GM society

Stella Zlatkova

Some time ago, two articles circulated in the media that positively indicate signs of some rather alarming trends.

The first was published back in 2010 and caused mass discontent among Bulgarian agricultural producers. The second is the information leaked to the recently notorious Wikileaks website regarding the US Embassy in Bulgaria's strategy to influence and modify public opinion on GMO products.

In his article in the Sega newspaper from February 12, 2010, the US Ambassador to Bulgaria, Mr. Warlick, says:

"This opportunity (the import and sale of GMO products on the Bulgarian market - author's note) should not be allowed to be missed due to misinformation and unfounded fears."

I completely agree with him in at least one respect - misinformation on such a significant issue of public interest should not be allowed.

Although some of the statements in the article seem absurd to me, I will not dwell here on the qualities of foods " produced on the basis of modern biotechnology ". This is a debate that will occupy both the global and Bulgarian public for a long time. However, I cannot ignore two main statements that would justify the possible need for the introduction of biotechnology into the Bulgarian agricultural process (although the import of such crops is not yet clearly regulated by law does not mean that they are not used by some producers and are not offered on the market).

1. The population of the Republic of Bulgaria, as well as of any other free democratic state, has the right to decide whether to allow production of a similar nature on its market (a right recognized at the European level).
2. There is no shortage of food products in the Republic of Bulgaria and there is no objective need to "overcome global hunger". Even if at some point a problem arises with the nutrition of certain groups of the population, it will most likely be the result of high inflation and low purchasing power, and not a real shortage of organic food.

According to one of the cables published on Wikileaks, the US Embassy in Sofia is planning a large-scale campaign to reverse the “ course” of attitudes in Bulgarian society towards genetically modified crops and products. And since these attitudes are mostly negative, I would like to bring some clarity to three main aspects of the problem.

---

Diplomatic aspect

According to the theory of diplomatic and consular law, a diplomatic mission is a permanent state body in a foreign host country that carries out diplomatic activities. It should represent its country on the territory of the country in which it is located on all matters and maintain official relations with it and with other missions.

Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (regulating diplomatic relations between states) defines 5 main functions of a diplomatic mission:

• Representative: i.e. the diplomatic mission and its head represent the sending state in all matters and the ambassador's statements are considered the position of the state he represents;
• Protective: protection of all legitimate interests of the sending state and its citizens;
• Negotiative, Informational and Friendly;

Reading the convention, I wonder whether the protection of the interests of a specific American corporation (see third aspect) expresses the political position of the White House and (if so) does this fall within the listed functions of the embassy and its head?

Even if the US embassy, in the performance of consular functions, provides protection to American legal entities, this protection should be in accordance with existing laws and against any possible discriminatory policy towards the company on the basis of nationality, and not in the form of lobbying for the adoption of new legislation, which would be exclusively and solely in favor of the foreign legal entities in question.

This is the place to insert that, unlike in the US, lobbying in Bulgaria is not a regulated legal practice. In the Bulgarian reality, it is still a corrupt practice.

---

Economic aspect

The indirect effects of the entry of genetically modified products into the Bulgarian market are often overlooked. Even the Bulgarian authorities seem to overlook them.

Again, according to the WikiLeaks document, which quotes Mr. Miroslav Naydenov, due to the strong anti-GMO movement in Bulgaria, the parliament adopted a 5-year "strategic" moratorium on the adoption of a law with a permit regime.

The telegram states that the main goal of the moratorium is to force the government, under pressure from European institutions, to liberalize access to such products.

Even if we assume that the US diplomatic representative finds a foothold to defend the interests of an American company, the question is whose interest is the Bulgarian political elite advocating for? What the effect on Bulgarian agricultural producers would be can only be predicted by taking a look at the impact of GMO cultivation in other countries (the US mainly, since Europe as a whole is skeptical of the idea).

First of all, every business has a microenvironment in which it operates. A key element in this microenvironment are the suppliers. In this sense, given the fact that genetically modified seeds are patented and do not allow reproduction for further use, producers will be faced with a greatly reduced number of suppliers, expensive patents and the obligation to purchase new seeds from these same suppliers every year.

In addition to seed supplies, the dependence is also growing on the pesticides used (again patented by the seed company), without which the seeds are actually unusable. Since 2006, the price trend for the pesticide Roundup (a major commercial product of the American company Monsanto) has been entirely upward.

According to Keith Mudd of the US Competition Authority (CAA):

"The lack of competition and innovation in the market reduces farmers' choices and allows Monsanto to raise prices."

Last but not least, after the start of the production process, some manufacturers are forced to pay an annual technology fee, determined at the discretion of the suppliers.

Practice shows that a large part of companies (Monsanto, for example) strive for vertical integration of their business. In the USA, this most often happens by concluding exclusive contracts with crop processing companies, while in Europe, similar contracts are concluded by the seed company with the traders distributing the products. Agricultural producers at one point find themselves between a rock and a hard place. For them, this would mean that there would be no one to process their crop if it was not GMO, or, accordingly, that there would be no one to distribute it.

Another problem in this regard is that even conventional crops, under the influence of weather conditions, are easily infected with GMO crops. There are even cases in which farmers are held responsible for owning such crops when they have not paid the appropriate fees and have not purchased the right to use the " patent ". Even in a country like Canada, this problem is very serious - the management of "Monsanto" allocates a huge budget annually for litigation against farmers whose gardens have accidentally been contaminated with " patented " seeds.

As for the incomes for farmers from genetically modified crops, they are comparable to those from regular crops. There is no concrete data to prove the cheaper use of GMO products (especially at our production scale).

GMO products, however, involve less labor costs, the crop is resistant to pesticides and, unlike conventional crops, is quite unpretentious – which also leads to greater profits.

The problem comes from the monopolization of the supply of seeds, pesticides, fungicides (most of which are oil-based), etc., which are under the control of a few large global corporations. Currently, the top five largest biotechnology companies in the world are as follows: Novartis (Switzerland), Monsanto (USA), Du Pont (USA), Zeneca, AgrEvo and Rhône-Poulenc. Using economic pressure and lobbying, they effectively isolate other producers from the market.

---

Monsanto

Who are the suppliers whose interests are so important to protect on the Bulgarian market?

In the midst of the global financial crisis (especially in 2008 and 2009), the American biotechnology concern Monsanto achieved record profits.

In November 2005, Monsanto was exposed for attempting to bribe foreign government officials to allow genetically modified crops into their countries. Monsanto paid a $1 million fine and admitted that an employee had offered a $50,000 bribe to an Indonesian government official in the form of a fee for “consulting services.”

If we go back in time a little, without getting into historical details, Monsanto is a giant biotechnology concern whose products have often been proven to be carcinogenic.

During the Vietnam War, for example, American troops used the product Agent Orange, which was intended to defoliate large areas of Vietnam. Later, its carcinogenic properties were proven, which the company knew about even before the sale. Over 3 million civilians and soldiers were infected, and about 500,000 Vietnamese children were born with severe malformations. It is for this reason that Monsanto is one of the main defendants in the lawsuit filed by war veterans in the United States.

After the ban on Agent Orange, the company created several new products, the most successful of which is considered to be the pesticide Roundup. In fact, this is what Monsanto's main business is. Genetically modified seeds were deliberately created later. They are resistant to the pesticide Roundup and their widespread use in agriculture is a prerequisite for significant sales of Roundup, the price of which, as I have already said, follows a constant upward trend.

In 2005, with the adoption of extremely restrictive legislation regarding GMO crops, the Monsanto company ceased its activities in Bulgaria. Today, it has its own representation on the Bulgarian market again, and it clearly enjoys the support of people from the diplomatic and political elite.

A quote from the book "The Live Food Factor" by Susan E. Schenck seems to me to be an appropriate conclusion:

“Companies like Monsanto develop GMOs so they can patent the seeds. Selling seeds without a patent is not very profitable. Furthermore, because GM crops cannot reproduce because of a ‘suicide’ gene added to their DNA, farmers are forced to buy new seeds every year. The end result will be a potential monopoly on food, much like the oil and banking cartels. This practice gradually establishes an insidious form of monopoly that will get worse and worse until a cartel of a handful of people establishes control over all food production.”

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!