[Article] BT Court Case...or Latest Greenpeace Publicity Stunt?
2/18/99
Dan Spillane
CFSeattle@aol.cm
Firstly, I have serious questions about the motivations of the planned case. Without expounding too much on this, it suffices to say I believe this case has little to do with the allegations as stated; rather, it has more to do with emerging "food control clusters" and possibly a perceived threat to the high pricing structure of the organic industry (possibly healthier GM products aren't controlled by organic companies). Moreover, some of the food and ag industry is in shock given the market share gains made by some companies (such as Monsanto), so there is a perceived threat to part of the non-organic industry as well. But the aspect of motivation deserves a separate discussion, so on to the case...
The primary allegation of the case is the charge that the EPA violated it own procedures in the approval of BT crops; further, Greenpeace et al. makes it sound like such crops were approved overnight. However, Greenpeace et al. cites no specific evidence in support of this claim, so in court, the actual record would be examined, as the burden of proof needs to rest on this. But, going back over the record with regard to the approval of BT crops, it seems clear the EPA has taken a cautious, gradual approach since the crops were first introduced four years ago. And the initial approval was not without many years of study before that. As case in point, the EPA only recently (2/10/99) relaxed restraints on Monsanto's BT corn...obviously after gathering significant data over time. In addition, the decisions of the EPA have been effectively verified by outside regulatory agencies, in other countries. Plainly, the primary charge against the EPA won't hold up, since the EPA has implemented a careful and gradual process of approval. This is what the EPA states, and they can prove it.
Next, the case claims damages loosely connected to the primary allegation. That is, the man who had the organic corn chips. Now, due to an unspecified power, he felt the need to destroy these chips due to the presence of a barely detectable BT gene. Oddly, this gene is the very same one which is otherwise considered acceptable in organic foods, if many more of the same genes are applied via spraying (does the plastic sprayer transform things into "organic"?). In fact, it might be impossible to prove that the BT gene came from the small part of the corn kernel, as Greenpeace et al. alleges (via pollination), or from the residue of BT spraying. In any case, I can't see how damages could be proven. Ultimately, when the logic behind the alleged damages is examined in court, a glaring contradiction will show up. What seems more likely -- given the contradictory details -- is the damages were self-inflicted.
Also, the suit implies negligence on the issue of pesticide resistance...basically asking the court to verify the Greenpeace et al. worry that such will develop. This charge is particularly weak, considering the EPA has dealt with this issue many times in the past with other pesticides, and is likely a world expert in this area. In fact, Monsanto and other companies already have an advance plan in place to deal with this very issue, even though the problem doesn't exist now. This plan no doubt involves the EPA; once again, as a matter of the record, a judge would simply need to ask if the EPA has a plan in this respect, and if such a plan has worked in the past.
Finally, I cannot help but comment on the timing of the lawsuit, given the very recent surge in anti-bioag stunts, sponsored by some of the same parties bringing the suit. While there have been occasional events of this nature in the past, in the last few weeks there have been no less than half a dozen events, capped off by the dumping of soybeans near the residence of the UK Prime Minister, shortly before the suit was announced (the dump was by one of the litigants, you must also wonder how a judge might privately view such a "coincidence", see link below). Note, none of these stunts were based on any real science; apparently, the motivations lie elsewhere. In fact, my eyebrows were raised high recently, as I came upon a web page associated an anti-bioag group (this particular group has been instrumental in the UK GM escalation, and has been parroted by Tories). Instead of discussing science reasonably, this group recommends "don't listen to the Authorities"...
Is this a court case, or the latest in a string of planned publicity stunts? Notice, the case is still "planned". Will it be thrown out before it makes it to court?
Related links:
dailynews.yahoo.com
news.bbc.co.uk |
