.jpg)
CAMPAIGN
AGAINST GLYPHOSATE GROWS IN LATAM
SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS ASK FOR BAN ON THE
HERBICIDE
After
the World Health Organization (WHO) declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen,
the campaign has intensified in LATIN AMERICA to ban the herbicide, which is
employed on a massive scale on transgenic crops.
Background
Information:
ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN
ARGENTINA MANAGE TO SUSPEND MONSANTO CORN-SEED DRYING FACILITY
CORN-SEED SALES IN
BRAZIL, ARGENTINA AND MEXICO HELP MONSANTO WITH RECORD EARNINGS
In
a March 20 publication, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) reported that the world’s most widely used herbicide is probably
carcinogenic to humans, a conclusion that was based on numerous studies.
ARGENTINA: HIGHER THAN AVERAGE CANCER RATES
Social
organizations and scientific researchers in LATIN AMERICA argue that thanks to
the report by the WHO’s cancer research arm, governments no longer have an
excuse not to intervene, after years of research on the damage caused by
glyphosate to health and the environment at a regional and global level.
Background
Information:
ARGENTINA: MONSANTO'S
GMO (GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS) THE CAUSE FOR HIGH CANCER RATE IN THE COUNTRY
“We
believe the precautionary principle should be applied, and that we should stop
accumulating studies and take decisions that could come too late,” said JAVIER
SOUZA, coordinator of the LATIN AMERICAN Pesticide Action Network (RAP-AL).
The
precautionary principle states that even if a cause-effect relationship has not
been fully established scientifically, precautionary measures should be taken
if the product or activity may pose a threat to health or the environment.
“We
advocate a ban on glyphosate which should take effect in the short term with
restrictions on purchasing, spraying and packaging,” SOUZA, who is also the
head of the Centre for Studies on Appropriate Technologies in ARGENTINA
(CETAAR), said.
A 45-YEAR HISTORY
CARLOS
VICENTE, a leader of the international NGO GRAIN, said that the herbicide first
reached LATIN AMERICA in the mid-1970s and that its use by US biotech giant MONSANTO
spread massively in the SOUTHERN CONE countries.
600 MILLION LITERS OF THE HERBICIDE ARE USED ANNUALLY
“Its
widespread use mainly involves transgenic crops, genetically modified to
tolerate glyphosate, such as RR (ROUNDUP READY) soy, introduced in ARGENTINA,
BRAZIL, PARAGUAY, URUGUAY and other countries,” said Vicente, a representative
of GRAIN, which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural
biodiversity.
There are 50 million hectares of transgenic soy in the region, and
600 million liters a year of the herbicide are used annually, he said.
According to SOUZA, there are 83 million hectares of transgenic
crops in ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, PARAGUAY AND URUGUAY alone.
In
ARGENTINA, contrary to EUROPE, regulatory laws do not require food retailers to
stipulate if food products are GMO products . Thus consumers are left in
the dark as to whether they are buying GMO products or not!!
Background
Information:
MONSANTO’S INCREASING
REIGN OVER THE WORLD’S AGRICULTURE WILL SURPASS ANYTHING IMAGINABLE
MANY US DIPLOMATS
PAWNS OF MONSANTO'S GM AGENDA
The
WHO report “is very important because it shows that despite the pressure from MONSANTO,
independent science at the service of the common good rather than corporate
interests is possible,” VICENTE said.
MONSANTO
sells glyphosate under the trade name Roundup. But it is also sold as
Cosmoflux, Baundap, Glyphogan, Panzer, Potenza and Rango. And among small
farmers in some countries, it is popularly referred to as “randal”.
LATAM CONSUMES LARGE AMOUNTS OF POISONED GROUND WATER – RESULTING IN
INCREASED CANCER DEATHS IN THE REGION
It
is used not only on transgenic crops but also on vegetables, tobacco, fruit
trees and plantation forests of pine or eucalyptus, as well as in urban gardens
and flowerbeds and along railways.
But
in traditional agriculture it is used after the seeds germinate and before they
are planted, while in transgenic crops it is used during planting, when it acts
in a non-selective fashion, thus destroying a variety of plants and grass,
according to RAP-AL.
“This
rain —literally — of glyphosate has a direct impact on ecosystems,
communities, the soil and water and these impacts cannot be hidden any
longer,” VICENTE said.
“We
can no longer accept the use of these poisons because they destroy
biodiversity, aggravate climate change, destroy the soil’s fertility, and
contaminate the water and even the air,” said JOAO PEDRO STÉDILE, leader of BRAZIL’S
Landless Workers’ Movement (MST). “And above all, they bring more illness, such
as cancer,” he told IPS.
Background
Information:
PROFIT,
POWER AND GEOPOLITICS
SHARE
OF THE COMMODITY CAKE
RAFAEL
LAJMANOVICH, an expert on ecotoxicology at ARGENTINA’S Universidad Nacional DEL
LITORAL, has heavily researched glyphosate.
“Although
the studies do not refer to human health or carcinogenesis, they have
demonstrated in animals (amphibian embryos) that glyphosate is ‘teratogenic’
in other words it causes malformations during the development of these
vertebrates,” LAJMANOVICH, who is a member of the government’s National
Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), said.
“In
addition, we found that it has effects on the activity of very important enzyme
systems (cholinesterases), which means it has a certain degree of
neurotoxicity,” he added.
Epidemiological
studies have found effects of glyphosate spraying in communities.
“The
main effects that scientists and rural doctors have linked to the spraying are
specifically respiratory diseases, allergies, miscarriages, an increase in
children born with malformations, and a higher incidence of tumours,” said LAJMANOVICH.
ARGENTINA PARTICULARLY HARD HIT BY RISE IN CANCER
VICENTE,
meanwhile, noted that applied research carried out in several LATIN AMERICAN countries
point in the same direction as the WHO study. In ARGENTINA, for example,
studies in the provinces of ROSARIO and CÓRDOBA “clearly demonstrate the rise
in cases of cancer, which in some instances are three or four times the
national average.”
In
COLOMBIA, agronomist ELSA NIVIA, director of the Pesticide Action Network in
that country, found that in the first two months of 2001 local authorities
reported 4,289 people suffering from skin and gastric disorders, and 178,377
animals including horses, cattle, pigs, dogs, ducks, hens and fish killed
as a result of exposure to the pesticide.
Cases
of intoxication have also been reported in BRAZIL, CHILE, PARAGUAY and URUGUAY,
according to RAP-AL.
GLYPHOSATE IS SOLD WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS
SOUZA
complained that in LATIN AMERICA, glyphosate is sold without restrictions by
animal feed and agrochemical suppliers, hardware stores and other businesses,
often “in smaller quantities, in soft drink bottles.”
STÉDILE,
who is also a member of the international small farmer’s movement VÍA CAMPESINA,
hopes this region and EUROPE will ban its use in agriculture, as MEXICO, RUSSIA
and the NETHERLANDS have done.
As
an alternative, he proposed “agroecological production that combines scientific
know-how with the age-old knowledge of peasant farmers, to develop crops
without the use of poisons, suited to each ecosystem.” That methodology has
increased “the productivity of the soil and labor, better than practices that
use poisons,” he said.
GOVERNMENTS IN SOUTH AMERICA CONTINUE TO SUPPORT TRANSGENIC
AGRICULTURE DESPITE THE EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE TO HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
It
is not, said VICENTE, a question of replacing glyphosate with new weed killers,
several of which are even more toxic, “but of switching to a model of
agroecological smallholder agriculture aimed at achieving food sovereignty for
our people.”
STÉDILE
said governments in SOUTH AMERICA continue to support transgenic agriculture
despite the evidence of damage to health and the environment, because they
believe “agribusiness can help the economy by increasing exports of
commodities, contributing to achieving a positive trade balance.”
“This
exports illusion keeps governments from taking a stance against a veritable
genocide,” he said.
VICENTE
called for concrete government measures that reflect the results of research
carried out in this region, now that the WHO has issued conclusions backing it
up.
In
a statement, MONSANTO criticized the IARC report as “junk science”, saying
“this result was reached by selective ‘cherry picking’ of data and is a clear
example of agenda-driven bias.” They demanded a rectification.
In
response, the researchers pointed out that they stated that glyphosate was a
“probable carcinogen.”
MONSANTO
said “This conclusion is inconsistent with the decades of ongoing comprehensive
safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world that have
concluded that all labelled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health.”
LAJMANOVICH
argued that the position taken by a company “cannot prevail over that of an
international institution of renowned prestige, the WHO, which is the guiding
body in world health.”
He
also noted that MONSANTO considered WHO reports reliable “when they indicated
that glyphosate was innocuous.”
Editor’s note:
This article has been
adapted by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring from the original article
written by Fabiana Frayssinet
No comments:
Post a Comment