Biotechnology: A deaf conversation between two models

The most ridiculous discussions in this country are those that take place between those who support biotechnology, or more mildly, the use of genetically modified seeds, and those who oppose it, reject it, and in many cases ignore the reasons for doing so.

But why is there a problem? The difference is primarily ideological.

On the one hand, the use of biotechnology is associated with intensive monoculture farming The area is large and is mainly used for export. It is therefore a symbol of capitalist agriculture in the hands of large companies engaged in extractive and export agriculture.

The development of this agriculture involves the use of technology sold by large companies that produce genetically modified seeds to cope with drought and carcinogenic herbicides such as glyphosate, which has been banned in many countries.

This mechanized agriculture is also the force driving the permanent expansion of the agricultural frontier and therefore, in our case, massive deforestation.

Biotechnology, and in particular the use of genetically modified seeds and glyphosate, therefore constitute a powerful capitalist and globalized agricultural economy. They are undoubtedly part of the new development model in Santa Cruz, its most hidden but most powerful economic component.

On the side of those who reject this technology and this production system, they emphasize that these capitalist monocultures using genetically modified seeds profoundly change the production conditions of the territories and local inhabitants.

This is maintained due to the strong impact that monoculture can have on the environment. Biodiversity is lost and the soil is depleted of its nutrients in an unsustainable way. Local seeds, the people’s heritage and the soil are degraded, and the territorial structure made up of small producers and traditional settlements that practice diversified and ecologically balanced agriculture disappears under the pressure of capital. At least this is what they think is happening in the Argentine Pampas, where towns and biodiversity have disappeared and cancer rates have increased dramatically due to the impact of glyphosate.

It is also important to remember that The genetically modified wheat used in the so-called “Green Revolution” of the 1960s contained three times as much gluten and made half of humanity sick.

In summary, the MAS government, influenced by environmental NGOs, has a largely Andean vision and uses traditional seeds for centuries for family production. It excludes the use of biotechnology in reality as an ideological gesture, understanding that it excludes an agrarian economy in the hands of technological and “imperial” capital, which leaves no room for traditional agriculture of communities, especially indigenous peoples.

What’s interesting about this case is that the government that claims to be banning biotechnology to protect the environment and community farming has actually never shown interest in the environment or indigenous communities in fifteen years. There are many examples, so your position is very implausible.

Curiously, reading the national political constitution, I found that it does not prohibit the use of GMOs, as I thought, and this is what some later laws state verbatim:

“Article 409. The production, importation and sale of genetically modified organisms are regulated by law.” So what are we left with?