SKOPJE, Macedonia, Aug. 11, 2003 (UPI) — In 2001, London’s “Guardian” relayed a warning from globalization guru Naomi Klein: “…backed by predatory intellectual property laws, agribusinesses are on their way to getting the global food supply so hopelessly cross-pollinated, polluted and generally mixed up, that legislators may well be forced to throw up their hands.”

Yet while corporations push, legislators endure. In July, the European Commission ordered labeling for foods over 0.9 percent GMO. This reflects labeling drives from Canada to China. Yet it may help end Europe’s five-year ban on genetically modified organisms (GMO) — a prime American demand.

EU officials declared this a victory for consumers, who now “will have a clear choice” between genetically modified and non-GM foods.

For enthusiasts, biotechnology opens up a wonderland of possibilities. Scientists can teach plants to grow in salty, dry soil. They can instruct crops to kill pests. In fact, they can probably train them to grow upside down.

Almost 100 million acres of American farmland contain biotech crops. Around 75 percent of soybeans, 34 percent of corn and 71 percent of cotton are GMO.

Biotech backers — mostly farmers, congressmen and corporations — dismiss concerns over harmful environment and health effects, citing numerous scientific studies.

Critics claim GMO’s are new, and consequently the jury remains out. They also brandish dissenting studies.

For environmentalists, biotech upsets nature’s balance. For example, GM crops with built-in pest repellents could kill insects usually eaten by birds. Or, insect pests could become repellent-resistant, as has happened with vaccines and resistant bacteria. Similarly, plant resistance could create “superweeds.”

Unwanted cross-pollination is the biggest fear, however, for farmers wishing to remain GMO-free. Ironically, though labeling means a “clear choice” for the EU, critics like Klein fear the spread of airborne GM seeds, making the technology all-pervasive and permanent. Opponents charge that there is “no wall high enough” to contain GM seeds.

Agricultural giant Monsanto is testing genetically modified wheat. Popular opposition has forced it to test at hidden locations. Canadian farmers fear such experiments. Their wheat exports bring in $3 billion annually.

However, according to Saturday’s “Saskatoon Star-Phoenix,” 82 percent of foreign importers strongly oppose GM wheat. Accidental contamination might ruin Canada’s image.

Similar sensitivities exist in Ireland. As an island, it should be “safe” from GM crops. However, being partially occupied by Britain, agricultural policy decided in London could affect Irish farmers on the borderlands of the Republic.

Now, the party more commonly associated with the emotional republican issue- Sinn Fein- is associated with the emotional biotech issue.

“This island cannot allow one part to opt for genetically modified crops or food while the other part abstains,” says representative Martin Ferris. “Cross contamination of hybrid plants and crops could contaminate the whole island.”

American leaders argue that Europe’s anti-GMO stance on African imports is morally wrong, because it damns the poor to malnutrition and low crop yields.

President Bush made this argument recently when visiting Africa. The suddenly humanitarian president claimed to be speaking for the best interests of African farmers. However, Bush was also speaking for his agrobusiness and Bible-belt constituencies.

The real moral aspect here is whether Africa’s poor would be fed, or simply held at the mercy of American biotechnology. Amadou Kanoute of Consumers International Office for Africa in Zimbabwe, claims that biotech would “plunge Africa into greater food dependency,” by freezing out the continent’s majority of poor, smaller farmers, while leaving them dependent on American-owned intellectual property.

Indeed, as Sinn Fein’s Mary Lou McDonald reminds, “…it is incredible that these people who use the argument that GM will help to feed the world are the very same people who placed a ‘Terminator Gene’ in their seeds so that farmers cannot use seeds that are harvested to plant next year’s crops.”

Indeed, it is in regards to globalization that the debate becomes most weighty and complex. The GMO battle is one between two first-world economic blocs, whose subsidizing has eliminated all other competitors.

In its WTO trade suit against the EU, Washington is claiming that the European ban translates into $300 million lost annual exports. Missouri Senator Jim Talent recently dismissed the EU’s position as “just protectionism.”

This is more than a bit rich. American farmers receive enormous subsidies- sometimes, to not grow crops. Corn growers have received $34.5 billion since 1995. The “International Herald-Tribune” committed wryly, “this helps explain how America is able to export- the less polite word in the patois of trade would be dump- corn at only two-thirds its cost of production.”

Since subsidized exports are sold below market values, the developing world — home to 96 percent of all farmers — can’t compete. As with the defense industry, “American capitalism” is actually state socialism.

According to the IMF, continues the editorial, “…a repeal of all rich-country trade barriers and subsidies to agriculture would improve global welfare by about $120 billion.”

The WTO now wants the big three- America, Japan and the EU- to reduce agricultural import barriers by 2005 and slash subsidies. These countries now spend $1 billion daily on farmers.

However, a recent near unanimous EU vote for agricultural policy “reform” has set a challenge for Washington.

The debate also plagues EU expansion. Countries like Poland and Slovenia are organically-oriented. Other candidates or EU neighbors (like Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Russia), however, are going biotech. Half of Romania’s soybeans grown last year were genetically modified, as were other crops, notably corn. Unbeknownst to most Bulgarians, 70 percent of their soya is GMO.

For 3 years, the EU-bound Czech Republic has overseen Monsanto’s genetically modified corn trials in Moravia. The company wants full registration for operating before May’s EU accession date. A state scientific commission is now deliberating. Organic producers from 11 European countries are protesting, buoyed by the English Lake District’s historic decision last month to ban GMO’s altogether.

Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have been harmonizing with EU guidelines longer than the others have. If eventual members like Bulgaria and Romania violate future regulations because of their current practices, will they be fined, or perhaps discontinue GM farming?

Organic foods appeal to GM-wary European consumers- but the relationship is complex.

Great Britain has Europe’s second-highest organic consumer demand, with sales of almost $2 billion annually. However, the number of farmers going green has declined by 80 percent since 1999. Why? Cheap imports, British farmers complain, coupled with government inattention make organic farming untenable.

In places with lower demand, however, organic production is increasing. Koros-Maros Biofarm is the first Hungarian organic milk producer. It anticipates success, despite that its milk is 40-60 percent more expensive than 99.8 percent of the milk consumed nationwide. By contrast, organics account for 11.3 percent of milk sold in neighboring Austria.

Other developments reflect consumer sentiment and future European policy.

The Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, in Greece, touts a sustainable, environmentally-friendly agricultural future, “…without being over-subsidized, since this is becoming less and less acceptable internationally.”

In Ireland — where farmers have received massive EU assistance –a two-year course in organic farming was announced last week by Galway’s agriculture college.

Europe’s organic farmers observe the Canadian drama closely. Regardless of what EU ministers say about food labeling leading to “choice,” Naomi Klein’s critique is prescient.

Mark Loiselle, an organic farmer from Saskatchewan, lauds organic wheat as easy to grow, and profitable.

However, Loiselle fears Saskatchewan’s 1,000 organic farmers will be ruined by Monsanto, should its GM wheat be approved. The farmers are suing.

“Coexistence is impossible,” Loiselle told the “Saskatoon Star-Phoenix” on Saturday, echoing European farmers. “Contamination will occur.”

Food producer Glen Neufeld added that, “…somebody needs to shut Monsanto down. Monsanto doesn’t really care about the industry. They care about the next big buck. Monsanto will continue to fight all the way. It will take every ounce of resistance to keep this out.”

Indeed, according to the Council of Canadians’ Nadege Adam, the company lost nearly $2 billion last year.

“Monsanto is on the ropes. They’ve been losing money hand over fist. They can’t afford to wait.”

Canadian farmers suspect their government, which could make hundreds of millions of dollars by obliging Monsanto. European anti-GMO leaders have similar fears.

“It is clear that the British Government is going to adopt GM food and crops,” Sinn Fein’s Gerry McHugh charges. “They do not support the European model of farming, while Tony Blair is only interested in appeasing big business interests.”

……………………………….

Readers who enjoyed this article (originally published by UPI) may also like