US genetic engineering on the skids

In Canada, Monsanto won damages from canola farmer Percy Schmeiser after its patented genes were found in canola on his land. The judgement said it didn't matter if seeds or pollen had blown over the fence, as their presence was enough to put Schmeiser in breach of the patent. Hundreds of other small landholders are being sued. The option of planting non-GE seed is also disappearing as contamination spreads through the seed supply and a handful of companies dominate seed ownership.

The areas of commercial GE soy, corn, canola and cotton in the year 2000 were: USA 72%; Argentina 17%; Canada 10%; China 1%; and eight other countries had 1% combined. US Farmers are complaining that key competitors, Argentinean growers, get preferential deals. US farmers who buy GE seed must sign tough contracts that mean they: pay technology fees on GE seed; cannot save seed for replanting; and must purchase Monsanto's herbicide Roundup rather than cheaper generic alternatives. In contrast, Argentinean farmers pay no extra fees, can exchange seeds with their neighbours and buy herbicide at one third the US price.

GE Regulation

The US regulatory approach is weak as it requires no labelling or premarket food testing. It has been severely criticised and rejected by groups such as the EU-US Biotechnology Consultative Forum, the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel and the World Health Organisation's Codex Alimentarius which harmonises food standards and laws to promote global trade in food. The concerns are based on: serious conflicts of interest in the regulating offices; lack of transparency; flawed scientific practice; and the concept of substantial equivalence which is used to dilute safety assessments. The idea of substantial equivalence does not mean that products are the same. It assumes that production processes are irrelevant to the safety and efficacy of end products, and GE products are assumed to be the same as similar conventional foods. Thus, the very tests that would determine whether or not the assumption of equivalence is justified are not required. This discredits the US position.

Conclusion

The GE industry in the US is now in serious financial and political trouble. Food buyers worldwide are refusing to buy GE foods and regulatory barriers are appearing everywhere in response to public pressure. Farmers themselves are ambivalent and entire rural industries are resisting its introduction. The economic viability of GE on farms and in food is shaky. GE is almost totally dependent on US government backing of the technology with financial support and political muscle, to keep the US public uninformed and other governments compliant. This is not the basis for a secure industry.

Having failed to convince the world of the wonders of GE, the US is about to try the big stick. In a bill currently before Congress, US President George W. Bush is seeking the power to invoke economic sanctions against any country that refuses to buy American GE products, or even tries to label them. Food buyers and growers world-wide are mobilising to resist the GE juggernaut.