728x90

UCS는 우리의 새로운 광고운동을 공유하여 정확히 짚고 넘어가는 걸 돕는다


몬산토의 광고는 농산업의 거대한 업적에 대해 인상적으로 이야기한다: 늘어나는 인구의 부양. 자연자원의 보호. 생물다양성의 촉진. 

멋지게 들리지만, 불행히도 함정이 있다: 이러한 주장은 과장되고, 오도되거나 철저한 거짓이다. 몬산토의 제품 —그리고 그들이 조장하는 농법— 은 기업의 이윤을 유지시키지만, 우리의 식량과 농법의 변화에 진정으로 지속가능한 해결책을 가져오는 데에는 장애물이란 여러 증거가 밝혀졌다. 

아래의 광고들에서 우린 USC의 분석을 통해 수집한 몇몇 사실들과 함께 몬산토의 자기만족적 수사법을 깨버린다. 친구들과 이를 공유하고 퍼뜨리자: 건강한 농법이 실행될 때 문산토는 실패한다!


(사진을 클릭하면 크게 볼 수 있음)





#1: 더 많은 제초제 + 더 적은 나비 = 더 나은 씨앗?

몬산토는 말한다: "농부의 손에서, 더 나은 씨앗은 우리의 빠르게 늘어나는 인구의 수요를 충족시키면서 지구의 자연자원을 보호하는 데 도움이 될 수 있다."

사실: 몬산토의  Roundup 제초제에 저항성을 갖도록 유전자조작된 Roundup Ready 작물은 1996~2008년 사이 제초제 사용을 3억 8300만 파운드로 증가시켰다고 추정된다. 그리고 라운드업 레디가 도입된 이후 서식지가 파괴된 덕에 왕나비(Monarch butterflies)는 81%의 더 적은 알을 낳는다





#2: 슈퍼잡초의 번성

몬산토는 말한다: "우리의 급속한 인구 성장은 압력을 높여 자원 -땅, 물, 에너지와 같은- 의 한계에 처하게 만들고 있다."

사실: 그 과제는 현실이지만, 몬산토의 제품은 해답이 아니다. UCS의 분석은 지금까지 GE 작물이 미국의 수확량을 개선시키는 데 매우 작은 기여만 했음을 밝혔다. 한편 —빠르게 성장하는 인구에 대한 답으로— 라운드업 레디 작물을 남용하는 것은 "슈퍼잡초"의 비극을 낳고, 미국 농민들에게 엄청난 문제를 일으키고 있다.





#3: 가뭄 저항성에 대한 완전 거짓

몬산토는 말한다: "올바른 도구와 함께 농민은 더 많은 미래세대를 위해 자연을 보존할 수 있다."

사실: 농민이 더 많은 물을 보존하길 바란다면, 몬산토의 DroughtGard 옥수수는 올바른 도구가 아니다. UCS의 최근 연구는 농민이 물 사용을 줄이는 데에 DroughtGard가 도움이 되지 않는다는 사실을 발견했다 —그리고 유전자조작된 가뭄 저항성은 일반적 가뭄의 상황에만 도움이 될 것이다. (연구는 유기농업의 방법이 가뭄이 든 해의 수확량을 96%까지 높인다는 걸 밝혔다.)

 



출처 http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/monsanto-fails-at-improving.html

728x90
728x90

DYERSBURG, Tenn. — For 15 years, Eddie Anderson, a farmer, has been a strict adherent of no-till agriculture, an environmentally friendly technique that all but eliminates plowing to curb erosion and the harmful runoff of fertilizers and pesticides.



Jason Hamlin, a certified crop adviser and agronomist, looks for weeds resistant to glyphosate in Dyersburg, Tenn.


Related

Invasion of the Superweeds

Michael Pollan and others on what Roundup-resistant weeds mean for American agriculture.

Green

A blog about energy and the environment.

But not this year.

On a recent afternoon here, Mr. Anderson watched as tractors crisscrossed a rolling field — plowing and mixing herbicides into the soil to kill weeds where soybeans will soon be planted.

Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.

To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.

“We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. “We’re trying to find out what works.”

Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.

“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts.

The first resistant species to pose a serious threat to agriculture was spotted in a Delaware soybean field in 2000. Since then, the problem has spread, with 10 resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton and corn.

The superweeds could temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for some genetically modified crops. Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds.


Supplemental herbicides were applied on Eddie Anderson’s land to combat weeds that are resistant to glyphosate.

Roundup — originally made by Monsanto but now also sold by others under the generic name glyphosate — has been little short of a miracle chemical for farmers. It kills a broad spectrum of weeds, is easy and safe to work with, and breaks down quickly, reducing its environmental impact.

Sales took off in the late 1990s, after Monsanto created its brand of Roundup Ready crops that were genetically modified to tolerate the chemical, allowing farmers to spray their fields to kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States.

But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

Now, Roundup-resistant weeds like horseweed and giant ragweed are forcing farmers to go back to more expensive techniques that they had long ago abandoned.

Mr. Anderson, the farmer, is wrestling with a particularly tenacious species of glyphosate-resistant pest called Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, whose resistant form began seriously infesting farms in western Tennessee only last year.

Pigweed can grow three inches a day and reach seven feet or more, choking out crops; it is so sturdy that it can damage harvesting equipment. In an attempt to kill the pest before it becomes that big, Mr. Anderson and his neighbors are plowing their fields and mixing herbicides into the soil.

That threatens to reverse one of the agricultural advances bolstered by the Roundup revolution: minimum-till farming. By combining Roundup and Roundup Ready crops, farmers did not have to plow under the weeds to control them. That reduced erosion, the runoff of chemicals into waterways and the use of fuel for tractors.

If frequent plowing becomes necessary again, “that is certainly a major concern for our environment,” Ken Smith, a weed scientist at the University of Arkansas, said. In addition, some critics of genetically engineered crops say that the use of extra herbicides, including some old ones that are less environmentally tolerable than Roundup, belies the claims made by the biotechnology industry that its crops would be better for the environment.

“The biotech industry is taking us into a more pesticide-dependent agriculture when they’ve always promised, and we need to be going in, the opposite direction,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety in Washington.


Mr. Anderson, who has about 3,000 acres of soybean fields, is dealing with the pest pigweed. 


So far, weed scientists estimate that the total amount of United States farmland afflicted by Roundup-resistant weeds is relatively small — seven million to 10 million acres, according to Ian Heap, director of the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, which is financed by the agricultural chemical industry. There are roughly 170 million acres planted with corn, soybeans and cotton, the crops most affected.


Roundup-resistant weeds are also found in several other countries, including Australia, China and Brazil, according to the survey.

Monsanto, which once argued that resistance would not become a major problem, now cautions against exaggerating its impact. “It’s a serious issue, but it’s manageable,” said Rick Cole, who manages weed resistance issues in the United States for the company.

Of course, Monsanto stands to lose a lot of business if farmers use less Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds.

“You’re having to add another product with the Roundup to kill your weeds,” said Steve Doster, a corn and soybean farmer in Barnum, Iowa. “So then why are we buying the Roundup Ready product?”

Monsanto argues that Roundup still controls hundreds of weeds. But the company is concerned enough about the problem that it is taking the extraordinary step of subsidizing cotton farmers’ purchases of competing herbicides to supplement Roundup.

Monsanto and other agricultural biotech companies are also developing genetically engineered crops resistant to other herbicides.

Bayer is already selling cotton and soybeans resistant to glufosinate, another weedkiller. Monsanto’s newest corn is tolerant of both glyphosate and glufosinate, and the company is developing crops resistant to dicamba, an older pesticide. Syngenta is developing soybeans tolerant of its Callisto product. And Dow Chemical is developing corn and soybeans resistant to 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War.

Still, scientists and farmers say that glyphosate is a once-in-a-century discovery, and steps need to be taken to preserve its effectiveness.

Glyphosate “is as important for reliable global food production as penicillin is for battling disease,” Stephen B. Powles, an Australian weed expert, wrote in a commentary in January in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Research Council, which advises the federal government on scientific matters, sounded its own warning last month, saying that the emergence of resistant weeds jeopardized the substantial benefits that genetically engineered crops were providing to farmers and the environment.

Weed scientists are urging farmers to alternate glyphosate with other herbicides. But the price of glyphosate has been falling as competition increases from generic versions, encouraging farmers to keep relying on it.

Something needs to be done, said Louie Perry Jr., a cotton grower whose great-great-grandfather started his farm in Moultrie, Ga., in 1830.

Georgia has been one of the states hit hardest by Roundup-resistant pigweed, and Mr. Perry said the pest could pose as big a threat to cotton farming in the South as the beetle that devastated the industry in the early 20th century.

“If we don’t whip this thing, it’s going to be like the boll weevil did to cotton,” said Mr. Perry, who is also chairman of the Georgia Cotton Commission. “It will take it away.


Ten resistant species of weeds in at least 22 states are infesting millions of acres.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

728x90
728x90


농부가 Auburn, Ill에 있는 자신의 옥수수밭에 제초제 글라이포세이트glyphosate를 뿌린다. 

The Salt지에서 과 곤충에 대한 이야기와 함께 해충 저항성 주간처럼 보인 이후, 우린 단지 최선을 다할 뿐이다. 자, 다음으로는: 왜 몬산토의 과학자들은 풀이 그들의 블록버스터 제초제 라운드업에 있는 풀을 죽이는 화학물질인 글라이포세이트에 저항성을 갖게 된다고 예견하지 못하는가?

1993년 몬산토가 미국 농무성에 라운드업 저항성 대두의 승인을 요청했을 때, 그것은 두 단락에서 저항성 풀의 잠재성에 대한 쟁점이 필요없었다. 농무성은 "글라이포세이트가 풀 저항성에 대해 위험성이 적을 것으로 고려된다"고 했다.

또한 그 기업에서는 몇몇 대학의 과학자들이 "글라이포세이트 저항성 대두를 상업화한 결과 글라이포세이트에 대한 풀 저항성이 별로 문제가 될 것 같지 않다"고 동의했다고 적었다.

저런. 그러고 난 이후 글라이포세이트에 대한 저항성이 20가지 종의 풀에서 나타났다.

 

나는 당시 몬산토에 있던 몇몇 사람들이 떠오른다. 왜 그곳 사람들은 저항성이 생길거라 생각하지 않았는가? 그들은 모두 비슷한 이야기를 했다. 

첫째, 그 기업은 아무 문제없이 몇 년 동안 라운드업을 판매해 왔다. 둘째, 아마 가장 중요할 텐데 그 기업의 과학자들은 수백만 달러와 10년 이상을 소비하며 그들이 필사적으로 바라는 라운드업 저항성 식물을 만들고자 노력했다 —대두와 목화, 옥수수. 그건 매우 어려운 일이었다. 내가 생명공학 작물에 대해 나의 책에서 몬산토의 옛 과학자들과 인터뷰했을 때, 그들 중 하나는 그걸 그 기업의 "맨해튼 계획"이라 불렀다.

그러한 작물을 만드는 것이 얼마나 어려운지 고려하면, 라운드업에 "풀이 저항성을 갖게 될 것이란 생각은 매우 어려운 것이다"라고 현재 몬산토에서 저항성 풀 문제를 처리하려고 노력하는 Rick Cole 씨는 말한다. 콜 씨는 1996년에 몬산토에서 일하기 시작했는데, 같은 해 시장에 라운드업 레디 작물이 처음으로 나왔다. 

그래서 풀이 그들이 틀렸다는 걸 입증하자 그 기업의 전문가들이 어떻게 반응했을까? "그 반응은 '여기에서 정말로 무엇이 일어나고 있는가?' "라고 Cole 씨는 말한다. 몬산토는 풀이 글라이포세이트에 어떻게 견디는지 밝히고자 "막대한 노력"을 들이기 시작했다. 어떤 풀은 여하튼 식물에 글라이포세이트가 들어가도 계속 나타났다고 Cole 씨는 말한다; 다른 것은 많은 피해를 주지 않을 수 있는 지점으로 제초제를 떼어놓았다. 몬산토의 유전자조작 작물은 완전히 다른 기술을 사용한다. 

"의자에 앉아 생각해 보라, '내가 어떻게 했어야 하는가?' "라고 Cole 씨는 말한다. 그 기업이 라운드업의 사용을 제한하려고 했더라도 그것이 성공했을지는 확실치 않다고  Cole 씨는 말한다. "라운드업 레디 작물은 혁명과 같았고, 사람들은 너무 빨리 그걸 받아들였다. 우리가 무언가를 하려고 노력했더라도 사람들이 그걸 못했을 수도 있다"고 그는 말한다.


http://www.americanscientist.org/science/content1/15059

728x90

+ Recent posts