AGRICULTURE-ARGENTINA: Debate Over Bio-tech Food

By Marcela Valente Reprint | | Print |

Marcela Valente

BUENOS AIRES, Nov 22 1999 (IPS) - Argentina is vying with the United States for the lead on the list of countries producing crops from genetically modified seeds.

More than 70 percent of Argentine farmlands planted with soy beans now use seeds that have been genetically altered – compared to 50 percent in the United States. Both countries are increasingly using modified varieties of corn – accounting for about one-third of all cornfields.

Between them, the two countries have more than 30 million hectares cultivated with genetically altered crops. Three years ago, there were just two million hectares cultivated with these seeds in the whole world.

The controversy over biotechnology is escalating with the approach of the World Trade Organisation’s Ministerial Conference in Seattle, Washington, scheduled for Nov 30-Dec 3, which will kick off the “Millennium Round” of trade talks.

The United States and other countries with highly-developed agriculture sectors, will be seeking an end to farming subsidies, which they say are an obstacle to free trade.

Enrique Suarez, an engineer and expert on plant genetics at the National Institute of Farming and Livestock Technology, has his own views on the economic, political and environmental reasons for the debate over genetically engineered foods.

“Europeans can allege problems with quality (as an excuse) not to buy, and that provokes a genuinely fearful reaction among consumers, but I ask myself: Are those same consumers aware that the medicine they take themselves and give to their children comes from (genetically) modified organisms, without any opposition from their governments?” he says.

The expert believes there is still a great deal of ignorance surrounding this issue, and that public opinion is being manipulated by powerful interest groups.

Suarez believes that if the technology is submitted to adequate controls, there is little reason for concern.

As to the charges that transnational corporations are monopolising biotechnology, Suarez said that in the case of soya, the modified seeds collected by farmers at harvest preserve their quality, but the same is not true for corn or sunflowers, which are hybrids.

In terms of environmental impact, he admits there could be problems that have yet to be encountered, such as the example of genetically modified strains that are resistant to herbicides, and contaminate surrounding weeds.

“It would be an unforeseen and undesired effect if the crops cross-breed with neighbouring weeds, and the native species – which is supposed to die – becomes resistant to herbicides,” he concedes.

However, Suarez notes that in the 1980s, the use of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides – many toxic to the environment and human health – became widespread, and biotechnology could help reduce the use of such chemicals because the new varieties do not require them.

From the health perspective Suarez believes that, with respective controls imposed by each country, the risk posed by genetically modified food is minimal, although he says that “some companies behave in an irresponsible manner.”

An example of this is the case of a Brazil nut protein that was introduced into a soya variety to boost its nutritional value. The new strain caused an allergic reaction in some consumers, he said.

The biotechnology controversy, in which Argentine consumers have stayed largely on the sidelines, could reignite during the Millennium Round and force the governments of agricultural export countries to develop alternative strategies to market their products.

The United States Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, and his Argentinean counterpart, Ricardo Novo, agree with Suarez that the Europeans are making a fuss about food but not about medicinal drugs, and are determined to defend the new technology.(FIN-IPS-mv-ag-en-ks-99)