@農자료창고

Thirty years ago, scientists figured out how to directly modify the genes in our food crops. No more of that inefficient and slow breeding! Farmers would grab plant genes by the horns nucleotides and bend them to their will!

Now, the preeminent science journal Nature has devoted an entire issue to the question (to paraphrase that legendary IBM ad), where are the magic seeds? We were going to get seeds that would grow faster, yield more, save the environment, and be more nutritious. What we got were seeds for a few commodity crops such as corn, soy, and cotton that made their own pesticide or resisted herbicides, but otherwise provided little, if any, benefit to consumers.

Nonetheless, Nature assures us that the magic seeds are on the way. What the journal doesn’t say explicitly, however, is that there’s evidence that for existing GMO seeds, the best days are already over — and the next generation of seeds may be doomed even before they’re in the ground.

Of course, you’ll have to forgive the large biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Syngenta for thinking that they did in fact supply magic seeds. After all, as Nature observes, every year, farmers worldwide plant $15 billion worth of GMO seeds, covering about 420 million acres — an area larger than Texas and California combined — much of it on U.S. land. And those biotech companies earned tens of billions in profits off of them.

It’s an undeniably impressive feat. Just look at these charts of GMO adoption by farmers:

But popularity ≠ sustainability. What about charts that demonstrate GMOs’ vaunted yield increases and environmental benefits? Not to be found. That’s probably because, for all their marketplace success, it’s very difficult to measure exactly how much GMOs have increased crop productivity. one recent USDA study even found that yields for some GMOs were lower than for their conventional counterparts, though they did decrease the overall risk of crop failure.

In fact, if you look at charts of corn yields over time, what you see amid the volatility is a pretty consistent, modest trend that began in the 1930s with the introduction of conventionally bred hybrid seeds.

You can’t look at the chart and guess when GMO seeds were introduced (hint: 1996) by some huge increase in the yield curve. Certainly, it’s not the way you could glance at a graph of, say, the tuberculosis death rate in the 20th century and instantly identify the date antibiotics were introduced.

The commercialization of GMO seeds starting in 1996 didn’t lead to any agricultural great leap forward. It’s a far cry from what biotech advocates declare: that we need GMOs in order to feed a growing world population or face mass starvation.

As for environmental benefits, Nature was unable to cite any independent assessment. one article [sub req'd] quotes a single industry-funded study which determined that between 1996 and 2011, GMOs drove a 6 percent drop in pesticide on cotton crops, while overall the technology offered about a 9 percent improvement to the “environmental impact quotient” — a measure that takes into account impacts on wildlife and so on.

And the price for this very modest “progress”? We’ve handed over the seed industry — and in a meaningful sense, the agricultural system — to a handful of large companies. In 2010, 85 percent of all corn and 92 percent of soy planted in the U.S. contained Monsanto’s patented genetically modified traits. It doesn’t quite seem worth it.

But even that modest formulation of GMOs’ benefit may be overstating the case. As author Sam Fromartz put it in an essay on theAtlantic, GMOs have actually accelerated agriculture’s decline into unsustainability because:

… we’ve used them bring down the cost of industrial meat production and incentivize a transition to a meat-centric diet. The loss of calories that result from feeding grains to animals instead of humans represents the annual calorie needs of more than 3.5 billion people, according to the UN Environmental Program. In short, GMOs arguably are making matters worse by fueling the production of more animal feed and food-competing biofuels.

And, yes, agrees Nature, they’ve also driven the rise of superweeds that are immune to the effects of common herbicides central to GMO agriculture. It’s this now-established fact that threatens GMOs’ meager benefits. While farmers enjoyed a 15-year window of reduced pesticide use thanks to seeds that make their own or resisted the effects of others, superweeds and superbugs are now causing farmers toincrease pesticide use.

In an op-ed in Food Safety News, agricultural scientist Charles Benbrook makes this very point, often overlooked by writers who cover the subject. He notes that compared to the early years of GMOs, farmers now must use twice as much herbicide, and seeds that emit multiple pesticides, to get the same amount of growth as GMOs used to achieve.

Benbrook observes that the growing pest and weed problems for GMOs have caused farmers to turn to seeds that are coated with a different pesticide — a neonicotinoid. If that name rings a bell, it’s because these pesticides that have been implicated in the increasing epidemic of bee deaths. He also reveals something that I have not previously heard — that there has recently been what he calls a “historically unprecedented” 10-fold increase in fungicide use on U.S. crop acres, most of which are planted with GMO corn and soy. So much for those GMO environmental benefits.

And that’s aside from the evidence that biotech’s “next big thing” — seeds that emit multiple pesticides — may be doomed to fail. An international team of researchers, including USDA and biotech scientists, found what they termed “cross-resistance” to these pesticides in bugs exposed to the next-generation GMO seeds. Evidence, in other words, that GMO seeds are hitting a bug-covered wall.

But never mind all that! Nature wants to assure us that we need to remain committed to genetically modified food because the long-promised “jetpack era” — the one we’ve supposedly all been waiting for — is almost upon us. It’s a familiar refrain: Don’t mind the paltry benefits so far; the genetically modified best is yet to come! If only the public is willing to eat it, that is.

And it’s the public that Nature identifies as a big part of the problem, as those pesky humans constantly throw up roadblocks to the latest engineered foods. (Witness yet another state referendum on GMO labeling, this time in Washington state.) Consumers, with what theNature editors declare are their “fears of the unfamiliar,” truly loom as the bad-guy in this debate.

Nature’s exploration of GMOs, which, given the journal’s — heh — “nature,” understandably restricts its focus to the science, ends up misinterpreting pubic distrust in GMOs. You can’t understand the GMO debate without factoring in the political and corporate system in which it takes place. It’s like considering the causes of obesity without addressing the role of food marketing — obesity is not just about people on their own making bad choices.

GMOs didn’t come to dominate our agricultural system simply because they’re awesome, and they’re not struggling for acceptance because the public is fearful and/or misinformed. Corporations made billions on GMOs and all we got was ethanol and an unsustainable diet. Is it so surprising that we’re skeptical that the next time around will be any different?

2월 19일, 미국 대법원에서는 "Bowman 대 몬산토 주식회사"가 GM종자 특허를 두고 소송이 진행된다. 한편 ‘Center for Food Safety’와 ‘the Save Our Seeds’는 이번과 유사한 소송 사례들을 묶어서 "종자 거인 대 미국의 농민(Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers)"이라는 제목의 보고서를 발표했다. 

보고서에 따르면 몬산토는 2013년 1월까지 미국의 27개 주에서 410명의 농부들과 56곳의 소규모 농장 사업체에 대하여 종자 특허를 침해했다는 144건의 소송을 제기하였다. 몬산토, 듀폰, 신젠타의 3개 거대 종자기업이 전체 상업용 종자 시장의 53%를 점유하고 있으며, 이들이 지난 1995년부터 2011년까지 종자의 가격 인상을 유도하여, 에이커 당 대두를 경작하는 비용을 평균 325%, 옥수수 종자 가격을 259%나 높였다고 지적하고 있다. 

종자 특허는 생물학 분야의 발명이나 발견을 법적으로 보호하기 위한 생물 특허의 한 형태인데 몬산토나 다른 주요 기업들의 경우 GM종자에 대한 특허들을 보유하고 있다. 최근에 이들 및 다른 기업들은 자신들의 종자 특허를 침해했다는 이유로 농부들에게 소송을 제기하고 있다. 이는 농부들이 이들 기업에게 돈을 지불하지 않고는 해당 종자를 재배할 수 없음을 의미한다. 

그런데 농부들이 합법적으로 종자를 구입하고, 이를 재배하여 작물을 얻은 후에 거기에서 확보된 종자를 다시 재배하는 것에 대해서는 좀 복잡한 상황에 처하게 된다. 여기에 대해서 대부분의 기업들은 불법이라고 주장하고 있다. "Bowman 대 몬산토 주식회사”의 사례에서 Bowman의 주장에 따르면 새로운 종자를 구입하는 대신에 등록된 몬산토의 판매업자로부터 2세대 종자를 합법적으로 구입했다고 한다. 이에 대해서 몬산토는 Bowman이 자신들의 제품을 본질적으로 훔친 것이라고 주장하고 있다. 

몬산토는 특허가 자신들의 사업 이익을 보호하며, 여러 GM 연구개발에 많은 돈을 투자할 동기를 제공한다고 주장하고 있다. 그러나 이번 보고서의 저자인 Bill Freese는 특허가 더 뛰어난 작물을 개발하게 해준다는 것은 말도 안된다고 지적한다. 그는 20세기에 얻어진 주요 신품종 대부분이 공공 기금의 지원을 받는 농업연구와 기존 육종에서 비롯되었다고 강조했다. 최근 작물의 다양성이 크게 감소하고 있으며, 여기에는 거대 농업 기업들이 상당히 기여했다고 기술하고 있다. 

Despite persisting concerns over genetically modified crops, a new industry report (PDF) shows that GMO farming is taking off around the world. In 2012, GMO crops grew on about 420 million acres of land in 28 countries worldwide, a record high according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, an industry trade group.

If all the world's GMO crop fields in 2012 were sown together, it would blanket almost all of Alaska. As the chart from the report shows, globally GMO farming has been on an uninterrupted upward trend. What's especially noteworthy is the growth of GMO farming area in developing nations (see red line), which surpassed that in industrial nations for the first time in 2012. The ISAAA's report doesn't project into the future, but we may see this upward trend continue as "a considerable quantity and variety" of GMO products may be commercialized in developing countries within the next five years, according to a recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation forum (PDF).

The ISAAA says the area of land devoted to genetically modified crops has ballooned by 100 times since farmers first started growing the crop commercially in 1996. Over the past 17 years, millions of farmers in 28 countries have planted and replanted GMO crop seeds on a cumulative 3.7 billion acres of land—an area 50 percent larger than the total land mass of the United States, the group adds.

"This makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history," ISAAA chair Clive James states in the report. "The reason—it delivers benefits."

What kinds of benefits? According to the ISAAA, GMO farming has reduced use of pesticides, saved on fossil fuels, decreased carbon dioxide emissions, and "made a significant contribution to the income of < 15 million small resource-poor farmers" in developing countries. These small-scale farmers now make up over 90 percent of all farmers growing GMO crops, the group states.

But just looking at the United States—consistently the biggest GMO crop producer in the world by a long shot—there is much reason to doubt on some of ISAAA's claimed benefits. (More after the chart.)

As my colleague Tom Philpott reported earlier this month, nearly half of all US farms nowhave superweeds that can resist Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, which is sprayed on crops engineered by Monsanto. A 2012 study by Washington State University showed that overall, GMOs lead to a net increase in pesticide inputs. And a Department of Agriculture-funded paper out this month found that genetically modified doesn't necessarily mean higher crop yields (PDF), one of GMOs' biggest selling points.

There's been some doubt about the wisdom of GMOs in the rest of the world, too. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has pointed out (PDF) some of the downsides of GMOs for small farmers and consumers, such as pest resistance, contamination of non-GMO crops, and potential toxicity of GM foods and products. According to the FAO, in 2011, 161 countries ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement designed to ensure the safe transfer and handling of GMO crops "that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements."

Back in January, more than 60,000 Mexican small-scale farmers marched through Mexico City in protest against Monsanto, Latin American news site Voxxi reported. The company has been trying to obtain unrestricted permission to plant its genetically modified corn in the country. The farmers fear that widespread planting of the modified corn will contaminate native breeds. "For peasant farmers, GMOs represent looting and control," Olegario Carrillo, president of the Mexican small farm organization UNORCA said at the protest.

As the FAO notes, in most cases these GM technologies are proprietary, developed by the private sector and released for commercial production through licensing agreements. Adoption of GM technologies has also spurred a range of social and ethical concerns about restricting access to genetic resources and new technologies, loss of traditions (such as saving seeds), private-sector monopoly, and loss of income of resource-poor farmers. There's also reason to worry about legal battles. Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a 2007 case Monsanto filed a against Vernon Hugh Bowman, a 75-year-old Indiana farmer. Bowman, Monsanto claims, violated the corporation's patent rights by buying and planting second-generation Roundup Ready seeds, which Monsanto contractually forbids. (Mother Jones' Maggie Severns has more on this here.)

Nonetheless, by ISAAA's count, developing countries show no signs of slowing their adoption GMO crop technologies. In 2012 they surpassed industrial countries in their share of the world's GMO crops, the group reports.

업계의 보고에 따르면, 미국이 여전히 주요한 유전자조작 작물의 재배국이지만 지난해 처음으로 개발도상국이 절반 이상을 재배하는 지역이 되었다. 

"앞으로 5년 이후에는 개발도상국에서 발전하는 모습을 볼 것이다. 그곳은 우리가 먹여살려야 할 입이 있는 곳이다"라고 ISAAA의 의장 Clive James 씨가 보고서에서 말했다. 

ISAAA는 생명공학 산업단체로, 해마다 세계의 생명공학 작물의 재배를 조사하여 발표한다. 

몬산토, 듀폰, 신젠타와 기타 화학과 종자회사 들은 지난 10년에 걸쳐 종자에 대한 유전적 특성 품종의 절반 이상을 장악해 왔다. 가장 인기 있는 유전자조작(GM) 특성은 옥수수와 콩, 목화와 같은 작물이 제초제를 살포해도 살아남거나 해충에 해로운 물질을 발생시키도록 바꾸어 놓았다.

생명공학 작물의 새로운 유형 대부분은 "다중 형질" 또는 여러 향상된 기능을 가지고 있다. 그 종자는 기존 종자보다 훨씬 비싸지만, 생산성 향상을 도움으로써 판매된다. 

비판자들은 생명공학 작물이 농약 사용량을 늘리고 환경에 해를 끼치며, 인간과 동물에 대한 안전성이 입증되지 않았다고 주장하지만, 지지자들은 보통 작물과 다를 바 없다고 한다. 

지난 화요일 발표된 ISAAA의 보고서는 지난해 생명공학 작물의 재배면적이 1억7030만 헥타르에 달한다고 밝혔다. 이는 2011년보다 1030만 헥타르 늘어난 것이다. 

또한 생명공학 작물을 사용하는 농민의 수도 1730만 명으로 늘어나, 2011년보다 60만 명 증가했다고 한다.

그리고 처음으로 브라질의 옥수수와 콩 재배면적이 늘어난 덕에 개발도상국이 생명공학 작물 재배면적의 절반 이상을 차지하여 52%를 점유한 반면, 선진국은 48%였다. 

브라질에서 생명공학 작물은 2012년 3660만 헥타르에 재배되어, 2011년보다 630만 헥타르 증가했고, 세계 전체 면적의 약 21%를 차지한다. 

미국 농민들이 여전히 주요한 생명공학 작물의 재배자인데, 2012년 6950만 헥타르를 심어 2011년 6900만 헥타르보다 약간 증가하고, 세계 전체 면적의 약 41%를 차지한다. 

아르헨티나는 2390만 헥타르를 심어 세계 전체 면적의 14%를 차지하고, 캐나다는 1160만 헥타르를 심어 세계 전체 면적의 7%를 차지한다. 

수단이 생명공학 작물에 도전하다

수단이 지난해 처음으로 생명공학 작물을 심었다. 약 2만 헥타르에 Bt 목화를 심었는데, 남아프키라와 부르키나파소, 이집트에 이어 네 번째로 상업적 생명공학 작물을 재배하게 되었다. 

쿠바도 처음으로 농민들이 3천 헥타르에 잡종 생명공학 옥수수를 심었다.

생명공학 작물을 시도한 국가의 농민들 모두가 그 사용량을 확대하고 있는 것은 아니다. 콜롬비아는 2012년 생명공학 목화를 2만8172헥타르에 재배했는데, 이는 2011년 4만9333헥타르보다 감소한 것이다. 

루마니아도 2008년 Bt 목화를 7천 헥타르 이상 심었는데, 2012년에는 217헥타르만 심었다. 보고서에서는 유럽연합에 가입하기 전 루마니아에서 10만 헥타르에 생명공학 작물을 심었다고 한다. 

그리고 이집트는 2012년 BT 옥수수를 1000헥타르에 심었는데, 2011년 2800헥타르에서 감소한 것이다. 

유럽연합은 여전히 생명공학 작물의 확산 노력에 까다로운 시장으로 남아 있다. 2012년 유럽연합의 다섯 국가가 몬산토의 생명공학 옥수수를 심고 있지만,  BASF는 지난해 시장 저항으로 유럽연합에서 생명공학 작물에 대한 상업적 활동을 중단했다.

"유럽연합은 그 문제가 과학기술에 관계된 것이 아니라 정치적 성격과 활동가들의 이데올로기적 관점에 영향을 받기에 특히 전망하기가 까다롭다"고 ISAAA 보고서는 말한다.

세계적으로 생명공학 작물에 대한 3년의 전망은 "조심스럽게 낙관한다"고 보고서에서 말한다. 생명공학 사탕수수가 가까운 시일 안에 활성화될 것 같고, 비타민A가 향상된 벼, 트랜스지방 없는 콩과 오메가3가 풍부한 콩이 유행할 것으로 보인다고  ISAAA는 말한다. 세계 최초의 생명공학 밀도 2020년까지 나올 것이라고 한다.

It is a statistic that is hard to deny:  industrial forms of agriculture, with emphasis on large-scale monoculture crop production, have a negative impact on biodiversity.  The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, referring to the scale of the loss as “extensive,” found that some 75 percent of plant genetic diversity has been lost since 1900 as farmers turn to genetically uniform, mass-produced crop varieties.

The term “biodiversity” was derived from “biological” and “diversity,” and refers to the total diversity of all life in a given locale — one as small as a backyard (or smaller) or as large as the entire planet Earth. ¹

Since genetically modified crops (a.k.a. GMOs) reinforce genetic homogeneity and promote large scale monocultures, they contribute to the decline in biodiversity and increase vulnerability of crops to climate change, pests and diseases.

Genetically modified crops grow in a dynamic environment and interact with other species of the agro-ecosystem and surrounding environment.  As “biological novelties to the ecosystems,”² GM crops may potentially affect the “fitness of other species, population dynamics, ecological roles, and interactions, promoting local extinctions, population explosions, and changes in community structure and function inside and outside agroecosystems.”³

The recent concerns raised by Dr. Don Huber, who noted a link between GM crops, engineered to withstand continued applications of glyphosate, plant diseases and spontaneous abortions and infertility in pigs, horses, cattle and other livestock, further underscore the troubling fact that GM crops may likely have a larger negative impact on the agroecosystem and the surrounding environment.  More importantly, Huber’s revelations further point to the inaccurate assumptions made by this nation’s regulators.  GM crops are not substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, they interact in novel ways to impact the plant, the soil and the animals that consume them and government agencies should think twice before deregulating GMOs.

Independent scientists studying the affects of GMOs have also raised other concerns regarding the impact of GMOs on biodiversity.  The spread of transgenes to wild or weedy relatives, the impact of GMOs on nontarget organisms (especially weeds or local varieties) through the acquisition of transgenic traits via hybridization, the evolution of resistance to pests (in case of Bt crops), accumulation of Bt toxins, which remain active in the soil after the crop is plowed under and bind tightly to clays and humic acids and the unanticipated effects of the Bt toxin on nontarget herbivorous insects,⁴ are areas of concern as are increasing concerns about the adverse impact of GMOs on insects (such as bees, for example), nematodes, and birds, all of whom either consume GMOs seeds or their by-products or are present in glyphosate saturated soils.  “[T]he vast majority of soybeans and cotton, and 70% of our corn, is Roundup Ready, leading to over 230 million lbs of glyphosate being sprayed each year,” noted Bill Freese, the Science Policy Analyst at the Center For Food Safety.

Furthermore, the impact of GMOs on biodiversity is also seen in the development of superweeds and superbugs since over-reliance on and the abundant use of single herbicide and pesticide lead to resistance in the pest community.  The “unregulated use of glyphosate-resistant crop systems has triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds infesting 10 million acres or more,” in this country alone.

GMOs contribute to a decline in biodiversity in one other way.  According to Bill Freese, the Science Policy Analyst with the Center For Food Safety, as biotech companies acquire conventional seed companies, conventional and organic seeds are pushed out. Freese states that:

When Monsanto buys up seed firms, it discontinues the conventional lines, and offers only biotech versions. … So from Monsanto’s perspective, it makes no sense to sell a high-quality conventional variety when you can charge higher prices and make more money selling that exact same seed, only with a Roundup Ready or other biotech trait(s) stuck into it.

It’s not just Monsanto. Bayer and other biotech firms don’t want to sell conventional varieties anymore. [They are] [n]ot as profitable. And since the biotech trait is patented, you get the bonus of patent protection when you insert the trait into a seed. That allows the likes of Monsanto to sue farmers for the “crime” (patent infringement) of saving seed, … .

While additional studies are needed to gain a fuller understanding of the impact of GMOs on biodiversity, the currently available information begs the question of whether GMOs bring more harm than good, especially when small-scale farmers, using ecological methods, can address the pressing agricultural concerns.

환경운동가 Vandana Shiva 씨와 농부 Bija Devi 씨가 거대한 적과 맞서 토종 종자를 보존하기 위해 싸우다.

Two Options from The Perennial Plate on Vimeo.

출처 가디언