Politics, Pseudoscience and Corporate Cash: The Defeat of Oregon

1
Politics, Pseudoscience and Corporate Cash The
Defeat of Oregons Measure 27 (Requiring Labeling
of Genetically-Modified Foods)

• Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP
• Old Town Clinic
• Portland State University
• Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

2
Measure 27

• November, 2002 Oregon ballot
• Required labeling of genetically-engineered foods
  sold or distributed in the state
• Wholesale and retail, e.g., supermarkets
• Not cafeterias, restaurants, prisons, bake sales,
  etc.

3
Measure 27

• Defeated 73 to 27
• Surprising, since multiple polls conducted by the
  news media, government and industry show from
  85-95 of US citizens favor labeling
• 2008 NY Times/CBS News poll 53 of Americans
  would not eat GM foods

4
Measure 27

• Opponents outspent proponents 5.3 million to
  200,000
• Vast majority of opposition funding from
  corporations headquartered outside state
• Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenia, Dow Agro Sciences,
  BASF, Aventis, Hoechst, and Bayer Crop Science

5
Measure 27

• Aided by PR and political professionals
• Hid behind scientific-sounding advocacy groups
  e.g., The Council for Biotechnology Information

6
Corporate Opposition to Measure 27

• Vested interest in spreading deliberate
  misinformation about the initiative to keep the
  public ignorant of the adverse consequences of
  their profit-driven manipulation of the worlds
  food supply

7
Measure 27 Opponents Other Activities

• Chemical weapons
• Hoechst (mustard gas), Monsanto (Agent Orange),
  Dow (napalm)
• Pesticides
• Monsanto (DDT)
• Ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons
• Dupont and Hoechst major producers
• Agricultural Antibiotics
• Many companies

8
Opposition Tactics

• Claimed measure would unfairly hurt Oregon
  farmers, grocers, restaurants, schools and
  non-profit groups
• No commercial GE crops grown in Oregon
• Grocers, restaurants, schools and non-profit
  groups not affected

9
Opposition Tactics

• Funded commercial diatribes describing increased,
  onerous and complicated government oversight
• Frightened public with unfounded fears of tax
  increases of up to 1500 per family
• Realistic estimates 4 - 10/person/year

10
Opposition Tactics

• Accused Measures supporters of being against
  national policy and scientific consensus
• Argued that labels would provide unreliable,
  useless information that would unnecessarily
  confuse, mislead and alarm consumers

11
Opposition Tactics

• Claimed USDA, EPA and FDA evaluate safety of GE
  products from inception to final approval
• USDA deals with field testing, EPA with
  environmental concerns, FDA considers GE foods
  equivalent to non-GE foods
• FDA (1992) Declared GM foods substantially
  equivalent to regular foods

12
Opposition Tactics

• All rely on safety tests done by companies making
  GE products
• Corporations are not required to report results
  to government

13
Corporations Dominate Oregon Politics

• Second lowest corporate taxes of all US states
• Oregon corporate income taxes have decreased by
  40 over the past 12 years
• Large cuts in public services
• Corporations outspend labor unions 5-1 and
  massively outspend all other progressive groups
  and causes put together
• Oregon is one of only six states to allow
  unlimited corporate campaign contributions

14
Post-Measure 27 Activities

• Ongoing vigorous lobbying campaign to pass bill
  pre-empting any locality in Oregon from passing a
  labeling bill
• Nationwide lawsuits against farmers
• Supported by 75 employee, 10 million legal
  division at Monsanto
• Most farmers settle settlement terms often sealed

15
Food Labeling in the U.S.

• Vitamin, mineral, caloric and fat content
• Sulfites (allergies)
• Source of proteins (vegetarians)
• No labeling required for GM foods, products from
  animals fed GM foods

16
GE Food Labeling Worldwide

• Most processed foods available in the U.S. today
  come from GM crops
• European Union has required labeling since 1998
• European Court of Justice rules public must have
  access to information re the location of GM crops
  (2009)

17
GE Food Labeling Worldwide

• Japan, China, Australia, South Africa, and many
  other countries also require labels
• Yet Japan allows 5 GMO contamination, loopholes
  exempt 90 of Australian foods from labeling,
  etc.
• Many countries ban the planting and/or import of
  GE foods from the U.S. and elsewhere
• EU considering lifting ban U.S. suing E.U.
  through WTO

18
Benefits of Labeling GE Foods

• Prevent allergic reactions
• Soybeans modified with Brazil nut genes
• Allow vegetarians to avoid animal genes
• Tomatoes with flounder genes
• Permit concerned individuals to avoid milk from
  rBGH-treated cattle
• Risks to humans, cattle and the environment

19
Benefits of Labeling GE Foods

• Heighten public awareness of genetic engineering
• Millions of Americans eat GM foods every day
  without knowing it
• Only 24 of Americans believe they have eaten GM
  foods

20
Benefits of Labeling GE Foods

• Grant people freedom to choose what they eat
  based on individual willingness to confront risk
• Ensure healthy public debate over the merits of
  genetic modification of foodstuffs

21
Health and Environmental Risks of GE Foods

• Allergies and toxicities from new proteins
  entering the food supply
• EMS from GE-L-tryptophan supplements in 1980s
• FDA covered up
• Bt corn increases sensitivity of mammals to other
  allergens
• GM peas cause lung inflammation in mice trial
  stopped
• New, allergenic proteins in GE soy in South Korea
• Soy allergies jumped 50 after introduction of GE
  soy into UK

22
Health and Environmental Risks of GE Foods

• Secret Monsanto report found that rats fed a diet
  rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and unusually
  high white blood cell counts
• Monsanto UK employee cafeteria GM-free
• Monsanto CEO eats organics
• Russian Academy of Sciences report found up to
  six-fold increase in death and severe underweight
  in infants of mothers fed GM soy

23
Health and Environmental Risks of GE Foods

• Altered nutritional value of foodstuffs
• Transfer of antibiotic resistance genes into
  intestinal bacteria or other organisms,
  contributing to antibiotic resistance in human
  pathogens

24
Health and Environmental Risks of GE Foods

• Increased pesticide use when pests inevitably
  develop resistance to GE food toxins
• Reproductive and neurotoxic effects
• Greater herbicide use confirmed by multiple
  studies
• Glyphosphate and Roundup toxic to placenta

25
GM crops and Pesticide Use

• Overall pesticide use up 4.1 (122 million pound
  increase since 1996)
• Pesticide use down in Bt crops, herbicide use up
  in herbicide-tolerant (e.g., Roundup Ready) crops

26
Bt Plants

• Bt cotton destroyed by mealy bug harvests in
  India decline dramatically, leading to rash of
  suicides among farmers
• Bt corn more susceptible to aphids
• Monsanto pays fines for bribing Indonesian and
  Turkish officials to accept Bt plants

27
Health and Environmental Risks of GE Foods

• Acrylamide released from polyacrylamide (added to
  commercial herbicide mixtures to reduce spray
  drift) neurotoxin, reproductive toxin, and
  carcinogen
• Non-target insects dying from exposure to
  pesticide-resistant crops
• Ripple effects on other organisms
• Bt crops may contribute to colony collapse
  disorder among honeybees

28
Health and Environmental Risks of GE Foods

• Genes, initially designed to protect crops from
  herbicides, being transferred to native weeds
• Create herbicide-resistant superweeds (8
  species identified by 2005, 5 in the U.S.)
• Herbicide-resistant oilseed rape has transferred
  gene to charlock weeks in U.K.
• Glyphosate (Roundup)-resistant pigweed in MO and
  GA, ryegrass in CA, maretail in multiple states

29
Health and Environmental Risks of GE Foods

• GE plants and animals interbreeding with wild
  relatives
• Spread novel genes into wild populations
• Herbicide-resistant oilseed rape genes found in
  turnips
• 21 of U.S. farmers in violation of EPA rule
  requiring GE fields to contain at least 20
  non-GE crop
• ¼ to 1/3 of Mexican corn samples contaminated
  Columbian coca plants

30
Failure of Regulatory Oversight

• The Department of Agriculture has failed to
  regulate field trials of GE crops adequately
• Department of Agricultures Office of Inspector
  General, 1/06

31
(No Transcript)
32
2007 GM Crop Incidents

• 39 contamination incidents
• 11 illegal releases

33
GE Crop Failures

• Bt cotton in India, leading to epidemic of
  suicides
• Three varieties of Monsantos GM maize failed to
  produce crops in 2008/9 in South Africa
• Commercial farmers compensated, but barred from
  speaking to media or public
• Others

34
Biopharming

• The engineering of plants to produce
  pharmaceuticals such as enzymes, antibiotics,
  contraceptives, abortifacients, antibodies,
  chemotherapeutic agents, other medications, and
  vaccines
• Other organisms
• Fish tilapia/clotting factor VII
• Cattle biopharming via milk

35
Biopharming

• 400 products under development
• Over 300 open-air tests
• USDA conceals crop locations from public and
  neighboring farmers, in most cases hides identity
  of drug or chemical being tested, citing trade
  secrets

36
Biopharming

• Even state agriculture regulators often unaware
  of info re drug or chemical involved
• HI judge ordered USDA to disclose location of
  biopharmed crops as part of lawsuit

37
Biopharming

• 10 states Puerto Rico others soon
• Hawaii most tests most fragile ecosystem
• Cases of food crop contamination reported

38
Famine and GE Foods

• Food dictators who control GE seeds and plants
  attempted, through the UNFAO and the WHO, to use
  the famines in Zambia and Angola to market GE
  foods through aid programs, even though
• More than 45 African (and other) countries
  expressed a willingness to supply local, non-GE
  relief

39
Famine and GE Foods

• Zambia and Angola did not wish to pollute its
  crops with GE foods, which would have prevented
  it from exporting home-grown crops to many other
  countries which do not accept GE imports (further
  weakening its already fragile economy)
• Zimbabwe and Malawi have also refused GM food aid

40
GE Foods and World Hunger

• GE foods promoted as the solution to world hunger
• No commercially available GE crop that is
  drought-resistant, salt- or flood-tolerant, or
  which increases yields (USDA)

41
GE Foods and World Hunger

• UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural
  Rights (2008) Poverty exacerbated by GM seeds
• UN International Assessment of Agricultural
  Knowledge, Science, and Technology for
  Development (2008) GE crops are unlikely to
  achieve the goal of feeding a hungry world

42
GE Foods and World Hunger

• GE crops undermine food and nutritional security,
  food sovereignty and food democracy
• Increasing reliance on GE food
• Consolidates corporate control of agriculture
• Transmogrifies farmers into bioserfs

43
GE Foods and World Hunger

• World food prices rising dramatically
• US food bank demand up, supplies down
• Future wars
• World hunger will not be solved through
  large-scale molecular manipulation of food crops
  whose cultivation has been carefully perfected
  over 10,000 years

44
GE Foods and World Hunger

• There is already enough food to feed the planet
• UN FAO Enough food to provide over 2700
  calories/day to every person
• Feeding everyone requires political and social
  will
• Irony that the U.S., home to many GE firms, has
  rates of child poverty and hunger among the
  highest in the industrialized world

45
2008 US Farm Bill

• Cost 289 billion over 5 yrs.
• Most goes to large agribusiness
• Crop subsidies (43 billion) allow land to lie
  fallow, artificially inflate prices

46
2008 US Farm Bill

• Crop insurance (23 billion)
• Foreign food aid lt 200 million
• US total just over 2 billion (half of all
  international food aid)

47
Monetization and Food Aid

• US food aid purchased from already-subsidized US
  agribusiness
• US shipping lines transport food to aid
  organizations in developing countries
• Undermines local farmers and destabilizes local
  agriculture

48
Monetization and Food Aid

• EU has almost entirely phased out monetization
• UN World Food Programme (the worlds largest
  distributor of food aid) has rejected
  monetization and refuses monetized food aid

49
Solutions

• Outlaw GM crops
• Labeling laws
• Allow informed consumer choice
• Rep. Dennis Kucinichs House bills to require
  labeling, expand FDA oversight, increase
  regulations re biopharming, and expand research
  to help developing nations feed themselves

50
Solutions

• Expose and oppose industry attempts to pre-empt
  labeling initiatives/laws
• New ballot initiatives and legislation
• Marin, Mendocino and Trinity Counties (CA) ban
  GMO crops
• Vermont now requires manufacturers of GM seeds to
  label and register their products
• ME enacts moratorium on outdoor planting of
  biopharmed crops (2009)

51
Solutions

• New ballot initiatives and legislation
• Ireland pledges to go GM-free 2007
• Scotland, Austria and Greece prohibit planting of
  GM organisms
• Moscow now requires labeling of GM foods
• Hawaii County Council moratorium on GE taro and
  coffee

52
Solutions

• USDA is considering blocking imports of GMOs into
  US (even though many are the same products of US
  and multinational corporations already planted in
  the US)
• Reasons
• Foreign GMOs would threaten US agriculture
• They may affect the health of US citizens
• The may affect the environment

53
Solutions

• Campaign finance reform
• Public education
• Sound environmental education to counter
  corporate-sponsored curricula and greenwash
• Activism
• e.g., Oregon PSRs Campaign for Safe Foods
  Biopharm Bill, rBGH Campaign
• Religious opposition e.g., GM one of seven
  modern deadly sins per Catholic Church

54
Solutions

• Support local, organic agriculture and patronize
  farmers markets
• Consumer-supported agriculture co-ops
• Consumers willing to pay substantial premiums to
  avoid GE foods

55
Solutions

• Oppose IMF, World Bank, and WTO structural
  adjustment programs which exacerbate hunger in
  the developing world by forcing debtor nations to
  restructure their agricultural base toward export
  crops and away from nutritional foodstuffs for
  local consumption

56
Solutions

• Support increased research and subsidies for
  alternative agriculture
• Support equitable distribution of agricultural
  resources among populations worldwide
• Support increased, non-GM agricultural aid to
  developing nations

57
Reference/Website

• Donohoe MT. Genetically-Modified Foods Health
  and Environmental Risks and the Corporate
  Agribusiness Agenda. Z Magazine 2006
  (December)35-40. Available at http//zmagsite.zma
  g.org/Dec2006/donohoe1206.html
• Campaign for Safe Food, Oregon Physicians for
  Social Responsibility http//www.oregonpsr.org/pr
  ograms/campaignSafeFood.html
• See also slide show entitled GMOs, biopharming,
  and rBGH for a more comprehensive review

58
Contact Information

• Public Health and Social Justice Website
• http//www.phsj.org
• martindonohoe_at_phsj.org