Hi,
Although mainstream US and Canadian newsmedia are all but oblivious to the
fact, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a cause of great public
concern throughout much of the world. This is reflected in opinion polls -
e.g. 95% of German consumers surveyed rejected GMOs (1) - and also in the growing corpus of
legislation on GMOs.
As I mentioned in my 'February round-up on GMOs'
India and the UK have recently placed sharp restrictions on raising
GMO crops. Other jurisdictions which had already introduced similar
measures include France, Egypt, Austria and the state of Rio Grande do
Sul, in Brazil. Only one country in the world (the US, of course) has
authorized the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). New
Zealand and Australia have mandated the labelling as such of foodstuffs
containing GMOs.
There is reason enough to resist the biotechnology industry's drive to
supplant natural processes. The full extent of the deleterious
consequences which could stem from genetic manipulation is literally
unimaginable but some of the permutations which have been adduced ought to
be sufficient in themselves to give pause. For instance, one possibility
is that baleful characteristics possessed by GMOs could be passed on to
those who consume them. This was confirmed in principle by a Dutch study
which, as Reuters reported on Jan.27/99, demonstrated that GMOs could
transmit bacterial resistance to antibiotics to those who eat them (2). This mechanism could potentially give rise
to incurable infections of epidemic proportions.
Already genetic engineering has claimed lives : in 1989 37 people died and
1500 more were permanently disabled upon taking a genetically engineered
form of the food supplement tryptophan (3).
Almost more worrying than the incident itself is the realisation that
future (or present) occurrences of this type would likely be impossible to
identify because the US has enforced protocols which obviate attempts to
determine whether products contain GMOs or have in some manner been
genetically altered.
Beyond their direct menace to human health GMOs also represent a threat to
ecosystems. Once again the ramifications are endless, but one of the
considerations which moved the UK to rescind plans for planting GMO crops
was the prospect of treated seeds being windblown into surrrounding areas,
crossbreeding with natural growth and so introducing their traits into
other populations. It was feared that this could produce "superweeds"
poisonous to herbivores and resistant to chemical sprays.
With such telling points against them what can be said in favor of GMOs?
The most common defences are that, firstly, they will help increase
production of comestibles to meet the rapidly expanding human population,
and, secondly, that they will lessen the use of pesticides.
The first claim is dubious inasmuch as the factors which produce higher
crop yields are too various and unstable to offer serious prospects for
successful interventions. Moreover, famine is not caused by a lack of food
but by inequitable distribution of existing resources. Rather than trying
to grow more food we should concentrate on better sharing what we already
possess. That this is well understood in underdeveloped regions is
confirmed by the Sunday Independent report of Feb. 28/99 that "The world's
hungriest nations have resolved to oppose genetically modified foods"
(4).
The marketing habits and the types of life patents sought likewise bespeak
a different story. If Monsanto, e.g., were really interested in addressing
the problem of world hunger why would it be so supportive of the
Terminator? This technology is completely unsuitable for smallholders,
especially in the Third World, as the requirement to buy new seed every
season demands liquidity that dirt farmers don't have. The Terminator is
obviously directed towards (and encouraging of) mammoth agri-business
concerns which are oriented towards cash crop production for export, not
local sustenance.
The second argument is perhaps less clear. Some items, such as Monsanto's
NewLeaf potato, have been engineered to be resistant to certain insects.
As a result NewLeaf will not require chemical spraying to deal with the
vermin in question. On the other hand, approximately 40% of plant
interventions are for the purpose of rendering crops more pesticide
resistant - presumably so that they can be dowsed more copiously. Then,
too, Monsanto has admitted that the pests NewLeaf repels will ultimately
gain immunity and at that juncture pesticide application will once more be
required. However, in view of said immunity it may be that more massive
chemical treatments than necessary pre-NewLeaf will become necessary.
If, as I am suggesting, the costs of GMOs are so formidable and the
benefits so negligible, why would anyone support this business? The answer
is that, in the absence of vested interests and/or pressure tactics, no
one would. Unfortunately there is no lack of either amongst policymakers.
Apart from biotechnology firms themselves the only major player with a
proprietary concern is the US government. Washington evidently sees
biotechnology as a means to further tie down the developing world : if
Terminator technologies take hold foreign farmers will be dependent on St.
Louis-based Monsanto for their seeds; genetic engineering allows crops to
be grown in the US which previously would have been uneconomic; life
patenting allows the hijacking of traditional knowledge of therapeutic
uses of flora and fauna abroad. More generally, political elites in
capitalist states have traditionally equated the flourishing of their
major domestic corporations with the wellbeing of the country as a whole,
and this tendency has become much more pronounced under the influence of
neoliberalism.
In light of the above one might well ask why administrations in other OECD
countries are not equally enamored of GMOs. Japan is indifferent because
it has no company in a position to compete with Monsanto; likewise Canada,
the world's seventh largest economy. EU politicians know that their
citizens are far more sensitized to these issues than are US (or Canadian)
citizens (who in any case are hampered by the first-past-the-post voting
system in mobilising their dissent.)
Realising at once the advantages to be gained from backing Monsanto and
that it is alone in this the US government has taken extraordinary steps
to get its way in the matter. The direction has come from the very top :
Bill Clinton has intervened personally to push the UK's Tony Blair and
France's Lionel Jospin to be more accomodating to Monsanto
(5).
Yet it is also more systemic. The director of America's National Security
Council arranged a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern in fall
of 1998 to persuade him of the importance of voting to allow Monsanto to
sell genetically modified corn in Europe. In 1997 Monsanto was provided
with confidential information about World Health Organization
deliberations on rBGH by Dr Nick Weber of the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). In 1994 the FDA promulgated a special rule which
makes it illegal for dairies to indicate on labels that a batch of milk is
free of rBGH. This followed the FDA's 1993 ruling that rBGH was safe even
though, as emerged subsequently (namely, in the 1998 Canadian Senate
hearings on rBGH), research indicated that the artificial hormone was
hazardous (6).
While it may be correct to say that no government identifies its strategic
interests as closely with GMOs as does the US, the UK Labour Party has
been a close ally for much of the struggle. In addition to numerous public
statements in support of GMOs word has come out that the Health and Safety
Executive - the very body constituted as a GMO watchdog - has illegally
withheld information from the public on violations by companies growing
modified crops (7).
Monsanto partisanship appears to have made some inroads with the Canadian
public sector as well. In the Senate hearings on rBGH Dr. Margaret Hayden
testified that Monsanto had offered $2 million to her federal department;
Hayden stated that she interpreted this as a bribe. An investigation into
the allegation was announced but has not gone through.
I trust that the foregoing confirms that, as I posited in 'February
round-up on GMOs', the US government is determined by any means necessary
to see to it that Monsanto succeeds. With such a champion GMOs will be
hard to beat back. On the brighter side though, the suppression of GMOs
would not only rid the world of substances as worrisome as nuclear waste,
but this victory could entail a profound change in international political
economy. Given the intense, propinquitous identification of the US with
this issue a reversal could spell the end of the "Washington consensus"
and perhaps US hegemony generally.
---Antoni
(1) 'The Unholy Alliance' by Mae-Wan Ho, The Ecologist,
volume 27/number4.
(2)
http://www.purefood.org/ge/gegut.cfm
(3)'Third World rejects GM', by Geoffrey Lean, Sunday
Independent, February 28, 1999.
(4)
http://www.psagef.org/jftrypt.htm
(5)'World Recoils at Monsanto's Brave New Crops,' by Bill
Lambrecht, Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, December 27, 1998.
(6) 'Soured milk of "Monsantos's kindness",
by Gregory Palast, The Observer, February 21, 1999.
(7) 'GM Foods - Watchdog's silence on the guilty broke
law', by Geoffrey Lean, Sunday Independent, Feb. 28/99.