The GM Question

Genetically Modified Foods and the Shadow of Corporate Control

Andrew Garib, The i Newsletter | IT SEEMS THAT after three years of debate, the complacency of the North American public concerning the potential problems of genetically modified, or GM foods, has not changed. While countries in Western Europe have rallied against so-called Frankenfoods, we in North America, including the United States and Canada, as well as Australia and other leaders in the Biotech industry, have embraced the use of GM crops. The public has become passive to the tightening noose of Big Agribusiness on the world’s food supplies and their purse strings.

More so than health concerns, the ominous sceptre of the corporate world’s broadening monopoly over agriculture has been overlooked in these nations, perhaps not by coincidence. The public in these countries are simply ill informed on the use and possible dangers of GM foods, and the insidious motivations behind their promotion: What should concern us, the public, is the implementation of such contentious foods in our agricultural system, and the dubious means by which they are implemented.

Health Concerns

First and foremost, there is a health issue. In a recent magazine article, (“A Genetically Enhanced Harvest”, Science Spectra, issue 21) biologist Dr Robert Shields argues that the risks of GM foods are no more (and potentially less) than non-GM organic crops. His proof is that new proteins involved in the genetic engineering of crop species, such as corn, soy, and canola, are ‘rarely toxic or allergenic.’ He concedes that concerns over other ‘marker’ genes inserted along with the gene of interest are ‘not entirely groundless’ (marker genes are used to accurately target the area on the plant genome onto which the gene of interest can be inserted, which may well contain unwanted genetic information, including unwanted antibiotic resistance), but because GM crops are tested so much more rigorously than crops bred using normal Mendelian genetics, such that problems with GM crops would be much more readily weeded out.

This assumption has by no means been resolved. There have been no long term human studies on the effects of GM foods; and one controversial August 1998 study conducted by Arpad Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen suggests a diet of genetically modified potatoes may have affected the immune system and stunted the growth of lab rats (“Anatomy of a Food Scare”, New Scientist, 20 February 1999). Despite attacks from GM proponents and the Rowett Institute itself, Pusztai’s research had been supported by an independent team of 20 scientists from 14 nations, who called for a moratorium on GM foods due to the potential of health risks. Environmentalists have claimed that Pusztai’s study is the first proof that toxicity may be produced not by the outcome of genetic engineering, but by the process of engineering itself.

Environmental Concerns

Another issue is the potential for GM crops to damage local ecosystems and contaminate non-GM crops. Shields argues that stringent regulations on the distances between GM and non-GM crops, as well as the use of patches of organic crops on GM farms in order to quell resistance problems, would potentially solve these issues. However, a study in 1999 (which was not widely publicized) showed that 12 out of 20 random American batches of conventional corn showed noticeable contamination by GM maize, two of which showed almost one percent contamination (“Sowing Dissent”, New Scientist, 27 May 2000). This problem has been exacerbated in Europe, where most GM crops are yet to be allowed. Genetically modified crops, consisting of as much as 1% of conventional crops, are being found throughout Europe, causing much angst. As well, the first signs of weed resistance to broadband herbicides such as Monsanto’s Round-Up have been found in Alberta as early as 1997, where the farmer planted separate patches each 30 metres apart. GM proponents often have claimed that GM crops will reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides that are potentially harmful to humans and the environment, but due to resistance, the Alberta farmer found that only more powerful chemicals would control these weeds. Thus, the endless spiral of the use of stronger and more toxic herbicides and pesticides has emerged, just as environmentalists have claimed for years. Nevertheless, Shields is not convinced; he argues that ‘only proper trials and experience will show who is right’.

Corporate Concerns

If these problems aren’t enough cause for concern, the most sinister and covert motivations behind the propagation of GM crops are to be feared. Few organizations have recognized or reacted to the threat of the biotech companies, but those that have are adamant. Minnesota-based Farm For Profit Research and Development inc. is one of the minority of institutions who have stood up against GM foods. Farm For Profit President Howard Vail announced the organization’s 13 November 1998 condemnation of GM crops, stating that ‘the dramatic increase in the development, marketing and sale of genetically modified seed and crops has far more to do with inflating corporate profits than with the sustainability of America’s family farmers or the health of its consumers.’

Corporate domination of the world’s agriculture is on the minds of the leaders of the biotech industry. The potential for profit is unlimited; there will always be a demand for produce, a demand that will grow with the expansion of the earth’s population. However, the nature of this domination is very much local, and begins in the heartland of America.

The Grower’s Contract

An article published in Genetically Manipulated Food News by Richard Wolfson (“US Chemical Giant Monsanto Wields Control”, Seedling March 97, Vol. 14, No 1, 28 April 1997) condemns the Grower’s Contract which farmers using Monsanto brand GM (Round-Up ready) seeds must sign. The contract sets a number of disconcertingly restrictive terms which control how the farmers use the seed product after sale. In Europe, the practice of saving seed for the next season has been a valuable tool in cutting costs. Yet the contract dictates that farmers may not be sown for more than one season, nor can excess seed be sold to other farmers. The contract also holds the farmer responsible if the seeds are misused by third parties within three years of purchase, with the financial penalties as many as ten times the price per bag of seed, plus legal costs. As well, the contract obligates the farmers to use only the Round-Up formulation of glyphosate (the broad-band herbicide that compliments Round-Up Ready GM crops), completing the monopoly. Even more concerning is the obligation for farmers to allow Monsanto representatives to inspect fields to ensure contract compliance, even though the contract does not say that the farmer must be present during the inspection. The obligations are ‘fully binding on all heirs, representatives, successors and permitted assigns of the seed buyer’ (Wolfson), yet the farmer cannot transfer his or her rights without expressed permission of Monsanto. Despite all of this, the performance of the seed is nowhere guaranteed in the Grower’s Contract.

Separation and Labeling

Another means of control, one that goes right down to the consumer, is the refusal of major biotech companies to segregate and label their products. This is especially a concern in Europe and Japan, where imported organic seeds may well be contaminated with GM seeds. Monsanto ‘insists that it is impractical and unnecessary to separate the harvest from Roundup Ready growers and the others’ (Wolfson), even though it is quite adamant on the control over the use and distribution of seeds by domestic farmers in its Grower’s Contract. Labeling has become a concern because there are many individuals and organizations who would not, if given a choice, buy GM foods. ‘Special attention to transgenic foods could put a damper on sales, especially in Europe and Japan’, Wolfson says. The culmination of the international effort to stop labeling is the Codex Alimentarius, which is a set of regulations on food standards administered by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization now supported by many major biotech firms. If the Codex is successfully implemented, it would also prohibit labeling for GM food products worldwide, thus eliminating the freedom of consumers to choose whether or not to buy food products made with GM produce – and indeed, the freedom of governments to institute labeling laws. In effect, the Codex would circumvent sovereignty of states and the freedom of individuals at the same time.

Feed the World?

After all of this controversy, one must come to the most fundamental question: Are genetically modified crops worth it? The goal of GM crops is to increase yields – a point on which many GM proponents believe we can end hunger in the poorest nations of the world. But as we have seen, most other points GM food proponents make are false – that GM foods are proven safe to both the environment and to consumers, and that they require less pesticides and herbicides. We have come to see that there is quite a questionable push from biotech firms for the propagation of these crops, and that in the process, these companies are undermining the freedoms of both consumers and farmers, and contravening the sovereignty of national governments. Will, then, GM foods be used to feed the poor?

GM food will certainly not be given away. The creation of the terminator seed and Monsanto’s Grower’s Contract show the biotech’s industry’s indifference to wasting viable seed and to the plight of the poor, all in the name of profit and monopoly. In addition, a major force of opposition to GM foods and crops are the Third world nations which GM foods were supposedly meant to help. Geoffrey Lean writes that a senior Ethiopian government official had said that ‘[the Third World was] “absolutely united” in resisting US plans to “decide what we eat” ’ (“Third World Countries Reject Genetically Engineered Food”, Sunday Independent (London), 28 February 1999).

Usually, an issue like this would in the end be decided by the consumer, who would have a choice whether or not to buy GM products. But looming corporate domination of our agricultural industry has made sure that the choice is no longer in our hands. If laws come to pass mandating labeling and regulation, the consumer will ultimately have the power. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and worse, it may all simply be a sign of the times.

http://www.gbhap.com/Science_Spectra
http://www.newscientist.com/
http://www.farmforprofit.com/PRels.html
http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/rw70624.htm
http://www.sage-intl.org/news.htm End.

This article was published in the first edition of The i Newsletter, the opinion journal we started the previous year at Turner Fenton Secondary School in Brampton, Ont.

Published 00.09.20 17:00:00 -0500 GMT | Posted by Andrew Garib on 00.09.20 | |