Public Relations & Political Influence
The controversy surrounding genetically
modified organisms has persisted as the agricultural biotech industry
has continued to promote its creations around the world.
Unfortunately, many people still do not understand the issues
relating to genetic engineering and the products of that process.
The ignorance surrounding this subject can largely be credited to the PR efforts of corporate agribusiness. These PR efforts have been so
successful that at this point in time it can very difficult to engage
in honest civil discussion about the issues related to genetic
engineering and genetically modified organisms.
A popular accusation used against the
opponents of GMO technology is that they are the “climate change deniers of the left.” This dismissive accusation, while quite
cleverly crafted, entirely misses the substance and reality of the
issues at hand. For one thing, it serves to inaccurately classify
the opponents of GMO technology as leftists. This serves to
marginalize them along the arbitrary lines of a left/right political
dichotomy and casts the issue in a political light which is largely
irrelevant. But suffice it say that it's not just leftists who
oppose this technology. The next attribute of this phrase, equating
them to “climate change deniers,” also serves to create another
false parallel which can potentially serve to divide people. People
on the right side of the political spectrum don't want to be seen as
sympathizing with an issue of “the left” and informed people of
any political persuasion do not want to be equated with any sort of
climate change denial. But the reality of this accusation is that it
obfuscates the real issues at hand.
Unlike the fossil fuel industry (which
has funded climate change deniers and which sponsors PR campaigns
along those lines), the agricultural biotech industry has been very successful with its PR campaign. This is partly because the separation between fossil fuel extraction and the science of
climatology is very distinct at the academic level. Corporate
agribusiness, on the other hand, has long played a direct role in the
financing of agricultural science departments on university campuses
around the world. Because of this, any criticism of corporate
biotech can limit access to scholarships, internships, and the
general funding behind any agricultural department. And this conflict of interest will naturally effect the general attitude in
such departments about any criticism of GMO technology.
Beyond the direct funding of
agricultural departments at various universities, and the consequential
influence gained thereby, is the issue of scientific obstruction promoted by corporate agribusiness. Because the biotech industry has
been allowed to patent the gene sequence of its GMO creations, it is
legally allowed to restrict any and all 3rd party testing
of those creations. This not only limits the ability to conduct third party tests (under the penalty of resulting lawsuits), but it
also serves to delegitimize critical 3rd party testing as
being not only illegal but, thereby, somehow unethical. Mind you, this
restriction is on top of the limited focus likely to be found in
tests conducted by universities sponsored by corporate agribusiness.
The commodification of food is a
profitable endeavor. The profits derived thereby are what allow the
biotech industry to wield influence over the university system. But
these profits also afford corporate agribusiness great influence over the government – which is why these corporations were allowed to patent living
organisms in the first place (and why they are allowed to legally
limit testing of those organisms). In addition to making large
donations to the campaigns of prominent politicians, corporate agribusiness has also facilitated the appointment of high level officials who are sympathetic to their goals. This influence over
the government can also be considered part of their PR campaign which
serves to legitimize their activities.
All said... corporate agribusiness has
a firm hold over the university system and the poltical/legal system.
And this powerful influence is in addition to high-powered PR
campaign which is used to dismiss the notion of any problems related
to the creation and implementation of genetically modified
organisms.
The Scientific Issues Related to
Genetic Engineering
Another notion which has been
popularized by proponents of genetic engineering is that the process
used to create genetically modified organisms is equivalent to
natural selection and selective breeding. This is a simplistic
falsehood which appeals to members of the lay public who do not
understand the process of genetic engineering. The relatively slow
evolutionary process used by selective breeding (which farmers and
gardeners have used for centuries) is not at all the same as the
process of genetic engineering (which can create organisms that would
never naturally occur without the process of genetic engineering).
Cross-pollinating slightly different breeds of tomatoes, for
instance, is not the same thing as introducing gene sequences from
bacteria or other species into those tomatoes. The latter can create
an organism which would otherwise never manifest in the natural
world and usually genes from several different species are used in the process.
Arguably, the creation of any
particular GMO isn't necessarily problematic in itself. However, it
is impossible to know how a GMO crop with traits from another species
will interact with the natural world. For example, corn engineered with genes
from Bacillus thuringiensis (BT corn) will not necessarily behave in
the same was as corn which is merely grown in the presence of
Bacillus thuringiensis (which serves as a naturally occurring pesticide). When this GMO corn is released into the wild it serves
as a new source of Bacillus thuringiensis which is delivered to pests
in a different way and which spreads in a different manner. In this
case we are looking at GMO which may cause pests to develop a higher resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis or may cause an imbalance in
the ecosystem when the number of pests vulnerable to Bacillus
thuringiensis is reduced. Essentially we are talking about the
creation and dissemmination of an invasive species.
Because limited laboratory testing (or
isolated testing in study fields) can not, by definition, replicate
the conditions of the broader natural world... it is unknown what
effect any particular GMO will have upon the biosphere until it is
released and starts cross-pollinating with naturally occurring
species. On a related note, because a gene sequence can effect very
many different attributes, it is often unclear precisely what effect
a paticular gene will have (if it is expressed at all) when
introduced into a species which is very different from the species
from which it was taken.
Biological Dangers Posed To
Mammalian Health
For some of the reasons already
mentioned, implentation of a “precautionary principle” (which is
already required in some places) is advisable. This principle is
related to issues of public health and is described as follows:
“The precautionary principle is a
moral and political principle which states that if an action or
policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to
the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm
would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would
advocate taking the action. But in some legal systems, as the
European Union Law, the precautionary principle is also a general
principle of law. This means that it is compulsory. The principle
aims to provide guidance for protecting public health and the
environment in the face of uncertain risks, stating that the absence
of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to
postpone measures where there is a risk of serious or irreversible
harm to public health or the environment."
With that in mind, it should be pointed
out that some evidence has already suggested that GMO products have posed a
health risk to mammalian health. This should be understood at a
basic level since organisms can be manipulated by genetic engineering
to have a wide variety of traits (positive or negative). Were
someone so inclined, they could even genetically engineer an
intentionally destructive organism. But before issues of such
malicious intent is the issue of potential mistakes and the inherent
limits of laboratory testing for an organism which will be released
and interact with the natural world.
In 1989 a dietary supplement genetically engineered by the Japanese corporation Showa Denko killed 37 people (at least) and seriously disabled thousands of others. It
is widely believed by many researchers that the recombinant DNA
process produced dangerous enzymes which were not noticed in
pre-market testing. Showa Denko eventually paid out over $2 billion
in damages because of this incident.
In 1996 it was discovered that a gene from Brazil nuts was introduced into soybeans via genetic engineering. Subsequent consumption
of those soybeans could have proven fatal to people with allergies to
Brazil nuts. This risk was not initially noticed in animal testing. While
this particular project was fortunately terminated in time, it should
be pointed out that, if a GMO allergen like the one just mentioned was released into the environment,
cross-contamination of related plants becomes a risk. Since a wide
variety of genes from a wide variety of species are utilized in the
genetic engineering process, this is part of the reason that many
people want GMO foods labeled as such.
Various studies have suggested other
health risks posed by the introduction and consumption of GMO
products. Unfortunately, the aforementioned restrictions upon
testing and the control of academia by the agricultural bio-tech
industry limits their scope and criticizes fiercely any health risks
presented by independent researchers.
In 2012 Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini did an extensive study upon
“Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” which appeared in the peer-reviewed
journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (Volume 50, Issue 11, November
2012, Pages 4221–4231). This study, found that (from the
abstract):
"The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified
maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and
Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in
rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than
controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male
groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the
pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large
mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the
pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal
balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males,
liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This
pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron
microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also
generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large
palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier.
Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic
deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered
parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the
non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the
overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic
consequences."
Despite using a methodology which exceeded the requirements
used by the government to approve GM crops for public consumption,
the study was broadly and aggressively attacked. Professor
Gilles-Eric Séralini had his academic reputation slandered and
actually won a court case against some individuals who attempted to discredit his research. Despite contradicting an
academic and regulatory monolith, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini
responded fully to the criticism leveled at his study.
Another problematic
issue related to genetically modified organisms is the potentially degraded nutritional value of these creations. GMO crops are
generally not designed for increased nutritional content (despite
marketing propaganda to the contrary). Rather, they are primarily
designed to be resistant to various herbicides and pesticides which
are sold by the same corporations which sell GMO seeds. Because of
this, any potentially inferior nutritional quality of these GMOs
(which are mass marketed and sown broadly) can have a generally
negative effect on human populations. Combined with the fact that
these GMOs may cross-pollinate with other plants and possibly prove
to be invasive... and we could potentially have a very serious
problem as the majority of many staple crops become less nutritious.
The aforementioned complications are but a short list of problems related to the impact of genetically modified organisms upon mammalian health. More extensive lists are made available by organizations which are strictly focused upon these issues.
Environmental
Dangers
Sadly, many people
still do not seem to grasp the notion that environmental degradation
poses a harm to human health and society. But any ill effects upon
the environment do potentially present very serious problems to
humans. And the notion that a certain amount of symbiosis between
eco-systems and the various lifeforms which comprise the biosphere
should not be overlooked or dismissed.
Since GMO crops are
sometimes designed to be resistant to certain herbicides, the
potential for them to cross pollinate with genetically similar wild
plants can bring about the manifestation of “superweeds” which are immune to certain herbicides. This can be problematic for all
farmers – whether they are growing GMO crops or not – and may
cause them to use more and stronger herbicides to protect their
fields. The increased use of herbicides (which is already associated with the use of GMO crops) is potentially harmful to the environment
as the chemicals get dispersed by runoff and effect areas outside the
field in which they were initially used.
Similarly, because
some GMO crops are sometimes designed with a built-in pesticide
(which is thereby presented to insects in a new manner and differing quantities) the potential for certain insects to evolve into
“superpests” which can no longer be managed by lower doses of
pesticides in fields which are not growing the GMO variety. Equally
problematic is the potential effects upon the whole of a “pest”
species which may actually serve a broader purpose in the biosphere
(by providing food to birds and other animals, for example). A pest
species which was already somewhat resistant to the pesticide may
also become more dominant and bring about ecological imbalance as it
flourishes to levels which were previously kept in check by other
“pests”.
These
“superweeds” and “superpests,” by themselves, present very
serious problems to the environment. Factor in the increased use of
agriculutral petro-chemicals frequently used in coordination with GMO
crops and more serious problems are presented. For example, a link
was recently established between the mostly widely used class of pesticides, “neonicotinoids,” and colony collapse disorder within bee populations. This inspired an EU ban upon that class of pesticides which is primarily used on GMO corn.
Promises, Socioeconomics, and The
Marketing of Genetically Modified Organisms
Earlier in this article I wrote about
the public relations campaign and the political control wielded by
biotech corporations. However, more needs to be said about this.
The influence of these corporations extends beyond mere control of
the regulating bodies within the United States, control over American
universities, and their astro-turfing efforts using social media.
The corporations promoting the use of
genetically modified organisms are very wealthy and they have a huge
portion of the market share in regard to all things related to modern
agriculture. And, beyond the aforementioned methods of influence,
they make use of simple marketing to sell their products around the
world. Unfortunately, despite their carefully cultivated brand
images, these large corporations are not always the most ethical.
Bio-tech corporations present their
creations as necessary to feed a growing population. And, therefore,
they present themselves as the preeminent humanitarians of our day.
However, their humanitarian claims ring hollow for a number of
reasons.
For one thing, the diversity of natural/organic crops that already exists is more than capable of
thriving in broad range of climates and provide at least as much
nutritional value as the genetically engineered varieties. But as
many people know, the primary cause of malnourishment in this world
has nothing to do with a lack of nutrition in organic crops but,
rather, with the logistics surrounding distribution and control over food supplies.
Biotech corporations exacerbate these
latter issues by patenting their GMO seeds and prohibiting farmers from saving seeds from the current crop to plant again next year (a
practice as old as agriculture itself). This is all above and beyond these corporations suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by GMO crops (either
through spillage or cross-pollination).
Beyond all of that, the GMO crops being
promoted have often failed to achieve promised yields. So when
farmers are locked into buying GMO seed (either because of cross contamination or monopolized private markets) they are in a serious
economic and legal bind if future yields fall, if herbicides and
pesticides cease being as effective, or if other environmental
conditions change. In India this has created the situation in which
over 270,000 farmers have committed suicide during the last 15 years –
after their GMO crops have failed or they were unable to purchase new
seed for the coming year.
In regard to claims about increased
yields associated with GMO crops, it should be pointed out that
record-breaking yields have recently been achieved using organic crops and farming methods. The whole promise of the “green
revolution,” which involves heavy use of chemical herbicides &
pesticides (along with monoculture planting), ought to be seriously
questioned. While the broader issue of the “green revolution”
is slightly beyond the intended scope of this article, it is strongly
related in terms of agribusiness influence, and it's problems are
exacerbated by the implementation of GMO technology. (As with many of
the issues and problems discussed in this article, I'd recommend
studying the works of Vandana Shiva for information about all these
subjects.)
The Big Picture
Biotech corporations have made very
effective use of their power and influence. Many people remain
ignorant of the basic issues surrounding genetic engineering and
genetically modified organisms. Part of the problem is the
complexity of these issues. People do not understand the basic
difference between genetic engineering and traditional breeding
programs. People do not consider that a GMO with a built-in
pesticide may create problems down the line – even if the pesticide
initially works to protect a particular crop. People are unaware
about the limitations of controlled laboratory testing as opposed to
real world application. People are even unaware about the generally
low standards required to have a particular GMO crop formally
approved for the market. And these are but the simplest and most
recognizable problems associated with this technology. When we to
start discussing deeper, more problematic issues associated with
genetic engineering... the ignorance becomes almost palpable. Most
people, for example, are unaware that this technology can be used maliciously and effectively weaponized.
For any claim about anything
(scientific, spiritual, or otherwise) you can find people disputing
those claims – and all the moreso if there is a source of funding
for anyone disputing those claims (or if there is some other personal
interest for an idividual to do so). But just because a subject may
seem to have many proponents in favor of it, even seemingly impartial
academic proponents, does not mean all arguments are equal, apply critical thought, or get presented earnestly. Anyone can can
cherrypick studies, buy off universities, the government, and the
media – but that does not mean their position is justified,
well informed, or presented for reasons other than personal gain and
profit. Nor does any amount of parroting by the lay public prove
otherwise.
The issues in regard to genetic
engineering must be looked at individually, collectively, and
critically. And they must not be looked at myopically but, rather,
with the broader long term implications in mind.
But, recently, attempts to merely have GMO foods labeled as such have been shut down with millions of dollars coming in from the biotech corporations to oppose that action. Even the right to know what you are eating is denied to many
people. They don't know if they are eating an apple or if they are
eating a GMO apple engineered with genes from a bacteria and a pig.
At the very least... Hindus, Jews and Muslims might want to know
about such a thing – not to mention vegetarians. And, of course,
all the people who have other issues with GMO crops might want to
know as well. The right to know what you are eating should be
fundamental.
Really though... the issues related to
GMO crops extend far beyond merely knowing if the food you are eating
is genetically engineered or not. And this is why protest movements
have risen in opposition to this technology and the corporations
which promote it. (In fact, an international day of protest against Monsanto has been organized for May 25th, 2013 at
locations around the world – including most state capitols in the
United States.) I encourage everyone to get involved with the protest movement against GMO crops and biotech corporations. Do your own
research on this topic, spread the useful information that you find,
and help counter the incessant propaganda and misinformation spewed
forth by the agricultural biotech corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment