Join us on:
The Struggle Over Genetic Engineering and the Food Supply
Aug 26 2011
As reported on August 18, by California Farmer, two university scientists, Alison L. Van Eenennaam of UC Davis and William M. Muir of Purdue, have criticized the federal government’s process for approving genetically engineered (GE) plants and animals. Their commentary published on August 5th, in the online version of Nature Biotechnology, focused specifically on “the regulatory review saga of AquAdvantage salmon, a fast-growing genetically engineered salmon.” They argue that the process has stifled private investment in a promising technology that will serve a hungry world because it is unfair, easily slowed by those with political agendas, and thus is nonscientific. These may be valid points, but they have missed the core issue entirely.
The heart of the problem around GE plants and animals is power, including potential for financial dominance and control over the food supply by corporations, which by law must think first about profits for their investors, not the needs of society overall. The ability to use patents to gain ownership of genetic material by a corporation and to sue those exposed to that material through drift or interbreeding creates a very scary dynamic for many observant people who think about the long-term health of our civilization.
Democracy formed to combat the concentration of power. Today corporations are gaining huge levels of power over government and thus eroding the power of democracy to protect the rights of individuals. As a close friend of mine often says, “Lobbyists vote every day on Capitol Hill. We the people vote every other year.” In fact, many now believe that corporations largely control the political process through their ability to secretly finance campaigns. Thus, many folks are rightly skeptical of corporate claims and products. Government is no longer seen as an objective arbiter or voice to confirm or deny claims of safety. Science is sadly caught up in this struggle to find a trusted voice.
A solution may be possible. First, the federal processes for vetting the health and safety of GE products needs to be revamped to be more transparent and to highlight its objectivity. All those participating need to reveal their funding sources and a third party of disinterested researchers from public universities, not funded by interested corporations, must be used to review studies and act as umpire in conflicts in findings. Some will claim that the erosion of public funding for university research means “objective scientists” cannot be found in public universities. If that is true, we have a deeper problem to solve first and we had better get on it now. In order of priority, the strengthening of civil society by our universities should precede the strengthening of the marketplace for GE products. Trusted science is a vital need of civil society in a modern world.
Second, the law must eliminate the ability of a corporation to own genetic material through patents. It is not right that an “individual,” as corporations are seen under law, that thinks about profit first, above all else, should control the sources of life. Plants and animals have evolved for millions of years. When a company changes a few genes in a sequence and then claims to own that life form, it seems profoundly unfair, a rip-off from the commons. In lieu of a powerful and more long-term patent, perhaps genomics corporations could be offered a temporary and a narrower license to allow them to raise capital for product development and their market launch. Proceeds from licensing fees could be used to protect endangered species. The global gene pool needs protection because any species could be the source of genetic material that may one day offer salvation to millions or billions of people threatened by disease or starvation in the unimaginably long future that lies ahead.
Clearly, science has unleashed a tremendous power in its ability to genetically alter life forms. Rationally, many people question whether profit driven corporations should own life forms using only patent law to gain that ownership. It is no wonder that scientific processes have been politicized and delayed. Until we recognize that power is the core issue beneath the debate over GE plants and animals we will not resolve the stalemate. By eliminating corporate ownership of GE life forms and enhancing the process by which GE products are approved for release into the market, we may unravel the knot and ensure sound and trusted genomic science and a healthy food and agriculture for all.
Comments
Corporations and GMOs
Very good topic and nicely written. My thoughts are, on the one hand when technological breakthroughs are made, especially in medicine, that benefit and protect humans and there is a common good, that prices are kept low enough to allow these lifesaving measures to be available for all of society. On the other hand, take Monsanto for example. This corporation employs 22,000 employees worldwide. On the average, it takes Monsanto's biologists about 8 years, at a price of $180 million, to get a new GMO product registered and on store shelves. When these products fall off patent in usually a decade, the generic profiteers swoop in to begin manufacturing and selling their own versions of these once patented and profitable products. Corporations must protect their investments and realize profits. To balance the needs of corporations and the common good of societies is a very tricky, delicate and complicated matter indeed. So, I guess what I am saying to your article above, is that this is far easier said than done.
Response to your thoughtful reply
Yes, I concur. What I wrote is "far easier said than done." But so was writing the US Constitution and many of our laws. Discovering the methods to map the genome was easier said than done. Most of what we face now related to sharing power or solving global economic, ecological, and social challenges are truly "wicked problems." We are a complex species, with multiple conscious and unconscious and often conflicting drives, emotions, and goals. Our complexity shapes our challenges. Food is actually a complex topic, but a requirement of life. Thus, it is fundamental to our definition as a species, it is very serious business.
I would posit that the food supply is the most serious and least appreciated topic within political discourse given its importance to our existence. Our politicians and pundits fight over many trivial things in comparison its seriousness. Too many political, business and cultural leaders see food as a low priority compared to other topics. But they fail to see how food and agriculture sit at the core of civilization and thus offer a key to setting a pattern for solving myriad related problems. If we were to apply sound principles of health and resilience to shape food and farming, we would literally recreate a huge piece of our world within a generation.
I think our leaders often forget that most all revolutions are finally sparked from food shortages and such shortages are now happening more frequently given global population growth, climate change, and peak oil. So, although easier said than done, it is essential that we deal with the power politics underlying GE foods. I trust we will handle it well if we put our minds to it through a healthy democratic process where all rational voices are allowed a seat at the table. If there is anything we humans truly know how to do, it is survive. And as millions of people are beginning to comprehend, our future survival depends on healthy food and agriculture.
future survival and GMO's
An area that is not often explored that is of paramount concern to the survivability of those millions of people at risk from unsufficient food resources is the insertion of the terminal gene in many GMO plant materials. The inability to seed save for future food security creates a dependence on these patent corporations that is not only unconscionable but an indicator of the true drive for profit over the interest in food security. Food security has recently been linked by the US Federal government as of extreme concern in maintaining national security. Why then would withholding security from the poorest nations, those most potentially volitile, through insertion of terminal genes in basic food plants not be a considered an act of ecoterrorism?
Terminal gene
I need to check, but if my memory serves, terminal genes have been discussed and debated, but not actually used in products. Perhaps some one will know who reads this. And I concur, the use, would be very worrisome and I would find it to be even more evidence of why allowing corporate control over life forms is unwise for civilization as a whole. Submitted by Michael R. Dimock
GMOs
"I trust we will handle it well if we put our minds to it through a healthy democratic process where all rational voices are allowed a seat at the table."
That's putting a great deal of trust in our current Congress. At present, they seem unable to agreed on anything. Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust them to change the oil in my car. Like the debt ceiling debacle, they would probably hem and haw until the engine burned out. No, these cuckleheads are useless. It will be the farmers and ag experts stepping up to the plate when things get bad enough to show these clowns the errors of their ways.
The Congress
I share your concerns about the current Congress. It is filled with idealogues, not wise arbiters. But my comment was not a reference to the Congress. The democratic process I refer to for defining a way to provide financial incentives for genomics research, refers to something that would begin outside. As your comment suggests, scientists, investors, advocates, critics and consumers need to arrive at a consensus that reflects a very broad political spectrum. Thus, when the consensus is brought to Congress, they would reject it at their peril. ROC has supported this approach to policymaking in it's funding for roundtables of stakeholders that work in counties, large cities, and statewide. When Farm Bureau and NRDC agree on something, policymakers tend to accept their recommendations because it will please lots of voters.