GMO and Latin American Soy Producers

The twentieth century gave rise to an ideological shift away from an economy and culture structured at the regional and national levels to an economy and culture that is integrated into the global level. This ideological shift has become known as ‘globalization’. The driving force is capitalism where the focus is on profit and power. The implications of globalization are far reaching at both the micro and macro levels. Depending on the individual or group perspectives, the implications of globalization can have positive or negative effects, or both. Generally, the negative effects are felt at the micro level while, at the macro level, the effects are generally seen as positive. The latter can be attributed to transnational corporations consolidating power whereby they absorb smaller companies into the large corporation. In doing so, they are able to expand their presence within a country, often in developing countries, in order to manufacture goods at a cheaper price and increase their profits. Using their political influence within these countries (Perkins, 2004), these transnational corporations are able to obtain indigenous land and cultivate it for a profit (Villarroel, 2006). In stark contrast, at the micro level, globalization directly affects individuals and their local economy and culture, often with negative implications. This essay will discuss the negative effects of globalization at the micro level. The specific focus will be the negative impact globalization has had on Latin American farmers who grow genetically modified soy beans and how soy beans are integrated into global agricultural commodity networks.

The first section will briefly summarize the history of soy beans, from a sacred plant in China to a genetically modified food grown and used by biotech transnational corporations in Latin America as an instrument of globalization. Through economic power and political influence, large biotech corporations are able to distribute their product on the global market at the expense of the growers in developing countries, specifically Latin America. The second section will describe in detail the negative implications of globalization on growers of genetically modified soy beans in Latin America. Specific topics that will be introduced and discussed will be the impact on the growers’ local economy, the weakening of environmental standards, the health of farm workers, and finally the impact on culture.

Native to South East Asia, the soy bean was originally found in China during 2853 BC. China’s Emperor, Sheng-Nung, named the soy bean as one of the five sacred plants (the other plants included rice, wheat, barley, and millet). Soy beans were first domesticated and used for food between the eleventh and seventeenth centuries BC. By the first century AD, soy beans were exported from Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, Nepal and India (Wolff, 2000).

Latin America first felt the impact of globalization during the 1960s when production facilities were built to process soy beans as feed for livestock in foreign countries. Livestock is slaughtered and often sold to Europeans for human consumption without proper labeling (Wasley, 2009). Currently, only food containing more than .09% genetically modified food requires it to have the label reflect it, according to the Agriculture Council (Food & Drink Weekly, 2002). By the 1970s, one of the largest biotech corporations, Monsanto, had entered Latin America, producing genetically modified (GM) soy beans to be sold in the world market. The Parana River, in Argentina’s Rosario region, is home to the world’s largest soy bean state. Fourteen million hectares or 21% of cultivated land is used to produce GM soy beans. By 2010, the Argentinean government will add another 4 million hectares, a growth of 3.2% since 1995 or a factor of 57 since 1961. An estimated 90 million hectares have been approved for GM crops, a growth of 11% over the previous year (Thimmel, 2008). In Paraguay, the soy bean industry is flourishing, leading towards an industrial agricultural export model that is pushing small food producers out of business (Howard, 2009). Twenty-one industrial and developing countries claim that GM crops being grown in both large and small farms have met the expectations by benefiting consumers and society worldwide through more affordable food, and feed that are more environmentally sustainable (Altieri & Pengue, 2006).

Although there are numerous topics that could illustrate the concept of the negative influence of globalization on Latin American soy bean growers, this essay will touch upon three specific areas. These areas include economic, environmental/health, and cultural effects.

First, the economic factor, as stated before, correlates with the integration into global agricultural commodity networks. The cost to local farmers has been astronomical, creating extreme poverty among rural area farming communities. Since Monsanto established a presence in Latin America during the 1970s, nearly 100,000 small farmers have been evicted from their homes while their fields have been pillaged for the natural resources by biotech corporations (Villarroel, 2006). Indigenous residents have been forced to relocate from these areas to urban centers in search of work (Howard, 2009). The hardest hit has been Argentina. Between 1998 and 2002, some 60,000 farms, equal to one quarter of the farms in the country, were lost to large biotech corporations. The statistics from Brazil show that for every eleven displaced agriculture workers only one will find employment in the industry. In Argentina, Monsanto has pressured farmers into growing soy with pesticides, at the expense of their food crops, health, and subsequently their farms. In addition, Monsanto said they would not charge farmers royalties to use their technology to grow their crop. However, farmers are now being pressured, through their government, to pay intellectual property rights to Monsanto. This is occurring despite the UPOV 78 agreement that Argentina signed with Monsanto and revised several times, which allows farmers to save seeds for their own use. In Paraguay, farmers have also recently signed agreements with Monsanto that force them to pay the company $2 per ton for patent costs. As a result, growers are often underpaid, unprotected and malnourished while the biotech corporations gain substantial profits. It is obvious that the primarily focus of biotech corporations is economic (Riches & Valverde, 2002).

Throughout Latin America in areas where genetically modified foods are produced, there are severe environmental and health concerns for the indigenous people and animals. The more severe problems include clean water shortages, extensive use of pesticides, and illness and disease among humans and animals. Despite claims from the biotech industry that there has been a reduction in the use of pesticides, recent evidence suggests the opposite (Benbrook, 2009). The data in this report clearly shows a dramatic increase in the use of pesticides since the introduction of genetic engineering in the 1970s. This increased use of pesticides has had a dramatic impact on clean water in the area. Clean water shortages have become the norm in these communities. Pesticides have also been linked to soil degradation in these areas. To replenish the soil via fertilizers, the estimated cost is $910 million U.S (Altieri & Pengue, 2006).

In addition to the frequent exposure to chemicals and pesticides, farmers living in close proximity to the exposed areas have been driven away by the chemicals, which are poisoning domestic and wild animals, threatening plant life, and resulting in numerous health problems in people. Symptoms can include diarrhea, vomiting, genetic malformations, headaches, loss of sight and, in severe cases, birth defects and even death (Wasley, 2009).

Globalization has also had a profound impact on Latin American traditional culture. Within these cultural changes, the structure and role of the traditional family has been affected. There has been an upward trend of the number of women who lead households and also women working at paid employment outside the home (Arriagada, 2002). This transition can be attributed to the “multi-directional flow of people, ideas, cultural symbols” (Castles, 2002) and the migration of individuals and groups to other areas where they are exposed to the outside influences of the global market. Due to the influx of farm development in rural communities and the use of hazardous pesticides, indigenous people who once survived on the forests, animals, and fruits are now being forced to relocate and migrate to other areas, with a large proportion moving to larger urban centers in search for work. This pattern of workers migrating to urban centers is not unique to Latin America. Qatar has also seen a migration increase since the 1980s. Two percent of the world’s population is estimated to live abroad (Miller, Van Esterik, & Van Esterik, 2001). In urban areas, people are enjoying average longer life expectancies but the birth rate is on a decline and family size is shrinking. For those who continue to live in the rural areas, poverty is still quite high. In 2000, 211.4 million Latin Americans were living in poverty, of whom over 89 million were indigenous. Children are most affected by poverty. In 1999, 59% of children between 0 and 5 years of age were living in poverty. Despite the declining birth rate in urban areas, families living in poverty continue to have a higher birth rate (Arriagada).

In conclusion, the positive effects of globalization are felt throughout the developed world, whereby consumers have access to a seemingly endless stream of inexpensive products. These products, however, come at the expense of the farm and factory workers in developing countries. This essay has illustrated the negative impact globalization has had on the developing nations of Latin America, and specifically the soy bean growers. Since the introduction of globalization within Latin America, the indigenous inhabitants have seen their local economy and culture transformed, with their land bought up and primarily cultivated to farm genetically modified soy beans. Forest areas have been transformed into farm land and there has been a weakening of environmental and health standards. As a result, large portions of the population have migrated to urban centers. Migration and urbanization of Latin Americans has greatly influenced their traditional way of life because they are continually being exposed to the world market and other cultural ideologies. To some, this new urbanization may appear to have positive benefits; however, in rural areas where the soy beans are produced, poverty, health and environmental issues are growing problems. In both rural and urban settings, traditional roles of the family are changing, with women entering the workforce and the influence of western ideas of family size and structure. In closing, globalization will continue to negatively impact Latin American soy bean growers if these trends are allowed to continue and the global demand for soy steadily increases.

References

Altieri, M., & Pengue, W. (2006). GM soybean: Latin America’s new colonizer [Electronic version]. Seedling, 13-17.

Arriagada, I. (2002). Changes and inequality in Latin American families [Electronic version]. Cepal Review, 77, 135-153.

Benbrook, C. (2009). Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use: The first thirteen years. Boulder, CO: The Organic Center.

Castles, S. (2002). Migration and community formation under conditions of globalization [Electronic version]. International Migration Review, 36, 1143-1168.

Food & Drink Weekly. (2002). EU agrees on GM food labeling requirements. Food & Drink Weekly, December 9 issue. Retrieved November 28, 2009 from http://www.allbusiness.com/management/business-support-services/368182-1.html.

Howard, A. (2009). Saying no to soy: The Campesino struggle for sustainable agriculture in Paraguay. Retrieved November 28, 2009 from the Organic Consumers Association at http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18466.cfm.

Miller, B. D., Van Esterik, P., & Van Esterik, J. (2001). Cultural anthropology, Canadian edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada.

Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an economic hit man. New York: Penguin.

Riches, C. R., & Valverde, B. E. (2002). Agricultural and biological diversity in Latin America: Implications for development, testing and commercialization of herbicide resistant crops. Weed Tech, 16, 200-214.

Thimmel, S. (2008). Latin America is also booming on paper. Berlin: Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.
Villarroel, R. C. (2006). Environmental conflicts and the plundering of resources in Latin America. Development, 49, 32-37.

Wasley, A. (2009). Killing fields: The true cost of Europe’s cheap meat [Electronic version]. The Economist. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/336873/killing_fields_the_true_cost_of_europes_cheap_meat.html.

Wolff, D. (2000). Bean there: Toward a soy-based history of northeast Asia. South Atlantic Quarterly, 99, 241-252.

Related Posts

• No Related Post