Monsanto gets a lot of bad press for
its GM-promoting tactics, but are the other biotech giants any
better?
GM-free Scotland recently reported that
Syngenta is facing criminal prosecution in Germany for with-holding
evidence about one of its GM maize crops which has been linked to
illness and death in cow feeding trials on both sides of the Atlantic
(See DEAD COWS UNDER THE CARPET - August 2012).
At the end of last year, Syngenta was
also in hot water in America after it gave away bags of its new
'Viptera' GM corn seed throughout the Midwest.
Viptera is the next generation of
insecticidal GM crop following on from Bt. It contains MIR162,
another gene copied from the bacterium Bacillus thuringienses,
but one which taps into a different class of toxic protein.
Syngenta has developed some 70 hybrids of Viptera as two- and
three-trait stacks.
The problem in 2011
was that farmers who grew crops from the free seed discovered too
late that major seed buyers, Bunge and CGB, didn't want it because
their major overseas customer, China, had not approved it.
Independent seed
retailers who had supplied Viptera to their customers weren't
forewarned of the grain companies' planned rejection either. The
first they knew about it was from local grain buyers. Calls to
Syngenta at the time were not returned.
Syngenta was quick
to try to force Bunge into acceptance through the courts, but the
verdict was that “Bunge's decision to reject Viptera corn at all of
its locations was a legitimate and reasonable business decision”,
and that accepting the GM corn “... would impose prodigious costs
on Bunge for a situation that Bunge did not create”.
The farmers who
were conned into planting Viptera found themselves with multiple
problems in addition to the financial ones. These included
identifying, recording, segregating, and storing or destroying their
harvest, besides issues in fulfilling delivery contracts. Because
nearby crops could be contaminated, their neighbours faced the same
problems. Even corn destined for ethanolic fuel plants could be
caught up in the mess because one of its by-products, dried
distillers grain (DDG), is sent for export.
OUR COMMENT
No doubt the Viptera fiasco has now
been ironed out, in time for this year's harvest. However the tale
involves two breathtaking lessons.
The land-mark US legal ruling seems to
have slipped through without much notice. It sets a precedent
whereby a food or feed company can reject legal, but gene-polluted,
produce purely on the grounds that it 'would impose prodigious costs'
in a situation it had not itself created: in other words, all you
really need is a substantial level of consumer rejection. This
shouldn't be difficult, especially if you have dead GM-fed cows on
two continents to explain.
Secondly, imagine how this story would
unfold if the reason for the sudden unexpected rejection of a whole
sector of commodity GM hybrids was on safety grounds?
Re-read the final paragraph above and consider all the problems
farmers would face. With the plethora of unnatural 'Bt' and
'Viptera' toxic proteins stacking up in our food chain, this scenario
is not remote.
SOURCES:
- Sophia Pearson, Syngenta oses Court Ruling Against Bunge Unit Over Modified Corn Lawsuit, Bloomberg, 27.09.11
- Dr. Ignacio Chapela, When Trolls Do Fight, GM Watch, 3.11.11
- Rich Keller, Vipera corn being rejected by grain buyers, AG Professional, 15.08.11
- Kurt Lawton, Viptura Lack China Approval, RFD TV, 12.08.11
- Stu Ellis, What Are You Doing With Your Viptera Corn? www.farmgateblog.com, 9.09.11
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.