Media acting like PR arms of biotech industry
News reports on 10 June spoke of the Prime Minister’s "private visit" to San Francisco where he "met 15 of the top executives of biotechnology (genetic engineering) firms over lunch and seemed pleased that most were keen to invest in Malaysia".
The NST said it was “part of a brief but significant appearance by Abdullah at the on-going Biotech 2004 Exhibition here, one that was seen as a clear signal of the Malaysian Government's support and commitment towards business in biotechnology."
In an editorial on 13 June, the NST, ever ready to jump on the biotech bandwagon, also stated:
"While it is vital that the three biotech research institutes in (Malaysia's) BioValley develop commercial value in their research, it is also necessary to commit time and resources. It could take years or even decades before the rich sources in our rainforests can develop into commercial pharmaceutical successes. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation will have to take the necessary steps to unlock the great potential of biotechnology."
Apart from the NST, The Star also carried a report on the visit.
But what the papers failed to mention is that many groups and individuals in the U.S. had demonstrated and protested against the world's largest biotechnology/genetic engineering convention of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, called BIO 2004. Needless to say, these two newspapers are not keen to carry reports from critical NGOs.
The biotechnology industry met in San Francisco on 6-9 June to "celebrate the benefits of biotech to health, agriculture, the economy and the environment." Some 18,000 delegates took part in BIO 2004 – but major protests took place outside.
According to the Pesticide Action Network (Asia Pacific office), organizers of the ‘Reclaim the Commons’, an umbrella group, coordinated a week's worth of BIO 2004-inspired protests. “The activists were concerned that corporations are being improperly awarded patents for plants, micro-organisms, animals and human genes, and that some fledgling biotechnology-based solutions are being rushed to market before they are ready. Many of the protesters in San Francisco this week were particularly worried about genetically modified food and insisted that such products be labelled”.
These NGOs point out that there is increasing evidence pointing to the adverse ecological and health impacts of genetically engineered crops and that there has been resistance from some governments, scientists and farmers to the technology.
They argue that genetically engineered crops have also been commercialized without the benefit of comprehensive safety tests and impact studies. Recent studies have shown alarming health findings such as the transfer of DNA from GM food to the human gut which proponents had earlier said was impossible.
Social movements, particularly farmers, have strongly opposed genetic engineering in food and agriculture due to health concerns and the potential impacts of GM crops in undermining the wealth of agricultural biodiversity in farmers’ fields, a key to world food security. Biotechnology often leads to huge MNCs staking their "intellectual property rights" on natural organisms, taking away control of seeds from the farmers.
Why is it we don't read about these serious issues in our newspapers? In Penang, for instance, some quarters have raised concerns about the Worldfish Center's "selective breeding" techniques in producing Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) fish. Tilapia are widely regarded as the rats of the waterworld and may threaten the rich biodiversity in marine life.
Meanwhile, the Worldfish Center, via its GIFT Foundation International Inc, has already transferred the commercial rights to GIFT fish to an obscure private Norwegian firm, Genomar ASA. And yet, Worldfish Center is still promoting GIFT fish in the Asian region. Who benefits in the end?
It is time our newspapers highlighted the risks and dangers of jumping on the biotechnology bandwagon with eyes closed. They should take a more critical view of biotechnology to safeguard public interest instead of merely acting like public relations arms of the biotech industry.
posted by Media Monitors @ 11:47 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
its true.
go to www.indybay.org for the real story of protests at the biotech conference.
damn, I miss my days in berkeley joining my fellow hippies in protesting every issue under the sun, then.
i wonder if the sfpd treat the protestors as courteously as our own fru squad.
What more,NST's senior editor Syed Nadzri had to rub salt into the wound. In his comment piece (June 17) praising Jamalluddin Jarjis's intention to 'educate' his Pahang constituents on the link between biotech and tapai, Syed Nadzri quoted a university professor as saying that the opposition to GMOs was done by a bunch of environmentalists that know next to nothing about biotech.
Furthermore, he was told by the professor that GMOs is the answer to pesticide problems in modern agriculture.
He was also convinced by the professor that worldwide biotech crop acreage has rose and more GMOs crops are grown in developing countries and that UK had also lifted its ban on genetically-engineered corn.
May I suggest to Syed Nadzri that he be the first person in the queue to buy the Biotech for Dummies which he prophecise will be a bestseller here.
Another suggestion is for Syed Nadzri to speak to some of his colleagues who covered the first Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol held in Kuala Lumpur in February.
It is so tragic when a senior journalist do not do his homework on critical issues and simply parrot whatever garbage that so-called professor had to offer.
Also, I'm curious as to who this professor is. Someone hired by the biotech industry that he met at San Francisco or some flashy academicians that get to tag along with our biotech-virgin leaders?
Post a Comment
<< Home