![[yinyang]](../images/yinyan12.gif){kind=small}
news 2000
previous | next | ecoNews2000 list | ecoglobe front page | site index & keywords
|
My name is Lorna Salzman and I reside in Brooklyn, NY, USA. I am an
environmental activist,writer and lecturer, formerly on staff of Friends of
the Earth, Food & Water Inc., National Audubon Society and, most recently,
a natural resources specialist with the NYC Dept. of Environmental
Protection.
My earlier remarks were intended to be posted to the first discussion group
on agricultural policy because that is the first forum discussion and I
felt that it was important that the underlying background document for that
forum be addressed immediately. However, I also intended it for general
posting to all forum participants.
As my remarks indicated, there are numerous terms, phrases and inferences
in this discussion document which, if accepted as the basis for further
discussion, will inevitably skew the forum in certain directions and
preclude taking the discussion in other directions that have equal
relevance. The entire discussion document assumes, implies and infers that
biotechnology is a given, that it will be applied, that its "benefits" are
certain and that it constitutes "progress" in achieving certain human
objectives.
These assumptions thus elevate the status of biotechnology to a higher
level that prevents sceptics or dissidents from raising lower-level issues.
It is precisely this fact that disturbs many of us, who, not being involved
scientists or researchers or corporate promoters, have yet to recognize the
necessity of this technology at all, especially in agriculture. Our
position is simply: prove that biotechnology is necessary and that there
are no alternatives. This skipping up to a higher level neatly skirts the
issue of whether there are alternatives to the technology that can achieve
the same benefits which proponents claim, but with fewer risks, costs, and
with more socially just sustainable means. To avoid discussion of social
impact is to avoid what should be at the HEART of the discussion.
As an activist for many years opposing nuclear energy, I raised many of
these same concerns in that debate. The fulcrum of the debate, or at least
what we tried to make the fulcrum - was this: if nuclear power has so many
demonstrated risks and uncertainties, and if we can can provide the
necessary energy in other less risky ways, why do we need nuclear reactors
at all? In other words, if there are alternatives with less risk, there is
no reason to pursue nuclear power at all. By changing the debate away from
the absolute or relative risks of nuclear power vs. coal or oil, and moving
it towards an examination of the broader issue of energy efficiency and
conservation, nuclear opponents were able to persuade the US (assisted by
other events of course) to abandon nuclear power development.
With agriculture, we face a similar debate regardng GE technology. We know,
for example, that there is a global crisis in agricultural policy,
particularly within the so-called advanced agribusiness-controlled
societies like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. This policy is comprised of
various facets regarding health (synthetic pesticides), ecology ( pesticide
resistance), soil fertility, energy consumption, economic monopoly, mass
marketing, disincentives to family and organic farmers, foreign trade, etc.
What this debate has shown is that the objectives of agribusiness are not
only at odds with those of sustainable ecological family farms (or even
small farms that are not organic) but with the stated goals of corporate
agricultural interests themselves: feeding the poor of the world. Note that
they do not say their objective is to provide the poor with the means
(technical, financial, social, ecological) of becoming self-sufficient. The
reason for this is simple: they have no interest in furthering such local
self-sufficiency because it means less profits for agribusiness and a loss
of control over world food markets. A discussion cannot and should not
proceed on the a priori assumption that GE technologhy CAN feed the poor of
the world. This lack of proof is precisely what needs to be addressed in
this forum!
Thus any discussion of biotechnology's supposed benefits that lies OUTSIDE
the corporate definitions completely avoids discussion of not only what the
ultimate objectives should be, or of whether or not such objectives can be
achieved at all via GE, but of the qualitative normative differences
between the corporate definitions and objectives and those of small family
farms and the third world.
To resolve this within the agricultural forum, the discussion document
should be re-worded, possibly re-written from scratch, so as to present the
two differing views of the problem. The problem could be re-stated in the
form of a question:
Can biotechnology insure a global food supply that is ecologically sound,
environmentally sustainable, presents fewest risks to public health,
restores and protects soils and ecosystems, does not inject uncertainties
about purity into food markets, furthers economic equity, promotes
community self-sufficiency and healthy local economies, and requires the
least dependence on outside financial resources and management?
A corollary question should be added: Are there non-GE technologies that
can achieve these objectives more quickly, with lower costs, fewer problems
or impediments? If so, what kinds of changes are needed in present
technologies, policies, programs and institutions to achieve these
objectives?
I am sure others could re-phrase this or expand on it but that is the
general idea.
If the FAO and others on the forum are willing to re-define the problem and
questions in this vein, then I think we could end up with an extremely
valuable concordance.
If, on the other hand, the forum is content with the present discussion
document, I think many of us will be wasting our time.
Lorna Salzman
[Source: From List: Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org)
Date Posted: 03/23/2000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:42:48 -0600
Posted by: lsalzman@aba.org]
Feedback to: <welcome@ecoglobe.org.nz>
|
People make
|
24 March
ecoglobe
news 2000
link to this item http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/news2000/news2000.htm#faof2430">