"The Chiapas program is the one I like best of all my businesses."

- Alfonso Romo, Chief Executive, Pulsar Group

In the previous Bulletin on this subject (No. 165), we spoke in general terms of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), also known as transgenetics. In this issue, we shall delve more deeply, emphasizing Chiapas, Mexico and Latin America.

As we will shortly see, in response to the dramatic progress of GMOs, and to the creation of new pharmacological substances through bio-prospecting in areas of great biodiversity (such as Chiapas), the Mexican government and its regulatory agencies in these matters are poorly prepared for the phenomenon. The official sector has given confusing signs regarding its willingness to supervise and to regulate a multi-million dollar business, which everything seems to indicate will be of little benefit to Mexicans in general, and to campesinos in particular, who are the ones who have been improving crops for millennia.

Given the slowness demonstrated by Mexican government agencies in regulating the entrance into the country of transgenetic products, we can suspect that the government has opted to simply let events take their course. They are aware that an open acceptance of GMOs, especially the modified maize from the United States, could set off a wave of protests in this country. Regulation that would tend to restrict their access to the Mexican market, however, would bring cries from the US side, so Mexican officials have simply turned a blind eye. Because of that, transgenetic maize is entering Mexico without the most minimal control.

Greenpeace in Mexico recently stated that 5 million tons of transgenetic maize entered the country in 1998, and so far this year the figure is around 3.8 million tons. And, while transgenetic maize in Mexico is being mixed with unmodified maize - without even the most minimal warning to consumers - in the United States, the baby food company, Gerber, has stated that it will not use transgenetic maize in their preparations for infants. In Europe, companies do not have the option: all transgenetic products are prohibited by law in baby foods. And in Japan it is obligatory to state the presence of GMOs on the labels of food products.

In Mexico, on the other hand, official agencies that supposedly have jurisdiction in the matter are throwing the ball into each others' court. The Department of Agriculture maintains that transgenetic maize is for human consumption and is, therefore, not their responsibility. The Department of Health claims that it is for planting, and the Department of Agriculture should take charge of the matter.

Of greater concern is the fact that transgenetic maize can indeed germinate, despite statements to the contrary by the Secretary of Agriculture, Romárico Arroyo. Greenpeace has been in the vanguard of these protests. Liza Covantes, coordinator of the environmental group, noted that the fact that transgenetic maize produces pollen puts the 300 native varieties of maize in Mexico at risk, because it could contaminate them.

In an interview with El Universal newspaper (9/15/99), Covantes stated that what Greenpeace wants is for the majority of the population to know what is going on, that it be discussed among the different sectors, because the people have the right to information, to choice and to the protection of their natural resources. The challenge, Covantes said, is in confronting the Savia, Monsanto and Novartis (the primary producers of transgenetics in the world) groups, because we know that they do very strong lobbying work with the Mexican government.

In the face of such lobbying, it will be difficult for Secretary of Agriculture Arroyo to recognize the possible dangers of transgenetic products. But if he wanted to inform himself, he would not have to look any further than another government agency, the National Commission of Biodiversity (Conabio). In a study, "Biological Diversity in Mexico," the Conabio noted that "biotechnological research is aimed at commercial agriculture and leads to the demand for protection of intellectual property, with negative consequences for genetic diversity." Without underestimating the possible benefits that the new technology could bring, the Conabio recognizes that biotechnology "represents a threat to species and to ecosystems; by introducing genetically improved species, genetic exchanges between native populations can be altered, even to the point of the very disappearance of species in the ecosystems." (La Jornada, 7/12/99)

If studies are lacking, some ten institutions, coordinated by the Conabio and the National Commission of Science and Technology (a Mexican federal agency) published another document entitled "Living Organisms Modified in Mexican Agriculture: Biotechnological Development and Conservation of Biological Diversity." In a letter directed to President Zedillo, the agencies stated that "the absence of evidence concerning dangers to the environment should not be interpreted as the absence of risksThe unprecedented newness of modern biotechnological products makes it necessary to proceed with special responsibility and caution, when the purpose is to release a transgenetic into the environment or to use it for consumption." (La Jornada, 7/6/99)

The calls for prudence and more information by the scientists seem sensible in the light of the news that is coming in concerning GMOs. Monsanto, for example, has developed a new variety of potato ("New Leaf") that contains a bacterial toxin (Bt), which is fatal to the Colorado beetle, a pest of potatoes in the United States. This new potato is, therefore, registered as a "pesticide" by that country's Environmental Protection Agency (Ref: Pollan). The effects in human beings of eating this "potato pesticide?" Up to this moment, unknown. There have been no studies carried out in this regard. And, what is perhaps even worse, the effects on the environment of the "leaks" of the altered genes in the GMOs - something which is known to occur - are also unknown.

The Director of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, Andrew Kimbrell, stated that, in his opinion, such escapes are inevitable. He said that "biological pollution will be the environmental nightmare of the 21st century. This is not like chemical pollution, such as an oil spill, which eventually disperses. Biological pollution is an entirely different model, more like a disease. Is Monsanto going to be held legally responsible when one of its transgenetics creates a super-weed or a resistant insect?" (Pollan)

Bio-prospecting and Bio-piracy in Mexico

Attention has been attracted in Mexico to the agreement reached in November 1998 between Diversa Corporation and the Institute of Biotechnology of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), of which little is known. We know that it is a three year agreement through which Diversa, of San Diego, California, will receive Mexican biodiversity samples, collected in its tropical jungles and low jungles, deserts, volcanoes and geo-tropical sites. Through its technology, Diversa will try to isolate genomes of the bio-mass (the samples) delivered by the UNAM, in order to identify new compounds that "can benefit humanity," in the company's words.

Mexico is an exceptional location, the Diversa Corporation notes, since its varied geography contains 34 eco-climates, versus only 4 in the United States. In addition, with only 1.3% of the land on the planet, it contains 14.4% of the species in the world.

In exchange for the bio-mass samples they will receive, Diversa agrees to train and equip UNAM scientists to gather the species. It also commits itself to paying the UNAM royalties for any commercial product they are able to develop from compounds deriving from the samples.

This agreement, however, has raised suspicions and complaints. To this day, the Mexican public does not know the terms of the agreement with Diversa. Nor is it known where they are going to be working, the total compensation the UNAM will be receiving, and, primarily, UNAM's rationale for transferring and commercializing genetic resources that do not belong to them. As noted by Economics Ph.D. Alejandro Nadal, Mexico is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by the Mexican Senate in 1993, which establishes that genetic resources are public property and, therefore, the UNAM has no right to profit from them. Even if the Conabio did participate in the negotiations between the above mentioned parties, it is not the proper agency to be participating in these kinds of arrangements. The National Ecology Institute should have participated, but the Institute has not yet established regulations in this area.

Another concern is the total silence about the peoples who inhabit the areas where the samples will be gathered. What participation will there be from the persons living in the areas of harvesting, and what benefits will this accord bring to them? Diversa's press bulletin is silent in this regard. As Nadal aptly notes, "it is even more surprising that the UNAM and Conabio dared [to sign with Diversa], a United States company, when one takes into consideration the fact that that country is not even part of the convention on Biological Diversity. The US refusal to sign the convention (already ratified by 150 countries) is based on their disagreement with the articles on the distribution of benefits derived from genetic resources and its implications for patents."

The UNAM, Nadal continues, "is committing a serious mistake in opening the door to contracts that will end up, de facto, in the privatization of the genetic resources of Mexico." And that is precisely what is happening in Chiapas right now. In an arrangement that repeats what was agreed to between the UNAM/Conabio and Diversa Corporation, the College of the Southern Border (Ecosur) signed, on May 28, 1999, an "Agreement for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and Distribution of Benefits with the ICBG-Maya" with the University of Georgia in the United States and Molecular Nature Limited, headquartered in Wales, the United Kingdom. The Agreement is an attempt to formalize the protection of intellectual property and distribution of benefits for the project called "Pharmaceutical Investigation and Sustainable Use of Ethno-botany and Biodiversity Knowledge in the Mayan Region of Los Altos of Chiapas." (The ICBG-Maya emerged in 1998 with the approval of the above project, through the National Institute of Health in the United States, as part of their International Collaboration in Biodiversity Groups, or ICBG).

In the Agreement, the signatory parties recognize that biodiversity in Los Altos contains "valuable and key consumables," recognizing "the need for financially compensating the communities of the region in case commercial products are discovered, including patentable pharmaceutical products, developed from the biological samples collected."

In order to be on the safe side, the parties recognize, however, that such products developed from the samples of plants, or other substances in Los Altos, could take many years to be produced. Because of that, the agreement offers palliative measures, or, if you would like, it strings the communities along, in the form of some development programs (whose number and magnitude are not specified), for the purpose of "developing alternative forms of creating and distributing benefits (not specified)," "including those related to health improvement, conservation and the sustainable use of biological resources, as well as alternative forms of economic development (not specified either)." These alternative forms for creating and distributing benefits will be provided for in other agreements to be made at unspecified dates.

In order to control and distribute the eventual benefits, the parties agreed to establish an NGO, Promaya, that will participate in negotiations on the distribution of royalties, as well as the granting of licenses.

The Agreement is of exceptional interest, because it once again confirms the notion that those benefiting the least from bio-prospecting agreements (such as those signed by the UNAM and Ecosur) are the indigenous peoples. The Ecosur Agreement, for example:

1. Excludes by omission any organization representing the communities of Los Altos of Chiapas, at least in the initial stages during which the project's general framework will be discussed and ground rules will be established.

2. It establishes, on the other hand, an NGO (Promaya), without any representation of the indigenous of Los Altos, but which aspires to be in charge of negotiating the provision of biological samples with the communities, in addition to controlling and distributing the resulting benefits.

3. It also excludes entities such as the OMIECH (Organization of Indigenous Doctors of the States of Chiapas), which has had a presence in 9 municipalities and 29 communities in Los Altos, the Northern region and La Selva of Chiapas for the last 15 years. The OMIECH is made up of herbalists, midwives, folk healers, bonesetters, pulsadores and prayer-givers, with an extraordinarily rich archive of knowledge about plants and traditional medicines, and which would be a logical counterpart for the Agreement.

4. It has no expiration date, but it can be revoked by the decision of one of the parties. However, none of the parties represent the interest of the local peoples, the primary providers of knowledge and biological samples.

5. Royalties, benefits and earnings from all of this may indeed arrive, but one does not know when that will occur. Promaya will establish, when there are benefits to distribute, their administration, in accords reached separately with the various participating communities.

6. While the alleged benefits are being received, there will be "sustainable development" programs, which are not gone into in any more detail in the Agreement. The source of financing for these programs is not specified, nor the probability of obtaining them. The investments in these "sustainable" programs, however, will be deducted from any possible monetary benefits that might result further along.

7. Similarly to the agreement signed by the UNAM, this agreement between Ecosur and the University of Georgia was signed by an official agency, in this case the National Indigenous Institute, the main instrument of the Mexican state for the assimilation and "mestizoization" of the indigenous peoples.

8. Without the consent of any representative indigenous body - and without the definition of fundamental aspects - Ecosur has already begun carrying out bio-prospecting work in the municipalities of Oxchuc, Tenejapa, Chenalhó and Las Margaritas in Chiapas, according to denunciations by the State Council of Indigenous Traditional Doctors and Midwives of Chiapas.

9. It says nothing concerning the activities of anthropologists Brent Berlin and Elois Ann Berlin, who are from the University of Georgia, co-signers of the Agreement, and who have been in Mayan lands for 11 years, gathering information about treatments by the indigenous of a wide range of sufferings with native plants. How much information and how many samples have the Doctors Berlin already taken out, which will not be recompensed to the communities, because of their having begun their investigations prior to the agreement?

As we pointed out in the previous Bulletin on transgenetics, the United States is the world leader in the research and distribution of GMOs. To no one's surprise, it is also the leader in terms of the number of patents awarded for living organisms. The RAFI organization established a point system in order to ascertain which countries have patented the most living forms. The United States has the highest marks, with 90 points. The countries of the European Union average 66, Canada has 48. India has refused to patent any life form, and has zero points. Mexico still figures among the countries with fewer points, with 10, with one patent having been awarded in our country for the "dragon tree" (Croton sp.), and with patents under study for the cloning of animals and for human growth hormones.

It would not be unusual for Mexico's partners in NAFTA (the US and Canada) to exert pressure for the adoption of the same flexibility they have in the awarding their businesses patents on natural life forms.

As a demonstration that nothing is now immune from being patented, it is interesting to note - thanks to RAFI's documents - that the Biocycle company in the United States has received a patent to protect their rights over human umbilical cord cells (Homo Sapiens species, Patent No. 5,004,681). These cells could be of crucial importance, according to RAFI, in the treatment of bone diseases, but the physician who wants to use them in the operating room or for transfusions would have to pay Biocycle for the right.

RAFI has also prepared a list of almost 70 companies, primarily pharmaceutical, who are carrying out bio-prospecting or bio-piracy work. Some of them, who have dealings on our continent, are mentioned below.

1. The American Cyanamid company (US headquarters) is looking for surface plants in arid regions, in order to extract assets for the protection of plantings and for their pharmaceutical development. They are carrying out work in Mexico, Chile and Argentina, and, according to RAFI, they have reached an agreement with the UNAM, of which nothing is known.

2, The International Organization for Developing Chemical Sciences (Belgium) is looking for trees, shrubs, insects, amphibians, fungi, microbes and other natural species in Latin America and in other parts of the world. They say they will depend on the indigenous in order to locate rare species, but that they will work "equitably and ethically" with them, in order to "sustain bio-prospecting on a commercial scale."

3. The Pharmacogenetics company (US) is looking for natural products for the development of pharmaceuticals, and they say they are completely dependent on the indigenous of Latin America for the identification of plants for pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, based on the products and uses of the indigenous.

4. Merck and Co. (one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, based in the US) is seeking fungi, microbes, maritime organisms and plants in Latin America, based on indigenous wisdom. They say that they have already used the experience of the Brazilian indigenous in the use of the Ureu-wau-wau plant in order to patent an anti-coagulant made from an extract.

Another name which comes up frequently is Conservation International (CI), an environmental NGO with headquarters in the United States, but with offices in 23 countries all over the world, including an office in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, the state capital of Chiapas. CI has picked two areas in Mexico of particular interest: the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez) in the northern part of the country, and the Selva Lacandona in Chiapas. In the Selva Lacandona, CI is promoting four projects: eco-tourism, artisanry with Tzeltal women, environmental protection and sustainable development of natural resources in the selva. The four programs maintain CI technicians in the Selva Lacandona, and they are in close contact with the people living there. It is interesting to note, however, that RAFI includes Conservation International on their global list of companies and intermediaries who are carrying out bio-prospecting and bio-piracy. It so happens that CI has an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb (another large US pharmaceutical company) to establish a program of "Apprentices of Chamanes" (or, traditional doctors). In addition, CI has a "global accord" with Hyseq, a US company that studies genomes, in order to facilitate their access to biological resources for their programs of developing pharmaceuticals. It will be CI's regional offices that establish the agreements to distribute benefits, but neither CI nor Hyseq are offering more details.

Another interesting association of Conservation International is the one it has with another giant company, this time a Mexican one, the Pulsar Group. The Pulsar Group has been mentioned in another issue of this Bulletin (see the "Analysis" section on the CIEPAC web page), as one of the largest agro-exporters in the world. In Chiapas, they have expanded the mono-culture of export products, such as the African palm, ornamental plants and the guadua bamboo. They have sales in 110 countries, with production and/or research facilities in 36 countries, employing more than 25,000 persons and generating 66,000 indirect jobs through their agricultural businesses. In 1996, their global sales exceeded 2.5 billion dollars. According to an article in the Excelsior newspaper of Mexico City (1/20/97), Pulsar's businesses "are extremely varied, such as the one that intends to relocate one million farmers in China."

The Pulsar Group established the CIICA (International Center for Agricultural Research and Training) in Frontera Hidalgo, Chiapas, where they are carrying out research in genetics and phytology. In addition, they have 300 hectares for experimenting with the practices and techniques developed in the laboratory. The CIICA also has a Plant Pathology Laboratory that carries out a biotechnology program, dedicated to producing genetic stock of papaya resistant to a particular disease caused by a virus.

Currently, Pulsar, through its Agro-biotechnology Division - previously called Seminis, and now Savia - is the world leader in the sale of seeds, with 22% of the world market. We remember that seeds were the precise center of one of the most red-hot debates concerning the issue of GMOs. For biotechnology businesses, one of the greatest achievements in their search for control of the food chain has been the development of sterile seeds (the so-called "terminator" technology). These seeds force farmers to buy their seeds each season (obviously from the same large companies that are developing the technology), in this way destroying the thousand year old practice of saving seeds for the next sowing. One can understand, then, the statement attributed to Alfonso Romo Garza, the leader of the Pulsar Group, who attempted to compare his company with Microsoft: "The seeds are the "software," and we have the seeds."

Among their many activities, the Pulsar group has been promoting a scheme of mono-culture in Chiapas, which has been criticized for its devastating effects on ecosystems. Mono-culture wears out the land where it is planted, especially in the thin fertile layer of the tropics, and it must be abandoned after a few years. Ronald Nigh, of the Dana Association in San Cristóbal, commented, in an article written in March 1997 that the Pulsar Group, among others, is planning on planting 300,000 hectares of eucalyptus in Chiapas. Such plantations will have a life span of 30 years at the most, at the end of which the lands will be "seriously degraded." It is far from being a sustainable project, Nigh adds. Mono-culture, Michael Pollan says, is probably the single most powerful simplification of modern agriculture. But mono-culture does not fit well with nature. In its simplest expression, a field planted with identical plants is extremely vulnerable to insects, weeds and diseases. Mono-culture is the reason for almost all the problems afflicting modern agriculture, and the reason for almost all the chemical products designed to correct the problems.

In spite of promoting agricultural practices of doubtful environmental sustainability, the Pulsar Group has found an excellent partner in Conservation International, supposedly for helping in the conservation of the Selva Lacandona. The Pulsar Group has, in fact, donated the sum of $10 million USD to CI, at $2 million USD per year, from 1996 to 2000, for "conservationist efforts." The conservation programs, relates a CI press bulletin, will be headed by a team of engineers and scientists from the Pulsar Group and Conservation International, and will be carried out in the Selva Lacandona. CIICA of the Pulsar Group will establish experimental areas within the Lacandona in order to identify "agricultural techniques that will improve the quality and performance of the trees and crops planted by local campesinos."

Pulsar's donations will finance CI programs that will train campesinos in the Lacandona to create investments through mechanisms that are "environmentally friendly." The campesinos will learn to work the land in a "buffer" zone around the selva, emphasizing the planting of bamboo, African palm and ornamental plants.

The suspicion exists, however, that there is quite a bit behind these "environmentally friendly" plans. We would advance as an alternative hypothesis that the primary motive behind the actions by Pulsar and the CI is bio-prospecting and, possibly, bio-piracy, which is being disguised with a thick ecological veneer. Through RAFI, we know that the CI is already collecting plants and micro-organisms in the countries where it works, and of their "strategic alliance" with multinational pharmaceutical companies in order to identify and to document the use of traditional medicines by indigenous peoples. The CI itself recognizes that it has become the leader in the arena of bio-prospecting, "involving local communities, governmental agencies and NGOs in the discovery and development of genetic plant and animal resources."

Because of this, the Pulsar Group's "donation" could more likely be a remuneration (but free of taxes, since it's a donation) for services lent by CI in bio-prospecting within the Selva Lacandona. Pulsar has the technology, the resources and the business knowledge to know that there are large rewards awaiting the "discovery" of some medicinal property extracted from samples from the Lacandona. CI "facilitates" the Pulsar Group's entrance, it helps orient its technicians in the prospecting, while at the same time pacifying local populations with programs that promote the expansion of mono-crops around the Selva, while projecting a conservation façade to the world.

Emerging from this review of bio-prospecting in regions known for their biodiversity, is the urgent need for the regulation of everything related to the new biological technology. In this regard, at the current moment (the middle of September), Mexican officials are participating in Vienna, Austria in international negotiations in order to reach agreement on a bio-security protocol.

Pressure must be put on officials to reach a good protocol, that puts "conservation and the maintenance of biological diversity, taking into account human health, above all other international accords." (Greenpeace) It is also urgent that laws be established, from a bio-ethical standpoint, that will assure that poor campesinos do not end up, one more time, the most marginalized by these scientific advances.

For more information:

1. Dana Association: danamex@internet.com.mx
2. Enciso, Angélica, La Jornada, 12/Jul/99, "Monsanto aplica pruebas a doce transgénicos para su venta en México", p.64.
3. Guillén, Guillermina, El Universal, 15/Sep/99, "Sí se reproduce el maíz transgénico: Greenpeace".
4. Nadal, Alejando, La Jornada, 11/Mar/99, "UNAM-Diversa: ¿dueños de recursos genéticos?
5. OMIECH: omiech@laneta.apc.org
6. Pérez, Matilde, La Jornada, 6/Jul/99, "Alertan científicos sobre riesgos de transgénicos para la biodiversidad", p.52.
7. Pollan, Michael, New York Times, 25/Oct/98, "Playing God in the Garden", Sunday Magazine Desk.
8. Seabrook, Charles, El Universal, 21/Feb/99, "Investigan propiedades curativas de plantas en Chiapas, expertos de EU", p.1.
9. www.conservation.org
10. www.diversa.com
11. www.monsanto.com
12. www.rafi.org
13. www.segcoam.com.mx/103.Pulsar.html

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168