[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
re: Glickman and Biotech
ann clark at guelph wrote:
Folks: can I get some comment/confirmation/denial about Glickman and his
apparent attraction to biotechnology? Is he likely to stay in the business
for the next 4 years, and if not, who will replace him? What are their
credentials on biotechnology? Ann
(glickman material copied below)
ann:
i guess the one comment i would make on glickman s apparent attraction to
biotechnology is that, in the view of many analysts, one of the principal
functions of the usda is to facilitate the accumulation of wealth in the
agricultural sector by agribusiness firms . . . of the various current and
emerging strategies at the moment, biotechnology is particularly attractive,
both because it consolidates the extracted value in a few firms (rather than
spreading it among various firms and types of capital), because it makes
possible the extraction of additional value (by further degradation of the
environment), and because it increases the profitability of other extant
strategies (e.g., round-up ready soybeans)
so far there has not been any speculation in the mass media that glickman is
likely to depart . . . since he was a midterm appointee, he is probably not
yet frustrated and/or exhausted, and his involvement in the negotiations on
the recent farm bill and the food safety bill were generally perceived
positively
it probably doesn t matter a great deal what are the credentials of the
secretary of agriculture on biotechnology . . . what probably does matter is
whether the secretary is willing to consider a comprehensive assessment of the
middle-term and long-term impacts of certain types of biotechnology (e.g.,
host-plant resistance to insect pests) . . . most studies to date have focused
on short-term aspects and have made assumptions about the longer time frames
(e.g., no accidental transpecific transfer of the inserted genetic material) .
. . the potential implication of such an assessment would be that approval
which had been given for a biotechnologically produced variety on the basis of
short term impacts might subsequently be withdrawn on the basis of evident or
likely middle term or long term impacts . . . this prospect is presumably not
appealing to the biotechnology firms
cheers,
craig
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 13:45:36 EDT
Subject: Agnet Nov. 9/96
BIOTECH VITAL IN FEEDING WORLD -USDA'S GLICKMAN
Nov 8/96
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman says that the U.S. will
press for recognition at the World Food Summit of biotechnology's potential to
help feed the world, and is quoted as saying, "We need to keep that issue on
the tableQwhat it will do for hungry people. What we're trying to say at this
conference is that biotechnology is an important way to achieve food
independence in the developing world as well as (being) economically important
to the United States. Without it, there are consequences...probably
degradation of the environment in order to produce the food that is going to
need to be produced."
Follow-Ups: