Rio de Janeior, Brazil
March 17, 2008
By
Claudia Jurberg for
Intellectual Property Watch
via
CropBiotech Update
After 10 years of debate, Brazil
approved in February the commercialisation of two varieties of
genetically modified corn, a highly contentious decision in the
country that has become linked to concerns about seed patenting
by multinational companies. Now, sale of GM corn in the country
may be further delayed.
The Brazilian National
Biosafety Council approved Bayer´s “Liberty Link” variety,
which is resistant to the glufosinate ammonium herbicide and a
Monsanto corn called “Mon 810,” which is resistant to insects.
“The delay is because of a variety of structural reasons: rural
poverty, inequalities in the possession of the land, rural
conflicts in controversy with agrobusiness, and others” said
José Maria da Silveira, an agroeconomist from the Unicamp
University, in São Paulo State. According to him, all of these
factors contributed to the view that modernisation of
agriculture is really only due to an interest in capital rather
than benefit to society.
The issue has enlivened a discussion about the impact of seed
patenting on society.
The Brazilian National Biosafety Council consists of 11
ministers who must analyse social-economics aspects before
approval. The two corn varietals received seven favourable votes
from the science and technology minister and his colleagues in
the agriculture, foreign affairs, development, defence and
justice ministries as well as the secretary of the state. Those
opposed included the ministers of health, environment,
agricultural development, and aquaculture and fisheries.
But despite the approval to commercialise genetically modified
(GM) corn in the country, the issue remains under debate. The
health ministry and its branch, the
National Health Surveillance
Agency (Anvisa), announced that the food with GM corn in its
composition will only be sold if Anvisa has considered the
security of society. So, although the Biosafety Council won the
battle, the discussion goes on.
Researcher Ricardo Abramovay of
São Paulo University said, “The science and the market [are]
better and no worse with the controversy.” To him it is
important that all points of view be considered in order to
offer society the opportunity to discuss the subject and have a
solid basis upon which to take a decision.
Questions remain about the acceptance and usefulness of GM food.
An opinion survey conducted in 2004 showed that 74 percent of
Brazilians prefer non-transgenic food. “Brazilian agriculture
does not need GM seeds,” said agronomist Gabriel Fernandes. He
cited the case of soybeans as an example.
“We did not have an increase in productivity, as the GM soybean
does not contribute to the reduction of cost, nor to a reduction
in the use of defensive chemicals,” he told
Intellectual Property Watch.
“The only thing that changed was the growth of difficulties for
those who do not want to plant GM soybeans. The provision of
seeds fell.”
Around 23 countries in all the world use biotechnology in
agriculture, and Brazil is the third in use of GM crops (after
the United States and Argentina). According José Maria, GM
varieties are planted on approximately 100 million hectares
around the world, with varieties of corn, soybean, cotton,
girasol (sunflower), and canola.
Specialists estimated that the area in Brazil is about 15
million hectares with soybean and cotton GM crops. In 2007, the
area had expanded 30 percent from 2005, two-and-a-half times the
world average.
José Maria da Silveira projected the growth of GM use in a short
period. In the future, papaya, tomato and bean crops will be
resistant to virus, which is crucial to small farmers and
consumers, he said in an interview. In his view, anti-GM groups
only forecast catastrophe because sometimes they confuse control
of technology with “militancy against imperialism.” The real aim
is to minimise planting risks, reduce use of chemical products
and improve agriculture agricultural production, he said.
Costs associated with patents on GM seeds also are an issue.
Economist Antonio Marcio Buainain of
Unicamp University, said the
costs are unclear, in part because there are so many different
royalties to be paid. But, he said, “The problem is the lower
investment in science and technology - a strategy area for us.
In recent years, we had favourable conditions to assume the
leadership, but we lost it.” This includes in its government
institution on seed research.
While Monsanto does not
answer questions about royalties on its corn patents or profits,
in a recent press release, the company showed two studies. One
of them is entitled, “GM crops: the first 10 years - social
impacts, global economic and environmental,” from Graham Brookes
and Peter Barfoot, economists from UK consultancy
PG Economics. This
study is qualitative and one of the first that debated the
impact of the biotechnology, between 1996 and 2006. According
the authors, genetically modified Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)
corn was responsible for the reduction of seven thousand tons of
agricultural pesticides.
Monsanto said that the study proves that Bt corn reduces
pesticide use and contributes to environmental preservation and
to a reduction in health risks to farmers and rural workers. The
second study, “Benefits of the use of corn with YieldGard
technology in the various segments of the production chain in
Brazil,” by Luís Antonio Fancelli of USP, demonstrated that this
GM variety could contribute some $1 billion to the Brazilian
economy per year.
Regardless of Monsanto’s data, Gabriel Fernandes cautioned that
the commercialisation of GMs is a risk for who want to continue
planting crops without it. The contamination, such as through
pollination, is inevitable. Also, GM seeds are patentable and
the farmer whose production has been contaminated is exposed to
legal proceedings for patent infringement, as has been the case
in Canada and the United States.
Fernandes is concerned about the monopoly on seeds through
patents, because, he said, it is strategy to control the food
chain. “Patentable seeds prohibit a fundamental principle of
agricultural production: the plant, the harvest and the new
cycle in the next years,” he said. For him, GMs prevent the
perfect functioning of life.
|
|
