This article was originally published in Soil & Health Magazine - the GE Issue, published earlier this month. This magazine is available from certain bookstores and
costs $9.95. Contact Valerie at valerie@mentora.co.nz for more information
The politics of pressure: how the US and the biotech industry are forcing the GE revolution
With corporations and governments investing billions of dollars into the science of genetic engineering, it is clear to
see how international consumer uncertainty regarding this technology has placed investors between a rock and a hard
place. The strength of such resistance to this food has been severely underestimated by the likes of Monsanto and the
United States government who are now taking measures to ensure their investments are not wasted. The size of such
investments are not insignificant: Monsanto have staked the company's future upon the success of biotechnology, and
while a small fish compared with its US counterpart, even the New Zealand government has invested over $100 million
dollars of taxpayer money into GE research in this country. Jonathan Hill looks at the pressure that is being exerted
upon us by the key players in the GE game to accept genetic engineering of our food.
The United States pressure
New Zealanders pride themselves on their independence and strongly resent foreign powers, be that governments or
corporations, interfering in our affairs. Our commitment to our stand-alone nuclear free policy shows that, above all,
New Zealanders hate to be bullied or pressured. However, the debate over the genetic engineering of our food over the
last two years has revealed that again New Zealand has worn the threats, the pressure and the bullying of the United
States government. This time however, to reject labelling of genetically engineered food.
New Zealand cabinet papers, released in February last year under the Official Information Act clearly illustrate how
pressure has been brought to bear on our highest level of government. The papers record discussions between the Minister
of Health, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
The Cabinet minutes state: “The United States, and Canada to a lesser extent, are concerned in principle about the kind
of approach advocated by ANZFA [the Australia New Zealand Food Association who now support labelling] and the
demonstrated effect this may have on others, including the European Union.
“The United States have told us that such an approach could impact negatively on the bilateral trade relationship and
potentially end any chance of a New Zealand-United States Free Trade Agreement.”
For a country anxious to be seen as supportive of the free trade agenda, as well as currently struggling to increase
exports to reverse a skyrocketing trade deficit, the gravity of such threats to the future trading relationships with
the US would not have been taken lightly.
US threats have also come directly from the Ambassador to New Zealand, Josiah Beeman. In numerous media interviews
Beeman has reiterated the United States position and repeated his government's threats over proposals to label
genetically engineered foods in New Zealand. On the Kim Hill Show and TV One’s Assignment Beeman has made it clear that
were US imports to New Zealand to be compromised by a labelling regime, New Zealand could expect difficulties in the
trading relationship between the two countries.
Independent MP Neil Kirton felt the pressure from the US first hand following his public comments supporting calls for
labelling of genetically engineered food. Kirton claims he was visited twice by Ambassador Beeman in 1997 as a result of
his comments. “It was the first time I had had a visit from a diplomat to see me,” he said. “I was struck dumb by the
aggression showed by Beeman to my stance, and the bullying tactics he used.”
Beeman got heavy again when Suzanne Wuerthele, a toxicologist from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
spoke on the Kim Hill Show while holidaying in New Zealand earlier this year. Despite being clear that she was speaking
as an individual and was not representing the views of the EPA, Wuerthele’s comments about her concerns over genetic
engineering were deemed out of order by Ambassador Beeman, who promptly reported her to the US State Department.
Wuerthele argued that she was exercising her constitutional right to free speech, however she says it took three months
to clear her name and keep her job.
The United States have stuck their neck out over genetic engineering and stand to lose a fortune through growing
consumer resistance. In particular the European Union, which is cautious about genetic engineering, is fast becoming a
nightmare for the United States. Last year for example the United States shipped less than three million bushels of corn
to Spain and Portugal, down from 70 million bushels in the 1996/97 marketing year as a result of European Union delays
in approving genetically engineered varieties of US corn.
Given that in the US last year 25 per cent of the corn crop and 38 per cent of the soy bean crop was grown from
genetically engineered seed varieties, it is basically too late for the US to turn their back on the GE revolution. Too
much has been invested and too much is at stake. This unfortunate catch-22 situation is why the blunt force, the
bullying and the
heavy political pressure is being applied to trading nations like New Zealand.
Unfortunately, a look at our own government’s track record over genetic engineering shows that these tactics are
effective and can work.
Genetic engineering and New Zealand politics
The high level diplomatic and political pressure exerted on the New Zealand government could well be blamed for the
government’s sluggish performance over calls for mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods. Despite a
groundswell of interest in the issues associated with genetic engineering the National government has resisted calls for
labelling and has, in fact, gone to extreme measures to ensure it does not happen – both here in New Zealand and abroad.
The first of two Bills in New Zealand, calling for labelling of genetically engineered foods, was decisively defeated by
the National-NZ First coalition government. A second identical Bill introduced the following year stood some chance of
passing because the coalition had dissolved and not all those supporting the National minority government on confidence
and supply agreed with their stance on food labelling. However, it was eventually defeated in a tense 60/60 vote. In
parliament a tied vote means the status quo prevails.
Despite furious arguments with Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, National MP Christine Fletcher, who supported the Bill, was
unable to take back her proxy vote from the government. Tukoroirangi Morgan, who also supported the Bill, was led from
the debating chamber by Don McKinnon just before the vote and failed to return. As Morgan had not withdrawn his proxy in
writing, the government whip exercised it for him against the Bill. We can only speculate over what happened to Morgan
but it would be fair to say that, like Fletcher, he was heavied into submission by a government desperate to defeat the
Bill. Anne Batten, who had also spoken strongly in favour of the consumer's right to make an informed decision, opposed
the Bill by proxy in her absence.
A third Bill, introduced by Phillida Bunkle and based around Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons' petition calling for a Royal
Commission of Inquiry into genetic engineering and a moratorium on further approvals of commercial release or field
trials, was a different affair which reflected the shifting political ground in parliament over the issue. The Bill was
defeated, only this time the Labour Party voted it down with the government. Labour was prepared to support the Royal
Commission but not the moratorium. In short they wished for a full and thorough investigation into the possible risks
and benefits of genetic engineering but were not prepared to prevent large scale planting of GE crops in the New Zealand
environment until the Commission had reported back.
Following comments made by Phillida Bunkle in support of her labelling Bill, Crop and Food wrote a lengthy refutation of
her comments and asked the Speaker of the House to accept these arguments into the parliamentary record. Despite
vigorous argument from Bunkle in support of her comments the request was granted and Crop and Food had their rebuttal
accepted in Hansard and circulated through parliament. The rarity of such action shows the sensitivity of companies
involved in genetic engineering to dissenting points of view.
Phillida Bunkle claims she filmed a piece for TV One news on American cows treated with genetically engineered bovine
growth hormone but, following a phone call from Monsanto’s lawyers in Missouri at 5.30pm, the piece did not go to air.
As an aside to that story the New Zealand Animal Remedies Board is currently considering an application to approve the
use of these growth hormones in New Zealand. The recombinant bovine growth hormones (rBGH) in question have been banned
in Canada and the European Union as the hormone leads to lameness in the cows, sores that will not heal and pus in their
milk. There is also statistical evidence showing an increase in human breast and prostate cancer in people drinking milk
produced using these hormones.
ANZFA has now voted to adopt some form of mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods. However this is in spite
of New Zealand's representative on the council, John Delamere, voting against the move.
Papers on the ANZFA decision obtained under the Official Information Act show that Delamere was instructed to vote
against labelling. However if the ANZFA council appeared to support the call for labelling, Delamere was instructed to
kick for touch and "support the matter being referred back to ANZFA for full assessment… to be reconsidered in six
months and again in 12 months". While the New Zealand government was unsuccessful in preventing labelling they are now
stalling the process and trying to water down the provisions.
Again despite Delamere's instructions to vote down labelling provisions in the ANZFA council, Jenny Shipley has since
come out saying she now supports labelling. A Ministry of Health discussion document has attracted over 5000 submissions
that are now being considered. The Ministry’s proposal exempted highly refined foods like sugar, starches and oils which
were unlikely to contain any genetic material, and allowed three categories of labelling: contains GE, does not contain
GE, and may contain GE. Most submissions are expected to reject any exemptions and to support only two labels so that
lazy food manufacturers cannot hide behind a ‘neither confirm or deny’ policy.
Although our government has been lobbied hard by foreign governments, we can hardly criticise their tactics. When
Japanese officials signalled an intention to label genetically engineered products, a joint letter was drafted to these
officials stating that New Zealand, the United States, Canada and Australia were opposed to labelling. The letter stated
that "imports of a large variety of food products could be adversely affected because labelling would imply a safety
concern". The letter concluded by warning against raising the issue in public as this could "pre-empt the outcome". New
Zealand was also involved in the development of a paper informing Japan of the "reasons behind our decision not to opt
for mandatory labelling", despite the fact that New Zealand was not supposed to have made any such decision. Not only
was the New Zealand government trying to prevent labelling of foods on our own shelves, they were also trying to do the
same to the people of Japan.
Application of political pressure is not the sole domain of governments however, but is also utilised effectively by
private companies in a number of ways. Co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons is currently being sued by
public relations company Communications Trumps for $150 000 after publicly criticising their advice to a client to keep
their genetic engineering project secret.
The Green Party was leaked a document from Communications Trumps to their client King Salmon in Blenheim which they
publicised in the media. King Salmon were conducting genetic engineering work to produce transgenic salmon that would
grow much faster than standard fish. However the fish developed inexplicable deformities which Trumps advised King
Salmon "should be kept under wraps" and "should not be mentioned to anyone outside…"
Communications Trumps have also launched legal proceedings against Radio New Zealand following Kim Hill’s comments about
their advice to King Salmon. It is interesting to note that Communications Trumps also managed the pro-genetic
engineering lobby group Genepool, which is partially funded by both Monsanto and the New Zealand taxpayer. However this
contract between Trumps and Genepool was terminated shortly after the King Salmon revelations.
Genepool are promoted as an independent body set up to provide impartial advice to interested parties on gene
technology. However this façade didn't prevent almost every meeting of their national speaking tour being picketed by
protestors last year.
The good news
Given that so much money has been sunk into the promotion of genetic engineering, people should perhaps hardly be
surprised at the lengths governments and corporations will go to protect their enormous investments. While the methods
used are often aggressive and unethical, consumers and the public can take heart that those with vested interests feel
so threatened as to make these methods necessary.
The truth is that the companies like Monsanto who promote this technology didn't expect a fraction of the public
backlash, and they now must be extremely worried. Already giant companies like Nestle UK and Unilever have made
commitments to source GE-free food for their products and, on a national level, both the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing
Board and the New Zealand Apple and Pear Marketing Board have distanced themselves from genetic engineering and promised
to market only GE-free fruit.
On top of that our Prime Minister has done a massive U-turn over consumers right to know what they eat and just last
month an organic fish farm set itself up in the Marlborough area - in direct competition with King Salmon and their
deformed transgenic fish. The battle lines are increasingly being drawn - organic, natural and proven safe or
engineered, for profits with no guarantees.
Consumer resistance is paying off and, in the process, is proving more powerful than the combined might of governments,
massive corporations and dodgy public relations firms. The public are seeing through the self-serving PR and recognising
the threats that this technology may pose to our health and to our environment. There is no question that humans are
rejecting the genetic engineering of their life source. The question is, are we too late?