The resistance to the biotech companies and hence to their bio-foods, has centred on people being unable to find sufficient benefits for consumers. The public disfavour has, in turn, prompted the political leadership to impose more stringent controls. These developments have not however, encouraged companies to change their business tactics in foreign markets.
For example, the outcry in the West against “frankencorn” led to tighter food safety regulatory controls there. Major overseas buyers of grain, like Japan and Korea, then refused to accept consignments of any of the genetically manipulated forms. The rejections would cause an annual loss of about 200 million USD for biotech firms in USA. To make up their losses, these firms proceeded to offload the surpluses on Mexico and other ‘third world’ countries.
In 2008, random tests were conducted on imported processed foods picked up from shelves in Indian supermarkets. Greenpeace reported findings from independent laboratories that in potato chips ingredients, the Mon 863 and NK 603 varieties (from genetically modified potatoes) were present. These are genetically altered for resistance to pests and herbs, but they could pose serious health impacts to humans. Monsanto, one of the largest concerns operating in the region, had marketed the products being sold at retail outlets without the required labels to warn consumers.
Corporate business leadership generally has little knowledge of the technical intricacies of research. Firms like the agri-biotech giant may have operated on the presumption that a food safety clearance back home in USA ensures that their products are safe for all climates and countries over time. Consequently, they are little inclined to further testing of their products. There are no plans for developing “local partnerships” to carry on testing or work on developing applications to suit local environments.
Besides, although the initial discovery and creative processes receive heavy funding from various institutions, few resources address the research needs of developing countries. Stark differences remain in the conditions between the originating laboratories and the farmlands of developing countries targeted. The biotechnology applications originating in the West are thereby doomed to failure.
In public perception, scientists involved in GM projects lead insulated lives. Ensconced in state-of-the-art workplaces with unwavering focus on R&D, they are an elite class completely out of touch with the ground realities of less developed nations. Faith in their involvement with poverty and starvation is minimal. The general consensus is that the processes they advocate might work in the advanced economies, but are unlikely to do so on the remote side of the globe.
Consumers suspect a nexus between “mad scientists” and companies driven by bottomlines. The scientists are committed to discoveries, publications, and patents. Private biotech companies that get licences to these patents and incorporate them into the products, market for business profits. They have neither interest nor skill in products developments according to new situations. Words like 'social responsibility' have not figured in their lexicon.
Awareness groups like Safe Food Alliance are up in arms against the companies, their subsidiaries, and their scant tie-ups with universities in India. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, scientists have been running GM cultivation trials for sometime now with the vegetable Bt brinjal to win licensing approval from the Government. But activists have launched stiff protest demanding a complete ban on GM bio-foods in the country, to pressure the Government into disallowing commercialisation amongst the population of over a billion people.
Next...the sting
No comments:
Post a Comment