|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEXICO:
Law on the Side of Transgenics?
Diego Cevallos*
MEXICO CITY, (Tierramérica) - If
anyone manipulates or trades in
genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
without authorisation, or uses
them to make biological weapons,
they will be hit with a fine of
up to 127,600 dollars, according
to a new Mexican law on
biosecurity, one that could set
the standard for all Latin
America -- much to the chagrin
of environmentalists.
Mexico took the lead by
approving the Law on Biosecurity
of Genetically Modified
Organisms in mid-February. It is
the first national legislation
to encompass all aspects related
to the use of transgenics in
agriculture and introduce
provisions to prevent the use of
biotechnology to manufacture
biological weapons.
More than 22.6 million hectares
of farmland in Latin America are
already planted with genetically
modified crops, an area that
includes portions of eight of
the world's countries with
greatest biodiversity: Brazil,
Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela,
Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Costa
Rica. (See infograph)
But laws on transgenic crops in
Latin America remain unequal and
spotty.
''It's a shame that they passed
the Mexican law, because now our
countries will want to take it
as an example, even though it's
a terrible law, because it lines
up with the interests of the
(biotech) transnationals,''
Morena Murillo, a director of
the non-governmental Unidad
Ecológica of El Salvador, told
Tierramérica.
Since last year, Salvadoran
lawmakers have been debating
general legislation on
biosecurity, as are their
counterparts in Brazil,
Guatemala and Paraguay.
The global discussion and
international agreements like
the Cartagena Protocol aim to
regulate the use of transgenics,
because fears persist that these
organisms have the potential to
harm human health and the
environment.
Genetically modified seeds were
developed in the 1980s with the
intent of improving certain
plant traits, such as resistance
to pests and extreme climate,
greater nutritional content and
better appearance.
The technique consists of
introducing the genes of one
species into another, plant or
animal, using vectors like
inactivated viruses or bacteria.
But science has not provided
conclusive answers about the
impacts of GMOs on the
environment and human health.
However, there is a documented
case of non-transgenic corn in
the United States contaminated
with the genetically modified
corn variety Starlink, which had
to be withdrawn from the market
in 2000 after some human
consumers reported allergic
reactions.
Mexican scientists Bolívar
Zapata, winner of the Prince of
Asturias Prize for Science and
Technology, and Luis Herrera,
considered one of the
''fathers'' of biotech, maintain
that the law passed in their
country adapts to the reality
imposed by the existence of the
GMOs.
The two experts told
Tierramérica that they hope the
legislation's content serves as
a guide for other countries.
''The Mexican law could be a big
help for those who are
interested in developing their
own laws,'' said Herrera, who,
along with other researchers, in
1983 created the first
genetically modified plant in
1983, at the University of Gante,
Belgium.
But despite the scientists'
hopes, in most Latin American
countries, the passage of the
Mexican biosecurity law went by
unnoticed.
There is an array of laws in the
region that establish special
commissions to study the impact
of transgenic crops, impose
limits on cultivation, and
sanctions on use that causes
harm.
But environmentalists believe
that today's reality has
rendered those laws obsolete,
and that they need to be
updated.
GMO crops are regulated in
Argentina under a ''seed law''
dating to 1973, to which
numerous provisions have been
added. In the Americas,
Argentina is second only to the
United States for the total area
planted with transgenics.
In Brazil, number three in GMO
crop production in the Americas,
the 1995 biosecurity law began
to fall to the wayside as a
result of the illegal -- but
tolerated -- cultivation of
transgenic soybeans. But
contentious public debate about
a new law continues to simmer.
The biosecurity bill currently
under debate in parliament
''will have a hard time winning
approval because it contradicts
the constitution and does not
require environmental impact
studies,'' Paulo Pacini,
attorney for the Brazilian
Consumer Defense Institute, told
Tierramérica. His group has
taken its protest against
cultivation of transgenic crops
to the nation's courts.
In Chile, genetically modified
seeds are authorised only for
producing more seeds and their
subsequent export. A government
decree has regulated GMOs since
1993.
The Chilean government pledged
two years ago to present a bill
on biosecurity, but in the
unfavourable political climate,
it ended up shelving the
initiative. The total area
planted with transgenics in
Chile is less than 8,000
hectares.
''Chile doesn't have the
capacity to monitor and regulate
the indiscriminate release of
transgenics,'' Juan Carlos
Cuchacovich, coordinator of
Greenpeace-Chile's campaign
against transgenics.
And the situation in Peru
doesn't seem to be much
different.
This Andean nation has had its
Law for the Prevention of Risks
from the Use of Biotechnology
since 1999. But according to an
evaluation by experts, conducted
as part of a United Nations
project, the law has not been
fully implemented and even so
has several loopholes.
The scientists and
environmentalists consulted by
Tierramérica agreed that close
attention should be paid to the
new Mexican law on biosafety,
but there was discrepancy about
whether it should be replicated
in other countries.
Those opposed to transgenics
argue that the law, approved
amidst protests, should be
called the ''Monsanto law'',
referring to the transnational
corporation that is the world
leader in production of
genetically modified seeds, and
which was one of several
companies to lobby for the law's
passage.
In 124 articles, 33 pages and
dozens of addenda, the text
establishes the promotion of
biotech research and creates
mechanisms to regulate entry of
transgenic products into the
country, including required
labelling of seeds.
The Mexican law establishes the
intention of confronting the
potential negative environmental
impacts of GMOs, but also of
making the most of potential
advantages.
It creates a framework for
authorising the entry of
transgenics on a ''case by
case'' basis and ''step by
step'' follow-up, with the
participation of several
ministries, advised by a special
committee of scientists, which
can also request input and
opinions from civil society.
Alejandro Calvillo, director of
Greenpeace-Mexico, said in a
Tierramérica interview that the
legislation has its positive
aspects, but also has gaps and
errors, largely because it was
written behind civil society's
back.
In the opinion of the
environmental watchdog
Greenpeace, the Mexican
legislation is geared towards
developing biotechnology, and
does not have an adequate
framework to ensure that local
communities be informed when
transgenics are released into
the environment, nor does it
provide a space for lodging
complaints about those projects.
Furthermore, the law sets up a
fund for biotech development,
but not have anything similar
for preventing or counteracting
the potential harm caused by
transgenic crops, says
Greenpeace.
Scientist Zapata says opposition
to GMOs is the result of
ignorance and fear of
innovation.
Herrera and Zapata say that in
all the years that genetically
modified crops have been
cultivated and consumed around
the world, no evidence has
emerged that they cause harm to
health or the environment. This
technology has come to stay,
according to the two scientists.
(* With reporting by Marcela
Valente in Argentina, Mario
Osava in Brazil, Daniela Estrada
in Chile and Jorge Grochembake
in Guatemala. Originally
published Feb. 26 by Latin
American newspapers that are
part of the Tierramérica
network. Tierramérica is a
specialised news service
produced by IPS with the backing
of the United Nations
Development Programme and the
United Nations Environment
Programme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
