fpj phelps art

8/3/2019 FPJ Phelps Art

1/11

75

GM Crops and Foods:Promises, Profits and PoliticsBob PhelpsGene Ethics

The cruelest lie about Genetically Manipulated (OM) crops andfoods is that they can 'feed the world'. GM companies use emptypromises of bountiful, designer foods to foist GM onto reluctantgovernments, fanners and shoppers. The UN says there is nowenough food to feed everyone but our social priorities and conflictsallow a billion people to starve. GM technology cannot right thisinjustice, but false promises take scarce resources away [romfinding durable solutions to feeding, housing and clothing us all.Independent scientific evidence also shows that some OM foodsmay pose risks to human and animal health and the environment,but industry censorship hides the truth. Since commercial GMcanola seed was first sold in some Australian stales in 2008, OMcontamination is imposing extra costs and losses on falmers andthe food industry. Australia also risks losing its unique competitiveadvantage as the main supplier ofOM-free grains to world markets.Farmer Protection laws that make the owners and users of GMresponsible for their products have growing support. A moreprecautionary, open and scientific regulatory regime on all GMplants, animals and micro-organisms is also needed.

GM Promise to Feed the Worldis a Cruel HoaxThc cruelest lie about OM crops and foods is thatthey can 'feed the world' (Bell et al. 2010).GM and agrichemical company Monsantolaunched commercial GM soy, com, canola andcotton in 1996, in the USA, with two novel traits- herbicide tolerance (so crop plants over-sprayedwith herbicide are unhanned, while weeds arekilled) and in-built insect toxins Bt (Bacillusthuringiensis) toxin produced in the plants killsthe caterpillars of Lepidoptera moths thateat it.In 2011, the main commercially available GMvarieties are the same four broadaere crops,containing the same two GM traits. Over 90%

of OM crops are still grown in North and SouthAmerica, with around 70% of these beingMonsanto's Roundupll} tolerant soybean (ISAAA2010) predominantly used for animal feed andbiofucls.'Failure to Yield', a report by the Union ofConcerned Scientists (DeS), analysed officialdata from all the GM crops grown since 1996and found, with a minor exception of someDtcorn, that GM crops yielded less than the topconventional varieties. ues concluded thattraditional breeding had contributed much moreto crop yield gains than gene manipulation (UCS2009), refuting claims that GM crops are neededor able to 'feed the world'. o

Farm Policy Jrmrnall Vol. 8 No. i IAlltumn Quarter 2011 00


2/11

76

o

United Nations Food andAgricultureOrganization (FAO) figures show that since thefirst commercial release of GM crops in 1996,the numberof starving people in the world hasclimbed from 788 million (FAO 2008a) to 1.02billion in 2009 (FAO 2010). The UN specialRapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler,also reported that: 'the world already producesenough food to feed every child, woman and manand could feed 12 billion people, or double thecurrent world population' (FAO 2008b). Everyonecould eat well if the available food were fairlydistributed and not wasted, but global trade scndsfood to market where it is most profitable, andwhere geopolitics dictates.In 2008 the World Bank and the United Nations(UN) published the International AssessmentofAgricultural Science and Technology forDevelopment (IAASTD), a vision for futurefarming and secure food supplies. The 400scientists involved in the three-year projectrecommended core changes in agriculturalpractices and systems to assuage soaringfood prices, hunger, social inequities andenvironmental catastrophe. They proposeda global shift from oil-dependent industrialagribusiness to sustainable farming systems,with research and development to augment localtraditional knowledge and help farmers optimiseuse of soil and water resources.The lAASTD report also concluded that GMcrops have no useful role to play in solvingclimate change, biodiversity loss, hunger orpoverty. Fifty-eight countries adopted thelAASTD's findings but the GM companiesthat helped set up the review rejected them.TheAustralian, United States and Canadiangovenunents also 'did not fully approve theExecutive Summary of the Synthesis Report'(IAASTD 2008a).Misallocated ResourcesDespite the lack of evidence that GM crops canalleviate world hunger, a disproportionate amountof funding still goes into GM crop research anddeployment. For example, the Alliance for aGreen Revolution inAfrica (AGRA) claims it will

'feed the world' with a gene revolution that usesindustrial rnonocultures of GM crops, animals andmicrobes. Their emphasis on gene technology tosolve the political and social problems ofAfricaechoes the first Green Revolution in the 1950sand 60s, where private bnsiness interests fundedanddeployed new technology to maintain theinfluence of industrially developed countries overnewly independentAsian nations. They replacedpermanently sustainable, biodiverse, farmingsystems with industrial monocultures dependenton trade and constant inputs ofexpensive,non-renewable, oil-derived products fromdeveloped countries.As DrVandana Shiva, scientist, philosopher andceo-feminist - author ofmore than 20 booksand over 500 papers in leading scientific andtechnical journals, says:

The Green Revolution was based on the assumptionthat technology is a superior substitute for nature,and hence a means of producing limitless growth,unconstrained by nature's limits.... It was basednolon the intensification of nature's processes, but onIhe intensification of credil and purchascd inputslike chemieal fertilisers and pesticides, ... not onself-reliance but dependence ... nol on diversity butuni fonnity.' (Shiva 1993)

AGRA's donors and supporters include the Ford,Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, internationalbanks and finance institutions which also havesubstantial commercial interests in the GMindustry. For instance, on 28August 2010The Seattle Times reported (O'Hagan 2010) thatthe Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation owned$27.6 million worth ofMonsanto's shares,including 500,000 shares recently purchasedfor $23.1 million (US Securities and ExchangeCommission 2010).The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alsofunds the Donald Danforth Plant Science Centrein S t Louis Missouri, where Monsanto isheadquartered, to: 'secure the approval ofAfricangovernments to allow field testing of geneticallymodified banana, rice, sorghum and cassava plantsthat have been fortified with vitamins, mineralsand proteins' (GM Watch 2010). Danforth's PaulAnderson says:

cPo Farm PoliC)' Jouma/l Vol. 8 No, I IAutumnQuarter 2011


3/11

77

spends $l.l billion per year ($3 million a day) inresearch' (Tribe 2010).North Dakota State University economist, DrWilliam Wilson, says 'From 1990 to 2009,major companies have collectively spent someUS$45 billion on crop protection R&D, with eachallocating significant sums to OM "seeds andtraits".' (Wilson 2011)Official Communiques ConfirmGovernment and Corporate TiesInsights into the close ties between the United 0tates Government and the global promotionalactivities of its GM crop industry are provided bythree US Government cables on the WikiLeakswebsite. One (WikiLeaks Madrid 2008) showsUS and Spanish officials proposed forcing Europeto adopt GM crops and foods. Senior Spanishofficials favoured the option ofinftating foodprices and: 'noted that commodity price hikesmight spur greater liberalisation on biotechimports.' Soon after, food priees rose so sharplyaround the world that The E C 0 I 1 0 I l 1 L ~ t magazineannounced that the real priee of food had reachedits highest level since 1845 (Kauffman 2008).

Industrial agriculture in Africa, including GMcrops, would dismantleAfrica's integrated,biodiverse, ecological farming systems andcultural practices, alienate more community land,and reduce farm labour when little alternativeemployment exists. First world economieswould gain even greater access to cheap cashcrops, animal feed and biofuel feedstock, furtherreducing the capacity ofAfrican communitiesto feed their people the diverse, balanced andnutritious diet offresh local foods essential forgood health.ProfessorWalden Bello, professor of sociologyand public administration at the University ofthe Philippines and executive director ofFocuson the Global South, reports thatAfrica exported1.3 million tons of food a year in the 19605. Afterbeing subject to international development loansand free-rnarket fundamentalism, also part ofAORA's agenda, Africa now imports nearly 25%of its food (The Nation 2009).

We need to start making plans for how theseproduct developments are going to be carried out inour countries ofinterest and how these products aregoing to meet the regulatory requirements of thosecountries. (Saint Louis Post-Dispatch 2009)

Hunger IgnoredOM crops would intensify hunger by divertingresources away from the quest [or genuinefood security and sovereignty through thedevelopment and maintenance of sustainableecological agriculture systems, for this and futuregenerations.As a cure for hunger, corporate interests prescribemore of their own profitable technologies andchemicals, including GM crops, animals andmicrobes. But the main causes of hunger andstarvation are speculation, unfair terms of trade,landlessness, US and EU farm subsidies, povertyand debt, war, environmental degradation,and social upheavals. More technology cannotsolve these systemic social problems yet thecost of developing OM technology divertsresources away from the development of durablesolutions. For instance, fornler ChiefScientistProf Jim Peacock claims 'Monsanto alone

As a result of food price increases, 250 millionmore people starved. The US Senate Committeeon Homeland Security and GovernmentalAffairs found unrestricted speculation in foodcommodities had caused soaring prices. PopeBenedict told the UN World Summit on FoodSecurity 11mt, 'Hunger is the most cruel andconcrete sign ofpoverty. Opulence and wasteare no longer acceptable when the tragedy ofhunger is assuming ever greater proportions.'(Catholic News 2009) InApril 2009, a WikiLeakscable from Secretary ofState Hillary Clintonto American embassies in Africa headed'Food Security and Agriculture', says a StateDepartment priority is to encourageAfricangovernment 'acceptance of genetically modifiedfood and propagation ofgenetically modifiedcrops' (WikiLeaks State 2009).Further evidence ofthe role of the USGovernment in attempting to force the adoptionofGM crops on Europe is provided by another

Farm Polic.v JOIlrnal1 Vol. BNo. I IAUlumn Quaner 20 II


4/11

78

odiplomatic cable (WikiLeaks Paris 2007).It recommends the Bush Administrationuse diplomatic and trade sanctions to forceGM products into Europe, over the policiesofgovernments and citizens who want theprecautionary principle applied. The USAmbassador to France recommended that the US:

[R]einforce our negotiating position with the EUon agricultural biotechnology by publishing aretaliation list (that) causes some pain across theEU since this is a collective responsibility, but thatalso fOClIses in part on the worst culprits....Movingto retaliation will make clear that the ClIITentpath has real costs to EU interests and could helpstrengthcn European pro-biotech voices. In fact, thepro-biotech side in France - including within thebiggest farm union - have told us retaliation is theonly way to begin to turn this issue in France.

Thus, key French and EU businesses lookedforward to benefits from GM products regardlessof the aspirations oftheir fellow citizens.In Iraq too, US policy on GM crops protectedand promoted US trade and corporate interestsahead offceding people. Amidst violent chaosand suicidc bombings, the US Government'sCoalition Provisional Authority (CPA) chiefPaulBremer issued the '100 orders' ofUS-mandatedlegal changes in 2004. They included 'Order81 ' (Order 81) that required Iraqi farmers tocomply with US-style intellectual property lawsand plant variety protection, mainly for UScorporate and GM seed varieties. No protectionwas accorded to Iraqi farmers' own varieties andthey were prohibited from reusing, propagating orreproducing protccted seed.The war in Iraq destroyed the country's seedindustry, putting the country's domestic foodsupply at risk. The FAO said Iraq had a relativelystable and functioning public-sector controlledseed industry before the war in 2003 (Jackowski2005).The Revolving Doorof Influence PeddlingThe 'revolving door' between Americancorporations and governments is a mechanismfor influence over government policy and

decision-making. Senior company executivescreate close ties to politicians, regulators andelected officials everywhere and in somecases enter government to make public policythemselves. For instance, senior Monsanto peoplehave entered key spots in the US DepartmentofAgriculture (USDA), EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), and Food and DrugAdministration (USFDA) where tbey set policieson GM crops and foods, even over the objectionsoftbese agencies' own experts. They later returnto the employ of associated companies (Phelps2010). The Biotechnology Industry Organisationnamed presentUS Secretary ofAgriculture TomVilsack Governor of the Year for services to theGM industry when he governed Iowa and he isfounder and former chair of the US Governor'sBiotechnology Partnership.The West Australian Government also embracedforeign corporate interests when it recentlyallowed Monsanto to acquire 19.9% ofWApublic plant breeder, InterGrain, for $10.5 million(Intergrain 20I 0). Inlergrain produces 40%ofAustralia's wheat seed, bred over decadesby Australian farmers and governments. Thisdeal would allow Monsanto 10 insert its GMtraits into the best Australian wheat varietiesand claim ownership ofthe GM varieties.The Office ofthe Victorian Premier and theQueensland Government are both members ofthe Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO20 II ) a US-based organisation that promotesits corporate members' GM products around theworld. The Victorian Govemment aspires to bethe largest hub of OM research and developmentin the Asia Pacific region and signed a publicprivate partnership (PPP) with DowAgroSciencesat the BIO trade show in Atlanta Georgia, in2009 (Caples 2010). Tbe Queensland tradecommissioner to tbe USAmakes a priority ofbiotechnology promotion (Sharah 2008).Australia and GM CanolaInAustralia in 2002, the Commonwealth Officeof Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) grantedMonsanto and Bayer commercial licences tosell canola tlmt tolerates being sprayed with theherbicides Roundup (glyphosate) and Liberty

C?O Farm Pfi/icyJoumall Vol. BNo. 1 IAUlumn Qll.ner101 1


5/11

(glufosinate), respectively. The licences imposedno restrictions or conditions, such as bulTerzones, segregation systems or monitoring regimeson the licensees or their agents (OOTR 20 lOa,201Ob). However, all state governments imposedmoratoria on the sale of the seed and declaredtheir jurisdictions OM-free zones for marketingreasons, under Section 21 of the CommonwealthGene TechnologyAct 2000. These OM canolabans were lifted in New South Wales and Victoriain 2008, and in Western Australia in 2010 butTasmania, theAustralian Capital Territory andSouthAustralia will remain OM-free until atleast 2014.

79

informed debate and decision-making about genetechnology. (AFAA 2011b)AFAAprepared the GM industry'S main lobbyingdocument to overturn the GM canola bans. Itwas the Single Vision, a statement that claimedto be 'Delivering market choice with OM canola'(AFAA 2007) to all farmers, OM and OM-free.The proponents and endorsers of the SingleVisionincluded the chief executives and managingdirectors of nine transnational OM corporations,including the GM canola licensecs Monsantoand Bayer, AFANs three founding groups, someAustralian companies and grain supply chainorganisations.

Those ending their bans ignored the aspirationsof a majority ofAustralians who want to remainOM-free. For example, the Swinburne NationalScience and Technology Monitor found thatover half of the 1000 people questioned wereuncomfortable with OM plants and abouttwo-thirds expressed similar unease about OManimals being used for food (Thyer 2008).To convince governments and farmers tosupport lifting the commercial OM canolabans in Australia, the OM industry mobilisedsome scientists and academics from public orjointly-funded institutions, along with handpickedagronomists, medical and weed scientists andfarmers. They advanced the OM crops and foodcase in the news media, as well as governmentand industry-hosted forums. Pro-OM groups withpreferential media access included the free marketthink tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA),Australian Environment Foundation, ProducersForum, Ausbiotech and Agrifood Awareness(AFAA).Croplife Australia (part of the global Croplifepromotional OM network), Grains Research andDevelopment Corporation (funded byAustraliangrain growers and taxpayers) and the NationalFarmers' Federation (Australia's peak farmingbody) set up AFAA in 1999 (AFAA 2011a). AFAArepresents:

[T]he developers, registrants, manufacturers andfonnulators of plant science solutions for use inagrieulture .. . an industry initiative, establishedto increase public awareness of, and encourage

Australian governments also uncritically backedOM crops and foods, even without clear scientificor commercial results [rom the billions of publicdollars spent on OM over the past 25 years.For instance, the Federal Oovernment fundedBiotechnology Australia to promote OM from2000 until 2008, then established the NationalEnablingTechnologies Strategy (NETS) in 2008with a $38.2 million budget, to backOM andnanotechnologies (NETS 2011).

GM Assault on OrganicRoundup tolerant OM canDia was just 8% o[ theAustralian canDia crop in the 2010 season buthas already imposed extra costs and risks on allgrowers. Steve Marsh, a National Associationfor SustainableAgricultureAustralia (NASAA)certified organic grower near Kojonup in WesternAustralia, lost his certification and premiummarketswhen a neighbour'S windrowed GM canola blewover 60% of his farm in November, 2010. BothNASAA and the state Department ofAgriculturehave confirmed positiveGM tests on thewind-blown material. TfSteve sues the neighbourwho grew the OM crop, Monsanto says it will backthe OMgrower. The WAPastoral and GraziersAssociation has also started a OM support fund.In a stark turnaround, WAAgriculture MinisterTerry Redman now says: 'm zero per centthresholds (orGM in organics) arc unrealistic inbiological systems' (AAP 2010) and wants theorganic industry to allowGM contamination in o

Farm Policy JOllrn;,11 VoL g No. I 1AUlUmn Quarter 20II &0


6/11

80

o

its supply chains. But in March 2010, when heended the stale's GM canDIa ban, the Ministersaid: 'Trials proved GM and non-GM canola canbe segregated and marketed separately' (Redman20 IDb). 'The report on the trials indicated therewere 11 minor events and aU were managedappropriately and segregation from paddock toport was achieved' (Redman 2010a). He ignoresthe domestic organic standard AS6000, agreed byall governments and the organic industry, whichsets zero tolerance for any OM contact withorganic food.This farm contamination incident makes USAmbassador Stapleton's cable (Wikileaks Paris2007) highly relevant. He wrote:

[T]he draft biotech law submitted to the (French)National Assembly and the Senate for urgentconsideration, could make any biotech plantingimpossible in practical terms. The law would makefllrrtlers and seed companies legally liable forpollen drift and sets the stage for inordinately largecropping (separation) distances. The publication ofa registry identifYing cultivation of OMOs at theparcel level may be the most significant measure... Further, we should not be prepared to cede oncultivation beeause of our considerable plantingseed business in Europe.These are the safeguards that should be enactedinAustralian Farmer Protection laws, but ourgovernments stoutly resist these most reasonableproposals. Instead of serving the needs of ourlocal, Asian and European customers, ourgovernments generally align with US policy OIlbiosafety, food labelling, GM crop assessmentsand other key policies. Neither Australia nor theUSA has signed or ratified the Biosafety Protocol,the first and only protocol to the Convention onBiological Diversity, which attempts to ensurethe safe international transfer, handling and useofGM organisms (Convention on BiologicalDiversily 20II). Farmer Protection laws wouldmake OM technology owners and their licenseesstrietly liable so that farmers like Steve Marshcould recover their losses and extra costs whenGM contamination occurred, without having tosue under the eommon law.

GM-Free CompetitiveAdvantage LostAustralia is fast losing its unique competitiveadvantage as the only large-scale seller ofOM-free canola into world markets. Australiangovernments are complicit, under the direetinfluence of our OM competitors, the USA,Canada and their corporations. Ofthe 20 countriesthat grew canola in 2006, 18 required GM-freeloeal production and preferred OM-free imports.The Rural Industries Research and DevelopmentCorporation said:

In 1990, Austmliahit the global stage as an exporterof canola seed, and rapid growth led to our exportsexceeding two million tonnes in 199912000. Ourannual exports have now stabilised at around oneto 1.5 million tonnes, and our main export marketsarc Japan, China, Pakistan, Europe and Bangladesh.(RlRDC 2011)

The rise in Australian eanola exports was largelydue to Canada losing the European market when itbegan growing and exporting OM canola.State governments are shirking their legalresponsibility to protect farm produce markets foraU growers. The demand for Australia's OM-freecanola is so sLrong in Europe that Co-operativeBulk Handlers (CBH) marketing manager, PeterElliott, says Europeans will buy 90% ofWA'sconventional canola production at a 5% premiumoverOM canola this year - up Lo $25/tonne.

Whenyou're growing OM, at the moment you needto compete against Canada, but when you've gotnon-GM you gel a free kick into Europe and somemarkets in Japan. There's a massive advantage tobe growing non-GM this year, because Europe hasbeen so aggressively buying up all the non-OMtonnage. (Bita 2010)Kangaroo Island Pure Grain in OM-free SouthAustralia is just one company benefiting fromstrong local and international demand for itsnon-OM canola and non-OM canola honey forwhich its growers are earning premiums (KI PureGrain 2011).

6'0 Farm PalicyJolfnlal1 Vol. 8 No.1 IAutumll Quurlcr2011


7/11


8/11

82

o

Instead, governments influenced by the ideologyofminimal surveillance and self-regulationestablish weak 'science-based' and 'case-by-case'regulatory regimes that do not comply with thecore tenets of the scientific method and soundscientific inquiry. Regulatory systems should setbenchmarks and standards a priori for the quality,duration, scale and scope of the scientific evidencerequired for the assessment of new OM products.Independent centres of excellence on biosafetyresearch should also be set up to produce robust,replicable and refutable data for analysis. TheCentre for IntegratedResearch in Biosafety atthe University of CanterburyNew Zealand andits Biosafety Assessment Tool (University ofCanterbury 2009) may serve as a useful model [orAustralia which lacks any such programs.ConclusionOM crops cannot deliver on their falscpromises of plentiful food and fibre. Despitethe expenditure ofbillions of dollars of publicand private money over the past 30 years, thepromises of commercial OM crop varieties withincreased yield, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance,enhanced nutrition, a nitrogen-fixing grain,longer shelf life or other traits have not cometrue. These empty claims divert scarce researchand development resources from the key taskof creating sustainable, ecological farming andfood production systems that can feed, houseand clothe everyone well, in perpetuity. With oiland phosphate reserves diminished and globalclimate changing, amending industrial agriculturalpractices and securing food sovereignty must be anational and global priority.ReferencesAAP (2010), Non-OM faml contaminated byOM canola, The Age, 24 December, available at:http://news.theage.com.aulbreakillgnewsnationallnOllgm-farm-contaminated-by-gm-canola-20101224-19761,htmlABC Radio National (2010), Climate changescepticism - its sources and strategies, The ScienceShow, 3 April, available at: http://www.abc.neLaulrnlscienceshow/stories/201012859986.htrn

Agrifood Awareness Australia (AFAA) (2007),available at: http://www.afaa.com.auAgrifoodAwareness Australia (AFAA) (20II a),available at: http://www.afaa.com.auldefault.aspAgrifood Awareness Australia (AFAA) (2011b),available at: http://,,,'ww.afaa.com.auln_who.aspAORA(Alliance [or a Oreen Revolution inAfrica) (2011), available at: http://ww,v.agra-alliance.orglScientific American (2009), Do seed companiescontrol OM crop research? 13 August, p. 22,available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gmcrop-researchBell, DE, Knoop, C, Shelman, ML (2010),Monsanto: helpingfarmersfeed the world,9 April, HBS Case No. 510-025; HarvardBusiness School Marketing Unit, available at theSocial Science Research Network (SSRN): http://ssm.comJabstract=1607785Biotechnology Industry Organisation (2011),available at: http://www.bio.orglmembers/biomernbers.asp?list=AustraliaBita, N (2010), Europe, Japan OM canola threat,The Australian, 27 December, available at:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/europe-japan-gm-canola-threatlstory-e6frg6nf1225976838667Caples, A (2010), Melbourlle, Victoria: Globalhub for biotechnology, Invest Victoria, VictorianOovemment,4 May201O, avaiable at: http://blog.invest.vic.gov.auI20 10/05/04/melboume-victoriaone-of-the-worlds-hubs-for-biotechnologylCatholic News (2009), available at: http://www.catholicnews-tt.net/joomlalindex.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=I080:fr221109&catid=34:news&Itemid=93Cole, D (2005), The precalltiollG1JI principle- its origins and role in environmentallall:available at: http://www.edo.org.auledosalindex.php?option=com content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=37 -

000 Fanl! Policy JOllmal1 VoL 8 No.1 i A U l ~ l l m Quaner 2011


9/11

Convention on Biological Diversity (2011),available at: http://bch.cbd-int/protocollparties/

83

available at http://www.gmwatch.orgicomponentJcontent/articlelI2446

CRIlGEN (2011), available at http://www.eriigen.org/SiteEnlde Vendomois, JS, Roullier, F, Cellier, D, Seralini,GE (2009), A comparison of the effects ofthree GM corn varieties on mammalian health,Intemational Journal 0/Biological Sciences,vol. 5, issue 7, pp. 706-26, available athttp://www.biolscLorg/v05p0706.htmEwen, SWB, Pusztai, A (1999), Effect ofdiets containing genetically modified potatoesexpressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat smallintestine, The Lancet, voL 354, issue 9187,pp. 135--4, 16 October, available at http://wviw.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/articlelPTISO1406736%2898%2905860-7/abstractFood and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) (2008a), Jean Ziegler,p. 2, available at http://daecess-ods.un.org/TMP/6403033.I3732147.htmlFood and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) (2008b), Promotioll andProtection ofali Human Rights, Civil, Political,Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Includingthe Right to Development: Reportof the SpecialRapporteur on the right tofood, Jean Ziegler,Human Rights Council of the United Nations,10 January, cited at; http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Hunger#cite_note-4Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAD) (2008e), Food andAgricultureOrganization, Economic and Social DevelopmentDepartment, The State a/Food Insecurity in theWorld, 2008: Highfoodprices andfoad securitythreats and opportunities, available at http://www.fao.org/decrep/OI lIi029 Ie/i0291 eOO.htmFood and Agriculture Organization of theUnitedNations (FAO) (2010), The State a/FoodInsecurity in the World, available at http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/GM Free Cymru (2010), Open letter from tothe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 2010,

Gustin, G, (2009), Grant will help DanforthCenter fight hunger, St. Louis Post-Dispatch,7 January 2009, available al http://www.stltoday.com/newsllocallarticle ed3d9158-8be5-5953b41 f-670dOd6d6394.htmllAASTD (International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technologyfor Development) Executive Summary (2008a),Guidance in a Time o/Crisis: IAASTD andthe Human Right to Fooel, Message fromthe UN Special Rapporteur on the right tofood, Enabling Policies for Development andSustainability from the IAASTD, Side-eventto the UN CSD Intergovernmental PreparatoryMeeting, New York, 25 February 2009, p. x,available at: hnp:IIW\V\v.agassessmenLorg/docs/lAASTD_RTF_20090225_final.pdfIAASTD (International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technologyfor Development) (2008b), available at http://www.agassessment.org/Intergrain (2010), Intcrgrain Background,available at: hnp:llwww.intergrain.com/Background/background.htmlISAAA (International Service for the AcquisitionofAgri-biotech Applications) (2010), available at:http://www.isaaa.orglJackowski, R (2005), Iraq: CPA Order 81 is ellenworse thall o r i g j l 1 a l ~ y reported, Media MonitorsNetwork, 12 August 2005, available at: http://www.corpwatch.orgiartiele.php?id=12547Kaufman, F (2010), The food bubble: how WallStreet starved millions and got away with it,Harper's Magazine, July 2010, available at:http://frederickkaufman.typepad.comlfrederick_kaufmanl20I0/06/the-food-bubble-is-here.htmlKangaroo Island Pure Grain (2011), Our Products,available at: http://www.kipuregrain.comlour-products o

Fann Poi;c,!' journal IVol. 8 No. I IAutumn Quarter20 I) 00


10/11

84

o

Department oflnnovation, Industry, Scienceand Research (2011), National EnablingTechnologies Strategy 201 I. Canberra, availableat: http://www.innovation.gov.auIINDUSTRY/NANOTECHNOLOGYfNATIONALENABLINGTECHNOLOGIESSTRATEGYIPagesfNationalEnablingTechnologiesStrategyPolicy.aspxOGTR (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator)(201Oa), DIR 02012002 - General release ojRoundup ReadylD canola (Brassica lIapus) illAustralia. Department ofHealth and Ageing,Canberra, available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internetiogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir020-2002OGTR (Office afthe Gene Technology Regulator)(2010b), DIR 02112002 - Commercial release ojIn V i g O l ~ l D hybrid canDIa (Brassica napus)Jar usein theAustralian cropping system, Department ofHealth and Ageing, Canberra, available at: http://www.health.gov.auJintemet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Contentidir021-2002O'Hagan, M, I-kim, K (2010), Gates Foundationties with Monsanto under fire from activists,The Seattle Times, 28 August 20I0, availableat: http://seattletimes.nwsource.comlhtml/localnews/2012751169~ a t e s m o n s a n t o 2 9 m . h t m lBremer, LP (2004), Administrator CoalitionProvisional Authority, Coalition ProvisionalAuthority OrderNumber 81 Patent, IndustrialDesign, Undisclosed Information, IntegratedCircuits and Plant Variety Law, available at: http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81]atents_Law.pdfOreskes, N, Conway, EM (2010), Merchants ofdoubt: how a handfil! ojscientists obscured thetruth on issues ji'Oll1 tobacco smoke to globalwarming, Bloomsbury Press, available at http://www.bloomsburypress.comlbooks/catalog/merchants_otdoubt_hc_104Patel, R, Holt-Gimenez, E, Shattuck, A (2009),EndingAfrica's hunger, TheNation. available at:http://www.thenation.comlarticle/ending-africashunger

Phelps, R (2010), GM crap saJety a little seedy.The Drum Unleashed, ABC online, 23 July20 I0, available at: http://www.abcscience.ncl.aulunleashedl35428.htmlPrescott, VE, Hogan, SP (2005), Geneticallymodified plants and food hypersensitivitydiseases: Usage and implications of experimentalmodels for risk assessment, Pharmacology& Therapeutics. va!. I ll , issue 2, August2006, pp. 374--83, available athttp://www.scicncedirect.com/science?_ob=Artic!eURL&_udi=B6TBG-4HVDYGK-I&_uset=l 0&_

coverDatc=08%2F31%2F2006&Jdoc= 1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_doc8nchot=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVcrsion=0&_userid=IO&md5=1d22I f34f58367b75cc13ce3f9b3f84c&searchtype""aRedman, T (20lOa), GM choicefor WA canolagrowers. The Nationals WA, Media Release,25 January 2010, available at: http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/831ArticleTypelArticleView!ArticleID/350/Defaui1.aspxRedman, T (2010b), Parliament endorses decisioll011 GM canDIa, The Nationals WA, Media

00 Farm Policy.lollnral iVol. BNo.1 IAutumn Quarter 2011


11/11

85

release, I I March 2010, available at: http://www.nationalswa.eomlNews/MediaReleases/tabid/831ArticleTypelArticleViewlArticIeID/413/Default.aspxRIRDC (Rural Industrics Research andDevelopmcnt Commission) (2011), Pollination.Canberra, available at http://www.rirdc.gov.aulprograms/established-rural-industries/pollinalionlcanola.cfmSharah, J (2008), PeterBeattiessalaTJ!: ta.r::{i'eeor tax rart?, Crikey.com, 6 June 2008, available

at: http:/Avww.crikey.com.au/2008/06/06/peterbeatties-salary-tax-free-or-ta.x-rortlShiva, V (1993), The violence oJthe greenrevolution, third worldagriculture, ecology andpolitics, ThirdWorld Network, Penang, pp. 24--9,see http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/vio-cn.htmThyer, R (2008), Trust drawn from the messenger,not the message, Swinburne A1agazine. issue 1,March 2008, available at: http://www.swinburne.edu.au!magazine/1l56/trust-drawn-from-themessenger-not-the-messagelTribe, D (2010), GM crops and farming reality,BioJol'tified. 6 October 2010, available at: http://

www.biofortified.org/2010/10/gm-crops-andfarming-realily/Waltz, E (2009), Undcr wraps, NatureBiotechnology. vol. 27, no. 10, October 2009,p. 880, available at: hup://www.emilywaltz.com/Biotech_crop_researchJestrictions_Oct_2009.pdfUnion ofConcerned Scientists, Failure toyield. available at: htlp://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/scicncelfailuretoyield.HtmlUniversity of Cantcrbury (2009), BiosafetyAssessment Tool, availablc at: http://www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nzlBAT.shtmlUS Securitics and Exchange Commission(2010), US Securitics and ExchangeCommission Form 13F, Report for the CalendarYear or Quarter Ended on Bill & MclindaGates Foundation Trust, June 30, 2010,available at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166559/000 I047469100075671a2199827z13f-hr.txtWikiLeaks Madrid 2008, Cablc 08MADRID98,CODEL MARTINEZ JANUARY 10-11 VISITTOMADRlD, availablc at http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/02/08MADRID98.htmlWikiLeaks Paris 2007, Cablc 07PARIS4723,FRANCEAND THEWTOAG BIOTECHCASE, available at: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.htmlWikiLeaks State 2009, Cable09STATE37561, S) REPORTINGANDCOLLECTION NEEDS: AFRlCANGREAT, available at: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/04/09STATE37561.htmlWilson, W (2011), OM crops 'proven' to up yourprofits, StockJournaf, 17 February 2011, p. 12.

About the AuthorBob Phelps is Directorof the GM-free advocacyand policy network, Gene Ethics.....ww.geneethics.org

o

Farm Polic)' JOlll"lla/ j Vol. 8 No. I IAulumnQuaner 2U11 cPo

fpj phelps art

Documents