Letter to the Editor
Catholic Herald (Madison, WI), Dec. 25, 2003
By: John E. Peck
Execuitve Director, Family Farm Defenders
I was a bit surprised by the recent “Frankenfood” article by George Weigel in the Catholic Herald (12/4/03), especially since it contradicted so many of the concerns I have heard from farmers and consumers about genetically modified organisms (GM Os). Having done a lot of work with family farmers in Africa myself, I must also say that the description of the situation and motivation behind the continent’s recent rejection of U.S. offered GMO “food aid” is not at all correct.
Contrary to Mr. Weigel’s assertions, there is much research to show that GM Os are destructive. Fatal allergic reactions among consumers, genetic drift and offsite field contamination, adverse impact on non-target species like butterflies, honey bees, and songbirds are just a few of the unresolved problems. People have also already died due to GM Os. In 1989 a Japanese chemical corporation, Showa Denko, used genetically engineered bacteria for the first time to produce L-tryptophan – a common over-the-counter dietary supplement. A “bad batch” ended up killing 39 people in the U.S. and permanently disabling another 1500 with a painful blood disorder known as eosinophiia myalgia syndrome (EMS). A class action lawsuit followed, and Showa Denko ultimately paid a $2 billion settlement to its GMO victims.
The agribusiness corporations behind GM Os are not at all altruistic – their interest is purely mercenary. According to the USDA, 98% of biotech research in agriculture today is done to make food production and processing easier and more profitable – not to improve nutrition or quality. Furthermore, numerous field studies have shown that GMO crops suffer depressed yields and may even require as much - if not more - chemical inputs than conventional varieties. In Wisconsin alone farmers lost $5.5 million between 1996 and 2001 planting Bt corn, because the premium cost for the patented seed was not covered by the very slight yield increase in a depressed commodity market. As Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, asserted in the New York Times (10/25/1998), “(we) should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.”
In the case of Africa where family farmers can not afford conventional hybrids or the synthetic chemicals they require and rely instead upon low input methods and open pollinated varieties, the threat of importing GM Os as “food aid” was obvious. Maize reserves were available regionally to meet local needs, but the U.S. refused to purchase food relief within Africa, insisting instead that the countries accept surplus Bt corn from the U.S. This was nothing more than a crude form of taxpayer subsidized dumping. Once some of the “food aid” was planted, it would have triggered widespread contamination as has already occurred in Mexico. Even white ranchers in southern Africa were opposed to accepting ground Bt cornmeal from the U.S. because they knew it would also end up fed to cattle and jeopardize their “Mad Cow-free” organic meat market in Europe. Ironically enough, in the case of Malawi it was the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that created the “hunger” scenario by forcing the government the year before to sell off its maize reserves to pay foreign debts.
Protecting the biological integrity of plants and animals is a valid ethical concern. So, too, is respecting food sovereignty. It is the right of ALL farmers to choose what they grow and ALL consumers to choose what they eat. Just because someone is hungry does not mean they lose their dignity and must swallow unwanted unhealthy handouts. It is both moral compassion and common sense that leads many people of faith to rightfully question the corporate promotion of a reckless technology that caters more to private profit than social welfare.
