MAR DEL PLATA.- A judge in this city approved a collective protection measure proposed by representatives of some 40 environmental and environmental protection entities and ordered a “temporary ban” on the open use and release of the drought-tolerant transgenic wheat variety known as HB4.
The measure reaches the entire area of the province of Buenos Aires and will be applicable until the Buenos Aires Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety Commission, created by law and never constituted, is launched. responsible for evaluating and reporting on the impact of the introduction and release of transgenic and anabolic material and its effects on natural resources, health, production and marketing, in accordance with the provisions of Law 12,822.
The presentation fell by lottery in the Juvenile Criminal Responsibility Court No. 2 of the Mar del Plata Judicial Department and its resolution bears the signature of its owner, Néstor Salas, with a peculiarity: It was his last public function since after his participation in this case he retired from the activity to avail himself of retirement benefits.
Drought-tolerant transgenic wheat, a product developed by Indear (Bioceres), was authorized by the Government for the commercialization of its varieties. It also has guarantees in Brazil, Australia and New Zealand. The United States recently joined with a favorable opinion from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding its safety. Despite the different authorizations, the firm does not plan to commercialize the varieties at the moment, but to continue with a preserved identity scheme where it has control of the entire process with producers that produce the cereal for it. Last year there were more than 55,000 hectares nationwide.
The amparistas argued that the genetically modified wheat variety identified as IND 00412-7 has marketing authorization from the Secretary of Food and Bioeconomy of the National Ministry of Agriculture, but It does not yet comply with the final report required by the aforementioned Law 12,822, which, in its Article 1, orders the creation of the aforementioned commission in charge of preparing reports on the introduction of transgenic and anabolic material. The term of constitution was 90 days from the sanction of the norm, which was promulgated on December 20, 2001.
Faced with this delay of more than two decades, Salas cites a ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in particular a vote shared by Ricardo Lorenzetti and Juan Carlos Maqueda, in which they warn that “the National Constitution is violated so much when does what she forbids as when what she commands is not done”.
And it also resorts to another from the Buenos Aires Supreme Court of Justice in relation to a protection measure against real estate developments that could affect the condition of protected landscape that governs the town of Parque Cariló. “In this matter, the first and great weapon that the law counts is prevention,” he says, referring to avoiding impacts that generate damage that may be irreversible.
The entities that resort to justice and now achieve this precautionary measure had warned of “imminent serious and irreversible damage to the environment” in the face of a resolution adopted last May from the Secretary of Food, Bioeconomy and Regional Development of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishing of the Nation that authorizes Indear to commercialize the seed and derivatives of wheat IND 00412-7.
In the judicial presentation, which they make personally but clarify that it is on behalf of “their minor children and future generations”, they demand that the firm Indear SA be ordered to refrain from planting -as a trial, investigation or for purposes of marketing- that variety. They also ask for the intervention of the Advice for Minors and the Disabled to assert the rights of children and adolescents who “are restricted and threatened” by the possible environmental effect of this type of wheat.
Salas, in a resolution of 24 pages, considered it necessary to heed the warning of “danger in delay” and make room for the precautionary measure against “the absence of specific administrative mechanisms by the Buenos Aires Executive to assess environmental risks in that territory.”
Market sources made several analyzes after the judge’s ruling. On the one hand, they interpret that the possibility of creating a commission as ordered by the law mentioned by the magistrate has expired. On the other hand, they indicate that something of national disposition cannot be prohibited for a specific territory. At this point, who would have to make an eventual appeal, because according to what transpired, the development company was not consulted in any part of the process, it is the State itself.