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).
Minggu, 14 Desember 2008
Food Security: Australian Approach, by Alfajri
According to the article “Australian Aid: Approach to Food Security” released by Australian Government AusAID is mainly states the fact of the food insecurity in developing countries, particularly in Asia Pacific Region and how Australia assists these countries to overcome the problems. Australia believes that food problems can be solved by conducting self-reliance, not self-sufficiency approach.
An estimation by the The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that 843 million people who live in transition and developing countries face famine problem. There are five million of children passed away each year as the effect of malnutrition and hunger, “20 million babies are born with low birth weight”, in the developing countries. Also, it was reported that half of the people who are world undernourished derive from farming communities which are smallholder owner, 20 percent live in landless rural area, 10 percent who depends their life on fishing, forest resources and herding. 20 percent rest are those who dwell in the city.
The vulnerable group, includes women, children under five, infirm, old and and the sick have become the target of hunger problems. The data showed that 70 percent of the total world undernourished are girls and women.
“When people do not have physical and economic access to nutritious, safe and sufficient food”, the food insecurity problems will be mounted. Once this condition happen, the conflict will follow to destabilise the social life. A lot of arm conflict occur in the area where the food supply is shorten.
Food safety is also crucial issue in food security because the contaminated food and water will cause health problems. If this issue is not solved in well organized manners, the chronic disease will be soared.
Australia as one of developed countries is willing to help the developing countries to release the food insecurity problems. That is why Australia offered food security approach which “based on self-reliance, not self-sufficiency”. This approach combines the important of domestic production and international trade. By conducting this approach into an effective policy, Australia endorse the developing countries “to increase the domestic production, strengthen the internal markets, support the infrastructure and undertake the domestic reform”. If this endorsement is succeed, the Australia has assisted these countries to achieve the international trade reform.
Supporting the implementation of policies and practices in developing countries is being done by Australia as well; as other main component of its’ approach. These policies include rural development promotion, sustainable agriculture, forestry and fishery production, and natural resource management. It also help to increase food safety, and export quality and increase women access to technology, natural resources, agricultural credit and information.
Research has the ultimate point and priority for Australia in delivering the aid. Australian Government through AusAID has helped Southern Philippines, Tonga, Samoa, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea to manage the food security not only by research assistant but also improve the living standard, social capital, stewardship, enhance the income earning opportunities, increase the food sustainability and efficiency. The aid also has been given to Lao People’s of Democratic Republic, Samoa, Zambia, Bangladesh. In Zambia, Australia support to improve food diversification crops while in Bangladesh the aid is targeted to help “extremely poor women”. Through the experience, it was found that the aid which was given to women are much more effective and they can fulfill the need of children compare to men.
Samoa has been guided to fight against the leaf blight to boost the taro production. The taro production were destroyed by the leaf blight in 1993. In 2001, the Australia assistance program has been completed and the program also build the Regional Germplasm Centre which enable the inhabitant to select varieties of taro that resist against the leaf blight. Australia also helped ASEAN member countries to support the reference laboratory which is located in Thailand. Through this laboratory the ASEAN countries will be able to monitor the region’s viruses active, exchange information on outbreaks, diagnose the outbreaks, monitor the vaccination programs, provide training and conduct project.
In the conclusion, Australian Government through the AusAID, emphasizes that the “food security can be manage for long term if the management of natural resources conducted effectively”. This also means that self-reliance approach is needed, that is both strengthen of domestic management and international trade are recognised.
Source: www.ausaid.gov.au.
An estimation by the The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that 843 million people who live in transition and developing countries face famine problem. There are five million of children passed away each year as the effect of malnutrition and hunger, “20 million babies are born with low birth weight”, in the developing countries. Also, it was reported that half of the people who are world undernourished derive from farming communities which are smallholder owner, 20 percent live in landless rural area, 10 percent who depends their life on fishing, forest resources and herding. 20 percent rest are those who dwell in the city.
The vulnerable group, includes women, children under five, infirm, old and and the sick have become the target of hunger problems. The data showed that 70 percent of the total world undernourished are girls and women.
“When people do not have physical and economic access to nutritious, safe and sufficient food”, the food insecurity problems will be mounted. Once this condition happen, the conflict will follow to destabilise the social life. A lot of arm conflict occur in the area where the food supply is shorten.
Food safety is also crucial issue in food security because the contaminated food and water will cause health problems. If this issue is not solved in well organized manners, the chronic disease will be soared.
Australia as one of developed countries is willing to help the developing countries to release the food insecurity problems. That is why Australia offered food security approach which “based on self-reliance, not self-sufficiency”. This approach combines the important of domestic production and international trade. By conducting this approach into an effective policy, Australia endorse the developing countries “to increase the domestic production, strengthen the internal markets, support the infrastructure and undertake the domestic reform”. If this endorsement is succeed, the Australia has assisted these countries to achieve the international trade reform.
Supporting the implementation of policies and practices in developing countries is being done by Australia as well; as other main component of its’ approach. These policies include rural development promotion, sustainable agriculture, forestry and fishery production, and natural resource management. It also help to increase food safety, and export quality and increase women access to technology, natural resources, agricultural credit and information.
Research has the ultimate point and priority for Australia in delivering the aid. Australian Government through AusAID has helped Southern Philippines, Tonga, Samoa, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea to manage the food security not only by research assistant but also improve the living standard, social capital, stewardship, enhance the income earning opportunities, increase the food sustainability and efficiency. The aid also has been given to Lao People’s of Democratic Republic, Samoa, Zambia, Bangladesh. In Zambia, Australia support to improve food diversification crops while in Bangladesh the aid is targeted to help “extremely poor women”. Through the experience, it was found that the aid which was given to women are much more effective and they can fulfill the need of children compare to men.
Samoa has been guided to fight against the leaf blight to boost the taro production. The taro production were destroyed by the leaf blight in 1993. In 2001, the Australia assistance program has been completed and the program also build the Regional Germplasm Centre which enable the inhabitant to select varieties of taro that resist against the leaf blight. Australia also helped ASEAN member countries to support the reference laboratory which is located in Thailand. Through this laboratory the ASEAN countries will be able to monitor the region’s viruses active, exchange information on outbreaks, diagnose the outbreaks, monitor the vaccination programs, provide training and conduct project.
In the conclusion, Australian Government through the AusAID, emphasizes that the “food security can be manage for long term if the management of natural resources conducted effectively”. This also means that self-reliance approach is needed, that is both strengthen of domestic management and international trade are recognised.
Source: www.ausaid.gov.au.
Japan's Food Security, by Alfajri
An article “Japan’s Food Security”, taken from internet(27.2.2008) by “Malcolm Cook of The Lowy Institute for International Policy in Australia” mainly discusses how Japan is to deal with agricultural liberalization as opposed to the the protectionism policy. Japan faces a demographic problem, both the decline of population in rural areas where farmers are born and rapid aging has changed Japan’s approach to food policy. Even though Japan is open to free trade, but there is a strategic plan for self-sufficiency by 2015 when any 45 percent of the total ratio of food consumption will be produced by local farmers.
Japan’s policy to protect the agricultural sector, especially on food security, based on opinion that food is the same important as military, so Japan should not rely on other country. The government through The Ministry of Agricultural Forestry and Fisheries has organized the farmers politically.This policy has been taken to fulfill the farmers interest who have great power in the election poll, because “agricultural villages exist in many of 29 single-seat constituencies with election races”
Ironically, now Japan tries to liberalize the agricultural sector by opening the free trade policy as the impact of demographic obstacle. As an example, Japan has signed a bilateral agreement with Australia which is called as “economic partnership agreement” (EPA). This policy worries the Japanese because Japan allows the large number of foreign product in agricultural sector to penetrate the domestic market.
To protect the local farmers and relief the Japanese worries, the government provide 430 billion Yen in offset for prices differences between Japanese and Australian product. Critics come from the opposition, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and it proposed to the government to provide full subsidy for the local farmers rather than relied on import. The government responded to that the opposition try to scatter the money because the government is not completely rely on import.
Therefore, the government made a provision to introduce a new subsidy policy for local farmers. By implementing this agenda, it is expected to increase the amount of production and attain 45 percent of the total consumption by 2015.
Japan’s policy to protect the agricultural sector, especially on food security, based on opinion that food is the same important as military, so Japan should not rely on other country. The government through The Ministry of Agricultural Forestry and Fisheries has organized the farmers politically.This policy has been taken to fulfill the farmers interest who have great power in the election poll, because “agricultural villages exist in many of 29 single-seat constituencies with election races”
Ironically, now Japan tries to liberalize the agricultural sector by opening the free trade policy as the impact of demographic obstacle. As an example, Japan has signed a bilateral agreement with Australia which is called as “economic partnership agreement” (EPA). This policy worries the Japanese because Japan allows the large number of foreign product in agricultural sector to penetrate the domestic market.
To protect the local farmers and relief the Japanese worries, the government provide 430 billion Yen in offset for prices differences between Japanese and Australian product. Critics come from the opposition, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and it proposed to the government to provide full subsidy for the local farmers rather than relied on import. The government responded to that the opposition try to scatter the money because the government is not completely rely on import.
Therefore, the government made a provision to introduce a new subsidy policy for local farmers. By implementing this agenda, it is expected to increase the amount of production and attain 45 percent of the total consumption by 2015.
Mitos Pangan, by Alfajri
“The Myth-Scarcity, The Reality There is enough food” an article taken from internet (6.17.2007) by Food First and Development Policy is mainly discusses the the cause of hunger and how to deal with this problem in some of the third world countries. The main caused of the hunger are misused, degradation of resource and rapid population growth. this article concluded that If the potential resources can be empowered effectively, famine problems can be overcome and the myth is scarcity only.
It was found by a study which was done by The American Association for the advancement of Science (AAAS) that “78% of all malnourished children under five in the developing world live in countries with food surplus”. The Food and Agricultural Organization of The United Nations (FAO) reported that every region which gains in food production has kept the population growth ahead except Africa since 1950.
It was clear that many nations do not realize their potential resources to fulfill their food production and even most “hungry countries have enough food for all their people now”. What makes the problem emerge is when the countries which mostly face the famine complication do much more import than what they export, whereas the rich countries import more food than export. The rich countries purchase 71.2 percent for the food whereas the “30 lowest income countries” only export “5.2 percent of all international commerce in food and farm commodities”.
We can have a look at some countries below where hunger is not caused by scarcity.
India and Brazil.
There were 200 millions of India population go hungry. On the contrary, India exported “$625 million worth of wheat and flour, and $1.3 billion worth of rice which both kind of the food is main staple in India”. Brazil exported “more than $13 billion worth of food in 1994 (second among the third countries” where at the same time there were “70 millions of brazilian can not afford enough food to eat”.
Bangladesh
This country is as a symbol of world famine in 1970s. Yet it was the yearly under-reported by the Bangladesh’s official reported that Bangladesh could provide 2,000 calories each day for everybody with small amount of food as addition. Bangladesh has not cultivate the rich alluvial soil and the large amount of water supply which were blessed in that country land. It was predicted by experts that It could double or even triple the food production if the potential irrigation is used effectively.
Africa
It was a surprise, the Sub Saharan of Africa countries where “213 millions chronically” remained as food net exporter countries in 1994. “In fact the author of AAAS report referred to earlier, argues that despite inaccurate statistic and misleading media imaginary, hunger is actually less severe in sub Saharan countries than in South Asia”.
Theoretically, Africa can produce 25 to 35% higher than maximum potential production in Europe or North America in the grains yield if the potential land has been utilized in appropriately. It is only 10% of the potential land which is cultivated non-professionally in Chad. Mali, Sudan,Ethiopia, Somalia where most famine happened, the potential land only used in a few scale.
“Many long-time Africa’s observers stated that “Africa’s food potential has been distorted and thwarted”. Here are the causes of acute famine in Africa:
the colonial notion that continue in the modern era which pattern the people paradigm that good land is dedicated for cash production, export and the inhabitant were directed to utilize the marginal land. Furthermore, the national and international agencies have discredited peasant producers’ often sophisticated knowledge of ecologically appropriate farming system.
Public Resources, research and credit of agricultural have been spent on export crops
Domination of men over women who work to produce food crop. This preferential means that cash crop is given more treatment compare to food crops.
Aid policy is controlled by elites who have export oriented. even though the government try to overvalued their currencies, the free trade policy has drifted away this solution.
Multinational Corporation advertisement has changed the taste pattern of African by saying that “He will be smart. He will go far, He will eat bread”. Thirty years ago, only a few of African eat bread, but nowadays many African eat bread which third of total amount is imported.
By owning today’s large amount of food supplies and also the potential of land which has not been utilize effectively, this article concluded that the scarcity myth can be thrown away. Indeed, there is hunger in reality but not scarcity.
Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myht_FoodScarcity.html
It was found by a study which was done by The American Association for the advancement of Science (AAAS) that “78% of all malnourished children under five in the developing world live in countries with food surplus”. The Food and Agricultural Organization of The United Nations (FAO) reported that every region which gains in food production has kept the population growth ahead except Africa since 1950.
It was clear that many nations do not realize their potential resources to fulfill their food production and even most “hungry countries have enough food for all their people now”. What makes the problem emerge is when the countries which mostly face the famine complication do much more import than what they export, whereas the rich countries import more food than export. The rich countries purchase 71.2 percent for the food whereas the “30 lowest income countries” only export “5.2 percent of all international commerce in food and farm commodities”.
We can have a look at some countries below where hunger is not caused by scarcity.
India and Brazil.
There were 200 millions of India population go hungry. On the contrary, India exported “$625 million worth of wheat and flour, and $1.3 billion worth of rice which both kind of the food is main staple in India”. Brazil exported “more than $13 billion worth of food in 1994 (second among the third countries” where at the same time there were “70 millions of brazilian can not afford enough food to eat”.
Bangladesh
This country is as a symbol of world famine in 1970s. Yet it was the yearly under-reported by the Bangladesh’s official reported that Bangladesh could provide 2,000 calories each day for everybody with small amount of food as addition. Bangladesh has not cultivate the rich alluvial soil and the large amount of water supply which were blessed in that country land. It was predicted by experts that It could double or even triple the food production if the potential irrigation is used effectively.
Africa
It was a surprise, the Sub Saharan of Africa countries where “213 millions chronically” remained as food net exporter countries in 1994. “In fact the author of AAAS report referred to earlier, argues that despite inaccurate statistic and misleading media imaginary, hunger is actually less severe in sub Saharan countries than in South Asia”.
Theoretically, Africa can produce 25 to 35% higher than maximum potential production in Europe or North America in the grains yield if the potential land has been utilized in appropriately. It is only 10% of the potential land which is cultivated non-professionally in Chad. Mali, Sudan,Ethiopia, Somalia where most famine happened, the potential land only used in a few scale.
“Many long-time Africa’s observers stated that “Africa’s food potential has been distorted and thwarted”. Here are the causes of acute famine in Africa:
the colonial notion that continue in the modern era which pattern the people paradigm that good land is dedicated for cash production, export and the inhabitant were directed to utilize the marginal land. Furthermore, the national and international agencies have discredited peasant producers’ often sophisticated knowledge of ecologically appropriate farming system.
Public Resources, research and credit of agricultural have been spent on export crops
Domination of men over women who work to produce food crop. This preferential means that cash crop is given more treatment compare to food crops.
Aid policy is controlled by elites who have export oriented. even though the government try to overvalued their currencies, the free trade policy has drifted away this solution.
Multinational Corporation advertisement has changed the taste pattern of African by saying that “He will be smart. He will go far, He will eat bread”. Thirty years ago, only a few of African eat bread, but nowadays many African eat bread which third of total amount is imported.
By owning today’s large amount of food supplies and also the potential of land which has not been utilize effectively, this article concluded that the scarcity myth can be thrown away. Indeed, there is hunger in reality but not scarcity.
Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myht_FoodScarcity.html
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
