On 3/3/98 the Delta
and Pine Land Company, DPL, (based at Scott, Mississippi) announced
they had obtained a patent entitled “The
Control of the Expression of Genes” jointly
with the United States Department of Agriculture. This patent, also
called “Terminator”,
describes a transgenic technique which produces plants which grow normally,
produce a normal harvest, but the grain doesn’t germinate. The harvested
grain is biologically sterile. This can be applied to all
species of plants. Were are the interests of the multinational seed
companies, in non-hybrid species such as wheat, barley, rice, soya, etc.... This patent in effect opens
the world market to the sale of transgenic seeds for the species for which
farmers currently use harvested grain as seed...
Jean-Pierre Berlan. director
of research at INRA (French National Agricultural Research Institute) at
Montpellier and author of the article “Take the living” in the newspaper
Le Monde on 17/10/98 denounced the pressures
which are exercised by the United States “to
compel other countries to implement, within the framework of the World
Trade Organisation, a law protecting living organisms selected
by multinational firms, particularly American”. This project on
the patentability of life seemed
only to worry the Netherlands. They decided to bring this plan before
the European Court of Justice. The stakes for the multinationals
are enormous. The control of the plant genome represents a future
market of 500 billion dollars,
while the agro-chemical market is only worth 30, according to “World
Farmers” Sept/Oct 98. From this starts the acquisitions race to
deliver it to the agro-chemical giants, Monsanto,
DuPont, Novartis, etc. In this way Monsanto
bought Dekalb,
then another seed firm, Holden’s,
struck up an association with Cargill, grain
processor and trader, next it bought PBIC,
specialist in plant selection.
The multinationals are investing
colossal sums in genetically modified varieties, in vain so far, at least
in Europe. It is for this reason that
Jean-Pierre Berlan thinks that “all the
signs look good for preventing life reproducing
in the farmers fields and confiscating life”.
GMO:
opacity lives on
In an article on
4th March, Le Monde denounced the reduction,
in 1998, of access to information on the growing of GMOs in France.
Of 98 départements, 43 had refused
- either via the prefect or via the departmental
offices for Agriculture and Forestry - to reveal the locations GMO trials. Yet the law of 13/7/92 obliges
them to make public authorisations of trials, places, plants tested, follow
up plans in case of emergency, all information which “could not be
considered confidential”. Pretext:
“industrial and commercial secret”....
Already, in Great Britain, an environmental organisation is going to obtain
the conviction of Monsanto (£17000 fine)
for only leaving 2 m space between a field of transgenic maize and other
crops..
Reflections: GMO : ATTENTION Genetic manipulation dangerous?
the idea of drastically modified organisms can appear attractive.
- Introduce a gene
into a plant to make it resistant to a parasite could present the opportunity
to not have to use pesticides, as much at
the agricultural level as the environmental. Experience is showing
otherwise.
1) One can
see, with GMOs, in the same way as with the systematic (and
thus excessive) use of antibiotics, the mutation
of germs. Also, instead of resisting
the original parasite, the plant quickly mutates to the latter which it
resists in turn. 2) This can
be done again, until there exist no more genes
in nature to fight the parasite, which has become resistant.
The danger is such that those who have put GMOs on the market ask farmers
to sow a proportion of non-modified seed to contain, if possible, the mutation
of the parasite. 3) In introducing
a gene capable of synthesising a pesticide, not only does one modify the
internal ecology of the plant, which no longer corresponds to nature, but
one makes us eat this pesticide...
- Introduce a gene into a
plant to make it resistant to a herbicide allows the spreading of the herbicide
without precautions for the plant. Evidently
of interest to the supplier of the GMO who is, rightly, also that of the
herbicide which corresponds to the introduced gene.
As for the consumer, he ingests a plant gorged with herbicide...
- Introduce a gene into a
plant to create in one go a new variety.
Rather than “enriching biodiversity”, it is the reverse which happens:
the natural varieties,
no longer cultivated, will tend to disappear,
to the benefit of the GMO (that
is otherwise the commercial goal of the suppliers
of the GMO).
- When one introduces a gene
into a plant, its pollen is disseminated by the wind and by insects.
There is a great risk of losing all control
over the introduced gene.
- What will be the consequences
of crossing the natural barriers between species,
and more so, those between the animal and
vegetable kingdoms. (see
prion,
my brother)
- Organic or bio-dynamic farming
and natural medicine (naturotherapy) proposes, in most cases, alternative
responses to the arguements held out to justify genetic manipulation.
Why are these not more often taught and developed?
Above all, the principle of
caution must be applied to genetic manipulation. The ecological equilibrium
is fragile. All modifications can have final
consequences, regardless of the size of the original cause,
to the point were humanity could find itself confronted by excessive consequences...
- BACKTALK: Is there anything
to fear from GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODS? - ESSENTIALs OILS (Valnet) - FAQ & reactions (March) - Dr Vercoutère
"scandal of water and meat pollution"
