[Ngo-sanrm] GMOs -- Genetically Engineered Disappointments

Fri May 19 00:01:37 ICT 2017

An IPS item picked up by Ives Smith's "Naked Capitalism" site.

I hope my Vietnamese friends will pass this along to those officials in the
Ministry of Agriculture and other government offices who still seem to be
intent on promoting Monsanto's GMO seeds and crops in Viet Nam. Penetration
of GMOs in Viet Nam is limited enough that it is quite possible that Viet
Nam can hold onto its traditional and proven sustainable agricultural
practices.  It's not too late for Viet Nam to avoid GMOs and the failed
promise of this technological fix that was designed for corporate profits
and not nutrition or food security.

I will try to get a good Vietnamese translation of this article over the
weekend.  In the meantime if anyone wishes to volunteer to translate, I
would appreciate receiving a copy of the Vietnamese version.

CS

<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/05/genetically-engineered-disappointments.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29>

*Naked Capitalism
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/05/genetically-engineered-disappointments.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29>IPS
- Inter Press Service
<http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/05/genetically-engineered-disappointments/>*
Genetically Engineered Disappointments
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram <http://www.ipsnews.net/author/jomo-kwame-sundaram/>
 and Tan Zhai Gen <http://www.ipsnews.net/author/tan-zhai-gen/>Jomo Kwame
Sundaram is a former economics professor who served as a senior UN official
during 2005-2015. Tan Zhai Gen is an University of Oxford biochemistry
graduate currently involved in research. Both are Malaysians.
[image: While US agribusiness has long claimed that GMOs will “save the
world”, there has been little compelling evidence to this effect after two
decades. Credit: IPS]

While US agribusiness has long claimed that GMOs will “save the world”,
there has been little compelling evidence to this effect after two decades.
Credit: IPS

KUALA LUMPUR , May 16 2017 (IPS) - Advocates of genetically engineered (GE)
crops have long claimed that genetic engineering is necessary to raise crop
yields and reduce human exposure to agrochemicals. Genetic engineering
promised two major improvements: improving yields affordably to feed the
world, and making crops resistant to pests to reduce the use of commercial
chemical herbicides and insecticides.

Genetic modification of crops through natural evolution or artificial
crossbreeding has been happening for millennia, giving rise to more
productive or resilient crop species. Thus, the term ‘genetic engineering’
more accurately refers to the artificial introduction of genetic material
to produce new GE varieties.

*Trans-Atlantic divide *
A report by the United States National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and
Medicine <https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/> – picked up by the *New York
Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?_r=0>*
–
found that US GE crop yield gains have slowed over the years, leaving no
significant advantage in yield gains compared to non-GE plant varieties.
Over two decades ago, Western Europe largely rejected GE crops while North
America – the United States and then Canada – embraced them. More than
twenty years later, US crop yield gains are not significantly higher than
in Western Europe.

Since the adoption of GE crops, US use of herbicides has increased. In the
US, decreasing use of some herbicides has involved large increases in the
use of glyphosate, a key ingredient in herbicides used for GE crop
cultivation. This is in contrast to France, which bans GE crop cultivation,
where overall use of herbicides has been reduced due to EU efforts.

Glyphosate-resistant GE crops survive herbicide spraying while killing
non-resistant weeds. However, rising weed resistance to glyphosate has led
to the application of larger doses. For example, although land planted with
GE soybeans has grown by less than a third over the last two decades,
herbicide use has doubled. Herbicide use for maize production was declining
before the introduction of GE crops, but has increased since 2002.

Glyphosate was assessed as carcinogenic
<http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf> by
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) under the World
Health Organization. Some glyphosate-based herbicides also contain other
more toxic herbicides – such as 2,4-D, a key ingredient in Agent Orange,
the infamous Vietnam War defoliant – to increase their efficacy against
resistant weeds.

*Diversity declining*
GE crops, typically with traits which tend to result in monoculture, have
been promoted as more productive than non-GE crops. As farmers adopt GE
crop varieties, others varieties are abandoned, and access to such seeds
are increasingly in the hands of giant transnational seed companies rather
than government facilities.

But when farmers lose confidence in GE crops or wish to turn to non-GE
varieties for other reasons, they are no longer able to simply revert to
their old non-GE varieties or to crossbreed them. Instead, they now need to
buy seeds from these very same monopolistic transnational seed companies.

Similarly, the impact on ecological diversity, important for maintaining
fragile ecosystems, cannot be underestimated. Biodiversity reduction
fundamentally transforms ecosystems. Rich, diverse traditional farmer
knowledge – of the use of plants and other natural resources to maintain
soil and plant health, and to conserve water and other natural resources –
is also being ignored in favour of ‘hi-tech’, genetically-engineered,
agro-chemical and other ‘industrial’ solutions, which invariably engender
new problems. For example, pesticides are intended to be toxic only to
pests, but not to others, but most are carcinogenic or otherwise dangerous
to human health.

While GE crops offer some benefits, unclear productivity advantages and
rising pest resistance are reducing the edge it once claimed over
conventionally developed crops. GE crops seem to be harmless, but there is
still much uncertainty over their longer-term effects, including increased
pesticide resistance and reduced diversity. The scientific ethic advising
precaution in the face of uncertainty seems to have been abandoned in
favour of profitable expediency, ostensibly to increase productivity and
reduce agro-chemical reliance, neither of which have been achieved.

*Corporate power growing*
As many of the same corporations or conglomerates sell both GE seeds as
well as the agro-chemicals needed to increase yields, the potential for
other types of innovation is inevitably diminished. Recent mergers and
acquisitions have further consolidated oligopolies selling both seeds and
agrochemicals, exemplified by the acquisition bid for Monsanto by Bayer
<http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/14/bayer-and-monsanto-agree-to-merge.html>.
Not surprisingly then, companies have less incentive to develop new traits,
or to invest heavily in tackling other problems when greater pest
resistance increases sales of their pesticides and overall profits.

All this is often justified in terms of the urgent need to feed the
hundreds of millions of hungry people in the world. However, although there
already is enough food being produced to feed everyone in the world, the
real problem is one of access, as most of the hungry do not have the means
to buy or produce the food they need.

Therefore, while US agribusiness has long claimed that GMOs will “save the
world”, there has been little compelling evidence to this effect after two
decades. Proponents select evidence to support their exaggerated claims
that GE varieties meet many needs in different parts of the world, although
their actual track records are much more modest and chequered.

Much of the resistance against GE crops is due to the interests and methods
of the agribusiness transnationals dominating food production, both
directly and indirectly through their control and promotion of seeds,
agrochemicals, etc.

Essays and articles on a range of topics are shared with a select group of
friends and contacts, not because I necessarily agree with the observations
and opinions.  *If you do not wish to receive such items, let me know and I
will take you off this list.*

Rất nhiều bài báo và bài luận về nhiều chủ đề khác nhau được chia sẻ cho
nhóm bạn và những người mà tôi biết, không chỉ bởi tôi hoàn toàn đồng ý với
những quan điểm, nhận định trong những bài viết đó. *Nếu bạn không muốn
nhận được những bài viết trên, hãy cho tôi biết, tôi sẽ xóa địa chỉ mail
của bạn khỏi nhóm người nhận.*

*CHUCK SEARCY Hà Nội, Việt Nam Cell VN  +8 490 342 0769*

*Cell US  +1 404 740 0653 Email      chuckusvn at gmail.com
<chuckusvn at gmail.com>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ngocentre.org.vn/pipermail/ngo-sanrm/attachments/20170519/ecc95a5e/attachment.html 