From cclash@web.apc.orgThu Jan 18 11:46:17 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 10:48:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jocelyn J. Paquette Bob Ewing" <cclash@web.apc.org>
To: pauls@etext.org
Subject: sub

00100101010100001010101000101010110101010101010001010101010101010
10101010101010010101010000010011111110010010101010001010101010101
 
                        the space between
 
101010101001010110101001010110100101010
101010100010111010101010101010010110110
 
Welcome to the space between an bi-monthly ezine exploring culture,
art, society and creation.  the space between is
published by culture clash communications
[cclash@web.apc.org]  Editor: Rl Ewing
 
#2 January/February 1996.
 
010101101101010010100101010101010110110101010101
 
The means are to the end as the seed is to the tree.
      attributed to Ghandi. 
 
010101101101101011010101110100101010101010101010101
 
 
EDITOR's CORNER:
 
     I've elected to publish two important articles distributed
by the Third World Features Network.  These artilces are
essential to understanding the impact that agribusiness has on
food production and the impact that this has on society.
 
 
 
BIOTECHNOLOGY WILL WORSEN AGRICULTURAL PROBLEMS
 
 
Genetic engineering, says the writer, will add to the  envi
ronmental costs of agriculture, instead of reducing them. It 
will  make agriculture non-sustainable rather than  sustain
able.  Further, new health risks can be introduced  through 
transgenic crops.
 
By Vandana Shiva
Third World Network Features
 
Amarnath,  or  ramdana, grown across  India  in  traditional 
farming  systems, is the world's most nutritious  grain.  It 
comes  in  many  varieties, and can  be  popped,  baked  and 
cooked. Its leaves and stems are also nutritious, containing 
more  than  twice the protein of other cereals.  And  it  is 
environmental friendly.
 
Prof  Ashish  Datta of Jawaharlal Nehru University  and  the 
Department   of  Biotechnology  have  filed  a  patent   for 
transferring the gene that codes for protein in amarnath  to 
other cereals like rice and wheat. The patent will cover the 
isolation of the gene and delivery/transfer or construct for 
transferring   the  gene  into  other  crops.  It  will   be 
applicable in the US and Europe.
 
What  does the patent for a transgenic crop  using  amarnath 
genes imply for biodiversity and human health and nutrition? 
It has been claim that the transgenic crop will enhance  the 
protein  level of edible oils. However, a comparison of  the 
nutrition  available from polycultures based on amarnath  as 
well as the nutrition available from amarnath clearly  shows 
this claim to be false.
 
Amarnath  is not just a source of high protein. It has  high 
calcium and iron too. These multiple and complex nutritional 
properties  do not get transferred to the  transgenic  crop. 
Transfering the amarnath protein gene to rice, for  example, 
thus does not increase overall nutrition; it decreases it.
 
Besides, people do not eat only ice, but rice with dal.  The 
balance  comes from the rice and dal mixture, not from  rice 
alone.  By  trying to increase the protein content  of  rice 
through  genetic engineering, dal as a source of a  balanced 
protein composition is being negated.
 
In addition, the transgenic rice wll have none of the built-
in resilience of amarnath. It wll be vulnerable to diseases, 
pests  and  drought, thus requirng  intensive  chemical  and 
intensive water use. The development of transgenic crop with 
amarnath  genes  will lead to the  displacement  of  amanath 
itself as companies with investments in research and patents 
will have to promote the spread of the transgenes.
 
 
Genetically  engineering amaranth genes in rice will add  to  
the environmental costs of agriculture, instead of  reducing 
them.  It will make agriculture non-sustainable rather  than 
sustainable.  Further,  new health risks can  be  introduced 
through such transgenic crops.
 
The  extreme form of genetic determinism which assumes  that 
each specific character of an organism is encoded in a  spe
cific, stable gene so that the transfer of a gene results in 
the  transfer of a character, has already been  rejected  by 
the  majority of biologists and the intellectual  community, 
because   it  fails  to  take  into  account   the   complex 
interactions  between  genes  and their  products  that  are 
involved in the develoment of all characters. In many cases, 
it  has  been  impossible to  predict  the  consequences  of 
transferring  a gene from one type of organism  to  another. 
Furthermore  changing  a  gene's  cellular  and  surrounding 
environment  can produce a cascade of further  unpredictable 
changes that could be harmful.
 
The  essence  of a genome is self organisation  --  elements 
that  fit  together.  Complexes  of  effective  genes   form 
coherent  wholes, which vary within usually stale  patterns. 
However, genomes of all organisms are known to be subject to 
a  host of destabilising processes, so that the  transferred 
gene may mutate, transpose, or rearrange within the  genome, 
and  may  even  be transferred to  another  organism.  As  a 
consequence  of  genetic  engineering,  the  stabilising  or 
`buffering' control circuits are exposed to disruption  thus 
threatening the stability of organisms and ecosystems.
 
In transgenic plants particularly, there is abundant empiri
cal  proof  that genetic engineering  is  indeterminate  and 
uncertain.  A classic example is the maize A1 gene that  has 
been  introduced  into a white flowering mutant  of  Petunia 
hybrid wqhich has lresulted i transgenic plants with  flower 
colours ranging from brick red through variegated to  white. 
However, during a field trial of 300,000 plants, the  number 
of plants producing flowers with white or variegated  petals 
and  plants with weakly pigmented blooms varied  during  the 
season.
 
The  study  linked  the  stability  of  the  transgene  with 
environmental stress and endogenous factors such as the  age 
of the parent plant. The effect of environmental factors  of 
the   stability  of  transgene  expression  has  also   been 
evidenced by transgenic alfalfa.
 
Studies  with rice plants genetically engineered  to  resist 
kanamycin showed not merely that this trait, though inherit
ed,  was  not expressed in the progeny but  also  that  gene 
amplification  or loss occurred in the progeny of  the  same 
parent plant.
 
Problems like silencing or suppression of the inherited gene 
 
suggest that this phenomenon results from events that are an 
integral  part of normal gene expression in plants. The  way 
plants recognise the specifically inactivate foreign DNA  is 
not  known; but all evidence points to the possibility  that 
the newly integrated DNA may be recognised as foreign.
 
The   unpredictability  and  uncertainty  that   accompanies 
genetic engineering has serious implications at two  levels; 
that  of the biosafety of transgenic organisms; and that  of 
patents  fo  them.  Given the  factors  of  instability  and 
uncertainty   of  genetic  engineering,  the   `safety'   of 
genetically  engineered oganisms cannot be taken as a  prior 
assumption.  As more transgenic crops leave  the  controlled 
environment  of  research greenhouses and are  subjected  to 
natural  variation in farmers' fields,  problems  associated 
with transgene instability will increase in magnitude.
 
Datta, who has a co-application for the patent claim on  the 
amarnath  gene, is also the head of the commission meant  to 
decide   on  biosafety  regulations,  which   has   recently 
permitted  Proagro Seed Company of India and  Plant  Genetic 
Systems  (PGS)  of Belgium to  deliberately  release  hybrid 
brassica  (which includes mustard and rapeseed)  and  hybrid 
tomatoes  at the Proagro Research Station at  Gurgaon,  near 
New Delhi. The tomato variety will contain a Bt gene and the 
mustard  will  tolerate  the  herbicide  Basta  produced  by 
Hoechst.  When  contacted, the Department  of  Biotechnology 
first  contended  that  such  release  was  safe,  and  then 
admitted  that information on biosafety based on  which  the 
permission  was granted was supplied by PGS on the basis  of 
its own work in this field.
 
Genetically  engineered herbicide tolerance carries with  it 
enormous environmental risks. A primary concern is that such 
resistant  plant could themselves become weeds, or  transfer 
their resistance to wild relatives, which would then  become 
super  weeds, especially in countries which  have  developed 
the  crop  in the first place and  where  numerous  farmers' 
varieties still exist.
 
A  study  conducted by  University  of  California-Riverside 
geneticist  Norman  Ellstrand  has  confirmed  that  genetic 
traits  of crops can be transferred to their wild  relatives 
by even hybrid varieties by simple polination. Besides, such 
varieties will encourage the use of more herbicides.
 
Likewise,  the Bt gene has also proved to be less  effective 
and  more  hazardous  both  for  the  environment  and   for 
lifeforms other than those targeted than claimed. Transgenic 
plants  with  the  bt  component  produce  anti-pest   toxin 
continuously, leading to increasing Bt resistance.
 
Further,  Bt ingestion can result in feeding  inhibition  in 
the pest before it has absorbed a lethal dose of the  toxin. 
Bt has also been shown to target beneficial insects, and has 
 
been linked to the creation of newer resistant virus  varie
ties as well as multiple virus infections.
 
In  humans, it has been incriminated in severe types of  eye 
infection   that  can  lead  to  blindness,   besides   food 
poisoning.  Microbiologists  agree  that  the  most  obvious 
potential hazard associated with Bt is to individuals  whose 
immune defences are impaired. Such individuals comprise most 
of  the  Third World populations as immune  defences  become 
impaired by diseases like measles in childhood and  malaria, 
besides  AIDs.  Developing  biosafety  regulations  is  thus 
imperative in environmental and public interest.
 
The instability and unpredictability of genetic  engineering 
also  have implications for intellectual property rights  in 
the  area  of  lifeforms. Patents  to  genetically  modified 
organisms   are   given   on   grounds   that   these    are 
biotechnological inventions. Such a patent claim is based on 
the   false  assumption  that  genes  make  organisms   and, 
therefore,  the makers of transgenic genes  make  transgenic 
organisms.
 
Proteins  are not made by genes but by a complex  system  of 
chemical  production involving other proteins. Genes  cannot 
make themselves any more than they can make a protein.  They 
are made by a complex machinery of proteins. It is also  not 
genes that are self-replicating but the entire organism as a 
complex system.
 
Thus  relocating genes does not amount to making  an  entire 
organism. Organism `makes' itself. To claim that an organism 
and  its  future genetations are products of  an  investor's 
mind  needing  to  be protected  by  international  property 
rights  as biotechnological innovations amounts  to  denying 
the   self-organising,   self-replicating   structures    of 
organisms.  Put  simply, it amounts to a theft  of  nature's 
creativity.
 
Granting   patents  for  genetically  engineered   organisms 
becomes even more inappropriate because biologists who claim 
patents on life often have to use `junk DNA' (95% DNA  whose 
function is not known). In the case of the transgenic  sheep 
Tracy,   called   a   `biotechnological   invention',,   the 
scientists at PPL (the company holding the patent on  Tracy) 
had  to  use  `junk  DNA' to get  high  yields  of  alpha-i-
antitrypsin.
 
As Ron James, director, says, `We left some of these  random 
bits of DNA in the gene, essentially as God provided it  and 
that produced high yield.' However, their patent claims  are 
proof that PPl is claiming to be God.
 
The primary threat to diverse forms of life as both biologi
cal    and    cultural    diversity    comes    from    this 
reductionist/mechanistic  paradigm which has  devalued  most 
 
species,  and  all  non-Western  non-reductionist  knowledge 
systems,  leading  to species extinction  and  erosion,  and 
cultural extinction and erosion.
 
Conservation of biological and cultural diversity calls  for  
transcending of the dominant reductionist trends in biology. 
The need of the hour is a post-reductionist trends in biolo
gy.  The need of the hour is a post-reductionist biology  in 
which  humans and other species stand as equal  but  diverse 
partners  and  modern  biology ad ancient  systems  of  life 
sciences  stand  side by side in a pluralism.-  Third  World 
Network Features
 
 
- ends -
 
About  the witer: Vandana Shiva is a  leading  environmental 
scientist in India and the author of Staying Alive and  many 
other books and articles on issues related to resources, the 
environment and women.
 
 
 
 
GLOBAL FOOD SURPLUSES GENERATE FAMINE
 
 
Although world agriculture has now the capacity to satisfy the
food requirements of mankind, the spectre of famine still stalks
the world. This paradox is to be explained by the fact that
famine in the era of globalisation is not the consequence of a
scarcity of food, but of a structure of global oversupply which
undermines food security and national agriculture.(First of a
two-part article)
 
 
By Michel Chossudovsky
Third World Network Features
 
In the late 20th century, famine is not a consequence of a
shortage of food. On the contrary, famines are spurted as a
result of a global oversupply of grain staples. Famine has become
a worldwide phenomenon:  death and starvation are striking
simultaneously in all major regions of the world: Sub-Saharan
Africa, Northeast Brazil, South Asia, the Andean altiplano of
South America, the former Soviet Union. 
                    
>From the dry savannah of the Sahelian belt, famine has extended
its grip into the wet tropical heartland. A large part of the
population of the African continent is affected. There are
several million people in famine zones in India and Bangladesh. 
Moreover, in the labour-surplus economies of South Asia and the
Far East (eg. India, China, Indonesia), an important segment of
the rural and urban population driven well below the poverty line
due to the absence of employment opportunities, is seriously at
risk.
                    
Hunger and deprivation, however, are no longer limited to the
Third World:  the economic crisis is conducive to a process of
global impoverishment resulting in unemployment, homelessness and
low wages in the urban ghettoes and shanty towns, and the
destruction of the independent farmer in Europe and North
America. Low levels of food consumption and malnutrition are
increasingly hitting the urban poor in the rich countries.
According to a recent study, 30 million people in the United
States are classified as hungry. 
                    
What are the underlying causes? The global TV image spotlights
the victims of civil war, drought and flood. Famine in Somalia or
Mozambique is mechanically ascribed to the external political and
climatic factors: the absence of rain-carrying clouds and air
pressure anomalies... History is distorted, only the surface and
colour of world events are disclosed.  Somalia was
self-sufficient in food until the 1970s; what precipitated the
collapse of civil society? Why were food agriculture and nomadic
pastoralism destroyed?
                    
Complex and far-reaching changes in the global economy have taken
place since the early 1980s which redefine the structure of both
industry and agriculture. The family farm is driven into bank-
ruptcy, the agricultural producer loses control over the land
which he farms. And in the developing countries, the peasantry is
increasingly transformed into an army of landless seasonal plan-
tation workers.
                    
The earnings of farmers in rich and poor countries alike are
squeezed by a handful of global agro-industrial enterprises which
simultaneously control the markets for grain, farm inputs, seeds
and processed foods. One giant firm Cargill Inc. with more than
140 affiliates and subsidiaries around the world controls a large
share of the international trade in grain. Since the 1950s,
Cargill has become the main contractor of US food aid funded
under Public Law 480 (1954).
                    
With the signing of the final act of the Uruguay Round, the
articles of agreement of the new World Trade Organisation (WTO)
will give unrestricted freedom to the food giants to enter the
seeds makets of developing countries and establish plant
breeders' rights to the detriment of millions of small farmers.
The acquisition of exclusive intellectual property rights over
plant varieties by international agro-industrial interests, also
favours the destruction of biodiversity.
                    
World agriculture has for the first time in history the capacity
to satisfy the food requirements of the entire planet, yet the
very nature of the global market system prevents this from
occurring. The capacity to produce food is immense yet the levels
of food consumption remain exceedingly low because a large
proportion of the worlds population lives in conditions of abject
poverty and deprivation. Moreover, the process of modernisation
of agriculture (including the Green Revolution) has led to the
dispossession of the peasantry, increased landlessness and
environmental degradation. In other words, the very forces which
encourage global food production to expand are also conducive to
a contraction in the standard of living and a decline in the
demand for food.
                    
The economic policy actions of G-7 governments and the Washing-
ton-based international financial institutions tend to support
this worldwide restructuring of agriculture. National agriculture
and the independent peasantry are undermined, demand and supply
relations are remoulded. Global impoverishment since the debt
crisis tends to favour stagnation in the production of basic food
staples while redirecting agriculture towards high value added
non-staple and processed foods.
                    
Throughout the developing world, food security is destroyed, the
national grain market is displaced, grain prices are realigned
with those of the world market and the peasantry is subordinated
to the requirements of the global food monopolies. In turn,
local-level merchants and money lenders as well as bureaucrats
become increasingly tied into the interests of the food
transnationals.
                    
The food giants are not only the recipients of US food aid, but
have become development brokers in a wide range of
agro-industrial projects funded under PL 480. With direct access
to the World Bank, the US Department of Agriculture and the
national governments, they exercise a dominant role in shaping
the agricultural policy of indebted countries. 
                    
Since the early 1990s a similar reform pattern has affected the
countries of the former Eastern bloc with devastating economic
and social consequences. In September 1994, the Ukraine signed an
agreement on macro-economic reform with the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) which laid the basis for the restructuring of
its agricultural sector. The IMF shock treatment implemented in
October 1994 wreaked havoc: the price of bread increased
overnight by 300%, electricity prices by 600%, public
transportation by 900%. Combined with the abrupt hikes in fuel
and energy prices, the lifting of subsidies and the freeze on
credit will contribute to destroying the Ukraines breadbasket
economy. In November 1994, World Bank negotiators were examining
the overhaul of the Ukraines agriculture.  With trade
liberalisation (which is part of the proposed package), the door
is open to the dumping of US grain surpluses and food aid on the
domestic market. This would contribute to destabilising one of
the worlds largest and most productive wheat economies.  
 
Third World Network Features                     
                    
- ends -
 
About the writer:   Michel Chossudovsky is a Professor of Econom-
ics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada.
 
 
                        THE JOYFUL NOISE
 
 
Ring a bell!  Bang a gong!  Pound a drum! On October 31, 1996
at 6:00pm eastern standard time join the Joyful Noise.
 
Once you have made your noise create a mail or email art piece to
commemorate your experience.  Please limit size to 8x10 inches.
 
mail all work to Culture Clash Communications for exhibit
in mid-November 1996.  Mailing address Culture Clash
Communications, Box 24046, 70 N. Court Street, Thunder
Bay, Ontario, Canada, P7A 8A9; email: cclash@web.acp.org. All
entries will be exhibited.
 
 
