The following is a transcript of Jose Bove's speech in Agen (France), on February 3, 1998.
The translation is courtesy of the SEMCOSH (Southeast Michigan Coalition on Occupational Safety and Health) (http://www.semcosh.org).
Bove is best known for actions against the
McDonaldization of food.
An injury to one is an injury to all!
The strength of our union movement rests on this determination to
mobilize free individuals who accept all the consequences of their
acts...
Today, I am present in this court together with Rene Riesel and Francis
Roux, accused of committing a serious crime according to the law. The
alleged crime is: the destruction of sacks of genetically modified
maize.
Yes, this is serious, and that's why I assume full responsibility. I am
not going to hide behind collective, anonymous responsibility. As a
trade unionist in the Confédération Paysanne, I believe in the ability
of everyone to act as an individual. There is no place in our trade
union for a hierarchy of responsibility. Each member of the union plays
a main part in her or his own future, and is fully engaged in this. The
strength of our union movement rests on this determination to mobilize
free individuals who accept all the consequences of their acts knowing
fully the motive for them.
Yes, on January 8, I participated in the destruction of genetically
modified maize, which was stored in Novartis' grain silos in Nerac. And
the only regret I have now is that I wasn't able to destroy more of it.
I knew that by acting in this way I was doing something illegal. But it
was necessary, and we had no other choice. The way in which genetically
modified agricultural products have been imposed on European countries
didn't leave us with any alternative.
When was there a public debate on genetically modified organisms? When
were farmers and consumers asked what they think about this? Never.
The decisions have been taken at the level of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), and state machinery complies with the law of market
forces. The WTO dictates its own law on the opening of trade barriers.
The obligation to import bovine somatotropin meat from the USA is a
good example of this. The Panel of the WTO, the true policeman of world
trade, decides what's "good" for both countries and their people,
without consultation or a right of appeal.
The countries or groups of countries which refuse the importation of
bovine somatotropin meat or genetically modified products have to prove
that these are dangerous, and not the inverse! The Codex Alimentarius,
the norm dictated by the multinationals, is there to fix the rules of
the game!
Why refuse something which is presented as "progress?" It's not because
of old fashionedness, or regret for the "good old days." It's because
of concern for the future, and because of a will to have a say in
future development. I am not opposed to fundamental research. I think
that it would be illusory and detrimental to want to curb it. On the
other hand, I don't think that every application of research is
necessarily desirable, at the human, social or environmental level.
The current discussion on cloning is like the one on genetic
modifications. Is everything that is possible actually desired by and
gainful for people?
Today, no intelligent person can say that genetically modified maize is
an example of progress, neither for agriculture, nor for the economy.
On the other hand, the greatest concerns surrounding genetically
modified maize are equally important for human health as for nature.
Novartis' Bt maize is associated with multiple long-term risks because
of the presence of the three introduced genes. Even the director of
Novartis recognizes that a "zero risk" simply doesn't exist. Is this an
admission of powerlessness, or a way in which to cast aside his future
responsibility in case there are problems? The problems arising today
with certain agricultural practices (such as animal-based feeds, the
effects on bee populations etc.) only serve to reinforce our caution
when dealing with the sorcerer's apprentices.
The biggest danger which genetically modified maize represents, as well
as all the other GMOs, is the impossibility of evaluating the long-term
consequences of their use, and following their effects on the
environment, animals and humans.
No separation of genetically modified and non-manipulated products is
carried out. For example, non-manipulated and genetically modified soya
are actually mixed together when they arrive in France. As a result,
there is no way of tracing the genetically modified soya. There is no
choice left, neither for the producer, of which I am one, nor for the
consumer, amongst whom we all number.
This type of culture also poses a threat to the future of farmers. For
some decades productionism has served to enslave farmers. From being a
producer, the farmer has now become someone who is exploited, who can
no longer decide on her or his way of managing the land, nor freely
choose her or his techniques for this. However, a real revolution has
been taking place for the last 15 years amongst members of the
Confédération Paysanne, who have put this other type of agriculture
back into action.
Either we accept intensive production and the huge reduction in the
number of farmers in the sole interests of the World Market, or we
create a farmer's agriculture for the benefit of everyone. Genetically
modified maize is also the symbol of a system of agriculture and a type
of society which I refuse to accept. Genetically modified maize is
purely the product of technology, where the means become the end.
Political choices are swept aside by the power of money.
Agriculture is a perfect illustration of this type of logic, which
pervades every facet of food production. Agricultural production has
now become the agro-industry. From the farmers who formed their small
cooperatives, we have seen a conversion to the firms who have
rationalized their systems of production in order to maximize profits
on their investments. Since the 1920s, maize in the USA has been
hybridized in order to oblige all farmers to buy seeds through a trust.
The trusts merged in order to invest in new techniques, which were
capable of releasing new profits. Novartis, the world's leading
pharmaceutical group, invests billions in order to remain number one:
they sell seeds, herbicides, pesticides and medicines. But competition
is strong, and as a result of the merger which took place between two
of their main competitors last week, they have announced a plan to lay
off 2000 employees in order to assure their shareholders of the
profitability of the company.
Is it this kind of logic we want? No. I reject this lurch forwards
where the aim of the economy isn't to satisfy needs, but is merely
production for production's sake, without any link to the interests of
the individual or the whole.
Do we need genetically modified maize in Europe?
No. In 1997 maize production increased yet again. It's overflowing the
silos. The European Union has to stock the excess. And who's got to pay
for this? Citizens. Who needs these new seeds? No one. It's only
Novartis which wants to get the returns on its investment and remain
the number one pharmaceutical group in the world!
By destroying the genetically modified maize seeds on January 8 at the
Novartis factory in Nerac, we wanted to put this short-sighted logic
into the spotlight.
A democratic debate simply doesn't exist. The conspiracy of silence
organized by the companies and the sovereign states is the sole logic
which prevails. As with blood contaminated with the HIV virus, or
mad cow disease, the public mustn't be alarmed. Everything has to be
allowed to continue in silence.
By appearing before you today, I'm aware of being in breach of the law
which wants every citizen to be content with expressing her or his
views by simply putting their vote in the urn every six years.
But it's not in this way that social and economic problems are resolved
-- on the contrary. Through the action which we undertook and for which
we are being judged, we kicked off a vast citizen's movement which
refuses the use of GMOs in foodstuffs for animals and for humans. These
actions will stop when this mad logic comes to a halt.
Yes, this action was illegal, but I lay claim to it because it was
legitimate. I don't demand clemency, but justice. Either we have acted
in everyone's interest and you will acquit us, or we have shaken the
establishment and in that case you will punish us.
There is no other issue.
February 3, 1998, Agen, France
|
