Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
New Rules In Mexico Pave the Way for Transgenic Crops
MEXICO CITY - After a three-year-long process, Mexico is about to clear the way for legal cultivation of transgenic crops, in spite of resistance from environmentalists and several small farmer associations.
The Rules for the 2005 Biosafety Law on Genetically Modified Organisms were published Wednesday, and by the end of this year a national biosafety system and special guidelines for experimental sowing of transgenic maize will be in place.
According to some scientists and the government, constructing this legal edifice was appropriate and necessary, as in their view it ensures legality and regulates the study, experimental planting, and potential sale of genetically modified (GM) crops.
Trangenic organisms are modified in the laboratory by introducing genes from other plant or animal species, in order to improve their characteristics, such as yield or resistance to environmental conditions.
In the natural environment, GM crops can cross-fertilise with wild, native species or traditional hybrids and alter their genes, which environmentalists call "genetic pollution."
There is no conclusive evidence about the health effects of consuming foods containing GM ingredients, although there have been a few cases of health problems.
Environmentalists and several campesino (small farmer) groups say that Mexico could pay a high price if the wealth of its biodiversity were adversely affected by the release of transgenic crops.
Aleira Lara, the coordinator of Greenpeace Mexico's sustainable agriculture campaign, told IPS that the entire regulatory framework is designed to promote biotechnology at the expense of the precautionary principle. "The Rules are one more step in that direction," she said. The precautionary principle advocates avoiding the possibility of harm to the environment or human health, by prohibiting actions when doubts remain about their safety.
Environmentalists refer to the Mexican biosafety law as the "Monsanto Law", after the U.S. biotech giant that is the world leader in transgenic seed production, which has publicly backed the legislation.
Miguel Colunga, leader of the Democratic Campesino Front of Chihuahua, a state in northern Mexico, says his country "is still in time to reverse" the authorisation of GM crops.
"Transgenic crops are not safe, and we will lose our sovereignty, because the GM seeds belong to just a few transnational corporations," Colunga told IPS.
Using seeds patented by companies like Monsanto forces farmers to buy seed every planting season, paying the corporations each time, and puts an end to thousands of years of the traditional practice of saving the best seeds from the harvest to use for the next sowing.
The Biosafety Law on Genetically Modified Organisms, with its 124 articles, 33 pages and dozens of footnotes, and the 64 articles and 30 pages of Rules that accompany it, lay the basis for biotechnological research and create monitoring mechanisms for importing GM products and growing GM crops.
They also establish the intention of confronting the potential negative environmental impacts of GM organisms, while benefiting from their presumed advantages. The scheme under which transgenic crops will be authorised to enter Mexico is "case by case, and step by step."
The Biosafety Law and its Rules are adequate, because they ensure and guarantee that what happened in Brazil will not happen in Mexico, Luis Herrera, a renowned Mexican biotechnologist, told IPS.
The Brazilian government accepted GM crops after discovering that they were already being grown, illegally and without prior research, he pointed out.
The Mexican regulations will allow experiments and assessments to be carried out, to establish with certainty the safety of planting GM maize, soybean, cotton or any other transgenic crop, said Herrera, who is avowedly in favour of the technology.
The scientist, who along with other researchers produced the first transgenic plant at the University of Ghent, Belgium, in 1983, is now the director of the National Laboratory of Genomics for Diversity at the state Centre for Research and Advanced Studies.
Limited trials of transgenic potatoes, squash, papaya, soybean and other crops have been carried out experimentally in Mexico over the past few years, without any clear rules to regulate them.
The main concern of opponents of GM crops is the possibility that transgenic maize will be introduced and released in the country, an action which has been expressly prohibited by law since 1999.
One of the transitory rules attached to the biosafety law stipulates that by May 19 specific regulations should be drawn up to define where and how experiments may be carried out with GM maize.
The possibility that transgenic maize may be grown in Mexico, even on an experimental basis, raises hackles among opponents of GM foods. Maize is the staple food in Mexico, where it was domesticated 9,000 years ago, and is of immense cultural value.
"We are hoping that Mexico as a whole will be declared the centre of origin of maize, so that experiments and cultivation of GM maize are banned in the country," said Greenpeace activist Lara.
Mexico produces about 20 million tonnes of maize a year, on an area of 8.5 million hectares. Over three million local campesinos, most of whom are poor, grow maize using native seeds, or seeds that have been improved by methods other than genetic manipulation. There are dozens of sub-species of maize.
IPS was informed by official sources that the authorities and their advisers intend to allow experiments with transgenic maize to be carried out in the north of the country, where there is less biodiversity, and the connection between farmers and maize is not as strong.
In addition, campesino associations in the states along the border with the United States have been asking for several years to be allowed to grow GM maize, on the grounds that it is the only way they can compete in the marketplace with U.S. farmers.
"It's a myth that transgenic crops are more productive. Here in Chihuahua, many of us grow hybrid maize (improved by traditional techniques) and we can prove that it's better than the transgenic kind," said Colunga, of the Democratic Campesino Front.
"We can modernise our farming with our own maize. It's safe, it doesn't harm the environment, and it doesn't make us dependent on Monsanto or other companies," he said.
These companies take legal action against those who use their seeds without contracts and payments.
The companies state that GM crops do not harm the environment and are suitable in every way, and millions of hectares all over the world are now planted with transgenic crops.
However, there are documented examples of potentially dangerous GM maize. In the United States, Starlink maize was withdrawn from the market in 2000 after consumers experienced allergic reactions.
And transgenic MON-863 maize, belonging to Monsanto, which was authorised for human consumption in Mexico, harmed rats in experiments, according to a confidential report by the company itself which was made public in 2005 by a court order.
In 2007, the worldwide area sown with transgenic crops amounted to 114.3 million hectares, "benefiting 12 million farmers," according to a report by the International Service for Acquisitions of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a U.S. not-for-profit organisation that promotes GM crops.
Less than 20 years ago, the area sown with transgenic crops was insignificant.
In the U.S. where, unlike in Mexico, transgenic maize as well as traditional varieties are grown, maize occupies 32 million hectares and production is over 300 million tonnes a year, 15 times more than in Mexico.
Mexico imports large quantities of maize from the United States to make up for the deficit in its own production. GM maize is included in these purchases, and the authorities do nothing to prevent it, environmentalists complain.
If the deadlines are met, by the end of 2008 trials of transgenic maize will be under way, which is good news, Monsanto spokesman David Carpintero told the Reforma newspaper.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


19 Comments so far
Show AllLi-an - Science never proves anything. It provides evidence. You can believe the hype, or you can believe the science. Its your choice. Many on this site choose to believe the hype.
Mr. Obvious said...
It is too bad that the poor people of Mexico have been denied this technology by neo-pagans. They do not have the luxury of sitting by their computers spouting philosophical mumbo jumbo. They need food, not an eco-latte. While we wax philosophically, children go hungy. It is criminal.
----------------------
Mr. Obvious cares nothing about starving Mexicans. His only concern is to fatten the profits of Monsanto. Mr. Obvious, you can go to Mexico and donate your time and money helping out on a Mexican farm if your concern is genuine. I'm sure they'd appreciate your assistance. Or are YOU too busy sitting at your computer drinking latte and doing G-d knows what else??
If you really want to help poor Mexican farmers start by lobbying Congress to overturn NAFTA. The Mexican people will do just fine without the Frankenstein corn you're pushing on them.
Mr. Obvious, your sh*t don't sell at this website. Try peddling it to those with an IQ lower than corn cob:
"The biotech companies are not charitable institutions which could not save the world population from starvation even if they wanted to because the Third World cannot afford their very expensive and potentially destructive GM technology driven by the profit motive. Unfortunately, in this world of ours most people, politicians and industrialists only notice the consequences of economic, ecological and health problems created by human greed when they turn into disasters. Let us hope that when such a disaster resulting from genetic modification will surely come, it will be small enough that humanity will still be able to recover from it".
- Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute
>>We have found many examples of this kind of data comparison that are incomparable and make look scientific, and is the same disguise tactics used in the application for approval of Roundup Ready Soybean by Monsanto in Japan.
The results by CDC and EPA may not assure the Cry9C protein in StarLink corn has no allergenicity.
Masaharu Kawata
j46033a@nucc.cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Assistant Professor, School of Science, Nagoya University, Japan<<
http://www.biotech-info.net/CDC_questions.html
The most insidious aspect of all of this is the way in which Monsanto's illegally planted GMO crops become 'facts on the ground' in places like Brasil, providing a foot in the door to later wide-spread planting. The result has been a blanketing of Brasil (and Paraguay and Argentina as well) with GMO soy. With wind pollinated crops like corn/maize, the situation is even worse. Once the first stuff is planted, it spreads really quickly and uncontrollably. Let's hope that, at the very least, Mexicans will keep GMO maize outside their borders.
The article alleges health problems with GM maize. For example, it says that people had allergies to StarLink. This is false. Allegations of allergies were all investigated by the CDC and found without substance. Hybrid corn has thousands of genes foriegn to the maize land races grown in mexico, while GM corn has one or two foriegn genes. It is too bad that the poor people of Mexico have been denied this technology by neo-pagans. They do not have the luxury of sitting by their computers spouting philosophical mumbo jumbo. They need food, not an eco-latte. While we wax philosophically, children go hungy. It is criminal.
"... it is my considered judgement that the evidence to date, in its entirety, indicates there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods and that some of them could be quite dangerous. Further, in the absence of reliable toxicological tests, it is not possible to determine which of these new foods are dangerous and which are not."
Philip J. Regal, Ph.D. Professor in the College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, USA; internationally renowned expert on the genetics of plants.
Very mature and considered comments. I am glad you are supporting Pusztai. He needs your help after being fired because of falsefying results. Why don't you point to single piece of evidence showing that GM crops are not safe? Don't get fancy and spew lots of garbage. Pick your most compelling evidence, and we will see if it holds weight or is just more neo-paganism. Careful, because I am actually familiar with the facts and the studies involved, so pick your very best evidence.
What world do you live in??
I don't have to prove that that your Frankenstein food is harmful. You have to prove it isn't. Show me conclusive, published, peer reviewed work proving it's safe for human consumption and the environment.
It's not my maturity that's in question, it's your morality.
''We simply do not have enough reliable scientific evidence on their safety to be able to make a valid decision as to whether there are potential health effects or not.''
Charles Saunders, chairman of the British Medical Association's public health committee
---------------------
"The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into."
Professor Philip James (author of the "James" report on the structure and functions of the proposed UK Food Standards Agency to oversee national food safety standards), Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, on genetically engineered food.
---------------------
"Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in Genetically Modified Foods."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition and formerly an ardent advocate of food biotechnology (A year earlier Dr Chesson chaired the audit committee which ruled there was no evidence to support Dr Pusztai's claims on the toxicity of GM potatoes).
--------------------
"These findings demonstrate the fragmentary nature of current knowledge of genome structure and function and regulation of gene expression in general, and the limited understanding of several physiological, ecological, agronomical and toxicological aspects relevant to present-day and planned genetic modifications of crops"
Plant Research International (No. 12) 70 pp, 2000
---------------------
he scientific case put forward for this GM maize is not adequate. If the GM maize was approved for commercial growing in the UK then people would be justified in turning their back on consuming milk derived from it. As a scientist I wouldn't drink milk from cows fed GM maize with the present state of knowledge."
Professor Bob Orskov, director of the International Feed Resource Unit in Aberdeen, Scotland at UK MAFF hearings in London, October 2000, concerning proposals to allow Aventis's GM forage maize, Chardon LL onto the National Seed List.
----------------------
"Why don't we require a pharmaceutical type analysis of the safety of these foods with proper trials?"
Jack Cunningham, UK cabinet minister with overall responsibility for biotechnology, raising a variety of issues in relation to GM crops and food in a leaked internal memo to one of his civil servants, February 1999
----------------------
"But we realize that with any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable - by definition - effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than that, of
public debate and public interest."
Bob Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto, admitting that the effects of genetic engineering are unknown and "to some degree" unknowable (SWF News interview, San Francisco, 27 October 1998).
---------------------
"We're in a crisis position where we know the weaknesses of the genetic concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don't want to look at it because it's too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure it out."
Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley
--------------------
"Next time you hear a scientist asserting that gene splicing is safe, remind yourself that there is no scientific evidence for that statement. We are profoundly ignorant about what we are doing to the code that generates all life. And unfortunately some scientists, including those entrusted with public safety, are willing to lie".
Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.
cygnusx1isahole - Show me conclusive, published, peer reviewed work proving organic produce is safe? The proof is provided to government regulators around the world. Even in Europe the scientific bodies agree that GM crops are safe. It is the politicians that are overriding the scientific bodies and imposing bans. There are now thousands of studies showing the safety of GM crops. They appear in scientific journals, not the National Enquirer. The morality of preventing environmentally more beneign technology from gaining even greater adoption is criminal. The stupidity of do-gooders kills people every day. Guess you were smart enough not to try to press any of the lies in your previous posts. Still waiting for you to pick out one safety issue that you feel is supported by evidence - just one.
It seems to be the scientists who are the ones raising questions. Gene splicing is very tricky and not exact at all. Gene splicing is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes. These splices are approximate insertions. Since a protein sequence is specified by a segment of DNA called a gene, novel versions of that protein can be produced by changing the DNA sequence of the gene. But nobody knows how that will affect a given organism or a human or animal that consumes it. Nor can they tell if closely related "weeds" could become worst pests from cross pollenation. Nor can they tell if the wind cross pollenation of crops such as corn (maize) could adversely damage other crops. In the early '70s a blight on corn in the US became a near-disaster only averted by going to Mexico to find heirloom maize that could be crossed to make the corn blight-resistant. What happens when there is no heirloom bank to go back to? And that is just the corn. Monsanto has developed a number of Roundup-resistant plants now. That means that farmers can use this poison on the crops and weeds, destroying the weeds and leaving the crops standing. What happens when some weeds develop resistance as is inevitable? What about the farmers. This is all done so that the farmers will need to buy more Roundup. Check out the cotton farmers in India thousands of whom committed suicide on Roundup because they were losing everything. Then there is the old way of farming where seeds are saved from one year to the next. With GM seeds, corporate ownership demands purchase of new seeds every year making farming far less profitable. Then there are the seeds that have been deliberately modified so that new seeds are sterile solely for the purpose of forcing the farmers to return to purchase more seed. Any which way one looks at this, GM seeds or any seeds patented by corporations such as Monsanto has done with ALL the heirloom crops of Iraq for that matter are disasters in the making.
The problem with all this corporate power is the perverse way they make every decision. The facts are not important. Long term corporate profits are ignored, that is why so many corporations go broke. No way Enron or Bear Sterns management was in for the long term. Even short term profits are sometimes ignored. This is why executives get stock options rather than take their pay partially in stock. If they destroy the company they still walk away with big money.
Facts are that many executives are not skilled enough to be reasonably sure of making profits. They take theirs first and use nepotism and personal gain to make all the business decisions for the company. Note how the number of useless executive spawn that get management positions in customer and supplier businesses.
And we wonder why the bee colonies are dying and we are losing so many bird, insect and plant species?
... why cancer and other lethal diseses are showing up in our human population so strongly?
One word: Greed.
urthsong - Gene isertion using molecular techniques is far more precise than traditional breeding. This has been shown repeatedly by examining the stability of transgenes vs. natuaral genes. All the scientific evidence demonstrates this. The 70's corn blight is a great example of why GM is superiour to breeding. The susceptable germplasm responsible for this blight was unwittingly brough along with beneficial genes by breeders. Had they used GM technology, this would not have happened. The Mexican land-race lines of maize have co-existed with modern germplasm for a century and a few new genes from GM will have a negligable effect compared to the 50,000 genes in modern hybrids. Weeds will develop resistance to any herbicide used extensively on crops, and this includes RoundUp. This is not a risk, it is a certainty. Pest evolve to get around our defenses. Corn rootworms have even evolved to thwart crop rotation. One speceies lays eggs that don't hatch for two years awaiting the return of corn, while another species lays its eggs in fall in the rotational crop awaiting the planting of corn the next year. There is nothing special about GM crops that prevents or encourages this more or less than other technologies, although many believe that IRM requirements may make Bt crops more durable than insecticides. The India suicides are sad and predate GM, but GM cotton is helping and adoption in this country is increadible. The government and universities in India are hurrying to catch up to Monsanto so that their people can use this beneficial technology. However, there are plenty of non-GM seed around for those who want it. As with others, you point to the fable of sterile seed. This technology was developed by the USDA and was never used, not once. You are misinformed.
shakker - You sum the general philosophy of many of the posters "The facts are not important".
Cee Miracles - Habitat destruction is the number one cause of species loss. Agriculture is by its nature distruptive to the environment. We remake the ecology to produce food and fiber for humans. The answer is to concentrate farming on as few acres as possible using intensive farming practices and leave the rest in naural habitats. Since we have 90% of our farm in natural habitat, we have never had trouble with pollination on our high-intensity vegetable operation. When the exotic honey bee populations have crashed, native bees have taken over. However, we now have at least three wild honey bee hives on our farm. Introduced species, like honey bees in North America, are always a risk to the environment.
GM is not the enemy. In fact the fear of this technology has helped Monsanto maintain a monopoly by generating a registration system that only a huge company can afford, and which only allows for this technology to applied only to widely planted crops that will return sufficient profit to repay the registration costs. The attitudes often expressed here help Monsanto continue to rule the roost.
Yes, indeed, it is NOT up to people opposed to corporations F*CKING with OUR FOOD to prove anything about GMO; it is up to the corporations wanting to F*CK with Nature to PROVE that whatever is being done and/or proposed by the corporation, solely, ALWAYS solely for its profiteering agendas, is safe and acceptable.
Corporations are NEVER to be granted any power over the govt of 'WE THE PEOPLE'; else what we have is corporatism, which is related to fascism. And any schmuck who wishes to pretend that it is okay to do this with the U.S. govt is what? TRAITOR.
On these bases, schmucks wanting to get OUR govts to allow F*CKING with OUR foods need to climb back up their ass*s where they came from, and to take Monsanto et al along on the journey; and then make like they never existed.
Otherwise, patriotic people may legitimately consider it a duty to clean their country of these corruptors. Who knows, maybe another Joan of Arc sort of patriot; one who took people, elistists F*CKING with her country a "little" to heart.
Humanity did very well before imperialist West corporations began F*CKING up this world, and every day is more than an appropriate time for this corruption, genocidal in too many cases, to CEASE. Nature, figuratively speaking, is FAR WISER, and all we essentially need is there to be discovered.
Mike - Sounds like you need a nap