NZ Herald, 19 January 1999

"There must be many other countries that are concerned that if the big [genetic engineering] multinationals gain too much clout, they would have the capacity to virtually reduce farmers to serfs." So said John Andersen, Australian federal Minister for Primary Industry.

In the past, those who owned the land controlled food production Now, control of food production rests not with landowners but with the huge international companies which own the life forms of the crops.

Patenting of genes creates a new kind of property. The genetic resources of the world have until now, always formed a "commons". Life could not be owned, but with the patenting of genes whole life forms can now be owned outright by large companies.

This is the most significant change in the production of agriculture since the enclosure of the commons in 18th-century England. We are seeing, for the first time in human history, life itself being turned into lust another commodity. Unless farmers understand what is happening, and quickly, they will end up as serfs on their own land.

At last, the Australian Government is waking up to what) the consolidation of corporate ownership of food crops means for farmers. Here neither officials nor political leaders seem in the least concerned about the consequences for agriculture of growing crops from seeds it does not own.

The rush is on to exploit the new property. A rash of mergers and takeovers means that three huge companies control the world's seed industry; Pioneer Hi-Breed and Monsanto in the United States and Novartis in Switzerland.

Companies have filed hundreds of thousands of patents for gene sequences, clogging up tile US Patent Office. There is a veritable gene rush as prospectors mine the world's DNA. Once ownership of the genes is secured through a patent, these companies have absolute control over that gene whenever and wherever it is used.

For example, the French firm which owns rights of a variety of pohutukawa under the Plant Varieties Act was able to stop use by New Zealanders of trees traditionally belonging to them. growing on their own land.

This new property right over life itself has been created by huge companies. Worse, it is enforced through the World Trade Organisation and is backed by trade sanctions.

The benefits of these seed patents will flow to the companies that own them, not the farmers Who sow the seeds and tend the crops. To ensure all benefits go to the new corporate owners, farmers will be policed and controlled.

Farmers must pay rent to the new plant owners and they must agree to those owners enforcing their rights by inspecting their fields. In the United States Monsanto has hired a private police force to inspect farmers paddocks.

Control of farming is exercised in other ways, too. For example, Monsanto owns every variety of modified cotton. It can charge whatever it likes around the world. It has already charged Australian cotton growers twice the licence fee it charged America growers for growing its seeds.

Another method of control is to modify the seed genetically so that it is infertile. This forces farmers to buy new seed every year and makes them completely dependent on tile corporate owners Both Monsanto and Novartis have known as "terminator genes."

These three multi-national companies want governments to pass laws prohibiting farmers from seed-saving. This is to make sure that Second and Third World farmers become dependent on buying seed each year from corporate owners.

Most countries have resisted the huge seed companies but riot New Zealand. Our Government wants to introduce measures here that will restrict the rights of New Zealand farmers and stop them saving seeds.

Whether New Zealand assists a tiny handful of giant companies to govern the global development, production, processing and marketing of our most fundamental commodity, food, is the most important decision we are likely to have to make in our lifetimes. It is one that requires open debate. It is not a decision that should be pushed through Parliament under urgency.

There are some who claim we have no choice. They say that for reasons of international diplomacy and world trade agreements we should acquiesce. But doing nothing is itself a choice. It amounts to a tacit agreement that our best advantage lies in accepting technology lock, stock and barrel.

I disagree. We must not allow our farmers to become serfs on their own land. We must be constructive. Think how much of a marketing advantage we could gain. if die whole world knew that New Zealand was free of genetic modification?

Of course, this positive alternative is not without cost. It means we must have traceability, separability and labelling of crops. It is possible to test whether crops are genetically modified

In any case, we take for granted that effective labelling is necessary m many of our export crops such as lamb, beef, venison and wool. It is being urged on wheat and other grain producers.

Only then can our customers make a real choice. Only then can we assure quality from paddock to plate. Quality assurance programmes cost but the potential gains are huge.

American companies that own the new food crops are finding consumer resistance to modified foods in Europe hardening, not softening. All our successes in food markets have come from providing what people want.

Effective labelling of modified foods, introduced now, may be tile only hope our farmers have of avoiding serfdom in the future.

The enclosure of the "commons" land formed the historic basis for the first agrarian revolution. The privatisation of life itself is the basis for the second agrarian revolution. Both have displaced the ordinary farmers into a peasant class. However, this time ownership passes not to the great landlords but to the giant international seed corporations.

This privatisation of life has the most profound consequences for farmers. Yet little or no discussion has occurred in New Zealand. It is high time it did.