Socialist Action /July 1999
 'Butterflies are Free'
Many poems have been written about being as "free as a butterfly,"
fluttering from one flower to another with reckless abandon. Yet recent
studies by scientists demonstrate that human development of genetically
engineered plants has restricted the freedom of monarch butterflies.
It was recently reported in the journal Nature that the pollen from genetically
engineered corn containing a toxin gene called Bt killed 44 percent of the
monarch butterfly caterpillars who fed on milkweed leaves dusted with it.
Caterpillars fed with conventional pollen all survived.
Since nearly 25 percent of the U.S. corn crop now contains this gene
and the Corn Belt states of the Midwest are where half of the monarch butterflies
are produced each year, there is a distinct possibility that the number
of monarchs will drastically decline.
Due to the unexpected results of the monarch butterfly study, scientists
are now beginning to question the potential environmental effects of scores
of other genetically engineered crops being introduced into the agricultural
fields.
The question that is raised is: Why weren't such studies done before
introducing genetically engineered corn, soy, cotton, and other crops over
millions of acres of farm land? Are these dying caterpillars like dying
canaries in a mine warning us of danger?
"Will benefits outweigh the costs?"
Since these studies have not been done, the British Medical Association
(BMA) has recently issued a statement regarding genetically modified food.
They begin their statement ("Agriculture, Food and Health") with
a quote that gives an overview on evolution and genetic engineering:
"'Evolution is all about assembling the improbable by tiny steps;
and not until the unlikely has been reached do we notice just what it can
do. Genetically engineered organisms will, like any other creature, evolve
to deal with their new condition.
"'It is fairly certain that some of them will cause problems. Low
risk is not no risk. The question is one which is universal in economics-will
the benefits outweigh the costs?' (Steve Jones, 1993.)"
They continue, "Genetic modification (GM) involves the insertion
of genes from one organism into another to produce altered genetic material
(DNA). The technology is being used to alter certain properties of food
crops-for example, to make plants herbicide resistant, or delay rotting
in tomatoes. As its use has become more widespread and sophisticated, there
is increased public concern over the safety of genetically modified plants,
within the food chain and within human foodstuffs." The BMA then goes
on to propose several steps to insure safety:
"The precautionary principle [that a new food additive is presumed
unsafe until established safe through standard scientific procedures] should
be applied in developing genetically modified crops or foodstuffs, as we
cannot at present know whether there are any serious risks to the environment
or to human health involved in producing GM crops or consuming GM food products.
"Adverse effects are likely to be irreversible; once GMOs are released
into the environment they cannot be subject to control. It is therefore
essential that release does not take place until the level of scientific
certainty is sufficient to make the risk acceptable."
The BMA also recommends that a moratorium be placed on the commercial
planting of GM crops in the UK until there is general scientific agreement
about the potential long-term environmental effects. GM foodstuffs, they
say, should be segregated at source and adequately labeled to enable identification
and traceability of GM products.
All of the above procedures do not seem to be that complicated. Unfortunately,
in the United States, although the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act incorporates
the precautionary principle, the FDA does not apply this principle to genetically
engineered foods. (It ruled in 1992 that genetically engineered foods are
not new food additives.)
This is not hard to understand since Monsanto and Dupont are the main
corporate producers of these foods. Unfettered by the precautionary principle,
these gigantic chemical corporations are now conquering farming through
genetic engineering.
Their products have led to larger yields of food products in the short
term. Just as in the past, their chemicals have led to short-term increase
in farm productivity. With this increase in productivity, these corporate
giants are now attempting to establish a monopoly over all agricultural
production throughout the world.
In the course of this endeavor they have patented their products and
the seeds, so that farmers have to buy seeds from them every year. They
have sued farmers who have kept seeds for future harvest and they are producing
a "terminator gene" so that their products will not produce fertile
seeds.
In this manner, all production of food will eventually be under their
control.
From past experience with these companies, profits have always come before
consumer and environmental safety. They are not concerned about any long-term
effects that their products may have on humanity or the rest of the world.
In fact, the insurance companies, being aware of these facts, have refused
insurance coverage for any long-term effects of genetically engineered products.
Cuban science versus Monsanto
In Issue #1, March 1999, of the Monsanto Monitor, there is an interview
with a Cuban geneticist. In this interview, Rebecka Milestad, of the Research
School in Ecological Land Use at the Department of Rural Development Studies,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, wrote:
"'If Monsanto came to Cuba, we would never sell ourselves to them.
Cuba is more important than money,' claimed Eduardo, a geneticist at the
agricultural university in Havana Province, where I visited him and his
colleagues in January this year.
"Their laboratory facilities are run down and they complain that
other research institutes in Cuba receive more resources for genetic engineering
research. Yet he still would not work for a company like Monsanto.
"So I asked how Monsanto practice differs from that what he and
his fellow researchers do. He replied, 'they wouldn't dream of trying to
develop herbicide-resistant crops, for example, that are only designed for
the big companies to make money.'
"'In Cuba,' he continued, 'we only use biotechnology and genetic
engineering for the good of our people and our country. And there is no
limit to what we can achieve with this technology.'"
Cuba has been in the forefront of developing organic farming along with
their biotechnology. Due to the blockade, they have been forced to move
away from chemical agriculture.
In fact, the Cuban experiment in agriculture should be carefully observed.
In my opinion, the results that they have already achieved demonstrate that
their approach shows the way to combine science and technology for the benefit
of the environment and humanity.
"Butterflies are free, and so are we..." are the words to a
song by Leonard Gershe in his play "Butterflies are Free." We
and the butterflies can only be free if we are safe in our own habitat.
Socialist Action /July 1999 |