Relatório liga crimes no Cerrado a gigantes da moda europeus

Fornecedoras de algodão para fabricantes de peças vendidas por Zara e H&M, fazendas no oeste da Bahia têm histórico de desmatamento e grilagem, aponta investigação da ONG Earthsight.

Até chegarem nas vitrines de gigantes como Zara e H&M, calças, bermudas, camisetas e meias de algodão deixam para trás um rastro de desmatamento, grilagem de terras e violação de direitos humanos no Brasil. Para o consumidor, as peças parecem acima de qualquer suspeita: a maioria estampa um selo de produção sustentável.

A denúncia faz parte do relatório Fashion Crimes da organização Earthsight, publicado nesta quinta-feira (11/04). Ao longo de um ano, uma investigação detalhada focou nos negócios que conectam as lavouras do Brasil, quarto maior produtor da commodity no globo, às marcas europeias.

A ONG analisou o caminho percorrido por 816 mil toneladas de algodão com a ajuda de imagens de satélite, registros de envios de mercadoria, arquivos públicos e visitas às regiões produtoras.

Segundo o relatório, essa matéria-prima foi destinada especialmente a oito empresas asiáticas que, entre 2014 e 2023, fabricaram cerca de 250 milhões de itens para as lojas. Muitos deles, alega a investigação, abasteceram marcas como H&M e Zara, entre outras.

"É chocante ver estas ligações entre marcas globais muito reconhecidas, mas que, ao que tudo indica, não se esforçam o suficiente para ter controle sobre estas cadeias de fornecimento, para saber de onde vem o algodão e quais tipos de impacto ele provoca", diz Rubens Carvalho, chefe de Pesquisa sobre Desmatamento da Earthsight, à DW.

Crimes no Cerrado

O problema, afirma a ONG baseada no Reino Unido, está na origem da matéria-prima. O algodão exportado sai principalmente do oeste da Bahia, região imersa no Cerrado brasileiro muitas vezes desmatado ilegalmente para ampliar o cultivo. Em alta, o corte desta vegetação dobrou nos últimos cinco anos, segundo monitoramento do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (Inpe).

Dentre os casos analisados no relatório, está o grupo SLC Agrícola. Fundado em 1977 no Rio Grande do Sul, o grupo diz ser responsável por 11% do algodão brasileiro exportado (safra 2019/2020).

O estudo da Earthsight também diz que, nos últimos 12 anos, estima-se que 40 mil campos de futebol de Cerrado tenham sido destruídos dentro das fazendas do SLC. Em 2020, a empresa, que também planta soja, foi apontada como a maior desmatadora do bioma, calculam pesquisadores do Chain Reaction Research.

Em 2021, o SLC se comprometeu junto a fornecedores com uma política de desmatamento zero. Um ano após a promessa, um relatório da Aidenvironment identificou o corte de 1.365 hectares de Cerrado dentro das propriedades que cultivam algodão, o equivalente a 1.300 campos de futebol. Quase metade estava dentro da reserva legal.

Uma consulta feita pela Earthsight no banco de dados do Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (Ibama) mostra mais de R$ 1,2 milhão de multas aplicadas por infrações ambientais desde 2008 nas fazendas do grupo no oeste da Bahia.

Uma das acionistas da SLC é a britânica Odey Asset Management. Em 2020, numa entrevista para o diário britânico Financial Times, o fundador da empresa disse que arcar com as penalidades ambientais no Brasil era algo corriqueiro como "pagar multas de trânsito".

Questionado, o grupo afirmou por meio de nota à DW que "todas as conversões de área com vegetação nativa da SLC seguiram os limites estabelecidos por lei". Especificamente sobre a área desmatada em 2022 apontada no relatório da Aidenvironment, a empresa diz que a destruição se deu por "um incêndio natural, não ocasionado para a abertura de novas áreas para produção".

Sobre as multas aplicadas pelo Ibama, a SLC Agrícola diz ter recorrido administrativamente de todas as autuações. "As multas que foram objeto de recurso estão em tramitação e não houve, até o momento, um julgamento definitivo", diz a nota.

"Grilagem verde"

Outro grupo analisado em detalhes é o Horita, original do Paraná e atuante na Bahia desde a década de 1980. Dentre as várias denúncias feitas pela Earthsight está a chamada grilagem verde: imposição de reservas legais, ou áreas de preservação de propriedade privada, em zonas onde vivem comunidades tradicionais. A manobra impede que famílias realizem atividades de subsistência e, nos piores casos, permaneçam nas terras.

O conflito fundiário entre as famílias geraizeiras, como se identificam essas comunidades tradicionais na região, e fazendeiros data de 1970. Na década seguinte, a companhia Delfin Rio compra terras e registra o empreendimento como Agronegócio Condomínio Cachoeira do Estrondo. Segundo a Associação de Advogados de Trabalhadores Rurais do estado (AATR), o grupo Horita é um dos sócios do complexo de fazendas.

Em 2017, as famílias geraizeiras da zona rural de Formosa do Rio Preto, no oeste baiano, ajuizaram uma ação contra a Estrondo por grilagem de terra e ganharam, em caráter liminar, a posse coletiva de 43 mil hectares que o empreendimento dizia ter comprado. A maior parte está no coração da Matopiba, zona de expansão do agronegócio que integra os estados de Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí e Bahia, habitada há mais de 200 anos pelos geraizeiros.

Em 2019, a Operação Faroeste da Polícia Federal revelou um conluio do alto escalão do magistrado baiano para favorecer fazendeiros na mesma região. Segundo o Ministério Público Federal (MPF), um esquema de compra de sentenças teria movimentado cifras bilionárias em disputas de terras e tinha participação de magistrados, empresários, advogados e servidores públicos. Walter Horita, um dos fundadores do grupo, é um dos réus no processo, ainda em julgamento.

Um dos magistrados acusado de vender sentença para grileiros, segundo a Operação Faroeste, atuou na ação que julgava a posse coletiva dos geraizeiros. Segundo a AATR, a liminar a favor das comunidades só passou a ser cumprida após o afastamento e prisão do juiz.

Procurado pela DW, o Grupo Horita declarou nesta quarta-feira que "aguardará a divulgação do relatório para qualquer nova manifestação, para além das que já foram proferidas pelo seu departamento jurídico, em resposta às acusações da ONG".

"Todas as alegações negativas contra o Grupo Horita constantes da Carta da Earthsight, datada de 23/08/2023, como supostos 'achados', não correspondem à verdade", diz um trecho da resposta enviada à ONG.

Rota até as marcas europeias

Durante a investigação, a Earthsight seguiu a rota de 816 mil toneladas de exportações de algodão que saíram da SLC Agrícola e Grupo Horita entre 2014 e 2023 para os principais destinos: China, Vietnam, Indonésia, Turquia, Bangladesh e Paquistão. Com base em dados que permitem rastreio – o que não ocorre no caso chinês –, as pistas levaram a oito fabricantes de roupas na Ásia.

Todas as intermediárias identificadas (PT Kahatex, na Indonésia; Noam Group e Jamuna Group, em Bagladesh; Nisha, Interloop, YBG, Sapphire, Mtmt, no Paquistão) fornecem produtos acabados a marcas como Zara e H&M, segundo aponta a ONG.

"O algodão que associamos aos abusos de direitos à terra e ambientais na Bahia tem certificação Better Cotton. Essa iniciativa falhou em impedir que este algodão chegasse aos consumidores preocupados", afirma o relatório da Earthsight.

Criada em 2009 pela indústria e outras organizações, incluindo a WWF, a iniciativa criou um selo para atestar a origem da matéria-prima no intuito de garantir qualidade e respeito ao meio ambiente. No Brasil, segundo dados da Better Cotton, há 370 fazendas certificadas em parceria com a Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Algodão (Abrapa).

Em 2018, uma análise feita pela Changing Markets Foundation, organização que visa alinhar mercados a padrões de sustentabilidade com sede na Holanda, sobre certificadoras apontou problemas na Better Cotton. "Em geral, os padrões para o algodão certificado são baixos e aplicam-se apenas ao início da cadeia de abastecimento de algodão. Considerar o certificado uma garantia de sustentabilidade é enganoso", dizia o levantamento.

A Better Cotton, sediada em Genebra, disse à DW que acaba de concluir uma auditoria aprimorada feita por terceiros das fazendas envolvidas e que precisa de tempo para analisar as conclusões e implementar mudanças, caso sejam necessárias. "As questões levantadas [pelo relatório] demonstram a necessidade premente de apoio governamental na abordagem das questões trazidas à luz e na garantia de uma implementação justa e eficaz do Estado de direito", diz o e-mail da iniciativa.

Mais controle das cadeias

À DW, a H&M afirmou que "as conclusões do relatório são altamente preocupantes" e que encaram a questão com muita seriedade. "Estamos em estreito diálogo com a Better Cotton para acompanhar o resultado da investigação e os próximos passos que serão dados para fortalecer e revisar seu padrão", respondeu a varejista, também por e-mail.

A Zara disse à DW que leva "as acusações contra a Better Cotton extremamente a sério" e exige que a certificadora partilhe o resultado da sua investigação o mais rápido possível.

"Além disso, solicitamos com urgência as providências tomadas pela Better Cotton para garantir a certificação de algodão sustentável nos mais altos padrões", disse a varejista por meio de nota.

Nesta quarta-feira, a Inditex, proprietária da Zara, exigiu mais transparência da Better Cotton após anúncio da divulgação do relatório para esta quinta. A Inditex enviou uma carta à iniciativa com data de 8 de abril, pedindo esclarecimentos sobre o processo de certificação e progressos em práticas de rastreamento de cadeias produtivas. A Inditex não compra o algodão diretamente dos fornecedores, mas as empresas produtoras são auditadas por certificadoras como a Better Cotton.

Para Rubens Carvalho, da Earthsight, responsabilizar os europeus é parte da solução para acabar com o desmatamento e violações de direitos nos centros produtores de commodities, como o Brasil.

"O algodão ainda é pouco regulamentado nos mercados europeus. Eles precisam regular seu consumo e desvinculá-lo de impactos negativos ambientais e humanos. É preciso uma regulamentação séria, que puna em caso de incumprimento. Isso aumenta a pressão sobre os produtores", defende Carvalho.

Moda de Inverno

Credo! Nunca me vestiria desta forma. A moda realmente às vezes supera o ridículo!!!

Contra a devastação social e ambiental do pronto a vestir, associações ambientalistas agiram na véspera da Black Friday: espalharam camisetas manchadas de sangue falso no coração de Paris.

Monções beneficiam as culturas de Kharif na Índia

A Índia e outras áreas do sul da Ásia estão vivenciando chuvas generalizadas de monções que beneficiam a maioria das culturas de kharif, conforme análise divulgada pelo USDA (Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos) em seu boletim semanal. No entanto, em partes mais secas do leste do país, ainda é necessário um maior volume de precipitação.

As chuvas de monções prevaleceram em grande parte da região, incluindo seções anteriormente secas do leste da Índia e Bangladesh. Apesar de algumas áreas de cultivo de arroz no leste terem recebido mais de 100 mm de chuva, ainda há bolsões de clima mais seco, e mais precipitação é necessária para aliviar os déficits de humidade sendo experienciados - com a chuva chegando a ser 60% abaixo do normal.

Em contraste, a maioria das outras áreas de cultivo da Índia beneficiou-se de chuvas consistentes, com a maioria das regiões registando de 25 a 100 mm ou mais no período atual. No entanto, em Telangana, áreas de cultivo de algodão provavelmente enfrentaram inundações com mais de 200 mm de chuva.

Essa chuva, embora necessária para o crescimento das culturas, pode se tornar prejudicial se ocorrer em excesso, como em Telangana, onde há um risco de inundações nas áreas de cultivo de algodão.

A monção é vital para a agricultura na Índia e em outras partes da Ásia do Sul, pois a maior parte das chuvas anuais na região ocorre durante a estação das monções. A agricultura da Índia depende muito das chuvas da monção para o cultivo de kharif, que inclui culturas como milho, algodão, soja e arroz

A Comissão Europeia autorizou três novas variedades de milho geneticamente modificado

A Comissão Europeia autorizou três novas variedades de milho geneticamente modificado, bem como a renovação das autorizações de três variedades de soja transgénica e de uma variedade de algodão. Estes transgénicos são todos propriedade da Bayer e destinam-se a ser importados como alimentos para consumo humano e animal. Até à data, a Comissão Europeia autorizou a importação de cerca de uma centena de plantas geneticamente modificadas, incluindo milho, soja, colza, algodão e beterraba. Estas autorizações, válidas por dez anos, não permitem o cultivo destas plantas, mas apenas a sua utilização na alimentação humana e animal (milho, soja, colza) ou como agrocombustível (colza, soja). Apenas o milho Mon810 continua a ser autorizado para cultivo, após a renovação da sua autorização em 2017.

A Comissão recorda que “qualquer produto feito a partir destes OGM estará sujeito a regras estritas da UE em matéria de rotulagem e rastreabilidade”, duas obrigações que permitem nomeadamente aos agricultores e consumidores fazer uma escolha informada. Ainda assim, essas autorizações levantam questões. A Comissão Europeia está em processo de desregulamentação de novos OGMs (sem definir seu contorno científico e legal). E, num documento recentemente vazado , a DG Saúde considerou que eles "são tão seguros quanto seus equivalentes convencionais". A DG Saúde também propõe simplesmente não detectar e rastrear esses novos OGMs.

A Comissão Europeia e as empresas vendem-nos o sonho de novos OGM, mais precisos, mais rápidos de desenvolver, mais interessantes para o consumidor nos Estados Unidos, onde as primeiras decisões de desregulamentação de novos OGM datam de mais de dez anos. Os novos OGMs ainda não são cultivados em larga escala, e as questões de precisão e economia de tempo ainda precisam ser demonstradas, além dos discursos publicitários.

The Disastrous 10 Worst Fabrics For The Environment

The fashion industry is one of the largest polluters globally. Most of the pollution it creates comes from fabric production. Many textiles used for clothing have a disastrous impact and are the worst for the environment.

The clothes we wear have a terrible impact on people, animals, and the planet. Most of them are full of toxic chemicals and consume crazy amounts of resources, land, water, and energy.

One of the best ways to reduce the environmental impact of fashion is to buy more eco-friendly fabrics. As consumers, we have the power to change what's happening in the fashion industry today.

The first step we can take toward a more sustainable future is getting informed on fabrics to avoid when shopping for new clothes. Consuming less and better helps tremendously to protect the Earth.

With a few great tips, you can build a more conscious wardrobe that does better for people and the planet. Shop more ethical brands that use sustainable materials.

If you want to do a bit of digging, you can easily find out about the awful consequences of fast fashion, the terrible fabrics they are using, and their disastrous impact on the environment.

The global textile and apparel industry is very harmful in many different ways. Unfortunately, there is a lot of conflicting information out there. Most fashion brands and retailers are hiding the truth from consumers.

Businesses don't want you to know how much pollution, waste, and carbon dioxide emissions they are responsible for. Even if the oil industry is the most polluting globally, petroleum-based textiles aren't the only culprit.

Not every natural fabric is good for the environment. There are many facts behind the clothes you wear that fashion brands don't want you to see.

To make it as easy as possible for you to make conscious decisions, I've compiled here the information you need to avoid wasteful fabrics, buy better clothing, and support sustainable fashion labels that are actively working to reduce their environmental impact.

I know this information may seem overwhelming and frustrating at first, especially if you are new to sustainable fashion. Take it one step at a time. You don't have to change completely tomorrow.

Ultimately, if you take the approach of shopping less and higher-quality, you are well on your way to have a positive impact on society and the environment.

To discover the more sustainable options for your wardrobe, here are the 10 worst fabrics for the environment.

1. Cotton

Cotton is probably the fabric you expect the least to see on this list. But it's one of the worst for the environment.

Conventional cotton is one of the worst natural fibers. It's extremely wasteful, polluting, and damaging to human health. It ruins biodiversity and soil fertility.

Today, cotton is mass-produced in subtropical countries around the world. And mass-production isn't sustainable. It's the second most used fiber for apparel and footwear after polyester.

30.3 million tons of cotton are produced each year globally, as estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

China is the largest producer of cotton worldwide with 6.1 million tons of cotton produced in 2018, followed by India (4.69 million tons), and the United States (4 million tons).

Regular cotton farming pollutes the air, water sources, soils, endangering ecosystems, and human lives. It accounts for 16% of all insecticides, 7% of all herbicides, 4% of all nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers worldwide.

Cotton also requires a lot of water to grow. It's one of the most water-intensive crops. It takes about 20,000 liters of water to produce one kilogram of cotton, equivalent to a single t-shirt and pair of jeans, as reported by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

The better alternative is to buy organic cotton. The Textile Exchange estimates that organic cotton farming can potentially save 218 billion liters of water and 92.5 million kg of carbon dioxide.

About 80% of all organic cotton is grown with water form rainfalls, which reduces pressure on local water sources. It's non-GMO and grown without man-made fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.

Here are some of the best places to buy amazing organic cotton clothes that will protect your skin, your well-being, and the health of your family:

• Organic Basics sustainably and ethically produces underwear, activewear, and essentials in Europe with organic cotton.
• Alternative Apparel creates fashion basics for a sustainable future. Men and women's apparel basics in soft eco-fabrics, organic, and Pima cotton.
• Hanna Andersson, a selection of clothes, swimsuits, and pajamas for baby, toddler, boys, girls, and even adults designed to last.
• PACT, a leading sustainable fashion brand using only organic fabrics and Fair Trade factories to design stylish essential clothing.
• MATE makes clean essentials sustainably in Los Angeles with non-toxic, natural, and organic materials.

5 fashion materials you didn't realise were bad for wildlife

The fashion industry has a dark side, a lot darker than many of us realise.

It is one of the worst polluters and wreaks havoc on our environment in countries across the world, affecting human health and wildlife with dire consequences. Many fibres that are sold in well-known shops on the high street cause harm to species - and we’re not talking about the direct impact of the fur trade. 

Can Fashion Be Sustainable?

Here’s five common fashion materials you might not have realised damage wildlife and ecosystems.

How a cheap cashmere jumper affects the Mongolian steppe

The grasslands of Mongolia and the herders and wildlife that live in them - species include the snow leopard, corsac fox and bobak marmot - are currently under serious threat. The steppes were already degraded due to climate change, resultant soil erosion and the drying up of lakes and rivers. Now overgrazing by a three-fold increase of animals since the 1990s is causing significant decline. Studies suggest that 80 percent of the 70 per cent degradation of the grasslands is due to overgrazing, according to this journal of Environmental challenges in Mongolia's dryland pastoral landscape. The major factor driving this activity? Global market demand for cheaper cashmere. Goats, whose soft, downy undercoat is used to make cashmere jumpers, are more destructive than other livestock, such as sheep, and Mongolia is the second-largest cashmere producer in the world.

How washing your fleece can stunt the growth of crabs

We know that the volume of plastic, from microbeads to plastic bottles, that enters oceans and waterways is already at catastrophic levels for the wildlife that live in them. But less known is that one of the routes is through our washing machines. When clothes made from synthetic fibres (polyester, nylon, acrylic) are washed in a machine, millions of tiny microfibres are released via water treatment plants into the sea, rivers and lakes. The fibres contain toxic chemicals, which are innate to the material or through soaking up detergent and other toxins, which adversely affect aquatic ecosystems, transferring pollutants to animal tissue. The study of plastic microfibre ingestion by deep-sea organisms show microfibre ingestion in a wide variety of species, including crabs, lobsters, fish, turtles, penguins, seals, manatees and sea otters. Microfibres have even been found in the food we eat. This situation is bad news for wildlife: the fibres can block the digestion tract and damage stomach lining leading to reduced feeding and starvation.

Viscose, Rayon and Deforestation

Dissolving pulp, or bleached wood pulp, is the base material for viscose and rayon, fibres which are used in many garments by the fashion industry. What you might not know is that the pulp is often taken from trees in endangered or ancient forests. This means that the clothes we buy and wear are contributing directly to deforestation and habitat destruction. Currently, more than 150 million trees are logged to be made into clothes. Despite a few big-name brands gathering viscose from sustainably certified forests, the number of trees logged for viscose is rising in forests in Indonesia, Canada and the Amazon.

Deforestation also has an impact on climate change, as carbon is stored in trees. These fashion habits are extremely damaging: forest habitats are home to biodiverse populations of thousands of species, with many already rare and endangered.

How much water?

Just because cotton isn’t a man-made fibre, doesn’t mean it’s sustainable. In fact, cotton has become one of the most unsustainable crops on the planet. For a start, it uses so much water to produce which contributes to the freshwater shortage across the globe. It can take 2,700 litres of water to make just one cotton t-shirt. In Kazakhstan, this has led to the destruction of the Aral Sea and its inhabitant species. Additionally, manufacturing cotton requires high levels of pesticides and other hazardous chemicals, which leach into waterways and soil. Cotton production is responsible for 22.5 percent of insecticide use globally. In light of recent predictions about insect decline, this makes a more sustainable process even more urgent.

Fast Fashion

In recent years, retailers have increased the number of fashion collections they release each season. Some high-street shops rotate new garments multiple times a week. It is part of the cheap, throwaway culture known as ‘fast fashion’. Every year, 100 billion new garments made from new fibres are produced many of which soon end up in landfill. This results in an enormous carbon footprint. Polyester and nylon, for example, are made using fossil fuels. Cotton production, too, requires a significant amount of carbon dioxide. Fast fashion also leads to pollution with a dangerously high level of chemicals leaching into our environment. A dress might cost a few pounds for the consumer, but there is a hidden cost to the wider environment, both for the low-paid workers in poor conditions, and for ecosystems and other species.

So, what can you do?

There are a few materials available which are better for nature such as sustainable viscose a material made from trees, and sustainable wool. But to really have an impact, we can simply buy less and love what we buy.

• Swap clothes with friends and family when you no longer want them
• Repair worn out clothing and shoes rather than throwing them away
• Search for sustainable brands and look into the journey products have been on
• Buy quality items that will last longer

Fonte: aqui

One in three Americans have detectable levels of toxic weedkiller, study finds

One in three people across America have detectable levels of a toxic herbicide linked to cancers, birth defects and hormonal imbalances, a major nationwide survey has found.

Human exposure to the herbicide 2,4-D has substantially risen amid expanding use among farmers despite a multitude of health and environmental concerns, according to the first nationally representative study evaluating the footprint of the chemical.

The herbicide was developed in the mid-1940s and quickly became the go-to weedkiller for farmers focused on increasing crop yields, while also gaining popularity among gardeners looking for a pristine lawn.

Its popularity dipped in favor of Roundup (glyphosate) and genetically modified cotton and soyabeans resistant to this herbicide, but it has seen a resurgence since the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds.

2,4-D is currently riding high thanks to this Whac-a-Mole approach to pest control in industrialised farming, with about 600 US agricultural and residential products now containing the chemical which can be ingested through the skin, mouth and nose.

Researchers from George Washington university examined the urine samples of 14,395 people (aged six and older) from all walks of life who take part in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They looked for biomarkers to the pesticide, and compared the exposure levels detected with the use of 2,4-D from 2001 until 2014.

As the pesticide grew in popularity among farmers and gardeners, so did evidence of human exposure, rising from a low of 17% in 2001-02 to a high of almost 40% a decade later.

Exposure to high levels of 2,4-D, an ingredient of Agent Orange used against civilians during the Vietnam war, has been linked to cancers including leukemia in children, birth defects and reproductive problems among other health issues.

While little is known about the impact of low-level exposure to the herbicide, it does disrupt the endocrine system – a network of glands that make hormones which control growth and development, reproduction, metabolism and our organs and moods.

The study, published online in Environmental Health, found exposure was not uniform, with several subgroups including children aged six to 11 and women of childbearing age showing substantially higher levels of 2,4-D in their urine. Exposure to toxins is often more detrimental during developmental or key growth periods like pregnancy and early childhood.

“Further study must determine how rising exposure to 2,4-D affects human health–especially when exposure occurs early in life,” said Melissa Perry, professor of environmental and occupational health and senior author of the paper. “Children and other vulnerable groups are also increasingly exposed to other pesticides and these chemicals may act synergistically to produce health problems.”

The study also found that Black participants, who multiple previous studies have shown to have higher exposure to all sorts of environmental pollutants, showed signs of lower exposure to the weedkiller than white Americans. This may be a result of historic racist policies restricting access to homes with gardens and green spaces for Black communities, the researchers argue.

Overall, the amount of 2,4-D applied in agriculture increased 67% between 2012 and 2020, but its use will almost certainly grow sharply over the next decade due to the widespread use of the controversial weedkiller Enlist Duo – a relatively newly approved combo (2,4-D and glyphosate) for genetically modified crops. This will make both toxins – which are both banned in some countries – increasingly difficult to avoid.

“Our study suggests human exposures to 2,4-D have gone up significantly and they are predicted to rise even more in the future,” Marlaina Freisthler, a PhD student and co-author of the study. “Given the potential for human and environmental health impacts of such widespread exposures, we believe increases in use and exposures are not the direction to be going.”

Glifosato: O Supremo Tribunal Federal e todo o judiciário argentino são cúmplices de genocídio

Como profissional do direito, a dor e a impotência diante de tamanha conivência do judiciário são imensuráveis. Quantos mais precisarão morrer antes de entender que o glifosato Roundup e todas as suas formulações são cancerígenos? Alguns cientistas já o consideram mais tóxico que o DDT, que levou mais de 50 anos para ser banido. Quem alcançou esse feito, e que não o viu em vida, foi a bióloga Rachel Carson, falecida em 1964.

A Agência Internacional de Pesquisa sobre o Câncer (IARC-OMS) também classificou os inseticidas DDT e lindano. O DDT foi classificado como "provável cancerígeno" com base em evidências suficientes de que causa câncer em animais de laboratório e "evidências limitadas" em humanos. Em 1973, onze anos após a publicação de "Primavera Silenciosa", a EPA (Agência de Proteção Ambiental dos EUA) proibiu o uso do DDT. Na Argentina, ele só foi proibido em 1990.

Mas a justiça não será mais feita aos afetados pela pulverização de agrotóxicos na Argentina. É o caso de Julieta Florencia Sandoval , que nasceu em 15 de abril de 2010 e morreu sete meses depois, em 13 de dezembro do mesmo ano, em Bandera, Santiago del Estero. Ela não conseguia mais respirar porque seus pulmões estavam pressionados contra a escoliose grave de sua coluna; ela foi submetida a uma traqueostomia; e nasceu com vários defeitos congênitos, incluindo hidrocefalia, paralisia facial e paralisia cerebral. Ela foi concebida em um ambiente impactado por agrotóxicos. Um feto que, aos 28 dias de gestação, já sofria os efeitos completos das toxinas. Seus pais trabalhavam no campo; seu tio e avô eram pulverizadores terrestres para os famosos "mosquitos". Seu avô morreu e sua avó sofre de várias doenças por compartilhar a mesma casa contaminada.

Fabián Tomasi, o pulverizador agrícola de Basavilbaso, Entre Ríos, morreu aos 52 anos em setembro de 2018. Ele sofria de polineuropatia tóxica grave. Ele incansavelmente conscientizou sobre os perigos que enfrentava ao encher os tanques de pequenos aviões com Round Up e vários outros coquetéis, manuseando-os sem qualquer proteção e até mesmo brincando com as gotas dos bicos dos aviões, onde, sob a sombra deles, almoçava ao lado das plantações que seriam pulverizadas minutos depois.

Ambos são autores da liminar e de seus subsequentes afastamentos até o momento, mas várias testemunhas do agrocídio também faleceram. Entre elas, estava o cientista Dr. Andrés Carrasco , pesquisador do Conicet que, em maio de 2014, era diretor do Laboratório de Embriologia Molecular da Universidade de Buenos Aires (UBA). Ele alertou o país de que os interesses daqueles que lideram a economia global estavam colocando seriamente em risco a saúde pública. Essas mesmas pessoas comemoram hoje a colheita recorde de soja.

O Dr. Hugo Néstor “Bubi” Gómez Demaio , com inestimáveis ​​evidências fotográficas e empíricas das mais diversas malformações em crianças em Misiones, nos deixou em julho de 2017, e pouco depois, em 13 de dezembro de 2017, faleceu o médico santafesino Rodolfo Páramo. Ele havia relatado os primeiros 12 casos de nascimentos com malformações na cidade de Malabrigo. Meu grande amigo e todos os meus colegas de Congressos e viagens se foram, e dói continuar esta luta sem eles.

Diferentemente dos tribunais dos EUA, nosso Tribunal Federal Argentino rejeitou o caso "Giménez, Alicia Fany e Outros vs. Ministério da Agroindústria e Outros s/ Medida Preliminar (Autônoma)", onde um grupo de cidadãos exigiu um limite para pesticidas.

Os advogados que iniciaram o processo principal em 2012 perante a Suprema Corte da Argentina foram os Drs. Horacio Rodolfo Belosi, Miguel Araya, Daniel Eduardo Salaberry, Graciela Cristina Vizcay Gomez, Jorge Alberto Mosset Iturraspe Cravin e Santiago Andres Kapun . Alguns deles atuaram no caso principal "Mendoza, Beatriz Silvia e outros vs. Estado Nacional e outros s/ danos e perdas" (danos decorrentes da poluição ambiental do Rio Matanza - Riachuelo), onde o Tribunal proferiu uma decisão diferente de sua composição atual.

Esta ação é movida contra as províncias de Entre Ríos, Buenos Aires e Santiago del Estero, o Ministério da Agroindústria, o Conselho Federal do Meio Ambiente e as empresas Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Nidera e Syngenta, entre outras.

Os autores buscam uma declaração judicial sobre a determinação científica da segurança de Organismos Geneticamente Modificados (OGM) de origem animal ou vegetal. Requerem também a suspensão provisória da "comercialização, venda e aplicação de produtos que contenham glifosato e seus sais derivados" diretamente relacionados ao cultivo de soja, milho, girassol, trigo e algodão, bem como de todos os atos administrativos aprovados desde a Resolução nº 167/1997, que foi anulada. Essa suspensão provisória abrange também a aplicação de agrotóxicos, herbicidas, produtos fitossanitários, fungicidas e/ou "qualquer outro conjunto químico vinculado ao uso de sementes transgênicas", seja por meio de pulverização terrestre (mosquiteiros, pulverizadores costais, aspersores) ou aérea (aviões) que contenham glifosato como ingrediente ativo ou seus sais derivados.

Cada uma das petições apresentadas de 2012 até o presente foi sistematicamente rejeitada por todos os tribunais em que entrou, como uma batata quente. A imagem em anexo mostra apenas alguns dos casos levados à justiça decorrentes do recurso de amparo interposto em 2012. Um deles, datado de 2014, aguarda atualmente a votação do Supremo Tribunal Federal e está no gabinete do Juiz Rosenkrantz.

O Presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal, Carlos Rosenkrantz, proferiu ou assinou resoluções sobre 20 empresas que defendeu como advogado antes de ingressar na Corte. Ele beneficiou todas elas, apesar de o Artigo 17 do Código Nacional de Processo Civil e Comercial prever claramente o direito à recusa pelos motivos expostos. No entanto, o Presidente do Tribunal não obedeceu ao mandato da lei, contrariando o que disse em seu primeiro discurso de abertura do ano judicial, em 19 de março, onde reconheceu que o Judiciário vive uma "crise de legitimidade" e "confiança", que "há dúvidas de que nos comportaremos como verdadeiros juízes de uma democracia republicana" e que "começa a se espalhar a suspeita de que servimos a interesses alheios à lei".

Ao contrário da Argentina, o primeiro processo do gênero a ser julgado nos Estados Unidos condenou a Monsanto a pagar mais de US$ 289,25 milhões em indenização, incluindo US$ 250 milhões em danos punitivos por ocultar maliciosamente os perigos do principal produto da empresa. O juiz do caso reduziu a indenização para US$ 39,2 milhões em uma ordem datada de 22 de outubro de 2018, mantendo o valor final em US$ 79,5 milhões e reafirmando a culpa da Monsanto.

Em agosto de 2018, um zelador escolar de 46 anos chamado Dwayne Johnson usava Roundup regularmente em seu trabalho em um distrito escolar no norte da Califórnia. Depois de passar anos misturando e pulverizando o produto químico, Johnson desenvolveu uma erupção cutânea, que evoluiu para lesões e, posteriormente, para linfoma não Hodgkin. O caso foi aberto em caráter de emergência, pois Johnson poderia ter meses de vida. O júri considerou comprovado que os pesticidas Roundup e Ranger Pro causaram o linfoma e que a Monsanto não divulgou no rótulo os perigos das formulações, componentes que o tribunal considerou cancerígenos.

Na Califórnia, a rotulagem de qualquer coisa que contenha um ingrediente cancerígeno é obrigatória. O advogado da Monsanto citou décadas de estudos que não demonstravam nenhuma ligação entre o glifosato e o tipo de câncer de que Johnson sofre. Mas a conclusão de que a Monsanto "agiu de má-fé" baseou-se na classificação do glifosato pela Agência Internacional de Pesquisa sobre o Câncer, uma agência da Organização Mundial da Saúde, como "provavelmente cancerígeno" e na decisão que considerou o herbicida da empresa "um fator substancial na causa do câncer".

Em março de 2019, a exposição ao Roundup também foi considerada um "fator determinante" no desenvolvimento de câncer para Edwin Hardeman. Hardeman foi diagnosticado com linfoma não Hodgkin em fevereiro de 2015, após pulverizar Roundup em sua propriedade mais de 300 vezes ao longo de 26 anos.

Também no final de março de 2019, o tribunal ordenou que a Monsanto pagasse mais de US$ 2 bilhões a Alva e Alberta Pilliod , um casal de 70 anos de São Francisco que usou o herbicida Roundup em suas terras e desenvolveu câncer. A Monsanto deve pagar a eles US$ 2 bilhões em indenização (US$ 1 bilhão para cada um), além de outros US$ 55 milhões em indenização por perdas econômicas e danos morais, entre outros. Alva Pilliod foi diagnosticada com linfoma não-Hodgkin em 2011, e Alberta foi diagnosticada em 2015.

Em março de 2019, o glifosato foi restringido em 28 países em todo o mundo. Em uma pesquisa de 2016, aproximadamente 66% dos entrevistados nos cinco maiores países da União Europeia apoiaram a proibição de produtos com glifosato.

Mas tudo isso parece insuficiente para os juízes argentinos e para a Suprema Corte, que rejeitam todas as liminares e se tornam cúmplices do genocídio em massa de mais de 44 milhões de pessoas que são direta e indiretamente envenenadas diariamente por todas essas empresas. Elas também nos alimentam com nossa cota diária de venenos, desmatam nossas florestas, causam inundações e causam o maior número de alergias e doenças, afetando principalmente as crianças, que são as mais expostas aos riscos e à ubiquidade dos venenos, tanto nas áreas agrícolas quanto nas cidades.

A Bayer comprou a Monsanto apenas dois meses antes do veredito de Dwayne Johnson e enfrentará mais de 13.000 processos nos Estados Unidos. Muitas das vítimas não viverão para ver suas sentenças. E as famílias dos juízes também estão na lista; ninguém está a salvo do Roundup.

Monsanto and Co: From seven to four – growing by shrinking

Mergers galore: Bayer wants to buy Monsanto and become the world’s largest producer of seeds and agrochemicals. All top rivaling companies are pairing up. ➢ Download the Agrifood Atlas with facts and figures about the corporations that control what we eat.

Seven companies currently dominate the global production of pesticides and seeds, a key sector in agriculture. But this oligopoly will shrink if the EU and US competition authorities give their green light. The two US corporations DuPont and Dow Chemical have merged, ChemChina has bought the Swiss company Syngenta, and the German chemical giant Bayer is going to take over the US company Monsanto. Three newly-formed conglomerates would dominate more than 60 percent of the market for commercial seed and agricultural chemicals. They would manage the supply of almost all the genetically modified plants on this market. They would also own the majority of patent applications for intellectual property rights for plants at the European Patent Office.

Bayer and Monsanto planing a turnover of 120 billions

The new Bayer-Monsanto would be the world’s largest agricultural corporation, holding one-third of the global market for commercial seed and a quarter of the market for pesticides. Bayer has agreed to buy Monsanto for US$ 66 billion. Bayer-Monsanto and DuPont-Dow will remain on the stock market, and will continue to be accountable to their shareholders. The management of DuPont-Dow plans to split the new group into three listed companies, one of them an independently operating agrochemicals company. ChemChina, a state-owned firm that is China’s biggest chemicals producer, has also agreed to pay an eleven-digit figure, US$ 43 billion, for Syngenta. Along with Syngenta’s pesticide and seed production, ChemChina, already a producer of non-patented chemicals, will gain an enormous amount of knowledge on genetic engineering despite resistance by many Chinese about using this technology in farming, and doubts over whether the Chinese government will support the introduction of genetically modified plants. Whether Syngenta’s new owners will list parts of the company on the stock exchange is unclear.

Bayer is financing the takeover of Monsanto with US$ 57 billion of loans. Its board argues that the enormous potential of global agricultural markets justifies the price, and taking on so much debt. It expects the global turnover of seed and pesticides to increase from US$ 85 billion in 2015 to US$ 120 billion in 2025. For comparison: in 2015 Bayer and Monsanto had a turnover of US$ 25.5 billion and a profit of US$ 5 billion.

No other company has swallowed more competitors in the seed sector than Monsanto

Bayer AG, the world’s tenth largest chemicals manufacturer, has expanded into seeds by acquiring other companies. It has joined the league of large multinational seed corporations, following in the footsteps of other chemicals companies. Five of the world‘s seven largest seed producers come originally from the chemical industry: Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow and Bayer.

No other company has swallowed more competitors in the seed sector than Monsanto. This corporation began buying up seed producers around the world in the 1990s and now dominates a quarter of the world’s commercial seed market. It owns rights to most of the genetically modified plants, but also sells many conventional seeds, in particular vegetables. Monsanto’s presence is difficult to detect because the companies it controls often keep their original name; Monsanto’s logo rarely appears on a seed package in Europe.

The narrowing of the oligopoly from six or seven to three members will bring Bayer-Monsanto, DuPont-Dow and ChemChina-Syngenta closer to their objective of dominating seed and pesticide markets and dictating products, prices and quality standards. All three groups are pursuing the strategy of ousting other suppliers and eliminating competitors, if necessary through acquisitions.

Bayer could soon become the world’s number one in the seed and pesticide sector

Thirty national antitrust authorities worldwide are analysing these mega mergers. The European Commission has ruled that DuPont must sell off some of its pesticides as well as its research and development branch. To squeeze past the regulators Bayer is forced to sell off its South African business in genetically modified cotton, as well as its Liberty Link crops and chemicals.

Other corporations want to benefit from the wave of mergers by buying up business segments that the merging companies have to sell off. US-based FMC, formerly known as Food Machinery and Chemicals Corporation, has benefited from the Dow-DuPont scraps, buying some of their pesticides and research departments, making them currently the 5th largest valued pesticide producer in the world. The German company BASF is also buying sell-offs from the mergers.

The bigger a multinational, the more power it has to lobby politicians and to influence legislation. Bayer could soon become the world’s number one in the seed and pesticide sector. The group is under pressure because of its high debt, but is certain of the support of Germany, Europe’s economic giant.

A risk is that the new German global player and its political allies could target the fundamental achievements of EU legislation. These include the principle that the safety of pesticides must be demonstrated before they can receive EU approval: i.e., they do not cause cancer, affect reproduction, damage embryos or the hormone system. Bayer is likely to try to alter the licensing and labelling requirements of genetically modified plants, portraying these rules as obstacles of growth and trade. Big tasks lie ahead: Whoever secures genetic material through patents will control the seed sector and will influence agriculture, food production – and ultimately world food security.

» You can download the entire Agrifood Atlas here.

Imagens e fonte da notícia aqui

Leitura da Semana: GE food and animals the year in review

by Lucy Sharratt

Quem é Lucy Sharratt?

Lucy Sharatt

Nominated for Best Peoples Defense[Captain Hook]

Nominated by E. Ann Clark (Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, but I do not represent them) – Monday 06 February 2006

Reasons for this nomination

Subcategory - 'On a Shoestring'

Lucy Sharratt, who has worked for the Polaris Institute, the Quakers, the Council of Canadians and other NGOs, deserves to be recognized and affirmed for her personal and lifelong commitment to biojustice. What distinguishes her from many other deserving candidates is her ability to come up with imaginative approaches to reveal corporate encroachment and government dissembling, and to mobilize others to further expose the risks - and to drive her ideas to completion - always on a slender shoestring budget. She is a model to be emulated.

Supporting info

Map Your Corporate Campus is a particularly novel approach to empowering students to investigate and expose corporate involvement on their own campuses, resulting in a detailed campus map. Remarkably effective and powerful - yet simple and readable.

Genetically Modified Organisms and Precaution: Is the Canadian Government Implementing the Royal Society of Canada's Recommendations? (Oct 2004) by Peter Andree and Lucy Sharratt is a detailed, point by point analysis of what the RSC recommended and how government has responded. Priceless. This needed to be done, but required painstaking and tedious effort to expose the fraud of the Canadian government.

Polaris Institute

Artigo

Fonte [Common Ground]

Starting with the humble alfalfa seed and ending with a genetically engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon, the controversies in 2010 over genetic engineering multiplied and tumbled over each other, with the year ending in unprecedented uncertainty.

This year, the GE Atlantic salmon and GE “Envriopig” began lurching towards commercialization in both the US and Canada. The fate of these GE animals, and that of the unassuming alfalfa seed, will shape the future of our food system and of democracy.

Alfalfa seeds are tiny and generally keep a low profile, but this year the little perennial seeds were in the limelight during a showdown between Monsanto and organic farmers. It is no exaggeration to say that GE alfalfa threatens the future of the entire North American organic food and farming system because of the diverse and unique role that alfalfa plays in many different types of farming, as well as the inevitability of contamination. In 2010, Monsanto was forced to go to the US Supreme Court to try to get its GE Roundup Ready alfalfa in the ground; the company essentially lost the case and it is still illegal to plant GE alfalfa in the US. The USDA is being forced by the courts to publish an Environmental Impact Statement, but once it is complete plantings could begin. Canadian organic farmers shared their experience of GE contamination of organic canola with the USDA in the hopes of swaying the outcome against Monsanto. Meanwhile, here in Canada, conventional and organic growers continue to lobby the federal government to try to find a way to stop GE alfalfa.

In a parallel case, organic farmers in the US successfully challenged the GE sugarbeet (white sugarbeet for sugar processing). In August, a US court ruled the department had failed to conduct an adequate analysis of the impacts of GE sugarbeets on farmers and the environment. The beets were therefore ruled illegal to plant or sell until the USDA completed a full environmental assessment. However, because this study may not be finished until 2012, Monsanto and the sugar industry have pressured the USDA by proposing plantings next spring. All of Canada’s sugarbeet seeds, grown in Alberta and Southern Ontario, come from the Willamette Valley in Oregon so if GE sugarbeets cannot be planted in the US, there may be no GE sugarbeet seed for Canada.

The year of “We told you so”

In a predictable, though unfortunate, “We told you so” moment (one of too many in 2010), university researchers found transgenes present in 80 percent of the wild canola plants they tested in North Dakota. The canola provides new evidence that GE crop plants can survive and thrive in the wild, possibly for decades. But this is not the first documented escape into the wild. It was recently revealed that the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the USDA refused to alert the public that GE Roundup Ready bentgrass spread from a test plot in Western Idaho to irrigation ditches in Eastern Oregon. The feral GE bentgrass is a warning about the future of GE alfalfa. But, of course, this contamination brings up the particular problem of herbicide tolerance where the feral plants are engineered to survive specific herbicide sprayings. Most GE crops on the market are herbicide tolerant and the majority of these are Roundup Ready, resistant to Monsanto’s brand-name herbicide “Roundup” and its active ingredient glyphosate.

Overuse of Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready soy, corn, canola and cotton is now showing a predictable result. 2010 was the year of the superweed. Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, is among 10 weed species in 20 US states, and one in Ontario, that have become resistant to glyphosate. The rapid spread of glyphosate resistant pigweed is a major agronomic failure of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready technology and an economic shock to farmers. In the US cotton belt, the pigweed is forcing farmers to revert to more toxic herbicides such as paraquat and they are abandoning their cotton-picking machines in favour of hired labour. This problem has actually triggered a race among chemical companies to develop new GM crops or to use old herbicides to attack the resistant weeds. “The biotech industry is taking us into a more pesticide-dependent agriculture than they’ve always promised and we need to be going in the opposite direction,” said Bill Freese at the Center for Food Safety in Washington.

Monsanto also overreached in 2010 and is now feeling the pinch. In 2009, the US and Canada granted approval for Monsanto’s new eight-trait “SmartStax” corn, a combination of different insect resistant and herbicide tolerant traits with a whopping price hike of up to 42 percent. Monsanto’s stocks fell significantly at the end of this year when results showed farmers were not buying “SmartStax” in levels projected by the company. It was a difficult year for the world’s biggest seed and biotech company as the US Justice Department intensified its antitrust investigation, farmers in Haiti burned Monsanto’s hybrid corn seed donation and Monsanto began giving rebates to farmers so they could buy competitor’s herbicides in order to kill Roundup resistant weeds.

Monsanto is also being investigated in West Virginia for possibly misleading growers who were promised improved yields from Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean. After converting its chemical business to “seeds and traits,” Monsanto is beginning to show the strain of a technology that has yet to fulfill its early promise and struggling with all of its anticipated troubles.

Farmers first!

This year, for the first time in our 15-year history with genetically engineered crops, farmers had a voice in Parliament and our MPs debated some of the real issues. This debate was thanks to Bill C-474, which would require that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” This one-line Private Members bill challenged the biotechnology industry to defend its practice of introducing GE crops, even when contamination will ruin the export markets of Canadian farmers. Canadian regulation does not include, or even allow, consideration of the question of economic impact of GE crops and there is no space for farmers to share their knowledge or voice their concerns. In 2001, flax farmers predicted GE flax would ruin their European market and they were proven right in 2009 when GM contamination shut down our flax exports. Despite this clear case, the Liberal and Conservative parties refuse to acknowledge there is a problem, even with the partial solution of Bill C-474 on the table.

Before the Liberals and Conservatives shut down hearings on Bill C-474, the House of Commons Agriculture Committee heard testimony from groups representing conventional and organic alfalfa growers who described how GM would inevitably ruin farmers. Conservative and Liberal MPs could barely believe this revelation and rather than pursue this line of inquiry, they shut down the hearings. On October 28, the president of the National Farmers Union was turned away from Parliament Hill when the scheduled hearings in which he was called to participate were cancelled. The debate on Bill C-474 was so effective up to that point that the Liberals and Conservatives built an escape hatch in the form of a new motion to the Agriculture Committee: that the Committee “conduct a study on the status of the Canadian biotechnology sector, in which it travels to the universities across Canada where this technology is primarily being undertaken, and that it recommend, where necessary, legislative, policy and regulatory changes in order to foster an innovative and fertile biotechnology industry in Canada.”

This study would neither address nor explore the problem Bill C-474 identifies. Instead, it would provide the biotech industry with a public relations platform while allowing the Liberals and Conservatives to tell constituents they are doing something, however useless, about this controversial GE issue.

Bill C-474 identifies the core problem with genetic engineering: there is no democratic decision making process with regard to genetic engineering and GE crops can and do harm the very people they are supposed to benefit – farmers. The tremendous industry backlash over Bill C-474 shows that, when farmers and food come first, Monsanto is last. The final vote on Bill C-474 should take place in mid-December.

Lucy Sharratt is the coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. .

Transgénicos: nos EUA celebridades tomam iniciativas interessantes - Um Mês Sem Monsanto

February 28th, 2010 | Author: Christy Morgan

I had the pleasure of sitting down with April Davila to discuss her new project called Month Without Monsanto. For the month of March she is trying to go without Monsanto products in her life. That means not ingesting GMO foods, not wearing cotton clothing, or using any skin care products that may have been produced with GMO or biotech ingredients. She’s got her work cut out for her, but I think she can do it!

I’m excited to follow her journey so I too can become a better consumer. I personally don’t want to support Monsanto in any way, so April’s blog will make sure I know my stuff when it comes to being a consumer.

Here’s a little video that will tell you more about April and Month Without Monsanto. More interview questions are after the video. I really hope that you will join April and follow her during the month of March. (sorry the video quality kept getting dark then light again)

The Blissful Chef: What are some horrifying things you’ve found in your research on Monsanto?

The thing I have found the most shocking so far is this quote from Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communication for Monsanto:

“Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food, our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

The Blissful Chef: Do you think there’s any hope of fighting the agriculture-evil that is Monsanto?

To answer this question I need to step back and say that I don’t think Monsanto is evil. Monsanto is an agricultural company that exists to make money. They’re good at it. I’m not interested in raging against their attempts to keep investors happy.

What does get me excited is the idea that we, as consumers, have the power to accept genetically modified organisms or not. There is absolutely hope for our future. A recent report from the ISAAA stated that only 2.7% of all agricultural land was devoted to GM crops last year, and most of those yields went to feed livestock. Of the 25 countries that currently allow cultivation of GM crops, seven of them saw a reduction in the number of acres devoted to GM crops in 2009.

The Blissful Chef: What can we do to help you on your quest or help our families & friends go “Without Monsanto”?

The best thing we can do is get involved in the conversation. My goal with the blog is really to open up a dialogue and get people talking about what’s in our food. The more we know, the more we can shop with confidence and feel good about what we’re eating.

The Blissful Chef: Is it possible for the everyday person to go Without Monsanto?

I certainly hope so. Ask me on March 31st.

Thank you again April for sitting down with me and taking on this month-long mission to go without Monsanto. I will be right along with you this month and hopefully some of you will join her too! Don’t forget to subscribe to the blog Month Without Monsanto and follow her on Twitter @WithoutMonsanto.

O algodão que, afinal, é muito pouco orgânico...

O escândalo rebentou [DN Bolsa, 23.01.10] : muitas das peças de vestuário vendidas em algumas das grandes cadeias de pronto-a-vestir, como a H&M e a Tchibo, com a etiqueta fabricado em 100% algodão orgânico, afinal são falsas. A denúncia é do Financial Times Germany [aqui].

De acordo com o jornal, grandes quantidades de algodão orgânico importado da Índia é, na verdade, algodão modificado geneticamente. A H&M continua a promover a sua linha Organic Cotton, garantindo que é fabricada em 100% algodão orgânico.
Uma notícia com mais profundidade sobre esta matéria em Ecouterre.

Monsanto and the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS)

Monsanto: eis as razões porque foi nomeada para o Angry Mermaid Award (texto em inglês)

1. Background

Monsanto is the world’s largest seed company, which has controversially been promoting genetically modified (GM) crops for over a decade. According to Monsanto, GM crops are not just the solution to world hunger, they can also help tackle climate change.

Biotech companies are pushing for public subsidies for their “climate-friendly” crops. They also want to profit from the international carbon trade by pushing for these “climate-friendly” crops to be eligible for carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The RoundTable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) of which Monsanto is a member, is helping to promote the company’s cause by allowing GM soy to be labelled as “responsible”. This may mean that RTRS certified GM soy will in the near future be considered as a “sustainable” source of agrofuel; or be eligible for carbon credits through CDM projects.

Monsanto claims its RoundupReady crops help tackle climate change because they can be grown without ploughing the soil, known as ‘no tillage’ or ‘conservation tillage’ agriculture. Ploughing soil releases carbon dioxide (CO2) Instead RoundupReady crops rely on large quantities of herbicides to control weeds. Monsanto argues that this means it should be eligible for carbon credits because it is locking CO2 in the soil.

But RoundupReady soy, which is grown on over 40 million hectares across South America, has severe social and environmental impacts, with increased pesticide use leading to damage to human health and the environment. These vast monocultures of soy have replaced valuable forest – resulting in huge CO2 emissions – and have displaced rural and indigenous communities.

Monsanto also co-founded the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, a lobby group set up to counter criticisms that agrofuels take land from food production, pushing up the price of food.

2. A History of Exerting Influence

Monsanto’s climate lobbying can be traced back to 1998 when the company was active at the UN Climate Talks, claiming the US could meet up to 30% of its CO2 emission reduction targets by using ‘no till’ agriculture. Monsanto was also one of a number of companies pushing the idea of ‘carbon sinks’which allow land and trees to be used to store carbon.

Robert B. Horsch, Monsanto's President for Sustainable Development, explained that “Monsanto and others worked hard and successfully at the meeting to persuade delegates to look into agricultural carbon 'sinks' as a way to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases.”

Monsanto was also active inside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official scientific body on climate change. Monsanto representative Peter Hill contributed to an IPCC Special report on land use, land use change and forestry in May 1999.

The lobbying effort appears to have paid off: at the following UN Climate talks the issue of soil sinks became a major bargaining chip for the US, which wanted 25 million tons of US farm soils to be recognised as a ‘carbon sink’. The US repeatedly threatened not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless sinks were included.

3. Monsanto’s Lobby Today

The biotech industry remains close to the US government and President Obama has appointed several former Monsanto chiefs and allies to high positions. Monsanto continues to actively lobby in the US. It has also formed alliances with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to promote ‘Conservation Tillage’ as a climate solution.

Monsanto has lobbied the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) body, UNFCCC working groups and the FAO to get carbon credits and CDM funding for ‘no-till’ practices. A CDM methodology was approved in October 2009 for biodiesel production from crops grown for fuel on marginal lands, allowing agrofuel producers to directly benefit from carbon credits for the first time.

A key soy producer, Monsanto had actively lobbied the CDM office in Argentina for ‘no till’ RoundupReady soy production to be included under the CDM. The head of the Argentine office, Hernan Carlino, became a member of the CDM Executive Board in 2007 and following his appointment, the issue of carbon credits for ‘no till’ agriculture were discussed at the UN COP13 climate talks .

Monsanto has so far not managed to have ‘no till’ approved, but Monsanto soy will be eligible for credits, provided it is grown on existing plantations and not on newly cleared land.

Monsanto has also been pushing for carbon credits from ‘no till’ in the US Climate Bill. The US position on this will be key at the Copenhagen climate talks. During the first quarter of 2009, Monsanto reportedly spent $2,094,000 on lobbying activities in the US, including on the Climate Bill proposal. In the second quarter of 2009, the company spent $2,080,000. Six Monsanto lobbyists have been declared by the company to be working on the Climate Bill.

Monsanto has also contributed to the development of an “agriculture soil carbon standard”, supporting other lobby groups in developing their strategy, One Congressional Briefing report noted that “With the help of Monsanto, Novecta, a consulting and lobbying arm of the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations, has called on Congress this spring to grant farmers valuable offsets for shifting to ‘no-till’ farming – a shift that will spur sales of Roundup and RoundupReady seeds. Thanks to the Peterson-Pelosi deal, this scheme could become law”.

Monsanto employs lobbyists Ogilvy Government Relations in Washington, which is listed by Public Integrity as one of the main lobby consultancies battling climate legislation. It also works as part of the US biotech industry lobby group, BIO, which also lobbied the Senate for free pollution permits.

The company is an active member of BIO. A recent leaked document revealed the US biotech industry lobbying strategy for Copenhagen, which includes working closely with the US government, including their Special Climate Envoy, Todd Stern: “Although the prospects for a new treaty in December are highly questionable, BIO and its members have significant interests in engaging over the next several months to ensure any treaty text does not harm the biotechnology industry, and potentially supports innovation,” the leaked document said.

4. Lobbying through NGOs

Monsanto’s inclusion in the Roundtable on Responsible Soy was a major breakthrough for the company, providing it with an opportunity to claim green credentials for GM soy.

Some industry critics argue the label is meaningless. The criteria allow soy expansion and deforestation to continue, and give a ‘responsible’ label to herbicide resistant crops, even though evidence is growing that the production of RoundupReady soy (in combination with non-till practices) leads to more, not less pesticide use. There is no consensus from civil society in producer countries that these criteria will lead to a ‘responsible’ product.

The RTRS, which includes WWF, has continuously promoted the option of certifying ‘sustainable’ soy biodiesel. WWF is now openly calling for carbon credits for RTRS-certified RoundupReady soy. The leaked BIO lobby document mentions that the European biotech lobby association, EuropaBio, is planning to organise a debate in Copenhagen “moderated by WWF”.

Monsanto was asked to comment on its nomination for an Angry Mermaid Award but did not respond.