Genetic engineering, corporations, food summit

[Patricia Dines <73652.1202@CompuServe.COM>]

Hi - 

Interesting conversation here, good to know the points of view.  The ag
companies make a tempting argument for their engineering (necessary to feed the
hungry), but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny (does being able to spray
more Roundup really dent world hunger? ), nor handles the huge risk to our
survival from tinkering with our global food supply with so little understanding
(let alone respect) for what makes the whole inter-related thing work.  I bet
the tale looks a lot different when they talk to the shareholders.  Given their
past actions, it's hard to see them as Mother Theresa, only out to save the
world.  Their history shows acting in their own self-interest/profits and
disdaining those who say they're harmed (ex. re: Risk Assessment allowing a
"few" people to be killed).  If they want to save the world, why not start by
not poisoning it and us...?

And I find their argument a little creepy too, the more I think about it.
Underneath, it seems to me that the ag corporations are claiming that if only
we'll let them own and tinker with nature, they'll make sure we're all fed - or
the trains run on time - or something like that...  As long as we buy nature
(and the toxins to "manage" it) from them. Isn't that a little different from
the spiritual image of receiving and honoring the overflowing divine bounty from
G-d/Spirit?  Doesn't it sound a bit like Icarus and hubris, to think we could be
g-ds?  Or a father figure government, where we trade our freedom and sovereignty
for the promise of being fed (including our right to nature's free seeds) - and
then when we're not fed, we have no power to protest.  Pretty creepy....

P. Dines

--- FORWARD--

From: Mark Graffis, INTERNET:ab758@virgin.usvi.net
Sender: o-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu
To: Patricia Dines, 73652,1202
Date: Sun, Nov 17, 1996, 9:44 AM
Subject: `Green Revolution' Debate at Food Summit

      Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press

   ROME (Nov 14, 1996 09:42 a.m. EST) -- Supporters of genetically
   altered crops often speak of a "new green revolution" in which world
   hunger is beaten back by science.

   Critics say it has a darker shade.

   The debate over how far and fast to go with bioengineering is shaping
   up as one of the key issues at the World Food Summit, which opened Wednesday.

   Scientists think bioengineering has the potential to pre-empt the
   Malthusian view that the world will come to an end because it is
   unable to produce enough food to feed an ever-expanding population.

   They contend that as long as resources are channeled into research and
   development, the world will be able to produce enough to feed the
   estimated 8.7 billion people that will inhabit the world by the year 2030.

   "We need to give the future generations as many options as we have had
   ourselves," said Ismail Serageldin, chairman of the Consultative Group
   on International Agricultural Research, or CGIAR. "We believe that
   agricultural research is at the center of the interface between
   environmental concerns, food security and production."

   Through biotechnology and genetic engineering, scientists are
   developing new crop varieties that yield more, resist pests and
   drought, and even thrive on poor soil.

   The research group argues that 80 percent of the additional wheat
   output in the developing world has come from genetically improved
   crops, while only 20 percent was the result of more land being planted.

   A biologically developed "super rice" can yield as much as 100 million
   more tons of rice per year than is currently grown in Asia where it is
   the staple diet, according to the CGIAR. New corn varieties that
   resist both drought and acidic soil could feed an additional 50
   million people per year, the group says.

   The United States, the world's leading food exporter, is putting its
   weight behind biotechnology and genetically engineered crops at the summit.

   "Without biotechnology, we will be forced to exploit highly erodible
   farm and forest land," said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman,
   who heads the American delegation. "If we don't use science as our
   friend, we will face hunger shortages 25 years from now that are far
   worse than anything we face today."

   The United States has pledged to strengthen support for research into
   biotechnology and is one of the strongest backers of the CGIAR.
   European countries, on the other hand, are resisting imports of
   genetically engineered produce such as corn and soybeans.

   The Spain-based Genetic Resources Action International, or GRAIN,
   rejects the premise that biotechnology is a panacea against world hunger.

   "Tinkering with crops just hasn't worked," GRAIN spokeswoman Janet
   Bell told The Associated Press. "It has just created much greater
   problems with pests and disease."

   Opponents also argue that scientific improvement in yields do little
   to help malnutrition in the poorer countries, and increase dependence
   of poorer countries on the wealthier North.

   Activists opposed to bioengineering hurled soybeans at U.S. delegates
   at the beginning of a media briefing Wednesday.
===
From: Mark Graffis, INTERNET:ab758@virgin.usvi.net
Sender: o-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu
To: Patricia Dines, 73652,1202
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 1996, 10:22 PM
Subject: Gene-Modified Food No Answer to Hunger

      Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service

   ROME (Nov 14, 1996 12:01 p.m. EST) - The environmental group
   Greenpeace said on Thursday that genetic engineering was no answer to
   world food problems and urged a moratorium on the sale of genetically
   modified products.

   The group, which has led protests in Europe over the past week against
   genetically manipulated U.S. soybeans, said at a news conference to
   coincide with the U.N.-sponsored World Food Summit in Rome that too
   many unknown dangers surrounded the technique.

   "We are here to tell the summit not to be fooled by the promises from
   biotechnology companies that they can solve the world food crisis,"
   Greenpeace spokesman Simon Reddy said.

   "A lot of these companies are more interested in controlling the
   world's food for their own profits," he said.

   He presented a report by Greepeace which he said showed that the use
   of genetically altered plants in agriculture may entail toxic and
   allergic risks leading to large-scale elimination of indigenous
   agricultural and natural species.

   "We ask for an immediate moratorium on the further releases and
   marketing of transgenic products at least until there is a legally
   binding international bio-safety protocol," he said.

   Three women stripped naked in front of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan
   Glickman during his news conference at the food summit on Wednesday to
   protest against genetic manipulation of soybeans. They said they were
   not members of any group.

   Protesters trying to keep the modified beans out of Europe this week
   chained themselves to gates in Germany, occupied the office of the
   Austrian health minister and climbed onto the roof of food giant
   Nestle's headquarters.

   Environmentalists led by the Greenpeace group say they worry that U.S.
   chemicals group Monsanto Co's Round Up Ready soybean, modified to
   resist the company's Round Up herbicide, could be a threat to health.
   Processors and governments reject that.

   Dozens of genetically modified products are on the market already,
   many launched with a minimum of protest. One is Calgene"s Flavr-Savr
   tomato, genetically changed to slow the action of an enzyme that
   starts the rotting process.

   The concern in Europe is that the one to two percent of the U.S.
   soybean crop that is made up of modified beans is mixed in with normal
   ones. Protesters want them separated and consumers told on labels what
   they are buying.

   "Monsanto's soybean is resistant to pesticides produced by Monsanto
   itself. The use of this bean will at least duplicate the use of
   pesticide and will just make worse what is already a bad situation,"
   Reddy said.

   The food summit has heard calls from several speakers since it opened
   on Wednesday for a new scientific "green revolution" to boost food
   production.

   Greenpeace said the solution to food insecurity lay in sustainable
   development of a variety of local crops.

   "Far from providing cheaper food for all, agricultural biotechnology
   will further undermine the livelihood of small organic farmers," Reddy said.

   FAO research director Stein Bie told a news briefing at the summit
   that "organic methods offer a very useful supplement but they are no
   substitute to inorganic methods...that are so important to feeding the
   poor at this moment."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED BY:  Patricia Dines
73652.1202@compuserve.com

Specializing in educating and empowering citizen action on toxics and their
alternatives and how we might work together to create a healthy global
ecosystem, with healthy people, agriculture, etc.  I do this work through
writing articles, classes, booklets, and other materials and through teaching
and giving talks.

Please contact me for more information on my services, how it might support your
goals, to make a financial contribution so that I can continue my work (often
made for free), or to alert me to potential clients who might be supported by my
services.

Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------