|The case of genetically modified organisms, fruits and produce|
The case of genetically modified organisms is absolutely reminiscent, in all its political typology, of the case of the 'exotic' toxic stock market and financial investment bubbles. It is, moreover, also reminiscent of this in the field of policy. Let us recall what has been said during research on the subject in Great Britain.
This case is a very good reminder of how much the European Commission – the majority of whose members are ignorant of such subjects and lack the necessary expertise and competence – resisted and the extent to which it attempted to control the emerging financial bubble. In this sense, the Commission has criminal liability.
This is a Mephistophelian situation, particularly arrogant, from apprentice magicians of nature, and which must quickly come to an end. This is the arrogance of the players in the corporations and organisations behind genetically modified organisms, at a time when 'trash DNA' remains a scientifically ignorant term and is reminiscent of that same scholarship through which some, supported also by winners of the Nobel prize in economics, provided bubble-theories. There is, nonetheless, a huge difference.
Genetic 'bubbles' are far more dangerous than the economic 'bubbles' and, for this reason, as criminal offenses they must be punished much more seriously. Just think if the 'golden boys' of politics had, at a much earlier point, faced the charges of a crime against humanity in the economy... Let us now consider something equivalent for all those involved in the promotion of genetically modified organisms. We know very well to what extent research into the health effects of smoking was delayed – now the Commission is banning tobacco. We know very well to what extent politicians and technocrats delayed in showing their concern for a whole host of other issues, including that of the economic crisis. Will we allow another bubble to tyrannise the future? We must be clear. On this issue, there are margins for a social uprising, a dynamic social uprising.
We have, of course, the precedent of charges against those responsible for contaminants, in the case of that horrendous biological and corporate imperialism against individual farmers, which contaminated their crops. Think of the legal proceedings and prosecutions against nature attempted by these corporations.
We must, moreover, call patenting into question, given that genes exist in nature and are simply being meddled with. Let us recall what Stephen Hawking said about the rights that these gentlemen must pay to all the scientists and, most of all, to the farmers of the past few thousand years and to nature herself who, in her course, developed and handed genes and their knowledge down to us.
It is not enough that they are counterfeiting the holistic, sensitive, chaotic, complex and systematic course of nature, for which we have so little concern, but they attack and even usurp nature, making the foundation stones of life their property. 'What other evidence do we need then,' given such arrogance, such an overblown bubble. And yet, there are also the political betrayers of nature, life and the health of the people and much can be said, of course, about how rich they can become. We have seen how they tried to link the aspirations for the promotion of mutated produce with the distortion and colonisation of agricultural production in the Third World. Will we continue to allow such neo-plasmatic situations to spread? Let them do many more experiments and let them have research funded. They have a long road ahead of them and much to learn; but, they are not doing it for the sake of knowledge. They are doing it for profit, to make up for their losses, to control the economy, production and nature. They are not doing it for knowledge, they are not doing it to be of benefit. When, finally, will we learn that capitalism does not do all this to be of benefit to the people and to nature?
We are fighting for the rights of nature, biodiversity, for every living thing, for man's fundamental social and environmental rights, for the right to transparency and participation in decision-making. When were such matters ever put to a broad discussion? Why do some decide upon the growth of corporations in the form of pyramids but with the base of the pyramid not deciding? Why is it the top that decides? And, since this area is an oligopoly, why do we allow it to control and consider its rights as inalienable? Has it ever been heard of before that we risk contaminating nature, displacing other natural crops and living organisms by placing them in the hands of those who over-rushed, whose arrogance has peaked at precisely the time when they were hatching this monstrosity of exotic toxins and the financial bubble?
They should all consider that there could be 'Nuremberg' for the destruction of the biodiversity and a 'Nuremberg' for climate change as well as for global poverty. They should reconsider and not forget that it is not the corporations and the scientists who are behind this research. It is the nexuses, the trusts and the cartels of the large financial organisations, which are to be found behind these corporations. Politicians should take a look at the compositions of boards of directors and take a position. This is something that should make all of us get up from our armchairs.