Brazil – Our Food will be controlled by four or five companies that dominate more than 60% of the world seed market This new type of GM is called Terminator

feijao

pressure

MST support new minister wants to bar project on seed

For the movement’s leader, caucus in the House increased the pressure to approve the text, allowing the use of technology ‘which is against life’
by Vitor Nuzzi, the RBA published 09.02.2014 16:33

Comments

For the movement’s leader, caucus in the House increased the pressure to approve the text, allowing the use of technology ‘which is against life’

São Paulo – The Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST) expects the new minister of the Casa Civil, Mercadante, help stop bill that releases the seed sterilization through technology known as Terminator. “The caucus to push back the project that legalizes technology, to force farmers to buy seeds every year of multinationals,” says João Pedro Stédile, the national coordination of the MST. The Bill 5575, introduced in 2009 by Candido Vaccarezza (PT-SP), is on the House of Representatives – although no proceedings since April last year, is under a priority.

Two and a half years ago, several organizations have released a document in which they ask the rejection of this project and also the PL 268, 2007, Mr Eduardo Sciarra (PSD-PR). “Today, with the evolution of GM, the companies developed a type of gene that allows full and absolute control of seeds by companies, making farmers and even large producers become hostages of multinationals in order to get their seeds. Our Food will be controlled by four or five companies that dominate more than 60% of the world seed market.’s this new type of GM is called Terminator “say the text. The word means “destroyer” in English.

To Stédile order caucus is to create “a world event,” before the international rejection of the use of technology. If the bill passes in Parliament, he expects Mercadante help to ensure the presidential veto. “I hope the Civil House block, send it to the drawer for the Kalends. Such technology is against life,” he says.

The PL 268/2007 is ready to vote in the Committee on Constitution and Justice (CCJ), informs the Chamber Radio . The Environmental Commission rejected the proposal, which passed the Agriculture Committee. In the CCJ, the rapporteur, Dilceu Sperafico (PP-PR), recommends approval, while two deputies (Chico Alencar, the SoL-RJ, and Alessandro Molon, the PT-RJ) had separate vote by rejection.

The MST leader said to have more positive expectations with the new chief of staff. “By having more political experience and more dialogue with Lula, who has more sensitivity to agrarian issues,” says, through a critique of the predecessor Gleisi Hoffmann. “She just thought the election of Paraná.” He saw the Civil House as a “lock” to agrarian reform, the requirement of an economic feasibility study of settlements before the expropriations.

The MST disputes the official number of 30,000 families settled in 2013. According to the organization, the number is “inflated” by the colonization project in the Amazon. Were settled, in fact. 7,274 families in 100 areas expropriated.

In evaluating the motion, there is a “complete shutdown of agrarian reform” in recent years. According Stédile, President Dilma Rousseff, meeting with social movements two years ago, promised to give priority to lots of perimeters of irrigation works, but it did not, just as not 556 farms were expropriated where it verified the work practice analogous to slavery.

Tomorrow to Friday (10-14), the MST is in Brasilia his sixth national congress. 15 000 people from 23 states are expected.

filed under:  ,  ,  ,  , 
Transgenicos-terminator-538x330

http://escosteguy.net/?p=2696

Monsanto admits concern, saying that “many expressed concern that sterile seeds could represent a threat to the survival of small farmers in developing countries, for centuries, these farmers have saved seeds to grow next season.”

The question is: who adopt this type of seed (?, And who will not, given the fact that up to get some kind of funding the producer should be subject to the requirements of the system, among them that buy GM seeds) will become dependent eternal Monsanto (or other manufacturers).

Sustainability that much of the family (and organic) agriculture can come precisely from the possibility of obtaining seeds of the crop being harvested.

This will be the ultimate demise of family farming.

The site ” BAN TERMINATOR “is clear when he says:

” Why is this a problem?

Over 1.4 billion people, mostly families of small farmers in the developing world, have as their main source of your saved seeds from their own crops. Terminator seeds force dependence on external sources and break with the practices of seed exchange of local and indigenous peoples, as well as with the ancient practice of selection and breeding done by farmers – the basis for the local availability of seed security.

If Terminator is commercialized, seed sterility is likely to be incorporated in all GM plants. This is because seed sterility allows a much stronger monopoly than patents, unlike patents, no expiration date, no exception for breeders and no need for lawyers. ”

It’s one of those projects that will seating “quietly” in Congress.

monsanto terminator - sementes suicidas

http://www.ebc.com.br/tecnologia/2014/01/tecnologia-de-restricao-de-uso-compromete-seguranca-alimentar-dizem-especialist

Tecnologia de restrição de uso compromete segurança alimentar, dizem especialista

Mariana Branco – Agência Brasil 26.01.2014 – 14h45 | Atualizado em 26.01.2014 – 15h56

Além da possibilidade da contaminação genética de lavouras não transgênicas, a tecnologia de restrição de uso pode comprometer a segurança alimentar, alertaam especialistas contrários à adoção dessa prática. Especialistas e representantes da sociedade civil temem que a permissão para aplicar tal tecnologia em sementes usadas na produção de fármacos seja o passo inicial para  esterlização de sementes destinadas à alimentação.

Se isso ocorresse, os agricultores ficariam impossibilitados de reutilizar sementes da colheita anterior e dependentes das grandes empresas do setor. Para a engenheira agrônoma Maria José Guazelli, da organização não governamental (ONG) Centro Ecológico, o Projeto de Lei 268/2007 – que não é o único sobre o assunto, mas tem a tramitação mais adiantada no Congresso Nacional – busca contornar a moratória internacional, ao propor a autorização do mecanismo apenas para um tipo de semente.

“A moratória deixa de ser total. Primeiro é [o uso da tecnologia] não alimentar e depois vai debilitando a moratória”, avalia a agrônoma. Para ela, o argumento da assessoria do deputado Eduardo Sciarra (PSD-PR), autor do projeto de lei, de que a própria moratória recomenda que sejam realizados estudos sobre a tecnologia, não se sustenta. “Isso [que a proposta de lei autoriza] não é estudar, e sim pôr em prática. Já tentaram derrubar a moratória em 2006 e agora estão tentando novamente”, diz Maria José, referindo-se à 8ª Conferência das Partes da Convenção sobre a Biodiversidade, em que um grupo de países pediu a discussão do uso da tecnologia com avaliação caso a caso.

A nutricionista Daniela Frozi, membro do Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar (Consea) e da Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança (CTNBio), também acredita que a aprovação do projeto no Brasil abriria um precedente. “Avançamos [ao ter uma lei que proíbe] e agora estamos retrocedendo. [A tecnologia] já foi rejeitada em várias partes do mundo, tem uma moratória, documentação em diferentes fóruns”, enumera.

Daniela ressalta que faltam estudos que atestem a segurança dessa e de outras técnicas de manipulação genética de alimentos e plantas, inclusive para a saúde humana. “Não há estudos conclusivos, nem para o bem, nem para o mal.” No caso específico das sementes terminator, a nutricionista acredita que há uma questão ética envolvida. “A semente é um bem comum. É como se  estivéssemos falando do ar. Não procede do ponto de vista de qualquer tipo de senso criar uma semente que não é capaz de se reproduzir”, defende.

O próprio Consea, colegiado composto de membros do governo e da sociedade civil, que assessora a Presidência da República e tem papel apenas consultivo, já emitiu mais de um documento com posicionamento contrário à tecnologia de restrição de uso. No mais recente, de 2013, o Consea pede o arquivamento do Projeto de Lei 5.575/2009, do deputado Cândido Vaccarezza (PT-SP), que também permite o uso do procedimento de manipulação genética, argumentando que “a tecnologia visa a reforçar a privatização das sementes, fortalecendo a capacidade de cobrança de royalties”.

O pesquisador Francisco Aragão, responsável pelo laboratório do Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia , da Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), afirma que a construção de uma semente terminator, para ser usada na agricultura, não seria viável. “Da maneira como ainda existe, ela pode ser feita, mas não é um mecanismo muito prático. Exige que se produzam as sementes, que são mergulhadas em solução de tetraciclina, e isso reduz a germinação, dificulta o uso no plantio. Está no papel, é possível ser feita, mas não é viável para a agricultura”, destaca Aragão. Por esse motivo, ele acredita que a produção seria improvável.

Além da suposta dificuldade, buscando acalmar os ânimos, a Monsanto, uma das multinacionais que detêm patente da tecnologia, mantém um comunicado em seu site no qual garante que não comercializará sementes estéreis de culturas alimentícias. Segundo a empresa, o compromisso foi assumido em 1999. “Permanecemos firmes em nosso compromisso. Não temos nenhum plano ou pesquisa que o viole”, diz o texto, ressaltando que a restrição de uso tem aspectos “positivos e negativos”.

Para Maria José Guazelli, no entanto, esse posicionamento não traz tranquilidade. “A Monsanto reafirma que não vai usar [a tecnologia] para alimentos, mas não afirma que não vai usá-la”, pondera a agrônoma.

Editor: Nádia Franco

  • Direitos autorais: Creative Commons – CC BY 3.0

geneticfood168_01

Technology use restriction undermines food security, says expert

Fixed URL:

Marian White – Agency Brazil 26/01/2014 – 14:45 pm | Updated 26/01/2014 – 15h56

Besides the possibility of genetic contamination of non-GM crops, technology use restriction may compromise food safety experts alertaam ​​against the adoption of this practice. Experts and civil society representatives fear that permission to apply such technology in seeds used in the production of drugs is the first step to esterlização seed intended for human consumption.

If this occurred, the farmers would be unable to reuse seeds from the previous crop and dependent on large companies. For the agronomist Jose Maria Guazelli, non-governmental organization (NGO) Ecological Center, the Bill 268/2007 – which is not the only one on the subject, but has the earlier the National Congress – search circumvent international moratorium , in proposing the release mechanism for only one type of seed.

“The moratorium is no longer total. First is [using technology] will not feed and then undermining the moratorium, “says agronomist. For her, the argument of counsel Mr Eduardo Sciarra (PSD-PR), author of the bill, that the moratorium itself recommends that studies be conducted on the technology, does not hold. “It [the bill authorizes] is not to study, but put into practice. Have tried to overturn the moratorium in 2006 and are now trying again, “says Maria José, referring to the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in which a group of countries called for discussion of the use of technology with case-by-case .

The nutritionist Daniela Frozi, member of the National Food Security Council (Consea) and the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio), also believes that approval of the project in Brazil would set a precedent. “We have come [to have a law that prohibits] and we are now receding. [Technology] has already been rejected in various parts of the world, has a moratorium documentation in different forums “lists.

Daniela points out that a lack of studies attesting to the safety of this and other techniques of genetic manipulation of foods and plants, including human health. “There is no conclusive studies or for good or for evil.” In the specific case of terminator seeds, nutritionist believes that there is an ethical issue involved. “The seed is a common good. It’s like we’re talking air. Not from the point of view of any kind of sense to create a seed that is not able to play, “he argues.

The Consea own, a collective made up of government officials and civil society, assisting the Presidency of the Republic and has only an advisory role, has issued over a document contrary to the use restriction technology positioning. In the most recent, 2013, Consea asks archiving of Bill 5.575/2009, Mr Candido Vaccarezza (PT-SP), which also allows the use of genetic manipulation procedure, arguing that “technology aims to strengthen privatization of seeds, strengthening the capacity of collecting royalties. ”

The researcher Francisco Aragon, responsible for the National Research Center for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) lab, says that building a terminator seed to be used in agriculture, would not be feasible. “The way still exists, it can be done, but it is not a very practical mechanism. It requires that produce seeds that are dipped in a solution of tetracycline, and this reduces germination, difficult to use in planting. Is on paper, it is possible to be done, but it is not viable for agriculture, “says Aragon. For this reason, he believes that production would be unlikely.

Besides the supposed difficulty, trying to calm the waters, Monsanto, one of the multinationals that own patent technology, maintains a statement on its website in which ensures that not commercialize sterile seed of food crops.According to the company, the commitment was made in 1999. “We remain steadfast in our commitment. We have no plan or research that violates “it said, noting that the use restriction has aspects” positive and negative “.

For Maria Jose Guazelli, however, this position does not bring peace. “Monsanto reaffirms that it will not use [the technology] to foods, but says he will not use it,” ponders agronomist.

Editor: Nadia Franco

  • Copyright: Creative Commons – CC BY 3.0
Fixed URL:

Related tags

petition

Petition Link:

http://action.sumofus.org/a/brazil-terminator-seeds/4/2/

+++

Nome civil: EDUARDO FRANCISCO SCIARRA

http://www.camara.leg.br/internet/deputado/dep_detalhe.asp?id=522190

dep.eduardosciarra@camara.leg.br

+++

Projeto sobre tecnologia que pode tornar sementes estéreis avança na Câmara

http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/pesquisa-e-inovacao/noticia/2014-01/projeto-sobre-tecnologia-que-pode-tornar-sementes-estereis

+++

 

Advertisements

62 thoughts on “Brazil – Our Food will be controlled by four or five companies that dominate more than 60% of the world seed market This new type of GM is called Terminator

  1. #Monsanto #GMO #OMG

    “Monsanto requires farmers to sign non-liability clauses when they purchase seeds from the biotech”

    Monsanto’s GMO Seeds May No Longer Be Invincible

    By Rich Duprey
    February 13, 2014

    … if Marsh loses the case, then GM farmers and Monsanto can rest easy knowing they’ll be able to plant their lab-altered seed without consequence.

    Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta (NYSE: SYT ) control 53% of the world’s seed production with their GM variants.

    Virtually all alfalfa, corn, soybean, and sugar beet seed are genetically modified, and because of their widespread use in processed foods, it means anywhere from 60% to 70% of all food on supermarket shelves is genetically modified.

    Dupont and Syngenta have teamed up with Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW ) to fight a new law in Hawaii that prohibits the planting of new GM crops on the big island.

    The Australian farmer Marsh regained his organic certification last November following his neighbor agreeing to modify his harvesting methods to minimize the opportunity for his GM seeds to cross contaminate adjacent properties.

    Unfortunately for organic farmers not located in Australia, the tolerance for GMO traces in organic produce means they would have a steeper hill to climb, though perhaps on the basis of a property rights protection issue, it could be a wedge to sever the unrestrained proliferation of genetically modified seed.

    Because Monsanto requires farmers to sign non-liability clauses when they purchase seeds from the biotech, it’s insulated from being a party to the lawsuit directly, though it demurred when specifically asked whether it was providing financial assistance to the defense.

    But a win by Marsh could show there is indeed a chink in Monsanto’s armor of invincibility.

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/13/monsantos-gmo-seeds-may-no-longer-be-invincible.aspx

    Like

  2. #Monsanto #GMO #OMG

    “Monsanto requires farmers to sign non-liability clauses when they purchase seeds from the biotech”

    Monsanto’s GMO Seeds May No Longer Be Invincible

    … if Marsh loses the case, then GM farmers and Monsanto can rest easy knowing they’ll be able to plant their lab-altered seed without consequence.

    But a win by Marsh could show there is indeed a chink in Monsanto’s armor of invincibility.

    Like

  3. Once again, my fellow Americans, the PTB didn’t wait to see who wins this argument. Man-made Climate Change? chemTrails / geoEngineering already started. And just like Gore and others set themselves up to profit from Carbon Credits, still others have set themselves up to profit from extreme weather, made worse by the geoEngineering they say doesn’t exist. Hard to believe that some humans really are that evil, but they are.

    Here’s a little YouTube I made to promote a recent event held in Tempe, AZ. I think it’s pretty easy to see which planes are spraying and which are not.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s