Dear A.M. Costa Rica:
Your editorial, seemingly opposing the bill before the legislature which proposes a moratorium on genetically modified crops in Costa Rica, brings up one valid point — that there has not been proven science as to the harm of certain modified crops, but makes a flawed assumption in the closing line when it states: ¨And the lawmakers should differentiate between an attack on international corporations and their intellectual property rights and public health¨ in assuming that there´s public health benefits to be gained by allowing companies like Monsanto free and open access to Costa Rica.
The country already is reeling from the after effects of all the toxic agrochemicals being used. That Monsanto perversely manipulates its genetically modified crops in order to tolerate elevated levels of Roundup, a proven toxin, has no health benefits whatsoever.
Which is for the most part why there is a virulent populist movement against GMO´s, and the multinationals who want open access.
Having proven their irresponsibility and untrustworthiness in developing, marketing and monopolizing GMO, and other products, largely due to lax government oversight — a direct result of these multi-nationals having co-opted governmental processes which should have prevented their free-wheeling practices.
Large corporations have wrested the keys to government, as witnessed in part by the supreme court rulings granting corporations free speech rights thereby allowing big business to buy elections.
When corporations are allowed to write legislation, which has become common practice in Washington, then they essentially control governments. When Monsanto is given copyright protection on the hybridization of all the seeds it develops — in essence staunching the hitherto undamed free flow of ¨natural¨ genetic evolution of seeds, further strangling small independent farmers, you get backlashes such as what we are seeing in bills like this.
Does this mean that GMOs are inherently bad, the way that some people would have you believe? Personally, I don´t believe so, but I think the bill, even if it is imperfect, at least stands for what´s right, in opposing Monsanto, et al.