Monsanto: Visionary or Architect of Bioserfdom?

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/bioserf.cfm

( rest of the article is on the website )

Monsanto: Visionary or Architect of Bioserfdom? A Global
Socio-Economic Examination of Genetically Modified Organisms

Monsanto: Visionary or Architect of Bioserfdom?

A Global Socio-Economic Examination of Genetically Modified Organisms
By Andrew Hund, Graduate Student of Sociology at Humboldt State University

The proliferation of technology in the past 20 years has been a
dizzying display of human ingenuity. The pace in which technology is
altering society seems almost astonishing. Nowhere is this more evident
than in biotechnology. Biotech companies have advanced genetics to the
point they are able to alter, transform, and manipulate the DNA codes of
any plant or animal. With this new technology, biotech companies are
attempting to establish a 'consumer market' through the use, creation, and
legitimation of laws and science (hegemony).

According to Swedberg (1994) a consumer market consist of "typically few
sellers (organization) and many buyers (individuals); who are unorganized;
some public regulation but otherwise free competition" (p. 274). Hegemony,
according to the Red Feather Dictionary of Sociology (1995), is:

The use of law, religion, art, science, cinema or literature to
celebrate and legitimate one way of doing things to the discredit
of alternative ways. It is often used in preference to direct
force. Marx put it succinctly, 'In every epoch, the ruling ideas
have been the ideas of the ruling class' (Letter - H).

Altering laws and creating new scientific techniques that change the DNA
codes of plants and animals to consolidate a global consumer market has
produced a bitter controversy in Europe, Canada, India, America, as well
as various developing nations. This controversy became a mainstream global
issue in January 1999, and with most controversies in society there is
opposing factions, who have polarized the issue. The main opposition to
genetic engineering has been directed at Monsanto, a chemical,
pharmaceutical, agriculture, and consumer product company based out of St.
Louis, Missouri. However, in the middle of the debate are the world's food
supply, consumers, and billions of dollars. This essay investigates the
economic, social, political, and environmental reasons for the supporting
and opposing groups as well as the technical aspects of genetic
engineering and genetically modified organisms.

Hybridization and Genetically Modified Organisms

"Consumers are confused and concerned about genetically modified
organisms, particularly as they apply to foods, because of the 'lack of
clear, neutral information on the issue," according to Dr. Patrick Wall of
the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (The Irish Times, 1999: 1). This lack
of neutral information has created an economic disaster for the
agricultural industry and Monsanto who has invested exhaustively in
biotechnology. The difference between, genetic engineering and genetically
modified organisms are the basis for the confusion. Most people already
know about the genetic engineering of wheat, corn, cotton, soybeans, rice,
and potatoes, which has been taking place since the agricultural
revolution. However, people mistakenly perceive genetic engineering as
hybridization.

Hybridization is what the farmer does when s/he selects the two best
plants and cross-pollinates them in order to create a better plant. With
hybridization, the second generation is variable and the genes of both
plants are still present in the offspring (hybrid). Therefore, a farmer
who wanted to re-use the genetic material of the hybrid or its parents in
his/her breeding program would have these plants for further
enhancement(s). Currently, 51.3 million acres out of a total of 69.5
million globally is planted with hybrid "crops, including 45% of all
cotton crops, 32% of soybeans, 25% of corn, and 3.5% of potatoes" (Cummins
and Lilliston, 1999: 4; and Crouch, 1998: 3).

Genetic modified organisms (GMO), on the other hand, is when the DNA
structure of the plant is altered precisely for the intensification of a
particular species. In other words, the parents of the seeds are
geneticists, who pre-install DNA codes that can only be triggered by a
chemical.

The process by which genetic information is transferred from one cell to
another is accomplished in two parts. First, an enzyme is used to cut an
opening in the bacterial plasmid of a host cell, which can either be from
an insect, plant, or animal cell. Next, a specific gene or sequence of
genes (DNA Strand) from a donor cell is bound in the host plasmid. The
donor segment is chemically adhesive, so the two parts (re) combine and
form a new plasmid that contains the new gene. The final product of this
"cut and paste" technology is a non-seed producing genetically modified
organism that has beneficial traits such as an enhanced ability to resists
insects, diseases, and weeds (Monsanto Company: Making Genetic Engineering
Possible, 1999: 3-4).

GMO's became a commercial reality in agriculture in 1998 when over 18
million acres of United States cropland were planted with Roundup Ready
(i.e., Monsanto product) soybeans, which were first introduced in 1996
(Horstmeier 1998: 16). Clive James (1998) of the International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), claimed transgenic
crops are being used globally on: more than 20.5 million hectares in the
USA; 4.3 million hectares in Argentina; 2.8 million hectares in Canada;
0.1 million hectares in Australia; and less than 0.1 million hectares in
Mexico, Spain, France, and South Africa (p. 1).

Farmers, as a result of this new technology, who now store (brown-bag)
hybrid seeds would have to buy new GMO seeds every year. According to the
United Nations (1996) "Over 1.4 billion people depend upon saved seed for
their food security" (p. 2). In addition, eighty-percent (80%) of the
crops grown in developing countries use save seeds (Montague, Biotech
1999: 2). The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) (1998)
stressed that "patented technology could be used on over 400 million
hectares (a billion acres) of crops worldwide and could yield licensing
fees of up to $1.5 billion per annum on the terminator [Monsanto GMO]
technology" (p. 6).

Aside from saved and GMO seeds, are illegal seeds. Seeds that are not
saved by farmers or registered with the National Seed Listing (NSL) are
considered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to be
illegal and thus not for legal for private or commercial use. There are a
couple of reasons for seeds becoming illegal such as a farmer does not
sponsor the seed(s) or the seeds produces an illegal substance such as
opium, marijuana, etc. Yet, sponsorship of a seed is expensive over time;
thus most farmers are unable to maintain the seed on the NSL. Hambling
(1999) claimed "the prohibitive price involved in maintaining seeds on the
list" . . .has resulted in varieties such as two types of cauliflower
becoming extinct (p. 2). These types of cauliflower varieties were
naturally resistant to ringspots, a plant disease that destroys crops.
Hambling (1999) also claimed the "commercial varieties that are developed
for the listing are selected for their suitability for industrial
processing" and thus "ignoring growers and farmers who are developing and
sustaining localized, organic agriculture" (p. 2). Critics argue the
standardizing of GMO seeds will result in the potential lose of local
organic crops and ultimately plant diversity.

Monsanto Market Consolidation

Through the acquisition of companies, Monsanto is the leader in this field
of GMO technology and is attempting or has re-coded the plant DNA of
wheat, rice, potatoes, soybeans, cotton, and corn and has made efforts to
control the global water supplies and forestry products. The particular
DNA codes, Monsanto is developing via purchases, has the plant terminate
after it produces an edible product and thus no second-generation seeds
are produced from the science. In essence, the technology patent system
(TPS) of Monsanto turns seeds into machines so they can be patented.

"Today, the top 10 seed companies control 30% of the global seed trade"
(RAFI, 1998: 13). These ten companies have been consolidating their power
and control by forming partnerships and agreements with each other. For
example, Monsanto, since 1996, has spent $8.4 billion in establishing
agreements and taking-over other companies that have DNA code(s)
databases, patent(s), cross-pollinating procedures, and/or access to food
seed markets. The following is a brief description of the major
acquisitions and agreements conducted by Monsanto in the last three years.
This aggressive purchasing demonstrates Monsanto's desire to consolidate
the world's market and establish their TPS as the only legitimate process
for food production.

In February 1996, Monsanto and Dekalb Genetics formed a 10-year research
and development agreement. This partnership allows for the cross-licensing
agreement of corn and soybean seeds. Monsanto acquired Agracetus, a cotton
and other plant biotechnology company, with a cash payment of $150 million
in April 1996 (Robertson, 1998: 325).

Monsanto purchased the Soybean Company Asgrow Agronomics for $240 million
in February 1997. A few days later, Monsanto acquired Holden Foundation
Seeds and its germplasm (hereditary) technology for $1.2 billion. A month
later, in March, Monsanto acquired the remaining 46.4 percent of Calgene
for $218 million. Calgene had previously made an agreement with the
world's largest producer of canola, Canada's Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
(SWP). This company produces bioengineered canola oil using SWP's
germplasm (Brower, 1997: 213).

In October 1997, Monsanto and Millennium Pharmaceuticals formed a
five-year, $218 million partnership. Under this agreement, which is being
professed as "one of the largest deals in the fields of genomics," the two
giants will collaborate on genomics-based plant and agriculture products
(Marshall, 1997: 1334). Specifically, Millennium will transfer its
exclusive technologies in genomics, gene sequencing, and bioinformatics to
Monsanto who will be developing plant and agricultural products for
pharmaceutical and nutrition purposes as well as introducing new
herbicides and pesticides through the process of 'direct breeding.' The
notion of direct breeding is when pharmaceutical, nutritional, and/or
herbicides and pesticides are added to the DNA of the plant. In other
words, vitamins and medicine can be added to a plant to benefit developing
countries who lack the facilities, equipment, or trained personal to
achieve humane health standards (Nadis, 1997: 5).

Cargill Incorporated, a 79,000-employee international food marketer,
processor, distributor firm based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota was
bought, in June 1998, for $1.4 billion. This acquisition gave Monsanto
dominance of "seed, research, and production facilities in 24 countries"
and access to the sales and distribution operations of 51 countries in
five regions (Johnson, 1999:1). However, this takeover does not include
access to US, Canada, or UK markets, instead it is concentrated on Asia,
Africa, Latin America and other parts of Europe.

For $1.9 billion, Monsanto acquired Delta and Pine Land Company the
world's leading producer of cotton seeds in April 1999. In addition, Delta
and Pine Land Company is the owner of US patent 5723765, which controls
plant gene expression. Granted this patent covers a broad range of
potential applications for plant gene expressions, yet, the most cherished
feature of the patent is its ability to have plants not produce second
generation seeds. In other words, US patent 5723765 is the GMO
self-terminating license, which makes it impossible for farmers to save
and replant seeds. The takeover of Delta and Pine Land, also, gives
Monsanto control of 85 percent of the US cottonseed and over one-third of
the US soybean market (Oliver, Melvin J., Jerry E. Quisenberry, Norma Lee
G. Trolinder, and Don L. Keim, 1998: 1; & Fox, 1997: 1233).

Also, in April Monsanto formed a $60 million five year joint agreement
with the forestry companies Fletcher Challenge Forests, International
Paper, and the Westvaco Corporation. Under this agreement Monsanto, with
its GMO technology, will produce and market production timber seedlings.
Specifically, the genetically enhanced timber seedlings are anticipated to
produce "higher growth rates to allow more wood to be grown on less land
and improved fiber quality to increase efficiency in paper" (Monsanto
Monitor, 1999). These four companies anticipate in subcontracting with the
New Zealand genetic engineering company Genesis Research and Development
Corporation Limited, who is the owner of a large database on forestry
genomics (Bowditch Group, 1999: 5).

In May, Monsanto acquired a controlling stake, with the option to buy, in
Water Health International (WHI), incorporated. WHI is the owner of US
patent #: 5780860, which is a convenient and economical water sanitizer
titled "UV Waterworks." This device uses ultraviolet (UV) light to
instantaneously destroy germs (bacteria and viruses). The end result is
safe water, which may be utilized on crops and/or for human consumption.
In addition, Monsanto and WHI anticipate a joint enterprise with
Tata/Eureka Forbes, who controls 70 percent of the UV water technologies,
which allows Monsanto "market access to fabricate, distribute, and service
water systems" worldwide (Shiva, 1999: 2; Water Health International,
1999: 1).

Also, in May a micro-credit project named the "Innovative Partnerships for
Agricultural Changes in Technology" (INPACT) was initiated. This
micro-credit undertaking attempts to introduce a new cultivation processes
for Northeast Thai rice farmers via a corporate financing scheme. The
companies involved with INPACT are The International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), Monsanto, the Population and Community Development
Association (PDA) and the Thai Department of Agriculture (Monsanto
Monitor, 1999). In short, this micro-credit undertaking provides funds to
farmers for the growing of corporate crops for corporate manufactures.

Collectively, these $8.4 billion expenditures have drastically reduced
Monsanto's capital, stock value, and have left them "vulnerable to an
'unfriendly' take-over by Dupont, Dow, or another mega- corporation" . . .
because this large debt is beyond theirs and "most analysts comfort
level" (Cummins and Lilliston 1999: 2). Consequently, this aggressive
spending of $8.4 billion has created financial difficulties for Monsanto
as well as made various groups, organizations, and other corporations
suspicious of Monsanto's motives.

Monsanto, however, asserts it is a family company that is "committed to
finding solutions to the growing global needs for food and health by
sharing common forms of science and technology among agriculture,
nutrition and health" (Monsanto Company: About Monsanto, 1999: 1).
Monsanto maintains genetically modified seeds will improve crop quality,
production, and make agriculture possible in previously barren land. The
ability to feed the growing population, which is estimated to increase by
40% or top 8 billion by 2020, is the main reason for Monsanto's
consolidation of GMO technology. Thus, from Monsanto's perspective it is
seeking to save-the-planet from an impending global food, forestry, and
water crisis (Monsanto Company: Biotechnology -- Promise for a Brighter
Future, 1999: 1).

Hegemony in Action
"In the planting of genetically changed crops around the world,
the U.S. government has done just about everything it can to help
except drive the tractor" Bill Lambrecht, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Washington Bureau

Monsanto and the other seed companies are currently building the US
government a tractor to drive with the help of politicians via
intellectual property rights, regulatory loopholes, and the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The multinational seed companies pursuit to secure the
world's food needs is based on federal, state, and international laws. In
a recent issue of the Farm Journal (1997), Monsanto ran a full page
advertisement announcing:

It takes millions of dollars and years of research to develop the
biotech crops that deliver superior value to growers. And future
investment in biotech research depends on companies' ability to
share in the added value created by these crops. Consider what
happens if growers save and replant patented seeds. First, there
is less incentive for all companies to invest in future
technology, such as the development of seeds with traits that
produce higher-yielding, higher-value and drought-tolerant crops.... In
short, these few growers who save and replant patented seed
jeopardize the future availability of innovative biotechnology for
all growers. And that's not fair to anyone (B-25).

Thus, Monsanto is appealing to farmers to respect the company's property
rights because of the cost involved in creating TPS [GMO] seeds. Further,
Monsanto is aggressive about protecting their rights by way of US and
International patent laws. According to the Financial Times (1999)
Monsanto and the other seeds companies are attempting "to prevent farmers
from obtaining its patented seeds illegally"(p. 3). Monsanto has taken
several farmers to court over this issue and has accused over 600 others
in Canada and the US of infringing on their intellectual property rights,
but many of the farmers claim the wind blew the GMO technology into their
fields (Financial Times, 1999: 3).

Other federal laws that support genetic engineering are the Steven-Wydler
and Bayh-Dole Acts of 1980. Both these federal laws allow new technology
created at federal research agencies to be transferred to private
industry. Specifically, intellectual property developed at federal
research centers can be transferred to the private sector, such as private
individuals, Monsanto, Dekalb, Dow, Dupont, or some other seed company.
These state and federal laws legitimized support for the creation of TPS
technology and makes the US government one of the seed companies biggest
indirect supporters (RAFI, 1998: 4). However, intellectual property rights
are not the only issues being advanced by US law to legitimize GMO
technology. Biotechnology has numerous political figures assisting in the
details of transforming and revising US laws and international treaties to
fit their agenda.

Four legislators, in April 1999, were honored with the "Outstanding
Legislators of the Year" award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization
(BIO) (a Washington DC based for-profit association representing 850
healthcare, industrial, and biotechnology companies). Respectfully, the
U.S. Senators were Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Connie Mack (R- Fla.) and
the U.S. Representatives were Calvin Dooley (D-Calif.), and Jim Greenwood
(R- Pa.). BIO's Vice President for government relations, Chuck Ludlam,
claimed:

These legislators exhibited leadership and courage on a broad
range of issues: defeat of hastily drafted anti-cloning
legislation that would have impeded basic biomedical research;
passage of the FDA Modernization Act to streamline development of
new therapies and cures; and support for agricultural biotech
products to improve foods and farming.. . We are honored to work
with these champions to make sure the U.S. biotech industry
remains the global leader in developing innovative products for
health care, agriculture, manufacturing and environmental
management (Craig, 1999: 1).

As a result of these and various other political figures leadership
efforts, both domestic and international, numerous GMO products have been
approved. For example, in the US the USDA, FDA, and EPA have approved
thirty-four GMO products; Japan twenty; Canada thirty; the European Union
nine; Mexico three; Argentina two; and one in Australia and South Africa.
These approved products and patents fall under the regulation of the
respective countries and the WTO, which is an international body dealing
with laws that govern trade between nations. Monsanto also has numerous
GMO patents pending in 87 countries (Monsanto Monitor, 1999: 2; Monsanto
Company: Biotechnology and Imported Foods, 1999: 2).

A major indirect supporter, as mentioned above, of GMO technology is the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Monsanto identifies the
USDA as an advocate of GMO technology because it advocates economically
driven sustainable agricultural practices, which is one of the goals of
GMO technology. The USDA claimed sustainable agriculture practices should
be based upon several premises, all of which are embedded in the
assumption of increasing the economic circumstances of regional areas.
First, is to improve the environmental quality of the community through
satisfying human consumption needs. Next, is increasing the output
capability of natural occurring resources by synchronizing the local
biological cycles which maximizes the areas nonrenewable resource usage.
Lastly, the goal is to strengthen the economic quality of life of the
farmer and their community (Monsanto Company: Meeting the Challenge of
Sustainable Agriculture, 1999: 6).

The USDA's investigative arm, that determines consumer safety of
sustainable agricultural or biotech crops, is the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). Specifically, the APHIS is responsible for
regulating crop research. In order to have a biotech crop examined by the
APHIS, companies, universities, and/or associations must file a
"Determination of Non-Regulated Status" (DNRS) form. According to APHIS
guidelines, the DNRS form must be completed before any plants can be grown
or sold commercially (International Food Information Council: Food
Biotechnology, 1999: 4).

This regulatory process was made more efficient with the introduction of
two alternative procedures in 1993. These alternatives are the
"Notification and Petition Process," which means a researcher, group, or
institution can circumvent the DNRS form providing they have a consistent
history of favorable scientific reviews. In 1997, several amendments were
added to the DNRS, that outlined the "eligibility criteria and performance
standards" (IFIC: Food Biotechnology, 1999: 4). This is problematic
because certain research crops can fall through the cracks of the
regulatory process and thus go unregulated. According to the International
Food Information Council (IFIC) and Wirthlin Group (1999) the APHIS
regulatory process operates as follows:

Farmers need not obtain a permit from APHIS to move and field
test corn, soybeans, cotton, tobacco, potatoes or tomatoes. They
simply need to notify APHIS. The Petition Process permits anyone
to request APHIS to issue written documentation that regulated
plants become unregulated (IFIC: Food Biotechnology, 1999: 4).

In other words, plants can be moved from a supposed regulated to an
unregulated status without being tested and by simply filing of a form.
So, it would appear the investigative arm of the USDA (e.g., APHIS) has
established procedural regulations for investigating new crops but few are
actually being regulated on the condition the researchers have conformed
to the predetermined criteria and eligibility standards.

Aside from struggling to investigate biotech crops, the USDA claimed
"small farmers may benefit greatly if the invention stimulates the
extension of biotechnology to 'minor crops' such as tomatoes," oranges,
pecans, peanuts, etc. (RAFI, 1998: 12). These crops are perceived to be
minor because they only use a small portion of the world's cropland. In
short, these crops have high value, are harvested with minimal labor, and
only need a limited amount of science (DNA modification). Thus, raising
the economic motivations for producing, improving, and developing these
minor crops could result in a high rate of return for semi-perphirery
farmers and theoretically reduce world poverty (RAFI, 1998: 12).

Market forces, according to the USDA, would limit the spread of seed
markets to levels that are cost effective for the small producer.
Moreover, the USDA suggested that if the cost of improved seeds does not
result in greater value to the farmer, there would be no market for the
GMO varieties. In essence, the law of supply and demand will hinder the
potential price gouging of seed corporations (RAFI, 1998: 11).

Another supporter of genetically modified organisms is the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In May 1992, the FDA published a
Federal Register, which was a policy statement on the procedures of how to
regulate new plants. Yet, this documents main focus was on "the
characteristics of a food [nutritional and compositional content], not the
method used to produce the food" (Monsanto Company: Ensuring the Safety of
Products, 1999: 3). In other words, the FDA is interested in the "product
-- not process" and thus is only responsible for making sure food products
are safe to ingest and to investigate "new" plants. In the investigation
of plants, research institutions, farmers, and seed companies only have to
demonstrate they can replicate the products "potency and purity" in order
to satisfy FDA regulators (Monsanto Company: Ensuring the Safety of
Products 1999: 7). It should be noted that genetically modified organisms
are not new plant varieties but genetically altered pre-existing plants
that can be replicated with better scientific precision than hybridization
and thus would appear to be not technically under FDA regulation.

As a result, of the regulation by the USDA, APHIS, and FDA many government
organizations, mainstream magazines, associations, and officials perceive
genetically modified organisms as safe and pose no environmental effects
to the public. Monsanto (1999) emphasized "the United States boasts a long
history of enjoying the world's safest food supply - thanks in part to
U.S. government tates Agency for International Development (USAID) in
Kenya, stressed: "biotechnology has tremendous value . . .not only can we
'feed the world,' but by making technological improvements available to
people in Third World countries, we can help improve all aspects of their
lives" (Monsanto Company: Meeting the Challenge of Sustainable
Agriculture, 1999: 6).

The Opposing Perspective

"Monsanto is the same company that gave us Agent Orange, DDT, and
Bovine Growth Hormone, all of which have had catastrophic effects
on people and the environment . . . [and] Now they expect the
public to believe that their Roundup Ready soya is safe to eat and
environmentally friendly to grow. That's total nonsense - it is
both dangerous and unnecessary."
-- Zoe Elford of the Genetic Engineering Network.

The commercialization of GMO seeds, according to critics, is potentially
hazardous and creates unneeded economic and environmental risks for the
public. Specifically, opponents believe TPS/GMO supporters are strictly
profit-driven corporations, who use and abuse federal, state, and
international laws to exploit consumers, small farmers, and destroy native
plants and ecosystems.

A leading opponent to the commercialization of seeds is the Rural
Advancement Foundation International (RAFI). The RAFI (1999) alleged that
Monsanto has already initiated 'pay by the generation' system through
legal means via grower agreements in America and Canada (p. 2). Grower
agreements are legal contracts in which the farmers must grow certain
seeds in order to sell crops to food processors, which are similar to the
micro-credit schemes the Thai- rice farmers are being pressured into.

The RAFI (1998) also claimed "there is no doubt that the seed industry is
attempting to create biological monopolies to self pollinated crops such
as rice, wheat, soybeans, and cotton" (p.10). David Mooney (1999), a RAFI
spokesperson, stressed:

It will be vastly more profitable for multinationals to sell seeds
programmed to commit suicide at harvest so that farmers must pay the
company to obtain the chemicals to have them re-activated for the next
planting and endash; either through a seed conditioning process
or through the purchase of a specialized chemicals that bring
saved seed back to life, Lazaus style (p. 2)

In essence, this process shifts the cost of developing seeds to the
farmer, which means the seed companies will only have to sell seeds and
not produce, transport, or stockpile them. As these seed oligopolies
increase their control of the world market, there will be diminished
interest in future plant breeding and research. Furthermore, farmers will
not have any power over what to grow or plant and will be "in a position
of utter dependency" on the multinational seed companies (RAFI, 1999: 2).
Collectively, this has the potential to lead to bioserfdom, which is when
farmers are enmeshed in a web of grower agreements, forced chemical
purchases, intellectual property rights, and disabled germplasm (RAFI,
1999: 1).

Rhonda Perry, a Missouri farmer, spoke of the corporate GMO technology
consolidation by saying, "It's killing us. If something doesn't happen,
were going to be out of here. . . [GMO technology] is about corporate
greed and control of the market. And it's time we stopped it" (Nemo, 1999:
2). University of Missouri, sociologist William Heffernan (1999) claimed
family farms are in trouble because of the "fast consolidation of seed
companies with food processing companies" (Palmer, 1999:1). An Ecuadorian
Biologist, Elizabeth Bravo, working with the Accion Ecologica group
claimed that "Farmers are [being] forced to purchase genetically modified
seeds from a single firm, on pain of losing the commercial competition
race" (Cummins and Lilliston 1999a: 2).

The rural sociologist, the Missouri farmer, and Ecuadorian Biologist are
not the only ones concerned. For example, almost 200 cotton farmers in
Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are suing Monsanto for damages after
crop failures of Monsanto's Bt and Round-Up Ready cottonseeds (i.e., GMO
seeds). In a separate lawsuit 25 cotton farmers in Texas, Oklahoma,
Mississippi, and Louisiana are suing "Monsanto for fraud and
misrepresentation . . .also in regard to Bt cotton crop failures."
(Cummins and Lilliston, 1999: 2). Yet, the lawsuits against the biotech
industry are not limited to the US.

In a landmark case, Mangla Rai, deputy director-general of the Indian
Council for Agricultural Research directed a successful legal challenge
against a cotton patent granted to Agracetus (acquired by Monsanto for
$240 million in February, 1997). This lawsuit made public numerous
loopholes in US patent laws, which are actively being capitalized on by
multinationals. According to Rai "there is no doubt that their [the US]
patent laws are full of shortcomings which the transnationals have a
penchant for exploiting" (Patro 1999: 2).

Social and Environmental Hazards

Further evidence against using GMO technology is the potential it will
"escape" into the environment. Releasing GMOs into the wild, effects the
surrounding ecosystems by cross-pollinating [GMO/TPS] hybrids with native
plants, soils, and insects. Many investigators believe this will result in
the corruption of native second-generation offspring, turn the soil
infertile, and destroy insect larvae (Rissler and Mellon, 1996; Crouch,
1998: 6). Evidence is starting to be complied, which promotes this
hypothesis.

In a study of GMO rice, researchers at the John Innes Institute found
there is a "recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S promoter" . . . [and]
"these recombination events were also found to occur independently"
(Kohli, A., S. Griffiths, N. Palacios, R.M. Twyman, P. Vain, D.A. Laurie
and P. Christou 1999: 599). In other words, the cut and paste approach is
faulty. Expanding on the John Innes Institute's findings was Dr. Peter
Wills who stressed:

Genes encode protein control of all biological processes. By
transferring genes across species barriers, which have existed for
aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching
natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes
(Wolfson, 1999: 2).

Wan-Ho (1999) also claimed:

Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using
artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including
viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once
inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome.
The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been
known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of
the organism (p. 3).

In other words, the offspring are potentially variable because the
recombination of the promoter region in rice can occur in random sectors
of the DNA sequence.

In another study DeVries and Wackernagel (1998) were able to successfully
transfer a Kanamycin resistant gene to a soil bacterium (Acinetobacter),
even though the typical DNA structure of a plant exceeds six million
combinations. Specifically, these researchers were able demonstrate that
approximately 2500 duplications of Kanamycin resistant genes (about the
same as a plant cell) was an adequate number to create one new bacterium
(DeVries and Wackernagel 1998: 613). Wan-Ho and Ryan (1999) claimed this
research suggests "a single plant with say, 2.5 trillion cells, would be
sufficient to transform one billion bacteria" (p. 2). Dr. Joseph Cummins
cautioned:

Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the
insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It
has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will
create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions . . .
It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA
from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and
related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying
crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power
(Wan-Ho and Ryan, 1999: 3).

In other words, due to the effects of this insertion technology, the new
bacterium created could launch many new diseases and the future vector
locations will remain random with each successive generation being
entirely variable.

In May 1999, Nature magazine ran an article by a group Cornell University
researchers claiming their preliminary data suggests that in a controlled
laboratory experiment selected Bt (Monsanto product) corn pollen destroyed
monarch larvae. Specifically, Cornell researchers, lead by Dr. Losey,
found forty percent of the test monarch larvae were destroyed after four
days because of the poisonous effects of the GM bt corn (Losey, Rayner,
and Carter, 1999: 214).

The Friends of the Earth (1999) organized a study of pollen distribution,
which was carried out by the National Pollen Research Unit, a bee
specialist, and a GM analysis and conducted under the Federal Environment
Agency of Austria. Specifically, the researchers were examining how far
pollen travels with the help of bees and the air because the British
government's regulations only require a 50-meter buffer zone between GM
and non-GM crops. The study found the six bee hives in the study, which
ranged from 500 meters to 4.5 kilometers from the GM crop, were found to
have oilseed rape pollen from the GM crops. In other words, the bees
carried the GM crop pollen 4.5 kilometers. The airborne pollen was
detected up to 475 meters away from the GM crop (Friends of the Earth,
1999: 1). Both of which exceed British government's regulation.

In addition, to the many scientists, research, and environmental
groups studies are numerous distinguished scientists in the fields of
genetics, biology and medicine have spoke out against the dangers of GMO
technology. In July, 1999, 85 eminent scientists signed a statement
denouncing biotechnology and requesting all such products be removed from
the TRIP agreements on the grounds, scientists do not have control over
the gene recombination process, and the technology is unethical because
"they destroy livelihoods, contravene basic human rights, create
unnecessary suffering in animals or are otherwise contrary to public order
and morality" (Wan-Ho, 1999: 1). The 85 scientists also asserted the
patents involve acts of plagiarism in that indigenous traditional medical
practices are being patented illegally (Wan-Ho, 1999: 1).

In August 1998, another potential hazard of GMO technology was discovered
by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Institute in Scotland, who found
that rats fed with GE "potatoes showed serious health damage" (Canadian
Journal of Health and Nutrition, 1999). University of Leeds Professor of
Food Safety, MD, and microbiologist Richard Lacey, whom accurately
predicted the European BSE (mad cow disease) crisis, claimed "The fact is,
it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to
assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced
into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest
reason for their introduction" (Wan-Ho, 1999:2). The father of molecular
biology and eminent biochemist, Dr Erwin Chargoff, once referred to
genetic engineering as "a molecular Auschwitz." Chargoff also noted "you
cannot recall a new form of life...It will survive you and your children
and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is
something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I
could only wish that a mind had not been guilty of it" (Wan-Ho, 1999: 3).
Other unknown concerns, yet to be addressed in scientific tests, are what
will be the effects of GMO technology on birds, mammals, and other insects
that eat and/or pollinate the seed products or the fungi that breakdown
the soil and/or help plants grow.

Collectively, the small farmer's situation, the lawsuits, and the real and
potential environmental hazards of GMO technology has been published
widely and have resulted in a backlash against genetically modified foods
and Monsanto throughout the world. The global resistance to Monsanto and
genetically modified organisms has provoked intellectual property rights
disputes, consumer boycotts, and a growing urgency for GMO labeling.

Global Intellectual Property Rights Disputes

"Forcing biotechnology on both farmers and consumers in order to
secure their monopoly control of this sector of world food
production, this is not a recipe for sustainability in food
supplies, it is a recipe for disaster" Ali Bastin, of Corporate
Watch (One World News Service, 1997: 1).

India, Europe, and many developing countries started the initial
resistance to GMO technology and the foods produced by them. In December,
1998, in Bangalore, India, Dr. Valdana Shiva claimed "a worldwide campaign
will be launched against" [Monsanto] "Because of the way Monsanto has
abused various countries" (The Hindu, 1999: 8 A). According to Shiva
(1998) the campaign was founded on the notion that Monsanto's introduction
into India was "illegal" and a "failure of the regulatory process" and
that this type of technology should not be accepted "blindly and
ignorantly" (p.8 A). The illegality and failed regulatory process Dr.
Shiva spoke of was that The Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation
circumvented the Genetic Engineering Approval committee, which was under
the direction of the Indian Ministry of Environment who has the legitimate
authority to approve scientific crop trials.

India's Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), after a
fierce legal battle, was successful in revoking a US patent on the grounds
it was not an original invention, in September, 1999. With this victory,
the CSIR preserved the indigenous turmeric healing (used to treat wounds
and stomach infections) method, which had been patented, in December 1993,
by the University of Mississippi Medical Center. This turmeric patent is
not the only intellectual property rights infringement the West has taken
from indigenous people, but is perhaps one of potentially hundreds
globally. According to Dr. Shiva 1999, in India, "patents on Neem, Amla,
Jar Amla, Anar, Salai, Dudhi, Gulmendhi, Bagbherenda, Karela, Erand,
Rangoon-ki-bel, Vilayetishisham and Chamkura need to be revoked" on the
grounds they too were derived from traditional methods (Patro, 1999: 1).

Rather than fight lengthy and expensive court battles, the Indian and
African activists are advocating the WTO uphold their rules for
registering patents, which disqualifies patents that are not original
creations. In the November, 1999 WTO summit, Africa will "lodged a
challenge to the patenting of life forms citing that it could have a
devastating impact on agriculture, the mainstay of the majority of its
economies" (Osava and Mutume, 1999:2). It is expected these actions will
make the WTO responsible for protecting and preserving traditional medical
practices and an estimated 35,000 of plants that have a known traditional
medical benefit. Dr. Shiva (1999) also claimed that ''If we [the
developing countries] get a ruling in our favor, the problem of bio-piracy
will be solved. If the WTO does not respond, it will show the WTO's bias
towards the powerful countries'' (Patro, 1999: 1).

As a result of this intellectual rights struggle, India and Africa
officials have requested a full review of the Trade-Related Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIP) Agreement, which is a general agreement between
major Nations on tariffs and trade policies and procedures. This TRIP
agreement, according to Monsanto senior employee, James Enyart, came about
after the biotech "industry identified a major problem for the
international trade" . . . [and thus] "crafted a solution, reduced it to a
concrete proposal, and sold it to our own and other governments" (Monbiot,
1999: 1). The Indian and African officials claim they are better informed
of what the agreement entails and want to correct some of the unfair
measures of the agreement. Another revision needed, according to Indian
activists, is the 1970 Indian Patent Act. Specifically, the GMO critics
believe the 1970 Indian Patent Act should "recognize 'prior art' or
existing knowledge" to protect traditional agriculture and horticulture
methods (Patro, 1999: 1).