|
Dear SBS
I
have long appreciated the quality of programming on SBS but am forced
on this occasion to provide feedback for a less than
impressive 'pseudo documentary' on genetically modified food
production, namely ‘Can GM Food save the world?', screened on July 7 at 7.30
pm.
One of the claims made was
the 10 years and no damage observed in people etc. What short
memories people seem to
have - how long did it take for the scientific community
and then governments to become aware of (and act
on) the dangers posed by DDT? Or any number of chemicals used in the
agricultural/ food production environment? 10 years is nothing when we are
speaking of detecting adverse impacts in human, other animal and plant
reproduction, or evaluating impacts on non-target species... or of the multiple
interactions over time between chemicals in an environment or in any number of
species.
I was appalled at the
presentation of genetic
engineering as ‘nothing new', a mere speeding up of ‘natural' processes or ones undertaken by humans who selectively
pollinated species etc. In GE we have cross-species interactions that would
NEVER occur naturally. An insect gene does not enter a plant
gene ‘naturally'. The example of the wild cabbage and its ‘descendants' is misleading - again they are the same species. Each gene
in their makeup belong to the same species. It
is also not an animal gene slotted into a plant or a plant gene
slotted into an animal.
The presenter uses an Amish
farmer who uses the product of this GM ‘advanced
technology' while using horse-drawn vehicles etc. Again the
overall impact is one of representing ‘the innocent'
and ‘natural' - like their lifestyle ... and the idea that if
the ‘ultra conservative' can see no wrong in it, why cannot modern
farmers and communities
...
The presenter
using ‘no big machine
‘ etc to achieve GM in a
laboratory and so present it as less harmful as the process
appeared less technologically daunting or unnatural, again was highly
misleading - despite recording that a bacteria was used to insert the gene
into the recipient plant germ cell.
The researcher whose
discoveries could ‘save the world' was presented as having her work obstructed
by unnescessary red tape
... these are what some would
describe as the already dubiously low or
inadequate levels of checks on the plants etc so created ... the ultimate laboratory
is us ... in particular, thusfar, the US citizens who, for
example, have no idea how much GM food they are eating and no control over
it ... unlike their European counterparts who have a CHOICE.
We have an exceptionally poor record in relation
to the adequate recording and detection of adverse
impacts of foods/chemicals etc. Look, for example, at NSW food
monitoring... or testing of locally produced or imported food products for
chemical residue.
One thing NOT said
on the program was that the world currently produces enough food
to support its population: but it is poorly distributed. The same wealthy society that invents these new
technologies is plagued by obesity ... [and particularly among
its poorer members in a society that does not even secure adequate health
treatment for its citizens (a different issue I know)].
And while
the sight of ‘rotting GM grain while millions starved' and thereby needless
deaths appears, at least superficially, supportive of GM
production, a step back will indicate that should the grain have been non-GM it would have been
accepted... Would the EU have accepted it as a substitute for non GM material? This reamains an argument for either growing what these
countries will accept or
for convincing them of the donor
nation's position on GM foods. Developing countries are sovereign states and
choose whether to permit importation of food and other
products. Though I am sure that Monsanto/Aventis etc would
also have used its consumption (had it been
consumed by the
‘guineapig' population of the developing world)
as 'supporting evidence' for wider planting... probably without
more testing....
One
of the most broadly used GM crops is not just Bt
cotton but the ‘roundup ready' (glyphosate)
crops engineered to resist applications of glyphosate where accompanying weeds die. (It should be noted
that more weeds are becoming resistant). Terminal gene
species also ensure that the farmer must return to the supplier year after
year for his seeds, and remain dependant on chemical use ... until, of course,
the weeds become resistant... Experience in India and elsewhere with Bt
cotton and other GM plantings is not a tale of ongoing success.
Your researchers could easily have found that
information for you.
If the GM material is not
terminating gene then we can see its spread to other related non-GM crops.
This will threaten Australian sales to other (eg EU) markets.
Assurances re contamination
of non-GM crops by GM crops are pretty useless: former SE of South
Australia residents are well aware of the breaches can occur
even in ‘test' situations. Again such contamination threatens our
ability to market into the EU.
Goven the overwhelming ‘weight' of the material in the ‘documentary', I find the closing ‘need
for balance' sentence/s lacks conviction. If it had
been ‘they get the profits we take the risks' ... it wold be closer
to the reality but evensi totally overwhelmed by the bulk of
the ‘evidence' presented. Balanced? I don't think
so.
Regards
"eleni"
|
