Sacrifice our GM Free status? Why, and on who’s altar?

IREMEMBER when recombinant DNA technology emerged. Genes, previously foreign to an organism, could be duplicated and injected past the nuclear membranes of reproductive cells, and these genes would imbed themselves in the chromosomes of that organism’s DNA. They would thereafter be present in every cell. This was a stunning discovery, perhaps worthy of a Nobel Prize. The implications were astounding. What did it mean?

Well, it meant all sorts of things. In the first place, why were there natural barriers to gene transfer so that people didn’t pick up foreign genes from whatever they ate?

One of the principle GM insertion methods is viral, and the viruses tend to replicate along with the genes, so how stable are these new varieties?

Hugh Lovel

‘Do we know what we are

doing?’

There is evidence of GM gene transference to farm animals fed GMO diets. What if that also occurs in human beings? Does this require more research?

If we insert pig or oyster genes into tomatoes or wheat, what are the implications for the orthodox Jew, Muslim or Seventh Day Adventist?

That brings us to the labelling issue. But the big question is, “Do we know what we are doing?”

I first encountered GM technology in the 1980s. Initially I heard promises of enhancing the nitrogen fixation on the roots of grasses such as maize, as well as making cabbages resistant to caterpillars, imparting herbicide tolerance to crops and producing cheap pharmaceuticals.

This was the new technology that would save the world. I thought the claims were reminiscent of the nuclear power promises of the early 1950s that forecast household electricity would be so cheap it wouldn’t need to be metered. In the 1980s with the news about GM technology I didn’t form any opinions, but I began to take an interest in what could possibly inspire such hyperbolic propaganda. After all, I’d seen the same pattern before.

Today BT and Roundup Ready® soybeans, corn and other major crops have been engineered so every cell produces Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) toxin coupled with herbicide resistance. The companies patenting these varieties tout them as saving the world from hunger, reducing pesticide and herbicide use, and growing crops productively in harsh conditions.

GM pharmaceutical drug crops are a reality, and frost resistance was engineered into tomatoes by inserting genes from arctic fish. But, as I originally suspected, the big promise of engineering nitrogen fixation into grassy crops like rice, wheat, maize and sugar cane never emerged.

It turns out that under biological

management these crops can and do host nitrogen fixing endophytes.

USDA studies of such microbial inoculants as Twin-N™ show this is true. It’s the way we grow those crops, especially the fertilisers we use, that shuts down their nitrogen fixation.

Nevertheless, with all the other wonders of GM technology, is it not worthwhile? Isn’t it good for us?

Again I am reminded of nuclear power. As with nuclear power, in some instances I would answer yes.

But, please, forgive my scepticism. It takes extreme naïveté to believe Monsanto’s claims that Roundup® resistance in crops will reduce herbicide use. Monsanto’s Roundup® is the most profitable agricultural chemical of all time, so should I just believe they are interested in reducing its use because they say so?

In the case of GM maize, the

pollen is wind-blown and can travel tens and perhaps

hundreds of miles.

Obviously, engineering GM crops to withstand stronger doses of herbicide will increase the rates used - and it has.

As a successful biodynamic grower that used no nitrogen and relied on crops to fix their own, I found weeds, pests and diseases were all symptoms of excess soluble nitrogen coupled with a failure to maintain the nutritional balance necessary to support biological fixation.

I never used herbicides because herbicide reduction occurs with better agronomy, not as a result of GM engineering. Such patently dishonest claims by the GM industry leads me to question the agenda of GM proponents.

This agenda really became apparent in 2000 with the Percy Schmeiser case in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Roundup Ready® canola was introduced in Canada in 1996. Percy was a canola grower who produced his own seed. He first noticed Roundup resistance in his crops in 1997 though he had never purchased Monsanto’s seed. Monsanto demonstrated he had their herbicide resistant gene in his canola although Percy had never planted Monsanto’s GM seed. He believed his foundation stock was contaminated from Roundup Ready® crops nearby.

Monsanto argued that Percy obviously had knowingly stolen their genetics and must be forced to pay.

Monsanto won. Percy was their example, and the public perception they created was anyone anywhere who had patented genetics in their seeds from whatever source would have to pay. The implication was that even biological and organic growers who did not use Roundup® would have to pay if their crops were found to be contaminated.

The rub was that if GM genetics were so easily transferred from one variety to another, how could they be excluded? And if there was no way to exclude transfer, sooner or later all seed would be contaminated and all growers would be forced to pay GM patent holders, like it or not.

What a chilling prospect. Percy doggedly fought back and amazingly, in 2011, partially triumphed in the Canadian Supreme Court, which held that even though Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto’s patent he had gained no benefit and owed Monsanto nothing.

What may have influenced Canada’s Supreme Court is the fact that over the last dozen or so years there have been a number of studies documenting ready transfer of GM genetics from GM crops to nearby non-GM crops as well as to related wild plants in the headlands, ditches and roadsides.

In the case of GM maize, the pollen is wind-blown and can travel tens and perhaps hundreds of miles. Indeed, GM genes have been found in teosinte, a maize ancestor in the mountains of Mexico.

The United States organic standards, which were once thought to exclude GMOs, now allow a threshold of two per cent contamination because this much cannot be excluded.

Does anyone remember asbestos? DDT? Thalidomide? Agent Orange? Myxomatosis?

Nuclear Power?

Pandora’s Box is open and its contents are waving in the wind. Of course, the industries behind this agenda assure us it is safe, so no worries. What does it matter if every corn cell in the tortilla chip you are crunching contains BT toxin? That’s for caterpillars. It doesn’t affect humans, or pigs, or chickens, etcetera.

But what if we ask who is saying this? The industries and their allies behind the GM agenda are saying this. It’s too bad that corporate money has such a profound influence on governments and universities, but independent scientists are saying that the stability, let alone the safety, of GM crops has not been proven.

Here in Australia we have seen the well-publicised case of Maarten Stapper, one of CSIRO’s well-paid GM scientists, who was sacked for publicly questioning GMO safety.

How can it be reassuring that the people who say something is safe happen to work for the industries who profit from producing it?

Yes, government regulators like the USDA say GMOs are safe. Why wouldn’t they be safe? Of course they are safe.

But how can this be reassuring when the universities and politicians involved get funding from the industries making the ‘safe’ claims?

Does anyone remember asbestos? DDT? Thalidomide? Agent Orange? Myxomatosis? Nuclear Power?

I wouldn’t be writing this article if I thought somehow the health and environmental protection bureaus of Australia, Canada, Britain, the US or any other countries could be relied on with confidence.

It’s the money, stupid. Universities get grants, politicians get contributions. The money spreads out like a pat of butter on hot toast. Why? Because companies like Monsanto want to profit from every bite almost everyone on the planet eats. It’s the greatest strategy for market share ever.

Where do us common citizens fit in? What does this do to our freedom? Who will benefit? In the short term whoever sells GMOs benefits, but, clearly, in the long term we all stand to lose. What flaw lies in human nature, or possibly in our national character, that would reduce us to selling off our long term prospects as a GM free continent for short term gain? Are we that short sighted? Maybe so.

One of the current plans is to dig up highly productive soils like the Liverpool Plains to extract 30 years’ worth of coal. These are some of the world’s most productive soils, but if you don’t farm them, why would you care? So what if we leave a wasteland behind. We’ll deal with that another day.

Maybe this sort of thinking is good tactics today, but it’s bad strategy down the track. Do you care about your grandchildren? Or maybe I should ask if you care about your children? Forget the grandchildren. There might not be any, so don’t worry about that. It’s a long ways into the future.

With this in mind I want to raise the question of why should we sacrifice our GM freedom for big international corporations who have no allegiance to nations, the land or the environment, only dividends and stockholders.

If we adopt GM crops the result is certain to be rejection of our exports by GM free markets. As an agricultural exporting nation, why would we sacrifice the value of our exports? Why do that? Who would benefit? And, at some point we may wish we were GM free again, but putting Pandora’s plagues back in their casket is apt to be a saga. Why would we be so foolish, so greedy, so naïve?

I forgot. GM crops will increase production and save the world from starvation - never mind that already when farmers sell their crops they barely break even because international buyers trot up the story of all sorts of food surpluses.

The irony is that despite the gluts in storage bins, there is also starvation wherever people cannot pay.

Of course, there are hundreds of billions of dollars invested in GM technology looking for profits.

Stock markets and investors are anxious to see the GM gambit work, and it IS working in terms of returning profits.

Companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Aventis with huge investments in GM keep telling us: • GMOs are safe; • GMOs increase yields; • GMOs are needed to feed the world; • GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals and; • GMOs can be contained and can coexist with GMO free crops.

All five of the above are blatant falsehoods. For example, GM crops struggle to attain yields as high as non-GM varieties.

Higher production appears to be a false promise along with all the other false promises. The question I want to ask is, “How long can this sort of deceit and treachery go on?”

If your MP or your political party espouses a GM tolerant agenda, you may be faced with a grim choice of what to do. Suppose both parties are bought and paid for and both want to allow GM crops?

You can be sure this is the agenda of the GM industries and how will you ensure your political party doesn’t jump on this bandwagon?

There is evidence that GMOs are not safe, do not increase yields, are not needed, do not reduce chemical abuse and cannot be kept from contaminating non-GM crops.

Search the internet for this information. It is out there, but the mainstream media isn’t particularly interested in reporting stories that mean losing advertising revenue, so don’t expect to find it on the nightly news.

And as you increasingly become alert to the scam going on, inform your family, neighbours and friends.

Be prepared to sever the head of this poisonous snake at every opportunity. Maybe you will have great, great, grandchildren.

The US organic standards, which were once thought to exclude GMOs, now allow a threshold of two per cent contamination because this much cannot be excluded.