GM Crops, Part II

GM Crops, Part II

Update:  Since last posting this, Monsanto has been called into question as to whether they used their influence to stop USDA inspectors from releasing their research results, many of which criticized some of the pesticides Monsanto sells to countries and farmers.  You can read part of that report, released by the US Right to Know group, here. In addition, another new report cites the possibly misleading information about the GM crop, Golden Rice.  You can read that summary here.

  If you happened to miss the last post, it introduced the battle over GM (genetically modified) crops, everything from cotton to foods that we consume.  I mentioned Monsanto in that posting because as part of the group that fights against the labeling of which of your foods contain GM crops (that group spent over $500 million last year in lobbying Congress to prevent such labeling), the egg appears to be cracking a bit as more and more people become to question just why such companies would be so against letting people know so that they can make their own decision.  Yesterday, the lobbying group's monetary efforts seem to have paid off as one Congressman from Kansas, Republican Mike Pompeo, introduced a federal law to prevent such labeling (and thus overriding any state measures).  So the question continues, why are these companies so worried about letting consumers decide...and exactly what are we consuming?

   In an earlier article in the New Yorker, author Michael Specter somewhat defended and attempted to explain what GM crops are and how prevalent they are in our world:  Farmers learned how to make better plants and varieties, but it was a process of trial and error until the middle of the nineteenth century, when Gregor Mendel demonstrated that many of the characteristics of a pea plant were passed from one generation to the next according to predictable rules.  That created a new science, genetics, which helped make breeding far more precise.  Nearly all the plants we cultivate—corn, wheat, rice, roses, Christmas trees—have been genetically modified through breeding to last longer, look better, taste sweeter, or grow more vigorously in arid soil.  Genetic engineering takes the process one step further.  By inserting genes from one species into another, plant breeders today can select traits with even greater specificity.  Bt cotton, for instance, contains genes from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that is found naturally in the soil.  The bacterium produces a toxin that targets cotton bollworm, a pest that infests millions of acres each year.  Twenty-five per cent of the world’s insecticides have typically been used on cotton, and many of them are carcinogenic.  By engineering part of the bacterium’s DNA into a cotton seed, scientists made it possible for the cotton boll to produce its own insecticide.  Soon after the pest bites the plant, it dies.

   In the article, he argues that GM crops actually reduce pesticide use and increase productivity, pretty much the same arguments given by Monsanto and other agribusiness giants.  And much of that is true.  GM seeds, such as a rice variety rich in Vitamin A (rice lacks that vitamin and the new variety, the patent being owned by a non-profit and distributed freely, would help millions of children suffering from vitamin-A deficiency) still sit in labs or on shelves.  Similar varieties of corn and maize that would resist drought remain unused and undistributed.

    Many countries, including India and much of the EU and Africa prohibit the introduction of GM crops for human consumption due to their possible interaction with other native plants.  The feeling is that the possibility exist for the new GM variety to take over, becoming a new invasive species of sorts.  Another possibility is the creation of new, stronger varieties of other species such as bugs and weeds that would adapt to the new crop, something that has already happened with glyphosate, the pesticide now listed as probably being carcinogenic to humans by the World Health Organization, despite its widespread use by both industry and consumers in the U.S. -- Katherine Paul, associate director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote that "The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decision was reported in The Lancet Oncology, on Friday, March 20 (2015).  Predictably, Monsanto went on the attack, demanding the study be retracted."  Glyphosate is considered unsafe at 700 parts per billion in water, however the worry is that usage is so rampant that the chemical might be reaching water tables;  glyphosate "has become the most popular herbicide in the world," according to The New Yorker article.

   So, we're back to the controversial TPP (see last post) and Monsanto, and here's what's transpired in just a few days.  The TPP has evolved into what's being called a corporate power grab, one that could potentially cost taxpayers (not the corporations) hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits as corporate liabilities come home to roost.  If you follow the link to the story posted on Common Dreams, you'll read:  "The TPP would empower companies from New Zealand, Australia and Japan with new rights to attack our federal and local laws," said Patrick Woodall, Research director and senior policy advocate for Food & Water Watch, in a statement released Thursday.  "For example, one natural gas company has already challenged a fracking moratorium in the Canadian province of Quebec under NAFTA’s investment provisions."  Woodall added, "These corporate lawsuits have a chilling effect on communities that want to protect their citizenry but lack the resources to defend against a colossal corporate lawsuit, including the more than 250 localities (including New York state) that have banned or imposed moratoriums on fracking."  Furthermore, Sean Flynn, associate director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University, warned that the TPP "would give new rights to private companies to challenge limitations and exceptions to copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property rights."  Add to this the newly proposed federal legislation promoted by Monsanto and other large agribusiness companies (something the Common Dreams article titles, "Monsanto's Dream: Pro-GMO DARK Act Comes to Congress") and you have a new clash emerging over consumers wanting to know what's behind the drive for such secrecy.

   Once again, this is a complex issue with both sides presenting their own version of what they feel are valid arguments.  On one hand, the large corporations emphasize that without such new manipulations in seeds and crops, we would not be able to keep up with nutritiously feeding our growing population.  On the other hand, the consumers are saying they simply want to be able to make their own decision about whether to purchase and consume (or wear) such products.  Now that a Republican Congressman (puzzling in itself since that Party's stand has typically been anti-big government) has introduced federal legislation to prevent such knowledge, consumers in the U.S. might find themselves with little or no choice in the matter.