MONSANTO AND GM FOOD INNOVATION

Monsanto is also heavily involved in genetically modified (GM) food production and other biotech farming innovations.

 Monsanto invented a means to make a hormone to boost milk production in cows using recombinant DNA technology in 1994. This synthetic growth hormone was called recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin or rBST. It is banned for human consumption in Europe and many countries.  Only the United States allows its use for milk production. The Codex Alimentarus Commission has banned rBST as unsafe. This is a United Nations food organisation that sets international safety standards. It was established in 1963 to protect the safety of consumers and to promote fair trade practices. Greenpeace has previously attempted to curb the greed of Monsanto. In 2005 Monsanto tried to lay claim to breeding techniques for ordinary farm house pigs.  The omnipotent Monsanto claimed that its patented discovery uses a special insemination device.Monsanto is also heavily involved in genetically modified (GM) food production.

They would have farmers believe that their heavily patented seeds are the panacea to their farming problems. Many poor third world farmers are vehemently against the technology as it will strip them of their fundamental rights. The patenting of GM seeds mean that impoverished farmers will be forced to purchase the GM seeds for their crops each and every year. The seeds are designed so that crops cannot be sown using last years crop seeds as was done in days gone by. This forces the farmer onto a treadmill that he can never escape from. The farmer becomes completely dependant on the bio technology firm and can never again be truly self sufficient. The genetically modified seeds are designed to maximise the profits of Monsanto at the expense of the farmer`s independence. Meanwhile consumers want to know if eating GM food is safe.

In 1995 a research scientist at the Rowett Institute of Agriculture in Aberdeen conducted an experiment with lab animals to ascertain the safety of GM crops. His name was Arpad Pusztai. To his consternation the scientist observed that all of the animals eating GM transgenic potatoes were malnourished and failing to thrive. He also discovered kidney damage while the control animals eating Desiree potatoes remained healthy. Arpad said that he certainly would never eat GM potatoes himself after seeing the results of his three year study. He published his scientific paper in 1999 in the Lancet and there ensued a witch hunt. The poor scientist was ridiculed and hounded out of his job. One might speculate as to whether dark forces were behind this persecution as his work contract was not renewed. He gave lectures on his work and I was privileged to hear him speak at the Oxford Union Debating Chamber on June 14 1999. The motion was “This House Would Not Continue to Feed GM Food Material to Farm Animals” The Chamber was full and the Gallery was packed.

Proposing and defending the Motion were Dr.Arpad Pusztai, Norman Baker, M.P. and John Ingham, an environment correspondent. Opposing the Motion were Harry Kershaw for Agrevo Ltd., and Novel foods Ltd. Spokesman Professor Burke. They argued unconvincingly that the risks from eating GM food were akin to being run over by a bus. They plucked this argument out of thin air and it was not backed up by any peer reviewed  scientific process. The opposing side argued that no tests had yet shown that GM foods were safe for human consumption. Arpad Pusztai  spoke convincingly of his research and of the potential danger of rushing to embrace the technology. The Motion was won by 478 votes against 207 votes which greatly pleased Dr. Pusztai.The moral high ground may have been won that day but the sad truth is that big business will always ultimately triumph.

 In 2011 the GM lobby has regrouped, and reformed to become even more powerful and unassailable. They are endlessly promoting the wonders and absolute safety of their technology. Today the GM giants have teamed up with the global warming lobby in an unassailable combination. They have argued that GM technology is vital to prevent hunger that is induced by crop failure due to global warming. By teaming together the biotechnology giants have improved their credentials. They have marketed their brand as caring for planet earth. GM multinationals have employed highly credible University professors to lecture on how GM crops are vital to deal with global warming droughts and crop failure. I personally attended such a lecture in Oxford. Some members of the audience walked out in disgust. It was very enlightening of the modus operandi of the GM giants. A very positive spin was put on the technology with an emphasis on how food production would be increased to feed the world. I felt somewhat doubtful of the speaker who was a academic now working to promote biotechnology business. It cannot be just and equitable for companies to take control of farming in this way using IP legislation.

Farming has been around since the Neolithic era when man ceased being solely a hunter gatherer and began to settle in stable communities. The Neolithic era commenced circa 9000 B.C. and heralded a new era of settlement and innovation as energy was freed up from pursuing an itinerant hunter gatherer lifestyle. As communities evolved around the farmed fields so new forms of pottery and culture came into being. The new idea of sowing seeds and reaping corn, oats, barley and maize caused an exponential leap in evolutionary progress for early humans. This wonderful idea of farming that has been around for thousands of years is now completely under threat by this “brave new world” of biotechnology. How can it be possibly right that the age old tradition of farming is now under threat from companies such as Monsanto? If these giants have their way farming, which has been around for ten thousand years, will cease to exist in its traditional sense.

 Many third world farmers are worried and angry but their voices are being drowned out by the powerful GM companies` public relations machines. Slick and clever marketing campaigns embellish a shiny gloss on the transgenic GM seeds. We are constantly being told how wonderful these new patents are. The crops will be free of blight and pests and so on. The biotech giants head hunt reputable academics with long standing professional credentials. They then pay handsome wages to have their wares promoted to the cynical public by such respectable Professors. No mention is made of the lack of safety trials in humans.

There have been a few incidents where things have gone seriously awry but very few members of the public are aware of these. One such incident involved genetically modified celery. The splicing of genes resulted in the celery containing far too much of an ingredient known as psoralen. Psoralens can cause extreme photosensitivity in those who ingest them. This can result in serious skin burns and DNA mutations. In   June 2004 American workers producing   GM celery were so badly affected by psoralens when working with GM celery that they could never go out in the sunlight again. This negligence was all the more startling as the dangers of psoralens in GM celery had already been red flagged on previous occasions by other agricultural scientists (Prakash 2001). The levels of teratogenic psoralens in GM celery have frequently been found to be thousands of times higher than the safety level by agricultural scientists. These celery crops are genetically bred to be resistant to insects.

It is the acme of arrogance for biotech companies to believe that they can surpass Mother Nature.

 The evolution of plants on our planet has taken hundreds of thousands of years of painstaking evolution. Indeed Mother Nature produces her own insecticides to protect her beloved plants from predators. The humble potato and tomato contain a natural alkaloid known as solanin. This alkaloid deters many predators. In experiments to produce GM potatoes and tomatoes it was found that they contained dangerously high levels of solanin . This is potentially very dangerous especially for pregnant women who are advised to avoid consuming the green bits on potatoes or crisps. The reason for this is that the green bits on potato contain the solanin alkaloid that has been proven to harm the unborn child (Solanaceae Factsheet 2000).Since the GM process invariably disrupts the levels of plant alkaloids there is due cause for concern. Let us not forget that deadly nightshade is a member of the same phylogenetic family as the potato and tomato.

Clearly there is cause for consumer concern here as well as for the environment.

It appears woefully apparent that proper trials using human guinea pigs have not been conducted to ascertain safety of GM foods.

In England Government guidelines require buffer zones of 200 metres between GM crops and conventional crops. Fears that bees may carry the GM pollen to distant fields have been found to be correct by the National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit (Skogsmyr, 1994). The NPARU study found contaminated pollen can reach a distance of five kilometres away from the GM crop.. This is of great concern to organic farmers whose crops may be ruined. Beekeepers also face a five thousand pound fine if their certified organic honey is sold containing GM pollen.  The technology has already been used a great deal on soya crops which have been genetically modified to work synergistically with Monsanto produced pesticides. Thus the whole farming industry becomes a symbiotic process. Many consumers have already eaten GM soya without being aware of the fact. A decade ago I became partial to a Tesco value soup which was very tasty and cheap. I ate a lot of the product and after a month felt very unwell with no obvious cause. Eliminating all causal factors by a process of elimination I decided to look at the soup that I had recently been consuming with relish. Listed on the ingredients in extremely minute writing was the prime suspect: genetically modified soya. I immediately stopped purchasing the soup and started to recover from the mysterious lethargy. I also wrote to complain to Tesco Head Office and subsequently that particular soup disappeared from the shelves. They must have realised that this product had not undergone human safety tests when they initially placed the product on the shelves.