Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
GM fallout from mexico to zambia![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() biotech companies try to subvert scientific investigation Thirteen months ago, the agbiotech industry wakened to a nightmare. Illegal and unwelcome, the presence of genetically-modified (GM) maize was reported smack in the crop's center of genetic origin in Mexico. There's never a good time for a political/ecological calamity, but the beleaguered Gene Giants were already struggling to persuade consumers, following the Taco Debacle (Starlink), that companies could control their inventions and their inventory. The seed companies were also hoping to arm-twist EU ministers into lifting the ban on GM products in Europe. Suddenly, the headlines were full of the contamination scandal. To make matters worse, the year ahead was shaping up to be the Year of the Summits--a succession of diplomatic poverty, hunger, and pollution "retros" including the Monterrey Summit on development financing in March; the 10th anniversary of the Biodiversity Convention in April; another World Food Summit (once more with feeling) in June-- all boiling up t! o the "mother of all summits" (World Summit on Sustainable Development) in South Africa in September. For the corporations (and the United States so aggressively supporting them) the issue was: how to run the gauntlet of intergovernmental marathons with GM contamination on their backs? Thirteen months later, the issue for governments, international agencies, and civil society is: how did the Gene Giants duck and dodge their way through all these fora and end the year with Southern African governments--half a world away from the "scene of the crime"--being blamed and vilified for rejecting GM seeds? Dodge 1--Denial: One year after the Mexican Government announced that maize in two states was contaminated with GM varieties, neither Mexico nor the international genetic resources community have taken constructive, coherent steps to arrest, fully assess, or ameliorate the contamination. Mexico is the center of origin and diversity for maize--one of the world's most vital food crops. As local farmers, joined by more than 150 social movements and civil society organizations worldwide, raged, the first reaction from pro-GM scientists (public and private) was denial. It couldn't be true. The reports were wrong. Mexico (at least, initially) and the two U.S.-based researchers who provided corroborative evidence, held their ground. When the whistle-blowers revealed that their study was being peer-reviewed by Nature, industry's nightmare became a hologram. Dodge 2--Diversion: Quickly, biotech's spin doctors took control, launching a vindictive e-mail and media campaign to discredit the scientific competence and political intent of the scientists. (One Mexican and one American--both located at the University of California at Berkeley.) Rather than deny contamination (the likelihood of which was scientifically undeniable), the industry strategy was to divert attention by orchestrating a row over research methodology (the vagaries of which are always academically irresistible). This strategy became doubly-important when Nature's article confirming contamination was published in November, 2001 A good scientific squabble, industry reasoned, could obscure any truth and immobilize the germplasm community for months. CIMMYT limited: Caught like a deer in the headlights of the battle, was the Mexican-headquartered International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)--flagship of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and the developing world's leading institute for maize breeding and conservation. Mandated to help eradicate poverty and conserve maize diversity, CIMMYT soon took to the woods. Despite repeated requests from civil society for CIMMYT to weigh in on the reality of contamination and cut through the absurdity of the methodology obfuscation, the Institute limited itself to pious pronouncements about the need for scientific clarity and promises to help in any way short of action. CIMMYT went on to produce a succession of studies confirming that, whatever else may or may not be happening in the world, its own gene bank was not contaminated. The centre holds the world's largest unique maize germplasm collection. Always dependent on U.S. funding and incre! asingly dependent for its technologies on the biotech corporations, CIMMYT refused to publicly acknowledge what every maize researcher in the world knew -- that GM contamination of the Mexican maize crop was a reality. During the 10th anniversary of the Biodiversity Convention in April, however, the international institution did concede that the Mexican situation was grave enough for CIMMYT to adopt a moratorium on maize seed collection for conservation purposes. There was a risk that GM-contaminated seeds would find their way into the CIMMYT gene bank if collections continued. Still, CIMMYT refused to publicly-back the Mexican government's ongoing moratorium on the introduction of GM crops. A moratorium for conservation in its own genebank, but not a moratorium for commercialization or contamination. Realizing that the Precautionary Principal was being ignored and that food sovereignty was being trampled, Mexican farmers' organizations and CSOs were furious. Dodge 3--Delay: Industry's diversionary tactic was successful. Ultimately, Nature withdrew its support for the peer-reviewed study and the initial investigations both in Mexico and at Berkeley were widely distrusted. This accomplished, however, there was the danger that, in mid year, attention would again focus on the obvious reality that -- regardless of methodology -- farmers' fields were filling up with transgenes in at least two Mexican states. The logical solution was to call for more studies. Mexico announced that two leading national institutes would put the methodology debate to rest with two independent studies. What's more, as an act of national pride -- and to vindicate the Berkeley scientists -- Mexico would have the two studies peer-reviewed in Nature. The months ticked by. Called to act, FAO and CGIAR said they were awaiting Mexico's report. Meanwhile, the World Food Summit came and went in Rome and the GM contamination debate was not on the agenda. The World! Summit on Sustainable Development came and went in Johannesburg and the unsustainability of agricultural biodiversity in the midst of GM contamination was not on that agenda either. Farmers in Mexico continued to wait. Only in late October, while answering questions from reporters, did a senior Mexican official admit that the two institutions had had their findings rejected by Nature. According to the press, one of Nature's reviewers explained that the reality of contamination was too obvious to bother publishing. A second reviewer insisted that the studies had been flawed. Something for everyone! Thirteen months later and both the earth and the debate had gone full circle. Dodge 4--Damnation: With scientists and the scientific media already in chaos, drought and famine in sub-Saharan Africa afforded the biotech industry another opportunity to turn contamination into a virtue. Almost from the beginning, of course, some biotech enthusiasts had insisted that "if" contamination were proven to have occurred in Mexico, then the seed industry was not only providing a free gift of valuable patented traits but it was also contributing to genetic diversity. When several African countries expressed alarm that food aid containing genetically modified traits could have health, environmental, and trade risks for their people, American officials jumped in with moral outrage claiming that "beggars can't be choosers" and accusing African governments of willfully starving their citizens. Even though other nations offered GM-free food, the United States and the biotech industry pressured FAO, the World Food Program, and the World Health Organization to urge the! governments to accept GM aid. Instead of focusing on the environmental and food security threat posed by contamination, the Johannesburg Summit became entangled in a debate over "despotic" African rulers and the overriding urgency of getting food to the hungry. There was no space for the discussion of alternative food supplies or of the human right to safe and culturally appropriate food. Containment: Thirteen months after the revelation of GM contamination in Mexico, nothing has been done to change or even monitor the flow of contaminants through commercial food shipments into Mexico. The Mexican government has failed to make its own findings available to its own people with the exception of INE/CONABIO's reports. We know nothing more about the extent of GM contamination in other Mexican states. No new regulations have been put in place. Neither Mexico, CGIAR, nor FAO have undertaken any new studies on the impact of GM contamination in a center of crop diversity. No studies have been undertaken on the legal implications of the diffusion of patented traits in farmers' fields. We have no additional information on strategies to prevent contamination from entering gene banks. No wider studies have taken place anywhere in the world regarding the possibilities of contamination in other centers of diversity for other crops. Ironically, the biotech industry is pushing for an end to the GM moratorium in Mexico, at the very time it is imposing new regulations to contain gene flow north of the border. In a desperate attempt to pre-empt public concerns over leaky genes, the biotech industry announced this week that it would adopt a voluntary moratorium on the planting of "Generation3" pharma crops--crops genetically modified to produce drugs or chemicals or plastics--in major food-producing regions of the United States and Canada. Industry's move to impose voluntary restrictions on the location of pharma crops demonstrates that GM pollution poses a serious risk. For the Gene Giants, the primary concern is not biosafety, but the need to avert a public relations disaster. One industry representative told the Washington Post, "I think we can all agree that industry cannot afford StarLink II." But industry concerns apparently do not extend to Africa and Latin America. Farmers and biodiversity continue to be threatened. The Gene Giants have successfully "contained" the GM debate. If only the biotech industry were as successful containing its genes! |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (7 of 7)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The following stories were posted to the biotechnology newswire at http://www.neRAGE.org You to can post, comment and search for some of the latest information on biotechnology.
They form the november update:
Egyptian Rat Study Shows Intestinal Damage From Bt-Spliced Food (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/21/3266794
The Science and Politics of Super Rice (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/22/0671712
GE Golf Grass delayed (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/23/0084092
Campaign for a GE-Free Caribbean starts (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/23/6631971
Biotech Industry Agrees to Not Grow GE for Pharma or Industrial Uses in Iowa (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/23/6793426
Safe Gene Therapy? (Human Genetics)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/24/4488765
Biotech Industry Triess to Address Cross Pollination Fears (Industry News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/24/4624100
Food labels could reflect genetically altered crops (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/24/4907979
Candian Farmers Warn UK: Don't Let Our Nightmare Become Yours (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/24/5958785
US: McCartney Endorses Oregon Labeling Effort (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/25/3694350
Europe to remain GM-free (Biotech Policy)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/25/3957584
Oct 30 Actions, to take place at Shaw's in Williston, Stowe, and Montpelier (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/29/4036873
US dismisses potential EU relaxation of GM ban (Biotech Policy)
GM battle matter of taste for Euro chefs (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/30/3133506
GM Fall-out from Mexico to Zambia: The Great Containment (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/31/8667400
UK: Protesters Defiant After Court Hands Down Fines For GM Cro
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/31/9110707
Vermont Activists Target Shaw's (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/31/7637436
Shaw's Supermarkets: Is the Choice Yours? (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/31/2935699
The Decline and Fall of Genetically Modified Rice & Wheat (Upcoming Events)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/31/8562758
IMF blamed for Malawi famine (Food Issues)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/11/01/0331451
India: BT Cotton Failures (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/11/01/9644609
IN ADDITION you may contactwww.geneticsaction.org.uk.
for info on genetic activism in the UK.
Ireland´s universities most particularly
TCD and DCU have comprehensive bio-tech research programmes.
perhaps their undergraduate students could supply details of concerns there?
GM Fall-out from Mexico to Zambia: The Great Containment (News)
http://www.neRAGE.org/stories.php?story=02/10/31/8667400
though hopefully this will encourage people in Ireland to think about Irish resources (students, petrie-dishes, tax€, universities, marine areas, agricultural areas) being used to further develop Biotech.
Hope Shand: [email protected] 1 (919) 960-5223 EST
Silvia Ribeiro: [email protected] (52) 5555-63-26-64 CST
Copyleft and openwire publishing is wonderful and activists against BioTech and life patenting know the anarchist arguments against property and intelectual property well, however the moral right to be known as the author of a piece is a right. Cut and Paste, spread the word, but if someone has done an awful lot of work, acknowledge it no?
Hope and Silvia left their emails with the piece, and their phone numbers, if you feel strongly about these issues maybe you could say thankyou!
It seems to us (Nederlands and Barcelona and US) to be most unfair to cut & paste someone else work posting yourself as author.
"ETC group
clara - 02.11.2002 10:24
Dear Brian,
if you just copy&paste a text, please give the complete sources...
This text is originally from the ETC group ( http://www.etcgroup.org), a group dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.
Website: http://www.etcgroup.org/search.asp?slice=recent"
This is because it us authors who are cross-examined on our assertions.
IT is us authors who xometimes are obliged to face serious persecution because of our work.
It is us authors who do this stuff for free.
We don´t get paid.
We get heavy duty persecution, criminalisation and sometimes even go a bit mad.
But thankfully rubbing an oily fish or eating flax can make it all better...
C/F http://www.ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=16651
sorry to come down so hard, but our work is just that our work. It is in the developing social philosphy of the 21st century that we offer our thoughts on open newswires.
But it is in very established ways that we often suffer the consequences of such work.
Work which ultimately is meant for all our betterment.
IF you feel so strongly about this issue than I´m sure you can write something on it.
I started Reclaim the Genome in the late 1990´s as a combined Art, Legal, Science and Political campaign, its manifesto has been lost long ago, but called for 60,000 representations of work in those four fields on Human Genetic research.
They could vary from essays to calls for legal reform to graffitti to anything. Their collation was always intended to ascribe the authorship of each "cell" where applicable.
I am not a member of "etcgroup.org" but respect their untiring and brave activism in one of the most important areas of human concern.
its okay to use your name on a piece if you are posting, so long as a link is provided. The link is the crucial thing.
Its true, i probably should have included the name of the authors: Hope Shand, and Silvia Ribeiro in the body of the text or in the author spot for those who dont want to go to the link. Where i often post: jerusalem indymedia, people often put their names in the author spot, it being undestood the true author is named in the link. I hae probably caught their habit. But it also allows a comentator to respond to me: since by posting i am endorsing the piece.
i always post the link.
incidently I have posted this around indymedia, using hope shand's name in some places.
about acknowledging the authors: that is why i link. The link provides that information. It is important to keep that in mind. If i didnt post a link, and implied this is my work then there is cause for complaint. Beyond that, open publishing is just that, not subject to copywrong rules. Ironically 'copywrong' issues lie at the heart of the GM debate. Since the patenting of cells and lifeforms itself turns on the issue of property rights(i call them wrongs).
I would go further myself and criticise the whole issue of copywrongs as based in our growing egotism:look at my work aint i a genius?. Authors do not invent from scratch, but borrow, often unconsciously(or unconsciensciously - not atributing borowings). Witness that most famous of 'borrowings':
The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.
Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.
De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.
A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:_61QKGJE7AoC:www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,3928978,00.html+einstein+e%3Dmc+italian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Is einstein a copywrong thief? Correctly the equatin should be called the Einstein-de Pretto equatoin(or is that the De Pretto-Einstein equation?!)
I know of other famous atributeless 'borrowings'.
Remember Proudhon's obversation: 'Property is theft' marx and Thoas Muntzer(a contemporary of Luther) ot critised the property mentality.
your other later posting on Nederlands indymedia included the authors of the text, thank you.
The argument against intellectual property and especially genetic property are being very well articulated by many writers and I like how you articulated them there, well done.
A friend in Nederlands had wanted to post the flemish/dutch version of my Reclain Genetic manifesto in comment to the posting there of the Zambia story, I thought it would be silly.
The point I was trying to make was that we
[in the global anti-patent movement which
stretches in a very wide band from
copyleft/copywrong thinking to anarchist
purism to sound scientific priniciples to 3rd
world health campaigning to Green global
policy]
read each others work avidly, and have done for along time. It appears so do you.
We don´t always look for credit for "ego" reasons, as a writer and composer and artists I know well that very nothing is "original", that is one of the emergent realisations of the cyber/information age. However I in solidarity with others in the above mentioned movement must draw attention to "non-sourcing" when I see it.
Many of has worked / work without real names and with real names. The political/social/stylistic reasons for choosing such are as varied the quality of work produced.
But name it.
Otherwise as we collate and build information on public access for public betterment we may think that "Brian" is "re-painting" other squares, and wonder why.
IF you have an email contact I´d gladly send you similar background information using which you could write article (with your name or without).
I certainly believe that you are capable of fine writing yourself.