ENVIRONMENT-BRAZIL: Genetic Modification Divides Scientists

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jul 15 1999 (IPS) - Brazil’s scientific community is divided on whether or not the nation’s farmers should cultivate genetically modified crops.

Genetically altered grains have become a central focus – and the most controversial issue – at the annual meeting of the Brazilian Society for Scientific Progress (SBPC) this week in Porto Alegre, capital of Rio Grande do Sul in southern Brazil.

The SBPC defended before Brazil’s National Congress a five-year moratorium on the commercial production of genetically modified foods in order to better evaluate their effects on the environment and on human health.

This time period is necessary because the country is not yet ready to control and ensure the safety of consumption of these products, said Glaci Zancan, the newly elected SBPC president.

The time would be used to carry out tests and risk analyses, using the most recent scientific advances, maintained Zancan, who is also professor of bio-chemistry at the Federal University of Parana.

The commercial planting of genetically modified soy, which was developed by the U.S. corporation Monsanto, has already been authorised by the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) and by the Ministry of Agriculture.

CTNBio, a multi-disciplinary organisation under the Ministry of Science and Technology, also approved more than 600 experimental projects involving genetically altered plants – primarily soy, corn and rice.

Technicians at the Ministry of Agriculture acknowledged that they are unable to follow-up and maintain inspections on such a large number of experiments.

Legal measures initiated by consumer defence organisations and state governments, with the support of the Ministry of the Environment, are currently preventing the cultivation of Monsanto soy.

The state governments of Rio Grande do Sul and Mato Grosso do Sul, where Brazil’s soy production is concentrated, are trying to prevent the cultivation of Monsanto soy – including experiments – through successive legal restraints and bills that are currently being considered by their respective state legislatures.

The debate on genetically modified organisms gained strength during the SBPC meeting in part because it is being held in Rio Grande do Sul’s capital, whose governor, Olivio Dutra, has declared himself an enemy of genetically modified agriculture.

Dutra wants to make his state a “genetic modification free zone.”

Francisco Salzano, a professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, was honoured by the SBPC during the meeting for his genetic research. In his speech Salzano attacked the government’s anti-genetic modification positions as being “medieval” and “Stalinist.”

Dutra responded that he would not accept the “Monsanto dictatorship,” referring to critics’ statements that the transnational company imposes conditions on its clients and is attempting to create a monopoly in seed sales.

The tense climate created by the issue at the meeting was evident in the jeers with which participants received Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira, Minister of Science and Technology, who supports the introduction of genetically altered products, but wants them to be labeled as such.

The new SBPC president released a communique clarifying that she is in favour of genetic engineering technology as a factor in creating “better living conditions for the population,” but that each case should be rigorously studied.

The CTNBio made the mistake of accepting the assessments of its soy varieties made by Monsanto itself, which is a conflict of interests, said Zancan.

The scientist defended the Commission’s expanded recommendations to incorporate toxicology, epidemiology and nutritional analyses of gentically altered organisms – tests which are not currently being performed.

The divisions between scientists and government authorities, including divisions within the federal government, are stimulated by pressure from transnational seed corporations, like Monsanto and the German AgrEvo.

On the other hand, several European trade missions to Brazil have supported a ban on genetically altered plants, underscoring that only conventional grains will be guaranteed access to European markets. Europe is largest buyer of Brazilian soy.

The lack of consensus about impacts on human health, the environment and agricultural exports has led to the country’s hesitation in deciding whether it is better to release, postpone or ban genetically altered foods. By all indications, the SBPC meeting will not help the nationa overcome its doubts.