Teman-teman, Berikut saya kirimkan suatu artikel yang mengkritik Gordon Conway, bahkan lebih mengakar daripada kritik saya terdahulu. Mudah-mudahan bermanfaat. Salam hira > -------------------------- GENET-news --------------------------- > > TITLE:��More help of more harm? > ��������Genetically engineered crops and world hunger > SOURCE:�The Humane Society of the United States > ��������by Michael W. Fox > DATE:���February 2000 > > ----------------- archive: http://www.gene.ch/ ------------------ > > > ********************************************* > Michael W. Fox, DSc, PhD, BVet Med > MRCVS Senior Scholar, Bioethics > The Humane Society of the United States > 2100 L Street, NW > Washington, DC 20037 > +1-202-293-5105 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ********************************************* > > More help of more harm? > Genetically engineered crops and world hunger > > > The Doubly Green Revolution > > A few advocates of genetically engineered (GE) crops, like Dr. > Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, rightly > point out that it is not cost effective for the life science > industry to engage in much more than biomass commodity crops that > do not, as Conway points out, alleviate world hunger. Hence, > humanitarian oriented, rather than short-term profit oriented, > research and development to develop hardier and more nutritious > staple crops to feed the rising numbers of poor and hungry > people, especially in developing countries, is being advocated. > But these people live still in some of the world's major > biodiversity "hot spots." I applaud Conway's advocacy of GE food > labeling, opposition to terminator technology in developing > countries, and call for a phasing out of antibiotic-resistance > gene markers as a means of selecting transgenic plants. But I > question his ecological sensibility and historical perspective. > It is ecologically insensible to advocate the release of GE crops > in the world's hot spots of biodiversity. It is historical > amnesia to not help indigenous peoples reclaim the rich diversity > of seeds and crop varieties that were used to sustain them well > before Western colonization and also before the Green Revolution > that had many harmful consequences. (See Addendum on the Failure > of the Green Revolution). > > Regrettably, Conway, in his call for a "Doubly Green Revolution," > embraces some questionable aspects of plant biotechnology that he > believes will help provide better nutrition, health, and security > for the world's 800 million malnourished people. It would seem > that Conway sees the risk of genetic pollution by GE crops, whose > pollen is likely to contaminate these biodiversity hot spots > (unless they are given the apomixis trait of asexual seed > production) as inconsiderable. > > He makes no mention either of the effects of transgenic crops on > harmless and beneficial flora, fauna and soil microbia. For > further discussion of this topic, see writings by Michael W. Fox > and Daniel H. Janzen. I have eaten ragi, the almost extinct > dietary staple of the Nilgiris Kurumbas in South India that has > been supplanted by "flood rice" rice, which I have also eaten, > that smells like (and may well have been grown on) municipal > sewage, and which is rationed out to the poor. The "Green > Revolution" has supplanted a diversity of traditional crops like > ragi, a rain-fed crop that would sustain me for a day's field > work with irrigated and processed rice that at best sustains me > for a half day in the field. > > Therefore, I think a "Doubly Green Revolution" as proposed by Dr. > Conway is seriously ill considered and ethically flawed in many > ways, especially since a diversity of traditional, locally > adapted crops are more likely to provide good nutrition than the > genetically engineered (and probably less adapted and genetically > unstable) corps of his proposed "Doubly Green Revolution." Like > me, Conway is British. And the British bear the legacy of > colonial patronage in their approach to helping their former > colonies, like Africa and India. I see Conway's vision the > "Doubly Green Revolution" as the third wave of colonialism. > > > The "Brown Revolution" > > Instead of endorsing colonialism, I would suggest an alternative: > A singularly "Brown Revolution," that puts dirt first the Earth, > the soil, the humus, which are so profoundly linked with our > humility and with our humanity. GE crops are likely to harm the > soil biota and contaminate life processes at genetic and > molecular levels that we barely comprehend. The first principle > of the "Brown Revolution" is the Precautionary Principle. It > acknowledges that no one has a monopoly on truth and that what > might go wrong will go wrong. > > The second principle is respect for life, which does not seem to > accord with the ethos of the life science industry that is > seeking to promote the globalization of agricultural > biotechnology. The third principle is to put others before > oneself, and the Earth before people. > > The "Brown Revolution" that my organic farming allies evoke in > the aphorism Dirt First! is the antithesis of a Doubly Green > Revolution that puts human need before the need to protect the > last of the natural, functioning world. So I would not fault the > good intentions of Conway to try to find ways to feed the hungry > and ever increasing human population. But his way, through GE > crops, will be too little too late for billions, and will > probably do more harm than good by encouraging public acceptance > in the West of all GE crops for the good of humanity, our health, > and the economy. > > The "bottom line" is clearly defined by the Brown Revolution. It > advocates consumer demand for certified organic, nonprocessed > whole foods and beverages, and clothing and other consumables > that are Earth and people friendly, and life and community > sustaining. It says "no" to processed foods (that are based on GE > biomass crops) and does not accept meat, fish, eggs, and dairy > products as dietary staples. > > To put dirt or Earth before people is not misanthropic. Nor is > putting others before oneself idiotic. Altruism is enlightened > self-interest. We do face the Malthusian predicament of having > become a species that is an intelligent enough life form to > realize that it has become a planetary infestation in urgent need > of self control. The philanthropic solution is not to find new > ways to feed the next generation without first considering > applying genetic engineering biotechnology and other solutions to > population control and informed family planning. > > Conway's advocacy is as politically naive as my hope that family > planning will not be opposed by fanatical advocates of religious, > ethnic, tribal and caste supremacy, who speak of democracy to > conceal the hypocrisy of affluence and corruption amidst poverty > and oppression. > > The Earth first and animal rights movements have been falsely > linked with Nazism by Goodrick Clarke. Clarke's thesis is that > those who put animals and Earth first are of an elitist, > privileged, and misanthropic segment of society. Some are aligned > with neo-Nazis, the ethos of which he contends, is inspired by > Hinduism as it was during the Third Reich by Savitri Devi. On the > contrary, the folk lore, mythology, medicine and spirituality of > indigenous aboriginal peoples, like the Nilgiri Kurumbas in South > India and the Gagaju tribe in Northern Australia, give living > proof of the wisdom of putting others before self; women and > children before men; trees before people; animality before > humanity; and humanity before the insanity of ignorance, greed, > and abuses of power and privilege. > > Behind both religion and science/technology is power and > politics, and behind politics is vested interest money. Behind > the facades of religion and democracy, and the collusion of > greed, we are on the verge of a conflagration between conflicting > (yet converging) religious traditions Islamic, Hindu, Christian > and Hebrew, each manifesting fear and insecurity, bigotry and > increasing hatred and violence: race against race, caste and > class against caste and class; tribe and sect against tribe and > sect. These problems make the possibility of establishing > socially just and sustainable agriculture and land-use practices > in developing countries problematic and mean that genetically > engineered crops will not help alleviate world hunger if these > internal problems are not rectified. > > A major obstacle for developing countries to adopt agri-biotech > is the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights as it applies > to the patenting of plants and animals, that many such countries > oppose because it is both restrictive, costly and exploitive. > Aside from the fact that the life science multinationals have > done little to address the issue of world hunger by focusing on > commodity crops, like cotton, corn and soybean, they hold the > patents on transgenic techniques that advocates would like to see > made available for developing food-crops for the poor and hungry. > Gary Toenniessen, deputy director of agricultural science at the > Rockefeller Foundation, supports the development of herbicide > resistant crops so the parasitic weed called Striga could be > killed with Monsanto's Roundup in sub-Sahara Africa. > > Are Indians and people in other developing countries better off > now than before or during European colonialization? The post > colonial situation of most "developing" countries, India > included, is much worse than during colonial times for a > multiplicity of reasons, population increase being a major > problem. Elitism and corruption, injustice and extreme prejudice > are evident symptoms of increasing dysfunction and tension in > many of these countries that claim to be democratic, and yet are > under various forms of totalitarian control, be it political, > religious, military or economic, just like their Western > industrialized counterparts, who variously respond in patronizing > and guilt-moved ways to the poverty and hunger of underprivileged > and oppressed millions of men, women, and children in the third > and fourth worlds. They offer aid and development, and establish > satellite corporate marketing centers in the countries they come > to help. > > Even offering, as some insist for humanitarian reasons, our > surplus wheat and milk and chicken parts, and as Gordon Conway > would have it, provide these countries with genetically > engineered crops to better feed the hungry and landless masses, > 800 million of whom go to bed at night hungry. But there's no > money, for those who own the land, in raising crops to feed the > poor. > > We do not need GE crops to bring what's necessary about: land > reform, to feed the local people first in an ecologically sound > and economically sustainable way. India regularly exports $2 > billion worth of rice and wheat flour annually, and several > million dollars worth of poultry meat, eggs, dairy and beef. So > India does not need GE crops to feed its 360 million people who > are malnourished. Any honest realist would not accept Monsanto's > or Conway's claim that GE crops will help feed the hungry world. > For a realistic assessment of such corporate and Western > philanthropy, see Miguel A. Altieri. > > The injustices of the third world will be intensified if we step > back and say, okay, give them the GE crops that we want labeled > and the GE crops we would rather not eat ourselves or see in our > fields, contaminating our organic farms, orchards, and wild plant > relatives in wildlife preserves. It would help if we privileged > people in the West put others first and stopped raising animals > intensively on factory farms for meat, eggs and milk, that are > major factors in the etiology of breast, colon, prostate and lung > cancer, metabolic, endocrine and autoimmune diseases. Attention > deficit disorder, possibly autism, schizophrenia and lower IQs, > and increased violence, impotence, infertility and miscarriages > can be linked with the high animal fat and protein diets of rich > nations and the rich in developing nations. > > >From my own personal experience, I can attest to the endemic > problems of corruption, private vested interest and mismanagement > that undermine so many third world aid and development projects > from the West. GE seeds for a "Doubly Green Revolution" just > won't make it. > > Ask the indigenous and increasingly landless sustainable farmers > and pastoralists, fishermen and forest peoples. They would sooner > have their traditional, native seeds and healthful diet that they > have developed (and should have patent protection rights to) over > millennia. What agricultural biotechnology advocates are > promising them is not what is needed to alleviate world hunger. > What Conway advocates is not needed because it is socio > economically unsound, culturally invasive, and fosters dependence > rather than self-reliance. > > Klaus Leisinger, head of Novartis Foundation for Sustainable > Development (a leading life science multinational corporation) > attacks critics of ag.biotech on moral grounds, saying "To turn a > blind eye to 40,000 people starving to death every day is a moral > outrage," and that, "we have an ethical commitment not to lose > time" in implementing transgenic technology. Such emotional > blackmail to promote ag.biotech does not go unchallenged. Miguel > Altieri, professor of ecology at U.C. Berkeley contends, " The > major technical advances in transgenics don't have anything to do > with helping the developing world to produce more food. > > Regardless of increasing public opposition, India is one > developing country that is investing in transgenic crop research > and is seeking an equitable profit-sharing licensing agreement > with Monsanto. It would be tragic indeed if the Precautionary > Principle is ignored and developing countries adopt ag.biotech as > a technofix that, like the first Green Revolution, will result in > more harm than good. But desperation, greed and misguided > humanitarianism may hold sway over caution and alternative > solutions to world hunger and poverty. > > The technofix of irradiating meat to control food borne > pathogens, approved by the US government in December 1999, is a > clear example of how we seek a quick solution to a problem and > rather than correcting the causes, we treat the symptoms. This is > bad medicine and when it is applied to solving such major > concerns as food security, food safety and quality, the short > term benefits, as exemplified by the Green Revolution with its > wholesale use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, hybrid seeds > and antibiotic feed additives for livestock, will be far > outweighed by the eventual risks and costs. > > We cannot continue to put our faith in science and new > technologies, like ag.biotech without the predictive, > precautionary, prescriptive and prescient precepts of global > bioethics: A global bioethics motivated by Earthcare, Healthcare, > Peoplecare and Animalcare. We are quickly obliterating the last > of the wild, of the tangibly sacred in Nature, a process now > being accelerated by industrialism, global capitalism, and > agricultural biotechnology, as well as by overpopulation, poverty > and dire human need. The tokenism and patronage of giving > wildlife a few sanctuaries, national parks, and so-called > wilderness areas, and then harm these islands of biodiversity by > destroying and polluting continguous ecosystems need to be seen > as bad medicine too. > > We can't have healthy and viable wildlife preserves if their > ecosystems are being polluted, especially by agrichemicals, or > deprived of water used to irrigate cash crops. That pollen and > other biochemical and genetic breakdown products of new > genetically engineered crops may contaminate the life streams in > wildlife and biodiversity preserves, and also organic and > conventional crops, is pause for concern; and accountability and > liability for those who, enchanted by this new technology, > believe it can help feed the hungry world. > > If ag.biotechnology is unleashed in developing countries, it will > displace the last of indigenous seeds, crops, diets, sustainable > economies and peoples. The poor and ever rising population that > does not migrate to urban slums or refugee camps will stay in > rural areas, encroaching and otherwise decimating wildlife > sanctuaries. Like human and bovine TB ravaging wildlife in some > of East Africa's parks, along with the dioxins, pesticides, and > other poisons in the rain from both local sources and from remote > industrial regions of the world, the next wave of genetic > pollution by the pollen and "naked" recombinant DNA of transgenic > crops with new recombinant viral diseases affecting conventional > crops, wild plants, and various animal species that consume these > plants, must be prevented. We must put Earth first, without > delay. > > > ADDENDUM > > In a statement by the International Movement for Ecological > Agriculture held in Penang, Malaysia, the following comments were > made on the Green Revolution: > > The Failure of the Green Revolution > > Modern intensive agriculture has conspicuously failed to increase > food production and to meet global food and nutrition needs. The > claim that the Green Revolution has led to higher crop yields is > highly exaggerated and does not reflect a fair and complex > comparison with more ecologically sound systems: > > These claims are usually based on the measurement of yield as > defined per acre or hectare of land. However, if one takes into > account the hidden costs on input subsidies and nonrenewable > resources, and the costs of ecological damage (leading to lower > yields after some time) and furthermore, measure yield against > high fertilizer and water costs, then the Green Revolution > techniques are highly inefficient. In contrast, the economic > soundness is striking of traditional and ecologically better > varieties. > > Even more seriously, the Green Revolution measurement of output > is flawed because it only accounts for a single crop (e.g., rice) > and even then only a single component of that crop (e.g., grain) > whilst neglecting the uses of straw for fodder and fertilizer. > Thus, it neglects to take into account that there were many other > biological resources (e.g., other crops, other no-grain uses of > the measured crop and fish) within the same land in the > traditional system that were reduced or wiped out with the Green > Revolution. If output is measured in terms of total biomass, a > more realistic picture of the performance of the Green Revolution > will emerge. Although yields of food crops in total have > increased, less food is available to local populations. There are > several reasons for this: > - There has been an increase in a few cereals (a large volume of > ��which is fed to cattle in the North) at the expense of pulses > ��and other crops; > - The increased dependency of Third World farmers and countries > ��on intensive inputs has led to indebtedness and the breakdown > ��of self-sufficiency; Much of the increased food production is > ���exported, thus denying the food to local people; > - Many areas planted with "high-yielding varieties" (which are > ��actually "high-response varieties" to the applied inputs, > ��including chemical fertilizers and pesticides) are now > ��experiencing diminishing returns; > - Ecological degradation is leading to reduced yields and to the > ��abandonment of many areas of agricultural land; > - Losses during storage have increased markedly in many areas; > - The low prices paid for farm produce and the high prices > ��charged for food in the shops, combined with increased levels > ��of indebtedness, ensure that many farmers cannot afford to buy > ��sufficient food for their families. > > > POSTSCRIPT > > At a Congressional briefing on agricultural biotechnology on > January 24, 2000, I challenged briefing participant Gordon Conway > with two basic questions: > (1) How can agricultural biotechnology and genetically engineered > ����crops be justified as necessary to feed people in developing > ����countries when there is a wide variety of diverse, > ����traditional seed and crop varieties that could be used; and, > (2) What are the risks of genetic pollution by genetically > ����engineered crops in biodiversity hot spots. > > Conway avoided answering the latter question and contended that > all new agricultural technologies, including biotechnology, > should be used to help feed the poor and hungry. In his final > remarks, he intimated that the adoption of traditional crop > varieties was akin to going back to the Stone Age. When asked by > another briefing participant, organic agriculture advocate > Patrick Holden, Director of the UK Soil Association, if he felt > that genetically engineered foods should be subject to rigorous > safety testing, Conway refused to answer. > > Briefing participant Dr. Calestous Juma from Kenya, who currently > is a visiting scholar at the Kennedy School of Government, > Harvard University, was adamant in believing that genetically > engineered crops will alleviate world hunger. As a former > Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, > Juma expressed concern that the UN Biosafety Protocol was being > used by some countries to block access of developing countries to > biotechnology and that this Protocol should not confound food > security issues with environmental safety concerns. > > The enchantment of some representatives from developing countries > with Western technology, and with agricultural biotechnology in > particular, as a "technofix" to help feed their growing > populations, is understandable, if not an inevitable consequence > of their Western post-graduate education and academic > affiliations, which are closely linked with Western corporate and > political interests, as Sheldon Krimsky has documented. > > > -- > > |*********************************************| > |�������������������GENET���������������������| > |�European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering�| > | ������ | > | �� Hartmut MEYER (Mr) ����� | > | ��� Reinhaeuser Landstr. 51 ���� | > | �� D - 37083 Goettingen�������������| > |�����������������Germany ���������� ��� | > | � �����| > | phone: +49-551-7700027 �����������| > | fax: �+49-551-7701672 �����������| > | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]������������������� | > |*********************************************| -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
