Between them, agribusiness giants Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF will soon control two-thirds of the GM seeds available in the world, according to Ottowa’s ETC Group, which advocates for small and subsistence farmers.
Monsanto and friends claim these “climate-ready” seeds (some still awaiting patent approval) will allow future food crops to withstand drought, flooding, seawater incursions, elevated temperatures and higher levels of ultraviolet radiation (UV), all known effects of global warming. Further, the three companies argue that these radically altered crop seeds will never be developed without patent protection – a subtle threat to those who charge the patents are nothing more than an attempt to control the world’s food supply. Agribusinesses message is clear: give us our seed patents and world markets, or face global starvation.
Monsanto et al insist that GM seeds are the only way to feed a future world impacted by global warming. Detractors point out that GM seeds are not that much more productive than current hybrids coupled with effective land management, are species and field invasive, and by their use control the kinds and amounts of herbicides and pesticides farmers can use – chemicals manufactured and sold by the very companies who make the GM seeds. If this sounds like a cunning monopoly of the world’s farming – a $19.6 billion-dollar market - it is, according to some opponents.
In Canada, a 2002-03 study of GM canola among Canadian farmers lead University of Manitoba researchers Ian Mauro and Stéphanie McLachlan to conclude that the benefits of GM seeds are marginal, while the risk of herbicide-tolerant (HT) GM seeds invading fields is huge, particularly among small farmers and farmers with a long history of GM planting. Canadian farmers have reported GM strains in their fields as much as six years after the original planting, and a European Commission report shows GM-modified rape seed persisting as long as 10 years after planting.
Why is this critical? Because GM seeds are controlled by corporations, and even accidental invasions or proliferation (called “volunteerism”) can result in indefensible lawsuits by these corporations against innocent farmers -- a risk that rises exponentially as more and more farmers adopt GM planting adjacent to neighbors who do not.
Another issue is weed control. Currently, 96 percent of Canadian canola production is represented by three GM varieties: Roundup Ready (RR, glyphosate tolerant), Liberty Link (LL, glufosinate tolerant) and Clearfield (CF, imidazolinone tolerant). Each is modified to tolerate a specific herbicide, with the Roundup variety taking 50 percent of the market. Unfortunately, while GM crops initially provide better weed control, farmers generally agree that the loss of European markets (which forbid GM importation) and the fear of lawsuits negate any gains in weed management.
In spite of the current tragedy in India, where more than 25,000 farmers have taken their lives by drinking pesticide as a result of (GM) crop failures, the Pakistani government is considering an agreement with Monsanto for the importation of Bt cotton into the Punjab province. Bt cotton is a genetically modified strain of cotton which incorporates Bacillus thuringiensis in the genome to prevent certain kinds of insect damage to crops. These agreements will be accomplished via technology transfer fees, or royalties, and give Monsanto the upper hand in cotton production for generations to come as Bt strains “volunteer” into fields planted with native, or natural, strains of cotton.
In Georgia (in the U.S.), cotton farmers are facing a crisis similar to India’s. Georgia, a national leader in cotton production – second in acreage planted and third in production – is being faced down by Monsanto, which refuses to re-license Bollgard (B1) seed, planted in more than 92 percent of Georgia’s cotton fields. Monsanto wants these farmers to switch to the newer, and as yet unproven, Bollgard II and WideStrike GM cotton strains. Farmers continue to resist, or are switching to more profitable soybeans, since the newer strains are not only more expensive but offer no greater protection against caterpillar damage than the initial Bt strain. The resultant total loss to Georgia’s economy is estimated at nearly $130 million, and the loss will hit hardest in poor, rural counties dependent on cotton for survival. Couple that with the recent drought – for which Bt seeds are not adapted (and add the fact that cotton is highly water-intensive) – and the economic outlook for Georgia is bleak indeed.
Proposed advances like Terminator technology, designed to prevent GM seeds volunteering into other fields, are currently on hold thanks to a United Nations ban. This technology, which makes the seeds of GM crops sterile, further threatens seed saving as practiced among the world’s 1.4 million poor farmers (who typically re-seed fields from last year’s crop to save money). It may also, inadvertently, threaten the future fertility of native seed strains. No one knows for sure; the technology is untried.
In spite of this, Monsanto and friends are moving forward toward mass distribution of these “suicide seeds”, aptly named for their potential not only to drive the world’s poor to suicide, but to create a form of mass biological suicide among the world’s already threatened native plants.
Monsanto continues to woo farmers around the world, arguing that GM seeds are more productive (in fact, they are not), easier to grow because of their built-in pest resistance (which ultimately produces not hardier crops but hardier pests), and more adapted to climactic extremes, when in fact native seed strains may show the best adaptability in the long run.
In fact, Monsanto’s courtship of farmers – begun with sweet promises and, as often as not, ending in force – reminds me of the WWII Army poster bearing a picture of Uncle Sam pointing his finger and saying, “The Army wants YOU”?
Uncle Sam is now Monsanto, and when Monsanto wants you, there is no saying no.
Further Reading:
