Genes of Monsanto

Time and again generation of wealth has been done in ways that do not conform to our social norms. Right from big corporates to governments have been a party to this foul play. In an age where we talk of human rights and information transparity, still there are many who get lured by the dishonest practices of wealth creation. North south disparity is a big result and a prime mover of this game. It has led to a vicious circle in which poor gets poorer and rich gets richer. What more! Poors have to be sacrificed for the margin that rich enjoys. This shamelees game is played in many forms and almost all arenas. Whereever there is a prospect of gain out of unbalanced economy, there are hidden tears of thousands and bullion in a few pockets. Genetic Engeneering has right that prospect.

The technology of Genetic Engineering (GE) is the practice of altering or disrupting the genetic blueprints of living organisms—plants, trees, fish, animals, humans, and microorganisms. This technology is wielded by transnational “life science” corporations such as Monsanto and Aventis, who patent these blueprints, and sell the resulting gene-foods, seeds, or other products for profit. Life science corporations proclaim that their new products will make agriculture sustainable, eliminate world hunger, cure disease, and vastly improve public health. However, these gene engineers have made it clear, through their business practices and political lobbying, that they intend to use ge to monopolize the global market for seeds, foods, fiber, and medical products.

Monsanto Story

Lets look into the story of Monsanto this time.The Monsanto company was created in 1901 by John Francis Queeny. Named after his wife, Olga Mendez Monsanto, the name Monsanto has since, for many around the world, come to symbolize the greed, arrogance, scandal and hardball business practices of too many multinational corporations.Monsanto is considered the Mother of agricultural biotech. Their "Roundup Ready" crops have been genetically engineered to allow direct application of the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds without killing the crops.

Monsanto also came under heavy public fire with their "Terminator Technology", a.k.a. "suicide seeds", in which they developed and planned to market seeds that, after one season's growth would not germinate again forcing farmers around the world to buy their seed from them every year rather than saving their best seed for the next years planting, a traditional and economical practice. Seed saving has had the benefit of allowing farmers to continually improve the quality of their crops through careful artificial selection. Fears were also expressed that Monsanto's terminator genes could spread to wild plants. In 1999 Monsanto called the program off, however there are disturbing indications that they may be planning to resurrect it. On June 29, 2004 The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture went into effect giving farmers in those countries which have ratified it, with the exception of the U.S., the right to save seeds.

In 1998 Dennis wrote an article that began "'According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria.

Organic farms are increasingly finding that via cross-pollination their pure food has been contaminated with GM DNA thus ruining their businesses. "In 2002, Ontario farmer Alex Nurnberg had tests conducted on his 100-ton harvest of organic corn. Twenty tons were found to be contaminated by GMOs, which Nurnberg believes were blown by the wind from the corn on a neighboring farm. 'I was not ready for it. I feel such a wrath about it,' says Nurnberg".

GE ! What is that?

Lets look more deeply at the technology in question, Genetic Engeneering. GE is a revolutionary new technology that is still in its early experimental stages of development. This technology has the power to break down the natural genetic barriers—not only between species—but between humans, animals, and plants. Randomly inserting together the genes of non-related species—utilizing viruses, antibioticresistant genes, and bacteria as vectors, markers, and promoters—permanently alters their genetic codes. The gene-altered organisms that are created pass these genetic changes onto their offspring through heredity. Gene engineers all over the world are now snipping, inserting, recombining, rearranging, editing, and programming genetic material. Animal genes and even human genes are randomly inserted into the chromosomes of plants, fish, and animals, creating heretofore unimaginable transgenic life forms. For the first time in history, transnational biotechnology corporations are becoming the architects and “owners” of life.

With little or no regulatory restraints, labeling requirements, or scientific protocol, bio-engineers have begun creating hundreds of new ge “Frankenfoods” and crops. The research is done with little concern for the human and environmental hazards and the negative socioeconomic impacts on the world’s several billion farmers and rural villagers. An increasing number of scientists are warning that current gene-splicing techniques are crude, inexact, and unpredictable—and therefore inherently dangerous. Yet, pro-biotech governments and regulatory agencies, led by the us, maintain that ge foods and crops are “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, and therefore require neither mandatory labeling nor pre–market safety-testing.

This new technology has many potential hazards if used unchecked just to make wealthy wealthier. Apart from the drawbacks cited above, lets look at the possible consequences,

• Genetic Pollution
• Genetic “Bio-Invasion”
• Food Allergies
• Increased Cancer Risks
• Damage to Food Quality & Nutrition
• Antibiotic Resistance
• Damage to Beneficial Insects and Soil Fertility
• Creation of GE “Superweeds” and “Superpests”
• Increased Pesticide Residues
• New Viruses and Pathogens
• Socioeconomic Hazards
• Ethical Hazards

Take Action Today

The question before us is not to outcry about the technology. It is certainly a revolution of science. The worrying fact is unethical use of the technology for immoral causes and without the awareness among consumers. The need of the hour is a well informed consumer base, concerned governments, proactive scientific community and ethical corporate entities. It is time for us to use a gift of science for our betterment and avoid our future generations cursing us for a manhandled technology like nuclear power.

Stay Informed: http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.html

Failure of Basel Convention

French President Chirac has announced a dramatic recall of the asbestos-laden warship Clemenceau -- it has turned back to France. My congratulations to all the Green Concerns of Citizens acroos the globe and also to the French Government for taking right action at the right time. May Earth sustain and grow.

There has always been an internal conflict between urge for sustainable existence and morality. Today the world has advanced to such a platform that an existence of one hides deep somewhere sacrifices of many others. The increasing divide of economic might has led to such trades which are shame on any civilization or times. Today the sense of cooperation is limited to threats. If a powerful nation has to exploit some aspects of world dynamics, poorer nations would have to sacrifice their will. This is at times imposed to such a level that humanity lose all its meanings. For poorer nations this is a situation of falter or die. We have seen many examples to support this in near past. Be it world trade, nuclear disarmament, pollution control or fuel, it has always been in favor of a few mighty nations. The third world countries have suffered time and again. And whats beautiful is that, this all is done in a cover of legal frames like United Nations and its many branches.

One such derogatory trade that is run for the benefit of wealthier nations is Hazardous waste movement. The are many reasons why wealthier nations like to throw their wastes in poorer nations. One of them is definitely disposal costs. Industrialized countries generate an enormous volume of toxic waste, which is either impossible or extremely costly to recycle. The solution for many years has been to export it to third world countries who have more lenient environmental regulations, are in greater need of funds and where concern for the health of the population is minimum or non-existent.

Following several waste trafficking related scandals in the 1980Â’s, on March 22, 1989, the Basel Convention was adopted, with the goal of controlling movement and disposal of all kinds of toxic and hazardous waste. Initially the Convention -in force as of May 5, 1992- was criticized by environmental groups because it failed to effectively ban toxic waste exports to poor countries, succeeding only in excluding Antarctica as a destination for such waste. In 1995, however, and as a result of pressure exerted by several countries and environmental groups, an amendment to the Convention was introduced, prohibiting all exports of contaminating material. This ban will only enter into force when the amendment is ratified by 62 of the countries party to the Convention (as of May 2003, 36 countries had already done so). In any event, the scope of the Convention is severely limited by the fact that the United States, the largest toxic residue producer in the world, is not among the signatories.

In spite of the restrictions imposed by environmental groups regarding toxic waste destination, not only has the volume of residues generated not gone down, over the last few years it has gone up, and this increase has not been accompanied by the implementation of effective waste recycling or resource conservation techniques.


The prohibition on toxic waste exports involves reducing toxic waste generation to a minimum and ensuring that the disposal of any waste produced is done in an environmentally sound way, and as near as possible to the source of generation. The aim of banning waste producing countries from exporting their waste to developing countries, for low-cost recovery, recycling or disposal purposes, is to stimulate these countries to produce clean technologies. Industrialized countries produce nearly 80% of the 400 million generated annually in the world, and they export 10% of that proportion, for the most part to underdeveloped countries in dire economic straits. For years, Latin America -and in particular southern countries like Paraguay or Argentina- was used by industrialized countries as a garbage dump, leading some of these countries to be among the most active promoters of ratification. Notwithstanding which, bilateral treaties excluded from the Convention have enabled violations of its provisions, such as the intention to import Australian nuclear waste to Argentina, allegedly for treatment and removal.

There have been many stories running in media that expose failure of Basel Convention. This is happening due to reluctance on the part of a few countries that shy away from the convention for economic benefits. It will continue the same way. Infact this is nothing new. Similar fates have been observed for many other efforts in past. The only way out is to strenthen the will power of southern countries. It is high time for them to say no to import of hazardous wastes from north for short term economic benefits. It has far reaching consequences. The countries of south should understand their responsibility for their people and land. It is only fair to ask the nation which creates the wastes to handle them responsibly.

Official site of Basel Convention : http://www.basel.int