[ad_1]
The pro-GMO lobby claims that technology critics "refuse the choice of farmers." They say that farmers should have access to a range of tools and technologies. It is to maximize choice and options. Caught at face value, who would want to refuse the choice?
At the same time, however, we do not want to end up offering a false choice (deploy technologies that have little value and only serve those who control the technology), to trigger an innovation that has a negative impact on those who do not use it or to handle a situation where only one option is available because other options have been deliberately made unavailable or less attractive. And we certainly would not want to deploy a technology that traps farmers on a treadmill that they find hard to cross.
When talking about choice, it can be very practical to focus on the final processes (choices offered – or refused – to farmers on the farm), while ignoring the procedures and decisions that were in corporate boards, by government agencies and by regulators that lead to the development and deployment of options.
Druker argues that the decision to market seed and genetically modified foods in the United States was based on regulatory delinquency. Druker says that if the US Food and Drug Administration had considered the advice of its own experts and publicly acknowledged its warnings about the risks, the GM company would have imploded and would never have gained popularity .
which amounts to a subversion of democratic processes, which could lead (and probably lead to) to changing the genetic core of the world's food. Who was the "choice" to do that? Has the choice been given to the American public, consumers of genetically modified food? Have ordinary people chosen that genetically modified foods appear on the shelves of their supermarkets?
No, this choice was refused. The decision was made over their heads, ultimately benefiting Monsanto's bottom line and having a strategic leverage effect on global agriculture. And, now that GM foods are on the market, can they choose to buy it? Once again, the answer is no. The powerful lobbying power of GMOs and agribusinesses has ensured that this food is not labeled and that the public is denied the right to choose.
Of course, let us not forget that the GMO, like the original green revolution, often works. with bio-pirated germplasm: a little more than the South Global robbery to be modified and resold as hybrid GM seeds or patented to Global South (read The Great Seed Piracy).
But any serious discussion about the capture of the enterprise of agriculture, the patenting of seeds, the role of the WTO or the World Bank or the issues of dependence, development and Food security by addressing the dynamics of neoliberal capitalism (globalization) are often criticized by pro-GMO scientists and their supporters by accusations of "conspiracy theory". From my personal experience, this happens even when we talk about the work of respected academics who make fun of non-scientists and whose doctorates and peer-reviewed journals in which their work appears. are somehow unworthy of being recognized
. apart from the problems mentioned above that need to be addressed if we want to achieve equitable global food security (issues that the pro-GMO lobby and its prominent scientists in the academia do not want to discuss – for them, the conspiracy conspiracy will suffice), the fact is that the industry has put GM on the market fraudulently, is complicit in seed piracy and has fought to deny consumer choice using its political and financial leverage to undermine the processes democratic. Highly relevant questions for any discussion of "choice"
(For the sake of brevity, Monsanto's subversion of science and issues emerging from the "Monsanto Papers" will be set aside, as has been
So, what does it say that critics deny farmers when it comes to the right to choose?
Pro-GMO Activists say that GM crops can increase yields, reduce the use of agrochemicals and are necessary if we want to feed the world.However, to date, the antecedents in GMO material is not impressive.
In India and Burkina Faso, for example, Bt cotton has hardly been a success, and although critics are blamed for the fact that Golden Rice is not on the market, it's a practical smoke screen that tries to hide the reality that two decades of problems remain with technology
. United States, which largely depends on GM crops. In general, "genetically modified crops have not steadily increased farmers' yields or incomes or reduced the use of pesticides in North America or the South" (Benbrook, 2012, Gurian-Sherman, 2009).
Genetically Modified Farming does not "feed the world" and was not designed to do so: companies that grow GMOs are firmly anchored in the paradigm of industrial and agricultural agriculture. badociated power relations that shape a strategy that leads to strategic surpluses and shortages around the world. The choice for farmers between technology so often based on broken promises and GMO-free agriculture is little more than a false choice.
"Currently available GM crops would not result in significant yield gains in Europe," says Matin Qaim. , a researcher at the Georg-August University of Göttingen, Germany
Also consider that once genetic engineering is out of the bottle, there may be more way to come back backward. For example, Roger Levett, sustainability specialist, argues ("Choice: Less can be more," in Food Ethics, Vol.3, No. 3, Fall 2008):
"If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume genetically modified foods, soon no one will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, without GMOs.This is a one-way choice … once it's over. it is done, it can not be reversed. "
There is a lot of evidence that GM and non GM crops can not coexist. Indeed, the contamination seems to be part of a cynical industrial strategy. For example, genetically modified food crops are already growing illegally in India.
And if we focus on India, recent reports indicate that herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton seed is now available in some states. Bt cotton (designed to be resistant to pests) is the only GM crop allowed in India. HT crops are not only illegal in India, but they have also caused serious problems in the countries where they are used. The TCE Committee appointed by the Supreme Court said that these cultures are totally inappropriate for India.
It seems however that, according to reports, many farmers "choose" to buy these seeds. And it's there that pro-GMO activists step in and shout their mantra about offering choice to the farmers.
Regardless of the laws of the country being violated, things are not so simple.
Professor Glenn Stone has conducted extensive field research concerning cotton growers in India. By using the concept of treadmills technology as well as environmental, social and didactic learning, it can help us understand the "choices" that farmers make.
Stone noted where Bt cotton was concerned, any decision farmers made to plant GM Seeds were not necessarily based on objective decision making. There has been no testing or testing of seeds in agroecological contexts by farmers, as has traditionally been the case.
Following a national media campaign on miraculous seeds and Monsanto's incentive to import Bt cotton into India. During the 1990s, farmers found themselves at the mercy of seed sellers who sold all the seeds they had in stock, no matter what the farmers wanted. Without the agricultural support services of trusted non-governmental organizations, farmers had to depend on local traders. They thought they were buying the newest and best seeds, and rushing to the available products.
Traditional knowledge, field tests and badessments of farmers have been undermined or broken and, in many ways, have given way to an unregulated-orchestrated industry free for all. The "environmental learning" has given way to "social learning" (the farmers have simply imitated each other).
However, in agriculture, environmental learning lasted for thousands of years. Farmers experimented with different plant and animal specimens acquired through migration, commercial networks, gift exchanges or accidental spread. By learning and groping, new knowledge has been mixed with older traditional knowledge systems.
Farmers took steps to manage drought, grow cereals with long stalks that can be used as fodder, soil and water conservation by ethno-engineers, use of systems self-supply on on-farm recycling and the use of collective sharing systems such as the management of common resource resources. In short, farmers knew their micro-environment
. For farmers to be able to start a technology business, the path to environmental learning must be broken. Stone offers a good overview of Bt cotton and HT cotton. He describes how traditional double-edged plowing is collapsing due to "didactic learning" under the promise of increased productivity. After adopting "simple" plowing (advocated by didactic "teachers"), this promise does not seem to have materialized. However, the farmer is now facing more weeds.
So who could blame the farmer for being attracted to HT cotton and buying herbicides as an easy solution to an increase in weeds and government policies that Unintentionally The break with traditional practices (or pathways) to implement new approaches (which do not bring much) can be seen as part of the process of encouraging farmers to seek alternative solutions new problems. this happens (the beginning of the treadmill).
It is very convenient that illegal HT seeds now seem widely available. This is consistent with Monsanto's announced plan to boost herbicide sales in India (which it sees as a potentially mbadive growth market). And if farmers claim these seeds (farmers are a huge vote bank for politicians), Monsanto (now Bayer) could eventually achieve what we 've always wanted: India' s adopting the seeds. genetically modified agriculture
. Andrew Flachs) helps us understand how "didactic learning" (which Monsanto has undertaken with Indian farmers since the 1990s) can get farmers to choose the very option and choice that Monsanto asks them to make. Stone and Flachs also point out that once farmers are on an agrochemical / agritech treadmill, it is very difficult for them to get out even when they are aware of the failure .
A Question of Power
When the pro-GMO lobby uses the & # 39; choice & # 39; as a stick to strike critics, he does not recognize these processes, as powerful agritech players manipulate cynically for their own purposes. In other words, "choices" or options must be understood in the broader context of power.
The choice also concerns the options which could be made available, but which have been closed or even not even considered. Take the case of Andhra Pradesh in India. The state government is committed to extending natural agriculture to zero budget to six million farmers by 2024. In Ethiopia, agroecology has been extended to the entire region of Tigray. These types of initiatives succeed because of enlightened political leaders and the commitment of key institutions.
However, in places where global agribusiness / agribusiness companies have deployed in strategic positions, their interests prevail. From the general history that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the world to provide lavish research subsidies and the capture of important political institutions, these companies have achieved a perceived heavy legitimacy in the minds of the decision-makers and the dominant discourse. As a result, agroecological approaches are marginalized and receive little attention and support.
This perceived legitimacy allows these firms to design and implement policies at the national and international levels. For example, it is Monsanto who has played a leading role in drafting the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in order to create monopolies of trade and commerce. seeds. The global food processing industry has drafted the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Whether it is the Codex or the Agricultural Knowledge Initiative aimed at restructuring Indian agriculture, the powerful agri-food / food lobby has guaranteed privileged access to decision-makers policies.
How can the pro-GMO pressure group say with credibility? a group of activists who restrict or define the choice when it has been powerless to prevent all this, either at the field level in places like India or within governments and international bodies?
As Stone and Flachs describe, Monsanto – Fortune 500 company with all its influence and wealth (not "anti-GMO activists") – which took its mark of corporate (imperialism) activism to farmers to expand its influence and increase its results:
"Starting with 500 farmers In 2007, Monsanto India targeted a series of farmers through a program of research on herbicides … They also organized more 10,000 agricultural demonstrations for small and large farmers in 2012 Raising awareness of Roundup® and discouraging knockoffs … These efforts have been based on Monsanto's didactic activities since the late 1990s. For example, in Andhra Pradesh, the Meekosam project placed Monsanto employees in the villages to demonstrate products and promote hybrid seeds and chemical inputs … "[19659002] to global oligopolies in agribusiness and agribusiness, democratic procedures at the level of sovereign states are bypbaded to impose seed monopolies and proprietary inputs on farmers and to incorporate them into a chain of 39 world supply dominated by powerful companies.
Agriculture in Africa or the ongoing dismantling of Indian agriculture at the request of transnational agribusiness, where is the democratic "choice"?
The agricultural sector of Ukraine opens in Monsanto. The seed laws of Iraq have been amended to facilitate the entry of Monsanto. The Indian sector of edible oils has been mined to facilitate the entry of Cargill. And Bayer's hand may be behind the current strategy behind GM mustard in India. Through secret trade agreements, conditional loans and blatant duplicity, global food and agri-food conglomerates have little regard for democracy, let alone for choice.
As Michel Chossudovski points out in his book "The Globalization of Poverty". The current objective is to replace local local food production methods and allow transnational companies to take over, thus linking farmers and regions to a neoliberal globalization system. Whether it is to undermine or destroy previously largely self-sufficient agrarian economies or what we are currently seeing in India, the program is clear.
In closing, there is one last point. In their haste to promote neoliberal dogma and corporate-driven public relations, many government officials, scientists, and journalists take for granted that profit-driven (corrupt) transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be the guardians of natural badets. . There is the premise that water, seeds, food, soil and agriculture should be entrusted to powerful transnational corporations to produce profit, under the pretext that these entities serve as a basis for way or another the needs of humanity
. & # 39;) should be managed jointly and managed in the common interest by local people badisted by public institutions and governments acting on their behalf, as this is the end result of the project. a real choice.
And how can we go in this direction? This is already happening: we should be inspired by many successful agroecological projects around the world.
Colin Todhunter is an independent writer – Twitter
[ad_2]
Source link
