Government public relations drive on gene edited food

July2022

Analysis

Westminster is pulling out all the stops to force gene-edited foods down UK throats. Its tactics are very reminiscent of those employed a quarter-of-a-century ago, when first-generation GM foods were imminent. However, a couple of lessons have been learned from that first PR disaster.

GM safeguards scrapped in the UK

February 2022

As Westminster continues its love affair with high-tech industrial agriculture, the dismantling of GM safeguards in the UK is underway.

Towards the end of 2021, our Environment Secretary announced regulatory exemptions for field trials of "plants produced by genetic technologies where genetic changes could have occurred naturally or could have been a result of traditional breeding methods".

What happened to taking back control?

February 2020

• Democracy - government by the people, direct or indirect
• Tyranny - government by an absolute ruler

The huge and complex task of 'taking back control' of our regulations preparatory to Brexit seems to be ensuring that current and future rules will not be subject to proper political or public scrutiny [1].

Corporate Communism?

November 2017

Denying local communities the freedom to choose their own agricultural system, not only what they grow but how they grow it, has suddenly become a priority in the USA.

By August this year, 28 States had passed "seed pre-emption laws" never deemed necessary nor desirable before.

The new laws are primarily designed to block counties and cities from banning GMOs, but the language used in some bills could enable them to extend to such things as manures, fertilisers and irrigation (these could be used to promote, for example, agri-chemical corporate interests, agri-chemical dependent GM crops, and futuristic drought-tolerant GM crops).

Let's campaign

July 2017

Now that you have a newly-elected representative in Government, just burning with enthusiasm to serve you, it's a good time to speak out.

The Great Brexit Bungle could have many outcomes damaging to the quality of your food and your long-term health. All the existing EU food laws on GMOs might remain intact. However, it seems more likely we'll find ourselves with the GM products of US light-touch regulation on our plate and not a label in sight. Or, we could end up in a limbo into which any country will be able to dump surplus GM stuff no one else wants.

GMOs, human rights and the environment

June 2017

The advisory opinion of the International Monsanto Tribunal, referred to in GM-Free Scotland articles earlier this year [1,2], has been published.

Six questions were addressed by the Tribunal, and its opinions were based exclusively on legal considerations, grounded in international human rights and humanitarian laws (see below).

Ban Glyphosate EU Citizens' Initiative

March 2017

Besides the obvious negative environmental impacts of the world's most widely-used herbicide, readers of GM-free Scotland will probably agree that,"expanding scientific evidence demonstrates that glyphosate is also a serious threat to human health" [1,2,3]. Also, because "EU Regulation 1107/2009 prohibits the use of pesticides when there is sufficient evidence in laboratory animals that these substances can cause cancer, based on IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) criteria ... EU approval for glyphosate must be withdrawn."

Patents on every bite

November 2015

Photo Creative Commons

The GM mindset which has successfully manipulated common-sense to allow living organisms to be 'invented' has been expanded to allow something even more unholy.

Swiss biotech giant, Syngenta, has been granted a patent on some novel tomatoes, including the plants themselves, their seeds and their fruit.

The novelty value of these tomatoes is their particularly high levels of 'flavonols' which are micronutrients recognised as being healthful for the heart besides having anti-oxidant, anti-cancer, anti-viral, anti-allergic, and anti-inflammatory  properties.

Despite the patent, the tomatoes are not GM, but have been 'invented' by crossing flavonol-rich wild tomatoes with domestic varieties.  Extensive (expensive) genetic science was, of course, employed to find the appropriate wild strains and to guide the breeding process, but why the fancy tomatoes should command more than old-fashioned breeders' rights isn't clear.  Moreover, European patent law prohibits patents on plant varieties and on methods of classical breeding.

Watchdog organisation, No Patent on Seeds, has pointed out that the European Patent Office (EPO) exists to promote innovation in business, and is controlled only by a single Administrative Council.  EPO revenue is increased by granting patents. There seems to be little or no incentive to refuse a patent.

For the European public, this patent on conventional tomatoes opens the door to ownership of all our food by big corporations: all they need to do is find a gene in a wild relative to 'enhance' your food with.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Back in 2012, the European Parliament demanded the EPO stop granting such patents on conventionally-bred plants. If the Parliament is powerless, we need networking amongst governments to put a stop any more such patents. 

Safeguard your future food: demand a STOP to patents on life.

SOURCES

• Yao LH, et al., 2004, Flavonoids in food and their health benefits, Plant Foods and Human Nutrition 59(3)
• Sally Robertson, What are Flavonoids? www.news-medical.net
• New patent granted on tomatoes derived from classical breeding, No Patents on Seeds, 25.08.15

GM-free Scotland, and getting closer

November 2015

Photo Creative Commons

On August 9th 2015, GM-free Scotland moved a step closer to reality.

Taking a "very brave step ... given the political power of the GM-crop proponents"* Scotland will not grow GM Crops.

How this became possible arose due to an unprecedented, and total, lack of consensus by EU Member States: they have never reached the required qualified majority either in favour or against any draft GM authorisation proposed by the Commission.

This recurrent "no opinion" limbo has meant all 67 GM food and feed authorisations have been granted by default.

Toxic regulation

September 2015

Water pollution in United States. Photo Creative Commons

In a US radio show this year, former President Jimmy Carter described the US presidential elections as degenerated into nothing more than an "oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery".

Cynical financial control of US regulators and regulations is nowhere more obvious than in GM matters.

Since 2013, food and biotech companies and their trade bodies have spent £143 million in lobbying against GM labelling laws: they spent £51.6 million in the first half of 2015 alone.

The 275 members of Congress who voted for an Act designed to pre-empt implementation of GM labelling laws at State level*, accepted $29.9 million from Big Ag and Big Food in 2014.

*This Act has been dubbed the 'DARK' (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act.

TTIP is about GM

August 2015

Photo from Creative Commons

Disquiet about the 'Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership' (TTIP) continues to grow [1].

The goal of these secretive negotiations is to open up trade between America and Europe. Since the discrepancy between US administration’s 'light-touch' voluntary attitude to GM produce and rigorous GMO regulation in the EU is irreconcilable, there is real concern the TTIP will be used to circumvent vital European GM controls.

Take action to stop GMOs!

April 2015


A MESSAGE FROM FOOD AND WATER WATCH

 

Why Don't Our Supermarkets Sell GM Food? Because We Don't Eat It!

We have some of the best, most wholesome food in the world. Act to protect it from the GM crop experiment.

Why action now is critical: Two BIG reasons: GM corn and newly granted powers.

With recent rule changes, we can now ban crops one by one. We need to act quickly. DuPont could even foist a new GM corn on us by 2016! More are sure to follow.

Why action matters: Our good, nutritious non-GM food and farming need our protection from government mismanagement.

The government seems confused about the reality of growing GM crops. A few weeks ago, the UK Food and Farming Minister said she wants UK farmers to have access to GM crops to fight disease and raise farm yields, but no GM crop actually does this. The Minister wants decisions on GM to be made on scientific evidence, but scientific field trials conducted in the UK showed that GM harmed the threatened wildlife which we should be protecting.

What's the truth behind the push for GM crops? It's really about trade.

Our government is spending our money on GM research to sell the results here and overseas because it claims that it will help our economy. That's just not true. GM could cost us dearly instead. Contamination happens wherever GM is grown, so growing GM crops will jeopardise the reputation of our agriculture, which employs 3.5 million people and makes up 7% of our economy. UK food exports alone are worth nearly £19 billion per year, so betting the farm on GM crops is a bad plan.

Write now to keep GM crops out of our fields and our food. You don't have to live in the UK to care about what happens in the UK fields

 

TAKE ACTION HERE

Here's a TTIP

November 2014

One of the world's best-kept-secret set of trade agreements is gradually filtering its way into the public awareness.

The ''Transatlantic Trade and Partnership' (TTIP) between the US and the EU is being put in place to reduce regulatory barriers to trade, especially for big business.

Unstitching the media stitch-up

October 2014

2013 March against Monsanto, Washington DC, USA. CC photo by Stephen Melkisethlan

The GM-media stitch-up which became evident when our previous Environment Minister was strutting his stuff on the pro-GM stage [1,2] seems to be part of an orchestrated, world-wide GM-good-news-only drive (see below for examples).

Given what has been reaching the news lately, you might be getting the impression that 'the GM debate is over' and that GM-concern campaigning is dead in the water.

No so.

Westminster's new Environment Secretary

August 2014

Owen Paterson. Photo Wiki Commons

The Westminster/Owen Paterson plot to kick-start GM crop development in the UK [1,2,3] seems to have reached the end of its first leg.

Courtesy of (former) Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, the EU Council was persuaded to break the deadlock on GM crops by allowing those pesky GM-resisting members to opt-out [4]. This appears to open the door wide for GM development in the UK.

However, Owen Paterson has been fired from his post.

The reason for Paterson's removal isn't clear. He seems to have been very active and effective on GM, and it seems unlikely the Prime Minister noticed anything amiss with his grasp of science.

Modifying regulation

July 2014

US rally to support GMO food labelling.
CC photo by CT State Democrats on FLickr

If you've been following the news on GM foods in America, you'll have realised that an overwhelming majority of the people wants GM to be labelled. American democracy being what it is, vast sums of money are being spent by pro-labelling public-interest groups on the one hand, and a good deal more by anti-labelling industry giants on the other hand. The main result has been a tug-of-war which has served to raise awareness of the issue but resolved nothing.

 

Given the current level of information on food packages, which includes nutrients, trace nutrients, weird processed stuff, calorific values, sweeteners, and strings of additives, it's not obvious why it should be so difficult to add in the words “genetically modified”, and the industry claim that it would increase food prices is ludicrous.

 

A look at how US food regulations were bent into shape to approve one of the earliest GM offerings, 'New Leaf' potatoes, might give you an inkling of where the problem lies.  

Addressing the wrong questions

June 2014


March against Monsanto Washington, US October 2013.
CC photo: Stephen Melkisethian on Flickr

In 2008, US food writer, Michael Pollan, produced an “Eater's Manifesto” whose short answer to the question of healthy eating was: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
He says now “The fact that it was even noteworthy is what's noteworthy about it. It's a measure of how perplexed we've become about food as a result of what the food industry has done. You have to be pretty lost for that to come as news.”

How did Americans become so lost that they don't know what food is, nor know when their bodies have had enough of it? (And the rest of the world seems to be fast following them down that path.)

Famine amidst plenty

May 2014

Volunteers at the Greater Boston Food Bank in the US.

Comment

 

The UK Chief Scientific Adviser is supporting the Westminster Government and Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, as they push for GM crop development in Britain [1].

 

He explained that, at present, “our supermarket shelves are groaning with food” but that in future “If we don't use GM the risk is people going unfed”. This seems to be a faithful repetition of the biotech industry line that only GM can provide the increased yields and crop adaptation to climate change needed to feed the future human population.

 

Interestingly, this reasoning was reported just days after the UK media had picked up on the shocking news that 'business' in our food banks is booming as never before.

 

In Newcastle alone, one food bank which was providing emergency food to 30 people a week less than a year ago is now supply 1,600 desperate people. The bank even has special packs for those unable to afford to use a cooker.

 

The reason?

 

Not lack of food, the supermarket shelves continue to groan: poverty.

Scotland's principles on GMOs

February 2013

Image by Timothy Valentine (off the grid) on Flickr

Just in case you thought that MP Owen Paterson's orchestrated media campaign (see WESTMINSTER'S PRO-GM PUSH - January 2013) and MP George Freeman's various carefully-positioned friends (see KEEPING WESTMINSTER ON THEFRONT FOOT - January 2013) are succeeding in changing attitudes to GM in Scotland, relax.

The Scottish Government is very clear about the key principles which guide its opposition to GM:

• The precautionary principle - insufficient evidence has been presented that GM crops are safe
• The preventative principle - the cultivation of GM crops could tarnish Scotland's natural environment and damage wider aspects of the Scottish economy such as tourism and the production of high quality, natural food.
• The democratic principle - science-based decision making cannot replace the will of the people. There is no evidence of a demand for GM products by Scottish consumers.

And Scotland is not 'going it alone'.