iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Andrew Kimbrell

GET UPDATES FROM Andrew Kimbrell
 

A Victory for Democracy, Another Blow to Monsanto

Posted: 04/01/10 11:48 AM ET

It's finally happened. At last a government agency has rejected a genetically modified crop on the basis of a lack of conclusive scientific evidence that it is safe for consumers and the environment. The moratorium on the genetically engineered (GE) product also came about, in no small measure, as a prudent response to overwhelming public concerns regarding GE crops.

The only twist is that this crop, Bt eggplant, was not rejected by the U.S. government, but by the government of India.

"Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach," said Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh at a press conference earlier this month. Ramesh announced that more studies were needed to make sure that Bt Eggplant -- genetically engineered to contain insecticide derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) -- can be declared safe for consumers and the environment.

Minister Ramesh said that the Monsanto-produced eggplant would stay off the market until independent third-party scientific tests are concluded and the product's safety from the points of view of both environmental integrity and long-term human health are confirmed.

These tests would have to satisfy not only the professionals, but also the public. Mr. Ramesh characterized his decision as a difficult one, since there was much at stake and he needed to approach the issue to balance the concerns of commerce and food security against those of science and public sentiment. He concluded that "the decision is responsible to science and responsive to society."

Remarkable!

Unfortunately, that's not how we do things in the United States. Bowing to pressure from Monsanto and the other biotech companies, our federal agencies approved Bt corn and cotton without requiring any mandatory testing for environmental impacts. And the expected happened: a few years later, independent university researchers -- again not the government -- discovered that this Bt pesticide was potentially fatal to Monarch butterflies and other pollinators. After a public outcry, that particular version was taken off the market. But just recently new independent research showed that Bt was also potentially devastating to caddis flies, a major food source for our freshwater fish. Without mandatory government testing, we're clueless about the universe of keystone pollinators and other species that are being decimated as the Bt plants continue to proliferate in our fields.

Then there's the human health problems the US has experienced. Remember the Starlink scandal, one of the largest food recalls in recent US history? It turned out that a Bt corn plant could be a human allergen and had contaminated food products like Taco Bell tacos and a huge percentage of our seed supply. Farmers lost tens of millions of dollars as the contaminated seed had to be destroyed and contracts were lost. And the company had to fork over millions to consumers to settle class action health claims.

So given the disastrous US experience with Bt crops, it really was only prudent for Minister Ramesh to declare this moratorium in India. This sensible rejection, unexpected to those unfamiliar with India's approval processes, is being noted by business journalists as a move likely to seriously hamper Monsanto's expansion into the creation of GE food crops outside the U.S. Currently, India does allow the growing of Bt Cotton, but GE food crops and animal forage have not been heretofore accepted there. Those products are overwhelmingly rejected in the European Union and countries around the globe. Bt eggplant acceptance in India was for Monsanto an important business victory, a Trojan horse of sorts for getting its other crops into India. The country is the world's largest producer of eggplant, which is a staple of people's daily diets. Once India's farmers started growing eggplant, other varieties would follow in this potentially huge market.

With this moratorium, there is a real question now of whether any of the myriad GE vegetable and grain varieties Monsanto is creating for India can ever make it to the market. Clearly, given the problems we have had with these crops in the US, Monsanto's prospects are not good if India's overriding concern remains on assuring its citizens safe food that does no harm to an increasingly fragile environment.

Many of India's agriculture and food security experts are saying this was the right decision, and endorsing the calls for more science to examine the ecological and health impacts of these controversial new crops. Here in the U.S., we might take a lesson from the Indian approach and their public officials' adherence to the precautionary principles that Minister Ramesh so admirably has held himself to. There, officials seem to think that their job is to protect consumers and the environment. Here it seems like our federal agencies have been more interested in protecting Monsanto's and the biotech industry's bottom line.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 55
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:50 PM on 04/04/2010
I am neither a friend or foe of Monsanto. Sometimes their business practices leave a lot to be desired. There is however an awful lot of pie in the sky commentary from the Huff post about food production and farming.

First of all, I know of no farmer in the USA who plants GM with a gun held to their head. Most do it because GM works. What nearly is always ignored in this type of post is the fact that most farmers are going to use some herbicides, the question I would think would be which is better, less chemical or more? Using GM triple stack corn seed has nearly eliminated the use of insecticide on most of the corn being grown in my area. Using RR soybeans and corn has dramatically reduced the amount of herbicide used, and gives excellent control.

I do believe if American consumers want to reject GM food that is their right. What I think they need to understand is that might result in more chemicals being used, not less.
10:29 AM on 04/05/2010
First of all, you can't buy GM seeds without signing a contract that legally binds you, and specifically prohibits you from using seeds on your land that are not GM. The gun is held to organic farmers, who run a higher and higher risk of contamination, as GM seeds expand around them. With a little searching on the Internet, it becomes clear that legal spats are reaching the court, and we can expect more of the same. I have to seriously question your claims of less herbicide/insecticide use with GM seeds. Can you point to results from authoritative source on that issue?
02:24 PM on 04/05/2010
Where do you get your information? The statement you make that you must sign a contract prohibiting growing non GM crops is not true. The only contract you ever sign is one agreeing not to replant the seeds from GM crops.

You can question my claims all you want. I farm for a living, have done so nearly 25 years, and know first hand that on my farm as well as those of my neighbors we are using less chemical than we were in the late 1980s early 1990s before the advent of RR technology. We are also getting much better results, although that is probably coming to an end given RR resistant weeds. It should be pointed out I think that apparently plants can develop resistance to a chemical on their own.

Just a little dig here at the end, too bad for Huff posters that the practical experience of actual farmers is never an authoritative enough source. It is that kind of thinking that sooner or later will lead to this nation no longer able to feed itself.
02:01 PM on 04/02/2010
Can we simply label all products that contain GMOʻs and let the consumer decide? Strange that we have to label organic food, or in case of farmers markets show certification, so consumers can trust that it is organic. Can we assume that if it does not carry the organic label then the product does contain a GMO of some kind? In that case would it mean that the supermarkets carry many brands that contain GMO already?

interestingly:

Monsanto web site claims “The Worlds population is growing,” “to keep up with population growth farmers will have to produce more food…more food in the next 50 years then in the past 10,000 years combined”

World Health Organization (WHO) statistics show 1.5 billion overweight people and a smidge under half a billion obese, globally. United States with current trends has a projected overweight population of 75% with 41% considered obese. (wikipedia)
05:24 PM on 04/01/2010
Isn't Eggplant native to India anyway?
09:10 PM on 04/01/2010
It isn't native to India. However, eggplant is an extremely important part of the diet there - especially among the poor. Indian cuisine used eggplant extensively.
12:15 AM on 04/02/2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggplant

"The plant is native to India.[1][2] It has been cultivated in southern and eastern Asia since prehistory[citation needed] but appears to have become known to the Western world no earlier than ca. 1500."
03:49 PM on 04/01/2010
Clearly the FDA did a disservice to "we the people" when they allowed genetically modified crops into our food supply without any meaningful independent research and without any labeling requirement leaving the public to guess what is modified and which produce is the real deal. Unbelievable.

What the FDA did, I seems almost criminal -- specially because Monsanto benefitted so much while the public got a substandard product -- and potentially harmful. In fact, I think you forgot to mention that GMO corn causes cancer is lab rats -- COME ON??? And that GMO corn now makes up to 80-90% of the corn in the market now.
photo
mlaiuppa
Pres. Sarcasm Society. Like we need your approval.
02:35 PM on 04/01/2010
Why isn't the U.S. rejecting this stuff?

Is it that those in charge are stupid?

Or that they're in the pocket$ of Corporation$?
QuietLightTraveler
Scientist, Teacher, Naturalist, Photographer
03:28 PM on 04/01/2010
Of course you know the answer to that. Corruption. There is nothing honest any longer about our government because people in Congress (and probably in other areas of government) accept money from corporations. You can't have an honest or effective government if it does business in this way.
The whole financial crisis occurred because pro- corporate forces in government (the republicans mainly and those democrats that can be bought) weakened regulation of the private sector.
02:21 PM on 04/01/2010
Readers of this post need to know that the folks who pay Kimbrell's salary - the so-called "Center For Food Safety" - has a deliberately misleading name.

This group has absolutely no connection to the federally-funded Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Kimbrell and his staff are basically a group of opinionated loudmouths who formed an organization with a deliberately misleading name just so they could con gullible folks into thinking they know something about this topic. In fact, these folks do no research, set no policy, grow no crops, and produce nothing except press releases and lawsuits.

Check it out. You'll discover that the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has NO CONNECTION to Kimbrell and his cohorts. A small amount of extra effort will reveal that these folks have no expertise on anything except public relations.

You're welcome.
photo
mlaiuppa
Pres. Sarcasm Society. Like we need your approval.
02:37 PM on 04/01/2010
I'd say the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition doesn't know much either, considering some of the ¢r@p they allow to be grown and sold as food. I suppose high fructose corn syrup is a vegetable since it comes from corn?
03:24 PM on 04/01/2010
Well, the FDA does not share this opinion. They consider high fructose corn syrup to be plain old sugar.

Is there anything wrong with this judgement?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
12:26 PM on 04/01/2010
I buy organic in my attempt to bypass Monsanto. But they have tried to get the organic label in claiming that "organic" merely means pesticide free, rather than non-intervention by man beyond natural nurturing. I'm not sure if this still works, since products are never labeled here properly.
12:04 PM on 04/01/2010
This is the same company that says if you are a farmer who is next to a GM crop farmer, and the pollen from their crops enters your field (because you made the wind blow or something), that you need to pay monstanto as though all your seed came from them, right?
I keep thinking the solution to this is every time a farmer is sued for this, they should sue the farmer whose pollen entered their field for the entire amount of the settlement with Monsanto-then no farmer would risk using their seed!
Still, Monsanto is the reason we need seed banks, they pollute as much area as they can with their genes (via pollen), hoping eventually to be able to claim all crops belong to them!
02:12 PM on 04/01/2010
The idea that Monsanto sues adjacent farmers is a myth spread by Percy Schmeiser, a tech pirate who was caught stealing Monsanto's technology. He currently makes part of his income by soliciting donations and collecting speaking fees from gullible audiences. Misinformed bloggers have swallowed Schmeiser's claim that his is a victim of the big bad corporate overload, but the courts have rejected his argument.

Decide for yourself. Here's a link to the Canadian Supreme Court ruling that held Schmeiser lied when he claimed he hadn't deliberately stolen Monsanto technology:

scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

If you aren't interested in all the legal mumbo-jumbo, here's a media summary of the case:
www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13425087_ITM
photo
mlaiuppa
Pres. Sarcasm Society. Like we need your approval.
12:22 AM on 04/03/2010
Care to elaborate on "round up ready" GMO and the suicides of farmers in India?
11:33 AM on 04/01/2010
Wait a minute. This post is false on it's face.

Andrew Kimball begins by writing this: "At last a government agency has rejected a genetically modified crop on the basis of a lack of conclusive scientific evidence that it is safe for consumers and the environment."

But then he goes to great lengths to show that public opinion - not science - was behind India's decision. India's politicians were very upfront about the fact that they were making a decision that was NOT based on science. I applaud their honesty, and I think Kimball falls short of this standard.

A small amount of research shows that India's scientific reviewers clearly, unambiguously endorsed the approval of GMO eggplant. It weakens the arguments of GMO opponents like Kimball to deliberately mislead folks this way.
12:07 PM on 04/01/2010
Keep eating your GMO Monsanto crops then.
12:13 PM on 04/01/2010
Wait a minute, wait a minute! This post smacks like it was written from a Monsanto rep. You condemn the whole post based on...what?
I applaud the government of India and the EU nations for protecting consumers from the USA's genetically altered foods that are dumped on us. When will we stand up to biotech companies and tell them, "Hell no, I won't take it anymore." Just stop buying or eating this toxic junk.
01:59 PM on 04/01/2010
Thanks, Redyns and Zookie! This is very helpful.

To answer Z's question, my whole point is that this post is based on a falsehood. Both sides in this debate agree that public opinion - not science - motivated the decision to postpone approval of GMO eggplant. This is easily confirmed, and the text in Kimbrell's post acknowledges this clear fact.

Still, the second sentence in the post makes the clearly false assertion that science played a role, something that Indian officials and scientists unanimously dispute. Redyns and Zookie, your comments indicate that the facts make NO DIFFERENCE to you, correct? I mean, it's possible that some editor messed up Kimbrell's post. If so, I expect a correction soon. In the meantime, the whole thing is fundamentally in error, but Redyns and Zookie don't seem to care. If you two mean something else, by all means let us know.

In the meantime, thanks again for clarifying that facts play no role in your judgement. Those of us who live in the reality-based community find this kind of insight to be EXTREMELY helpful in deciding what to ignore.

Cheers,
Whatevah
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
purplet
11:22 AM on 04/01/2010
Tommy Thompson
Former US Secretary of Health,Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

John Ashcroft
The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the 2000 election were Larry Combest (Former Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Missouri Senate candidate John Ashcroft (later to be named Attorney General). (Source: Dairy Education Board)

More Ties
In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together.
Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.
11:20 AM on 04/01/2010
If these rollouts are successful, Monsanto reaps the rewards. If they fail society pays the price.

Easy enough to understand what's happening from the perspective of Monsanto, but I don't know why we think that we should condone that approach to doing business. Let them do the job right and let them reap a massive fortune for doing so, if that be the result. But throw management in jail if they endanger us at all simply for their own gain.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DemoMom
11:01 AM on 04/01/2010
We watched Food Inc. recently and Monsanto gets hammered in that movie for its policies towards farmers. I have no fundamental objection to genetically modifying foods but these seeds must be subjected to extensive, long-term testing before they are released. We just don't know what effect they have upon the environment - or upon human health - unless we spend time testing them, and Monsanto and other similar companies are all about the bottom line. Bravo to the Indian government for halting Monsanto in its tracks.
03:55 PM on 04/01/2010
Exactly -- but now we are finding out how dangerous the Monsanto seeds are. In Japan -- GMO crops were discovered to cause auto-inmune problems (allergies and such) because of a protein genetically enginneered by Monsanto. GMO corn causes cancer and organ failures in rats -- which are very genetically close to humans. It is a travesty. I have no objection to genetically modifying stuff either, but there needs to be conclusive and independent evidence of their safety. Otherwise, we are letting greedy bio-tech firm play God and we are the guinnie pigs here. The corruption at the FDA has got to stop.
09:29 PM on 04/01/2010
FYI, I'm familiar with the allegations of allergies in Japan and organ failure in rats. Both claims are completely false, made by folks with an ax to grind.

In one of my other comments I provide a link that exposes the organ failure bunk.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wendynyc
Climate Change is Real!
10:54 AM on 04/01/2010
Well over 100,000 cotton farmers have committed suicide in Maharashtra - an Indian state becoz they bought into the whole scheme of genetically modified cotton will give better yields. They took on a lot of debt to buy seeds and fertilizers from Monsanto - unfortunately the crops did not perform as per expectation and several farmers had to give up their life to escape the moneylenders!!!
11:41 AM on 04/01/2010
I don't blame you for repeating this very common myth. A large number of misinformed bloggers have claimed that the suicides in India are linked to GMO farming. This is not true at all. The suicides began long before the introduction of GMO, and the vast majority of deaths involved farmers who didn't use GMO seed.

The reality is that the Indian government recommended using GMO crops as a way to boost yields and incomes of farmers. Overall, the tactic did work - but not enough to help much. The real problem is that India's farmers are trying to support themselves on small plots that are not nearly big enough to be sustainable.

For an objective view of this subject, read what the Indian government had to say:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india

In the meantime, it would be good if folks would stop spreading this myth. Misinformation like this makes it very tough to make good decisions about the best way to help poor people feed themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wethepeople3884
in Order to form a more perfect union ...
10:48 AM on 04/01/2010
"it seems like our federal agencies have been more interested in protecting Monsanto's and the biotech industry's bottom line." That sounds all too familiar....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
purplet
11:21 AM on 04/01/2010
Of course- look at the connections to the government-
In Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case which could have an enormous effect on the future of the American food industry. This is Monsanto's third appeal of the case, and if they win a favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the markets of numerous U.S. crops, and to litigate conventional farmers into oblivion.

Here's where it gets a bit dicier. Two Supreme Court justices have what appear to be direct conflicts of interest.

Stephen Breyer

Charles Breyer, the judge who ruled in the original decision of 2007 which is being appealed, is Stephen Breyer's brother, who apparently views this as a conflict of interest and has recused himself.

Clarence Thomas

From the years 1976 - 1979, Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto. Thomas apparently does not see this as a conflict of interest and has not recused himself.

Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes.

Take a look:
Clarence Thomas
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

Anne Veneman
Former US Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

Donald Rumsfeld
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals
photo
Daphydd
Lets play some music
02:08 PM on 04/01/2010
Very interesting connections, thank you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wethepeople3884
in Order to form a more perfect union ...
02:15 PM on 04/01/2010
Thanks for the info!

Monsanto is the biotech version of Goldman Sachs and will likely be just as destructive to the country if they are not reigned in somehow. Goldman has already entirely infiltrated the US government. Monsanto is a few steps behind but entirely capable of being just as manipulative in the future.

Clarence Thomas is a joke. Ive never seen a judge that had less integrity than him. He will probably live on in history as the only justice who made it to the supreme court by a mere two senate votes. How dare a disgrace to the court like thomas replace thurgood marshall? Thomas isn't worthy of holding Marshall's robe. Marshall had more honesty and respect for the law in his finger than thomas has had throughout his entire career.