A message from Rita @ Friends of the Earth
The EC has approved growing genetically modified crops for the first time in 12 years. But 60% of Europeans feel we should get the facts first before growing foods that could threaten our health and environment.
Friends of the Earth Europe is calling for a ban GM food until the research is done – please sign the petition today, and help us reach 1 million signatures at http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_gmo/?vl
From the Soil Association campaigns team…
“In the same way that we are calling for the Food Standards Agency to stop wasting money on what is effectively a PR exercise for GM food, this field trial should also be halted. Research should instead be focused on conventional breeding which is showing much better results at a far cheaper cost.
“The IAASTD report, the largest scientific farming study ever conducted and produced by over 400 scientists from across the world, concluded that in a world faced with climate change and resource depletion, agro-ecological farming methods like organic need be utilised, rather than throwing more money at GM crops.”
The Myth of Monoculture is that it is an efficient farming method. Ecological systems, however, have far better productivity and suit our nutritional needs.
Interviewed at a Slow Food conference, Vandana pointed out several clear reasons why the recent drive for GM crops to ‘feed the world’ simply misses the point. Ecological thinking is required to move on in a sustainable manner in order to feed the world, not continued industrialisation.
“Dr Shiva hits the nail on the head. When you look at the science it is obvious why so many experts tell us that farming has to change,” says Jason Ball, our farm’s Manager for Biodiversity and Alternative Energy.
Presentations from the Feeding the World Conference are now available online. The conference, supported by the Sheepdrove Trust, tackled the question of GM crops in relation to the challenge of feeding the world.
Download slides and listen to sound recordings of the speakers at the conference, to see and hear for yourself what was discussed. Find all the files here.
GM crop companies claim they can help to feed the world, yet the counter-claims from critics highlight the complexity of the challenge itself, as well as raising important questions about the application of genetic engineeering technology. Can GM crops really promise an end to hunger?
Papers were delivered by a range of contributors which included:
Some speakers were distiguished as being participants of the famous 2008 IAASTD Report – a study which involved hundreds of researchers around the world – assessing the progress of agricultural science, knowledge and technology. Learn what the IAASTD said about GM crops.
On the blog for the Feeding the World Conference the Organic Research Centre now have a reply to their letter of complaint to the BBC. Richard Sanders of the ORC wrote to the Horizon editor, Andrew Cohen, about the programme entitled Jimmy’s GM Food Fight (broadcast 25th Nov 2008.)
Cohen denies any bias in the programme. His summary of the programme’s conclusion is that GM crops “currently on the market aren’t going to save the world, they’re good for farmers and good for profits, but while there are lingering doubts about the safety we should proceed carefully” and that any real benefits of GM may be “10, 15, 20 years in the future”
However, Cohen does not seem to answer any of the specific criticisms from the ORC on factual error, the debate limitations, or journalistic weaknesses. Read more…
Peter Kindersley has written a letter to the BBC due to his concern about the apparent bias in last week’s edition of Horizon on BBC2 – Jimmy’s GM Food Fight.
Please feel free to use this example to send your own opinion to the BBC about this programme. You can send your views via www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
= = = = = = = =
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Glasgow
G2 3WT
Dear BBC,
Horizon, BBC2, Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Jimmy’s GM Food Fight
We would like to complain that the above edition of Horizon. The programme seemed to show a strong bias in favour of GM crops, and it was misleading in the portrayal of the debate – currently at a very important stage – surrounding genetically modified organisms and the appropriate use, risk assessment and regulation of biotechnology in food production.
GM crops were described as being good for the environment, indeed better for the environment, than conventional crops. This focussed on vague examples with regard to pesticides only; and the programme lacked a wide perspective on the necessary environmental impact analysis – with no comparison to ecological systems.
Despite Horizon showing that massive deforestation is taking place to make way for Argentina’s fast-growing industrialised farming system, this impact was not explored and issues of greenhouse gas emissions, soil carbon loss, biodiversity destruction and land ownership were not looked into. Neither was the sustainability of reliance on fossil fuels which GM depends upon, as a continuation of the industrialised agricultural approach. This failure to examine the issues, whilst broadcasting the idea that GM crops are good for the planet, comprises a narrow and biased viewpoint.
GM crops were also described as having better potential for being able to fulfil the food needs of the world. The example of a GM banana project in Uganda was portrayed as a successful and clear example – a known failure to protect against the Black Sigatoka fungus, announced as early as June 2008 [1]. We know from the organisation GM Freeze that the BBC Trust and the makers of BBC2’s Horizon were made aware prior to transmission of this clear contradiction between reality in Uganda and what the programme stated. [2]
We are concerned about a number of factual errors, misleading remarks and omissions:
1. Claims that GM herbicide tolerant crops had reduced pesticide usage ignores research to the contrary due to the development of weed resistance. [3]
2. Claims that gene transfer between crops and wild plants were hypothetical when they have already been shown in the field in the UK, Mexico and Canada.
3. Failure to fully examine the environmental, social and economic impacts of GM soya production in Argentina.
4. Omission of any mention of the use of patents to control global seed markets by the biotech corporations and the impact on farmers’ rights to save seed and on agricultural biodiversity.
5. Failure to examine the health and sustainability aspects of Ugandan diet based largely on cooking bananas.
6. Failure to look at alternative solutions to tackling food security and environmental problems in clearly set out in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) [4] and UN/UNCTAD report published in 2008. [5]
We hereby request an official and public apology for the misrepresentation of the facts, in particular, the example of the Uganda GM bananas despite the BBC and the editor of Horizon having the true facts of the case – this being yet another example of failed GM promises.
We urge the BBC to produce a second broadcast – in the public interest – to properly enable an opportunity for the scientific claims and counter-claims about GM crops to be made within a more comprehensive scope, and without bias.
We would appreciate a reply to this letter, with referral to each of our points. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
References
1. See http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=487
2. Letter from GM Freeze, Friends of the Earth and The Ecologist to the Chair of the BBC Trust. See: http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=353&iType=
3. GE [genetically engineered] corn, soybeans and cotton have led to a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996. While Bt crops have reduced insecticide use by about 15.6 million pounds over this period, HT [herbicide tolerant] crops have increased herbicide use 138 million pounds. Bt crops have reduced insecticide use on corn and cotton about 5 percent, while HT technology has increased herbicide use about 5 percent across the three major crops. But since so much more herbicide is used on corn, soybeans and cotton, compared to the volume of insecticide applied to corn and cotton, overall pesticide use has risen about 4.1 percent on acres planted to GE varieties. – Charles M. Benbrook, “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years.” Biotech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.
4. See www.agassessment.org
5. See www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf
= = = = = = = =
To find out more about the science behind GM crops, and the concern about the appropriate use of GM technology, please visit this website:
Feeding the World – are GM Crops Fit for Purpose?
Last week’s Feeding the World Conference presented a strong set of evidence showing that sustainable, ecological approaches to agriculture hold a more promising prospect than GM.
Despite consistent scientific evidence to show that GM crops pose risks to the environment, farmers, sustainable agriculture and health, the former Defra minister for GM, Phil Woolas ‘threw down the gauntlet’ and challenged anyone opposed to GM crops to provide the evidence in one year!
“We have made a good start in picking up the Woolas Challenge, set down by the previous GM Minister at Defra, Phil Woolas, who last month told anti-GM campaigners that the UK Government considers they have just twelve months to put up or shut up about their safety, environment, food supply and social concerns,” says Lawrence Woodward, director of the Organic Research Centre – Elm Farm, one of the event organisers.
Expert after expert provided evidence that GM is not fit for purpose. By no means was every speaker against GM technology (two of whom actually use gene manipulation in their work) however, many factors count against GM crops as the ‘solution’ it is promised to be. Safe introduction of GM crops is not possible due to natural factors such as gene flow, and health effects already discovered. Futhermore, the social and economic impact of GM as part of industrialised farming – and patented food plants – is unacceptable.
At the end of the event, Peter and Juliet Kindersley were thanked in particular for the financial support their Trust provided for the conference. Read more about it…
Vandana Shiva is yet another opponent of GM crops. She is a former particle physicist turned environmental campaigner. Follow the link to see a video clip of her talking on common misconceptions about genetic engineering.
http://www.takepart.com/2008/11/12/feeding-the-world-conference/
Feeding the World
Are GM Crops Fit For Purpose? If Not, Then What?
This conference will examine, searchingly and honestly, the claims and counter claims of one of the most critical issues of our time.
Join the conference on GM crops and food security which takes place in Westminster next week. The wide-ranging programme of international speakers is now set. This is your last chance to buy tickets. (Only £65 including lunch) Call now to book your place – 01488 658279
Yesterday’s Independent on Sunday reports that Gordon Brown and other European state heads are planning a pro-GM campaign, according to confidential documents uncovered by the paper.
Flying in the face of public opinion and the Great GM Debate of five years ago, the minutes from meetings between government representatives from 27 nations reveal plans to to “speed up” the integration and mainstreaming of GM crops.
The group, which has no official public profile, was convened by Joao Vale de Almeida, who is head of cabinet to the pro-GM President of the Commission, and included senior representatives apparently approved by heads of state. Meeting notes reveal strong encouragement for GM companies to speak out against ‘vested interests’ of enviromental groups, and convince the people of Europe to accept GM food.
GM Crops face very divided opinion by members of the Council of Ministers, which can delay the approval process for GM products. This move to hold secret meetings will be seen as a way of changing policy by the back door.
Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth Europe said: “Barroso’s aim is to get GM into Europe as quickly as possible. So he is going straight to prime ministers and presidents to tell them to step on their ministers and get them into line.”
The IoS article about the secret GM panel sparked dozens of comments on their blog. The Independent on Sunday also printed the following feature:
How much GM is grown in Europe?
Very little. The documents boast the area increased by 21 per cent last year, proving “growing interest”. But it still only covered 0.119 per cent of Europe’s agricultural land.
What are the problems?
Mainly environmental. Official trials in Britain showed that growing GM crops was worse for wildlife than cultivating conventional ones. Worse, genes escape from the modified plants to create superweeds and to contaminate normal and organic crops, denying consumers a choice to be GM-free.
Do they endanger health?
Hard to tell. Some studies show that they may do, others (including almost all those by industry) are reassuring. The trouble is that very few truly independent, peer-reviewed research has been done. Most consumers have sensibly concluded that they would sooner be safe than sorry, particularly as they get no benefit from buying GM.
Can they feed the world?
Almost certainly not. Despite all the hype, present GM varieties actually have lower yields than their conventional counterparts. The seeds are expensive to buy and grow, so wealthy developing-world farmers would tend to use them and drive poor ones out of business, increasing destitution. The biggest agricultural assessment ever conducted – chaired by Professor Robert Watson, now Defra’s chief scientist – recently concluded that they would not do the job.
Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser is touring the UK to deliver talks about the Canadian experience of GM. This is an issue that Sheepdrove’s GM workshops highlighted as part of the 2003 Great GM Debate. The topic is as relevant as ever.
Find Percy Schmeiser’s tour dates here.
Schmeiser, like many of his fellow Canadian growers, learned about GM crops the hard way. His farmland was contaminated by Monsanto-patented GM seed. Monsanto demanded a $15 per acre ‘technology fee’ even though Percy was not utilising their engineered genes! Eventually the Canadian high court agreed that Percy should not have to pay. Listen to Percy Schmeiser’s story here…
His lawsuit case concluded in March 2008 when Monsanto agreed (out of court) to pay costs for the clean-up of Roundup-ready weeds. He and his family, however, are still feeling the effects of the enormous pressures involved in court battles with a multinational chemical corporation.
Sheepdrove\'s Weblog 