DOCSLIB.ORG

The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops Voices from The Third theWorld Debunks South Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops Edited by Ellen Hickey and Anuradha Mittal A joint project of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and Pesticide Action Network North America May 2003 VoicesThe Third World from Debunks the Corporate South Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops Edited by Ellen Hickey and Anuradha Mittal A joint project of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and Pesticide Action Network North America June 2003 Acknowledgements We are grateful to the authors who gave us permission to use their articles. We would also like to thank the many individuals who contributed their time and expertise. They include Jessica Hamburger and Marcia Ishii-Eiteman (Pesticide Action Network North America) and Nick Parker, Raj Patel and Peter Rosset (Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy). This publication is part of a joint project of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and Pesticide Action Network North America, and was supported in part by grants to one or both of the organizations from the Columbia Foundation, Firedoll Foundation, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, and the Starfire Foundation. The authors bear full responsibility for any errors. Recommendations and views expressed are those of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, Pesticide Action Network North America, and the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the funders. The report was formatted by Brenda J. Willoughby and proofread by Jakob von Moltke (Pesticide Action Network North America). Note In this report several different phrases and acronyms are used for genetic engineer- ing and genetically engineered crops. These include GE (genetically engineered), GM (genetically modified) and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Cover photo: FAO/G. Bizzari Printed on recycled paper. Cover printed on 100% post-consumer, chlorine-free, non-deinked recycled paper. Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Myth #1: Genetically Engineered Crops Are Necessary to Feed the Third World Let Nature’s Harvest Continue : African Delegates Reject Monsanto’s “Harvest” ........................................ 5 GMOs: The Wrong Answer to the Wrong Problem Interview with Rafael Mariano, Head of the Peasant Movement of the Philippines .................................... 6 The Fallacy of Genetic Engineering and Small Farmers in Africa by Timothy Byakola, Pesticide Action Network–Eastern Africa, Uganda .................................................... 7 Kenya, Monsanto and the Sweet Potato Project .......................................................................................... 9 The New Generation of Genetically Engineered Crops: Will They Feed the South? by Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, Mexico ..................................................................................................... 13 Industrialized Agriculture and Biotechnology: Threats to Sustainable Agriculture by Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network, Malaysia ................................................................................ 14 Genetically Engineered Crops Threaten Food Security in Zambia by Bernadette Lubozhya, Zambia ............................................................................................................. 17 Zambia: Traditional Foods in Abundance to Feed Three Million Starving People by Zarina Geloo, Inter-Press Service, Zambia ........................................................................................... 20 Biotechnology Will Bypass the Hungry by Devinder Sharma, Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security, India ................................................... 21 UN Development Programme Buys into Biotech Industry Agenda Technology Won’t Feed World’s Hungry by Anuradha Mittal, Food First, India/United States ................................................................................ 24 UNDP’s Human Development Report 2001: Technofixes Within a Sugar Coating by Ashish Kothari, Kalparvriksh, India ..................................................................................................... 25 Human Development Report 2001 or a Corporate Marketing Strategy? by Farida Akhter, UBINIG, Bangladesh ................................................................................................... 27 Food Sovereignty Food Sovereignty and Genetically Engineered Crops by Elizabeth Bravo, Ecological Action, Ecuador........................................................................................ 29 The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty by M.D. Nanjundaswamy, Karnataka Farmers’ Union–Via Campesina, India .......................................... 31 Myth #2: Northern Resistance to Genetic Engineering Creates Starvation in the South Using the South to Promote Genetic Engineering in Europe—Once Again! by Tewolde Behran Gebre Egzhiaber, Ethiopia ......................................................................................... 33 Myth #3: Golden Rice: A Miracle Rice Grains of Hope ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Genetically Engineered Vitamin A Rice: A Blind Approach to Blindness Prevention Dr.Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, India ...... 36 Grains of Delusion—Golden Rice Seen from the Ground Excerpts from a Report by NGOs from Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand ............................................................................................................................................ 37 Myth #4: Patents are Necessary to Ensure Innovation No Patents on Rice! No Patents on Life! Statement from Peoples’ Movements and NGOs Across Asia.................................................................... 39 Patents, Genetic Engineering and Bioserfdom by Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group .................................................................................................................. 40 Myth #5: Biotechnology Increases Agricultural Biodiversity Bolivia and Genetically Engineered Potatoes by Maria Luisa Ramos, FOBOMADE, Bolivia ......................................................................................... 44 GE Pollution in Mexico: Native Corn Contaminated ............................................................................... 47 Rice and Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................ 48 Genetically Engineered Rice: For Whose Gain? by MASIPAG, The Philippines ................................................................................................................ 48 Rice ’n Controversy by Vasana Chinvarakorn, Thailand ........................................................................................................... 48 Myth #6: People in the Third World Want Genetically Engineered Crops Genetically Engineered Crops in Indonesia: Lies and Frustration Unite Farmers by Nila Ardhianie & Nina Andiana, Indonesia Forum on Globalization, Indonesia ................................. 50 Asia: Declaration on Biodiversity Protection and Local People’s Rights ..................................................... 52 International Peasants and Scientists Conference Condemns Pesticides & GMOs .................................... 53 Philippines: 800 Protesters Uproot Bt-Corn in Mindanao ........................................................................ 53 Farmers Close Down Monsanto Office! .................................................................................................... 54 People’s Caravan Launches Campaign Demanding Land and Food without Poisons! ............................... 55 India: Bt Cotton Burned on Holi Eve by Farmers .................................................................................... 56 New Zealand: Maori Declare War on Genetic Engineering ...................................................................... 56 Latin American Declaration on Transgenic Organisms ............................................................................. 57 Brazilian Farmers Storm Monsanto, Uproot Plants ................................................................................... 57 Stop the Crop by Biowatch South Africa ......................................................................................................................... 58 Declaration from the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil ............................................................ 58 African Consumer Leaders Reject GE Crops as a Solution for Food Security ............................................ 60 Lusaka Declaration ................................................................................................................................... 61 The Valley of 1000 Hills Declaration, South Africa .................................................................................. 62 Contacts .............................................................................................................................................. 63 Introductionby Anuradha Mittal For proponents of genetically modified food, these are that rocked the United States’ food supply system in dark times. Led by Zambia, and recently followed by September
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Uptake of Genetically Modified White Maize by Smallholder Farmers: the Case of Hlabisa, South Africa
    Exploring the uptake of genetically modified white maize by smallholder farmers: The case of Hlabisa, South Africa Mankurwana H Mahlase MHLMAN031 Town Cape A dissertation submitted in full fulfilmentof of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Science in Environmental and Geographical Science University Faculty of Science University of Cape Town October 2016 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town COMPULSORY DECLARATION This work has not been previously submitted in whole, or in part, for the award of any degree. It is my own work. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this dissertation from the work, or works, of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced. Signature: Date: ii Abstract The use of genetically modified (GM) crops to resolve food security and poverty issues has been met with controversy and scepticism. The rationale for this research was to highlight the nuanced reasons as to why smallholder farmers are motivated to use agricultural biotechnology. The aim of this study was to explore the uptake of GM maize by South African smallholder farmers in order to contribute towards understanding the implications of agricultural biotechnology in smallholder agriculture. Using the case studies of Hlabisa in KwaZulu-Natal, the objectives were; (i) to investigate the perceived benefits and problems associated with the uptake of GM maize.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationships Between Agriculture, Nonagriculture, and Foreign Trade in the Development of Argentina and Peru
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: The Role of Agriculture in Economic Development Volume Author/Editor: Erik Thorbecke, ed. Volume Publisher: NBER Volume ISBN: 0-87014-203-8 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/thor70-1 Publication Date: 1970 Chapter Title: Relationships Between Agriculture, Nonagriculture, and Foreign Trade in the Development of Argentina and Peru Chapter Author: Erik Thorbecke, Alfred J. Field Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c3365 Chapter pages in book: (p. 165 - 218) r Al the her ion the my Relationships Between Agriculture, ted Nonagriculture, and Foreign Trade in the Development of Argentina and Peru lv- ity we ERIK THORBECKE IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY rm AND - it) ias ALFRED J. FIELD UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA )e- an, THE PRESENT STUDY iS an attempt to analyze the economic development of Argentina and Peru in terms of vital relationships within the princi- pal productive sectors and between these sectors and foreign trade. Section 1is devoted to the formulation of the analytical framework used in the study. The main elements of the framework are: (a) a sec- toral breakdown in terms of agriculture, industry and the service com- plex, (b) a specification of the major relationships between sectors (e.g., technological, income and price relationships), and (c) the formulation NOTE: Much of the work on this paper was done under the auspices of the AID. summer research program in1967, The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not in any way commit the Agency for International Development.
    [Show full text]
  • Third World Network
    TWN Third World Network November 19, 2020 Director-General Qu Dongyu UN Food and Agriculture Organization Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy Dear Director-General Qu Dongyu, The 350 civil society and Indigenous Peoples organizations from 63 countries listed below represent hundreds of thousands of farmers, fisherfolk, agricultural workers and other communities, as well as human rights, faith-based, environmental and economic justice institutions. We are writing to express our deep concern over your stated plans to strengthen official ties with CropLife International. We strongly urge you to reconsider this alliance. Deepening collaboration with CropLife, a trade association representing the interests of corporations which produce and promote dangerous pesticides, directly undermines FAO’s priority of minimising the harms of chemical pesticide use worldwide, “including the progressive ban of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs).” It also undermines the principles set out in FAO’s Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, and ties the agency with producers of harmful, unsustainable chemical technologies — relinquishing FAO’s role as a global leader supporting innovative approaches to agricultural production that promote the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security, sustainability and resilience. Reliance on hazardous pesticides is a short-term fix that undermines the rights to adequate food and health for present and future generations, as stated in the 2017 report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. A recent analysis of industry records documents that CropLife members, BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, FMC and Syngenta, make more than one-third of their sales income from HHPs — the pesticides that are most harmful to human health and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Perspective on Sustainable Agriculture
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272307886 Productive Landscapes: a Global Perspective on Sustainable Agriculture Article in Landscapes · June 2014 DOI: 10.1179/1466203514Z.00000000024 CITATIONS READS 7 296 1 author: Erika Guttmann-Bond 34 PUBLICATIONS 321 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Rediscovering Sustainability: How archaeology can save the planet View project Identification of intensive early agriculture (plaggen soils) using PIXE analysis View project All content following this page was uploaded by Erika Guttmann-Bond on 01 September 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. landscapes, Vol. 15 No. 1, June, 2014, 59–76 Productive Landscapes: a Global Perspective on Sustainable Agriculture Erika Guttmann-Bond University of Wales, Trinity Saint David The connections between agriculture and landscape are well established in western perceptions. Agricultural landscapes in the Western world have, however, become increasingly industrialised and low in biodiversity, and the standard practice in developed countries is to grow large fields of single crops sprayed with pesticides and herbicides. Many leading agronomists believe that such industrial methods are the only way we will succeed in feeding a growing global population. However, many opposing agronomists argue that agroecology is a more productive and efficient use of land. This paper is a review of archaeological, environmental and ethnographic evidence for sustainable agricultural land management, as it has been practiced in the past, and as it is practiced today in countries that use traditional, pre-industrial methods. A range of evidence demonstrates that small, biodiverse farms are more productive per hectare than agribusinesses that practice monocropping.
    [Show full text]
  • The Convention on Biological Diversity: Biodiversity, Access and Benefit-Sharing
    SANBI Biodiversity Series 3 The Convention on Biological Diversity: biodiversity, access and benefit-sharing. A resource for learners (Grades 10–12) by Anastelle Solomon & Paul Le Grange Pretoria 2006 SANBI Biodiversity Series The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) was established on 1 September 2004 through the signing into force of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) No. 10 of 2004 by President Thabo Mbeki. The Act expands the mandate of the former National Botanical Institute to include responsibilities relating to the full diversity of South Africa’s fauna and flora, and builds on the internationally respected programmes in conservation, research, education and visitor services developed by the National Botanical Institute and its predecessors over the past century. The vision of SANBI is to be the leading institution in biodiversity science in Africa, facilitating conservation, sustainable use of living resources, and human well-being. SANBI’s mission is to promote the sustainable use, conservation, ap- preciation and enjoyment of the exceptionally rich biodiversity of South Africa, for the benefit of all people. SANBI Biodiversity Series will publish occasional reports on projects, technologies, workshops, symposia and other activities initiated by or executed in partnership with SANBI. Illustrations: Tano September Technical editor: Emsie du Plessis Design & layout: Daleen Maree Cover design: Daleen Maree How to cite this publication SOLOMON, A. & LE GRANGE, P. 2006. The Convention on Biological Diversity: biodiversity, access and benefit-sharing. A resource for learners (Grades 10–12). SANBI Biodiversity Series 3. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. ISBN 1-919976-31-0 © Published by: South African National Biodiversity Institute Obtainable from: SANBI Bookshop, Private Bag X101, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Implications for Small Farmers
    Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Implications for Small Farmers Devlin Kuyek August 2002 Implications for Small Farmers About this Briefing This briefing was researched and written by Devlin Contents Kuyek for Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) and a group of NGOs that aim to raise awareness about the implications of genetic engineering and intellectual property rights for 1. INTRODUCTION 1 small farmers in Africa. These NGOs include SACDEP (Kenya), RODI (Kenya), Biowatch (South Africa), ISD (Ethiopia), Jeep (Uganda), CTDT (Zimbabwe), Pelum (Regional, Southern 2. THE PAST PREDICTS THE FUTURE 1 Africa), ITDG (International), Gaia Foundation (International) and ActionAid (International). Did Africa miss a revolution? 1 The briefing looks at the push to bring GM crops and technologies to Africa and tries to sort out what Africa’s Green Revolution 2 the implications will be for Africa’s small farmers. It especially focuses on the situation in East and Southern Africa. The briefing does not share the 3. THE FORCES BEHIND THE CROPS 4 optimism of the proponents of genetic engineering. Rather, it views genetic engineering as an extension Who are the crop pushers? 4 of the Green Revolution paradigm that failed to address the needs of Africa’s small farmers and served only to exacerbate their problems. 4. TRUSTING THE ‘EXPERTS’ 7 The many groups and individuals who gave time and information to the preparation of this paper Bt Cotton and biosafety 10 are gratefully acknowledged. Comments on the paper may be addressed to Devlin Kuyek at [email protected] 5. SURELY THERE’S A BETTER WAY? 13 Published in August 2002, by Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN): Sweeter potatoes without biotech 13 Girona 25, pral, Barcelona 08010, Spain Tel: +34 933 011 381 Bt Maize: Big companies working for Fax: +34 933 011 627 big farmers 15 Email: [email protected] 1 Web: www.grain.org Green Revolution, Gene Revolution ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Ecology of Genetically Modified Soy in Argentina
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2014 Roundup Ready Nation: The Political Ecology Of Genetically Modified Soy In Argentina Amalia Leguizamon Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/61 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] ROUNDUP READY NATION: THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY IN ARGENTINA by AMALIA LEGUIZAMÓN A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Sociology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 AMALIA LEGUIZAMÓN All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Sociology in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor Kenneth A. Gould Date Chair of the Examining Committee Professor Philip Kasinitz Date Executive Officer Professor John L. Hammond Professor William Kornblum Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract ROUNDUP READY NATION: THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY IN ARGENTINA by Amalia Leguizamón Adviser: Professor Kenneth A. Gould This dissertation is a case study of agrarian transformation in an agro-export society, Argentina. I study the process of adoption of the technological package of genetically modified (GM) soy in the Argentine countryside, its socio-ecological consequences, and Argentines’ responses to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Vulnerability of the Agricultural Systems of Argentina to Climate Change
    CLIMATE RESEARCH Published December 29 Clim Res Vulnerability of the agricultural systems of Argentina to climate change Graciela 0. Magrin*,Maria I. Travasso, Raul A. Diaz, Rafael 0.Rodriguez Instituto de Clima y Agua, Centro de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, 1712 Castelar, Buenos Aires. Argentina ABSTRACT: Agricultural production is one of the pillars of the Argentinean economy. The contribution of this sector is expected to keep growing in the near future as a consequence of the current techno- logical development trend. However, the projected changes in climate and in the atmospheric concen- tration of CO2in the coming years is likely to affect the productivity of crops, thus causing an impact on the national economy. This paper addresses climate change impact on the production of the main crops of the Argentinean pampean region by means of crop growth and development simulation models for wheat, maize and soybean included in DSSAT v. 3.0 (Dension Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu). The weather data used includes temperature, global solar radia- tion and precipitation values from 23 sites within the region (current climate conditions) and the corre- sponding GISS general circulation model projections for the year 2050 (future climate) with CO2 con- centrations of 330 and 550 ppm respectively. According to the results obtained, a generalized increase In soybean yield and a decrease in maize yield would occur. Wheat yield is likely to increase in the southern and the western parts of the region and decrease towards the north. Wheat and soybean pro- duction in the pampean region would increase by 3.6 and 20.7 % respectively, while maize production would be reduced by 16.5%.
    [Show full text]
  • A Training Guide for in Situ Conservation On-Farm
    A Training Guide for In Situ Conservation On-farm Version 1 D.I Jarvis, L. Myer, H. Klemick, L. Guarino, M. Smale, A.H.D. Brown, M. Sadiki, B. Sthapit and T. Hodgkin SWISS AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION SDC IDRC Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Development Cooperation Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit, Germany IPGRI is a Centre A Training Guide for In Situ Conservation On-farm Version 1 D.I Jarvis, L. Myer, H. Klemick, L. Guarino, M. Smale, A.H.D. Brown, M. Sadiki, B. Sthapit and T. Hodgkin With the collaboration of : S. Achtar P. Eyzaguirre T. Quinones-Vega A. Amri D. Fanissi K. R’hrib L. Arias-Reyes M. Fernandez R. Rana Z. Asfaw E. Friis-Hansen V. Ramanatha Rao G. Ayad D. Gauchan D. Rijal J. Bajracharya N.P. Ha K. Riley R. Balaghi N.N. Hue J. Rodriguez D. Balma M. Ibnou-Ali R. Salazar B. Baniya K. Joshi E. Sauri-Duch M.O. Belem O. Kabore M. Sawasogo A. Birouk S. Khatiwada R. Sevilla-Panizo A. Bouizgaren A. King K.K. Sherchand P. Bramel-Cox D. Lope-Alzina A. Subedi S. Brush M. Mahdi M. Taghouti L. Burgos-May I. Mar A. Tan J. Canul-Ku F. Marquez-Sanchez A. Teshome F. Castillo-Gonzalez P.N. Mathur I. Thorman S. Ceccarelli H. Mellas H.Q. Tin P. Chaudhary N.K. Motiramani P. Tiwari J.-L. Chavez-Servia C. Morales-Valderrama L.N. Trinh V. Cob-Vicab A. Mudwari R. Tripp P.H. Cuong F. Nassif M. Upadhyay N.N.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14. the Agricultural Sector in Argentina
    CHAPTER 14 TThehe AAgriculturalgricultural SectorSector inin AArgentina:rgentina: MMajorajor TrendsTrends andand RecentRecent DevelopmentsDevelopments Sergio H. Lence 1. INTRODUCTION Historically, Argentina has been among the world leaders in the production and/or export of agricultural products. The main reason for this is that it is a country relatively sparsely populated but richly endowed with natural resources for production agriculture. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (FAOSTAT database), in 2006 Argentina accounted for only 0.59% of the world’s population, but for a much higher 2.10% of the world’s to- tal land area. Furthermore, Argentina’s shares of the world’s arable land and the planet’s area with permanent meadows and pastures were even higher, at 2.23% and 2.96%, respectively. As shown in Table 14.1, Argentina produced 8.4% of world agricultural out- put and accounted for 2.9% of world agricultural trade over the period 2005-07. Such fi gures make Argentina the eighth-largest producer and the twelfth larg- est exporter of agricultural commodities in the world. Argentina’s much smaller share of world exports (2.9%) compared to its share of world output (8.4%) is largely explained by the fact that Argentina tends to export commodities with relatively low value-added levels. Commodities for which the country is particu- larly relevant in world markets are soybeans and its associated products, soybean oil and soybean meal. Argentina is the top exporter of soybean oil and soybean Sergio Lence, a native of Argentina, is a professor of economics and the Marlin Cole Chair of International Agricultural Economics at Iowa State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?
    Is GM Soybean cultivation in Argentina sustainable ? Pascale Phelinas, Johanna Choumert To cite this version: Pascale Phelinas, Johanna Choumert. Is GM Soybean cultivation in Argentina sustainable ?. 2018. ird-01875358 HAL Id: ird-01875358 https://hal.ird.fr/ird-01875358 Preprint submitted on 17 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. C E N T R E D ' E TUDES ET DE RECHERCHES SUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL SÉRIE ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable? Johanna Choumert Pascale Phélinas Études et Documents n° 14 August 2016 To cite this document: Choumert J., Phélinas P. (2016) “ Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?", Études et Documents, n° 14, CERDI. http://cerdi.org/production/show/id/1818/type_production_id/1 CERDI 65 BD. F. MITTERRAND 63000 CLERMONT FERRAND – FRANCE TEL. + 33 4 73 17 74 00 FAX + 33 4 73 17 74 28 www.cerdi.org Études et Documents n° 14, CERDI, 2016 The authors Dr. Johanna Choumert, Senior Research Manager Economic Development Initiatives (E.D.I.) P.O. Box 393, Bukoba, Kagera region, Tanzania E-mail: [email protected] Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement from the Seed and Knowledge Seminar Salt Rock, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa 13-15 September, 2016
    STATEMENT FROM THE SEED AND KNOWLEDGE SEMINAR SALT ROCK, KWAZULU-NATAL, SOUTH AFRICA 13-15 SEPTEMBER, 2016 A CALL TO REVIVE, RESTORE AND STRENGTHEN FARMER-LED SEED SYSTEMS Seed is the very essence of life. It is central to our diverse cultures and spiritualities, foods, ecologies, knowledge systems and economies. But seed is under siege. It has been colonised and commodified by elite interests that support and promote destructive industrial agriculture, which is costing the Earth. While industrial agriculture feeds less than a third of the world’s population, it monopolises our land and water. This system − with its monocultures, hybrid and genetically modified seeds, chemical inputs and high fossil fuel consumption − is a leading contributor to climate change and environmental degradation. It creates unhealthy communities, poisoning us and filling our stomachs with corrupt calories, mostly devoid of nutrients. It also undermines and marginalises the diverse smallholder farming systems that have nourished us for centuries, creating economic dependencies and locking farmers into cycles of debt. It is rapidly being viewed as an outdated approach that is unable to respond to the changes the world is facing. Our vision, together with that of millions of farmers, consumers and citizens across the world, is for our food production systems to revive and enhance tried and tested methods that are low-carbon and low-input in nature; to preserve and regenerate resources rather than destroy them; and to support diverse and small-scale farming systems. This movement affirms and advocates for a world where agriculture is productive and sustainable, where food is nutritious and culturally appropriate, and where farmer-led seed and knowledge systems are valued and supported.
    [Show full text]