Brazil: Debate rages on genetically-altered seeds

by Mario Osava

Rio de Janeiro, Jun 14 -- The Ministry of Agriculture's decision to authorise the cultivation of genetically-altered soy beans in Brazil has only intensified the debate on the product's effects on the environment, health and trade.

Brazil has been alone among the world's top producers of soy in not growing genetically engineered varieties.

Some groups want to keep it that way and are attempting to block transnational companies from promoting their genetically modified seeds in this country.

Several foreign experts are in Brazil to take part in the debate, among them Lindsay Keenan of Scotland, director of the Genetix Food Alert campaign; and Vandana Shiva, from India, who heads a UN Science and Ecology Research Centre.

The Brazilian government is divided on the issue as, even within the Ministry of Agriculture and among some farmers, there is doubt - purely for business reasons - as to the benefits of incorporating the new strain of soy into Brazilian agriculture.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Environment is firmly opposed to the soy variety known as "Round-up Ready" (RR), a product of the US transnational Monsanto. "An environmental impact study was never done," argues the environmental minister, Jose Sarney Filho.

RR soy is resistant to Round-up herbicide, also produced by Monsanto, which claims that RR soy has a 25% higher yield than conventional soy.

Shiva questioned this advantage in a report issued by the UN, and Keenan cited a University of Wisconsin (US) study that showed a 14% increase in soy production where RR soy was cultivated in Michigan, but a 2 to 14 percent yield reduction in most other US states growing the product.

The movement against genetically modified products began principally in Europe and Japan, Brazil's two largest soy markets.

Keenan maintains Brazil has a chance of grabbing the European market for itself if it continued to be the 'the world's largest producer of conventional soy," using the business argument to convince those who otherwise might be unconcerned about environmental or health risks.

Argentina and the US, the world's other two main soy exporters, have been planting genetically-altered seeds for some time, said Keenan, so have greater difficulty in selling their soy products in certain markets. The government of Rio Grande do Sul, one of Brazil's biggest soy producing states, heads the local resistance to genetically- altered soy, and is trying to keep the state free of the products by prohibiting its cultivation through local legal measures.

But most of the experimental soy and corn studies are concentrated in this state, authorised by the National Technical Commission for Bio-Safety (CTNBio), a department of the Ministry of Science and Technology.

The CTNBio has already authorised 650 experimental areas, but scientists from the Ministry of Agriculture are aware that the government is unable to inspect and monitor the experiments.

It is "a contradiction" for the government to approve RR soy production under these conditions, criticised Rio Grande do Sul's state agriculture secretary, Jose Hoffmann, who wants a moratorium against the cultivation of genetically-engineered seeds in his state until they are proved safe.

On the government side, Minister of Agriculture, Francisco Turra, has tried to soften his registration of Monsanto's five genetically- modified soy varieties by saying this does not mean the product will be marketed immediately. While cultivation for seed production has been approved, it can be suspended if health or environmental threats are identified by any of the authorities involved, according to Turra.

Luis Antonio Barreto de Castro, president of CTNBio, defended his scientific commission's decision to authorise the experiments, arguing that it is a commercial battle, but for other actors and for other reasons.

In his opinion, the campaign against genetically altered food was promoted by Europe's chemical industry in order to maintain its sales of pesticides in Brazil and in other parts of the world.

Barreto de Castro insists genetic modification, in addition to increasing yields, could reduce the use of agricultural toxins, benefiting both the environment and human health. (IPS)

The above article by the Inter Press Service appeared in the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS).