by Jane Goodall
Many anti-GMO activists and scientists were immediately concerned and suspicious about the delayed retraction. Several hundred scientists signed an open letter to the publisher urging the journal to reverse the decision. “This arbitrary, groundless retraction of a published, thoroughly peer-reviewed paper is without precedent in the history of scientific publishing,” the letter stated, “and raises grave concerns over the integrity and impartiality of science.” A Forbes magazine editorial indicated that Seralini is considering suing the journal over the imminent retraction. Time will tell how all this plays out.
I am not in a position to debate the methodology or analysis of animal tests, as I do not have the scientific or medical knowledge. But from all that I have read, it seems fairly obvious that GM foods have posed at least some element of risk for animals so far tested. Thus, would it be naïve to think that human beings would be immune?
Numerous studies performed on rats and mice (animals routinely used as a biomedical research model for humans) have suggested that GM food is linked to serious health problems, including organ toxicity and issues related to the immune system, the gastrointestinal tract, reproduction, aging, and insulin production. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which is an accredited provider of medical education for health care professionals, has even asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods because of the risks seen in animal studies. Even the Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research of the US Department of Energy’s Genome Programs has warned against the unknown health effects of GM foods, and the US Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health lament that “no adequate testing” has been performed to confirm that GM foods are completely safe! The World Health Organization has also suggested other potential adverse events, warning of possible allergic reactions and gene transfer.
Contamination Threat to Organic Farmers
A growing number of people, concerned about health risks that could be incurred from industrial farming and GMO crops, are buying organic food. But even this rapidly growing sector is threatened by the growing of GM crops, since their pollen can be blown by the wind, carried by water or by bees—or even on shoes and clothing. And it can thus contaminate organic crops. Birds can drop GM seeds that can germinate in organic fields. More and more organic grains and other foods, when tested, are found to be contaminated. This can lead to significant loss of revenue for organic farmers. Moreover, if GM crops are found growing in their fields, organic farmers may be sued by Monsanto for growing their patented plants without paying for them.
Since 1997 Monsanto has filed 145 “patent infringement” lawsuits in the United States against farmers. More than seven hundred additional farmers have settled out of court, according to the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. I can only assume many of these farmers settled just to avoid Monsanto’s well-financed litigious actions.
A report in the Agronomy Journal of September 2003 points to the magnitude of Monsanto’s grip on agriculture today, suggesting that organic canola in Canada is severely contaminated with the GM variety. The researchers studied seventy samples of canola seedlots certified as being non-GM. Of those samples, 90 percent had the Roundup Ready and/or LibertyLink gene. Arnold Taylor, chair of the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund, said, “There is no organic canola in Canada any more, virtually none, because the seed stock is basically contaminated… We’ve lost that crop.” This, of course, is a huge blow, not only for organic farmers but for consumers who wish to avoid GM foods.
A consortium of more than eighty non-GMO organizations, seed companies, and farmers was formed to seek legal protection from Monsanto’s patent-infringement lawsuits. But in June 2013 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against them.
Nature: The True Maker of “Climate Resilient” Crops
Most recently, with concerns of climate change widely accepted, the biotech giants are working on designing GM crops that will be drought-resistant for planting in harsh climates. For example, in 2011 the USDA granted Monsanto approval of its new corn that’s genetically engineered to be drought-resistant. But is this really necessary? Hundreds of farmers and scientists around the world are insisting that it is not. They claim that peasant farmers have already helped these traits evolve in their seed supply through traditional methods—for when seeds are planted and saved annually, cross-pollination occurs, and plants continually adapt to changing environments. For instance, in the southwestern United States, this natural form of adaptation has resulted in native drought-tolerant corn. Indeed, even Monsanto reported to USDA scientists that the new GM plant does not always perform better than non-GM varieties.
Renowned environmentalist and anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva summed up the situation regarding these climate-resilient traits nicely: “They are pirated from nature and farmers.”
Scientist, lawyer, and environmental leader Vandana Shiva has vehemently fought the proliferation of genetically modified seeds and plants in India. Because of her efforts and those of other activists, awareness is growing, and more and more people are working to ban Monsanto’s products. (CREDIT: KARTIKEY SHIVA)
Deceit, Greed, and Arrogance
One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole GMO situation is that the concerns of scientists and others are ignored, trivialized, or ridiculed. Misinformation is put out by companies with multimillion-dollar budgets for PR, and governments of developing countries are pressured to introduce GM crops into their agriculture. From 1999 to 2009, biotech firms spent over $547 million on lobbying Congress, and from 1999 to 2010, $22 million was spent for political campaigns.
Wendell Berry, a well-known writer and environmental activist whom I admire greatly, wrote that GMO biotech science is “involved directly with product-development, marketing, and political lobbying on behalf of their products.” It is, therefore, subject to corruption as a result of “personal self-interest and greed. For such a science to present itself in the guise of objectivity or philanthropy is, at best, hypocritical.” And, in my opinion, at worst deceitful.
Particularly shocking, to me, is the concept of substantial equivalence, the core element of GM crop regulation worldwide. In an effort to avoid issues of liability and risk assessment, the industry will argue that the genetically modified plant is “substantially equal” to its non-GMO parent. Yet when the company wants to patent a product, the same genetically modified plant is described as novel, or “substantially different” from the parent plant.
I’ve heard it said that substantial equivalence is a “pseudoscientific” concept. Some years ago I read an article in the Journal of Medicinal Food by the esteemed toxicologist and medical ethicist Dr. Marc Lappé in which he wrote about Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans having phytoestrogen levels that were 12 to 14 percent lower than non-GM beans. “To treat these differences as insignificant when it is a question of safety, and as significant when it is a question of patentability, is totally unscientific,” he wrote.
An article in Nature, in 1999, concurred, saying “substantial equivalence is a pseudoscientific concept,” and concluding that it is “a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific.” The article goes on to suggest that substantial equivalence “was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests.” I also heard someone describe it as “ontological schizophrenia,” commenting that it would be laughable if it was not so terrifying. And also, I would add, so totally unethical.
How Can We Avoid Them If They Aren’t Labeled?
One powerful way to stop the spread of GMOs is for all of us to refuse to buy them. But unless governments force Monsanto and other biotech companies to attach a GM label to their products, it is not possible for people to choose not to buy them. In the United States the majority of corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets, and canola crops are genetically modified. And this means that many of the ingredients you find in packaged foods—such as corn syrup,
soy lecithin, sugar, vegetable oil, and cottonseed oil—are made from these crops. But you don’t know because it’s not indicated on the packaging.
In Europe, where labeling is required, consumers make it clear they prefer not to buy food that comes from GM crops. But in the United States, where labeling is still not required, you are likely to find GM ingredients in as much as 70 percent of the processed foods in a supermarket, according to a study conducted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Fortunately, the push for GM labeling is gaining traction. Many citizen groups have introduced state and regional legislation to force labeling of consumer goods that contain GMOs. Some US states, counties, and cities are even considering legally banning GMOs altogether.
We Must Not Give Up the Battle
I know only too well that this situation with GM foods can seem overwhelming. Multinational corporations such as Monsanto, with so much government support and financial power, can seem daunting and unstoppable. And the destructive industrial model of growing crops sometimes seems permanently embedded in our global infrastructure. But as I always emphasize, each one of us has the power to make a difference. We can add our voices to the chorus of those who are staunchly standing up to the commercial giants.
The resistance to GM plants and seeds is strong. Citizens are taking action all over the world. Some—in the United Kingdom, France, and Hungary—have even invaded the fields and torn GM plants out of the ground. Many were arrested, but the protests continued. In Hungary the people actually destroyed one thousand acres of GM corn. I know one of the protesters who took part in several such raids in the United Kingdom—he said he would go on with his acts of civil disobedience until Monsanto is driven out.
There are an increasing number of instances where Monsanto is being prevented from moving into a country, or actually being forced to quit. In 2012 more than one hundred beekeepers and anti-GM corn protesters managed to storm Monsanto’s administrative offices in Monbéqui, France, and occupy the building for several hours. It must have been spectacular: a couple of them drove a fake delivery van (their Trojan horse), and the moment the gates opened, the delegation, in full beekeeper suits, swarmed in behind them. That same year, France reinstated a ban on Monsanto’s MON810 corn—one of two GM crops that are still allowed to be grown in parts of the European Union. The French government justified the ban after recent study results suggested “significant risks for the environment.”
What Does the Future Hold?
As I contemplate the terrifying economic power of some of the big multinational companies, the hold that they exert over governments and institutions, the way that they have forced their products into the market, it is easy to be depressed. But we must not forget that David defeated Goliath.
When Rachel Carson began her lone campaign to wake people to the horrific effects of the use of DDT on the environment, she was up against the same daunting foe—the might of industry and the government. There was far less understanding of the problems in those days. Carson, like Pusztai and Seralini, was reviled and threatened. But she never gave up, even when she was battling the last stages of cancer. Gradually public opinion as well as scientific truth lined up behind her. And she won. DDT was banned. She won because she produced so much evidence to support her claims that the establishment could no longer ignore her. She won because she was right.
The evidence against genetically modified food is accumulating fast, and that, coupled with growing understanding of the unsustainable nature of intensive farming, is what will enable us to move away from such an environmentally destructive world. Instead we can turn to a future where sustainable, ethical, and organic farming will gradually heal the scars we have inflicted and will benefit the natural world—and our health and that of our children and our grandchildren and theirs.
PART FOUR
The Way Forward
Chapter 15
The Future of Agriculture
In the high hills above Gombe the soil and climate are ideal for growing good coffee. These little “cherries” will redden when ripe, and the seeds within, when cleaned, will become coffee beans. Over thirteen thousand villagers grow shade coffee on their tiny farms. This type of sustainable organic farming is a recipe for the future of agriculture, providing good incomes without harming the land. (CREDIT: © THE JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE–TANZANIA / BY DR. SHADRACK M. KAMENYA)
The preceding three chapters, when taken together, present a pretty depressing picture of the many ways in which we have harmed the natural world, as well as ourselves and our children. Yet, at the same time, there is more than a glimmer of hope. More and more people are daring to stand up to Monsanto and the other biotech giants, expressing their outrage about the genetic tinkering with our food—with life itself. Those corporations are, indeed, immensely powerful—Monsanto in particular has a great hold over many of the governments of the world. But these companies are not invincible, and in the face of increasing scientific proof and increasing public anger—who knows what the future holds?
Gradually the full implications of the harm we have inflicted on Planet Earth are seeping into different levels of society, in different parts of the world. An understanding of the connection between poisoning our fields and poisoning ourselves with agricultural chemicals is growing. And more people are beginning to realize what the world will be like for our great-grandchildren if we don’t take action now. And soon.
As a wider section of the general public becomes more informed and understands the benefits of organic food, the markets are beginning to change, and more and more commercial farmers around the world are turning to organic farming. Also, more and more companies are sourcing and selling products produced in an ethical, sustainable way. Companies and farmers alike are part of a new movement that is beginning to heal some of the land that has been despoiled by industrial farming, to make some recompense to the peasants, who, since colonial times, have been so horribly exploited. Hopefully this heralds the dawn of a new era—ethical consumers demanding ethically produced products, and ethical CEOs who understand their responsibility to future generations.
Ethical Companies: Sustainable Farming
Quite apart from the obvious benefits to environment and our own health, the organic movement means that I can eat and drink the things I want without feeling guilty! I have selected three case studies that I know something about: coffee farming in Tanzania, tea farming in China, and cacao growing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And I hope to show that although these crops can cause great harm when grown with the agribusiness model, it is possible to reverse the damage. Which is fortunate for me, since I happen to be very partial to the products produced!
Coffee, tea, and cacao, when grown on conventional plantations, have resulted in a great deal of human suffering and environmental harm for hundreds of years. But today there are people and companies doing things right. Change is in the air.
Coffee—Coffea spp.
There are few smells more stimulating than that of fresh-ground coffee beans, and how delicious that first taste of good coffee in the morning. It helps the day get off to a good start. Johann Sebastian Bach not only had a mug of coffee every morning—he even wrote “The Coffee Cantata,” which tells the story of a father who is chastising his daughter for her caffeine habit, which she, in turn, is hotly defending. It was first played in Zimmermann’s Coffee House in Leipzig around 1732.
Coffee comes from plants of the genus Coffea. The two best-known species are C. arabica and the more robust C. canephora, both originally from Central and West Africa. About 70 percent of the coffee drunk globally is from the Arabica bean, thought to have originated in the cloud or “Coffee Forests” in the Kafa region of Ethiopia. This whole area, home to an exciting number of animal and plant species, has recently been designated a World Biosphere site, a major conservation success for Africa. And it is there that the last remaining population of wild-growing coffee can be found.
Gradually, since the firs
t plantations were established in the 1600s, more and more coffee has been grown in order to supply the increasing global demand, and as might be expected, this has led to major environmental problems: Brazil, for example, has destroyed vast areas of forest for cultivating the plant, and there has been similar devastation in other Latin American countries. By contrast, Costa Rica, with no readily available supply of cheap labor and with many small coffee farms instead of huge plantations, is one country that has managed to export coffee without utterly destroying its environment.
During the past decade, because of increasing environmental awareness among consumers, more and more farmers are producing “shade grown” coffee, planting noncoffee trees among the coffee plants, allowing regeneration, increasing biodiversity—and using fewer chemicals. And the coffee farmers around Gombe National Park are now following this trend, thanks to JGI’s TACARE program, which works to alleviate poverty and secure the goodwill and cooperation of villagers. Without this we cannot hope to save Gombe’s chimpanzees.