IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL CONSUMERS

I am not suggesting that on these few examples we pass judgment on the worth and value of biotechnology companies. I am however suggesting that as concerned and informed citizens we must be aware of those things that are taking place around us that could affect us in one way or another. We must put ourselves in the best position to make informed decisions about the course of action 

RED FLAG NO. 1

The first red flag is the question of the goal and objectives of multinational biotechnology companies.Plant science, the foundation of biotechnology in agriculture, is now the substance of big business, patent rivalries and closely guarded technical tricks (New Scientist, 1998).Biotechnology based multinational and giant national corporations like Monsanto, Norvatis, Bayer or multinational network like EuropaBio, the association of European biotechnology companies is by and large the owners and manipulators of biotechnology.Major research work conducted in biotechnological areas are funded, supported and conducted by these groupings with vested interests. The stakes are high. These companies throw out the palliative to an unsuspecting and uniformed consumer population that genetically modified crops will feed starving millions, while conserving the environment.

RED FLAG NO. 2

The second red flag is the extent to which the goals of genetic engineering have been fulfilled.  Many research and biotechnology institutions/companies have identified a number of ways in which crops can be beneficially modified using genetic engineering technology.  These include:

1. Producing varieties more precisely adapted to local conditions (Goal identified by CSIRO Division of Plant Industry in Canberra, Australia)

2. Increasing calories in fodder plants, thus producing more meat per hectare. (Goal identified by Novartis).

3. Producing crops that can destroy toxins produced by moulds which account for major crop losses annually. (Goal identified by Novartis).

4. Producing disease resistant crops in staples of the poor e.g. sweet potato, cassava. (Goal identified by Norvatis).

5. Improving nutritional content of staples such as maize (Goal identified by Monsanto).

    But few of these crops have so far emerged showing any of these adaptations. The focus on research and development so far is on cutting expensive inputs such as pesticides, thereby increasing the profits to farmers, specifically large-scale farmers and landowners. But small-scale farmers cannot afford these inputs for starters, so that these crops may not help them, and further, the farmers cannot afford the patented seeds.

  Also, the new farming practices which biotechnology companies feel would stem from use of the new technology, for example, reduction of clearing forested areas for subsistence farming, are not evident.

RED FLAG NO. 3

     The third, and perhaps most significant, red flag is the issue of ownership. The multinational companies control both markets and plant genes. Crop scientists must continually breed new varieties to meet the ever-evolving threat of pests and disease.

In developing countries this is mainly done by government-funded institutions.But public sector breeders are losing funding while 

companies like Monsanto are rapidly becoming the only source for      

improved varieties. They can corner the market. For example Monsanto sells half the maize seed in Argentina.

Public breeders are also losing access to plant genes. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (a public funded international agency) completed a comprehensive study of the problems posed by the fact that the genes it needs to do its work are available only at a price, because companies hold the patents. India refused to pay Monsanto US$8 million for use of its Bt insecticide gene. Indian laboratories were therefore unable to produce cheap locally bred insect-resistant crops. Indian farmers have to buy what Monsanto has to offer.

Getting access to the gene is not the only problem developing countries have to face. But maintaining access and attaining some degree of sustainability of production is another major issue. For example, Monsanto owns the Terminator gene that prevents a plant from producing viable seed, so farmers cannot save seeds from patented, genetically modified varieties for the next harvest. It also prevents farmers from crossing patented varieties with other crops to create new varieties. Public sector breeders may also be under pressure to use the Terminator to protect patented genes in exchange for access according to Debbie Mack (New Scientist, 1998).

RED FLAG NO. 4

The fourth red flag is the issue of genetic uniformity. This is cause for concern of farmers who as a result become more and more dependant on multinational corporations. Their crops are more susceptible to unforeseen stress that drives the cycle of research and development at the expense of farmers' independence.

We take or do not take because in the final analysis we are responsible for ourselves. Therefore, we must ask questions of ourselves and of others.

Overall, our concerns are no different from those expressed by consumers the world over.