Cameron Walker

New Zealand nearly became the only country of the 132 nations who are party to the Cartagena Protocol to block an agreement on labeling GE organisms traded between nations. The Protocol is an international agreement that allows nations to decide whether to regulate the introduction and trade of genetically engineered (GE) crops or seed if they believe it will endanger traditional crops, biodiversity or indigenous farming communities.

Should we have labels for Genetically Engineered food?
At the Second Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol’ in May 2005 in Montreal, New Zealand and Brazil vetoed any decision on labeling traded GE seed and crops. Every other country at the meeting supported clearly labeling imports of crops or seeds that are known to be GE “Does Contain GMO” (genetically modified organisms). NZ and Brazil insisted on a much weaker and vague label “May Contain GMO”. At the Third Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol’ Brazil completely dropped its opposition to the proposals. Brazil’s Environment Ministry even declared that within four years they would have the proper procedures to test all exports for GE content and then label them as so. Only after rather tense pressure from other nations, and an international email protest campaign, did the New Zealand delegation change their stand on the final day of the conference.

Why do people oppose GE?
Many farmers around the world, especially in developing nations, oppose the introduction of GE crops because the technology will give multinational chemical companies, such as the USA’s Monsanto, immense power over their livelihoods. Monsanto, which produces the majority of the World’s GE crops, has strict global patent protection over its products. Farmers are strictly prohibited from saving seeds from year to year, and must pay a large license fee for use of the seeds. Furthermore, Monsanto has developed GE technologies, such as the infamous “Terminator” seed that do not reproduce, thus saving seeds is made impossible. Most of the World’s farmers (who make up half of the World’s population) rely on saving seeds from year to year in order to afford to grow food.

An example of transnational corporations against local farmers
In 1998 Monsanto launched court proceedings against the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser for breaching copyright of their patented canola seed. Unbeknown to Schmeiser, GE canola seeds from a neighbouring farm had blown onto his land and contaminated his crop. Neighbouring farmers rang Monsanto’s special toll-free snitch line when they noticed Schmeiser’s canola did not wither when he sprayed it with Monsanto’s Roundup spray. The seeds were specifically engineered to be resistant to Roundup. After many years of costly legal proceedings Canada’s Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto’s favour. Monsanto’s antics managed to put a farmer from a rich nation under incredible financial strain. Imagine if this happened to a poor peasant in the developing world!

What is the environmental impact?
GE crops have also had a huge environmental impact. The introduction of herbicide resistant crops has come hand in hand with the evolution of noxious herbicide resistant weeds. This has meant farmers have been forced to use greater amounts of herbicide. A hard hitting 2004 investigation in the New Scientist revealed that in parts of rural Argentina herbicide resistant weeds were forcing farmers to use so much herbicide that toxic clouds were drifting over villages and making children terribly ill.

What’s important in NZ politics?
While members of the National Party were holding the government to task over an MP’s alleged behaviour 20 years ago, the Green Party was taking the Labour government to task over its despicable stand against Third World farmers. Green MP Nandor Tanczos said “We have been the object of international condemnation for some time for being one of the only countries to block agreement. Now to our shame we stand alone in wanting to deny developing countries the protection of a robust international standard”.

The involvement of the USA
He also believes New Zealand appears to be a “stalking-horse” for the United States, who is not party to Cartagena, in blocking consensus on the agreement. The US Government has put huge pressure on other nations to allow GE crops through intellectual property rights clauses in trade agreements. Laws pushed through by the US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in the early stages of the occupation of Iraq even specified that Iraqi farmers have no right to save patented seeds. Monsanto and other American biotech corporations are large donors to both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Should we be wary of Terminator Seeds?
Even though New Zealand fortunately changed its position late in the conference our government has also been trying to undermine international controls on “Terminator” seeds. When Monsanto first announced to the World they had developed this technology in the 1990’s Asian and African nations called for an immediate global ban. Not long afterwards in 2000 a de facto moratorium was put in place by nations meeting at a UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference.

NZ support for Terminator seeds?
In February 2005 NZ and Canada caused international outrage when they attempted to overturn the moratorium. Environment Minister, Marion Hobbs said “New Zealand has no firm view on the merits of new organisms involving seed sterilisation [Terminator] technology but supports their case-by-case assessment rather than a blanket ban”. In January 2006, at a preliminary meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Spain, New Zealand and Australia repeated the idea that there should be a case by case’ assessment of Terminator technology.

NZ Parliament debate on GE issues
In Parliament Nandor Tanczos asked Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters:

“Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not regard genetically engineered terminator technology as either good or bad, even though it is specifically designed to make plants sterile so that farmers cannot replant their seeds; and hence will jeopardise food security for millions of people?”

Peters responded:

“I am aware of what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s policy is. I am also very much aware that when such conventions or other agreements and treaties apply, and in fact exist—unlike the question’s imputation—then those matters will be decided by domestic policy, at which point I say that the Minister for the Environment and Minister of Agriculture should have been asked the question in the first place.”

Winston Peters’ avoidance of The Green MP’s questions was so bad that Act leader Rodney Hide (hardly a Green fan) raised a point of order with Parliament’s Speaker. The next day in Parliament Peters once again showed he did not take the extremely important issue of Terminator technology when fellow NZ First MP Doug Woolerton asked him if he was aware of any other substances that effect sterility. Peters answered “The answer is yes, for it is generally accepted that smoking cannabis has an impact on driving capacity, on mental capacity, on social capacity, and on the issue of sterility, which was the primary question asked yesterday. It can be a real terminator.”

Can we be proud of the NZ government’s international profile?
Some members of the Labour Party at university I’ve met claim that under the Labour led Government NZ has been a good international citizen, especially for standing up to the US by keeping out of the Iraq invasion. Unfortunately our government seems just as happy to undermine international agreements as the Bush Administration. We have a government in power that seems to not care about the majority of the World’s population.

LEARN MORE

• The New Scientist magazine has many articles on this subject
• The Green Party campaigns against the use of GE

Apple photo by Holly Greening, others from stock.xchng