The Catskill Chronicle

By Mort Malkin

Contrary to the assertions of Monsanto Inc, the Agricultural Revolution did not start with the technology of genetic engineering of food. Mankind had been growing grains and vegetables for 10,000 years, since the beginning of  the Neolithic era. We planted seeds and harvested the crop for the dinner table, always saving a few seeds for the next season’s planting.

Along the way to the mid 20th century, farmers learned that fruit and vegetable scraps (compost), leaf mulch, and manure (both animal & human) made good fertilizer for their plantings. They also learned about cross fertilization and selective breeding, but the large application of artificial chemicals as pesticides and herbicides did not occur until after WWII. Common use of genetically engineered hormones and crops — bovine growth hormone, cotton, soy, canola, corn … — crept in after 1993. Actually, it was more of a tsunami. Today in the US, more than 93% of soybeans are genetically engineered, as is 75% of the cotton (used for cotton seed oil and t-shirts), almost 90% of the corn (mostly for animal feed), 90% of the canola, and much of the sugar beets, papaya, and alfalfa. Alfalfa? Isn’t alfalfa used almost entirely for animal feed? Sure, but who wants hamburgers, chicken wings, or bacon laced with GMO proteins, even if previously digested by the whole animal?

Now, let’s get down to logic … and money. First, these DNA molecules with the foreign genes had to be patented. That would give the corporation a monopoly for many years. So, after a Supreme Court ruling in 1980 that living organisms or parts thereof could apply for patent protection, the US Patent Office issued a ruling to the same effect re: animal hormones and vegetables & fruits. In 1987 the Calgene

company developed the Flavr Savr tomato by retooling the tomato’s DNA. The GMO tomato received a patent and the FDA accepted its research. That was 1994. The label on the cans of tomato paste clearly said the product was genetically modified. But the public didn’t much like food made by fooling with Mother Nature. Monsanto bought out Calgene in 1997 just for the process that could be used for other foods. The corporate machinations were actually far more complicated involving lawsuits and such, as corporate motivations and actions often are, but those are the basics.

Monsanto, not famous for full disclosure, nor for letting grass grow under its feet, brought genetically modified (GM) corn, soy beans, and cotton to market, or at least to industrial farming. Between 1996 and 2000, 4,200 patents for genetically engineered crops were granted, mostly to Monsanto.  Monsanto argued before the Patent Office that their processes and products are novel, never before developed by man or seen in nature. But, to the FDA, in charge of consumer safety, they say “Of course it safe. Farmers have been changing the genomes of plants and animals by selective breeding for thousands of years.” They don’t mention that old time farmers never arranged marriages between bacteria and corn or between viruses and soy beans. Strange logic that the Ancient Greeks would not understand. Monsanto takes the New American Logic a step further in the land of anything-goes capitalism. On one hand, they say they are leading the next green revolution and that their GM foods are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the FDA. On the other hand, they spend millions in advertising to defeat the Propositions in California and Washington State that would require labeling of foods that are genetically engineered. Being a socially responsible company, they don’t want to burden the consumer with the extra cost of changing the labels by the two words “genetically modified.” Or, could it be that consumers would rather take their chances with Mother Nature than with a chemical company that once produced Agent Orange and PCBs.

Maybe Monsanto’s logic is part of the Philosophy of Pragmatism as elucidated by Charles S Peirce and William James. Or, maybe (more likely) it’s the logic of sauvage capitalism. Knowing that the Patent Office and the FDA are both part of the Executive Branch of the government, Monsanto thought to petition the White House on behalf of modern technology. First, of course, they showed their friendly intentions with some simple, million dollar campaign contributions to various elected officials, then offered some of the firm’s former lawyers and lobbyists for government service. So, Monsanto’s license for recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), called Posilac, was approved by the FDA in 1993 and was on the market in 1994. Most important was the language of approval — rBGH was considered “substantially equivalent” to regular cow’s milk and didn’t have to be labeled as genetically modified.

Despite the attempted secrecy, consumers didn’t like the idea of feeding pregnant women, small children, and adolescent girls artificial hormones. Their opinion was backed by Dr. Samuel Epstein who was a one man gang in convincing the public of the dangers of rBGH milk and warning the government, as well. He published papers and articles in both the scientific and lay literature and spoke at an NIH conference about the high levels of IGH-1 in rBGH milk which increases the incidence of breast cancer. The public put on the pressure of the purse, not on Monsanto, but the retailers and wholesalers of dairy products. In 1996, many small dairies and retailers decided to go rBGH free. Monsanto thought to spin their PR a bit — changing the name of their recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone to Bovine Somatotropin (rBST). It didn’t help much. The parade increased as Dean Foods decided to go hormone free, followed by Starbucks, Safeway, Walmart, Kroger, Publix, Walmart, Costco, and Ben and Jerry’s. Even Chipotle said its sour cream would be hormone free. Monsanto, following the rule of the market to cut their losses, gave up and sold its brand of Posilac for $300 million to Eli Lilly Company.

Monsanto was not ready to give up it business of genetic engineering, though. Staying away from hormones, they switched their attention to cotton, soy, and corn, and kept things more secret than ever, sticking to the story that genetic engineering was no different that what farmers had done with selective breeding for thousands of years. If that story was true, why didn’t the US Patent Office take away their patents that had recognized “a new method or product never made by man or found in Nature?” And, why didn’t Monsanto give up its patent in the face of Classical logic? Of course they didn’t — in the 21st century the new American logic is Money. Aristotle must be spinning in his grave.

The next column in this mini-series will show the risks of genetic engineering, not just from the increased pesticide/herbicide use and the development of super weeds, but the dangers of the process of genetic engineering itself. Watch this space.