Filed under: GM Food | Tags: Add new tag, GM, Monsanto, Percy Schmeiser, Roundup Ready
As promised in my last posting, it’s time to re-visit the murky world of GM food. Is it really about feeding the world or boosting corporate profits?
I had the pleasure of meeting Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser at ‘A Taste of Slow’ in Melbourne. Percy and his wife Louise, third generation farmers now in their 70s, took over their Saskatchewan farm in 1947 and were quietly getting on with farming the land until, in 1996, GMO soya, corn, canola and cotton were introduced into Canada. Enter Monsanto with their Roundup Ready canola and extravagant promises of higher crop yields and reduced pesticide use.
in 1998 Percy was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement: the crop in question was Roundup Ready canola. How did Monsanto find evidence of their seed on Percy’s land and how did it get there?
Monsanto have a team of ‘gene police’ who carry out spot checks by helicopter, spraying Roundup over crops. ”Any green thing” (quote Monsanto) that doesn’t die, has their gene in it. In other words, they can identify it as their Roundup Ready crop with its inbuilt pesticide.
In Percy’s case, a neighbouring farmer was growing Monsanto crops. It doesn’t take much to work out how Percy’s crops became contaminated. Contrary to what you read in the mainstream press, GM crops cannot be contained. The birds, bees and wind don’t know how to distinguish between conventional and GM crops. Once the genie is out of the bottle, that’s it and you can wave goodbye to organic crops and invidividual choice.
Although only a trace of Monsanto’s crop was detected - out of 9000 pounds of seed sewn in that year (1998), a maximum of ten pounds was contaminated - it was no help to Percy when he faced Monsanto in the Supreme Court. The judge and jury, who had no understanding of farming, ruled that Monsanto owned Percy’s seeds through contamination. It was immaterial that a neighbouring farmer was cultivating Monsanto’s crops.
Percy, a quietly spoken man with deeply-held principles, took on Big Brother Monsanto and fought the first court case in the world on patent infringement. While he lost the right to own the seeds that had taken him half a century to develop, he did not have to pay any costs to Monsanto - they sought $1m in punitive damages plus fees. It was a seven-year battle and during that time Monsanto used a range of bullying techniques to intimidate Percy and Louise. Monsanto representatives would park in the Schmeisers’ driveway and spy on Louise while Percy was away, for example.
Percy is a brave man and I admire his fight to protect the rights of farmers to choose their own seeds and production methods, but the battle is only half-won. Monsanto are now selling seed with the same characteristics as those that Percy developed. This is nothing short of bio-piracy.
Very few farmers have the courage, financial means or determination to stand up to Monsanto (Percy paid $400,000 in legal fees). The way Monsanto conducts its business is more likely to scare farmers into submission than provoke challenge:
- Monsanto’s contracts are extremely punitive. Signing up is basically a life sentence with an inbuilt gagging order
- If a farmer signs up to Monsanto and something goes wrong with the seed, he/she cannot sue
- The gene police, former Canadian Mounties, don’t limit themselves to crop spray checks, they also investigate personal tax records, reward farmers to inform on their neighbours and if you are found to be growing GM crops with no license - by cross-pollination or otherwise - you will be interrogated
- The Monsanto ‘terminator gene’ renders plants sterile after one-time use. This means that impoverished farmers in developing countries can’t save seed from one year to the next. Profit rules OK.
- The Monsanto ‘cheater gene’ as it is called in Canada is combined with the terminator gene in the seed, making the plant unable to produce unless it is sprayed with Monsanto chemicals.
Percy also explained that, although GM crop yields do increase in the first few years, this subsequently drops off. Even worse, the claim that GM crops use less pesticides appears to be unfounded. The plants gradually become resistant to the pesticides and superweeds develop. A new, hugely toxic chemical has been manufactured to deal with these superweeds and it contains 70% agent orange.
Apart from the environmental concerns surrounding GM crops - the high level of pesticides, the lack of peer-review testing and the blending of different life forms - fish genes in tomatoes etc - it is also the loss of human rights and individual sovereignty over our food supply that concerns Percy. As a farmer, you can own land, pay your taxes and be a law-abiding citizen, but you can no longer choose to grow what you want.
Monsanto are patenting new life forms with their GM crops, and Percy thinks this represents, “the greatest assault we’ve ever seen on the life of this planet.” And, we don’t know whether, once introduced into the environment, we will be able to recall these new life forms. It’s not like cleaning up an oil spill, says Percy. This technology raises questions about who owns life and who can patent life forms.
There are liability issues involved if a corporation owns and controls life forms which, once introduced into the environment, cannot be controlled. These are the questions now being discussed in the Supreme Court in Canada where Percy and Louise are fighting a new case. Percy’s argument is that he didn’t choose Monsanto crops: he never had any contact with Monsanto or bought their seed. His land has been contaminated and damaged by cross-pollination and Monsanto are liable.
People from all around the world are supporting Percy with this new case. “If you believe in something, you work on it and don’t give up,” says Percy. Determined not to leave a legacy of water, soil and land full of poisons, Percy says he will fight to the end.
If you are still in any doubt about GM food and think Monsanto is a knight in crop-production armour, check out the following link. You’ll see how that our governments are in cahoots with multinational corporations. It’s all about corporate profit and control.
http://danwarne.com/the-documentary-monsanto-would-never-let-you-see/
And Victoria has just lifted the moratorium on GM Canola. …..
and withstood bullying and intimidation by Monsanto in what is
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Bridget - are you concerned that people don’t criticize genetically modified foods in good faith. Their criticism is not constructive. They have this tendency to fault multinationals instead of paying attention to the science behind crop genetic engineering. I came across this blog called GMO Africa. The blog defines itself as being committed to enhancing public understanding of agricultural biotechnology. James makes a very good point when he calls for a constructive debate about genetically modified foods. He encourages the protagonists in this debate to stick to science when making their arguments about genetically modified foods. He decries blind criticism of such multinational Monsanto and DuPont before ascertaining the veracity of such criticism. Crop genetic engineering has a place in the agricultural sector. Let’s give credit where and when it deserves.
Comment by mwana May 2, 2008 @ 3:50 pmHi Mwana,
You are right that the debate about GM technology has become polarized. And, I agree there does need to be a constructive debate. If we are going to stick to the science when talking about GM however, we need to be reassured that the science has been properly tested and that GM really does lead to higher-yielding and pest-resistant crops.
From all that I have read and researched, this technology has been largely fast-tracked without adequate peer review studies.
In March I listened online to a special media briefing held at the Australian Science and Media Centre in Adelaide. Billed as a democratic debate on GM, it was hopelessly one-sided with four, ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ scientists each giving a presentation with very little time for questions.
Professor Sir Gustav Nossal (Melbourne Univ) explained how the Victorian government had requested submissions from the public as part of the process leading up to the lifting of the moratorium on GM crops. Of 1048 submission only 248 were deemed substantive. 20 individuals and 40 groups were then consulted in face to face interviews over a period of 5 months. Did anyone living in Victoria hear about this consultation process and get the chance to participate? Does anyone know anyone else that did?
When Sir Gustav concluded his presentation, he said a prolonged moratorium would discourage investment in Victoria. Is it about dollars or feeding people??
Sir Gustav also spoke about farmers having a choice - but Percy Schmeiser’s experience in Canada suggests that farmers don’t get a chance if their crops get cross-pollinated. Another scientist, Rick Roush (also Melbourne Uni) said that cross-pollination was essentially an agronomic or market issue. They all denied any knowledge of US and Canadian farmers suing Monsanto, but they did admit that it’s important to avoid human error when harvesting, storing grain in silos or broadcasting seed. That’s the same as admitting that there is cross-pollination.
But back to the science. Yes, of course, we should look at the science and if science can give us safe and affordable drought-resistant and high-yielding crops etc, then great, but having watched the documentary (see link on my 2.5.08 post) it seems that GM has been rushed through the regulatory process. A journalist attending the media briefing mentioned that a Russian study had shown that rats fed GM soya beans had developed tumours, but this case has not been thoroughly researched.
Documentary-maker Barbara Burstyn, who travelled around India making the documentary, One Man, One Cow, One Planet (see my 11.4.08 post) also found that the introduction of GM was not the cure-all it is made out to be. She advocates a return to basics - small-holdings with rotational cropping and the liberal use of cow dung. Some of the younger farmers in India are turning their backs on GM.
But if the science does hold up and GM is part of the solution to the world food crisis, then its application must not be hijacked by greedy multinationals.
Forcing farmers in developing countries to sign up to punitive contracts and to purchase new seed every year simply entrenches poverty and dependence.
I agree that we need to open up the debate on GM, but that means transparency and accountability on all sides. We need to know what’s in Roundup and why it has recently lost its classification as ‘biodegradable and environmentally friendly’; we need to hear from a range of GM and non-GM farmers in the developing and developed world about their experiences;we need proof that GM technology has been thoroughly tested and regulated; we need an informed public debate with players from all sectors.
There is currently no energetic or transparent debate in the mainstream press or media. Rather than being informed by science, many of us feel that we are being blinded and baffled by the science.
Comment by bridgetsmusings May 5, 2008 @ 5:25 am