Pulling the GM jacket

Galarraga Aiestaran, Ana

Elhuyar Zientzia

Transgenic material has many threads: those related to agriculture, politics, the economy, society, scientific research... And besides, they are quite mixed. In order to free Mataza, we threw the strings of law professor Leire Escajedo and sociologist José Ram n Maule. Both have acted slowly, with a lot of patience and a lot of patience.
Pulling the GM jacket
01/05/2009 | Galarraga Aiestaran, Ana | Elhuyar Zientzia Komunikazioa
According to the ISAAA, the first GM plantations began in 1996 and 13 years later, 70% of soy and 24% of corn are transgenic. What is the reason for so much dissemination?

(Photo: Jill Battaglia/350RF.)

Leire Escajedo: Yes, commercial plantations began in 1996, but rather before non-commercial ones. And why have they spread so fast and so much? For I think they are notable advantages that have spread in the places that have spread, because it must be borne in mind that they have not spread in everything, but have concentrated in a few countries. They are the so-called macroproducers, who only cultivate varieties with remarkable advantages for them, especially those tolerant to herbicides or resistant to insects. It is very significant: many of the producers are from the Third World and are oriented to the production of raw materials for the first world.

Jose Ram n Maule: This expansion has occurred within a globalized commercial and productive model. In this model, some countries are suppliers of others. For example, soy produced in Argentina serves to feed American cattle. And if it weren't for that globalization, that technology wouldn't have developed. American corn is also exported.

Export? Is it not for consumption?

O.T. No. In addition, much is intended for distribution as human aid. The US gives half of the human aid that is distributed worldwide, much more than Europe. And it's usually not in money, it's about selling cheap food.

(Photo: Vasyl torous/350RF)

The idea that corn distributed by the US In Africa was transgenic occurred around 2000 and some countries waived this aid. Subsequently, the US clearly explained that 100% of the food they offered was transgenic. Many developing countries cannot oppose this because they need that food. Then, some countries decided to accept only as it was not cultivable (flour, etc.) to avoid the risk of sowing transgenic seed.

Free announcement : It is a very significant case. Human aid maize is one of the economic engines of the United States. It generates a million jobs in the US, that is, they do not help for their generosity but for their economic interest. In addition, it has been mentioned that this is a strategy to disseminate GMOs in other countries. A really malicious strategy.

O.T. : They have also paid for research projects on biotechnology in different places in Africa. However, these projects are embryos to achieve a regulation in favor of biotechnology. In Africa, however, they do not support the production of GMOs, as they fear the loss of market members. In reality, although Europe has been very supportive in other things, it has not been generous, so rigorous in traceability that it is generating problems to other countries.

In India and China, for their part, biotechnology projects are being developed by their own, using their own resources. In Africa it is not so, and it is evident the American aggressiveness to get into it. However, I don't think it is very different from the strategies used by the US. in other topics, for example, if we look at the textile market we will see that they act similarly.

Therefore, many aspects are mixed in the question of GMOs --social, political, economic issues...-, but they are not only the most transgenic.

(Photo: ISAAA, 2009.)

O.T. : That's it. As Joserra has said, the economic model is not fair. Now there is a focus on GMOs that make us see many miseries, but they are not created by them. If we look at coffee, tobacco, the textile industry... we will see something similar.

Free announcement : Okay, but with GMOs the system narrows a bit more. For example, Latin America has an export agriculture model, and GMOs reinforce their dependence on the US.

O.T. : Yes, maybe because food is strategic. Food is essential and also works with species of great importance in the feeding of animals and people. This endangers food sovereignty.

Leire Escajedo San Epifanio. He holds a degree and a PhD in Law and a researcher at the Chair of Law and Human Genome. The International Association of Bioethics (SIBIS) awarded him the research prize for the book "Healthy and sustainable progress of biotechnology".
(Photo: Photo gallery)
And how does it affect the agricultural sector?

Free announcement : Speaking in general is very difficult. I have analyzed maize and soy in two contexts, Spain and Latin America. For example, the transgenic soy produced by Argentina serves to feed the animals of the first world. This involves single-crop agriculture, on large surfaces, and requires a lot of machinery to herbicide, harvest... That is, it conditions a productive model. Thus, the agrarian production model is changing and the small producer has no place in the new model. This is what is happening, not only in Argentina, but also in Uruguay and Paraguay, among others. One of the biggest problems of these countries is that people are migrating to cities because of the surplus of people on agricultural land.

At the political level, we are already seeing that soon Argentina will have to import food. By using everything to make GM soy, no food is made to feed people.

O.T. : And in addition, you will have to import processed foods, made by another, which of course are much more expensive than those made by yourself.

Jos Ram n Maule n G m. Bachelor of Sociology, he is a professor at UPV. His research focuses on the sociology of food and the agricultural system, investigating the role of the hamlet in the economy and culture of the Basque Country.
Photography

Free announcement : Not only that. Argentina is now fine, but within a few years, if China, for example, makes soy cheaper, the Argentine business will sink. And another thing: for its fiscal system, if the soy business is going well and you are Argentine, the country does not benefit from that wealth. For me that is very important politically.

In fact, Leire mentioned earlier that China is also investigating GMOs.

O.T. : Yes, they are trying to get their varieties, they are looking for varieties of consumption in China so as not to depend on those outside. But, of course, as in the textile industry and around the world, then you will try to expand and become a global producer.

However, it must be taken into account that China has a great population problem, since they are many, and live in a small area of the country, because in other places it cannot be sown or do not have the necessary resources to live. So thanks to GMOs they want to get more out of the land. They have other objectives and hence derive their biotechnology projects. They say they talk about rice, but the genome of rice is very complex, and that I know there are still no significant advances, so there is no reason to think that some variety will be marketed in the short term. In any case, he will first have to direct his projects to solve his internal problems, since in China people are starving, although the government conceals it. But it cannot be ruled out that they intend to participate in the market.

The European model, for its part, is very different from the one we mentioned, right?
All food offered by the US as human aid in Africa is transgenic. Although some countries do not want GMOs, they are obliged to accept help.
UNEP

Free announcement : Yes. In Navarre, for example, transgenic maize is made to feed animals and farmers normally decide to plant normal or transgenic maize. In any case, the existing production model is not modified.

For a country to authorize the planting of GMOs, what has the most weight, in its opinion, the results of scientific studies, economic reasons or social opinion?

O.T. : There are two steps to making decisions. The first is carried out by scientists, who carry out studies from which they draw conclusions. In the second step there is someone who reads scientific reports. And from the first to the second there is a huge leap, since the studies scientists do not differ much, while among those who make the decision there is a huge difference from each other.

The socio-economic situation of the country is strongly influenced by the decision: whether it is a producer or buyer, the importance of the consumer, etc. For example, they intend to give an image that respects consumer opinion in Europe. In other countries, such as the US, market members are much more important than consumers.

Map prepared by ISAAA from data from last year. This American organization is responsible for the applications of biotechnology in agriculture.
ISAAA, 2009.

Free announcement : But I think that behind everything there is an ideological basis. The scientist does not investigate from nothing, he investigates in one direction and with one objective, and there is ideology. The same goes for politicians. For example, I have noticed that Spain is the country that makes the most GM maize in Europe; and when the European Union has held a meeting on organic farming to innovate in organic farming a minister is missing: National.

O.T. : But the competences are largely autonomous.

Free announcement : The Spanish Minister was invited to this meeting, who did not attend or give his place to anyone. This shows that behind there is an ideology.

In the case of the US, when it decided to equate transgenic to conventional varieties, the FDA, the food and drug agency, was under the control of Monsanto. In fact, a politician who worked for Monsanto made the decision. Do not forget that these technologies are created and managed by a large company to obtain benefits. And it is backed by the Government.

In Argentina, half of the land that can be planted contains transgenic soy. In fact, soybean cultivation has led to a change in the agricultural production model, with notable political and economic consequences.
Monsanto
It seems what to think.

Free announcement : Yes. And when one thinks “this is what is it for? ", realizes that it makes no sense, since cattle is to eat, being one of the biggest mistakes of our diet the abuse of meat.

Another thing that is striking is that many Navarrese farmers plant transgenic maize. However, these farmers do not live on maize, they do so to continue receiving subsidies.

O.T. : What concerns me is demonizing biotechnology and closing doors to other products that may be of interest. I think biotechnology can offer a lot. In fact, some of the varieties being researched are very interesting, for example, to complete the diet of people with specific health problems. However, they are putting so many drawbacks to the varieties that are produced... Of course, they are the ones that have the most... I feel sorry that there is no place to develop biotechnology in another direction.

Free announcement : I feel sorry for something else. I am sorry that the solution to the problems of humanity does not come from other innovations, is not a more autonomous innovation that does not force us to go through the market. And is that we are talking about food and eating several times a day is or should be a fundamental right. That affects our health and I think it's not just a commercial good. You have to look for other solutions.

On the corn of Navarre
In Navarre, more and more transgenic maize is being planted. Why do farmers choose this type of seed?
Free announcement : In Navarra they use the MON810 maize variety from Monsanto. Resistant to an insect that damages the corn, the piercer. To choose the sowing there are many agents. One is productivity. In fact, this transgenic corn gives as much as normal. Of course, being resistant to the hole, if there are holes, the final result is better. But are there holes in Navarre? In 2003 there was a hard plague that has not existed since then, although more and more transgenic crops are growing. Why? How does agriculture decide which seeds? I think there's the question. There is the common sense, the experience of previous years, what others say...
O.T. : Fear of the cavernator...
They can save on insecticides.
Free announcement : Yes, but transgenic seed is more expensive than normal. Therefore, if there are no holes, economically it is not better.
So how do you prefer transgenic?
O.T. : Maybe it gives you peace of mind, that is subjective.
Free announcement : I really don't know. But I know what are the factors that motivate them: there are those that have been mentioned before, and also to whom the seed is bought, and the advertising that seed sellers do, among others.
(Photo: PRESS photos)
O.T. : I think another factor is that they have no problems selling transgenic seed. Since in meat it is not necessary to place the feed that the animal has eaten, the use of transgenic corn for thought does not imply its exclusion.
Does the consumer not ask to indicate on the meat label what feed the cattle have eaten?
O.T. No. It has been in some moments on the list of what needs to be indicated, but it has finally been left out of the list, like the tech assistant. Yeasts or other auxiliaries used in bread making in a very small proportion do not appear on the label.
In fact, it only appears on the label when a transgenic component exceeds a certain proportion, right?
O.T. : That is, when it exceeds 0.9%.
And does the administration make strict controls?
O.T. : No, it doesn't, but it doesn't have the means to do it either. There are few screening tests to detect certain proteins. In addition, if a transgenic is detected in the product without indicating it on the label, it would also be a fraud but not very serious. If it were at least one of the authorized varieties in Europe, it would not be a crime against health.
Free announcement : When talking about law, one of the most serious problems for me is that the law is not complied with, at least in Navarra. Those who sow transgenic corn have to make normal corn on the edges of their department so that when pollination occurs it does not spread to other plantations. However, many peasants do not do it and, even in those who do, it is useless, since when the cylinder sounds the pollen easily exceeds the security distance.

Therefore, there is a problem: the decision of those who want to do the normal is not respected, because it cannot be guaranteed that there are no transgenics between them. It is more serious the case of those who want to do ecological, since to have an ecological label can not have any transgenic. Therefore, the appearance of GM in its production would mean an economic loss.

You will find the full interview in this PDF. The interview was conducted before the approval by the Basque Government of the Decree on the Regulation of the Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Conventional and Ecological Organisms, but later we had the opportunity to consult it.

Galarraga de Aiestaran, Ana
Services
253
2009
Services
021
Agriculture; Biotechnology; Environment; Humanities
Article
Description
Babesleak
Eusko Jaurlaritzako Industria, Merkataritza eta Turismo Saila