Ironically, it claims to be pursuing the human
interest.
Monsanto and DuPont-Pioneer Threaten Food Security in Mexico (La
Jornada, Mexico)
"Monsanto and DuPont-Pioneer have submitted permit
applications to the Mexican government for the right to large-scale, unrestricted
GM-maize production for commercial purposes. These applications are
inappropriate. ... these crops are a risk factor for the health of populations
and biodiversity. This would place production in the hands of a small number of
companies, three of which - Monsanto, Sygenta, and
DuPont-Pioneer - control over 90 percent of the market. As such, it would
worsen the loss of self-sufficiency of the country in the food sector."
The
International Day of Protest Against
Monsanto, convoked by a range of civil rights and environmental
organizations, managed to attract shows of support in hundreds of cities and more
than 50 countries, including the United States, Argentina, México, Japan, South
Africa, Germany and Australia, among many others.
Significantly,
this massive social mobilization, practically simultaneous around the world,
was not on this occasion addressed to any state or financial institution. Rather,
It was against a particular entity that holds a hegemonic and illegal position
in the field of food production and biotechnology. This is particularly the
case when it comes to the development and commercialization of genetically-modified
maize; the enormity in power and scope of which puts it in a position to
threaten biodiversity and food supplies for entire populations.
In
the particular case of our country, this comes as Monsanto and DuPont-Pioneer
have submitted permit applications to the Mexican government for the right to large-scale,
unrestricted GM-maize production for commercial purposes, with the supposed goal
of diminishing the need for increased grain imports.
These
applications are inappropriate. As documented by various scientific
publications around the world, these crops are a risk factor for the health of populations
and biodiversity. Their consumption is causally-related to conditions of the
vital organs, while their production is tied to the irreversible contamination
of indigenous species in distinct environments.
Examples
abound: last year, a study by researchers at the University of Caen in France,
documented the appearance of cancerous tumors in rats fed with a variety of
transgenic maize produced by Monsanto. Three years earlier, the International
Journal of Biological Sciences published an academic article showing
that three varieties of genetically-modified maize produced by U.S. food
multinationals can cause damage to the kidneys, liver and heart.
The
lack of sufficient evidence about the safety of these crops should be sufficient
for the authorities to impede their unrestricted, large-scale production. But
there are also weighty economic considerations, such as the fact that the
liberal commercialization of genetically-modified grains, far from offering a
solution to increased food dependency, is an additional blow to traditional
producers, which have already been penalized by rising imports of these and
other food staples. This would place production in the hands of a small number
of companies, three of which - Monsanto, Sygenta, and
DuPont-Pioneer - control over 90 percent of the market. As such, it would
worsen the loss of self-sufficiency of the country in the food sector.
If
the fight against hunger is genuinely a priority of the current federal
government, the starting point must be recognition by national authorities of
the connection between the just-stated calamity and the model of food policy that
has been imposed on the population as a whole. It is a model based on an
indiscriminate opening up of markets, and now also, on converting the right to eat
into a private benefit for a handful of companies.
Correcting
the problem requires designing and implementing policies guided by measures to
guarantee food self-sufficiency, starting with maintaining or extending restrictions
on cultivating genetically-modified crops; reversing the outrageous increase in
food imports, and refocusing the government on supporting small farmers and producers.
