Tag Archives: letter

Letter from Ecuador – where defending nature and community is a crime Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




I have been an activist in Intag’s anti-mining struggle for two long decades. But it is impossible to understand my activism, without knowing where I live and what is at risk.

Knowing that I’ve lived in Ecuador’s Intag region since 1978 and that my home is surrounded by primary and secondary cloud forests of incredible biodiversity, clean rivers, waterfalls and stunningly beautiful vistas, will help.

Intag is also populated with some of the nicest people I have come across, all living in small, tight-knit agricultural communities. Until the mining companies came looking for copper, the area was peaceful with very low crime rates.

It is in this setting that I’ve raised my children, learned how to farm sustainably, and deepened my love for nature. In other words, this is a place I love and care for deeply.

This is the reason why I, and others like me, have fought so hard and for so many years to oppose the open-pit copper mine threatening us.

The recurring nightmare

It is December 13, 2013, and the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, lashes out against me in a nationally televised address in which he falsely accuses me of destabilizing his government.

He makes accusations related to a manual I co-authored to help communities understand what they face when large-scale mining companies come knocking at their door. The manual includes steps communities can take to minimize or avoid the impacts of mining.

 At the end of his speech, Correa asks his countrymen to “react” to this threat. Feeling threatened, I went into hiding for a few weeks.

90 days earlier, Correa gave a televised speech in which he named and broadcast photographs of me and several other activists who oppose the proposed open-pit copper mine that Intag has been fighting for the last two decades. He implied that a few foreigners (I am Cuban by birth and a US citizen) were impeding Ecuador’s development.

The December threats against me by Mr Correa attracted the attention of Amnesty International, prompting them to issue an International Action Alert to safeguard me.

But this was not the first time I had to go into hiding for my activism.

Flash​back to 2006

Now it is dawn, October 17 2006, and 19 heavily armed police are breaking into my home. A minute before, I received a warning phone call from a neighbour and was able to melt into the nearby forest and avoid arrest. Had it not been for the phone call, I would not be alive today to write this*1.

After intimidating my teenage son and a neighbour, the police ransacked my room looking for evidence meant to land me in jail. The police found nothing, though they did steal cash and a few valuables. Ironically, it’s been the only time I’ve been robbed in almost four decades of living in Intag.

Before the police left, a lone officer entered my home and ‘found’ a gun and a packet with something that looked like drugs. The planted evidence gave rise to another arrest warrant for illegal possession of a firearm: a serious crime carrying a minimum eight year jail term. Now I had two arrest warrants, and in order to avoid arrest, I went into hiding over a month.

Seven months after the raid I received an email from an insider at the mining company who told me that the ultimate goal of the police raid was to jail me and then have someone kill me there.

Two years later, the courts ruled that the lawsuit that kick-started the incident was malicious; filed by an American woman paid by the mining company. The alleged crime had been to steal her camera and money and instruct people to beat her up.

This incident was purported to have taken place in a public anti-mining demonstration in Ecuador’s capital amidst hundreds of protesters from Intag, with a squad of police looking on. Neither the District Attorney nor the judge involved in the case asked for a police report before ordering the arrest and search warrants.

A coordinated plan to neutralize opposition to mining

The raid, it turned out, was part of a plan to neutralize opposition to a copper mining concession in Intag. The plan was drawn up by Honor and Laurel, an international security firm. Two weeks after raiding my home, they sent in 50 paramilitaries with attack dogs, machetes and tear gas to try to access the mining concession.

The communities turned them back then, as they did again on December 2006 when even more paramilitaries came to the Junín community, this time armed with pepper spray, shotguns and .38 caliber guns. The confrontation was filmed and forms part of documentaries: ‘Under Rich Earth’, When Clouds Clear’ and ‘In the Open Sky – Rights Undermined‘.

Though I am one of those most targeted by the mining companies, I am not alone. Another case is that of Javier Ramírez, a campesino anti-mining leader from the Junín community who was recently released from jail after serving ten months for a crime he did not commit. Almost a year later, his brother Victor Hugo is still in hiding accused of the same crime.

Since 2012 Ecuador’s state-owned mining company, Enami, along with Codelco, the world’s largest copper producer, have been trying hard to continue where Bishimetals and the Canadian company Copper Mesa failed.

 For three years the companies have pretty much been following the script used by most mining and petroleum multinationals for steamrolling opposition. Offer everything to everyone: high paying jobs to key people; offer to improve basic infrastructure (like roads), and so forth. When that fails, the tactics get nastier.

Thus, just as the Canadians sent in their armed security firm in 2006, the Ecuadorian government sent in a 300-strong elite police force to intimidate the hell out of the communities.

Similarly to the timing of the raid on my home and the sending of the security to the communities, the police assault took place a few weeks after the arrest Javier Ramírez, who was president of the Junín community at the time.

Why do I oppose the mining?

To understand the struggle you need to know what is at stake. The cloud forests of Intag are adjacent to one of the world’s most biologically important protected area, the Cotacachi Cayapas Ecological Reserve, coming ahead of the Yasuní National Park in terms of irreplaceability.

Cloud forests make up less than 2.5% of the world’s tropical forest. Nonetheless these fragile ecosystems are centres of endemism and biodiversity and play an important role in conserving watersheds and maintaining the natural flow of rivers.

Based on a preliminary study undertaken for a small open-pit copper mine, the proposed mine threatens the whole Intag region with profound environmental and social upheaval.

The study for the small mine predicted, in their own words: “massive deforestation” which would lead to a process of “desertification”, contamination of rivers and streams with lead, arsenic and other heavy metals.

Subsequent impacts to primary forests would further endanger species already facing extinction; including jaguars, spectacled bears and brown-faced spider monkeys.

The study went onto say that the mine would impact the Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve, the only protected area of any significant size in Western Ecuador, and one of the planet’s most biologically important.

It also predicted some grim social impacts, including increased crime and the relocation of four communities. Junín, Javier Ramírez’s community, would be the first one to be wiped off the map. The year after these impacts were published, many times more copper was found in the region.

If the copper mining is allowed to go ahead, given the exceptional steep terrain of the mining site, the composition of the mining deposit, combined with the area’s high rainfall, the presence dozens of pristine rivers and streams as well as abundant underground aquifers and primary forests sheltering endangered mammals and other species, and the seismic risks, this would be one of the world’s most environmentally devastating mining projects. The threat could not be clearer nor grimmer.

Why bother?

I am often asked how I can keep opposing copper mining after so many years and so much harassment. The thought of Intag’s beauty, biological and cultural diversity vanishing, to be replaced by yet another open-pit mine haemorrhaging heavy metals is what sustains me.

In spite of the death threats, the incessant stress, the economic hardships, the witnessing of so much injustice and apathy, the short-sightedness of politicians, and being vilified by the highest elected official of a nation, I think it’s worth it.

I find the question of how I can keep opposing the mine baffling. I find it baffling because it is impossible for me to grasp that anyone who feels part of, and loves his community, and values the incredible cloud forests of Intag, would do anything else but defend it against such a clear and imminent threat.

The alternative is to pack up and leave. And I’m not about to do that.

 

 

Event: Carlos Zorrilla will be giving a talk about his work on 15th April for the Anglo Ecuadorian Society at the Institute of Latin American Studies, London. To book a place, please contact mpatlea@gmail.com.

Carlos Zorrilla is co-founder and Executive Director of DECOIN (Defensa y Conservación Ecológica de Intag).

Translated by Sarah Fraser (Rainforest Concern).

DECOIN’s work takes place within the cloud forests of northwest Ecuador, which form part of the most biodiverse of the world’s 36 Biological Hotspots. He is the author of several papers on development, large-scale mining and its impacts on communities and the environment and was principal author of the guide ‘Protecting your Communities Against Large Scale Mining and Other Extractive Industries’. DECOIN works in partnership with Rainforest Concern on cloud forest conservation projects in Ecuador.

Rainforest Concern is a UK Registered Charity, established to protect threatened natural forest habitats and the biodiversity they contain, together with the indigenous people who depend on them for survival. In its 21 year the charity has legally protected over 1.4 million hectares of threatened forest habitats, always engaging the local communities to protect their interests, and working closely with local conservation NGOs. Rainforest Concern has worked with 21 partner organisations in 12 countries: Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Romania, Costa Rica, Panama, India, Sri Lanka, Uganda and Suriname.

 

 




391586

UK ministers prepare for 2017 GM crop rollout Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The government is preparing for the planting of GM crops in the UK by putting in place ‘rules’ to govern their use once the EU has finalised its new regulation – which could take place next week.

In a letter to the Beyond GM campaign group, Lord de Mauley states that “the government will ensure that pragmatic rules are in place to segregate GM and non-GM production, so that choice is facilitated.”

Alarming campaigners, this looks like a significant weakening of the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto which commits the party to “develop a legally-binding protocol covering the separation of GM and non-GM material, including clear industry liability.”

He also makes the astonishing claim that “cross pollination is, again, a normal process between compatible plant species and there is nothing different about GM crops in this respect.”

He is apparently unaware that cross pollination from GM crops introduces GM genes into nearby fields and the wider environment – undermining his later statement: “We support the principle that farmers should be free to choose whether to adopt GM cultivation.”

The last time the UK government engaged in a serious consideration of co-existence of GM, organic and non-GM crops it commissioned Scimac, a pro-GMO industry body to write the rules – and adopted them wholesale in 2002.

There is now good reason to fear that the Government intends to brush the dust off Scimac’s GMO industry focused, voluntary ‘Code of Practice‘. De Mauley’s use of the term ‘rules’ rather than ‘laws’ or ‘regulations’ only adds to such suspicions.

The other danger is that the rules will be made “pragmatic” for the farmers of GM crops who want to be made exempt from liability if organic and non-GM crops and habitats are contaminated – rather than for organic producers and others who want to avoid contamination with GM seeds and pollen.

Commercial plantings ‘at least a few years’ away

The revelation comes in a letter to campaign group Beyond GM from junior environment minister Lord de Mauley, in response to the Beyond GM initiative The Letter from America which was delivered to the Prime Minister’s office in November.

It also provides some reassurance to campaigners who have feared that proposed changes in the EU’s GMO authorisation process would lead to GM crops being grown in England as early as the 2015 planting season:

“We do not expect any commercial planting of GM crops in the UK for at least a few years as no GM crops in the EU approval pipeline are of major interest to UK farmers”, writes de Mauley.

However the letter leaves no doubt that the Government intends to press ahead with growing GM crops in the UK as soon as it is expedient to do so – provided it wins the next general election. During its period in Government, the Conservative Party has become increasingly supportive of growing GM crops in the UK.

But even a Labour election victory could produce the same result. Its 2013 ‘Feeding the Nation‘ food policy review states: “Biotechnology cannot, by itself, increase the UK’s domestic food supply, but it can be one of the tools used to ensure better resilience in the UK food chain, and to reduce environmental damage.”

But at least Labour acknowledges the need for public acceptance: “GM may have a role in UK food security and environmental protection, but public views – informed by the science – must also be heard. Public and political acceptance is vital, as is proof of its benefits to the environment and producers.”

European Parliament vote imminent after secret negotiations

It is likely that the European Parliament will vote in favour of the proposed GMO authorisation process in its imminent plenary session on the 13th of January and thereby open up the EU to GM cropping as early as spring 2015.

This so called ‘opt-out’ regulation is really an ‘opt-in’ measure, as its effect would be to breach the existing de facto moratorium on GMOs, and free up countries such as the UK which want to press ahead with the cultivation of GM crops.

The proposal has already been through a behind-closed-door, non-transparent process known as the trialogue – where the European Commission, Parliament and representatives of the Council of Ministers secretly wheel and deal to facilitate the passage of legislation.

Despite the efforts of the EP’s Environment Committee representatives, the trialogue process stripped out all mandatory measures to prevent contamination of non-GM crops and establish liability rules to give non-GM farmers legal and financial protection.

These issues will be left to EU Member States. Some will put in place robust and legally binding arrangements to protect non-GM farmers and the countryside even if they constrain GMO production – but on current form, the UK is unlikely to be among them.

Action is needed now

The fact that there are virtually no commercial GM crops suitable for the UK in the pipeline does not mean that any of us can feel confident of a GM free future for the UK:

  • The EU’s push to sweep away the ‘Precautionary Principle‘, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, indeed all legal and technical obstacles to GMOs in our farming and food, will increase momentum from the start of 2015.
  • There is a possibility – albeit a remote one – that Syngenta’s GM maize (GA21) with tolerance to glyphosate could find some uptake in the UK by 2016.
  • It is very likely that research institutions in the UK will gear up their GM crop trials and, using taxpayer money, plant more research field trials to benefit the GMO industry and private patent holders.
  • At the same time GM ingredients and products are increasingly finding their way into the UK food system.
  • And of course there is the long running and ongoing scandal that supermarkets refuse to put GM labels on livestock products where the animals have been fed genetically engineered feed.

Lord de Mauley’s letter assures Beyond GM that “In the UK, the Government believes people should know what they are buying in shops or in restaurants.”

But this form of words is much less robust than the 2010 manifesto promise to “ensure that consumers have the right to choose non-GM foods through clear labelling.” Not that the 2010 promise has been kept – products from animals reared on GM feeds are not labelled nor does the government have any plan to require it.

His statement that the government “regards safety as paramount and will only agree to the planting of GM crops and the sale of GM foods if it is clear that people and the environment will not be harmed” also appears reassuring.

But it lacks the rigour of the 2010 manifesto promise to “not permit any commercial planting of GM crops until and unless it has been assessed as safe for people and the environment.” Moreover he makes it clear that the UK will accept the EU’s “robust evaluation system” for GM crops – widely criticised as grossly inadequate and subservient to industry wishes.

Again, this gives little cause for confidence that the Government will put in place effective GM labelling regulations, or measures to protect farmland, the countryside, and the food chain from GMO contamination.

Raising voices and getting heard

Individuals and organisations representing nearly 60 million US citizens – just under 25% of the total adult population – have signed and endorsed the Letter from America which sets out the US experience of GMO food and farming, and warns us not to follow this example.

This is just the tip of the mounting opposition to GMOs in the US, which follows years of growing environmental contamination with herbicides and the decimation of wildlife, including the near extinction of the Monarch butterfly.

The fact that David Cameron – the head of what was meant to be Britain’s “greenest ever government“ – has no interest in citizens’ concerns about GMOs was made clear when he passed the Letter on to Defra. Environment Secretary Liz Truss indicated the same when she, in turn, passed the letter on to a junior minister.

Nonetheless, we are grateful for Lord de Mauley’s reply because it highlights the need for more active and vocal citizen engagement – so that the next time a letter on the issue of GMOs is delivered to 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister is on the doorstep to receive it, and replies in person.

Through campaigns such as the Letter from America, GM Free Me, our support of networks such as Mums Say No to GMOs and other initiatives which will be rolled out during 2015, we aim to stimulate and facilitate an effective opposition to government- and industry-backed GMO invasion of the UK.

GM crops might not be ready for planting in the UK in 2015 or even 2016 – but the ground is being prepared for them now, as is the GMO creep onto our supermarket shelves and into our food.

That means that now is the time for citizens to find their voices, speak up and campaign effectively – especially in the run-up to the 2015 election.

 

 

Lawrence Woodward is founder and director of GM Education and a co-founder of Beyond GM, where a version of this article first appeared.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Oxford Real Farming Conference: Lawrence Woodward and Pat Thomas will be discussing the issues raised in this article at the Oxford Real Farming Conference – tomorrow Tuesday 6th and Wednesday 7th of January 2015.

 




379555

Living with GMOs – a letter from America Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




We are writing as concerned American citizens to share with you our experience of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting damage to our agricultural system and adulteration of our food supply.

In our country, GM crops account for about half of harvested cropland. Around 94% of the soy, 93% of corn (maize) and 96% of cotton grown is GM. i

The UK and the rest of the EU have yet to adopt GM crops in the way that we have, but you are currently under tremendous pressure from governments, biotech lobbyists, and large corporations to adopt what we now regard as a failing agricultural technology.

Polls consistently show that 72% of Americans do not want to eat GM foods and over 90% of Americans believe GM foods should be labeled. ii

In spite of this massive public mandate, efforts to get our federal iii and state iv governments to better regulate, or simply label, GMOs are being undermined by large biotech and food corporations with unlimited budgets v and undue influence.

As you consider your options, we’d like to share with you what nearly two decades of GM crops in the United States has brought us. We believe our experience serves as a warning for what will happen in your countries should you follow us down this road.

Broken promises

GM crops were released onto the market with a promise that they would consistently increase yields and decrease pesticide use. They have done neither. vi In fact, according to a recent US government report yields from GM crops can be lower than their non-GM equivalents. vii

Farmers were told that GM crops would yield bigger profits too. The reality, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, is different. viii Profitability is highly variable, while the cost of growing these crops has spiraled. ix

GM seeds cannot legally be saved for replanting, which means farmers must buy new seeds each year. Biotech companies control the price of seeds, which cost farmers 3-6 times more than conventional seeds. x This, combined with the huge chemical inputs they require, means GM crops have proved more costly to grow than conventional crops.

Because of the disproportionate emphasis on GM crops, conventional seed varieties are no longer widely available leaving farmers with less choice and control over what they plant. xi

Farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops can find their fields contaminated with GM crops as a result of cross pollination between related species of plants xii and GM and non-GM seeds being mixed together during storage.

Because of this our farmers are losing export markets. Many countries have restrictions or outright bans on growing or importing GM crops xiii and as a result, these crops have become responsible for a rise in trade disputes when shipments of grain are found to be contaminated with GM organisms (GMOs).xiv

The burgeoning organic market here in the US is also being affected. Many organic farmers have lost contracts for organic seed due to high levels of contamination. This problem is increasing and is expected to get much bigger in the coming years.

Pesticides and superweeds

The most widely grown types of GM crops are known as ‘Roundup Ready’ crops. These crops, mostly corn and soy, have been genetically engineered so that when they are sprayed with the herbicide Roundup – the active ingredient of which is glyphosate – the weeds die but the crop continues to grow.

This has created a vicious circle. Weeds have become resistant to the herbicide, causing farmers to spray even more. Heavier use of herbicides creates ever more ‘superweeds’ and even higher herbicide use.

A recent review found that between 1996 and 2011, farmers who planted Roundup Ready crops used 24% more herbicide than non-GMO farmers planting the same crops. xv

If we remain on this trajectory with Roundup Ready crops we can expect to see herbicide rates increase by 25% each year for the foreseeable future.

This pesticide treadmill means that in the last decade in the US at least 14 new glyphosate-resistant weed species have emerged, xvi and over half of US farms are plagued with herbicide-resistant weeds. xvii

Biotech companies, which sell both the GM seeds and the herbicides, xviii have proposed to address this problem with the creation of new crop varieties that will be able to withstand even stronger and more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba.

However it is estimated that if these new varieties are approved, this could drive herbicide use up by as much as 50%. xix

Environmental harm

Studies have shown that the increased herbicide use on Roundup Ready crops is highly destructive to the natural environment. For example, Roundup kills milkweeds, which are the key food source for the iconic Monarch butterfly xx and poses a threat to other important insects such as bees. xxi

It is also damaging to soil, killing beneficial organisms that keep it healthy and productive xxii and making essential micronutrients unavailable to the plant. xxiii

Other types of GM plants, which have been engineered to produce their own insecticide (e.g. “Bt” cotton plants), have also been shown to harm beneficial insects including green lacewings xxiv, the Daphnia magna waterflea xxv and other aquatic insects, xxvi and ladybugs (ladybirds). xxvii

Resistance to the insecticides in these plants is also growing xxviii, creating new varieties of resistant “superbugs” and requiring more applications of insecticides at different points in the growth cycle, for instance on the seed before it is planted. xxix In spite of this, new Bt varieties of corn and soy have been approved here and will soon be planted.

A threat to human health

GM ingredients are everywhere in our food chain. It is estimated that 70% of processed foods consumed in the US have been produced using GM ingredients. If products from animals fed GM feed are included, the percentage is significantly higher.

Research shows that Roundup Ready crops contain many times more glyphosate, and its toxic breakdown product AMPA, than normal crops. xxx

Traces of glyphosate have been found in the breastmilk and urine of American mothers, as well as in their drinking water. xxxi The levels in breastmilk were worryingly high – around 1,600 times higher than what is allowable in European drinking water.

Passed on to babies through breastmilk, or the water used to make formula, this could represent an unacceptable risk to infant health since glyphosate is a suspected hormone disrupter. xxxii Recent studies suggest that this herbicide is also toxic to sperm. xxxiii

Likewise, traces of the Bt toxin have been found in the blood of mothers and their babies. xxxiv

GM foods were not subjected to human trials before being released into the food chain and the health impacts of having these substances circulating and accumulating in our bodies are not being studied by any government agency, nor by the companies that produce them.

Studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate, however, show worrying trends including damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities, and even tumors. xxxv

These scientific studies point to potentially serious human health problems that could not have been anticipated when our country first embraced GMOs, and yet they continue to be ignored by those who should be protecting us.

Instead our regulators rely on outdated studies and other information funded and supplied by biotech companies that, not surprisingly, dismiss all health concerns.

A denial of science

This spin of corporate science stands in stark contrast to the findings of independent scientists.

In fact, in 2013, nearly 300 independent scientists from around the world issued a public warning that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of eating genetically modified food, and that the risks, as demonstrated in independent research, gave “serious cause for concern.” xxxvi

It’s not easy for independent scientists like these to speak out. Those who do have faced obstacles in publishing their results, been systematically vilified by pro-GMO scientists, been denied research funding, and in some cases have had their jobs and careers threatened. xxxvii

Control of the food supply

Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system.

This control extends into areas of life that deeply affect our day-to-day well-being, including food security, science, and democracy. It undermines the development of genuinely sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture and prevents the creation of a transparent, healthy food supply for all.

Today in the US, from seed to plate, the production, distribution, marketing, safety testing, and consumption of food is controlled by a handful of companies, many of which have commercial interests in genetic engineering technology.

They create the problems, and then sell us the so-called solutions in a closed cycle of profit generation that is unequalled in any other type of commerce.

We all need to eat, which is why every citizen should strive to understand these issues.

Time to speak out!

Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology. EU countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

We, the undersigned, are sharing our experience and what we have learned with you so that you don’t make our mistakes.

We strongly urge you to resist the approval of genetically modified crops, to refuse to plant those crops that have been approved, to reject the import and/or sale of GM-containing animal feeds and foods intended for human consumption, and to speak out against the corporate influence over politics, regulation and science.

If the UK and the rest of Europe becomes the new market for genetically modified crops and food our own efforts to label and regulate GMOs will be all the more difficult, if not impossible. If our efforts fail, your attempts to keep GMOs out of Europe will also fail.

If we work together, however, we can revitalize our global food system, ensuring healthy soil, healthy fields, healthy food and healthy people.

 

 

See below for Signatories – NGOs, academics, scientists, anti-GM groups, celebrities, food manufacturers, and others representing around 57 million Americans.

References

i