Behind Blair’s GM drive
THIS MARCH environment minister, Margaret Beckett, announced
the go ahead for the first commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) crops
in Britain. This followed the findings of a four-year crop trial of GM maize,
oilseed rape and sugar beet, which had been genetically modified to tolerate the
use of extra-powerful weedkillers.
Incredibly, this trial of only three GM crops is the world’s
largest so far. It showed that the use of herbicides designed on GM oilseed rape
and sugar beet had a worse impact on farmland wildlife than those used on
conventional crops. For maize, however, the opposite appeared to be true. But
the herbicide used on the conventional maize crop is about to be banned by the
European Union (EU). If another herbicide had been used, the results may have
been different. The government ignored this and announced that GM maize was now
cleared to be grown commercially.
The British government was all set to start commercial
growing in 1998, but a public outcry and pressure from environmental groups
forced it to stall. In 1999, the Local Government Association (LGA) banned the
use of GM food for four years in local authority schools and elderly people’s
homes after a report showed that scientists were unsure of its long-term effects
on human health. Not surprisingly, parents and carers lobbied the LGA for a ban.
As a result of all this, New Labour has been forced to wait before authorising
wider use of GM crops.
For the profit-hungry biotech industry not enough had been
done. In April, German-based Bayer CropScience, the only company eligible to
grow GM maize in the UK, pulled out. It blamed EU regulations that would delay
the start of commercial growing, making it uneconomic. Due to public fears over
health risks, the EU was pressurised into imposing a five-year ban on the
importation of GM foodstuffs. This did not prevent the EU giving Bayer
permission to cultivate GM crops in 1999. Both the UK and EU want to encourage
the biotech industries but are being forced to go at a slower pace because of
public concerns. US agribusiness is desperate to break the ban, as almost the
entire $300 million annual US maize exports to the EU have been lost.
Beckett announced ‘a genuinely open and balanced discussion
on GM’ in June 2003. However, the debate lasted only six weeks, took place in
only six regions, and was held before the results of the crop trials were known.
Even this limited debate produced 90% public opposition to GM food. The Food
Standards Agency (FSA), a food safety watchdog set up by the government in 2001,
also set up a public consultation. Critics, including the Women’s Institute and
the UNISON trade union, have called it a pro-GM exercise, with Sir John Krebs (FSA
chair) known as ‘GM Joe’.
Michael Meacher was environment minister for six years until
losing his job last June. Since then he has voiced doubts about the impartiality
of the government towards the biotech industry. It’s a pity he didn’t do this
when he was in office. He claims the government ignored evidence that GM crops
could be hazardous to human health. The only government-backed panel to look at
human health risks, the Science Review Panel, was stacked in favour of the
biotech industry; only three of its 25 members could be said to be sceptical
towards GM food.
There is enormous international pressure to allow GM crops
and seeds in Britain. In New Labour’s first two years in office, GM firms met
government officials 81 times. The reason is clear. In a speech to the Royal
Society in 2002, Blair praised the biotech industry, and noted that the "market
in Europe alone is expected to be worth $100 billion by 2005". Monsanto, one of
the four major biotech companies (with sales of $5.2bn in 2003), has a PR
company, ‘Good Relations’, in Britain. Its director, David Hill, was chief media
spokesperson for New Labour from 1993-98 and ran the media operations for the
1997 and 2001 general elections. Hill’s successor has links to Syngenta, another
of the biotech big four. GM advocates within the government include Lord
Sainsbury, the supermarket baron. He is New Labour’s science minister and the
party’s biggest donor, giving £8 million between 1997-2003. He owned shares in
biotech companies Diatech and Innotech. Not surprisingly, government
reassurances over GM food safety are treated by many with scepticism.
In the US there has not been the same public outcry over GM
safety. Monsanto director Phil Angell put it bluntly: ‘Our interest is in
selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s [Food and
Drug Administration] job’. The FDA is responsible for assessing food safety in
the US but is far from impartial. For instance, a report on the safety of growth
hormones produced by Monsanto was compiled by Monsanto employee Margaret Miller.
Soon after, she was hired by the FDA. One of her first jobs was approving her
own report! There are a thousand ties between the US government and the biotech
industry. Anne Veneman, US agriculture secretary, and Donald Rumsfeld, defence
secretary, were both Monsanto directors. Health secretary, Tommy Thompson,
received $50,000 for his election campaign. The list goes on.
Ninety percent of commercially-grown GM crops have been
modified to allow them to tolerate more powerful herbicides and insecticides.
The main biotech companies link their seeds to their own agrochemicals. In 2001,
the top four companies had a combined turnover from seeds and agrochemicals of
$21.6 billion. During the 1990s these firms consolidated their chemical, seed
and technology empires and are desperate to protect their markets.
These companies claim GM crops can help alleviate
malnutrition in the neo-colonial world, through higher yields, resistance to
disease, and genetically added vitamins. The ‘protato’ has one third more
protein than a conventional potato. The Indian government has suggested using it
in free school meals. But lentils, beans and peas have ten times the protein of
the ‘protato’.
If GM food is being developed to tackle world hunger, why is
less than 1% of all GM research and development directed towards poor farmers?
GM crops are almost exclusively developed for the processed food, textile and
animal feed industries. Farmers are forced to sign contracts making them legally
bound to buy expensive new seeds annually from the biotech companies, increasing
seed costs by 40%. Also there is the cost of expensive herbicides. Sterile
‘terminator’ genes are engineered into many GM seeds. So up to two billion
small-scale farmers in the neo-colonial world who traditionally reuse seeds are
being ruined.
Increased yields are far from certain. The University of
Nebraska found Monsanto’s Round Up Ready GM maize 6-11% less productive than
non-GM varieties. Indian farmers found that GM cotton seeds produced yields five
times lower than from conventional seeds.
Hunger in the neo-colonial world is not due to food
shortages. In 1994, food production could have supplied 6.4 billion people (more
than the world population) with adequate calories. Yet more than one billion
people do not get enough to eat. It is the capitalist system, where profits come
first, that produces malnutrition.
Scientists are not sure of the long-term effects on humans
and the environment. GM technology is not a precise science: it involves
bombarding plants with new DNA and seeing if any has been accepted. Once
released into the environment its results can be unpredictable. Cows fed GM soya
produced unexpected increases in milk yields. Never examined further, the soya
was passed fit to use.
Genetic modification is suspected of causing an increase in
allergic reactions. Genes are often inserted that have never before been in the
human food chain, or unexpected DNA can appear in food. Some soya has a brazil
nut gene inserted. In 2000, GM Starlink maize, approved only for animal feed,
was found in taco shells. GM Starlink contains toxins which could create
allergies in humans.
Antibiotic-resistant genes are used in the GM process. An
FSA study found these genes could get into the human gut after one meal. There
is an increased risk that bacteria may become more resistant to antibiotics so
creating uncontrollable epidemics.
GM crops are likely to lead to the increased use of ever
more powerful herbicides and insecticides. Crops modified to produce the
insecticide, Bacillus thuringiensis, created insects that were immune to it.
Pollen can travel three to four kilometres. So when GM crops modified to resist
powerful weedkillers mix with the environment, ‘super-weeds’ with similar
resistance can result. This is already a major problem in Argentina.
Because of the vast profits to be made, and the links
between government and the biotech industry, many of these risks are not being
thoroughly investigated. To be able to come to a balanced judgement on the
benefits and risks of GM food, agribusiness, the chemical industry, research
establishments and land need to be owned and run democratically by workers,
consumers, small farmers, scientists and health workers. Only this could ensure
that instead of commercial interests dominating research, health and the
environment were the main priorities.
Chris Moore
|