|
Last week we ended up with the rather dire
realization that 'pure' organic food of most types in the
near future will no longer exist. This may come as a bit of
a shock to those readers who may be seriously concerned with
the quality of what they eat, but it is an almost inescapable
fact owing to the nature of the 'GM beast'. It may be that
genetically modified food is beneficial - or at least harmless
- but then one doesn't really know at the moment, in spite
of all the positive 'PR' by the biotechnology companies and
various governments. One suspects, of course, that much is
being kept hidden from the public, a situation which seems
to be relatively common in cases where priorities seem to
be the making of money rather than long-term concern for humanity.
To give readers an indication of the type of shenanigans that
can go on in this 'hidden' world one does not have to look
far. Most published studies of the potential effects of GM
foods have actually been funded by the biotechnology companies
themselves, it seems, either directly or indirectly. Those
who have read our series about Kava will have seen how certain
pharmaceutical companies themselves have helped to fund much
of the testing, publication and promotion of their own medicines.
The 'GM' world seems to be little different. It may be a bit
like asking the nuclear power industry to do the studies on
the safety of their installations (which is what actually
happened in many cases).
The first independent (i.e. non industry-sponsored)
study of effects on mammals of 'GM' or genetically engineered
food was only conducted in 1998, by Arpad Pusztai, a researcher
at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. Pusztai's
study indicated that rats fed with transgenic potatoes suffered
evidence of organ damage, thickening of the small intestine
and poor brain development. Rats in the same experiment not
fed the 'GM' potatoes showed no ill effects. Pusztai announced
the results of his experiments in 'The World in Action' on
British TV in August 1998 and created a public furore. The
Rowett Institute director, Philip James, then hurriedly denied
the existence of the research (he had previously OK'd Pusztai's
appearance on the programme), fired Pusztai, disbanded his
research team, seized the research data and stopped six other
similar research projects. It later turned out that the US
biotech giant Monsanto (the world's major producer of 'GM'
materials) had given a grant of US$224,000 to the Rowett Institute
prior to Pusztai's interview. But Pusztai's research was considered
legitimate by the highly respected British medical journal,
'Lancet', which published a peer-reviewed paper co-authored
by Pusztai supporting his study.
Many readers will have heard of the Monsanto
Company in conjunction with GM foods but some may not realize
that it is not a new company dealing only with genetic engineering
of possible food crops. The public (and the press) tend to
have short memories, but even the relatively recent development
of GE food and Monsanto's involvement with it have, for those
who read widely, given the name of the company rather ominous
connotations. And deservedly so. Monsanto has been around
for a long time and for those with clear memories it has a
long history of developing and promoting a certain number
of chemical 'advances' that have later been found to have
a darker side. Who now remembers that it was Monsanto that
convinced the US government years ago that PCBs were safe,
leaving it to Swedish and Japanese researchers’ years
later to show the hazards to human health and the environment
that they posed (and still do)? Who now remembers that it
was Monsanto that convinced the US government that the defoliant
2, 4, 5-T (more commonly known as 'Agent Orange') was safe?
Well, tens of thousands of Vietnamese and many US Vietnam
war veterans do! It took a lot of fighting to get proper investigations
done on 'Agent Orange', but a US government investigator finally
found "a clear pattern of fraudulent content" in
Monsanto's research which led to the original approval. Some
say that a leopard cannot change its spots. Monsanto does
seem - unfortunately - to often be involved sending 'heavy
legal help' (a bit like the Scientologists) to try and sort
out glitches in the smooth road to getting its products out
to the public.
In 1997 Fox TV was due to broadcast an investigative
series of documentaries done in Florida by journalists Steve
Wilson and Jane Akre on alleged links between the Monsanto-produced
rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone) and cancer.
Injection by rBGH can make cows produce more than their normal
quota of milk. The investigation mentioned that there was
some concern, though, that humans drinking this milk might
possibly be put at increased risk of colon and breast cancer.
Monsanto's lawyers managed to persuade Fox to cancel the series
three days before the planned broadcast of its first segment.
Fox then tried to get the series watered down and even offered
to pay Wilson and Akre to leave the station and keep quiet
about its attempts. In 1998 the journalists filed a lawsuit
against Fox, which they won in August 2000 and in April 2001
they were both awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental
prize for their 'courageous efforts to expose the potential
threat to public health from rBGH'. Although BGH had been
approved by the FDA, it seems, surprisingly enough, that it
had been tested for only 90 days on 30 rats before it got
its approval.
Monsanto's lawyers have continued this type
of tradition with GM crops. It does seem, in spite of biotechnology
companies’ protestations to the contrary, that certain
genetically modified crops can spread their modifications
through natural means - 'genetic pollution' seems to be a
fact of life, whether the companies say so or not. In a landmark
court case brought by Monsanto against Canadian farmer Percy
Schmeiser and finalized on 29th March 2001, it seems that
the 'polluted' has to pay the 'polluter'. Which just shows
you how big money can twist the 'justice system’ to serve
its own ends. Under Canadian patent law, as in the US and
many other 'developed' nations, it is illegal for farmers
to use or re-use patented seed or grow Monsanto's genetically
engineered seed without having signed a licensing agreement.
Pollen from Monsanto's genetically engineered canola seeds
blew onto Schmeiser's land from neighbouring farms using it.
Monsanto's 'gene police' took samples from his farm (without
his permission), found Monsanto GE canola growing there, and
brought the court case against him. Although a victim of 'pollution'
from GE crops, the court said Schmeiser was to pay Monsanto
not only US $10,000 in licensing fees but $75,000 in profits
from his crop as well. He has filed a counter-suit. In July
2001 lawyers warned the Roushe family in Indiana that the
only way they could avoid being sued by Monsanto was to plant
their whole farm with Monsanto GE seeds. In 1999 the Roushes
had planted 25% of their farm with Monsanto GE Soya, and marked
the area carefully (confirmed by an independent crop scientist).
The Monsanto GE Soya seemed to have spread, though, and the
biotech giant demanded punitive damages. To try and avoid
paying these, the Roushes' lawyer advised them to plant all
their fields with Monsanto GE seeds in 2002. This kind of
war has been going on all over the agricultural areas of the
US and Canada during the last four years or more. No wonder
farmers in India have been destroying GE crops, they may seem
too dangerous - or potentially expensive - to have around
(although many of the Indian protests were sparked off by
the prices of the GM seeds plus the fact that they were not
permitted to replant with seeds from them but had to buy new
seeds each season!)!
The spread of GE /GM crops can threaten
biodiversity too. A classic case is that of wild maize in
the area of Oaxaca in Mexico, the genetic homeland of this
important crop. Mexico had banned plantings of GM maize since
1998 to protect the purity of its many ancient varieties -
although it permits the import of GM crops for consumption.
The late November 2001 issue of the respected scientific journal
'Nature' contained the results of a detailed study by scientists
Ignacio Chapela and David Quist of the University of California,
Berkeley on wild maize from the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca Mountains.
They compared it with GM varieties from the Monsanto Company
in the US and with samples known to be uncontaminated, and
were surprised to find that samples of wild maize from isolated
areas showed contamination with DNA from GM crops. They did
not, however, suggest a 'natural pollination' cause for this,
but thought it more likely that it came from 'contamination'
from food aid maize sent in from the US. Publication of the
report caused a furore, forcing the editor of 'Nature' to
state in the early April 2002 issue that "the evidence
available is not sufficient to justify the publication of
the original paper". Shortly after the publication of
this statement, however, Jorge Soberon, the executive secretary
of Mexico's National Commission on Biodiversity, in a speech
at The Hague, stated that official Mexican government tests
had now shown that the level of GM contamination of maize
in the area was even higher than that shown in the original
study. The Commission was not able to state, however, which
variety of GM maize had caused the contamination as the three
main GM developers (Monsanto, Aventis and Syngenta) had refused
to provide essential chemical/protein data which would enable
a conclusion to be made.
One can now see that it is perhaps almost
impossible to stop the spread of GM crops. Britain's Prince
Charles highlighted this concern in a speech in Germany on
11th June (2002) where he said that GM crops posed an "acute
threat to organic farmers and all those consumers who actually
wish to exercise a right of choice about what they eat".
The recent European parliament decision mentioned in this
column last week to introduce strict GM labelling but not
to legislate for a 'GM free' label is almost undoubtedly a
recognition of the fact that this would eventually be almost
impossible or implementation too expensive. Last month the
New South Wales (Australia) Agriculture Minister, Richard
Amery, rejected proposals for specific GM-free agricultural
zones in the state, thereby potentially damning the organic
crop industry in the area. The big biotech companies may have
won in the end: we will all end up eating GM-tainted foods
whether we want to or not. Again, greed for profit and power
has brought us to a situation where mankind is eventually
faced with a 'non-choice choice'. Even though we may not really
know for many years whether GM foods are completely safe for
human consumption, the past history of at least one of the
major companies involved does tend to make one extremely wary.
It reminds me rather obliquely of a situation in Vanuatu in
the southwest Pacific late in 1995: rumours were circulating
that a 'kleva' (mistakenly called 'sorcerers' by the missionaries,
although it really means 'healer, medium', seer', etc - but
there are 'bad' klevas, too) was going to 'poison' the Prime
Minister of the time who was slightly unpopular amongst certain
segments of the population. These rumours reached one of the
country's most feared 'bad' klevas (now deceased) in his isolated
village and he became rather nervous. I bumped into him in
the capital and we squatted down to have a chat - I had not
seen him for several years. I asked him what he was doing
in the capital: "I have come here to tell the Prime Minister
that it's not me who is going to poison him", was the
reply. As with GM foods, the 'messenger' (i.e. maybe one of
some of the giant companies involved) is enough to make one
distrust the 'message', however reassuring that message may
be.
Or, to take a phrase from the recent 'corporate
fraud' furore in the US, although most of the apples in the
barrel may possibly be all right, the barrel itself may be
rotten.
Keep smiling.
Kirk W Huffman
kirkwhuffman@liveibiza.com
| |
