Food Fight:
Family Farms Genetic tinkering sparks battles
The use of new biotechnology in
agriculture and the processing of genetically modified crops into food have
become a major health and environmental issue in Europe and the United States.
Opinion is divided between those who believe the new technology will enhance
our living and help feed the worlds growing population and those who fear
it will prove to be, like some other scientific/technological endeavors, an
advance that goes too far.
The history of farming is a story of technologies. Virgin soil was
first broken by horse-drawn plows. Later the invention of tractors encouraged
specialization in crops. The crop rotation that was a common practice on small
family farms worldwide yielded to monoculture -- the cultivation of a single
crop farm-wide. Heavy tractors compress the soil, making it difficult for
plants to reach underground moisture, so more and more fertilizer is needed,
which brings on more weeds. Farming became a never-ending battle against weeds,
with accompanying high soil erosion.
As a result, about 25 years ago the practice of
no-till farming was introduced. Seed is drilled in narrow rows
without disturbing the soil, which lies protected under last years
stubble. With this practice, erosion is halted but weeds become more of a
problem with greater need to apply chemical herbicides. Weeds become resistant,
and increasing amounts and stronger varieties of chemicals must be used. A new
solution was needed again.
It came in the form of genetically modified crops, which can
withstand the heaviest application of herbicides. Through techniques of
molecular biology, crops are engineered to be resistant to herbicides, also to
be drought and cold tolerant and pest resistant. Soybeans, corn and cotton are
the most frequently grown GM crops. It is estimated now that 60 to 70 percent
of processed foods in the United States, such as cereal, soup, flour and infant
formula, contain genetically modified ingredients.
Critics of these techniques include the Vatican and Britains
Prince Charles. Concern centers on the unknown effects on human health and on
environmental consequences and unintended consequences to other life.
A key worry is that crops engineered for herbicide tolerance will
crossbreed with weeds, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide-resistant
genes from the crops into the weeds. These superweeds would then be
herbicide tolerant as well. Also other introduced genes may cross over into
non-modified crops planted next to genetically modified crops.
Not a magic bullet
Proponents say biotechnology in agriculture is the way to restore
our farmlands, which have become sick places because of modern,
intensive farming methods and heavy use of chemicals. At the same time, the
results will be higher yields, reducing pressure on remaining uncultivated
habitats, promoting wilderness preservation. Others say that genetically
modified crops will only exacerbate the problem. The jury is still out.
Bio-tech is not a magic bullet, Gary Barton,
spokes-person for the St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto Corporation, a pioneer in
agriculture biotechnology, told NCR, but it is a key tool,
especially in Third World countries now, for feeding hungry people. Farms that
were once very marginal can now increase their crop output. We only get a place
in the market if we can help farmers, and those farmers are telling us they
want our products. You have to remember, too, that farmers have been tinkering
with genetics for thousands of years.
Critics of biotechnology say the risks are too great, that a
return to sustainable agriculture practices, crop rotation and use of organic
fertilizers are the safe way to insure an adequate food supply for the
world.
The real possibility of interbreeding is dramatized by the defense
of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto, the agribusiness company most
involved in research and development of genetically modified crops. The company
has filed patent infringement lawsuits against some farmers. Monsanto claims
that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed genetically modified seeds from an
unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that
their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone elses
genetically modified crops planted a field or two away.
Percy Schmeiser has been farming in Saskatchewan, Canada, for 53
years. He has served in the Canadian Parliament and been a mayor. Instead of
retiring, he has spent the last several years fighting Monsanto after having
been sued for patent infringement. Schmeiser grew canola plants on his farm,
over the years developing his own seed that was resistant to diseases common in
western Canada.
Property rights
In 1998, he was sued by Monsanto, charging that Schmeiser had
infringed on their patent by growing genetically altered canola --
Monsantos Roundup Ready -- without paying their technology fee. Schmeiser
claimed he had never purchased seed from Monsanto. The suit went to trial in
June 2000 in the Federal Court of Canada. The judge ruled that it didnt
matter how Monsantos genetically altered canola got onto Schmeisers
land, that any conventional plant that cross-pollinates with the genetically
modified plants becomes Monsantos property, that patent infringement had
taken place and that Schmeiser must pay his 1998 profits from his canola crop
to Monsanto.
Schmeiser has appealed the judgment, countersued Monsanto and
spent the last several years speaking around the world in defense of
farmers property rights.
Monsanto admitted at my trial, Schmeiser said, in an
interview with Acres U.S.A., that they knew [their seed] would
cross-pollinate or contaminate. They apparently had no intentions of
controlling it, and now it is out of control. That is the danger when you put a
life-giving form into the environment; there is no calling it back.
Monsanto spokesperson Gary Barton told NCR that the
evidence in the Schmeiser ruling speaks for itself. 95 percent of his
crop was Monsantos Roundup Ready, Barton said. The judge
ruled that could only have arrived on his field by design.
In my case, I never had anything to do with Monsanto,
said Schmeiser, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract.
If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots -- destroy what they
have worked on for 40 years -- I think I would be put in jail and the key
thrown away.
-- Rich Heffern
National Catholic Reporter, May 31,
2002
|