The giant food conglomerate, Monsanto,
is once again in the news for various alleged misdeeds and is using
its trademark heavy handed tactics to obscure and obviate the actions
for which it is being charged. Monsanto has for some time
aggressively pursued suits against innocent farmers whose crops have
been inadvertently pollinated by neighboring crops of Monsanto's
genetically modified corn. The immense wealth of this company and
the legal advantages that wealth brings usually lead to a favorable
judgment for Monsanto. Now some states are moving to require that
any produce that is genetically modified carry a label that makes
that clear leaving the choice in the hands of the consumers.
Monsanto has promised to sue any state that passes such legislation
assuring a lengthy and expensive legal process.
In an effort to close off another
avenue of inquiry Monsanto has bought a leading company that had been
investigating the cause of the mysterious die off of bees, the most
prolific pollinator in nature. This company had determined that
Bayer, the manufacturer of the pesticide, and Monsanto, the producer
of the seed and a special adhesive coating, were largely responsible
for the extermination of the bee population. It seems that the
pesticide that was supposed to stay on the seed to combat the root
worm was becoming aerosolized and finding its way into the bee diet.
So, Monsanto exercised the tried and true method of killing the
messenger in an effort to quite the criticism.
Another recent revelation is that
Monsanto's genetically modified corn that is designed to survive the
application of Monsanto's prime herbicide, Roundup, when it is used
to suppress weeds in a field of corn has resulted in the evolution of
weeds resistant to Roundup. The scientists at Monsanto have
expressed surprise at the rapid evolution since it took them a long
time to do it in the lab. The USDA originally said any genetically
modified crop had to be interspersed with at least 50% of a
non-modified crop in order to thwart evolution. Monsanto argued it
could be done with 10% and managed to lobby Congress and the USDA
until they agreed. Guess what?
There is nothing new about genetic
modification. It has been done for as long as we have had
agriculture by saving the seed from plants with desirable
characteristics. The difference now is that the modification is
being done in labs but more unnerving is the practice of recombinant
gene splicing that can splice in genes from another species to
achieve a desired characteristic.
How does Monsanto get away with it you
might ask. Well, it is true that Monsanto's products will initially
increase crop yields but many experts argue that the benefit wears
off when pests and weeds become resistant. Monsanto recently
announced it was giving up on its efforts to market genetically
modified maize in France due to high resistance. Last year Monsanto
spent about $6.5 Million to lobby congress and only a few years ago
reached a high of almost $10 Million. What does Monsanto get for
that investment? Well, one of the duties of our state department is
to promote U.S. Interests and commerce abroad and the state
department is very insistent at promoting Monsanto's products. In
addition, Michael Taylor, a former lobbyist for Monsanto and an
officer in that company was appointed to the number 2 position in the
FDA in charge of ensuring food safety and implementing policy. In
that position Taylor has conducted raids with armed agents on
unpasteurized milk producers and others. Why? Monsanto provides a
genetically modified growth hormone that will increase the yield of
the milk cow.
What is the payoff for Monsanto? Well,
Monsanto now provides up to 90 % of the world supply of genetically
modified seed. It has been buying up seed companies in order to
squelch their sales and aggressively pursues in court cases of patent
infringement which it can claim as a result of its recombinant gene
splicing techniques.
The efforts by Monsanto are so
pervasive that the products produced by Monsanto are now showing up
in non-treated crops as a result of natural cross-pollination and are
competing with those crops for space in the natural environment.
What is at stake, other than the integrity of our food supply and
protection system, is the loss of genetic diversity. What this means
is that you may one day decide that a tomato produced for its
shipping characteristics is as tasty and one that is an heirloom
species because there will be no point of reference. But, even more
sinister, is the lack of biodiversity that will make our food crops
subject to a catastrophic die off if a threat develops that is
resistant to the modified species.
Even in our basic necessities such as
food and water we find the tentacles of corporate greed reaching in
and prostituting the political process that should be protecting the
American people and the rest of the world. The revolving door of
industry and regulators and the uninhibited flow of money into our
political system is a cancer that must be excised if our democratic
freedoms are to survive and possibly if the human race is to survive.
Without adequate food and water life cannot exist.
I once heard someone say that there is
no danger of us destroying the planet. The planet will find a way to
survive with or without humans. The choice is ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment