<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<h1 class="title">Planting the People's Seed Law in Venezuela</h1>
<a href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/printmail/10966" title="Send
this page by e-mail." class="print-mail" rel="nofollow"></a>
<div class="submitted">
<div class="symbols">By <span class="author">Cory Fischer-Hoffman</span>,
<span class="date">October 15th 2014<br>
<b><small><small><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10966">http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10966</a></small></small></b><br>
</span> </div>
</div>
<p>The battle against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is
central in the ongoing fight between transnational corporations
and the health and sovereignty of the people of Venezuela. Despite
Hugo Chavez's ad hoc ban on transgenic crops in 2004, large
multinational corporations, like Monsanto, are trying to use the
current economic climate to negotiate for the arrival of GM seed
in Venezuela. A seed law proposed by a pro-government legislator
in 2013 was met with harsh criticism from environmental
and campesino movements, who claimed that it would create a
backdoor for transgenic seeds to enter Venezuela. After a year of
deliberating, and a complete re-write of the seed law through
assemblies and gatherings of popular power, a new seed law was
approved for discussion by the National Assembly. This revised law
completely bans the use of GM seeds in Venezuela.</p>
<p><strong>A Decade in the Making</strong></p>
<p>Since 2004, when President Hugo Chavez halted the planting of
500,000 acres of Monsanto's GMO corn, Venezuelan farmers have been
firmly united against the growing of transgenic crops and the
importation of transgenic seeds. When Chavez announced this
decision to the world, in April of 2004, he stated, “the people of
the United States, of Latin America and the world, should follow
the example of Venezuela and be free of transgenics.” And, while
Article 127 of the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution prohibits the
creation of patents on the genome of any living being, it does not
explicitly ban the planting, use, or consumption of GMOs.</p>
<p>In <a class="western"
href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/9647" target="_blank">June
of 2013</a>, United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV)
legislator José Ureña introduced a new Seed Law to the national
assembly which would replace the 2002 version, and adjust the 2004
virtual ban on transgenics. This proposed legislation was full of
fiery rhetoric promising ecosocialism. In Chapter One of the
proposed law it “prohibits, for reasons of public order, the
production, importation, commercialization, consumption and use of
transgenic seeds.” However, Article 34 of the proposed law
ambiguously stated that no transgenic seeds (imported or obtained
nationally) could be used “without the corresponding certification
of biological harmlessness issued by the National Seed Institute.”</p>
<p>Many collectives, environmental, agricultural and socialists
organizations came out in opposition to the legislation, claiming
that it created a backdoor for transgenic seeds and demanding more
input into the drafting of seed policy. In one<a class="western"
href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10670"
target="_blank"> statement </a>released on May 2, 2014, a
collection of groups declared that “from within the collectives we
are provoking a grassroots constituent debate for a new
revolutionary seed law, built from the bottom by the legislating
people, in defense of a free, criolla, indigenous,
peasant, Afro-descendant and sovereign seed, which is under threat
by the advances of transnational authorities who would like to
control political stability in the country.”</p>
<p><strong>The People Plant a New Seed Law</strong></p>
<p>The signatories of the statement participated with various other
agricultural producers, indigenous organizations, and other
stakeholders in the drafting of legislation. This action reclaimed
seed policy from the National Assembly and brought it directly
into the hands of producers and those most impacted by seed
policy. Ureña listened to the criticism brought on by a diverse
coalition of “ecosocialists” and he participated in a gathering
organized by the national network of the seed guardians in Monte
Carmelo, Venezuela in October of 2013. After a series of
gatherings and ongoing protests against transgenic seeds in
Venezuela, José Ureña (PSUV) introduced the new seed law—built
through popular participation—to the National Assembly, yesterday.
The proposed law was approved for discussion in the National
Assembly, and the debate on seeds will continue, as will the
mobilization of social movements in the streets.</p>
<p>The new Seed Law, if passed, would establish a National Seed
Institute that would regulate the quality of imported seeds but,
as a result of the demands made by producers, would not create
undue burdens on producers with which to exchange seeds freely or
establish other community-based institutions for the preservation
and sharing of seeds. These adjustments were birthed through the
democratic process of debate and were formed in response to
criticisms of the past version of the law, which small-producers
noted as centralizing too much power in the hands of the national
government and failing to recognize community based institutions,
like the commune or the communal councils as legitimate bodies in
the care and guardianship of seeds.</p>
<p>José Ureña stated, “the seed is a right of the people, it is the
patrimony of humanity, and consequently, it cannot be privatized.”
Hundreds of Venezuelans gathered outside of the National Assembly
to show their support for the new Seed Law, and to continue to
demand a ban on transgenic seeds and crops in Venezuela.</p>
<p>Eisamar Ochoa of Venezuela Free of Transgenics stated, “This is a
law that, more than prohibit the use of transgenics and the use of
agrotoxins – which are highly polluting – it purports to
strengthen, make visible, claim, and make our campesina (heirloom)
seeds as the base of our food sovereignty.”</p>
<p><strong>GMOs rejected in the face of Venezuela's Economic War</strong></p>
<p>While Venezuela has been marching under the banner of food
sovereignty as a guiding principle to resist neoliberalism and the
rule of multinational corporations, the oil producing nation has
only recently confronted the harsh consequences of its food
dependence; the food shortages and distribution issues within the
country are the core of the economic war. As Venezuelans are being
pushed to be ever more resourceful, to go without, or to pay
exorbitant prices for basic goods in the informal market, the
conversation on food sovereignty has now transformed from a
theoretical concept to a concrete demand shared by Venezuelans
across the political spectrum.</p>
<p>In a time of widespread scarcity within the country,
multinational corporations, and the opposition politicians who
represent their interests have attempted to take advantage of fear
around access to food, to push for the use of GMOs. In October of
2012, Rafael Aramendis, Monsanto representative for government
affairs for South America, the Caribbean and the Andean region,
addressed the National Assembly, promising that GM crops were a
means to increase food production in Venezuela. According to the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Aramendis' visit to Caracas was
accompanied by a lobbying efforts to dismantle Venezuela's current
ani-transgenics policies.</p>
<p>Today, as the new Seed Law is headed towards debate powerful
interests, like Venezuela's Chamber of Commerce (Fedecamaras)
oppose the bill, and they are using the arguments presented by
Aramendis that transgenics could be an answer to
Venezuela's supposedly low levels of agricultural production.
Opposition legislator and former president of Fedecamaras
2007-2009) stated that officially banning transgenics would be “a
step backwards” in agricultural matters.</p>
<p>Despite widespread knowledge of the <a class="western"
href="http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/" target="_blank">devastating
environmental and health impact of GMOs</a>, large multinational
corporations, the most-well-known being, US-based Monsanto
corporation, continue to lobby for the use of GM crops. Monsanto –
like several other corporations in the chemical industry –
developed GM crops primarily as a means to create a larger market
for their chemical herbicides. As GM crops proliferate, Monsanto's
profits increase. Their herbicide Roundup has been applied in
increasing dosages along with the widespread use of their patented
“Roundup ready'' GM crops which are engineered to be resistant to
the chemical. Monsanto has exclusive ownership of the seeds of all
of their GM crops. They have also managed to engineer a
“terminator seed” which grow into plants that cannot produce
fertile seeds, forcing farmers to buy seeds from the multinational
corporation annually instead of freely saving their own seeds, as
they have done for generations. This creates a dangerous
dependence in which poor farmers must rely on this agri-chemical
giant and it also obviously violates the natural process of
reproduction of plants.</p>
<p>Venezuela's rejection of transgenics closes off Venezuela's
agricultural market to transnational agri-chemical companies like
Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Pioneer, Cargill, Dow, BASF and Bayer
but it also sets an example to the rest of the world, one that is
threatening to the profits and image of these powerful
corporations.</p>
<p>Even in the midst of food shortages, and the type of fear and
panic that accompanies scarcity, Venezuelans are not being fooled
by promises of a quick fix to increase food production through
opening the flood gates to transgenic seeds; on the contrary,
social movements are adamantly establishing the seed as the
fundamental starting point for constructing food sovereignty and
rejecting further dependence on multinationals, and the
environmental devastation that accompanies the planting of
transgenic crops and the increased use of agrochemicals that
accompany them.</p>
<p><strong>Beyond the Fight Against Labeling: Learning from
Venezuela's Strategy</strong></p>
<p>There are growing anti-GMO movements all around the world but,
Venezuela's resistance to GMOs is unique and provides extremely
important lessons for those who are organizing against genetically
modified foods and for food sovereignty. Undoubtedly, the
principled rejection of transgenics at the highest level of
government in Venezuela under President Chavez, created a powerful
umbrella for a broad movement to define its opposition to
transgenics and offered legitimacy to the rejection of transgenic
crops in Venezuela. But more so, Venezuela's battle against
transgenics has been rooted in protecting Venezuela's food supply,
its land, and its farmers from the dependence and contamination
brought on by planting GM crops, simply, it is not a consumer
movement.</p>
<p>In <a class="western"
href="http://gmoinside.org/gmo-timeline-a-history-genetically-modified-foods/"
target="_blank">1997</a>, the European Union established the
first laws on the labeling of GMOs (including animal feed) and
since then, consumer rights groups have fought against he
proliferation of GM crops by instigating a consumer movement that
demands the right to know what is in their food, and therefore the
right not to consume transgenic food. This strategy has resulted
in campaigns demanding that any product that is comprised of GMO
ingredients, be labeled.</p>
<p>According to the Non-GMO project, crops at the<a class="western"
href="http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/what-is-gmo/"
target="_blank"> highest risk</a> of being GMO
are, alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papya, soy, sugar beets,
and zuchinni and they also note possible contamination in crops
such as beets, brassicas (bok choy, rutabega, kale,
etc) flax, rice and wheat. Additionally, there are numerous
ingredients that are derived from these GM crops such as
aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, xantham gum and other hard to
pronounce additives. And despite early trials of genetically
modified tomatoes, potatoes, salmon and pig, they failed on the
market and are no longer being produced.</p>
<p>The Non-GMO project lists foods that are certified as non-GMO so
that consumers (largely, in the United States) can make educated
consumer choices and individually opt out of ingesting transgenic
foods, if they have the information, access to these foods, and
money to purchase them. This has been the largest force of the
anti-GMO movement in the United states, which is the largest
producer of GM crops in the world.</p>
<p>The paradigm of a consumer movement is largely rooted in a desire
to protect individuals from the damaging health problems
associated with ingesting transgenic foods. This platform often
falls short of challenging other issues such as the power of
multinational corporations, the dependency of farmers, the
environmental consequences of increased chemical herbicide and
pesticide use associated with the proliferation of chemical
resistant GM crops, and the fight for biodiversity and food
sovereignty. In Europe and the US, anti-GMO campaigns are largely
couched within a consumer-driven movement that attempts to create
these changes through individual choices in the market place.</p>
<p>Conversely, Venezuelans have placed the fight against transgenic
seeds as the cornerstone to food sovereignty and
defending campesino, indigneous and Afro-Descendant culture from
the tyranny of multinational companies. This platform, has also
been broadly adopted as a part of the strategy to construct
eco-socialism and most importantly, has been generated by small
scale producers, seed savers, agricultural workers,
and campesino communities. Far from being a consumer movement,
this has been a grassroots movement of producers and stakeholders
who are working to influence change in the political and social
sphere; they are not trying to effect change through legitimating
the marketplace as the venue of decision-making, they are
challenging an economic model that claims ownership over
life. This is consistent with how indigenous peoples around the
world and the <a class="western" href="http://www.navdanya.org/"
target="_blank">peasant movement in India</a>, have also defined
their struggle. </p>
<p>Ironically, this collective producer-based strategy, which
examines the larger consequences of GMOs and rejects the
neoliberal market as the venue for decision-making, has made huge
advances in protecting farmers and crops from contamination of
transgenic seeds but they have failed to keep products made with
GMO ingredients out of the country.</p>
<p>Venezuela imports most of its food from abroad, rather than
producing it domestically. As Venezuela reorients its trading
partnerships away from the United States and towards its MERCOSUR
(Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, ad Chile) and other South American
neighbors, as well as towards the BRICS countries (Brazil,
Russian, India, China and South Africa), Venezuela is importing
food from some of the larger producers of GMO products. Of the 10
countries with the <a class="western"
href="http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/gmo_planting/142.countries_growing_gmos.html"
target="_blank">highest area of GM crops planted</a>, many of
Venezuela's main trading partners make the list, such as
Argentina, Brazil, China, Paraguay, India, South Africa and
Uruguay.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, basic and widely used consumer goods such as
precooked cornflour (the main ingredient in the
Venezuelan arepa and empañada), soy bean oil, canola oil, and
other consumer items such as diapers, tampons, and menstrual pads
made with cotton, are likely made of genetically modified
ingredients and therefore contain much higher concentration of
harmful chemical herbicides and pesticides. These products are not
labeled, and while health concerns associated with exposure to GM
products are a part of the overall rejection of transgenics in
Venezuela, the movement has largely fought GMOs from the stance of
farmers and producers, considering long-term effects on land,
production, workers, the environment, sovereignty and independence
from multinational corporations.</p>
<p>This strategy creates a broader and more powerful movement, one
that bring in food producers and growers, indigenous
and Afro-Descendent peoples, environmentalists, grassroots social
movements in rural and urban areas of the country and those
concerned about health. This diverse movement frames the issue of
transgenics as tied into corporate control of the global economy,
the preservation of cultural patrimony and forms of knowledge, the
right to self-determination, and an issue of worker's rights. The
coalition-building potential of this approach creates fertile
ground for bringing power to control vital resources and decisions
about food production to grassroots communities and it extends
beyond the fight against transgenic seeds.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, in the globalized world in which Venezuela belongs,
the country continues to import food which is made of transgenic
products, offering few options for consumers to opt out of
ingesting transgenics. </p>
<p>Despite a push in US states such as Washington and California to
pass referendums to label GMO products, the heavily resourced
counter campaign by large agri-business have so far defeated these
labeling initiatives. But, even where the labeling of GMOs exists
or where there are large concentrations of people concerned with
GMOs, those who have access to information about the potential
harm can choose to buy the pricier certified organic (which means
that it must not be GMO) and “non-GMO certified” goods. For those
who cannot afford those products, or don't have access to a
natural food store or grocer that stocks such goods, there are few
options other than foods produced with GMO crops and so, the poor,
the working classes (in rural and urban areas), including farming
families, indigenous peoples, and those in institutions such as
hospitals, schools and prisons will continue to largely eat GMO
foods despite the labeling of products or the knowledge of the
health risks.</p>
<p>Another weakness in the consumer-based model is
that agri-chemical companies and labeling efforts may adjust their
practices to meet consumer demands without addressing any of the
fundamental problems that Venezuelans are raising in their effort
to ban transgenics.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusions</strong></p>
<p>Venezuela's opposition to transgenics outlines a strategy that is
not rooted in consumer choice, and therefore fully rejects the
neoliberal logic inherent in consumer-based movements. While
Venezuela has a long way to go in building food sovereignty,
increasing food production and ensuring that Venezuelans are
protected from the damaging health consequences of GM foods, they
are addressing the problem at its root, beginning with the seed.</p>
<p>The new Seed Law will be debated in the National Assembly and
despite support across many sectors of Venezuelan society, it will
still face a well-funded opposition from pro-corporate legislators
that are in the pockets of big business. While passage of the bill
would mark an historic step forward in Venezuela, the process
which has birthed the proposed legislation is a victory in of
itself. The legislation came from thousands of people, debating
and discussing seeds, corporate power, culture, land, food
production, and sovereignty all around the country and social
movements are continuing to put pressure of the government to pass
the legislation. There are street protests called for<sup> </sup>tomorrow and
for later this month.</p>
<p>It is clear that the movement is growing strength and numbers, as
food sovereignty becomes defined through a participatory process
from the grassroots up. This movement is starting with the seed,
but now that it has been planted, we must watch to see how the
movement will grow and what we can all learn in the process.</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.freedomarchives.org">www.freedomarchives.org</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>