» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


Argentina's Corporate Welfare for Monsanto / Environmentalists blast Brazil (26/2/2004)

More on dire influence of US on Latin America - the USA, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina have all been working to undermine opposition at the CBD: *US-Inspired Trilateral Agreement Condones GM Contamination and Undermines Biosafety Protocol

*Argentina Announces Corporate Welfare for Monsanto
*Environmentalists blast Brazil over biosafety protocol
---

US-Inspired Trilateral Agreement Condones GM Contamination and Undermines Biosafety Protocol
Argentina Announces Corporate Welfare for Monsanto
26 February 2004
www.etcgroup.org

As negotiations come to a head in Kuala Lumpur at the first meeting of the Biosafety Protocol of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) the United States along with Canada and a few Latin American states seem poised to render the 86-nation agreement irrelevant.

News earlier this week that the Argentine Government has offered to collect taxes from its GM soybean farmers in lieu of royalty payments has stunned many delegations attending the meeting in the Malaysian capital. The announcement comes as the United States, Mexico and Canada are pressing governments to adopt their Trilateral Agreement.

The agreement sets the actionable level for GM contamination at a whopping five percent. At that level of tolerance, Mexico's maize crop would be riddled with foreign DNA from the Rio Grande to Guatemala in less than a decade. Last month, Brazil bowed to pressure from Monsanto and agreed that soybean crushers and processors in Rio Grande do Sul should collect seed royalties for Monsanto.

Now, Argentina proposes to tax its own farmers and collect an estimated $34 million in royalties for Monsanto and other seed companies because Monsanto claims farmers are illegally replanting harvested seed and infringing its patents.

The Argentine proposal collapses one of the major tenets of patent regimes. "Argentina is saying that it will police the patent system for Monsanto," says Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group, "The police and the courts will be used against farmers."

Until now, companies have argued that the beauty of the patent system is that it is civil law where the costs of obtaining and defending patents are borne by the patent-holders at no cost to the state.  "This pushes patents into the realm of criminal law," argues Ribeiro, who is attending the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

"Meanwhile, if governments agree to accept the Trilateral Agreement's standard of 5 percent contamination, there will be no need for the Biosafety Protocol at all.  Contamination will be everywhere in a matter of years," says Hope Shand, ETC's Research Director based in the USA.

"Monsanto, the USA, and Argentina will press other states to accept the tax-based approach to royalty payments," Shand explains, "Then comes the triple whammy - governments will find it cheaper to promote the use of Terminator technology rather than act as an unpopular royalty-collector for the Gene Giants."

Terminator technology renders GM seed sterile, forcing farmers to buy new seed each growing season.  It amounts to a biological patent without a time limitation.

"Most governments and the Biodiversity Convention stand firmly against Terminator, " notes Shand, "But the USA, Brazil and Argentina have been working to undermine opposition at the CBD.  Faced with the choice of either collecting royalty taxes or allowing Terminator, some governments are likely to cave in."

The full text is available at: http://www.etcgroup.org
---

Environmentalists blast Brazil over biosafety protocol
Agence France Presse/AP
26 February 2004

Environmental activists Thursday criticised Brazil for trying to water down moves towards the tough labelling of genetically-modified (GM) products as demanded by the European Union and developing countries.

"It is outrageous that one country that has inked the protocol -- Brazil -- is blocking the negotiations at this moment," Greenpeace spokesman Eric Gall told reporters at the first Conference of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Gall said that while most countries that have signed the protocol wanted GM producers to provide detailed documentation, Brazil was taking the position of the United States and Canada, which have not signed the UN accord.

"We are far from an agreement because of this obstructive attitude of Brazil," Gall said, adding that the South American country's position could undermine the whole negotiation because decisions are made on the basis of consensus.

Although the US has not signed the protocol, which has been ratified by 86 countries and the EU and came into force last September, it is lobbying hard on the sidelines for minimal labelling of GM crops.

Greenpeace science advisor Doreen Stabinsky said Brazil appeared to have become the latest member of the US-led Miami Group, which she said hopes to block a comprehensive treaty on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

"Brazil is taking the Miami Group position in the issue of documentation," she said.

"Brazil says 'may contain GMOs' is enough in the shipment. They want to water down it and favour a weak requirement," Gall said.

Gall also accused the US of trying to weaken the protocol through bilateral agreements.

The US had successfully inked an agreement with Mexico, which has signed the protocol, allowing "watered down" labelling of GMOs, he said.

The US is the largest producer of GM crops in the world and Washington is already embroiled in a row with Europe over GM crops in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), where it is contesting the EU's de-facto embargo on importing and planting bio-engineered food.

In a pre-emptive move towards an expected easing of these restrictions, EU nations have infuriated the US by passing tough laws on identifying and labelling food that has GM ingredients.

They have been pressing at the five-day conference, which ends Friday, for similar measures to be agreed by all signatories to the protocol.

The US team at the talks told a news conference earlier in the week that there was "no scientific evidence to show that there is any health concern associated with the consumption of bio-tech products."

Genetic modification can involve the introduction of genes from one plant to another or switching genes between plants and animals to change the way they develop, usually to protect them from disease or enhance their commercial value.  

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive