After all that has been written on the subject of genetic engineering of foods, one still must wonder – if these foods are “just like regular foods” or are “perfectly safe”, then WHY?:
Does Monsanto resort to threats and lawsuits if an opposing view is presented?
Many times it is farmers who, through no fault of their own, were found to have GE seed growing on their land.
When wind and insects pollinate, they do not discriminate; but that is no excuse, it seems. It is the farmer who is to blame and not the conglomorates who have designed a product that pollutes the environment.
Nevertheless, to protect their patents on GE seed, biotechnology companies have taken to suing farmers suspected of this patent infringement. In most cases, the farmer did not use the GE seed; but, since it was found in their crops, the companies have the ‘legal’ right to assume they were using GE seed without a license.
The most famous trial involved that of a Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, who was sued by for growing GE canola without paying the annual licensing fee. Schmeiser argued that a neighbouring field cross-pollinated his, but Monsanto maintained that he had too much for the crop to have been contaminated solely by pollen drift.
Judgement in the case and subsequent appeals ruled in Monsanto’s favour, which, understandably, angered many farmers since judgment ruled that a farmer was responsible for the patented genes in his crop no matter how they got there!!!
Monsanto has initiated similar patent infringement lawsuits against many US farmers. The company actually hires private investigators to check on farmers who are suspected of saving or growing GE seed illegally.
The following are more examples:
Are GE seed companies making seeds sterile while at the same time claiming that they are helping with world hunger?
If farmers are forced to buy new seed each year and pay a licensing fee as well as the unique fertilizer designed for each type of GE seed, how is this helping the farmer or contributing to the lessening of world hunger?
News of this ‘terminator’ technology has created furor among farmers who see it as another method of control by corporations. And, as a threat to the environment, the technology involves genes that could spread to other plants, causing sterility.
To date, because of the uproar, Terminator Technology has not been commercialized, but it is only a matter of time since any controversial development and patenting continues as quietly as possible. Just as antibiotics are producing organisms that have mutated around them, so it will be with GE seed, which will ultimately destroy surrounding vegetation.
Are scientists and reporters losing their jobs if they speak against biotech food or bring to light actual test results?
Examples include:
- scientist Allison Snow had her funding eliminated when she published her findings
- scientist Ignacio Chapela was refused tenure when he publicized his discovery of contamination in Mexico’s native corn varieties
- journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were fired after exposing the dangers of Monsanto’s growth hormone in milk, rBST
Are scientists forced to change their findings to suit whomever is paying for the research?
Genetic Engineering results are not the only research outcomes being affected. All research must be scrutinized carefully since more corporations are becoming involved and the only ones with money to do so. This causes an increasing number of scientists and institutions to rely on corporate funding.
The resulting alliance often carries a heavy price. In the UK alone, a poll of 500 scientists working in either government or recently privatized research institutes said that 30% had been asked to change their research conclusions by their sponsoring customer. Now, if 30% admitted to having been asked to make changes, one wonders just how many others succumbed to the requests and were too embarrassed to answer truthfully.
Dr. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, warns, “We deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial.”
In the US, corporate donations rose from $850 million in 1985 to $4.25 billion in less than 10 years. According to Atlantic Monthly, “increasingly the money comes with strings attached…” and frequently dictate the terms under which research is conducted.
Further, JAMA(Journal of American Medical Association) revealed that studies of cancer drugs funded by non-profit groups were 8 times more likely to reach unfavourable conclusions as the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies.
Is Monsanto allowed to claim that their GE crops are perfectly safe when the opposite is true?
Everyone knows by now that chemicals are not good for you. Yet, since the beginning, Monsanto has been allowed to claim that Roundup is perfectly safe “where pets and kids play” and that it “breaks down into natural materials when its work is done.”
In 1996, however, they got a slap on the wrist from one district court for making such claims and fined $50,000. Some of the dangers of Roundup can be seen on this site:
Is Monsanto allowed to claim that yields are higher with GE seed when study after study refutes these claims?
For instance, the University of Nebraska published a study in the Journal of Agronomy, indicating that GE soybeans yielded 5-10% less than conventionally grown soybeans.
Other studies have confirmed these findings adding that farmers reaped no greater financial gains from growing GE crops than they did growing conventional crops.
Is Monsanto allowed to claim that growing GE crops will reduce the usage of environmentally damaging chemicals when, overall, the total pesticide use has increased by at least 70 million pounds since the introduction of GE crops?
According to the findings of Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist and former executive of the board on agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences, Roundup Ready GE soybeans actually increased herbacide use by 70 million pounds from 1996 to 2003.
Farmers planting GE Bt corn and cotton did decrease insecticide use, but by only a modest amount.
A press release in February 2005, from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) in Andhra Pradesh, India, stated “that Bt cotton growers in 2004 incurred 690% higher costs in pest management as compared to those growing conventional cotton varieties with the help of bio-pesticides and natural control agents…Even though government committees have repeatedly ordered the company to pay compensation to farmers, the company is still refusing to do so.”
- Soil Association
- Findings by Charles Benbrook
Have so many countries banned GE foods, leaving North Americans nearly the only ones allowing them in their food supplies?
What do they know that North Americans are prevented from knowing?
Example: The story of Arpad Pusztai was supressed in the US but made headlines throughout Europe for months. (See his story on his own website.)
Not until the massive food recall of StarLink corn products was made did Americans even suspect they were eating GE foods on a daily basis. Until then, the American press had portrayed European resistance to America’s GE crops as unscientific and anti-American – a psychological ploy often used when resistance is met!
According to the GMwatch weekly newsletter of Feb. 17, 2005, food aid from the US is often comprised of GE grains banned in that country!
Environmental groups say a banned GM variety of corn forbidden for humans in the US is being handed out in UN food aid to Central America and the Caribbean.
A study found that samples of World Food Program shipments collected in Guatemala included StarLink along with other GM contaminants. The study looked at 77 samples of imported corn included in aid shipments or sold on the open market. Eighty percent was reported to include GM material.
The newsletter went on to say: “This situation has arisen only because the USA, unlike other nations, supplies food aid in the form of dumped surplus grain. Other members of the World Food Programme – e.g., the EU and Japan – disapprove and, instead, supply cash to purchase food as near to the recipients as possible. Buying locally supports peasant farmers in developing nations, as well as enabling choice; while dumping free food puts local farmers out of business… It is reasonable to blame much of the rural unemployment and food dependency of developing nations on the impact of US food aid policies… Oxfam America has estimated that up to 80% of funds channelled through US Food Aid Programme… are spent, not in developing countries, but in the US. US food aid shipments correlate with times of surplus and silo emptying – not with times of food shortages.”
The following are listings for worldwide initiatives for banning GE foods:
- Worldwide Initiatives Against GMOs
- Countries and Regions with GE Food/Crop Bans
- Companies Drop Genetically Engineered Foods
Does the US not see just how much influence Monsanto has over them?
Monsanto’s influence is legendary as Washington insiders watch while the company dictated policy to the USDA (Agriculture Department), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
They were also able to influence the Council on Competitiveness, a senior policy-making group created by the first President Bush in 1989. It is more than evident that whoever pays the most, gets governmental attention.
Monsanto is clearly not concerned with the safety of their products but only with making money – as evidenced by the now infamous statement made by the then director of corporate communications, Phil Angell:
“Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” – New York Times, October 25, 1998.
But how is it possible for the FDA to do that when they are under the thumb of Monsanto?
Are insurance companies refusing to cover GE companies?
Health and environmental concerns regarding GE foods have become so great that insurance companies are refusing to offer full coverage to biotechnology companies.
The Swiss-based reinsurance company, Rueck, the second largest company of its type in the world, concluded from a 1998 study that there was no way to evaluate the potential risks to health and the environment to offer appropriate coverage. Who is at fault is a major concern for governments and biotech companies
These are just some of the many questions being asked. When something is forcibly squelched or bought-off or opponents ridiculed or worse, such tactics only serve to arouse curiosity even more and seldom sways people to the cause.
Organic Farming, on the other hand, welcomes investigations and studies. When something is truly honest or ‘good for you’, it does not fear scrutiny and does not need to resort to manipulative tactics.
- Organic Research
