GMO: Part 1 of 2

Jerry Mander, in his book Absence of the Sacred, points out that new technology is readily accepted by society. It becomes the talk around the water cooler. "Boy what will we do next?", "Are we ever clever." It is unfortunate that after the technology is introduced into the structure of our society that the negative consequences are exposed.

"Since most of what we are told about new technology comes from its proponents, be deeply skeptical of all claims." he advises. "History teaches us that unintended consequences of technological innovation only become known after their introduction," further advises Brother Keith Warner, Executive Director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference..

"The most severe consequences (of technology gone wrong) are unintended and they are distributed among those who are socially marginal and least able to contest the harm they suffer," he continues.

Of course when something does go wrong, those responsible would rather litigate than pay. It is cheaper than acknowledging shortsightedness and outright deceit. Deny -- deny -- deny is the common strategy of defense.

In his paper, author Brother Warner offers a good investigative report on biotechnology as seen through Catholic values and teachings.

He asks the simple question to those who would meddle in sciences too complex for mankind. Is it morally acceptable to modify genes in agricultural organisms?

I believe the Catholic church previously took a position on human reproduction interference and cloning, but the matter of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) is so new that theologians were caught unprepared. They also were kept in the dark as development of this technology advanced, along with the rest of us.

He points out, with passion, the questionable practices of individuals and multinationals who take the plants, seeds and their individual genetic blueprint, without compensation to the peoples who have nurtured and cultivated their crops for countless generations.

Incredibly, they modify a small portion of the whole, and patent the complete variety. This has been done with many plants. These blanket patent practices, which are now part and parcel of American law, are abhorred by other countries. The Americans are undaunted; they insist that American patent law should be accepted everywhere and they press this misguided logic through the WTO and other groups.

Until a few years ago the collective germplasm of the planet, had been regarded as common heritage of all mankind. This view was shoved aside in favour of commercial interests.

Much of the genetic materials originate in the countries of South America. Many scientists are there trying their darndest to make the next discovery before other commercial interests burn the whole rain forest to the ground. They take the resources without compensation, manipulate it and then return, looking to sell the technology back to the same people from whom they took it.

A mere handful of private corporations in the G7 now control most of the seeds in the industrialized north. Poor nations cannot even begin to cope with the economic pressure of this groups policies and influence.

Interestingly, scientists do not actually create anything. The genes are there already created. They take them and put them into other life forms in the effort to produce a desired trait in the life form. This manipulation and rearrangement is kind of like developing a new recipe. The developer somehow has, through corporate lobbying and board room manipulation, convinced the patent board that this new recipe should be patentable. So be it; research costs money and the developer should be granted some rights. Should they be granted the right to control a species from all intrusion because of their particular manipulation? That is effect what has been done.

This subject will be continued in next Wednesdays column.

Think Proportional Representative government.