Regulation, consequences and conflicts over the introduction of GMO in Brazil

Seminararbeit

in der LehrveranstaltungAusgewählte Kapitel

der Agrar- Ethno- und Kulturökologie(Christian R. Vogl)

SS 2008

Panagiotopoulos Nikolaos, 0741413, Erasmus

Fassung: 30/6/2008

1

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................2

1.INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................31.2. The advantages and disadvantages of GMO...............................................................41.3. Definition and history of GMO........................................................................................51.4. Presenting the aim/ research questions of the paper............................................6

2.METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................7

3.RESULTS..................................................................................................................83.1.1 History of GMO in Brazil.................................................................................................83.1.2 Regulation enforcements over GMO in Brazil.........................................................83.1.3. Brazil’s policy towards GMO and exploitation of transgenic technology.....93.2.1 The issue of insufficient knowledge concerning GMO in Brazil.....................113.2.2 The paradox of Brazilian agriculture and its consequences...........................113.3.1 NGO challenges against authorities regulating GMO experimentation and use.................................................................................................................................................. 133.3.2 Confusion and conflicts between Brazilian authorities in the debate over GMO............................................................................................................................................... 143.3.3 Activism and the arguments of activists against GMO.......................................143.3.4 The case of Rio Grande do Sul’ government policy towards GMO.................15

4.DISCUSSION/ EPILOGUE.....................................................................................174.1 Challenges ahead for the Brazilian authorities and technology providers.. .17

5.SUMMARY..............................................................................................................20

REFERENCES

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my family for their support and my friends-especially Evan,

Pistolis and Vik-who have helped me and inspired me in various ways. Moreover I

would like to express my deepest gratitude to my brother and my friend Theo for their

insightful comments throughout the process of writing this paper.

ABBREVIATIONS

ANVISA: National Agency for Health and Surveillance of the Ministry of Health

APIA: Brazil’s Food Association

CTNB: National Biosafety Technical Commission

CVS: Sao Paulo’s Public Health authority

DPV: Department of Plant Production

GMO: Genetically Modified Organisms

GMP: GMO Guidelines Project

IDEC: Brazilian Consumer’s Association

IOBC: International Organization of Biological Control

MST: Brazil’s Landless Movement

NGO: Non-Governmental Organizations

PT: Worker’s Party

RGS: Rio Grande do Sul

3

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

As humanity entered the 21st century, issues of utmost importance like

overpopulation and poor nutrition of a great percentage of human population became

extremely prominent. Food systems, which encompass the whole range of food

production and consumption, including the manufacture of agricultural inputs,

farming, food processing, food distribution, food marketing, food retailing, and

consumption, are challenged to keep pace with the rising needs for increased

production. Due to the continuous rising of human population, the excessive

consumption by rich countries and the unfair distribution and exploitation of natural

resources globally, poverty and food insecurity arise as threats for the human

population. One proposed measure to deal with these problems could be

contemporary biotechnology, especially in the developing poorer countries where

starvation is a major threat. Since there have been counterarguments regarding the

actual benefits deriving from genetically modifying stample foods, it is necessary to

conduct an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages stemming from this

particular technology.

1.2. The advantages and disadvantages of GMO

Advanced biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques provided ability to

scientists to exploit and manipulate genetic resources, in order to create improved

crop plants. Over the last fifteen years, conventional crops are being improved via

genetical modification for reasons such as: greater nutritional value, longer shelf life

and of course improved agronomic characteristics like insect/pest resistance and

herbicide tolerance (Singh et al., 2006). Thus, through the improvement of these

characteristics would reduce the costs for farmers as well as the prices for

consumers. Furthermore, GMO can be used for producing drugs and vaccines, i.e.,

plant-derived edible vaccines (Mor et al., 1998; in Oda et al., 2000). Since their

introduction many millions of people have consumed food deriving from GM plants

such as soybean, maize and oilseed rape and up to now no verifiable toxic,

allergenic or nutritionally deleterious effects stemming from this consumption have

been discovered globally (Craig et al., 2007).

4

On the other hand, there are fears concerning the safety and stability of plants that

have been genetically modified, because a series of problems could derive from the

implementation of genetic engineering on plants (Singh et al., 2006). GMO use can

have a great impact on biodiversity because they can increase invasiveness and

weediness of crop plants against the traditional ones. Moreover regarding food safety

GMO use poses a potential threat of introducing harmful or allergenic proteins into

the food. In addition from a political and social point of view, GM crops do not offer

many possibilities for the world’s poor farmers, because until today present GM crop

technology is being designed for regions that have been adopting in the past, highly

capitalized, large scale industrial farming (Hall et al., 2007). Furthermore the problem

of seed dependency of farmers to multinationals adds up to the list of disadvantages,

having socioeconomic consequences. Further explanation about GMO and a

definition is needed, in order to fully understand the nature of these products of

human intervention into nature’s patterns.

1.3. Definition and history of GMO

The literature defines “genetically modified crop plants as containing artificially

inserted gene(s) or transgenes from another unrelated plant or from a completely

different species via genetic engineering techniques” (Pereira 2000, Bock and Khan

2004; in Singh, et al., 2006). With the use of different approaches and methods many

varieties of GM crops have been developed and managed to receive an approval for

both environmental and commercial use mostly in the United States, Argentina,

Canada and elsewhere. Transgenic plants can be generated using following various

different methods:

“ (1) The biolistic technique where in the desired gene is coated on to either gold or

tungsten particles are shot into plant cells using a gene – gun (Cho et al. 2004; Allen

et al. 2005). The necessary criterion for this is that cells or plant tissues should be

suitable for transformation permit regeneration of a whole plant thereafter.

(2) The other major gene transfer technique makes use of the soil bacterium

Agrobacterium tumefaciens, containing a tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid including

virulence (vir) gene(s) and a transferred-DNA (T-DNA) region, in which genes of

5

interest can be inserted “(Gelvin 2005; Broothaerts et al. 2005; in Singh et al., 2006:

599).

GMO have a short history. It was in 1994 when the first-generation crop technology

pack was available in the United States market by Monsanto (Jepson, 2002). It had a

big commercial success in the USA due to its great acceptance from farmers.

Herbicide-tolerant transgenic crops were introduced for commercial production and in

2001 over 80% of the cultivated GM crop areas were herbicide resistant crops. In

2004 the total area of GM crop production was more than 80 million hectares in a

global scale with products such as: soya, canole, maize and cotton (Watanabe et al.,

2005). The characteristic of the first generation of GM crops was resistance to pests,

herbicides and insecticides, while now continuous genetic modification, a new suite

of technologies is being offered along with the potential benefits and risks to a large

number of various stakeholders. In European Union countries however consumers

and governments faced with scepticism and many times with sharp opposition GMO.

It was for this reason that the large-scale multinationals, which operate in the

agricultural business, focused their strategies in target countries in which large-scale

agricultural sectors are relatively free of governmental control. Latin America’s

countries were appropriate for their policies, with Argentina being already a major

participant and Brazil being a primary target country, due to the fact that is the

second exporter of soybean products in a world scale, not to mention that Brazil is

the largest nation geographically in Latin America. Since Brazil is a very important

country in the worldwide GMO production, it is necessary to go more in depth in the

history and current reality of GM crops.

1.4. Presenting the aim/ research questions of the paper

In this paper the aim was to provide the reader with information regarding the GMO

experimentation and further use in Brazil. Regulation, conflicts over GMO and the

socioeconomic consequences of transgenic technology implementation in Brazil was

chosen as the focal point of this essay. While the critical importance that GMO has

for Brazilian society served as an inspirational issue, an attempt was made to shed

light on the current situation of agriculture in Brazil as well as on the problems and

potential benefits that derive from the introduction of GMO in Brazil.

The research questions that were chosen for this essay were initially general and

then more specialized. The research questions are the following ones:

6

1. What are GMO and what is the story of it globally and in Brazil especially?

2. How GMO are regulated in Brazil?

3. Which problems occurred after the introduction of GM technology in Brazil?

4. What were the reactions in Brazil concerning GMO applications?

Explaining the nature of GMO and the history of it globally and in Brazil especially

was one of the focus points. Consequently, attention was given in representing the

problems and the potential benefits that derive from the introduction of new

agricultural technologies in Brazil. Regulation mechanisms over GMO were

examined in deep, while at the same time civil society’s reactions could not be left

without analyzing. After researching in the case of GMO introduction in Brazil the

following conclusions were made:

There is a conflict between authorities responsible for regulating GMO

applications in a state and federal level.

It is necessary to create a platform under which all the administrative and

regulatory bodies will operate and interact without further conflicts.

There is a great challenge for the technology providers to fairly distribute new

knowledge over new agricultural technologies in such a way that nobody is

excluded.

In the northern part of Brazil social welfare must be the primary target and not

export oriented policies.

The federal government and institutions should encourage the continuation of

traditional farming techniques, like seed breeding, because in this way

farmers are protected from the danger of seed dependency on multinationals.

This paper will investigate the complexities of GM production in Brazil in order to

come up with a framework of understanding that will present the problems deriving

from introducing transgenic technology in Brazil.

2.METHODOLOGY

The process of obtaining the data for answering my research questions was difficult

in the beginning. In the end though, using electronic databases-in which I had access

through the homepage of the library of BOKU- was much more convenient because I

7

was not restricted regarding the time I wanted to research but as well the place.

Databases like Scopus and Science Direct provided me with most of the required

data. For literature, I used mostly articles and I read as well the Cartagena Protocol

on Biosafety, which I found on the homepage of The Convention on Biological

Diversity.

After having selected my research questions, it was a matter of organizing my data in

such a way I could correlate and combine because my subject had many different

aspects. I must definitely acknowledge the helpful feedback I received during the

monthly seminar meetings, by my professor Christian Vogl and of course from my

colleagues. This feedback was of utter importance, since this is the first essay I had

so far for which I had to research to obtain my data.

3.RESULTS

This chapter will try to explain the history and the current situation of GMO in Brazil.

Moreover an effort was made to shed light on the regulation over GMO mechanisms

and on the consequences and conflicts that derived after the introduction of GMO in

Brazil.

3.1.1 History of GMO in Brazil

The introduction of GMOs in Brazilian agriculture however was very complicated.

Some of the major issues were the differences between a great number of different

stakeholders and regulation problems that occurred.

In 1998 Monsanto requested permission from the Brazilian government to

commercialize its Roundup Ready resistant soybeans (Jepson, 2002). This created a

series of conflicts between regulatory bodies, activisms groups and individual

farmers, over the matters of biosafety and biodiversity regarding the release of

GMOs in the environment. It is a fact that GM soya production offered huge

possibilities for Brazilian agriculture and therefore for the national economy. At the

same time the multinationals’ systematic pressure over the federal government was

intense (Oda et al., 2000). Despite these facts, the Brazilian courts with the support

8

of state-governments, individual politicians and activism groups countermanded the

initial acceptance of Monsanto’s request. Furthermore, Brazilian courts enforced a

five year moratorium on the production of GMOs for commercial reasons and the

release of GMOs in the environment everywhere in the country. Regarding regulation

over biosafety, it was back in 1995 when the Brazilian goverment passed the

Biosafety Law (Law 8974 of January 1995 and Decree 1752/95) and through this law

the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNB) was formed (Fontes 2003).

This law regulates clauses I and IV of the 1st paragraph of artcile 255 of Brazil’s

Federal Constitution, regulates the usage of genetic engineering techniques and the

delivery of genetically modified organisms in the environment.

3.1.2 Regulation enforcements over GMO in Brazil

The CTNB is a body consisting of the goverment’s administrators, specialists and

representatives from the industrial sector (Monsanto and Novartis). Small farmers

union, environmental groups and other civil society agents are excluded from the

CTNB. The CTNB supervises and regulates over the experimentation, registration,

use, transportation, storage, liberation and waste removal of GM materials.

Especially in the case of edible GMO products, they must also be regulated under

the food safety provisions formulated by ANVISA, the National Agency for Health and

Surveillance of the Ministry of Health (ibid).

Six years after its foundation, the CTNB had certified 165 institutions working on

biotechnology and between 1997 and January 2001, it approved 942 experiments of

GM maize (761), cotton (88), soybeans (65) and sugar cane (18) and other GM crops

including rice, potatoes, papaya, tobacco and eucalyptus (CTNB 2001; in Jepson,

2002).

A major problem regarding approvals for GMO experiments granted from the CTNB

has been identified, namely that the CTNB is using documentation provided by the

companies or the institutions that are requesting for authorization. This clearly

cretaes a situation where systematic control over approval for these GM experiments

is not indepedent at all. More of 90% of the petitions for field trials were submitted by

local Brazilian branches of multinational companies (Fontes, 2003). These

companies are developing their seeds in their originating counrty but perform their

field trials in Brazil. The reason for performing their experimental crops in Brazil is

9

that they take advantage of the backcrossing of the temperate varieties, which

contain the transgene, with local varieties because via backcrossing the gene is

introduced in the local, highly commercial varieties.

The Brazilian goverment enforced a policy regarding GMOs, which permitted and

regulated transgenic research, while at the same time allowed products that contain

GM material to be available on the market. On the other hand the same policy

prohibited commercial production of GM crops. The CTNB was used by Brazilian

politicians, members of the Ministry of Agriculture and representatives of the

agroindustrial giants to limit the regulation debate over transgenics only in economic

and technical issues.

3.1.3. Brazil’s policy towards GMO and exploitation of transgenic technology

What is special with the case of GMOs control of production and knowledge in Brazil,

is that the Brazilian goverment sets as its primary target to consolidate the national

scientific competitiveness and agricultural expertise over large scale multinationals

like Monsanto and Novartis (Jepson 2002). The government tried to accomplish its

goal by creating special legal conditions, under which national biotechnology

insitutions and Brazilian companies are able to perform GM experiments. Brazilian

agriculture research companies, both public and private, had the potential capabilities

to compete with their existing GM technology offering their own transgenic products

and improved seed packages. Institutes like EMBRAPA, the Brazilian agricultural

research enterprise, which employs over 2000 researchers, runs research programs

of great significance (ibid).

EMBRAPA and the national seed companies however, needed a certain amount of

time to develop seed packages that could be competitive, so that the market would

not be controlled by Monsanto Roundup Ready technology. In addition, the federal

goverment uses its controls over Brazilian tropical soybean cultivars to leverage

transnational corporations into cooperative agreements that transfer the technology

to Brazilian firms, scientists and farmers. ‘’EMBRAPA licences its soybean seed

cultivars to Monsanto and Monsanto reciprocates with licensing of the GM herbicide-

resistant technology to EMBRAPA’’ (EMBRAPA 2000; Leite 1997; in Jepson, 2002:

913). EMBRAPA and Monsanto are protected under the Brazilian Cultivar Protection

Law and Industrial Patent Laws, respectively. ‘’Under the Cultivar Protection Law and

10

EMBRAPA’s licensing agreement, Brazilian farmers will have the right to save seeds

for their own use in subsequent seasons, thereby prohibiting Monsanto from

introducing the “terminator gene“ or GURT technology’’ (EMBRAPA 2000; Leite

1997; in Jepson, 2002: 913). For the past 20 years EMBRAPA has been releasing

annualy two varieties of soybean appropriate for use in each major region of the

country (southern and central) but now has to compete powerful private sector with

one of its representatives being Pharmacia (formerly Monsanto) (Lesser et al., 2001).

Pharmacia created its own seeding company Monsoy and managed to buy some

local soy programs. At this time Monsoy’s varieties cannot overcome the productivy

of the current EMBRAPA ones. It is cocnluded that the federal government is in

favour of GMOs, as long as the knowledge regarding transgenics and the know-how

is passed on to national institutions and national seed companies. This means that

Brazil tries to be independent from multinationals’ accomplishments and aims to

promote national scientific achievements regarding transgenics. Even with this

accomplishment there is still much work to be done, since the problem of inadequate

knowledge concerning GMO has to be solved by the Brazilian goverment.

3.2.1 The issue of insufficient knowledge concerning GMO in Brazil

Due to the narrowed developed research in Brazil, the perplexity of insufficient

knowledge about GMO - not only among the farmers but between the local

employees of Brazilian companies and institutions as well - must be taken into

account. For this reason members of the CTNB needed to be educated and informed

about the principles of Brazilian biosafety framework and the scientific data, which

support these regulations. This is accomplished by visiting institutions and private

companies as well, where these members – even though most of them are senior

scientists – have the ability to expand their knowledge by interacting with scientists

and personnel specialized in different sectors that deal with biosafety (Fontes 2003).

In this way, they are able to obtain a strong background, which is necessary for

conducting risk analysis and risk management. This method helps in many ways, as

knowledge is consolidated among the scientists and the personnel working on

biotechnology and in addition the CTNB gains confidence and transparency over the

projects it is developing.

Despite these efforts, a problem of great significance exists, as farmers in the

poorest regions of Brazil lack sufficient knowledge to fully exploit the potentials of

11

transgenic technology. According to Sampaio Filho (President of the Brazilian Rural

Society), Brazilian farms range in size and to the use of technology, as they vary

from subsistence farmers to large scale, very competitive, export-focused operations

(Hall et al., 2007).

3.2.2 The paradox of Brazilian agriculture and its consequences

A paradox exists in the case of Brazilian agriculture, with EMBRAPA for example

being a world-scale institute of agriculture with experimental sites, providing in the

southern region of Brazil technology equivalent of a developed agricultural producing

country. On the southern part of Brazil, small but much more educated – compared

to the North - farmers are more capable of absorbing foreign technologies and

farming techniques, while at the same time the government is reinforcing their export

orientation. In contrast, in the northeast region of Brazil, farmers barely meet their

own needs (Hall et al., 2007). Interestingly this group of farmers is important for many

reasons.

Initially, they represent a big percentage of Brazilian society and agricultural force.

Moreover, possible exclusion of these farmers may lead to critical social problems

like counterproductive urban immigration (ibid). GM crops are being designed in the

direction of large scale, capitalized agriculture and this fact multiplies the possibilities

of not resolving the rural poverty issue, which consequently leads to waves of

immigration in the urban centers. In addition, small farmers are the ones who

preserve Brazil’s agricultural biodiversity and this aspect truly offers a potential

advantage for future agricultural development, focused on the cultivation of local

varieties of crops. Furthermore small-scale farmers produce mainly for the Brazilian

market even though a small portion of them exports their products – mostly soybeans

– to the EU and Japan.

European and Japanese demand for GMO free products strengthens Brazil’s

national policy to offer top quality non-GMO soybeans and therefore rule the

European and Japanese markets. Brazil ships over 80% of its annual soybean crop

exports and over 68% of its annual soybean meal exports to European markets

(Jepson, 2002). Subsistence farmers are not obliged to follow the new technology but

multinationals and individual ministries enforce great pressure, as the small scale

farming section represents 60% of Brazilian agriculture (Hall et al., 2007). Ministries

12

of Agriculture and Science & Technology however are explicitly promoting transgenic

technology aiming only to economic benefits. On the other hand Ministry of

Agriculture Development, subsistence farmers and representatives of trade

associations remind that the possibility of another Green Revolution type social

disruption is quite probable (ibid). Brazil has already faced the consequences of this

social disruption in the past when poor farmers, who have limited access to

education and almost no access to capital, moved in the urban areas of the country

and sold their properties because they could not keep up in the competition with the

farmers of the Southern region who were able to adopt new technologies. Often the

buyer was and still is an urbanite and the land is used for leisure. This leads to land

abandonment and reduction of Brazil’s agricultural potentials. Many times the

previous owner of the land ends up living in the streets or in the “favelas” repeating

this way a vicious circle of poverty, crime and finally social disruption (ibid).

Even though some ministries are concerned with the danger of social exclusion and

potential dangers of GMO crops implementation in Brazilian agriculture and with their

policies try to protect individual farmers rights and Brazilian biodiversity, a big debate

still goes on, that leads to many actions organized by farmers and activism groups

throughout Brazil.

3.3.1 NGO challenges against authorities regulating GMO experimentation and use

In September 1998, a non-governmental organization (NGO), the Brazilian

Consumers’ Association (IDEC), teamed up with Greenpeace to question

government’s biosafety policy and challenge the CTNB’s ”scientific” authority and

exclusive jurisdiction over biosafety issues (Jepson 2002). They managed this way to

represent Europe’s current anti-GMO tendency in Brazil and led Brazilian society to

challenge the status quo.

Furthermore IDEC and Greenpeace accused the CTNB of giving license to Monsanto

to release its Roundup ReadyTM soybean without an environmental impact statement.

Monsanto advocated its product by stating that it was biochemically identical to

conventional soybeans. Consequently, IDEC accused the CTNB of not maintaining

the legal right to ignore the impact statement. According to the 1998 Brazil

13

Constitution, a report is required in order to allow the release of any potentially

harmful substance or organism in the environment. IDEC further claimed that the

Biosafety Law (Law 8974 of January 1995 and Decree 1752/95), which led to the

creation of the CTNB, was unconstitutional (ibid).

After 21 months of continous objections from the side of Monsanto, federal judge

Antonio Souza Prudente decided in June 2000 that clause xiv of article 2, which is

related to environmental statement waiver was uncostitutional. ‘’The regional federal

court in Brasilia upheld the ruling, thus creating an indefinite moratorium on

commercial planting of GM crops’’ (USDA, 2001b; in Jepson, 2002: 919). Moreover

IDEC took further initiative and managed to sign an agreement with British

Consumers’ Association in February 2000, with which IDEC members were given the

right to access a European laboratory for GM detection tests on food products. Soon

enough, in June 2000, Greenpeace publicized the GM material remains test results

for 42 different domestic and imported food products. Out of 42 products, 12 proved

to be positive for GM material, including soy-based infant food formula and food

products imported from the United States (ibid).

3.3.2 Confusion and conflicts between Brazilian authorities in the debate over GMO

According to these results IDEC and Greenpeace sent letters to the Ministries of

Agriculture, Justice and Health stating that there were a series of violation of

biosafety laws, food safety regulations and consumers rights. This created a chain

reaction of conflict between various authorities regarding the withdrawal of these

products.

The federal consumer health institution, which has the right to recall GMOs

containing food from the market, requested voluntary removal. On the other hand,

the Sao Paulo’s state Public Health authority (CVS) decided to remove the products

that contained GM material. Afterwards Brazil’s Food Association (ABIA) challenged

the decision of CVS, claiming that the state has no jurisdiction over matters that are

primarily a responsibility of the federal government. In contrast the president of IDEC

stated that state health officers operate under the consumer protection law and

therefore their level of authority is equivalent of federal agents (ibid). This case is

only a segment of the confusion and the conflict that exists between different

14

stakeholders in the big issue of GMOs. A creation of coherent institutional framework

based on the precautionary principle could aid to resolve the problem.

The opposition against GMOs, including protests and legal action, has still many

parts to be unraveled. One small act of the opposition to the release of GM crops into

the environment was the anti-Monsanto protest that took place in January 2001.

3.3.3 Activism and the arguments of activists against GMO

On 25th of January 2001, 1200 Brazilian farmers, landless rural workers and groups

that were supporting them protested against the experimentation of GM crops. They

occupied a biotechnology research centre that belonged to Monsanto in “Na o-Me-

Toque”, which is a municipality in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul. The

protesters, who were willing to stay indefinitely, uprooted the experimental soya and

maize crops and burned the stored supplies in the warehouses, with the help of

members of Porto Alegre’s World Social Forum. In the end, they performed a burial

ceremony, with a coffin that had written on it “Monsanto” and was covered with an

American flag (ibid). After this, the Brazilian government’s representatives destroyed

the remains of GM material due to possible environmental contamination.

One of the activists’ strongest arguments for complete prohibition or strict regulation

of GM experimentation was the “free trade” logic that characterizes the promotion of

GM products. Activists consider GM crops as symbols of globalization, since the

efforts of multinationals in developing free trade agreements and creating new

markets do not take into consideration local and national code of ethics.

The logic of “neoliberaliism” is completely opposite with the ecological procedures

that are necessary to preserve a sustainable global ecosystem. The main fear of

activists is that big scale multinationals, that are reinforced with free trade

agreements and supported by the “capital class” worldwide, are trying to invest on

and exploit new markets with no regard towards the environment. The methods

through which multinationals intervened in Brazilian agriculture and the Brazilian

market include the foundation of seed companies, like Monsoy. Furthermore,

herbicide and pesticide-resistant GM crops permit farmers to manipulate one element

of an otherwise biologically constrained sequential production process.

‘’Manipulation of one stage in this process is nothing more than another example of

15

‘appropriationism’—the tendency of capitals to transform individual stages, rather

than the entire structure of agricultural production’’ (in Jepson, 2002: 911).

On the other hand transgenic crops have the potential advantage of resisting to

particular pests, biotic and abiotic stress. At the same time the cost of production

could be reduced due to increased efficiency of GM crops while toxic chemicals

deriving from pesticides found in the environment can be reduced. In addition

transgenics technology holds a great promise for improving human health through

the creation of edible pant vaccines (Singh et al., 2006).

In this debate over transgenic technology farmers and activists found a strong ally

and this was the state government of Rio Grande do Sul (RGS), which is being

controlled by Brazil’s leading leftist party Worker’s Party (PT).

3.3.4 The case of Rio Grande do Sul’ government policy towards GMO

The Worker’s Party is taking advantage of the GMO ontological ambiguity-since GM

technology is accused of polluting lineages - and the global anti-GMO debate to

promote the state’s competitive production of non-GM soybeans, which is exported

mainly in EU. It is really interesting that the PT government is promoting commercial

affairs between the state’s farmers and major European import food industries, in an

attempt to find more buyers for their GM-free soybean products. In April 1999, for

example Jose Hermeto Hoffman accomplished a deal with the president of Carrefour,

an international hypermarket chain based in France, to export 300 million tons of

Brazilian GM free soybeans to European markets (Jepson, 2002). Hoffman moved

forward, requesting from anti-GMO organizations based in Europe to provide the

state of RGS with laboratory kits and equipment specialized in identifying GM

material. This action strengthened the ability of the state’s government to enforce

stricter control against illegal GM crops. The debate over transgenics lifted in a state

authorities scale, when the states’ government challenged the CTNB’s exclusive

jurisdiction over biosafety issues.

In 1991 the state legislature passed the Law of Biotechnology and Genetic

Engineering (No. 9453) that prohibits commercial production, requires the registration

of all transgenic experimentations with the state government, and levies heavy fines

for non- compliance (ibid). In March 1999 the state government passed the State

16

Decree of Biotechnology (No. 39,314). This decree provides enforcement norms and

grants the agriculture secretary authority to confiscate and destroy irregular or

unauthorized GM experiments. The decree also provides supervisory jurisdiction to

the Department of Plant Production (DPV). ‘’The Rio Grande do Sul government

requires companies or institutions, who already have CTNB’s approval, to register

experiments concurrently with the state authorities, thus creating another, perhaps

more stringent, independent supervisory institution to oversee biosafety controls

within their state boundaries’’ (Jepson, 2002: 916). Moreover the RGS authorities aim

to develop an adequate local education system, which is focused on the potential

problems of transgenic products implementation in the environment in an effort to

monitor and control illegal seeds intrusion that originate from Argentina. One leading

enforcement method that the authorities of RGS use is the anti-GMO telephone

campaign (ibid).

With this method, citizens can call a toll-free number in order to report possible cases

of illegal transgenic material being introduced in the agricultural area of RGS. After

the registration of the call, a group of specialized agronomists along with the state’s

police officers visit the suspected location and test the crop samples, with the

laboratory equipment that were donated to the state by the anti-GMO organizations.

With this equipment the specialized personnel can discover if the sample contains

GM material. In the first season, when this method was applied (1999), the DPV

collected 174,300 kg of illegal GM soybean seeds and destroyed 300 ha of illegal

transgenic soya plantations as well (DPV, 2000: ibid). Additionally in November 2001

the authorities of RGS collected another 450 sacks of illegal GM soybean seeds

during a surprise inspection. PT prolonged the debate over transgenics when it allied

with Latin America’s most important social movement, Brazil’s Landless Movement

(MST) in an effort to rescale GM regulation system. The MST used its global

connections to further represent the GM issue, in order to leverage activism. The

result was the activists’ action in “Na o-Me-Toque” that took place on the 25 th of

January 2001. These multiple efforts to control and regulate GM release in the

environment led to legal battles between the state government and Brazil’s federal

government.

Brazil’s national government passed a law that countermanded RGS’s jurisdiction

over GM release and transferred it again exclusively in the responsibility of the

CTNB. In September 2002 however, the federal court of Brazil ruled in favour of RGS

and cancelled the state law. “On the other hand there is a constitutional amendment

17

in the national congress (233/00) to prevent Brazilian states from creating their own,

independent biosafety laws and regulations” (USDA, 2001b: 3; in Jepson, 2002:

918). Moreover there have been local protests in RGS that were challenging once

more the state’s methods of controlling and regulating GM seeds. In October 2001,

over 100 local farmers demonstrated against representatives of the state of RGS, for

collecting and burning 400 sacks of their GM soybean seeds that were collected in

1999 (ibid). The conflict between the regulation authorities is very intense and the

contradiction of interests profound. The challenges of creating a new broader

regulation scheme over GMO and solving problems that derive from the introduction

of GM crops in Brazilian agriculture should be the primary targets of the Brazilian

authorities.

4.DISCUSSION/ EPILOGUE

4.1 Challenges ahead for the Brazilian authorities and technology providers

The series of conflicts between the various authorities that regulate GMO

experimentation and use in Brazil leads to uncertainty on behalf of the civil society

over the issue of GMO. So far the procedure for regulating transgenic technology has

been very difficult, due to the contrasting interests of a vast number of different

stakeholders. To overcome these perplexities, it is necessary to create a platform

under which all the administrative and regulatory bodies will operate and interact

without further conflicts. One solution could be the foundation of broader, more

specialized databases and networking system to assist the identification,

development and dissemination of relevant information on biosafety (Fontes 2003).

The need for capacity building became imminent for the safe development and

application of biotechnology in Brazil. The growing number of public and private

laboratories working with biotechnology, as well as the environmental releases

regarding GMOs in different locations and regions throughout the country, requires

qualified personnel to conduct risk assessment, monitoring and risk management. A

program designed to train members of the Institutional Biosafety Commission and

personnel to act as biosafety regulators and process analysts is needed, aiming at

the development and strengthening of the country’s endogenous capacities. This

biosafety training may consider the following strategies:

18

a) To carry on a diverse strategy of training the trainers in an effort to reduce

operational costs of further training.

b) To prioritize the training of members of the CTNB, who supervise biosafety

procedures within their institutions and of inspectors from federal and state agencies

working for the Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Environment.

c) To create a cutting edge and ongoing education program for CTNB members and

for personnel in the federal bodies concerned with the enforcement of biosafety

regulation, in an effort to integrate new scientific knowledge and regulatory

experience over biosafety issues from all over the world. ‘’However, the program

should include access to databases and international networking systems to allow for

an effective update and dissemination of information”. (Fontes, 2003: 6).

Moreover, in 2003 members of the research personnel of EMBRAPA accepted to join

the “GMO Guidelines Project” (GMP), an international program that will be providing

with guidelines for use on a case-by-case basis, according to the Cartagena

Biosafety Protocol and the EU’s directives (Capalbo et al., 2003). The GMP consists

of scientists that work under the public sector and operate within the premises of the

International Organization of Biological Control (IOBC). The basic targets of GMP

are:

a) To create an international group of expert scientists working in cutting edge

knowledge institutions from Europe, Australia, East Africa, South America,

North America and Southeast Asia.

b) To create dynamic and progressive guidelines, which will reinforce the

exchange of knowledge and know-how techniques between scientists and

policy-makers.

c) To publish the guidelines right after their formation.

d) To be on alert for continuous redefining of already existing guidelines, in case

of unpredicted problems arise (ibid).

The great challenge for the technology providers is to fairly distribute new knowledge

over new agricultural technologies in such a way that nobody is excluded. The

introduction of new technologies or processes that bring major changes for the small

farmers is evaluated by the Ministry of Agriculture Development, which considers the

following sustainable development criteria:

a) Small farmers will manage to participate in the market in a greater scale than

before with the introduction of new technologies (international and national).

19

b) New technologies will increase crop production or value will be added in the

products.

c) New technologies must be compatible with the environment and biodiversity

policy.

d) Socio/economical negative consequences from the introduction of new

technologies must be avoided.

‘’The Ministry of Agriculture Development is thus explicitly concerned with social

inclusion (2004, www.mda.gov.br), particularly as small farmers have been ‘‘excluded

for 500 years’’, according to Fatima Brandalise” (Assistant to the Minister of

Agriculture Development 2003; in Hall et al., 2007: 56).

If multinationals or Brazilian agricultural research institutes want to invest in the new

technologies, they have to let the producers participate from the initial stages. A

dialogue between civil society and experts must be established so producers,

consumers and other stakeholders are not excluded from the decision-taking bodies

in a local level. Risk assessment and risk analysis over the implementation of GM

crops in the environment should include participatory methods as well (Craig et al.,

2007). Applications of GMO’s should be regulated under the precautionary principles

for this way public health is protected along with the environment. It is of critical

importance to diagnose the opinion of Brazilian society, while at the same time keep

up with the new biotechnological accomplishments (Oda et al., 2000).

On the other hand, the federal government and institutions should encourage the

continuation of traditional farming techniques, like seed breeding, because in this

way farmers are protected from the danger of seed dependency on multinationals-not

to mention that this dependency will enlarge the wealth gap between rich and poor

countries.

The benefits of biotechnology exploitation must be restimated, since there are more

serious problems to be solved first. A very good example is the policy of the Ministry

of Hunger Defence, perhaps unique to developing countries, which prioritizes access

and fair distribution of food supplies over exportation strategies (Hall et al., 2007).

Especially, as described above, in the northern part of Brazil social welfare must be

the primary target and not export-oriented policies.

As the pressure from multinationals on the federal government will increase

gradually, Brazil must find its way in this labyrinth of contrasting interests and

20

policies. Brazil’s goals of dominating the global food market1 must be accomplished

after the solution of the aforementioned critical issues. Globalization tactics will prove

useless for Brazil, if a great percentage of population continues to live in poverty,

excluded from every benefit of Brazil’s economic improvement through agriculture.

An adaptation of logic of “glocalization“ – meaning trying to act locally while you think

globally - can provide Brazil with the solutions needed to narrow the gap between

southern and northern farmers, who represent the situation in Brazilian society,

further develop and prosper in the future.

5.SUMMARY

As humanity entered 21st century, issues of utter importance like overpopulation, poor

nutrition over the masses and insufficiency of food became extremely prominent.

According to some scientists contemporary biotechnology could provide solutions for

the insufficiency of food problem, especially in the developing poorer countries where

starvation is a major threat. Advanced biotechnology and genetic engineering

techniques gave the ability to exploit and manipulate genetic resources, in order to

create improved crop plants. Further explanation about GMO and a definition is

needed, in order to fully understand the nature of these products of human

intervention into nature’s patterns.

“Genetically modified crop plants contain artificially inserted gene(s) or “transgenes“

from another unrelated plant or from a completely different species via genetic

engineering techniques” (Pereira 2000, Bock and Khan 2004; in Om V. Singh, et al.,

2006 p.599). Latin America’s countries were appropriate for multinationals policies,

that operate in the agricultural business, with Argentina being already a major

participant and Brazil being a primary target country, due to the fact that is the

second exporter of soybean products in a world scale, not to mention that Brazil is

the largest nation geographically in Latin America.

1 The Brazilian goal of global food market dominance is not I support. I would prefer that

countries regulate the distribution of food production themselves or cooperate with neighbour

countries in distribution of food to achieve a greater ecological sustainability. Through this

measure CO2 emissions would be reduced, for international food transportation ( which

heavily emits CO2 ) would no longer be necessary. Furthermore I believe that agricultural

production should be season appropriate; for specific seasons, plants that ripen during that

period should be utilized and sold in markets.

21

The introduction of GMO in Brazilian agriculture however was very complicated due

to the differences between a great number of different stakeholders and regulation

problems that occurred. Regarding regulation over biosafety, it was back in 1995

when the Brazilian goverment passed the Biosafety Law (Law 8974 of January 1995

and Decree 1752/95) and through this law CTNB ( National Biosafety Technical

Commission) was formed (Eliana M.G. Fontes 2003). CTNB consists of goverment’s

administrators, specialists and representatives from the industrial sector (Monsanto

and Novartis). CTNB was used by Brazilian politicians, members of the Ministry of

Agriculture and representatives of the agroindustrial giants to limit the regulation

debate over transgenics only in economical and technical issues.

What is special with the case of GMO control of production and knowledge in Brazil,

is the fact that Brazilian goverment sets as her primary target to consolidate the

national scientific competitiveness and agricultural expertize over large scale

multinationals like Monsanto and Novartis (W.E Jepson 2002). Even though there

were some accomplishments, still much work is to be done, since the problem of

inadequate knowledge concerning GMO has to be solved by the Brazilian

goverment. Due to the narrowed developed research in Brazil, the perplexity of

insufficient knowledge about GMO-not only among the farmers but between the local

employees of Brazilian companies and institutions as well, must be taken into

account. A paradox exists as well in the case of Brazilian agriculture as Brazilian

farms range in size and to the use of technology, as they vary from subsistence

farmers to large scale, very competitive, export-focused operations (Jeremy Hall et

al., 2007).

Even though some ministries are concerned with the danger of social exclusion and

potential dangers of GMO crops implementation in Brazilian agriculture and with their

policies try to protect individual farmers rights and Brazilian biodiversity, a big debate

goes on with many actions of activism from farmers and activism groups having

taken place in Brazil.

One of the activists’ strongest arguments for complete prohibition or strict regulation

of GM experimentation was the “free trade” logic that characterizes the promotion of

GM products. In this debate over transgenic technology farmers and activists found a

strong ally and this was the state government of Rio Grande do Sul (RGS), which is

being controlled by Brazil’s leading leftist party Worker’s Party (PT). In Brazil there

were a series of conflicts between regulation authorities in a state and federal level.

This is depicted with the policies of RGS government. PT took advantage of GMO

ontological ambiguity-since GM technology is accused of polluting lineages- and

22

global anti-GMO debate to promote the state’s competitive production of non-GM

soybeans, which is exported mainly in EU.

The challenges of creating a new broader regulation scheme over GMO and solving

problems that derive from the introduction of GM crops in Brazilian agriculture should

be the primary targets of the Brazilian authorities. The series of conflicts between the

various authorities that regulate GMO experimentation and use in Brazil, depicts the

confusion that exists between civil society as well over the issue of GMO. An

adaptation of logic of “glocalization“ can provide Brazil with the solutions needed to

narrow the gap between Southern and Northern farmers, who represent the situation

in Brazilian society, further develop and prosper in the future.

23

REFERENCES

Capalbo D.M.F. , Hilbeck A. , Andow D. , Snow A. , Ba Bong B. , Wan F.H. , Fontes

E.M.G. , Osir E.O. , Fitt G.P. , Johnston J. , Songa J. , Heong K.L. & Birch N.E.

(2003): Brazil and the development of international scientific biosafety testing

guidelines for transgenic crops; Journal of Intertebate Pathology (vol. 83: 104-106);

Science Direct

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,

(11/9/2003); Available URL:

http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/protocol.shtml, http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/

Cook R.J. (2004): Transgenic Crop Plants in the Environment; Encyclopedia of Plant

and Crop Science, 1:1, 1248 – 1250; Taylor & Francis

Craig W. , Tepfer M. , Degrassi G. & Ripandelli D. (2007): An overview of general

features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops; Springer

Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Fontes E.M.G. (2003): Land and regulatory concerns about transgenic plants in

Brazil; EMBRAPA Recursos Geneticos e Biotecnologia, C.P. 01372/02372, Brasilia

DF CEP 70849-970, Brazil

Hall J. , Matos S. & Langford C.H. (2007): Social Exclusion and Transgenic

Technology: The Case of Brazilian Agriculture; Journal of Business Ethics (2008)

(vol.77: 45-63); Springer

Hall C., Moran D. (2005): Investigating GM risk perceptions: A survey of anti-GM and

environmental campaign group members; Land Economy Research Group, SAC,

West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK

Jepson W.E. (2002): Global and Brazilian biosafety: the politics of scale over

biotechnology; Political Geograpghy (vol.21: 905-925)

Myhr A.I., Traavik T. (2003): Genetically modified (GM) crops: Precautionary science

and conflicts of interests; Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (vol.16:

227-246)

24

National Biosafety Office, SEPA China; Available URL:

www.biosafety.gov.cn/image20010518/5274.pdf

Oda L.M. , Soares B.E.C. (2000): Genetically modified foods: economic aspects and

public acceptance in Brazil; Titbtech May 2000 (vol.18: 188-190)

Paoletti M.G. (2001): Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms; Encyclopedia of Life

Sciences

Pretty J. (2001): The rapid emergence of genetic modification in world agriculture:

contested risks and benefits; Environmental Conservation, (vol.28: 248-262)

Ramessar K. , Peremati A. , Galera S.G. , Navqi S. , Moralejo M. , Munoz P. , Capell

T. & Christou P. (2007): Biosafety and risk assessments framework for selectable

marker genes in transgenic crop plants; Transgenic Res (vol16: 261–280); Springer

Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Schmit W.L.T.M. , Ruiz L.M. (2001): Elite Germplasm for GMO’s in Brazil: Modeling

Government – Agribusiness Negotiations; International Food and Agribusiness

Management Review, 2(3/4): 391-406; Elsevier Science Inc.

Singh O.V. , Ghai S. , Paul D. & Jain R.K. (2006): Genetically modified crops:

success, safety assessment, and public concern; Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2006)

(vol.71: 598-607); Springer-Verlag

University of IOWA; Available URL:

http://www.las.iastate.edu/WSP_KCGS_Partners/english/modules/Gender%20Food

%20and%20Globalization/key_concepts.htm

Watanabe K.N. , Sssa Y. , Suda E. , Chen C.H. , Inaba M. & Kikuchi A. (2005):

Global political, economic, social and technological issues on transgenic crops; Plant

Biotechnology (vol.22: 515-522)

25