Scottish Government Policy on Genetically Modified (GM) Crops

In brief: Scotland has a public-spirited government with backbone. On its website:

“The Scottish Government is opposed to the cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops.

“The cultivation of GM crops could damage Scotland’s rich environment and would threaten our reputation for producing high quality and natural foods. It would damage Scotland’s image as a land of food and drink”.

Dr Michael Antoniou, who works at the London School of Medicine’s Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics as head of their Gene Expression and Therapy Group, looks back on a meeting in the Scottish Assembly during the Seralini tour in September, envying the position taken by Scotland on GM crops/foods. He adds:

“At present we can only dream that Westminster will make a U turn on its GM policy and follow suit. But we’ll keep working on this!”

–

Genetic engineers’ verdict on GM food

“10 reasons we don’t need GM foods”, a new short report from genetic engineers Dr Michael Antoniou and Dr John Fagan, the authors of “GMO Myths and Truths”, is published today as a free download by the sustainability and science policy platform Earth Open Source.

Download short report: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/10-reasons-we-don-t-need-gm-foods

Claire Robinson, third co-author of the new report, said:

“At just 11 pages plus references, ’10 reasons’ is designed for people who may not have the time to read ‘GMO Myths and Truths’, which extends to 330 pages. ’10 reasons’ is ideal for giving to friends, family, politicians, and journalists, when a longer document is not appropriate.

” ’10 reasons’ explains that GM crops do not increase yield potential or reduce pesticide use. Nor can they help us meet the challenges of climate change any better than existing non-GM crops, or deliver more nutritious foods. GM crops have been shown to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals.

“There is only one way in which GM crops outperform non-GM crops: they are easier to patent in a way that guarantees ownership not only of that GM plant variety but also all plants bred from it. This process enables consolidated ownership of the seed and food market by a few large companies on a scale that has never happened before.

“That is a recipe for loss of food sovereignty and security. It is the opposite to feeding the world – the line we are constantly fed to justify the introduction of GM crops.”

“10 reasons” is based on the extensive evidence collected in “GMO Myths and Truths”.

Download full report “GMO Myths and Truths” (2nd edition published 19 May 2014):
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths

–

Contact Claire Robinson claire.robinson@earthopensource.org

__________________________________________________________

Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=nf

–

 

Radio 4 smoothing the way for GM crops? Skewed interviewing by Charlotte Smith

A sad awakening to hear on Farming Today, by chance, the poorest exchange on GM technology it is possible to imagine – inaccurately billed as an ‘exploration’: 

Fifteen years ago in the late ‘90s, Radio 4’s Farming Today ‘faced the chop’ because of its courageous, truthful coverage of BSE and FMD issues and is now bland and establishment-friendly, proud that its ‘the rural agenda’ – and that of Countryfile – has made countryside “relevant to people’s lives as both a playground and a source of affordable and safe food.”

Note the playground is given first priority, when food – the staff of life – is placed second – a long way behind tourism and the import-export merry-go-round promoted by government and probably all ‘mainstream’ political parties.

Charlotte’s leading questions and comments, emotional not rational, included:

• Are we holding back progress?
• Is regulatory process hampering the development of GM crops?
• We need GM crops to feed the world (quoting Mark Walport) – a theory discredited by facts presented by many, including geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou.

This notion of progress was used  in the 60s to build defective concrete tower blocks and justify other dubious projects – and now the taxpayer levied HS2.

Charlotte asserted that the rest of the world is using the technology (mainly for animal feed) but look at the pro-biotech ISAAA’s table:

The Rothamsted advocate could not have been given an easier ride

One of Charlotte’s opening remarks was “We need progress”  –  but surely not progress towards resistant weeds, insect pests and damage to health. None of these problems were even mentioned by the opponent of GM crops from the Soil Association. Were guidelines been imposed beforehand as a condition of appearing?

Challenge

The BBC is challenged to invite farmer Michael Hart to speak in such a debate.

No laboratory scientist, in his short documentary he investigated the reality of farming genetically modified crops in the USA ten years after their introduction. He travelled across the US interviewing farmers and other specialists about their experiences of growing GM.

During the making of the film he heard problems of the ever-increasing costs of seeds and chemicals to weeds becoming resistant to herbicides.

The BBC is also challenged to present the facts about the high levels of ill health in a generation of Americans ‘nourished’ on meat from cattle fed GM maize and soy.

Or would this present too many obstacles to acceptance of GM technology, end the hospitality to media and close the biotech industry’s revolving door to the public relations sector, scientists and politicians?

.

The Farmers Guardian pro-GM front page

As the corporate–political drive to introduce GM crops intensifies, with recent support from the BBC in its Countryside File, the Farmers Guardian – which often prints articles showing genetic modification in a positive light – has used its front page to feature the views of establishment scientist Professor Robert Watson.

Establishment?

Yes, witness his choices of career from chief scientist at the World Bank, to Nasa, and as an Associate Director the White House Office, before joining DEFRA and soon returning to America.

All this was omitted by the FG who said only that he was born in Essex, took up DEFRA position and continued to work at the University of East Anglia.

Professor Watson’s parting shot: “GM is a part of the solution to feed the world”

*

 A firm rebuttal comes from Kings College geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou in the summary of a recent report.

GM crops:

• are not adequately regulated to ensure safety,
• do not increase yield potential,
• do not reduce pesticide use but increase it,
• create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops,
• have mixed economic effects,
• harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity,
• do not offer effective solutions to climate change,
• are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops

Dr Antoniou’s final assertion: “[GM crops] cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on”.

GMO Myths and Truths: Dr Michael Antoniou et al

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters, who say that GM crops:

• are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops,
• are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops,
• are strictly regulated for safety,
• increase crop yields,
• reduce pesticide use,
• benefit farmers and make their lives easier,
• bring economic benefits,
• benefit the environment,
• can help solve problems caused by climate change,
• reduce energy use and
• will help feed the world.

However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. Evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:

• are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops,
• can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts,
• are not adequately regulated to ensure safety,
• do not increase yield potential,
• do not reduce pesticide use but increase it,
• create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops,
• have mixed economic effects,
• harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity,
• do not offer effective solutions to climate change,
• are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops and
• cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.

Based on the evidence presented in this report, the authors stress that there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist.

Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.

Read the full GMO Myths and Truths report