Why Monsanto's GM seeds are undemocratic

[Ray]

Control over your food: Why Monsanto's GM seeds are undemocratic

Large biotech agribusinesses like Monsanto control much of the global seed market with genetically modified (GM) crops. This centralization of GM seeds threatens food safety, food security, biodiversity, and democratic ideals.

By Christopher D. Cook / February 23, 2011
San Francisco

Question: Would you want a small handful of government officials controlling America's entire food supply, all its seeds and harvests?

I suspect most would scream, "No way!"

Yet, while America seems allergic to public servants – with no profit motive in mind – controlling anything these days, a knee-jerk faith in the "free market" has led to overwhelming centralized control of nearly all our food stuffs, from farm to fork.

The Obama administration's recent decision to radically expand genetically modified (GM) food – approving unrestricted production of agribusiness biotech company Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" alfalfa and sugar beets – marks a profound deepening of this centralization of food production in the hands of just a few corporations, with little but the profit motive to guide them.

IN PICTURES: From Field to Fork: The foreign and domestic food chain

Even as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials enable a tighter corporate grip on the food chain, there is compelling evidence of GM foods' ecological and human health risks, suggesting we should at very least learn more before allowing their spread.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies suggest these crops – the result of reformulating plant and animal genes, with minimal oversight and no food labeling disclosures – increase allergens in the food supply. And according to the World Health Organization, "The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops...may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America."
Corporate-controlled seeds are undemocratic

But these corporate-controlled seeds pose an even graver threat: Both the technology and economy of GM crops are intrinsically anti-democratic.

What's wrong with having a few corporations control virtually every aspect of our sustenance? Far from abstract, the genetic and proprietary control of our diets by a handful of companies (Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta combined own an astounding 47 percent of the global seed market) directly robs consumers and farmers of the most basic right to choose what they will eat and grow.

The entire concept of creating and selling patented GM seeds is based on proprietary corporate control: The seeds are non-replenishing and must be purchased anew each season, eliminating the time-honored farmer tradition of saving and re-using seeds.

Anyone doubting Monsanto's obsession with control can just ask just ask the thousands of farmers who have been sued and spied upon for alleged "seed piracy" – at least 2,391 farmers in 19 states through 2006, according to Monsanto website documents obtained by the Washington, DC-based Center for Food Safety (CFS). A report by CFS, using company records, found that "Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers."

Or ask Monsanto. Under the headline, "Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?" on its website, the firm states: "When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us. More than 275,000 farmers a year buy seed under these agreements in the United States."

Threats to food safety, biodiversity

The USDA, and even some leaders of the organics business such as Whole Foods and Stonyfield Farms, endorse the notion of "coexistence" between GM and organic crops – a comforting yet flawed claim. Numerous organic farmers have reported the unwanted arrival of GM seeds contaminating their fields, rendering organic crops unmarketable.

Even more troubling, "Roundup Ready" and other herbicide-resistant seeds by their nature promote the use of toxic herbicides – the use of which, contrary to industry claims, has risen as GM crops have proliferated, according to USDA data.

Even with buffer zones to segregate GM and organic fields, "Some degree of cross-pollination will occur regardless of what mechanism is going to be put in place," agronomist Jeff Wolt, of Iowa State University's Seed Science Center, told the Associated Press.

The GM threats to biodiversity and democracy are closely related. When you pair proprietary technology that's designed to retain company control of seeds (the very lifeblood of our food supply) along with highly concentrated market control, you get a hazardous blend of ecological, economic, and political centralization.

According to research of industry statistics by the non-profit ETC (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), "the top 3 seed companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary soybean seed market"¦Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted to genetically engineered seeds in 2007."

Of course, few of us think about market control when we're hustling through supermarket aisles getting our shopping done. But when our elected leaders (from both parties) approve the expansion of risky seeds that endanger biodiversity as well as farmer and consumer choice, there should be more than a little outcry.

Food Safety Act: five food recalls that rattled the industry

Genetically centralized control over seeds and the future of our food supply isn't inevitable. Over 80 towns across the state of Vermont, and numerous counties across the country have approved moratoria on GM crops. Monsanto has encountered mass farmer and political resistance in India and throughout much of Africa and Europe.

The Obama administration's effective rubber stamp on Monsanto's latest GM products is out of step with international thinking about food democracy and biodiversity, and an affront to that very American notion of consumer and producer choice – and voice – in the marketplace.

Christopher D. Cook is the author of "Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis." He has written for The Economist, the Los Angeles Times, Harper's, and elsewhere. He can be reached at www.christopherdcook.com.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...food-Why-Monsanto-s-GM-seeds-are-undemocratic

More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops

A report has found that farmers are using more herbicides on genetically engineered soybeans, corn, and cotton because of resistant weeds.


By Julie Masis, Contributor to the Christian Science Monitor / December 21, 2009

A report released by the Organic Center found that the amount of herbicides used on genetically engineered crops has increased in the past 10 years, not decreased as might be expected. Since many genetically engineered crops were modified so that farmers could spray Roundup, or Glyphosate, to kill the weeds in their fields but not the crops themselves, the expectation was that less herbicide would be required. But the new report found that this is not what happened.

The authors of the report, entitled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use," used US Department of Agriculture data to look at America's three largest genetically engineered crops – soybeans, corn, and cotton. They found that the amount of herbicides used on them has increased from 1996 to 2008 by approximately 7 or 8 percent, with a particularly sharp increase from 2005 on.

In particular, the amount of Roundup that is used on genetically engineered crops has multiplied several times during the time period, says the report's main author, Charles Benbrook, who's the chief scientist at the Organic Center.

"This big increase in herbicide is driven largely by the emergence of Roundup-resistant weeds," Dr. Benbrook says. But "industry is still saying to the public that genetic engineering [has] reduced herbicide use."

Benbrook found that Roundup-resistant weeds have become a particularly big problem in soybeans. Roundup originally killed all weeds, leaving only soybeans in the fields, but after a few years, farmers had to use more Roundup as well as the older, more toxic chemicals to kill the weeds, according to the authors of the report.

Troy Roush, a farmer in Indiana, says resistant weeds became such a big problem that this year he decided to switch back to conventional soybeans.

"The only advantage a genetically modified soybean has over the value of (conventional soy) is diminished," Mr. Roush says. "We might as well not pay for the technology and use conventional seeds."

His fields of genetically engineered soybean became infested with "mare's tail", a bushy weed that looks like the tail of a horse, and with genetically-engineered corn, he says. Because Roush rotates corn and soybeans on the same field, the Roundup-resistant corn actually became a weed when it went to seed the following year.

Because of these problems, Roush is now back at growing soybeans the old way and using a more toxic 2,4-D herbicide. He is saving money on seeds (genetically engineered seeds cost five times more than the seeds a farmer saves himself), and he can make more from selling his crop to customers in the European Union and Japan, who prefer non-genetically modified soy.

The authors of the report also found that the amount of insecticide used on genetically modified crops decreased during the same time period (although by a smaller amount). According to the report, herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, while insecticide use decreased by 64 million pounds due to the adoption of crops that are engineered to resist insects.

Farmer John Reifsteck from Illinois, says he used to have a problem with root worms that chewed the roots off his corn plants, causing them to fall over. Now that he's growing genetically modified corn, the worms no longer come. That's because genetically engineered corn plants contain a toxin that is safe for humans, but repels the worms.

"It irritates their stomach, they don't like it, they quit feeding, and they move away," Mr. Reifsteck explains.

Before bioengineering, Reifsteck used a toxic insecticide on his corn, which he described as "the most dangerous product that I handle." He had to wear a respirator and rubber gloves, and have blood tests, he says. Now he doesn't need to treat the corn as much because it's engineered to repel worms on its own.

"I'm happy or I wouldn't be using them," he says about genetically engineered crops.

Karen Batra, the spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and Bob Callanan, of the American Soybean Association, also say that farmers are happy with bioengineered crops. That the majority of farmers adopted the technology speaks for itself, they say. They also point out that the Organic Center's report considered all herbicides as one group, without making a distinction between the more toxic herbicides, which are now being used less, and weed-killers such as Roundup, which are generally considered more benign.

On the issue of weed resistance, Mr. Callanan of the Soybean Association has a different solution. Although he admits that resistance to Roundup became a problem about three years ago, he says the best way to tackle weed resistance is with new technology. A soybean called Liberty Link, that is engineered to be resistant to a different type of herbicide, is currently being introduced. Rotating Liberty Link and Roundup Ready crops will reduce resistance, he says.

"Every farmer I know is using less herbicides than they ever had in the past. It's a cleaner, better crop than it was," Callanan says about genetically engineered soybeans.

But organic food advocates say that the bioengineering industry is on a slippery slope, and as scientists engineer plants to be resistant to new types of herbicides, more chemical residues are going to end up in food and in the environment.

Efforts are currently underway to engineer a corn variety that is resistant to 2,4-D, which is considered a carcinogen, says Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety who worked on the report.

If the project is successful, farmers will be able to spray the herbicide directly on the corn, rather than use hooded sprayers or spray before seedlings sprouted as they have done in the past, he says.

"That's bad news because that will mean more residues on the corn," Mr. Freese says. "We see that as very much the wrong approach because it's going to mean even more use of these nasty herbicides, more pollution of the environment, and more impact on farmers as well as consumers."

Editor's note: For more articles about the environment, see the Monitor's main environment page, which offers information on many environment topics. Also, check out our Bright Green blog archive and our RSS feed.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...ported-on-genetically-modified-crops/(page)/2

GM food and crop is said to be the answer to the looming global food shortage.

However, is it safe?

Is it any better in safety than the current mode of producing food?