728x90

A team of British plant scientists has won a $10m (£6.4m) grant from the Gates Foundation to develop GM cereal crops.

It is one of the largest single investments into GM in the UK and will be used to cultivate corn, wheat and rice that need little or no fertiliser.

It comes at a time when bio-tech researchers are trying to allay public fears over genetic modification.

The work at the John Innes Centre in Norwich is hoped to benefit African farmers who cannot afford fertiliser.

Agricultural fertiliser is important for crop production across the globe.

But the many of the poorest farmers cannot afford fertiliser - and it is responsible for large greenhouse gas emissions.

The John Innes Centre is trying to engineer cereal crops that could get nitrogen from the air - as peas and beans do - rather than needing chemical ammonia spread on fields.

If successful, it is hoped the project could revolutionise agriculture and, in particular, help struggling maize farmers in sub-Saharan Africa - something the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is keen to do.

'Major problems'

Professor Giles Oldroyd from the John Innes Centre, who is leading the team, said the project was vital for poorer producers and could have a "huge impact" on global agriculture.

"We believe if we can get nitron fixing cereals we can deliver much higher yields to farmers in Africa and allow them to grow enough food for themselves."

However, opponents of GM crops say results will not be achieved for decades at best, and global food shortages could be addressed now through improving distribution and cutting waste.

Pete Riley, campaign director of the group GM Freeze, said there was a realisation by many farmers across the world that "GM is failing to deliver".

"If you look in America, yields haven't increased by any significant amount and often go down," he said.

He added: "Now we're seeing real, major problems for farmers in terms of weeds that are resistant to the herbicides which GM crops have been modified to tolerate."

See more on this story on BBC one's Countryfile at 20:00 BST on Sunday 15 July


728x90
728x90

Monsanto and the Gates Foundation claim genetically modified crops will revolutionize agriculture in Kenya, but critics warn the technology is ill-suited to the needs of farmers.


NAIROBI, Kenya—In the sprawling hills of the Kangundo district in Kenya’s Eastern Province, just a few hours outside of capital city Nairobi, Fred Kiambaa has been farming the same small, steep plot of land for more than 20 years.

Born and raised just outside Kathiini Village in Kangundo, Kiambaa knows the ups and downs of agriculture in this semi-arid region. He walks up a set of switchbacks to Kangundo’s plateaus to tend his fields each morning and seldom travels further than a few miles from his plot.

Right now, all that remains of his maize crop are rows of dry husks. Harvest season finished just two weeks ago, and the haul was meager this time around.

“Water is the big problem, it’s always water. We have many boreholes, but when there is no rain, it’s still difficult,” he said.

Kiambaa and his wife, Mary, only harvested 440 pounds of maize this season, compared to their usual 2,200. They have six children, meaning there will be many lean months before the next harvest, and worse: Though March is Kenya’s rainiest month, it’s been mostly dry so far.

“The rain surely is not coming well this year. Rain is the key. We can only pray,” he said.

WONDER CROPS?

Farmers like Kiambaa are central to a push to deploy genetically modified (GM) technology within Kenya. In recent years, donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have invested millions of dollars into researching, developing and promoting GM technology, including drought-resistant maize, within the country — and have found a great deal of success in doing so through partnerships with local NGOs and government bodies.

The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), a semi-autonomous government research institution, recently announced that after years of trials, genetically modified drought-resistant maize seeds will be available to Kenyan farmers within the next five years. Trial GM drought-resistant cotton crops are already growing in Kidoko, 240 miles southeast of Nairobi.

Researchers and lobbyists argue that in a country so frequently stricken by food shortages, scientific advancements can put food into hungry bellies. Drought-resistant seeds and vitamin-enriched crops could be agricultural game changers, they say.

But serious concerns about viability, corporate dependency and health effects linger — even while leading research firms and NGOs do their best to smooth them over.

Agriculture dominates Kenya’s economy, although more than 80 percent of its land is too dry and infertile for efficient cultivation. Kenya is the second largest seed consumer in sub-Saharan Africa, and Nairobi is a well-known hub for agricultural research. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, farming is the largest contributor to Kenya’s gross domestic product, and 75 percent of Kenyans made their living by farming in 2006.

Half of the country’s total agricultural output is non-marketed subsistence production — meaning farms like Kiambaa’s, where nothing is sold and everything is consumed.

On top of that, the country is still reeling from the worst drought in half a century, which affected an estimated 13 million people across the Horn of Africa in 2011. Kenya is home to the world’s largest refugee camp, housing 450,000 Somalis fleeing violence and famine, increasing the pressure to deal with food security challenges.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga recently called on parliament to assist the estimated 4.8 million Kenyans, in a country of about 40 million, who still rely on government food supports, as analysts predict that this year’s rainy season will be insufficient to guarantee food security.

“The situation is not good... Arid and semi-arid regions have not recovered from the drought,” Odinga said.

At the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), a massive NGO working on GM research and development in partnership with KARI, Regulatory Affairs Manager Dr. Francis Nang’ayo says GM crops are “substantially equivalent” to non-genetically modified foods and should be embraced as a solution to persistent drought and hunger.

In 2008, the AATF received a $47 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This partnership involved the Howard G. Buffett Foundation and American seed giant Monsanto.

In 2005, the Water-Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) program became one of the first main partners in a program aimed at developing drought-resistant maize for small-scale African farmers. Monsanto promised to provide seeds for free. The Gates Foundation claimed at the time that biotechnology and GM crops would help end poverty and food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Gates Foundation had invested $27.6 million in Monsanto shares.

Donors had been investing millions in KARI for decades in an effort to develop seeds that would produce pest- and disease-resistant plants and produce higher yields. Monsanto promised results, with the goal of distributing its seeds to small-scale farmers across Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

Since then WEMA’s African partners have made major strides in bringing GM crops to Kenya, most notably when KARI announced in March that it is set to introduce genetically modified maize to farmers’ fields by 2017. Until 2008, South Africa had been the only country using GM technology. Now Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mali, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Ghana are researching GM seeds and growing trial crops of cotton, maize and sorghum.

“Five years ago it was only South Africa that had a clear policy. Since then a number of countries have put their acts together by publishing policies on GM technology laws. In Kenya we’re moving on to create institutional mechanisms,” said Dr. Nang’ayo.

Deeply Divided

But Nang’ayo and his team face several challenges. Popular opinion on the technology is deeply divided in Kenya, in large part due to suspicions about the giant foreign corporations that control it.

Monsanto-patented seeds are usually costly, which has led to numerous accusations of exploitation and contemporary colonialism. But how long will these particular strains of seeds last? What are the guarantees? Critics fear dependence on corporate fertilizers and pesticides, the emergence of super-weeds and pests that can no longer repel GM varieties, and terminator seeds that only last for one planting season.

At Seattle’s AGRA Watch, a project of the Community Alliance for Global Justice, director Heather Day said there aren’t enough questions being asked about introducing GM technology to developing countries.

“Our campaign started because of our concern about the Gates Foundation’s influence on agriculture and the lack of transparency and accountability. We also have ecological concerns, in terms of food sovereignty and farmers’ ability to control their food system. We need to be concerned about the industrialization of the agricultural system,” she said.

AGRA Watch’s objective is to monitor and question the Gates Foundation’s push for a “green revolution” in Africa.

Monsanto has promised an indefinite supply of royalty-free seeds for this project, but Day said the pitfalls have the potential to devastate the continent’s agriculture.

“Genetically modified crops actually haven’t been that successful,” Day said. “We’ve seen massive crop failure in South Africa, and farmers there couldn’t get financial remedies or compensation for their losses. There’s genetic resistance and super-pests, these things are happening now, and it’s not surprising. It’s what you would expect from an ecological standpoint.”

The horror stories are real — in India, for example, farmers who purchased Bollgard I cotton seeds from 2007 to 2009 wound up spending four times the price of regular seeds, and paying dearly for it. It was believed that Monsanto’s patented GM seeds would be resistant to pink bollworms, which were destroying cotton crops across swaths of India, but by 2010 Monsanto officials were forced to admit that the seed had failed and a newer breed of far more aggressive pests had emerged. The solution? Bollgard II, an even stronger GM cotton seed.

As of December 2011, Monsanto was actively promoting the latest Bollgard III cotton seed, stronger than ever before. Pesticide spending in India skyrocketed between 2007 and 2009, forcing thousands of farmers into crushing debt, and hundreds more into giving up their land. Some media outlets later drew a connection between the Bollgard debacle and a rash of suicides across farms that had purchased the seeds.

Land Grabs

Kenya is a country where land-grabbing is all too common, be it on the coast to make way for new tourist resorts, or in Nairobi, where slum demolitions left hundreds homeless when the government bulldozed several apartment buildings to reclaim an area near the Moi Air Base.

Farmers here are skeptical of risking everything for a few seasons of higher yields. In Kangundo, Kiambaa said he would try GM technology if it was a matter of life or death — but he is wary.

Kiambaa uses the Katumani breed of maize, a widely available seed that is reasonably drought-tolerant and affordable. Higher yields are tempting, of course, but Kiambaa said he doesn’t want to chance his livelihood on a foreign corporation. While his family has been on the land for decades now, Kiambaa said they didn’t get to farm it until British colonialists returned it to local farmers. He pointed out trees that line the steep hillside, planted by the British.

“It’s because of Mzungus that we have charcoal,” he said, smiling wryly.

After the last harvest, Kiambaa can’t even afford to use Kenya’s standard DAP fertilizer, which costs 59 cents per pound. Instead, he has a lone cow tied to a post in his fields.

“This provides the fertilizer we need. We can’t afford anything else. The maize yield could have been much better, but we know our plants will grow each year. It is better we keep it the way it is. My family has been on this land for 100 years. We have always survived,” he said.

At the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), CEO Willy Tonui claims media hysteria and inaccurate reporting are to blame for resistance to GM technology, arguing the NBA maintains stringent guidelines about GM seeds in Kenya. Referring to the plans to allow GM maize seeds in by 2017, Tonui said, “The National Biosafety Authority does not have the mandate to introduce GM maize or any other crop into Kenya. We only review applications that are submitted to the authority. To date, the authority has not received any application on commercial release of GM maize or any other crop.”

Anne Maina, advocacy coordinator for the African Biodiversity Network (ABN), a coalition of 65 Kenyan farming organizations, said that’s not a good enough answer.

“Who’s controlling the industry?” she asked. “If you are going to talk to the National Biosafety Authority, they’ll tell you the information is available, but there is a confidential business information clause where whoever is controlling the industry is not held accountable. The level of secrecy and lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

Farmers’ Needs

The ABN has actively lobbied the government since 2004 to crack down on GM technology slowly filtering into Kenya, with some measure of success. A 2009 Biosafety Act required all GM imports to pass stringent government standards before entering the country.

Maina recognizes the uphill battle she’s facing.

“Our public research institutions must shift their focus back to farmers’ needs,” she told The Indypendent, “rather than support the agenda of agribusiness, which is to colonize our food and seed chain. We believe that the patenting of seed is deeply unethical and dangerous.”

Joan Baxter is a journalist who has spent years reporting on climate change and agriculture in Africa. Reporting now from Sierra Leone, Baxter was quick to point out that even if a farmer chooses not to use GM technology, it won’t guarantee crop safety.

“Farmers are always at risk of contamination from GM seeds. That has been shown in North America. The farmers [in Africa] may lose their own seeds, perhaps be given GM seeds for a year or two, then have to purchase them and be stuck in the trap and in debt,” she said.

Like Maina, Baxter sees a problem in how GM technology is being marketed, and slowly introduced, into African countries, under the guise of ending famine. With climate change becoming an increasingly influential factor in the GM debate, Baxter said companies claiming to help are only looking for profit.

“Basically this is disaster capitalism. The disaster of hunger and drought, climate change and policy-related, is now a profit opportunity for Monsanto and Syngenta. The Gates Foundation buying shares in Monsanto tells you what the real agenda is: To get GMOs in Africa,” she said.

In 2010, NBA’s CEO resigned after it was revealed that 280,000 tonnes of GM maize had found its way into Kenya from South Africa through the Port of Mombasa.

Farmers mobilized en masse after the Dreyfus scandal (named for the South African company responsible for shipping the seeds) was revealed, marching on Parliament to demand an end to secret imports. After the most recent GM announcement, however, there were no protests. The long rains that would ensure a good yield haven’t come. The drought may continue.

Added to the potential problems with GM technology are health risks—the strains of maize that were illegally imported in 2010 had been deemed unsafe for children and the elderly. Maina also worries about animal feeding trials that showed damage to liver, kidney and pancreas, effects on fertility, and stomach bleeding in livestock that has consumed GM feed. A more recent study carried out on pregnant women in Canada found genetically modified insecticidal proteins in their blood streams and in that of their unborn children, despite assurances from scientists that it wasn’t possible.

The political scandal that erupted after 2010’s illegal imports brought GM technology into the forefront of Kenyan public debate, but last year’s massive drought has shifted public and political discourse. The ABN doesn’t have a $47 million grant to keep it going, and the pressures it faces from politicians and corporations, now waging their own propaganda war, are overwhelming.

GM Treadmill

At the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health in Toronto, researchers recently released a report titled “Factors in the adoption and development of agro-biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa.” The report, which was financed by a grant by the Gates Foundation, came to the conclusion that “poor communication is affecting agbiotech adoption,” and that “widespread dissemination of information at the grassroots level and can spread misinformation and create extensive public concern and distrust for agbiotech initiatives.”

Lead researcher Obidimma Ezezika declined to comment on Monsanto’s involvement with GM technology, and denied that his team was creating corporate propaganda.

“I think it is important to actively and soberly engage in the debate by offering facts to the policy makers, media and public on ag-biotech which will dispel fears and anxieties,” he told The Indypendent.

The mounting evidence, health questions and political scandals all mean Kenya would be wisest to take a step back before jumping on board the GM train, says Maina.

“Our key concern is that the development of insecticides and pesticides is primarily the emergence of companies getting farmers to buy highly toxic chemicals, which they will become totally dependent on. We don’t yet know the extent of the health risks posed, nor how we are expected to trust companies that have a record of putting small farmers out of business. It is time for sober second thought,” she said.


728x90
728x90



4th March 2012

By Anthony Gucciardi

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Monsanto shareholder Bill Gates has argued that GMOs are the solution to world hunger, going as far as to say that they are actually needed to fight worldwide starvation. Unfortunately for Gates, who back in 2010 bought 500,000 shares of the company he is now promoting in mainstream media as the solution to the world’s problems, a team of 900 scientists have found that GMO crops are actually not effective at fighting world hunger. In fact, the massive team found that Monsanto’s seeds, which have lead to thousands of farmer suicides due to excessive costs and failure to yield crops, were outperformed by traditional “agro-ecological” farming practices.

Funded by the World Bank and United Nations, an organization was created known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Consisting of 900 scientists and researchers, they set out to examine the complex issue of world hunger. While the issue of world hunger may be quite complex, their results were not. Quite plainly, the group found that genetically modified crops were not a meaningful solution to the problem. In other words, the expert team showed through rigorous analysis and repeated study that the claims made by Bill Gates are completely inaccurate.

Perhaps what is most compelling, though, is the fact thatBill Gates was fully aware of these findings before going on air to inform the public that GMOs are the solution to world hunger. The same GMOs that have beenlinked to organ damagemutated insects, and a host of other issues.

Bill Gates Knew of These Findings Beforehand

The findings of the IAASTD regarding the ineffectiveness of GMO crops were published on April 15, 2008. That is long before Bill Gates’ address to the public in late January of this year. Did Monsanto stockholder Gates ignore this information, or does he believe the 900 scientists to be incorrect? Perhaps the evidence generated from the expert team is not enough. In that case, then Gates should look no farther than the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Another massive research organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists also examined the true yield of GMO crops, only to find that the altered crops do not produce increased yields over the long run — despite their excessive cost and extreme danger to health and environment. The lack of scientific support behind the GMO crops was so startling to the Union that they documented all the details in a 2009 report entitled ”Failure to Yield.”

GMO crops are not only ineffective at fighting world hunger, but are a genuine threat to public health. Even if they were effective at feeding more individuals than traditional farming practices, would they really want to consume it? Bill Gates appears to have the interests of massive corporations in mind when perpetuating the myth that GMOs are the answer to fighting starvation.

About the Author

Anthony Gucciardi is an accomplished investigative journalist with a passion for natural health. Anthony’s articles have been featured on top alternative news websites such as Infowars, NaturalNews, Rense, and many others. Anthony is the co-founder of Natural Society, a website dedicated to sharing life-saving natural health techniques. Stay in touch with Natural Society via the following sites Facebook – Twitter – Web


http://wakeup-world.com/2012/03/04/sorry-bill-gates-gmo-crops-proven-to-be-ineffective-at-fighting-world-hunger/

728x90
728x90

객원 칼럼니스트 Glenn Ashton 씨는 빌 게이츠가 유전자조작 작물을 지지한 것은 세계은행과 유엔의 자금을 받아 아프리카를 위한 최고의 방법이 풀뿌리 농업운동이라고 한 과학적 연구와 충돌한다고 논한다.




세계 기아의 해결책으로 빌 게이츠가 유전자조작(GM) 작물을 지지한 것은 아프리카에서 지속가능하고, 공평하며, 효과적인 농업정책을 추진하고 있는 우리에겐 별 관심이 없는 일이다.

게이츠의 접근법에는 두 가지 주요 결점이 있다.

첫째, 그의 기술주의 관념은 최고의 정통 과학에 반하는 것이다. 세계은행과 유엔은 3년에 걸쳐 900명의 과학자들에게 개발을 위한 농업지식, 과학과 기술의 국제평가(IAASTD)를 만들고자 자금을 제공했다. 그 결론은 게이츠가 지지하고 명백하게 이야기한 것과 전혀 정반대로, 철학적이고 실천적 맥락에서 유전자조작 작물이 세계 기아의 복잡한 상황에 대한 의미 있는 해결책이 아니라고 한다.

IAASTD는 공업형 농업 모델을 추구하기보다는 오히려 "농업생태학적" 방법이 세계의 식량안보를 강화하는 데에, 특히 기후변화에 비추어 가장 현실가능한 수단을 제공한다고 제시한다. 이러한 방법들은 천 년 이상에 걸쳐 지역의 생태 환경에 적응한 지역의 농법과 전통 토종 품종을 기반으로 하여 구현하는 실제적 과학연구를 포함한다. 

농업생태학은 일관적으로 지속가능하게 생산성을 높일 수 있다는 것을 입증했다. 반대로 현재 GM 작물은 일반적으로 생산비와 농화학제품에 대한 의존이 높아짐에도 장기간에 걸쳐 수확량이 높아지지 않았다고 '걱정하는 과학자의 모임'(Union of Concerned Scientists)의 2009년 보고서 "Failure to Yield(http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf)"에서 강조했다. 

예를 들어 게이츠와 몬산토가 지지하는 실험적인 "가뭄 저항성" 옥수수는 자연의 옥수수 품종과 물을 덜 필요로 하는 농법보다 약하다. 따라서 게이츠의 GM "해결책"은 이미 입증된 저비용 접근법을 외면하고 더 비싼 투입재 —화학비료, 병충해 관리와 그를 위한 특정 종자 — 에 의존한다.

둘째, 게이츠는 현지에서 지역의 생산법에 노력을 기울이는 풀뿌리 조직을 위태롭게 하는 몬산토 같은 다국적 농기업과 함께 일하는 고분고분한 아프리카의 조직을 후원한다. 그는 단순히 아프리카의 기아를 사업의 기회로 여기는 공업형 농기업의 지지자를 위한 허수아비가 되었다. 그의 게이츠재단은 "... 빠르게 성장하는 소비시장"을 대표하는 "BOP"(피라미드의 바닥)로 세계의 빈곤층을 언급했다. 

유엔의 식량권에 대한 특별보고관 Olivier De Shutter 씨는 IAASTD 보고서를 보강했다. 그도 농업생태학적 농법이 기아와 맞서기 위한, 특히 경제적, 기후적으로 불확실한 시대에 훨씬 큰 잠재력을 지녔다고 결론을 내렸다(http://blog.daum.net/stonehinge/8724169).

빈곤은 수출용이 아니라 주로 지역 소비용 농산물을 생산하여 국내총생산에 기여하지 않는다고 전통적 농민을 고려하는 지배적인 세계 경제 체제의 결과이다. 공업형 농업체계에 이러한 "피라미드의 바닥"을 밀어넣는 것은 그들의 요구사항을 무시한다. 게이츠의 박애주의는 사상과 실천 모두에서 비민주적이다. 무시한다. 그것은 우리의 식량안보 문제에 대해 민주적으로 나온 아프리카의 해결책을 무시한다. 또한 그의 박애주의는 지역의 정책과 감성을 고려해야 할 이중 및 다중 해외 원조의 전통적 방법에 거스른다.

잘 의도되었지만 적합하지 않음에 시달리는 아프리카는 외부의 "전문가들"에 의해 간섭받는다. 세계의 가장 부유한 사람의 하나로 추정되는 그가 제공할 수 있는 모든 해결책은 오만하다. 그의 "기술에 대한 종교에 가까운 믿음"(최근 business journal에 묘사되었듯)은 IAASTD, De Shutter 및 풀뿌리 민주적 농업운동이 수행한 작업과 충돌한다.

자신이 선택한 분야에서는 성공한 반면, 게이츠는 농업 분야에는 전문적 지식이 없다. 이는 그와 그의 동료 자선가들이 기여할 수 없다는 말이 아니다 — 그들은 확실히 할 수 있다. 그러나 어떠한 신중함과 겸손이 그들이 벌려놓은 균열을 치료하기 위한 머나먼 길을 가도록 할 것이다. 아프리카인들은 고투입이 필요한 기술이란 커다란 몽둥이로 때려달라고 요구한 적이 없다. 그것은 신제국주의와 외국이 부과한 아프리카의 "실패"를 영속하게 할 것이다. 아프리카인들은 더욱 광범위한 협의로 농업생태학적 접근법에 함께 참여하라고 빌 게이츠를 다그친다. 

Glenn Ashton는 지역에서 폭넓은 사회적 이익을 위한 풀뿌리조직과 일한 경력이 있는 남아프리카 농업 고문이자 연구자이다. 그의 매일은 ekogaia@iafrica.com




http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017612869_guest28ashton.html#.T0zml3kHW4w.twitter

728x90
728x90





















728x90
728x90

빌과 멜린다 게이츠재단의 몬산토와 카길에 대한 투자는  심한 비판을 받고 있다. 그 재단은 개발도상국의 농업에 대한 전망을 깨끗이 정리할 때인가?


루마니아 농부가 Varasti의 마을에서 유전자조작 콩을 보여준다. Photograph: Reuters


가디언의 Global development site을 지원하는 빌과 멜린다 게이츠재단은 악명높은 유전자조작 회사 몬산토만이 아니라 농기업 상품의 거인 카길을 끌어들여 아프리카와 미국에서 큰 비판을 받고 있다.

문제는 미국 금융 웹사이트가 몬산토의 주식 2300만 달러에 달하는 50만 주를 샀다는 것을 보여주는 재단의 연간 투자 목록을 발표했을 때 시작되었다. 이는 지난 6개월 동안 꽤 증가했고 빌과 멜린다에게는 작은 변화일 뿐이지만, 그들의 가장 격렬한 비판을 풀어주기에 충분했다.

시애틀에 근거한 Agra Watch -Community Alliance for Global Justice의 프로젝트- 는 격노했다. "몬산토는 온 세계 소농의 이익과 행복을 노골적으로 무시해 온 역사가 있다. … [이는] 재단의 아프리카 농업 개발에 대한 큰 투자에 심각한 의심을 불러일으킨다"고 소리쳤다.

하지만 그것은 악화되었다. 남아프리카에 근거한 감시단체 African Centre for Biosafety 모잠비크 등지에서 그 재단이 "develop the soya value chain"이란 1000만 달러의 프로젝트를 카길과 협동으로 하는 것을 발견했다. 모든 개연성은 남부 아프리카에 대규모로 유전자조작 콩의 도입을 예고하고 있다.

그 두 가지 사건은 재단에 대한 많은 의문을 불러일으킨다. 몇몇 사람들은 아프리카에 유전자조작을 들여놓으려는 것인지 의심하고, 게이츠는 세계의 가장 공격적인 농업-거인 둘을 지원하여 절망적이게 순진한 것인가? 어쨌든 정부와 지역사회 차원에서 진정한 우려는 미국의 광범위한 첨단기술 농업의 모델이 대부분의 아프리카에 적절하지 않고 "세계를 먹여 살린다"는 명목으로 가장 가난한 농민들에게 떠맡겨서는 안 된다는 것이다.

카길은 세계의 농산물을 통제하는 농업-거인이고 몬산토는 10년 동안 빈곤한 아시아를 괴롭혀 그 자신과 미국에게 비열한 이름을 얻게 된 실수를 저질러 왔다는 것은 사실이다. 게이츠는 그들의 명성에 누가 된다는 것을 아는가? 실제로 재단은 그들의 농업에 대한 전망을 공유하고 앞으로 그들과 더 많이 함께 일할 셈인가?

재단은 세계의 가장 가난한 국가들에게 농업에 대한 전망이나 유전자조작 같은 논란이 많은 과학기술의 역할을 솔직하게 내놓지 않았다. 그러나 여기에서 논의를 시작할 수 있을까?

그 사이에, 얼마나 많은 고위 농업 직원이 몬산토와 카길을 위하여 일하고 있는지 우리에게 말해 줄 수 있는가?


728x90

+ Recent posts