Segunda-feira, 22 de Outubro de 2018
ISSN 1519-7670 - Ano 19 - nº1009
Menu

PRIMEIRAS EDIçõES >

Interesse público e desinteresse da mídia no caso da soja transgênica

Por lgarcia em 05/09/1998 na edição 52

Mônica Macedo (*)

 

A

introdução de Organismos Geneticamente Modificados (OGM) na agricultura é um assunto que vem gerando discussões entre cientistas, empresários, governo e representantes da sociedade civil em todos os países do mundo. Desde a década de 70, quando se conseguiu representar um gene da insulina humana na bactéria Escherichia coli, vários grupos de cientistas (sobretudo nos EUA) vêm trabalhando sobre a manipulação genética de organismos vivos para adaptá-los a condições ambientais específicas. Evidentemente, nesse processo, nem todas as variáveis estão já bem estabelecidas e controladas, e a aplicação das pesquisas em biotecnologia tem conseqüências significativas para a saúde humana, o meio ambiente e a economia, as quais devem ser avaliadas por toda a sociedade.

No Brasil, um pedido recente (junho de 1998) da empresa Monsanto <www.monsanto.com> à Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança (CTNBio) <www.mct.gov.br/ctnbio>, órgão do Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia, provocou algumas manifestações de membros da comunidade científica brasileira, mas não tem recebido a atenção devida dos meios de comunicação. O pedido diz respeito à desregulamentação de um tipo de soja transgênica (chamada Roundup Ready) com base na Lei de Biossegurança (Lei 8.974/95), para que a empresa possa, cultivar, registrar, utilizar, testar, transportar, armazenar, comercializar, importar e descartar a referida soja no país.

A Roundup Ready recebe essa designação por ser resistente ao herbicida de mesmo nome (Roundup), que é produzido pela mesma empresa (Monsanto) que fez o pedido de desregulamentação. Os herbicidas são produtos utilizados para eliminar ervas daninhas e outros agentes que prejudicam a plantação. Porém, freqüentemente, essas substâncias, além de eliminar os agentes indesejáveis, matam também a cultura principal. No caso da soja Roundup Ready, o herbicida pode ser utilizado em altas doses sem prejudicá-la. Com isso, a produtividade obtida é muito maior. Mas o agricultor fica dependente do uso do referido herbicida, o que, evidentemente, para a empresa produtora é um grande negócio.

Porém, há outra característica da soja transgênica que é ainda mais séria. A Roundup Ready, assim como outras variedades de plantas transgênicas, é estéril, ou seja, suas sementes não podem ser reutilizadas, como é feito tradicionalmente na agricultura, sobretudo nos países subdesenvolvidos. Por exemplo, em uma plantação de milho, as melhores espigas são selecionadas para serem plantadas na cultura seguinte. No caso das sementes transgênicas, as espigas não podem ser utilizadas novamente, simplesmente porque não são férteis. Com isso, o agricultor é obrigado a comprar um novo lote de sementes da empresa fornecedora a cada plantio. Um detalhe: poucas empresas, no mundo, detêm a tecnologia de produção de sementes transgênicas. A ampla liberação para o cultivo dessas plantas lhes garante, portanto, grandes mercados consumidores.

Outras implicações de igual importância também estão associadas à Roundup Ready. Algumas variedades de soja transgênica já demonstraram relação com processos alérgicos em seres humanos. É preciso saber se essa variedade tem ou não tal característica. Além disso, as plantas transgênicas podem ter conseqüências para a fixação de microorganismos cujo papel na fertilidade do solo e no equilíbrio ambiental é importante. Na verdade, o que os cientistas estão exigindo é que se apresentem estudos mais detalhados sobre esses efeitos, e que os resultados possam ser amplamente discutidos antes de se tomar uma decisão sobre o assunto.

A repercussão do caso na grande imprensa foi pequena diante do interesse público sobre o tema. Pouco se publicou para levar ao conhecimento da sociedade os vários aspectos da questão e incentivar o debate, embora a comunidade científica discuta o assunto há algum tempo. Celso Ming, em sua coluna de 9/8/98 no Jornal da Tarde, chama atenção para a falta de consenso entre cientistas, ecologistas e empresas, e lembra que “diversas entidades, entre elas a Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência (SPBC), manifestaram-se contra a liberação”. O programa Opinião Nacional, da Rede Cultura, também realizou um debate entre Rubem Nodari, professor da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Luiz Abramides, agrônomo da Monsanto, e Luís Antônio Barreto de Castro, presidente da CTNbio, no dia 13 de agosto.

No Jornal da Ciência <www.sbpcnet.org.br/jc/jc395.htm> de 14/8/98, o professor Nodari publicou artigo sobre o pedido da Monsanto, no qual examina com mais detalhes as possíveis conseqüências da liberação da soja Roundup Ready no Brasil e defende a necessidade de um debate mais amplo e consistente sobre o assunto. Nodari ressalta que os efeitos dos OGM sobre a saúde e o meio ambiente devem também ser examinados à luz da Convenção da Diversidade Biológica (CDB), da qual o Brasil é signatário, que prevê, entre outros, reparação de danos causados à população e ao meio ambiente pelo uso de produtos biotecnológicos. No caso da Monsanto, a empresa comprometeu-se com a CDB, caso a soja transgênica cause problemas.

O pedido da empresa será apreciado pela CTNBio nos dias 15, 16 e 17 de setembro. Os meios de comunicação, que se dizem defensores da volta do jornalismo investigativo, e que, para outros assuntos, demonstram gosto particular pela polêmica, deveriam dar maior cobertura ao desenrolar dos fatos no caso da soja Roundup Ready, em vez de ignorá-lo como, em grande parte, vêm fazendo. Se é verdade que a mídia pode ser reconhecida como um serviço de utilidade pública, que dê mais atenção a assuntos que são de interesse da sociedade.

(*) Jornalista e pesquisadora do Labjor

 


Panos London (*)

 

P

anos would like to call attention to an important development in the worldwide growth of the biotechnology business. Major agrichemical company Monsanto has asked African leaders to endorse genetic engineering as an essential contribution to the world?s food supply in the next century. Their endorsement is due to be published as an advertisement in the European press, as part of a PR campaign by Monsanto to overcome the European public?s opposition to genetic engineering in food.

A number of senior African scientists and agriculturalists who oppose the spread of privately-owned biotechnology plan to publish a counter-statement, also in the European press. Panos feels that the public in African countries and elsewhere in the South should be aware of this debate.

This report constains: a summary of some key facts behind the present development; the text of one sample advertisement from Monsanto?s current advertising campaign in the UK press; the text of Monsanto?s invitation to African leaders to support genetic engineering including Monsanto Factsheet on the Green Revolution; the text of the Monsanto statement due to appear in the European press – Let the harvest begin – with the endorsement of some African leaders; and the text of a counter-statement, “Let nature?s harvest continue”, criticising Monsanto?s “aggressive publicity campaign” issued by African delegates to FAO.

As an independent, non-campaigning organisation, Panos?s role is neither to support nor oppose Monsanto?s position. We do believe, however, that people have the right to accurate information that can enable them to debate this critical issues for themselves.

Panos background briefing

Genetic engineering – manipulating the genetic structure of organisms – is a new field of biotechnology and already a multimillion dollar global business. Genetically Engineered (GE) food and cash crops are being promoted rapidly all over the world: 3.5 million ha of GE soya have been planted in the US in 1998; Monsanto expects 1.4 million ha of GE soya to be grown in Argentina in 1998.

Proponents of genetic engineering claim it will help solve world food supply problems (as well as having many medical and other applications), by developing seeds that will produce higher and better quality yields using fewer chemicals. Important crops in which GE seeds already exist include maize, soya, rape, sugar beet, and cotton. Other food crops – rice, wheat, cassava – are being explored.

In many parts of the world there is considerable opposition to GE, on a number of grounds: religious (tampering with God?s creation); dangers to the environment including increased loss of biodiversity; potential dangers to human health; disempowerment of small farmers as major seed-production companies expand their role in the world?s agriculture; and finally that GE is not the solution to food security problems – which, critics argue, result not from lack of food but from factors such as lack of purchasing power and failures of distribution.

One of the biggest players in plant genetics is US-based company Monsanto, the world?s second largest agrochemical corporation, with total 1996 revenues of $9.26 billion. Monsanto is growing rapidly through mergers and takeovers of other major companies covering crop cultivation, biotechnology and seed production, processing and distribution.

These include, in May 1998, Delta and Pine Lands Co., developer and patentee (in March 1998) of the so-called “terminator technology”, which prevents a plant reproducing; in June 1998, the developing country [incluindo o Brasil] seed operations of Cargill, one of the world?s largest grain and oil seed companies; and India?s biggest seed company, Mahyco. Monsanto also announced in June a partnership with the Grameen Bank – Bangladesh?s world-famous microcredit agency – to bring modern technology to the poor o Bangladesh. Grameen Bank President Muhammad Yunus has recently announced, however, that his organisation is abandoning the idea of a Grameen Monsanto partnership.

Monsanto also produces “Round-up ready” seed, engineered to require the use of Monsanto?s own herbicide to kill weeds without harming the crop. What is happening now?

Monsanto has invested $1.6 million in an advertising campaign to win public support in Europe – where there is considerable consumer opposition to GE foods and crops. Monsanto is also seeking to win acceptance in Africa and other countries of the South. Africa?s leaders and eminent persons – including Julius Nyerere, Yoweri Museveni, Graça Machel and Wangari Maathai – have been asked to sign a declaration supporting genetic engineering, called “Let the harvest begin”. [abaixo].

This declaration, published in the European media in late July, aimed to add weight to Monsanto?s claim that the world?s poor need GE crops. African experts who do not believe GE crops are safe, nor that they are the solution to food security, have issued a counter-statement, “Let nature?s harvest continue” [abaixo]. This has been coordinated by a UK-based NGO, the Gaia Foundation <gaiafund@gn.apc.org>, and was published at same time as the Monsanto declaration.

Has the acceptance of GE seeds been debated? Do the public, or parliament, have the opportunity to understand and discuss it? Opponents believe that accepting privately controlled biotechnology could herald a major shift in production patterns and loss of independence for the world?s farmers, as well as loss of crop biodiversity and dangers to the environment. Proponents say it will increase food security and save lives. Who is right?

Monsanto

  • Advertisement

“This strawberry tastes just like a strawberry. Funny how we all suspect fruit and vegetables don?t taste ?as they used to?. Year-round demand, forced ripening times and early harvesting are to blame. Plant biotechnology offers the potential to produce crops that not only taste better, but are also healthier.

Monsanto is a leading biotechnology company. Our modified seeds are a new development of traditional cross-breeding, which has been employed for centuries. Each one is rigorously tested for safety and nutrition. The foods they produce have been approved by over 20 government regulatory agencies including those in the UK, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Likely future offerings include potatoes that will absorb less oil when fried, corn and soybeans with an increased protein content, tomatoes with a fresher flavour and strawberries that retain their natural sweetness.

Monsanto believes you should be fully aware of the facts before making a purchase. We support the efforts of retailers and others to provide you with labels about the use of biotechnology in food.

We encourage you to look out for them. For more information, ask for a leaflet at your local supermarket, call us free on 0800 092 0401, write to us or visit our website at www.monsanto.co.uk.

We urge you not just to accept our views. Please listen to other opinions, call Iceland on 0990 133373 or visit their website at wwww.iceland.co.uk. Read what the Genetics Forum think at their website, www.geneticsforum.org.uk.

Monsanto Food . Health Hope”

  • Letters

Let the harvest begin – 1

(Text of letter inviting African leaders to endorse Monsanto and GE with Monsanto fact sheet):

“Letter from Global Business Access, Ltd., International Square, Suite 400 1825 1 Street, N. W. Washington D.C. 20006 Tel: 00 1 202 429 2702 Fax: 00 1 202 466 6249.

From: Dr Donald B. Easum, Vice President, Global Business Access Ltd., 801 West End Avenue, Apt 3A, Ph.212-666-9609, Fax 212-666-1106 New York, NY 10025.

Subject: Monsanto and Biotech for Agriculture.

Dear xxxxxxxx,

[…] I want [] to invite you to join other developing country leaders in endorsing Monsanto company’s attached statement, ?Let the harvest begin?. Monsanto plans to publish the statement, with the names and titles of its signers, in major European newspapers in early June. […].

As Vice President of Global Business Access, a continuing company devoted to assisting U.S. trade and investment in Africa, I and several of my colleagues have been engaged by Monsanto company to assist them in publicising the company’s efforts to promote the role of biotechnology in increasing the food supply and protecting the environment in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Central Europe.

Our deadline for submitting endorsements of the Monsanto statement is Monday, June 1 […]. The statement has already been signed by such African leaders as Babacar N’Diaye (former Director of the African Development Bank), Dr Adebayo Adediji (former Executive Director of the UN Economic Commission for Africa), Dr Esther Ocloo of Ghana, Dr George Benneh (former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ghana and Cabinet Minister), Dr Abdoulaye Conteh (former Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Justice of Sierra Leone) – and we are in contact with ex-President Masire, Graça Machel, Chief Bisi Ogunleye of Nigeria, Julius Nyerere, Eritrean President Isias Afwerki, Eritrean Agriculture Minister Arefine Berhe and President Museveni’s office in Kampala. In addition I have sent the statement to Dr Thomas Odhiambo, who has expressed interest in endorsing.

In the event the rationale of the statement appeals to you and you believe it worthy of your support, we invite you to sign the enclosed endorsement form and fax it as indicated to our Global office in Washington D.C. (Enclosed is a Monsanto fact sheet on the Green Revolution and its relationship to expanded food needs of increasing populations.

Sincerely yours, Donald B. Easum, Vice President, GLobal Business Access Ltd. Ambassador (ret.) US Foreign Service.”

  • Document on the Green Revolution

Food needs and global benefits

Within the context of a burgeoning global population lies the most significant challenge facing political leaders and agricultural producers throughout the world: utilising existing limited resources to feed people while grappling with the continued diminution of arable land.

The food needs of an entire planet

* More than 80 percent of the population of the developing world now have access to adequate diets compared with only 64 per cent in the 1970s. The number of undernourished has fallen from over 940 million in the 1970s to around 800 million today.

* More than 840 million people in developing countries – 20 percent of the combined population – are without access to enough food to meet their basic daily needs for nutritional well-being. Disproportionately, this population is made up of women and over 200 million children, with approximately 18 million children dying annually of starvation.

The impact of the ?Green Revolution?

* The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that due to the ?Green Revolution?, per capita food supplies in the developing world rose from 1,900 calories per day in the early 1960s to 2,500 calories in the early 1990s, even though global population doubled during this period.

* In 1950, the world produced 692 million tons of grain for 2.2 billion people; by 1992 production was 1.9 billion tons for 5.6 billion people – 2.8 times the population. The 692 tons of grain produced in 1950 came from 1.7 billion acres of cropland. The 1992 output of 1.9 billion tons came from 1.73 billion acres – a 170 percent increase in production from one percent more land.

Agriculture and the current food situation

* While more than 500,000 edible plants and a wealth of animal products are used for food around the world, only 15 crop plants provide 90 percent of the globe’s food energy intake.

* During the 1990s, the world’s 1 billion farmers produced cereals, meat, and other food products that provided the globe’s population with the equivalent of 7.5 quadrillion kilocalories annually – if distributed equally that is enough for about 3,800 calories per person per day, well over the minimum daily calorie requirement.

* Crop productivity now appears to be slowing – falling below the ?Green Revolution? levels, examples include:

– Wheat yields up 1.4 percent, more slowly than population in many areas, and down from 3.3 percent annually in the early 1980s;

– Rice yields at 1.1 percent annually, less than one-half the rate of the early 1980s;

– Both coarse grain and oilseed yields could grow faster than population in many areas (1.7 percent and 1.5 percent respectively), but even for these crops, the rates expected would provide little margin for shortfalls, whether weather related or from other causes.

* In the 1990s, world grain and oilseed production and use came into much closer balance than at any time in recent years. The huge grain stockpiles of the mid-1980s are gone, and by the mid-1990s, consumption had exceeded production for seven of the past 12 years.

* In the 66 developing countries where 2.3 billion people live, and where current food supplies are inadequate, productivity growth is barely 2 per cent annually (just slightly faster than population growth), constrained by lack of inputs, lack of crop protection products, poor management and numerous other problems.

* For the immediate future – the next quarter of a century – some 800 million people will be added each decade. Food production must grow 1.4 percent to 1.6 percent annually, just to maintain the status quo.”

Let the harvest begin – 2

(Text of Monsanto’s declaration, appeared in European press in late July):

“Across the vast farms of Europe and the United States, crops grow plentifully, providing an over-abundance of food. But in other parts of our world, hunger still confronts the population every day.

Finding new ways to meet our global need for food, while maintaining ecological balance, might be the greatest challenge we face in the next century.

We all share the same planet – and the same needs. In agriculture, many of our needs have an ally in biotechnology and the promising advances it offers for our future. Healthier, more abundant food. Less expensive crops. Reduced reliance on pesticides and fossil fuels. A cleaner environment. With these advances, we prosper; without them, we cannot thrive.

As we stand on the edge of a new millennium, we dream of a tomorrow without hunger. To achieve that dream, we must welcome the science that promises hope. We know advances biotechnology must be tested and safe, but they should not be unduly delayed. Biotechnology is one of tomorrow’s tools in our hands today. Slowing its acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford.

To feed the world in the next century, we need food that is more plentiful and more affordable than it is today. With more productivity needed from less tillable land, we need new ways to yield more from what is left – after development and erosion take their toll. To strengthen our economies, we need to grow our own food as independently as we can. Agricultural biotechnology will play a major role in realising the hope we all share. Accepting this science can make a dramatic difference in millions of lives.

The seeds of the future are planted. Allow them to grow. Then let the harvest begin. Because securing food for our future begins a better life for us all.

Signer Signer Signer Signer Signer

———–, ———–, ————,——–

A message from some of the world’s most respected voices, made possible by some of the world’s most respected companies, including Monsantocommitted to finding better ways to feed the world’s people.”

Let nature?s harvest continue

(Statement from all the African delegates (except South Africa) to FAO negotiations on the International Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources, June 1998; published in the European media in late July 1998):

“During the past few weeks European citizens have been exposed to an aggressive publicity campaign in major European newspapers trying to convince the reader that the world needs genetic engineering to feed the hungry. Organised and financed by Monsanto, one of the world?s biggest chemical companies, and titled ?Let the harvest begin?, this campaign gives a totally distorted and misleading picture of the potential of genetic engineering to feed developing countries.

We, the undersigned delegates of African countries participating in the 5th Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources, 8 – 12 June 1998, Rome, strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us.

It is time to look at some of the facts about the company behind this campaign: Monsanto is one of the world?s largest pesticide companies. During the past two years only it spent over US$6000 million to take control over other seed and biotechnology companies and is now the major industrial player in this field. Its major focus is not to protect the environment, but to develop crops that can resist higher doses of its best-selling chemical weedkiller “Roundup”.

Rather than stretching a helping hand to farmers, Monsanto threatens them with lawsuits and jail. In the USA, the company employs detectives to find and bring to court those farmers that save Monsanto soybean seeds for next year?s planting. Backed by patent law, the company demands the rights to inspect the farmers? fields to check whether they practise agriculture according to Monsanto conditions and with Monsanto chemicals.

Rather than developing technology that feeds the world, Monsanto uses genetic engineering to stop farmers from replanting seed and further develop their agricultural systems. It has spent US$18000 million to buy a company owning a patent on what has become known as Terminator Technology: seed that can be planted only once and dies in the second generation. The only aim of this technology is to force farmers back to the Monsanto shop every year, and to destroy an age old practice of local seed saving that forms the basis of food security in our countries.

In ?Let the harvest begin?, the Europeans are asked to give an unconditional green light to gene technology so that chemical corporations such as Monsanto can start harvesting their profits from it. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.

In particular, we will not accept the use of Terminator or other gene technologies that kill the capacity of our farmers to grow the food we need. We invite European citizens to stand in solidarity with Africa in resisting these gene technologies so that our diverse and natural harvests can continue and grow.

We agree and accept that mutual help is needed to further improve agricultural production in our countries. We also believe that Western science can contribute to this. But it should be done on the basis of understanding and respect for what is already there. It should be building on local knowledge, rather than replacing and destroying it. And most importantly: it should address the real needs of our people, rather than serving only to swell the pockets and control of giant industrial corporations.

Jean Marie Fodoun, Cameroun; George A. Agbahungba, Benin; Paul Therence Senghor, Senegal; Koffi Goti, Cote d?Ivoire; Mokosa Madende, Congo Democ; Jean Jacques Rakotonalala, Madagascar; Juvent Baramburiye, Burundi; Worku Damena, Ethiopia; Gietaturn Mulat, Ethiopia; M.S. Harbi, Sudan; Eltahir Ibrahim Mohamed, Sudan; Maria A. Calane da Silva, Mozambique; Kohna Nganara Ngawara, Tchad; Nkeoua Gregoire, Congo; Mugorewera Drocella, Rwanda; H. Yahia-Cafrif, Algeria; Abebe Demissie, Ethiopia; G.P. Mwila, Zambia; Dr S.H. Raljtsogle, Lesotho; Naceu Hamza, Tunisia; Hambourne Mellas, Morocco; Elizabeth Matos, Angola; Tewolde Berhane Gebre Egziabher, Ethiopia.

Additional statement by Zimbabwean delegate:

?Africa should not be used as a testing ground for technologies and products which have been developed elsewhere. We reserve our sovereign right to test these technologies ourselves, examine their effectiveness and compatibility to the environment in our region.?”

Copyright Panos Intitute, julho de 1998

(*) O Panos Institute, de Londres (www.oneworld.org/panos), é uma ONG dedicada à informação e à comunicação sobre o desenvolvimento sustentável

Sites de interesse em biotecnologia:

Embrapa

Biotechnology and Development Monitor

Biotecnologia, Ciência e Desenvolvimento

Laboratório de Química de Produtos Naturais da Universidade Federal de Viçosa

 


Comissão de Cidadania e Reprodução (*)

 

P

elas mãos de um psicanalista – homem e latino -, o prazer da mulher despontou nas páginas dos jornais brasileiros em julho de 1997. O aquecimento do tema ficou por conta da novela O anatomista, do escritor e psicanalista argentino Federico Andahazi. O livro tornou-se assunto de extensas resenhas no JB e, particularmente, na Folha. Além de resenha, este jornal publicou uma seleta de poesias sobre os genitais femininos (caderno Mais!, 20/7/97). O alvoroço não só deu visibilidade ao tema como contribuiu para que se descobrisse um absurdo: a ablação (ou corte) do clitóris estava, “por engano”, incluída na lista de procedimentos médicos remunerados pelo SUS (O Estado, 26/11/97).

O psicanalista Contardo Calligaris, na resenha do Mais!, afirmou que o livro não trata da descoberta do órgão do prazer, mas de sua “invenção”, ou seja, de uma nova representação do corpo feminino. Este entendimento é crucial, pois apenas uma forte determinação ideológica pode explicar por que o Ocidente sempre obliterou a existência do clitóris.

Esquecimentos (ou ocultações) também puderam ser identificados no discurso da mídia, em relação a O anatomista. Marilene Felinto lembrou, na Folha, que o clitóris foi “reinventado” em 1976, pela sexóloga americana Shere Hite. Mas não citou a bíblia da anatomia para o feminismo contemporâneo – A new view of a woman?s body (Simon & Shuster, 1981), obra fundamental. No Jornal da família (O Globo, 20/7/97), publicou-se matéria relacionando o livro a discussões sobre o clitóris e o ponto G. E, em artigo da seção Saúde (JB, 17/8/97), dedicado ao biólogo Robin Baker, a sexualidade humana ainda foi comparada ao instinto animal – o que chega a ser grotesco.

Calligaris citou John Donne, poeta inglês do século 17, como o autor da expressão “minha América”, que Andahazi atribui, na novela, a Mateo Colombo. Mas se esqueceu de dizer que Elogio – poema de Donne inspirado na descoberta anatômica de Colombo – foi traduzido por Augusto de Campos, musicado por Péricles Cavalcanti e vem sendo cantado por Caetano Veloso desde 1979.

Finalmente, é curioso notar que, em meio a tantas falas psicanalíticas, não se tenha feito a evidente analogia entre a “América”, descoberta por Mateo Colombo no corpo de Inês de Torremolinos, e a metáfora do “continente negro” elaborada por Freud, no início do século 20, num texto clássico sobre a sexualidade feminina.

Um olhar sobre a mídia, número 5, dezembro de 1997

(*) Entidade civil multidisciplinar criada em 1991 com o objetivo de defender o respeito à liberdade e à dignidade no campo da saúde e dos direitos sexuais e reprodutivos

 

LEIA TAMBEM

O tamanho do clitóris, artigo

e carta,

e Clitóris é maior do que se pensava

Todos os comentários

x

Indique a um amigo

Este é um espaço para você indicar conteúdo do site aos seus amigos.

O Campos com * são obrigatórios.

Seus dados

Dados do amigo (1)

Dados do amigo (2)

Mensagem