| | Technologie d’avenir | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Raj MEETARBHAN
On 30/08/2010 |
Le leader de l’opposition a exprimé, samedi, des réserves sur les expériences du MSIRI visant à développer des variétés génétiquement modifiées de la canne à sucre. Cette position prudente de Paul Bérenger sur les expérimentations d’OGM est surprenante parce qu’elle coïncide avec une avancée des OGM en Europe.
Il y a un mois, le journal «Le Monde» annonçait que «La Commission européenne a autorisé, mercredi 28 juillet, la commercialisation dans l’Union européenne de six maïs génétiquement modifi és utilisés pour l’alimentation humaine et animale...» Les autorisations sont valables dix ans. Les maïs concernés sont destinés surtout à l’alimentation animale et ont obtenu un avis scientifi que favorable.
Il est vrai que les règles européennes actuelles sont encore strictes en la matière et prévoient l’interdiction de débarquer dans l’UE toute marchandise dans laquelle des traces de produits OGM non autorisés ont été décelées. Mais, peu à peu, Bruxelles assouplit sa position. Donc, Maurice a intérêt à poursuivre ses expériences pour saisir les opportunités le cas échéant.
L’article de «l’express» auquel Paul Bérenger a fait référence samedi ne fait que rapporter une information donnée par le MSIRI dans son rapport annuel rendu public il y a quelques jours. L’organisme de recherche révèle, en effet, que «transgenic drought tolerant sugar cane plants have been successfully produced through genetic transformation». Il est diffi cile de comprendre le leader de l’opposition quand il dit que notre article peut créer des remous.
Il est vrai que les expériences se poursuivent en serre et non au champ, mais elles continuent d’être conduites par le MSIRI et n’ont pas été abandonnées. «During 2009, plantlets of varieties M 555/60 and M 1672/90 and of the Australian variety Q 117 were regenerated in the presence of geneticin after microprojectile bombardment… with the drought resistance gene.»
La canne à sucre transgénique peut résister aux maladies, aux herbicides et aux conditions climatiques extrêmes. Une variété particulière de canne OGM a démontré une résistante à la sécheresse.
On peut en imaginer les avantages pour notre pays quand la commercialisation du sucre OGM sera autorisée en Europe.
Le MSIRI n’a pas arrêté l’expérimentation OGM. On peut notamment lire sur son site que «the genetic improvement of sugar cane is geared towards the development of new varieties with high cane yields, high sucrose content, resistant to the major diseases and pests, adapted to the various agro-climatic zones of the island, and suitable for harvesting at different periods of the milling season».
Le combat contre les OGM est mené par les idéologues et les tenants de l’écologisme. Ils insistent pour que le monde mange bio alors que les pauvres veulent tout simplement manger.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Biraj | | | In an underdeveloped country like ours where decisions are made mostly by people from the legal field and often influenced by socio cultural associations which are often led by people that have hardly any knowledge of science, we can be sure that the real debate about GENETIC MANIPULATION (not softer misleading wordings) will never take place on Mauritian soil. Instead, our local intellectuals having limited/no knowledge in the area, only rely upon other countries and simply ‘copy’ what is done elsewhere! Definitely, these may not be applicable to our context given the specifity of our local fauna, flora & climate. We run the risk of having wrong decisions taken in our parliament, being imposed upon us! By talking just about the benefits of genetic manipulation like helping nourish world population, you can easily convince a layman. By citing the sayings of some scientists who have economic interest in GMO, you can more than convince people. But what still motivates some scientists to take a stand against GMO? Do these people do so for any economic interest? Definitely no; they do so based on their scientific farsightedness. The debate is quite long. A few important points against GMO are: 1. MEDICAL - the GMOs have been reported to cause a number of diseases and this can definitely be expected because the composition of these organisms contain substances to which our body is not adapted. In evolution, time is measured in millions of years. 3. ECOLOGICAL -the GMOs being better adapted to the environment can potentially become invasive and become a threat to the existing species. With time, the GMOs can push the existing similar looking organisms to extinction; the extinct species will be replaced by what I refer to as MUTANT (term correctly used as they are genetically different). No one can predict with certitude what will happen but one thing for sure is that the outcome won’t be good and worse, the whole world will become a large laboratory and will be under test. The harm caused will be IRREVERSIBLE. A local analogy about the Round island is worth considering. The case is not related to GMO, but the economic interest and wrong assurance that ‘all will be ok’ were initially present. The local intellectuals considering to play the role of god, introduced goat and the outcome that we see today is … extinction of certain species on that island and the … world, irreversible soil erosion, loss of habitat, etc. 4. ECONOMIC - if after certain time, it is discovered that GMO is responsible for problem x or y, will foreign countries be willing to buy our products such as sugar? And what about the economic impact? By the way, why don’t we see the label ‘GMO’ in products that we buy? Does this label serve as a signal for people to keep away from these products? 5. RELIGIOUS - certain plants have been reported to have received animals’ genes (eg tomato receiving scorpions’ genes). How will the vegetarians & people of different faiths, including those who are fasting, react to it? 6. LEGAL - does someone have the right to impose GMOs upon people who don’t want to use them? 7. ORAGANIC farming is a good alternative, why do governments not favour it? OTHERS – countless sites can be found to support arguments againstrefer to sites like http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/gm-crop-safety-alarm-bells/ | | | Starbright | | | Genetically Modified foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically genetically modified foods are transgenic plant products: Soybean, Corn, Canola and cotton seed oil.Animal products have also been developed, although as of July 2010,none are current on the market.Researchers have also developed a genetically modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%.Critics have objected GM foods on several grounds,including possible safety issues,ecological concerns and economic concerns raised by the fact that these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.Planting of genetically modified Sugar Beets has been considered in The US, Northern District of California in 2009. | | | VVIZZ | | | "A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available. In particular, the report championed “agroecological” farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries."
An extract from: http://www.saynotogmos.org/10reasons_need.pdf | | | MBCTV | | | The battle for or against isalso fought between scientists/scientifics themselves.CAUTION is of the essence.All the same it may prove to be a boom for the Mauritius cane industry. | | | Paluk | | | How much more could one waffle? All in the name of a sunset industry! | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|