Oct/Nov 2002
A
Statement of Conscience: "Not In Our Name"
The Bill of Rights Foundation
We
Must No Longer Tolerate a Culture of Violence
Depak Chopra
Murder
for Profit
William Rivers Pitt
Opposing
the President's Call for "Relentless War"
David Krieger
"Diplomacy"
in the Age of the American Empire
Robert Jensen and Rahul Mahajan
The
Middle East: A Human Perspective
Pam Derby
What
Awaits Us in Iraq "Warrior Kings and the Test of True Vision"
David LaChapelle
Free
to Choose: Health Care for All-Oregon: Measure 23 on the Ballot this November
Gerald Cavanaugh
We
Have the Right to Know What's in Our Food
Louis Mincer
Oregon's
Measure 27
Give Oregonians A Choice
Same
News Every Channel, Every Media
Don Monkerud
The
Cult of Greed and the Anesthetization of Democracy
John Darling
Forest
Health & Logging Wealth
Lesley Adams and Joseph E. Vaile
Finding
Balance in the Autumn Season with ayurvedic Practices
Myrica Morningstar
Sacred
Plants
David Crow
The
Movie Mystic
Stephen Simon
The
Thomas Messages
James Twyman
The
Yearly Round
Richard Moeschl
Cosmic
Calendar
Salina Rain
Oregon’s
Measure 27
A pivotal moment in the labeling of genetically engineered foods
Oregon residents this fall will vote on Measure 27, which would require foods produced or sold in Oregon to be labeled if they contain genetically engineered ingredients.
Noted author John Robbins thinks it’s a pivotal moment, not only for Oregonians but for people across the country who want genetically engineered foods labeled.
Robbins, whose books Diet for a New America and The Food Revolution have changed so many lives, joined activists and concerned citizens in Portland last September for a kick-off educational event and fundraiser for Measure 27. Oregon voters are the first in the country to put a genetically engineered foods labeling initiative on a state ballot. The measure would require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients sold or produced in Oregon to be labeled.
“I don’t know if you realize how important this issue is, not only in Oregon, but on a national scale,” said Robbins. “It really is remarkable how much is at stake here. If we don’t know what is in the food we are offered, then how do we make informed choices about our health, our community, our culture?”
“We have a responsibility to determine whether we will eat food that is profitable for the McDonald’s and Monsanto’s of the world, or food that is good for our health, for our environment, for social justice,” he said, adding, “Who wants to be a guinea pig in a Frankenfood experiment? If you don’t know what’s in your food, aren’t you playing food roulette?”
“This is a global issue, about globalization, about who’s going to control the food supply,” he added.
The biotech industry realizes the importance of the battle over Measure 27. They’re expected to pour millions of dollars into a misleading advertising campaign designed to convince people that labeling will make food cost more (it won’t—prices have not increased due to labeling in any of the 30 or so countries that have passed labeling laws). So far, we are ahead by about 20 percentage points in the polls. But no one’s resting easy, realizing that millions of dollars in advertising could affect the outcome.
“These companies really, really want to defeat Measure 27,” Robbins says, “because California is the next domino.” In addition, Washington and other states may try to put labeling on the ballot, in 2003 or 2004.
Several activists spoke during the all-day educational forum, which was sponsored by The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. One of the themes was that the rest of the world is watching to see what Oregon does.
“Passing this initiative will bolster efforts in other parts of the world,” said Brent Foster of the Sierra Club. “America has been perceived as the land of great indifference on this issue. Measure 27 serves as a wake-up call.”
“We have clear-cut alternatives to genetic engineering, such as sustainable agriculture,” said Simon Harris, of the Organic Consumers Association. “Genetic engineering is a Band-Aid for monoculture agricultural practices. It’s silly to think that we can solve all our agricultural problems simply by switching genes around.”
One of the arguments the opposition will hammer home through relentless ads is that labeling genetically engineered foods will raise food prices. But this is merely propaganda.
The record of the 30 or so countries around the world who have passed labeling laws so far reveals that food costs have not gone up because of labeling.
“This is always what they say,” said Robbins. “‘We can’t afford it.’ ‘We can’t afford clean air,’ ‘we can’t afford sustainable agriculture.’ Oh, please. There’s just no truth to that.”
Donna Harris, one of the leaders of the petition drive, said: “A mom with a mission is the most dangerous activist there is.”
The danger is that through constant advertising, people may start to believe the propaganda. “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it’s true,” Robbins said. It is up to all of us to remind people that labeling in other countries has not led to higher food prices.
Robbins conceded that there may be one cost to labeling genetically engineered foods: the stock options of Monsanto officials may go down. If stock options for Monsanto’s leaders is your chief concern, he quipped, you should consider voting against Measure 27. For the rest of us, voting YES is the way to go.
The biotech industry
has scored lots of public relations points by claiming that genetically engineered
foods are necessary to feed the starving masses. Jeanne Merrill of Greenpeace
informed the audience that Monsanto is taking 400 American and Canadian farmers
to court over patent rights.
But Robbins isn’t buying it. Just look at the figures of what genetically
engineered foods actually are being used for, and you’ll understand why:
This year, approximately 110 million acres of genetically engineered foods are being grown in the world (two-thirds of these are grown in the United States). Of the global acreage used for genetically engineered foods, 70 percent consists of crops that are designed to tolerate herbicides such as Roundup—primarily Roundup Ready soybeans. Twenty-five percent consists of crops designed to produce pesticides in every cell of the plant—primarily corn and cotton. Nearly all of the remaining 5 percent consists of crops that feature both characteristics.
The percentage of genetically engineered crops being used to fight hunger—crops that are engineered for higher yields, greater drought tolerance, etc.—represent far less than one-tenth of 1 percent of today’s genetically engineered crops, Robbins said.
“Their agenda is not solving world hunger—that’s just put their PR,” Robbins said. “It’s a despicable exploitation of people who aren’t having their needs met.”
According to a study prepared for the Commission of the European Union all farmers would face high additional, and in some cases unsustainable, costs of production if genetically engineered (GE) crops are commercially grown on a large scale.
The EU Commission ordered the study on the co-existence of GE and non-GE crops in May 2000 from the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, of the EU Joint Research Center. The EU study states that in oilseed rape (canola) production, the co-existence of GE and non-GE crops in a same region, even when “technically possible,” would be “economically difficult” because of the additional costs and complexity of changes required in farming practices in order to avoid genetic contamination. Both organic and conventional farmers, “would probably be forced to stop saving seed and instead buy certified seed” because of the increased risk of GE impurity for seeds that have been exposed to field contamination. The study predicts that smaller farms would face relatively higher costs compared to larger entities, and that cultivation of GE and non-GE crops in the same farm “might be an unrealistic scenario, even for larger farms.”
The report also found coexistence of GE farming and organic farming would be actually impossible in many cases. Generally, coexistence would only be possible with massive changes in farming practices, especially for conventional farmers. It would also require cooperation between farmers in a region and the willingness of all farmers concerned to participate in such cooperation. It is not clear who would implement these changes, who would be responsible for controlling their correct implementation, and who would shoulder their costs. Seed and crop purity from GE at a detection level of 0.1% would be virtually impossible in most cases, i.e. all products and seeds of oilseed rape and corn would be contaminated with GE to a certain extent.
UK Report Casts Doubt on North American GE Crops
Genetically engineered crops in North America have been an economic disaster, which has caused some farm groups there to call for a moratorium on GE wheat, the next proposed crop to be altered, a report released last September said.
The study by the Soil Association, Britain’s leading organic organization, estimated that gene-altered corn, soy and rapeseed (canola) may have cost the U.S. economy $12 billion since 1999 in farm subsidies, lower crop prices, loss of major export orders and product recalls.
Scientists have said that the advent of such crops could be the answer to world hunger, but the report said claims of increased yields have not been realized overall—except for a small increase in some corn yields, and farmers are not achieving the higher profits promised by the biotech companies as markets for GE food collapse, citing widespread GE contamination at all levels of the food and farming industry as the source.
The report also said “Within a few years of the introduction of GE crops, almost the entire $300 million annual US corn exports to the EU had disappeared, and the US share of the soya market had decreased. The lost export trade as a result of GE crops is thought to have caused a fall in farm prices and hence a need for increased government subsidies, estimated at an extra $3-$5 billion annually.” - Reuters, September 18, 2002
GE Soy Destroying Livelihoods and the Environment in Argentina
In 1996 Monsanto arrived in Argentina with genetically engineered Round-Up Ready (RR) soy beans, and promised farmers the RR soy bean, resistant to Monsanto’s powerful Round-Up pesticide, would make soy farming cheaper and easier. Farmers would only have to use the one pesticide, yields would be higher and costs lower. 90% of the farmers agreed to adopt the technology. Six years later, the GE soy has had 6% lower yields than conventional soy, with no decline in herbicide application due to the evolution of vicious new weeds, and farmers are now using three times more herbicides than before. And there is widespread ecological damage. Native woods have disappeared as the soy front has advanced, and each year farmers are deluging the 10 million hectares of land under GE cultivation with 80 million liters of herbicide, killing off all forms of life except GE soy and interrupting the normal biological cycles of growth. The soil is turning into a kind of cinder or sand—neither of which can retain moisture. In the past farmers used to grow soy in the summer and wheat in the winter. The non-GE soy used to capture nitrogen from the air, helping to retain the fertility of the soil. The rotation reduced the prevalence of weeds. But today the GE soy, which does not have the ability to capture nitrogen, is grown all the year round.
