몬산토는 멕시코 식량위기를 빌미로 유전자조작 옥수수의 재배를 확대

Alfredo Acedo

Americas Program, 2011년 3월 28일
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/4244

몬산토는 국제 옥수수 비축량이 떨어지고 예상치 못한 한파로 멕시코의 옥수수 생산량에 큰 피해를 입는 틈을 타 멕시코에서 유전자조작 옥수수의 상업적 재배를 더 빨리 해야 한다는 논쟁으로 이끌었다. 그 초국적 기업은 물량 부족과 오르고 있는 곡물 가격의 유일한 해결책은 조작된 씨앗이라고 주장하고 있다.

기자회견에서, 그 초국적 기업의 라틴아메리카 대표 José Manuel Maduro는 주요 품목의 post-NAFTA의 높은 수준에 대한 국가의 유전자조작 옥수수 생산 제한을 비난함으로써 더욱 진전시켰다. "(유전자조작) 쪽으로 가지 않는다는 멕시코의 결정은 1000만 톤의 옥수수 수입, 신속한 반응을 요구하는 상황으로 이끌 것이다."

그러한 몬산토는 유전자조작을 허용하도록 멕시코를 겁주려고 식량 의존성이란 귀신을 활용하려는 것이고, 옥수수는 회사의 엄청난 냉소를 나타낸다. 현재 몬산토에 따르면, 멕시코가 옥수수 자급을 잃고 해마다 수만 톤을 수입하는 까닭은 초국적 기업을 지원하는 농업정책이나 국가의 생산자 대다수를 포기하고 수입을 선호하는 불공평한 자유무역 모델을 하지 않아서가 아니다. 대신 그것은 국가가 유전자조작 옥수수의 상업적 활용을 받아들이지 않아서이다.

식량위기가 흐릿하게 나타날 때, 진정한 위험은 –영양, 건강, 국가의 문화에 대해– 국가의 농업을 강화한다고 몬산토의 의제를 선택하는 데에 있다. 유전자조작 작물의 경작은 멕시코의 식량주권 상실을 가속화하고 필수적인 토종 옥수수를 오염시킬 것이다. 

압력 캠페인Pressure Campaign

몬산토의 부지런한 홍보 노력은 성과를 올리고 있다. 본래 지난해 Sinaloa에서 유전자조작 옥수수를 경작하는 시범사업에 대한 허가가 부인되었는데, 농업 가축 개발 수산업 식품부(Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Development, Fisheries and Food)는 회사에게 Tamaulipas의 현행 농업주기에 시범사업의 일부로 유전자조작 노란 옥수수를 심도록 녹색 신호를 켜주었다..

생물다양성의 사용과 이해(CONABIO)에 대한 국가위원회에 따르면, Tamaulipas는 남아 있는 토종 옥수수 59종 가운데 16종의 고향이다. CONABIO에서 행한 최근의 연구는 유전자조작 옥수수의 경작은 "오직 공공기관에서 적절히 보안 훈련을 받고 위험도가 낮은 지역에서만" 다루어져야 한다고 결론을 내렸다. 그 연구는 SAGARPA의 후원으로 이루어졌고, Tamaulipas 시범 프로젝트에 대한 허가와 동시에 발표되었다. 북쪽 지역의 나머지와 멕시코의 모든 곳처럼 Tamaulipas는 옥수수 원산지의 중심이다.

There is an intense PR campaign to open the door to transgenics in Mexico: industrial farmers in the north are pushing the government to ease the establishment of commercial transgenic corn operations and the national press is not short on people willing to echo Monsanto’s sound bites.

This year’s International Book Fair in Mexico City was invaded by the campaign’s propaganda, cloaked in scientific jargon. The fair, sponsored by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, included a series of conferences designed to convince the public about the benefits of GMOs, led by all-star biotech cheerleader, Luis Herrera-Estrella. The Mexican scientist, hailed as a co-inventor of transgenics, has become a defender of Monsanto’s efforts in spite of the fact that, as he tells it, the company commandeered his patent for the technology.

Herrera-Estrella has been accused of doing Monsanto’s dirty work. The relationship between CINVESTAV, where the researcher works, and the transnational is public knowledge. After Berkeley Professor Ignacio Chapela revealed GM contamination in corn crops in Calpulapan, Oaxaca in the fall of 2001, Monsanto launched a smear campaign against him. After years of persecution and when two international Berkeley reviewers had recommended tenure, Chapela’s contract was suspended after the university received a letter against him from an expert. The author was Luis Herrera-Estrella.

The conferences at the book fair only presented a favorable view of transgenics, leading to complaints from some members of the public. The president of the Union of Socially Concerned Scientists Elena Álvarez-Buylla presented a brief critical perspective on transgenic biotechnology, including information about a French scientist recognized for his independent research into the risks of GMOs, who recently won a suit against biotech groups that carried out a smear campaign to discredit him. Álvarez-Buylla was cut off by Herrera-Estrella, who was clearly annoyed by the criticisms and insisted that as the conference organizer he should be the sole presenter. Another attendee challenged the failure to mention the proven health risks posed by glyphosate, a Monsanto herbicide associated with one of its transgenic corn strains.

The aggressive PR operation to promote the introduction of GM corn in Mexico comes after the company reported declining profits last year and a drop in its share price due to shrinking sales of Roundup and GM soy and corn seeds in South America and Europe.

The Mexican market represents potential earnings of $400 million annually for Monsanto and for some government officials that’s enough to turn a blind eye toward any risk to native corn species, the economy or Mexican health.

Meanwhile in the European Union, according to a report from Friends of the Earth International released several weeks ago, transgenic crops are plummeting at the same time that more and more countries are prohibiting them.

Seven EU member states prohibit the planting of Monsanto’s transgenic corn due to mounting evidence about environmental and economic impacts, and to apply the precautionary principle that stipulates that when impact on human health is unknown precaution is warranted. Polls show that public opposition to transgenics is as high as 61 percent.

Unexpectedly, and not without contradictions, the Mexican federal government denied Monsanto’s permit for a pilot project of 100 acres of GM corn in the northeastern state of Sinaloa. Pilot projects are the second regulatory phase, following the experimental phase and preceding commercial production, of the three phases established by the Law of Genetically Modified Organism Biosecurity.

Beginning in October of 2009, a few months after a meeting between Felipe Calderón and Monsanto President Hugh Grant, the federal government approved 29 applications for experimental transgenic corn plots, breaking a decade-long moratorium. Most of the licenses were issued to Monsanto and Dow Agro Science to test corn strains resistant to herbicides and blight on more than a dozen hectares.

Last year, after keeping the sites secret and without adequately disclosing the results of the experimental plantings in violation of the Biosecurity Law, the government accepted 20 more applications from the aforementioned transnationals, plus Syngenta. If all these permits are authorized, there would be more than 1,000 hectares planted with transgenic corn.

The contradictions and waffling in the government’s original position to at first deny permits for pilot projects in Sinaloa and then approve the quarter-hectare project in Tamaulipas are probably due to the fast-approaching electoral season – crucial for the ruling party, which will try to avoid the political costs of its decisions. The actions of peasant farmer organizations and the important work of expert groups like the UCCS have played an important role in holding back the mass cultivation of GMOs in Mexico.

Since the end of 2009, The National Union of Regional Autonomous Campesino Organizations (UNORCA) started a campaign with the slogan “No to transgenic corn! Monsanto out of Mexico!” that includes the use of forums, mass media and public spaces to inform debate on GMOs in Mexico. Public forums were held in Navojoa (a few miles from one of the centers of transgenic experimentation), Chilpancingo y Zacatecas. Last year in Guadalajara and Morelia, the forums condemned transgenic corn experimentation as a crime against humanity.

There are now many voices speaking out against the imposition of GMOs: from the UCCS to the city council of Tepoztlán in the southern state of Morelos, which filed a constitutional challenge against the planting of transgenic corn in the country.

Food Sovereignty or Food Dependency?

The national head of UNORCA, Olegario Carrillo, asserts that Mexico doesn’t need to embrace Monsanto to regain corn self-sufficiency. Giving in to the transnational’s pressure to gain control over Mexico’s agro-genetic wealth would mean deepening the debilitating food dependence brought on by NAFTA; food imports already constitute more than 40 percent of what Mexico consumes, according to data from the Chief Auditor of the Federation.

The fundamental problem is not technological, but that the Mexican government lacks policies to promote rural development or goals in domestic food production. The neoliberal regime has chosen to promote imports and support the transnationals that have been taking over the production process.

Monsanto is lying when it implies that its biotechnology can resolve Mexico’s food crisis: it is amply documented that transgenics don’t increase yields. Transgenic corn strains weren’t designed to increase yield. The vast majority of transgenic crops are designed to resist the application of herbicides also manufactured by Monsanto. They actually create more dependency due to the need to buy seed and the contamination of native varieties. They also damage the environment, the economy and human health.

On the other hand, annual corn harvests in Mexico could be doubled if agricultural policy were reformed to support small farmers and to encourage cultivation of more acres in the south and southeast where there is sufficient water. The genetic wealth of Mexican corn could raise production, with farmers saving seed and not required to pay royalties to Monsanto, because the 60 native species and thousands of varieties are adapted to local soils and climates.

Monsanto denies the risk of transgenic contamination of native species, despite evidence that the coexistence of transgenics and biodiversity is impossible. Hiding the truth has been an integral part of Monsanto’s corporate strategies throughout its history, as the company seeks to protect profits at the expense of human health, the environment and general well-being.

The UCCS, based on FAO and UNESCO reports, affirms that transgenics not only do not increase yields, they have the negative impacts of raising agrochemical levels and destroying the soil. These studies also show few or no benefits to poor farmers or consumers. Additionally, GM crops contribute to the climate crisis because they reinforce an oil-dependent agricultural model. Peasant farmer organizations and committed scientists propose an alternative sustainable model, based on conservation of biodiversity, nutrient recycling, crop synergy, conservation of soil and strategic resources (such as water), and incorporating new biotechnologies compatible with sustainable systems.

Scientists have concluded that the Mexican countryside has the resources necessary to guarantee food sovereignty without adopting transgenic technology. According to researcher Antonio Turrent Fernández, small-scale producers, ejido members and communal landowners can play a key role in the production of basic foods and the management of Mexico’s diverse genetic resources. But this requires public investment in infrastructure, research, technology transfer and services – that is to say a radical change in the dominant model and budget priorities. It also requires the reinstatement of the moratorium on transgenic corn.

Alfredo Acedo is communications director and advisor to the National Union of Regional Autonomous Campesino Organizations (Unión Nacional de Organizaciones Regionales Campesinas Autónomas, UNORCA) Mexico.