Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:24:59 -0300 (ADT)
From: Antoni Wysocki au120@chebucto.ns.ca
To: Antoni's Wire Service
Subject: an active day in Halifax: Kosovo; GMOs
Hi,
As described below, progressive activism was in full effect in Halifax
on Saturday, April 17. This report will likely be of greater relevance to
residents of the Halifax region but I trust those of you who live at a
greater remove - whether further afield in Nova Scotia or outside the
province altogether - will also find it of interest.
On the order of 150 people rallied outside the NS Legislature on Saturday,
April 17 to protest NATO aggression in Yugoslavia. In addition to the
protesters an agent of the state (made by conspicuous by his standard
issue sunglasses, moustache and general demeanour) turned up and proceeded
to videotape the event. I am told that similar surveillance has been the
order of the day at the silent vigils for victims of UN sanctions in Iraq
which are held each Friday at noon in front of Halifax's main library.
Apparently a successful method for driving off these monitors is to have a
newsmedia personnel focus their cameras on the spy. No TV crew was on hand
on Saturday but the observer eventually left after being subjected to a
lengthy barracking by a member of the International Socialists.
A number of individuals addressed those assembled - some providing
analysis of the situation in the Balkans, some sharing their personal
feelings, some offering an admixture. NDP Member of Parliament Wendy Lill
admitted that her party initially supported the NATO bombing campaign but,
having seen the disastrous consequences of this action, has now called
upon NATO to desist. (Interestingly our trusty secret agent did not record
Ms. Lill.)
A solid case against NATO intervention was put by a member of the Canadian
Federation of Students. Principal in her arguments was the point that the
bombardment of Yugoslavia - purportedly undertaken to prevent the massive
violation of Kosovars' human rights - has actually produced the largest
humanitarian crisis the Balkans has seen in this century. (Naturally this
speaker was filmed by "the spook.")
Two of the most powerful speeches came from a Serbian and a Kurdish
emigre. The latter inveighed against the hypocrisy of Bill Clinton's
protestations of concern for oppressed minorities given the US alliance
with Turkey, which savagely represses its Kurdish population. The other
speaker noted that states perenially justify their bellicosity by the
manipulation of "atrocity tales," noting, from her own experience, how
Milosevic had defended his annexation of Kosova on the grounds that
Albanians had persecuted Serbs while the West has used reports of Serb
abuse of Albanians as grounds for military intervention. On examination,
Saturday's crowd was told, neither set of horror stories appears accurate
but this is of little consequence to the warmongers who are interested
only in generating the hatred necessary to fuel conflict. (I need hardly
mention that Mr. Espionage got all of this on tape.)
A call for action arose at the rally, and the possibility of a march on
the US consulate or some other appropriate destination was propounded. The
committee which planned Saturday's demonstration will meet Tuesday evening
at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design to discuss this and future
events. Anyone interested should contact Penny McCall-Howard, 423-8335.
Another event of note on Saturday was the holding of a "Frankenfoods
Forum" at the Dalhousie Student Union Building. Some 50 or 60 people gave
over bulk of the afternoon to this colloquium on genetically engineered
esculent.
The session began with four (plus two - but more about that in a minute)
directed presentations. These lasted about 10 minutes each.
The first pair were courtesy of a brace of scientists from the Nova Scotia
College of Agriculture. One of these gentlemen actually works with GMOs
(genetically modified organisms) while the other is an interested
observer. The general tenor of their remarks was that GMOs have (or
potentially could have) some positive characteristics, and that GMOs
present no significant danger.
The key advantage attributed to GMOs was with regard to chemical
treatments : it was suggested that GMOs typically require a smaller and
less toxic cocktail of pesticides and the like. To a lesser extent, the
biotechnologists stated, genetic engineering could also produce hardier
plant strains which would allow the expansion of agriculture in degraded
areas such as the Sahel.
As to the possible hazards of GMOs, the biotechnologists allowed that
these exist but minified their importance. We were reminded that GMOs can
only interbreed - and thus pass on their characteristics - conspecifically
and even then many such unions would be sterile. Strict zoning regulations
could virtually eliminate this possibility by decreeing that GM varieties
could not be grown in the vicinity of unaltered plants which would be
sexually receptive to them. Even at that, it was pointed out, if the
qualities which had been introduced (chances are, resistance to a certain
pesticide) were an improvement, why worry if this spreads?
To be fair, these fellows together had perhaps 20 minutes to make their
case; obviously one could not hope to do justice to the issues involved
with such a brief allotment. Of course, it doesn't help that their
position lacked merit to begin with.
At all events the agbiotech side was looking bad before its opponents had
even spoken : if the main beneficiation to be expected from GMOs was a
reduction in pesticide use why not promote organic farming instead? This
would achieve much deeper reductions in chemical use without running any
risks whatsoever. On the question of engineering plants for "fitness," one
of the biotechnologists himself remarked that GMOs are normally less
sturdy than their natural cousins. Thus though it might be possible to
design a plant that, say, had reduced water requirements, the same plant
could be expected to exhibit offsetting defects.
Up next was a biologist from Dalhousie University who at once issued a
disclaimer : he was not a Luddite, he told us, he opposed the application
of genetic engineering in "open systems" but not under controlled
conditions such as obtain in the field of medicine. I personally see no
shame in being a Luddite; and I regretted that Linda Panozzo, NSPIRG's
executive director, was not on hand to explain why we ought not to be
sanguine about the use of genetic engineering in the health professions
either.
Still, I won't say too much against your man as he offered some valuable
thoughts on GMOs. He pointed out that the risks posed by GMOs were not
confined to the transmission of induced characteristics to natural
varieties through accidental interbreeding but also included the effects
of consuming GM food. In this regard he alluded to the research of Arpad
Pusztai which demonstrated that genetically altered potatoes induced
cancerous tumors in rats - hence might do the same in humans. The
biologist concluded his address by quoting Jeremy Rifkin to the effect
that people love that which has a purpose of its own and therefore a world
which we had crafted in our own image would be "incredibly lonely."
The last of the principal presentations was given by an officer of
OXFAM-Canada. The focus in this instance was on food security
(uncompromised access to food plentiful and healthful enough to allow
people to flourish) : was it lessened or increased by the introduction of
GMOs? The view from OXFAM was that genetic engineering is likely to
diminish food security globally.
Central to this argument is the for-profit nature of the endeavour. GMOs
are being developed at considerable expense by transnational commercial
conglomerates whose overriding concern is to make money, not make the
world a better place. To ensure a good (nay, outstanding) return on their
investments these firms insist on the protection of their "intellectual
property rights;" in this case, patents on GMOs. The chief means of
capitalizing on these patents are to force farmers to buy new seed
every growing season and to compel farmers to treat their crops with
name-brand chemicals.
As to the first, farmers in the developing world normally save the seed
naturally produced by a growing crop but GMO vendors explicitly forbid
this (Monsanto is currently pursuing scores of lawsuits on these very
grounds.) Peasants are unable to afford the cost of purchasing new seed
yearly and will accordingly be forced out by large agribusiness concerns,
leaving the displaced smallholders to scrabble for scarce jobs in order to
survive. Similarly, peasants lack the wherewithal to buy the chemical
treatments which Monsanto and other corporations are engineering their
seeds to require.
Following these four presentations two, slightly briefer, talks were
given. The moderator adverted to these latter addresses as though they
were adscititious which, if correct, was perhaps a trifle unfair to the
agbiotech proponents. Already by this stage it was beginning to look like
the biotechnologists had accepted a suicide mission, and with the two
additional speakers the forum took on the appearance of an ambush. Still,
if one promotes genetic engineering one ought to expect a rough ride, I
suppose!
Regardless, the two closing speakers provided some excellent analysis.
One, a gardener, put paid to the biotechnologists' suggestion that genetic
engineering was necessary to extract 100% of plants' productivity. The
gardener noted that she already was able to achieve such results : such
parts of her produce as she did not eat she returned to the soil as
compost! She also offered to give the benefit of her experience to those
who felt that genetic engineering was necessary to inure plants to
adversity; again, she stressed, there were natural alternatives available
already. In closing she urged horti- and agriculturalists to purchase
their seed from small companies which could guarantee organic origin, and
to themselves become knowledgeable about seed-saving.
The other of the pair of extra commentators was a biologist; if she stated
her institutional affiliation I didn't catch it. As a scientist, she told
us, one of her major concerns was the underhanded approach to genetic
engineering displayed by the government. She told of the undue emphasis
which Ottawa has placed on the potential pecuniary gains to be had from
genetic engineering, an emphasis which sets aside safety issues as
encumbrances. As an example she read out the federal government's legal
definition of "biotechnology" and showed that it was set out in such a way
as to minimize its subjection to regulation. She further noted that while,
e.g., plans for an oil field development must be open to public scrutiny,
citizens are only given access to the decision on whether a GMO project
will be allowed to proceed - not the particulars of the project
itself.
Following these six presentations about 25 minutes were given over to
questions from the floor. For me, the most interesting aspect of this part
of the colloquium was a comment that one of the factors impelling Canadian
farmers to plant GMOs is the insistence by corporate buyers on uniform
product; i.e., a vegetable or fruit must conform to strict requirements of
size and shape if it is to be acceptable to these purchasers. Since most
of the produce grown is bought by these corporate clients farmers are
desperate to please them and will look favorably on technologies which
promise predictable results.
At this point there was a break in the proceedings which allowed those in
attendance to sample the fine organic and fairly traded food and drink
provided by the organizers. Such was the excellence of this repast that it
was a bit difficult to call folks (including yrs. truly) back to
order...
Upon the eventual resumption participants were encouraged to join in
batches of ten or so and talk over the issues. With the numbers involved I
found that the time allotted for this was insufficient to admit of
fruitful discussion; limited the groups to four or five might have been
more effective.
After about 10 minutes of this the plenum recovened and all present were
given an opportunity to comment. I was scarcely surprised that no voices
of support for GMOs - other than the biotechnologists', of course - were
heard, but I was somewhat bemused by the lack of intensity from opponents.
For the most part those who spoke out against GMOs either favored
mandatory labelling or believed that the answer lies in persuading people
to buy (or preferably grow) organic food.
Labelling strikes me as an inadequate solution for a number of reasons.
First, it is often difficult to establish whether a substance contains GM
elements and a labelling regime puts the burden on already overstressed
organic producers to guarantee that their products are GM-free. Second,
labelling does nothing to lessen the dangers posed to the environment by
GMOs (e.g. unforseen destruction of beneficial insects with consequent
damage throughout entire ecosystems.) Third, this buys time for
multinationals like Monsanto to entrench themselves.
Switching to organic produce is, of course, advisable under all
circumstances. Again, however, I feel it is not a sufficient response :
even if, in the best case scenario, people began to convert the corporate
lobby, left unchecked, will find means to block this (e.g. the attempt by
the US Department of Agriculture to redefine "organic" to include
irradiated foods, crops fertilized with toxic sludge, etc.) Certainly we
should back organic farming but we must actively oppose the biotech lobby
all the while. GMOs must be banned.
---Antoni