A soya model NOT to follow

April 2018

Argentina's 'modelo sojero', once promoted as a shining economic example for others to follow, seems instead to have led straight to the social disaster many predicted.

The 'modelo sojero' [1] is based on a move to high-tech monocultures of a few commodity crops (in this case mainly GM soya, a lot of wheat and GM maize) produced for export markets and for growing the country's GDP. Boosted by extreme free-trade, light-touch regulations and privatisation, the model channels the cash flowing in from far-off lands into state hand-outs to reduce poverty.

Pesticide divorce proceedings

April 2018
Protest against pesticides in Paris 2016
Photo Creative Commons
The EU's biggest grain grower, grain exporter and food producer, France, has been leading the way in healthy food and farming for the last decade.

France was one of the first Member States to 'opt out' of growing GM crops in 2015 (see Note below).

The following year, a ban on pesticide use in public green spaces was announced by the French government, plus a prohibition on over-the-counter sales of pesticides to non-professional gardeners. From 2019, pesticide use will be prohibited in private gardens also.

'Bt' and kidney disease

April 2018

The EU probably has the most detailed, carefully drafted and thought-out GM regulations in the world. All Member States can give their opinion during the GM approval process, and the precautionary principle underlies it.

New biotech crops on the market come stacked with multiple artificial genes*. In such cases, even if the 'parent' single-trait crops have already been accepted, the EU quite rightly considers the crop to be a new GM organism needing its own regulatory approval.

How the EU system works in practice, however, is less impressive.

Scientific dysfunctional advice mechanism

April 2018

The European Commission (EC) is clearly struggling with the wealth of novel genome tweaking techniques streaming out of the laboratory.

Problem No.1 is finding a collective name for what it's trying to regulate. 'New breeding techniques' seems to be favoured despite the notable presence of manufacturing and absence of procreation in the techniques themselves [1]. Some new breeding techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9 [2], are referred to as gene- or genome-editing giving them an aura of minor and precise correction. Concerned scientists and green organisations have no hesitation in calling them what they are: new GM techniques producing new GMOs which have much the same uncertainties, risks and potential for indirect negative impacts as the old kind.

The world's No. 1 non-weedkiller

March 2018

Monsanto has been insisting for years that glyphosate, the staple weedkiller of the modern world and pillar of GM crops, is safe [1]. Regulators concur.

The latest published, independent science on the subject also agrees: glyphosate is safe. In fact, it's so safe it doesn't even kill plants.

Let's be clear: at recommended agricultural dilutions glyphosate had "no observable adverse effect" on plants nor on human cells.

So, what's killing all those weeds so effectively around the globe when they're treated with glyphosate-based sprays?

The scientists who found glyphosate was a non-weedkiller went on to explore that very question.

Bt bio-burden

March 2018


What would you expect to happen if you forced a plant to produce a large, foreign protein continuously whether or not it served any biological purpose, and no matter what else the plant's physiology was dealing with at the time?

Protein production requires a supply of nitrogen, carbon and water to build the molecule, and a supply of energy to do the building. The plant gets its nitrogen and water from the soil (providing they're there and its roots are healthy), and gets its carbon and energy by photosynthesis in its green leaves (providing they're healthy).

So, what would you expect to happen if the resources needed for a plant's protein production are being siphoned off to make that large, unnecessary, foreign protein?

Clamour for GM safety testing

March 2018


No clinical trials on human health outcomes from eating GM foods have ever been conducted.

Although the need for post-market monitoring seems to appear in GM regulatory approvals, no health surveillance has ever been carried out. You don't have to look far to find the reason.