Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am in emergency need of biotech bad cards. Specifically Biotech is bad with regards to disease and agriculture. I need these as soon as possible and will offer a Leviathan K, an Ivory Tower K, and a Baudrillard Paradox to anyone who can provide cards for this. Please message me if you are willing to make this trade. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biotechnology and modern Agriculture rely on the subjugation of indigenous people

Howard  2k1  (Stephanie, 9/2001, a long-time activist and expert on biotech issues and indigenous people “Life, Lineage and Sustenance†http://www.ipcb.org/pdf_files/LifeLineageandSustenance.pdf#page=13&zoom=auto,0,756)

Genetics in general, and particularly genetic engineering, tend to be reductionist—assuming that everything can be explained in terms of genetics. Many other factors contribute to who or what a being is—such as nutrition, interaction with other species, and other environmental factors. Reductionism is a tendency of western science that is frequently at odds with the indigenous way of thinking about things in the big picture.

What is a Patent?¶ A patent is a title of ownership. Patents were designed to reward inventors for their contributions by guaranteeing them a period of market monopoly and exclusive market return. At the end of that period (usually 17-20 years) the invention is free from patent control, and is available to be produced and marketed by anybody.¶ A patent allows the holder¶ •to prevent others from developing similar or identical products for commercial purposes¶ • to claim royalties for any profits that another person gets from selling the patented product¶ •to prevent others from selling identical products in the country or region in which their patent rights are valid¶ Chapter 3¶ BIOPROSPECTING AND BIOPIRACY¶ Biodiversity: the basis of the genetics industry

The raw material of the genetics industry is life itself: micro-organisms, insects, plants, animals, and people. So the genetics industry is very interested in biodiversity and the diverse genetic material that exists in many indigenous communities and eco-systems around the world. The goal is to locate, in living beings, genes and properties that can be used to create new commercially viable products. The search for “interesting†or potentially commercially valuable genes and species is called bioprospecting. Indigenous communities are a primary target of bioprospecting ventures by pharmaceutical and agricultural companies and government agencies. This is because 90% of the species on the earth are found in indigenous territories. As industrialization and monoculture have destroyed most of the biodiversity in the “developed†countries, the rich biodiversity that has been developed and conserved by indigenous peoples and rural communities is the new pot of gold. Genehunters are also interested in indigenous peoples’ Knowledge about the properties of plants and animals, and their use in traditional medicines and agriculture. According to a US-based organization that is facilitating the gene-flow from indigenous communities to pharmaceutical companies, 74% of the plant-based medicines consumed in the United States are plant medicines developed and used by indigenous peoples. Pharmaceutical companies are going direct to indigenous communities and traditional healers to find the plants and traditional ways of using them, because researching traditional uses gives a 60% greater chance of identifying pharmaceutical potential than randomly screening plants. (Conservation International, from their website: www.conservation.org).¶ Very often, agricultural and medicinal plants and animals are being taken from communities and indigenous territories without the knowledge of their peoples. And many bioprospectors have no intention of acknowledging the contribution or sharing the commercial benefits with the communities that have developed and nurtured these organisms. This is nothing new. Many of the world’s major staple crops – corn, potato, soybean, rice, and wheat - were developed by indigenous peoples and rural communities. According to Clayton Brascoupe of the Traditional¶ Native American Farmers Association, 65% of food crop varieties were developed by Native¶ American farmers.¶ Privatizing Life: Patents on Life¶ Companies and government agencies that discover plants or animals of commercial interest in indigenous and rural communities often claim ownership over them. The most common and most effective route is to apply for a patent. This practice is a form of biopiracy. Patents were developed by Thomas Jefferson as a form of “intellectual property law†to encourage innovation and invention. A patent is supposed to reward inventors: in exchange for the valuable contribution that inventors make to society, they are awarded a limited monopoly on the commercial rights to that invention. In order to reward useful contributions, the requirements for gaining a patent have traditionally included that the product has to be novel, and produced in non-obvious methods. Patents, however, were not intended for living beings, but for invented implements such as a toaster, camera, or combine harvester. Forms of private monopoly over life agricultural seed and animals – began with the industrialization of agriculture, and led to the development of plant breeders rights to cover, for example, industrially hybridized crops. As the commercial exploitation of genetic engineering began to be explored over the last two decades, the patent system was stretched to include life forms and their parts. In the 1980s, two landmark cases in the US sealed the fate of life under US law: in 1984 a patent was awarded on a microbe, while in 1988, a patent was awarded on a genetically engineered mouse. Since that time, thousands of patents have been claimed and awarded on human, animal and plant genetic material as well as whole animals and plants. The US government, along with other industrialized governments and the genetics industry, has been pushing for a global agreement for patents on life. Increasingly, crops that were collectively developed by communities over generations are being privatized to genetics companies and scientific research institutes through patents.¶ Monsanto, for example, owns patents on all genetically engineered soybeans, thanks to a single patent claim. Soya was domesticated and diversified in China. Corn, staple to millions, was first cultivated over 7000 years ago, and domesticated and diversified over¶ Criteria to receive a patent¶ Under United States law, patents can only be awarded for inventions that:¶ •Are new to the public. They cannot have been in knowledge or use beforehand¶ •Involve a inventive procedure for their production, and add considerable knowledge to what is already known. The application of this law is a different story. See the “Impacts of Patents†box. Impacts of Patents¶ Companies and supporters of patents on living beings say that patents only claim property for an area of industrial activity that does not concern people or communities outside that industry. They say that patents therefore have little impact on the daily lives and concerns of society. Yet communities and societal groups that challenge the patent system name the following impacts on the real life of their constituents:¶ •Violation of the spiritual and political belief in the ultimate freedom of all living beings¶ •Violation of the spiritual belief in the Creator as the inventor of all life on earth¶ •Reward and encouragement of genetic engineering, biopiracy, and transgenic practices to which communities are opposed¶ •Theft of community property by individuals¶ •Theft from future generations of their rightful heritage¶ Theft of livelihoods, as biopirates use patents to exclude farmers from the sale of agricultural products pirated from them centuries by the Mayan people. A varietyof patents on different corn are now held by seed companies around the world. In fact, all genetically engineered seed that is being tested and planted in our fields, and all genetically engineered foods in our shops, restaurants and supermarkets have been patented.¶ The flow of genes is primarily from indigenous communities and rural communities in ‘developing countries’ to the Northern-based genetics industry. Ninetly-seven of all patents are held by industrialized countries. (Action Aid, Crops and Robbers November, 1999).¶ Biopiracy and Biocolonialism: Plain Theft¶ In many cases, seed companies are claiming to be inventors of crops which they have not modified in any way, but which they have pirated from other communities. They may use some genetic screening to get a genetics-based description of the agricultural or medicinal plant, and simply use the language of genetics to pretend novelty and invention over something that has been common knowledge over centuries, even millenia. Examples of this practice include the patenting of the Indian neem tree, and¶ Andean quinoa. (see box entitled, “Biopiracy Successfully Avoidedâ€).¶ Increasingly, too, biopirate companies are analyzing the genetic makeup of exotic plants with large product markets. Their aim is to be able to create synthetic versions of the products that can be manufactured anywhere in the world. Companies like Mars, which produces chocolate bars, have taken extracted and patented properties of cocoa that is an important export market for¶ West African farmers. Mars intends to cultivate the desired cocoa properties in its Northern-based laboratories. This can be seen as market piracy, because it destroys the livelihood of millions of farmers in different regions when they find that the market for their produce has disappeared. In addition, the development of the genomics industry has accelerated the pace of private companies and governments seeking to geneticize and privatize life forms.¶ Genomics is the study and mapping of all the genes of a given species and the way in which they interact in order to generate the characteristics of that species. For the human genome, this research began with joint public-private sector projects to map the human genome – the Human Genome Project (HGP) and the Human¶ Genome Diversity Project (HGDP). The HGDP is targeted at mapping genes specific to indigenous peoples, and was quickly identified by indigenous peoples as counter to the interests, needs, and spirituality of its research subjects. Plant genomics projects – often heavily subsidized by governments¶ – are being conducted on a number of the world’s staple crops, including corn and rice.¶ It is also likely that the communities from whom genetic resources have been pirated may find themselves forced to pay the same pirate companies for the newly introduced seeds that incorporate the traits stolen from them. Thereby, the cycle of theft and market exploitation in the gene flow from indigenous communities to GE companies is completed.¶ As plants and animals have been pirated from their communities, indigenous peoples have been forced to respond to protect the life in their territories and their traditional knowledge. In many cases, communities are finding out as much as a decade later that one of their sacred plants, animals, or methods has been patented. Some indigenous peoples have been developing mechanisms to protect collective community-based rights over plants, animals, human genetic material, and traditional medicinal and agricultural knowledge. Communities have also been challenging patents that have been awarded (see below). While these challenges have been successful on many occasions, they involve often costly and extremely time-consuming legal battles. Moreover, fighting off individual patent claims is an uphill battle when current patent law promotes biopiracy and the patenting of life. Nonetheless, indigenous peoples, progressive, grassroots farmers movements worldwide, and environmental and social justice movements in the North are all seeking to correct the flaws in the legal and governmental systems that have created this situation

Edited by Zuul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll edit this later with a biotech card I cut for my churchill file

Churchill file?

Gotta gib back dat land Edited by Zuul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add on to Zuul's post: (feel free to retag these cards)

 

Biotech causes massive wealth inequalities - devalues indigenous epistemologies and technologies in favor of Eurocentric mastery over nature - causes genetic instability and agricultural collapse

Lander ‘09 (Edgardo Lander, Professor at Universidad Central de Venezuela, and associated to CLACSO (Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, “Eurocentrism, Modern Knowledges, and the ‘Natural’ Order of Global Capital, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Special Issue Epistemologies of Transformation: The Latin American Decolonial Option and its Ramifications, Fall 2009, Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University, p. 57-60, www.postkolonial.dk/artikler/LANDER.pdf)//CV

Since the Eurocentric colonial assumption is that the only possible knowledge is Western university and industrial knowledge, it follows that only knowledges which correspond to this paradigm can be registered and protected as intellectual property. All other ways of knowing can be freely appropriated (Khor, n.d.). In the case of biotechnology, all indigenous and rural knowledges and technologies involving the selection, combination, and preservation of diverse species are denied and devalued, since they are classified as part of nature. Thus, the selection and cultivation of vegetable species (plant breeding) is not considered to be either true production, knowledge, or technological application, for real breeding only begins when the “primitive germ plasm†is mixed or crossbred by scientists in international laboratories (Shiva 1997, 51 – 52). According to Vandana Shiva (1997, 9), one can identify three types of creativity: 1. The creativity inherent to living organisms that allows them to evolve, recreate, and regenerate themselves. 2. The creativity of indigenous communities that have developed knowledge systems to conserve and utilize the rich biological diversity of our planet. 3. The creativity of modern scientists in university or corporate laboratories who find ways to use living organisms to generate profits. Given the hierarchical dualities between culture and nature — and between scientific knowledge and empirical and/or traditional knowledge — that characterize Eurocentric knowledge, the only kind of creativity that can be recognized, and thus protected as intellectual property, is based on the third type of creativity. Beginning with the reductive principle of genetic engineering, according to which it is possible to create life, the intellectual property rights agreements oblige governments worldwide to recognize patents on life, or other forms of protection of the private ownership of life. Just as resources formerly considered to be commons, or of communal use, were privately appropriated through the enclosure and private appropriation of fields, rivers, lakes, and forests, leading to the expulsion of European peasants from their land and their forced conversion into factory workers during the Indus trial Revolution, through biopiracy, legalized by the agreements protecting intellectual property, the ancestral collective knowledge of peoples in all parts of the world is being expropriated and converted into private property, for whose use its own creators must pay. This represents the dispossession or private appropriation of intellectual commons (Shiva 1997, 10). The potential — but also real — impact of these ways of defining and imposing the defence of so - called intellectual property are multiple, yet another expression of the tendency, in the current process of globalization, to concentrate power in Northern businesses and countries, to the detriment of the poor majorities in the South. At stake are matters as critical as the survival of life-forms and choices that do not completely fit within the universal logic of the market, as well as rural nutritional self-sufficiency and access to food and health services for the planet’s underprivileged majorities. As a consequence of the establishment of patents on varieties of life - forms, and the appropriation/ expropriation of rural/ communal knowledge, by transnational seed and agrochemical companies, the patterns of rural production are changing ever more quickly, on a global scale. Peasants become less and less autonomous, and they depend more and more on expensive consumables they must purchase from transnational companies (Gaia Foundation and GRAIN 1998). These companies have also developed a “terminator†technology deliberately designed so that harvested seeds cannot germinate, forcing peasants to buy new seeds for each planting cycle (Ho and Traavik, n.d.; Raghavan, n.d.). All of this has had a profound impact, as much on the living conditions of millions of people as on genetic diversity on the planet Earth. The “freedom of commerce†that the interests of these transnational companies increasingly impose on peasants throughout the world is leading to a reduction in the genetic variety of many staple food crops. This reduction in genetic diversity, associated with an engineering view of agriculture and based on an extreme, industrial type of control over each phase of the productive process — with genetically modified seeds and the intensive use of agrochemicals — drastically reduces the auto-adaptive and regenerative ability of ecological systems. And nevertheless, the conservation of biodiversity requires the existence of diverse communities with diverse agricultural and medical systems that utilize diverse species in situ. Economic decentralization and diversification are necessary conditions for biodiversity conservation. (Shiva 1997, 88) Agricultural biodiversity has been conserved only when farmers have total control over their seeds. Monopoly rights regimens for seeds, either in the form of breeders’ rights or patents will have the same impact on in situ conservation of plant genetic resources as the alienation of rights of local communities has had on the erosion of tree cover and grasslands in Ethiopia, India and other biodiversity-rich regions. (99) 12 As much as for preserving genetic diversity — an indispensable condition of life — as for the survival of rural and indigenous peoples and cultures all over the planet — a plurality of ways of knowing must coexist, democratically. Current colonial trends toward an intensified, totalitarian monoculture of Eurocentric knowledge only lead to destruction and death

 

 

Biotechnology assumes we can master and commodify the building blocks of life - undermining solutions to poverty and famine and entrenching neoliberal dominance

McAfee 8 (Kathleen McAfee, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, Neoliberalism on the molecular scale. Economic and

genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles

http://www.uky.edu/~tmute2/GEI-Web/GEI-readings/macafee-biotech.pdf)

 

The past five years have seen heated international disputes about the patenting of genes, crop varieties, and genetic engineering techniques, about trade in biotechnology products, and about control of the world s ‘‘genetic resources’’––the raw-material inputs for medical and agricultural biotechnology. These biotechnology battles are being played out in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, the Conventional on Biological Diversity (CBD), and other international arenas. The United States government, intent on reinforcing the dominant position of its own biotechnology-based industries, has fought hard for the acceptance of genetically engineered crops, for liberalization of biotechnology trade, and for the worldwide standardization of private intellectual property rights to biotechnology and its products. Private-sector positions and US policy in these global fora are framed by a neoliberal approach to biotechnology regulation. This approach, I contend, depends upon two forms of reductionist discursive practices: molecular-genetic reductionism and economic reductionism. Economic-reductionist arguments are mobilized in international debates to support the private ownership and market-based management of biotechnology and the interests of biotechnology firms. These arguments, in turn, make use of genetic-reductionist representations of ‘‘genes’’ and ‘‘genetic codes’’. However, such representations are supported neither by the theories and practices of contemporary molecular biology nor by the actual experiences of scientists and farmers who work with genetically modified organisms. The discourse of molecular-genetic reductionism postulates specific traits that are ‘‘caused’’ by one or more ‘‘genes’’, whether in humans or fish, bacteria or corn. It conceptualizes genes as discrete entities: functional units of information which can be characterized precisely, counted, added or subtracted, altered, switched on and off, or moved from one organism or one species to another by means of genetic engineering. The metaphor of the determinant ‘‘gene’’, although appealing in its simplicity, is seriously misleading. Nevertheless, the notion of ‘‘genes’’ as unitary objects with stable, predictable properties provides conceptual support for treating genetic constructs as tradable commodities which are subject to market exchange and to the assumptions of neoclassical economics. The dominant paradigm of environmental resource management attempts to incorporate nature within this neoclassical economic framework, emphasizing the role of markets in the valuation and allocation of natural resources, including genetic information (Costanzaetal., 1997; Dixon/World Bank, 1997). The values of nature are equated with the prices, in actual or hypothetical international markets, of natural resources such as timber and medicinal-plant samples and of ecosystem services such as tourism sites, CO 2 sequestration, and water filtration. This approach is reductionist in that it treats nature and its components as quantifiable and as separable, at least conceptually, from their contexts in living nature and society, while it obscures the effects of political, cultural, and ecological factors on market transactions and resource values. The two discourses of economic and molecular genetic reductionism are linked and mutually reinforcing in multilateral policy debates. Doubly reductionist representations of genetics and biotechnology are mobilized by those stress biotechnology s scientific status and advocate minimal biotechnology regulation and globalized intellectual property rights (IPRs). Such representations are critiqued by those who stress the risks and limitations of technological solutions to problems of hunger and poverty and the need for policies that are specific to particular ecosystems, socioeconomic conditions, and local and national development strategies. Disputes over these issues have embroiled multilateral fora, especially the WTO and its Agreement on Trade-RelatedIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS),the CBD and its newBiosafety Protocol, and the 2001 international Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. These disputes involve shifting alliances among the US and European and developing countries, tensions between social movements and states, and collisions between emerging institutions of environmental and economic governance. More than biotechnology per se is at stake: conflict over biotechnology has become a flashpoint of resistance to globalized governance under US hegemony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t solve and turn – grocery stores say no, and biotech leads to herbicides found in humans, farmers losing millions, and sick animals

Pica 6/21 – President, Friends of the Earth (Erich, “A Bad Few Weeks for Big Biotech,†Huffington Post, June 21, 2013, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erich-pica/a-bad-few-weeks-for-big-biotech_b_3474447.html>)//SS

 

It's been a bad few weeks for the biotechnology industry. After decades of challenging Big Biotech's disastrous attempts to redesign and control our food supply and genetic commons, I can gladly say this is the first time in a long while that this largely unregulated industry has been on the defensive on so many different fronts.¶ Glyphosate found in humans:¶ Last week, our sister organization Friends of the Earth Europe released results of a groundbreaking new study which revealed that 44 percent of European city dwellers, from 18 countries, are contaminated with Monsanto's potentially-dangerous herbicide glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup -- and it is likely that Americans are being polluted at similar or higher levels given the widespread use of glyphosate in the United States. Glyphosate is used by farmers, local government and gardeners, and is sprayed extensively on genetically modified crops which have been engineered to be resistant to this herbicide. This widespread presence of glyphosate in our bodies is shocking and shows just how out of control the biotech industry has become. This comes on the heels of a new peer-reviewed study showing that low level exposure to glyphosate causes estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cells to grow, adding to a growing body of evidence that the world's most commonly used herbicide could be harming our health and the environment.¶ Genetically engineered wheat gone rogue:¶ U.S. farmers have lost millions when key trading partners -- including Japan and Korea -- decided to restrict wheat imports after a rogue form of genetically engineered wheat, not approved by the USDA nor sold commercially, was discovered in Oregon. This is not too different from what happened in 2000, when a type of corn not approved for human consumption contaminated corn destined for our tables, putting our food supply at risk and resulting in $288 million in food recalls and lost trade. Similarly, in 2006 an unapproved genetically engineered strain of rice escaped, costing U.S. exporters more than $1.29 billion. Foreign markets have largely rejected genetically engineered crops, are strict about labeling and testing them so it is increasingly clear that U.S. farmers are at risk of losing export markets as more crops and more farmland are turned over to genetically engineered crops.¶ Sick pigs on a GE diet:¶ The bad news for biotech doesn't end there. Growing scientific evidence suggests that genetically engineered corn and soy, which are present in the majority of processed foods but are unlabeled, could be harming our health. A new peer-reviewed long-term feeding study published June 11 in Organic Systems Journal found that pigs fed a combination of genetically modified soy and corn suffered more frequent severe stomach inflammation and enlargement of the uterus than those fed a non-GE diet.¶ Target and other grocery stores say no to genetically engineered seafood:¶ And it's not just the biotech crop industry that's feeling the heat. Friends of the Earth recently announced that Target, Giant Eagle, H-E-B and Meijer have joined the nearly 60 retailers -- totaling over 4,600 stores nationwide -- that have vowed to not knowingly sell genetically engineered seafood. This demonstrates the growing market rejection of what is likely to be the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption and is victory for the 91 percent of Americans who do not want to eat this experimental fish. The same day the Proceedings of the Royal Society published a new peer-reviewed study which shows that genetically engineered salmon can cross-breed with brown trout, creating a fast-growing, super aggressive new salmon that would pose a great threat to wild salmon if it were to escape into the wild.

Biotech won’t be implemented – environmental drawbacks

Altieri ’1 – Ph.D., teaches agroecology in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at University of California at Berkeley, and is a technical advisor to the Latin American Consortium on Agroecology and Development in Santiago (Miguel, “The Ecological Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology,†Actionbiosence, February 2001, <http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/altieri.html#fullbio>)//SS

 

Transnational corporations (TNCs) such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Novartis, the main proponents of biotechnology, argue that carefully planned introduction of these crops should reduce or even eliminate the enormous crop losses due to weeds, insect pests, and pathogens. In fact, they argue that the use of such crops will have added beneficial effects on the environment by significantly reducing the use of agrochemicals.13 However, ecological theory predicts that as long as transgenic crops follow closely the pesticide paradigm prevalent in modern agriculture, such biotechnological products will do nothing but reinforce the pesticide treadmill in agroecosystems, thus legitimizing the concerns that many environmentalists and some scientists have expressed regarding the possible environmental risks of genetically engineered organisms. In fact, there are several widely accepted environmental drawbacks associated with the rapid deployment and widespread commercialization of such crops in large monocultures, including:3,21,25¶ the spread of transgenes to related weeds or conspecifics via crop-weed hybridization¶ reduction of the fitness of non-target organisms through the acquisition of transgenic traits via hybridization¶ the rapid evolution of resistance of insect pests such as Lepidoptera to Bt¶ accumulation of the insecticidal Bt toxin, which remains active in the soil after the crop is ploughed under and binds tightly to clays and humic acids;¶ disruption of natural control of insect pests through intertrophic-level effects of the Bt toxin on predators¶ unanticipated effects on non-target herbivorous insects (i.e., monarch butterflies) through deposition of transgenic pollen on foliage of surrounding wild vegetation14¶ vector-mediated horizontal gene transfer and recombination to create new pathogenic organisms

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4600 stores nationwide...

 

4600 / 50 = 92 per state.  

 

1797 of those are Target, which is rarely a major food retailer for an area.  That leaves ~3000 potentially significant food retail locations... 60 per state.  That's 1 store per 1264 square miles.

 

Dat impact? lol

 

Edit: There are ~180 Jewel grocery stores in Chicago alone, to give some sense of scale on just how small that is.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethics of biotechnology are what will be of most use to you. In regards to famine, poverty, and agriculture, biotech has a lot of prospect in those areas and it will come down to a bad debate (he said she said business). Francis Fukuyama has a publication from either 2001 or 2002 I believe and it deals heavily with the ethics of biotech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...