GMOs

The price penalty for genetically modified (GM)canola (compared to non-GM canola) is 7.2% based on the past five years of price data from two receival depots (Albany and Kwinana) in Western Australia. The average annual price penalty for GM canola varied from a low of 5.3% ($29 per tonne in the 2017/18 season at Kwinana) to a high of 9.2% ($49 per tonne in the 2015/16 season at Albany). The WA GM canola has a lower oil content (46.9% versus 48.4%) and a higher moisture content (5.5% versus 5.3%) than non-GM canola.

Farmers, activists, and the general public have all expressed strong opposition to the draft notification published by the FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) on November 27th of last year, questioning the future of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in India.  Despite the fact that GM crops to be grown in India have received environmental clearance from the country's regulatory authority, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), according to a report published by the Agriculture's Global Agricultural Information Network. So, why India is still undecided on whether or not to allow GM crops to be grown in the country today?

Pedro Neves Marques addresses the hangover in relation to the ideology of progress as translated into the concept of desenvolvimentismo ("developmentism") in Brazil, within the nascent neoliberal right of South America. In doing so, Neves Marques analyzes the work of artist Beto Shwafaty and architect Paulo Tavares's architectural research into the Amazon region and beyond. ← Prev

W monografii zaprezentowano wyniki jakościowego badania przeprowadzonego w projekcie H2020 CONCISE – Communication role on perception and beliefs of EU Citizens about Science, którego celem było zbadanie roli komunikacji naukowej w kształtowaniu wiedzy, opinii i przekonań obywateli Unii Europejskiej na tematy związane z nauką. W Polsce, Hiszpanii, Portugalii, na Słowacji i we Włoszech przeprowadzono jednodniowe konsultacje społeczne, w których brało udział stu odpowiednio dobranych mieszkańców danego kraju. W niniejszej publikacji przedstawione zostały wyniki konsultacji zrealizowanych w Polsce – we wrześniu 2019 roku w Łodzi. W trakcie moderowanej dyskusji uczestnicy konsultacji podzielili się swoimi opiniami na temat komunikacji naukowej, w tym szans i barier upowszechniania informacji naukowej. Publikacja składa się z czterech rozdziałów odpowiadających czterem tematom konsultacji – zmiany klimatyczne, szczepionki, GMO, medycyna alternatywna – oraz z podsumowania. Na podstawie wypowiedzi uczestników konsultacji przeprowadzonych w ramach projektu CONCISE udało się wysnuć wnioski na temat komunikacji naukowej dla omawianych tematów, jednak nie było możliwości znalezienia standardu dla komunikacji naukowej w Polsce, który mógłby stanowić uniwersalny drogowskaz dla naukowców, popularyzatorów nauki czy dziennikarzy. Każdy temat naukowy wymaga właściwej mu strategii komunikacyjnej. Dla każdego z tematów odbiorcy sformułowali odmienne preferencje dotyczące tego, skąd i w jakiej formie chcieliby otrzymywać informacje. Dlatego wydaje się uzasadnioną rekomendacją, aby osoby komunikujące treści naukowe w danym obszarze tematycznym wnikliwie rozpoznały preferencje odbiorców w tym zakresie, zanim przystąpią do komunikacji naukowej.

Comment le dossier des V(r)TH a hérité du conflit des OGM
Francis Chateauraynaud (GSPR-EHESS) Version du 26 février 2018
Le vote de la loi française de 2008 sur les OGM, transposition tardive et intensément débattue de la directive européenne de 2001, avait réussi à faire bifurquer, sans le clore définitivement, un conflit historique. Le cas des OGM n'a pas de véritable précédent et a durablement marqué les politiques du risque, au croisement des biotechnologies, de l'agriculture et de l'environnement, sur plusieurs échelles d'action et de jugement – de la parcelle aux arènes internationales. En France, fin 2008, la plupart des observateurs tablaient sur une période de calme relatif, fondée sur le compromis instauré par la loi et dont le concept de coexistence, forgé un peu plus tôt à l'échelle européenne, formulait le principe 2. Si, comme dans d'autres domaines, les conflits autour des biotechnologies passent par des périodes de silence, ou de faible intensité, ils ne sont jamais complètement éteints. Sans redéployer l'histoire mouvementée des OGM, marquée par plusieurs phases de mobilisations 3 , il faut d'abord rappeler que ce dossier a surtout pris la forme d'un conflit autour des modèles agricoles, transformant les rapports de forces et de légitimités entre les acteurs, en laissant des traces profondes dans de multiples champs d'expertise. S'il a produit des innovations notables en matière d'évaluation des risques –dont la création du Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies–, le dossier des OGM a mis durablement l'ensemble du système d'expertise « sous pression ». Et tout indique que ce n'est pas fini. Les croisements de plus en plus fréquents entre les alertes sanitaires relatives aux pesticides ou aux herbicides, et les enjeux agronomiques, économiques et juridiques liés aux différents modèles 1 Ce texte a servi de base à la contribution au rapport d'évaluation de l'ANSES, Risques et bénéfices liés à l'utilisation des variétés rendues tolérantes aux herbicides non-transgéniques cultivées en France (rapport final prévu dont la sortie publique est prévue pour octobre 2018). Cette expertise collective a été menée suite à la saisine du 4 mars 2015 par la ministre de l'Ecologie, Ségolène Royal. Cette saisine faisait suite à un amendement introduit dans les discussions de la loi sur la biodiversité. Selon la ministre qui défendait l'amendement : « Le problème existe puisque ces plantes sont quasiment des OGM, sans moratoire cependant. J'ai saisi l'Anses le 4 mars dernier avec le ministre de l'agriculture-je peux vous communiquer la lettre de mission. Votre amendement pourrait accélérer ce dossier, en montrant la volonté du législateur de faire la lumière sur le sujet ».

在暢銷書，大眾傳媒和網帖的推動下，轉基因「陰謀論」被中國民眾廣泛接受，並贏得了民間政治左派和右派的支持。這些轉基因「陰謀論」形形色色，或者相信美國以轉基因為武器對中國發起了經濟戰和政治戰，或者相信中國科學家和政策決定者與外國的特權階層合謀，背叛了中國民眾的利益。為什麼人們相信轉基因「陰謀論」，而不是政府和轉基因專家們的擔保？在本文中，我將反駁一個常見的觀點，即，科學愚昧、決策過程不透明和非理性是陰謀論存在的三個根本原因，並提出轉基因「陰謀論」並不會隨現代化的加深而消失。相反，如同後殖民時期非洲的巫術信仰復興一樣，陰謀論是現代化的伴隨品。作為一個現代版本的敵托邦敘述，轉基因「陰謀論」實質上正在被那些「能動性恐慌」（Melley 2000）的人們所利用，來使他們自己的聲音「被聽見」。

全文见：
Airiti Library華藝線上圖書館
http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alPublicationJournal?PublicationID=23046074&type=P001

Airiti Library台灣學術文獻數據庫
http://www.airitilibrary.cn/Publication/alPublicationJournal?PublicationID=23046074

Research on social media and research on correcting misinformation are both growing areas in communication, but for the most part they have not found common ground. This study seeks to bridge these two areas, considering the role that social media may play in correcting misinformation. To do so, we test a new function of Facebook, which provides related links when people click on a link within Facebook. We show users a post containing misinformation, and then manipulate the related stories to either confirm, correct, or both confirm and correct the misinformation. Findings suggest that when related stories correct a post that includes misinformation, misperceptions are significantly reduced.

The Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) model has been applied for the risk assessment of corn curl manufacturing. A tentative approach of FMEA application to the snacks industry was attempted in an effort to exclude the presence of GMOs in the final product. This is of crucial importance both from the ethics and the legislation (Regulations EC 1829/2003; EC 1830/2003; Directive EC 18/2001) point of view.The Preliminary Hazard Analysis and the Fault Tree Analysis were used to analyze and predict the occurring failure modes in a food chain system (corn curls processing plant), based on the functions, characteristics, and/or interactions of the ingredients or the processes, upon which the system depends. Critical Control points have been identified and implemented in the cause and effect diagram (also known as Ishikawa, tree diagram, and the fishbone diagram). Finally, Pareto diagrams were employed towards the optimization of GMOs detection potential of FMEA.

This paper examines the threat posed by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to organic agriculture and certification. In the case of Marsh v Baxter an organic farm in Western Australia is contaminated by GMO material including seeds and seed pods blown from a neighbouring farm and the organic certification is lost. This paper presents a five-year chronology of events and the processes, outcomes and costs of seeking legal redress, of proving negligence and/or nuisance, and of seeking damages and an injunction to constrain the GMO farmer. Damages are agreed at A$85,000 (€60,000) while legal costs are in the region of A$2,000,000 (€1,400,000) to date.

Thèse de doctorat transdisciplinaire, mention "philosophie et sciences sociales" (LIER-FYT (ex-CENJ-Centre Yan Thomas) - EHESS (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales), soutenue le 22 mai 2019.

French and English abstract included in the thesis.

En partant de la « crise environnementale », ce travail empirique et théorique interroge deux notions qui structurent les études environnementales et la philosophie de la technique : la « conscience écologique » et la « rationalité instrumentale ». Il met en œuvre une réflexion sur les rapports entre philosophie et sciences sociales et sur l’interdisciplinarité qui caractériseraient tant la « postmodernité » que le « règne de la technique ». Pour ce faire, il s’appuie sur des sources diverses (juridiques, politiques, médiatiques et académiques) et plusieurs expériences d’observation participante de dispositifs de démocratie participative (notamment au Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies). En prolongeant la critique du paradigme d’une « Modernité réflexive », la première partie analyse la problématisation de l’ « environnement » en France (1870-1945) et en Allemagne (1900-1945). Cette généalogie de la gouvernementalité environnementale et de l’expertise conduit à interroger l’opposition entre « anthropocentrisme » et « biocentrisme » et à reconceptualiser l’idée d’une « prise de conscience environnementale ». Nous concevrons plutôt l’ « environnement » comme un agencement composite, variable, hétérogène et potentiellement contradictoire. Dès lors, nous substituons au triangle conceptuel « technique-environnement-Modernité » un losange « technique-environnement-Modernité-nazisme ». Outre le rôle de la technique dans l’Holocauste et le statut d’Heidegger, le nazisme conduit en effet à s’interroger sur l’équivocité des appels à vivre « en harmonie » avec la nature et à « maîtriser la technique » et sur l’idée qu’on pourrait déterminer un « rapport occidental à la nature ». Dans notre seconde partie, le commentaire d’Heidegger puis de l’école de Francfort permet d’analyser la notion de « rationalité instrumentale » et l’idée selon laquelle l’anthropocentrisme serait la cause de la crise environnementale. En faisant appel tant à l’histoire de la philosophie qu’à la problématisation de cas historiques et juridiques, nous analysons ainsi des problèmes communs à la critique de la technique et à l’éthique environnementale, dont celui de « conversion écologique » ou d’indétermination des techniques. Nous y traiterons en particulier du projet de démocratie technique et environnementale et de ses limites. Il s’agit de penser autrement notre rapport à l’environnement, aux techniques et aux sciences, mais aussi la manière dont le droit et la politique les régulent et peuvent faire face à la crise environnementale.

Although the application of hazard analysis critical control point in the food industry dates back to the 1970s, a more quantitative and reliable approach towards risk assessment became feasible through application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) model. A tentative approach of FMEA application to a filled chocolate-producing industry was attempted in an effort to exclude the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the final product. This is of crucial importance both from the moral (ethics) and the legislation (EC 1829/2003; EC 1830/2003; EC 18/2001) point of view. Two structured methods (preliminary hazard analysis and fault tree analysis) were used to analyse and predict the occurring failure modes in food chain system, based on the functions, characteristics and/or interactions of the ingredients or the processes, upon which the system depends. Cause and effect diagram (also known as Ishikawa, tree diagram and fishbone diagram) and Pareto diagram emerged as two very useful and effective tools towards optimising the GMO detection potential of FMEA.

With rising world populations, persistent hunger and chronic, growing demand for food globally, the need to protect land for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the mounting threats associated with climate change, it is unsurprising that advances in the biosciences – and in the development of genetically modified (GM) crops in particular – are proposed to play a critical role in meeting the challenges of global food security.
Yet, although the rise of GM crops has been dramatic, their uptake has not been the smooth nor universal transition predicted by its advocates. Controversy has been marked, even in those countries where approvals have been impressively rapid. All too commonly, the regulation of GM crops has been challenged as inadequate, even biased – and in some settings, such as India and Mexico, the planting of certain crops has been judicially suspended.
The strategic question for this John Templeton Foundation project, led by Durham University and with international partners in Mexico, Brazil and India, was to examine why GM crops have not been universally accepted as a public good, since if we do not address this
we will fail to understand the conditions under which GM crops may contribute to global food security in an inclusive manner.

GMO moratoria are in place in Australia, in some states and not in others. Is co-existence possible between organic farming and GMO farming? And if so, under what circumstances? Australia has more certified organic land than any other country, with a reported 12.0 million hectares of certified organic land compared to the world total of 37.5 million hectares. In a recent court case, an organic farmer lost his organic certification because of GMO contamination. A total of 325 hectares of his 478 hectare farm were contaminated with GM canola blown from a neighbouring property, and this resulted in the decertification of most of the farm. The organic farmer sued his neighbour, a GMO farmer, on the basis of nuisance or negligence, he sought damages for loss of income, and he sought an injunction to rein in his neighbour‟s future GMO farming practices. The case ran before the Supreme Court of Western Australia over three weeks and it generated more than 1000 pages of transcript. The case was dismissed in its entirety, in a 150 page judgment, and is now subject to an appeal. This paper examines the judgment, in the light of the trial transcript of this landmark case, with the view to determining the implications for the future of organic farming and GMO farming, and in particular to ascertain what lessons can be learned from this litigation.

Techno-optimists believe that technological innovations are the answer to future food crises. Focus on such solutions, however, can obscure ethical issues of uneven and unequal access. Furthermore, technological solutions often overlook the cultural significance of food. This paper will examine these issues inherent in a “gastro-techno-utopia” through a reading of Elizabeth Dougherty’s speculative fiction novel, The Blind Pig. In the novel, hyper- personalized nutrition (at the expense of gastronomic pleasure) is mandated by the government; real food still exists but is illegal. Ultimately, the novel reveals the corruption of the corporate technocracy, siding with underground ‘Foodies’ who advocate for a return to real food. This paper sympathizes with such a conclusion, but argues that the novel conflates anti-GMO with anti-Big Pharma/Agro. It will ask, is there a middle ground between corrupt technocracy and a return to (unsustainable) agrarian ideals? What would an ethical version of Dougherty’s society look like?

Co-authored piece with Nassim Taleb, Yaneer Bar-Yam... We present a non-naive version of the Precautionary (PP) that allows us to avoid paranoia and paralysis by confining precaution to specific domains and problems. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence. We formalize PP, placing it within the statistical and probabilistic structure of ruin problems, in which a system is at risk of total failure, and in place of risk we use a formal fragility based approach. We make a central distinction between 1) thin and fat tails, 2) Local and systemic risks and place PP in the joint Fat Tails and systemic cases. We discuss the implications for GMOs (compared to Nuclear energy) and show that GMOs represent a public risk of global harm (while harm from nuclear energy, while potentially severe, does not present such a global threat of ruin: it is comparatively limited and better characterized otherwise than as ruinous). PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.

ÖZET
-
Canlıların sahip olduğu gen dizilimlerinin değiştirilerek veya bu canlılara virüslerden, bakterilerden, bitkilerden veya hayvanlardan gen aktarımı ile kendi bünyesinde bulunmayan özelliklerin kazandırılması sayesinde ortaya çıkartılan yeni organizmalara Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalar (GDO) denilmektedir.Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmaların 90'lı yıllarda piyasaya sunulmasından bu yana dünya üzerinde üretim alanları günden güne artmaktadır. Bu durum gelecekte GDO'ların daha da yaygınlaşarak kullanılacağını göstermektedir. Dolayısı ile GDO'ların ve genetiği değiştirilmiş ürünlerin birçok alanda kullanımının yaygınlaşması dünyada ve ülkemizde en fazla üzerinde durulan, tartışılan konulardan biri haline getirmiştir. Tartışmalar sonucunda ise iki farklı bakış açısı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bir taraf insan GDO'ların üretiminin ve kullanımının gerekli olduğunu savunurken diğer taraf ise bunların zararlı sonuçlar doğuracağına inanmaktadır.Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalar ile ilgili olarak dünya üzerinde çok sayıda araştırma yapılmıştır. Söz konusu alanda farklı amaçlarla yapılan araştırmalar genel olarak insan sağlığı üzerine ve çevreye yönelik etkileri üzerinde yoğunlaşmıştır. Bu çalışma ise dünya üzerindeki toplumların genetiği değiştirilmiş ürünlere yönelik bakış açısını genel hatlarıyla ortaya koymak, bu alandaki boşluğu doldurmak ve bu alandaki gereksinimleri karşılamak için yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmadaki başlıkların belirlenmesinde genel detayların ortaya konma amacı etkili olmuştur. Çalışmada GDO'ların tanımı, üretim amacı ve etkileri hakkında genel bilgilere yer verildikten sonra toplumların GDO'lar hakkında haberdar olma durumu, GDO'lara yönelik tutumları, GDO'lu ürünleri satın alma eğilimleri, GDO'lu ürünlere duydukları endişeler ve aldıkları önlemler gibi konulara yer verilmiştir.

This paper frames genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as invasive species. This offers a way of considering the reception, diffusion and management of GMOs in the foodscape. “An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live” (NNSS, 2017).  Without any social licence, pesticide companies have thrust GMOs into the foodscape. The release of GMOs has generally been unwelcome, there has been no ‘pull’ factor from consumers and there has been vocal resistance from many. The apologists for GMOs have argued the self-contradictory conceit that GMOs are ‘same but different’. Under this logically untenable stance, GMOs are to be excluded from specific regulation because they are the ‘same’ as existing organisms, while simultaneously they are ‘different’ and so open to patenting. GMOs are patented and this demonstrates that, prima facie, these are novel organisms which are non-native to the foodscape. GMO apologists have campaigned intensively, and successfully in USA, to ensure that consumers are kept in the dark and that GMOs remain unlabelled - as a consequence GMOs are ubiquitous in US consumer foods. In contrast, in Australia GMOs are required to be labelled if present in consumer products and, in consequence, Australian food manufacturers do not use them. The release of a GMO calls for biosecurity measures. After trial plots of Monsanto GM canola in Tasmania in the 1990s, the sites continue to be biosecurity monitored for GMO escape, and volunteer canola plants continue to appear two decades later. In Western Australia the escape of GMO canola into a neighbouring organic farm resulted in the loss of organic certification and the monetary loss of the organic premium for produce. GMO produce sells for a 10% discount because of market forces and the consumer aversion to GMOs. Where non-GM product is accidentally contaminated with some GM grain, the whole batch is discounted and is sold as GMO. There is a lack of evidence that GMOs can be contained and many jurisdictions have banned the introduction of GMOs. GMOs have the potential and the propensity to contaminate non-GMO crops and thereby devalue them. The evidence is that GMOs are invasive species, they are unwelcome by consumers, peaceful coexistence with non-GM varieties is a fiction, and GMOs are appropriately managed as a biosecurity issue.

Calls for decolonising IR are often focused on the need to decolonise dominant epistemologies. This article explores whether a shift towards decolonising ontology is able to provide a more profound challenge. Decolonising ontology implies acknowledging that there are multiple actual ‘worlds’, rather than just multiple perspectives on THE (‘one’) world. However, I argue that this approach is limited by the representational strategies that are used for making the encounter of multiple worlds legible for an academic audience. Drawing on ethnographic work that anthropologists have undertaken in relation to the GMO controversy as well as broader decolonial work in IR, I maintain that the writing-up of research often entails the settling and stabilising of ontological encounters that have been experienced as unsettling and disconcerting. This move towards stabilisation is grounded in hegemonic, colonial understandings of which questions should be pursued and why: questions that continue to be about determining what ‘is’ (rather than asking what questions would lead to rightful action), that can be answered with the help of all-encompassing concepts (such as the concept of the ‘pluriverse’), and that provide insights for entire disciplines (such as IR). The article shows to what extent this is detrimental to projects of decolonisation.

Given that society often does not articulate a clear policy goal for applied ecologists, what should a conscientious restoration ecologist do?  First, know clearly the boundary between scientific or technical issues and value judgments.  Second, to the extent possible, try to exhort decision makers to focus on the often fractious value choices rather than technical and scientific debate which often ends up serving as a surrogate polemic for an inability to adjudicate value debates.  Third, be brutally honest with decision makers about the technical feasibility of each possible policy option and the uncertainties associated with the resulting ecological consequences.  Often, the most useful input that restoration ecologists can provide is to identify the probability of success for various possible restoration targets and the associated ecological risks.  Restoration ecology is a promising, but still emerging science.  Practitioners should strive to avoid falling into the trap of mixing personal policy preferences and judgments with scientific information and expression.  Restoration ecology has too much to offer society to risk losing its credibility by having its potential scientific contributions dismissed because it is infected with policy advocacy masquerading as policy neutral science.

This report is the outcome of an EFSA procurement (OC/EFSA/GMO/2015/02) which aims at reviewing relevant scientific information on RNA interference (RNAi) that could serve as baseline information for the environmental risk assessment of RNAi-based genetically modified (GM) plants. The report is based on a systematic literature search on the use of RNAi molecules in arthropods, nematodes, annelids and molluscs with dsRNA, siRNA and miRNA applied primarily through feeding and soaking (oral ingestion). The numbers of retrieved publications covering these areas are reported, along with the species name, life stages tested, the target gene and its function, details of the test substances and their concentrations used, methods of delivery and effects. Separate sections discuss the available information on: (1) the uptake and systematic spread of RNAi activity, including a description of the various components involved in this process; (2) the mechanisms of dsRNA-, siRNA-and miRNA-elicited gene silencing and the different factors involved in RNAi efficiency; (3) routes of exposure of the biotic and abiotic environment to dsRNA, siRNA and miRNA from GM plants; (4) the environmental fate of dsRNA, siRNA and miRNA; and (5) the various factors that may limit non-target effects including exposure, factors influencing the silencing efficiency of dsRNA, siRNA and miRNA, possible unintended and off-target effects, and their mechanisms. Finally, an overview of the species of arthropods, nematodes, annelids and molluscs for which genomic data are available is also presented. The report identifies some of the challenges involved in developing plants with RNAi systems which affect invertebrate gene expression. The report also concludes that, currently, knowledge on issues such as exposure, specificity, offtarget effects, sequence similarities and bioinformatics is very limited, as only a few RNAi expressing plants which specifically target invertebrate species have been developed and comprehensively studied.

Agricultural biotechnology has been a project of India’s developmental state since 1986,
but implementation generated significant conflict. Sequential cases of two crops carrying
the same transgene – Bt cotton and Bt brinjal (eggplant/aubergine) – facing the same
authorization procedures produced different outcomes. The state science that
approved Bt cotton was attacked as biased and dangerously inadequate by opponents,
but the technology spread to virtually universal adoption by farmers. Bt aubergine
was approved by the same Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), but
the decision was overruled, the GEAC downgraded and a moratorium imposed on the
crop. Resultant conflicts engaged international networks, expanded the domestic
arena in which science is contested and instigated restructuring of institutions for
governance of genetic engineering. Divergent trajectories of the two crops
corresponded to global patterns, but also reflected differences in agro-ecologies and
state interests. In Bt cotton, state and cultivator interests dominated precautionary
logics; in Bt eggplant, politics of risk dominated questions of agro-economics. The
cases illustrate both the inherent vulnerability of science in politics and specific
vulnerabilities of science embedded in particular institutions. Differences in
institutional specificity of state science matter politically in explaining variation
across countries in adoption and rejection of genetically engineered crops.
Keywords: agriculture; biotechnology; India; Bangladesh; politics of science; Bt
cotton; Bt brinjal; Bt eggplant (aubergine); bio-safety; risk; GMO; regulation; food
safety

Este trabalho procura contar a forma como se deu a entrada das sementes transgênicas no Brasil e sua posterior institucionalização. E, a partir do caso brasileiro, avalia se essa tecnologia tem condições de contribuir, como anunciado por seus proponentes, para o enfrentamento de questões como a insegurança alimentar, o aquecimento global e o esgotamento de recursos naturais. Além disso, apresenta a forma como o discurso científico foi utilizado para legitimar interesses comerciais maiores e remonta o passo a passo da disputa política pela definição de uma nova legislação para o tema, identificando seus principais atores, argumentos e interesses em jogo. Considerando que esse debate nunca esteve reduzido a cientistas de um lado e leigos do outro, este trabalho também expõe os argumentos científicos que justificam posturas precaucionárias. E, nesse sentido, aponta efeitos adversos do uso da tecnologia que foram antecipadamente apontados, mas descartados pelos setores comprometidos com sua rápida adoção. Do mesmo modo, o caso da liberação comercial da primeira variedade de milho transgênico no Brasil é usado para evidenciar que a aprovação desses produtos, apesar de decidida por um conjunto de doutores, se deu de forma contrária à boa prática científica. O trabalho procura ainda interpretar os movimentos estratégicos de nível internacional, sem os quais as sementes transgênicas não teriam sido difundidas no Brasil e em outros países a ponto de praticamente substituir a produção convencional em poucos anos. Por movimentos estratégicos entende-se: fusões entre as divisões de químicos, sementes e fármacos de grandes empresas multinacionais; concentração empresarial do mercado de sementes; uniformização global de padrões para a propriedade intelectual sobre inovações biotecnológicas e para a proteção de cultivares; e aprovações de legislações nacionais transferindo a comitês técnicos atribuições normativas e poderes decisórios. Um dos capítulos é destinado a confrontar a base científica da engenharia genética com os conhecimentos atuais no campo da própria genética. Essa investigação resgatou a história das ideias sobre genes desde os primórdios da genética até os dias atuais, no intuito de compreender as raízes tanto do otimismo quanto do pessimismo em torno da técnica. A revisão da bibliografia da área permitiu identificar que a manutenção de um entendimento defasado sobre o papel e o funcionamento dos genes é necessária para a preservação do mercado das sementes transgênicas e de seus agrotóxicos associados. Por fim, baseado nos resultados práticos decorridos quase vinte anos da adoção dessas sementes, conclui-se que as principais promessas associadas ao seu uso não foram cumpridas. Ademais, aponta-se novo problema trazido com a tecnologia: a contaminação genética das demais sementes não geneticamente modificadas. A disseminação de genes modificados sobre sementes crioulas, nativas, parentes silvestres e afins ameaça o uso presente e futuro desses recursos que são base da alimentação humana. Os diferentes sistemas agrícolas que permitiram a manutenção até hoje desse acervo genético diversificado e localmente adaptado são apontados como alternativa sustentável e credível ao modelo de agricultura proposto pela indústria das sementes transgênicas.

FAO promotes Sustainable Production Intensification (SPI), which consists of a technology menu for optimizing crop production per unit area, taking into consideration the range of sustainability aspects including potential and/or real social, political, economic and environmental impacts. The author suggests that Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cropping is not only well aligned to SPI but also that this technology is a way to maximize the SPI principles. GMO crops cover about 13 percent of the world's cropped land. More than three quarters of this area is within the three countries that also lead the production and export of the major food and feed commodities: USA, Brazil and Argentina. The remaining area is spread across about 29 countries, mostly developing countries and a few industrialised countries. Four crops account for the majority of land under GMO crops: corn, soybean, cotton, and canola. About 90 percent of the soybean and 80 percent of the corn that is traded in the world market is genetically engineered. Consequently a very large part of the world population likely eats every day food that either contains GMOs or GMO derivatives or animal products derived from GMO fed animals. It has been the fastest adopted agricultural technology, rising to its current level over only twenty years. Further increases in production will mainly occur in developing and low-income countries. In the EU, a large majority of the member states have chosen to rule against GMO cultivation. It is essentially a ‗marketing' strategy. Nevertheless, GMOs land on European tables daily in one way or another. The developing world and its low income countries are gradually improving their policy, institutional and administrative environments towards the adoption of modern biotech rules. The technology is simple, has been thoroughly tested and through extensive scientific research and testing has been shown to be as safe as crops bred and developed by other techniques. The advantages in terms of higher crop productivity and lower production costs are substantial and widely proven. GMOs are also substantially eco-friendly but more research and development is required to improve herbicide management. Only a small fraction of the GM achievements, and opportunities, are being widely exploited. Other tested discoveries, which offer valuable strategies to address the challenges of climate change, productivity concerns and human health plagues/malnutrition that are widespread in low income countries, are yet to be adopted on a meaningful scale. There is no credible evidence that GMOs constitute a threat to human health. International rules and regulatory frameworks exist and are acknowledged. Cultural, which at times appear to be ideological, barriers more often of the developed world, are hindering rational technological advancement and food security and adequacy. In order to feed the growing world population, heading towards 9 billion or more by 2050, there is the need to increase food production by 60-70 percent, and to double it in the developing world where the highest demographic growth will occur. A safe and sustainable technology exists that can contribute substantially towards this target and humanitarian responsibility.

This paper explores the unequal distribution of the environmental and social costs and benefits of the genetically modified (GM) soy model in Argentina and its impact on grievance formation and the emergence of contestation. In the 1990s, Argentina transitioned into a neoliberal agro-industrial model based on producing GM soy for export. Though celebrated as a success, the expansion of GM soy monocultures has brought widespread socio-ecological disruption. Various social actors have started to mobilize against the resulting environmental injustice. I focus on the peasant–indigenous movement in the north of the country, which is struggling for land rights, and the movements against agrochemical spraying in the central Pampas region. These groups, which are relatively powerless to control resources where they live, and that experience little or no benefit from GM soy production, nevertheless bear most of its social and ecological costs. These struggles link environmental and social well-being, becoming struggles for ecological sustainability as well as social justice and equity.