The Costly Benefits of Opposing Agricultural Biotechnology

The term, 'anti-agricultural biotechnology' is defined as any person, group, or organization that uses financial or political power to represent, place or assist in implantation, restrictive or restrictive genetic modification (GM, transgenic, modified, engineered, biotech) food made from them.

Opponents of Agricultural Biotechnology:

  • Chemical companies

Among the companies most affected by biotech products currently on the market are chemical companies. Plants modified to withstand the coming of hungry insects have greatly reduced sales, as well as income, to pesticide manufacturers. Herbicides, such as glyphosate or glufosinate, have had a similar effect on competing herbicides. In India, for example, the introduction of pest-resistant cotton has become a disaster for those who make chemical sprays, reducing sales by up to 70% in some regions. Indian chemical companies support non-compliance with GM cotton, and chemical companies there and elsewhere are urging the government to ban biotech plants. Such a situation is more likely to arise in developing countries.

  • Food companies

Food companies have a strong financial interest in opposing agricultural biotechnology and support their opponents financially and in some way. In 2006, the seven largest food retailers spent nearly US $ 8 billion on advertising [7]. This represents a huge effort to reach out, to the richest food retailers, to the richest consumers. In some countries, this access often includes advertising claims that certain foods are ‘GM-free’.

  • Supermarkets

Such advertising behavior is exemplified by some supermarkets in Britain, which soon after the introduction of GM plants sought to profit by advertising that their store-bought products did not contain GM ingredients. Competition has led to a situation where all chains of British supermarkets advertised in 1999 their premium products such as GM-free.

  • Natural food industry

Manufacturers and sellers of organic food advertise their diet to the public. However, they spend money that is not on advertising. That’s because most of their advertising is done by individuals. Direct advertising by organic producers and retailers is often found to be false or misleading to advertising authorities, so non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make false and misleading claims on their behalf.

In 2007, the global market for organic food was estimated at the US $ 40 billion, with more than 90% of that market centered in the European Union (EU) and the USA. The demand for organic food in these economies has exceeded supply, leading to severe shortages. more or more organic food in rich markets is now being produced for them in developing countries

Sadly, this means that the poor in developing countries themselves are often too poor to afford the natural products they produce for Europeans and Americans.

  • Politicians

Politicians have a lot to gain from opposing agricultural biotechnology. Business protection attracts support for domestic financial interests, while entertaining NGOs gives politicians the opportunity to find talented media professionals.

  • NGOs and the protest sector

Organizations that seem to strongly oppose agricultural biotechnology are known, sometimes bizarrely, as NGOs. These tax-exempt, non-profit organizations have the potential to present themselves as a 'public entity, and the claim is, to some extent, true. In the case of agricultural biotechnology, these organizations derive their greatest political influence by representing the concerns of consumers, farmers, and others. However, these concerns are largely created by the NGO itself at the same time, the NGO's efforts directly support commercial and political interests that rely on anti-biotech ideology, often extremely. As a result of the interconnectedness of political and commercial interests, as well as the artistic talent their enormous potential is able to attract, the performance of these organizations is very close to that of a private business.

The amount of money transferred to these organizations is huge and in Europe, they have a lot of public money. Perhaps the biggest beneficiary of this category is Friends of the Earth (FOE). In 2006 alone, the FOE, specifically for member/partner/partner groups, was set to receive about 790 million euros from European governments. Those governments seem to provide almost all of their annual revenue. Members of the European Parliament have called the 'shocking' and 'anti-democratic' s diversion of public funds, and say it is like the government 'paying for itself to take action, in particular, it may wish to take action. Most FOE-affiliated groups are located outside the EU, which means that EU Member States pay FOE to advertise the anti-biotech message around the world.

Blog Author: Shakib Akram Khan


Recent Posts

See All