By guest author, Robin Maynard
Prime Ministers are easier to persuade of the benefits of GM crops than the public or those the GM industry claims its products will help, the poor and hungry in developing countries. Responding to the last government’s ‘GM Nation?’ debate, 85% of the British public opposed GM crops being grown in the UK and the Africa Group, representing all African countries bar South Africa, signed a declaration in 1998 condemning GM giant Monsanto’s earlier attempts to characterise GM crops as the solution to world hunger. But Gordon like Tony can’t see through the GM gloss.
GM crops weren’t designed to ‘feed the world’, but to extend the profitability of the agrochemical companies producing them – and for the first generation of GM crops, the shelf-life of the pesticides used with them. Round-up Ready soya linked together Monsanto’s number one selling herbicide (which was about to come off patent) with soya, the world’s biggest commodity crop. A cunning marketing strategy, rather than a noble world hunger-solving mission – most of that GM soya feeds livestock in wealthier countries not poor people in the South.
The genetic modifications made to the main GM crops in the field are not for increasing yields, but to enable the plants to tolerate larger applications of particular pesticides or build-in inherent insect pest resistance. So no surprises that published studies show GM crops have at best the same and in many cases lower yields than non-GM crops. You’d think the PM and environment minister, Phil Woolas, would know this, given their Chief Scientist at Defra (the food and farming ministry), Bob Watson has just chaired an international assessment, which concluded GM crops had little to offer the world in solving poverty, hunger or climate change (causing the GM industry representative to storm out of the process).
The 400 scientists signing up to the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development declared, ‘Business as Usual is no longer an option’ and that a shift to agroecological food production is needed’. For ‘Business as Usual’ read the old model of agriculture dependent on vast amounts of oil and fossil-fuel derived inputs, like chemical fertilisers and pesticides. GM crops are just the latest addition to this model.
As climate change bites and oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, a shift to less oil-dependent, fertiliser-free agroecological farming is a necessity not an indulgence – as agribusiness seeks to characterise and diminish organic farming, the most widely practised form of agroecological farming. When a UN FAO conference last year concluded a shift to organic farming in sub-Saharan Africa ‘could be beneficial’ , it drew immediate fire from the industry lobby, Croplife International, which demanded FAO clarify, ‘ its position on the role of organic agriculture, vis-à-vis the need for modern technologies and inputs, in supporting global food and security’. The organisation duly obliged issuing a press release diluting its support for organic farming. The battle-lines are drawn between shifting to truly sustainable global food production or maintaining that designed predominantly for profit generation.
Robin Maynard is the Campaigns Director of the Soil Association
No scientific evidence against GM? Not yet, but it could take years before we see the results.
So far the chief way in which GM has been used by firms such as Monsanto are to create weedkiller-resistant crops for the convenience of farmers (the whole field can be sprayed without killing the crops).
But just because the crops are still alive after being sprayed with poison does not mean they are safe to eat in the long term. Cheaper food is no good if it ultimately destroys people's health.
In today's world of mass unemployment why not go back to paying people for weeding?
Posted by: Anita Rowe | Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 07:16 PM
Absolutely agree with the author. It is about big business -and the money behind it - versus us, the little people, the masses, the suckers. It is not so much about profit it is about control, control of the food production.
Nathan Rothschild is reported as having said some time after the Rothschilds won the Battle of Waterloo: "I care not which puppet sits on the throne of the British Empire. The person who controls the money supply controls the British Empire and I control the money supply."
When you control the money supply you are in a position to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. It is the same with food. He who controls the food production decides who gets food and who doesn't.
Posted by: scousekraut | Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 07:26 PM
GM is a technology. The question which is invariably not asked what is this technology used for : increasing resistance to herbicides or perhaps increasing drought resistance. Using GM such that there is an increase in the use of herbicides is only likely to increase water pollution and increase costs.There is no reason why GM could not be used to increase drought resistance of crops and ability to cope with lower fertility soils. GM could also be used to increase protein and mineral content of crops.
Posted by: Charlie | Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 07:35 PM
These ministers only do what the big busy companies say, as it already been stated the ministers and companies don't give a damn for the public.
Plus the so called leaders Blair and Brown can't see through the gross of GM data, the gross is pay outs to the politicians.
Now, we know why.
Posted by: ray smith | Friday, 20 June 2008 at 05:41 AM
If Monsanto really gave a damn about solving world hunger then why isn't its freely distributed seeds growing for free right now in poor farmers fields. Oh that's right, some are through contamination of organic crops and Monsanto is sueing farmers for it! SICK
Posted by: truthdigga | Friday, 20 June 2008 at 10:54 AM
GM crops lead to the very real possiblity of one or a few crop types out-competing any other non GM crops to establish themselves as the world's main source of food. The fact that GM manufacturing companies can patent their products, can then lead to a small number of privately owned companies owing the patents to the majority of the world's food supplies. That our government cannot see the inherent danger of this is frankly terrifying.
Posted by: Bransby | Friday, 20 June 2008 at 10:56 AM
Problem is, because The Independent is so way to the left, although this article in spot on, no one will pay any attention to it. I lived in the US for 10 years and Monsanto and their ilk flooded the TV channels with very slick and heart wrenching advertisements that have brainwashed the masses - and it won't be long before it happens here. What can we do?
Posted by: Thinkster | Friday, 20 June 2008 at 12:07 PM
The American people, in the depression that is rapidly overtaking them, will have to feed themselves. They will need seeds for GMO veggies of all kinds that grow, without much care, to healthy veggies very quickly and in all climates. These people will be without cars, gas or shelter in some cases. They know nothing about veggie gardening or self sufficient survival for that matter. They must eat a huge amount of food each day to support their larger than average bodies.They have trouble breathing outside air conditioned rooms due to there heavier than usual bodies, and are prone to attacks of the "chills" if not kept warm at night. They do not understand that plants must mature and ripen before eating and are accustomed to having everything they want, and getting it when they want it. they will have to be advised that the veggies they are going to have to grow need to be cared for, much as they need to be cared for, so considerable, very explicit literature must accompany the seeds. These seeds will be the last hope for these people,and will have to be donated to them by church groups and the like, as they will be so deeply in debt, to each other and the rich of the world, that no one will help them.
Posted by: Uncle B | Monday, 28 July 2008 at 11:44 PM
What not many people dont understand is that when you eat food from the earth it becomes part of you. our bodies are intelligent systems which sprout beyond the DNA. Its takes many years for the cells to totally re-new the whole body. The GM crop has been genetically modified at the gene level which could not happen even through cross breeding. The alteration of our genes gets passed down the line of generations, and our ignorance and greed to the damage which will be upon our children and especiall our childrens childen is going to be disastrous. My freind worked for monsanto, he was an advisor, He told me that the scientists working at monsanto dont even know the outcome after many years of human consumption which he found very distressing, he also told me they are bullys and have millions of pounds. They already do have problems with the round up ready gm soya which they even confirm will cause infertility in woman, but there campaign is so clever and cunning they have 80 solicitors already prepared on how to deal with the media etc when it becomes official. I feel so sorry for the next generation of our kids, how foolish we stupid greedy idiots we are. I hope something pops up earlier with the damaging results GM crops will bring to humans and the enviroment. natue is intelligent and working all around us,It will Bite Back,Of this there is NO DOUBT
Posted by: robert ellis | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 11:07 PM