Bevan ���1

¿Es la memoria hereditaria? El Caso Chileno

El gobierno militar durante los años setenta y ochenta cambió la vida para siempre en Chile. Aunque los jóvenes de hoy no experimentaron por sí mismos la política y sus efectos en la sociedad chilena, hay una presencia fuerte de las consecuencias de la política de Pinochet en este grupo. Por consiguiente, las características de los jóvenes chilenos tienen raíces en los cambios del país ante de su nacimiento, es decir en los años del gobierno militar de Pinochet.

Para empezar, los jóvenes se caracterizan como a través del consumo. Con el cambio de gobierno de Pinochet, hubo una reorganización del sistema económico para introducir la teoría del neoliberalismo. En consecuencia, la mayoría del negocio fue privatizado de acuerdo con el sistema de los Estados Unidos. Aunque esta alteración introdujo algunos problemas sociales que existen todavía en el país, la actitud consumidora fue una consecuencia del nuevo sistema económico. Según Roberto Méndez, los jóvenes tienen una ‘relación fuerte con las maracas’. Dice él que los jóvenes comunican estatus y una visión de la vida a través de las marcas en su vestimenta, tecnología y comida. El vínculo entre el consumismo de los jóvenes y los cambios del sistema económico en los años anteriores es claro, porque el valor que ellos ponen en las marcas es un producto que de manera sutil expresa el estado socioeconómico. De repente, la importancia del dinero está más desarrollada que las tradiciones antiguas como las relaciones familiares y la amistad entre amigos. En otras palabras, la aspiración de mostrar la habilidad de ser potente económicamente tiene una presencia más fuerte en la sociedad chilena que antes, específicamente en los jóvenes.

Por añadidura, existe una fascinación en los jóvenes chilenos por la cultura extranjera. Según el mismo autor, el interés y tener experiencia internacional es necesario para el éxito profesional, específicamente para los estudiantes que se acaban de graduar. Para enfrentar un mundo que está evolucionando a causa de la globalización, es importante desarrollar una perspectiva más grande que sólo de su propio país. Las compañías multinacionales están buscando a jóvenes calificados en otro idioma o que hayan pasado tiempo en otra parte del mundo. Esta tendencia también se hace evidente a través de los cambios en el gobierno en el siglo veinte. Durante este tiempo el sistema de gobierno y el modelo económico fue importado de otra cultura, o sea la que existe en los países más desarrollados. Es fácil de inferir que la población chilena habría incorporado no sólo los aspectos de la política sino también los de la cultura. Así pues los jóvenes ponen valor en lo extranjero, a punto de que ellos están obsesionados con desfamiliarizarse de las tradiciones de su propio país. De este modo, los jóvenes pasan a ser una parte aislada de la experiencia más antigua de su cultura, por ejemplo, de la perspectiva de sus padres y abuelos.

Desiado a la fascinación de los jóvenes por la cultura extranjera, este grupo se caracteriza por su desinterés en la participación política de su propio país. Aunque los jóvenes chilenos se han manifestado en las calles protestando por la condición del sistema educativo y los violaciones de los derechos humanos, su representación en el gobierno que se centra en estos mismos temas. Roberto Méndez agregó que en las últimas elecciones municipales los jóvenes representaban apenas el 3,3 por ciento del voto. Las explicaciones por la mala representación de los jóvenes en la política son muchas, incluso el problema de inscripción que fue cambiado recientemente a un sistema de votación voluntaria. Sin embargo, es posible que la irrelevancia de los jóvenes en los

Bevan ���2

temas políticos esté relacionada con la estructura que fue instalada bajo el gobierno de Pinochet. A causa de la reestructuración del gobierno en los años setenta, hubo cambios de la constitución chilena que representaba las ideas políticas del régimen. Por ende, no es posible que las peticiones de los jóvenes sean a causa de las restricciones de la constitución de 1980. A medida que la constitución chilena representa los ideales del gobierno militar, los jóvenes no expresarán sus peticiones votando porque no sienten que la posibilidad de iniciar cambios sea real. En vista de que las consecuencias del gobierno militar todavía existe en la estructura del gobierno chileno, es probable que el desinterés de los jóvenes en la política se centre en esta presencia.

Para finalizar, las características de los jóvenes chilenos están relacionadas de una manera fuerte con los cambios que habían ocurrido antes de su nacimiento. A través de conversaciones con sus padres, quienes han experimentado los efectos del gobierno militar directamente, se nota de inmediato las consecuencias del golpe del estado y los hechos posteriores en su mentalidad y creencias. A su vez, aunque los matices no son tan obvios, el vínculo entre las características de los jóvenes chilenos y el régimen de Pinochet todavía existe de una forma fuerte aunque no es tan claro al principio. Por todo lo dicho, los cambios del gobierno desde hace cuarenta años se presentan en la sociedad chilena a través de las tendencias y características de los jóvenes. En última instancia, es posible concluir que la experiencia de la población chilena durante la época de la dictadura permanezca en la generación que jamás experimentó los eventos históricos. Es decir, que la transmisión de la memoria de la gente chilena, con todo lo bueno y lo malo, entere a las generaciones no sólo es posible sino que está sucediendo.

Bevan ���3

Impact of Food Technology on Poverty, Nutrition and Global Politics

With the introduction of new and innovative biological systems and technology, comes many challenges on how these developments are used ethically and sustainably. From the debate of stem cells in medical research to research on genetically modified seeds, there are a number of complex issues that speak to the benefits and dire consequences associated with pursing new technologies. The development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has a particularly rich history that has influenced consumers, farmers and corporations alike. Unfortunately due to the strong power attributed to large agricultural companies, most of the benefit of this industry has been disproportionally place in the hands of a few corporations, where the cost has fallen on internationally disadvantaged indigenous groups, farmers and consumers. Furthermore, the complex health issues, debate on patenting of GMOs, regulation, biosecurity concerns and corruption in US political oversight has plagued the Green and subsequently Gene Revolution with a series of unfulfilled promises and disasters in the global and national food supply.

The worldwide disease burden is heavily associated with issues of food insecurity and malnutrition, with thousands of people dying from completely preventable conditions such as lack of Vitamin A. In light of these issues, a botanical laboratory during the genetic revolution created a GMO rice that contained beta-carotene, an essential nutrition for the human body. Much of the poorest populations in the world, particularly in Asia died due to lack of this vitamin, which contributed to a weakened immune system and caused blindness. Golden rice as they GMO food was named, promised to address this problem because it was fortified with the essential nutrient.

While there were several issues with the product itself, the Vitamin A was not viable after storage and cooking unless certain precautions were taken, Golden Rice was the first transgenetic food to introduce the complicated debate over ownership and patenting. The product was produced in a highly competitive industry with thousands of patents protecting the funds that had been invested in laboratory research. For this reason, the original intent of giving the rice away for free to fight poverty would prove to be nearly impossible. The scientists that designed the product as a form of humanitarian aid were surprised and disappointed to find that the patented technology used to produce Golden Rice had partial ownership over their product through patenting.

In the end, Golden Rice was attached to a web of industry, including the giant pharmaceutical company AstaZeneca. In all the years of research on GMOs, the Rockefeller institution had not developed a legal mechanism to ensure that the new food went to the poor as originally intentioned. Golden Rice serves as an example of the legal complexity of patenting a living organism and protecting the funding that is invested in research and development of these inventions.

While Golden Rice was developed with the intention of directly benefiting the most impoverished in the world, the saga behind attempts to patent This Jasmine Rice and Indian Basmati Rice introduce the concepts of biopiracy and a business driven economy taking advantage of minority farming knowledge. In the case of both of these varieties of rice, companies in the United States claimed to have developed a completely new product after

Bevan ���4

modifying the genome of varieties that have been locally significant sources of food and export for hundreds of years. Not only were these companies claiming ownership through patenting of a food that has been planted in other areas of the world for a very long time, by harvesting the crop in the United States the companies opened a new market for the rice that crippled poor minority farmers across the world.

The rice introduced the issue of biopiracy, and the controversy over applying for a patent and claiming the development of a supposedly new product that is already on the market and has been harvested for thousands of years. This issue also questions how the industry protects the rights of indigenous people that have developed agricultural knowledge for many years. The UN even claimed that US companies were silently stealing centuries of knowledge from impoverished indigenous communities that were already disadvantaged by a system that supports large corporations.

For many of these reasons, including the discussion of biopiracy, the United States congress did not originally permit the patenting of life. However, in 1930 plant breeders were eventually given the right to patent their seeds but not the offspring of the cultivated plants. After the development of a microbe that was capable of eating oil that was released into the environment after an oil spill, the Supreme Court ruled that companies now had the right to patent living organisms that were the product of research and development, which enabled these subsequent patenting of any living organism and allowed corporations the power to own species that they developed.

This change in the legal rights of companies that produce new living organisms though genetic manipulation of living species had serious consequences for the farming population, both in the United States and abroad. One example of the consequences of the new legal framework that favors large agricultural corporations over farming communities is exemplified by a Canadian farmer that was accused of planting Monsanto’s GMO canola seed when he did not. Once a genetically modified seed is released into the environment, it is very difficult to control the spread of the seed. This farmer lost his business due to the decision to fight Monsanto on the allegation that he was planting their canola, when it was probable that the seed drifted into his farmland from the road or another nearby field. The court ruled that regardless of how the seed ended up not the land, the farmer was legally responsible to uphold patent laws. The case begs the question of how the law system is protecting the people that are planning crops over the large companies that supply seeds and herbicide. The current system undoubtably favors multinational companies over small farmers, both national and international, in the way that it interprets patenting laws.

Another example of the implications of promoting GMO foods on populations involves the health consequences of modifying the genome of consumable products. Numerous studies have suggested that GMO foods contribute to an increase in allergies in the human population, and may of the trials on rats have produced results that suggest that the food is unsafe for human consumption. Most of these studies have been hastily covered up by large corporations or ignored by the government agencies responsible for regulating the safety of food for humans and the environment. Among the many examples of the risk that GMO development poses for the human populations includes a number of recalls on products, including soy that was

Bevan ���5

contaminated by corn under trails for the development of a pig vaccine in the United States. While the development of GMO foods has serious consequences for the population in terms of health and rights of underrepresented communities in the agricultural industry, the larger issue of patenting and planting GMO seeds also plays a critical role in the world’s food supply.

The effect that seeds developed and patented in the United States has international implications, as exemplified by the impact of subsidized GMO corn sales, both in seed and grain, in Mexico. Mexican farmers have a long tradition of saving seed and developing a large variety of seed that is viable on their land. Because the farmers plant many different types of corn, they are much less susceptible to the risks associated with monoculture because they have preserved the genetic heritage of corn from in the region for thousands of years. Because corn in the United States is subsidized to the extent that it is sold a price that does not cover production costs, it is cheaper for the Mexican population to buy exported corn from the US than local varieties. Regardless of the price difference, many Mexicans preferentially chose to purchase Mexican corn because it tastes better, has more variety, has not been genetically modified, and the corn’s production is supporting local farming communities. In this case, the rejection of the GMO corn from the US has maintained long established farming practices and continued the genetic variability that has been developed by Mexican farmers for thousands of years.

Although there was a situation in which some of the GMO corn was planted and leaked into local fields, generally the traditional way of farming has been maintained in Mexico. While this has not been the case in other international communities, GMO foods are meeting increasing resistance worldwide. The rejection of US products and it’s unfilled promises to fight poverty and hunger by increasing the world’s food supply to the overwhelming advantage of large agricultural corporations seems to be more prevalent that it was 40 years ago. Especially in European countries, most of which require labeling products that contain GMO foods, civilian pressure has created rejection of American products, which is compounded by the farm crisis in North America.

Not only are there serious implications of the development, planting and harvesting of GMO crops, the political history that lead up to the eventual permission to patent and ensure the safety of genetically modified living organisms is riddled with corruption and conflict of interest. To begin, the American people have not directly voted on the issue of patenting, testing and labeling GMO foods while an estimated 80 percent of the american population would prefer more transparency from corporations. The GE right to know act, which would require all foods that include a GMO product to be labeled as such is still waiting to be passed by congress, and initiatives in several states including Oregon have failed due to the intervention of large corporations.

Additionally, the government authorities that are responsible for regulating the safety of these products and ensuring that minority rights are respected have direct ties to large corporations that are more concerned about making money than the safety, ethicality and sustainability of agricultural production. Linda Fisher provides a good example, she has held multiple positions with Monsanto and also served in a high level in the Environmental Protection Agency. This conflict of interest directly impacts the regulation and safety measures that are reviewed by the government agency. There are countless other government officials that have worked previously

Bevan ���6

or concurrently for large multinational corporations involved in GMO development and sale, which ensures that the government will pass legislation that is in the benefit of the interests of these companies. The history of legislation associated with the biotech industry has essentially removed government sovereignty over the food supply, which has strongly favored industry over farmers and consumers, the very population that the government is responsible for protecting.

In conclusion, the development, marketing, sale, regulation and political corruption associated with GMO products has been riddled with false promises and negative consequences for farmers and customers in the United States and internationally. While information about the industry is slowly coming to light and reinforcing resistance, the damage already imposed on the world food supply and the agriculture system in general is not without consequence. However, with the increasing consumer and farmer awareness of the issues surrounding the biotech industry, consumption patterns are beginning to change in a way that supports sustainable agriculture that produces healthier foods for the population. One can only hope that this trend will continue for the sake of consumers and the long term health of the agricultural sector at large.