GMWatch is releasing a series of four interviews with Argentine people involved in the struggle against the spraying of glyphosate and other agrochemicals on GM Roundup Ready soy. The interviews were conducted by Argentine journalist Dario Aranda, who has drawn attention to this important human rights issue.
The second interview is with Mariano Aguilar, executive director of the Environmental Lawyers Association of Argentina, which is petitioning the Argentine government for a ban on glyphosate.
In the interview, Aguilar addresses claims by industry-backed bodies such as the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) that the GM Roundup Ready soy model of farming is "sustainable".
Aguilar also mentions research by Prof Andrés Carrasco, which shows that Roundup causes birth defects in doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12479:reports-reports
---
Mariano Aguilar
Buenos Aires, Argentina. Executive Director of the Environmental Lawyers Association of Argentina. Asociacion de Abogados Ambientalistas de Argentina (Aadeaa) www.aadeaa.org.ar
Interview by Dario Aranda
"Our work with organizations and communities affected by the cultivation of genetically modified soybeans and spraying of glyphosate has certainly shown negative effects from a socio-environmental standpoint. The communities surrounding the areas of agricultural production are in all cases affected by the so-called agrochemicals, which should actually be called agro-toxins (pesticides). They produce adverse and harmful effects on all forms of life, including humans. We found a great deal of damage from the spraying of glyphosate, which is part of the technology package sold by the majority of multinational companies, such as Monsanto. These companies sell soybean seeds and, at the same time, sell the glyphosate, which kills everything except the seed. It is a lethal poison to everything that is not soy.
"Fifteen years after the arrival of genetically modified soy to Argentina, we can make an assessment and take stock of the consequences. There is, without a doubt, negative environmental impact. We have soybean monoculture throughout the country. This is a product of the technological package provided by the multinational firms, of which we are totally dependent. The land does not allow any other crop. Any possibility of cultivating any other crop different from soy, specifically that particular seed, has been exhausted. The picture is of dependency and there are very few ways out of it.
"From the economic point of view, it is an extremely good business. With this system, there are soybeans grown even on the sides of the roads; this, of course, at the expense of the health and well-being of the nearby residents. They’ve been left with barren land for other enterprises. Under these conditions, in Argentina, we do not know about a 'sustainable model'. We believe it's bread for today and hunger for tomorrow. We're leaving the ground barren for the future. There is real evidence of that.
"In spite of this, companies still advertise that glyphosate is reliable and safe. They claim there is no danger. But there is concrete evidence to prove that this is false. Scientist Andrés Carrasco has shown that glyphosate is lethal for amphibians, and many of these lethal effects can be extrapolated to humans. In addition, there are already many cases of people with deformities, especially in northern Argentina. Cases of spontaneous miscarriages, skin problems, cancers of various types and subsequent diseases caused by direct exposure to glyphosate have been reported in our country. There is also evidence outside of Argentina, in both France and the United States. After filing a complaint with the Supreme Court (in Argentina), we believe we will be right on track toward achieving the elimination of the agrochemical market.
"We must remember that in Argentina, several judgments have already been made that have favored those affected. In particular, there is a ruling in the province of Santa Fe, where the judge forced the State to demonstrate in a period of six months that glyphosate is harmless. Meanwhile, he prohibited the spraying of glyphosate within a radius of 1,500 meters from inhabited places. In that particular case, the precautionary principle was applied. This principle has great importance in environmental law. Where safety is in doubt, the questionable activity should stop. In this case, it was the spraying of glyphosate.
"Currently, the Environmental Lawyers Association of Argentina has an ongoing petition for an environmental protection order throughout the country that would prevent the marketing of glyphosate and endosulfan. This environmental protection order should be in place while the debate about the toxicity of agro-chemicals is being conducted. We believe that the people of Argentina are becoming aware of the great damage that glyphosate and GM soy have caused. We have suffered a lot too much."