Herbicide Tolerant Soybean: Just Another Step In A Technology Treadmill?

The article “Herbicide Tolerant Soybean: Just Another Step In A Technology Treadmill?”, written by Volker Lehman and Walter A Pengue, Biotechnology and Development Monitor (No.43 December 2000, p.11-14) it mainly discusses the effect of transgenic soybean in Argentine’s economy. It seemed that both the farmers and the country statistic got large amount of benefit by investing in transgenic soybean technology, however, this is supposed to be worried in long-term negative effect on economic, social and ecological system. Even though there is no serious damage which has been found, but it probably can not be forecast by current knowledge and the worry mounts that the effect can be cumulative and cascade in the future

Argentina earned US$ 25 billion from the soybean and its derivatives export which could mean that 20 percent of the total export. The country had supplied one third of the world demand on soybean grain, in fact it produced only 10 percent of the total world production. This successive portrait had been caused by not only because the benign climate and the fertile soil that gave comparative advantages, but also increased of grains prices since 1980s. The production of soybean grains had increased sharply, so there was possibility to harvest three times in two years. At the end of hyperinflation in 1991, both the problem of the domestic currency fixation towards US Dollar and the declined in export volume have urged Argentine to invest in the new technology.

Unfortunately the intensification of the soil utilisation had declined the fertility and forced the addition of fertilizers from 0.3 million to 2.5 million tones in the period of 1990 to 1999. Trying to combat this problem, it was introduced “no-tillage, a new sowing technology”. By using this technology, it should be accompanied by herbicide which is named as herbicide tolerant soybean to support the massive production. There were two main reasons which tempted the using of this transgenic soybean, that were the lower price of herbicide and fewer expenses on labour, fuel and machinery.

“The Comision Nacional Asesora de Biotechnogia, (National Advisory on Agricultural and Technology, CONABIA)” had assessed the environmental risk and there was not any significant differences between the conventional cultivation and Round Up Ready (RR) in term of competitiveness, outcrossing, weediness and harm to other organisms. The soybean is weak without cultivation to compete with the weeds, so it need the glyphosate (a kind of herbicide) to eradicate them. However, there are worries about the usage of herbicide which can cause damage in social, economic and ecological sector in long-term effect. Although there is no significant damage which has been discovered, but it may be cumulative series of problem that can not be predicted through current knowledge.

The worry of public has mounted towards the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in recent years. The European Union has warned the people to be aware of GMOs and and the companies such as Tesco (UK) and Carrefour (France) have banned the GMOs to be contained in their assortments. To avoid the GMOs from the country such Argentine, The European Union finds another alternative grains exporter such as Brazil which does not use transgenic technology to produce the soybean. This signal can be serious threat to Argentine’s economy which depends on export. There are three consequences in social and economic sector by using herbicide tolerant on transgenic soybean, as follow:
Dependence on import. Argentine had to import fertilizers and herbicides to get large amount of production or at least to maintain the export rate.
Declining profit margin. The price of soybean had decreased 28% when at the same time the price of gasoline as the key ingredient for production had soared to 26%. The farmers could not afford to pay the bank credit which could disturb the process of production and influence the export activity.
Concentration of holding. The concentration of holding had increased since 1992 to 1997, it dominated 50% acreage of the main land production for soybean.

The homogenization of crops production caused the small-scale farmers could not maintain their competition. The diversification commodities of the global market and non-transgenic production either for export or internal need may be an alternative choice for them. In this case, the Government should play important role to subsidise them. It was written that, finally the buyer would decide what to purchase. It is inevitable to diagnose the effect of mono production on environment and human health in long term effect to anticipate the cumulative risks.

The explanation of this topic is clear for academic sphere and it has been well academically written. However, if this academic writing is also supposed to be read by general audience, it is not easy for them because there are some terminologies which are unfamiliar and it should be explained with different words that put in the bracket. The common readers probably have to read this article more than two times to understand what the writers want to deliver. The focus is quite good by focusing on specific topic, started from agricultural, genetically modified organism, transgenic technology, herbicide tolerant and finally the particular example, that is herbicide tolerant on soybean grains. However the focus is narrow down when the writers rely on one country (Argentine) as an example of general title. There should be more examples, either the countries or companies which allow the transgenic product or those who worry or even ban this product to be sold in their assortments.

In some description, it is quite fit the audience. This bases on the logic which is shown, such an example when the writer explained the background that contain Argentine’s agricultural short history, the adoption of transgenic and herbicide, consequences in social, economic and ecological and offered alternative solutions. However, the rhetoric of these logics have not been organized very well. We can find how the writers separated some ideas which should be written subsequently, such as the social and economic consequences would better be followed by ecological effect rather than the public responded to the GMOs. So, the readers will be easier to catch the writers ideas.

Definitions are written quite clear, but it would be better if this article is supposed to be read by small scale farmers or common people. Instead of using completely academic terminologies, the writers can add more explanation about the definition. The classification also had been made as well as the the comparison and the analysis, however, it should be simplify with series writing style rather than the random one. It seems that the writers used the four sources appropriately, effectively and sufficiently. We can argue about this because all of the sources seem to be written academically. They might be journals or books because there are some signals that reinforce this statement, such as the use of “(Factor Economico, No. 22, January/February pp. 86-94) and (Weed Science, No.47, pp.405-411)”.

To conclude this article, the writers reminded us that people in some part of the world has started to worry about the transgenic and herbicide tolerant usage in agricultural. Although it is indisputable that the mono production in staple sector, such as in Argentine had increased the country economic growth, but for long term effect there are some possible negative effects. It is not only in social and economic aspect, but also ecological which might be unpredicted by current knowledge. A serious effort should be done to analyse the effects and there should be alternative solutions toward this problem. Then, the writers should expand more examples. The examples are very important to support the main idea and to attain a comprehensive conclusion about an argument. It is also good idea if this article was written systematically.

Source: http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/4305.htm. “Herbicide Tolerant Soybean: Just another step in Technology Treadmill?”. By: Lehman, Volker and Pengue, Walter A, Biotechnology and Development Monitor (No.43 December 2000, p.11-14).