AGRICULTURE-BRAZIL: Environmentalists Win One on the GMO Front

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct 30 2003 (IPS) - Environmental activists in Brazil have won a battle, but the war on genetically modified organisms continues in this country, a world leader in production of soya, which is increasingly a transgenic crop.

The draft of the Biosafety Law, announced by the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva government Wednesday, is a response to the demands of the movement that opposes commercial development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – but there is no assurance that the National Congress will approve the bill.

"Without pressure from society, Congress would modify the bill," says Jean Marc von der Weid, leader of a non-governmental alternative agriculture consulting group. He fears a watered-down version will be passed.

The battle will therefore take place in parliament and on the streets, to ensure that the standards and principles established after nine months of talks within the government and with interested civil society groups are not reversed, Von der Weid told IPS.

The draft legislation attempts to resolve the chaotic situation surrounding transgenic soya in Brazil. Farmers in the south are illegally planting seeds smuggled in from Argentina, where nearly all soya produced is of the Roundup Ready variety, a genetically modified seed for which Monsanto, the U.S.-based agribusiness transnational, holds the patent.

Facing the fact of the GM soya’s increasing presence in the country, the Brazilian government issued a once-off "provisional measure" that authorises the cultivation of the crop this season and sales until the end of 2004.

The measure bans trade in transgenic seed and requires farmers to assume responsibility for any harm their product might cause the environment or human health.

Meanwhile, the government of the southern state of Paraná has prohibited the entry of genetically modified crops into its territory, creating a diplomatic row with Paraguay, which exports its soya through the Paraná port of Paranaguá and already has a shipment being held in its warehouses.

Paraná also passed a state law prohibiting the planting of transgenic crops. These measures have come under fire from farmers, who argue that the states should be subject to national law.

Other state governments in Brazil have also expressed interest in keeping their territories "GMO-free".

In order to establish definitive rules and resolve legal conflicts as well as disputes within the national government itself – particularly between the ministries of agriculture and environment – discussions were stepped up in recent weeks to draft the legislative bill sent to Congress.

The legislation would create a National Biosafety Council, made up of 12 ministers, to define official guidelines on genetically modified organisms and would be the highest-level forum to decide on authorising activities that involve transgenic materials.

The National Technical Commission for Biosafety (CTNBio), part of the Ministry of Science and Technology, has been responsible for evaluating GMO-related projects. The commission stands to lose a great deal of the power it was granted under previous legislation, dating to 1995, harshly criticised by environmentalists and rarely enacted.

CTNBio will have the authority to ban activities that it considers a threat to the environment and human health, but approval by the commission will not be definitive, as it will now serve as merely a first instance in GMO technical matters.

The requests approved by CTNBio will have to undergo evaluation by the ministries of agriculture, environment and health to examine the potential effects of transgenics in their areas of interest. Each holds veto power.

Lastly, the National Biosafety Council can refuse authorisation if the product or related activity contradict some strategy of the government, such as an inopportune moment for trade.

In other words, there are three levels for handling GMO matters, and only their negative responses are definitive. If the first two – CTNBio and the ministries – give the green light, petitions can still be refused by the National Biosafety Council.

"It is a setback and a shame," said Leila Oda, president of the National Association for Biosafety, basing her opinion on "the announced lines, without knowing the details of the bill," which has yet to be published.

"It doesn’t make sense that CTNBio has authority only for rejection and not for approval," Oda told IPS.

The creation of the commission represented Brazil’s adoption of the European model, avoiding the U.S. approach, of permanent "disputes between ministries when there are contradictory opinions," she said.

Withdrawing CTNBio’s deliberative power and creating other regulatory bodies will weaken scientific assessment while opening the door to "political influence", warned the biosafety expert.

The commission’s composition would be expanded if the bill is approved, growing from 18 to 26 members, including 10 scientists, eight representatives of government and eight from civil society, which now only has three.

But while civil society’s participation is being expanded, the authority of the body is being cut back.

"Is it, or is it not a technical, scientific commission?" wonders Oda.

Agribusiness organisations have also reacted negatively to the government’s draft law, although agriculture minister Roberto Rodrigues applauded it as a step in the right direction, saying, "Consensus is possible."

Environment minister Marina Silva, seen as the victorious party in this process, said that it is the country that wins, because it is escaping the vicious circle created by the transgenics question.

Von der Weid believes that the bill, insofar as its announced content, will only be approved if president Lula and some of his powerful ministers exert some pressure on Congress.

But the activists fears that will not happen, which is why he believes a mobilisation by the environmental and consumer movements would play a decisive role in defending the precautionary principal and demands for environmental and health impact studies when it comes to genetically modified organisms.