유전자변형이 브라질의 농업을 악화시켰다는 농경제학자

"There are conflicting approaches. On one side there is unanimity on the importance of scientific and potential of genetic engineering for the future of humanity. On the other hand, there is a great divide on the results obtained to date, "points agronomist.

Check out the interview.

Photo: direitodeconsumir.wordpress.com

After returning from a series of meetings on the development of transgenics in Brazil in CTNBio, Leonardo Melgarejo gave the following interview to IHU on-Line by email. Questions what it calls "controversial decisions" taken by the board that has the purpose of providing technical support to the federal government in the formulation, updating and implementation of the National Biosafety concerning Genetically Modified Organisms - GMOs. According to him, among the topics on the agenda was the confidentiality of information concerning "the agronomic performance of transgenic crops . " He explains: "There is an understanding among members of the majority, that even the information about the performance of GM crops should be kept confidential. Moreover, the understanding is that all information obtained in the tests should be sensitive.Two years ago this was not so. Since then, the minority opinion grows evidence of side effects and at the same time, fears grow - companies - that disclosure of these effects occur. Possibly, the marketing campaigns would be harmed by field evidence if it became public knowledge.Thus, some companies ask for secrecy on all or almost all the results of much of their studies. They allege that the registration of new cultivars will only be possible to the extent that all information on these cultivars are sensitive, unknown, completely unprecedented. "

Melgarejo also draws attention to a new agenda that is being worked on by companies regarding the introduction ofnew transgenic crops in the market , such as sugarcane, sorghum, orange and eucalyptus. "Currently being created rules for field testing of these crops, which are necessary steps to commercialization. If we take the example soybean, corn and cotton, experience shows that these thousands of experiments, especially in the center-south of the country, generated very little data on the potential impacts of these modified plants on the environment and on health. So far there is no indication that the picture will change to these new species. As concerns this case, we expect sad that should be repeated the trend data generation agronomic interest of companies, but it offers little or no utility for analysis of biosecurity, which - after all - correspond to the ratio of be CTNBio "he laments.

Leonardo Melgarejo (pictured below) is an agricultural engineer, Master of Rural Economy and Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Santa Catarina - UFSC. He is a member of the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform - INCRA, in Rio Grande do Sul

Check out the interview.

IHU on-Line - How transgenics has changed the Brazilian agricultural production?

Photo: www2.camara.leg.br

Leonardo Melgarejo - This technology definitely has its appeal. It promises great results in terms of better products and more healthy. It also promises lower environmental impact, increased productivity and profitability for producers large and small, with less risk to consumers. And he still plays with hopes too complex: promising drought-resistant plants, plants tolerant to acid soils, plants that cure diseases, among other dreams of humanity. Unfortunately none of this has been confirmed. To date, these claims are still restricted to marketing campaigns and supporters to demonstrations of the technology.

It is true that herbicide tolerant crops bring initially technical facilities. Bring in fact simplifications to the management process, which are important and facilitate the work of the farmer. Just as it is true that plants insecticides that kill caterpillars trying to chew its leaves for some time save on insecticides allow and facilitate the control of certain insects.But this has only been shown to be valid in the short term. In the medium term, which has been observed is the opposite: there is a need for pesticide use stronger and more toxic, more frequent and more severe, increasing costs and reducing the profitability of crops. To give you idea: according to press reports, this season, with the onslaught of worms that should be controlled by Bt crops, the cost of soybean production in Bahia, went from $ 100 to $ 200 per hectare.For cotton, spending rose from $ 400 to $ 800 per hectare(Economic Value, 03.12.2013). According to press reports, that by 2012 farmers used 70 ml of insecticide Award, DuPont (product most recommended and used in the region), expected to narrow by 90% the population of Helicoverpa caterpillar that should be killed on contact with Bt plants, this season, even using 150 ml, the results were only 70%.The losses in Bahia, are estimated at U.S. $ 2 billion.

The concrete results show that, in general, we can say that transgenic has offered for some, for some time, facilities management due to the homogenization of decision-making processes related to the control of some pests and herbicides. However, this has very severe consequences for those involved. And even for those who benefit in the short term, the results of medium and long term do not allow optimism. Consider: Brazilian agriculture is faced with the expansion of production costs and realize a change in the minimum viable technicality crops of corn, soybeans and cotton. Thus, small businesses become unviable, which results in acceleration of the exclusion of small producers.This means that in practice, transgenics has accelerated a kind of topsy-turvy land reform in rural Brazil. The expansion of GM crops also accelerates the simplification of productive regional headquarters.

Vicious circle

By reducing the number of producers and the range of products offered, the expansion of monoculture and the advance of transgenic crops cause a vicious circle, which increases the difficulties of families staying in the field. Note: requiring economies of scale and being deleterious to the family farm, this technology leads to the reduction of rural population and ultimately impeding the provision of services that are essential for life in the field. Schools, health posts, the lines of milk collection become unfeasible when the population is sparse. So, we can say that the expansion of GM joins the trend of weakening the social fabric necessary for the permanence of the man in the field. Besides reinforcing the emptying of the countryside and curb the advance policies that invest in rural development processes, "with us," transgenic threatens the quality of life of those who remain in the field, expanding the volume of pesticides used. So much so that Brazil has become the country that uses pesticides in the world. For agribusiness is not bad: it suggests a higher turnover, allowing mapping a GDP growth and the sector's contribution to the national economy.

But this is not in the interest of society, from the point of view of the majority population. Not just because it goes against common sense, but also because it reinforces a vicious circle. The largest volume of pesticides, in addition to health problems, is causing the emergence of herbicide tolerant plants, requiring expansion in the use of poisons. And not only that: the increased use of poisons is associated with the need for dangerous poisons. Note: the first GM released in Brazil were resistant to Roundup, a herbicide based on glyphosate, which is classified by ANVISA to be of low toxicity.He is demonstrably associated with the presence of some types of cancer, reproductive problems and neurotoxic, among others, but is classified as of low toxicity. For GMOs under evaluation by CTNBio currently and will replace those first, that no longer work well, be tolerant to 2,4-D. And this is of high toxicity. Possibly will soon be being applied by plane, maybe millions of hectares. We expect that this poison just about fall crops? It is important to note that a plant that does not die when you take a bath poison with hormonal action, carry with it some of that poison. Waste will be consumed with poison. Why transgenic glyphosate tolerant are being replaced? Because the nature produced plants which do not die when this is applied to poison them.

Transgenics is changing the reality of Brazilian agriculture

In the case of plant insecticides that kill caterpillars attacking their grains, roots and leaves, something similar is happening. Nature is producing caterpillars that do not die when they eat plants that carry those toxins. The losses this season have led the government to declare a state of emergency phytosanitary and authorize the import and application of new insecticides. One of them, emamectin benzoate, is condemned by ANVISA. It is proven neurotoxic product, which was not used in the country and now, thanks to transgenesis, becomes incorporated into the technological packages of Brazilian agribusiness. Anyway, this question is very broad, it allows a conversation hours. Maybe a very simplified way, we can only say that the transgene is changing for the worse reality of Brazilian agriculture.

The negative impacts are socioeconomic, structural, environmental considerations, relating to health and plant health.Grows and worsens the framework of the use of pesticides, their effects on human health and the environment. Insect pests that were irrelevant become major pests lacking new insecticides. The biodiversity decreases. The ecological imbalance increases. The native seeds are contaminated with transgenes conveyed by pollen that reaches all places, carried by insects and wind, with significant impacts on the future of the nation. This extends the rights of multinational patent holders of those transgenes on the stocks of seeds stored for generations by farmers across the country, reducing our perspectives of autonomy, security and food sovereignty.

IHU on-Line - You can develop agriculture without the use of GMOs?

Leonardo Melgarejo - Yes, there are many examples of this. Embrapa has technologies to solve, with superiority, all the problems that are used as justifications for the expansion of GMOs. Embrapa has to solutions to the problems caused by transgenic - plants which do not die with the application of herbicides and insects that attack the Bt crops.But not only Embrapa has such knowledge. Organizations, networks and fairs of ecologically-based producers can be visited in virtually all parts of Brazil. And it is not just small farms, although these predominate. We have vast areas with crops of soybeans, corn, rice and other crops produced with techniques based on agroecology.

According to the Brazilian Association of Producers of Non Genetically Modified Grain - Covers, Brazil is the largest producer and exporter of non-GM. This association maintains that soybean production "clean" passed between 2009 and 2011, from 12 to 14 million tons and that only farmers in Mato Grosso program Soy Free received that last season, additional revenue of R $ 235.3 million. They would still have saved £ 47.4 million not collecting royalties for multinationals that control those technologies.

It is important to strengthen the viability of another model of agriculture depends yes another technological paradigm, but also depends on a social basis strengthened in the field. On the other hand, the current situation and prospects for the near future increasingly impacted by the effects of climate change, the energy crisis and a growing deterioration of natural resources indicate the infeasibility of the current production standard. The most serious is that while expanding agribusiness, growing in the world the crowd of hungry and malnourished. This means not only a threat to the maintenance of sociopolitical and economic conditions, as well as for the recovery of the physical-natural bases who always supported agriculture. The threat to biodiversity is life threatening.

IHU on-Line - Given the advance of transgenic plants and the use of pesticides, it is still possible to develop an alternative agriculture?

Leonardo Melgarejo - Yes, there are concrete experiences in this sense, that could be visited, filmed, exposed to general knowledge. Consider just the example of rice. The rice crop is more sophisticated culture of agriculture Gaucho, one that involves a higher level of technological sophistication and therefore more difficult to treat and control. It is the front line of agribusiness gaucho, and has so much power that prevented the release of a transgenic rice produced by Bayer (the month in which it would be approved by CTNBio) for commercial cultivation in Brazil. As the European market does not accept GM rice, rice farmers and gauchos did not want to lose access to that market at that time held a mobilization so effective that Bayer voluntarily withdrew its application for commercial release before the decision of CTNBio, which surely approve your demand . Well, the largest producer of rice without the use of pesticides in Latin America is a group of established farmers in agrarian reform settlements in Rio Grande do Sul Just this last season they cultivated 3400 hectares and harvested close to 15 tons of rice without the use of pesticides. Note: this is occurring against the grain crop more complex, higher technification and related to the group's most powerful agribusiness gaucho. Therefore, it is evident that it would be more easily achieved in activities more dependent on labor, as in horticulture, in hardwoods, roots and tubers. And it could be done in large crops of lesser sophistication, such as corn and soybeans.

Why does not occur naturally? Because the credit lines, the achievements of the research, transport networks and storage, and agricultural development policy are committed to the proposal of agrochemicals. The national agriculture, being pushed towards a transition to greater reliance on agrochemicals , hinders the maintenance of situations like this, made ​​by agrarian reform in RS. Ali, the organization and coordination of family farmers, with support from MDA, win allowed limitations that are insurmountable for family farmers considered separately.

So the answer to that question is simple: always be possible to develop an agriculture alternative to this, which depends on massive external support, which depends on capital-intensive inputs and would not survive without government support. Sufficient that there was availability of credit, research support, marketing support, so that the advantages of clean agriculture became evident to the whole society. The experience of PAA and PNAE have shown such impressive results in the short term, expanding the supply of clean products and strengthening family agriculture, which should be taken into account more seriously by the federal, state and municipal.

IHU on-Line - Why GM seed has been an option / commitment of the Brazilian government?

Leonardo Melgarejo - It's a gamble transnational conveyed through links agribusiness, not the government itself. The change of governments in this field did not bring differences. Cardoso, Lula and Dilma enabled and allow those interests to assert their goals. In other words, I think the government ends up being driven by agribusiness, which defines its strategic choice, and enables through its agents operating inside and outside government. Whether or not political-ideological option of the current government in this model, the significant presence of large farmers in Congress does enhance a game of give and take that interests the predominant model of agriculture. A handful of companies have the technology, its patents and channels of distribution of seeds, pesticides, agricultural machinery and equipment. These companies work together and their strength prevents the government to take independent decisions in dealing with issues affecting them.

The companies that control the market of pesticides also control the seed market, and transgenic seeds are part of technological packages that would not exist without pesticides. Perhaps Bt seeds could be seen as an exception.Loading insecticidal proteins within himself, not would lack the application of insecticides . However, the current crisis of Helicoverpa and the emergence of new pests and pest resistant reality show that insists on questioning that exception.

In the background, something obvious happens: large companies are organized to assert their interests. In representative democracy, it is legitimate to make pressures on countertops, seeking to form their own stands, influencing ｅxpressions of opinion leaders to pressure decision makers placed in key positions, leading the government to take their interests as options for government . There is no doubt about the fact that it is legitimate to seek to achieve their interests. Somehow, everyone does it.

But in this case, the interests of the majority result from inadequately addressed. There is an uneven distribution of ability to influence. There is an unequal contest and a distortion in the ability to access information. This explains layoffs since atAnvisa for criticism regarding administrative procedures benefiting companies such as lack of revaluations of pesticides, such as the distribution of products in Brazil banned elsewhere in the world, the lack of application of labeling of GM products, and the failure trends easing the rules governing biosafety assessments in Brazil, among many examples that seem to indicate that transgenic would be a government option. Actually, what happens is that the options in this field of governance options seem contaminated by agribusiness, which in turn responds to the interests of large corporations. Do not think you can talk on a bet conscious, nationalistic, supporting genetic modification, as the rational choice of the Brazilian government.

IHU on-Line - What are the impacts of the bartering of transgenic seed for the family farm? What changes the perspective of production familiar?

Leonardo Melgarejo - It is something that goes against the interests of the family farm, the arguments already presented. Even those farmers who believe in short-term benefits will be confronted with problems in a few years. The viability of small family farming will be threatened. The contamination of seeds by farmers to replant reserved will be inevitable. Thus, holders of GM technology could charge royalties for the right to use those seeds.

In practice, this incorporation of transgenic seeds to a program to support family farming undertakes this program, placing it in the service of opposing interests. It inversion where the state will sponsor the weakening of the social fabric in the field, now operates in the opposite direction of territorial development policies that emphasize its goal of "rural development with us." The result, in the medium and long term, is predictable. Expansion will bring the minimum viable crops, greater social exclusion, acceleration in the trends of social and environmental erosion, reduction in biodiversity, soil and water, expansion in the use of pesticides, emergency pest resistant Bt protein and tolerant plants herbicides, emergence of new pests, expansion in production costs, and especially the expansion of multinationals and gains in dependency of our economy to its interests.

IHU on-Line - How does the National Policy on Organic Production and Agroecology - PNAPO? What are your limits on the expansion of transgenics in the country? How to understand that on one hand, the Brazilian government supports such initiatives, but on the other, invests massively in pesticides and genetic modification?

Leonardo Melgarejo - This is the result of the demands of society, linked to the maturation of perceptions of government. It is true that it is also about something directly associated with the profile of this government, which appears sensitive to social issues, albeit heavily influenced by interests that contradict. Thus, it is evident that PNAPO and expansion of policies to support agribusiness appear as contradictions that reflect a ministerial composition structured in order to meet a development project and at the same time, ensuring that governance conditions.

In any case, it is known that more incisive action of the government in support of agroecology is old agenda of civil society and rooted in numerous experiments developed for at least three decades in all regions of the country. In fact the government was slow to understand the importance of this demand. And maybe only has met by having been pressured into it, when the subject was marked as non-negotiable priority for the March of Daisies , CONTAG. Every Brazilian society thanks to the action of the women's field, also why. Even the official announcement that there was an intention in order to create a policy to encourage agroecology and organic production had singular repercussion.Allowed that would evidence the tremendous support the theme in different institutions and organizations, motivating period of intense debate in civil society and in various organs of government - the different administrations. In this sense, the emergence of propositions, evidence of diversity issues and alternative proposals put forward (seewww.agroecologia.org.br ), and the mobilization process already constitute important result, which strengthens a transition process which will impact long-term, regardless of the actual results to be recorded in this and next year.

National plan of agroecology and organic production

There is much to advance this field and the national agroecology and organic production, soon to be officially announced, brings good prospects for Brazilian development. It can be stated with emphasis, that the advance is positive, a first step was taken, and he points out a good way. In the future, there will be adjustments and the next versions of the plan surely propose actions more carefully articulated, and that will be addressed most prominently by the Union budget in the present is a great challenge for the management, monitoring and evaluation of policy. That their actions may actually promote changes in the tip, the government should be prepared to make space for ongoing dialogue with civil society in all these steps. Observing the results that emerged naturally in conditions of absence of policies to support agroecology and organic production across the country, I believe we have grounds for a position of optimism in the face of PNAPO.

IHU on-Line - What are today's most challenged GMOs in the country?

Leonardo Melgarejo - I think the most important cases in terms of insecurity at present relate to the fragility of the research supporting the safety information for health and the environment. The major problem is the gap between what science ensures that technology and market places. There is a big gap between what little science says very safely and we offer products that technology derived from that science is putting on the market. The process is almost entirely fueled in the method of trial and error, which is scarce and the number of attempts, and these, most of the errors are not being questioned.

There are many examples. Consider, as an illustration, that most of the pesticides used in covering, in transgenic crops, have neurological and hormonal effects. Therefore, CTNBio foresees the need for nutritional studies involving pregnant animals, involving animals in puberty, menopause, andropause in studies involving animals for two generations, to cover these risks and others associated with reduced fertility and appearance of congenital malformations. However, these studies were not submitted to any of the GMOs cultivated in the country. Assume further that there is an obvious relationship between the genome and the environment, preventing, for example, you plant apple on Amazon or cupuaçu in Serra Gaucha. So CTNBio requires that studies be undertaken in all national biomes.However, until now this was not provided for any of GMOs released for commercial cultivation in Brazil.

Unforeseen

Consider that, under stress conditions, living beings react in unexpected ways and for this reason the transgenic plants can express unforeseen characteristics under climate change under conditions of biotic and abiotic stress, finally, under conditions to be expected in the world real. However, in applications for commercial release all studies are conducted only under controlled conditions, so that the true test will occur after permit commercial cultivation. That, at least would indicate the need for periodic, is irrelevant. There is a picture of reassessment for GM products. A product once released is released forever, or - theoretically - until CTNBio decides otherwise. However, this change in the positions of CTNBio not seem something that can wait. Consider for example the fact that after publication study stating that corn NK603 causes cancer in rats , with or without the presence of the herbicide applied to it in coverage, 14 members and former members of CTNBio requested attention to the problem and recommended revaluations that product. At the same time, five members of CTNBio in activity, requested reconsideration of the decision authorizing its planting by the assumption of no risk, though - at the time of approval - contradicting opinions of representatives of the Ministry of Environment, Land Development, and I'm not mistaken also the Ministry of Health

More than that, the main social organizations representing consumers and family farmers in Brazil, presented the same request. To all these requests CTNBio said no. His decision is that corn NK603 does not deserve re-evaluation and that the study of French scientists, pointing cancer risks to consumers, should be disregarded. Brazilian scientists who voted for this decision even recommend that the study of French scientists should be redone. They do not have doubts, do not question the possibility of progress in knowledge that supported the previous decisions and claim that those evidences should be disregarded.

Perhaps this should be the case most alarming moment. But not the only one. Causes great concern the prospect of planting corn and soybean varieties tolerant to the herbicide 2,4-D, under evaluation by CTNBio, which will certainly be released for commercial cultivation so that appreciation occurs Commission. The decision by a majority of votes are for granted. Cause for concern in the case of transgenic mosquitoes, which currently undergoes field testing in some neighborhoods of northeastern towns. There is little information on GM trees and there are doubts about the validity of decisions taken in respect of products pyramided (involving multiple transgenes). These decisions are doing based on studies performed mostly with transgenic simple, assuming that the crossings will result only additive effects, as in nature the sum of the parts does not amount greater than the whole.

IHU on-Line - You CTNBio attended meetings in the past week. Which topics were on the agenda?

Leonardo Melgarejo - In the last meeting there were several controversial decisions. For example, we discussed the issue of the confidentiality of information that does not relate to genetic constructs, but the agronomic performance oftransgenic crops . There is an understanding among members of the majority, that even the information about the performance of GM crops should be kept confidential. Moreover, the understanding is that all information obtained in the tests should be sensitive. Two years ago this was not so. Since then, the minority opinion grows evidence of side effects and at the same time, fears grow - companies - that disclosure of these effects occur. Possibly, the marketingcampaigns would be harmed by field evidence if it became public knowledge. Thus, some companies ask for secrecy on all or almost all the results of much of their studies. They allege that the registration of new cultivars will only be possible to the extent that all information on these cultivars are sensitive, unknown, completely unreleased. There are cases where even for studies on transgenic production commercially released appear - and approved by the majority - requests for confidentiality of items that a few years ago were accepted trivial and without access restriction. Surprising that today, in full observance of the transparency law, the same type of information as distinct receive treatment.

Also discussed was the issue of monitoring. It is known that studies prior to commercial release are developed in beds and greenhouses under controlled conditions. Thus, it becomes obvious that the commercial release brings new risks associated with the large scale planting. In this sense, monitoring is a clear need. Well, for the monitoring to be effective, the minority believes that they should be evaluated simple assumptions: that kind of problem can occur in the planting scale? Under what conditions he would be more likely? Locations where it would be more likely to occur? How could he be perceived? Would be in its early stages? Who would collect the information and analyzes that should be performed?

Monitoring

Basically, the minority want the monitoring to answer simple questions like, "What?" "Where?" "How?" "When?". Also intends that there is a network of observers attend to these aspects. Now, the majority believes that the proposals submitted by the monitoring companies, which are limited to fluctuations in evaluating the effectiveness of technology suffice. They essentially propose to put an answering service to clients for collection - by phone - complaints, monitor events technical specialized literature and systems of health problem, among other things of the same nature nonspecific. Incidentally, they also propose the application of questionnaires to a very limited number of farmers, but do not specify which questions will be asked, as the answers will be analyzed, as farmers will be selected, which the representativeness of the sample etc..

To make the situation even more complex, companies are asking - and getting the support of most members of CTNbio - authorization to suspend the monitoring of transgenic simple pyramided containing the same transgene. At the last meeting approved the replacement of monitoring maize MIR162 corn BT11xMIR162xGA21 for monitoring. The dissenting votes argued that "by failing to follow the event unique is lost opportunity to identify their specific impacts.Possible problems associated with the identification pyramided will require further studies to isolate associated protein damage. This means, from the point of view of MIR 162, we will be faced with delaying the identification of causes, as later studies seek information that would be available a priori, by monitoring the MIR162. Accepting replacement, CTNBio waive relevant information. Procrastination identifying emerging problems may have important implications for producers and consumers. The crisis of Helicoverpa with losses that exceed R $ 2 Billion could have been avoided if there was effective monitoring program identified its emergence in the early period. "

These arguments were overcome - the vote - on the other, which basically stated the following: the transgene contained in the MIR 162 is also contained in pyramided, so just monitor the latter. The obvious fact that the identification of problems in pyramided will require further studies, involving postponement of fixes and losses that monitoring should avoid, was despised.

There is another agenda being crafted by firms and respect to the introduction of new transgenic crops in the market, such as sugarcane, sorghum, orange and eucalyptus. Currently being created rules for field testing of these crops, which are necessary steps to commercialization. If we take the example soybean, corn and cotton, experience shows that these thousands of experiments, especially in the center-south of the country, generated very little data on the potential impacts of these modified plants on the environment and on health. So far there is no indication that the picture will change to these new species. As concerns this case, we expect sad that should be repeated the trend data generation agronomic interest of companies, but they offer little or no utility for analysis of biosecurity, which - after all - correspond to the ratio of be CTNBio.

IHU on-Line - As the transgene is being discussed around the world and how Brazil fits in this discussion?

Leonardo Melgarejo - There are contradictory approaches. On one side there is unanimity on the importance of scientific and potential of genetic engineering for the future of humanity. On the other hand, there is a great divide on the results obtained to date. How about 99.9% of transgenic crops grown worldwide correspond to plants that have been genetically modified to achieve bathing herbicide without dying, or to produce toxic proteins that are present in all their cells, the division of opinion is justified. It shows that the genetic transformations so far available are not associated with productivity gains, the expansion in the ability to withstand water stress, or qualification in protein and vitamins cultivated plants. They just try to expand the market and maximize gains in disputes companies that control the market of agrochemicals.

Furthermore, there is a great divide the world, as the potential risks of this technology. That's because the scientific underpinning of transgenic products are slower than their effective dispersion. Little is known about the risks. There is no monitoring, or at least there is no information on the monitoring of these products, even after fifteen years of commercial release in various places on the planet. Studies attest security are made by companies or associated companies. Independent studies, which indicate problems are rejected and are not disqualified and remade by public institutions.

The EU avoids the commercial planting of GM crops , but admits its import. Does this because the main exporters do not have sufficient supply of unmodified grains. Why not have? Because the same companies that control pesticide control seeds, while small seedlings and seeds alternatives are disappearing from the market. In addition, the planet seeds are controlled by farmers contaminated. The lack of independent circuits, segregating genetically modified crops and non-GM grain, makes this inevitable. Huge oligopolies and joints not well explained between regulators and the streamlining decisions for commercial release, coupled with policies that facilitate the expansion of transgenic and restrict alternative possibilities, are the foundation of this reality. This is only evidence that although treated as technical issue, this issue is essentially economic and responds only to political decisions. The interface technique is very limited, because the shortcomings of the technology and the limited advances in the science fully justify, indeed require, from the perspective of the dominant interests.

There is still another perspective, discussed on a global scale. This, what is at stake is life itself. It is from this perspective that the seeds are the patrimony of humanity, can not be patented because it means accepting that life can be treated as a commodity. There are also other issues and focuses on discussion. For example, the question of the fragility of the evaluation procedures, the need for labeling, traceability and monitoring of consumption. There are also difficulties in reaching agreement on liability and compensation for damage, the measurement of environmental impacts and health, among others. As Brazil belongs to these issues? Of a subordinate. One of the most recurrent arguments presented by most in CTNBio is: this product has already been released in the U.S. or Argentina, or Canada, or in all of them.

IHU on-Line - Want to add something?

Leonardo Melgarejo - The subject of GMOs, I can only reiterate what has been said in the minority CTNBio: evidence contrary to the optimistic expectations associated with the expansion of transgenic products. But even so, we hope, in the interest of all, most that fears nothing, those who completely trust this technology, they are right, they're right. In the interest of the majority, considering the mechanisms at work, we will be great, the minority that insists on the Precautionary Principle, is wrong. Therefore, in this dispute and in these circumstances, root for them, cheered for our opponents.

I want to add other information. Last week I was in Sixth Seminar State Agroecology, which attracted more than 2500 people in Pinhalzinho, Far West SC. People from more than 220 municipalities in various regions of Santa Catarina and other states, traveling on their own to discuss agroecology. That alone would reveal the importance of the event, which at its conclusion reaffirms a common goal: "to build and foster a system of sustainable agriculture for the whole human community based on the principles of agroecology." It is no small thing: meetings on transgenics are subsidized, participants receive daily and giveaways, and especially have limited participation.

Seminar in Santa Catarina, participants wrote a document in which conclusively point as fundamental to the existence of public subsidies for expansion of agroecological production, directed to farmers in transition, where the goal would be to move away from a production agrochemical. They also denounced the use of science and politics in the service of private interests that undermine biodiversity on the planet, noting that the standards and practice of CTNBio are vulnerable to commercial interests, threatening biosecurity and the precautionary principle.

Finally, on the issue of inclusion of transgenic seeds in exchange-exchange program , they say: "We reject the subsidy for the purchase of GM seeds through public programs such as exchange-trade program, the government of the state of Santa Catarina" and ask "Incorporation of seedlings and seeds and agroecological Creole in exchange programs, exchange and distribution of seeds." Agree with farmers in Santa Catarina. I realize that they are more advanced than us, this dispute is in everyone's interest. In fact, we have much to learn from them.

http://www.ihu.unisinos.br/entrevistas/520591-a-transgenia-esta-mudando-para-pior-a-realidade-agricola-brasileira-entrevista-especial-com-leonardo-melgarejo