University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

144
LVC 2009:2,3; CBD 2008a) – e.g. to produce soy or biofuels (LVC 2007:8; FoE
2006:12). This is perceived as a misuse of market power to deprive local
communities of their rights (Grain 2008a:21; IgNN 2006c; FoE 2006:11;
IgNN_2008a) and to introduce GMOs and rise seed prices (Greenpeace 2009a:11;
CBD 2008c; LVC 2008b). Notwithstanding, companies (e.g. Dow 2007a:27,47)
claim that they want local communities to have access to biotechnology and local
germplasm and in some cases they donate their protected seeds for free, e.g. in the
course of natural disaster (Monsanto 2007a:9).
While human rights issues are more important in the context of the global south, a
major risk factor for TNCs concerning the European market is the relatively low
public acceptance of GMOs. (Syngenta 2007:13; Limagrain 2007:4; Monsanto
2007a:47; Bayer 2007a:88) as company sales are negatively affected (Monsanto
2007b:9). They try to reshape the debate on AB and biotechnology issues not only by
contacts to the media (e.g. interviews, press releases) and their own websites and
company reports (Limagrain 2007:35; Dow 2007a:47, 2007b:19) but also by
supporting schools (Dow 2007a:90, 2007b:18), universities (e.g. the “Bayer Science
& Education Foundation”, Bayer 2007a:9,72 or the “Knowledge Factory”, BASF
2007:92,93) and different fellowship programmes (Bayer 2007a:32).
NGOs criticise their engagement as a biased influence to foster the acceptance of
GMOs (CBD 2009; FoE 2006:4,7; LVC 2007:9). They furthermore assume that
TNCs use new trends and challenges to convince an unwilling public to accept
GMOs (ETCGroup 2008a:3; Genewatch 2008:6). In fact, public concerns range from
risks associated with safety and environmental impacts to the ethical and political
implications arising from potential social inequalities at individual level and
worldwide (Genewatch 2008:12). While companies report to seek dialogue with
stakeholders and critics (Bayer 2007a:57; Dow 2007a:47; DuPont 2007:34;
Monsanto 2007a:53; Bayer 2007a:26) NGOs do not see the public invited for
participatory dialogue (Genewatch 2008:27; IgNN 2008c). They do not feel involved
in the scientific process although some of them would have sufficient expertise to be
involved in more specialized debates (Genewatch 2008:14; LVC 2008e) and see
uninvited participation mostly as the only way to raise their voice (Genewatch
2008:21-23). Furthermore NGOs criticise that the majority of NGOs is not involved
in decision making processes that affect a whole range of stakeholders (IgNN 2008b).
Concerning health and safety issues companies report to train farmers on how to use
agricultural chemicals and other products and techniques properly (Bayer 2007a:16;
Syngenta 2007:33; Monsanto 2007a:47; Land O'Lakes 2007a:3). Besides, they report
on their efforts to fulfil customer expectations on seed and food quality and trait
purity (Bayer 2007b:10,11; Dow 2007c:14; Monsanto 2007a:55; BASF 2007:39), to
conduct (field) tests and extensive trials for new products (DuPont 2007:9; Syngenta
2007:33; Bayer 2007a:88; Dow 2007a:96) and to develop high-level health and
safety standards to ensure that products are safe for people and the environment
(Monsanto 2007a:55; Bayer 2007b:4; BASF 2007:104; Dow 2007a:96). NGOs on
the other hand, are concerned about toxic residues in food because seeds or plants
were treated with chemicals (Greenpeace 2009b:4; CBD 2008a, 2008c). Furthermore
they mention that there is a lack of independent studies on the safety of GE crops for
animals and humans and mention studies which found health threats linked to GMOs
(Grain 2009:30). Also, they report on the deregulation of the corporate controlled