Dear Editor,
I read with great interest the article, ‘NARI signs seed research pact with US companies’ (SN, July 30, 2009). There is a critical need for scientific research in Guyana, but I believe that the collaboration with MS Technologies, LLC/Stine Seed Company, although limited at the moment to corn and soybean seed development, will result in major problems for farmers in Guyana. Coming from a family of farmers, I have an ethical responsibility to raise concerns now.
This company is in Guyana because they smell huge profits, there are no policy hurdles, there is a perceived naïve technical and lay public, and no risk for litigation. The parties at the table used phrases such as “seed development” and “new traits” but the bottom-line is that this initiative will result in the creation of genetically engineered (GE) seeds, giving the company monopoly rights over these seeds. Companies involved in the genetic engineering of seeds face stiff resistance in the US, India and Brazil, and are not welcomed in Europe. They are on the look-out for opportunities in places like Guyana. No wonder Mr Stine expressed gratitude for “being afforded this opportunity.” The mantra of GE seed companies has been that GE seeds can adapt to unique conditions, resist certain pests, improve crop yields, and enhance the nutritional composition of foods, but this argument is not fully correct, and I will come back to it later.
Poor farmers, supported by scientists opposed to GE seeds have regularly clashed. However, the companies have tremendous dollar power and once their narrative of superiority of GE seeds is believed, farmers become dependent on them for the seeds. Farmers in other countries who have experienced the GE seeds phenomenon know that they have to pay for these seeds every crop because the company will not allow farmers to save the seeds for replanting. Monsanto, for example, has sued farmers over piracy issues, for violating fine-prints in contracts prohibiting saving GE seeds for replanting. GE seed companies can also introduce special tax or technology fees per acre to grant farmers permission to save seeds for replanting. Technology is also available to introduce seeds whose sterile offspring cannot reproduce and to introduce specific traits which will only respond to the application of proprietary chemicals by the same company. Farmers will be exploited under the disguise of increased crop yields.
The introduction of GE seeds in Guyana will destroy the natural agricultural practice of saving seeds (whose genes evolved over centuries) from one harvest and replanting it the following season, as my grandfather did. This will erode our biodiversity with major ecological consequences. It has been argued that about 40 years ago India had 100,000 varieties of rice, but seed is now only available for about 50 varieties.
Concerning the mantra of higher yields and nutritional values from GE seeds, there are several studies supported by organic farmers showing that GE plants do not produce higher yields than normal plants. It is also debatable whether GE seeds result in foods of higher nutritional value. The nutritional content of foods is dependent on soil conditions. But even if this is true, it does not follow that it is better for health. At a conference in Lousiana earlier this year, I asked a Monsanto scientist to explain how GE rice in Guyana, even if it has better nutritional value, would be better than natural rice in terms of the health of the rice-eating public, but got an evasive response. Better nutritional value of a food does not necessarily mean better health. As an example, Epidemio-logists know that although dietary supplements are engineered to have high nutritional content they do not prevent disease, and in some cases increase disease risk. Studies have not yet begun to address the potential health consequences of human consumption of GE foods. Sales for organic food are booming in the US and other industrialized nations. People do not want to consume foods that are genetically modified and in the US and Canada have been pushing for labelling laws for GE foods as done in the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia. Fearing loss of sales if people know what products on the supermarket shelves are GE origin the companies have so far successfully lobbied against labelling. The future of the GE food market does not look bright. Once labelling is mandated and if a link is established between foods from GE seeds and disease risk it will get even worse.
Yours faithfully,
Somdat Mahabir
