By Nathan B. Batalion
Published by Americans for Safe Food. Oneonta, N.Y.

Page 1 of 6

Largely between 1997 and 1999, gene-modified (GM) ingredients suddenly appeared in two-thirds of all U.S. processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization.

Since then thousands of applications for experimental GM organisms have been filed with the U.S. Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. Furthermore an economic war broke out to own equity in firms that either have such patent rights or control the food-related organisms to which they apply. This has been the key factor behind the scenes of the largest food/agri-chemical company mergers in history.

Few consumers are aware this has been going on and is continuing.

Yet if you recently ate soy sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched popcorn in a movie theatre, or indulged in an occasional candy bar -- you've undoubtedly ingested this new type of food. You may have, at the time, known exactly how much salt, fat and carbohydrates were in each of these foods because regulations mandates their labeling for dietary purposes. But you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell had been genetically altered!

In just those three years, as much as one-fourth of all American agricultural lands, or 70 to 80 million acres, were quickly converted to raise GM crops.

Yet in most other countries the same approach is subject to moratoriums, partially banned, restricted or requires labeling -- and with stiff legal penalties for non-compliance. This refers to laws in Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Portugal -- or in virtually all European nations. The same trend has further spread to Latin America, the Near East and Asia.

By contrast, an unregulated, quiet, and lightning speed expansion has been spearheaded in the U.S. by a handful of companies in the wake of consolidations. We hear from their sales departments that nothing but positive results will follow for everyone from farmers to middlemen and, the ultimate, consumers.

This "breakthrough" technology will aid the environment by reducing toxic chemical use, increasing food production to stave off world hunger, and leading to an agricultural boom. In addition it will provide nutritionally heightened and much better storing and tasting foods. Finally, all of this is based on nothing but "good science," which in the long run will convince the wary public that GM foods are either equivalent or better than the ordinary.

The size of a technology's market penetration -- one-fourth of U.S. agriculture -- is not necessarily indicative that the majority of these claims are true.

Biotechnology attempts a deeper "control" over nature, but a powerful temporary control is illusionary. For example, a farmer in Ottawa planted three different kinds of GM canola seeds that came from the three leading producers (Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty). At first, he was happy to see he needed to use less of costly herbicides. But within just three years, "superweeds" had taken in the genes of all three types of plants! This ultimately forced him to use not only more herbicides, but far more lethal products.

The central problem underlying all of this technology is not just its short-term benefits and long-term drawbacks, but the overall attempt to "control" living nature based on an erroneous mechanistic view.

"Bioengineering" thus offers a contradiction in terms. "Bio" refers to life, what is not mechanistically predictable or controllable, and "engineering" refers to making the blueprints for machines that are predictable but not alive. They are dead. Thus there is the joining of what is living with what applies to the opposite.

What is patentable also needs to be mentally "distinctive" -- fixed or mostly unchanging in our minds to obtain an ownership or right -- to control patent. Again, something unchanging is not constantly adapting to its surrounding environment. It is less alive, and strategies to maintain that are often deadly.

For example, much of GM technology is directed at eliminating surrounding biological environment such as competing animals and plants and soaking plants with lethal toxins. Secondly, there are terminator plants that do not reproduce a second generation -- preventing a subsequent generation from escaping the controlling patented mold.

In contrast to nature's rainforests teeming with life, GM technology has planted forests of flowerless, fruitless "terminator trees." They are not habitats for life but instead exude poisons from every leaf, killing all but a few insects. Thirdly, GM companies have gone on multi-billion dollar buying sprees, purchasing seed companies and destroying their non-patented (potentially competitive) seed stocks.

Time magazine called the widespread consequences of this effort a global "Death of Birth". All of this is why "biotechnology," in its naked essence, has been tagged by some as thano- ( meaning death) technology.

No doubt mechanical patterns in nature are real. But they can be a superficial by-product and not reflective of the deepest or true essence of life.

Hybridizations do work harmoniously with superficial aspects of nature without fully disturbing the essential life force at the center of each cell. Also with hybridizations, conscious life makes primary genetic decisions. We can understand this with an analogy. There is an immense difference between being a matchmaker and inviting two people for dinner -- encouraging them to go on a date -- as opposed to forcing the union or even a date rape.

With biotechnology, roses are no longer crossed with just roses. They can be mated with pigs, tomatoes with oak trees, fish with asses, butterflies with worms, orchids with snakes. The technology that makes this possible is called biolistics -- a gunshot-like violence that pierces the nuclear membrane of cells. This essentially violates the consciousness that forms and guides living nature. Some also compare it to the violent crossing of territorial borders of countries, subduing inhabitants against their will.

What will happen if this technology is allowed to spread? Fifty years ago few predicted that chemical pollution would cause so much environmental harm -- with nearly one-third of all species now threatened with extinction -- or that cancer rates would have doubled and quadrupled.

No one has a crystal ball to see future consequences. Nevertheless, alarm signals go off when a technology goes directly to the center of every living cell and under the guidance of a mechanical or non-living way of restructuring or recreating nature.

The potential harm can far outweigh chemical pollution because chemistry only deals with things altered by fire, or things that are not alive. For example, a farmer may use toxic chemicals for many decades, and then let the land lie fallow for a year or two to convert back to organic farming. The chemicals tend to break down into natural substances within months or years. A few may persist for decades. But genetic pollution can alter the life in the soil forever!

Farmers who view their land as their primary financial asset have reason to heed this. If new evidence of soil bacteria contamination arises, which is possible given the numerous (1600 or more) distinct microorganisms we classify in just a teaspoon of soil, and if that contamination is not quickly remediable but remains permanent, someday the public may blacklist farms that have once planted GM crops. No one seems to have put up any warning signs when selling these inputs to farmers who own one-fourth of all agricultural tracks in the U.S. Furthermore, the impact of potential spreading on all ecosystems is profound.

In short these processes involve unparalleled risks.

Voices from many sides echo this view. Contradicting safety claims, no major insurance company has been willing to limit risks or insure bio-engineered agricultural products. The reason given is the high level of unpredictable consequences.

Over 200 scientists have signed a statement outlining the dangers of GM foods, and The Union of Concerned Scientists (a 1,000 plus member organization with many Nobel Laureates) has expressed similar reservations. The (prestigious) medical journal, Lancet, issued a warning that GM foods should never have been allowed into the food chain. Britain's Medical Association (the equivalent of the AMA) with 100,000 physicians and Germany's with 325,000 issued similar statements.

In a gathering of political representatives from over 130 nations, approximately 95 percent insisted on new precautionary approaches. The National Academy of Science released a report that GM products introduce new allergens, toxins, disruptive chemicals, soil-polluting ingredients, mutated species and unknown protein combinations into our bodies and into the whole environment.

This may also raise existing allergens to new heights as well as reduce nutritional content. Even within the FDA, prominent scientists have repeatedly expressed profound fears and reservations. Their voices were muted not for cogent scientific reasons but due to political pressures from the Bush administration to buttress the nascent biotech industry.

To counterbalance this, industry-employed scientists have signed a statement in favor of genetically engineered foods. But are any of these scientists impartial?

Looked at from outside of commercial interests, perils are multi-dimensional. They include the creation of new "transgenic" life forms -- organisms that cross unnatural gene lines (such as tomato seed genes crossed with fish genes) -- and that have unpredictable behavior or replicate themselves out of control in the wild.

This can happen, without warning, inside of our bodies creating an unpredictable chain reaction. A four-year study at the University of Jena in Germany conducted by Hans-Hinrich Kaatz revealed that bees ingesting pollen from transgenic rapeseed had bacteria in their gut with modified genes. This is called a "horizontal gene transfer." Commonly found bacteria and microorganisms in the human gut help maintain a healthy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated.

Mutations may be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs throughout the human body.

Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible realities in the future. The same is true for the bacteria that maintain the health of our soil and are vitally necessary for all forms of farming -- in fact for human sustenance and survival.

Without factoring in biotechnology, milder forms of controlling nature have gravitated toward restrictive monocroping. In the past 50 years, this underlies the disappearance of approximately 95 percent of all native grains, beans, nuts, fruits, and vegetable varieties in the U.S. GM monoculture, however, can lead to yet greater harm.

Monsanto, for example, set a goal of converting 100 percent of all U.S. soy crops to Roundup Ready strains by the year 2000. If affected, this plan would have threatened the biodiversity and resilience of all future soy farming practices. Monsanto laid out similar strategies for corn, cotton, wheat and rice. This represents a deep misunderstanding of how seeds interact, adapt and change with the living world of nature.

One need only look at agricultural history; the havoc created by the Irish potato blight, the Mediterranean fruit fly epidemic in California, the current international crisis with cocoa plants, the regional citrus canker attack in the Southeast, and the 1970s U.S. corn leaf blight.

In the latter case, 15 percent of U.S. corn production was quickly destroyed. Had weather changes not quickly ensued, most all crops would have been laid waste because a fungus attacked their cytoplasm universally.

The deeper reason this happened was that approximately 80 percent of U.S. corn had been standardized to help farmers crossbreed by a method akin to current genetic engineering. The uniformity of plants then allowed a single fungus to spread, and within four months destroy crops in 581 counties and 28 states in the U.S. According to J. Browning of Iowa State University, "Such an extensive, homogeneous acreage of plants ... is like a tinder-dry prairie waiting for a spark to ignite it. "

The homogeneity is unnatural; a byproduct of deadening nature's creativity in the attempt to grasp absolute control and can ultimately yield wholesale disaster. Europeans seem more sensitive than Americans to such approaches, given the analogous metaphor of German eugenics.

Historical Context

Overall the revolution that is presently trying to overturn 12,000 years of traditional and sustainable agriculture was launched in 1980 in the U.S. This was the result of a little-known U.S. Supreme Court decision, Diamond vs. Chakrabarty, where the highest court decided that biological life could be legally patentable.

Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, a microbiologist and employee of General Electric (GE), developed at the time a type of bacteria that could ingest oil. GE rushed to apply for a patent in 1971. After several years of review, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) turned down the request under the traditional doctrine that life forms are not patentable. GE sued and won.

In 1985, the PTO ruled that the Chakrabarty ruling could be further extended to all plants, seeds, and plant tissues or to the entire plant kingdom.

Scouring the world for valuable genetic heritage, W.R. Grace applied for and was DELETE(been) granted 50 U.S. patents on the neem tree in India. It even patented the indigenous knowledge of how to medicinally use the tree (what has since been called bio-piracy). Furthermore, on April 12, 1988, the PTO issued its first patent on an animal to Harvard Professors Philip Leder and Timothy A. Stewart. This involved the creation of a transgenic mouse containing chicken and human genes.

On October 29, 1991, the PTO granted patent rights to human stem cells and later human genes. A U.S. company, Biocyte was awarded a European patent on all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborn babies. The patent extended exclusive rights to use the cells without the permission of the `donors.'

Finally the European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce proteins in their mammary glands. Baylor essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals.

Other attempts have been made to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea. Thus the Chakrabarty ruling evolved within the decade from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible microbes to virtually all terrains of life on Earth.

Certain biotech companies then quickly moved to utilize such patenting for the control of seed stock, including buying up small seed companies and destroying their non-patented seeds. In the past few years, this has led to a near monopoly control of certain commodities, especially soy, corn, and cotton (used in processed foods via cottonseed oil).

As a result, nearly two-thirds of such processed foods showed some GM ingredient. Yet again without labeling, few consumers in the US were aware that any of this was pervasively occurring. Industry marketers found out that the more the public knew, the less they wanted to purchase GM foods. Thus a concerted effort was organized to convince regulators not to require such labeling.

Continue to page 2 of this article

[ Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 ]

Previous Article Current Newsletter Next Article

Did you find this article interesting?