The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

transgenic wheat 239keep it segregated from non-transgenic wheat through the production, handlingand transport chain,” the memo says. 44It should be noted that this is also the opinion of European officials, whoofficially, however, speak an entirely different language, designed to reassurerecalcitrant populations. For example, a secret report submitted to the EuropeanUnion in January 2002, which Greenpeace also obtained, confirmedthat the introduction of transgenic crops into Europe would be a fatal blowto “organic and small farming of oilseed rape as well as for intensive productionof conventional maize,” and that the “cultivation of GE and non-GEcrops on the same farm might be an unrealistic scenario, even for largerfarms.” Aware of the “sensitivity” of these conclusions, Barry McSweeney,director of the research center of the European Union, saw fit to attach a letterto the report in which he wrote: “Given the sensitivity of the issue, Iwould suggest that the report be kept for internal use within the Commissiononly.” 45“Is transgenic contamination reversible?” I asked Van Acker, a bit horrifiedby all this information.“Unfortunately, I don’t think so. There is no backtracking possible. Oncea GMO has been released in nature, you can no longer call it back. If youwanted to eliminate transgenic canola in western Canada, you would haveto ask all farmers to stop growing the plant for at least ten years. Which isimpossible because canola is our second-largest national crop, with 11 millionacres in cultivation.”“What are the consequences for biodiversity?”“That’s a very important question, particularly for Mexico, which is theoriginal source of corn, or for the countries in the Fertile Crescent, wherewheat comes from. Canada and the United States export to those regions ofthe world. If transgenes are introduced into wild and traditional species ofcorn or wheat, it would lead to a dramatic impoverishment of biodiversity.There is also the problem of intellectual property rights. The PercySchmeiser case shows that Monsanto thinks any plant belongs to it wheneverit contains a patented gene: if this principle is not challenged, it willmean in the end that the company could control the genetic resources of theworld, which are common property. Look at what’s happening in Mexico;we’re already at a crossroads.”