CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY MAKES LUDDITES OF US ALL

Almost two hundred years ago a Nottinghamshire weaver named Ned Ludd became famous. Despite the fact he never existed he became the name behind which rallied one of these islands' biggest revolutionary movements. What they were opposing would, in modern terms be called 'corporate technology' -- developments in production that were designed, above all, to secure the hold of a tiny elite over society. After the Luddites' violent suppression, the word 'luddite' survived as a term of abuse to label those who were seen as having an irrational, knee-jerk, opposition to change. However, the Luddite rebellion was never an 'anti-technology' revolt, but rather a revolt against developments that were taking away people's control over their own lives.

Recent campaigns against GM crops have brought about a greater public awareness of the political nature of the supposedly neutral science and technology. Political not only in how it might be implemented, but in how it is developed, for what reasons, and by whom. Corporate technology' is developed in order to serve the interest of ruling classes, to control and exploit society and natural resources. The early Nineteenth Century mill owners aimed to increase their wealth at the expense of communities. This tradition is continued by the corporate executives and directors of today. The need for resistance also remains with us. In this edition of Corporate Watch Newsletter we look at several of the latest examples of corporate technology.

•GMOs: Efforts to get GM crops accepted in Europe and America continue. Sue Mayer gives a brief overview of events in 2004.

•Pharmaceuticals: in the race to patent and market new drugs human needs and even basic safety standards are ignored. Max Gastone looks at the backlash in the USA.

•ID Cards: now that governments have the ability to monitor everyone they are eager to use these powers. We look at the corporations that are making this happen.

•Nanotechnology: A new world of corporate control through manipulation at the atomic level? We bring you an activists' guide to what's out there and what may come, including actions against the developing nanotech industries.

Like the Luddites we can say that we might be in favour of new machines and new techniques -- but only if they are in the interests of us all, and under democratic control. Under the current system of corporate rule this seems very unlikely.

GM CROPS IN 2004 Sue Mayer, GeneWatch

In the UK, Bayer announced that it would not proceed with plans to market GM maize. This means GM crops are unlikely to be grown commercially until 2008 at the earliest. However, the European Commission ended the moratorium in Europe by giving approvals for the importation of Syngenta’s Bt 11 maize and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready maize, NK603. This was despite lack of agreement among member states and showed the effect of US challenge to the moratorium at the WTO – by moving forward with GM crops, the Commission hopes to increase its chances of winning the dispute. However, this allows the US to ‘win’ even if its case is eventually judged to have no merit! In contrast, many regions of Europe pressed to be allowed to have GM-free status.

Elsewhere in the world, GM crops have also caused controversy. In Hawaii, where GM disease resistant papaya has been grown since 1998, contamination of non-GM papaya was detected in 50% of samples including from trees in people’s gardens. China started considering whether to allow the commercialisation of GM rice and the Brazilian President Lula gave a one year approvalGM soya growing increases, sourcing non-GM soya may become a problem. The damaging environmental and social impacts of the extension of intensive soya growing in South America, whether GM or not, has also caused concern (as covered in a recent Corporate Watch news story: http://www.corporatewatch.org/news/notsuchacuddlypanda.htm)

Globally, the area of GM crops grown commercially in 2004 showed nearly a 20% increase on 2003. Most of this came from increased areas in the five major growing countries, the USA, Argentina, Canada, Brazil and China. Only two traits form the vast majority of these GM crops, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Soybean, maize, cotton and oilseed rape are the four GM crops grown, and Monsanto remain the dominant corporation involved, through Roundup Ready soya and Bt insect resistant cotton and maize. Bayer, with the second largest share of the GM crops market (but a long way behind Monsanto) produce Liberty Link crops (resistant to glufosinate), including oilseed rape and maize. Syngenta, Dow and Du Pont also remain involved in GM crops.

2004 also saw more voices calling for a precautionary approach to GMOs and for broader social and cultural issues to form part of the debate. In November, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), made up of over 1,000 governments and non-governmental organisations, voted for a moratorium to be placed on the release of GMOs to the environment. A scientific panel appointed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a body formed between Mexico, Canada and the USA, considered the issue of GM maize in Mexico including the cultural importance of maize and the economic and political history of the region. Contamination of native maize has already been detected even though GM maize is not allowed to be grown legally; it is thought to have been introduced via maize imported for food which was then planted. The panel’s report called for more research and recommended that the moratorium on commercial growing of GM maize be reinforced and that it might be wise to require the milling of imported maize. This caused a furore in Washington -- which felt it necessary to attack the report because of the threat it might pose for the biotech and farming industries in the USA.