Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

US genetic engineering on the skids

By Bob Phelps - posted Thursday, 15 November 2001


In Canada, Monsanto won damages from canola farmer Percy Schmeiser after its patented genes were found in canola on his land. The judgement said it didn't matter if seeds or pollen had blown over the fence, as their presence was enough to put Schmeiser in breach of the patent. Hundreds of other small landholders are being sued. The option of planting non-GE seed is also disappearing as contamination spreads through the seed supply and a handful of companies dominate seed ownership.

The areas of commercial GE soy, corn, canola and cotton in the year 2000 were: USA 72%; Argentina 17%; Canada 10%; China 1%; and eight other countries had 1% combined. US Farmers are complaining that key competitors, Argentinean growers, get preferential deals. US farmers who buy GE seed must sign tough contracts that mean they: pay technology fees on GE seed; cannot save seed for replanting; and must purchase Monsanto's herbicide Roundup rather than cheaper generic alternatives. In contrast, Argentinean farmers pay no extra fees, can exchange seeds with their neighbours and buy herbicide at one third the US price.

GE Regulation

The US regulatory approach is weak as it requires no labelling or premarket food testing. It has been severely criticised and rejected by groups such as the EU-US Biotechnology Consultative Forum, the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel and the World Health Organisation's Codex Alimentarius which harmonises food standards and laws to promote global trade in food. The concerns are based on: serious conflicts of interest in the regulating offices; lack of transparency; flawed scientific practice; and the concept of substantial equivalence which is used to dilute safety assessments. The idea of substantial equivalence does not mean that products are the same. It assumes that production processes are irrelevant to the safety and efficacy of end products, and GE products are assumed to be the same as similar conventional foods. Thus, the very tests that would determine whether or not the assumption of equivalence is justified are not required. This discredits the US position.

Advertisement

Conclusion

The GE industry in the US is now in serious financial and political trouble. Food buyers worldwide are refusing to buy GE foods and regulatory barriers are appearing everywhere in response to public pressure. Farmers themselves are ambivalent and entire rural industries are resisting its introduction. The economic viability of GE on farms and in food is shaky. GE is almost totally dependent on US government backing of the technology with financial support and political muscle, to keep the US public uninformed and other governments compliant. This is not the basis for a secure industry.

Having failed to convince the world of the wonders of GE, the US is about to try the big stick. In a bill currently before Congress, US President George W. Bush is seeking the power to invoke economic sanctions against any country that refuses to buy American GE products, or even tries to label them. Food buyers and growers world-wide are mobilising to resist the GE juggernaut.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Bob Phelps is Executive Director of Gene Ethics.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bob Phelps
Related Links
Genethics Network
Photo of Bob Phelps
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy