Big business, GMOs and technology
Review by Daniel Jardine
Genetic Engineering, Food, and the Environment: a Brief Guide
By Luke Anderson
Scribe Publications, Melbourne 2000
192 pp., $17.95 (pb)
This book should be read by everyone who eats and wants to know what is intended for their diet by transnational corporations. Luke Anderson's book describes the basics of genetic modification, along with where and how it is being used in farming, the environment and life in general.
Throughout the book there are many examples of the problems of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the discrepancy between the claims for the use of this biotechnology and the reality. There is a specific case study of rBST (a genetically engineered hormone used to increase milk production in cows) and its adverse effect on both cows and humans. The final short chapter outlines what an individual can do to stem this tide.
The book also contains an extensive reference list (although sometimes the numbering goes astray) and a resource list with a heavy emphasis on Australia and New Zealand.
Keeping up to date in this area can be difficult due to the constant changes due to genetic engineering advances, company mergers and buy outs. Nonetheless, the book contains some quite recent information.
This book is very good in describing what is wrong with the genetic engineering of organisms. The introduction of this technology follows a long line of technological development that has proved to be a disaster for both the environment and society. This is because the implementation of the technology is not in the hands of society but is controlled by commercial interests. So if the technology can make a profit, then it is sold despite the negative effects it may have on people and the environment.
Anderson describes how agribusiness uses various methods to pervert how their products are regulated, for example, by exploiting the revolving door for executives between corporations and positions in government regulation authorities. A most blatant example that Anderson cites is that of Dr Margaret Miller who, while working for the US Food and Drug Administration on rBST, was also publishing research papers with Monsanto (her previous employer) and the manufacturer of rBST.
This is not to say that biotechnology is bad in itself; it is how the technology is implemented in capitalist society that creates the problems. Genetic modification is a continuation of the big corporations' disregard of the environment. The claims made about nuclear power in the 1950s, that it would be "too cheap to metre", sound all too similar to the claims now being made that the biotechnology industry will "feed the world".
The material presented by Anderson could have been written a generation ago if the term "genetic modification" was replaced with "chemical". The corporations' names don't even need to be changed. To cite a few comparable examples, in the 1980s Monsanto and BASF were found to have tampered with data presented to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the deliberate exclusion of affected workers from studies of chemical toxicity.
Monsanto covered up dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products, failed to report contamination, substituted false information showing no contamination or submitted samples to the government for analysis that had been doctored so that the dioxin contamination did not exist.
Monsanto was fined by the EPA for failing to submit 164 adverse toxicity studies on a product it was attempting to get approval for. As an example of the "cooperation" between corporations and regulation authorities, the US EPA then declared a general amnesty saying there would be nominal fines for the presentation of other undisclosed reports; they received 11,000 documents from various companies.
The authorities responsible, both in Australia and in the US, do not do independent testing of GMOs. Instead, they rely on information supplied by the company. Monsanto is the major company wanting to introduce GMOs into Australia. As Monsanto's record with chemicals shows, it should not be trusted to release GMOs into the environment.
To expect that agribusiness companies have now changed their ways is to stretch imagination beyond belief. This can be seen in the types of plants being developed. Soya beans and cotton with brand name herbicide resistance does not improve the plant itself, it just allows Monsanto to sell more herbicide.
Scientists and the community need to learn from the history of the introduction of technological advances by corporate interests. While there have been great advances in science, the commercial interests of capitalists always come first and have resulted in some major disasters and complications that were kept hidden from the public. Nuclear power readily comes to mind.
The implementation of technology should be for the people to decide and this decision should be based information that demonstrates whether new technology will be for the betterment of society, not just for the capitalists.
There have been some very effective anti-genetic engineering campaigns, particularly in Europe, where some supermarket chains have banned genetically engineered foodstuffs. However, the groups involved need to look beyond just the adverse effects of GMO technology.
Anderson's concluding remark in the book is a call for a change in the structure of society, although he stops short of making a call for a socialist society. That is what is required. One that puts people and the community before profits and allows a democratically informed choice about the balance between technology and community needs.