GMO’s: coming to a field near you!

Industrialised farming is not good. It is not popular in any social arena and is definitely not a selling point for any produce. Therefore retailers, producers and suppliers will do almost anything to distract the public away from the fact that a product that has been factory farmed or mass-produced. One aspect of industrialised farming is the development of hybrid crop strains. These promised farmers “fields of plenty” with high resistance to pest strike and a positive response to added nitrogen. The cost however was that these hybrid plants, as they are effectively designed, produce unreliable seeds at maturity and are subject to industrial patents and therefore have to be purchased yearly from the seed company. The need for high doses of nitrogen, heavy machinery to harvest, and the cost of the yearly purchase of the seed pushed many farmers to monoculture – the specialisation of farmers in growing a single crop in order to minimise costs through economies of scale. GMO’s are the continuation of this dark chapter in agriculture and their sole purpose in application is to deal with the problems caused by industrialised farming. Genetic modification is the direct intervening by the biotechnologist in the natural programming of a plant or organism’s genome by the attaching of foreign genes to the host chromosomes in order to achieve a desired additional attribute. Therefore we can find anything from human in rice to Cholera in alfalfa. GM proponents use the same rhetoric as the massive multinational seed companies, pharmaceuticals and biotechnologist (as they are inevitably the same people) and claim GMO’s are the next development in the fight against World hunger, pest control and yield protection. We think this is incorrect and a lie, and below are some justifications as to why.

GMO’s: patenting life. This is what makes GM viable. The implications of this practice are vast. Taking a plant or organism and directly altering the natural development programme locked away in the DNA, patenting the result and selling it is how GM works. For the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that make up the GM industry the idea of producing a living product that prevents resale and holds captive its market has proved too much to resist. The concept is to apply the principles of industrial production to those of life. There are all sorts of attributes added during the modification process. For example, a particular rapeseed was modified to make it immune to a particular brand of pesticide, coincidently manufactured by the same company that sells the seed. Therefore the farmer can spray his crop copiously with the pesticide without having an adverse effect on his crop. This sounds all too good until the pests and weeds become immune to the pesticide. Now a new GMO is needed. Another complication rarely mentioned is the increasing levels of pesticides in the food chain as a result of this. As genetic material passes from plant to insect, from insect to animal and from animal to human, there is a question raised as to the future effects of increasing build-ups of such chemicals in our systems. Furthermore as most GMO’s use antibiotic molecules as “markers” (to track their products, to prevent farmers re-sowing the GM crop without paying the life-royalties that the industrial patents enforce), the prospect of increased antibiotic levels in the food chain could also have dire effects on human and animal immune systems. Some of the biotechnologists went one step further with their design. Monsanto, the multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company, produced a plant that incorporated a “terminator” gene. This particular GMO, on reaching maturity, stops the grain from germinating and thus ensures a 100% return on investment for the seed company as farmers have no choice but to return year after year. The patenting of living material has huge philosophical, ethical and theological ramifications. It raises the question of property rights on life. There are also vast cultural issues involved with the patenting of life through GM. A good example is that of the Margosa plant in India. This is a sacred plant used for thousands of years by the indigenous people for medicinal, insecticidal, nutritional and other purposes. An American biotechnology company took the opportunity to isolate the insecticidal element of the plant and patent the technique it used. Now, under industrialised patent law, the company can sue the indigenous people for using the plant for insecticidal purposes – as it competes with their product.

GMO’s: and biodiversity. Genetic modification also has massive ramifications for the planets biodiversity – and all the environmental, social, cultural and ethical issues that go along with it. Any negative effects of GMO’s on biodiversity are irreversible. Therefore mistakes are final. A main risk is that of cross-pollination of GM crops with non-GM crops. The traditional carriers of pollen, bees and wind, do not differentiate between GM and non-GM crops – unless of course the crop is programmed to kill, via chemical secretion, any unsuspecting insect! The “controlled environment” that GM research usually consists of is about fifty yards between GM fields and non-GM fields. With pollination capable of occurring at distances of 5 kilometres this pollution barrier hardly seems adequate. Because of this, non-GM crops run the risk of being pollinated with GM genetic material and in turn whole species could be altered. Running parallel to this is the risk that these mutant plant and pest species are very likely to be immune to traditional pesticides and require stronger chemicals to keep them in check. The environmental consequences of increased chemical inputs are obvious. There is also the risk that this genetic pollution may spread to weeds and wild foliage. The consequence of this may well be the evolution of uncontrollable proliferations of mutant weeds – culminating in an unimaginable disaster for biodiversity, as we know it. Genetic modification also threatens our planets biodiversity in another, more readily recognisable way. The multinationals that engineer the GM crops tend to specialize in only a handful of plant strains within each species. Taking the example of rice in Asia, some 140,000 verities are grown for their particular unique properties – and cumulatively they play a huge part in both farming and social structure. With the introduction of GM by the multinationals, together with their modification of crops to suit a more intensive agriculture, only about five or six verities now cover some 70% of the land planted to rice. With this comes not only the cessation of many traditional strains of rice cultivation, but also that many of the subsistence farming cultures with individual social and cultural systems being able to feed and sustain themselves. Finally, the most sickening insight into genetic modification is that of the multinational business in genetic prospecting. As mentioned above, this involves prospecting for living organisms that have certain qualities, that when isolated, may be patented and royalties earned on the repackaging and sale. Sadly, yet not surprisingly, this is where politics get involved. Northern multinationals scour the southern hemisphere, home to the majority of the planets gene pool, for the genetic material they can press their expertise and techniques on. The degree to which politics gets involved is exemplified with the IMF’s aiding in the set up of a gene bank of some 80,000 plants for the specific use of the large multinational seed companies. Once our biodiversity has been completely decimated by genetic and environmental pollution, only those who are responsible for much of it will have access this to wealth of biodiversity.

GMO’s: on objectivity. For the conservative, conformist and bureaucratic personalities of our society ignorance is bliss. Many do not look at, question or contemplate the issues involved with genetic modification to even begin to reason, in the slightest detail, what the above text suggests. When argument is put forward, a standard response is to vaguely comment on the need for objectivity on the subject. When people take action against GM crops, and destroy a field, they are labelled anarchists. So lets look at the genetic modification of plants and animals objectively, that is to say, devoid of personal preference and or, uncoloured by personal feelings: It is a process that produces a tangible result that is not demanded by society. This is exemplified in the rejection of GM foods by the consuming public, and an utter refusal by manufactures and retailers alike to label foods containing GM produce (instead they believe the onus is on non-GM foods to label their produce). The results of GM technology in agriculture are solely for the achievement of profit. This is exemplified by the implementation of industrialised patents being enforced on GM crops. Genetically modified organisms are not the answer to World poverty. Not helping but decimating the cultures, environments and self-sufficiency of Asian rice farmers exemplifies this. There seems moreover, to be a complete detachment between the biotechnologists and the global implications that their work entails. Whether this has something to do with their respective training and education – one is eager to resolve. The means seem to be of greater importance than the ends. Objective enough?

To conclude, this brief piece barely scratches the surface of the continuing scandal of genetic modification in agriculture. We will endeavour to continue to write on the subject as the debate between social and commercial science continues. At the moment however, GMO’s are coming to a field near you.

Malbouffe…
AC