As further problems with superbugs and superweeds are reported, DEFRA minister Paterson is to call for a fresh debate on GM crops

Yesterday Alistair Driver reported in the Farmers Guardian, that DEFRA Secretary Owen Paterson will call for a fresh debate on the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in the UK in a speech on Thursday.

He noted that the UK Government has always been one of the biggest proponents of the GM crops within the EU, adding that Paterson, “an outspoken supporter of the controversial technology”, will highlight the need for a new direction in GM policy.

Superweeds

Devinder Sharma (a Delhi analyst, trained in plant breeding & genetics) notes, “ever since genetically modified (GM) crops have been commercialised, the pace at which insects and weeds are developing resistance has hastened”.

He highlights agribusiness research consultancy Stratus report that nearly half of US farms report superweeds and reproduces its line chart adding that the problem has now spread to Canada, quoting the Manitoba Co-operator’s review of the Stratus survey:

“More than one million acres of Canadian farmland have glyphosate-resistant weeds growing on them.”

.

Superbugs

Nature Biotechnology summarises the findings of a team of experts at the University of Arizona: “Analyzing data from 77 studies of 13 pest species in eight countries on five continents, the researchers found well-documented cases of field-evolved resistance to Bt crops in five major pests as of 2010, compared with only one such case in 2005. Three of the five cases are in the United States, where farmers have planted about half of the world’s Bt crop acreage”. Its chart:

Dr Sharma concludes:

“For the industry, the development of superbugs and superweeds across the globe provides an immense business opportunity. GM companies are asking farmers to spray more stronger and potent chemicals . . .The top three GM companies now control over 70% of global seed sales and also dominate the pesticides market . . . .

“With millions of acres under GM crops being infested with superweeds and superbugs and the acreage growing with every passing year . . . (in time) superweeds and superbugs will turn into mankind’s biggest challenge”

He believes that this will happen, not in the distant future, but in our lifetime.

.

Are wealthy corporates gaining ground with government and farming media?

The Institute of Grocery Distribution has been tracking shoppers’ attitudes to GM foods since the 1990s and revisited the topic last year  (May 2012).

Like the Farmers Guardian, the Scottish Farmer is giving prominent coverage to GM–friendly articles, covering Mark Lynas’ change of mind this week and returning to the May IGD report, asking: Are consumers calming down?

In fact, as the report finds, attitudes have remained fairly constant over the past decade. Though somewhat masked by more favourable answers to minor questions about awareness – which will reinforce the corporate-political persuasion that the ‘stupid’ populace needs even more ‘education’ – the main facts reported in the Scottish Farmer are that in spring 2012:

• 51% of shoppers said in effect – don’t know
• 13% were strongly opposed
• 3% were strongly in favour

Were they being economical with the truth? See the chart from the IGD website:

And why don’t they ask how many would buy the stuff? I guess because they don’t want to hear the answer.

This fear is also behind the time and money spent by the GM industry world-wide to resist labelling, succeeding in California recently, despite nationwide polls indicating a politically bipartisan vote of over 90% in favour of labelling genetically modified food.

The content and stance of the BBC’s Farming Today and the Farmers Guardian has overwhelmingly changed for the worse over the years and the writer did not renew her FG subscription this year. See its tone in 2002:

Labelling GM foods (Farmers Guardian 10.5.02)

The EU is proposing to amend a directive which would make it compulsory to label all food containing GM ingredients or derivatives. It has also applied an informal moratorium on approvals for GM food crops.

Now the US is preparing to demand that the WTO overturns the proposed amendment and is threatening a trade war if Brussels does not back down.

Countries including China, Croatia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and New Zealand have sought to implement restrictions on GM imports or introduce compulsory labelling. In each case they have backed down after the USA threatened action at the WTO.

As Tom Macmillan said at the Oxford Farming Conference: the promotion of GM technology is not driven by any desire to feed the world’s poor or improve the natural environment but by Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer’s desire for ever-increasing profit.

Paterson & Lynas are wrong: GM results to date have been poor: Tom Macmillan, Soil Association

Briefly and imperfectly reported by the ardently pro GM Farmers Guardian, at the Oxford Farming Conference, Tom Macmillan, innovation director at the Soil Association, responded to comments by the former environmentalist Mark Lynas and Defra Secretary of State Owen Paterson.

”Mark Lynas is right that improving productivity across agriculture, including in organic farming, has an important part to play in feeding the world sustainably. Through our Duchy Originals Future Farming programme, the Soil Association is investing in research and innovation to help farmers develop and share novel approaches to help improve productivity in environmentally responsible ways.

”Lynas acknowledged that meeting this challenge globally is in large part about ensuring existing techniques are available to the poorest farmers in the world, and much also depends on directly tackling poverty and on rich countries adopting more sustainable consumption habits”.

Mark Lynas is wrong, ‘seriously mistaken’: “Banging on about GM crops, as Lynas did today, is a red herring.”

This, Macmillan continued, because the results to date have been poor:

• The UK Government’s own farm scale experiment showed that overall the GM crops were worse for British wildlife.
• US Government figures show pesticide use has increased since GM crops have been grown there because superweeds and resistant insects have multiplied.

He warns that “Lynas, Paterson and other GM enthusiasts must beware of opening floodgates to real problems like this.”

After citing the Benbrook study, reported here some time ago, he referred to the situation in this country:

• Most of the British public do not want GM.
• The recent British Science Association survey cited by Owen Paterson shows that public concern over GM food has not lessened – it shows that attitudes have not changed significantly.
• The share saying they agree that GM food “should be encouraged” has actually dropped from 46% in 2002 to 27% in 2012.
• The Government has kept people in the dark by opposing labelling of meat and milk from animals fed on GM.

The Soil Association supports practical innovation that addresses real needs, is genuinely sustainable and puts farmers in control of their livelihoods. Where GM crops have been planted they are doing the opposite, locking farmers into buying herbicides and costly seed, while breeding resistant weeds and insects.

Tom Macmillan stresses that the drive to promote GM technology is not due to any desire to feed the world’s poor or improve the natural environment but by Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer’s desire for ever-increasing profit. He ends:

“Meeting the challenge of providing better nutrition for more people sustainably calls for joined-up research that takes an ecological approach, responds to people’s real needs and respects farmers’ know-how”.

–

Soil Association article in full:

http://www.soilassociation.org/news/newsstory/articleid/4780/oxford-farming-conference-soil-association-response-to-owen-paterson-mark-lynas-talks

DEFRA on GM technology

Shortly after a controversy reported in the Farmers Guardian, on 1^st  November 2012, a new entry about GM technology was placed on the DEFRA website.

It is pleasing to see a commitment to clear GM labelling and we hope that this will be retained. However the undertaking that “we will implement pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate these from conventional and organic crops” appears to be promising the impossible.

And what is meant by this: “the Government believes that regulation of this technology must be proportionate”?

Extracts

• The Government will only agree to the planting of GM crops, the release of other types of GM organism, or the marketing of GM food or feed products, if a robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe for people and the environment.  GM product applications should be assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis, taking full account of the scientific evidence.

• The Government will ensure consumers are able to exercise choice through clear GM labelling rules and the provision of suitable information, and will listen to public views about the development and use of the technology.

• The Government supports farmers having access to developments in new technology and being able to choose whether or not to adopt them.  If and when GM crops are grown in England commercially, we will implement pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate these from conventional and organic crops, so that choice can be exercised and economic interests appropriately protected.

• The Government recognises that GM technology could deliver benefits providing it is used safely and responsibly, in particular as one of a range of tools to address the longer term challenges of global food security, climate change, and the need for more sustainable agricultural production.  (Here we would recommend Dr Michael Antoniou’s GM Myths and Truths to our DEFRA reader.

• Developing countries should have fair access to such technology and make their own informed decisions regarding its use.

• To encourage innovation, fair market access for safe products and economic growth, the Government believes that regulation of this technology must be proportionate.

David Burrows reports that the  Government has reacted angrily to claims it is brokering ‘secret deals’ with biotechnology companies to push genetically modified (GM) foods.

The claims were founded on information in a document, obtained through Freedom of Information, which is linked to a meeting back in June between various biotechnology companies, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), Science Minister David Willetts and the then Defra Minister Lord Taylor.

A summary of notes highlighted the need for, among other things, ‘increased investment in biotech’ and the ‘start of a public debate about the role of biotech’.

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”.