@農자료창고

Of all the crops and countries in GMO controversies today, few are as important than Bt cotton in India. GMO debates keep going back to small farmers and developing countries, and India has by far the most small farmers planting GM seeds.  (In Brazil and Argentina, which account for most of the GM plantings in the developing world, most of the GM seeds are planted by large commercial soybean growers.)

The ISAAA has recently put out a series of publications on the “remarkable success of Bt cotton in India” (see an example).  Articles by economists routinely attribute major yield gains in Indian cotton to Bt.  In a recent interview with Down to Earth I was asked to respond to the claim by a seed industry spokesman that Bt cotton showed “how a technology can double yield of a crop in 6-7 years.”

If all this is true, it is very important.  Is it?  Well I’m a data guy and I happen to have the latest data on Indian Bt cotton (courtesy of the International Cotton Advisory Board).  First let me say that I have already discussed the controversy over Bt cotton causingfarmer suicides: the data just don’t support it.  But if we take a similarly objective look at the data on Bt cotton’s “remarkable success,” there are some equal surprises in store, and a few inescapable ugly facts.

India approved Bt cotton in 2002; now it accounts for 92% of all Indian cotton.  Average nationwide cotton yields went from 302 kg/ha in the 2003/3 season to a projected 481 kg/ha in 2011/12 — up 59.3% overall.  This chart shows the trends in yields, which took off after Bt was introduced in 2002 (as we are constantly reminded by GMO enthusiasts).

(The depiction of Bt cotton as a coquettish boll is courtesy of the ISAAA’s Mandy and Fanny, subject of literary criticism in an earlier post.)

The problem is that while yields did take off right after Bt cotton was approved, this was well before hardly anyone was actually planting Bt cotton!  Look at this graph showing the yearly percentages of all Indian cotton land planted to Bt cotton.  Now here’s ugly fact #1: Most of the yield increase happened between 2002-5 when Bt comprised between 0.4-5.6% of India’s cotton.  Obviously Bt couldn’t have accounted for more than a tiny speck of the national rise.

The graphs also show that — and here comes ugly fact #2 — in the last 4 years, as Bt has risen from 67% to 92% of India’s cotton, yields have dropped steadily.

Could it be that there is more going on than just Bt adoption?  KR Kranthi, director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (and as knowledgeable a person on Indian cotton as you are likely to find), writes that “While there is a general perception that Bt cotton technology was singularly responsible for the dramatic improvement of cotton fortunes in India, it is pertinent to examine other probable factors that may have contributed to the higher yields.”

One issue is the spread of poorly regulated private hybrid seeds that require pesticides; cotton farmers have been on a pesticide treadmill ever since.  The hallmark of the pesticide treadmill is short-term yield increases, and the yield increases in the early 2000′s probably had more to do with conventional pesticides than Bt.  KR Kranthi writes that the insecticide imidacloprid is

used as a seed treatment for protection against sap-sucking insects. Even a naïve student in India would know that none of the vast majority of Bt hybrids would have been able to sustain that onslaught of leaf hopper infestation without seed treated with imidacloprid. Gaucho, as it was known commercially, has been used in India since 2000 and was known to have contributed to at least 25% to 30% yield enhancement in the conventional hybrids, long before Bt cotton was introduced in the country. Since 2002, every Bt cotton seed has been treated with the highly effective insecticide, imidacloprid…

But it’s hard to generalize about a country that is as large and diverse as India, and those countrywide averages are hiding very different local patterns.  This chart shows the yield trends in the 8 states with significant cotton crops; the trends are all over the map.  Pretty messy.  So let’s zero in on the 4 biggest cotton producers (the legend in this chart gives their ranking based on cotton acres in 2011).

Let’s start with Andhra Pradesh, where I have been doing research for the last 12 years.  Yields did go up when Bt came along, but the upward trend clearly started after the 1997/8 season; farmers didn’t adopt Bt in significant numbers until 2005/6 which is 8 years after the yields started climbing.  (More on the A.P. story is available here.)  Then the ugly fact #3: since 2007, yields in AP have dropped back to below where they were before farmers started adopting Bt cotton.

Now for Maharashtra, kind of like AP but not as pronounced: yields started rising well before Bt became popular, and now have dropped back to around where they were before.

Next is Madhya Pradesh, where yields have been going down ever since the 1997/8 season.  Bt cotton 

doesn’t seem to have done anything to improve the steady slump.

Finally we get to Gujarat, which is where the real action is. This state accounts for most of the national rise in yields after 2002/3.  Nobody knows for certain how much Bt cotton was being planted in 2001-3 because there were illegal Bt seeds on many farms (it’s an interesting story). Bt, illegal or not, surely played a role in the rise in Gujarat yields.  So doesn’t that surge between 2000-2005 qualify as a “remarkable success

” for Bt?

Here comes ugly fact #4: In Gujarat, the state 

mainly responsible for India’s remarkable rise in yields, there were many factors contributing to cotton yields other than Bt.  According to KR Kranthi:

It is important to consider that maximum productivity gains were obtained from the 0.6 million to 0.7 million hectares of new area under cotton in Gujarat, which had the benefits of more than 100,000 newly constructed check dams apart from the highly fertile soils that were under groundnut cultivation for several years before cotton was taken up. New technologies such as pesticides with novel modes of action…were introduced during 2001 and 2002.

Therefore, it is probable that the new pesticides, new hybrids, new micro-irrigation systems, new areas, and Bt-cotton together may have been effectively contributing to the enhanced rate of production and productivity. The role of Bt cotton in effectively protecting the crop from bollworms… cannot be underestimated, but need not be overhyped either.

I have read that the army of activists writing on GMO’s in India try to avoid the facts of the case.  I think on some issues –like the suicide narrative — that’s a fair charge.  But the counter-narrative of Bt cotton’s “remarkable success” also needs to he held up to the facts, and when you do, it gets ugly very quickly.

Bt did not “double yields” in 5 years.  National yields did rise from 302 to 554 kg/ha (up 84%) in the first 5 years after Bt was released, but almost all of that rise occurred in 2003/4 (when only 1.2% of the cotton was Bt) and 2004/5 (when only 5.6% of the cotton was Bt).  In short, Bt couldn’t have been responsible for the rise.

A more likely explanation for a rise in national yields in the early 2000s were the short-term gains from insecticides for sap-sucking pests.

Bt adoption didn’t top 10% until 2005/6; since then, adoption has climbed to 92%.  In that same period from 2005 to the present, national yields rose from 478 to 481 kg/ha — up 1%.

In none of the top 4 cotton-producing states do the trends fit the claim that Bt cotton has boosted yields. Even in Gujarat, where yield gains were most dramatic, the adoption of Bt was only one of several key changes in cotton production.

Over the last 4 seasons, with Bt adoption topping 90%, yields have dropped 13.2%.  In AP, where I have watched the Bt saga closely, yields are lower than they were before Bt became popular.  Now that’s ugly.

To access all the articles in this month's issue of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, SUBSCRIBE NOW.

Sierra Club, US bee and honey groups urge EPA to ban clothianidin

An insecticide used as a seed treatment on genetically modified corn and other crops has been found to be highly toxic to honey bees, according to a study published recently in the journal PLoS onE.

The study may be a key to solving the mystery of Colony Collapse Disorder that has decimated bee populations over the last five years, causing losses of 30% and more of honey bee colonies every year since 2006, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Found at levels 700,000 times a bee’s lethal dosage

Scientists at Purdue University documented major adverse impacts from the insecticide clothianidin (product name “Poncho”) on honey bee health. The study found that bees are exposed to clothianidin and other pesticides throughout the foraging period. Researchers found extremely high levels of clothianidin—as high as 700,000 times a bee’s lethal dosage—in seed planter exhaust material. It was found in foraging areas long after treated seed had been planted and in dead bees near hives in Indiana. It was also found in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. The study raises questions about the long-term survival of this major pollinator.

“This research should nail the coffin lid shut on clothianidin,” says Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club’s chairwoman of the Genetic Engineering Action Team. “Despite numerous attempts by the beekeeping industry and conservation organizations to persuade the EPA to ban clothianidin, the EPA has failed to protect the food supply for the American people.”

“Clothianidin is among those most toxic to bees”

Clothianidin, which is manufactured by German agricultural company Bayer Crop Science, is of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides. Clothianidin is taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen and nectar from which bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids are of particular concern because they have cumulative, sublethal effects on insect pollinators that correspond to Colony Collapse Disorder symptoms—namely, neurobehavioral and immune system disruptions.

According to James Frazier, Ph.D., professor of entomology at Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, “Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bees; and this combined with its systemic movement in plants has produced a troubling mix of scientific results pointing to its potential risk for honey bees through current agricultural practices.”

Clothianidin has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country’s major crops, particularly GM corn, since 2003. Back then, the Environmental Protection Agency granted it a “conditional registration,” while EPA waited for Bayer to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide’s threat to bee colony health.

“Continued use is in violation of the law”

Bayer submitted its study to the EPA in 2007, two years after it was due. A memo written by EPA scientists and leaked in 2010 said that Bayer’s study was flawed, stating that “deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental.”

The memo was found by Tom Theobald, a founding member of the Boulder County Beekeeper’s Association. “The document reveals that the agency has been allowing the widespread use of this bee-toxic pesticide, against evidence that it’s highly toxic to bees. Clothianidin has failed to meet the requirements for registration. Its continued use is in violation of the law,” Theobald says.

Upon learning of the EPA’s failures, the National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and the American Honey Producer’s Association urged the agency in a December 2010 letter to cancel the registration of this pesticide. Yet despite the fact that clothianidin had failed a critical life cycle study which was required for registration, the agency responded in a February 2011 letter stating that it wasn’t “aware of any data that reasonably demonstrates that bee colonies are subject to elevated losses due to chronic exposure to this pesticide” and “does not intend to initiate suspension or cancellation actions against the registered uses of clothianidin.”

“Time for EPA to cancel this bee-killing pesticide”

Now with the published study documenting harm to bees from clothianidin, beekeepers, honey producers, and environmental groups are calling on the EPA again to ban it.

“EPA said we don’t have the science (to ban clothianidin). Now we have the science,” Theobald says.

Neil Carman, Ph.D., scientific advisor to Sierra Club, says: “A huge shoe has dropped. US researchers have documented major adverse impacts from clothianidin seed treatments in corn on honey bee health.” Carman further explains “Because of the vital role played by honey bees in crop pollination, honey bee demise threatens the production of crops that produce one-third of American diets, including nearly 100 fruits and vegetables. The value of crops pollinated by bees exceeds $15 billion in the US alone.”

Hopwood exclaims, “The time is now for EPA to quit dodging the illusion of oversight and instead, cancel this bee-killing pesticide.  If we travel too far down our current path, we could create conditions in our food system much like those that brought down the financial system.”

GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs Link to this video

Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds", according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people.

The so-called miracle crops, which were first sold in the US about 20 years ago and which are now grown in 29 countries on about 1.5bn hectares (3.7bn acres) of land, have been billed as potential solutions to food crises, climate change and soil erosion, but the assessment finds that they have not lived up to their promises.

The report claims that hunger has reached "epic proportions" since the technology was developed. Besides this, only two GM "traits" have been developed on any significant scale, despite investments of tens of billions of dollars, and benefits such as drought resistance and salt tolerance have yet to materialise on any scale.

Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies' justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.

In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.

Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.

The report, which draws on empirical research and companies' own statements, also says weeds are now developing resistance to the GM firms' herbicides and pesticides that are designed to be used with their crops, and that this has led to growing infestations of "superweeds", especially in the US.

Ten common weeds have now developed resistance in at least 22 US states, with about 6m hectares (15m acres) of soya, cotton and corn now affected.

Consequently, farmers are being forced to use more herbicides to combat the resistant weeds, says the report. GM companies are paying farmers to use other, stronger, chemicals, they say. "The genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering in farmers' fields," add the authors.

The companies have succeeded in marketing their crops to more than 15 million farmers, largely by heavy lobbying of governments, buying up local seed companies, and withdrawing conventional seeds from the market, the report claims. Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world's three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and intellectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report.

The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over 95% of the Indian cotton seed market and of massively pushing up prices. High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought to be behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.

The report, which is backed by Friends of the Earth International, theCenter for Food Safety in the US, Confédération Paysanne, and theGaia foundation among others, also questions the safety of GM crops, citing studies and reports which indicate that people and animals have experienced apparent allergic reactions.

But it suggests scientists are loath to question the safety aspects for fear of being attacked by establishment bodies, which often receive large grants from the companies who control the technology.

Monsanto disputes the report's findings: "In our view the safety and benefits of GM are well established. Hundreds of millions of meals containing food from GM crops have been consumed and there has not been a single substantiated instance of illness or harm associated with GM crops."

It added: "Last year the National Research Council, of the US National Academy of Sciences, issued a report, The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, which concludes that US farmers growing biotech crops 'are realising substantial economic and environmental benefits – such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields – compared with conventional crops'."

David King, the former UK chief scientist who is now director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, has blamed food shortages in Africa partly on anti-GM campaigns in rich countries.

But, the report's authors claim, GM crops are adding to food insecurity because most are now being grown for biofuels, which take away land from local food production.

Vandana Shiva, director of the Indian organisation Navdanya International, which co-ordinated the report, said: "The GM model of farming undermines farmers trying to farm ecologically. Co-existence between GM and conventional crops is not possible because genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops is impossible to control.

"Choice is being undermined as food systems are increasingly controlled by giant corporations and as chemical and genetic pollution spread. GM companies have put a noose round the neck of farmers. They are destroying alternatives in the pursuit of profit."

The debate over biotech crops has become predictable.

In his 2012 annual letter from the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, who has a near-religious faith in technology and innovation, argues that an “extremely important revolution” in plant science, i.e., genetically-engineered crops, can help farmers in poor countries by giving them access to new varieties of crops that will better resist disease and adapt to climate change.

Days later, the Center for Food Safety, a Washington watchdog group and persistent critic of Big Ag, pushed back, saying that biotech crops had failed to deliver on their promise to alleviate hunger, and that Gates would do better to support low-cost “agroecological techniques” that don’t depend on patented, genetically-engineered seeds.

The conflicting claims and supporting data are hard to sift through. Will disease-resistant biotech cassava answer the prayers of Christina Mwinjipe, a farmer in Tanzania, whose crops are threatened by diseases, as Gates writes? Or will patented genetically engineered crops prove disastrous for the 1.4 billion farmers in  the global south who now save seeds from one season to the next, as Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the Center for Food Safety, argues?

The voices of farmers are rarely heard in these debates. (They’re probably working too hard.) But data released this week indicates  farmers, through their actions, are voting for biotech crops.

Last year, farmers planted an additional 12 million hectares of biotech crops, an increase of 8 percent over 2010, according to the annual biotech crop report of the ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications).

Most of that growth — 8.2 million hectares — came from the developing world, lead by Brazil and  India, the report says. The growth rate for biotech crops in developing countries was 11 percent, twice as fast and twice as large as industrial countries at 5 percent or 3.8 million hectares.

“Unprecedented adoption rates are testimony to overwhelming trust and confidence in biotech crops by millions of farmers worldwide,” said Clive James, the report’s author, in a statement. It must be said that James is an unabashed supporter of biotech crops but as best I can tell, his numbers haven’t been challenged.

Why do more farmers every year plant biotech crops? Critics of genetically-modified crops will say they are tricked into it by marketing or lack of knowledge or short-termism, and it’s certainly true that the popularity of a product is not a reliable indicator of its value. (ABBA sold more records than the Rolling Stones. People smoke cigarettes.) But if biotech crops didn’t make farmers more productive, or save them time or money, would they spread around the world as consistently as they have?

James writes: “There is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology – biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits.”

The top five countries that have embraced biotech crops–the US, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada–each planted more than 10 million hectares of the crops. Of the 16.7 million farmers who grew biotech crops, about 14 million were small, resource-poor farmers in China and India, most of them planting pest-resistant Bt cotton. In Africa, three countries–South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt–have commercialized biotech crops, and others, including drought-tolerant maize, are being tested.

In his letter, Gates argues that not nearly enough agricultural research is being done:

Given the central role that food plays in human welfare and national stability, it is shocking—not to mention short-sighted and potentially dangerous—how little money is spent on agricultural research. In total, only $3 billion per year is spent on researching the seven most important crops…Very little of the country and private spending goes toward the priorities of small farmers in Africa or South Asia.

Andrew Kimbrell

But critics like Andrew Kimbrell says the biotech industry has failed to deliver on its promise to feed the world:

The biotech industry has exploited the image of the world’s poor and hungry to advance a form of agriculture that is expensive, input-intensive, and of little or no relevance to developing country farmers.

The debate will rage on. Meanwhile, a campaign is underway to require the FDA to label genetically engineered foods. Supporters of labeling, most prominently Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farms, say we have a right to know what’s in our food: “Without a requirement to label foods containing these ingredients, we are forced to be guinea pigs in a giant experiment involving our health and the environment.”

By contrast, in his book Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, the veteran environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote:

I daresay the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we’ve been wrong about. We’ve starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool.

Your thoughts?

Supposedly objective scientific and economic assessments of the benefits of genetically modified crops are often biased by the fact they are funded by the very organisations they analyse, argues Wenonah Hauter.

Any discussion about the sustainability of salmon is no longer limited to analyzing the numbers of fish pulled from the sea. Each winter, salmon return to rivers and creeks in the Pacific Northwest to spawn, but if these waterways are impacted by surburban spawl or pollution from agricultural runoff (as shown here), their numbers are dramatically reduced. In some cases, salmon simply don’t return to spawn at all.

Founded by river and native fish protection organization Pacific Rivers Council, Salmon-Safe is an environmental certification organization based in Oregon that works to inspire habitat conservation.

Salmon-Safe certification encourages the adoption of ecologically sustainable agricultural practices that protect water quality and spawning grounds by focusing on riparian area management;  water use management; erosion and sediment control; integrated pest management; animal management; and biodiversity conservation.

The Buchanan family has managed Tyee Wine Cellars for five generations dating back to 1885, with over 80 acres of riparian habitat on the property. (Back in the 1950s, David’s father wouldn’t allow the Soil Conservation Service to straighten the creeks and remove the riparian trees).

Text from the image

As one of the first farms certified by Salmon-Safe almost 15 years ago, David adheres to a number of fish friendly principles:

1. Maintain a cover crop under the vines year-round to sequester carbon, keep the vines in balance and prevent erosion.
2. Dry farm the vineyard, using irrigation only for frost protection in early spring.
3. Protect nearby creeks with native riparian buffers 60 to 400 feet in width that enhance habitat for native fish, birds, and wildlife. (David has planted over 4,000 native Oregon oak, Oregon ash, western red cedar, and Willamette Valley ponderosa pine.)
4.  Apply only minimal amounts of organically acceptable spray to the grapes when needed.
5. Use non-lethal scare tactics to discourage birds and wildlife from eating the grapes during harvest.

Large trees, root wads, and wood left in the stream provide shelter (and shade to fish and rearing habitat for young fish). The wood slowly breaks down over the years to supply food to aquatic insects which in turn provides food for crayfish, fish, and other aquatic organisms. Wood left in the stream also helps create positive water flow changes and meandering in streams.

On creek banks, riparian buffers (including trees and shrubs) provide shade and bank stability to keep the creek cool and keep sediment from silting up the stream. Clean, clear cold water is best for salmon and trout.

한국은 아직 유전자조작 작물의 상업적 재배가 허용되지 않은 국가 가운데 하나입니다. 그래서 아직은 안전하다고 할 수 있지요. 물론 2010년 GMO 낙곡 문제가 불거졌으나, 아무튼 상업적 재배는 법적으로 금지되어 있는 상태입니다. 

그러나 그렇다고 아예 유전자조작 작물을 개발하고 있지 않은 것은 아닙니다. 바로 그 역할을 담당하고 있는 것이 농촌진흥청이란 기관입니다. 그곳에서 그동안 개발한 유전자조작 작물은 19개 작물 128개 품종이라고 합니다. 이를 품목별로 보면 벼가 가장 많은 63종이고, 누에가 14종, 배추 10종, 유채 9종, 감자 7종, 콩 6종 등입니다. 세계는 점점 유전자조작 작물을 개발하고 판매, 재배하는 쪽으로 나아가고 있는데 우리도 뒤질 수는 없는 노릇이라 그렇죠. 마치 이웃이 전투기와 미사일을 갖추는데 우린 소총만 가지고 싸울 수는 없지 않은가 하는 논리와 마찬가지입니다.

이런 상태이기에 여차하면 유전자조작 작물의 상업적 재배를 허용할 수도 있을 테고, 그렇게 규제를 풀어야 세계 농업과의 경쟁에서도 뒤처지지 않을 것이니 말입니다. 아무튼 현재로서는 아직은 개발에만 집중하다가 언제든 이를 풀어야 한다고 판단하면 문을 활짝 열 것으로 보입니다.

또한 국가기관에서만이 아니라 국내의 종묘회사 가운데 농우바이오가 유전자조작 고추 종자를 개발한 후 현재 환경 위해성 평가를 진행중이라고 합니다. 농우바이오 측의 발표에 따르면, 자신들이 개발한 유전자조작 고추 종자에 인도 등 해외에서 관심을 보였다고 합니다. 농우바이오의 요즘 행보는 다국적 농기업으로 나아가려고 엄청나게 노력하는 모습을 보이고 있습니다. 동부한농도 그렇구요.

한 품종의 유전조자작 작물을 개발하는 데에는 최소 7~10년이 걸리고, 거기에 드는 비용도 1,000억 원 이상이 필요하다고 합니다. 그러니 이렇게 개발된 종자값이 비쌀 수밖에 없는 것입니다. 인도의 목화농민들이 몬산토의 유전자조작 목화가 도입된 이후 생산비 증가와 그에 따른 농가부채로 인하여 1990년대 중반부터 현재까지 25만 명이 스스로 목숨을 끊은 것은 반다나 시바 씨에 의해 유명해진 이야기입니다. 어디건 농민이 부채 없이 농사를 지어 먹고 산다는 건 꿈꾸기 어려운 일이 되어 가고 있습니다.

얼마전 농림수산식품부는 골든시드 프로젝트를 발표했습니다. 그에 대해 제가 골든시드 프로젝트, 이른바 돈이 되는 종자를 개발하는 프로젝트가 GM 종자의 개발과 연결되는 것이 아닌가 하는 의심을 품은 글을 작성한 적이 있습니다. 그에 대해 농림수산식품부에서는 그것은 어불성설이라며 전혀 상관없다고 했지요. 하지만 이 이야기를 보면 도대체 이해가 가지 않습니다. 그건 다음과 같습니다. "농진청은 차세대 바이오그린사업에서 GM작물 개발사업단을 출범시켜 GM작물 육성기술 확보와 함께 수출용 GM종자 개발에 도전하고 있다"고 밝혔지요. 이건 도대체 뭡니까? 오히려 어불성설은 농림수산식품부가 아니겠습니까? 이에 대한 정확한 답변을 요구했지만, 자신들의 입장만 밝힌 다음 묵묵부답이네요(http://blog.daum.net/stonehinge/8724965).

앞서 언급한 민간의 종묘회사인 농우바이오의 한지학 생명공학연구소장은 얼마전 인터뷰에서 "한국은 GM 작물에 대한 투자가 매우 미흡하다"며 "세계 종자시장의 흐름이 GM종자로 바뀌고 있어 우리도 이에 대한 대비가 중요하다"고 강조했습니다. 이래도 골든시드 프로젝트가 GMO와 전혀 무관한 것인지 알 수 없습니다. 왜냐하면 골든시드 프로젝트는 종자산업을 육성하기 위하여, 결국 민간의 종자회사를 지원하기 위하여 시행하는 것이기 때문입니다. 물론 그 프로젝트의 성공 여부는 매우 불투명합니다. 현재 민간의 종자회사들도 그에 대해 의구심을 표하고 있지요. 이는 앞에 잠깐 얘기했듯이 유전자조작 종자 개발에 드는 비용과 시간, 연구인력, 노력 등의 문제 때문입니다. 이미 다국적 농기업들이 저만치 앞서 가고 있는데 그 틈새시장을 뚫을 수 있을지는 미지수입니다.

아무튼 제가 생각할 때 GMO 상용화는, 비유하자면 원자력발전과 비슷하다고 할 수 있겠습니다. 현재로선 그것이 인간의 건강에 위험성이 없는지 없는지조차 밝혀진 바가 없고, 또한 슈퍼 잡초라든지 슈퍼 해충 및 현재 세계적으로 일어나고 있는 벌의 죽음과도 이어진다는 보고들처럼 자연환경에 악영향을 미친다는 사실이 점점 밝혀지고 있습니다. 원자력발전이 그렇듯이 조금의 위험이라도 있다면 그만두는 편이 낫습니다. 물론 그것이 보여주는 생산성은 아주 매력적이지요. 그것 때문에 쉽사리 그걸 버리지 못하는 것이겠지만요.

유전자조작 작물이 처음 세상에 그 모습을 나타낸 것은 1990년대 중반입니다. 그렇게 유전자조작 작물이 상용화되어 170만ha에서 재배된 이후, 2008년에는 1억2500만ha 확대되어 재배면적이 거의 100배나 증가했습니다. 현재도 점점 늘어나는 추세입니다. 이러니 다국적 농기업에서 그만둘 수 있겠습니까. 종자 하나만이 아니라 종자를 팔면 농약과 기계까지도 덤으로 팔 수 있고, 결국은 농업과 관련된 모든 걸 손쉽게 장악하고 마르지 않는 샘물처럼 돈을 벌 수 있는데 말입니다. 결국 우리가 그만두게 만들 수밖에 없습니다.

이러한 불에 기름을 들이부은 건 지난주 빌 게이츠였습니다. 그는 지금 세계의 기아와 빈곤, 앞으로 성장할 인구를 부양하기 위해서는 '농업혁명'이 필요하다며 "유전자조작 기술을 활용해 곡물생산을 획기적으로 늘리지 않으면 세계 기아문제를 해결할 수 없다"고 주장했죠. 그런데 재미난 건 게이츠재단에서 몬산토에 투자를 하고 있다는 사실입니다. 이는 무엇을 의미할까요? 생각할 만한 문제가 아닐 수 없습니다(http://goo.gl/aXUA7).

현재 세계적으로 재배하는 유전자조작 작물은 24개 작물 155개 품목입니다. 그 가운데 옥수수가 49개 품목으로 가장 많고, 면화 29개, 카놀라 15개, 감자 10개, 콩과 쌀, 토마토가 각각 9개 순입니다. 재배면적으로는 옥수수보다 콩이 6920만ha로 가장 많고, 다음은 옥수수 4170만ha, 면화 1610만ha 순입니다.

한국의 GMO 수입액은 식량자급률이 떨어지는 것과 맞물려서 점점 늘어나고 있습니다. 2010년 수입승인을 받은 GMO는 식용과 사료용을 포함해 848만2000톤(21억3688만9000달러)으로 2009년에 비해 16.5%가 늘었다고 합니다. 특히 2010년에 식용으로 수입된 옥수수가 99만3000톤이라니 무척 우려스러운 일입니다.

식량자급은 단지 안보의 문제가 아닙니다. 우리의 건강한 삶과 자연환경의 보존과 직결되는 중요한 문제입니다. 이를 산업과 경제의 논리로만 접근하여 바라보는 것은 매우 위험한 일입니다. GMO는 그 핵심에 놓인 문제입니다.

GMO와 관련한 자료는 아래 농민신문의 이에 대한 심층 기획기사를 참고했습니다.

http://www.nongmin.com/article/ar_detail.htm?ar_id=198398

http://www.nongmin.com/article/ar_detail.htm?ar_id=198619&subMenu=articletotal

한국의 GMO 식품 표기법은 아래의 사진과 같다. 

그러나 제품에 사용된 유전자조작 농산물이 함량 5순위에 해당되지 않을 경우나 최종 제품에 DNA나 단백질이 남아 있지 않는 경우 그 표시를 생략할 수 있다고 한다. 

그 결과 아래와 같은 일이 발생하는 것이다.

그동안 사람들이 GMO라는 단어에 반감을 가지고 있다는 사실을 알고는 계속하여 새로운 용어로 바꾸려는 시도가 있었다. 그 결과 탄생한 것이 바로 LMO라는 단어. 그런데 Genetically Modified Organism(GMO)를 Living Modified Organism(LMO)라고 하면 뭐가 근본적으로 달라지나? 이거 아주 눈가리고 아웅 하는 꼴이랑 똑같다.

한국에서는 어떨까? 한국은 LMO법을 시행(2008.1)한 이후 지식경제부, 교육과학기술부, 농림수산식품부, 농촌진흥청, 식품의약품안전청 등의 관계 기관과  한국바이오안전성정보센터(KBCH)를 중심으로 LMO에 관한 정보를 제공하고, 연구과제를 수행하고, 설명회와 세미나를 열고, 홍보물 제작·배포하고, 동영상 제작하는 등 열심히 애를 쓰고 있다.

아무튼 아무리 이름을 바꾸더라도 GMO는 GMO일 뿐. 유전자를 조작하고 변형시키는 데에는 변함이 없다.