|
作者 Donella H. Meadows 08.03.99
在我反對Monsanto公司的基因工程馬鈴薯之後，一位該公司的公關下了結論說，「我猜想你必定偏好殺蟲劑。」
一位我十分尊敬，但是和他激烈爭論基因工程的植物學家也說過：「我猜人們挨餓與否對你而言，一點也無所謂。」
這樣的指責令我震驚。我是個有機農夫，我不喜歡殺蟲劑。我花了數十年的時間致力於終結饑餓，任何人挨餓都會讓我難過。我相信責難我的這兩個人和我一樣為完全相同的目標而努力，也就是餵飽每個人而不破壞環境。我們都標榜「永續農業」的目標。但對於目標最後呈現的狀況，和如何達成目標，我們都必須提出很多不同的假設。
這種「如果我反對基因工程，我必定就偏好殺蟲劑」的想法，是來自於一種二元論的假設。如果真的就只有這兩種選擇，那我可能會同意玩弄基因比在全國灑毒藥要好。但是我還看到有其他的選擇。種植多種作物並採用輪作的方式，而不是年復一年地種植一、兩種植物，後者會提供一個完美的害蟲培育環境。在地表與土壤中建立生態系統，讓天敵與害蟲一同消長。這種方式是任何化學或工程方法所無法比擬的，它能針對特定物種、安全而優雅地找尋與驅除害蟲。
這些是基於生態學，而非化學或遺傳學的病蟲害控制法。它們很有效，我知道，我就是利用這些方法。我認識好幾打利用這些方法的農人，包括各種尺度大小的農場，遍及東北部、南部、中西部與西部；種植的植物包括蘋果、萵苣、馬鈴薯、草莓、花椰菜、稻米、大豆、小麥與玉米等。
「我們需要基因工程才能餵飽飢餓者」的宣言必定是基於兩個假設：第一，是會有較多的食物實際送到飢餓者的口中 ; 第二，是基因工程是培育出更多食物的唯一方法。相反的，我認為，再多的食物也無法幫助那些無力負擔食物費用或無法種植作物的人，這種情況特別會發生在昂貴、有專利與設計師種子的食物上。
而且，我們也不需要那麼多的食物。我們已經種植了足以餵養每個人的食物。如果將餵給動物食用的榖類中的三分之一轉移給人類，或是如果貧窮國家作物採收後的損失率降低百分之四十，或是北美與歐洲難以處理的過剩作物能為人們所共享，或是我們能創造一種經濟體制，讓每個人都能有錢來買食物或有土地種植作物，那麼每年就不會有二萬四千人因飢餓而死亡。最後一種方法同時可解決其他許多問題。
不論在何地、在何時，或人們需要更多食物時，都不需要生物技術或化學物質的方法就可生產這些食物。具有工業化農業想法的人認為有機農業會減損產量。但事實上，不僅沒有證據支持這種假設，而且還有許多研究得到與這假設相反的結果。其中，最近的研究結果之一出現在去年的「自然(Nature)」期刊，這篇文章總結的開場白是：「和舊式的、密集的農業栽培方法相比，『有機』替代方法可改善土壤肥力，並且對環境的負面影響較少。這些替代方法也可產生和傳統方法相當的作物產量。」
想像一下，如果有十分之一用於化學與遺傳學的研究投資被用到有機農業上，會產生什麼樣的結果。
當我向高科技農業擁護者提出證據，當我提議帶他們去看看有機農場，當我指出飢餓可以用分享食物與技術以提高產出的方式來終結，而不會毒害地球或侵犯基因時，我認為我的論點根本無法牽動他們的聽覺神經，更遑論他們的大腦了。比起聽到任何的爭論，他們對於有機農業的麻木與忽視，更令人感到挫敗，也提醒我這不是一個理性的討論。這是世界觀的不同，一種典型的鴻溝、一種有關世界如何運轉的道德、價值、認同與根本假設的不一致。
我假設世界是依循著生態、經濟與人類自然的法則在運轉的。生態學說單一作物孕育害蟲、化學物質破壞土壤生態系並殺死自然天敵、在每一個細胞內含有殺蟲劑的作物將使害蟲產生抗性、動植物應該養在一起，排泄物才會回歸土壤，還有我們並不了解基因工程將對生態或演化造成什麼樣的影響。
經濟學家說，如果你生產某種令消費者畏懼的產品，並隱藏它是如何被製造、它含有什麼成分，那麼你絕不可能會有持續的市場。因為工業化的農業已違反了這個法則，並失去了消費者的信賴，美國和歐洲的有機產品市場才會以每年百分之二十到百分之三十的速率增加。即使扣除額外費用，現在有機農業的總值還是超過九十億美金。
人類本能知道，較實際的生產者會擁有、形塑並控制土地、投入心力、種子與知識，這會產生更有創作力、更適宜且更平衡的農業。
這些法則使我對可持續農業有特定的理念。我想像著在繁榮、緊密團結的社區裡，健康的生態系與健康的人類共生。農場是小型的，經營者以Wes Jackson所謂的「高的『審視-英畝』比率(意指它們受到妥善管理，且收成豐富)」來操作。農人們使用許多知識與人工，而非化學物質或是無法自行生產的種子。所有的農場都飼養動物。為何生態系不會把所有的食物集中在同一個地方，而把所有的動物集中在另一個地方，是很有道理的。
在城市，在郊區，到處都有人種植食物。生產者與消費者之間的距離縮短，超級市場不用那麼多，而是有許多農夫市場；包裝不用那麼多，而是鮮度提高。到處都採用我最喜愛的有機農夫種植原則：「我不是栽種植物，我栽種健康。」
對那些不相信此情此景可能成真的人們，我只能說：「它的確存在，活生生的、存在地很好且正在成長。它甚至比工業方式獲益更高。食物更為美味，工人更愉悅。我就住在這樣的環境裡。我在世界各地都有朋友住在這樣的環境裡。來看看吧！」
Donella H. Meadows 是永續研究所的所長，也是達特茅斯學院環境研究的兼任教授。
原文與圖片詳見: http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/
citizen/citizen080399.stm
版權歸屬 Earth Day Network，環境信託協會 (謝洵怡 譯，李玲玲審校)
中英對照全文：http://news.ngo.org.tw/reviewer/
donella/re-donella19990803.htm
|
|
by Donella H. Meadows
08.03.99
"I guess you must be in favor of pesticides," concluded a Monsanto public relations guy, after I objected to his company's genetically engineered potato.
"I guess it's okay with you if people starve," said a botanist I deeply respect, with whom I have carried out a fervent argument about genetic engineering.
Accusations like these astonish me. I'm an organic farmer; I'm not in favor of pesticides. I've spent decades working to end hunger; it is not okay with me that anyone starves. I believe that my two accusers and I are working toward exactly the same goal -- feeding everyone without wrecking the environment. We would all label that goal "sustainable agriculture." But we must be making radically different assumptions about what that goal looks like and how to get there from here.
The idea that if I oppose genetic engineering, I must favor pesticides, arises from an assumption that those are the only two choices. If they were, I would probably agree that it's better to fool with genomes than to spray poisons over the countryside. But I see other choices. Plant many kinds of crops and rotate them, instead of one or two crops year after year, which make a perfect breeding ground for pests. Build up ecosystems above ground and in the soil so natural enemies rise and fall with the pests, searching and destroying with a specificity and safety and elegance that neither chemicals nor engineering can match.
These are pest control methods based not on chemistry or genetics, but on ecology. They work. I know. I use them. I know dozens of organic farmers who use them. Small scale and large. Northeast, South, Midwest, West. Apples, lettuce, potatoes, strawberries, broccoli, rice, soybeans, wheat, corn.
The claim that we need genetic engineering to feed the hungry must be based on two assumptions: first that more food will actually go to hungry people, second that genetic engineering is the only way to raise more food. I assume, to the contrary, that more food will not help those who can't afford to buy or grow it, especially if it comes from expensive, patented, designer seed.
Furthermore, more food is not needed. We already grow enough to nourish everyone. If just one-third of the grain fed to animals went to humans instead, we would not have 24,000 deaths per day due to hunger. Or if 40 percent post-harvest loss rates in poor countries were reduced. Or if we shared the embarrassing crop surpluses of North America and Europe. Or if we created an economy where everyone had money to buy food or land to grow it -- which would solve a lot of other problems too.
Where, when, or if more food is needed, there are ways to produce it that don't require biotech or chemicals. Folks with an industrial ag mindset assume that organic agriculture would cut yields. Not only is there no evidence for that assumption, there are numerous studies to the contrary. One of the latest appeared in Nature last year; its summary opens like this: "In comparison with conventional, high-intensity agricultural methods, 'organic' alternatives can improve soil fertility and have fewer detrimental effects on the environment. These alternatives can also produce equivalent crop yields to conventional methods."
Imagine what yields could be if even one-tenth as much research effort were put into organic farming as has been put into chemicals or genetics.
When I show this evidence to proponents of high-tech farming, when I offer to take them to see organic farms, when I point out that hunger could be ended by sharing food or technologies that raise output without poisoning the earth or invading the genome, I don't think my argument even reaches their auditory nerves, much less their brains. That kind of extreme failure even to hear an argument, much less process it, alerts me that this is not a rational discussion. It is a worldview difference, a paradigm gap, a disagreement about morals and values and identities and fundamental assumptions about the way the world works.
I assume the world works by the laws of ecology and economics and human nature. Ecology says that monocultures breed pests; that chemicals upset soil ecosystems and kill off natural predators; that crops with pesticide in every cell will induce pest resistance; that animals and plants should be grown in close proximity so manure can go back to the soil; and that we haven't the slightest idea what the ecological or evolutionary consequences of genetic engineering will be.
Economics says you can never have a sustainable market if you produce something consumers fear and you hide critical information about how it was produced and what it contains. Because industrial agriculture has violated that law and lost the trust of consumers, the market for organic produce is growing in American and Europe by 20 to 30 percent per year, even with a price premium; it now totals over $9 billion.
Human nature says the more actual producers can own and shape and control land and inputs and seeds and knowledge, the more inventive, adaptive, and equitable agriculture will be.
Acceptance of those laws shapes my vision of sustainable agriculture. I picture healthy ecosystems and healthy human beings working together in thriving, close-knit communities. Farms are small, owner-operated, with what Wes Jackson calls a "high eyes-to-acres ratio," which means they are well managed and high-yielding. Farmers make more use of knowledge and people than of chemicals and seeds they can't breed for themselves. Animals are raised on all farms; there are good reasons why ecosystems don't concentrate all the plants in one place and all the animals in another.
Food is grown everywhere, in cities, in suburbs. The distance from producer to consumer is short, there are fewer supermarkets, more farmers markets, less packaging, more freshness. The principle of one of my favorite organic farmers permeates the system: "I'm not growing food, I'm growing health."
To those who do not believe such a vision is possible, I can only say: It exists, it's alive and well and growing, it's even more profitable than the industrial vision, the food tastes better, the work is more pleasurable. I live in this vision. I have friends all over the world who live in it. Come see.
Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.
|
