Eco Crime and Genetically Modiﬁed Food

File Attachment2001bb05coverv05b.jpg

Eco Crime and Genetically Modied Food

The GM debate has been ongoing for over a decade, yet it has beencontained in the scientic world and presented in technical terms. Eco Crimeand Genetically Modied Food brings the debates about GM food into thesocial and criminological arena.Eco Crime and Genetically Modied Food highlights the criminal and

harmful actions of state and corporate ocials. It concludes that corporateand political corruption, uncertain science, bitter public opposition, growingfarmer concern and bankruptcy, irreversible damage to biodiversity, corpo-rate monopolies and exploitation, disregard for social and cultural practices,devastation of small scale and local agricultural economies, imminent threatsto organics, weak regulation and widespread political and biotech mistrust do not provide the bases for advancing and progressing GM foods into thenext decade. Yet, with the backing of the WTO, the US and UKGovernmentsmarch on but at what cost to future generations?

Reece Walters is Professor in Criminology, and Head of the Social Policyand Criminology Department at The Open University. He has publishedwidely on the politics and governance of criminological knowledge, includingDeviant Knowledge Criminology, Politics and Policy and Critical Thinkingabout the Uses of Research (with Tim Hope).

Eco Crime and GeneticallyModied Food

Reece Walters

First published 2011by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

A GlassHouse book

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

2011 Reece Walters

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced orutilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, nowknown or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in anyinformation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication DataA Catalogue record for this book has been requested

ISBN13: 978-1-904-38522-6 (hbk)ISBN13: 978-0-203-84415-1 (ebk)

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledgescollection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

ISBN 0-203-84415-7 Master e-book ISBN

For someone who lived through times of both food scarcity andabundance; someone who mediated, nurtured and cherished rela-tionships through a deep understanding of the cultural signicanceof food.

Hilda Irene Lacy (19062000)

Contents

Acknowledgements viii

Introduction: planting the seed 1

1 The politicisation of GM: terrain, terms and concepts 7

2 The perils, prospects and controversies of GM food 23

3 Risk, public opinion and consumer resistance 51

4 Biotech, papal and trade wars: third world hunger,exploitation and the politics of GM food 64

5 Regulatory regimes: ensuring safety or enhancing prots? 79

6 Green criminology: power, harm and (in)justice 104

Reections and conclusions 123

Appendix: methodological considerations 126Bibliography 130Index 159

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the British Academy for a small grant that funded aeld trip to Zambia and to the Carnegie Trust that supported interview andarchival research in Italy and the UK. To the 19 participants in Zambiawho I interviewed for this book, and who cannot be named, I am indebtedto your willingness to speak to me at length under dicult circumstances insuch an open and forthcoming manner.To Laura Piacentini, Jackie Tombs, Dave Whyte, Barbara Hudson,

Phil Scraton, John Muncie, Louise Westmarland, Deb Drake and Abi Rowe,Steve Tombs, Janet Newman and John Clarke your voices echo in manypages and your support, guidance and personal encouragement is greatlyappreciated. To my mentor Professor W.G. (Kit) Carson always with me.To Geo Baxter and sta at the National Archive in Kew Gardens in

London for their courteous and impeccable service in retrieving documentsfrom far and wide. Many thanks also to Colin Perrin from Routledge for hispatience and belief in the project. To Wills T-W for meticulous proof-reading;I owe you a banquet of baguettes! Special thanks to Mike Presdee (who is nolonger with us) for support and intellectual inspiration throughout manyyears of long friendship.Moreover no project is ever completed without the intellectual and emo-

tional support of those closest to you. To Steve, Lisa, Stephanie and LewisHolman for a very special friendship. And to Gen, Lachie, Wills, Cath, Don,Gabriel, Francesca, Dav and Lucy for all the things that matter most.Finally, to Georgie, without whom this book would never have been

written.

IntroductionPlanting the seed

GM food has nothing to do with food and nothing to do with the worldshungry, it is about the power of certain companies to corner a large part ofthe worlds food supply with unprecedented prots not seen before in humanhistory This whole story [in Britain] is really the complete domination andtriumph of organized industry over an utterly disorganized and pulverizeddemocratic political practice where the regulatory regime is xed to conform towhat industry will tolerate.

(Michael Meacher MP, former Minister of State for theEnvironment, interviewed 8 November 2006)

In years to come, what will be remembered about these present times?The war in Gaza, the Credit Crunch, bank bailouts, the worst stockmaketcrash since the Great Depression, Barak Obamas victory as the 44thPresident of the United States, or Swine Flu. Or will it be rememberedfor the one thing aecting the very existence of millions of people the foodcrisis, or what has been termed the silent tsunami (The Economist, April2008). I suspect not the latter at least not in the minds of the auent Westwhere such issues fail to resonate in the memories of those whose materialand fundamental needs are met in abundance. Indeed the World HealthOrganization reports that 1.6 billion men, women and children worldwideare overweight with 400 million adults obese such gures represent theexcesses of the West. Yet, Western governments and corporations are deeplyembroiled and embedded in the contexts, politics and resources that give riseto the circumstances and solutions surrounding food shortage and worldhunger. Towards the end of 2009, when industrial nations were reportinga rise out of recession, announcements were made by the worlds richestcountries to slash $US 2 billion in food aid. The head of the World FoodAid Programme, Rosette Sheeran, warned that such cuts could result in theloss of a generation (quoted in Vidal, 2009a).The globalisation of ination and rising food prices, combined with

debt, poverty and civil war have conspired to produce 850 million people onthe brink of starvation (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United

Nations, 2006 and 2009). The United Nations Secretary-General has warnedthat food production needs to rise by 50% by the year 2030 to meet therising demand (Ban Ki Moon, 2008). In contrast, Tristram Stuarts com-pelling book Waste Uncovering the Global Food Scandal identies howfood wastage in North America and Europe is so extensive that it could feedthe world hungry six times over. Moreover, he points to the 40 per cent of allcrops that fail in developing countries due to a lack of resources to processand store food, and not the ability to successfully grow and feed the worldshungry (Stuart, 2009).That said, food security remains a topic of international concern. Issues

about the production, sale and distribution of food are constantly called intoquestion. Such issues have included widespread condemnation of large areasof agricultural farming used for the production of biofuels feeding carsand not people and have brought into focus the ongoing immoderationof the West at the plight of impoverished people in the developing world.For some, food has become a way in which to understand contemporaryeconomic inequality, environmental crises and Western governance. Theincreasing political and social discourse around food poverty, food prices,food miles, obesity, BSE, GM, supermarket monopolies and fast food oera distinctive way in to critical discussions over the nature of globalizationand the burning human questions of our time (Andrews, 2008).The global food crisis has also reinvigorated the debate about genetically

modied (GM) food. Yet the battle lines have been drawn, and the argumentsare polarised. Indeed, the international reputation of GM technology,including research, has been reportedly placed on the bad industries blacklist alongside, and I quote, pornography, arms trade, animal experiments,human rights abuse, nuclear power, tobacco, fur and GM Research (Jamieson,2008 emphasis added). Among the dictators and pornographers are thoseengaging in genetically modied research? How and why has GM researchcome to be regarded in such a negative light? How can scientic researchever be viewed through the same lens as human rights abuse? This answer ispartly explored in this book through the lens of political economy. For some,the issue of GM food remains a poisoned chalice; while for others, it pro-vides the solution to world hunger. And why political economy? Because thescientic, social and legal discourses around the acceptance or otherwise ofGM food has more to do with issues of politics and economy than hungerand food security.Let us emphasise this point with a recent example in Britain. UK super-

markets have reportedly held secret talks to pave the way for more GMfood products to be sold in British supermarkets. The argument is not foodcrisis but cost, contending that food sourcing and labeling has become soexpensive that determining products to be GM free is driving up super-market prices (Bloxham, 2009). In other words, the GM free stance thathas reportedly preoccupied Europe for the past decade is now costing

2 Introduction

supermarkets, and more importantly, consumers vast amounts of money.Supermarkets, with the ministerial and Defra backing, are arguing that theincreasing production of GM maize and soya is making it dicult and costlyto source non-GM products. As a result, a re-education of the public onaccepting GM food and embracing GM technology is called for (Hickman,2009). This call, which emphasises a slow but increasing public support ofGM food (FSA, 2009c), has been preceded by earlier government reportsthat have questioned the value of organic foods and highlighted the pesti-cides in commercially grown products all in an attempt to subtlety putGM back on the public and political agenda (FSA, 2009). Chapter threeexamines this further and identies how public opinion has been manipu-lated to endorse a pre-determined pro-GM government policy.The opening quotation to this book from Michael Meacher serves as a

powerful reminder of the ways in which corporate enterprise can sometimesclash with, and dominate, public political and media opinion. Yet that isjust one piece of the puzzle. The production of GM food and its associatedGM technologies is a complex web of actors and actants involving multipledimensions of power, harm and prot. What does this mean? It means thatGM crops are much more about diering ideologies and turf war faresthan scientic neutrality and progress. It means that a scientist, a gene, alaboratory and a seed are combined with water, soil and air to produceone of the most vexatious debates of the past 20 years which has polarisedgovernments, consumers, farmers and academics across the world. Asa criminologist wishing to develop the boundaries of the discipline, Iminterested in questioning the role that criminology might play in under-standing the complex dynamics and deadlocks of global issues includingthe international GM food debate. This project is by no means the end, butmerely the beginning. A way of suggesting that genetic engineering, an areatraditionally dominated by and reserved for the pure scientist, is centralto social scientic inquiry. Much of my focus will be on the UK, but theeldwork has necessitated eld trips to Africa, Europe, Australia and NewZealand.In the UK, genetically modied (GM) crops have been grown within

contained sites since 1987 while commercial cultivation has been partiallygranted with restrictions.1 Recent media has warned that Britain also facesfood shortages and that we must embrace GM crops through agriculturalreform (Doward, 2009: 15). Such media has responded to reports fromthe Royal Institute of International Aairs suggesting that the UK is notimmune from the global food crisis and must reconsider its GM options andre-open the GM debate (Ambler-Edwards et al., 2009). This will comeas good news for pro-GM advocates and the UK Government. Yet, as thisbook details, the GM debate has not been a debate; and the public opinionopposing GM crops has been sidelined and usurped. It should be remem-bered that the UK Governments decision to commercially grow GM crops

Introduction 3

in Britain was taken three years ago, well before any suggestion of foodshortages in the UK and during a period of intense public and politicalopposition.Issues about the safety of GM food have routinely been catapulted to front

page status with, for example, allegations that the UK Governments foodwatchdog, the Food Standards Agency, had permitted Morrisons to sell abrand of GM rice banned in the United States. The Shadow EnvironmentSecretary, Mr Peter Ainsworth referred to this particular incident and thelikelihood that British consumers were consuming illegal GM products asa massive scandal, involving a government cover up (Lean, 2006: 1). ThePrince of Wales has also publicly accused the biotech industry of conductinga gigantic experiment with nature with GM crops that were an absolutedisaster (Randall, 2008: 1). Corruption, scandal, disaster, bankruptcy,contamination and exploitation are just some of the terms that have beenwidely used to describe government and corporate involvement in the pro-duction of GM foods. There is no doubting that the introduction of geneticor living modied organisms to the worlds food chain has divided thepeople including the worlds hungry. Emerging from international discourseson genetically modied organisms are issues of commerce, health and safety,environment, politics and science and technology, as well as illegal, unethicaland harmful practices.As already mentioned, millions of people worldwide suer from mal-

nutrition and starvation. For some, international hunger is a humanitariancrisis, for others, it is a commercial opportunity. The political economy offood and hunger is a long established debate (Harle, 1978), and the emergingdiscourses about GM food and its development and consumption mustbe seen as an extension of the politics of humanitarian relief, free tradeand sustainable development. Within these discourses are issues of economichegemony and the politics of world trade; as Mulvany (2004) argues, thosewith power, particularly the United States, have used hunger as justicationfor trade supremacy and the promotion of genetically modied (GM) cropsowned by northern multinational corporations much to the delight of pro-GMadvocates.The international commercial growth of GM crops is steadily rising. An

estimated 21 countries are reported to be commercially growing GM cropsacross 90 million hectares of land. As a result, 39 countries across ve con-tinents have reported GM contamination to their environment (Genewatch,2008). The production and sale of GM food remains an issue of intenseconict in global trade as issues of health, the environment, economics andconsumer protection are widely contested. While biotech corporations (andgovernments) reposition and rebrand themselves as green and eco-friendlyand promote what is referred to as the second wave of GM crops (wherethe emphasis has shifted from food to medicines and biofuels), publicopposition to GMOs remains strong.

4 Introduction

Structure and content

Chapter one charts the terrain under study and identies what is and whatis not GM food. It explores the denition, meanings and usages of GMfood. It identies conceptual analyses through eco crime which integratesdiscourses of power, harm and political economy to examine GM food.Chapter two synthesises the existing international research on the benetsand dangers of GM food. The aim of this chapter is to question the hege-mony of scientic fact and present the disparate ndings on the risks anddangers of GM technologies and food products as well as the reportedbenets. This will include a critique of the research relating to human healthand safety; the reported solutions to world hunger; the risks of geneticpollution; the reported demise of alternative farming techniques; economicexploitation; disputes over intellectual property; the rights and abuses ofindigenous peoples as well as further ethical and legal dilemmas. Chapterthree introduces the public voice and identies how public opinion hasinuenced or been sidelined in debates about GM food. Chapter fourexamines the actions of the US Governments trade war on the EuropeanCommission and its illegal actions towards third world countries, notablyeconomic bribery and what has been referred to as the dumping of GMfood in Africa. It will also critique the actions of biotech companies inpatenting indigenous plant life in Africa or bio-prospecting as well asexamining the use of PR rms to favourably present GM technologiesto impoverished and starving countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Chapterve provides an overview of the laws and regulatory regimes in the UK andabroad. It examines both international environmental law and British foodlaw covering GM food. It also charts the historical antecedents of events anddecisions that culminated in the early years of law and policy relating toGMOs. Chapter six explores Green Criminology within notions of power,harm and justice. Moreover, it will also examine the politics of dening andassessing risk, the regulation of knowledge and the politics of power in thegovernance of world GM food markets. Finally, the reections and conclu-sions provide a reexive account of GM food and look ahead to its futureplace in international trade. It will also examine various future strategies andoption for international regulation and environmental justice.

Concluding comment

In 1983, the Australian criminologist, Professor Richard Harding asked,what do criminology and criminologists do to decrease the chances of theextinction of mankind and the destruction of the planet? (1983: 82). Hard-ings work on nuclear proliferation asserted that criminology must movebeyond local issues and become a global enterprise that engages with issuesof international signicance. As a result, we should ask what criminology

Introduction 5

can oer discourses about issues that threaten the planet. This emphasisprovided the impetus for this book: to shift the criminological lens to includeharms of ecological and global concern and to critique actions that adverselyeect nature and humanity. Given that human and environmental existencerequires fundamental ingredients for survival, namely, food, water and air,green criminologists should construct research proles that encapsulate theseareas. In doing so, it is important to further the cause of what Elliot Curriehas recently referred to as a public criminology. For him, this includesone that takes as part of its dening mission a more vigorous, systematicand eective intervention in the world of social policy and social action(2007: 176). This book seeks to interact and engage with intellectual, poli-tical and public voices to stimulate debate about GM food, an issue ofongoing environmental and human concern.The GM debate has been ongoing for over a decade, yet as Mayer (2002: 2)

points out, it has been contained in the scientic and industrial communitiesand couched in technical and scientic terms alone when the social, culturaland ethical challenges are enormous. This book aims to bring the debatesabout GM food into the social and criminological arena. It examines thelegal and ethical dilemmas that surround this new food source and examinesthe controversies that surround its production. It also seeks to shift theexisting discourse to include eco crime where corporate and state illegalitiesand harms are seen as crimes and not as mere scares or scandals. Itquestions the existing legal regimes in the UK and abroad and proposesinitiatives for regulation and environmental justice. Finally, this book iden-ties that GM food has little to do with feeding people and much to do withcorporate power and prot.

Note1 The government decision to authorise the commercial growth of GM crops in theUK in 2009 was taken in 2004 at the height of public and European opposition.Defra has since reported that uncertain science regarding safety and biotechindustry hesitancy is the reason for preventing commercial crop rollout, weagreed in principle to the commercial cultivation of the GM maize grown in thetrials, subject to certain conditions. In any event, Bayer CropScience subsequentlyannounced that they would not in fact market this particular GM maize variety(Defra, 2008).

6 Introduction

Chapter 1

The politicisation of GMTerrain, terms and concepts

Introduction

The globalisation of food has changed the way we eat and shop. A visit toany supermarket across the UK in mid-winter may result in the purchase ofShamouti oranges from Israel; savoy cabbage from France; Angeleno plumsfrom Australia; alpine nectarines from South Africa; aromatic ginger fromBrazil; asparagus tips from Peru; freshly picked blueberries from Poland;onions from Argentina; bananas from Cameroon; beans from Zambia; and soon. Such purchases have become routine daily consumer practice. Food is aglobal industry where items from around the world are transported swiftly toour supermarket shelves or discarded all in the name of consumer choice andfreshness. Consider the following advertising of Upper Crust, a multi-nationalbaguette and coee chain established in 1986:

Fanatical about freshness! We are obsessed with ensuring you get thefreshest baguette around thats why after 3 hours we throw them away. Webelieve we are the only people that do this. Thats how fanatical we are.

So much for the worlds starving! In the auent West, perfectly ediblethree hour old food can be discarded as waste. There is nothing new in this.It has been estimated that the United States wastes up to 50 per cent of itsoverall food supply (Harrison, 2004). In Britain alone, it is estimated thatdiscarded food in households, supermarkets and restaurants could possiblyfeed 113 million people annually (Stuart, 2009). While some of this wastageis related to health and safety regulations and household excess, it is alsoabout corporate prot and the marketing of freshness and consumer choice.It is only recently that leading supermarket chains have begun to utilise theirfood waste for renewable energies and biofuels (Sti and Ford, 2009).Foods from near and far ll our supermarket trolleys, stack the pantries of

our global kitchens often within a non-critical and hedonistic vacuum. Yet,the production of food is an industry rife with illegal and harmful actions.As a result, food crime is an emerging area of criminological scholarship

(Croall, 2006; Walters, 2007). The pollution created from long-distancetransportation, the erosion of soils, the sale of contaminated meat, the illegaluse of chemicals, the exploitation of farm workers, the use of fraudulentmarketing practices and the aggressive trade policies of governments andcorporations are some of the areas involving unethical and illegal behaviourin Britain and abroad (Mathieson, 2006; Lawrence, 2004; Lang and Heasman,2004). Such issues have found a voice in discourses on food security andregulation but little has been written in criminology. Unlawful food tradingpractices have been constructed within notions of risk and presented asfood scandals and not food crimes. This book aims to redress the focusby concentrating on one area of the food crime debate, namely the use ofgenetics in food production or what is now commonly referred to as GMfood. It examines the political economy of GM food within criminologicalcontexts of state, corporate and transnational crime (Green and Ward, 2004;Tombs and Whyte, 2003; Ruggerio, 2000), and within discourses of harm(Hillyard et al., 2004).Elsewhere, I have explored the use of genetics in food production and

examined the exploitation of hunger, the monopolisation of GM technologiesand the aggressive trade policies of Western governments and corporations(see Walters, 2004 and 2006). This book further examines global dimensionsto GM food through an examination of eco crime. In doing so, we need tomove beyond what Bruno Latour refers to a punctionlist assessment of ourfood production to one that investigates broader networks of connectivity(discussed later).

GM food terms, denitions and techniques

Before embarking upon a discussion of what we do and dont know aboutthe risks, harms and potential benets of GM food, it is important toestablish what is and what is not genetically modied food. It is widelyacknowledged that human beings have been involved in selective and naturalbreeding of plants and animals for thousands of years. However, it was notuntil the Darwin-inspired Augustinian monk Gregor Mendels 1866 workwith garden peas, bees and mice that the scientic world was presented withthe laws of genetic inheritance. Through breeding round with wrinkled peasand peas from green pods with those from yellow ones, he was able toascertain that colour, height and shape are determined by certain dominantor recessive factors, subsequently called genes (Orel, 1996).The subsequent developments in biotechnology and plant genetics have

been well documented elsewhere (see Bud, 1994; Lurquin, 2002; Federoand Brown, 2004). It is a history that conveys, inter alia, the exploits of sci-entists and their quest to understand theories of natural and articial selec-tion, the laws of inheritance, the chemical processes of chromosomalcombinations as well as the yet unsolved mysteries of apomictic or asexual

8 Eco crime and GM food

reproduction in plants and animals. From Louis Pasteurs nineteenth centurydiscoveries with microbes and fermentation to Berg and Boyers work withinsulin and to enzyme cultures for dairy produce, genetic knowledge hasbeen used to advance scientic, medical and food technologies. That said,it was not until 1983 that tobacco became the rst fully transgenic plant tosuccessfully grow with foreign genes. Moreover, while eld trials of GMcrops had occurred throughout Europe and the North America during thelate 1980s and early 1990s, it was not until 1994 that the rst GM foodproduct was approved for public consumption. The long-life tomato (FlavrSavr) was developed by Calgene and accepted by the US Food and DrugAdministration. While lacking commercial success, it provided the impetusfor commercial farming of GM potatoes, soybean and canola that wereresistant to insects and fungal diseases (Paarlberg, 2001).Genetic engineering or modication is a scientic process designed to

manipulate the genetic makeup of cells. It involves the unnatural alteration ofDNA and RNA from one organism and its transfer into the cells of anotherorganism. Genetically modied organisms (GMO) may be animals, plantsor micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses. For some scholars, geneticmodication is so anatural, that it should be termed genetic mutilation(see Ho, 1998; Anderson, 2004).The unnatural character of genetically modied organisms was determined

in the pivotal 5:4 decision in the United States Supreme Court case ofDiamond v Chakrabarty [1980]. Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, invented agenetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down various compo-nents of crude oil in the event of an oil spill. His application to the Patentand Trademark Oce to patent his genetically modied bacteria wasdeclined on the basis that naturally occurring living organisms could not bepatented. The US Supreme Court disagreed on the grounds that a geneticallymodied bacteria was not a naturally occurring phenomena but a product ofhuman invention and as such could be patented. The court argued that:

a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild isnot patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent hiscelebrated law that E = mc2; nor could Newton have patented the lawof gravity. Such discoveries are manifestations of nature, free to all menand reserved exclusively to none. Judged in this light, the respondentsmicro-organism plainly qualies as patentable subject matter. His claimis not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a non-naturallyoccurring manufacture or composition of matter a product of humaningenuity having a distinctive name, character.

Not only did this decision provide a legal denition of GMOs as non-natural incharacter but also provided the legal basis upon which biotech corporationscould develop and patent their organisms (Hughes et al., 2002).

The politicisation of GM 9

Similar denitions of GMOs to that established in the above case wereadopted in the rst Royal Commission on Genetic Modication whichdened genetic modication as the use of genetic engineering techniquesin a laboratory, being a use that involves:

the deletion, multiplication, modication, or moving of genes within aliving organism; or

the transfer of genes from one organism to another; orthe modication of existing genes or the construction of novel genes andtheir incorporation in any organism; or

the utilisation of subsequent generations or ospring of organisms modiedby any of the activities described above

(Royal Commission on Genetic Modication, 2001: 366).

This denition is reected in the UK Environmental Protection Act (1990)as Part VI denes a genetically modied organism when:

any of the genes or other genetic material in the organism (a) have beenmodied by means of an articial technique prescribed in regulations bythe Secretary of State; or (b) are inherited or otherwise derived, throughany number of replications, from genes or other genetic material whichwere so modied.

It is also reected in European Environmental Law at Article 2 of theDeliberate Release Directive 90/220 which denes genetic modicationorganisms as those that do not occur naturally by mating and/or naturalrecombination. Therefore, both national and international law has assertedthe articial and human intervention aspects to GMOs that emphasiseunnatural characteristics of these organisms and the manipulative processesthat produce them.Various techniques and processes are used to achieve the desired genetic

alteration of a plant. Gene guns were developed in the 1980s to physicallytransfer DNA particles from one organism or culture. This method hasbeen advanced with the use of marker genes that identify the transferredDNA and permit more systematic tracking of gene performance. Theseantibiotic resistant marker genes are used to control the functioning offoreign genes and bring with them their own risks and uncertainties(Nottingham, 2003). The gene altered state of a commercially grown crop isintended to make it both herbicide tolerant and insect resistant. Herbicidetolerant plants can ourish while all other surrounding plants (mostly weeds)are destroyed by poisonous sprays such as Roundup produced by Mon-santo and Bayer-Aventis ammonium gluphosinate herbicide (Toke, 2004).Insect resistant crops (often referred to as Bt crops after the bacteriumbacillus thuringiensis) secrete a toxin that kills various species of predatory


insects. With the threat of weeds and bugs eliminated by the self-defencesof the GM crop, the yield of the harvest is maximised. The creation ofherbicide tolerant and insect resistant plants occurs from the insertion ofa foreign gene into the chromosomal make-up of a crop seed. For many,like the agricultural biotech giant Monsanto, this process is simply anextension of traditional plant breeding. Monsanto claims that geneticmanipulation in the human food chain is not new. For example, Monsantoswebsite states:

[w]hat has come to be called biotechnology and the genetic manipula-tion of agricultural products is nothing new. Indeed, it may be one of theoldest human activities. For thousands of years, from the time humancommunities began to settle in one place, cultivate crops and farm theland, humans have manipulated the genetic nature of the crops andanimals they raise. Crops have been bred to improve yields, enhancetaste and extend the growing season.

(Monsanto, 2006a)

The Monsanto interpretation of GM plant technologies as nothing new ismisleading (see Leeder, 1999). To suggest that GM plant technology is anextension of traditional breeding is akin to saying that nuclear power ismerely a hybrid of solar energy. As mentioned above, the scientic process ofgenetic modication diers from traditional forms of plant breeding in thatforeign genes are inserted into the DNA make-up of plants and animals.Traditional plant breeding occurs through the trial and error of cross geneticexperimentation from the same gene pool. The genes of the same species ofplants are mixed to create hybrids with newly created characteristics. WithGM technologies the new or desirable traits or characteristics are achievedthrough inserting alien genes from a dierent species of animal or plant. Itis this insertion of a foreign gene into an organism that has produceduncertainty and controversy as the biochemical and physiological eectsremain unknown.In Britain, GM food technologies operate in contained use (laboratories

that require secure access) where control measures are designed to enhancehuman safety environment protection. Such scientic measures involvethe insertion of genes into micro-organisms that have been deliberatelycrippled with disabling mutations so that they will not grow outside ofthe controlled environment of a laboratory test tube (Health and SafetyExecutive, 2006 see also chapter ve). While GM crops have been grownfor research and development at undisclosed sites in England since1993, as yet, there are no commercially grown GM crops in the UK (Defra,2009c). However, GM derivatives in our, oil, soya, yeast and dairy arecontained in a variety of supermarket products and available to Britishconsumers.


Corporate power and monopoly capitalism

While consumer choice in the UK dictates the trade policies that bring out-of-season produce from around the world to our supermarket shelves, suchnotions of choice are less available when it comes to the stores from whichfood can be purchased. In March 2006, the consumer watchdog, The Oceof Fair Trading, responded to the Federation of Small Businesses concernsby proposing to refer Tesco, Asda, Morrisons and Sainsburys to theConsumer Commission for a formal inquiry into their monopoly position.In 2007, the Competition Commission identied how a number of theseleading UK supermarket outlets were squeezing farmers and factory owners(often in poor and developing countries where 7 million a day is generatedfor UK supermarkets), in what has been identied as unfair trade andabusing buying power (Melamed, 2007; Competition Commission, 2008).Moreover, the European Parliament has stated that supermarkets acrossthe EU have been abusing their positions to x prices, resulting in the UKCompetition Commission to call for tougher regulations (Attwood, 2008).In addition, the UK Competition Commission has since appointed a Super-market Ombudsman to address the buying power of leading supermarketsthat is not in the public interest (Competition Commission, 2009).In Britain, 95 billion per annum is spent on grocery shopping constituting

13 per cent of total spending for each household (Oce of Fair Trading,2008). The supermarket industry in the UK, dominated by the big four,has become an example of corporate power and market capitalism. TheCompetition Act 1998 is intended to prevent market control and promoteeconomic diversity. The detriments to consumers of monopoly capitalismin Britains major supermarket chains was recently realised with the Oce ofFair Trading having Sainsburys and Asda confess to the price xing of milk(BBC, 2007).With the production of GM products controlled by a diminishing number

of GM biotech giants, we are witnessing a growing form of monopolycapitalism (Walters, 2006: 35). The aggressive corporate policies of controlare openly acknowledged by the directors of the biotech industries. Mr RobFraley, from DuPont stated that what we are seeing is not just a consolidationof seed companies, its really a consolidation of the entire food chain(quoted in Assouline et al., 2001: 30). Such monopoly capitalism infringeshuman rights and international trade law (see Cottier et al., 2005) and isin direct opposition to the competitive and free trade policies of the WTO.Yet, it is in the WTO that the US Government sought rulings for the ongo-ing biotech hegemony in world food trade (discussed later).The overwhelming majority of GM food and its accompanying fertilisers,

seeds and herbicides are produced from four chemical corporations,namely Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Bayer (see Nottingham, 2003).Clearly GM food and genetic engineering remain big business. Yet free-trade


ideologies espoused by the WTO to enhance notions of competitive capital-ism are compromised by a status quo of monopoly capitalism. The costs toconsumers and industries when market dominance is controlled by a selectnumber of large conglomerates has been examined in discourses of corporateor elite deviance for some time (Simon and Eitzen, 1990; see also Tombsand Whyte, 2003). Such discourses remain important for understandingthe inherent dangers of market control, particularly in developing societieswhere economic vulnerabilities create opportunities for corporate exploitation.The lucrative global trade for governments and the four GM giants areessential for understanding pressures, unethical and illegal actions discussedlater in relation to Zambia. As Winston (2002: 174) argues, geneticallymodied organisms would be only an interesting academic sideline if therewas no money to be made. The heavy investments in research that have drivencorporate biotechnology would not have been forthcoming without theproduct protection provided by patents. The monopolisation of four biotechcompanies in what is commonly referred to as bio-imperialism (see Engdahl,2004) continues to mount concerns and fears within agricultural and consumergroups. Farmers, for example, remain sceptical of the motivations and tacticsof corporations that attempt to control and prot from food productionthrough the laws of patent and intellectual property (discussed later).In addition, the aggressive and unlawful business practices of the GM

giants have heightened widespread anxiety about the technology. The biotechcorporate lobbying of government ocials, the bribing and threateningof scientists, the theft, manipulation and subversion of scientic data, thestrategic placement of GM corporate employees on regulatory, funding andgovernment decision bodies have been documented and continue to raiseserious concerns about the actions and motives of the GM giants (Smith,2004). In 2007, 30 countries reported that unapproved GM rice owned bybiotech giant Bayer CropScience had entered their respected food chains(Greenpeace International, 2007). The power of transnational biotech com-panies has been permitted to exercise an unchecked reach in pursuit ofglobal trade and, as the next chapter identies, has directly inuenced andshaped knowledge in favour of pro-GM science.

Developing a conceptual framework

There are numerous legal, ethical and safety issues surrounding the produc-tion, sale and regulation of GM food products. This book integrates law,political economy, environmental studies and the sociology of harm toexamine GM food within a proposed analytic of eco crime.Environmental issues continue to capture international media headlines

and remain the subject of political and public debate. As a result, environ-mental law is currently the fastest growing area of international law (Galizziand Sands, 2004; Bodansky et al., 2007). That said, the Oxford Handbook of


International Environmental Law (2007) is the most comprehensive collectionof articles pertaining to the various areas of law that protect the environ-ment. Not a single paragraph is devoted to environmental or eco crime.While the language of precaution, liability and responsibility are used, theactions of those that harm the environment are rarely referred to as crimes.Hence, whilst law remains a leading instrument in the protection anddevelopment of environmental matters, it is only one lens through which toview and understand the complexities that link trade, politics and GM food.One of the objectives of this book, in the spirit of critical narratives, isto continue to push, integrate and critique the disciplinary boundaries ofcriminology.

Eco crime, political economy and harm

The prex eco emerges from the Greek word oikos meaning habitat, homeand the Latin oeco or household relations. Combined with the origins ofcrimen (to accuse, injure, harm see Pavich, 2000), we observe the injuriesor harms of habitat. This includes both human and non-human species andadapts a holist account of being. Ecos subsequent scientic usage in thestudy of ecology has been to understand the complex networks of evolutionand interaction involving species and their habitats. Ecology is a term oftenused synonymously, and erroneously, with the term environment. Eco istherefore used here to encapsulate both ideological understandings of ecologyand the environment and to embrace the social, political and cultural per-spectives, experiences and existences of human and non-human interactionwith changing environments.This approach emphasises Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompsons view

that the meaning of words (such as environment, crime, harm, power,etc.) should not be found in the static connes of dictionary denitions butin the social reality in which the terms evolve and are constructed. As thisbook suggests, the social realities surrounding GM food are complex, con-tentious and constantly changing. Analyses that attempt to capture rapidlyevolving events occurring locally and globally require critiquing the estab-lished tools of the trade. Eco crime is therefore an attempt to harness dif-ferent narratives to explore the contexts and vagaries that form the issuespertaining to the research, production, distribution and consumption of GMfoods. Its construction begins with a review of existing environmental law.There is no ideological reason for starting here, other than that my debatesand exchanges about environmental issues with individuals from diversebackgrounds at both national and international fora almost always com-mence with a discussion of law, politics, economics or harm the ingredientsof my eco crime perspective.When actions violate international environmental agreements or domestic

laws they are most often referred to as breaches or oences and not


crimes. From a purely legal perspective this is best explained by the fact thatenvironmental oences are often not contained within either international ormunicipal criminal law. As such they are dealt with as administrative oen-ces and prosecuted in civil jurisdictions. Such oences only become issues forthe criminal courts when oenders fail to comply with a court sanction and aresubsequently referred to a criminal court. While the language of eco crime isused (most often by activists and NGOs) it is not expressed in such terms atinternational law and only in reaction to anti-social behaviour within domesticlaw. In the United Kingdom, the Home Oce, refers to environmental crime,y-tipping, littering, grati and vandalism (Home Oce, 2007). TheHouse of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has also publishedndings on what it refers to as Corporate Environmental Crime as anyenvironmental crime that has been committed by a corporate body (Houseof Commons, 2005: 8). Interestingly, the corporate environmental crimesreferred to by the House of Commons do not include transnational issuesmentioned above, but include issues to do with water, sewerage and landllthat are dealt with in British civil and criminal courts. As a result, manycountries see environmental crimes as acts of civilian disorder and not actsof serious environmental degradation caused by international corporations.The international law, including EU law does not dene what an eco

crime is. Interpol (2007) divides environmental crime into pollution andwildlife crime, comprising the illegal disposal of waste that contaminatesair, water and land and the unlawful trade in endangered species. These twobroad categories are further expanded upon by the United Nations Inter-regional Crime and Justice Institutes (UNICRI) which focuses on crimesagainst the environment prohibited by international law. UNICRI cate-gorises crimes against the environment as illegal trade in wildlife and ozone-depleting substances, dumping and illegal transport of various kinds ofhazardous waste, illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) shing andlogging (Hayman and Brack, 2002: 5).Eco crimes covered under the above legislation have been identied as a

$US 10 billion industry per annum (Environmental Investigation Agency,2008). Such is the expanding nature of this subject covered under interna-tional and national environmental law that it has necessitated the integrationof diverse expertise and knowledges that must include criminology. With newlaws emerge new regulations and new oences. Eco crime, therefore, must bean important area within a global criminology (see Aas, 2007). As discussedearlier, in an evolving discipline, criminologists must constantly be askingwhat criminology has to oer issues, debates and actions that threatenthe preservation of the planet. In doing so, this book argues that theharms associated with the sale and production of GM foods constitutes ecocrimes. In saying this I recognise the self-imposed trap that criminologists layfor themselves, notably a compulsion to shoehorn areas into the crimin-ological lexicon. To avoid the shoehorn is to render the topic potentially


not criminological. It is not an issue that confronts the sociologist in quitethe same way. As a sociologist I can write a book about the perils, prospectsand controversies of genetically modied food without feeling the need tolegitimate my topic as sociological. Yet, as a criminologist, there is theuneasy self-imposed requirement to organise ones topic so it connects neatlywith established denitions of crime. This is clearly an ongoing legacy thatresonates with criminologys origins as an academic discipline and its currentdevelopments as an enterprise that continues to be dominated by state denedconcepts of crime and illegality.Throughout this book the term eco crime will be used in preference to

environmental crime. There are several reasons for this. First, environ-mental crime is a government term that has been constructed and used todene specic disorder type oences such as property and anti-social behav-iour. While these acts clearly have social and environmental impacts, they areminiscule when compared to damage caused by large companies and gov-ernments of the powerful who intentionally or negligently contaminate anddestroy the natural environment. Second, environmental crime unfortunatelyremains wedded or misinterpreted as those acts conned to environmentalcriminology (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1981; Bottoms and Wiles,2002; Wortley et al., 2008). Throughout the past ve years while speaking atconferences and seminars or in communication with colleagues throughoutEurope, Australia and North America, the term environmental crime hasbeen interpreted as crime mapping or charting the spatial and geographicaloccurrence of crimes involving violence, drugs, property, and other variousstreet-type oences. While recent bold attempts have been made by criticaland green criminologists to reclaim the term environmental criminology toexplore corporate and state acts of environmental harm (see White, 2008 and2009), such movements remain overshadowed by dominant discourses thatrefer to the urban geography of criminal acts. Third, environmental crime,while adopting the term crime, is viewed and dealt with as an adminis-trative oence, if it is dealt with at all (Walters, 2009).Eco crime is a term that seeks to harness existing illegalities or environ-

mental oences dened by municipal and international law, but also inte-grate diverse discourses to explore harms against, humans, non-humansand the natural environment. Others before me have situated eco crimewithin domestic and international legal frameworks arguing that it is anunathorised act or omission that violates the law and is therefore subject tocriminal prosecution and criminal sanction (Situ and Emmons, 2000: 3).Many such violations are reected in the growing number of domestic lawsas well as international environmental protocols, treaties and conventionsthat provide legal mandates that prohibit a range of activities identied ashazardous and deleterious to global ecosystems.Other denitions locate eco crime within acts of environmental harm

not necessarily covered in legal statute. As a result, environmental harm,


constructed from various philosophical perspectives, extends the denitionof eco crime beyond legal codes to licensed or lawful acts of ecologicaldegradation committed by states and corporations. For Westra (2004: 309)eco crime is unprovoked aggression, committed in the pursuit of other goalsand necessities such as economic advantage. Westras work extends thedenition of eco crime beyond ecological degradation to human health,global security and justice. She suggests that eco crimes committed by gov-ernments and corporations in pursuit of free trade or progress are attacks onthe human person that deprive civilians (notably the poor) from the social,cultural and economic benets of their environment. As a result, eco crime isan act of violence and should be viewed as a human rights violation as citi-zens are deprived of freedoms and liberties. The diversity of subject mattercovered under both international and national environmental law, and withinnotions of environmental harm, has necessitated the integration of diverseexpertise and knowledges including criminology (Walters, 2009). Withincriminological studies, debates about eco crime have emerged within dis-courses on state and corporate crime or crimes of the powerful and withindeveloping debates of green criminology (Carribine, et al., 2004; Lynch andStretesky, 2003; South and Beirne, 1998).Eco crimes must also be contextualised within broader notions of social

justice and exclusion. For example, individuals who experience the adverseaects of illegal toxic dumping are often the poor and marginalised. As aresult, eco crimes must also intersect with discourses of political economy,race and class in order to understand environmental victimology and ecolo-gical justice (Cullinan, 2003). Moreover, it is important to recognise that ecocrimes involve harms to humans, non-humans and the natural environmentthat require analyses involving violence, power and justice (discussed later).In addition, it must be noted that the European Court of Human Rights hasruled that all member states and their subjects have a right to a safe envi-ronment (Mularoni, 2003). Actions that prevent, jeopardise or compromisethis right require critical assessment within discourses of harm and law.As others have noted, harm is a diverse concept involving acts that pertain

to physical, psychological, nancial and social injury (Hillyard et al., 2004).The concept of environmental harm has been mainly discussed outsidecriminological discourses with a few notable exceptions (South, 1998; Halseyand White, 1998; Beirne, 1999; Stretesky and Lynch, 2003; Halsey, 2006;White, 2008). As White accurately notes, debates about environmental harmhave hinged on constructions of environmental problems. Who constructsthe problem? Historically, it has been scientists, activists and the media.However, as this book identies, the public and the corporate are also crucialplayers in shaping and dening environment. Halsey (2006) meticulouslyreviews the intellectual traditions that shape existing notions of environmentalproblems or harms. He rightly observed that liberal ecology, ecomarxism,ecofeminism, deep ecology and social ecology have been pivotal narratives


for understanding the interactions between human, non-humans and nature,and the various perspectives of environmental protection, development andregulation (such narratives are explored further in chapter ve).Halsey and White (1998) also note that it must be recognised that envi-

ronmental harm is often publicly and politically accepted as necessary formaintaining human well-being. As a result, it is essential to inculcate dis-courses in political economy to analyse and understand the ways thatnotions of harm, risk and justice are mediated between publics, governmentpolicy and corporate and agricultural practice. Such approaches have anestablished tradition within discourses on crime and justice (Chambliss,1964; Pearce, 1973; Hay, 1975; Carson, 1980; Taylor, 1992). From these tra-ditions the current analyses integrate political decision-making, economicand technological change, quality of life (see Taylor, 1998) with environ-mental conservation and development. There are environmental costs inensuring that people have the resources and technologies to enhance theirlives. For example, transporting oil for use in commercial and personalmachinery and vehicles can result in devastating ocean spills; factories thatsupply products for our furnishing and building needs may produce alar-mingly dangerous levels of pollutant air emissions; timber from rainforestsand native woodlands for housing and construction result in the destructionof habitats and essential biodiversity; and factories which produce buildingmaterials, clothing or food often burn-o or release toxic chemicals into ourwaterways and the atmosphere that not only compromise soil and waterquality while destroying numerous species of ora and fauna but alsoadversely eect human health. Can human beings maintain high standardsof living without compromising the integrity of the environment? Are thetwo ever compatible? (Walters, 2009).

Corporate exploitation, liability and prosecution

Governments and transnational corporations whether intentionally or negli-gently, contaminate and destroy the natural environment in the courseof trade and development.1 As Reiman (1979) has succinctly argued in hisclassic text The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, the more likely itis for a particular form of crime to be committed by middle and upper-class people, the less likely it is that it will be treated as a criminal oence(cited in Carribine et al., 2004:77).In relation to GM food there have been a number of high prole prose-

cutions involving the powerful. In December 2006, Syngenta Seeds wasned $US 1.5 million by the United States Environmental Protection Agencyfor distributing an unregistered and contaminated GM seed to farmers (GrainNet, 2006). The same Swiss multinational corporation has recently had aBrazilian governor sign a decree to expropriate land from an agribusinessgiant for illegally planting 12 hectares of GM soybean. Moreover, it


was ned $US 465,000, an amount the corporation has yet to pay (Keneld,2006). In January 2005, the US biotechnology and agrochemical giant,Monsanto, agreed to pay $US 1.5 million in nes for bribing an Indonesianocial. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission led twoenforcement proceedings against Monsanto under the Foreign CorruptPractices Act for illegal payments to a senior environment ocial in anattempt to have the Indonesian Government repeal policies that were unfa-vourable to Monsanto products (United States Securities and ExchangeCommission, 2005). The Department of Justice has agreed to dismiss itscriminal case if Monsanto conforms to all the regulations and close mon-itoring proposed within a deferred prosecution arrangement. (US Depart-ment of State, 2005; cf. BBC News, 2005) This is not the rst time thatMonsanto has been embroiled in corporate scandal and illegality over itsGM practices. In 2003, it paid $US 63,000 for undisclosed violationsinvolving the testing of genetically modied crops. Since 1990 the biotechcompany has admitted that in 44 separate cases, it has breached governmentlaws regulating the testing of gene-altered crops (Gillis, 2002). Moreover, inwhat is the largest class action in legal history, more than 6.5 million farmersin India are requesting that they join the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), anaction against Monsanto before the Indian Supreme Court for the widespreadcontamination of elds by GM crops (OCA, 2007).2

Furthermore, the aggressive trade practices of Monsanto have beendescribed as an assault on US farmers. The US Center for Food Safety hasidentied that Monsanto continues to exploit patent law and has beenawarded in excess of $US 15,000,000 from farmers from successful litigation(Culp, 2005). More than 100 lawsuits launched by Monsanto have resultedin numerous farmer bankruptcies. Mr Andrew Kimbrell, executive directorof the Center for Food Safety has stated:

These lawsuits and settlements are nothing less than corporate extortionof American farmers. Monsanto is polluting American farms withits genetically engineered crops, not properly informing farmers aboutthese altered seeds, and then proting from its own irresponsibility andnegligence by suing innocent farmers.

(Kimbell quoted in Culp, 2005)

Much of the litigation has been lodged after the decision in the Supreme Courtin Canada case of Monsanto v Schmeiser [2004] which held that patent lawshould supersede property rights. In this case Monsanto sued a farmer forusing their GM canola seed products without a license. The respondentclaimed that the GM seeds from a neighbouring property had transferredand contaminated his crops. The court ruled that even though the GM seedspolluted the respondents crops he was not entitled to use a seed variety thathad been patented under the Patent Act 1985. This has been deemed a


landmark case in farmer liability and transgenic contamination with broaderimplications for patent protection and biosafety regulation (see Cullett,2005). Not only is this a landmark case for patent law but also for issues ofeco-sovereignty. This issue has recently received international attention withthe Kenyan Government pursuing a multi-million dollar bio-piracy lawsuitagainst US biotech company Genencor for patenting and genetically mod-ifying an organism found in the lakes of Kenyas Rift Valley which has beenused by the corporation as both a fabric softener and for its ability to eatindigo dye from jeans. The faded jean fashion has become a multi-milliondollar world-wide industry, and the Kenyan Government is claiming thatits bio-diversity has been forcibly taken and patented without consent andsubsequently used for massive commercial prot (Barnett, 2004).The illegal planting or selling of GM produce has been widely docu-

mented. In 2000, GM Starlink corn, a food product prohibited for humanconsumption because of its allergens and subsequently used for animal feedonly, was discovered by Friends of the Earth in taco shells sold in super-markets. Hundreds of consumers experienced allergic reactions, yet the Foodand Drug Administration in the United States relied upon assessments fromscientists employed by the manufacturer to determine the culpability of pro-teins contained in the Starlink (Smith, 2004). Further accounts of hundredsof tons of illegal GM corn entered food produced by Syngenta in Europeand China have further identied the inadequacies of self-regulation uponwhich GM products, notably in the US, are based (see Rees, 2005). More-over, the unwillingness of powerful states and corporations to comply withinternational food regulations has resulted in illegal GM food recentlyentering markets in Britian. For example, in August 2006 the geneticallymodied LLRice 601 produced by the German biotech company BayerCropScience was identied in rice imported to Britain from the US. TheUnited States Department for Agriculture acknowledged that this particularGM rice variety had not been approved for sale in the US, yet it had beenconsumed in the UK without consumer and British Government knowledgefor the past three years. In 2004 alone, the UK imported 82, 625 tons of ricefrom the US. As a result, many environmental groups have called on agovernment ban of all US rice products (Vidal, 2006).In 2009, farmers and consumer groups successfully brought a case against

the US Department of Agricultures Animal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS) for violating federal law. The regulatory agency had failedto prepare environmental impact statements before deregulating geneticallyaltered sugar beets (Gillam, 2009). Therefore, it is important to note that thepolitical economy of GM food and the laws pertaining to its production andsale provide necessary contexts for understanding the ways in which statesand corporations bypass existing regulations (see Walters, 2007).Finally, when we move beyond existing legal regimes and contextualise

eco crime within notions of harm (see Hillyard et al., 2004) we observe that


the range of risks associated with GM foods including its cultivation, pro-duction, consumption and trade become matters for criminological enquiry.For example, antibiotic resistance, allergenic reactions, genetic pollution,the creation of superweeds and the degradation of ecosystems (see chaptertwo) are all areas of reported harm caused by the use of transgenic foodtechnologies.

Concluding comment

In 1971 during his debate with Noam Chomsky on Human Nature: Justiceversus Power, Michel Foucault identied the relationship between power,culture and the construction of knowledge using the developments in medicalpractice as an example.

Let me take a very simple example, which I will not analyse, but whichis this: How was it possible that men began, at the end of the eighteenthcentury, for the rst time in the history of Western thought and ofWestern knowledge, to open up the corpses of people in order to knowwhat was the source, the origin, the anatomical needle, of the particularmalady which was responsible for their deaths?The idea seems simple enough. Well, four or ve thousand years of

medicine in the West were needed before we had the idea of looking forthe cause of the malady in the lesion of a corpse.If you tried to establish the place of disease and of death in society

at the end of the eighteenth century, and what interest industrial societyeectively had in quadrupling the entire population in order to expandand develop itself, as a result of which medical surveys of society weremade, big hospitals were opened, etc.; if you tried to nd out how medicalknowledge became institutionalised in that period, how its relations withother kinds of knowledge were ordered, well, then you could see how therelationship between disease, the hospitalised, ill person, the corpse, andpathological anatomy were made possible.

In a similar way, why should criminology after 137 years, when it was rstcoined by the French anthropologist Topinard (see Mannheim, 1972), beginto seek new horizons in the environment and globalisation? For much of itshistory, and its present, criminology has been a government-embedded dis-cipline, so what is conspiring to permit new critical narratives evolvingtowards new discourses that encapsulate eco crime?Issues pertaining to the protection of the planet continue to capture media

headlines and continually focus public and political debate. For some com-mentators, global warming, and not terrorism, is the weapon of the massdestruction (Houghton, 2003). As a result, the essential ingredients for theexistence of human and non-human life, notably food, water and air, are


increasingly jeopardised by climate change, pollution and ozone depletion(WHO, 2006; World Water Council, 2006). The need to protect naturalresources and curtail environmental degradation has recently been reectedin environmental law which is the fastest growing area of international law(Galizzi and Sands, 2004). The diversity of subject matter covered underinternational environmental law must necessitate the integration of diverseexpertise and knowledges that must include criminology. Moreover, theintersection of environmental issues with global trade provides new terrainsfor crime to ourish.

Notes1 Notions of environmental negligence have been expressed in UK law. Britishenvironmental law has for some time attributed liability to polluters who haveharmed the environment without intent, but whose actions were deemed to havecaused environmental harm. In the landmark case of Alphacell v Woodward[1972] the appellant, Alphacell Ltd, operated a business that included the pre-paration of manila bres for paper manufacturing. The court ruled that whilethere was an absence of intent, an absence of knowledge and an assumed absenceof negligence, there were no intervening acts of a trespasser or acts of God ofsuch a powerful nature as to prevent causation. Lord Wilberforce stated thatcausing should be given a commonsense meaning, that there was not a require-ment to prove mens rea. Moreover, the court ruled that if breaches of the legisla-tion were to solely relate to intentional or negligent actions then a great deal ofpollution would go unpunished and undeterred. As a result, if a person or com-pany is charged with causing a noxious or polluting matter to enter a controlledwater, as opposed to knowingly permits, it is unnecessary to prove that theaccused acted intentionally or negligently (McEldowney and McEldowney, 1996;cf. Brown, 2003).

2 For a full account of legal non-compliance by biotechnology companies inthe United States and a list of penalties and settlements, see United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (2008).


Chapter 2

The perils, prospects andcontroversies of GM food

Britains future will be lit by the brilliance of science.(Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, 3 November 2006)

Introduction

The emerging intersection of biotechnology with medicine, health care andagriculture identies the growing inuence of genetics in contemporarysocial life (Pilnick, 2002). For some, the genetic revolution provides sub-stantial potential for improving human health, while at the same time thereare widespread concerns about ethics, regulation, commercial exploitation,civil liberties and scientic impropriety (Nottingham, 2003; OSullivan et al.,1999). Recent discourses in human cloning, international security and DNAforensics, along with plant and animal manipulations have further intensiedand polarised debates about bio-power and biotechnological hegemony andthe role of genetics in society (McGien, 2005). Genetically modied foodsare at the centre of these debates with concerns about health and safety.These concerns focus on the potential dangers to human health, the risks ofgenetic pollution and environmental degradation, the demise of alternativefarming techniques as well as economic exploitation by large private cor-porations (Alterie and Rosset, 2002). Moreover, during 2002 advocates ofGM food received substantial blows on several fronts. US GM giant AventisCropScience, one of the largest GM companies in the world, along withKraft Foods, Azteca Foods and AstraZeneca Garst Seed Company, agreed toan out-of-court settlement of $US 9 million brought by consumers in a class-action that alleged that genetically modied corn caused allergic reaction. In2000, consumers discovered that Starlink, a genetically modied additive,produces the human allergen Cry9c in taco shells and corn (Franz, 2002).

Politics of GM knowledge

As many writers in the area of GM food have discussed, there is often nomiddle ground in the GM debate. The battle lines are clearly drawn between

the proponents of GM food and the critics, with each side equally passionateand convinced by their respective stance. Such strongly demarcated positions ofresistance or advocacy have been widely criticised. As Winston (2002: 236)argues:

all sides fail to deal with the scientic data objectively, and tend to createbiotechnology legends from small bits of unconrmed information. Thebroader public has been besieged by sound bites and public relationshype rather than exposed to comprehensive and informed public debate.

That said, the polarised positions have more recently become embeddedin international annual conferences that, on the one hand, promote scienticknowledge in favour of food and biotechnology (WASET, 2009) and, on theother, scientic knowledge against (Food and Democracy, 2009). Clearly themixed messages from various scientic fora contribute to public scepticismand caution. The uncompromising positions of those for or against GMfood must be contextualised within a political economy of GM knowledge oras Foucault (1976) argued a political economy of truth. Disentangling thetruth is fraught with bias, hidden agendas and unobtainable information.However, this chapter attempts to synthesise what we do and dont know ina manner that seeks to provoke public and political debate.As governments and corporate entities seek environmentally friendly images

for power and prot, the production of environmental science has becomesubject to widespread suppression, collusion and misrepresentation. Kuehn(2004) identies how corporate bodies in the United States are increasinglyusing the law to suppress environmental research that criticises the greenpolicies of large commercial enterprises. Moreover, Clapp (2003) outlines howbiotech corporations play an increasingly inuential role in environmentalpolicy-making and global environmental governance. This is achieved throughthe presence of biotechnology representatives who are actively involved inlobbying at international negotiations. As a result, transnational corporationsare not simply reacting to the decisions of environmental governing bodiesand protocols but are increasingly engaged directly in public debates to max-imise industry prot (Clapp, 2003: 3). Of course, the duplicitous and unethi-cal involvement of corporations in environmental politics is not new. The useof green media campaigns and corporations rebranding themselves as envi-ronmentally friendly while at the same time polluting the environment, andlobbying politicians and environmental groups for commercial opportunities,has been widely reported (see Karliner, 1997). However, as deGrassi, (2003: 51)argues, the manipulation of the GM debate serves to exploit vulnerablesocieties stating that governments and corporations have mobilized fundingas part of high-stakes international dispute over biotechnology, in essencerendering African agricultural research and our understanding of povertydynamics on the continent pawns in the conicts of the powerful.


The UK Government has come under widespread criticism recently for thereported impact that biotech lobby groups have had on Prime Minister Brownsdecision to relax the position on GM crops and commercially harvesttransgenic foods to address world hunger. On the evening prior to theLabour Government announcing its support of GM, the Environment MinisterPhil Woolas reportedly met with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council,whose board of directors comprise representatives from Monsanto and otherleading biotech companies, to promote GM crops as a solution to the worldfood crisis (Grice, 2008). More recently, the Royal Societys Reaping thebenets: Science and sustainable intensication of global agriculture openlysupports the environmental and social benets of GM food as well as iden-ties it as a possible answer to the urgent challenges of global food security.The reports key author is Professor David Baulcombe a geneticist and Headof the Sainsbury Laboratory of the John Innes Centre, a plant biotechnologyinstitute that received substantial funding from the biotechnology industries.Professor Baulcome has previous spoken out in favour of GM crops and isreportedly a long time advocate of GM technologies (Lobbywatch, 2009).Andy Rees compelling account of the biotech lobbys dirty tricks provide

a detailed overview of the corporate takeover of the British Government andof science. His research identies how biotech companies through advertisingand sponsorship inuence key scientic journals such as Nature and Science,and how powerful biotech sympathisers, such as Lords Sainsbury andDraysons have made substantial donations to the New Labour Governmentand been rewarded with ministerial posts (Rees, 2006). Such ndings endorsethe views of George Monbiot, author of the best selling book Captive State,which demonstrated how members of the British Parliament, and leadingagriculture research institutes, were lobbied and paid by biotech companies(Monbiot, 2000). The former Labour Environment Minister, Michael Mea-cher, conrmed in an interview with the author the ways in which biotechlobby groups had not only inuenced MPs but also senior civil servants:

Ocials in Defra were wholly pro-GM and I found myself pushingwater up hill the former head of the FSAwas more fanatically pro-GMthat Mr Blair or Ms Beckett and his appointment was another caseof the government stitching it up Defra, the FSA and governmentregulators have laid prostrate to the biotech industries the biotechindustry and Defra are in each others pockets and rules are not beingimposed that have made any diculties for industry ACRE arecomplete believers in GM but who chose them the governmentis appointing people who it knows will tell them what it wants to hear,its a charade there is no independence the advice system isriddled with conicts of interest They (the biotech lobbyists) decidedvery early on that they werent going to get very far with me theyalso knew very quickly that Margaret Beckett was much more favorable,

The perils, prospects and controversies 25

and also its quicker to do what industry does and go straight to number10 Because they have the ear of the Prime Minister they arrogatethemselves a great deal of power they are totally unknown, unelectedand unaccountable Industry persuades key personal advisors to thePM, and you need to do a lot of work as a minister to present analternative view they are very very inuential in creating the ocialview

Similar conclusions about the biotech industries inuence over politiciansand the media in the United States is comprehensively documented byGeorey Smith in his international bestseller Seeds of Deception ExposingIndustry and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Modied FoodYoure Eating.Scientic knowledge has become a key ingredient in corporate and

government practices, or as Abell and Oxbrow (2001: 267) argue the com-bination of explicit data and information to which is added tacit expertopinion, skills and experience to result in a valuable asset which can be usedto make key decisions. Global commercial environments are continuallyseeking added value or competitive advantages through the development andpromotion of knowledge economies. These economies are underpinned bya new economic theory that is driven by a cost-reduction productivity (seeDrucker, 1998). The monopolisation and manipulation of governing bodiesstated above is of considerable concern with relation to risk assessment.Suzuki (2001: 5) argues that the production of knowledge and scienticenquiry in the eld of genetics is becoming regulated by the vested interestsof corporate entities:

Today the incredible techniques for manipulating DNA have createda rush to patent DNA sequences and genetically altered life forms, andto realise massive fortunes. Where once scientists sought answers tofundamental questions, they now seek venture-capital investors for theirbiotech companies.

Even when methodologically sound and sophisticated research on genetictransfer identies the dangers of GM technology (see Rieger et al., 2002),GM corporations such as Monsanto will selectively utilise the ndingsof research to favour their economic position (Monsanto, 2002). There is nodemocratisation of risk assessment in GM foods but a corporate hegemonyover science with claims to absolute or scientic truth. As Wales andMythen (2002) argue despite recognized social and political dimensions ofrisk, science, as a totalising discourse, still regulates the production oftruth. This is clearly problematic on various fronts, not least of whichbecause the science of biotechnology and GM organisms remains fraughtwith ambiguities, uncertainties and complications (see Ahmed, 2004).


There have been numerous claims that biotech industries worldwide continueto lobby governments and produce commercially favourable GM research. Ina meticulous critique of the GM lies and cover-ups of the biotech industryand the ways in which governments worldwide are systematically lobbied andtainted by falsied or bias research, Jerey Smith provides a compelling over-view of the corporate and government corruption surrounding the knowledge,politics and policy of GM food (Smith, 2004; see also Caruso, 2006). Morerecently, it was estimated that Monsanto spent $US 2 million in the rstthree months of 2009 lobbying politicians on Capitol Hill (Philpott, 2009).There have also been high prole and internationally reported examples of

scientists raising questions about the safety of GM food being threatened orpressured to alter ndings. In 1998, Dr Arpad Pusztai was subject to dis-ciplinary action and widespread condemnation for highlighting the dangersof GM foods. His research was published in Nature and sparked interna-tional controversy. He has recently reected upon the events surrounding hisresearch and has publicly identied how his data was seized and his repu-tation tarnished for criticising a technology with widespread economicbenets. He was recently reported as stating:

ninety ve percent of GM is coming from America, so naturally it is in theirinterests to push it, I have no ideological grounds against Monsanto For me its scientic argument. They have not done a proper job [of testing],and they are just using their political and economic muscle to foist it on us.

(Pusztai quoted in Randerson 2008)

Moreover, in 1999, Dr Richard Horton, the editor of Lancet, was reportedlythreatened by Peter Lachman, the then Vice-President of the Royal Society,that his position would be jeopardised by publishing scientic research thatquestioned the safety of GM food (Flynn and Gillard, 1999). In anothercase, Dr Andrew Stirling, a member of the UK Governments GM ScienceReview Panel, was warned by a leading member of the scientic establish-ment that his career would be ruined unless he stopped questioning the(GM) technologys safety. Dr Stirling, who was a member of the 24-personpanel of scientic experts refused to name the senior British scientist whowas attempting to sabotage his career (McCartney, 2003). Another memberof the same scientic panel, Professor Carlo Leifert from Newcastle Uni-versity, resigned from the government panel amidst concerns that biotechcompanies, notably Monsanto, were invited to provide written contributionsto the panels report on issues of GM safety. In another widely cited case,Professors Chapela and Quist, both from the University of California atBerkeley, discovered GM contamination in native Mexican maize. Theresearch was published in Nature, and for the rst time in its 133-year his-tory, the publisher withdrew the article after pro-GM scientists lobbied theeditor. Professor Chapela widely reported the links between the biotech


industry and science and the pressures on scientists to be supportive of bio-technology or risk alienation and funding cuts. He further stated thatI cannot avoid now realising that this is a very, very well-concerted andcoordinated and paid-for campaign to discredit the very simple statementwe made (cited in Rowell, 2003). The more recent example of Emma Rosi-Marshall from Loyola University in Illinois highlights the ways in whichscientic researchers who are critical of GM technologies are subjectedto widespread and systematic intimidation from biotech companies andpro-GM scientists (Waltz, 2009). In addition, even scientic research thatfavours GM technology is subjected to pre-publication approval by biotechcorporations in ways tantamount to censorship and suppression (ScienticAmerican, 2009). Moreover, since the US Governments submission wasmade to the World Trade Organisation in 2003 against the quasi anti-GMstance in Europe, weve witnessed the emergence of the Journal of InternationalBiotechnology Law. The journal publishes articles that are almost exclusivelysupportive of biotechnology in what has become a self interest dened andmotivated area of international law.Emerging within the GM debate is a privatised knowledge, whereby com-

mercial biotech entities are able to generate their own science that is skewedtowards an economic rationality and a free-market politics (Jones, 2004).The marginalisation of public opinion and the emerging governance ofGM science serves to blur the boundaries of truth and risk and to regulateand neutralise voices of opposition. For example, public relations havereportedly entered the fray by representing biotech companies in the promo-tion of GM food technologies. Allegations of fraud have been pitted againstBivings Group, hired by Monsanto to discredit the ndings of research thatcriticised GM maize in Mexico. It was alleged that Bivings invented boguscitizen movements and phantom corporations to challenge environmentalistsand independent scientic research that criticised GM food technologies.Bivings have denied the allegations but have not pursued the matter legally.The evidence of anti-GM hostilities from fake people and companies, boguswebsites and fraudulent emails all linked to the computers of the BivingsGroups may explain their lack of legal intervention (see Monbiot, 2002;cf. Engdahl, 2004).The actions of GM corporations and the negative press that accompanied it,

coupled with the reported risks of GM food (discussed below), has plantbiotechnology, according to Lurquin (2002: 138) facing possibly moreopposition today, at least in some segments of society than nuclear powerplants. Moreover, in the United States, recent reports indicate that two-thirdsof all crops are contaminated with genetically modied organisms doomingorganic agriculture and posing a severe future risk to health (Lean, 2004).Cook provides a fascinating critique of the war of words in his book

Genetically Modied Language. In doing so, he challenges all sides of thedebate for developing their own discourses and for inuencing policy and


public opinion. He deconstructs the language of biotech companies and con-cludes that organisations such as Monsanto (while adopting a range ofdeliberately ambiguous and contradictory terminology on websites andin advertising) are clearly in business where shareholders come rst, andwhere the use of phrases such as our communities more than likely refersto the customer or shareholder community (Cook, 2004: 71). Furthermore,Khann and Antons (2002) examination of 500 corporations in the UnitedStates revealed that those rms that had instituted environmental strategiesand auditing within company policy and practice were motivated by increasingthe competitive edge and by improving relations with shareholders.Finally, the public and farmer anxieties surrounding GM technologies (see

chapter three) has required new marketing strategies for biotech companies.Researchers and corporations now often avoid GM in the titles of reportsor announcements preferring to identify new seeds as persistent resistant ordrought tolerant (Adelaja, 2009).Therefore, it is against this backdrop of distortion, manipulation, aggres-

sive business and intense patch protection between those for and thoseagainst GM food that the following synthesis must be contextualised.

Untangling the risks, controversies and benets

In attempting to unravel the risks and potentials for GM food, McHughen(2000) identies that safety in relation to food is a subjective term. He askswhat is meant by GM food safety and whether it is relative to other foodscurrently on the market. Is safety absolute? (2000: 19). Clearly this a validquestion, and it is important to remember that issues about the production,trade and safety of GM products are a part of a broader debate about foodper se. There is a danger that a discussion that focuses exclusively on GMfood fails to adequately acknowledge a whole host of serious concerns aboutnon-GM contamination, exploitation and misrepresentation. For example,in Britain alone, 5.5 million people suer annually from food poisoning ata cost of 350 million to the economy (Food Standards Agency, 2002).Therefore, McHughens work, notwithstanding the legitimate anxietiesabout GM food, serves as an important reminder that politicised debatesabout GM foodstus must not colonise all discourses on food security andsustainable development. That said, there are several safety concerns that areunique to genetically modied foods. For example, Weaver and Morrisextensive annotated bibliography of all available published scientic literaturesysthensises a range of concerns that requires further examination as well aspromoting a range of issues for regulatory authorities. They conclude:

risks associated with the expression of the transgenic material includeconcerns over resistance and non-target eects of crops expressing Bttoxins, consequences of herbicide use associated with genetically


modied herbicide-tolerant plants, and transfer of gene expression fromgenetically modied crops through vertical and horizontal gene transfer.These come about because of the unstable nature of the transgene andvectors used to insert it and because of unpredictable interactionsbetween the transgene and the host genome.

(2005: 157)

Such studies have raised a variety of concerns about health and safety thatnecessitate further examination. In doing so, they require us to ask what isrisk? And how much risk can we risk? (cf. Caruso, 2006, discussed later).

Health issues

On the one hand, advocates for GM food propose that it provides a solutionto world hunger while providing greater nutritional and health benetsto consumers. On the other hand, international concerns have been raisedabout the possible risks to human health, including toxicity, allergenicity,antibiotic immunity, chemical reactions to human cell structure, illnessand whether deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in GM foods can invade humangenetic structures. Issues about GM food and human health received inter-national attention in 1989 after 37 people died and 1,500 suered long-termdisabilities in the US after consuming a food supplement (L-Trytophan)derived from genetically modied bacteria. While some commentatorshave suggested that the fatalities and illnesses were associated with non-GMprocesses (Anderson, 1999), the incident provoked much needed researchand debate into the safety of GM food products. In another widely citedstudy, Arpad Pusztai found that rats fed genetically modied potatoessuered organ and

Eco Crime and Genetically Modiﬁed Food

Documents

Transcript of Eco Crime and Genetically Modiﬁed Food