[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Politics, yuk!



>Hi Sanet,
>
>Does anyone know of a sustainable agriculture mailing list that focuses
>more on the agriculture and less on the politics? 
>
>Thanks
>
>gretchen3@juno.com
>

Dear Friends,
Does anyone know where there's an agriculture without politics?


<< IN THESE TIMES * (Chicago, Illinois)  NOVEMBER 11, 1996
                      
   
  
 RECIPE FOR DISASTER  (Part 1)
 
 By Joel Bleifuss 
 
 Agribusiness corporations have long hoped to make GMOs (genetically modified
 organisms) a permanent, and inescapable, feature of our daily diet. But to
 get to that point, chemical giants such as the St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.
 and the Swiss company Ciba-Geigy AG will have to overcome consumer,
 environmental and public health organizations that fear this pell-mell rush
 to a genetically modified future. 
 And they'll have to somehow get past the roadblocks Mother Nature has put in
 their way.     
 
 Three of Monsanto's bioengineered marvels are in the process of going bust.
 The company's artificial bovine growth hormone (rBGH), introduced in
February 1994, has not lived up to its promise. Although the drug does increase milk
 production, the resultant health problems in cattle outweigh the benefits
 from the extra milk produced, as critics warned they would. In April,
 Business Week reported that Wall Street insiders were predicting that rBGH
 would be pulled off the market by the end of the year. Furthermore, the Pure
 Food Campaign obtained a letter, signed by 10 sci- entists who have done
rBGH research for Monsanto, that reveals a 55 percent drop in sales of the wonder
 drug between February 1995 and February 1996.     
 
 After two years in stores, the Flavr Savr tomato is now off the market and
 heading for the dumpster. The tomato, which was developed by a company in
 which Monsanto has a half stake, had been genetically engineered to taste
 like a homegrown tomato yet be sturdy enough to ship across country. (The
 current grocery store tomato lost its taste in the process of being bred for
 ease of packing and shipping.) The Flavr Savr's problem is that it was
 developed in California and won't grow well in Florida's sandy soils and
 different climate. 
 
 Now, Monsanto's genetically engineered cotton, Bollgard, is proving a
 failure. The cotton, which accounts for 13 percent of the nation's annual
 crop this year, had been altered to produce a substance that acts as a
 natural pesticide to three insects that eat cotton. But the Bollgard cotton
 is not working as planned. As James Wilbur,  an analyst with Smith Barney,
 told the Wall Street Journal, "if genetic technology doesn't work
 on a product like this, it calls into question the whole long-term strategy
 of the company."
 
 Monsanto had sold the Bollgald seeds to farmers with brochures that pictured
 a bollworm and advised: "You'll see these in your cotton and that's okay.
 Don't spray. Just relax. Bollgard will protect your cotton." But a heavy
 bollworm infestation this summer, combined with the failure of Bollgard to
 perform as expected, forced the company to change course. Monsanto began
 telling farmers that spraying might be necessary to save their crops. In
 fact, Abbott Laboratories marketed its DiPel insecticide, "which contains a
 blend of five or more toxins," as the chemical solution for growers who
 planted Monsanto's Bollgard. 
 
 In theory, Bollgard cotton works because it has been genetically engineered
 to contain genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is
 harmless to humans but in high enough doses kills insects. Yet the long-term
 implications are frightening. Bt, a natural substance, is a key weapon in
 organic farmers' battle with pests. By making this natural pesticide an
 integral part of cotton and other crops such as soybeans and corn, Monsanto
 and other biotech firms will hasten the evolution  of Bt-resistant insects.
 Indeed, Monsanto itself admits that it is only a matter of time before the
 bugs develop a resistance to Bollgard.
 
 Earlier this year Monsanto introduced another genetically altered product
 likely to turn out as ill-advised as rBGH, Bollgard and the Flavr Savr
 tomato: the Roundup Ready soybean.  Roundup Ready has been altered to
include a gene from a bacterium that makes the plant resistant to Glyphosate, the key toxin in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Farmers who plant Roundup Ready beans will he able to spray the
 herbicide on their fields without killing their soybeans.
 
 Ciba-Geigy has similar plans for Maximizer, a corn hybrid loaded with three
 altered genes, which the company introduced last spring. Like Monsanto's
 cotton, Ciba-Geigy's corn contains a Bt gene that makes the corn toxic to pests, in this case the
 corn-borer larvae. Like Roundup Ready, Maximizer is also built to resist one
 of Ciba- Geigy's herbicides, in this case glufosinate, manufactured under
the brand name Basta.  
 
 Maximizer has been approved for sale in Canada and the United States, but
 European countries, in particular Britain, Sweden, Austria and Denmark, are
 balking. The European Union has so far refused to approve the corn for
 import.  The impasse could escalate into a trade war between the  United
 States and Europe.
 

                                                                           IN
 THESE TIMES (Chicago, Illinois) * NOVEMBER 11.1998  
 
 Recipe for Disaster Part 2
 by Joel Bleifuss
 
 Europeans are concerned that Ciba-Geigy's corn will lead to the development
 of Bt-resistant corn borers.  They also fear that the genes that make
Roundup Ready soybeans and Maximizer corn resistant to the Monsanto and Ciba-Geigy
 herbicides could transfer to weeds, making those weeds impervious to the
 herbicides. Such resistance has already been observed in Denmark, where
 rapeseed, a native European plant used to make vegetable oil, was
genetically altered to resist a pesticide. That resistance then jumped from the rapeseed
 plant to neighboring weeds.
 
 Finally, some European scientists are worried about a bacterium gene in
 Ciba-Geigy's corn that conveys resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin.
 Ciba-Geigy claims that this gene serves no purpose other than as a handy
 marker for scientists to determine which plants have the added genes. Some
 scientists, however, fear that the gene could be passed to the cattle who
eat the corn, and from there, spread to people who eat the cattle. Both animals
 and humans would then become resistant to ampicillin, an antibiotic doctors
 and veterinarians commonly use to fight infections. For this reason the
 British government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has
 sought to ban the doctored corn.
 
 On top of all this, some genetically modified foodstuffs have proved
 dangerous to people who suffer from allergies. For example, Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, a Des Moines based seed company, developed a genetically
 modified soybean using genes from Brazil nuts. But the company had to
abandon the product before it hit the market because people with nut allergies,
which occasionally are fatal, were found to be allergic to the new soybeans.
 
 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that genetically modified
 organisms derived from products to which many people are allergic be tested
 and labeled. But an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine last
 March argued that the policy did not go far enough: "Because FDA
requirements do not apply to foods that are rarely allergenic or to donor organisms of
 unknown allergenicity, the policy would appear to favor industry over
 consumer protection." The editorial called for the labeling of all foods
 containing genetically altered organisms, concluding that industry benefits
 when the public is convinced that transgenic foods are safe, and stronger
 federal regulations would encourage such public confidence."
 
 Europeans seem to share this sentiment. According to recent surveys, 85
 percent of Europeans would choose not to eat genetically modified foods if
 given the choice. This mistrust of bioengineered foods has put U.S. soybean
 growers-- who export 40 percent of their crop to Europe--in a precarious
 position. Even though the European Union approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready
 soybeans earlier this year, EuroCommerce, the Union's major trade
 association, has demanded that genetically altered soybeans be labeled and
 separated from regular soybeans.
 
 Last month, the German unit of the Anglo-Dutch food giant Unilever canceled
 all1996 orders for U.S. soybeans, totaling 650,000 metric tons, unless they
 could be guaranteed "Roundup Ready soybean-free."  Aa a Unilever
spokesperson explained, "We are a consumer-driven company and we have to take their
wishes into account." Even though Rounup Ready makes up only 2 percent of the U.S.
 soybean crop, U.S. soybean suppliers cannot comply with the demand of
 Unilever's German unit because the Roundup Ready beans are not separated
from the traditional varieties. 
 
 A similar consumer backlash may be brewing in the United States.
 "Whereagribusiness has miscalculated is in thinking that you can operate in
 today's global economy under the rules of the consumer be damned," says
Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Pure Food Campaign, which is
 spearheading the opposition to bioengineered foods in this country. His
group is calling for a global boycott of 10 processed foods that will soon contain
 Roundup Ready soybeans and Maximizer corn, including Coca-Cola, Fritos corn
 chips, Kraft salad dressings, Similac infant formula and McDonald's french
 fries.
 
 The U.S. government, however, shows no sign of abandoning its support of
 bioengineering. Campaigning last month in Iowa, Agriculture Secretary Dan
 Glickman said the United States will stand behind its genetically altered
 produce and oppose any European labeling requirements as a trade violation.
 "We've got to make sure that sound science prevails, not what I call
historic culture, which is not based on sound science," he said. "Europe has a much
 greater sensitivity to the culture of food, as opposed to the science of
 food. But in the modern world, we just have to keep the pressure on the
 science. Good science must prevail in these decisions."    
 
 But in supporting Monsanto's right to grow and export genetically engineered
 food crops, Glickman appears interested less in "good science" than in
making sure "corporate science" prevails--the kind of science that historically has
 guaranteed short-term profits for corporate America and long-term problems
 for the rest of us.
 
 
 
 
 
--

Sustainable Building Calendar at http://www.greenbuilder.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas InfiNet - an online community for progressive information
                    BBS  512.462.0633
             Telnet://shakti.txinfinet.com:3000 
              WWW  http://www.mahainfinet.com


Ronald Nigh
Dana Association
Tel & FAX 529/678-7215
danamex@internet.com.mx
Mexico