Russia Today reported that on May 25 of this year protests were scheduled against American "agribusiness" giant Mon(ster)santo. The article is here:
What I find disturbing here is, predictably, Mon(ster)santo's attitude, best summed up in the encyclical pronunciamenti of its CEO, Hugh Grant:
"They're the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen. Europe set up its own Food Standards Agency, which has now spent €300 million ($403.7 million), and has concluded that these technologies are safe,” Grant said in January. “France determined there's no safety issue on a corn line we submitted there. So there's always a great deal of political noise and turmoil. If you strip that back and you get to the science, the science is very strong around these technologies.'”
Uh huh. That's settles it for me: a government bureaucracy, which can be easily bought, and staffed with a revolving door of "scientists" moving easily from that very corporation or others like it, into the regulatory agency, and then back out again... in other words, the "science" can be bought, or rather, the appearance of science. Grant's attitude is thus a bit dated in the post-Warren Commission, post-Watergate-Iran-Contra-BCCI-Nugan Hand-Waco-Oklahoma City-WTC Bombing-9/11-world: if a government says it's ok, then it's ok.
Surely, Mr. Grant, you're joking.
But I'm afraid he probably isn't, because he's atop a multi-billion dollar corporation in a multi-billion dollar industry, and could really, in the final analysis, care less about the science or even the healthfulness of his product.
It's not about that, it's about profits, and, at a much deeper level, control of the world's food supply and the elimination of those pesky naturally occurring, non-patentable, seeds that anyone can buy, and then husband and grow.
But there's also some convenient omissions here in Mr. Grant's memory, for if memory serves, countries in Europe - Poland, Hungary and Russia itself, for example - have banned specific GMO products, and if memory serves me correctly, there are some scientific reports that do raise issues about the safety of GMOs. And if memory serves, Mon(ster)santo exerted pressure on the Blair government in Great Britain to suppress some findings of certain reports of certain of its scientists who could not be bought, and who, as a result of said pressure, lost their jobs and their reputations... That's the nice thing about being a big corporation with lots of money and bought and paid for science: you can also rewrite history, and blot the inconvenient footnote out of public memory.
But let's assume none of this is true. That there are absolutely no conflicting science reports; absolutely not one tiniest shred, not one jot or tittle of information, not the most miniscule datapoint against GMOs, nowhere, anywhere, not even in "pseudoscience." The real point of the protests, I would argue, is that with something so fundamental as the world food supply, that testing thus far is inadequate. And most importantly, that farmers should be able to plant ordinary everyday non-patentable seeds, and that people should be able to eat their produce and know what's in it.
That, I suspect, is the deepest reason for Mon(ster)santo's blatantly mercantilist policies and its alliance with government, for it knows that it would not survive in the marketplace where genuine choices were offered. It could trot forward all the reports with all the PhDs in the world, and people would still prefer non-Roundup ready ordinary everyday average corn and carrots and peas... It's choice, and people, that Mon(ster)santo and its bought and paid for sock puppets in various governments and their scientific regulatory agencies are really afraid of.
... life is good; eat GMOs, drink GMOs, and be merry...
See you on the flip side.