1.Hunger Due to Injustice, Not Lack of Food
2.Good Enough To Eat: Weighing both sides to the genetic engineering debate
EXTRTACTS: these companies control a large part of global seed sales in a lucrative captive market, by means of sales of genetically modified (GM) varieties that are resistant to the firms' own herbicides. (item 1)
"Ten biotech companies control 32 percent of the $23 billion global seed market and virtually 100 percent of transgenic seeds. Five vegetable seed companies control 75 percent of the global market. Ten agrochemical companies control 81 percent of the $29 billion market. Monsanto, Pioneer, Novartis and Dow control 45 percent of the global soybean market." (item 2)
""Exports of U.S. corn to Japan fell 38 percent, to Taiwan fell 52 percent and to the EU fell 83 percent from 1996 to 2000, in part because of objections to genetic engineering technologies." (item 2)
---
1.DEVELOPMENT: Hunger Due to Injustice, Not Lack of Food
Tito Drago Inter Press Service, October 16 2006
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35121
MADRID, Oct 16 (IPS) - Millions of people die of hunger-related causes every year. However, that is not because of actual shortages of food, but is a result of social injustice and political, social and economic exclusion, argue non-governmental organisations that launched a campaign in Spain on World Food Day Monday.
Oct.16 was established as World Food Day in 1979 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), commemorating the agency's Oct. 16, 1945 founding date. Monday also marked the first day of Anti-Poverty Week, which will include events in Spain and around the world to raise awareness of the issue.
FAO's slogan for World Food Day this year is "Invest in Agriculture for Food Security". But NGOs argue that the problem is not a lack of food production, but of the injustice surrounding access to and use of foods.
Theo Oberhuber, head of the Spanish environmental NGO Ecologists in Action (EEA), told IPS that enough food is produced in the world to cover the needs of everyone, so that no one would have to go hungry.
But, he added, there are two problems that stand in the way of this. The first is that a large part of all food, whether agricultural products or food obtained from oceans or rivers, goes towards feeding livestock "whose meat and by-products are consumed mainly in the countries of the industrialised North."
The second, he said, is social injustice. In many countries, the majority of the population cannot afford food, "not even food of lesser quality."
Olivier Longue, director general of Action Against Hunger in Spain, pointed out to IPS examples of lower-quality food: in Malawi and Guatemala, for instance, corn forms the basis of the subsistence diet, while in the Philippines the staples are corn, potatoes and plantains.
Action Against Hunger reported that every four seconds someone in the world dies of hunger-related diseases and that nearly one billion people suffer from hunger around the world.
The global NGO also noted that six million children a year die of hunger, which is responsible for half of all deaths of children under five. In addition, many children who survive hunger and malnutrition suffer disabilities for the rest of their lives.
The international NGOs Engineers Without Borders, Caritas and Veterinarians Without Borders, along with Prosalus, a Spanish organisation that promotes health care in Africa and Latin America, launched in Spain the campaign "Derecho a la Alimentacion: Urgente" (Right to Food: Urgent), and presented a DVD Monday in which they state that food security cannot be achieved without support for agricultural development.
They note that FAO statistics show that more than 70 percent of the people suffering from hunger around the world live in rural areas, where they should be able to feed themselves through agriculture.
The campaign is demanding that governments recognise food security as a basic human right, and that they review their policies on the question and promote agricultural development in a framework of environmental sustainability.
But the EEA questions FAO's call to "Invest in Agriculture for Food Security" because of the growing influence of agribusiness and concentration of land.
The EEA stresses that "more than 70 percent of the global pesticide market is in the hands of six giant agrochemical corporations, of which only three will be left within a few years."
The group adds that these companies control a large part of global seed sales in a lucrative captive market, by means of sales of genetically modified (GM) varieties that are resistant to the firms' own herbicides.
In addition, the offspring of some GM plants are sterile, which means they cannot be stored to grow future crops. Poor farmers thus become dependent on transnational companies, and are forced to buy new seeds every year.
The EEA also points out that the world's 10 biggest food companies account for one-quarter of all food produced worldwide, and 10 large chains account for one-quarter of all food sales.
As an example of the consequences of that policy, "in Spain, farmers often receive only 25 percent of the end price," says the NGO.
"If that is the situation in a developed European country, it's not difficult to imagine what happens in countries of the South, where the rural population lives in infrahuman conditions," said Oberhuber. (END/2006)
---
2.Good Enough To Eat: Weighing both sides to the genetic engineering debate
By CHRIS SMITH
Seattle PI, October 12 2006
In last week's column, I introduced the subject of genetic engineering of plants, explained what that procedure is and discussed who's using it and on which plants. This week the column will focus on how people feel about this form of biotechnology. As could be expected with such a controversial matter, there are cheerleaders and detractors.
Cheerleaders
In my mind, cheerleaders sort into schemers and dreamers.
When they think genetic engineering, schemers see dollar signs. As a highly promising, if problematic new technology, it is bound to attract the attention of big business.
The fact that transgenic material is intellectual property and patentable adds to the interest. If a company has exclusive control over a plant that it can grow more cheaply than the competition or that yields a high-value product, it owns, potentially, a very profitable commodity.
That companies should try to profit from agriculture is not surprising. Agribusiness is a reality. Concentration of control is another matter. That a few companies should virtually control seeds, food crops and plant-derived pharmaceuticals and that many of these entities would resist accurate labeling of genetically engineered products is disturbing to many people.
According to "Genetic Engineering of Plants: Research, Rhetoric & Reality" by Julie Dawson and Margaret E. Smith (NRAES, 129 pages, $17 plus shipping & handling), "Ten biotech companies control 32 percent of the $23 billion global seed market and virtually 100 percent of transgenic seeds. Five vegetable seed companies control 75 percent of the global market. Ten agrochemical companies control 81 percent of the $29 billion market. Monsanto, Pioneer, Novartis and Dow control 45 percent of the global soybean market."
Dreamers seem benign in comparison. They see genetic engineering as the solution to a myriad of biological problems. I suspect they underestimate the complexity of playing with genetic material. Perhaps they don't take into consideration what plant breeder Carol Deppe, author of "Breed Your Own Vegetable Varieties" (Chelsea Green, 367 pages, $27.95), identifies as pleiotropy.
"Pleiotropy refers to the effects of genes on characteristics other than the 'primary' one. ... Pleiotropy is a genetic version of the ancient Taoist understanding that you cannot do just one thing."
The Flavr Savr tomato illustrates pleiotropy in action. A synthetic gene was implanted in a tomato to harden its skin so it could ripen on the vine and still be shipped. Apparently the synthetic gene hardened the tomato's skin all right, but it also made it taste like gasoline.
Detractors
Some detractors of genetic engineering are permanently, philosophically against the technology or the legal framework under which it currently operates.
Other detractors might be persuaded -- with changes in regulation, convincing safeguards and wider sharing of control of the technology -- that benefits may outweigh risks for some applications.
Organic gardeners and farmers aren't likely to morph into backers of genetic engineering. Transgenic material is not certifiable as organic, so organic growers can't use genetically engineered seed or plants. Moreover, if transgenic material escapes and contaminates organic crops, organic producers are major losers.
Contamination of non-engineered crops concerns a much larger group of people than organic practitioners. Anyone who values a diverse, natural gene pool of plants can legitimately worry about unintended transfer of genes.
To the alarm of such people, escape and contamination already has happened -- several times. Transgenic corn from Texas has contaminated non-engineered corn in Mexico. A virus-resistant, engineered papaya in Hawaii has contaminated organic and wild papaya trees. And in Oregon, there are reports of transgenic material being found in wild creeping bentgrass.
The escape of transgenic materials raises questions about the seriousness and effectiveness of our regulatory apparatus. Currently three federal agencies, eight subdivisions of those agencies and five federal committees share oversight of genetic engineering.
Opponents of the technology point to the lapses of security and cumbersome oversight as reasons to halt or slow it.
From other quarters, there are concerns that genetic engineering will accelerate the evolution of pathogens resistant to antibiotics, and insects and weeds resistant to pesticides. Those worries stem from the use of antibiotics as markers in laboratory-based gene transfers, and the use of insecticide- and herbicide-resistant genetic material in field crops.
To some of our trading partners, genetic engineering is problematic. According to Dawson and Smith, the Cornell University authors of "Genetic Engineering of Plants": "Exports of U.S. corn to Japan fell 38 percent, to Taiwan fell 52 percent and to the EU fell 83 percent from 1996 to 2000, in part because of objections to genetic engineering technologies. Soybean exports, however, increased 14 percent from 2001-2002."
Add health concerns about allergic reactions to the new proteins created by engineering and suspicions that the corporations involved in this technology are or will be unscrupulous, and you have a noisy chorus of doubters.
In next week's column, we'll consider what might be done to rein in the excesses of some of genetic engineering's cheerleaders and convince some of its detractors that the technology has benefits to offer that outweigh its risks.
Chris Smith, a Master Gardener who lives in Port Orchard, is retired from the WSU Cooperative Extension. Send questions to P.O. Box 4426, South Colby, WA 98384-0426.
Go to a Print friendly Page
Email this Article to a Friend
Back to the Archive
|
