Capitalism's New Form of Slavery

The use of biotechnology in agriculture production systems is the most recent technological innovation to combat a growing global population and its consequent food scarcity, particularly in developing states. However, the increasing use of biotechnology in long-established food production is fundamentally changing hundreds of years of agricultural traditions. This framework is problematic for various reasons: it disregards the many ethical issues regarding food, the adverse ecological effects, overlooks health effects, as demonstrated by Monsanto’s corn MON83, and represents the corporatization of life, particularly regarding genetically engineered (GE) seed patents. The adaptation and widespread use of GE crops is exceedingly threatening to socio-environmental health around the world and a precautionary principle at minimum is necessary. It is essentially the practice of slavery within a modern context of food however, corporations rather than individuals as the owners. More explicitly phrased, slavery is forced labor; within capitalism, the limited choices of food, limited in regards to diversity of production, subjects consumers to a form of slavery due to the concentrated market dominance.

There is an important difference between genetically modified (GM) and GE foods. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally across species boundaries and sometimes taxa; however, GE gene transfers clear across phyla. Farmers have been modifying genomes in plants for centuries but biotechnological practices are now crossing this traditional modification practice and literally engineering seeds: “[w]hen a desired trait cannot be found within the existing gene pool, breeders can create new variants by intentionally mutating plants with radiation, with chemicals, or simply by culturing clumps of cells in a Petri dish and leaving them to mutate spontaneously during cell division” (Prakesh & Conko 2004). This work done in the laboratory is not the same as the time intensive practices that farmers would engage with in order to select the proper genome and modify the seed over seasons. In laboratories, instead of crossing one species plant with another species of plant, it combines plant, bacterial, and viral DNA. Neither nature nor traditional agricultural GM practices cross the boundaries of phyla and seldom of taxa. As a result of this distinctive difference, I will reference seed modification that occurs in laboratories as GE rather than the commonly used GM.

The human necessity of caloric consumption is fulfilled through the ingestion of foodstuffs. Yet, corporate interests have drastically influenced the principles regarding food, particularly within the US. The impoverished and exponentially growing populations of developing regions are often, somehow, blamed. However, it is important to realize that “[t]he poor are neither a burden on us nor a threat to our interests. Unlikely as it may seem, the interests of the vast majority of Americans have much in common with those of the world’s hungry” (Lappe et al. 1998). It is the large corporations who have differentiated between the biological necessities for nutrition and created a market that reaps with profits from ignorant consumers. Caloric requirements in schools are commonly fulfilled through tater tots rather than dense and nutritious food for children who are creating eating habits that many continue throughout their lives. Obesity, heart disease and diabetes have steadily been on the rise in the United States as a consequence of poor eating habits that are preventable. “Food deserts” are created when groceries are unavailable in areas and the only food options that remain are those of fast food chains. Each of the previous examples are dependent on the present large scale food industry on which the majority of America functions. These industries are reliant upon a constant and reliable supply of ingredients that is fulfilled through large-scale, industrial agriculture. Fortunately, recognizing these injustices and ethical implications, citizens’ movements around the world have mobilized against GE and corporate control over agriculture and are moving concerns regarding GE “from the fringe to the center state of trade and economics” (Shiva 2000). However, this is not enough. GE “crops manufactured by corporations pose serious ecological risks” including the destruction of biodiversity, increased use of agrochemicals, herbicide resistant weeds (Shiva 2000). They can contaminate organic seed stocks and devastate soil if there are within a reasonable proximity. Food needs to have more value than just a caloric intake and a reasonable profit margin for agribusinesses.

Nutritional science is an emerging academic field that commonly concludes in contradictory studies. Unsurprisingly, this is the case with studies regarding the health effects of genetically engineered foods, particularly when a large corporation with economic interests funds research. Analysis and reanalysis by Monsanto funded researchers failed to associate any adverse health effects as result of ingestion of MON83, a genetically engineered corn (Doull 2007). This study was conducted on rats over three months. However, this study overlooked different reactions in male and female rats and maintains that its corn is safe. A comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized GE maize over 90 days concluded that there are side effects linked with GE maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent; the effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs although in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system were also observed (de Vendomois et al. 2009). These conflicting results become more intriguing when the study finding a lack of adverse effects was made possible by funding through the company that hopes to profit from the large-scale production and adaptation of GE seeds. However, if transgenes are adapted, reverting back to traditional seeds will be exceedingly difficult due to the wide-scale contamination.

Life became patentable with a Supreme Court Decision in the mid 20th century. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Court ruled that a laboratory-modified bacterium constituted a patentable reorganization of matter in 1980. Consequently, this new patentable form of invention, GEOs as a growing and living organism, enables life to be quite literally owned. Owning life is very much a form of slavery in loose terms, whether or not labor is demanded. This decision has legitimized the corportization of life, essentially monopolized by a single company, Monsanto. This is problematic in various ways. Monsanto favored qualities and favorable plant qualities and values don’t necessarily coincide. For example, some crops are grown as food for humans, or it may be produced for fodder. A further implication is that “[t]he patenting of crop genes means that farmers in the future may be obliged to pay royalties to foreign companies on varieties bed by their ancestors” (Lappe et al. 1998). There are presently 5.5 million farmers who grow GE crops on 143 million acres in 16 countries, where a quarter of farms in the developing world use GE (Prakesh & Conko 2004). GE advocates claim that concern regarding biotechnology is unwarranted. However, due to the environmental, nutritional and social implications explored above, concern is justified and warranted.
Corporate interests, particularly profit, are driving biotechnological experimentation and implementation in agriculture. However, these efforts are being done before proper consideration is given to ethical issues regarding food, health and ecological affects and patent implications. As a result, a precautionary principle is very much worth maintaining before widespread implementation. Monsanto’s M83 corn is a sufficient example of how a questionable product has already been released to the market and new studies are delegitimizing ones done prior. The adaptation and widespread use of GE crops is exceedingly threatening to socio-environmental health around the world despite the success for a single company. Monsanto has put farmers in the grasps of the new form of slavery, with tight holds on farmers’ wallets and future agriculture production capabilities.

Works Cited
Cayford, Jerry. 2004. Breeding Sanity into the GM Food Debate. Science and Technology: 49-56.
de Venomois, Joel Spirous, Francois Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Seralini. 2009. A Comparison on the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. International Journal of Biological Science 5: 706-726.
Doull, J., D. Gaylor, H.A. Greim, D.P. Lovell, B. Lynch and I.C. Munro. 2007. Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by Seralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn (MON 863). Food and Chemical Toxicology 45.11: 2073-2085.
Lappe, Frances Moore Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset and Luis Esparza. 1998. World Hunger. Grove Press.
Prakash, C.S. and Gregory Conko. 2004. Technology for Life: How Biotech Will Save Billions from Starvation. The American Enterprise: 16-20.
Shiva, Vandana. 2000. Stolen Harvest. Cambridge: South End Press.

Purpose and intent

So it would be a lie to say that I have not blogged before. However, my two prior experiences have been isolated blog attempts at informing friends and family of my travels while studying abroad in Africa and Asia. The first time, it was difficult to write, because I didn't know who was going to read it, I was only committing myself to write for three weeks and I didn't have consistent internet access. The second time, I blogged over a much longer time period, and found myself much more invested because I knew this would be the best way to not only remember what I did, but inform my loved ones of my activities and reassure them about my safety. However, at the request of my Food Justice professor, Devon Pena at the University of Washington, I am trying again. I can't say how often I will keep up with this, or am I going to try to categorize the topics that will come up (besides they will be things through my perspective, and consequently things that I believe are important or worth sharing to a larger audience). Here's to another attempt! Further, since this is a more generalized blog name, I am hoping that it will entice me to continue past the extent of the quarter. Enjoy.