From au120@chebucto.ns.ca Sat Mar 20 22:16:22 1999
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 22:12:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Antoni Wysocki au120@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: agbiodevestation2tech
Continuing the trend of the past months March has seen considerable
activity in the area of agricultural biotechnology. This has included
direct action against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), merging of
major agbiotech firms and seminal civil society (i.e. non-corporate,
non-governmental) conferences.
According to a report from Seoul's Policy & Information Center for
International Solidarity (1)
a group of South
Korean students blocked
access last week to a National Institute of Agricultural Science and
Technology greenhouse where test production of GMOs was underway. The
protesters chained themselves in place in a bid to publicize the absence
of GMO regulation in their country (a deficit which the failed Biosafety
Protocol talks in Cartagena, Colombia was meant to have made good.)
Eventually the protesters were removed by the police, arrested and held
for a few hours.
Concurrently activists in New Zealand were deracinating GM potatoes being
grown at Lincoln University's Crop and Food Research Institute. A novel
(to me, at least) feature of this operation was that the "eco-warriors"
left their clothes behind at the scene so as to minimize the possibility
of spreading GM material.
Nonetheless this proved insufficient to forestall criticism. Stephanie
Mills, described as a Greenpeace campaigner, was quoted as saying that
"Greenpeace does not support pulling of plants because it could increase
the risk of dispersal, and it is also property destruction"
(2). Although
the point is well-taken that direct actions of this type must be managed
with circumspection I see no reason to dismiss them as unacceptably
hazardous. As veteran anti-corporate activist Tony Clarke remarked
recently : "The only way to tackle Monsanto which has 300 million dollars
to play around with and regularly buys out scientists and policy makers is
to slowly bleed it by burning crops, sueing it in court and occupying its
offices" (3). Without interventions of the
sort seen at Lincoln University (and earlier in India, Ireland and other
countries) government authorities are otherwise unlikely to consider the
GMOs so urgent a matter as to require legislative remedy.
Earlier this month there had been rumors that Monsanto was on the verge of
melding with the giant US chemical concern DuPont. Monsanto is perceived
to be struggling under a heavy debt burden contracted in the course of a
spree of acquisitions last year and is widely thought to require a
significant cash infusion. It had attempted to address this by hooking up
with American Home Products but in the end no deal could be reached
between the two firms.
In light of the above the announcement on March 15 that DuPont has bought
out Pioneer Co. comes as a serious blow to Monsanto. Pioneer, the world's
largest seed company, was already 20% owned by DuPont. Given that Monsanto
and Pioneer are one another's main rivals it was generally supposed that
had DuPont merged with Monsanto it would have had to divest itself of its
Pioneer holdings or risk facing an anti-trust suit. Perhaps in conjunction
with concerns about Monsanto's solvency and ongoing image problems DuPont
evidently decided that integrating more closely with Pioneer alone would
be simpler than attempting a combination which would include Monsanto.
The news has both good and bad elements for activists. Certainly, Monsanto
has been by far the most aggressive of all corporations in its drive to
promote biotechnology and its uniquely close relationship with the Clinton
administration has helped propel biotechnology promotion to the top of the
US foreign policy agenda. As a result setbacks suffered by this one firm
are likely to have a disproportionate impact on the development of
agbiotech in the short term. Still, as the DuPont/Pioneer conglomerate
takes shape it is probable that it will move to fill any vacuum arising
from Monsanto's difficulties. It is also possible that Bill Clinton will
prove unwilling to see Monsanto decline, especially if this gives rise to
the publicly unpalatable specter of DuPont/Pioneer monopolising the seed
market.
Colloquia on GMOs have lately concluded in a number of countries,
including examples of so-called 'consensus conferences'. Such conferences
bring together juries composed of individuals previously unacquainted with
the subject being examined. Members of the jury are given access to
unaligned authorities in the relevant fields and after interviewing these
experts at length the jury makes recommendations. With the exception of
Denmark, in all nations currently employing this system consensus
conferences have no binding force but their powers of moral suasion can be
considerable.
On March 12 a consensus conference sponsored by the Australian Consumers
Association and the Australian Museum issued its counsel on GMOs. While
their injunctions were not as strong as I would have wished the
Australians did show considerable dubiety about GMOs noting that :
We are...sceptical of the arguments put forward by organisations that stand to benefit from GMO technology that it offers a blanket solution to the issue of world hunger...Australia should support a regulated trade approach in relation to GMOs. This would ensure a precautionary approach to GMO trade, the provision of a specific liability regime and segregation and labelling of all products.Australia should seek to initiate and support international treaties that protect those vulnerable from exploitation by bio-prospecting companies. -http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/consconf/report.htm-
A similar Canadian initiative based at the University of Calgary tendered
its report on March 7/99. In some contrast to their Australian
counterparts the Canadians seemed more than willing to trust the present
federal regulatory process : of their 17 recommendations (4) no fewer than seven included advocated
resolution via Ottawa's Biotechnology Strategy Advisory Committee.
I can only suppose that the Calgary conference was unaware of the undue
influence exerted by biotech firms over existing official review bodies.
In 'The GMO Lobby', which I posted on the
AntWire on Feb.28/99, I cited some instances of Monsanto's subversion of
due process, including its receipt of confidential documents relating to
the examination of a Monsanto product by a World Health Organization (WHO)
body.
Last week the Senate Agriculture Committee disclosed its findings that "a
registered Monsanto lobbyist" was a member of Canada's delegation to the
WHO commission mentioned above. "[Senator Mira Spivak] said her committee
learned that BST files were stolen at Health Canada and that government
scientists who had expressed doubts about Monsanto s safety tests had been
muzzled after they began to talk publicly about the drug review."
(5)
The idea of consensus conferences seems well-motivated but, from the
perverse results produced by the Calgary group, may need reconsideration.
If, going into a conference, jurors believe that certain institutions -
such as Ottawa's food and agriculture inspectorate - are competent,
adequately funded and immune to external influence then it is
understandable that jurors would entrust GMO review to the civil service.
Unfortunately, as Monsanto's shenanigans clearly illustrate, the current
institutional framework is badly flawed. Inasmuch as consensus conferees
are unaware of this they will be unable to choose wisely for their
understanding of the relevant context is defective.
A different sort of forum concerned with the same subject matter was
Biodevestation 2 in New Delhi which closed on March 12. This international
gathering of activists - many of them scientists and/or agricultural
workers - concluded their plenary with the determination that Monsanto
must be undone (it was at Biodevestation 2 that Tony Clarke, quoted above,
was speaking.) In a call to direct action of another kind, Mika Iba,
leader of a 300,000-member consumer cooperative from Japan, said her
organisation would now work with Indian farmers to undo damage wrought by
the adoption of biotechnologies.
Many participants pledged to back the lawsuit brought in India's Supreme
Court by Vandana Shiva which has produced a temporary interdiction of GMOs
and will also, it is hoped, restrict them permanently. Delegates expressed
support for challenges by some European states to the European Patents on
Life Law.
The LA Times published an article this week which revealed that there is
near unanimous support in Japan for the labelling - if not, indeed, the
banning - of GMOs : "More than 80% of those questioned in a 1997
government survey said they have 'reservations' about such foods, and
92.5% favored mandatory labeling."(6)
The Times piece enumerates measures taken against GMOs by consumer groups
which have effectively eliminated GM food from the diets of at least 15%
of the population. The government has plans to implement a labelling
regime feeling that anything less will lead to pressure for an outright
ban.
Japan is the largest market for US agricultural exports, importing about a
fifth of America's total production. Inevitably then Washington is more
than a little perturbed by all of this and has already indicated so to
Tokyo. If, as appears likely, Japan moves against GMOs in some capacity
Clinton would almost be compelled to react given the scale of trade
involved. Howvever, with the US already at "war" with the European Union
over bananas and on the verge of same with Canada over split-run magazines
one wonders whether Washington can afford to make another enemy.
---Antoni
Notes
(1)
Policy & Information Center for
International Solidarity
(2)
'Toad Gene
Potatoes Uprooted in New Zealand', by Andrew Darby
(3)
Death To
Monsanto, Say World Scientists', By Ranjit Dev Raj, NEW DELHI, March
11
(4)
Citizens' Panel
on Food Biotechnology - Final Report, March 7, 1999
(5)'Outrage over Monsanto's underhand tactics in EU', by
Gregory Palast, The Observer (London), Sunday 14 March
(6)'Japanese Choke on American Biofood', by Sonni Efron,
Los Angeles Times, Sunday, March 14, 1999