Regulation, consequences and conflicts over the

introduction of GMO in Brazil

Seminararbeit

in der Lehrveranstaltung
Ausgewählte Kapitel
der Agrar- Ethno- und Kulturökologie
(Christian R. Vogl)

SS 2008

Panagiotopoulos Nikolaos, 0741413, Erasmus

Fassung: 30/6/2008

1
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations
Table of Contents...............................................2
1.INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................4
1.2. The advantages and disadvantages of GMO.......................4
1.3. Definition and history of GMO ..........................................5
1.4. Presenting the aim/ research questions of the paper..........6
2.METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................8
3.RESULTS................................................................................................................8
3.1.1 History of GMO in Brazil..................................................8
3.1.2 Regulation enforcements over GMO in Brazil....................9
3.1.3. Brazil’s policy towards GMO and exploitation of
transgenic technology...........................................................10
3.2.1 The issue of insufficient knowledge concerning GMO in
Brazil....................................................................................11
3.2.2 The paradox of Brazilian agriculture and its consequences
............................................................................................12
3.3.1 NGO challenges against authorities regulating GMO
experimentation and use.......................................................13
3.3.2 Confusion and conflicts between Brazilian authorities in
the debate over GMO.............................................................14
3.3.3 Activism and the arguments of activists against GMO ....15
3.3.4 The case of Rio Grande do Sul’ government policy towards
GMO.....................................................................................16
4.DISCUSSION/ EPILOGUE....................................................................................18
4.1 Challenges ahead for the Brazilian authorities and
technology providers.............................................................18
5.SUMMARY............................................................................................................21
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................24

REFERENCES

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my family for their support and my friends-especially Evan,
Pistolis and Vik-who have helped me and inspired me in various ways. Moreover I
would like to express my deepest gratitude to my brother and my friend Theo for their
insightful comments throughout the process of writing this paper.

ABBREVIATIONS

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

APIA: Brazil’s Food Association

CTNB: National Biosafety Technical Commission

CVS: Sao Paulo’s Public Health authority

DPV: Department of Plant Production

GMO: Genetically Modified Organisms

GMP: GMO Guidelines Project

IDEC: Brazilian Consumer’s Association

IOBC: International Organization of Biological Control

MST: Brazil’s Landless Movement

NGO: Non-Governmental Organizations

PT: Worker’s Party

RGS: Rio Grande do Sul

3
 1.INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

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

overpopulation and poor nutrition of a great percentage of human population became
extremely prominent. Food systems, which encompass the whole range of food
production and consumption, including the manufacture of agricultural inputs,
farming, food processing, food distribution, food marketing, food retailing, and
consumption, are challenged to keep pace with the rising needs for increased
production. Due to the continuous rising of human population, the excessive
consumption by rich countries and the unfair distribution and exploitation of natural
resources globally, poverty and food insecurity arise as threats for the human
population. One proposed measure to deal with these problems could be
contemporary biotechnology, especially in the developing poorer countries where
starvation is a major threat. Since there have been counterarguments regarding the
actual benefits deriving from genetically modifying stample foods, it is necessary to
conduct an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages stemming from this
particular technology.

1.2. The advantages and disadvantages of GMO

Advanced biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques provided ability to

scientists to exploit and manipulate genetic resources, in order to create improved
crop plants. Over the last fifteen years, conventional crops are being improved via
genetical modification for reasons such as: greater nutritional value, longer shelf life
and of course improved agronomic characteristics like insect/pest resistance and
herbicide tolerance (Singh et al., 2006). Thus, through the improvement of these
characteristics would reduce the costs for farmers as well as the prices for
consumers. Furthermore, GMO can be used for producing drugs and vaccines, i.e.,
plant-derived edible vaccines (Mor et al., 1998; in Oda et al., 2000). Since their

4
introduction many millions of people have consumed food deriving from GM plants
such as soybean, maize and oilseed rape and up to now no verifiable toxic,
allergenic or nutritionally deleterious effects stemming from this consumption have
been discovered globally (Craig et al., 2007).

On the other hand, there are fears concerning the safety and stability of plants that
have been genetically modified, because a series of problems could derive from the
implementation of genetic engineering on plants (Singh et al., 2006). GMO use can
have a great impact on biodiversity because they can increase invasiveness and
weediness of crop plants against the traditional ones. Moreover regarding food safety
GMO use poses a potential threat of introducing harmful or allergenic proteins into
the food. In addition from a political and social point of view, GM crops do not offer
many possibilities for the world’s poor farmers, because until today present GM crop
technology is being designed for regions that have been adopting in the past, highly
capitalized, large scale industrial farming (Hall et al., 2007). Furthermore the problem
of seed dependency of farmers to multinationals adds up to the list of disadvantages,
having socioeconomic consequences. Further explanation about GMO and a
definition is needed, in order to fully understand the nature of these products of
human intervention into nature’s patterns.

1.3. Definition and history of GMO

The literature defines “genetically modified crop plants as containing artificially

inserted gene(s) or transgenes from another unrelated plant or from a completely
different species via genetic engineering techniques” (Pereira 2000, Bock and Khan
2004; in Singh, et al., 2006). With the use of different approaches and methods many
varieties of GM crops have been developed and managed to receive an approval for
both environmental and commercial use mostly in the United States, Argentina,
Canada and elsewhere. Transgenic plants can be generated using following various
different methods:

“ (1) The biolistic technique where in the desired gene is coated on to either gold or
tungsten particles are shot into plant cells using a gene – gun (Cho et al. 2004; Allen
et al. 2005). The necessary criterion for this is that cells or plant tissues should be
suitable for transformation permit regeneration of a whole plant thereafter.

5
 (2) The other major gene transfer technique makes use of the soil bacterium
Agrobacterium tumefaciens, containing a tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid including
virulence (vir) gene(s) and a transferred-DNA (T-DNA) region, in which genes of
interest can be inserted “(Gelvin 2005; Broothaerts et al. 2005; in Singh et al., 2006:
599).

GMO have a short history. It was in 1994 when the first-generation crop technology
pack was available in the United States market by Monsanto (Jepson, 2002). It had a
big commercial success in the USA due to its great acceptance from farmers.
Herbicide-tolerant transgenic crops were introduced for commercial production and in
2001 over 80% of the cultivated GM crop areas were herbicide resistant crops. In
2004 the total area of GM crop production was more than 80 million hectares in a
global scale with products such as: soya, canole, maize and cotton (Watanabe et al.,
2005). The characteristic of the first generation of GM crops was resistance to pests,
herbicides and insecticides, while now continuous genetic modification, a new suite
of technologies is being offered along with the potential benefits and risks to a large
number of various stakeholders. In European Union countries however consumers
and governments faced with scepticism and many times with sharp opposition GMO.
It was for this reason that the large-scale multinationals, which operate in the
agricultural business, focused their strategies in target countries in which large-scale
agricultural sectors are relatively free of governmental control. Latin America’s
countries were appropriate for their policies, with Argentina being already a major
participant and Brazil being a primary target country, due to the fact that is the
second exporter of soybean products in a world scale, not to mention that Brazil is
the largest nation geographically in Latin America. Since Brazil is a very important
country in the worldwide GMO production, it is necessary to go more in depth in the
history and current reality of GM crops.

1.4. Presenting the aim/ research questions of the paper

In this paper the aim was to provide the reader with information regarding the GMO
experimentation and further use in Brazil. Regulation, conflicts over GMO and the
socioeconomic consequences of transgenic technology implementation in Brazil was
chosen as the focal point of this essay. While the critical importance that GMO has
for Brazilian society served as an inspirational issue, an attempt was made to shed
light on the current situation of agriculture in Brazil as well as on the problems and

6
potential benefits that derive from the introduction of GMO in Brazil.

The research questions that were chosen for this essay were initially general and
then more specialized. The research questions are the following ones:

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

2. How GMO are regulated in Brazil?

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

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

Explaining the nature of GMO and the history of it globally and in Brazil especially
was one of the focus points. Consequently, attention was given in representing the
problems and the potential benefits that derive from the introduction of new
agricultural technologies in Brazil. Regulation mechanisms over GMO were
examined in deep, while at the same time civil society’s reactions could not be left
without analyzing. After researching in the case of GMO introduction in Brazil the
following conclusions were made:

• There is a conflict between authorities responsible for regulating GMO

applications in a state and federal level.

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

regulatory bodies will operate and interact without further conflicts.

• There is a great challenge for the technology providers to fairly distribute new
knowledge over new agricultural technologies in such a way that nobody is
excluded.

• In the northern part of Brazil social welfare must be the primary target and not
export oriented policies.

• The federal government and institutions should encourage the continuation of

traditional farming techniques, like seed breeding, because in this way
farmers are protected from the danger of seed dependency on multinationals.

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

come up with a framework of understanding that will present the problems deriving
from introducing transgenic technology in Brazil.

7
 2.METHODOLOGY

The process of obtaining the data for answering my research questions was difficult
in the beginning. In the end though, using electronic databases-in which I had access
through the homepage of the library of BOKU- was much more convenient because I
was not restricted regarding the time I wanted to research but as well the place.
Databases like Scopus and Science Direct provided me with most of the required
data. For literature, I used mostly articles and I read as well the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety, which I found on the homepage of The Convention on Biological
Diversity.

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

such a way I could correlate and combine because my subject had many different
aspects. I must definitely acknowledge the helpful feedback I received during the
monthly seminar meetings, by my professor Christian Vogl and of course from my
colleagues. This feedback was of utter importance, since this is the first essay I had
so far for which I had to research to obtain my data.

3.RESULTS

This chapter will try to explain the history and the current situation of GMO in Brazil.
Moreover an effort was made to shed light on the regulation over GMO mechanisms
and on the consequences and conflicts that derived after the introduction of GMO in
Brazil.

3.1.1 History of GMO in Brazil

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

Some of the major issues were the differences between a great number of different
stakeholders and regulation problems that occurred.

In 1998 Monsanto requested permission from the Brazilian government to

8
commercialize its Roundup Ready resistant soybeans (Jepson, 2002). This created a
series of conflicts between regulatory bodies, activisms groups and individual
farmers, over the matters of biosafety and biodiversity regarding the release of
GMOs in the environment. It is a fact that GM soya production offered huge
possibilities for Brazilian agriculture and therefore for the national economy. At the
same time the multinationals’ systematic pressure over the federal government was
intense (Oda et al., 2000). Despite these facts, the Brazilian courts with the support
of state-governments, individual politicians and activism groups countermanded the
initial acceptance of Monsanto’s request. Furthermore, Brazilian courts enforced a
five year moratorium on the production of GMOs for commercial reasons and the
release of GMOs in the environment everywhere in the country. Regarding regulation
over biosafety, it was back in 1995 when the Brazilian goverment passed the
Biosafety Law (Law 8974 of January 1995 and Decree 1752/95) and through this law
the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNB) was formed (Fontes 2003).
This law regulates clauses I and IV of the 1st paragraph of artcile 255 of Brazil’s
Federal Constitution, regulates the usage of genetic engineering techniques and the
delivery of genetically modified organisms in the environment.

3.1.2 Regulation enforcements over GMO in Brazil

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

representatives from the industrial sector (Monsanto and Novartis). Small farmers
union, environmental groups and other civil society agents are excluded from the
CTNB. The CTNB supervises and regulates over the experimentation, registration,
use, transportation, storage, liberation and waste removal of GM materials.
Especially in the case of edible GMO products, they must also be regulated under
the food safety provisions formulated by ANVISA, the National Agency for Health and
Surveillance of the Ministry of Health (ibid).

Six years after its foundation, the CTNB had certified 165 institutions working on
biotechnology and between 1997 and January 2001, it approved 942 experiments of
GM maize (761), cotton (88), soybeans (65) and sugar cane (18) and other GM
crops including rice, potatoes, papaya, tobacco and eucalyptus (CTNB 2001; in
Jepson, 2002).

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

9
has been identified, namely that the CTNB is using documentation provided by the
companies or the institutions that are requesting for authorization. This clearly
cretaes a situation where systematic control over approval for these GM experiments
is not indepedent at all. More of 90% of the petitions for field trials were submitted by
local Brazilian branches of multinational companies (Fontes, 2003). These
companies are developing their seeds in their originating counrty but perform their
field trials in Brazil. The reason for performing their experimental crops in Brazil is
that they take advantage of the backcrossing of the temperate varieties, which
contain the transgene, with local varieties because via backcrossing the gene is
introduced in the local, highly commercial varieties.

The Brazilian goverment enforced a policy regarding GMOs, which permitted and
regulated transgenic research, while at the same time allowed products that contain
GM material to be available on the market. On the other hand the same policy
prohibited commercial production of GM crops. The CTNB was used by Brazilian
politicians, members of the Ministry of Agriculture and representatives of the
agroindustrial giants to limit the regulation debate over transgenics only in economic
and technical issues.

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

What is special with the case of GMOs control of production and knowledge in Brazil,
is that the Brazilian goverment sets as its primary target to consolidate the national
scientific competitiveness and agricultural expertise over large scale multinationals
like Monsanto and Novartis (Jepson 2002). The government tried to accomplish its
goal by creating special legal conditions, under which national biotechnology
insitutions and Brazilian companies are able to perform GM experiments. Brazilian
agriculture research companies, both public and private, had the potential
capabilities to compete with their existing GM technology offering their own
transgenic products and improved seed packages. Institutes like EMBRAPA, the
Brazilian agricultural research enterprise, which employs over 2000 researchers,
runs research programs of great significance (ibid).

EMBRAPA and the national seed companies however, needed a certain amount of
time to develop seed packages that could be competitive, so that the market would
not be controlled by Monsanto Roundup Ready technology. In addition, the federal

10
goverment uses its controls over Brazilian tropical soybean cultivars to leverage
transnational corporations into cooperative agreements that transfer the technology
to Brazilian firms, scientists and farmers. ‘’EMBRAPA licences its soybean seed
cultivars to Monsanto and Monsanto reciprocates with licensing of the GM herbicide-
resistant technology to EMBRAPA’’ (EMBRAPA 2000; Leite 1997; in Jepson, 2002:
913). EMBRAPA and Monsanto are protected under the Brazilian Cultivar Protection
Law and Industrial Patent Laws, respectively. ‘’Under the Cultivar Protection Law and
EMBRAPA’s licensing agreement, Brazilian farmers will have the right to save seeds
for their own use in subsequent seasons, thereby prohibiting Monsanto from
introducing the “terminator gene“ or GURT technology’’ (EMBRAPA 2000; Leite
1997; in Jepson, 2002: 913). For the past 20 years EMBRAPA has been releasing
annualy two varieties of soybean appropriate for use in each major region of the
country (southern and central) but now has to compete powerful private sector with
one of its representatives being Pharmacia (formerly Monsanto) (Lesser et al., 2001).
Pharmacia created its own seeding company Monsoy and managed to buy some
local soy programs. At this time Monsoy’s varieties cannot overcome the productivy
of the current EMBRAPA ones. It is cocnluded that the federal government is in
favour of GMOs, as long as the knowledge regarding transgenics and the know-how
is passed on to national institutions and national seed companies. This means that
Brazil tries to be independent from multinationals’ accomplishments and aims to
promote national scientific achievements regarding transgenics. Even with this
accomplishment there is still much work to be done, since the problem of inadequate
knowledge concerning GMO has to be solved by the Brazilian goverment.

3.2.1 The issue of insufficient knowledge concerning GMO in Brazil

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

knowledge about GMO - not only among the farmers but between the local
employees of Brazilian companies and institutions as well - must be taken into
account. For this reason members of the CTNB needed to be educated and informed
about the principles of Brazilian biosafety framework and the scientific data, which
support these regulations. This is accomplished by visiting institutions and private
companies as well, where these members – even though most of them are senior
scientists – have the ability to expand their knowledge by interacting with scientists
and personnel specialized in different sectors that deal with biosafety (Fontes 2003).
In this way, they are able to obtain a strong background, which is necessary for

11
conducting risk analysis and risk management. This method helps in many ways, as
knowledge is consolidated among the scientists and the personnel working on
biotechnology and in addition the CTNB gains confidence and transparency over the
projects it is developing.

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

poorest regions of Brazil lack sufficient knowledge to fully exploit the potentials of
transgenic technology. According to Sampaio Filho (President of the Brazilian Rural
Society), Brazilian farms range in size and to the use of technology, as they vary
from subsistence farmers to large scale, very competitive, export-focused operations
(Hall et al., 2007).

3.2.2 The paradox of Brazilian agriculture and its consequences

A paradox exists in the case of Brazilian agriculture, with EMBRAPA for example
being a world-scale institute of agriculture with experimental sites, providing in the
southern region of Brazil technology equivalent of a developed agricultural producing
country. On the southern part of Brazil, small but much more educated – compared
to the North - farmers are more capable of absorbing foreign technologies and
farming techniques, while at the same time the government is reinforcing their export
orientation. In contrast, in the northeast region of Brazil, farmers barely meet their
own needs (Hall et al., 2007). Interestingly this group of farmers is important for
many reasons.

Initially, they represent a big percentage of Brazilian society and agricultural force.
Moreover, possible exclusion of these farmers may lead to critical social problems
like counterproductive urban immigration (ibid). GM crops are being designed in the
direction of large scale, capitalized agriculture and this fact multiplies the possibilities
of not resolving the rural poverty issue, which consequently leads to waves of
immigration in the urban centers. In addition, small farmers are the ones who
preserve Brazil’s agricultural biodiversity and this aspect truly offers a potential
advantage for future agricultural development, focused on the cultivation of local
varieties of crops. Furthermore small-scale farmers produce mainly for the Brazilian
market even though a small portion of them exports their products – mostly soybeans
– to the EU and Japan.

12
European and Japanese demand for GMO free products strengthens Brazil’s
national policy to offer top quality non-GMO soybeans and therefore rule the
European and Japanese markets. Brazil ships over 80% of its annual soybean crop
exports and over 68% of its annual soybean meal exports to European markets
(Jepson, 2002). Subsistence farmers are not obliged to follow the new technology
but multinationals and individual ministries enforce great pressure, as the small scale
farming section represents 60% of Brazilian agriculture (Hall et al., 2007). Ministries
of Agriculture and Science & Technology however are explicitly promoting transgenic
technology aiming only to economic benefits. On the other hand Ministry of
Agriculture Development, subsistence farmers and representatives of trade
associations remind that the possibility of another Green Revolution type social
disruption is quite probable (ibid). Brazil has already faced the consequences of this
social disruption in the past when poor farmers, who have limited access to
education and almost no access to capital, moved in the urban areas of the country
and sold their properties because they could not keep up in the competition with the
farmers of the Southern region who were able to adopt new technologies. Often the
buyer was and still is an urbanite and the land is used for leisure. This leads to land
abandonment and reduction of Brazil’s agricultural potentials. Many times the
previous owner of the land ends up living in the streets or in the “favelas” repeating
this way a vicious circle of poverty, crime and finally social disruption (ibid).

Even though some ministries are concerned with the danger of social exclusion and
potential dangers of GMO crops implementation in Brazilian agriculture and with their
policies try to protect individual farmers rights and Brazilian biodiversity, a big debate
still goes on, that leads to many actions organized by farmers and activism groups
throughout Brazil.

3.3.1 NGO challenges against authorities regulating GMO experimentation and

use

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

Consumers’ Association (IDEC), teamed up with Greenpeace to question
government’s biosafety policy and challenge the CTNB’s ”scientific” authority and
exclusive jurisdiction over biosafety issues (Jepson 2002). They managed this way to
represent Europe’s current anti-GMO tendency in Brazil and led Brazilian society to

13
challenge the status quo.

Furthermore IDEC and Greenpeace accused the CTNB of giving license to

Monsanto to release its Roundup ReadyTM soybean without an environmental impact
statement. Monsanto advocated its product by stating that it was biochemically
identical to conventional soybeans. Consequently, IDEC accused the CTNB of not
maintaining the legal right to ignore the impact statement. According to the 1998
Brazil Constitution, a report is required in order to allow the release of any potentially
harmful substance or organism in the environment. IDEC further claimed that the
Biosafety Law (Law 8974 of January 1995 and Decree 1752/95), which led to the
creation of the CTNB, was unconstitutional (ibid).

After 21 months of continous objections from the side of Monsanto, federal judge
Antonio Souza Prudente decided in June 2000 that clause xiv of article 2, which is
related to environmental statement waiver was uncostitutional. ‘’The regional federal
court in Brasilia upheld the ruling, thus creating an indefinite moratorium on
commercial planting of GM crops’’ (USDA, 2001b; in Jepson, 2002: 919). Moreover
IDEC took further initiative and managed to sign an agreement with British
Consumers’ Association in February 2000, with which IDEC members were given the
right to access a European laboratory for GM detection tests on food products. Soon
enough, in June 2000, Greenpeace publicized the GM material remains test results
for 42 different domestic and imported food products. Out of 42 products, 12 proved
to be positive for GM material, including soy-based infant food formula and food
products imported from the United States (ibid).

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

According to these results IDEC and Greenpeace sent letters to the Ministries of
Agriculture, Justice and Health stating that there were a series of violation of
biosafety laws, food safety regulations and consumers rights. This created a chain
reaction of conflict between various authorities regarding the withdrawal of these
products.

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

14
containing food from the market, requested voluntary removal. On the other hand,
the Sao Paulo’s state Public Health authority (CVS) decided to remove the products
that contained GM material. Afterwards Brazil’s Food Association (ABIA) challenged
the decision of CVS, claiming that the state has no jurisdiction over matters that are
primarily a responsibility of the federal government. In contrast the president of IDEC
stated that state health officers operate under the consumer protection law and
therefore their level of authority is equivalent of federal agents (ibid). This case is
only a segment of the confusion and the conflict that exists between different
stakeholders in the big issue of GMOs. A creation of coherent institutional framework
based on the precautionary principle could aid to resolve the problem.

The opposition against GMOs, including protests and legal action, has still many
parts to be unraveled. One small act of the opposition to the release of GM crops into
the environment was the anti-Monsanto protest that took place in January 2001.

3.3.3 Activism and the arguments of activists against GMO

On 25th of January 2001, 1200 Brazilian farmers, landless rural workers and groups
that were supporting them protested against the experimentation of GM crops. They
occupied a biotechnology research centre that belonged to Monsanto in “Na o-Me-
Toque”, which is a municipality in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul. The
protesters, who were willing to stay indefinitely, uprooted the experimental soya and
maize crops and burned the stored supplies in the warehouses, with the help of
members of Porto Alegre’s World Social Forum. In the end, they performed a burial
ceremony, with a coffin that had written on it “Monsanto” and was covered with an
American flag (ibid). After this, the Brazilian government’s representatives destroyed
the remains of GM material due to possible environmental contamination.

One of the activists’ strongest arguments for complete prohibition or strict regulation
of GM experimentation was the “free trade” logic that characterizes the promotion of
GM products. Activists consider GM crops as symbols of globalization, since the
efforts of multinationals in developing free trade agreements and creating new
markets do not take into consideration local and national code of ethics.

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

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

15
activists is that big scale multinationals, that are reinforced with free trade
agreements and supported by the “capital class” worldwide, are trying to invest on
and exploit new markets with no regard towards the environment. The methods
through which multinationals intervened in Brazilian agriculture and the Brazilian
market include the foundation of seed companies, like Monsoy. Furthermore,
herbicide and pesticide-resistant GM crops permit farmers to manipulate one
element of an otherwise biologically constrained sequential production process.
‘’Manipulation of one stage in this process is nothing more than another example of
‘appropriationism’—the tendency of capitals to transform individual stages, rather
than the entire structure of agricultural production’’ (in Jepson, 2002: 911).

On the other hand transgenic crops have the potential advantage of resisting to
particular pests, biotic and abiotic stress. At the same time the cost of production
could be reduced due to increased efficiency of GM crops while toxic chemicals
deriving from pesticides found in the environment can be reduced. In addition
transgenics technology holds a great promise for improving human health through
the creation of edible pant vaccines (Singh et al., 2006).

In this debate over transgenic technology farmers and activists found a strong ally
and this was the state government of Rio Grande do Sul (RGS), which is being
controlled by Brazil’s leading leftist party Worker’s Party (PT).

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

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

technology is accused of polluting lineages - and the global anti-GMO debate to
promote the state’s competitive production of non-GM soybeans, which is exported
mainly in EU. It is really interesting that the PT government is promoting commercial
affairs between the state’s farmers and major European import food industries, in an
attempt to find more buyers for their GM-free soybean products. In April 1999, for
example Jose Hermeto Hoffman accomplished a deal with the president of
Carrefour, an international hypermarket chain based in France, to export 300 million
tons of Brazilian GM free soybeans to European markets (Jepson, 2002). Hoffman
moved forward, requesting from anti-GMO organizations based in Europe to provide
the state of RGS with laboratory kits and equipment specialized in identifying GM
material. This action strengthened the ability of the state’s government to enforce

16
stricter control against illegal GM crops. The debate over transgenics lifted in a state
authorities scale, when the states’ government challenged the CTNB’s exclusive
jurisdiction over biosafety issues.

In 1991 the state legislature passed the Law of Biotechnology and Genetic
Engineering (No. 9453) that prohibits commercial production, requires the
registration of all transgenic experimentations with the state government, and levies
heavy fines for non- compliance (ibid). In March 1999 the state government passed
the State Decree of Biotechnology (No. 39,314). This decree provides enforcement
norms and grants the agriculture secretary authority to confiscate and destroy
irregular or unauthorized GM experiments. The decree also provides supervisory
jurisdiction to the Department of Plant Production (DPV). ‘’The Rio Grande do Sul
government requires companies or institutions, who already have CTNB’s approval,
to register experiments concurrently with the state authorities, thus creating another,
perhaps more stringent, independent supervisory institution to oversee biosafety
controls within their state boundaries’’ (Jepson, 2002: 916). Moreover the RGS
authorities aim to develop an adequate local education system, which is focused on
the potential problems of transgenic products implementation in the environment in
an effort to monitor and control illegal seeds intrusion that originate from Argentina.
One leading enforcement method that the authorities of RGS use is the anti-GMO
telephone campaign (ibid).

With this method, citizens can call a toll-free number in order to report possible cases
of illegal transgenic material being introduced in the agricultural area of RGS. After
the registration of the call, a group of specialized agronomists along with the state’s
police officers visit the suspected location and test the crop samples, with the
laboratory equipment that were donated to the state by the anti-GMO organizations.
With this equipment the specialized personnel can discover if the sample contains
GM material. In the first season, when this method was applied (1999), the DPV
collected 174,300 kg of illegal GM soybean seeds and destroyed 300 ha of illegal
transgenic soya plantations as well (DPV, 2000: ibid). Additionally in November 2001
the authorities of RGS collected another 450 sacks of illegal GM soybean seeds
during a surprise inspection. PT prolonged the debate over transgenics when it allied
with Latin America’s most important social movement, Brazil’s Landless Movement
(MST) in an effort to rescale GM regulation system. The MST used its global
connections to further represent the GM issue, in order to leverage activism. The
result was the activists’ action in “Na o-Me-Toque” that took place on the 25 th of

17
January 2001. These multiple efforts to control and regulate GM release in the
environment led to legal battles between the state government and Brazil’s federal
government.

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

over GM release and transferred it again exclusively in the responsibility of the
CTNB. In September 2002 however, the federal court of Brazil ruled in favour of RGS
and cancelled the state law. “On the other hand there is a constitutional amendment
in the national congress (233/00) to prevent Brazilian states from creating their own,
independent biosafety laws and regulations” (USDA, 2001b: 3; in Jepson, 2002:
918). Moreover there have been local protests in RGS that were challenging once
more the state’s methods of controlling and regulating GM seeds. In October 2001,
over 100 local farmers demonstrated against representatives of the state of RGS, for
collecting and burning 400 sacks of their GM soybean seeds that were collected in
1999 (ibid). The conflict between the regulation authorities is very intense and the
contradiction of interests profound. The challenges of creating a new broader
regulation scheme over GMO and solving problems that derive from the introduction
of GM crops in Brazilian agriculture should be the primary targets of the Brazilian
authorities.

4.DISCUSSION/ EPILOGUE

4.1 Challenges ahead for the Brazilian authorities and technology providers

The series of conflicts between the various authorities that regulate GMO
experimentation and use in Brazil leads to uncertainty on behalf of the civil society
over the issue of GMO. So far the procedure for regulating transgenic technology has
been very difficult, due to the contrasting interests of a vast number of different
stakeholders. To overcome these perplexities, it is necessary to create a platform
under which all the administrative and regulatory bodies will operate and interact
without further conflicts. One solution could be the foundation of broader, more
specialized databases and networking system to assist the identification,
development and dissemination of relevant information on biosafety (Fontes 2003).

The need for capacity building became imminent for the safe development and
application of biotechnology in Brazil. The growing number of public and private

18
laboratories working with biotechnology, as well as the environmental releases
regarding GMOs in different locations and regions throughout the country, requires
qualified personnel to conduct risk assessment, monitoring and risk management. A
program designed to train members of the Institutional Biosafety Commission and
personnel to act as biosafety regulators and process analysts is needed, aiming at
the development and strengthening of the country’s endogenous capacities. This
biosafety training may consider the following strategies:

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

operational costs of further training.

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

procedures within their institutions and of inspectors from federal and state agencies
working for the Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Environment.

c) To create a cutting edge and ongoing education program for CTNB members and
for personnel in the federal bodies concerned with the enforcement of biosafety
regulation, in an effort to integrate new scientific knowledge and regulatory
experience over biosafety issues from all over the world. ‘’However, the program
should include access to databases and international networking systems to allow for
an effective update and dissemination of information”. (Fontes, 2003: 6).

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

the “GMO Guidelines Project” (GMP), an international program that will be providing
with guidelines for use on a case-by-case basis, according to the Cartagena
Biosafety Protocol and the EU’s directives (Capalbo et al., 2003). The GMP consists
of scientists that work under the public sector and operate within the premises of the
International Organization of Biological Control (IOBC). The basic targets of GMP
are:

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

knowledge institutions from Europe, Australia, East Africa, South America,
North America and Southeast Asia.

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

exchange of knowledge and know-how techniques between scientists and
policy-makers.

c) To publish the guidelines right after their formation.

19
 d) To be on alert for continuous redefining of already existing guidelines, in case
of unpredicted problems arise (ibid).

The great challenge for the technology providers is to fairly distribute new knowledge
over new agricultural technologies in such a way that nobody is excluded. The
introduction of new technologies or processes that bring major changes for the small
farmers is evaluated by the Ministry of Agriculture Development, which considers the
following sustainable development criteria:
a) Small farmers will manage to participate in the market in a greater scale than
before with the introduction of new technologies (international and national).
b) New technologies will increase crop production or value will be added in the
products.
c) New technologies must be compatible with the environment and biodiversity
policy.
d) Socio/economical negative consequences from the introduction of new
technologies must be avoided.
‘’The Ministry of Agriculture Development is thus explicitly concerned with social
inclusion (2004, www.mda.gov.br), particularly as small farmers have been
‘‘excluded for 500 years’’, according to Fatima Brandalise” (Assistant to the Minister
of Agriculture Development 2003; in Hall et al., 2007: 56).
If multinationals or Brazilian agricultural research institutes want to invest in the new
technologies, they have to let the producers participate from the initial stages. A
dialogue between civil society and experts must be established so producers,
consumers and other stakeholders are not excluded from the decision-taking bodies
in a local level. Risk assessment and risk analysis over the implementation of GM
crops in the environment should include participatory methods as well (Craig et al.,
2007). Applications of GMO’s should be regulated under the precautionary principles
for this way public health is protected along with the environment. It is of critical
importance to diagnose the opinion of Brazilian society, while at the same time keep
up with the new biotechnological accomplishments (Oda et al., 2000).

On the other hand, the federal government and institutions should encourage the
continuation of traditional farming techniques, like seed breeding, because in this
way farmers are protected from the danger of seed dependency on multinationals-
not to mention that this dependency will enlarge the wealth gap between rich and
poor countries.

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

20
serious problems to be solved first. A very good example is the policy of the Ministry
of Hunger Defence, perhaps unique to developing countries, which prioritizes access
and fair distribution of food supplies over exportation strategies (Hall et al., 2007).
Especially, as described above, in the northern part of Brazil social welfare must be
the primary target and not export-oriented policies.

As the pressure from multinationals on the federal government will increase

gradually, Brazil must find its way in this labyrinth of contrasting interests and
policies. Brazil’s goals of dominating the global food market 1 must be accomplished
after the solution of the aforementioned critical issues. Globalization tactics will prove
useless for Brazil, if a great percentage of population continues to live in poverty,
excluded from every benefit of Brazil’s economic improvement through agriculture.
An adaptation of logic of “glocalization“ – meaning trying to act locally while you think
globally - can provide Brazil with the solutions needed to narrow the gap between
southern and northern farmers, who represent the situation in Brazilian society,
further develop and prosper in the future.

5.SUMMARY

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

poor nutrition over the masses and insufficiency of food became extremely
prominent. According to some scientists contemporary biotechnology could provide
solutions for the insufficiency of food problem, especially in the developing poorer
countries where starvation is a major threat. Advanced biotechnology and genetic
engineering techniques gave the ability to exploit and manipulate genetic resources,
in order to create improved crop plants. Further explanation about GMO and a
definition is needed, in order to fully understand the nature of these products of
human intervention into nature’s patterns.

1
The Brazilian goal of global food market dominance is not I support. I would prefer that
countries regulate the distribution of food production themselves or cooperate with neighbour
countries in distribution of food to achieve a greater ecological sustainability. Through this
measure CO2 emissions would be reduced, for international food transportation ( which
heavily emits CO2 ) would no longer be necessary. Furthermore I believe that agricultural
production should be season appropriate; for specific seasons, plants that ripen during that
period should be utilized and sold in markets.

21
“Genetically modified crop plants contain artificially inserted gene(s) or “transgenes“
from another unrelated plant or from a completely different species via genetic
engineering techniques” (Pereira 2000, Bock and Khan 2004; in Om V. Singh, et al.,
2006 p.599). Latin America’s countries were appropriate for multinationals policies,
that operate in the agricultural business, with Argentina being already a major
participant and Brazil being a primary target country, due to the fact that is the
second exporter of soybean products in a world scale, not to mention that Brazil is
the largest nation geographically in Latin America.
The introduction of GMO in Brazilian agriculture however was very complicated due
to the differences between a great number of different stakeholders and regulation
problems that occurred. Regarding regulation over biosafety, it was back in 1995
when the Brazilian goverment passed the Biosafety Law (Law 8974 of January 1995
and Decree 1752/95) and through this law CTNB ( National Biosafety Technical
Commission) was formed (Eliana M.G. Fontes 2003). CTNB consists of goverment’s
administrators, specialists and representatives from the industrial sector (Monsanto
and Novartis). CTNB was used by Brazilian politicians, members of the Ministry of
Agriculture and representatives of the agroindustrial giants to limit the regulation
debate over transgenics only in economical and technical issues.
What is special with the case of GMO control of production and knowledge in Brazil,
is the fact that Brazilian goverment sets as her primary target to consolidate the
national scientific competitiveness and agricultural expertize over large scale
multinationals like Monsanto and Novartis (W.E Jepson 2002). Even though there
were some accomplishments, still much work is to be done, since the problem of
inadequate knowledge concerning GMO has to be solved by the Brazilian
goverment. Due to the narrowed developed research in Brazil, the perplexity of
insufficient knowledge about GMO-not only among the farmers but between the local
employees of Brazilian companies and institutions as well, must be taken into
account. A paradox exists as well in the case of Brazilian agriculture as Brazilian
farms range in size and to the use of technology, as they vary from subsistence
farmers to large scale, very competitive, export-focused operations (Jeremy Hall et
al., 2007).
Even though some ministries are concerned with the danger of social exclusion and
potential dangers of GMO crops implementation in Brazilian agriculture and with their
policies try to protect individual farmers rights and Brazilian biodiversity, a big debate
goes on with many actions of activism from farmers and activism groups having
taken place in Brazil.

22
One of the activists’ strongest arguments for complete prohibition or strict regulation
of GM experimentation was the “free trade” logic that characterizes the promotion of
GM products. In this debate over transgenic technology farmers and activists found a
strong ally and this was the state government of Rio Grande do Sul (RGS), which is
being controlled by Brazil’s leading leftist party Worker’s Party (PT). In Brazil there
were a series of conflicts between regulation authorities in a state and federal level.
This is depicted with the policies of RGS government. PT took advantage of GMO
ontological ambiguity-since GM technology is accused of polluting lineages- and
global anti-GMO debate to promote the state’s competitive production of non-GM
soybeans, which is exported mainly in EU.

The challenges of creating a new broader regulation scheme over GMO and solving
problems that derive from the introduction of GM crops in Brazilian agriculture should
be the primary targets of the Brazilian authorities. The series of conflicts between the
various authorities that regulate GMO experimentation and use in Brazil, depicts the
confusion that exists between civil society as well over the issue of GMO. An
adaptation of logic of “glocalization“ can provide Brazil with the solutions needed to
narrow the gap between Southern and Northern farmers, who represent the situation
in Brazilian society, further develop and prosper in the future.

23
 REFERENCES

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

E.M.G. , Osir E.O. , Fitt G.P. , Johnston J. , Songa J. , Heong K.L. & Birch N.E.
(2003): Brazil and the development of international scientific biosafety testing
guidelines for transgenic crops; Journal of Intertebate Pathology (vol. 83: 104-106);
Science Direct

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,

(11/9/2003); Available URL:

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

Cook R.J. (2004): Transgenic Crop Plants in the Environment; Encyclopedia of Plant
and Crop Science, 1:1, 1248 – 1250; Taylor & Francis

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

features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops; Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Fontes E.M.G. (2003): Land and regulatory concerns about transgenic plants in
Brazil; EMBRAPA Recursos Geneticos e Biotecnologia, C.P. 01372/02372, Brasilia
DF CEP 70849-970, Brazil

Hall J. , Matos S. & Langford C.H. (2007): Social Exclusion and Transgenic
Technology: The Case of Brazilian Agriculture; Journal of Business Ethics (2008)
(vol.77: 45-63); Springer

Hall C., Moran D. (2005): Investigating GM risk perceptions: A survey of anti-GM and
environmental campaign group members; Land Economy Research Group, SAC,
West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK

24
Jepson W.E. (2002): Global and Brazilian biosafety: the politics of scale over
biotechnology; Political Geograpghy (vol.21: 905-925)

Myhr A.I., Traavik T. (2003): Genetically modified (GM) crops: Precautionary science
and conflicts of interests; Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (vol.16:
227-246)

National Biosafety Office, SEPA China; Available URL:

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

Oda L.M. , Soares B.E.C. (2000): Genetically modified foods: economic aspects and
public acceptance in Brazil; Titbtech May 2000 (vol.18: 188-190)

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

Sciences

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

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

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

T. & Christou P. (2007): Biosafety and risk assessments framework for selectable
marker genes in transgenic crop plants; Transgenic Res (vol16: 261–280); Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Schmit W.L.T.M. , Ruiz L.M. (2001): Elite Germplasm for GMO’s in Brazil: Modeling
Government – Agribusiness Negotiations; International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 2(3/4): 391-406; Elsevier Science Inc.

Singh O.V. , Ghai S. , Paul D. & Jain R.K. (2006): Genetically modified crops:
success, safety assessment, and public concern; Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2006)
(vol.71: 598-607); Springer-Verlag

University of IOWA; Available URL:

http://www.las.iastate.edu/WSP_KCGS_Partners/english/modules/Gender%20Food
%20and%20Globalization/key_concepts.htm

Watanabe K.N. , Sssa Y. , Suda E. , Chen C.H. , Inaba M. & Kikuchi A. (2005):
Global political, economic, social and technological issues on transgenic crops; Plant

25
Biotechnology (vol.22: 515-522)

26