Jim Heartfield's comments about GM technology lead me to think there's some kind of class warfare involved in opposing GM foods. Maybe it is mostly yuppies opposing the large corporations that want to fast track GM technology. Even with the occasional royal moron involved in the opposition, I don't see how working people will benefit from a few companies attaining greater control over seeds and pesticide use.
Thanks for the great Upton Sinclair quote referenced through Kolko. I didn't realize the regulations benefitted large meat packers (I just remembered they were for skin-deep, a whitewashed show room for visitors and such..) though even Jerry Pournelle writes about computer box regulations squeezine smaller manufacturers. The Kulak class comment was pretty funny too, at first I thought what the fuck's a Kulak and what's this Ivory Tower mo'fo' doing calling me one (I imagined Jim Heartfield being a professional academic in a University, reading all the great works - like maybe since I'm close to CHina I'll start laying around reading all the time growing out those fingernails as an added status symbol. But I'm not all that busy a working guy - I should have read all that stuff (Smith, Kolko, Kulak history instead of watching all those mind-numbing videos. Thanks for the liberal arts education via posts..) Would we be Kulaks before or after the revolution? My English-Japanese dictionary makes a distinction - before the revolution a cheapskate merchant or loanshark kinda guy, after the revolution a machine-owning, wealthy farmer capable of hiring others. Were they the same individuals that rode out the revolution and made out all right for themselves?
Back onto the topic
I see the GM debate and struggle as a bunch of non-corporate-elite fighting a corporate agenda. Even if Rachels' and A Seed people are Yuppies I doubt they are the corporate elite and they don't have Al Gore on their side. I'de been reading as many of Noam Chomsky's articles as I could on the net and he offered MAI opposition as a good example of organizing. I thought the GM, MOnsanto opposition might be a similar effort. I don't see how it's going to hurt the working class while they strive to keep up a decent ration supply comming into the house. If anything the way GM seems to be heading now it might give fewer companies inordinate control over the production of those "rations". What do you consider a worthwhile effort?
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=3
If genetically engineered crops were aimed at feeding the hungry, then Monsanto and the others would be developing seeds with certain predictable characteristics: (a) ability to grow on substandard or marginal soils; (b) plants able to produce more high-quality protein, with increased per-acre yield, without increasing the need for expensive machinery, chemicals, fertilizers, or water; (c) they would aim to favor small farms over larger farms; (d) the seeds would be cheap and freely available without restrictive licensing; and (e) they would be for crops that feed people, not meat animals.
None of the genetically engineered crops now available, or in development (to the extent that these have been announced) has any of these desirable characteristics. Quite the opposite. The new genetically engineered seeds require high-quality soils, enormous investment in machinery, and increased use of chemicals. There is evidence that their per-acre yields are about 10% lower than traditional varieties (at least in the case of soybeans),[1,pg.84] and they produce crops largely intended as feed for meat animals, not to provide protein for people. The genetic engineering revolution has nothing to do with feeding the world's hungry.
The plain fact is that fully two-thirds of the genetically engineered crops now available, or in development, are designed specifically to increase the sale of pesticides produced by the companies that are selling the genetically engineered seeds.[1,pg.55] For example, Monsanto is selling a line of "Roundup Ready" products that has been genetically engineered to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto's all-time top money-making herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). A Roundup Ready crop of soybeans can withstand a torrent of Roundup that kills any weeds competing with the crop. The farmer gains a $20 per acre cost-saving (compared to older techniques that relied on lesser quantities of more expensive chemicals), but the ecosystem receives much more Roundup than formerly. To make Roundup Ready technology legal, EPA had to accommodate Monsanto by tripling the allowable residues of Roundup that can remain on the crop.[1,pg.75] Monsanto's patent on Roundup runs out in the year 2000, but any farmer who adopts Roundup Ready seeds must agree to buy only Monsanto's brand of Roundup herbicide. Thus Monsanto's patent monopoly on Roundup is effectively extended into the foreseeable future -- a shrewd business maneuver if there ever was one. However, this should not be confused with feeding the world's hungry. It is selling more of Monsanto's chemicals and filling the corporate coffers, which is what it was intended to do. "Feeding the hungry" is a sales gimmick, not a reality.
[1] Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, AGAINST THE GRAIN; BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF YOUR FOOD [ISBN 1567511503] (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998). Available from Common Courage Press, P.O. Box 207, Monroe, ME 04951. Tel. (207) 525-3068.
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=3
I couldn't find references the FDA's court case. It was something about lawyer from a corporation that does work for MOnsanto moved into the FDA approved the GM technology, left and now works for another corporation that does Monsanto work. Maybe it's a tenuous connection, but the GM debate seems like more that just abunch of "worry worts" it seems like a way to highlight and oppose large corporate bullying.
Brian
PS Japan even got a "top-secret" letter from 5 countries (US, New Zealand, Australia and I forget where else) opposing any labelling laws, even the watered downone the passed. The local daily newspaper commented that they were too late the government position had already solidified. The whole GM thing seems to be about large corporation doing whatever they please. Insubstantial fears probably aren't the best way to combat bullying corporations but there's a good chance the fears aren't so insubstantial, what's the rush? THe powerful people that are going to make the profit have more of an obligation to offer copper-bottomed arguments in favor of the technology. Has anyone seen evidence GM technology offers some kind of advantage? _Dark Night Field Notes No. 14_ has a little blurb and and picture "Farmers across India burn Monsanto's genetically modified cotton in the field. Its 'terminator gene' sterilizes indigenous varieties." I think I saw a reference somewhere else to MOnsants's need for reinforced ("bulletproof"?) greenhouses in India...
If GM is might bring about pesticice-resistant weeds that can "always be pulled out" - what happened to the concern about "stoop labor"...????