-
- The proliferation of
technology in the past 20 years
has been a dizzying display of human
ingenuity. The pace in which technology
is altering society seems
almost astonishing. Nowhere is this more evident
than in biotechnology.
Biotech companies have advanced genetics to the
point they are able to
alter, transform, and manipulate the DNA codes of
any plant or animal.
With this new technology, biotech companies are attempting
to establish
a 'consumer market' through the use, creation, and legitimation
of laws
and science (hegemony).
-
- According to Swedberg (1994) a consumer market consist
of "typically few sellers (organization) and many buyers
(individuals);
who are unorganized; some public regulation but
otherwise free competition"
(p. 274). Hegemony, according to the
Red Feather Dictionary of Sociology
(1995), is:
-
- The use of law, religion, art,
science, cinema or literature
to celebrate and legitimate one way of
doing things to the discredit of
alternative ways. It is often used in
preference to direct force. Marx
put it succinctly, 'In every epoch,
the ruling ideas have been the ideas
of the ruling class' (Letter -
H).
-
- Altering laws and creating new scientific techniques
that
change the DNA codes of plants and animals to consolidate a global
consumer market has produced a bitter controversy in Europe, Canada,
India,
America, as well as various developing nations. This controversy
became
a mainstream global issue in January 1999, and with most
controversies
in society there is opposing factions, who have polarized
the issue. The
main opposition to genetic engineering has been directed
at Monsanto, a
chemical, pharmaceutical, agriculture, and consumer
product company based
out of St. Louis, Missouri. However, in the
middle of the debate are the
world's food supply, consumers, and
billions of dollars. This essay investigates
the economic, social,
political, and environmental reasons for the supporting
and opposing
groups as well as the technical aspects of genetic engineering
and
genetically modified organisms.
-
- Hybridization and Genetically Modified
Organisms
-
- "Consumers are confused and concerned about
genetically
modified organisms, particularly as they apply to foods,
because of the
'lack of clear, neutral information on the issue,"
according to Dr.
Patrick Wall of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland
(The Irish Times,
1999: 1). This lack of neutral information has
created an economic disaster
for the agricultural industry and Monsanto
who has invested exhaustively
in biotechnology. The difference between,
genetic engineering and genetically
modified organisms are the basis
for the confusion. Most people already
know about the genetic
engineering of wheat, corn, cotton, soybeans, rice,
and potatoes, which
has been taking place since the agricultural revolution.
However,
people mistakenly perceive genetic engineering as hybridization.
-
- Hybridization is what
the farmer does when s/he selects
the two best plants and
cross-pollinates them in order to create a better
plant. With
hybridization, the second generation is variable and the genes
of both
plants are still present in the offspring (hybrid). Therefore,
a farmer
who wanted to re-use the genetic material of the hybrid or its
parents
in his/her breeding program would have these plants for further
enhancement(s). Currently, 51.3 million acres out of a total of 69.5
million
globally is planted with hybrid "crops, including 45% of
all cotton
crops, 32% of soybeans, 25% of corn, and 3.5% of
potatoes" (Cummins
and Lilliston, 1999: 4; and Crouch, 1998:
3).
-
- Genetic modified organisms (GMO), on the other hand,
is when
the DNA structure of the plant is altered precisely for the
intensification
of a particular species. In other words, the parents of
the seeds are geneticists,
who pre-install DNA codes that can only be
triggered by a chemical.
-
- The process by which genetic information is transferred
from one cell to another is accomplished in two parts. First, an enzyme
is used to cut an opening in the bacterial plasmid of a host cell, which
can either be from an insect, plant, or animal cell. Next, a specific
gene or sequence of genes (DNA Strand) from a donor cell is bound in the
host plasmid. The donor segment is chemically adhesive, so the two parts
(re) combine and form a new plasmid that contains the new gene. The final
product of this "cut and paste" technology is a non-seed
producing
genetically modified organism that has beneficial traits such
as an enhanced
ability to resists insects, diseases, and weeds
(Monsanto Company: Making
Genetic Engineering Possible, 1999:
3-4).
-
- GMO's became a commercial reality in agriculture in 1998
when
over 18 million acres of United States cropland were planted with
Roundup Ready (i.e., Monsanto product) soybeans, which were first
introduced
in 1996 (Horstmeier 1998: 16). Clive James (1998) of the
International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA), claimed
transgenic crops are being used globally on: more than
20.5 million hectares
in the USA; 4.3 million hectares in Argentina;
2.8 million hectares in
Canada; 0.1 million hectares in Australia; and
less than 0.1 million hectares
in Mexico, Spain, France, and South
Africa (p. 1).
-
- Farmers, as a result of this new technology, who now
store
(brown-bag) hybrid seeds would have to buy new GMO seeds every year.
According to the United Nations (1996) "Over 1.4 billion people
depend
upon saved seed for their food security" (p. 2). In
addition, eighty-percent
(80%) of the crops grown in developing
countries use save seeds (Montague,
Biotech 1999: 2). The Rural
Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)
(1998) stressed that
"patented technology could be used on over 400
million hectares (a
billion acres) of crops worldwide and could yield licensing
fees of up
to $1.5 billion per annum on the terminator [Monsanto GMO]
technology"
(p. 6).
-
- Aside from saved and GMO seeds, are illegal seeds. Seeds
that are not saved by farmers or registered with the National Seed Listing
(NSL) are considered by the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO)
to be illegal and thus not legal for private or commercial use.
There are
a couple of reasons for seeds becoming illegal such as a
farmer does not
sponsor the seed(s) or the seeds produces an illegal
substance such as
opium, marijuana, etc. Yet, sponsorship of a seed is
expensive over time;
thus most farmers are unable to maintain the seed
on the NSL. Hambling
(1999) claimed "the prohibitive price
involved in maintaining seeds
on the list" . . .has resulted in
varieties such as two types of cauliflower
becoming extinct (p. 2).
These types of cauliflower varieties were naturally
resistant to
ringspots, a plant disease that destroys crops. Hambling (1999)
also
claimed the "commercial varieties that are developed for the
listing are selected for their suitability for industrial processing"
and thus "ignoring growers and farmers who are developing and
sustaining
localized, organic agriculture" (p. 2). Critics argue
the standardizing
of GMO seeds will result in the potential lose of
local organic crops and
ultimately plant diversity.
-
- Monsanto
Market Consolidation
-
- Through the acquisition of
companies, Monsanto is the
leader in this field of GMO technology and
is attempting or has re-coded
the plant DNA of wheat, rice, potatoes,
soybeans, cotton, and corn and
has made efforts to control the global
water supplies and forestry products.
The particular DNA codes,
Monsanto is developing via purchases, has the
plant terminate after it
produces an edible product and thus no second-generation
seeds are
produced from the science. In essence, the technology patent
system
(TPS) of Monsanto turns seeds into machines so they can be
patented.
-
- "Today, the top 10 seed companies control 30% of
the
global seed trade" (RAFI, 1998: 13). These ten companies have
been
consolidating their power and control by forming partnerships and
agreements with each other. For example, Monsanto, since 1996, has spent
$8.4 billion in establishing agreements and taking-over other companies
that have DNA code(s) databases, patent(s), cross-pollinating procedures,
and/or access to food seed markets. The following is a brief description
of the major acquisitions and agreements conducted by Monsanto in the last
three years. This aggressive purchasing demonstrates Monsanto's desire
to consolidate the world's market and establish their TPS as the only
legitimate
process for food production.
-
- In February 1996, Monsanto and
Dekalb Genetics formed
a 10-year research and development agreement.
This partnership allows for
the cross-licensing agreement of corn and
soybean seeds. Monsanto acquired
Agracetus, a cotton and other plant
biotechnology company, with a cash
payment of $150 million in April
1996 (Robertson, 1998: 325).
-
- Monsanto purchased the Soybean Company Asgrow Agronomics
for $240 million in February 1997. A few days later, Monsanto acquired
Holden Foundation Seeds and its germplasm (hereditary) technology for $1.2
billion. A month later, in March, Monsanto acquired the remaining 46.4
percent of Calgene for $218 million. Calgene had previously made an
agreement
with the world's largest producer of canola, Canada's
Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool (SWP). This company produces bioengineered
canola oil using SWP's
germplasm (Brower, 1997: 213).
-
- In October 1997,
Monsanto and Millennium Pharmaceuticals
formed a five-year, $218
million partnership. Under this agreement, which
is being professed as
"one of the largest deals in the fields of genomics,"
the two
giants will collaborate on genomics-based plant and agriculture
products (Marshall, 1997: 1334). Specifically, Millennium will transfer
its exclusive technologies in genomics, gene sequencing, and
bioinformatics
to Monsanto who will be developing plant and
agricultural products for
pharmaceutical and nutrition purposes as well
as introducing new herbicides
and pesticides through the process of
'direct breeding.' The notion of
direct breeding is when
pharmaceutical, nutritional, and/or herbicides
and pesticides are added
to the DNA of the plant. In other words, vitamins
and medicine can be
added to a plant to benefit developing countries who
lack the
facilities, equipment, or trained personal to achieve humane health
standards (Nadis, 1997: 5).
-
- Cargill Incorporated, a 79,000-employee international
food marketer, processor, distributor firm based out of Minneapolis,
Minnesota
was bought, in June 1998, for $1.4 billion. This acquisition
gave Monsanto
dominance of "seed, research, and production
facilities in 24 countries"
and access to the sales and
distribution operations of 51 countries in
five regions (Johnson,
1999:1). However, this takeover does not include
access to US, Canada,
or UK markets, instead it is concentrated on Asia,
Africa, Latin
America and other parts of Europe.
-
- For $1.9 billion, Monsanto
acquired Delta and Pine Land
Company the world's leading producer of
cotton seeds in April 1999. In
addition, Delta and Pine Land Company is
the owner of US patent 5723765,
which controls plant gene expression.
Granted this patent covers a broad
range of potential applications for
plant gene expressions, yet, the most
cherished feature of the patent
is its ability to have plants not produce
second generation seeds. In
other words, US patent 5723765 is the GMO self-terminating
license,
which makes it impossible for farmers to save and replant seeds.
The
takeover of Delta and Pine Land, also, gives Monsanto control of 85
percent of the US cottonseed and over one-third of the US soybean market
(Oliver, Melvin J., Jerry E. Quisenberry, Norma Lee G. Trolinder, and Don
L. Keim, 1998: 1; & Fox, 1997: 1233).
-
- Also, in April Monsanto formed
a $60 million five year
joint agreement with the forestry companies
Fletcher Challenge Forests,
International Paper, and the Westvaco
Corporation. Under this agreement
Monsanto, with its GMO technology,
will produce and market production timber
seedlings. Specifically, the
genetically enhanced timber seedlings are
anticipated to produce
"higher growth rates to allow more wood to
be grown on less land
and improved fiber quality to increase efficiency
in paper"
(Monsanto Monitor, 1999). These four companies anticipate
in
subcontracting with the New Zealand genetic engineering company Genesis
Research and Development Corporation Limited, who is the owner of a large
database on forestry genomics (Bowditch Group, 1999: 5).
-
- In May, Monsanto
acquired a controlling stake, with the
option to buy, in Water Health
International (WHI), incorporated. WHI is
the owner of US patent #:
5780860, which is a convenient and economical
water sanitizer titled
"UV Waterworks." This device uses ultraviolet
(UV) light to
instantaneously destroy germs (bacteria and viruses). The
end result is
safe water, which may be utilized on crops and/or for human
consumption. In addition, Monsanto and WHI anticipate a joint enterprise
with Tata/Eureka Forbes, who controls 70 percent of the UV water
technologies,
which allows Monsanto "market access to fabricate,
distribute, and
service water systems" worldwide (Shiva, 1999: 2;
Water Health International,
1999: 1).
-
- Also, in May a micro-credit
project named the "Innovative
Partnerships for Agricultural
Changes in Technology" (INPACT) was
initiated. This micro-credit
undertaking attempts to introduce a new cultivation
processes for
Northeast Thai rice farmers via a corporate financing scheme.
The
companies involved with INPACT are The International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), Monsanto, the Population and Community Development
Association
(PDA) and the Thai Department of Agriculture (Monsanto
Monitor, 1999).
In short, this micro-credit undertaking provides funds
to farmers for the
growing of corporate crops for corporate
manufactures.
-
- Collectively, these $8.4 billion expenditures have drastically
reduced Monsanto's capital, stock value, and have left them
"vulnerable
to an 'unfriendly' take-over by Dupont, Dow, or
another mega- corporation"
. . . because this large debt is beyond
theirs and "most analysts
comfort level" (Cummins and
Lilliston 1999: 2). Consequently, this
aggressive spending of $8.4
billion has created financial difficulties
for Monsanto as well as made
various groups, organizations, and other corporations
suspicious of
Monsanto's motives.
-
- Monsanto, however, asserts it is a family company that
is "committed to finding solutions to the growing global needs for
food and health by sharing common forms of science and technology among
agriculture, nutrition and health" (Monsanto Company: About Monsanto,
1999: 1). Monsanto maintains genetically modified seeds will improve crop
quality, production, and make agriculture possible in previously barren
land. The ability to feed the growing population, which is estimated to
increase by 40% or top 8 billion by 2020, is the main reason for
Monsanto's
consolidation of GMO technology. Thus, from Monsanto's
perspective it is
seeking to save-the-planet from an impending global
food, forestry, and
water crisis (Monsanto Company: Biotechnology --
Promise for a Brighter
Future, 1999: 1).
-
- Hegemony in Action "In the
planting of genetically
changed crops around the world, the U.S.
government has done just about
everything it can to help except drive
the tractor" Bill Lambrecht,
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Washington
Bureau
-
- Monsanto and the other seed companies are currently building
the US government a tractor to drive with the help of politicians via
intellectual
property rights, regulatory loopholes, and the World Trade
Organization
(WTO). The multinational seed companies pursuit to secure
the world's food
needs is based on federal, state, and international
laws. In a recent issue
of the Farm Journal (1997), Monsanto ran a full
page advertisement announcing:
-
- It takes millions of dollars and years of research to
develop the biotech crops that deliver superior value to growers. And
future
investment in biotech research depends on companies' ability to
share in
the added value created by these crops. Consider what happens
if growers
save and replant patented seeds. First, there is less
incentive for all
companies to invest in future technology, such as the
development of seeds
with traits that produce higher-yielding,
higher-value and drought-tolerant
crops.... In short, these few growers
who save and replant patented seed
jeopardize the future availability of
innovative biotechnology for all
growers. And that's not fair to anyone
(B-25).
-
- Thus, Monsanto is appealing to farmers to respect the
company's
property rights because of the cost involved in creating TPS
[GMO]
seeds. Further, Monsanto is aggressive about protecting their rights
by
way of US and International patent laws. According to the Financial
Times (1999) Monsanto and the other seeds companies are attempting
"to
prevent farmers from obtaining its patented seeds
illegally"(p. 3).
Monsanto has taken several farmers to court over
this issue and has accused
over 600 others in Canada and the US of
infringing on their intellectual
property rights, but many of the
farmers claim the wind blew the GMO technology
into their fields
(Financial Times, 1999: 3).
-
- Other federal laws that support genetic engineering are
the Steven-Wydler and Bayh-Dole Acts of 1980. Both these federal laws
allow
new technology created at federal research agencies to be
transferred to
private industry. Specifically, intellectual property
developed at federal
research centers can be transferred to the private
sector, such as private
individuals, Monsanto, Dekalb, Dow, Dupont, or
some other seed company.
These state and federal laws legitimized
support for the creation of TPS
technology and makes the US government
one of the seed companies biggest
indirect supporters (RAFI, 1998: 4).
However, intellectual property rights
are not the only issues being
advanced by US law to legitimize GMO technology.
Biotechnology has
numerous political figures assisting in the details of
transforming and
revising US laws and international treaties to fit their
agenda.
-
- Four legislators, in April 1999, were honored with the
"Outstanding Legislators of the Year" award by the Biotechnology
Industry Organization (BIO) (a Washington DC based for-profit association
representing 850 healthcare, industrial, and biotechnology companies).
Respectfully, the U.S. Senators were Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Connie
Mack (R- Fla.) and the U.S. Representatives were Calvin Dooley (D-Calif.),
and Jim Greenwood (R- Pa.). BIO's Vice President for government relations,
Chuck Ludlam, claimed:
-
- These legislators exhibited leadership and courage on
a broad range of issues: defeat of hastily drafted anti-cloning
legislation
that would have impeded basic biomedical research; passage
of the FDA Modernization
Act to streamline development of new therapies
and cures; and support for
agricultural biotech products to improve
foods and farming.. . We are honored
to work with these champions to
make sure the U.S. biotech industry remains
the global leader in
developing innovative products for health care, agriculture,
manufacturing and environmental management (Craig, 1999: 1).
-
- As a result of these
and various other political figures
leadership efforts, both domestic
and international, numerous GMO products
have been approved. For
example, in the US the USDA, FDA, and EPA have
approved thirty-four GMO
products; Japan twenty; Canada thirty; the European
Union nine; Mexico
three; Argentina two; and one in Australia and South
Africa. These
approved products and patents fall under the regulation of
the
respective countries and the WTO, which is an international body dealing
with laws that govern trade between nations. Monsanto also has numerous
GMO patents pending in 87 countries (Monsanto Monitor, 1999: 2; Monsanto
Company: Biotechnology and Imported Foods, 1999: 2).
-
- A major indirect supporter, as
mentioned above, of GMO
technology is the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Monsanto
identifies the USDA as an advocate of GMO
technology because it advocates
economically driven sustainable
agricultural practices, which is one of
the goals of GMO technology.
The USDA claimed sustainable agriculture practices
should be based upon
several premises, all of which are embedded in the
assumption of
increasing the economic circumstances of regional areas.
First, is to
improve the environmental quality of the community through
satisfying
human consumption needs. Next, is increasing the output capability
of
natural occurring resources by synchronizing the local biological cycles
which maximizes the areas nonrenewable resource usage. Lastly, the goal
is to strengthen the economic quality of life of the farmer and their
community
(Monsanto Company: Meeting the Challenge of Sustainable
Agriculture, 1999:
6).
-
- The USDA's investigative arm, that determines consumer
safety of sustainable agricultural or biotech crops, is the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Specifically, the APHIS is
responsible
for regulating crop research. In order to have a biotech
crop examined
by the APHIS, companies, universities, and/or
associations must file a
"Determination of Non-Regulated
Status" (DNRS) form. According
to APHIS guidelines, the DNRS form
must be completed before any plants
can be grown or sold commercially
(International Food Information Council:
Food Biotechnology, 1999:
4).
-
- This
regulatory process was made more efficient with
the introduction of two
alternative procedures in 1993. These alternatives
are the
"Notification and Petition Process," which means a researcher,
group, or institution can circumvent the DNRS form providing they have
a consistent history of favorable scientific reviews. In 1997, several
amendments were added to the DNRS, that outlined the "eligibility
criteria and performance standards" (IFIC: Food Biotechnology, 1999:
4). This is problematic because certain research crops can fall through
the cracks of the regulatory process and thus go unregulated. According
to the International Food Information Council (IFIC) and Wirthlin Group
(1999) the APHIS regulatory process operates as follows:
-
- Farmers need not
obtain a permit from APHIS to move and
field test corn, soybeans,
cotton, tobacco, potatoes or tomatoes. They
simply need to notify
APHIS. The Petition Process permits anyone to request
APHIS to issue
written documentation that regulated plants become unregulated
(IFIC:
Food Biotechnology, 1999: 4).
-
- In other words, plants can be moved from a supposed
regulated
to an unregulated status without being tested and by simply
filing of a
form. So, it would appear the investigative arm of the USDA
(e.g., APHIS)
has established procedural regulations for investigating
new crops but
few are actually being regulated on the condition the
researchers have
conformed to the predetermined criteria and
eligibility standards.
-
- Aside from struggling to investigate biotech crops, the
USDA claimed "small farmers may benefit greatly if the invention
stimulates
the extension of biotechnology to 'minor crops' such as
tomatoes,"
oranges, pecans, peanuts, etc. (RAFI, 1998: 12). These
crops are perceived
to be minor because they only use a small portion
of the world's cropland.
In short, these crops have high value, are
harvested with minimal labor,
and only need a limited amount of science
(DNA modification). Thus, raising
the economic motivations for producing, improving, and developing these
minor crops could result in a high rate of
return for semi-perphirery farmers
and theoretically reduce world
poverty (RAFI, 1998: 12).
-
- Market forces, according to the USDA, would limit the
spread of seed markets to levels that are cost effective for the small
producer. Moreover, the USDA suggested that if the cost of improved seeds
does not result in greater value to the farmer, there would be no market
for the GMO varieties. In essence, the law of supply and demand will
hinder
the potential price gouging of seed corporations (RAFI, 1998:
11).
-
- Another supporter of genetically modified organisms is
the
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In May 1992, the
FDA
published a Federal Register, which was a policy statement on the
procedures
of how to regulate new plants. Yet, this documents main
focus was on "the
characteristics of a food [nutritional and
compositional content], not
the method used to produce the food"
(Monsanto Company: Ensuring the
Safety of Products, 1999: 3). In other
words, the FDA is interested in
the "product -- not process"
and thus is only responsible for
making sure food products are safe to
ingest and to investigate "new"
plants. In the investigation
of plants, research institutions, farmers,
and seed companies only have
to demonstrate they can replicate the products
"potency and
purity" in order to satisfy FDA regulators (Monsanto
Company:
Ensuring the Safety of Products 1999: 7). It should be noted that
genetically modified organisms are not new plant varieties but genetically
altered pre-existing plants that can be replicated with better scientific
precision than hybridization and thus would appear to be not technically
under FDA regulation.
-
- As a result, of the regulation by the USDA, APHIS, and
FDA many government organizations, mainstream magazines, associations,
and officials perceive genetically modified organisms as safe and pose
no environmental effects to the public. Monsanto (1999) emphasized
"the
United States boasts a long history of enjoying the world's
safest food
supply - thanks in part to U.S. government
regulations" (Ensuring
the Safety of Products p. 7). The USDA
announced "there appears to
be no environmental risks" with
GMO crops and products (RAFI, 1998:
11).
-
- Consumer Reports, a leading US
consumer magazine, declared
that: "There is no evidence that
genetically engineered [biotech]
foods on the market are not safe to
eat" (IFIC: Consumers 1999: 1).
In light of the Consumer Reports
findings, The Council for Agricultural
Science and Technology (CAST),
The Georgetown Center for Food and Nutrition
Policy, and The
International Food Information Council (IFIC) agreed with
their
declaration. In addition, Florance Wambugu, a scientist working for
the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Kenya,
stressed: "biotechnology has tremendous value . . .not only can we
'feed the world,' but by making technological improvements available to
people in Third World countries, we can help improve all aspects of their
lives" (Monsanto Company: Meeting the Challenge of Sustainable
Agriculture,
1999: 6).
-
- The Opposing Perspective
-
- "Monsanto is the
same company that gave us Agent
Orange, DDT, and Bovine Growth Hormone,
all of which have had catastrophic
effects on people and the
environment . . . [and] Now they expect the public
to believe that
their Roundup Ready soya is safe to eat and environmentally
friendly to
grow. That's total nonsense - it is both dangerous and unnecessary."
-- Zoe Elford of the Genetic Engineering Network.
-
- The commercialization of GMO
seeds, according to critics,
is potentially hazardous and creates
unneeded economic and environmental
risks for the public. Specifically,
opponents believe TPS/GMO supporters
are strictly profit-driven
corporations, who use and abuse federal, state,
and international laws
to exploit consumers, small farmers, and destroy
native plants and
ecosystems.
-
- A leading opponent to the commercialization of seeds
is the
Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI). The RAFI (1999)
alleged that Monsanto has already initiated 'pay by the generation' system
through legal means via grower agreements in America and Canada (p. 2).
Grower agreements are legal contracts in which the farmers must grow
certain
seeds in order to sell crops to food processors, which are
similar to the
micro-credit schemes the Thai- rice farmers are being
pressured into.
-
- The RAFI (1998) also claimed "there is no doubt
that the
seed industry is attempting to create biological monopolies to
self
pollinated crops such as rice, wheat, soybeans, and cotton" (p.10).
David Mooney (1999), a RAFI spokesperson, stressed:
-
- It will be vastly more
profitable for multinationals
to sell seeds programmed to commit
suicide at harvest so that farmers must
pay the company to obtain the
chemicals to have them re-activated for the
next planting and endash;
either through a seed conditioning process or
through the purchase of a
specialized chemicals that bring saved seed back
to life, Lazaus style
(p. 2)
-
- In
essence, this process shifts the cost of developing
seeds to the
farmer, which means the seed companies will only have to sell
seeds and
not produce, transport, or stockpile them. As these seed oligopolies
increase their control of the world market, there will be diminished
interest
in future plant breeding and research. Furthermore, farmers
will not have
any power over what to grow or plant and will be "in
a position of
utter dependency" on the multinational seed
companies (RAFI, 1999:
2). Collectively, this has the potential to lead
to bioserfdom, which is
when farmers are enmeshed in a web of grower
agreements, forced chemical
purchases, intellectual property rights,
and disabled germplasm (RAFI,
1999: 1).
-
- Rhonda Perry, a Missouri
farmer, spoke of the corporate
GMO technology consolidation by saying,
"It's killing us. If something
doesn't happen, were going to be
out of here. . . [GMO technology] is about
corporate greed and control
of the market. And it's time we stopped it"
(Nemo, 1999: 2).
University of Missouri, sociologist William Heffernan
(1999) claimed
family farms are in trouble because of the "fast consolidation
of
seed companies with food processing companies" (Palmer, 1999:1).
An Ecuadorian Biologist, Elizabeth Bravo, working with the Accion
Ecologica
group claimed that "Farmers are [being] forced to
purchase genetically
modified seeds from a single firm, on pain of
losing the commercial competition
race" (Cummins and Lilliston
1999a: 2).
-
- The rural sociologist, the Missouri farmer, and Ecuadorian
Biologist are not the only ones concerned. For example, almost 200 cotton
farmers in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are suing Monsanto for
damages after crop failures of Monsanto's Bt and Round-Up Ready
cottonseeds
(i.e., GMO seeds). In a separate lawsuit 25 cotton farmers
in Texas, Oklahoma,
Mississippi, and Louisiana are suing "Monsanto
for fraud and misrepresentation
. . .also in regard to Bt cotton crop
failures." (Cummins and Lilliston,
1999: 2). Yet, the lawsuits
against the biotech industry are not limited
to the US.
-
- In a landmark case,
Mangla Rai, deputy director-general
of the Indian Council for
Agricultural Research directed a successful legal
challenge against a
cotton patent granted to Agracetus (acquired by Monsanto
for $240
million in February, 1997). This lawsuit made public numerous
loopholes
in US patent laws, which are actively being capitalized on by
multinationals. According to Rai "there is no doubt that their [the
US] patent laws are full of shortcomings which the transnationals have
a penchant for exploiting" (Patro 1999: 2).
-
- Social and
Environmental Hazards
-
- Further evidence against using
GMO technology is the
potential it will "escape" into the
environment. Releasing GMOs
into the wild, effects the surrounding
ecosystems by cross-pollinating
[GMO/TPS] hybrids with native plants,
soils, and insects. Many investigators
believe this will result in the
corruption of native second-generation
offspring, turn the soil
infertile, and destroy insect larvae (Rissler
and Mellon, 1996; Crouch,
1998: 6). Evidence is starting to be complied,
which promotes this
hypothesis.
-
- In a study of GMO rice, researchers at the John Innes
Institute
found there is a "recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S
promoter" . . . [and] "these recombination events were also
found
to occur independently" (Kohli, A., S. Griffiths, N.
Palacios, R.M.
Twyman, P. Vain, D.A. Laurie and P. Christou 1999: 599).
In other words,
the cut and paste approach is faulty. Expanding on the
John Innes Institute's
findings was Dr. Peter Wills who
stressed:
-
- Genes encode protein control of all biological processes.
By
transferring genes across species barriers, which have existed for aeons
between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds
against unexpected biological processes (Wolfson, 1999: 2).
-
- Wan-Ho (1999) also
claimed:
-
- Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by
using
artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses,
as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these
vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign
genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and
fatal effects including cancer of the organism (p. 3).
-
- In other words, the offspring
are potentially variable
because the recombination of the promoter
region in rice can occur in random
sectors of the DNA sequence.
-
- In another study
DeVries and Wackernagel (1998) were
able to successfully transfer a
Kanamycin resistant gene to a soil bacterium
(Acinetobacter), even
though the typical DNA structure of a plant exceeds
six million
combinations. Specifically, these researchers were able demonstrate
that approximately 2500 duplications of Kanamycin resistant genes (about
the same as a plant cell) was an adequate number to create one new
bacterium
(DeVries and Wackernagel 1998: 613). Wan-Ho and Ryan (1999)
claimed this
research suggests "a single plant with say, 2.5
trillion cells, would
be sufficient to transform one billion
bacteria" (p. 2). Dr. Joseph
Cummins cautioned:
-
- Probably the greatest
threat from genetically altered
crops is the insertion of modified
virus and insect virus genes into crops.
It has been shown in the
laboratory that genetic recombination will create
highly virulent new
viruses from such constructions . . . It is a pararetrovirus
meaning
that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very
similar
to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could
cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of
tremendous power (Wan-Ho and Ryan, 1999: 3).
-
- In other words, due to the
effects of this insertion
technology, the new bacterium created could
launch many new diseases and
the future vector locations will remain
random with each successive generation
being entirely variable.
-
- In May 1999, Nature
magazine ran an article by a group
Cornell University researchers
claiming their preliminary data suggests
that in a controlled
laboratory experiment selected Bt (Monsanto product)
corn pollen
destroyed monarch larvae. Specifically, Cornell researchers,
lead by
Dr. Losey, found forty percent of the test monarch larvae were
destroyed after four days because of the poisonous effects of the GM bt
corn (Losey, Rayner, and Carter, 1999: 214).
-
- The Friends of the Earth (1999)
organized a study of
pollen distribution, which was carried out by the
National Pollen Research
Unit, a bee specialist, and a GM analysis and
conducted under the Federal
Environment Agency of Austria.
Specifically, the researchers were examining
how far pollen travels
with the help of bees and the air because the British
government's
regulations only require a 50-meter buffer zone between GM
and non-GM
crops. The study found the six bee hives in the study, which
ranged
from 500 meters to 4.5 kilometers from the GM crop, were found to
have
oilseed rape pollen from the GM crops. In other words, the bees carried
the GM crop pollen 4.5 kilometers. The airborne pollen was detected up
to 475 meters away from the GM crop (Friends of the Earth, 1999: 1). Both
of which exceed British government's regulation.
-
- In addition, to the many
scientists, research, and environmental
groups studies are numerous
distinguished scientists in the fields of genetics,
biology and
medicine have spoke out against the dangers of GMO technology.
In July,
1999, 85 eminent scientists signed a statement denouncing biotechnology
and requesting all such products be removed from the TRIP agreements on
the grounds, scientists do not have control over the gene recombination
process, and the technology is unethical because "they destroy
livelihoods,
contravene basic human rights, create unnecessary
suffering in animals
or are otherwise contrary to public order and
morality" (Wan-Ho, 1999:
1). The 85 scientists also asserted the
patents involve acts of plagiarism
in that indigenous traditional
medical practices are being patented illegally
(Wan-Ho, 1999:
1).
-
- In
August 1998, another potential hazard of GMO technology
was discovered
by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Institute in Scotland,
who found
that rats fed with GE "potatoes showed serious health damage"
(Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition, 1999). University of Leeds
Professor
of Food Safety, MD, and microbiologist Richard Lacey, whom
accurately predicted
the European BSE (mad cow disease) crisis, claimed
"The fact is, it
is virtually impossible to even conceive of a
testing procedure to assess
the health effects of genetically
engineered foods when introduced into
the food chain, nor is there any
valid nutritional or public interest reason
for their
introduction" (Wan-Ho, 1999:2). The father of molecular
biology
and eminent biochemist, Dr Erwin Chargoff, once referred to genetic
engineering as "a molecular Auschwitz." Chargoff also noted
"you
cannot recall a new form of life...It will survive you and
your children
and your children's children. An irreversible attack on
the biosphere is
something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous
generations, that I
could only wish that a mind had not been guilty of
it" (Wan-Ho, 1999:
3). Other unknown concerns, yet to be addressed
in scientific tests, are
what will be the effects of GMO technology on
birds, mammals, and other
insects that eat and/or pollinate the seed
products or the fungi that breakdown
the soil and/or help plants
grow.
-
- Collectively, the small farmer's situation, the lawsuits,
and
the real and potential environmental hazards of GMO technology has
been
published widely and have resulted in a backlash against genetically
modified foods and Monsanto throughout the world. The global resistance
to Monsanto and genetically modified organisms has provoked intellectual
property rights disputes, consumer boycotts, and a growing urgency for
GMO labeling.
-
- Global Intellectual Property Rights
Disputes
-
- "Forcing biotechnology on both farmers and
consumers
in order to secure their monopoly control of this sector of
world food
production, this is not a recipe for sustainability in food
supplies, it
is a recipe for disaster" Ali Bastin, of Corporate
Watch (One World
News Service, 1997: 1).
-
- India, Europe, and many
developing countries started
the initial resistance to GMO technology
and the foods produced by them.
In December, 1998, in Bangalore, India,
Dr. Valdana Shiva claimed "a
worldwide campaign will be launched
against" [Monsanto] "Because
of the way Monsanto has abused
various countries" (The Hindu, 1999:
8 A). According to Shiva
(1998) the campaign was founded on the notion
that Monsanto's
introduction into India was "illegal" and a "failure
of
the regulatory process" and that this type of technology should
not be accepted "blindly and ignorantly" (p.8 A). The illegality
and failed regulatory process Dr. Shiva spoke of was that The Review
Committee
of Genetic Manipulation circumvented the Genetic Engineering
Approval committee,
which was under the direction of the Indian
Ministry of Environment who
has the legitimate authority to approve
scientific crop trials.
-
- India's Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR), after a fierce legal battle, was successful in revoking a US
patent
on the grounds it was not an original invention, in September,
1999. With
this victory, the CSIR preserved the indigenous turmeric
healing (used
to treat wounds and stomach infections) method, which had
been patented,
in December 1993, by the University of Mississippi
Medical Center. This
turmeric patent is not the only intellectual
property rights infringement
the West has taken from indigenous people,
but is perhaps one of potentially
hundreds globally. According to Dr.
Shiva 1999, in India, "patents
on Neem, Amla, Jar Amla, Anar,
Salai, Dudhi, Gulmendhi, Bagbherenda, Karela,
Erand, Rangoon-ki-bel,
Vilayetishisham and Chamkura need to be revoked"
on the grounds
they too were derived from traditional methods (Patro, 1999:
1).
-
- Rather
than fight lengthy and expensive court battles,
the Indian and African
activists are advocating the WTO uphold their rules
for registering
patents, which disqualifies patents that are not original
creations. In
the November, 1999 WTO summit, Africa will "lodged a
challenge to
the patenting of life forms citing that it could have a devastating
impact on agriculture, the mainstay of the majority of its economies"
(Osava and Mutume, 1999:2). It is expected these actions will make the
WTO responsible for protecting and preserving traditional medical
practices
and an estimated 35,000 of plants that have a known
traditional medical
benefit. Dr. Shiva (1999) also claimed that ''If
we [the developing countries]
get a ruling in our favor, the problem of
bio-piracy will be solved. If
the WTO does not respond, it will show
the WTO's bias towards the powerful
countries'' (Patro, 1999:
1).
-
- As a
result of this intellectual rights struggle, India
and Africa officials
have requested a full review of the Trade-Related
Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIP) Agreement, which is a general agreement
between major
Nations on tariffs and trade policies and procedures. This
TRIP
agreement, according to Monsanto senior employee, James Enyart, came
about after the biotech "industry identified a major problem for the
international trade" . . . [and thus] "crafted a solution,
reduced
it to a concrete proposal, and sold it to our own and other
governments"
(Monbiot, 1999: 1). The Indian and African officials
claim they are better
informed of what the agreement entails and want
to correct some of the
unfair measures of the agreement. Another
revision needed, according to
Indian activists, is the 1970 Indian
Patent Act. Specifically, the GMO
critics believe the 1970 Indian
Patent Act should "recognize 'prior
art' or existing
knowledge" to protect traditional agriculture and
horticulture
methods (Patro, 1999: 1).
-
- Collectively, these intellectual property rights
disputes
over what can and what cannot be patented is only one method
being utilized
by the detractors of GMO technology. Others are using
various forms of
direct action to stop bioserfdom as well as the
proliferation of Frankenfoods.
The tools of democracy being used by the
many global activists are consumer
boycotts (real or potential),
destruction GMO research crops, and requests
for labels on GMO products
via petitions, lawsuits, and/or mass public
appeals.
-
- Boycotts
and Direct Action
-
- "Don't F*ck with Our Food" -- Banners hung
off the UK Monsanto Headquarters building, in April 1997, after an
activist
raid by the cape-crusaders 'Super Heroes Against Genetics'
(SHAG).
-
- Actions against GMO technology started in Europe in the
early
part of 1997. A handful of European Greenpeace activists helped launch
the global resistance through various public demonstrations at corporate
buildings, supermarkets, eating establishments, and raised awareness of
the issue at festivals, gatherings, and on the Internet. Eckert (1997)
pointed out that Greenpeace activists in 30 European cities, throughout
the summer of 1997, picketed numerous grocery stores and educated
thousands
of customers about the uncertainties of GMO products (p. 1).
Aside from
educational campaigns, actions have also included
destruction of research
crops, releasing of animals in restaurants,
dumping of fruits and seeds
in various places, and the destruction of
seed plants.
-
- The destruction of research crops has taken place all
over the
world. One of the first incidents was in Ireland. The Gaelic Earth
Liberation Front (GLEF), in October 1997, claimed responsibility for
destroying
a "one-acre crop of genetically modified sugar beet,
being grown under
license by the US chemical company Monsanto on a
state research farm in
County Carlow, about 50 miles from Dublin"
(Garvey, 1997: 1). This
destruction was a reaction to the Irish High
Court decision to grant Monsanto
the right to establish three crop
trials. However, due to mass citizen
protest Monsanto only establish
one trial crop at the Carlow farm, which
the GLEF members destroyed
(Garvey, 1997: 1).
-
- In August 1999, Irish activists called the Genetic Concern
destroyed another Monsanto experimental sugar beet crop to raise public
awareness about GMO's. This action followed another activist group called
the 'Little Fairies' who a week early sprayed a petrol-based chemical on
a Wexford crop destroying 60% of the GM crops. Monsanto claimed there
have been four attacks, including the GLEF action, since 1997 and the
damaged
caused total more than $160,800 US.
-
- Across the channel in Britain,
a farmer, Fred Barker
was the first to plant a GMO research crop.
However, Barker quickly destroyed
the crop with weed-killer and claimed
the reason for this was the "trustees
of his family farm in
Wiltshire forced him to end the trial" because
they were concerned
their farm would lose its organic status (Wolfson,
1999: 12). In May
1999 the UK group, Ambridge against Genetix destroyed
five rape oil
seed research crops, throughout the UK. Activists, calling
themselves
'Reclaim the Seeds' destroyed the UK Berkeley Oxford Test Track
in
September 1999. In this action, the Reclaim the Seeds participants created
a crop circle and placed a "sign [in the middle] mocking Berkeley's
own $10,000 reward for previous attacks against their research corn"
conducted several weeks earlier (Tufenkian, 1999: 1). Tufenkian (1999)
noted there have been 40 such crop destructions in the last year (1998)
in Britain by groups such as the Seeds of Resistance, Lincolnshire
Loppers,
and the Cropatistas too name only a few (p. 2).
-
- Not all the actions
have resulted in property destruction.
In February 1999, UK Greenpeace
activists drove a truck to Prime Ministers
Blairs' residences and
dumped four tons of US GMO soybeans on his doorstep.
The banner on the
side of the dump truck said 'Tony, Don't Swallow Bill's
Seed' (Cummins
and Lilliston. 1999: 1). In June 1999 200 people had a GMO-free
picnic,
which educated the public about the dangers of the technology.
The
picnic took place across the street from a GM crop field. Other types
of actions have centered on theatrics such as being the informal jesters
at a group of delegates at the World Seed Conference, in September 1999.
One activists who attended the meeting walked around to the delegates
tables
with a spray bottle, that had a Roundup label on it, asking them
if they
"Would you like some Roundup with your meal"
(Hambling, 1999:
1).
-
- There are numerous reasons for the British's refusal
to accept the GMO technology. One of the main reasons according to Hoge
(1999) is that "there is no government agency [in Britain] with the
regulatory rigor of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to build
consumer
confidence, and government approval can arouse suspicious as
much as it
can provide reassurance" (p.1). Moreover, a new MORI
poll says 79
percent of the British public say that crop testing of the
Fiddaman has
agreed to should be stopped" (Hoge, 1999: 1).
-
- In France the actions
are similar to Britain but with
more of an agitation emphasis. There
have been direct actions at numerous
McDonald's and a French seed
laboratory. In January 1998, the 120 member
French farmers Union,
Confederation Paysanne, stormed the Novartis seed
developing and
storage plant and destroyed 30 tons of GMO maize seeds.
Novartis
estimated the damages at $1 million in US dollars (Genetic Engineering
News Group, 1998 p. 5).
-
- Concerned French citizens dumped rotting fruit and
vegetables
in various McDonald's establishments to protest the US
officials decision
to place a levy on French products as a result of
their refusal to accept
GMO foods (Cohen, 1999: 3). A month later
several dozen French farmers
"released live chickens, turkeys,
geese and ducks in McDonald's restaurants"
throughout southern
France (Sightings, 1999: 1). The French rationale for
protesting
McDonalds was summed up by Patrice Vidieu (1999) who stressed
"What we reject is the idea that the power of the marketplace becomes
the dominant force in all societies, and that multinationals like
McDonald's
or Monsanto come to impose the food we eat and the seeds we
plant"
(Cohen, 1999: 3).
-
- After a McDonald's incident
Jose Bove was arrested, which
caused a massive reaction among many
groups. Cohen (1999) claimed Mr. Bove
emerged "as a sort of
Subcomandante Marcos of the French countryside,
the leader of a self
styled, anti-imperialistic revolt over food"
(p. 1). Bove's arrest
was significant because it unified numerous liberal
and leftists groups
who normally are not unified. For example, labor unions,
socialists,
ecologists, environmentalists, communists, and numerous farmers
in
France joined together against GMO technology and demanded immediate
release of Bove (Cohen, 1999: 1).
-
- This unification established
Bove as an informal spokesperson
for the growing European
anti-imperialism sentiment. Bove (1999) stressed
his struggle is still
the same and he will continue to "battle against
globalization and
for the right of peoples to feed themselves as they choose"
(Cohen, 1999: 1). According to Bove GMO technology is
-
- Purely the product of
technology where the means becomes
the end. Political choices are swept
aside by the power of money . . .
[and] Democratic debate simply
doesn't exist . . .[because] the panel of
the WTO, the true policeman
of the world trade, decides what's 'good' for
both countries and their
people, without consultation or a right of appeal
. . .[and] The
conspiracy of silence organized by the companies and the
sovereign
states is the sole logic which prevails (Cohen 1999: 2-4).
-
- In essence, Bove is
pointing out the after effects of
hegemony and how it is played
outteria derived resistance in humans (Cummins
and Lilliston,
1999a).
-
- As
a result of the professional groups uncertainty, the
growing consumer
concerns, and numerous direct actions, European McDonalds,
Burger King
and Kentucky Fried Chicken have refused to buy any products
containing
GMO products. In addition, seven European grocery stores (i.e.,
Tesco,
Safeway, Sainsbury's, Asda & Somerfield, Iceland, Marks &
Spencer, the Co-op and Waitrese grocery) have prohibited GMO or
genetically
engineered products in their stores. These boycotts have
turned GMO supporters
such as Unilever, Nestle (a Swiss Firm), and the
Canadian Corporation Cadbury-Schweppes,
into non-supporters (Lean,
1999:3; Montague: Biotech 1999: 1-2).
-
- The massive citizen outcry, the
grocery stores refusal
to stock GMO products and the eating
establishments refusal to sell GMO
products has helped force the
European Union into banning the importation
of seven GMO products. The
European Union, in June 1999, enacted "the
legal equivalent of a
three-year moratorium on any new approvals of GE
foods or crops"
(Cummins and Lilliston 1999a: 10). This three-year
moratorium was
devised so the European Union could establish more rigorous
protection
regulations for the public. British socialist David Bowe claimed
"a revised EU law on approving genetically modified crops or foods
must include provisions on legal liability" (Reuters [France], 1999:
2).
-
- However, this moratorium did not go unnoticed by the
US.
Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri) frequently labeled the "Senator
from Monsanto," told the Washington Post "it is characteristic
of the European Union to hide behind studies such as this in order to
maintain
its protectionist trade policies" (Cummins and Lilliston,
1999a: 2).
US citizens have also, not let the issue of GMO technology
go unnoticed.
-
- Like in Europe, there have been various forms of activism
in
the US, which started during the summer of 1999. Actions have taken
place in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Vermont, and California. Most of
the actions have taken place at university research centers while only
a couple have, occurred at private farms such as Lodi, California.
Activist
groups such as Reclaim the Seeds, Seeds of Resistance, and the
Cropatistas
have claimed research crop damage to "fields in Maine,
Vermont, and
California" (Sacramento Bee, 1999: 1). In Bangor
Maine, the group
'Seeds of Resistance' was responsible for cutting down
1,000 GMO corn stalks,
with machete's, at a local research plant
(Burros, 1999: 1). Collectively,
there has been close to a dozen action
on US soil.
-
- US companies, food manufactures, and processors are fearful
of
a repeat of what happened in Europe over the refusal of GMO foods and
crops. Many U.S. and Canadian companies are now following the lead of
their
European counterparts and refusing GMO products. Archer Daniel's
Midland
(ADM) and A. E. Stanley, the 1st and 3rd largest US corn
processors, which
announced to the public they will refuse to accept
genetically modified
corn and would pay 8 to 10 extra for non-GMO corn
and requested that farmers
segregate the two types of crops. ADM
stressed it "remains supportive
of the science and safety of both
biotech development and traditional plant
breeding methods to improve
crops". . is out to increase profits
and thus "driven by the
consumer's desire to have choices"(Hsu,
1999: A3). Not
surprisingly, ADM has joined forces with Dupont (a major
competitor
with Monsanto) and will pay farmers who planted Dupont's non-GMO
soybeans an extra 18 cents per bushel.
-
- Consequently, this sort of
pricing difference has farmers
perturbed, because on small farms a one
or two cents per bushel is the
difference between making it and going
under. According to Hsu (1999) "farmers
feel as though they have
been taken for a ride by these big agricultural
companies since they
have had to pay more money for the new herbicide and
pest-resistant
seeds" (p. A3). Tom Glavin of the USDA asserted these
are
disturbing times for because farmers "are going to be going back
to conventional crops out of uncertainty" (Hewitt, 1999: 1).
-
- The American Corn
Growers Association recommended its
members not use GM seeds the
following year (2000). The Association's CEO
Gary Goldberg stressed
"agriculture has been sold a bill of goods
about how great
genetically modified seeds would be". . . "We're
sure as hell
not going to grow a product the customer doesn't want"
(Jacobs,
1999: 3). In October, 1999, Casco, Incorporated, Ontario's largest
corn
purchaser, went public and urged farmers not to buy GM varieties next
spring due to the uncertainty of the market. Casco spokesperson John
Peakes
notified farmers "it might be best to consider planting
GM-free corn
to maximize (farmers') marketing options" (Tam, 1999:
3). Following
this announcement, the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), in
October 1999, requested
a moratorium on new genetically engineered
crop (Story. 1999: 5). Story
(1999) also stressed "the whole plot
is coming unraveled for those
who are trying to push GE foods down our
throats (p. 5). In other words,
farmers are being played as pawns in
the corporate imperialistic chess
game.
-
- US food manufacturers such as
Gerber and Heinz have initiated
a GMO boycott. In July, 1999 they
announced they would not allow GMO corn
or soybeans in their food
(Lagnado, 1999: A1). Shortly, after this Iams
pet Food Company followed
suit by claiming it would not buy any of the
seven varieties of GMO
corn the European Union had refused in their foods.
This announcement
was more negative news for US seed companies because
they had hoped to
sell the overseas rejected corn to these markets (Lagnado,
1999:
A1).
-
- Canada, Korea, and New Zealand have also had direct action
against GMO technology. According to Kines (1999) Canadian citizens
"chopped,
broke, or stomped 400 trees and seedlings on test plots
at the University
of BC" (p. 1). The citizens' demonstration
resulted in an estimated
$250,000 damage and subverted five years of
biodiversity research. The
research was being conducted by the British
Columbia subsidiary, Silvagen,
Incorporated. The tree seedlings were
mostly Douglas firs and potted hemlocks,
which were no more than a
meter in height (Kines, 1999: 1).
-
- In Korea, students and
environmental activists organized
demonstration to educate the public
on the Korean agricultural biotechnology,
the National Institute of
Agricultural Science and Technology (NIAST),
irresponsible use of GMO
technology. Many Korean citizens are concerned
the government allows
GMO crop research but does not have a mechanism to
"monitor and
regulate the experiments" (Antti-Rautiainen, 1999:
1-2). In March
1999 several dozen New Zealand citizens, calling themselves
Wild
Greens, vaulted a fence and smashed an experimental GM potato crop
at
the Crop and Food Research Center in Lincoln. The experimental GM potato
crop "involved mixing the genes of potatoes with genetic material
from toads and silkworms to make potatoes rot resistant" and was
valued
at over $200,000 (Poo, 1999:1).
-
- These direct actions and
boycotts have brought global
attention to the uncertainty of GMO
technology. In essence, the small groups
of European, Indian, Canadian,
and US activists helped launch and cultivate
the global resistance to
GMO technology. Ultimately, these actions raised
public awareness and
helped uncovering the need for GMO technology to be
abolished or at
least have labels that identify them.
-
- Labels? "Labeling is
absolutely a critical acid
test issue for the U.S. biotech food
industry"-- Charles Benbrook,
a biotech consultant and former
director of the National Research Council's
board on agriculture
(Weiss, 1999: A17).
-
- Collectively, boycotts, reduced prices, and the global
outcry against GMO technology has promoted the need for alternative
measures.
One of these measures is a label on the GMO products. In
January 1999,
Time magazine conducted a poll of US citizens and found
81 percent of the
respondents wanted labels on all GMO products
(Burros, 1999: 2). However,
the type of label and what should be
labeled is in question and this has
resulted in much societal friction.
The biotech industry wants either no
labels or simple labels that
suggests the product 'may contain GMO or irradiated
ingredients.'
-
- Some activists, in contrast, are advocating for strict
uniform
labels on all GMO products for medical purposes. For example, award
winning molecular biologist and cancer researcher Dr John Fagan, rejected
a $3 million US government research grant. This was done to publicly
denounce
the current misuses of biotechnology and advocate for labels
on all GM
foods because "without labeling it will be very
difficult for scientists
to trace the source of new illness caused by
genetically engineered food"
(Wolfson, 1999: 1).
-
- Religious groups,
such as Jewish, Seventh-Day Adventists,
and Buddhists want the labels
to identify any product with remote traces
of products that violates
their religious beliefs. For example, religious
vegetarians such as the
Seventh-Day Adventists and Buddhists want to "avoid
fruits and
vegetables with insect, animal or humans genes in them"
(Epstein,
1996: 4). The Buddhists and Adventists doctrinal beliefs oppose
genetic
alterations on the grounds they are unholy and unhealthy, are founded
in the writings of Ellen G. White, the Holy Bible, Sutras, Dhama pada,
and Tao. Similarly, Jewish groups want labels on any food with non-kosher
ingredients.
-
- Other reason why labels are needed according to Vorman
(1999)
is that "unlike foodborne disease, where the government has
rules
in place to handle any outbreak, there is no real regulatory review
process in place right now to keep up with all the biotechnology changes
that are happening'' (p. 2). Orfelia Rodriquez, a Cuban biosafety expert,
stressed "Governments must inform the population on the risks of
using
transgenics, and must make labeling of such products mandatory,
in order
for consumers to know what they are consuming" (Cummins
and Lilliston
1999a: 7). In essence, consumers have become uncertain
about the effects
of GMO products and are distrustful of the corporate
reassurances.
-
- An example of this distrust and uncertainty is being
seen in a
30 country anti-trust lawsuit against the seed companies. Activists
from over 30 Latin and developing countries have filed an anti-trust
lawsuit
against the largest life science companies primarily Monsanto,
Novartis,
AstraZeneca, Aventist, and Dupont. The law firms representing
Jeffery Rafkin,
director of the Foundation on Economic Trends, and the
30 Nations are working
on 'a no-win-no-fee basis' and are seeking to
challenge the legal basis
of such monopolistic practices on the state,
federal, and/or international
level.
-
- The litigants are confident
they can "free agriculture
from the control of a few" who by
inventing the TPS design have turned
plants, animals, and insects into
machines (Osava and Mutume, 1999: 1).
According to Antonio Donizeti
Beraldo, a farmers rights advocate from the
National Confederation of
Agriculture, winning this legal battle creates
the "mechanisms to
prevention [corporate] monopolies" (Osava
and Mutume, 1999:
3).
-
- In
another lawsuit, a coalition of public interest groups,
environmentalists, scientists, and religious leaders filed a lawsuit
against
the FDA seeking to require labels on all GM foods. The basis of
the lawsuit
stems from the coalition uncovering FDA records suggesting
several experts
were suspicious of the safety of GM products. According
to the Druker and
Roth (1999):
-
- Internal [FDA] reports and
memoranda disclose: (1) agency
scientists repeatedly cautioned that
foods produced through recombinant
DNA technology entail different
risks than do their conventionally produced
counterparts and (2) that
this input was consistently disregarded by the
bureaucrats who crafted
the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered
foods the same
as natural ones (p. 1-2).
-
- More specifically, the litigants suggest there is
evidence
FDA policies (e.g., US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) were not
followed correctly,
and scientific tests were done improperly. This
resulted in the scientists
not knowing for certain the safety of GM
products being allowed on the
consumer market (Druker and Roth, 1999:
2).
-
- The
Alliance for Bio-Integrity (1999) indicated "the
FDA admits it is
operating under a directive 'to foster' the U.S. biotech
industry; and
this directive advocates that bioengineered foods are essentially
the
same as others" (p. 1). Moreover, the FDA's bending of policy
to
accommodate the Biotech industry caused strong reactions from its research
scientists. Some of the FDA's experts believed the GMO technology should
have been rigorously tested for unexpected toxins and allergens. According
to FDA Microbiologists, Dr. Louis Priybl, "there is a profound
difference
between the types of unexpected effects from traditional
breeding and genetic
engineering which is just glanced over in this
document" . . .and
gene splicing "may be more hazardous"
(Druker and Roth, 1999:
2).
-
- Japan, South Korea, China, and several other Asian
countries
are considering whether to legislate laws for the labeling of
GMO foods.
Asia's food market is worth one trillion to the United
States and other
Nations (Brynes, 1999:1). However, Japanese food
manufacturers, in August,
1999, were attempting to probe for and
purchase non-GM foods in order divert
labels on GMO products. The
Director of Japanese Tofu Association, Hironori
Kijima, claimed
"we want to avoid the GM label as it could hurt the
image of our
products. We plan to switch to non-GM soybeans" (Takada,
1999:1).
Fiji Oil group, who uses an average 90,000 tonnes of soybeans,
also
claimed it will stop the use of GMO soybeans and search for non-GM
wholesalers (Reuters, 1999: 1).
-
- This switch to non-GMO foods may force Japan to turn
to Australia, France, Brazil and/or other various developing nations for
certified GE-free crops and thus exasterbate the US and Canadian farmers,
exporters, and manufactures economic difficulties. Being that the US is
Japan's largest grain, canola, and soybean supplier it seems logical
Japanese
manufactures would want to avoid the GM labels and seek GE
free foods from
the US and elsewhere until the global resistance
diminishes (Cummins and
Lilliston 1999a: 6).
-
- In October, the Agricultural
Ministry of Japan claimed
it would "impose new rules requiring the
food industry - retailers,
farmers, and food product makers - to ensure
the verity of food labels
attesting that their foodstuffs are not
genetically modified" (Japan
Economic Newswire, 1999: 4).
Moreover, the Japanese officials have made
provisions so investigators
are able to conduct on the spot inspections
of farms, factories,
distributors, and merchants for GMO products and falsified
certificates. Once violators has been discovered they will be publicly
identified for shame (Japan Economic Newswire, 1999: 4). However, it
should
be noted this is still not a labeling requirement, but a strict
guidelines
for avoiding one.
-
- In October 1999, a Philippine
consumer group requested
the government impose a label on GM products.
Francis de la Cruz, of the
Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection
group claimed "if we cannot
prevent the entry of GMOs...let us be
given information to exercise our
choice" (Reuters Manila, 1999:
4). On the same day Australian and
New Zealand officials decided to
"require detailed labeling of products
containing genetically
modified foods" (Associated Press, 1999: 4).
-
- Organized Grassroots efforts of
Americans, outside legal
action, has been lethargic compared to that of
Indians, Africans, and Europeans.
However, in June 1999, a petition
containing a 500,000 US citizens signatures
was presented to the US
Congress, which demanded labels be put on food
containing
genetically-modified soybeans, corn, rice, wheat, and other
crops. This
was an indicator, at the time, of the growing discontent the
US
citizens were experiencing about GMO technology (Vorman, 1999: 2).
-
- As mentioned above,
the US biotech industry is fearful
of labels for several reasons.
First, manufactures will experience increased
labor costs because
production will have to be adjusted to produce a different
labeling for
each country or geographic region. Next, exporters will experience
difficulty opening new markets with GMO food labels on the package
(Byrnes,
1999:1). Carl Feldbaum, president of BIO claimed a label
"would be
seen as a stigma, like a skull and crossbones"
(Weiss, 1999: A17).
Finally, many biotech companies feel the reactions
to GMO technology will
be abandoned by the detractors in a couple of
years. According to Craik
"in about five years time the heat will
have gone out of this debate,
then countries like Japan will just
gradually start to take it (GM food)"
(Byrnes, 1999:1).
-
- However, with the
billions of dollars at stake the seed
companies and the supporting
governments are embarking on a "massive
lobbying and PR campaign,
which includes strategies to immediately attempt
to discredit any
opposition to their products, however reasonable"
(Epstein, 1996:
4). Joining in the cause promoting GMO technology is the
Grocery
Manufacturers of America (GMA). The GMA represent 132 firms, such
as
global giants Heinz (who in July 1999 banned GMO foods from its baby
food products), Kraft, and Procter & Gamble announced, in June 1999,
a $1 million dollar ad campaign to educate the public about the positive
attributes of GMO technology. This is being done to stop a potential
consumer
boycott in the US similar to that, which occurred in Europe,
India and
elsewhere (Rabin, 1999:1). Several other farm groups such as
the National
Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean
Association, and the American
Farm Bureau Federation have embraced GMO
technology (Palmer, 1999:1).
-
|