The debate about genetic engineering and its connection to the control of the US in the economy of the poor countries, is far from over. This is evidenced by the explosion of talks at the Cancun conference and the publication of NASA's new plan to monitor genetically modified crops from space
Yanai Ofran, Haaretz
When Joseph Stiglitz meets with leaders from poor countries, he encourages them not to give in to the pressures exerted on them by the Europeans and the Americans. Pressures of this type, especially those concerning agricultural products, recently ended in the explosion of the Cancun conference, where the rich and poor countries tried to formulate new trade agreements. That very week - when economists, politicians, industrialists and non-governmental organizations were trying to reassess the balance of power and identify who gained and who lost from the explosion of talks - the journal Nature published a new NASA plan to monitor genetically modified crops from space. The news only fueled the debate about genetic engineering and its connection to the control of the US in the economy of the poor countries.
In the week before the convening of the conference in Cancun, Stiglitz, a rotund and soft-spoken man, presented to his students in the "Globalization and Markets" course at Columbia University in New York, the recommendations he presents to the leaders of developing countries. "I tell them that it is better to have no agreement than to have a bad agreement," said Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and a harsh critic of the International Monetary Fund. In a poignant article he published in the "Guardian" newspaper a week before the conference in Cancun, he described how Western policies affect the life of a poor African farmer. The cotton he grows he is forced to sell at measly prices because of the absurd subsidies that Western countries give to their farmers.
25 thousand American cotton growers receive an annual subsidy of four billion dollars - more than the value of the cotton they grow. An African farmer, who is considering improving his situation and buying a cow to sell milk to the local market, has to deal with European milk powder that is sold in Africa at ridiculous prices - an average Western cow receives a subsidy of two dollars a day from the government, more than what the African farmer earns. European farmers produce more and more milk, far beyond what Europe needs, and market it at subsidized prices to the poor world. At the same time, in the name of globalization, the representatives of the West demand that the poor countries open their markets to Western products and allow them fair competition. In Cancun, Stiglitz warned, "the rich countries will probably try to use their economic muscles again, to get what they want at the expense of the poor countries."
Genetic engineering has become an element in this debate. Scientists in Western companies have been working for several decades on the development of genetically improved crops. Thus, for example, special varieties of corn were developed in which a gene taken from the bacillus bacterium was incorporated. This gene does not affect mammals or the taste of the corn, but it eliminates the harmful insects. The amount of corn that is produced from each plot increases and the costs of pest control are small.
The grower, say the supporters, profits if he is American and if he is Brazilian. A genetically modified variety of rice contains genes that increase the amount of iron and vitamins in the rice. The developers say that this rice can save the lives - and make the eyes of millions - of children in Asia who die of malnutrition, or go blind due to a lack of vitamin A.
But in all commercial GM varieties, another sophisticated genetic modification is introduced, which angers the opponents. All these plants are sterile. A complex genetic system is integrated in all of them, which identifies the plant cells that develop into sperm cells and eliminates them, and only them. Thus it is guaranteed that the plant will produce healthy and nutritious crops, but will not produce seeds. After the harvest, the farmers are forced to return to the western producer and buy expensive seeds from him for the next season. The producers claim that without the seed elimination mechanism they would be able to sell each farmer only one year worth of seeds, which would render all research and development efforts unprofitable. Critics say the result will be total dependence of world agriculture on American industry.
The attacks on the genetically modified crops come not only from the poor world. Vegan organizations passionately claim that genetically modified food is harmful to health - a claim that appeals to politicians and European consumers who treat these crops almost like poison. In many European countries, the opponents succeeded in enacting laws that require special labeling of genetically modified crops. The fact that all the dozens of studies done on the matter failed to provide even a shred of evidence supporting this claim - did not moderate the opponents.
Nor does the claim that crossbreeding between species, the primitive version of genetic engineering, is a modern practice of agricultural chemistry, convince the Europeans. Cynics claim that the panic in Europe has less to do with vegan piety and more to do with the distinct technological advantage Americans have over Europeans in the fields of genetic engineering. As the genetic improvements reduce costs and increase yields, the American advantage could have far-reaching effects on the competition between Europe and America. Therefore it is hard not to suspect that the European bellicosity in this matter is actually a sophisticated version of trade restriction.
A more serious argument that the proponents of genetic engineering have to deal with is the ecological criticism. The power relations between species in nature are in a precise equilibrium achieved in billions of years of evolution. Genetic engineering changes the picture. If the transgenic species were to leak from the agricultural fields into the wild they could have an unfair advantage that would allow them to take over habitats and exterminate other species. In the face of this criticism, the seed manufacturers flaunt genetic sterility technology. A plant that does not produce seeds, they claim, cannot compete with anyone.
But genetic engineering may also have other ecological effects, and precisely those that will harm the interests of the seed producers. If all corn crops are transgenic, corn pests will lose their source of livelihood. They may become extinct. If it does happen, no one will shed a tear. But the evolutionary logic offers another, more reasonable option - in the struggle for survival, the pests will develop resistance to the genetically engineered corn. The gene that is supposed to eliminate them will no longer affect them and they will eat the GM corn with the same gusto as they ate its wild cousin, while throwing the ground under the business model of the seed manufacturers.
The solution introduced by the US Department of Agriculture in collaboration with the Ministry of Environmental Protection is a limit on the proportion of genetically engineered crops in each field. According to federal law, at least 20% of crops must be non-GMO. The problem is, there is no effective way to enforce this regulation. And indeed, a report from the beginning of the summer determined, based on a sample test, that a considerable part of the farmers, perhaps even the majority, bypass the federal regulation and sow all their fields with genetically modified seeds. "It's only a matter of time before resistant pests emerge," Gregory Jaffe, a Washingtonian biotechnology expert, said at the time. The GM corn won't be very valuable when that happens, he explained.
The publication of the report was the most significant victory of the opponents. The fear of durability is the only claim that is anchored in a well-founded scientific concern, and if this scenario comes true, everyone will lose. The seed companies will be stuck with a useless product, the farmers in Africa will be left with expensive seeds, barren plants and hungry pests, and the Europeans will once again be able to say "we told you so!"
But the news published last week probably foreshadows the next stage in the struggle. John Glaser from the US Environmental Protection Agency told Nature about NASA's ambitious project for satellite tracking of genetically engineered crops. According to him, the idea is based on the assumption that transgenic crops reflect radiation differently than normal crops. From the satellite it will be possible to see in which area transgenic plants grow and in which area normal plants grow. If the method works, the American satellites will spy on the farmers and easily catch those who violate the twenty percent rule. A farmer who will not resist the temptation and sow transgenic corn in the entire area, will be caught and punished. That way the pests will have something to eat and they will not be pressured to develop resistance.
The talks in Cancun also dealt with issues such as the drugs for AIDS and the liberalization of the capital markets. But agriculture became their main symbol. Farmers from all over the world gathered in the streets of the Mexican cat city to pressure the politicians. In the hearings, the parties fortified their positions. Outside, the emotional demonstrations reached a climax, when Lee Kiang Hye, a Korean farmer, committed suicide on the barricades by stabbing a dagger in his chest in a Shakespearean gesture.
A few hours later, the representatives of the 23 developing countries left the discussions. "We came to the conclusion," said a Brazilian spokesman, "that it is better not to have an agreement than to have a bad agreement," a statement that sounded familiar to Stiglitz's students. Anti-poverty organizations, like economists from the developing countries, reacted with great satisfaction, sometimes with open joy, to the explosion of talks. The jubilant demonstrators in the streets of Cancun saw the explosion of the conference as a victory that distances the Western countries from controlling the economies of the poor world.
But a strange kidnapping that happened last weekend shows that it is difficult to escape the lure of the giant American corporations. Brazil, which led the developing countries in Cancun, is the second largest agricultural power in the world. President Lula da Silva, a darling of anti-globalization and left-wing European activists, made the war on genetically modified crops one of the central banners of his successful presidential campaign. The American seed giant "Monsanto" saw the huge Brazilian market closed to him.
However, at the end of last week, while Da Silva's supporters were celebrating the explosion of the talks in Cancun, the vice president unexpectedly announced that Brazil was lifting the ban on the use of genetically modified seeds. At the time, da Silva was out of Brazil. "The experts tell me there is no danger in these seeds," said Vice President Jose Alencar, "the greens claim there is, but I have to sign this presidential decree."
Commentators say that behind the decision stands da Silva himself, who succumbed to pressure from Brazilian farmers, American politicians and the giant corporation Monsanto. According to this interpretation, he assigned the unpopular task to his deputy and chose to be absent from the country, hiding from the wrath of his supporters in Brazil and abroad. Lula, as he is called by his fans, has been marked as the leader of the developing world and even as the one who will curb the wild globalization and its bad impact on the poor countries. The implosion of the Cancun conference was largely attributed to his determined leadership. It is not clear what led him to fold just now.
Western economic commentators claimed that the main victims of the implosion of the talks would be the poor countries. But the apparent panic among Western farmers and industrialists shows that not everyone in the West shares this assessment. It is not yet clear what will happen in the next round of talks, but the news in Nature published four days before the explosion of the talks, and the surprising announcement of the Vice President of Brazil published a few days later - suggest that at least the battle over genetically modified crops is far from being decided.
He knew genetic engineering - plants
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~662782448~~~27&SiteName=hayadan
