Changes
no edit summary
The "solution", creating physical and distance barriers to prevent the spread of pollen, is proving to be unreliable. Says this ''Wall Street Journal'' article "Such moves to restrict the spread of GM crops often are ineffective. Last month in Australia, government experts discovered biotech canola genes in two non-GM varieties ''despite a ban covering half the country''. "Regretfully, the GM companies appear unable to contain their product," said Kim Chance, agriculture minister for the state of Western Australia, on the agency's Web site." [http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/pollution.cfm] italics ours.
Many are now expressing suspicions that the contamination is intentional "once genetic contamination reaches a ‘significant’ level, the world will be left with no other choice but to accept the sad reality. Genetically engineered crops will then be pushed with impunity. The great genetic scandal is only beginning to unfold." [http://www.farmedia.org/bulletins/bulletin28.html] [http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/spainsoy021802.cfm]. Says the Scottish parliament's Mark Ruskell, "As far as the US and the biotechnology companies are concerned the GM debate doesn't exist -- you will eat it and you will grow it" [http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/monsanto_contamination_eu.cfm] [http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=551]. Comments from the Biotechnology Industry Association's Lisa Dry add fuel to suggestion, "Rather than pursue the unrealistic goal of trying to keep seeds completely free of genetic contaminants, she and other industry representatives said, the United States should work harder to get European and other nations -- many of which have balked at engineered crops and foods -- to be more accepting of the technology. '''It's important for countries around the world to adopt a uniform standard' of acceptable levels of contamination''" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A486-2004Feb23¬Found=true]. "The formula seems to be this" says this [http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=4 ''Grain''] article, "focus on the major cash crops (cotton, soybeans, maize, etc), find an entry point, contaminate the seed supply and then step in to take control" See also [http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/monsantoargentina.pdf]. '''"The total acreage devoted to GM crops around the world is expanding. That may be what eventually brings the debate to an end. It's a hell of a thing to say that the way we win is don't give the consumer a choice, but that might be it" ''' says Dale Adolphe, biotech booster and President of the Canadian Seed Growers Association and previous president of the Canola Council of Canada (Western Producer, 4/4/02). Adds Jeremy Rifkin, longtime critic of biotechnology in the New York Times, June 10, 2001, "They're hoping there's enough contamination so that it's a fait accompli" [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0610-02.htm].
Removing any remaining doubt about the intention of biotech is this comment from Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001: "''The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded'' [with GMOs] ''that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender''".