The Monsanto Protection Act
On March 26, a legal clause went into effect in the United States that permits Monsanto and other transnational corporations engaged in genetic modification to ignore judicial orders of suspension for planting genetically modified crops, either for irregularities in their approval, for lack of evaluation of environmental or health effects, for new scientific evidence that points to health damage or for any other reason. It is an exception without precedent on the global level, called the Monsanto Protection Act.
With this decision, Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont-Pioneer, Dow, Bayer and Basef, the transnationals that control genetically modified crops, are placed above the judicial system. The decision also goes against the separation of powers in that it impedes the power of the judiciary to check the decisions of the other branches.
This is an extremely grave precedent in the United States and in the world. It endorses a highly flawed approval system for genetically modified organisms based on data about their impacts that is declared by the businesses that have a profitable interest in their release. Furthermore, it blocks initiatives by civil organizations, which have gained some judicial resolutions in the United States halting the release of genetically modified crops that have not been submitted to an environmental impact study or where there is evidence of severe potential harms. With the Monsanto Protection Act, no court will be able to ask for a discontinuation of the crops. Neither can the states legislate regarding GMOs, even in their own territory.
The text of this decision is in a paragraph that is intentionally complex and difficult to understand, in a 90-page document about various federal responsibilities (abbreviated HR 933). It was introduced surreptitiously by Senator Roy Blunt, who for years has received numerous donations from Monsanto and even acknowledged that he had written the text together with the company. Various civil organizations denounced the danger of this decision before its approval, collecting more than 250,000 signatures asking for the rejection of the clause. Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the committee that ruled favorably on the project, has publicly apologized for this decision.
Although this is U.S. legislation, it has a great impact on the planet because it widens the ambition and legal responsibility of the GMO transnational corporations against countries’ public interests, against the environment, against animal and human health. This is the context in which the Monsanto laws — badly named the laws of biosecurity — are located. They have been drafted by businesses across the continent, with uncritical scientists and generally financed by or receiving money from these businesses. One example is the case of Mexico and the law of biosecurity, called the Monsanto law since its adoption. The government has gone on dictating extra regulations in order to disarm any use of the law, as a precaution. Perhaps the clumsiest attempt occurred this past November, when in order to leave Article 88 of the biosecurity law — which blocks the release of genetically modified corn because Mexico is its center of origin — without effect, the government changed the acknowledged global map of centers of origin, alleging that there are zones of Mexico that are not centers of origin. This went directly against a study by 70 institutions and hundreds of scientists, coordinated by the National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, which recently ruled that all of Mexico is a center of origin.
The companies need these laws that block citizens and courts from taking legal measures because the GMOs are failing in a major way and causing gigantic problems. Last week in the states of Paraná and Brasilia, in Brazil, the Rede Globo reported the failure of Bt-corn to resist insects; the worms that devoured the genetically modified corn then developed resistance to the toxin that was supposed to kill them. Because of GMOs in transgenic glyphosate-resistant herbicide, more than half of U.S. farms have been invaded by super-weeds that the herbicides cannot kill. In the state of Georgia, 92 percent of properties have super-weeds that resist one or more pesticides (Tom Philpott, Mother Jones 6 Feb. 13). In order to try to vanquish these super-weeds, transnational companies are introducing GMOs resistant to the hyper toxic herbicides dicamba and 2.4 D — the latter is a component of Agent Orange. The increases in the contamination of soil, water and people will be indescribable. In the last few months we have seen far-reaching scientific reports showing that genetically modified corn caused cancer in rats and that in the majority of the GMOs there are parts of a virus not detected by the authorities, which could have an effect on the health of those who consume it. Because of this and more, the businesses want legal impunity to plant GMOs.
The good news is that the applications by Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer and Dow to plant genetically modified corn on more than a million hectares in Sinaloa and Tamaulipas have already expired, although the government has not announced it. Without a doubt, the numerous national and international protests against the release of corn in its center of origin have borne fruit. But Monsanto has already introduced three new applications for a massive commercial release of genetically modified corn in Chihuahua, Coahuila and Durango. They are in the public comment period until April 29.
As we have seen, the topic of GMOs is about more than the environmental and health impacts, which are grave. It also deals with the greater issue of whether transnational corporations will be able to make key decisions about the basis of our survival, against us and with total impunity.
With this decision, Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont-Pioneer, Dow, Bayer and Basef, the transnationals that control genetically modified crops, are placed above the judicial system. The decision also goes against the separation of powers in that it impedes the power of the judiciary to check the decisions of the other branches.
This is an extremely grave precedent in the United States and in the world. It endorses a highly flawed approval system for genetically modified organisms based on data about their impacts that is declared by the businesses that have a profitable interest in their release. Furthermore, it blocks initiatives by civil organizations, which have gained some judicial resolutions in the United States halting the release of genetically modified crops that have not been submitted to an environmental impact study or where there is evidence of severe potential harms. With the Monsanto Protection Act, no court will be able to ask for a discontinuation of the crops. Neither can the states legislate regarding GMOs, even in their own territory.
The text of this decision is in a paragraph that is intentionally complex and difficult to understand, in a 90-page document about various federal responsibilities (abbreviated HR 933). It was introduced surreptitiously by Senator Roy Blunt, who for years has received numerous donations from Monsanto and even acknowledged that he had written the text together with the company. Various civil organizations denounced the danger of this decision before its approval, collecting more than 250,000 signatures asking for the rejection of the clause. Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the committee that ruled favorably on the project, has publicly apologized for this decision.
Although this is U.S. legislation, it has a great impact on the planet because it widens the ambition and legal responsibility of the GMO transnational corporations against countries’ public interests, against the environment, against animal and human health. This is the context in which the Monsanto laws — badly named the laws of biosecurity — are located. They have been drafted by businesses across the continent, with uncritical scientists and generally financed by or receiving money from these businesses. One example is the case of Mexico and the law of biosecurity, called the Monsanto law since its adoption. The government has gone on dictating extra regulations in order to disarm any use of the law, as a precaution. Perhaps the clumsiest attempt occurred this past November, when in order to leave Article 88 of the biosecurity law — which blocks the release of genetically modified corn because Mexico is its center of origin — without effect, the government changed the acknowledged global map of centers of origin, alleging that there are zones of Mexico that are not centers of origin. This went directly against a study by 70 institutions and hundreds of scientists, coordinated by the National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, which recently ruled that all of Mexico is a center of origin.
The companies need these laws that block citizens and courts from taking legal measures because the GMOs are failing in a major way and causing gigantic problems. Last week in the states of Paraná and Brasilia, in Brazil, the Rede Globo reported the failure of Bt-corn to resist insects; the worms that devoured the genetically modified corn then developed resistance to the toxin that was supposed to kill them. Because of GMOs in transgenic glyphosate-resistant herbicide, more than half of U.S. farms have been invaded by super-weeds that the herbicides cannot kill. In the state of Georgia, 92 percent of properties have super-weeds that resist one or more pesticides (Tom Philpott, Mother Jones 6 Feb. 13). In order to try to vanquish these super-weeds, transnational companies are introducing GMOs resistant to the hyper toxic herbicides dicamba and 2.4 D — the latter is a component of Agent Orange. The increases in the contamination of soil, water and people will be indescribable. In the last few months we have seen far-reaching scientific reports showing that genetically modified corn caused cancer in rats and that in the majority of the GMOs there are parts of a virus not detected by the authorities, which could have an effect on the health of those who consume it. Because of this and more, the businesses want legal impunity to plant GMOs.
The good news is that the applications by Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer and Dow to plant genetically modified corn on more than a million hectares in Sinaloa and Tamaulipas have already expired, although the government has not announced it. Without a doubt, the numerous national and international protests against the release of corn in its center of origin have borne fruit. But Monsanto has already introduced three new applications for a massive commercial release of genetically modified corn in Chihuahua, Coahuila and Durango. They are in the public comment period until April 29.
As we have seen, the topic of GMOs is about more than the environmental and health impacts, which are grave. It also deals with the greater issue of whether transnational corporations will be able to make key decisions about the basis of our survival, against us and with total impunity.