When news emerged that several European countries (Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland and Slovakia) had blocked Denmark's proposal to allow GM crops across Europe (1) and that many others (France, Germany, Hungary, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and Bulgaria) prohibited the entry of transgenic corn produced in Spain (the only country in Europe where research of this type is being carried out), due to the immense social rejection that translated into political rejection in those countries. (2) ; it was logical to assume that the multinationals in the GMO business (Syngenta, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Bayer and BASF) would seek other options to continue with the actions that they would have to suspend in the countries from which they were expelled.
Latin America in the spotlight, but certainly not Ecuador, the country that in its Constitution, the "greenest on the planet" specified in article 401 that «Ecuador declared free of genetically modified crops and seeds» (3) . Although (article continues) … «Exceptionally, and only in the case of national interest duly substantiated by the Presidency of the Republic and approved by the National Assembly, genetically modified seeds and crops may be introduced…
That is, until days ago President Rafael Correa suggested the need to reopen "a major national debate to scientifically decide whether genetically modified foods are dangerous to health or not and to make the constitutional norm more flexible." (4)
This biased comment (Why does he only talk about making the regulation more flexible, if the debate is only supposed to be reopened? Why doesn't he also suggest the option of strengthening it in case its dangerousness is scientifically proven?) may be linked to the strong lobbying that the aforementioned multinationals have been carrying out during this last decade in the country, as stated days ago by Ana Lucía Bravo, spokesperson for the Network for a Latin America Free of Transgenics (Rallt): "Over the past twelve years, there has been very strong and ongoing pressure on the various Ecuadorian governments to liberalize the use of GMOs." (5)
The desire to release GMOs in Ecuador comes from abroad at the highest level, since as it is possible to know through the information offered by Wikileaks (masterpiece of the super-promoted by the current administration: Julian Assange), a 2010 statement by the North American ambassador mentions that «The acceptance of GMOs in the country is at a crossroads – due to the Constitution and the Food Sovereignty Law – and it is necessary to change the perception of public opinion so that it is favorable to biotechnology and faces protests when the constitutional exception (to introduce transgenic seeds and crops) is applied by the President or the National Assembly, and/or new secondary legislation is approved». (6)
This same cable from the American embassy states that «Pro-GM coverage in reliable media outlets will help change public opinion. Positive public opinion towards GMOs will undoubtedly affect future legislation. Pro-GM media coverage will be a cornerstone of positive public opinion and will help prevent protests if/when the President and the National Assembly approve GMO research and cultivation.»
At first glance, there would be no reason to doubt the capacity or good intentions on the part of the State to prevent contamination problems that affect the country's agricultural genetic biodiversity or public health; until one finishes reading the same article 401, which literally says: "The State will regulate, under strict biosecurity standards, the use and development of modern biotechnology (read transgenics) and its products, as well as their experimentation, use and commercialization."
Then several reasonable doubts arise
1. Will the state be able to ensure that an activity that it has demonstrated in other cases and countries does not get out of hand?
2. What guarantees will it do so, if in the 4 years that the constitutional norm has been in force it has not been able to regulate, by means of at least a labeling of the transgenic products that are freely marketed in the country so that this information is available to the consumer, who in their vast majority do not even know that they are buying transgenic products?
3. Why does the US embassy want to help achieve a more favourable public opinion position for GMOs? Is it perhaps seeking to break our Constitution to give way to foreign interests?
4. According to the information provided by Wikileaks, is the Ecuadorian government following the North American agenda to change public opinion towards GMOs and the companies involved in the business?
5. As a consumer, did you know that many of the products that are freely sold in markets and supermarkets in the country contain GMOs and that they are marketed without any regulation even though the constitutional norm states that it will be the opposite?
6. Do you think that genetically modified crops and products would have been banned in several European countries if there was no evidence of their effects on human health?
The "debate" suggested by the President begins, and for this a well-informed citizenry is necessary. Research, read, share.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
REFERENCES:
EN