[p2p-research] GM food -> buggy reasoning.

[Hervé Le Crosnier]

	Good morning,

	I'm sorry, but I can't follow the way suggested by Pamela
	Ronald.

	First of all, we have to understand what really genetic food is.
	the way seed are industrially produced from the 30's of the
	preceeding century is two fold:
	- one to have the only yield in focus : no matter the taste,
	  nutrition quality, social quality of plants... If so, nature
	  and farmers, from milleniums are doing their best to
	  get an equilibrium between yield and nature preservation
	  (in all senses : between plants and animals, and between
	  men and women living on rural area, with their social
	  environment).
	- the other is hold up on reproduction. From hybrids to GMO,
	  plants are everyday considered as "property" of the one
	  who selected it. No matter if centuries or milleniums
	  of peasants have pre-selected the vast majority of
	  agricultural plants. This means a yearly toll for peasants
	  (and their consequences, as massives suicides of indian
	  farmers), and erosion of biodiversity (the "catalog" of
	  authorised alimentary plants). With the call to intrants
	  to replace nature biodiversity in each one field... and
	  many other consequences, especially on the role of women
	  in rural communities who for centuries uses this diversity
	  for family food and healing... i have no enough place
	  to write).

	Next we have to look at the way ahead for the biotech. First
	they produce buggy GMO, especially those who are
	pest-resistants (more buggy again because they tend to
	use more and more pest in fields).

	Then they say "we need to stop propagation of these buggy
	plants". So it's GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies)
	the most known technic be the "Terminator", thanks to "etc
	group" for naming this technology with a popular and
	understandable name. Every year at the CBD, there's tentative to
	uphold the moratorium on theses technologies...

	In laboratories now is the "biocontainment" : plant are
	genetically engineered to become dual systems : they need
	an adjuvant to realize their maturity, and then can
	change their own genetic trace to be as they were not GMO.
	European Union is pushing studies that way in the
	"transcontainer project".

	This technologies put the responsability into the hands of the
	farmer, who must add it's chemically produced adjuvant at the
	very good time if they want their plants to be commercialisable.
	No matter what nature and climate variations is.

	Then will come synthetic biology. Nature will be an industrial
	process, and not only a partner in nourrishing and clothing
	people. This will be the upstart of "sugar capitalism".

	Any scientist approach which don't take in count the whole story
	is finally an agreement with the hold-up against nature and
	rural communities by a very few big concentrated monopolies,
	acting all along the agricultural chain. And emerging from
	the North biotech giants, these monopolies, with all their
	action on the intellectual property instances (WTO, WHO,
	WIPO,...), are a jiu-jitsu for introduce a new world domination,
	we can call bio-imperialism.

	There is another very important problem with the buggy reasoning
	of Pamela Ronald : it's the acceptation of the inacceptable.
	If politics, and collective decisions can't help changing the
	way we produce food, so we have to accomodate.

	This buggy reasoning is also the one of those who think
	that politics and collective decisions are not able to deal
	with the climate change, and reorient our world way of living..
	so they will get to a B plan : geo-engineer the whole earth.
	Not only this is crazy world wide buggy experience, as the
	LOHAFEX shows on the first part of 2009, but it's also a
	one that depossess people of their own power on their own
	individual and collective living. The exact contrary of the
	organic farming experience, which is a fruit of the new
	Communalism of the 70's.

	Sorry to desagree so radically with this approach, i think
	it will led the movement in such a wrong direction, as for
	the future of farming (always remember this is more than
	half of the world population) and the one of every other
	who have to eat every day, and accomodate global changes.

Hervé Le Crosnier


Michel Bauwens a écrit :
> I am very distrustful of genetic foods, not because it's inherently
> evil, but because I do not trust for-profit companies to have our best
> interest at heart, and in a Monsanto-dominated world, it will be used to
> destroy not just the farmers, but our health.
> 
> But what if GM foods can be combined with organic agriculture, and
> divorced from dangerous private interests, does it become acceptable then?
> 
> Here is a position on the issue:
> 
> (the whole article, by Pamela Ronald , is at
> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic/)
> 
> "To meet the appetites of the world's population without drastically
> hurting the environment requires a visionary new approach: combining
> genetic engineering and organic farming.
> 
> This idea is anathema to many people, especially the advocates who have
> helped build organic farming into a major industry in richer countries.
> As reflected by statements on their websites, it is clear that most
> organic farming trade organizations are deeply, viscerally opposed to
> genetically engineered crops and seeds. Virtually all endorse the
> National Organic Standards Board's recommendation that genetic
> engineering be prohibited in organic production.
> 
> But ultimately, this resistance hurts farmers, consumers, and the
> planet. Without the use of genetically engineered seed, the beneficial
> effects of organic farming - a thoughtful, ecologically minded approach
> to growing food - will likely remain small.
> 
> Despite tremendous growth in the last 15 years, organic farms still
> produce just a tiny fraction of our food; they account for less than 3
> percent of all US agriculture and even less worldwide. In contrast, in
> the same period, the use of genetically engineered crops has increased
> to the point where they represent 50 to 90 percent of the acreage where
> they are available."
> 
> -- 
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> 
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
> 
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
> 
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org