Dear All,
Please find below a link to a report entitled ’10 years of GM Crops in Argentina’ by Eduardo J. Trigo and Eugenio J. Cap, published by the Argentine Council for Information and Development of Biotechnology, released this week regarding the Argentine experience with GM soybean, maize and cotton.
The website is not in English but scroll down and you will find the report and media release in English.
The authors evaluated the economic and social impacts of the ten years of adoption of GM crops in Argentine agriculture, and concluded that this process of incorporation of new technologies has had a deep impact on the transformation of the Argentine agriculture, and beyond this, in the country’s economy as a whole.
The link is http://www.argenbio.com/h/nuevo_estudio/10anos.php
Happy reading,
Larissa
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It was a long time ago since I participated in a GMO thread…
But really what’s so fantastic about GMOs in Argentina?
Now we have a monoculture of GE soya beans, mainly for the European livestock.
We have a huge rainforest destruction in Northern Argentina, home for panthers and 50% of all birds in Argentina.
What I have heard is that social consequences in this part of Argentina for small scale farmers have been very bad, due to these GMO soya plantations.
We have soil erosion , rainforest destruction, loss of biodiversity, bad social consequences etc.
Ann,
GM soy has generated US$20 billion in wealth for Argentina, with more than three-fourths of that going to farmers. If that’s not fantastic, then you must be against farmers.
Anyone familiar with farming knows that its purpose is monoculturing. For instance, a soybean field is supposed to be growing soybeans. A corn field is supposed to be corn. Besides, is there something wrong with providing soy for European livestock?
GMOs do not attack rainforests, panthers or birds. They do not engage in violence, insurrection or other “bad social consequences.” On the other hand, use of the GM version of soy enables no-till farming, which vastly reduces erosion associated with “traditional” or “organic” methods.
You should be cheering for Argentina, since the farmers are “using their natural rights to collect and save seeds” because they’ve used their native, indigenous ancestral wisdom and stolen Monsanto’s technology without paying a dime for it. Doesn’t that give you a warm feeling?
Hi Schiller,
I’m not a person that swallows Monsanto’s or any other multi national corporations propaganda… neither do I swallow Greenpeace’s dito..
What I want is independent science.
And this issue about soil fertility and erosion, methink even Monsanto recognises this as a problem….
Schiller:”You should be cheering for Argentina, since the farmers are “using their natural rights to collect and save seeds” because they’ve used their native, indigenous ancestral wisdom and stolen Monsanto’s technology without paying a dime for it. Doesn’t that give you a warm feeling? ”
Well, actually Schiller, it was a long time ago eco-stuff gave me a warm feeling! LOL!
Wrong Schiller, Argentine farmers have paid lots of dimes for Monsanto GM seeds, not stolen the technology. Monsanto is not above the law so why would they protest the legal rights of farmers in Argentina to collect, save and use seeds? These rights were clear and well established before Monsanto sought to expand into this lucrative market. Illegal markets were already obviously a strong element too so Monsanto shouldn’t complain about the very local conditions that it has sought to exploit.
Monsanto’s objection cannot be, as you say, against the farmers’ legal rights to save the seeds but against the resale of these seeds on the black market for replanting by other farmers. A contributing factor in the problem has been the rise of corporate farms (Monsanto’s ideal customer). Transactions are hard to police in such a place but Monsanto knew what it was in for, Monsanto takes a ‘foot in the door’ approach to market penetration and hopes to follow through afterwards with laws, licensing fees and new crop varieties to get bigger financial returns. Bring on the terminator genes, eh?
Pantera,
There is an existing series of lawsuits against Argentine exports of soy because Argentinians have not given reciprocal respect to Monsanto’s seed developer rights–yes, Monsanto’s efforts were stolen.
I have no idea what you are trying to express by referring to “corporate farms,” because such farms, whatever you might make of property deeds and other paper trails, are owned by human beings.
Unless you want to embrace and proclaim the notion that farmers are fools, idiots and dupes who ignore farming practices that work best for them, you will bear the burden of explaining why Argentine farmers–like North American farmers–have adopted this technology in droves.
Farmers are smarter than you think.
Schiller your soapbox rant lacks specific facts. The devil is in the details of the pre-existing national laws which predated biotech imports. Initially the seeds were purchased. This Monsanto-Argentine case is more subtle than your generalist dismissal has comprehended. You’d do well to learn the finers aspects as I briefly described above. Also, my review of this all being part of Monsanto’s marketing penetration strategy is fully on the money.
Listen pink pussy, you are avoiding the facts of the PR in your very own soapbox rant. You just dont like it, do you?
Being wrong, its become a habit with you – at least you are consistent.
2/10
Thanks for that kind and informative response rog. Which ‘facts of the PR’ have I missed?
You havent read it yet?
Here, try this
http://www.argenbio.com/h/nuevo_estudio/pdf/Ten%20Years%20of%20GM%20Crops%20in%20Argentine%20Agriculture%20-%2003-01-07.pdf
– it is, by no means, a whitewash of GM
Please limit comments to 2-3 per 24 hour period if you have nothing more substantive to add.
rog you’ve failed to specify in any substantive fashion the facts that were missed. Pls don’t expect a response to copied & pasted links or quotes that you don’t connect to the topic at hand.
Here us another study into GM farming in Argentina, pink panties will approve as the researchers are from Germany;
Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects
Matin Qaima,*qaim@uni-hohenheim.de (M. Qaim).,
Greg Traxlerb aDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences (490b), University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart,
Germanyb Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
*Corresponding author. Tel: +49-711-459-2784; fax: +49-711-459-3762.
E-mail address:qaim@uni-hohenheim.de (M. Qaim).
Abstract
Although adoption rates of genetically modified crops have been staggering in some countries, there is still comparatively little evidence about biotechnology impacts under diverse agroecological and institutional conditions. These knowledge gaps lead to an overly precautious attitude among policy makers and the public. This article analyzes the effects of Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans in Argentina, the country with the second biggest transgenic area worldwide. Based on recent survey data, it is shown that the technology increases total factor productivity by 10% on average, with cost savings being somewhat more pronounced for smaller than for larger farms. The reduction in use of toxic herbicides and of tillage operations entails positive environmental repercussions. Aggregate welfare effects are computed over the 1996–2001 period with a three-region, partial equilibrium model, comprising Argentina, the United States, and the rest of the world. In 2001, RR soybeans created more than US$1.2 billion of economic surplus at the global level. The largest share went to consumers (53%), followed by seed and biotechnology firms (34%), and agricultural producers (13%). Due to comparatively weak intellectual property protection, and thus only small technology mark-ups in seed prices and widespread adoption, Argentine soybean growers receive 90% of the benefits in that country. This demonstrates that farmers in developing countries can gain considerably when they obtain access to suitable foreign innovations through technology spill-overs.
Pantera,
The link rog pasted is to the very paper under discussion. The paper which, I might add, you seem not to have read. It’s well worth your time!
schiller and rog you’re making irrelevant, idiotic accusations again, yawn. I’ve asked you to state which facts I (allegedly) overlooked (you can’t). Did I deny any benefits from GM? No. Did I even question the distribution of the ‘wealth’ in argentina? No.
Puzzled? What did I say then? To counter my points against your frenzied Monsanto-is-holier-than-thou-and-thine-laws rant schiller, first read them! See my posts January 17, 2007 08:53 AM & 1:50PM and address those specific points, not other unrelated ones. Meanwhile I’ll ignore your god-fearing strawbiblemen and rog’s repetitive disorder which makes him attack and then copy and paste without knowing why.
Pantera,
I thought I had addressed your concerns. It is now clear to me that you don’t care about whether farmers and others benefit from advances in technology, but whether technological advances in the hands of farmers poses an important challenge to neo-Marxism.
That is altogether another thing–not the topic of the report or of our hostess’ post–and it would be far more meaningful if you were to address the Argentinians on this issue. Given the benefits they have realized from this technology, you would likely not have a receptive audience, however.
Unsubstantiated rubbish from every angle Schiller. You persist in concocting a case that I’m against GM or private enterprise when I’m not. Your Monsanto ranto missed the point so I clarified it for you (1st post) but don’t let the facts interfere with your prejudice. Zealots.
I’m not sure who pink pussy is talking to, herself or her therapist.
Both have a hard row to farrow.
anything substantive to add rog?
Pantera will likely have the last word on this thread, so I will merely point out that the accusation of making “unsubstantiated” claims is absurd in light of the link Jennifer, rog and I all recommended for her reading; and that howling about “corporate farming,” “zealots” and “prejudice” doesn’t amount to reasoned analysis.
Fire away, Pantera.
OK Schiller, I read the article, it’s OK. The problem was your sloppy accusations (not based on the article or you’d know about the pre-existing laws too). Hence I explained and you ignored (and rog attacked without understanding):
* The legal rights of farmers in Argentina to collect, save and reuse seeds were clear and well established before Monsanto’s arrival.
* Thus Monsanto’s objection cannot be, as you say, against the farmers’ legal rights to save the seeds (for their own use) but against the resale of these seeds on the black market for replanting by other farmers.
* Corporate farms come into it, quite logically, because they are more organised to trade the saved seeds at a larger scale – this resale being Monsanto’s best legal objection. Note that bigger farms also provide an easier enforcement target.
* These developments were all foreseeable. It fits snugly with Monsanto’s strategy of market penetration, then control: get a foot in the door to spread and accelerate technological adoption followed by legal action to enforce licenses.
Good work Pantera
Nice to see not everyone buys the ‘GM will save the world’ clap trap. Anyone who seems to sheild their eyes from the issue of corporate control of the foor chain under the guise of beyer/monsanto’s altruism is truly delusional beyond help.
Save seeds? Why all the talk of saving seeds? Most (maybe all, have to check) GM crops are out-breeders (they don’t readily self-pollinate). After a few generations they lose their ‘elite’ characteristics (assuming the original line was an elite line).
Why do you think there is no commercial GM wheat on the market?
Something that you notice very quickly with a Google search is that Schiller is all over the place on dozens of boards with anti-environment rhetoric. If you know how the public relations industry works, it becomes a very reasonable suspicion that Schiller is, in fact, Shillaber.