“If the transgenic HB4 wheat is finally released for the production of flour and various derived foods consumed daily by the population of the region, the damage this entails will be a debt of life to future generations. With our bread NO!“
The company Bioceres, together with researchers from CONICET and support from National Universities, developed the transgenic wheat HB4 which, according to the company [1]It would grow tolerating conditions of greater drought than conventional wheat sown in Argentina, being also resistant to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.
Last year, the company obtained a conditional approval in our country, subject to awaiting authorization from Brazil, the main buyer country to which this cereal is exported. Last week, CTNBio do Brasil gave a favorable opinion, recommending the approval of HB4 transgenic wheat flour for use in food, feed and other by-products.
processed.
Different social actors from Argentina and Brazil expressed their concerns about the possible planting, harvesting and marketing of transgenic wheat and all its food derivatives. Arguments about the risks of continuing to insist on biotechnological solutions linked to agribusiness are based on knowledge of multiple scientific disciplines and the vast experience of affected communities, which requires a broad joint reflection on how to preserve collective health, ecosystems and healthy food production.
Both from the private sector and from the various Argentine government ministries, transgenic wheat stands out as an achievement of Argentine science and an advance for the country. This argument is biased, as it makes invisible the opinion of broad sectors of the Argentine and Brazilian scientific and technological community, who point out that this wheat is nothing more than a deepening of the already installed agribusiness model, express their concern for the risks involved and warn about their harm based on available evidence.
In Argentina, we demand that the national government promote new paths that emerge from a broad democratic and participatory debate, in order to settle the ethical and environmental debt pending in our society linked to socio-environmental problems arising from the model of industrial agriculture.
After twenty-five years of installation and expansion of the technological package associated with transgenic crops in Argentina, the negative consequences for the health of communities, food sovereignty, the growing deterioration of natural systems and the loss of common goods are overwhelming. Far from a presumed development, the deepening of the industrial agriculture model implied the reprimarization of the economy and greater dependence, to the detriment of autonomy and national sovereignty.
An in-depth discussion of the socio-environmental costs of the current agribusiness model is necessary to find solutions that do not involve sacrificing territories and a large majority of the population. The main justification of those who promote this model is related to the amount of grain-dollars that are generated. But the benefits remain for a very small portion of the country’s inhabitants (mainly in multinational companies), while poverty and indigence have grown like never before, along with the expansion of this model, with the displacement of thousands of rural families. to the outskirts of cities.
But the costs go much further. Agribusiness has been responsible, together with successive governments, for achieving the highest deforestation rate in the world to free up new territories for transgenic crops. This deforestation implies loss of biodiversity and with it many functions of ecosystems that guarantee life in territories and provide well-being to society are affected (less carbon fixation, changes in evapotranspiration patterns, reduced pollination, greater difficulties in mitigating floods, increased droughts and natural fires on roofs, among others). Far from solving hunger, drought and mitigating climate change, this model deepens these problems.
The expansion of agribusiness affects the health of all the country’s inhabitants. Between 1990 and 2018, the amount of pesticides applied in the territory increased by more than 600%, reaching more than 500 thousand tons spread annually [2]. The growing application of pesticides is related to malformations in different groups of biological organisms, loss of biodiversity, soil and water contamination, diseases and damage to the population and territories that are invisible.
Over these years, the intensive use of pesticides has increased the resistance of numerous species considered agricultural pests. The solution proposed by the sector is to use new chemical products, increasingly powerful and toxic, to fight the “pests” that industrial agriculture itself has created. This is the case of ammonium glufosinate, 15 times more toxic than its predecessor, glyphosate. In addition, soil compaction and salinization caused by the type of soil preparation has become a productive and hydrological problem in many regions, generating problems in the infiltration capacity of soils, loss of minerals and organic matter and various groups of organisms that become remodel. the structure of the soil and maintain its fertility.
The discussion does not seem to be centered on food sovereignty, but on the generation of commodities by companies currently involved in agricultural production.
On the other hand, if we are really talking about producing healthy, pesticide-free foods that take care of soil fertility and conserve biodiversity, there are profitable and environmentally friendly options, such as agroecology and family farming . Promoting these productive models implies maintaining biodiverse landscapes, combining natural and semi-natural landscapes with crop diversification and other agricultural activities.
From a social point of view, these models help to promote local roots, strengthen ties between consumers and producers, shorten marketing circuits and promote cooperative activities that strengthen communities. These are some of the aspects that need to be discussed to ensure the sustainability of social and environmental systems for the good life of communities and generations.
future.
For all these reasons, we demand that the participatory and public information mechanisms provided for in the General Environmental Law (Law 25675) and the Escazú Agreement (Law 27566) be implemented, and that the necessary public hearings be held to ensure this process. We are facing a major health and environmental crisis, which is why these decisions cannot remain in the hands of a few.
If the transgenic HB4 wheat is finally released for the production of flour and various derived foods consumed daily by the population of the region, the damage this entails will be a debt of life to future generations. With our bread NO!
Grades:
Source: Clean Wheat Collective