Regents College, Regents Park

There are two fundamental weaknesses to the dominant approach of western science and technology.

(i) It assumes arrogantly that traditional cultures and technologies are relatively primitive, unsystematic and inferior. 

They are not:

• The majority of poor societies do in fact know very well how to use natural resources sustainably,
• How to develop and manage agricultural biodiversity in the form of seeds and livestock breeds,
• How to conserve ecosystem functions,
• How to feed themselves and the world, given a chance.

The problem is that a grossly inequitable world trading system often does not give them a fair chance.

They are threatened by:

• WTO demands in the name of free trade to open up trade access against their own interests,
• Subject to threats from industrialised countries to withdraw aid and/or restrict trading rights even where international treaties (eg Biosafety Protocol) ostensibly put self-determination in the hands of developing countries.

(ii) Western technology is often introduced by force, not by consent eg:

• at the time of famine in Southern Africa in 2003/04, the US made clear it would only provide food/aid to countries that agreed to accept GM crops,
• IPR under Art 27(3)b of TRIPS Agreement permit pre-emptive seizure of plant or forest species, as though genetic modification legitimates economic contractual rights over whole organism.

This is a classic example of the use of international law, formulated to satisfy commercial interests of industrialised countries, to enforce private control over natural resources which have hitherto been shared openly and freely in indigenous cultures for millennia.

But this is not confined to developing countries – the US taking EU to WTO Disputes Panel on the grounds of restraint on international trade in GM because of de facto EU moratorium on approval of new GM products is another example of trying to override democratic choice (since European consumers have comprehensively rejected GM) by prioritising commercial aggrandizement of the largest and most powerful trans-national corporations aided by US Government protection.

Equally, the current struggle in Brazil for local determination to keep soya production in Rio Grand do Sul GM-free, is the same case of trying to assert trans-national corporate power over local sovereignty.

So what should be done?
How do we democratise science and technology in the interests of all peoples of the world?

I have four proposals:

1. We should extend criteria under EU Directive 2001/18 for non-approval of novel foods and products, not only to include cases of adverse environmental and health impacts, but also to include cases which would damage or undermine sustainability in agriculture.  At present we have a free-wheeling doctrine of unfettered production and trade unless it can be shown they bring about certain, specific, short-term localised instances of harm.  But that takes no account of long-term impacts and gradual erosion of eco-systems.  Sustainability in agriculture must now be written into the rules.

2. The EU should take the lead to change international biodiversity rules in order to prohibit patenting of life forms because

• This is an artificial and harmful constraint on the enormous diversity of our common inheritance,
• It is a limitation on local farmers having access to crops and biodiversity which their ancestors have freely enjoyed for millennia, and which are the inalienable legacy of open and global commons. 
• You cannot legitimately privatise nature for practical reasons, because genes are not fixed, reductionist elements, but constantly changing in structure and role, patenting is simply now appropriate to such a dynamic and indefinable thing.

3. Science should be made public, open, independent, inclusive and participative, and freed of its usurpation by big commercial interests.  That requires:

• Funding of research has to be fully from public sector sources, not from business which forces universities and integrity of research into the hands of corporate sponsors.
• No person should be admitted to a Government advisory committee or regulatory body if they have any current or recently past financial or commercial link concerned with industry,
• Contributors to science journals should be required to make full disclosure of current and prior funding sources, so that any conflicts of interest can be exposed and taken into account.

4. Developing countries, on precedent of solidarity show by the Cancun 20, and hopefully supported by EU, should demand as a condition of consent to the next WTO Round (so-called Doha Development Agenda) that democratic choice be written into international trading rules on application of new technology by allowing social/economic externalities to be fully evaluated and taken into account when a developing country decides whether or not to give access to a new technology in view of its impact on indigenous culture, society and agro-ecology.  In other words, it will allow developing countries to impose three key tests in their own interest:

• Does it allow democratic choice over food and farming systems?
• Will it reduce threats to a safe and secure food supply?
• Will it actually eradicate hunger and improve the livelihoods of the rural poor?

Just as the EU is standing up for its right against the US that its people should be able to eat non-GM food if they want to, and not cultivate GM crops, with its contamination, on their territory if they do not want to, so should developing countries have control over their own food supply, their own agriculture, and their own indigenous cultural systems, until they decide to change them voluntarily and with their consent.  Then, and then only, will a Right to Food Sovereignty be recognised across the world, which is the inalienable right of human beings everywhere.

Michael Meacher