UK government permits GM trial: Chinese Military Command bans GM food

The BBSRC website announces that DEFRA has granted Rothamsted Research permission to conduct a field trial of Camelina plants that have been genetically modified to produce omega-3 oils that may provide health, environmental and societal benefits. It will form part of the BBSRC publicly funded programme of work, ‘Seeds for nutrition and health’ that is being carried out at Rothamsted.

Owen Paterson and David Cameron please note: China’s Military Command has just banned GMO staple food and oil from its army’s diet

This was done in order to assure the health of military members and safety of their drinks and food, because of safety concerns about GMO grain and oil products in China at present.

Google Translate’s version of a Chinese blog says that the Guangzhou Military Command Joint Logistics Department and the Provincial Military Grain & Food Oil Supply Center, announced on May 6^th that from this date all military supply stations will be allowed to purchase only non-GMO grain and food oil products from the designated processing enterprises.

They are considering what to decide about the diet of education bureaus and departments, all canteens of primary and middle schools and universities. The standard established by the State Food & Drug Administration Bureau for infant formula powder allowing to add chemically extracted GM soybean oil and GM soybean protein powder is also being questioned.

A campaigning group adds: “This move by the Chinese army is being seen as yet another step towards the Chinese government’s expected ban on the import of all GMO grains and oilseeds within the next 2 years, due to growing public concern over GMOs. The expected ban would be a huge blow to the biotech industry worldwide”.

–

Three views on Owen Paterson’s advocacy for GM crops: the MP, the farmer and – implicitly – the bishop

 The Conservative MP, who questions his suitability  

In July, the Telegraph reported that MP Zac Goldsmith thinks that Owen Paterson the Environment Secretary is citing “nonsense” to argue for genetically modified crops and acting as a mouthpiece for the GM industry.

Mr Paterson argued last month that GM crops would improve human health and the environment. He also claimed that had the deployment of “golden rice” – a strain of the food that boosts vitamin A levels and reduces blindness in developing countries – not been thwarted, seven million lives could have been saved.

Mr Goldsmith told The Independent: “Any half-way decent GM enthusiast with a scientific background would have blushed during much of the speech Owen Paterson made. You have to wonder about the Government’s gung-ho attitude to GM – you can’t stuff pollen back into a tin.”

He raised questions over Mr Paterson’s suitability for the job of Environment Secretary, suggesting he failed to understand the issue of GM: “When designing policy that’s a dangerous thing, and I’m concerned big business is framing the debate for the Government.”

*

The farmer, who considers that Owen Paterson is wrong to back GM crops

With a clarity reminiscent of Dr Antoniou’s ‘Myths and Truths’, Peter Lundgren’s website lists the unfulfilled promises made about the technology and the advances made by conventional plant breeders ending:

“The uncomfortable truth is that GM is failing on its promise whilst enhanced conventional breeding is delivering for farmers and wider society”.

*

The Bishop of Norwich, who implicitly answers the frequently repeated assertion that GM crops will feed the world

The Rt Revd Graham James briefly summed up the heart of the matter on Radio 4 recently, selecting as the most important question:

.

“How will we order the world’s already abundant food supply”.

.

GM food for the hoi polloi?

The Financial Times reports that though prime minister David Cameron supports Owen Paterson’s advocacy of GM crops, saying there was no evidence that they were inherently unsafe, Downing Street declined to say whether the prime minister would feed such foods to his family.

Read the message from the farming sector – said to be eager to adopt this technology: http://political-cleanup.org/?p=7399

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