The Guardian via the Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/9905/12/text/features11.html ANDREW SIMMS Gene fiddling leaves bad taste Date: 12/05/99 Genetically modified crops feed giant multinationals, but not poor farmers. INSTEAD of a plough, the poorly sketched Indian cow pulls an upturned bottle of Monsanto's herbicide on promotional leaflets that are distributed in Indian villages. A golf cup has been established in the herbicide's name. In Brazil, even before legal permission for commercial growing has been given, farmers are invited to demonstrations of genetically modified soya, and Monsanto is in court for alleged illegal planting. These are all signs of a battle raging for control of farming in poor countries. In a David and Goliath struggle between farmers, landless labourers and huge multinational corporations, it is Goliath who this time has the lethal weapon. The advent of genetically modified crops and an emerging international legal regime which allows companies to turn public natural resources into private property are shifting the balance of power decisively in favour of the already powerful. The top 10 agrochemical companies control 85 per cent of the global agrochemical market; the top five control virtually the entire market for genetically modified seeds. Concentration of ownership within the industry is increasing. One example of this is that Monsanto has bought stakes in the major national seed companies of India and Brazil - outside China, these are the farming giants of the developing world. A spate of massive mergers and the tight control afforded by the new gene technologies, added to the lobbying and marketing clout of the agro-biotech companies, mean enormous power over the world's food supply has been grabbed by very few hands. Is the world sleepwalking into a gene trap? Mario Gusson, who works in Brazil with Christian Aid-backed organisations, thinks so: transnational corporations will have a monopoly over price and this means control over food production and manipulation of the market. Without a global competition policy or enforceable code of practice for multinationals, Adam Smith's age-old warning should be heard: when people of the same trade meet together the conversation usually ends in a conspiracy against the public. Ismail Serageldin, head of an influential World Bank-funded global network of agricultural research centres, recently also seriously questioned whether biotech advances would be to the public good. One legacy of the last farming revolution is the permanent loss of at least 75 per cent of food varieties - the genetic storehouse on which we all depend. In the heartlands of the so-called green revolution, despite increases in food supply and even allowing for population increase, more people were left hungry. Today, 70 per cent of genetically modified crops are engineered not to improve their food value but to make them dependent on the seed companies' own-brand agrochemicals. In one stroke they maximise both profit and market share for the parent company, while tying farmers into tight contractual relationships. Environmental impact, too, follows the harmful farm tracks of the past. Using such herbicide-tolerant crops is like giving one plant a genetic radiation suit, then dropping a small nuclear device to wipe out all other plant life in the area, as well as the animal life that depended on it and any hope of sustainable agriculture. Battered by criticism, the agro-biotech firms argue that we need modified crops to feed a hungry world. Such claims take the debate on hunger and poverty back to the Dark Ages. In India, analysts coined the term Kalahandi syndrome after an area synonymous with hunger and misery but which nevertheless produces food surpluses. We know there is more food than we need to feed the world, yet more than 800 million people go hungry. Eight out of 10 children in developing countries live surrounded by food surpluses. Modified crops cannot resolve these paradoxes, but by concentrating power into ever fewer hands and continuing the green revolution trend of farming based on single crops and dwindling natural resources, they can make it worse. In Brazil they fear genetically modified crops controlled by corporations are fundamentally exclusive and will force more people off their land. People go hungry because they are poor and because they have no land to grow food on. Poor farmers stay hungry because they lack access to basics like water and credit, and lose out in the hustle for government support which rich farmers and corporations are so adept at winning. Modified crops are being promoted in poor countries before any international agreement on biosafety measures. The huge soya-growing State of Rio Grande do Sul in southern Brazil is fighting against modified crops and alleged illegal planting of modified soya by Monsanto's affiliate, Monsoy. For consumers in Britain, for example, Brazil is the most important source of non-genetically modified soya, and if the battle is lost British consumers may also lose their freedom to buy a wide range of non-modified products which depend on soya. Their struggle has become our struggle. - The Guardian This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited. ************************************************************************* This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
