Would you like fries with that?

This country’s cherished status as a GM-free food producer is under threat with German biotechnology group BASF seeking permission to conduct field trials of genetically modified potatoes in Co Meath.
Should the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sanction the trials, it will set a dangerous precedent, strengthening the influence of the corporate sector on our democratic institutions and undermining consumer choice.
The Irish people have no wish to see multinationals tampering with their food supply. Nor do they want to see the farming sector undercut by GM foods. The question we need to ask is whether we are prepared to stand up to the GM industry and its designs on Ireland. Or are we too busy getting rich to worry about mundane issues such as where our potatoes come from? I suspect Orwell would not know whether to laugh or cry.
There are already at least two varieties of non-GM blight-resistant potatoes available to Irish farmers, so we must question the real motivations behind BASF’s application. The guiding principle of any corporation in any industry is to maximise profit, regardless of the social, human or environmental impact incurred in doing so - it is doubtful that BASF is here to rescue us from famine.
GM crops are in fact engineered, not modified as such, using what is known as “terminator technology,” which means that the plant cannot reproduce its own seed and the farmer thus becomes dependent on the seed company to sell him seeds for the following season. The profit implications in all of this are quite clear.
Since receiving the application from BASF on January 13, the EPA has reverted five times to the company to seek clarification on numerous points of its submission. While the EPA says that this is not unusual, what is worrying is the apparently cavalier attitude BASF has demonstrated in identifying and accounting for the inherent risks associated with GM foods. There is a lack of solid scientific data to support many of its assertions. Some examples:
• BASF claims that “the overall impact on human health is negligible”, failing to document the findings of Canadian studies on mutant gene transfer between GM and non-GM crops
• BASF asserts that “none of the genes [of the GM potatoes] are known to exert any toxic or allergenic effects to human health.” Previous cases of gene transfer between plants led to the formation of a toxin causing inflammation in mammals
• None of the GM potato varieties intended for planting in Co. Meath have been analysed for the main toxic and anti-nutritional substances found in potatoes, due to there being “no known effects on human health”, as outlined above.
• No environmental or health impact studies are planned, as these are deemed to be “not applicable” by BASF
• No animal feeding studies have been done.
The EPA may still request further information from BASF on points of its application. But they will not comment on whether this is likely. There are no indications from the EPA at present as to whether they will grant BASF permission to proceed with the trials. However, if permission is given, the trials will proceed under what they refer to as “consent conditions,” subject to regular inspection by EPA-appointed “independent agronomists”.
The consent conditions include a 50 metre “buffer zone”, as mandated by the Department of Agriculture, the purpose of which in theory is to minimise the risk of GM crops interfering with non-GM crops.
BASF has genetically engineered these potato varieties to resist late blight and, they also claim, require farmers to use fewer pesticides. This type of technology is promoted as a method of reducing “horizontal gene transfer” – cross contamination in other words. This is not altogether true. In a paper written in January of this year, Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of Ontario, argues that the proposed testing standards in BASF’s case fail to take into account a number of factors. What may work well within the sterile confines of the laboratory does not account for how the plant will interact with weeds, insects and other crops in the natural environment. If we’re to accept the possibility of genetic material transferring from one potato crop to another through movements of birds, mammals or on the wind, then it follows that we must also accept the possibility of altered DNA material. This is not good news for consumers.
The threat that GM crops pose to traditional and organic crops in terms of cross contamination is well recognised. Nevertheless, organic food companies have little in the way of redress against the destruction of their crops by the biotech industry; indeed, the law seems to be firmly on the side of big business.
There are thousands of farmers in the US being pursued by Monsanto because GM seeds blew into their fields, the patents to those seeds Monsanto now owns. The most well known case is that of the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who was sued, again by Monsanto, after GM corn seeds blew into his field and took root. Accused by Monsanto of stealing its property and of infringing its intellectual property rights, Mr. Schmeiser was ordered by the court to pay costs and compensation to the company.
However, the experience of farmers in India is particularly instructive in the nightmarish scenario which often accompanies the large scale adoption of GM crops. In 2002, the Indian government gave Monsanto and its Indian counterpart the go-ahead for commercial planting of genetically engineered cotton in four states in the south and the east of the country. By the fourth month, the crop had stopped growing, then wilted and dried up altogether. Across the four states, between 80% and 100% of the crop was destroyed by the bollworm pest, which attacks cotton. When farmers sprayed the crop with pesticides bought from Monsanto, this had an adverse effect. Monsanto refused to acknowledge or take responsibility for either the initial failure of the crop or the subsequent damage its sprays did, in spite of the fact that they were liable under Indian law. Faced with financial ruin, more than two hundred farmers committed suicide.
In 2005, Monsanto Ireland Managing Director, Dr. Patrick O’Reilly, told the Royal Irish Academy that it doesn’t matter that GM crops would inevitably contaminate Irish farmers and put organic farmers out of business. However, with regard to the threat of cross-contamination, he doesn’t “think that that is realistic” and dismisses concerns regarding terminator seeds as “scare-mongering.” We might reasonably ask, then, what the US lawsuits are all about. The Indian case would also seem to give the lie to his claims of a “massive reduction in the use of pesticides” that GM crops require. This, after all, is the basis of BASF’s argument, which is clearly deceptive. Why should we assume that, as a corporation, BASF is going to behave in any way different to Monsanto?
It is interesting that our government has neglected to inform us of BASF’s application to the EPA so that we might be aware of the issues raised and have an open debate on the matter. Perhaps BASF considers Ireland a location in which it can develop these ‘Frankenfoods’ under the radar, nice and quietly, particularly given the willingness of the IFA, the ICMSA and Macra na Feirme to sit on the fence over the issue. None of the other principal political parties have spoken out on the matter either, nor did they inform us that a senior Monsanto representative was on the official Irish government delegation to the WTO talks in Hong Kong and Cancun. Only the Green Party and Sinn Fein have commented publicly against the issue of GM foods in Ireland.
The hostility of EU consumers to GM foods has been well documented, with upwards of 70% of the population against their introduction here. In Ireland, there is no demand from either farmers or consumers for GM crops. The EU is, however, under enormous pressure to legislate favourably on GM foods which, of course, comes from the industry that has spent billions of dollars developing these foods. To the great annoyance of many EU member states, the cause of these companies was helped along greatly by the decision made upon leaving office in 2005 by David Byrne, EU Health Commissioner, to end the moratorium on GM crops in the EU. Perhaps he missed the comic irony in President George W. Bush’s 2003 statement that Europe, in its reluctance to “deal with” the issue of GM food, is starving Africa.