|
2003 Expo on Ag Science
Ministers of agriculture, health and environment from over 180 nations
convened in Sacramento, California last week for an Expo
on Agricultural Science and Technology. For three days, participants discussed the role
of science and technology in reducing hunger and poverty in the developing
world.
While a range of technologies was discussed, there was a strong emphasis
on promoting biotechnology, a science that has largely failed in our
own country. Many view the meeting as an instrument of large agribusiness
corporations to coerce developing countries to accept genetically engineered
(GE) crops. Some biotech companies, hand-in-hand with our own government
reps, are making the argument that GE crops have the ability to solve
world hunger. Since hunger is already prevalent in countries that have
food surpluses, we think that this is a false argument, a myth.
"You can break down these myths (about GE crops) into three basic
components: Greenwashing, poorwashing, and hopedashing," says Anuradha
Mittal of Food First. "Greenwashing suggests that biotech will
create a world free of pesticides; poorwashing would have us believe
that we must accept genetically engineered crops if we are to feed the
poor in the Third World; and hopedashing claims there are no alternatives.
Silvia Ribeiro an author of a new report titled "Voices from the
South: the Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered
Crops" articulates the essence of this view. ''GE crops are designed
to take control of production of food away from local communities, by
creating greater dependence on huge agribusiness corporations for seed
and pesticides." Creating such dependency puts people at greater
risk of hunger, not less.
The root causes of hunger have to be addressed if policy makers want
to solve the problem of hunger effectively. Decisions about our food
supply must be made in ways that serve the public good – not just
a few large corporations, their CEOs, and the political candidates that
they support. Markets for small producers throughout the world
must be more accessible, creating healthier competition, instead of
control at all levels by large companies with enormous political influence.
Removing control from an outside force while providing incentives for
local small business can create more stability in a local community—through
the ability to react quickly and efficiently to local changes and needs
and the buffers provided by a localized and diverse market.
Thanks to Food First - Institute for Food and Development Policy for
much of this information on biotech and "Voices from the South." |
