I was quite stunned by Donald Rooum's letter in response to my anti-gm article arguments. While I know that a favourite tactic of corporate PR is to smear those campaigning against them by questioning their motives, I am surprised to see an anarchist do the same. Does he really think that organisations which campaign against anti-GM are doing so purely to get money? That is the sort of argument I would expect from someone who thinks that anarchists are paid to turn up at demos and cause trouble, not an experienced anarchist activist.
As for his arguments in favour of GM, they fail to convince. Significantly he presents no argument on why GM crops should be grown at all. As for his defence of GM, it seems as flawed to me as those made by the government and big business. This is unsurprising, as they are similar.
Donald starts by claiming that GM crops are safe. The fact is we do not know for sure. Take BSE. Intensive farming techniques, the use of animal corpses as feed, were all considered perfectly save. No one, after all, died after eating a hamburger. But nature is a complex thing and a years later it was found to be not safe after all. Given that GM crops contaminate their surroundings, it seems incredulous to dismiss safety concerns so easily -- particularly as any changes are irreversible and unpredictable. Why take the chance so that biotech corporations can make more money and capitalism can enclose yet more of our common heritage?
Then there is the trials which he says prove that GM maize is safe. Strangely Donald fails to mention a relevant fact. The test which he claims supports his position was based on comparing GM maize alongside the use of atrazine, a herbicide banned by the EU. So the only reason GM maize got through the British tests was because its effect on the environment was compared to a pesticide which is so toxic it has now been banned. Hardly impressive. And surely testing GM against the most harmful non-GM method of farming indicates a bias in favour of GM?
Donald seems remarkably unconcerned by the issue of contamination. To oppose GM is, he implies, authoritarian. Yet grow GM and it will spread. His liberty to eat GM will soon end my liberty not to. I made this point in my article but sadly Donald ignored it. Surely the fact that GM companies are not willing to pay compensation for contamination of non-GM crops says it all (although they are willing to sue the contaminated farmer for theft!). Perhaps he will explain why his willingness to contaminate my food and ecology is not authoritarian?
Donald also does not seem to be bothered about a key issue as regards GM, namely the commodification of nature. He says that the patent on one GM crop is due to expire in 9 years. Others will be under patent for much longer, giving corporations a monopoly right to accumulate super-profits for a period of 17-20 years. The monopoly profits these huge corporations will make during the period under patent will augment their economic power against farmers, ensuring their control over the food chain. Biotech companies are clear in what they want, forcing farmers growing GM crops to buy new supplies of seed every harvest (farmers in Canada have even been sued for re-planting GM seed). Then there is the genetic engineering of crops to tolerate certain proprietary herbicides, so tying the farmer to the corporation even after the seed patent expires (assuming a new development does not renew the patent). Donald glibly ignores this.
Donald says the reason why people's opposition to GM grows the know more they know about it is that they listen to anti-GMers. Rather this was the conclusion of the government's own national GM Nation debate (yes, our listening government strikes again!). But, he tells us, we need not worry. He dismisses the opposition as being irrational and trendy, led astray by pressure groups seeking to bolster their bank balances. Biotech companies who own GM and their government stooges are telling the truth: GM is good for us! Such are the joys of coincidence...
Ho, hum. I had expected better.
Iain