Monsanto Re-engineers Nature

Eric Orr
You can reject genetic engineering by shopping at local sustainable farmers markets.

Percy Schmeiser and his wife saved seeds from their Canadian canola farm for forty years. They had effectively developed a strain of canola that was perfectly adapted to their locale, requiring less herbicides and pesticides than other conventional seeds would have needed. But in 1998 Schmeiser noticed something strange about his crop. He sprayed the popular herbicide Roundup on stray canola plants near a telephone pole, but the plants didn’t die. The huge biotech corporation Monsanto got wind of Schmeiser’s Roundup resistant crop and paid his farm an uninvited visit. Without consent Monsanto tested the canola and determined it contained patented genes. In August of that year Monsanto filed a statement of claim against Schmeiser demanding a $15,000 "technology fee." Monsanto is the same company that developed Roundup. They are also the world’s foremost producer of genetically modified grains. Among their patents is Roundup Ready canola. It was developed to allow farmers to spray Roundup in their fields without damaging the crop.

Schmeiser disputed the claim, saying that he never wanted to grow genetically engineered canola, and that it had contaminated his seed either through cross-pollination from a neighboring field or from seed blown off of a passing truck. Monsanto attorney Roger Hughes said, "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all." Monsanto initiated a $400,000 lawsuit that resulted in a seven year battle. In the end, Schmeiser had to pay nothing to Monsanto, but he was found guilty of patent-infringement. He lost $160,000 in legal fees, $40,000 in time spent away from his farm, and 40 years of seed development. Schmeiser said, "If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their [Monsanto’s] plots—destroy what they have worked on for 40 years—I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away."

Percy Schmeiser is not Monsanto’s only victim. The raging giant investigates 500 farmers each year, and to date they have been awarded over $15 million through lawsuits. "Farmers are being sued for having GMO’s [genetically modified organisms] on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell," said North Dakota farmer Tom Wiley.

In 1997 and 1998 Glen Eaton planted Roundup Ready soybeans on his Arkansas farm. Many of the soybeans “shattered” before harvest time causing Eaton to suffer huge profit losses. Monsanto compounded his financial straits when they sued him for growing Roundup Ready soybeans in 1999 and 2000. The last thing Eaton wanted in his fields was the same seed that left him with crop failure. He doesn’t know how his seed got contaminated. It could have been volunteer plants from previous years or he may have inadvertently mixed in left over Monsanto seed. Even the judge concluded that Eaton’s claim was irrefutable, but the lawsuit ended with a confidential settlement.

Why would such a huge company launch a corporate crusade against small farmers? Monsanto’s patents prevent farmers from saving seed, so they have to buy new seed each year. By making examples of small farmers, they are systematically scaring the entire agriculture industry into not saving seeds. The goal is to force farmers into buying Monsanto seed, and the chemicals necessary to grow that seed, every year. Monsanto employs 75 people specifically for investigating and prosecuting farmers. It’s a $10 million a year terror tactic.

The biotech industry’s attempts to expand the use of genetically modified crops serve only the corporations that stand to profit. The general public has no choice. Over 50% of all conventional soybean and corn seed and almost 100% of conventional canola in the United States is tainted with genetically modified DNA. Approximately 60% of all food on grocery store shelves contains genetically modified ingredients, however the FDA does not require them to be labeled as such. A 1999 Time magazine poll revealed that 81% of American consumers believe that GMO food should be labeled, and 58% indicated that they would avoid purchasing food labeled as GMO. European labeling laws make it easy for consumers to steer clear of genetically engineered food. And while biotech companies have been getting wealthier, foreign bans on GMO’s and product recalls have cost the United States $12 billion in farm subsidies since 1999.

Genetically modified organisms have not existed long enough to adequately determine whether or not they are safe. Very few studies have been conducted on the long term health effects of GMO’s, and when studies do reveal potential health hazards they are ignored. In a report summary presented to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Monsanto failed to mention the abnormal effects of GMO corn on lab rats. A previous study indicated harmful effects on rats that were fed GMO potatoes. Many scientists believe genetically engineered food should be studied more thoroughly before it is introduced to the public.

In 1989 the Centers for Disease Control linked 37 deaths to tryptophan that was produced with GMO bacteria. It also paralyzed 1500 people and temporarily disabled 5000. The genetically engineered tryptophan contained a harmful amino acid that doesn’t occur in naturally produced tryptophan.

Another concern is that GMO food could harbor deadly allergens. Without labeling there would be no way to trace the allergy to its source, because the victim would have no knowledge of consuming GMO’s.

Genetically modified plants also present significant environmental dangers. Although the biotech industry claims that GMO’s reduce the need for herbicide, they actually require more chemicals. Farmers who grow Roundup Ready soybeans spray 2 to 5 times more herbicide than those who grow non-GMO soybeans. It’s designed to resist the effects of Roundup so the entire crop gets dowsed, whereas, non-GMO fields can only be treated prior to sowing, or spot treated later. The increased use of herbicides creates chemical resistant super-weeds, so farmers must use different kinds of herbicides in higher quantities. Why would a company aim to reduce chemical use when they manufacture the chemicals?

Plants that are engineered to resist insect infestations actually produce pesticides. Each cell of the plant continuously creates insecticide to kill the insects that feed on the crop. The Environmental Protection Agency lists these plants as pesticides. So even though farmers may not be applying chemicals to control insects, more pesticide is introduced into our food and water supplies.

Genetically modified DNA threatens the environment further as cross-pollination introduces the modified genes to wild vegetation. Proponents of genetic engineering argue that it’s just an extension of natural evolution, but if that were the case there would be no need for genetic engineering. Evolution doesn’t cross species boundaries. There is no way for a soybean seed to naturally inherit the genes of bacteria. Evolution also occurs at a very subtle rate, while genetically modified organisms are introduced on a massive scale. This massive scale severely reduces biological diversity. Thousands of acres of crops share the exact same DNA and they pass that DNA on to wild plants. The resulting monoculture limits the viability of the species. If one plant is susceptible to disease, the entire crop gets wiped out. The impact of gene pollution cannot be reversed.

We simply have no idea where genetic engineering will lead. It’s God’s job. A 1999 Cornell University study of Monarch butterfly caterpillars and insecticidal GMO corn resulted in the death of almost half of the caterpillars that were fed modified corn pollen. The surviving butterflies were smaller than normal Monarchs and had decreased appetites. In 2000, an Iowa State University study determined that plants in or near insecticidal GMO cornfields were covered with enough of the toxic pollen to kill Monarch caterpillars. Genetically engineered corn covers much of the Monarch’s migration route throughout the U.S. This seemingly minor effect could result in a chain reaction of ecological destruction.

Developing countries may get the shortest end of the GMO stick. Biotech corporations claim that genetic engineering is the solution to third world hunger. They emphasize the need to introduce the technology to poor countries to increase food production. But supply is not the problem. The world currently produces more food per person than ever before in recorded history. Hunger is caused by poverty. Subsistence farmers in third world countries cannot afford Monsanto’s technology. In order to grow GMO’s they must pay for the chemicals and equipment necessary to produce a consumable crop. Even the United States Department of Agriculture agrees that developing countries are the primary target market for "terminator" seeds. Terminator seeds are GMO seeds that don’t reproduce, so even if farmers want to save seeds illegally, they can’t. They are forced to purchase new seeds every year. Poor countries rely on saving seeds. Introducing GMO technology only serves to broaden the economic class division in these countries. Only large commercial farms can afford to utilize GMO technology, and small farmers are forced to sell out. Often their only option is to move into cities to work low paying sweatshop jobs.

There are currently 70 million acres of GMO crops growing in the U.S. That’s roughly the size of North Carolina and Georgia put together. If the biotech industry doesn’t rethink its priorities we may be headed for disaster. In a 1998 New York Times article, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin said, "There is no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might effect the environment. We have such a miserably poor misunderstanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don’t get one rude shock after another."

The most effective means of fighting gene pollution is to tell the biotech industry you don’t want their GMO’s by not buying them. Instead of supporting chains and corporate based stores that carry genetically engineered food, find a local farmers market in or near your community. The best way to ensure you’re not buying genetically engineered food is to see where that food comes from. If you’re lucky enough to have a garden spot plant your own heirloom vegetables and try saving the seed from year to year. Eating locally and sustainably produced food will not only provide you with healthful meals, but it will also give you peace of mind.