Lula sowing the seeds of despair / Solidarity with Brazil (27/9/2003)

***Solidarity with Brazil***

Authorisation to cultivate GM soya in Brazil for the next growing season was published on Friday, despite protests from Environment Minister Marina Silva, the government agency The National Environment Council, the Roman Catholic Bishops Conference, Brazil's Landless Workers' Movement, who tried to invade the agriculture ministry in protest, and other NGOs. The Federal Judges Association also announced that it will challenge the decision in the Supreme Court, saying it is unconstitutional.

Here's Devinder Sharma's letter to President Lula, in support of the sign-on, and an attached article.

***SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO THE BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT. Details at the end of
this message.***

Devinder to Lula, who came to power talking of eradicating hunger: "You too have forgotten your villages, and your people. The road map after you ascend the country's highest office does not face the villages. You followed the dictum. And so you hobnobbed with the industrialists and transgenic supporters to unleash a new battle for the average citizen -- surviving against the onslaught and exploitation of the multinational seed and biotechnology companies. In the bargain, you have sown the seeds of despair. You have brought in a recipe for exacerbating hunger."

----- Original Message -----
From: Devinder Sharma
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: Keep Brazil GM Free For the Sake of Your Future Generations

New Delhi, September 27, 2003

Mr. President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Your Excellency,
 
There was a lot of expectation from you when you took over as President of Brazil. Soon after you took over, and by that time the promises you made during your election campaigns were still afresh in your mind, you launched the 'Zero Hunger' Programme. Brazil appreciated that. The world applauded your vision.
 
But the complete turn around that you have taken to support the cultivation of genetically modified crops clearly demonstrates that no political leader has the moral courage to stand up to the power of money. You have not only succumbed to the pressure of the rich and the powerful, you have also undone the so-called 'great' task that you launched -- to eradicate hunger.
 
Genetically modified crops only add to hunger. These crops do not eradicate hunger. If you have time, please do take a look at my enclosed article that analyses the grave implications of genetically modified crops. 
 
Every head of State, for reasons that are obvious, spares no effort to mingle with the industry and the pro-industry scientists. British Prime Minister Tony Blair leads that trail. The same leaders have no time to meet the poor, in fact they hate to be with the poor. You are no exception. The Indian Prime Minister, whom you can see every other day with the industrialists, has not even once visited a single village in the country in the past five years. India, as you know is a country that is essentially a conglomeration of villages -- more than 80 per cent of the country's population lives in some 600,000 villages!
 
You too have forgotten your villages, and your people. The road map after you ascend the country's highest office does not face the villages. You followed the dictum. And so you hobnobbed with the industrialists and transgenic supporters to unleash a new battle for the average citizen -- surviving against the onslaught and exploitation of the multinational seed and biotechnology companies. In the bargain, you have sown the seeds of despair. You have brought in a recipe for exacerbating hunger.
 
Mr President, the world is being clearly divided into two parts -- the rich and industrialised will produce staple foods, and countries like yours (and mine) will produce crops like strawberries, melons, cut flowers to meet the luxury requirement of the bold and beautiful. Multinational food and agribusiness companies are therefore making an all out effort to destroy the strong foundations of food self-sufficiency. We are fast heading towards a stage wherein farmers have become the most endangered species, and you are aware of the efforts that the WTO is making in this direction.
 
History still gives you an opportunity to rectify your mistake. You can surely make an effort to talk to your people, in an equalitarian and democratic way, to understand what is good for your country. You can surely have faith on the wisdom of your own people. This is exactly what Mahatma Gandhi stood for. This is what you too need to acknowledge.
 
You should know, Mr President, that there are no studies at all that prove the safety of those organisms genetically modified in any country both for the consumers' health and for the environment, and that an eventual liberation would pose a serious threat over the food sovereignty of the Brazilians and against the economy of this country, that has been reaching successive superavits of exportations due exactly to the fact that Brazil is widely recognized in the global markets as a genetically modified free country.
 
Brazil will surely remember you. But for reasons that are just the opposite for what you stood for at the time of elections.
 
Thanking you.
 
Sincerely yours,

Devinder Sharma
www.dsharma.org
 
New Delhi, India.
 
cc:
Mr. Vice-President José Alencar
and Ministers of State,
---
UNDP's Human Development Report 2001
BIOTECHNOLOGY WILL BYPASS THE HUNGRY
By Devinder Sharma

India's former Prime Minister, the late Mr Morarji Desai, strictly followed an unwritten principle. He would not inaugurate any conference, whether national or international, which did not focus on rural development. It so happened that it was during his tenure that the aircraft industry had planned a conference in New Delhi. For the aircraft industry, the inauguration of the international conference by anyone other than the Prime Minister was not palatable and for obvious reasons.

Knowing well that the Prime Minister would not make an exception, the aircraft industry came out with an imaginative title for the conference: "Aerodynamics and rural development"!

The global community - market forces and its supporters - too are following Morarji Desai's prescription. Agricultural biotechnology advances are being desperately promoted in the name of eradicating hunger and poverty. The misguided belief that the biotechnological silver bullet can "solve" hunger, malnutrition and real poverty has prompted the industry and the development community, political masters and the policy makers, agricultural scientists and the economists to chant the mantra of "harnessing technology to address specific problems facing poor people" And in the bargain, what is being very conveniently overlooked is the fact that what the world's 840 million hungry need is just food, which is abundantly available.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) annual Human Development Report 2001, entitled "Making New Technologies Work for Human Development" is yet another biotechnology industry-sponsored study that categorically mentions on the one hand that "technology is created in response to market pressures - not the needs of poor people, who have little purchasing power," and yet, goes on unabashedly to eulogies the virtues of an untested technology in the laboratories of the North, which are being pushed onto the gullible resource-poor communities of the South and that too in the name of eradicating hunger and poverty.

The report states that emerging centres of excellence throughout the developing world are already providing hard evidence of the potential for harnessing cutting-edge science and technology (as biotechnology is fondly called) to tackle centuries-old problems of human poverty. But what the report does not mention is the fact that the biggest challenge facing the global community is increasing hunger and poverty in the developing countries, which need to be tackled by a social and political commitment rather than a market-driven technological agenda.

To say "if the developing community turns its back on the explosion of technological innovation in food, medicine and information, it risks marginalising itself." is in reality a desperate effort to ensure that the American economic interests are not sacrificed at the altar of development. Such is the growing desperation at the growing isolation of the United States in the global food market because of its "transgenic' food that all kinds of permutations and combinations, including increased food aid to Africa's school-going children, are being attempted. The deft manipulation of the prestigious UNDP's Human Development Report (HDR) to push forth the American farm interests, however, will cast an ominous shadow over the credibility of the future UN programmes for human development.

In agriculture, the HDR cites plant breeding promises to generate higher yields and resistance to drought, pests and diseases. Biotechnology offers the only or the best 'tool of choice' for marginal ecological zones - left behind by the green revolution but home to more than half the world's poorest people, dependent on agriculture and livestock. It is true that green revolution left behind the small and marginal farmers living in some of the world's most inhospitable areas. But the way the tools of the cutting-edge technology are being applied and are being blindly promoted, biotechnology will certainly bypass the world's hungry and marginalised.

A third of the world's hungry and marginalised live in India. And if India alone were to launch a frontal attack on poverty eradication and feeding its 320 million hungry, much of the world's hunger problem would be resolved.

Never before in contemporary history has the mankind been witness to such a glaring and shameful 'paradox of plenty'. In India alone, more than 60 million tonnes of foodgrains are stacked, bulk of it in the open, while some 320 million go to bed hungry every night. In neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan too, food silos are bursting. And yet, these three countries are home to nearly half the world's population of hungry and the marginalised. While none of these countries has shown the political courage to use the mountains of foodgrain surplus to address the age-old problem of hunger, the international scientific and development community too is equally guilty by turning a blind eye to the biggest human folly of the 21st century.

After all, science and technology is aimed at removing hunger. The green revolution was aimed at addressing the problem of hunger, and did a remarkable job within its limitation. And now, when we have stockpiles of food surpluses, the global community appears reluctant to make the food available to the marginalised communities who cannot afford to buy the rotting stocks. No aid agency, including the so-called philanthropic ones: Ford, Rockefeller, ActionAid, Christian Aid, Oxfam, British BFID and the likes are willing to take the bull by the horn. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), which works for reducing hunger, too has shied away from this Herculean task. It has instead convened a meeting of the Heads of State at Rome in November, five years after the World Food Summit, to reiterate its promise of halving world's hunger by the year 2015.

The reality of hunger and malnutrition is too harsh to be even properly understood. Hunger cannot be removed by producing transgenic crops with genes for Vitamin A. Hunger cannot be addressed by providing mobile phones to the rural communities. Nor can it be eradicated by providing the poor and hungry with an 'informed choice' of novel foods. Somehow, the authors of the HDR have missed the ground realities, missed the realities from the commercial interests of the biotechnology industries. In their over-enthusiasm to promote an expensive technology at the cost of the poor, they have forgotten that biotechnology has the potential to further the great divide between the haves and have-nots. No policy directive can help in bridging this monumental gap. The twin engines of economic growth - the technological revolution and globalisation - will only widen the existing gap. Biotechnology will, in reality, push more people in the hunger trap. With public attention and resources being diverted from the ground realities, hunger will only grow in the years to come.

It does not, however, mean that this writer is against technology. The wheels of technological development are essential for every society but have to be used in a way that helps promote human development. Technology cannot be blindly promoted, as the UNDP report does, in an obvious effort to bolster the industry's interests. Ignoring food security in the name of ensuring 'profit security' for the private companies, can further marginalise the gains, if any. And herein lies a grave danger.

While the political leadership and the development community is postponing till the year 2015 the task to halve the number of the world's hungry, the scientific community too has found an easy escape route. At almost all the genetic engineering laboratories, whether in the North or in the South, the focus of research is on crops which will produce edible vaccines, address the problems of malnutrition or 'hidden hunger' by incorporating genes for Vit A, iron, and other micro-nutrients. But what is not being realised is that if the global scientific and development community were to aim at eradicating hunger at the first place, there would be no 'hidden hunger'.

Take, for instance, the much-touted 'golden rice', the rice which contains the genes for Vit A. It is true that there are 12 million people in India alone who suffer from Vit A deficiency. To say that 'golden rice' would provide the poor with a choice of such 'novel foods' is to ignore the realities. It is also known that almost the entire Vit A deficient population in India lives in marginalised areas and comprise people who cannot or who do not have access to two square meals a day. If only these hungry people were to get their adequate dietary intake or the two square meals a day, they would not suffer from Vit A deficiency or for that matter any other micro-nutrient deficiency. If these poor people cannot afford to buy their normal dietary requirement of rice for a day, how do we propose to make available 'golden rice' to them is something that has been deliberately left unanswered.

And this reminds me of what exactly another former Indian Prime Minister, the late Mrs Indira Gandhi, used to do when it came to addressing problems. If the ethnic crisis confronting the northeast Indian State of Assam becomes unmanageable and goes out of her hands, she would create another problem in northwestern Punjab. In simple words, the national attention gets diverted to the fresh crisis confronting Punjab, and the country would forget Assam. And when terrorism in Punjab goes out control, create another problem in down south, in Tamil Nadu. And slowly, people would forget about Punjab. For political leaders, Mrs Gandhi's proven mantra does provide an easy escape route. And this is exactly what they intend to do when the Heads of State of 170-odd countries would gather at the World Food Summit Plus Five in Rome in November.

Scientists, development agencies and the policy makers (and now of course the United Nations) too seem to have derived their futuristic vision from the political sagacity of Mrs Indira Gandhi. After all, the only way to divert the attention of international community from the more pressing and immediate problems of abject hunger and poverty is to either postpone the priorities for removal of hunger (and that too by only a half) to the year 2015 as the FAO has done or is to talk of the virtues and potentials of biotechnology for eradicating 'hidden hunger' and malnutrition in the next two decades.

Who will take on the biggest challenge of all times - the elimination of hunger - which forms the root cause of real poverty and the lopsided human development is an issue no one is willing to stick his neck out for. With even the UNDP buckling under industrial pressure, the monumental task to feed the hungry - and that too at a time when food grains are rotting - may eventually be left to the market forces. The underlying message is very clear: the poor and hungry will have to live on hope. #

(Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst. Among his recent works include two books: GATT to WTO: Seeds of Despair and In the Famine Trap. His email contact is: [email protected])
---
SOLIDARITY WITH BRAZIL

The Campaign for a GM-Free Brazil asks for your help. Please, join them in a massive e-mail campaign to show Lula and his Ministers how serious the situation is. The proposed text and e-mail addresses follow. Please adapt and personalise as you wish.

Send emails to: 
[email protected]

With copies to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]  
[email protected]

Rio de Janeiro, September 25, 2003
 
Mr. President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Mr. Vice-President José Alencar
and Ministers of State,
 
I request the immediate suspension of the planned sending of Provisory Measure to the National Congress for releasing GMOs in Brazil until this extremely important subject has been fully and widely discussed with all parties, just as it has been with the supporters of transgenics. This is only right in a supposedly democratic country.

I point out that there are no studies at all in any country that prove the safety of GMOs, eith for consumer health or for the environment, and that an eventual liberation would pose a serious threat to the food sovereignty of Brazilians and will damage the economy of this country, which has been achieving great success with its exports precisely because of the fact that Brazil is widely recognized in the global market as a GM free country.

I reiterate that even the Brazilian Company of Agricultural Research (Embrapa) affirms, in a document published and widely distributed on 2nd September that: Embrapa is conscious that practically no conclusive research exists on the risks to consumers' health, as well as on the current risks of releasing GMOs into the environment, which should be studied on a case by case basis.

I wish to express my confidence that your government will not betray the commitments made during your successful election campaign when in your government´s program you assured people, on four occasions, of your commitment to deal with the issue of GMOs by making use of the precautionary principle, which provides a scientific and internationally recognised means of approaching the safe introdcution of new technologies.  
 
Sincerely, 

Name:  


Print

Back to the Archive