Approved the GM maize in Colombia. A threat to biodiversity and food sovereignty 07/18/1907, For Grupo Semillas
Uribe's government ignoring the huge debate that exists in the world around seeds and GM crops, and in a manner arbitrarily and without consultation, through Resolutions 464 and 465 of 2007, authorized the planting of three varieties of transgenic corn (Bt and herbicide-resistant), in the departments of Córdoba, Sucre, Huila and Tolima. Uribe's government ignoring the huge debate that exists in the world around seeds and GM crops, and an arbitrary and autocratic manner, through Resolutions 464 and 465 of 2007, authorized the planting of three varieties of transgenic corn (Bt and herbicide-resistant) in the departments of Córdoba, Sucre, Huila and Tolima. This unilateral decision was taken hastily and without having made a full and comprehensive studies demonstrating safety and convenience of these technologies to the country and farmers. Likewise the Government has ignored the voices of refusal to these crops, as expressed by communities, indigenous and peasant and environmental groups, nor took into account the technical report on these requests, issued by the Ministry of Environment (MAVDT), on applications for commercial release, submitted by Monsanto and Dupont. This concept points to the lack of biosafety assessments made by the ICA and cites other studies that should have been done. This shows the way and little scientific rigor that has the national government to make decisions of vital importance for the country.
The adjustment of the legal framework on biosafety, gives green light to GM crops in Colombia. In late 2005, the government of Colombia made fundamental changes in legal matters related to transgenic organisms, in order to facilitate and accelerate the adoption of these new technologies in the country. It is clear that this process was a huge pressure from the biotech companies that promote such crops worldwide. Thus despite the enormous concerns, questions and lawsuits that civil society organizations filed since 2002, by the way questionable, without consultation and without scientific and legal environment that was used to approve the commercial release of Bt cotton; and subsequently other crops and GM foods, the government insists on fully opening the doors to these companies, hoping they will be redemption for the deep crisis of agriculture.
Popular Action filed against Monsanto and the Ministry of Environment, for the non-processing of an environmental license for the commercial release of Bt cotton, was handed down by the State Council in May 2005 1, where ordered obligation to conduct environmental permits for the introduction of GMOs in the country, but the Government, through the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, did not accept this ruling. Thus, the government asked a new concept to the Council of State, on this ruling and this Court, unusually, without any argument, that leaves many questions about government pressure, reverse its own ruling and says that GMOs do not require an environmental license.
is in this context as the government takes the decision to issue, in December 2005 Decree 4525 regulates Law 740 of 2002 (Act ratifying the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety). Until then, only existed in the country ICA Resolution 3492 of 1998, regulating agricultural GMOs and Resolution 2935 of 2001, regulating GMOs used in animal production. By this Decree, is intended to replace the obligation of the State to develop a standard that truly protects Biosafety, not only the country's ecosystems, but biodiversity and human health of the population 2.
Decree 4525, an insult to biosafety
This decree obviously makes it easy to input all types of GMOs in agricultural, livestock, forestry, environmental, food, and is tailored for multinational seed , which requires cumbersome procedures for the approval of GMOs in the country, with the full backing of the national government. Some of the most critical aspects of this decree are:
• Fragmentation of responsibilities for biosecurity: The Act assigns to each of the competent authorities, the procedures for the authorization and supervision of the activities that fall within its exclusive competition in isolation and independent, through the creation of three independent CTNBio. Ie the Ministry of Agriculture evaluates and approves (GM agricultural, livestock, fisheries, forestry and agro-industrial plantations), the Ministry of Environment (transgenic for environmental use) and the Ministry of Social Protection (GM health use and food). There is no scientific support to establish the boundary lines that limit the powers in the agricultural, environmental and health, where in the world the trend is to fully evaluate these aspects.
• The application process, assessment and risk management: The application is presented only to the competent authority in accordance with the main use is assigned to a particular GMO, but need not be rigorous evaluations on other aspects that are equally vital. Additionally, risk assessments should be made to the authorities, are made by the applicant, interested in making the "judge and party", for what is lost objectivity, independence and scientific rigor that is required in this type of evaluation. It is also critical in approving risk assessment studies, since many of the documents supporting applications that deliver business, are based on studies in other contexts or guaranteed by those companies.
transgenic maize crops were approved in a shameful way
In 2003 and 2004, Monsanto and Dupont CTN submitted to the ICA, applications for the commercial release of the following corn, YieldGard Bt corn (Monsanto ) - Roundup Ready corn (Monsanto) and Herculex I Bt maize tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium (Dupont) 3
Then in late 2005, these applications began to study the Agricultural CTN ICA, under the Decree 4525. The ICA, continued with tests specific assessments primarily agronomic effectiveness of technology and no comprehensive studies on biosafety. Finally in early 2007 announced the approval of commercial planting "controlled" by the three varieties of GM corn.
Prior to the decision to release these three types of transgenic maize in Colombia, the Ministry of Agriculture CTN met twice, on January 31 and February 23, 2007. At the first meeting, the entities that are part of the CTN reached agreement that would expand the studies and evaluations concerning GM maize varieties that are intended to liberate. This decision was, in large part, based on a concept paper issued by the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, MAVDT, which questioned the tests so far made by the ICA, in this paper further studies were identified that had not been taken into account. Clutchless despite these concerns, on February 23, the CTN convened extraordinary meeting at the request of President Alvaro Uribe (as stated in the NTC Act), and at this meeting of arbitrarily CTN reversed its decision and authorized controlled planting of GM maize, although this meeting was not attended by the representative of MAVDT (as stated in the minutes) and most critical is that it ignored the opinion issued previously by this authority. And on the other hand, a technical unclear meaning and scope of the term "controlled plantings, as they actually are commercial plantings because the only requirement for any farmer sowing GM maize is that you join the ICA. questionable in this regard are the reasons for technical and scientific support and sustain the change of decision in the meeting of CTN Bio February 23, in authorizing controlled commercial crops rather than keeping the decision in CTN meeting of January 31 were approved in the "larger-scale pilot tests" 4. It is obvious and embarrassing that the criteria for this approval were essentially political and not based on technical, scientific and socioeconomic.
GM maize approved by the ICA, February 2006. GM Corn
Applicant Requirements
Location Features
YieldGard Bt corn Mon 810 Bt toxin
Monsanto for pest control: the stem borer. Caribbean
controlled crops and high Magdalena Wet
· Farmers are underwritten by the ICA.
· Signing of contract with the company that owns the technology.
Do not seeding Indian reservations.
· plantings at a distance of 300 m. non-GM crops. Roundup Ready Corn
Monsanto Glyphosate herbicide tolerant maize Herculex I
Dupont Bt toxin to control the plague of the stem borer. and tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.
transgenic maize approved by the INVIMA for human and animal
For more than a decade, Colombia is importing maize massively (over 2 million tons in 2006), and certainly much of this is GM, from the United States and Argentina. These imports have been made without any control and regulation of INVIMA. Although there was no nationwide standard for evaluating and approving biosafety GMOs for food use or may have risks and effects on human health, the Bank approved before the issuance of Decree 4525, various products derived from GMOs for food use through the issuing of health records, without having conducted the relevant biosafety studies, and unusually from studies conducted in other countries supplied by the companies. Ie the approval was made only on paper, without having done any lab tests, since the INVIMA not have the logistical infrastructure to conduct these tests. GM Maize
applications and approved by the GM corn INVIMA 5
Applicant Registration Date adopted health
seed corn with YieldGard ® Bt technology
Monsanto MON 810
As raw material for food production. October 2003
Yieldgard Rootworm corn (Mon 863), resistant to attack by Diabrotica spp
Monsanto
As raw material for production of food for human consumption.
In process required technical concept of ICA
corn seeds Monsanto Roundup Ready ®
As raw material for food production.
March 2004 Corn joint technology Yieldgard x 2 Roundup Ready (MON 810 x NK 603) Monsanto
As raw material for food production.
In process required technical concept of ICA
Grain corn hybrids with Herculex I Bt technology
Dupont
As raw material for food production. October 2006
YieldGard corn rootworm (MON 88017) Monsanto
As raw material for food production.
In process required technical concept of ICA joint technology
YieldGard corn x 2 Roundup Ready (MON 810 x NK 603
Monsanto
As raw material for processing food for human consumption.
In process required technical concept of ICA
MON 89034 (pro or YieldGard VT Monsanto YieldGard 2
as raw material for food production
In process required technical concept of ICA joint technology
yielgard corn (mon 810, resistant to insect attack Lepidoptera) and lysine (l 038, with higher levels of lysine content) Monsanto
as raw material for food production
In process required technical concept of ICA
corn Studies GM made by the ICA and businesses, between 2004 and 2006
In the process of evaluation and approval of applications filed by Monsanto and Dupont, the following tests were carried out spot in the Caribbean region and Tolima:
1. Semi-commercial trials on the evaluation of technology's effect on arthropod populations Yieldgard in maize cultivation in the Colombian humid Caribbean subregions and Alto Magdalena.
2. Evaluating the effectiveness of the gene with Herculex I technology with resistance to glufosinate ammonium corn - Córdoba 2006.
3. Evaluation of the effect of Herculex I technology on arthropod populations in the cultivation of maize in the humid Caribbean subregion Colombia. 4. Trials of gene flow from conventional to modified maize in the departments of Córdoba and Tolima - 2004 and 2006. 5. Gene flow test Herculex I technology in the department of Córdoba 2006.6. use of corn grain and forage Yieldgard joint technology (resistant to lepidopteran insects) x Roundup Ready (herbicide resistant) as raw material in food processing for animal consumption.
Critical aspects of the adoption of transgenic corn
• Maize genetic heritage of the nation and the basis of food sovereignty. 6
The Colombian Government is giving free rein to these foods and crops, threatening the country's biodiversity and food sovereignty, while the world revolves around the discussion of the potential risks and impacts of GM crops and foods on the environment, biodiversity, human health and socioeconomic effects. The concern is that not enough studies have been made to ensure the security and the real benefits of these GM products, especially in diverse countries like Colombia.
Colombia is the center of convergence between Central America, the Andes and the lowlands of South America, becoming one of the centers of greatest diversity in the world. In the corn country of great importance, because it has been the staple food of much of rural and urban population and the ecosystem and cultural complexity of the territory. This situation has generated a wide diversity of native varieties that have evolved and adapted to different ecological regions, cultural and productive. That is why the introduction of transgenic maize is very critical and worrying for countries like Colombia, because they are centers of origin and diversity of maize.
Colombia has reported 23 races of maize: (2 primitive races, 9 races and 12 races introduced hybrid (both remote and recent). For each of which there are hundreds of varieties and ecotypes, which have been created, enhanced and preserved for hundreds of indigenous, peasant and Afro. Thus, in genebanks Corpoica corn, preserved more than 5,600 accessions of maize, most of them collected in Colombia.
While evaluations conducted by the ICA, along with Monsanto and Dupont, in relation to the introduction of GM maize could be considered more as agronomic evaluations that biosafety studies as such. One of the most critical aspects of this process is the total invisibility that has the potential impacts of maize GM on the valuable genetic heritage that the country and the lack of a strong culture of maize is still ingrained in millions of farmers around the country. It is unacceptable that in this assessment of GM maize, does not take into account considerations relating to the enormous diversity of maize in Colombia, nor on cultural aspects of maize.
• Insufficient studies on gene flow and lax
Although the ICA conducted assessments of gene flow, they were incomplete and did not consider the hundreds of varieties of corn that exist in Colombia. Obviously the center of origin of maize Mesoamerica and Colombia is a center of convergence and diversity, but the ICA and these companies argue that because Colombia is not the center of origin, there is no problem crossing and pollution in the country because there are no wild relatives teosinte and Tripsacum. The debate was focused exclusively on the question of whether GM corn can cross with wild species, but are totally unaware that there are hundreds of local varieties belonging to 23 native races of Zea mays, which can interbreed under natural conditions with transgenic varieties. Not knowing that there is a real danger of hybridization both in the centers of origin and diversification, is a discussion without scientific basis.
ICA is unacceptable that companies and draw conclusions about the safety of gene flow, only with the completion of a specific assessment of transgenic varieties with a few non-GM varieties. It is also a national embarrassment that these tests are conducted without the ICA as a national authority on plant genetic resources of the country, does not have an updated inventory of maize germplasm in the country, let alone not have the slightest idea on biodiversity Corn who conserve and utilize indigenous, Afro-Colombian and peasant. This is evident in the ICA only prohibits the planting of these GM maize seeds in indigenous territories, ignoring that corn is also a genetic pool of millions of peasants and that could also be affected. It is outrageous that the most recent comprehensive studies of inventory and characterization of maize in Colombia were made by Torregrosa, 1957, Robert, et al, 1957.
This shows the apathy and low valuation that the government gives to this important national heritage. So how is it possible to draw conclusions security irresponsibly over much of the germplasm of maize did not even know the ICA? The fact that many of the landraces are no current national inventory is not argument for unknown impacts they may have with transgenics. Given the existence of a large number of landraces of maize, the introduction of transgenic varieties may produce adverse effects on the environment, biodiversity and food security, considering the physiological characteristics of this plant in terms of their reproduction (allogamous corn is a plant that is characterized by a high percentage of cross-hybridization, as several studies have shown the high degree of natural hybridization of maize with its wild relatives (Tripsacum and teosinte) and varieties maize cultivation). Additionally, this aspect is more critical, considering that the Caribbean region is one of the greatest diversity of maize shows in Colombia where the ICA is considered to be the most important agro-industrial region and priority to begin planting GM corn with the expectation of ethanol production, as expressed in resolutions 364 and 365 of 2007, which authorizes these crops.
ICA washes his hands, excluding planting of GM maize in indigenous reserves
On the other hand, the ICA in the resolutions approving the planting of transgenic corn, it prohibits the planting of such seeds on Indian reservations and set a minimum distance of 300 meters from the shelter, where no planting transgenic corn. The question is that 300 meters are not sufficient to separate the conventional corn and native seeds of transgenic maize, because there are studies in various regions have shown that high winds and topographic conditions determined, the risk of pollen to pollinate other crops could reach distances of up to 500 and 1000 meters in moderate wind conditions and strong winds several miles, as are common in the Caribbean region and in the eastern plains (Torregrosa, 2000).
The ICA seeks to form manages or premeditated, which protect the genetic heritage of corn, separating GM crops from non-GM, by planting at a distance of 300 meters from the Indian reservations. Unknown global consensus that pollution does not only happen by environmental factors such as wind and insects, but also because the corn enters the indigenous and peasant lands, through food imports, and through agricultural development programs and food aid, among other forms. It is questionable how the government determined the areas allowed and not allowed to plant genetically modified corn. The ICA said that the only Crop restriction is set at 300 m, but does not define things like: Who has the right to be protected and excluded from the planting of GM maize?, who has to separate 300 meters, would be the first seed?, Who will to control these distancing, and prevent pollution in areas totally non-uniform distribution between indigenous farmers and agribusiness? What if an indigenous farmer or peasant who does not want GM crops have contaminated, who punishes and who is responsible?
In a note published in Portfolio, May 28, 2007, the ICA said that made the identification using geo-referenced maps, suministrados por el Incoder, de las áreas de resguardos indígenas en donde no se pueden hacer siembras de maíz transgénico, guardando una distancia de 300 metros. Sobre esto hay varios cuestionamientos: Por un lado es evidente que en el país muchas comunidades indígenas viven dentro de sus territorios ancestrales, que en muchos casos no coinciden con las áreas de resguardos como es el caso del resguardo Zenú en Córdoba y Sucre que según títulos coloniales tiene un área de 83.000 hectáreas y ello solo han logrado recuperar cerca de 25.000 hectáreas, pero en todo su territorio ancestral viven indígenas y campesinos que tienen numerosas variedades de maíces criollos. Igual situación ocurre en la sierra Nevada de Santa Marta en donde los pueblos indígenas consideran el límite de su territorio, la “línea negra”, que incluye zonas actualmente ocupadas por terratenientes y por agricultura agroindustrial. También como se define las áreas donde se limitara la siembra de maíz transgénico en un territorio tan complejo como el Cauca en donde los territorios ancestrales no coinciden con los resguardos actualmente reconocidos, y donde los indígenas y los campesinos en muchos casos conviven y comparten las semillas y sistemas tradicionales; pero también allí los resguardos son áreas discontinuas con presencia de terratenientes y áreas agroindustriales. Además es inaceptable que el ICA, en la autorización planting of GM maize, do not exclude these maize planting in rural areas. With this determination, is ignoring the importance of maize culture and food sovereignty of the millions of farmers in the country, leaving them completely unprotected rural communities and economies, who also provide most of the maize they still eat Colombians . In this sense, ICA completely ignored the concept paper issued by the Ministry of Environment, where it indicates that there has been no risk assessments in areas of indigenous communities, Afro-Colombians and peasants, and stresses the need for assessments primarily for producers traditional constitute more than 61% of the corn in the country community.
If the government truly wanted to protect the genetic contamination of maize with GM maize, which is held by indigenous and peasant communities, should exclude the planting of the country, it is not possible the coexistence of both types of crops, which inevitably occur because of genetic contamination, if planted in the same territory.
Will the government believes that the landraces that have been preserved and improved farmers are less senior and genetic and cultural value that landraces?, "By technical argument that the ICA despised and undervalued this germplasm and traditional peasant farming systems? Why the government has not taken account of the majority and unified position of peasants and indigenous people of the country, who do not want GM crops? Why do not these people have been consulted and communities before making a decision that may affect?
Contracts signed by Farmers and Transnational, "the noose"
When a farmer "voluntarily" accept the use of this technology, the companies that own these patents, force him to sign a contract, where clauses, with and legal implications: The farmer recognizes patents protecting the technology and seeds, the farmer agrees: just use the seeds for planting (must return the leftover), not to save seed, give away or sell them. In addition the contract has provisions for confidentiality on the technology and the company can inspect and test in fields planted with GM seeds, after 3 years. A breach of contract, leading to the termination of this and return of seeds, allowing the company to crop destruction without compensation and may file a complaint leading to the deprivation of liberty as determined 1032/jun Act. 2006 amending art. 306 of the Penal Code which criminalizes the theft of industrial property rights and rights of breeders of plant varieties protected by law or similarly confused with a legally protected. The rule says that the penalty is imprisonment of four (4) to eight (8) years and a fine of twenty-six point sixty-six (26.66) to 1500 (1,500) monthly legal minimum wage. Finally
these contracts, which will inevitably happen has already happened in other parts of the world, where farmers have been brought to the judicial courts because their crops have come via pollution or otherwise genetically modified seeds, and have been sentenced for having patented seeds. This means that "the polluter who pays." That is why most small farmers in the world who do not want these crops require application of the "precautionary principle" in which face imminent harm, is sufficient argument to say "no." Authorization
"controlled crops": A commercial release disguised
Finally, consideration is rather questionable concept of "controlled crops" that raises the ICA in the authorization that gave the companies Monsanto and Dupont. The studies carried out until February this year, are still preliminary and very specific and as noted above is primarily agronomic efficiency tests of the technology. The question for the ICA is controlled plantings What?, What's the difference with commercial plantings, since according to the resolution which authorizes these crops, not determined a limit of planting area, and the only requirement that farmers must meet to enroll in the ICA. That is why it is unacceptable that a play of words, intended to be released commercially, for the backdoor transgenic maize, without having made sufficient biosafety studies.
Technical Concept of MAVDT regarding the request for introduction of transgenic corn. 7
In the context of the applications of transgenic maize that was studying the CTNBio the Ministry of Agriculture, where the Ministry of Environment participates prior to the meeting held on February 23, 2007, sent to CTNBio, a technical document includes the concepts expressed by the Von Humboldt Institute and SINCHI, where there are issues that have not been considered in the assessments and identifies recommendations for studies to be performed on these transgenic maize. This document highlights issues such as:
aspects that must be performed in biosafety assessments, in the context of applications to genetically modified maize (Herculex technology and technology Yieldgard I): 1. The Ministry of Environment considers it essential that the studies, testing and biosecurity plans established for the development of activities with GMOs, to conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment, that beyond the considerations of agricultural and biological variables, covering all the variables environmental assessment, which refers to biological considerations, ecological, social, economic and cultural activities with derivatives of these organisms. It reiterates that progress is needed most comprehensive and compressive The agronomic and biological character.
2. The risk assessment should consider socio-economic and broader cultural, forward-chain, from production to marketing and end users involved and a national perspective.
3. The assessment must be addressed in a comparative low cost technologies accessible to farmers (conventional, commercial, organic, traditional, GM), mainly traditional constitute more than 61% of the community for 2004 corn.
4. Studying the different practices that are associated to corn, taking into account the different social and cultural groups that grow and the differences between the Colombian regions. Inform the public about the type and characteristics of the possible effects that transgenic corn may have to these different groups.
5. It is essential to continue with a new phase of trials, which would give continuity to the process of consolidation of information necessary to ensure the safe use of these LMOs and qualify the assessment procedures and decision making.
6. Update the National Inventory landraces. Also, actions should be defined and implemented for their protection and conservation both in situ and ex situ, such as strengthening collections and gene banks.
7. Larger trials with different growing seasons and in different agro-ecological environments, considering several different locations and sowing generate a broader base of information on various agronomic conditions, environmental and ecological.
8. You must define and prioritize areas of the country for its importance in relation to the presence of native varieties could be declared free zones GM maize.
9. Establish and adopt measures to ensure coexistence between GM and traditional crops of maize and maize organic farming.
10. Characterizing environmentally planned areas for further research activities on a larger scale, with emphasis on climatic variables, wind, temperature, relative humidity and altitude.
11. To characterize the biological diversity of the areas planned to continue the research, considering among other things, the presence and type of natural ecosystems, presence and proximity to protected areas related wild species interact with the crops, crop fauna with emphasis on permanent and sporadic, their roles and habits, assessment of soil biota, presence, distribution and inventory of wild relatives of corn that eventually may be present in the areas under test.
12. Define and implement emergency measures prescribed in the event of accidental release of LMOs.
13. Define the measures for the disposal of material harvested or collected.
14. Comply with its obligations under Articles 23 and 26 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, related to information and public participation in decision-making process regarding GMOs and biosafety and the incorporation of socioeconomic considerations.
Reviews Unrealized identified by the Ministry of Environment:
1. Whatever aspects of the Ministry of Environment being neglected in the environmental assessment process of activities with GMOs are fundamentally related and environmental considerations related to Article 23 and 26 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD , on information and public participation in decision-making process and the incorporation of socioeconomic considerations.
2. In the analysis made, the impact does not discriminate by type of producer or production system. The assessment should consider the real benefits of the universe of producers and not just a group of them.
3. Not included assessments of the relationship with the areas of indigenous communities, Afro-descendant and peasant communities, including within its food strategy and development to native maize, including those not attending in their production systems to hybrid and improved varieties through conventional methods . Should be raised and systematize information and defining appropriate measures for areas or community centers that choose to retain their cultures and traditional practices.
4. The same rule applies to local communities that have embarked upon conversion to agricultural production ecological. In the absence of rules of coexistence, it is considered that can not be put at risk the efforts of the producers and the state in this type of investment. You must define and implement appropriate measures to protect these crops and production systems. The risk analysis should incorporate cultural considerations, issues related to traditional seed exchange that is part of cultural practices. Strategies
indigenous and peasant communities to the transgenics
In many regions the indigenous, black farmers have a very critical position on the impacts which could generate transgenic organisms in their territories and has been building strategies, actions and alliances for the defense of local seeds, especially around the corn, compared to genetic contamination that may occur by the introduction of transgenic maize in territories.
This is the case Zenú Village, who has an extraordinary culture of maize, expressed in more than 25 varieties of the crop they have created, enhanced and preserved since ancient times. Thus, in October 2005, 170 indigenous councils Zenues of Cordoba and Sucre, said the indigenous reserve of San Andrés de Sotavento "territory GM-free "TLT 8. This decision is of paramount importance, since Zenues protected by constitutional rights on their territory, are putting the defense on biodiversity and food sovereignty, which is severely threatened by agro-industrial crops mainly maize and cotton around their territory.
We call on social organizations, institutions and people sitting directly or indirectly affected by the arbitrary decision of the government to speak out and take actions to seek repeal, as if Colombia accepts these transgenic crops, it would ruin the genetic heritage of the Nation and would give what little remains of agriculture and food sovereignty, a handful of corporations.
http://www.ecoportal.net/
Notes:
1 Council of State on February 4, 2005 with presentation by Dr. Olga Inés Navarrete Barrero. AP - 25000 - 23 - 27-000 - 2003 - 00181-022 The government plans to introduce GM crops in Colombia without an environmental license, 2006
http://www.semillas.org.co/sitio.shtml?apc=d1d1-- & , x = 20154575
3 The transgenic maize are to be introduced in Colombia, 2005. Http://www.semillas.org.co/sitio.shtml?apc=c1a1--&x=20154612
4 Resolution 464 ICA 2007. Http://www.bch.org.co/bioseguridad/admon/archivos/leyes/2007R464.pdf Resoulción
and ICA 465, 2007
http://www.bch.org.co/bioseguridad/admon/archivos/ leyes/2007R465.pdf 5 Seabees, INVIMA: Act 05 of 2003 for seed corn with YieldGard ® technology in food production, Act 02 of 2004 for seed corn with Roundup Ready ® technology as feedstock for the production food, Act 05 of 2006 for corn kernels from corn hybrids with Herculex I Bt technology as a raw material for food production. Minutes that can be found on the link "Steps and Services "-" Acts of Commission Review "-" Food Chamber. " Http://www.invima.gov.co/ 6 The GM corn threatens the country's genetic heritage and food sovereignty, 2005. Http://www.semillas.org.co/sitio.shtml?apc=c1a1--&x=20154613 7 National Biosafety Technical Committee for agriculture, livestock, fisheries, commercial plantations and agro-industry (CTNBio) . Concept Activities Technical Applications Genetically Modified Organisms. Document submitted by the Ministry of Environment at the meeting of January 31, 2007 at the meeting of CTN Ministry of Agricultura.8 Zenú Declaration of the Indigenous Reservation, Cordoba and Sucre, as GMO-free territory. San Andrés de Sotavento October 7, 2005. http://www.semillas.org.co/sitio.shtml?apc=c1a1--&x=2097175
