Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[New from GRAIN] Open letter to the FAO - please sign on!

Expand Messages
  • Don
    ... Subject: [New from GRAIN] Open letter to the FAO - please sign on! Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:03:11 -0400 (EDT) From: info@grain.org Reply-To:
    Message 1 of 1 , May 28, 2004
      -------- Original Message --------
      Subject: [New from GRAIN] Open letter to the FAO - please sign on!
      Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
      From: info@...
      Reply-To: bounce@...
      To: dbain@...

      New from GRAIN
      28 May 2004

      (An open letter to Mr. Jacques Diouf, Director General of FAO )

      Dear friends & colleagues,

      A few of us around the world have taken the initiative to draft an open
      letter to the Director General of FAO to express our disagreement with
      the report "Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?"
      that FAO launched on 17th May - an unprecedented move by FAO's publicity
      machine in support of genetic engineering.

      We invite everybody (individuals and organisations) to sign-on to the

      To sign on, please send an email to openletterfao@... indicating
      your name, your organisation and your country. Please indicate whether
      you sign-on personally or in the name of your organisation. The deadline
      for signing-on is Monday 7th June.

      Thanks for your support!

      René Segbenou, Coalition pour la Protection du Patrimoine Génétique
      Africain, Côte d'Ivoire
      Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, Biowatch, South Africa
      Sarojeni Rengam, Pesticides Action Network Asia and the Pacific, Malasia
      Elisabeth Bravo, Red por una América Latina Libre de Tansgénicos, Ecuador
      ETC Group
      Patrick Mulvany, ITDG, United Kingdom
      Henk Hobbelink, GRAIN, Spain

      FAO's press release about the report can be read at:
      The full report can be downloaded from:


      If you or your organisation wants to sign on to this letter, please send
      an email to


      indicating your name, your organisation and your country. Please
      indicate whether you sign personally or in the name of your organisation.

      The deadline for signing on is Monday 7th June.

      Translations of this letter will be available in Spanish
      (www.grain.org/es/) and French (www.grain.org/fr/).


      (An open letter to Mr. Jacques Diouf, Director General of FAO)

      Dear Mr Diouf,

      We, the undersigned organisations, movements and individuals involved in
      farming and agricultural issues, wish to express our outrage and
      disagreement with the FAO report released Monday, May 17th
      ("Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?"). This
      report has been used in a politically-motivated public relations
      exercise to support the biotechnology industry. It promotes the genetic
      engineering of seeds and the further skewing of research funding towards
      this technology and away from ecologically sound methods developed by
      farmers. The way in which the report has been prepared and released to
      the media, sadly, raises serious questions about the independence and
      intellectual integrity of an important United Nations agency. The report
      turns FAO away from food sovereignty and the real needs of the world's
      farmers, and is a stab in the back to the farmers and the rural poor FAO
      is meant to support.

      We are deeply disappointed that FAO has breached its commitment (and
      your own personal pledge) to consult and maintain an open dialogue with
      smallholder farmers' organizations and civil society. By failing to
      consult such organizations in the preparation of this report FAO has
      turned its back on those who are most directly affected by the
      technologies it promotes.

      Rather than recommending the strengthening of the role of smallholder
      farmers in the management of their agricultural biodiversity and
      improvement of crops vital to their livelihoods, which some of FAO's
      field work actively and successfully promotes, this report proposes a
      technological "fix" of crops critical to the food security of
      marginalized peoples - calling for the development of transgenic
      cassava, potato, cowpea, millet and teff.

      Hunger in the world is growing again despite the fact that global per
      capita food production has been higher than ever before. Issues of
      access and distribution are far more important than technology. If we
      have learned anything from the failures of the Green Revolution, it is
      that technological 'advances' in crop genetics for seeds that respond to
      external inputs go hand in hand with increased socio-economic
      polarization, rural and urban impoverishment, and greater food
      insecurity. The tragedy of the Green Revolution lies precisely in its
      narrow technological focus that ignored the far more important social
      and structural underpinnings of hunger. The technology strengthened the
      very structures that enforce hunger. A new 'gene revolution' will only
      exacerbate the worst errors of the Green Revolution. Has FAO learned

      History demonstrates that structural changes in access to land, food,
      and political power - combined with robust, ecological technologies via
      farmer-led research - reduce hunger and poverty. The 'gene revolution'
      promises to take us in the opposite direction. It is based on
      astronomically costly, elite, industry-dominated research using patented
      technologies. The same resources, if directed to farmer-led,
      participatory research networks, would generate far more equitable,
      productive and ecologically sound technologies.

      Although the 200-plus page document struggles to appear neutral, it is
      highly biased and ignores available evidence of the adverse ecological,
      economic, and health impacts of genetically engineered crops. For
      example, the report bluntly states that transgenic crops have delivered
      large economic benefits to farmers and helped reduce the use of
      pesticides. This assertion is based on field data from a highly
      selective set of studies of Bt cotton. Contradictory research is
      ignored. The data used from India are based exclusively on field trials
      conducted by Monsanto in 2001. The report ignores data collected from
      farmers' fields by several state governments and other independent
      researchers during the 2002 season (the year Bt cotton was released).
      These show that Bt cotton failed. The small, inconclusive studies of Bt
      cotton in Mexico, Argentina and South Africa are disingenuously used to
      bolster support for transgenic cotton varieties. Reference to another
      study suggesting benefits for cotton farmers in Burkina Faso and Mali
      concludes without much of a base that West Africa - already under
      unjustifiable trade pressures - will lose millions of dollars if they do
      not embrace Bt cotton.

      Although the FAO report does mention that genetic engineering is
      dominated by corporations, it overlooks the fact that only one company -
      Monsanto - owns the GM seed technology sown over 90% of the total world
      area sown to transgenics. Five companies make up virtually 100% of the
      transgenic seed market. This represents an unprecedented dependence of
      farmers on global agribusiness that FAO should view with alarm and for
      which FAO should propose alternatives. Just proposing that more public
      research funding is dedicated to it, is not a solution. More investment
      in this technology - as the FAO recommends - will inevitably increase
      corporate monopoly control over the world's food supply. Impoverished
      countries will be forced to accept patent laws, contracts and trade
      regimes that weaken their internal capacity to fight hunger. Four days
      after your report was published, the Supreme Court of Canada shamefully
      sided with Monsanto against Canadian farmers Percy and Louise Schmeiser
      simply because the corporation's patented seed contaminated their farm.
      In a number of countries contamination is already resulting in cases
      where farmers are threatened or prosecuted because genetically
      engineered pollen blew in their field!

      The more farmers are dependent on the biotech industry, the fewer
      options they will have to support and further develop their own farming
      and livelihood systems. It is unacceptable that FAO endorses the need
      for intellectual property for corporations. This amounts to FAO support
      for corporate biopiracy since the genetic resources that corporations
      seek to patent result from the collective breeding work of farmers over
      thousands of years.

      Genetic contamination is polluting the very heart of the world's centres
      of crop diversity. Yet FAO brushes aside this tragedy with hardly a
      comment. Yet, for the very cultures that created agriculture this is an
      aggression against their life, against the crops they created and
      nurture, and against their food sovereignty. For several decades the FAO
      has been leading an international debate to address the issue of genetic
      erosion. With the advent of genetic engineering the threat of erosion
      has increased. As the normative intergovernmental institution for
      genetic resources, FAO should be developing policies to prevent genetic
      erosion and take action to address the negative global implications.

      We are stunned to find that, to prevent gene contamination (while
      protecting corporate monopoly), the report supports the absurd option of
      using Terminator technology, a technology that would prevent farmers
      from saving and re-using harvested seed. Farmers' organizations, civil
      society organizations, many governments and scientific institutions have
      condemned this technology. As Director General of FAO, you stated in
      2000 that FAO was against genetic seed sterilization. Incredibly, your
      report endorses a technology that would risk the food supply of the 1.4
      billion people who depend upon farm-saved seed around the world.

      These biases, omissions and unsubstantiated conclusions turn this report
      into a disgraceful public relations tool for the biotech industry and
      for those countries that seek to export this technology. It is an insult
      to those FAO member governments that, courageously, have been resisting
      industry and political pressure and who are developing viable
      alternatives for long-term seed security and food sovereignty. It is a
      rejection of the efforts of those scientists and policy makers - some
      within FAO - who have contributed to the new participatory technology
      development, agro-ecological methodologies, sustainable productivity and
      other approaches that put the role and rights of farmers first.

      We believe that FAO has broken its commitment to civil society and
      peasants' organizations to consult on issues of common concern. There
      was no consultation with smallholder farmers' organisations, yet there
      appears to have been extensive discussion with industry. For those of us
      in civil society organisations and social movements that considered the
      FAO as an institution that we could relate to and a forum to debate
      these issues and possibly move forward, this is a tremendous setback.
      Farmers and civil society organizations will meet and consult in the
      coming months to determine what further actions should be taken
      regarding FAO and the negative repercussions of this report.

      Yours Sincerely,
      (people and organisations signing on)


      To modify your subscription for any GRAIN email list, login at:

      28 May 2004

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.