GMW: For I Was Hungry and You Deceived Me

[Guest guest]

GMW: For I Was Hungry and You Deceived Me

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 7 Jun 2006 22:29:37 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

1.For I Was Hungry and You Deceived Me - GM Watch

2.For I Was Hungry and You Fed Me:

Ag-biotech and Hunger - Piero Morandini

---

1.For I Was Hungry and You Deceived Me:

Ag-biotech's bag of lies

 

Piero Morandini is a biotechnologist and Roman Catholic who has

repeatedly used his religion as a springboard for lobbying for GM crops.

 

Typical of his antics is his involvement in CS Prakash's AgBioWorld

attacks on the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection and the

Jesuit-run

Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre in Zambia. Morandini co-authored a

report - with amongst others Greg Conko of the Monsanto-backed lobby

group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute - that accused the Jesuits of

'Tricks not Truths' and 'Junk Science'.

http://www.agbioworld.org/pdf/To_Die_or_not_to_Die.pdf

 

But as the article below shows, it is actually Morandini who engages in

tricks not truths, implying GM can magic away the problems facing poor

farmers.

 

Morandini writes:

 

" A striking bonus about ag-biotech is that the technology is built 'in

the seed.' To reap the benefits of the technology, one needs nothing

more, in most cases, than the engineered seed. Obviously, fertilizers or

hybrid seeds can further improve yields, but such things are not

essential for the technology to work (with the exception of herbicide

tolerant crops, where an additional input, the herbicide, is needed). "

 

Note carefully the exception bracketed away at the end of that

paragraph almost as it it were an afterthought. 80 per cent of the GM

crops

planted globally possess some form of herbicide tolerance. That makes for

one hell of an exception!

 

In fact, all the GM crops that are actually on the market almost

invariably *require* additional - and often expensive - inputs. Take Bt

cotton, for instance. It resists certain pests but not others which

require

spraying. Poor cotton farmers who've been taken in by the lie that

Morandini promotes - " the technology's in the seed " - can end up losing

their crops to secondary pests despite having paid vastly more for

expensive GM seeds. The result can mean ruin. Indeed, some of these

secondary

pests may even be exacerbated by Bt crops and the way they alter insect

communities.

 

Bt crops also require special management practices - some of which are

particularly challenging for poor farmers. Take the need to plant

refuges to slow down pest resistance with Bt crops. How practical is that

for farmers with very small plots of land?

 

Ag-biotech's bag of lies

 

But none of this complexity exists in the fairytale world conjured up

in Morandini's article. He even assures his readers that, " Ag-biotech

will allow greater food availability where it is most needed with limited

or no additional input than a bag of seeds. "

 

Ironically, the photos accompanying Morandini's article come from the

World Council of Churches. Earlier this year the WCC - an international

fellowship of Christian churches from more than 120 countries and from

virtually all Christian traditions - came out strongly against GM.

 

In their statement the WCC challenged Christians involved in " promoting

genetic engineering to reflect upon the implications of their work in

the light of the Gospel's concern for truth and justice. "

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6280

---

2.For I Was Hungry and You Fed Me: Ag-biotech and Hunger

Piero Morandini

Religion & Liberty, Spring 2006, Volume 16, Number 2

http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=550

 

To well-fed (sometimes overfed) people in Western countries, it is

certainly odd to think of food as a life-saving medicine. But for those

suffering from chronic hunger and malnutrition, the idea is a reality. It

is repeated over and over again that the amount of food produced in the

world is enough to feed all the hungry people in the world [1]; hence,

the solution to hunger is not to increase production but to improve

distribution of what is already being produced. As sensible this

statement

might seem, it is of no help to the hungry.

 

Large amounts of food are indeed produced in the West, but this is

mainly used to feed animals that eventually become food themselves.

Granted, the conversion is quite inefficient, requiring ten kilos of feed

(mostly maize and soy) to produce one kilo of meat. In principle, it

might

make sense to stop feeding the animals and use the maize and soy to

feed the hungry. But for such a thing to happen, it would first be

necessary to convince all meat-eaters to reduce their food consumption.

Secondly, all the maize and soy producers would have to donate their

product

- since they are not making a profit—and ship it where it is needed.

And thirdly, the handlers would have to effectively deliver the food to

the needy - usually a daunting task - and to do so without destroying

the local agriculture and trade market. In essence, those who advocate

redistribution rather than better production methods are not interested

in feeding the hungry in a sustainable fashion; they are actually

interested in institutionalizing perpetual alms for the hungry.

 

For those with the gift of plenty, there are, of course, situations

where alms are not only good but morally imperative. Alms, however,

cannot

be the rule. Rather, it is important that every country tries to

produce enough food or other goods to trade for food. We do no one a

favor if

we make them dependent on us for their survival.

 

So to suggest that the redistribution of existent food is the solution

to the tragedy of hunger is to shift the demand of a solution to

others, thereby implying someone else is at fault for 850 million hungry

people. But unfortunately these " others " are not going to change their

habits to satisfy the needs of the poor. Western consumers are

probably not

going to eat less meat, nor are farmers going to donate their harvest,

nor are traders going to pay for the shipping, nor are handlers going

to redistribute it carefully enough. If all these prerequisites could be

achieved simultaneously, the strategy could be effective - the hungry

could be fed. I could even commend it and start, as a consumer, to

pursue it. But nevertheless, I am quite skeptical about the chances of

success. Many lives are at stake here - those of children in

particular - so

it is wise to look for strategies that enable the poor and hungry to

meet their own needs by their own efforts. Agricultural biotechnology can

help to achieve this by making crop production more efficient.

 

One way ag-biotechnology can help to feed the hungry is by addressing

the problem of pests. Around 30 percent of harvested food is lost to

pests: viruses, bacteria, fungi, insects, and other animals destroy it

before it reaches the mouths of the hungry. Any effort to avoid these

losses automatically makes more food available, without the need of

increasing production. This can be achieved by developing crop plants

that

produce toxins specific to major pests but essentially non-toxic to

humans. For instance, so-called Bt maize has one gene, normally

present in a

bacterium called Bacillus thuringensis (Bt), which drives the

production of protein effective against some insect pests (technically

speaking

it is said that the gene is " expressed " ). The protein is, however, much

less toxic than table salt to animals—and remember that we ingest

several grams of table salt per day. A similar approach is the

development

of transgenic crops producing tiny amounts of a protein, avidin,

otherwise absent in crops. Avidin binds biotin, a vitamin, with great

strength. Humans and animals are used to ingesting avidin because it is

normally present in eggs. Avidin is harmless to humans and animals, being

destroyed in the gut. Avidin is toxic to some insects, however, because

they are not able to destroy avidin, preventing the insect from

getting an

adequate supply of biotin.

 

Production can also be increased by creating virus resistant plants

(e.g. papaya). These are made by inserting a viral gene that gives

rise to

a protein tampering with normal virus replication or propagation: In

effect the plant is vaccinated against the virus. The gene and the

protein in question are normally present at a billion copies in infected

plants, and humans have eaten these infected plants without harm for

thousands of years. It is silly to worry about the minuscule quantity of

viral DNA and protein in transgenic plants, while continuing to

swallow the

same DNA and protein in far larger amounts from " natural " infected

plants.

 

A promising strategy is the breeding of plant varieties resistant to

biotic (e.g. bacterial and fungal pathogens) as well as abiotic stresses

(e.g.: heat, frost, drought). As we better understand how pathogens

elude cell surveillance systems or how some plants resist to frost, we

should be more able to breed resistant varieties.

 

Ag-biotechnology can help to address another problem: weeds. Weeds are

nice for students of biodiversity, but are more than a nuisance to

farmers: they are a yield drag. Because weeds compete for nutrients,

water,

and sunlight, allowing too many weeds means loosing part of the harvest

(up to 80 percent when left growing uncontrolled). Therefore, weeds

must be controlled, and the development of herbicide-tolerant crops can

help farmers to do the job.

 

In addition to addressing problems of quantity-loss of crops to pests

or weeds-plant biotechnology can also help tackle the problem of

quality. For example, many people in the world have poor diets, diets

lacking

the essential vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates, or fats necessary for

a healthy life. Many people, especially children in Asia for instance,

do not receive enough vitamin A and many women do not get enough iron.

Therefore, producing food crops where the quantity of these components

are increased by metabolic engineering is a major field of research:

Rice with more vitamin A or iron has been developed and is a great hope

for malnourished people whose food staple is rice.

 

A striking bonus about ag-biotech is that the technology is built " in

the seed. " To reap the benefits of the technology, one needs nothing

more, in most cases, than the engineered seed. Obviously, fertilizers or

hybrid seeds can further improve yields, but such things are not

essential for the technology to work (with the exception of herbicide

tolerant

crops, where an additional input, the herbicide, is needed).

 

The benefits of ag-biotechnology include more than just more and better

crops. A farmer's agricultural practices are also affected

advantageously and without requiring special training or education.

Simplified

practices—that is, more efficient crops—mean reduced labor requirements.

Increases in yields or reductions in costs (e.g. less pesticides) mean

higher profits. So the poor farmer may (and actually does) gain at least

as much as a wealthy farmer from the technology.

 

Ag-biotech will allow greater food availability where it is most needed

with limited or no additional input than a bag of seeds. By increasing

crop production efficiency and quality, ag-biotech has a great

potential for relieving poor people and for fighting malnutrition. But

science

is not a magic bullet and will not do these things automatically. Many

changes are still required in the social structure and education system

of poor nations, as well as in the hearts of people living in areas of

perennial conflict. Science will not give human life meaning nor will

it extinguish the longing of the human heart for its fulfillment: " Our

hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O Lord, " said St.

Augustine. And we will not use the potential of science automatically

for the

good, because science multiplies the power of human will: it can reduce

(or increase) human suffering. Simple fertilizers can boost crop

production or they can be turned into explosives. The decision to turn

from

farming to terrorism lies, first of all, with the farmer. And the science

of agricultural biotechnology can help to reduce human suffering, if we

so will to use it.

 

[1] http://www.ciir.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=91122

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------