The US Supreme Court, for the first time, is considering a ban on genetically modified food while hearing a case against the use of Roundup Ready – a herbicidal resistant Alfalfa (a type of legume) – produced by the biotech giant Monsanto. The leading producer of the genetically modified seeds for species of food plants, Monsanto is now fighting its case to overturn a three-year-old ban on its genetically altered Alfalfa. The issue of contention is not only safety of the genetically altered food but also its environmental impact.

The US-based Monsanto started in 1901 with the production of the artificial sweetener saccharine. By the 1940s, it had expanded its business to Europe and had become one of the leading chemical manufacturing companies in the United States.  Among its herbicide products, the dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) became particularly infamous for its disastrous health risks and environmental damage, and was banned in 1972 in the US, owing to the efforts by environmentalists.

In early 1980s, Monsanto started genetic experimenting on plant cells. This was a big leap for the company, away from chemical production to biotechnical engineering, and by the end of the century Monsanto had become the biotech giant of the world, specializing in genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified (GM) foods, mostly crops, have the advantages of high tolerance of herbicides, resistance to pests, diseases, drought, and low temperature, and added nutrition. At the same time, such crops have been subject to strong criticism. A number of human health risks, including different types of allergic reactions, have been known as caused by GM foods. And equally, or even more, serious are the concerns of genetic invasions caused by GM species.

Studies show that GM plants are capable of interbreeding with non-GM plants of the same species, which are planted near them. Thus, the biotechnologically altered genes travel through crops and multiply in numbers as well as complexity, posing unforeseen threats to public health. Furthermore, the altered genes can be incorporated into the genetic makeup of the weeds growing around them, causing the weeds to become herbicide resistant. This would mean a threat to environment and crops, as well as additional cost to economy due to the need for researching new, stronger varieties of herbicides.

With an expanding business going hand in hand with the genetic contamination of crops, Monsanto also continued to have an increasing experience of litigation against the farming community. Crop farmers in US and Canada have been sued by Monsanto for reproducing GM seeds/crops without paying the due royalty to the company. By 2005, at least 90 lawsuits had been by Monsanto against American farmers alone. A famous case highlighted by the Greenpeace International was that of a Canadian farmer Percy Shmeiser who lost his case in 2004 to Monsanto for failing to pay the company while accidentally discovering herbicide-resistant canola on his farm and reproducing it without the prior permission of Monsanto. Greenpeace called the GM invasion of common crops ‘genetic pollution’. Does a company have the right to genetically contaminate common crops of farms and then claim patent rights when the uninvited GM seeds on one’s own farm are reproduced?

This question, with added environmental concern, has already entered the law court and the verdict of the court will certainly be the determinant of the future of farming and feeding in and outside America. What is unambiguously clear so far is the fact that if you try to transcend nature, it will cost more than it pays; though for companies like Monsanto, the profit may surpass both the investment and the cost of litigation.

farmcommunities.com