In this modern age, world hunger is still a blistering issue especially in developing nations. According to 2010-12 statistics, data show that there are “870 million people undernourished and 98 percent of this people come from developing nations” (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012). There are scientists who are entirely convinced that production of Genetically Modified Crops can be a sustainable project which might eradicate hunger, reduce health issues that are caused by lack of specific nutrients, as well as improve the farming methods applied in nations that are using traditional farming techniques; whereas, other scientists and social activists are convinced that GM Crops are unsafe and might cause environmental damage in countries that are in need. These opposing arguments might be convincing; however, empirical evidence challenges both parties’ projections by displaying different issues and benefits that have been produced in developing nations which currently produce (GM) crops.
Brazil, being the model country, is widely producing soybeans and has presented issues that revolve around economic development and export of soybeans rather than health and land effects. Therefore, showing the nature of research debates can be “polysemic” meaning that it can be argued in various meanings (Pellegrini, 2009:50) and the meanings can be influenced by various factors that are to favor the people behind the studies; thus, exposing the imperfections of research analyses and suggesting that the players behind the controversial debates need to careful analyze their work and avoid personal influences to drive them into conclusions that might be simply be annulled when empirical data is presented.
Many scientists and social scientists that are against GM crops are in favor of Agroecology which focuses on preserving traditional ways of farming and maintaining the healthy measures as well through ecological measures (Gadner, 2008). However, in Brazil Anti-GM regulatory law that was created to ban the production and sale of GM crops in 2003 failed to succeed because most farmers chose to produce soybeans illegally and they smuggled their produce for economy benefits (Ingersoll, 2009:2). The researchers can focus on preventative measures but they fail to look at other social factors that can encourage GM crop production even if the law is against it (Pellegrini, 2009). The farmers are mainly influenced by agribusiness and they view their lands as profits in world market as statistics shows:
Brazil’s wet and humid climate presents an ideal growing season— September to March— for the soybean pant. With these favorable conditions, Brazilian soybean exports grew from 24.15 million tons in 1995 to over 51 million tons in the 2002-2003 growing season (Soystats, 2003)
As much as environmental issues can come up, the scientists are forgetting that some of the people in these nations are eager to remove themselves from poverty and are willing to take drastic measures that can help them economically.
Advocates for GM crops are also challenged in Brazil. Their notion that Transgenes in GM crops have no inherent impact on genetic uniformity and are not influencing genetic variations of the plants (McGloughlin, 1999:168) is not enough to support their data. Even if Transgenes have no effect in GM crops, studies still show, in various parts of Brazil e.g. Baixa Grande do Ribeiro district, that monoculture technique used by soy companies is affecting the lands. It is stated, “Severe hydrological deficit has been created by drying out cerrado soils” (Bickel & Maarten Dros, 2003). Also, biotech companies are arguing that it is better providing food to nations that are lacking essential nutrients in their diet for example Vitamins and Carbohydrates (McGloughlin, 1999); however, Monsanto’s herbicide has contaminated the water supplies in neighboring cities and is endangering humans and animals in those areas. Therefore, instead of biotech researchers cherry picking studies that only favor their goals, they should be open-minded and view all sides of data (good or bad) so that they can enhance innovations that will produce sustainable farming.
On the positive light, biotechnology is improving the economic status of Brazil, and the plausible causes are overshadowed by the cost benefit that Brazil gains from GM crop production. In fact, in 2010, Brazil was one of the first emerging markets to begin recovery after recession crisis in world market and its GDP growth reached 7.9% which was the highest rate in the past years (CIA, 2012). This growth has mainly been influenced by Agriculture where Brazil they are trading majorly with China and EU. “The appetite of soybean has increased at a rate of 5.4% versus and annual average rate of 4.8% since 1970” (Griffin et al, 2005:288). This is a good example of another research topic that biotech and agroecology advocates have not considered.
Instead, of attaining data that focus on attacking opposing views and favoring personal interests, researchers should be objective and establish data that highly focuses on all sorts of fields before they publish their articles because when empirical evidence is provided, their work can be judged as biased because it is only starring controversial debates? Ian Hacking simply states “We should not explain why some people believe p by saying that p is true, or corresponds to a fact, or the facts” (Hacking, 2000: 81). Research material should be presented the way it is and not shaped to anyone’s liking.
Works Cited
Bickel, U., & Maarten Dros, J. (2003). The Impacts of Soybean Cultivation on Brazilian Ecosystems. Amsterdam: AIDEnvironment. Retrieved from C:\Users\Gatwiri\AppData\Local\Temp\impactsofsoybean.pdf
CIA. (2012, December 4). World Fact Book. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/site-policies/index.html#copy: 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). New Hunger Report. Italy: FAO. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/161819/icode/
Gadner, B. (2008). Agroecology in Action. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from Agroecological Knowledge and Technologies Into Practice: http://agroeco.org/
Griffin, J. D. (2005). Shaping Brazil's emerging GMO policy: Opportunities for Leadership. (W. InterScience, Ed.) Journal of Public Affairs, 287-298. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from C:\Users\Gatwiri\Desktop\Brazil Partnering with China.pdf
Hacking, I. (2000). The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, Ed.) 81.
Ingersoll, J. (2009, April). Global Views on Genetically Modified Crops and Patent Values. Nerac, 1-3. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from C:\Users\Gatwiri\Desktop\Nerac-Articles-Global_Views_on_Gene.pdf
McGloughlin, M. (1999). Ten Reasons Why Biotechonogy will be Important to the Developing World. AgioBioForum, 163-174. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from C:\Users\Gatwiri\Desktop\TEN REASONS WHY BIOTECHNOLOGY WILL BE IMPORTANT.pdf
Pellegrini, P. (2009). Knowledge, Identity, and Ideology in Stances on GMOs. The Case of the Movimento Sem Terra in Brazil, 45-60. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from C:\Users\Gatwiri\Desktop\Pablo Pellegrini GMO Brazil.pdf
Soy Stats. (2003). 2003 Soy Stats Report. American Soybean Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment