By Julie Kelly
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
Liberal foodies are on a collision course with genetic
engineering that may soon result in the welcome crash of the anti-GMO movement.
As emerging technology promises an answer for nearly every issue on the
movement’s agenda — from animal welfare to food security to environmental
protection — it also exposes the movement’s hypocrisy and hollowness. Activists
are increasingly hard-pressed to defend their illogical, irrational positions
(who in their right mind can oppose an apple that doesn’t turn brown?). And, as
is the case with most faltering political crusades, anti-GMO leaders are
becoming more and more desperate — even downright silly — in their efforts to
revive their dying cause.
Case in point: Next October, anti-GMO activists will
conduct what they’re calling the “Monsanto Tribunal” in The Hague. The St.
Louis–based biotechnology company is the anti-GMO movement’s chief target; each
year, cities around the world host a “March Against Monsanto,” which is really
just a symbolic protest showcasing the movement’s anti-capitalism,
anti-corporate ideology.
But apparently the aging hippies and granola grannies who
attend those annual marches aren’t suitably effective PR tools, so
Monsanto-haters are upping their game. A group of high-profile activists
announced at the COP21 conference in Paris last week that they will put Monsanto
“on trial” next year to face a variety of alleged crimes:
The Tribunal will rely on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights” adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal
liability on the basis of the Rome Statue [sic] that created the International
Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of
international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the
environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense, so that natural
persons could incurr [sic] criminal liability.
“Certain groups like the Organic Consumers Association
use fear and scare tactics to belittle science-based innovations that help to
improve agricultural sustainability. This fake trial has no legal basis and is
an attempt to mislead the public,” says Monsanto spokesman Nick Weber. But
activists hope their faux “court” will treat Monsanto executives the same way
they would treat genocidal African dictators. And while it obviously has no
official or legal standing — and certainly isn’t sanctioned by either the UN or
the EU — the Tribunal’s sponsors will no doubt attempt to persuade the buying
public otherwise. Pretend prosecutors will accuse Monsanto of:
Ignor[ing] the human and environmental damage caused by its products and
maintain[ing] its devastating activities through a strategy of systemic
concealment: by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to
lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring
independent scientists, by manipulating the press and media, etc. The history
of Monsanto would thereby constitute a text-book case of impunity, benefiting
transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to
climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet.
Now this is pretty amusing stuff coming from the Organic
Consumers Association, one of the tribunal’s chief organizers. Although the
Minnesota-based group professes to be a “public interest organization
campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability,” the OCA is a well-funded
front group that carries out much of the organic industry’s dirty work (they
are the same quacks who opposed the Ebola vaccine because it profited drug
companies).
The group engages in many
of the same activities it accuses Monsanto of: They frequently lobby (and
sue) regulatory agencies to stop genetically engineered products, lie
to consumers about the benefits of organic food and the dangers of GMOs,
and pressure independent scientists to cease communicating biotech’s benefits.
This year, the OCA led an appalling
smear campaign to harass university scientists who research transgenic
crops, trying to tie the researchers to biotech companies. It resulted in the
character assassination of good public scientists who had their careers, their
families, and even their lives threatened by overzealous anti-GMO activists.
The group’s president is Ronnie Cummins. Donning a beret
and ponytail during the Paris press conference, he unequivocally laid out OCA’s
agenda: “We are going to up the ante. Monsanto. . . . we are going to show that
you are trying to poison us all. And we are going to take down your business
and the whole factory-farm industrial-agriculture empire that goes with it.”
Why the hostility? Aside from the fact that folks like
Cummins are true-blue socialists, the walls are closing in on the anti-GMO
movement, and their funders — mostly liberal, wealthy organic executives — know
it. What’s at stake is the $40 billion organic industry here in the U.S.
Organic products cannot contain GM seeds, and the industry has led a carefully
crafted misinformation campaign to vilify GMOs and convince wary consumers to
buy pricier organic products.
Fortunately, scientific progress is starting to drown out
the organic fear-peddlers, and this year in particular has witnessed a string
of victories for genetic engineering. The USDA approved the Arctic apple, a
variety that doesn’t bruise or turn brown when sliced, due to the careful tweaking
of a few genes (the company is looking to apply the same technique to other
highly perishable fruits, such as avocados). The federal government also gave
the green light to the AquaAdvantage salmon, which was created by inserting a
gene from one salmon into another salmon to promote faster growth in contained
tanks, using fewer natural resources.
Recent advancements in genetic engineering show huge
potential for the future: Preventing dairy cows from growing horns, which would
eliminate the painful, dangerous process of dehorning cattle. Stopping
intractable crop diseases, like citrus greening, which is resistant to the
strongest pesticides and has decimated the U.S. citrus industry. Creating
mosquitos that fight malaria, which kills nearly a million people per year.
Fortifying staple crops in poor countries to provide needed nutrients and stop
children from going blind, even dying, from malnutrition.
This is why the anti-GMO movement is on such shaky
ground. A bill passed by the House of Representatives in July is now under
consideration in the Senate; if approved, the law would prevent separate GMO
labeling laws in each state. “If you try to ban the future, it will just happen
someplace else,” says Jon Entine, director of Genetic Literacy Project and
senior fellow at the University of California–Davis. And while the anti-GMO
movement plans fake tribunals, science — and progress — marches on.
No comments:
Post a Comment