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. |