The impacts of climate change have threatened the world population. Food and Agriculture Organizations (FAO) predicted that as the impact of climate change, agriculture production will decrease within the tropical countries and even a small change of temperature will cause the loss of 280 million tons of wheat production and 16 percents of harvest in 65 developing countries.

Furthermore, climate change observation result in every corner of Europe said that it is very difficult to find vegetables in the Italian market until the end of winter. Meanwhile, winter wheat can be harvested one month faster in the Netherlands.

How about Indonesia?  As a tropical archipelago country, Indonesia will suffer a painful impact of climate change. On the year 2080, most of Sumatera and Borneo are predicted to be wetter in the wet season, while Java and Bali area will be dryer (Hira Jhamtani, 2007) which means a real threat for Java and Bali agricultures. It is possible that agriculture will be no longer appropriate to be implemented in both areas and make these population densest islands will suffer from hunger and poverty.

Since the beginning, threat of hunger has been well read by agro-chemical industry producing transgenic foods. Monsanto, one of transgenic foods producers, in one of its advertisement published in Le Monde on June 1998 has claimed biotechnological or transgenic foods do not need a lot of fertilizer and water, thus can survive the bad climate or bad natural condition. This ad was strongly supported by a report from State of World Food and Agriculture-FAO in 2004, which said the transgenic plants have all potentials to reduce hunger.

Is it true that transgenic foods will become a right solution of foods crisis caused by climate change? Before we put our choice to transgenic foods, it is better to see the bad impact of this product. Do not let the noble deed to free the people from foods crisis becoming the way to plunge it into a never-ending disaster.

Like any other technology, genetic transformation technology is not a risk-free and has every potential to cause environmental destruction. Unfortunately, over the years these products never implement any risk assessment as a way of precautionary principle.

The impact is transgenic plant endangers the ecosystem stability. Unfortunately, once transgenic organism released into the nature, they will not be limited or taken back. The organism will keep growing, mutating and pullulating.

New transgenic super plant or super bug can compete with the non-transgenic flora/fauna, which might endanger living sustainability of non-transgenic flora or fauna. If it happens, the Indonesia biodiversity will vanish.

This thought is parallel with the scientists concern whether transgenic plants can kill and destroy not only bugs but also friendly organism as well like butterflies, bees, fertilizer insects, and other organisms involved in the food chains of agriculture plantation.

Dr. Emerlito Borromeo and Dr. Debal wrote in Greenpeace International report that transgenic once complimented as the fastest solution of agricultural problem could not benefit like other paddy plant cross-fertilization and traditional practical development.

Meanwhile from economic-political side, transgenic technology can only be owned by couple of companies from rich countries in the north. The conditions impacted developing countries who choose to develop transgenic product will be very dependent on those rich countries.

From consumer side, transgenic products are also dangerous. A fact showed that 5000 people were hospitalized, 37 people died, and 1500 people permanently disabled because of consuming transgenic supplement foods in United States. Meanwhile in India, hundreds of transgenic cotton pickers were sick and 1800 goats were massively died after eating grass on the ex transgenic cotton harvest area.

The facts above describe clearly that transgenic foods are not a good solution for food scarcity problems due to climate change. The next question is if not using transgenic what Indonesia can do to cope with food crisis?

Indonesia, which is blessed with abundant and rich biodiversity, should be back to organic agriculture. Beside, various tribes have local wisdoms to maintain and manage their organic agricultures.

Manggarai farmers experience in Nusa Tenggara Timur, can be one successful example of organic agricultures. By using chemical fertilizers, 0.8 hectares land produced 24-25 sacks of gabah with 100 kg for each sack. Meanwhile, by using organic fertilizer on the same width of land can produce 28-32 sacks of gabah with 110-120 kg each. Organic agriculture produce gabah with better weight than chemical agriculture (Institute Ecosoc Right, 2007).

In various countries, local wisdoms are reused to increase agricultural products. In India, farmers can reduce bugs by utilize predators like wasps. In Myanmar, predator insects spread in the field eat bugs eggs that become problems for agriculture. Farmers in China and several other countries use fishes or ducks to reduce the bugs on the paddy fields. This not only increases the rice products, but also gains protein resources from fish or duck.

Last update : 28-11-2007 09:45

Average user rating

   (0 vote)