Sometimes facts, their content and their timing become revealing. We should make a brief account of some facts related to the unexpected approval of transgenic corn, also known as “Bt corn”, by the MGAP (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Animal Husbandry) and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (recorded as MON 810) for Monsanto Multinational to introduce and develop it.

28 November, 2000

Under the provisions of article 47 of the Uruguayan Constitution, law 17,283 was sanctioned. Environment protection, air, earth and landscape quality, preservation of biological diversity, prevention, elimination, mitigation and compensation of adverse environmental impact, protection of environmental resources are considered issues of general interest by this law. This law promotes the development, organization and implementation of an environment and sustainable development national policy, where sustainable development is defined as “meeting the needs of present times but not jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It states that one of the goals of this environmental national policy is “the significance of our country as a Natural Territory, from an economic, cultural, and social perspective of sustainable development”.

26 September, 2002

The procedure for introducing genetically modified vegetables sets forth a Special Commission -with delegates from several ministries or departments-, a report made by such commission, public availability of its conclusions and potential public participation by way of opinions and comments. The Bt corn MON 810 hearing was scheduled and had to be adjourned by the government due to the outraged public reaction. The hearing was the simple presentation of the product by the local representative Monsanto and was neither rescheduled nor effected after the adjournment.

1 July, 2003

The Diario Oficial (Official gazette) informed the Uruguayan public of an unlisted decision by the above mentioned Ministries which authorized the introduction and seeding of transgenic corn in the country. There were no limitations whatsoever, no protective action and no previous studies of environmental or human and animal health impact.

16 July, 2003

At the meeting of the Agriculture, Fisheries & Animal Husbandry Commission of the Lower Chamber, the Environment Secretary, Mr. Aramis Lachinián reported that the ministerial decision disregarded the proposals made by the Department of the Environment (DINAMA) to the Special Commission to control, anticipate and eliminate environmental risks.

18, July, 2003

The Lower Chamber resolved by a large majority of votes -including members of 4 out of the 5 political parties in parliament- to send a minute to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry, requesting the annulment of the decision and the performance of indispensable previous studies.

24 July, 2003

The APODU (Association of organic food producers in Uruguay) submitted the appeal provided by article 317 of the Constitution requesting the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry the reversal of the authorization given to the transgenic corn.

28 July, 2003

The MVOTMA (Ministry of Housing, Land Planning and Environment – to which the DINAMA belongs) introduced a restrictive regulation making registration for transgenic corn users compulsory. The regulation created an ecological exclusion zone to avoid hybrid contamination of natural corn, and compulsory shelters in transgenic plantations as well as other precautionary and protective measures.

30 July, 2003

APODU filed an action to have the authorization cancelled until the environment impact studies set forth by law are carried out. The action proceeds at present .

5 August, 2003

By hearsay information, it is known that transgenic corn seeds are being unloaded from a ship at Montevideo harbor and that the Executive Power would overrule the protection measures requested by the Ministry of Housing, Land Planning and Environment.

It is worth mentioning some facts, parallel to this brief process:

• Virtually all the farming and agricultural associations and unions, as well as the agricultural and food industry of Uruguay strongly strongly rejected the authorization of transgenic corn. and denounced it as illegal (violating law 17,283) unconstitutional (violating article 47 of the Charter) and seriously inadequate for national trade interests as it may irreversibly affect the image as a Natural Territory and negatively impact over its trading of meat, dairy and agricultural produce.

• The Agronomy School of the Uruguayan University made a scientific report, encouraged by its Dean, where the introduction of transgenic corn is considered inadvisable without the availability of previous scientific impact studies nationwide. It also points out that the authorized variety contains an insecticide protein, active against a pest non existent in the country, with unknown effects over other beneficial species, over animal food and over human health. It states that contamination of natural corn crops has not been taken into consideration and there is no experience at local level to determine effective action on pests which do affect domestic crops.

The situation could be summarized as follows: the introduction of Monsanto transgenic corn MON 810 was authorized against the view of the Agronomy School (top academic and scientific authority in the field), against the opinion of all important unions of farmers in the country and in disregard of the requirements set forth by law and the Constitution.

Recommendations made by the Department of the Environment were overlooked, which established minimum restrictions, monitoring and some precautionary and protection measures; the decision of most members of Parliament -who belong to 4 of the 5 political parties- was ignored; no response has been given to the legal action filed. The Executive Power overruled a decision, made by the Ministry of Housing, Land Planning and Environment (28 July, 2003) pursuant to its constitutional terms of reference and legal powers, which established protection and monitoring measures.

Some questions should be made which, so far, remain unanswered:

What is the value of recently approved law 17,283 if its established mechanisms are blatantly and repeatedly ignored?

What is the meaning of the term “Uruguay, Natural Territory” for the national authorities?

What are the real duties of the Ministry of Housing, Land Planning and Environment if their recommendations (made through DINAMA) are ignored and its resolutions overruled?

What is the value of the opinion of members of parliament, of scientists from the Uruguayan University, of all the unions of farmers? The opinions merge in an opposition to an abrupt and illegal authorization which lacks previous studies which were imperative.

What are the exorbitant assurances and certainties granted to Monsanto and its local representatives so that the seeds are arriving at the Montevideo harbor and being downloaded even though the final authorization is not considered final yet and whereas administrative proceedings were still on their way and there is substantial difference in criteria at ministerial level, confronting the DINAMA and the MVOTMA with the MGAP and the President of Uruguay?

What interests have been at stake to achieve these surprising results, which range from an infringement of the Constitution and the law to the unusual acceleration of authorization granting and its implementation against all odds?

What unknown commitments, obscure promises, what unutterable renunciation to national sovereignty explain the attitude of the government?

An answer to these questions shall be difficult to find. The action has been filed; again the Judicial Power -its independence, its balance, the value of its judges- remains as the last assurance, the final defense line of all values involved: the effective application of the law and the respect to the Constitution, the democratic consideration of the political opinion of the majority and the claims of social sectors directly affected and the defense of our environment and our health as well.

Carlos Abin

1º September, 2003