Blinded by the sun and lost on Planet Laboratory.

The scientists that pioneer and promote the application of GM technology to agriculture talk of it as a technology for the good. A clear technological development with a clear mandate to stave World hunger, improve livelihoods in developing countries, reduce environmental degradation from chemical pollution and most of all provide people with choice. If the ethics of GM technology are to be questioned it is said they should be done so objectively; the pro-GM science community say GM technology is just a technology. It is for people to decide what uses, and therefore what benefits, are derived from its development. Under this doctrine GM technology is nothing more than a tool – one that is dependant on human endeavour to use it for the right or wrong reasons.

The scientists that lead the promotion of GM technology are, for the most part, leaders in their particular fields. They see their work with biotechnology as a continuation of the role science has played in human development and or, contentiously, improvement. Contrary to the demand for objectivity the amazingly simplistic argument goes: People are starving and one way of feeding them is to produce more food. One way to produce more food is to stave pest strike. People are living in poverty. One way to alleviate poverty is to improve yields – the idea being that more people can then partake in trade. The pro-GM scientific community claim the use of GM technology in agriculture can achieve these objectives.

However, the issues of World hunger/poverty are far too complex and diverse in nature that the simple introduction of a scientific technology cannot hope to alleviate them without the implementation of broader socio analysis into the root causes. Outside of the laboratory hunger and poverty are not technical problems and therefore no technical solution, no matter how innovative or sophisticated, can hope to adequately address them. The argument that GM technology is a panacea to World hunger/poverty is thus moot. GM may therefore be viewed as a scientifically developed innovation in the laboratory where for hypothesis sake all things are equal, but when pressed into application a technology burdened with a responsibility to all of humanity and the diverse ecosystems that support it – especially given the technology’s tenet in the manipulation of the genetic make-up of living organisms and engagement in transgenic movement of gene matter between living organisms. Clearly this is why a highly precautionary principle should be adopted whenever and wherever GM technology is suggested for application.

But in reality the genetic engineering of crops and the development of GM technology are not about reducing hunger or poverty. GM’s application to agriculture has imperatives elsewhere.

Last month saw the US Administration flex its muscles over the current EU “moratorium” on commercial GM crop importation, plantation and retail. Ex Enron special advisor Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, was keen to bring an action against the EU position back in January but was sidelined by the White House as efforts to secure European support for the invasion of Iraq took president. However, with the occupation of Iraq now implemented and another “trade” issue resolved, and done so without the full backing of the International community, the path is clear for the US to push the GM “trade” issue and settle some scores to boot. The challenge to Europe will come through the filing of a legal case at the WTO. For all other countries such a move would be deemed bullish in the extreme – but in the US’ case, this method mirrors the madness.

George Bush kicked off this next “liberation” campaign with the same basic rhetoric through which he started the last, with talk of freedom and noble objectives. He has lambasted Europe for their position on GM foods and linked this position to prolonging hunger and starvation in developing countries. During a graduation day speech given to the US Coast Guard Academy (22nd May 2003) Bush said of the European position "This has caused many African nations to avoid investing in biotechnologies, for fear that their products will be shut out of European markets. European governments should join – not hinder – the great cause of ending hunger in Africa”. The day before he talked of a US “war” against “plague and starvation and hopeless poverty” 2. If George Bush was to check his figures he would find the US was ranked 22nd place for its aid contributions (in percentage terms of gross national income) to developing nations – the lowest of all industrialised nations 1. It is safe to say that the US has priorities other than humanitarian for the pushing of GM on Europe and the rest of the World. A suspicious mind might consider Bush’s appointment of former Calgene (now Monsanto/Pharmacia) director Ann Veneman as US Secretary of Agriculture. Two of Monsanto’s prime political requests for the thousands of dollars it has donated to the Bush Administration are those of no mandatory labelling of Biotech foods and more access to international markets. Furthermore, humanitarian objectives are far from imperative at the USAID (US Agency for International Development). The USAID’s own website offers a hint as to the attitude America has towards aid to developing nations and the US’ role in international development; "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to 80% of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms. Foreign assistance programs have helped create major markets for agricultural goods, created new markets for American industrial exports and meant hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans." 3

Many prominent pro-GM scientists are fully backing the US’ decision to strong-arm the blanket commercialisation of GM foods. Clearly something is not quite right here. If GM technology is about feeding the hungry, breaking circles of poverty in developing countries, protecting the environment and providing increased choice then why is its application to humanity based on a “trade” footing and why is its acceptance by, and utility to humanity reduced to ne plus ultra WTO trade legislation? The answer is simple; GE and the technology of GM are applied not for the good of all, and especially not for those who need help most, but are applied as another means of extension to resource control. Unfortunately for science, where GM technology is concerned, it has lost control of its humanitarian objectives and has been blinded by the rays of ultra economic imperatives, from the corporate Sun that currently shines on Planet Laboratory.

1 globalissues.org
2 gene.ch
3 alternet.org

AC