{"id":57383,"date":"2015-05-04T12:00:17","date_gmt":"2015-05-04T11:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=57383"},"modified":"2015-05-05T21:24:42","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T20:24:42","slug":"campaign-against-glyphosate-steps-up-in-latin-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/05\/campaign-against-glyphosate-steps-up-in-latin-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Campaign against Glyphosate Steps Up in Latin America"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Glyphosate<\/a>

Glyphosate spraying of illegal drug crops has caused environmental damage in Colombia\u2019s rainforest. Credit: Public domain<\/p><\/div>\n

Apr 28 2015<\/em> – After the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, the campaign has intensified in Latin America to ban the herbicide, which is employed on a massive scale on transgenic crops.<\/p>\n

In a Mar. 20 publication, the WHO\u2019s International Agency for Research on Cancer<\/a> (IARC) reported that the world\u2019s most widely used herbicide is probably carcinogenic to humans, a conclusion that was based on numerous studies.<\/p>\n

Social organisations and scientific researchers in Latin America argue that thanks to the report by the WHO\u2019s cancer research arm, governments no longer have an excuse not to intervene, after years of research on the damage caused by glyphosate to health and the environment at a regional and global level.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe believe the precautionary principle should be applied, and that we should stop accumulating studies and take decisions that could come too late,\u201d said Javier Souza, coordinator of the Latin American Pesticide Action Network<\/a> (RAP-AL).<\/p>\n

The precautionary principle states that even if a cause-effect relationship has not been fully established scientifically, precautionary measures should be taken if the product or activity may pose a threat to health or the environment.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe advocate a ban on glyphosate which should take effect in the short term with restrictions on purchasing, spraying and packaging,\u201d Souza, who is also the head of the Centre for Studies on Appropriate Technologies in Argentina<\/a> (CETAAR), told IPS.<\/p>\n

Carlos Vicente, a leader of the international NGO GRAIN<\/a>, told IPS that the herbicide first reached Latin America in the mid-1970s and that its use by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto spread massively in the Southern Cone countries.<\/p>\n

\u201cIts widespread use mainly involves transgenic crops, genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate, such as RR (Roundup Ready) soy, introduced in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and other countries,\u201d said Vicente, a representative of GRAIN, which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity.<\/p>\n

There are 50 million hectares of transgenic soy in the region, and 600 million litres a year of the herbicide are used annually, he said.<\/p>\n

According to Souza, there are 83 million hectares of transgenic crops in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay alone.<\/p>\n

The WHO report \u201cis very important because it shows that despite the pressure from Monsanto<\/a>, independent science at the service of the common good rather than corporate interests is possible,\u201d Vicente said.<\/p>\n

Monsanto sells glyphosate under the trade name Roundup. But it is also sold as Cosmoflux, Baundap, Glyphogan, Panzer, Potenza and Rango. And among small farmers in some countries, it is popularly referred to as \u201crandal\u201d.<\/p>\n

It is used not only on transgenic crops but also on vegetables, tobacco, fruit trees and plantation forests of pine or eucalyptus, as well as in urban gardens and flowerbeds and along railways.<\/p>\n

But in traditional agriculture it is used after the seeds germinate and before they are planted, while in transgenic crops it is used during planting, when it acts in a non-selective fashion, thus destroying a variety of plants and grass, according to RAP-AL.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>

The people of the town of Malvinas Argentinas, in the central province of C\u00f3rdoba, have blocked the construction of a Monsanto transgenic maize seed treatment plant since 2013, in their fight against the alleged toxic effects to human health and the environment. Credit: Fabiana Frayssinet\/IPS<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cThis rain \u2013 literally \u2013 of glyphosate has a direct impact on ecosystems, communities, the soil and water \u2013 and these impacts cannot be hidden any longer,\u201d Vicente said.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can no longer accept the use of these poisons because they destroy biodiversity, aggravate climate change, destroy the soil\u2019s fertility, and contaminate the water and even the air,\u201d said Joao Pedro St\u00e9dile, leader of Brazil\u2019s Landless Workers\u2019 Movement<\/a> (MST). \u201cAnd above all, they bring more illness, such as cancer,\u201d he told IPS.<\/p>\n

Rafael Lajmanovich, an expert on ecotoxicology at Argentina\u2019s Universidad Nacional del Litoral<\/a>, has heavily researched glyphosate.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough the studies do not refer to human health or carcinogenesis, they have demonstrated in animals (amphibian embryos) that glyphosate is \u2018teratogenic\u2019 \u2013 in other words it causes malformations during the development of these vertebrates,\u201d Lajmanovich, who is a member of the government\u2019s National Scientific and Technical Research Council<\/a> (CONICET), told IPS.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn addition, we found that it has effects on the activity of very important enzyme systems (cholinesterases), which means it has a certain degree of neurotoxicity,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Epidemiological studies have found effects of glyphosate spraying<\/a> in communities.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe main effects that scientists and rural doctors have linked to the spraying are specifically respiratory diseases, allergies, miscarriages, an increase in children born with malformations, and a higher incidence of tumors,\u201d said Lajmanovich.<\/p>\n

Vicente, meanwhile, noted that applied research carried out in several Latin American countries point in the same direction as the WHO study. In Argentina, for example, studies in the provinces of Rosario and C\u00f3rdoba \u201cclearly demonstrate the rise in cases of cancer, which in some instances are three or four times the national average.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Colombia, agronomist Elsa Nivia, director of the Pesticide Action Network in that country, found that in the first two months of 2001 local authorities reported 4,289 people suffering from skin and gastric disorders, and 178,377 animals \u2013 including horses, cattle, pigs, dogs, ducks, hens and fish \u2013 killed as a result of exposure to the pesticide.<\/p>\n

Cases of intoxication have also been reported in Brazil, Chile, Paraguay<\/a> and Uruguay, according to RAP-AL.<\/p>\n

Souza complained that in Latin America, glyphosate is sold without restrictions by animal feed and agrochemical suppliers, hardware stores and other businesses, often \u201cin smaller quantities, in soft drink bottles.\u201d<\/p>\n

St\u00e9dile, who is also a member of the international small farmers movement V\u00eda Campesina, hopes this region and Europe will ban its use in agriculture, as Mexico, Russia and the Netherlands have done.<\/p>\n

As an alternative, he proposed \u201cagroecological production that combines scientific know-how with the age-old knowledge of peasant farmers, to develop crops without the use of poisons, suited to each ecosystem.\u201d That methodology has increased \u201cthe productivity of the soil and labour, better than practices that use poisons,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

It is not, said Vicente, a question of replacing glyphosate with new weed killers, several of which are even more toxic, \u201cbut of switching to a model of agroecological smallholder agriculture aimed at achieving food sovereignty for our people.\u201d<\/p>\n

St\u00e9dile said governments in South America continue to support transgenic agriculture despite the evidence of damage to health and the environment, because they believe \u201cagribusiness can help the economy by increasing exports of commodities, contributing to achieving a positive trade balance.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis exports illusion keeps governments from taking a stance against a veritable genocide,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Vicente called for concrete government measures that reflect the results of research carried out in this region, now that the WHO has issued conclusions backing it up.<\/p>\n

In a statement<\/a>, Monsanto criticised the IARC report as \u201cjunk science\u201d, saying \u201cthis result was reached by selective \u2018cherry picking\u2019 of data and is a clear example of agenda-driven bias.\u201d They demanded a rectification.<\/p>\n

In response, the researchers pointed out that they stated that glyphosate was a \u201cprobable carcinogen\u201d.<\/p>\n

Monsanto said \u201cThis conclusion is inconsistent with the decades of ongoing comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world that have concluded that all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lajmanovich argued that the position taken by a company \u201ccannot prevail over that of an international institution of renowned prestige, the WHO, which is the guiding body in world health.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also noted that Monsanto considered WHO reports reliable \u201cwhen they indicated that glyphosate was innocuous.\u201d<\/p>\n

_________________________________<\/p>\n

Related IPS Articles<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n