Editorials

government has after all already leapt out of the democracy closet and has revealed itself unashamedly to be little more than an embassy for Monsanto and other large corporations.

Monsanto now realizes, and wil l surely capitalize on, consumer despair. For, as long as people believe that the issue is dead, that giant corporations like Monsanto wil l have their way come what may, then there can seem little point in fighting. A gradual atmosphere of semi-tolerance or of "maturity" as Greenberg puts it, is already developing among a demoralized public which no longer sees any real gain in guaranteeing political opponents of genetic engineering political advantage over biotechnology advocates.

I t is alarming that even with majority opposition to biotechnology, consumers appear to be at the point of caving in to what they see as 'evolutionary' forces. What does this mean for democracy, when people feel that no matter how unpopular, the interests of big business wil l always come first? But equally alarming for Monsanto is a realization that, without that feeling of impotence, there can be little, i f any, light at the end of their genetically modified tunnel.

We witnessed in Germany last year what has been described as "one of the biggest shows of defiance to a European state by its own people." 15,000 locals, anti-nuclear protesters and environmentalists, united in rejection of the risks they were being asked

German antinuclear protest at Gorleben

What does this mean for democracy, when people feel that no matter how unpopular, the interests of big business will always come first? by their leaders to shoulder, set about bringing an end to the transportation of nuclear waste to the much feared Gorleben nuclear waste reprocessing plant. They were met with 30,000 police officers the largest mobilization of such forces in postwar Germany. The operation cost the German government £35 million, and it seems highly unlikely that the government wil l attempt to repeat the process.

Likewise, there can be no guarantee that

consumers around the world wil l not rise up - as they did in Germany - in resistance to what is an unacceptable trend. Alan Simpson MP has already warned that genetic engineering may be too important an issue to be left to politicians. By all accounts of the behaviour of our politicians today, and their relationships with companies like Monsanto, he is right. I f our governments fail us on this issue, as they have on so many others, then perhaps they too should anticipate such a reminder that democracy, the environment and our health belong to us, and that these things are not tradable.D

Note: The author of the two leaked reports, Stan Greenberg, Chairman and Chief Executive of Greenberg Research, has served as polling adviser to President Clinton, Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

8

The Ecologist, Vol. 29, No 1, January/February 1999
India Cheers While Monsanto Burns by Paul Kingsnorth "We send today a very clear message to all those who have invested in Monsanto in India and abroad: take your money out now, before we reduce it to ashes. " - Karnataka State Farmers Association, India

One of the most morally dubious claims made in Monsanto's recent newspaper advertising blitz was the assertion that the widespread use of food biotechnology is the only way to feed the world's poor. The corporation's argument went like this: millions of people currently go hungry in developing countries. In the future, as global population increases, this problem is set to worsen. Only high-yield agriculture can possibly produce enough food to meet this increased demand. Therefore, quite obviously, only "biotechnology can feed the world."

Malla Reddy and other members of Andhra Pradesh Ryta Sangha standing in the uprooted field. Malla Reddy is the main defendant in the case that Monsanto has filed against Indian farmers.

Monsanto's strategy was to try to portray its genetically modified (GM) crops as the solution to the hunger and poverty problems of the Third World. The company even tried to round up a group of 'respected voices' from developing countries to endorse an advert entitled 'Let The Harvest Begin', which praised biotechnology as "the seed of the future", which wil l "feed the world in the next century." Monsanto was playing a clever game: it was trying to portray opponents of food biotechnology as selfish and insular. What right, asked the corporation, do well-fed Western environmentalists have to deny the poor farmers of the Third World access to this wonderful new technology, which could feed their families and improve their living standards dramatically in years to come?

But this tactic is beginning to backfire spectacularly. In trying to use developing countries as pawns in its game, as it plays for dominance of the world's food markets, it is alienating the very people it claimed to be supporting: the poor. In India, where millions of peasant farmers still live a life of small-scale, subsistence agriculture, the corporation is facing nothing less than a crisis. Its trademark evasion, deception and subterfuge has enraged farmers all over the country. And i f it won't go voluntarily, they are prepared to chase it out, by any means necessary.

At 1.30 in the afternoon on 28th November 1998, in Sindhanoor, in the Indian state of Karnataka, the leader of the Kar-

nataka State Farmers Association (KRRS), a movement which claims a membership of ten million, arrived at one of India's first Monsanto test sites. The owner of the field, Basanna Hunsole, came out to greet him. With the help of Basanna's neighbours, a number of KRRS members, other local grassroots organizations representing 'untouchables' and landless farmers, they proceeded to tear up every one of the genetically modified cotton plants growing there. They stacked them in a heap in the middle of the field, and set them on fire. In minutes, Monsanto's test crop was reduced to ashes.

This was the first strike in a grassroots campaign that is spreading rapidly across India: 'Operation Cremate Monsanto'. Professor Nanjundaswamy, a committed Gandhian and leader of the KRRS, issued a statement to the press as the field burned. "We denounce the ignorance, incompetence and irresponsibility of the Union government to gamble with the future of Indian agriculture," said the Professor. He went on to demand that all tests of genetically modified crops in India be stopped, that the country's Patent Act be amended to stop the patenting of basic crop varieties, and that Monsanto be banned from the country. Otherwise, he said, Indian farmers would continue to take the situation into their own hands.

Since that first action, at least three more Monsanto test sites have been burned, in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, and

more cremations are promised. The tactic has spread from the KRRS to other grassroots organizations. In December 1998, following actions by local farmers and concern about illegal growing of GM crops, the government of Andhra Pradesh ordered Monsanto to stop the seven trials i t was operating in the state. The first shots have been fired by Indian farmers in what is increasingly looking like a war against the giant corporation.

Monsanto has been operating in India since 1949, and is a market leader in agricultural chemicals. In recent years i t has spent much time and money trying to win over Indian politicians and officials to the cause of GM crops, on which i t has staked its future. It operates three Indian subsidiaries: Monsanto India, Monsanto Enterprises and Monsanto Chemicals, and early in 1998, Monsanto quietly acquired a 26 per cent stake in the Indian seed company Mahyco.

Mahyco-Monsanto is the organization through which Monsanto is attempting to push its GM crops onto the Indian people. The company is already claiming patent rights over thirty 'new' crop varieties including corn, rice, tomatoes and potatoes - which it has genetically altered to be resistant to its own herbicides. But Mahyco-Monsanto's biggest effort in India at present is going into the testing of GM cotton. Cotton is grown widely in India, and Monsanto hopes that its GM variety known as 'bollgard' cotton - can corner

The Ecologist, Vol. 28, No 1, January/February 1999

9