Today’s Number

90%

the approximate percentage of soy in the US genetically engineered to resist Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.

Related articles

• How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply. (zedie.wordpress.com)
• Governments urged to limit weed killer found in humans (climate-connections.org)

Read Full Post »

Essential Documentaries: A Silent Forest

A Silent Forest – The Growing Threat, Genetically Engineered Trees (2009)

It’s entirely understandable that when we think about genetically modified crops finding their way into the food chain and inevitably into our own genetic makeup the first thing we’re likely to be concerned about is the effect that this technology is going to have on our health and that of our children. It’s a plain fact however that the immediate consequences for our physical integrity could be the least of our worries in this huge profit-driven experiment.

A Silent Forest is a disturbing documentary by filmmaker Ed Schehl about the dangers of genetically modified “toxic” trees. Narrated by geneticist David Suzuki, and with comments and explanation by an array of experts this film makes for uncomfortable but essential viewing.

If awareness is the key element in our rejection of this life-negating and destructive technology then  this documentary needs to be seen by as many people as possible. Pass it on!

Selected Quotes:

“Biotechnologists think: genes are genes, it doesn’t matter where you stick them, and they’ll just function the way they normally do. Any geneticist who thinks about that should know better. Genes don’t function alone. They function within the context of the entire genome… it’s just a mistake to think that genes act as if their traits are expressed regardless of where they exist.”
David Suzuki

“This one gene, one protein, one trait caricature of how genetics works – that’s the whole foundation of the biotechnology industry – is a complete misrepresentation of everything we know about how genetics and complex organisms actually work.”
Brian Tokar, Director, Biotechnology Project
Institute for Social Ecology

“What we’ve found through our research is that genetically engineered trees are truly the greatest threat to the worlds remaining native forest since the invention of the chainsaw.”
Anne Petermann
Co-Director
Global Justice Ecology Project

“This is about the corporate enclosure of life itself.”
Aziz Choudry
Organizer, Gatt Watchdog

 

Related articles

• Geneticist David Suzuki Says GMO Food is Massive Human Experiment (dprogram.net)

Read Full Post »

Wasting Away

In recent, occasionally heated discussions with friends and others about genetically modified foods the following argument comes up time and again: “How else are we to feed the world’s exploding population if we don’t utilise GM technology to increase crop yields?”

A number of counter arguments spring quickly to mind. There is, for example absolutely no scientific evidence that GMOs increase crop yields in the long-term. On the contrary the damage and deterioration inflicted on biodiversity and the environment by the methods used to cultivate GM crops are guaranteed to store up massive problems in the very near future, as thousands of American farmers are now discovering.

Evidence Based

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence that traditional and contemporary organic methods and basic good husbandry virtually guarantee healthy soil, robust and abundant crops, and therefore good, plentiful food that not only fills the stomach but lays the foundation for good health.

Read the following article to see just one example of what can be done without GMOs, chemical fertilizers or pesticides: Miracle Grow-Indian-farmers smash crop yield records without gmos 

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But if even that argument doesn’t convince then there’s little that’s debatable about the following statistic as outlined in this recent Guardian article: Almost half of the world’s food thrown away. This article is based on a report by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers: Global Food – Waste Not, Want Not. 

Blindingly Obvious

Since when did it become ok to waste vast quantities of anything let alone a fundamental resource such as food?

If governments and corporations mean what they say when they bare to us their bleeding, altruistic hearts then why not do the blindingly obvious and start by vigorously encouraging an environment in which the wholesale waste of food is unacceptable?

The “starving millions” argument so often introduced into any discussion about GMOs is the result of a combination of a lack of knowledge and the subtle propaganda of those who stand to profit on an unimaginable scale from pursuing their agenda against a background of our ignorance or indifference.

“Waste not, want not” may sound like a trite homily to “consumers” used to having every desire fulfilled at the touch of a button, but think about those words for a moment. This culture of waste is something that’s come about in the space of two generations and it’s neither an inevitable consequence of “progress” nor simply the way of the world.  Things don’t have to be like this. We decide, and our individual decisions, however small they might seem at the time make a difference.

Read Full Post »

If Only We’d Shut Up and Do as We’re Told

Choose Organic

In the debate between those for and against the wholesale introduction of GM technology into the European foodchain the GM industry and its propagators are keen to portray themselves as the voice of the reasonable, sensible majority, using “common sense” and scientifically justified principles to further their argument. When that doesn’t work they waste no time in their deployment of tabloidesque headline grabbers of the “World on Edge of Starvation” variety in order to sway the disinterested or undecided. Like a boxer fighting to dominate the centre of the ring and keep his opponent dancing at arms length around the margins they are anxious to take and hold the middle ground of public opinion.

The Method 

One way they do this is by portraying those who oppose GM technology as “unscientific” and therefore essentially ignorant of the complex issues involved. Ideally those in opposition should be seen by the silent majority as irrational extremists whose reaction to “progress” is to avoid reasoned debate and resort to Greenpeace-like tactics of disruptive protest and scaremongering. Opinions such as those of Professor Jonathan Jones who recently published an article in The Guardian in support of GM crops are highly representative of the voice of the scientific mainstream. In fact his article is almost textbook in its approach:

• Establish scientific credentials
• Disparage opposing organizations (in this case the British organization Stop GM) as unreasonable and unwilling to enter into debate
• Cram the article with narrow but simplistic detail justifying genetic research into basic, essential foods
• Wag the finger of warning at European foot-draggers for being so far behind the US, China, Canada, etc in the development and acceptance of GM technology
• Finalize with dire warnings of the consequences of the lack of such acceptance to a rapidly growing world population threatened by climate change

The Unmentionables

It’s difficult to see exactly what purpose such an article has other than contributing to the drip, drip, drip of highly selective information into the public domain. In fact, if you take the trouble to look, its main interest was in what it didn’t say, rather than what it did. It didn’t mention Prof. Jones’ own possibly less than scientific interest in the business of GM technology; it didn’t say anything about the tried and tested business practice of selling patented seed to farmers worldwide who then become entirely (and legally) dependent on the few giant corporations that supply them; it said nothing about the dangers of inevitable cross-pollination and genetic mutation about which mainstream science remains wilfully ignorant. And crucially no mention was made (or is ever made by GM’s proponents) of the success of the research and development of pest and blight free crops by organizations using organic, environmentally responsible methods.

The Weakest Link 

Portraying those who dispute the inevitability, even the need for GM technology as unrealistic Luddites is, at best, mischief making, designed to stir up the emotions of those who see any form of disagreement with authority as a threat to their own wobbly belief system. At worst it can be seen as another element in the co-ordinated propaganda used by government and industry to coerce us into accepting this dangerous, unnecessary and generally unwanted technology. From this viewpoint Britain- England to be more precise – looks to be the weakest link in the European chain of resistance, with the government apparently determined to bring about a wider public acceptance of the technology.

Stay Informed 

It’s important to keep in mind that those advocating GM technology more often than not have something to sell. In fact it is elementary to conclude, even after only a little basic research, that financial gain on an almost unimaginable scale is at the very core of the drive to flood the world’s food supply with genetically modified crops. Those who control and supply the technology will truly have the world in the palm of their hand.

Knowing what we know about how science, agribusiness, and politics walk hand in hand toward their own vision of a bright, shiny future why should we believe that the politicians and the professors are doing anything other than jockeying to be at the head of the queue when the spoils are divided? We need to ask questions, stay informed, and pass on the knowledge we’ve gained to those who care enough to hear. This is an issue that’s simply too important for us to shut up and leave to the “experts” to decide for us.

Photo by Kumasawa

There’s a wealth of excellent information available out there if you’re willing to track it down. Below are some suggestions to get started:

www.powerbase.info   Includes an A-Z list of articles on people and organizations behind the push for GM crops

www.stopgm.org.uk    Activist British organization

www.gmwatch.org       Independent British organization of info gatherers

www.genet-info.org     European NGO on genetic engineering

www.greenpeace.org  Their Food and Agriculture pages

www.ucsusa.org          The Union of Concerned Scientists; a US based organization

Read Full Post »

The Thin End of the Wedge

GM crops to be allowed into Britain under controversial EU plans

UK to back imports of animal feed with traces of GM crops in move to benefit US exporters

Jamie Doward
The Observer, Sunday 6 February 2011

Photograph: Martin Argles for the Observer

Genetically modified crops will be allowed to enter the UK food chain without the need for regulatory clearance for the first time under controversial plans expected to be approved this week.

The Observer understands that the UK intends to back EU plans permitting the importing of animal feed containing traces of unauthorised GM crops in a move that has alarmed environmental groups.

Importing animal feed containing GM feed must at present be authorised by European regulators. But a vote on Tuesday in favour of the scheme put forward by the EU’s standing committee on the food chain and animal health would overturn the EU’s “zero tolerance” policy towards the import of unauthorised GM crops.

The move would mark a significant victory for the GM lobby, which has pushed for a relaxation of the blanket ban for years.Environmental groups claim the GM industry wants to use the presence of unauthorised organisms in animal feed as part of a wider strategy to promote its technology.

“The GM industry is pushing this proposal so it can wedge its foot firmly in the door and open up the British and European markets to food no one wants to eat,” said Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, which campaigns against GM food. “Its long-term aim is to contaminate the food chain to such an extent that GM-free food will disappear.”

Relaxing the EU’s zero-tolerance position would greatly benefit US feed exporters. The push for Europe to drop its zero-tolerance policy began in 2009 after EU authorities found traces of GM maize in soy shipments from the US and refused to allow its entry. Such recalls are expensive and those affected are unlikely to receive compensation.

GM supporters warn that the current zero-tolerance policy could result in a dramatic shortage of feed for livestock. But critics dismiss the claims as scaremongering and say there is no evidence to back up them up.

“This is a solution without a problem, and the price could be very high indeed when unknown genetically modified organisms are let loose in the food chain,” said Eve Mitchell, food policy adviser at Food and Water Europe, a campaign group.

“Rather than ignoring EU food safety laws to help the US soy industry cut costs, we should simply buy the stuff from countries that segregate their GM properly. If it hasn’t been tested, why eat it?”

Many of the GM crops, notably soy and maize, that have been found in animal feed imported into Europe are resistant to multiple herbicides. Critics blame these new GM crops for the recent rise of “super weeds” across vast tracts of the US farm belt.

Friends of the Earth Europe said it had obtained expert legal advice questioning the legality of the EU’s plan. But European regulators believe that allowing the import of animal feed containing no more than 0.1% of GM traces does not jeopardise food security.

Jamie Doward
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011

0.1%? That’s exactly the size of the thin end of the wedge. Isn’t it?

Read Full Post »