>first we create a caricature out of shiva.
<http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1999/Nov/msg00040.html>
>We feel that Oxfam risks betraying the South, the poor and food
>security objectives by calling for support for promotion of G.M.
>crops in the South instead of calling for support for ecological and
>sustainable agriculture which is much better suited to the small
>farmers in adverse agroecological zones.
>
>Research from our own programmes in India and studies worldwide are
>countering the myth that ecological agriculture has low productivity
>and low returns. Farmers in fact have a tripling of incomes by
>getting off the chemical treadmill and getting out of the debt trap
>created by purchase of costly seeds and chemicals.
>
>Because G.E. free agriculture is good for the poor and good for the
>environment. We have launched the "Bija Satyagraha" which includes
>the creation of G.E. free zones in agriculture as pact of the
>National Food Rights Campaign in India, in which more than 2,500
>groups participate.
>
>As a leading NGO funder and development agency, we hope Oxfam will
>join our call for freedom from G.E. in the South. Oxfam should join
>the worldwide campaign for promoting alternatives to both chemical
>agriculture and genetic engineering while calling for a moratorium
>on G.M. crops.
<http://www.sirc.org/news/oxfam_open_letter.html>
>Your main problem with our paper is clearly our second of eight
>recommendations, in which we call for cautious support by
>governments to invest in research of applications of biotechnology
>that are potentially useful. You write "Oxfam risks betraying the
>South, the poor and food security objectives by calling for support
>for promotion of G.M. crops in the South instead of calling for
>support for ecological and sustainable agriculture which is much
>better suited to the small farmers in adverse agroecological zones".
>
>We are at risk of entering in a debate where one is either in favour
>or against biotechnology. We are of the opinion that there are
>serious dangers implied by the rapid development of genetically
>modified crops in the hands of large private industries, dangers to
>public health, the environment and socio-economic relations. That is
>however not the same as rejecting the potential of all
>biotechnologies as such (there are many technologies that fall under
>that term), in particular not the applications that could support
>small holder farmers, consumers, and that could help local and
>global food security. We have mentioned nitrogen-fixing, salt
>resistant crops and enhanced vitamin and mineral levels of foods. We
>could also have mentioned improved or hybrid high yielding varieties
>that can be replanted (i.e. that are genetically identical to the
>mother plant and are reproduced 'by apomixes', without sexual
>fertilisation). All of those are in our view potentially supportive
>of sustainable agriculture, even though some may reject those as not
>entirely natural or 'organic'. We are aware that these potentially
>positive applications are in their infancy only and can imply
>similar environmental and health risks as some of the applications
>favoured by private companies, and therefore we believe that public
>funding and extreme caution should dominate such research and
>development.