Let’s take a look back to the year 1999 as the biotech giant Monsanto came face to face with one of its main critics – Greenpeace. There, in a publically held conference in London, the two organizations consisting of highly polarized views went head-to-head to discuss the potential dangers and benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In that dimply lit room the two giants battled over the issue, whose topics ranged from productivity to pesticide use. Ten years later, the hotly debated issue still rages on and grows as does our advancements in technology and our quest to find solution to the world’s problems.
Whereas ten years ago, the debate was just being introduced, it has grown into a multifaceted, multilayered debate that not only breeches the issues of health but constitute issues of corporate policy and monopolies and question our current legal system. Ultimately, this is an issue that reaches all of us. Biotech plants are now grown on about 130 million acres in 13 countries (including Argentina, Canada and Germany). In 2001, 3.6 million acres were used for GM crop in the U.S. and more than 60% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain ingredients from GM soybeans, corn or canola. Most of the time we do not even know we are consuming these types of crops and thus, the issues span from production, to health to overall awareness. Therefore, if you eat food, it is important at least develop an awareness of the issue because the way this is regulated today will ultimately set the precedent for tomorrow.
While some believe that genetically modified crops work to only advance our potential to feed the world and aid in the world’s food supply problems, others believe that the corporations are simply using genetic modification to put small companies out of business. While it seems we are only beginning to scratch the surface around the complexities of genetic modification, one thing is certain: as time progresses this debate will surely become more complicated.
What is GM?
When producing crops, the idea of genetic selection is not a new concept. For thousands of years, farmers have used a process of selection and cross breading to continue to enhance and improve crops. This trend is even found common in nature where we find evidence of plants and animals alike that choose selective breeding methods. Overall, traditional breeding methods are slow, and require intensive labor. In example, a farmer will find undesirable traits that will appear while trying to breed specific traits into the plant. When this occurs the process must start over again, until those traits are essentially gone.
What Genetic Modification (GM) offers is the ability to essentially speed up this process through scientific means. Here, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through GM. This allows the gene to be bred without the other unwanted traits in only a single generation. According to Deborah B. Whitman, in an article entitled Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?, the GM debate was just broaching the surface. While she does outline the debate, she also goes in depth as to what exactly a GM food is. According to the FDA and USDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization – including tomatoes and cantaloupes which carry modified ripening characteristics and foods like cotton which are resistant to insects. Highly processed foods, such as breakfast cereals will contain some amount of genetic modification. Soybeans and corn are the most widely grown crops, and 75% of them contain genetic modification to date. Most importantly, labeling of these foods is solely based off demand, and agribusiness argues that they will only label if necessary to meet the demands of the free market. Through this alteration of the genetic make-up of plants there are still issues of health that are being raised by organic enthusiasts and farmers on the effects of this modification.
The Debate for GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest challenge in deciphering this debate it to determine for yourself whether or not the scientific benefits (while still rather new and controversial) outweigh the challenges it has posed for small business. Perhaps, it is not so much the act of genetic modification that causes problems, but how the companies themselves are operating with this new technology. Nevertheless, ‘independent’ scientist hired by Monsanto and research scientists alike have spent countless hours trying to prove that the crops they manufacture are not harmful for the user to consume. Due to the fact that this process is still so new, much of this data is inconclusive as it has still not been tested over the long term.
Monsanto is the one of the lead multinational agricultural biotechnology companies in the world. Monsanto employs a full time team of ‘independent’ researchers to determine the advantages of genetic modification which you can find listed directly on their website. According to Monsanto directly, the first benefit for GM crops is due to the fact that famers can reduce pesticide spraying, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increase yields. Ultimately, their evidence suggests that insect-resistant crops offer and alternative to, and reduce the use of agricultural pesticides such as insecticides and fungicides. Since this type of corn and cotton are able to produce their own protection against specifically targeted pests, farmers can reduce the amount of pesticides necessary to control them. Accordingly, farmers have been able to reduce pesticide application by 289,000 metric tons since 1996 as a result of GM crops. According to Dr. Roger Beachy, this has the potential to reduce chemicals by 50 million pounds a year.
GM crops can also be produced to be herbicide resistant. This means that farmers could spray these crops with herbicide and kill the weeds, without affecting the crop. This method reduces or eliminates the need to plow to remove weeds and disturb the soil for planting. This conserves topsoil, soil moisture and runoff as well as reduces the release of greenhouse gases. The environmental benefits they argue, allow for more crops to be produced on the same amount of land which reduces the need for additional cultivation.
Monsanto states that the second reason for the production of GM crops is the increased yield and income from biotech crops improves the quality of life for farmers in developing countries. All over the world, small and large scale farms are benefiting from increased yields and reduced production costs, improving net economic returns. According again to Monsanto, of the 12 million farmers who planted biotech crops in 23 countries in 2007, 90 percent were small, resource-poor farmers from 12 developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia and Mexico. This, they say, alleviates poverty and makes a contribution to the economics of family farms. In the same article, Dr. Jeffery Sachs states that “if we give important technologies to grow more food in poor places – better seed varieties, better ways to manage soil nutrients, better ways to manage plant pathogens – it’s going to create livelihoods. It’s going to create income in the villages. Its going to convert what it now sub-subsistence agriculture into commercial farming… helping the poorest of the poor to invest in a sustainable future for themselves.”
While some scientists deny this research as being credible, others back it. In addition to these claims, others argue that GM crops develop a cold tolerance against frost that can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that would normally kill seedlings. Additionally, plants are being developed to grow in conditions that were before previously unsuited for cultivation, creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high contents of salt in the water. In addition, plants are now being created to contain vaccines and medicines in foods such as potatoes and tomatoes which will be easier to ship and store than traditional injectable vaccines.
The Debate Against GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest concern amongst scientists is that the technology is too inherently unpredictable and some even go so far as to believe that it can even produce potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed. According to Steven Druker, the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity:
“The fallacy of equating gene-splicing with traditional breeding is that tradition breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar rot genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.
Druker continues on to explain how this viral booster radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and thus causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus. This is a far cry away from how it might function in nature. Ultimately, what occurs is that the foreign gene will produce a substance that has never before occurred in that species, but does so in an unregulated manner that is not similar to the natural function of the organism. Ultimately, he claims this process, though it may work now, is unnatural and thus could provide unexpected results.
The Debate Against GM – Monsanto vs. The Little Guy
In the article Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble, author Robert Weissman claims that the biotech crop is being grown today at astounding rates. For supporters of the biotech revolution, this is cause to celebrate as they claim it helps farmers and promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. However, Weissman claims they are doing exactly the opposite. For all industry hype around the products, it is only four products – soy, corn, cotton and canola which are only bread to resist the Monsanto product ‘Roundup’ and only one naturally occurring pesticide. The benefits, however, stop there.
Weissman’s support is vast. By quoting such individuals as Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and author of Who Benefits from GM Crops?, he has found that they do absolutely nothing to feed the hungry as they are only actually exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed due to the high price. Additionally, he supports his argument by saying that Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but instead farmers must spray the particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop. What this does, is it creates expenditures above and beyond, but reduces labor costs, which is good for industrial farms but bad for smaller operations. He further goes on to argue on behalf of the “social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of farmers” as well as the ecological and sustainability problems with these types of crops that are already emerging. Most importantly, he discusses the idea and evidence supporting Monsanto’s “seed imperialism” which is occurring and putting farmers out of business.
In his essay, Weissman interviewed Hope Shand, director of the ETC group, a passionate biotech opponent. According to Shand, we are yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better. Additionally, though the industry has been promising grains to the poor for a decade and a half – they are still yet to deliver. In addition to economic problems, the social problems are two-fold. The introduction of this new type of crop is working to effectively displace small famers and pesticide use is rapid accumulating to no effect. Pesticide use is actually rising in bio-tech heavy counties. The reason for this is due to the fact that new weeds will grow, and old ones will begin to build a tolerance. In effect, seed diversity is dropping and development of new crop variety is slowing. Today, biotech planting remains heavy in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China. Europe is still in heavy opposition in fear of “seed imperialism.”
The Patent War
According to a recent NPR article , dated back just a month ago, famer Luke Ulrich a corn and soybean farmer in Kansas is thinking about spring and about buying seed for his farm once again. However, seed companies by the hundreds are going under over the course of just 20 years. According to the article, Ulrich remembers the days before GM seeds upended the industry. Critics of the giant, Monsanto, say that its popular Roundup Ready technology is solely to blame.
Roundup Ready, is Monsanto’s line of genetically modified seeds that inoculate plants against the herbicide Roundup (also made by Monsanto), that kills just about anything else that may come into contact with the plant. According to Monsanto itself, part of Monsanto’s goals “to increase agricultural production sustainability is to develop better seeds that allow farmers around the world to double yield in corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030. In the U.S., they claim they are already taking steps in that direction through Monsanto’s own dedication to the Roundup brand.
According to Ulrich, “ever since they’ve come out with the Roundup Ready trait and that became popular and basically took over farming, we’ve seen significant increases each year”. Additionally, he adds that the seed costs have increased nearly 50% since last year. The reason? Farmers are contractually prohibited from saving seeds and planting them the following year. Additionally, if they try to save and replant the genetically modified seed they face lawsuits simply because they do not own the technology.
More than 9 out of 10 soybeans seeds carry the Roundup Ready trait; it is about the same for cotton and just a bit lower for corn. This ultimately creates problems for farmers. According to Jim Denvir a lawyer for DuPont (which owns Pioneer – a competing seed company), “a seed company can’t stay in business without offering seeds with Roundup Ready in it, so if they want to stay in that business, essentially they have to do what Monsanto tells them to do.” What this does is essentially create a monopoly platform for Monsanto to operate and eliminate any competition.
According to Chris Holman, a patent lawyer at the University of Missouri, he states that “due to the structure of the industry, they are able to really drive participants in the industry into using their technology.” However, Monsanto actively denies the allegations and calls them unfair. Yet, cases all over the world are arising due to royalties that farmers are forced to pay to Monsanto (just this year in February, farmers in Brazil are taking legal action against the company due to this issue ).
According to a 2008 Vanity Fair article , Gary Rinehart a long time small business owner in Eagleville, Missouri was accused by Monsanto representative that he had planted GM soybeans in violation of the company patent. Additionally, they threatened that if he didn’t come clean he would need to “face the consequences”. According to Rinehart “he knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them”. Yet, in this case, he hadn’t planted or sold any seeds. Farmers who buy Roundup ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising to not save any seeds produced after each harvest for re-planting or to sell to other farmers. This guarantees sales for Monsanto for years to come.
According to the article, when Rinehart asked the representative to leave his store as he was making his accusations, he recalls the man saying “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” This account is commonplace amongst rural America as the article claims that Monsanto goes after farmers, farmer’s co-ops seed dealers and anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of GM seeds. Additionally, the article reveals that “as interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into the farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities.” In some instances they have been spotted pretending to be surveyors. In other cases, they will confront farmers and pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records.
According to the same article, when asked about these methods, Monsanto declined to specifically comment but said they are merely protecting their patents. Additionally, a Monsanto spokesman said they spend millions of dollars a day to develop technologies to help famers and are protecting their investment through the patents of these discoveries. Monsanto will additionally, legally defending their patents, if necessary. Historically, the United States Patent and Trademark Office have refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. However, in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four vote overruled this decision which laid the groundwork for corporations to begin to take control of the food supply. Yet, in this decision, it was rather a bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills that would lay the precedent. To date, Monsanto has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to the U.S. Department of Agricultural data.
This is just the start of the problem for farmers. While some farmers don’t understand that they are not supposed to save the seeds, others find that though they don’t use the seeds they are blown into their fields or deposited by birds – thus mixing with traditional varieties and thus infringing on the Monsanto patent. Further, these seeds look identical and can only be identified thorough a laboratory.
Gary Rinehart was eventually taken to federal court for a violation of patent rights. Rinehard was forced to hire a lawyer and when they eventually realized they targeted the wrong person, dropped the suit. Yet, he was left with legal fees and a damaged reputation as many farmers have testified.
The Debate For GM – From Monsanto With Love (Monsanto’s Defense)
Unlike the media over recent years, Monsanto certainly doesn’t paint themselves as the bad guy. Upon looking at Monsanto’s website, one would find nothing but a certainly bright picture – incorporated throughout are key words such as “sustainability, corporate responsibility, and advocates of heart health month”. In addition, they display success story pictures, dedicate sections to National FFA week, and have rolling informational pictures explaining that “The world’s population is growing. To keep up with population growth, farmers will have to produce more food. More food in the next 50 years than the past 10,000 years combined. Farmers will meet this challenge.” These captions are met with pictures of smiling faces belonging to families and farmers alike – painting a picture of a company that cares rather than a greedy corporate conglomerate.
In particular, there were two sections that are worth further investigation: Monsanto’s ‘For the Record Section’ (under News & Media) as well as their ‘Corporate Responsibility Policy’. In the ‘For the Record Section’, Monsanto outlines approximately 25-30 issues that have been brought against them, and offers their defense to these issues. In response to the patent controversy, in a short article entitled “Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?” Monsanto responds by saying that “patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. A more important reason is to help foster innovation. Without the protection of patents there would be little incentive for privately-owned companies to pursue and re-invest in innovation. Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers.” With that, Monsanto feels vindicated.
To further their defense, Monsanto goes on to exclaim that they settle most cases without going to trial. Yet, sometimes they are forced to resort to lawsuits, but it is a ‘rare circumstance’ with only 140 going to trial since 1997, 9 cases of which have gone to full trial and in those 9 cases Monsanto notes that they have won all. In this and other cases, Monsanto maintains their corporate responsibility as well as being in the right of their actions. According to their Corporate Sustainability Policy, “Monsanto helps both large and small growers around the world farm in a more sustainable way and attain a better quality of life. It is the combination of our Pledge, our focus on excellence in business conduct, our commitment to integrity, and our products that help us bring about our vision of a better world.”
The Future of the Debate
Though the GM seed debate has shown to be highly complex on multiple levels, there has been breakthrough in legislation as well as a diversion away from just the modification of seeds to other life organisms. According to Organic Consumers, as of March 2, 2004 California’s Mendocino County became the first county in the nation to ban the growing of genetically altered crops and animals, despite a massive campaign by Monsanto to fight the ballot. Additionally, in 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected four key genetically modified crops because “the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue – and in some cases literally bankrupt – American farmers” . According to the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), they consider this ‘a rare victory for the little guy’. PUBPAT’s Executive Director said about the matter, “hopefully this is the beginning of the end of harm being caused to the public by Monsanto’s aggressive assertion of these patents, which threaten family farms and a diverse American food supply.”
In September 27, 2008 the bill AB 541 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in California which regulates genetically engineered crops. This bill “indemnifies California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination.” This will ultimately help farmers who usually do not have the means to fight the lawsuits regarding patents.
There is no doubt that Monsanto continues to expand its reach into many industry’s relating to GM patents. In February 2005 at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Monsanto published patent applications relating to methods of pig breeding as well as offspring that result. According to Greenpeace, an avid Monsanto critic, “if these patents are granted, Monsanto can legally prevent breeders and farmers from breeding pigs whose characteristics are described in the patent claims and force them to pay royalties.” Yet, according to Monsanto, they are not in the pig business anymore, and further claim that this patent was simply relating to a specific gene marker for a pig trait, not for the trait itself. Additionally, it included artificial insemination methods relating to the breeding process, not the gene. Indefinitely, this is a case of he-said, she-said.
The other controversy that still reigns supreme in relation to the biotech giant is in relation to the labeling of GM food on food labels. According to the International Food Information Council, only 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified. Today, environmental and consumer groups have demanded that the FDA require the labeling of GM foods, but the U.S. government as well as Monsanto claims that mandatory food labels are not necessary because genetically modified food ‘poses no inherent safety risk’. Yet, argument still surrounds the integrity of GM safety testing and whether or not this testing it is actually done. This debate is sure to continue to grow as time progresses.
Conclusion
It is inevitable that debates like these will continue to infiltrate the courtroom as technology only continues to advance and battle of this control remains prominent. One thing remains certain: in the end, genetically engineering is an obviously complex and controversial issue spanning from health to economic controversies. The question that remains is not only regarding human health and whether or not genetically modified foods are good for consumption but whether or not this is a benefit for humanity, and could potentially feed the world one day. However, to do this, will small business be bullied out in the process? Or, is capitalism nearly running its course – as the strongest will defeat the competition. Regardless, this brings up serious issues regarding corporate morals, something that has undeniably been in the spotlight for decades. Issues, which protected by our legal system, make it nearly impossible to answer the question of who is right and who is wrong.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Jennifer. 2002. “Food: How Safe? How Altered?” National Geographic, May issue.
BBC News | Talking Point | Monsanto versus Greenpeace." BBC NEWS | News Front Page. BBC, 13 Oct.
1999. Web. Feb. 2010.
Druker, Steven M., Exec. Dir. of Alliance for Bio-Integrity. “Why concerns about health risks of
genetically modified food are scientifically justified.” http://www.biointegrity.org/health-risks/health-risks-ge-foods.htm. Accessed 2/09.
Experts Debate Genetically Modified Food Crops." Experts Debate Genetically Modified Food Crops.
Monsanto Company, 2008. Web. Feb. 2010.
Kerryn, Sakko. "The Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods (ActionBioscience)." ActionBioscience –
promoting bioscience literacy. Action Bioscience, 2002. Web. Feb. 2010.
Medical molecular farming: production of antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and edible vaccines in plants
(Trends in Plant Science, Vol 6, No 5, pp 219-226, May 2001)
"Monsanto ~ Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?" Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto
Company, 16 Dec. 2009. Web. Feb. 2010.
"Monsanto ~ Corporate Responsibility." Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto Company, 2010. Web. 23 Feb.
2010.
"Monsanto's Global War on Farmers." Organic Consumers Association. 10 Aug. 2009. Web. Feb. 2010.
"Monsanto ~ Roundup Ready 2 Yield®." Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto Company, 2009. Web. Feb.
2010.
"Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig." Greenpeace News. Greenpeace International, 02
Aug. 2005. Web. Feb. 2010.
"Genetically modified foods." Healing through Detoxification, Cleansing, Chelation, and Juicing.
Healing Daily, 2002. Web. Feb. 2010.
Rauber, Tania, and Maciel Marcondes. "Brazilian Farmers Declare War on Monsanto." Organic
Consumers Association. 9 Feb. 2010. Web. Feb. 2010.
Steele, James B., and Donald L. Barlett. "Monsanto's Harvest of Fear | Politics | Vanity Fair." Vanity
Fair Magazine. Vanity Fair, May 2008. Web. Feb. 2010.
Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit (Nature Biotechnology,
Vol 19, No 8, pp 765-768, Aug 2001)
Type II fish antifreeze protein accumulation in transgenic tobacco does not confer frost resistance
(Transgenic Research, Vol 8, No 2, pp 105-117, Apr 1999)
Weissman, Robert. "Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble –
Editor's Blog." Multinational Monitor. Multinational Monitor, 18 Mar. 2008. Web. Feb. 2010.
Whitman, Deborah B. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" CSA. ProQuest, Apr. 2000. Web. Feb. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment