety. The government was recently
forced to accept less than 1% GMO contamination in conventional seeds
samples.

"Once GMOs are freed up, Brazil's seed producing industry and its crop
research industry will recover and our scientists are likely to become
important in the development of new biotech products," Carraro said.

Brazil's cotton producers have a lot to gain.

Currently, conventional growers in the cotton belt can spray crops as many
as 16 times to control the pesky boll weevil, inflating production costs and
stressing the surrounding environment with agrochemicals.

Current Bt varieties of cotton would vastly reduce their operating costs and
level the playing field with U.S. producers, the world's leading producers,
against which Brazil recently won a World Trade Organization subsidy
challenge.

GMO soy varieties not based on Monsanto technology, GMO corn, cotton and
other crops such as GMO papaya, eucalyptus and castor bean, some locally
developed, are also in line to enter the Brazilian market but will take
longer than Monsanto's RR GMO soy.

*****************************************

4. Deputies and the Biosafety Plan Bill

News and analysis from the Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil
Date: 25 February 2005

The new president of the Deputies Chamber, Severino Cavalcanti, and the
Rapporteur of the Special Committee on Biosafety, deputy Darcísio Perondi,
represent a difficult barrier to the struggle against the GMOs

The election of the new president for the Deputies Chamber, Severino
Cavalcanti, that occurred last week, was not only a shame for the government
and a defeat to the President's Lula Party (PT), but a potential threat to
the control and regulation of genetically modified crops in the
countrycampaign against the GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
Therefore, it calls for an urgent mobilization around the final voting of
the Biosafety PlanBill at the Chamber, expected to happen on the coming
months.

The very first version of the Bill, elaborated within the Ministers Council,
then forwarded to the Chamber, and after that to the Senate, was a
well-founded document that even foresaw based on the "Precautionary
Principle" on its very first version. It has been modified since its
conduction to the Chamber, where the deputies kept just a trace of its
original version, which was the part that foresaw the environmental license
risk assessment before any GMO releases.

Afterwards, it went to the Senate, where its members ended up with the total
modification of the Biosafety PlanBill. The most problematic clause
establishes that the CTNBio (National Technical Biosafety Committee), which
is the forum responsible for advising the government on biosafety issues
related to evaluation and approval of GMOs in diverse areas of activity
(human and animal health, agriculture and the environment) in Brazil and
also for the elaboration of the National Code for Ethics in Genetic
Manipulations, would be transformed in the only instance capable of
decision-making on any case involving transgenics commercial releases crops
and seeds, without interferences. Although called "technical" committee,
CTNBio's decisions since its creation have been much more based on
commercial and political interests than on biosafety aspects. Even a biotech
corporation representative has seat in it, and votes like the Environment or
Health Mministry representatives.

The thing is that a great deal most of Cavalcanti's votes came from the
agribusiness deputies, whose main interest is the approval of the Biosafety
PlanBill the way it was adapted by the Senate. Thus, it is certain that it
comes the time when representative of the big commercial farmers they will
put all the pressure on Cavalcanti for the recently elected deputy to
compensate their votes, by approving the document in the Senate's way.

Catholic and counting with the support of some religious groups on the
Congress, Cavalcanti not only promised to hurry up with the approval of the
Biosafety PlanBill, but also jeopardized the article that refers to
researches involving steem-cells-trunk.

Another threat to the campaign against the GMOs is Deputy Darcisio Perondi,
Rapporteur of the Special Committee created to examine the Biosafety
PlanBill. Last week he participated on a web chat to discuss biosafety, but
he seemed more interested in defending the transgenics. Besides him, as a
"technical adviser", in his words, sits a CTNBio's ex-president, known for
its pro-GM positions and for biotech industries lobbing. Actually, it was
impossible to know who was answering the questions posed by the
participants. At some point, he even asserted that biotechnology is good for
the environment: "Biotechnology is a powerful instrument to protect nature
and the environment. It eliminates pollution and do not contaminate harvests
(...). Rivers and surrounded areas now have their birds and fishes back.
Producers and farmers do not have to go to hospital due to intoxication
anymore", he said.

Perondi totally ignores the "Precautionary Principle" (that recommends
precaution before GM's potential impact on biodiversity and health are
known, once there is no proof of their harmlessness) as he sates:
"Uncertainty is the heart of Science. Developed countries invest in
transgeniagenetic engineering. Five hundred millions tons of GMOs were
consumed on the past ten years in the whole world. Until now, it has not
been reported any health problems related to transgenics. Although it is
clear that discussions and doubts may exist". He just forgot to say that it
could not be different, once all this GM consumption has not been monitored,
nor even labeled.

Even facing speeches and political positions like these ones and, although
there is an expectation that the Deputies Chamber will approve the Senate
version of the Biosafety PlanBill, it is urgent a mobilization around the GM
issue, not only to show resistance but also to guarantee that we will still
have opportunity of acting to guarantee our alimentary food security.

GM Guide

Financed by major global food and agribusiness companies (Monsanto, DuPont ­
Brazil, Syngenta Seeds and Dow AgroSciences), the guide "Transgênicos, Você
Tem Direito de Conhecer" ("Transgenics, You Have the Right to Know", in
English), the first biotech corporations' publication guided to consumerson
the subject in Brazil, was released last Wednesday. The city chosen by the
multinationals for the happening? Curitiba, capital of Paraná State governed
by Roberto Requião a politician that struggles to make the State a "GM free
zone".

The guide was elaborated by the Brazilian NGO Conselho de Informações sobre
Biotecnologia (Council on Biotechnology Information, in English) and will be
distributed attached to most of the daily newspaper from the country. It
will also be sent to medical associations and to private and public
institutions.

The manual is part of a marketing and millionaire campaign initiated last
year by Monsanto, directed to the consumer, which main goal is an attempt of
associating the GMOs to an image of "an ecological world".

Differently from the way it is presented to the public, the guide talks much
less about the transgenics themselves than about biotechnology as a wide
subject. It does not relate researches around the effects of GMOs on health
and biodiversity, but is explicit about defending royalty's payment. It
seems more concerned in demonstrating other aspects of biotechnology such as
vaccine researches and medical treatments, than in going into deep on the
discussion about security, once again stepping aside from its purpose, which
should be the elucidation of genetically modified organisms, as a strategy
of running away from the real polemics that involves the GMOs.

The guide can be found on the NGO website (www.cib.org.br) or downloaded at
http://www.cib.org.br/pdf/cartilha.pdf

GM-FREE BRAZIL - An international periodical news & analysis bulletin on the
development of the struggle against GMOs in Brazil. Published by Assessoria
e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA). Editor: Sabrina
Petry. The Campaign For a GM-Free Brazil is a collective of Brazilian NGOs
and social movements. AS-PTA main office: Rua da Candelária, 9/6o / Centro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Phone: 0055-21-2253-8317 Fax: 0055-21-2233-363
E-mail: imprensa@aspta.org.br