Rense: More Debate on Bio-Tech Foods

[Guest guest]

Count Dracula Regrets

By Andrew Christie

Faultline.org

7-24-3

 

 

June 23 was the evening of the big debate on biotech in Sacramento.

The agricultural trade expo and international ministerial Ñ a party

thrown by the US Dept. of Agriculture for the biotech industry

costing $3 million taxpayer dollars Ñ had just opened across town.

Protests were raging in the streets. On the debate panel were three

food and social justice advocates in opposition, and three

government and biotech advocates in favor.

 

It was Q & A time. An Iowa farmer in the audience stood up. He had

some questions about the rules of international trade and the

process of their ratification in upcoming trade agreements.

Specifically, he wanted to know why it was that when his neighbors --

courtesy of Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, et al -- planted a genetically

engineered crop next to his, it is he, not his neighbor, who is

required to build barriers to prevent cross-pollination

contamination, at his expense; and why it is that Monsanto could sue

him for " theft " of their product is such pollination occurred but he

could not sue Monsanto for ruining his organic crop?

 

The hapless USDA counsel to whom the questions were directed took a

breath.

 

" Well, " he said, " I don't know... " and paused. The rest of his

answer (along the lines of " but we're certainly going to be taking a

look at things like that in the future " ) was drowned out in audience

laughter.

 

On the same day, the dread presence of 20 or 30 Black Bloc kids,

with drums and balaclavas, terrorizing 100 police in full riot gear

in the street outside Sacramento's Memorial Auditorium, forced the

planned outdoor " ribbon cutting " ceremony inside, where US Secretary

of Agriculture Anne Venneman, courtesy of co-host SureBeam Corp. Ñ a

food irradiating company and former military contractor subsidiary

that paid $50,000 for hosting privileges Ñ declared the Ministerial

Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology

officially open.

 

Delegates shuttled from the Sheraton to the convention center and

back via an underground tunnel.

 

In that day's San Francisco Chronicle, reporting on the protests in

a front-page story and an accompanying feature on " Frankenfoods " -

both overwhelmingly negative on the nature and prospects of

genetically engineered food - USDA undersecretary J.B. Penn mustered

the case for the defense. He said it was hard for him to

understand " how protesters can be against something that can provide

people with more food. "

 

The next day, Brian Leahy of California Certified Organic Farmers

tore into undersecretary Penn's defense as biotech's " nastiest,

dirtiest, lie; that this technology is going to feed hungry people.

It's going to make more people poor and hungry. "

 

Leahy was giving testimony in a Sacramento Senate hearing room on

the prospect of crafting legislation to protect California's farmers

and citizenry from the adverse impacts of international trade

agreements and the technologies that were being heavily pitched just

down the street. The hearing came on the fourth day of protests

surrounding the Ministerial/Expo, as police continued to harry

protestors seeking to be heard on the same issues.

 

Opening the hearing, Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), Chair of the

Senate Select Committee on International Trade Policy and State

Legislation, said that representatives of the biotech industry had

been invited to testify at the hearing, and had agreed to do so,

but, she noted sweetly Ñ Senator Figueroa notes everything sweetly

Ñ " they all cancelled in the last few days, and in the last few

hours. "

 

Word of the debate held the previous evening had, evidently, gotten

around.

 

The other twelve panelists, trooping to the front of the room in

waves, presented a varied and devastating indictment of genetically

engineered food, its regulation and the resistance of industry

thereto, and the provisions of the trade pacts under which the

technology is being promoted. Of particular concern were the

implications of the current case brought by the United States

against the European Union for declaring a moratorium on the import

of genetically modified organisms. The US is trying to overturn the

ban under the rules of the World Trade Organization.

 

" If the WTO decides in the favor of the US, " said Dr. Caroline

Lucas, Member of the European Parliament, " you are likely to see a

civil society backlash that will make the Seattle protests look like

a tea party. " The power of trade pacts to overrule the laws of

sovereign states trying to protect the health of their citizens,

Lucas testified, means " democracy, accountability, and openness are

at stake. "

 

Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety said that European

policy on GMOs is based on science, while acidly characterizing US

policy as " faith-based regulation. " Due to biotech industry

lobbying, he said, " we have yet to pass our first law, in twenty

years of trying, " as a result of which there is no federal

regulation of the production or sale of genetically engineered food.

However, this means that California now has a free hand to impose

its own regulations, as " with no laws to pre-empt, there is no issue

of federal pre-emption. "

 

Will Brieger from the Office of the state Attorney General demurred

that the federal government can nullify a state law that it deems to

interfere with trade, that other nations would likely try to strike

any California law they considered to do so, and that the Attorney

General's office will be better able to fend off such challenges if

the Committee makes certain that any legislation is based on " a

thorough administrative record and sound scientific research. "

 

Other panelists pointed out that the lack of research, and the

burden of proof, is on the other side. Michael Hansen of Consumers

Union noted that the lack of regulation of GMOs is matched by their

lack of testing for human safety; that in the instance of

Monsanto's " Roundup Ready " corn, the FDA simply noted that the

company had " submitted a summary of data " of its own tests of the

corn; the FDA itself has never made a determination of the product's

safety. " The government has not performed one experiment to

determine any impacts of these foods on human health or the

environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops, " said

Kimbrell. " There is not one peer-reviewed study behind the industry

hype. "

 

Dolores Huerta, testifying three blocks away from a city park named

after Cesar Chavez, with whom she co-founded United Farm Workers,

said " Many of the farm workers I talk to were farmers in Latin

America, forced off their land. They tell me they couldn't compete

with the big companies, and they had to come here and be turned into

laborers for the same corporations that now own their farms. "

 

Huerta, noting that the real goal of genetically altered seeds is

the resulting ownership patent on that seed and crop, asked " What

will happen to our food supply when it is controlled by a few multi-

national corporations? " Huerta urged the Legislature " to take the

lead on this issue. "

 

Anuradha Mittal of the Institute for Food and Development Policy

(Food First) amplified Huerta's point, saying that in Mexico, 600

farmers a day lose their land and come to the US to labor for big

agriculture; that in India two million farmers a year lose their

land due to the practice of dumping cheap grain on the country at

prices the local farmers can't compete with. " 'Free trade' has

devastated the countryside in India, " said Mittal. " Biotech and free

trade agreements combined will be even more devastating. The USDA

has said it will take diplomatic actions against any country that

rejects genetically modified food aid. The message is clear: 'You're

either with us or you're against us.' The same message will surely

come to the California legislature, but you can send a message to

the rest of the world about a different model of agriculture. "

 

" We fought for generations to get the kind of strong laws we have

here in California, " said Lisa Hoyos of the California Coalition for

Fair Trade and Human Rights, " and they are in danger of being eroded

in the coming wave of trade negotiations. "

 

Concluding the hearing, Senator Figueroa said " We are mindful of the

threat of international trade agreements that undermine democracy

and pose a threat to the public welfare. " She promised that " this

Committee will be monitoring the activities of the WTO. I think you

will see the State of California playing a larger role in this

issue. "

 

The champions of biotech, big agriculture and free trade continued

to party a few blocks away, having theoretically avoided the Dracula

test - the process by which bad ideas hatched in secret are exposed

to the sunlight of public scrutiny - but only insofar as they had

managed not to be physically present in the room when the treatment

was administered.

 

The best they could manage was to make sure that no one of their

number had to sit in one of those chairs, face a senatorial panel,

and say " Well... I don't know. But we'll look into it. "

 

All content copyright © 2003, Faultline Magazine

http://www.faultline.org/news/2003/07/sacramentogm.html