Monsanto Means Monopoly

Marching on Monsanto

Pete Dolack

Controlling and knowing what we eat should be a fundamental human right beyond questioning. That it is not sent hundreds of thousands into the streets of cities around the world on May 23, the third annual March on Monsanto.

People on every continent save Antarctica participated in a March on Monsanto—demonstrations took place in 452 cites in 48 countries in opposition to Monsanto Company's attempt to gain control over the world's food. More than 200 US cities, 47 Canadian cities, 22 French cities and 13 Argentine cities were among the places hosting organized marches.

One of the earliest rallies was in Sydney, where an organizer told the RT television network:
"This company has repeatedly committed, I would say, crimes against the Earth and what we are trying to show is accountability for corporations. Also we want to promote clean food. Food that's free of pesticides, which our grandparents just called food."

RT, in an online roundup of events around the world, also noted that protestors in Berlin, one of 10 German demonstrations, made connections among health concerns even though there is no commercial cultivation of food containing genetically engineered organisms (GMO))in the country, and GMO bans exist in nine of Germany's 16 states and in hundreds of municipalities. RT reported:
"Germany's capital Berlin saw a big turnout eventhough Germany does not use Monsanto's seeds. However, activists say local farmers still use Monsanto's pesticides and herbicides, which end up leaving traces in breast milk of feeding mothers, the water supply and even urine of people who have not eaten GMO products."

The struggle against dangerous pesticides received a boost earlier in the month in Germany when the country's state consumer protection ministers called for a ban on glyphosate throughout the European Union (EU). According to the online news publication EurActiv, EU approval of glyphosate expires at the end of 2015 and the EU bureaucratic arm, the European Commission, is conducting a safety review. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, a business worth an estimated $10 billion to Monsanto. The company not only sells lots of the herbicide but also agricultural products (soybeans, corn, sugar beets and other crops) that are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Farmers growing these crops with Monsanto seeds can thus spray more herbicides on their crops. Unfortunately, as more pesticides are sprayed, weeds and insects become more resistant, inducing farmers to spray still more and thereby introduce more poisons into the environment. The use of glyphosate on US farms increased from 11 million pounds in 1987 to almost 300 million pounds in 2013.

There is plenty of reason for concern. Earlier this year, the World Health Organization released a study, published in The Lancet, that found glyphosate to be a "probable" carcinogen. Other studies, including a 2013 paper in Food and Chemical Toxicology, have also reported health concerns. Further, a 2011 Earth Open Source paper, titled "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" says that the European Union and the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety cites "unpublished industry studies to back its claim that glyphosate was safe," while ignoring or dismissing independent studies that indicate glyphosate causes endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, cancer and birth defects.

Then there are the dangers of GMO foods, an area unfortunately quite under-studied. GMO labeling is required by 64 countries, including Australia, Japan and all 28 EU countries. Such laws are fiercely opposed by Monsanto and other multinational agribusinesses, and they thus far have succeeded in keeping labeling laws from being enacted in the US. These corporate efforts to undermine food safety are part of the agenda behind the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Marchers against Monsanto took to calling the TPP and TTIP the "Global Monsanto Protection Acts." One of the goals of those two so-called "free trade" deals is to eliminate the ability of governments to ban or even effectively regulate GMOs, and to ban any labeling of them. Monsanto and other agribusi-nesses repeatedly claim that GMOs are safe and healthy, but if that is so, why do they put so much effort into hiding them? Biotechnology companies spent $27 million lobbying for GMOs in the US in just the first six months of 2014.

Should the TPP and TTIP come into force, nobody in the 40 countries that encompass these two agreements will be able to know what is in the food they eat or to have effective protection against food that may not be safe to eat. Already people being used as laboratory experiments, and this will accelerate if Monsanto gets its way.

"Free trade" agreements have very little to do with trade, and much to do with eliminating regulations, lowering standards and eliminating health, safety and environmental laws in favor of maximizing corporate profits. The "harmonization" that is promoted in these agreements has meant reducing standards to the lowest possible level. Thus, European regulations on GMOs and food labeling will be targeted as "barriers" to trade under the TTIP because those standards are higher than US rules.

Pesticide Action Network Europe notes that the process of European harmonization has already watered down regulations. In its position paper on the TTIP negotiations, PAN Europe says :
"Health standards already now do not sufficiently protect people and the environment and costs are already externalised massively to society in terms of health care (pesticide residues in food/water, contamination of rural citizens), soil deterioration (fertilizers), biodiversity decline (monocultures, pesticides), climate change (fertilizers and deforestation for soy/palm cultivation) and subsidies (taxpayers' money). ...Let's take the example of pesticide residue food standards. They were harmonised at European level already in 2009 and indeed the least strictest food standards anywhere in Europe were chosen for harmonisation. Soon it was shown that this was a wrong approach. ...Cumulative effects of residues are not calculated and the unscientific single-exposure approach maintained."

Already, an EU paper that could have led to the banning of as many as 31 pesticides was not acted on because of heavy pressure from chemical companies on both sides of the Atlantic. A delegation of US chemical-industry lobbyists and US trade officials insisted that the EU drop proposals to ban the use of the pesticides despite health concerns.

Just as it is asked why Monsanto and other agribusinesses don't want you to know what is in your food, people must ask why companies don't want them to know what is in the "free trade" agreements being negotiated on their behalf.

Perhaps as a backup in case the mounting public opposition to the TPP and TTIP succeeds in scuttling them, a Kansas Republican, Mike Pompco, has cooked up a bill with the Orwellian name of "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015" (Bill H.R. 1599) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1599 was introduced on March 25 and is a re-introduction of the previous Congress' H.R. 4432, which failed to become law. The bill's stated purpose is: 'To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineercd organism, the labeling of natural foods, and for other purposes." Well, yes, but in what way?

The devil is indeed in the details here. Activists at Food Democracy Now sound the alarm this way:
"This plan is so devious that it radically speeds up the approval process for new GMO crops, limits the [US Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture's ability to extend premarket safety reviews, declares GMO foods 'safe' and redefines genetically engineered foods as 'bioengineered' in order to sanitize this deeply flawed technology to the American public."

A Daily Kos analysis notes that the bill would create a federal law banning any state or locality from enacting a GMO labeling law. The bill would also prohibit organic natural foods from being marketed as safer or better than GMO counterparts. It would also make it nearly impossible for a farmer to achieve organic certification:
"But most sinister is what I will call the bill's virtual protection racket. It works like this. As a small organic farmer, if I want to market my product as GMO-free, I must ensure that the entire path to market—from seed to harvest to processing to transportation to distribution—is certifiably GMO-free. If my product shares any infrastructure with known GMO foods, I cannot claim being a GMO-free. ...The burden of proof therefore is prohibitively expensive for a typical small farmer, which is what Monsanto, Dow et al are counting on."

Taking on Monsanto is already difficult. The Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association filed a suit against Monsanto, challenging the company's patents on genetically engineered seeds, a suit that eventually represented 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms. The organic plaintiffs sought a pre-emptive judgment against potentially being accused of patent infringement should their fields become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed. Such suits are not unknown. Nonetheless, the courts ruled for Monsanto at the trial and appellate levels.

A part of the problem is that, under the US regulatory system—what it wishes to impose on Europe and elsewhere—new products are routinely put on the market with minimal testing (or the product's manufacturer providing the only "research" and declaring it safe), and can't be removed from sale until independent testing determines the product is unsafe. That can occur years after it began to be sold. But, charges Steven Druker in a new book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, not even scientific concerns necessarily stop approval in the US.

"[T]he (US Food and Drug Administration] had ushered these controversial products onto the market by evading standards of science, deliberately breaking the law, and seriously misrepresenting the facts—and that the American people were being regularly (and unknowingly) subjected to novel foods that were abnormally risky in the eyes of the agency's own scientists.

This fraud has been the pivotal event in the commercialization of genetically engineered foods. Not only did it enable their marketing and acceptance in the United States, it set the stage for their sale in numerous other nations as well. If the FDA had not evaded the food safety laws, every GM food would have been required to undergo rigorous long-term testing: and if it had not covered up the concerns of its scientists and falsely reported the facts, the public would have been alerted to the risks.

Consequently, the introduction of GM foods would at minimum have been delayed many years—and most likely would not have happened."

Mr Druker is a public-interest attorney who successfully sued to gain access to FDA files. So confident is he in his findings that he has publicly challenged Monsanto to refute anything in his book and said he will change anything that is proven to be incorrect. Speaking at the New York March on Monsanto, he reported that he had not received a response.

Monsanto is perhaps the corporation most determined to control the world's food. The vast majority of US soybean, cotton, corn and canola are now genetically engineered. Seeds containing genes patented by Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, account for more than 90% of soybeans grown in the US and 80% of US-grown corn, according to Food & Water Watch. Standard contracts with seed companies forbid farmers from saving seeds, requiring them to buy new genetically engineered seeds from the company every year and the herbicide to which the seed has been engineered to be resistant. Farmers have become hired hands on their own farms under the control of Monsanto.

Now, people live under an economic system that reduces human interactions to nothing more than transactions, where an ever larger sphere of social decisions are made by "the market" and the quest for profits is promoted as the highest ideal. "The market" is not some neutral entity sitting high in the clouds, as pervasive propaganda would have people believe, but rather nothing more than the aggregate interests of the most powerful industrialists and financiers. A monopoly is the goal of capitalists, and the logical outcome of the relentless competition of capitalism. Just because food is among the most basic human necessities does not mean it is exempt. 'Don't starve, organize!'
—Third World Network Features

Vol. 47, No. 52, July 5 - 11, 2015