The Pesticide PM, and his toxic policies.

In response to the EU pesticide proposals which aim to ban some of the most toxic agricultural chemicals, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stated that impending changes to EU pesticide rules “will damage food production without benefiting human health or the environment”.

The above statement is an outrageous insult to everyone who lives in proximity to pesticide spraying.Rural residents experience first hand the impacts of crop spraying and know that the new EU rules would substantially improve their quality of life by removing the risk of inhaling toxic fumes, or of pesticide poisoning through skin contact.

Gordon Brown’s statements about crop yields are also inaccurate and highlight his economically bullish motivation, and support of the chemical industry, rather than the health of the general public.

Farmers Weekly magazine features a “Save Our Sprays” campaign. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has chosen to support this campaign rather than the campaign which seeks to save
peoples lives and protect our health.

Pesticide poisoning, Gordon Brown couldn't care less.

When Georgina Downs won the High Court case against the government recently, the judge concluded that the government had fundamentally failed to protect people in the countryside from pesticides and has also knowingly allowed residents to continue to suffer from adverse health effects without taking any action to prevent the exposure, risks and adverse inpacts occurring.

The Judgment had concluded that Ms. Downs had produced “solid evidence that
residents have suffered harm to their health”, particularly in relation to acute effects, and
that “a different approach” should have been adopted and accordingly there has “been
both a failure to have regard to material considerations and a failure to apply the
[European] Directive properly.”

In response to this ruling the government has paid lip service only, saying...."The
protection of human health is paramount” and “we will look at this judgment in
detail to see whether there are ways in which we can strengthen our system…”

Later they declared that they will be appealing the High Court decision, and soon after Gordon Brown communicated to the EU that he was not in favour of the EU proposals to ban some of the most toxic pesticides.

Despite all reliable independent evidence relating to the risks of agricultural pesticides, Gordon Brown has explicitly conveyed his support for the interests of big business over the health of ordinary people, not only in his own country, but throughout the world.

New EU Pesticide Proposals.

"These Pesticide Proposals(the Proposal for a Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides and the Proposal for a Regulation Concerning the Placing of Pesticides on the Market) will set pesticide policy throughout the whole of the EU for at least the next ten years and possibly even the next few decades." Georgina Downs warns that serious lobbying by the chemical and farming industry and the UK government itself has meant that the proposals are not as strong as they were.

The agricultural industries and NFU have used the press to push their scaremongering about supposed 'negative impacts on farming and food prices'. The CPA (crop protection association) which represents the agrochemical industry has a vested interest in trying to ensure that all pesticides remain on the market-and they are putting these interests before the health of the people of the EU.

Extremely toxic pesticides include carcinogens, repro-toxins, mutagens and endocrine disruptors. In order for the original pesticide proposals to succeed it is essential for MEP's to vote in favour of the proposals. Please write and ask your local MEP's to support the proposals to ban the pesticides. This is urgent as they vote soon.

Pesticides cocktails.

Since Georgina Downs won her high court battle against the government, she has written a comment on the 'Farming Today' blog to correct any misinterpretations around her message regarding agricultural pesticides. I have recorded below paragraphs from her comments which enumerate the important points:-

……"agricultural pesticides are commonly used in mixtures, often 4 or 5 different products in any one application. Each product formulation in itself can contain a number of different active ingredients, as well as other chemicals such as solvents, surfactants and co-formulants (some of which can have adverse effects in their own right, even before considering any potential synergistic effects in a mixture(s)). Therefore when people are exposed over the long-term to ongoing mixtures and then go on to suffer a chronic illness or disease it will be almost impossible to know which pesticide led to the illness or whether it is as a result of synergistic effects of mixtures of pesticides and the long term cumulative build up in the individuals. The Judge in my case recognised both the point of mixtures and of cumulative effects and therefore it is simply not the case as Elliott incorrectly put it of just getting rid of what he classes as the most "toxic" (which he stated is about 20 pesticides (5% of those currently on themarket)) as a) all chemical pesticides are designed to be toxic, that is their purpose; b) they are used in cocktails anyway and not individually and c) the Ontario College of Family Physicians in its thorough and detailed 2004 pesticides literature review quite rightly concluded that "Our review does not support the idea that some pesticides are safer than others; it simply points to different health effects for different classes of pesticides."The review?s overall message to people was to avoid exposure to all pesticides whenever and wherever possible.

…… It should be noted that the Judge in my case did not say that the UK system could be made lawful by just getting rid of a handful ofpesticides…..

The Judge agreed with my long-standing charge that the Government has fundamentally failed to protect people in the countryside from pesticides and has also knowingly allowed residents to continue to suffer from adverse health effects without taking any action to prevent the exposure, risks and adverse impacts occurring"

Victory of Right over might.

Georgina Downs has won a milestone High Court action against the government, after her seven year campaign to reveal the fundamental inadequacies of the regulation and control of agricultural pesticides.

The High Court has ruled that “people living in the countryside are at risk from crop sprays and must be given better protection.”

In court the Department of Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had argued that its approach to the regulation and control of pesticides was "reasonable, logical and lawful in all the circumstances".
But the judge ruled that the result of his judgement was that Mr Benn "must think again and consider what needs to be done".

Georgina Downs said that “the UK government’s relentless and extraordinary attempts to protect industry, as opposed to people’s health, has been one of the most outrageous things to behold in the last seven years of my fight.”

I would like to thank Georgina Downs for her courageous and phenomenal dedication to the campaign in those seven years.

For more information, Georgina Down’s campaign website is called UK Pesticides Campaign.

UK countryside in poor health.

The degraded condition of land and the near extinction of some birds and wildlife is to a large extent due to the bullish attitudes of successive governments.
Hedgerows, woodland, and wildplants, insects and wild animals have been sacrificed to the intensive use of pesticides and industrialised farming methods, in the mistaken belief that this is a realistic or sustainable system of food production for the future post peak oil world.

Last week the House of Commons Environmental Committee published a report which concluded that…” the government needs to do more to halt the dramatic decline in our native landscape and wildlife”

Biodiversity loss and loss of our native landscape is considered by government to be necessary collateral damage in the drive for economic growth. Infact some individuals don’t consider it to be damage at all. They simply don’t recognize or care about their self condoned vandalism, (it is government which sets the policies for agricultural practice). Biodiversity isn’t an optional extra, It is fundamental to our survival on this planet. Culturally and aesthetically it provides more than just a pleasing panomara which is appealingl for the tourist industry.
In a metropolitan setting no government would be allowed to destroy historic buildings or parklands for economic reasons, yet they consider they have the right to allow farmers to destroy the fabric of our rural landscape.

Tim Yeo, who chairs the select committee, stated that the balance of nature is economically important.- that there is a compelling economic case for protecting the environment. …”Environmental gain is conducive to economic growth-prosperity and good environment go hand in hand- they are not conflicting objectives.”

One result of the destruction of the fabric of the countryside is that farmland birds, like the turtle dove, grey partridge and linnet have declined to their lowest level on record, with some species becoming extinct in some regions of the UK. The latest survey by DEFRA shows the number of breeding pairs of farmland birds has now more than halved since intensive farming with chemicals was introduced in the 1960’s.
Some species have declined more than 85% leading to local extinctions, including the corn bunting in Northern Ireland and yellow wagtail in Devon. Other affected species are lapwing, grey partridge, tree sparrow and skylark.

Meanwhile, what exactly is the motivation of the UK government in threatening conservation schemes by cutting budgets to key organizations like Natural England?

Too few frogs, too much Monsanto.

Over half of Europe’s amphibians face extinction by 2050. Climate change, diseases and habitat destruction and urbanisation are blamed. This was an assesment of the Zoological Society of London, in September.

This week the World Conservation Congress is gathering in Barcelona to discuss environmental problems and how to work towards a biodiverse and sustainable world. Thousands of the worlds leading decision makers in sustainable development will be at the conference which is run by the IUCN the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.Valli Moosa, the president of IUCN, said in the opening session that industry, commerce and businesses are significantly responsible for pollution and degradation of ecosystems, and he said there is a clear sense of urgency in stopping the die off of the Earth's animal and plant life which could have dire consequences for humans as well.

The 'Red List' is the global standard for conservation monitoring, and the 2007 edition shows more than a third of 41,000 species surveyed are facing extinction; a quarter of all mammals, one out of eight birds, one out of three amphibians, and 70% of plants.

I don't know whether Monsanto were invited to attend this congress. It is not likely because they have a history of walking out of important meetings when they cannot get there own way. This happened at the sessions held by IAASTD to make decisions on the future direction of agriculture. Anyway Monsanto’s methods are also responsible for loss of farmland wildlife... The government body ‘Natural England’ demonstrated through field based trials on GM crops which were prepared for commercial release in England, that wildlife is damaged far more by the GM process than by conventional methods. Michael McCarthy in his article ‘Hello green concrete, goodbye wildlife’’ wrote… ’It means a landscape in which fields have a crop growing in them but nothing else. No wild plants or flowers of any sort, no butterflies or moths, no smaller insects on which birds and their chicks can feed, and so no birds. Green concrete means a countryside that may still be called the countryside, and may still appear green, but apart from the crop, it will be entirely sterile and lifeless.

I can predict the self righteous response from Monsanto, I have heard it before., along the lines of…they are attempting to solve the world’s food shortage, etc. Monsanto persist in this argument despite the fact that the recent IAASTD report, after four years research, concluded that GM’s and intensive farming methods were not the answer to feeding the world’s population.

They are agreed that the solution to climate change is biodiversity and eco-system management. The problem is that the foundation of sustainable life is disappearing.Meanwhile Monsanto persists in its catastrophic use of Roundup(glyphosate) so called because nothing survives.

Film Documentary, "The World According to Monsanto."

The following information is sourced from GMWatch.eu/

Marie-Monique Robin's excellent documentary film "The World according to Monsanto" will be shown at the European Social Forum(ESF) on Wednesday the 17th September in Malmo Sweden.

After the screening, there will be presentations on the current situation as regards GMO's by guest speakers including Daniel Mittler(political advisor, Greenpeace International) and Benjamin Sourice(Combat Monsanto).

Please join us! The movie is free of charge. Let's make the world free of GM- contamination!

The movie at the ESF is presented by Combat Monsanto, Sherpa France, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace.

Title: The World according to Monsanto
Date: September 17th,2008
Time: starts at 16.00
Place:Cinema Spegein(Stortorget 29, Malmo) TEL:+46-40-125978
http://www.biografspegein.se/

Monsanto is the worlds largest seed company and many are concerned. Troy Roush says "They are in the process of owning food, all food" Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says "its objective is to control all the worlds food production" Renowned Indian physicist and community organiser Vandana Shiva says"If they control seed they control food;they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world."

This post will include more info. re this film soon!

GM's, Phil Woolas and the elephant in the room.

GM proponents like to label those who oppose GM technology as ‘Luddites’ or ‘unscientific’. Presumably they imagine that by using these labels on their critics, they confer more gravitas to themselves and their erroneous claims for these agricultural crops. Prince Charles’ recent criticism of GM’s, triggered some bizarre and irrational responses. Because the science is powered by money, many politicians turn a blind eye to the glaringly obvious drawbacks of GM’s. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Phil Woolas, the English environment minister, accused Prince Charles of ignoring the needs of the worlds poorest countries by attacking GM crops, and insisted the government would go ahead with trials unless scientific evidence showed they were harmful. He challenged Prince Charles… “If it has been a disaster then please provide the evidence.” Infact Woolas is stubbornly ignoring independent research, and the actual experience of farmers from across the world.
Vandana Shiva, a physicist and campaigner against privatisation of the world’s croplands, immediately demolishes the cynical argument that the needs of the world’s poorest countries are being ignored by anti GM campaigners.(www.navdanya.org)
In challenging Prince Charles to produce proof of potential disaster, Phil Woolas has reversed the protocol for scientists to produce research to prove that a product is safe.Woolas is condoning the corporate colonisation of areas of British land(within barbed wire and cctv surveillance) to conduct trials of crops which have already been proved to be damaging to human health, wildlife and the environment.

Clare Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth, points to the fact that governments are evading the conclusions of the IAASTD Report. “The UN International Assesment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, written by 400 scientists and backed by 60 governments, found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase yields. In fact, the scientists were so unconvinced about the role of GM crops in meeting future food needs that the pro-GM US government refused to endorse the report, and the biotechnology industry pulled out of the process, despite having provided substantial funding at the outset.
The report stated that yield gains achieved through industrialised farming have come at an unacceptable environmental and social cost. Prince Charles has identified that GM crops will exacerbate these problems. It is now time for governments to act on the IAASTD’s findings and work for a radical shift towards local sustainable solutions for communities across the world, by combining latest research with traditional knowledge.”

Finally, re Woolas’s attack on Prince Charles, Robin Maynard of the Soil Association pointed out that the Prince of Wales ..”did not say that the problems emanating from overreliance on intensive farming methods during the Green Revolution in Punjab or exacerbating soil salinity in Australia stemmed from GM crops, but that these represented the latest manifestation of industrial agriculture’s overreliance on technological inputs to overwhelm natural resource limits, rather than following sustainable techniques which seek to work in balance with those limits.”

Monsanto's Roundup.

The application of agricultural pesticides to crops across the world has created a huge problem of toxic pollution in our air, soil, watercourses and sea. Monsanto is trying to exploit this problem by promising that GM crops will largely do away with the necessity for pesticide applications. Biotech companies claim that GM crops will provide the magic bullet to feed the world, and that the number of pesticides, and the frequency of applications will be reduced.

'Friends of the Earth' have explored these claims and their analysis is very different. Below(in blue text) I quote from “who benefits from gm crops?” by Friends of the Earth,(January 2008).

…….”As in the past, virtually 100% of
world acreage planted with commercial GM crops have one or
both of just two traits: herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance.
In the U.S., the world leader in GM crop production, companies are
focusing their development efforts on producing new herbicidetolerant
(HT) crops.Two of the fourGMcrops approved over the past
year and five of 12 new GM crops awaiting commercial approval
from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) are herbicide-tolerant.
Two of these crops in the pipeline are tolerant to two herbicides
rather than one, a new development driven by the spread of
herbicide-resistantweeds.

1.2 gm crops increase pesticide use
Pesticides are chemicals that target weeds (herbicides), insects
(insecticides) or other pests. HT versions of soya, corn, cotton and
canola represent 4 of every 5 hectares (81%) of GM crops
worldwide. HT crops are ‘pesticide-promoting’ – that is they
encourage the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, which
in turn lead to yet more pesticide use.
HT crops allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more
frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the
crop. They also allow larger, wealthier farmers to cultivate more
acres with less labor, advancing the world-wide trend towards
fewer and bigger industrial-style farms.
Pesticide-promoting HT crops have spawned an epidemic of
herbicide-resistant weeds in the U.S., Argentina and Brazil,
thereby encouraging still greater use of chemicals to control
them. Pesticides have adverse health and environmental
impacts that GM agriculture is exacerbating.
It is no accident that agrichemical-biotech companies focus
development efforts on pesticide-promoting, HT crops: they
lead to increased sales of the chemicals these firms also sell.
Monsanto's Roundup
Ready soya is modified for resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.
It is the world’s most widely planted GM crop and it suffers from
a “yield drag”due in part to reduced uptake of essential nutrients.
Herbicide-tolerant crops are designed to permit “over-the-top”
application of chemical weed killers without killing the crop itself.
Their chief benefit has been convenience: HT crops allow farmers
to spray a particular herbicidemore frequently and indiscriminately
without fear of damaging the crop.They also allowlarger,wealthier
farmers to cultivate more acres with less labor, facilitating the
world-wide trend to fewer and bigger industrial-style farms. It is no
accident that GM soya is most prevalent in Argentina, a country
known for some of the largest soya plantations in theworld.
Just as bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, so weeds have
become resistant to weedkillers. Resistant weeds are not new,
but they have become much worse in the era of GM crops.
Roughly 99% of the world’s GM herbicide tolerant crops are
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready varieties, tolerant to the herbicide
glyphosate (marketed by Monsanto as Roundup). The
dramatically increased reliance on glyphosate with the
Roundup Ready system has spawned an epidemic of
glyphosate-resistant weeds.
In addition, there is increasing evidence that insect resistant
GM crops, which produce a toxin derived from Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) bacteria, do not provide a sustainable means of
decreasing the use of insecticides.
Although comprehensive data on pesticide use are difficult to
obtain in most countries, the available data and anecdotal
evidence demonstrate that pesticide use is on the rise:
• the huge increase in glyphosate use in the united states.
In the US, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops
combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds
has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of
glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005. In 2006,
the last year for which data are available, glyphosate use on
soybeans jumped a substantial 28% (see Table 1). The
intensity of glyphosate use has also risen dramatically. From
1994 to 2006, the amount of glyphosate applied per acre of
soya rose by more than 150%, from just 0.52 to 1.33 lbs. per
acre per year.
glyphosate is not replacing other herbicides in the united states.
While farmers growing Roundup Ready crops initially used
lower quantities of herbicides other than glyphosate, that
trend has changed in recent years. Increasingly, farmers find it
necessary to apply both increased rates of glyphosate and
large quantities of other herbicides to kill resistant weeds.
From 2002 to 2006, use of the second-leading soya herbicide,
2,4-D, on soybeans more than doubled from 1.39 to 3.67
million lbs.,while glyphosate use on soybeans increased by 29
million lbs. (43% rise). Atrazine, banned in 2006 in the EU due
to its link to several health problems like endocrine
disruption, breast and prostate cancer, is the most heavilyapplied
corn herbicide in the US. While glyphosate use on
corn increased five-fold from 2002 to 2005, atrazine use rose
by nearly 7 million lbs. (12% increase), and aggregate
applications of the top four corn herbicides rose by 5%.
Clearly, glyphosate is not displacing the use of atrazine or
other leading corn herbicides.
steep increase in glyphosate-resistantweeds in the united states.
Of the 58 cases of new glyphosate-resistant weeds identified
in the last decade around the world, 31 were identified in the
US, which has the largest area in the world devoted to HT
crops. Thirty of those cases occurred between 2001 and 2007.
Experts agree that continuous planting of Roundup Ready
crops and over-reliance on glyphosate are to blame.
Documented glyphosate-resistant weeds now infest an
estimated 3,251 sites covering 1 million hectares. This
estimate does not include weeds with suspected resistance,
which are likely to infest a much larger area
rise of glyphosate use and weed resistance in brazil.
Data from Brazilian government agencies show that the
consumption of the 15 main active ingredients contained in
the most heavily used soya herbicides increased 60% from
2000 to 2005. The use of glyphosate increased 79.6% during
this period,much faster than the expansion in area planted to
Roundup Ready soya. In 2005 and 2006, three new weed
species have evolved resistance to glyphosate in Brazil.
Brazilian authorities have already recognized glyphosateresistant
weeds as amajor threat to the country’s agriculture.
• increase in glyphosate use and weed resistance in argentina.
In Argentina, herbicide use has increased dramatically in the
last decade with the progressive expansion in the area
planted to soya, nearly all of it GM Roundup Ready soya. In
2007, Argentine agricultural experts reported that a
glyphosate-resistant version of Johnson Grass now infests
over 120,000 ha of the country’s prime cropland. According to
the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, Johnson Grass is
one of the worst weeds in the subtropics, and resistance to
glyphosate will make it all the harder to control. Experts
estimate that 25 million litres of herbicides other than
glyphosate will be needed to control the resistant weed,
resulting in an increase in production costs of between $160
to 950million per year. Despite this threat, Argentine officials
recently approved a new variety of glyphosate-resistant corn,
which is likely to exacerbate the problem.
• bt cotton does not reduce pesticide use in india. In 2007, the
Agro-Economic Research Centre of Andhra University
published a new study on pesticide use on GM cotton during
the 2004-05 season in the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh.
The study concludes that Bt cotton farmers apply the same
quantity of pesticides, and spend the same amount on them,
as conventional cotton farmers.
• secondary pests increase pesticide use in pakistan and indian
punjab. In 2007, infestation of cotton by secondary pests not
killed by the Bt cotton insecticide in Pakistan and the Indian
State of Punjab have dramatically increased the use of
pesticides and increased input costs for farmers.
herbicide-tolerant crops suffer “yield drag”: ISAAA maintains
that HT crops are neutralwith respect to yield, butmany studies
of Roundup Ready soya, the most widely planted GM crop,
suggest that it has on average 5-10% lower yield than
equivalent conventional varieties. Recent research has identified
at least one cause of this yield drag. Glyphosate hinders uptake
of essential nutrients like manganese in Roundup Ready soya,
both reducing yields and making plants more susceptible to
disease. Moreover, some countries like Paraguay have
experienced record low yields due to drought during 2005 and
2006, corroborating several reports that indicated that RR soya
was performingworse than conventional soya in dry conditions.
Figure 3 confirms stagnating yield in countries that have heavily
adopted Roundup Ready soya”.

The Scottish Government is to maintain its opposition to GM crops.

From ‘The Press and Journal’.(June 20th2008)

'....First Minister Alex Salmond delivered the unequivocal message that Scotland would remain GM free as he arrived at the Royal Highland Show.

Mr Salmond had no objection to a debate on the use of GM, but said the Scottish Government was wholly against its use. He added:”The reason we are against it is because we have a very clear vision of Scotland’s future and that is of a clean, green and quality food from Scotland. The problem with GM is that it cuts across the image and positioning that we have for Scottish food and Scottish farming. We would do that at our peril.”

Mr Salmond did not accept GM as pressing for Scottish farmers, saying the more important issue was in addressing escalating production costs, and soaring prices of fertilizer, fuel and feed.

“The benefits of (of GM)-even if they were realized-would be small in comparison with the penalty. We think Scotland’s place as a clean, green place for growing food would be compromised if we went down the GM route.”

Greenpeace accused the biotech industry of “abusing the misery of millions of hungry people” by trying to promote its products as a solution to rising food prices....'

The above quotes by Alex Salmond were recorded in the Press and Journal by Joe Watson. I have taken these quotes from the full article.

Biotechs, Gordon Brown and GM's versus Natural England.

McCarthy predicts that the countryside will ‘become entirely sterile and lifeless’.

Michael McCarthy in The Independent, Thurs.19th June, predicts that the environmental and ecological impacts of introducing GM’s commercially into Britain, would mean that…'Nothing would be left'…. 'the countryside will become entirely sterile and lifeless.'

Contemplating this scenario leads to a lot more questions eg. 'what will the governmental organization ‘Natural England’ decide to do about all their crucial conservationist work?' On Natural England's website there are pages of information about the actions which they consider to be vital for wildlife and the environment, for example…

'WILDLIFE. Biodiversity is the variety of life on the planet. This includes the plant and animal species that make up our wildlife-and the places or habitats in which they live. Natural England is responsible for ensuring that England’s rich biodiversity is protected and improved.'

I reproduce below McCarthy’s article so that we can compare his information with further extracts from Natural England. Perhaps like me you will wonder if Natural England’s existence will become a sham,- will they try to backtrack on their stated intentions and declarations about the environment, will the department be disbanded by Gordon Brown in favour of his vision for a sterile and lifeless countryside full of green concrete? What will be the implications for our countryside tourist industry, when the countryside no longer exists as such? What will be the implication for survival of crops which rely on pollination of bees, when so much of the eco system will be destroyed?

Michael McCarthy: Hello green concrete, goodbye wildlife.
The argument against allowing genetically modified crops to be grown commercially in Britain can be summed up in two words: green concrete.
It means a landscape in which fields have a crop growing in them but nothing else. No wild plants or flowers of any sort, no butterflies or moths, no smaller insects on which birds and their chicks can feed, and so no birds. Green concrete means a countryside that still may be called the countryside, and may still appear green, but apart from the crop, it will be entirely sterile and lifeless.
That is what would happen if the GM crops previously proposed, including maize, beet and oilseed rape, were allowed to be grown on a commercial scale. For they were all genetically engineered to be able to survive the application of increasingly powerful weedkillers, known as "broad spectrum" herbicides, which would kill everything else in the field.
The best known of these chemicals is glyphosate, made by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Why is it called Roundup? Because nothing escapes.
In some countries, losing farmland wildlife might not matter so much. In the US, for example, people do not go to the grain prairies of Kansas to see flowers and birds; American agricultural areas are for agriculture. If you want to see wildlife you go to a wilderness area. The US is so big that there are plenty of these, some of them the size of Wales.
But Britain is different. It is a relatively small nation with an intimate, patchwork countryside and, if we want our wildlife to survive, much of it must survive on farms. Yet our farmland wildlife, especially birds and wild flowers, has already been given a catastrophic battering by the intensification of agriculture that has taken place in recent decades.
Who sees a cornfield dotted with red poppies now? How many people hear skylarks? Declines in farmland birds are incredible. Since the 1970s, tree sparrows have declined by 93 per cent, corn buntings by 89 per cent, grey partridges by 88 per cent, turtle doves by 83 per cent and so the list runs on.
This has happened just with conventional weedkillers and pesticides, which do allow some fauna to survive. The introduction of broad-spectrum chemicals, which GM technology would allow, would be a further and fatal ratcheting-up of the intensification process for farming. Nothing would be left. The Government demonstrated this with its farm-scale evaluations of GM crops from 1998 to 2003. They proved wildlife was damaged far more by the GM process than by conventional methods.
Of course, there are many other crop modifications possible besides herbicide tolerance. In years to come, as climate change takes hold, we may need crops engineered to be drought-tolerant or salt-tolerant. They could be real life-savers – but they are not on offer yet.

Below from Natural England website. Natural England was formed by bringing together English Nature,Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service.

From Natural England:

Wildlife
Biodiversity is the variety of life on the planet. This includes the plant and animal species that make up our wildlife - and the places or habitats in which they live. Natural England is responsible for ensuring that England's rich biodiversity is protected and improved.
The UK is one of 188 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. This Convention has three main objectives: the conservation of biodiversity; the sustainable use of biodiversity; and the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. In the UK this commitment led to the launch of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan(BAP) in 1994.
The Plan’s overall goal is to conserve and enhance biodiversity within the UK and to contribute to efforts to conserve global biodiversity. The UK BAP targets the recovery of some of our most threatened species and habitats in the terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. For each priority species and habitat, an action plan describes the current status and threats, and sets out an action programme for achieving 10-15 year objectives and targets.
These action plans, and the UK BAP process as a whole, represent a consensus of Government, the statutory and voluntary conservation sectors, land owners and managers. They give us the best opportunity to date of reversing the major declines in the populations, range and quality of the UK’s biodiversity resource.
Each of the four countries of the UK has subsequently produced country strategies for biodiversity. The England Biodiversity Strategy was published in 2003; it identified new approaches and partnerships across sectors as being essential for achieving the conservation of biodiversity.
At theGothenburg Summit in 2001 the EU committed itself to the objective of halting the rate of biodiversity loss, with the aim of achieving this by 2010. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, Heads of Government committed themselves to achieving a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. These, and other, multilateral environmental agreements cover the UK’s action to conserve biodiversity both globally and within the UK.
Species Recovery Programme
Natural England’s Species Recovery Programme seeks to reverse the declines in England’s animals, plants and fungi. The programme recognises that current habitat-based management approaches are often not enough to prevent extinctions and restore species populations to a point where they are secure. Instead, targeted action is often required. This may include a dedicated research programme to understand why a species is declining and what its habitat needs are; a period of trial management to assess how best to reverse the decline (possibly requiring reintroductions); and a period of recovery management to increase population sizes. Natural England is involved in all stages of this recovery process.
Most of the species selected for our Species Recovery Programme are UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species. We work in partnership with government, voluntary conservation organisations, land owners and business to deliver the targets for these species. Whenever possible, we also try to involve the public so that the enriched natural environments achieved by the Programme are enjoyed by all.
Biodiversity duty guidance
The aim of the biodiversity duty is to raise the profile of biodiversity in England and Wales, eventually to a point where biodiversity issues become second nature to everyone making decisions in the public sector.
All public authorities are affected, including over 900 public bodies local authorities, fire, police and health bodies, museums and transport authorities.
In recognition of the key role local authorities play with regard to conserving and enhancing biodiversity, Defra has produced two sets of guidance.

Benn says "yes" to GM crop trials.

"Our food, Our future!” say environmental protestors.

Hilary Benn(Secretary of State for the Environment) has agreed to let scientists at Leeds University conduct the trials over the next three years.

Since I wrote this post, Gordon Brown has declared today (19/6/08) that he wants the GM debate to reopen. He seems to be in favour of GM's (surprise, surprise),this is a sample of Gordon Brown's democracy in action-ie 'ignore overwhelming public opinion, and ignore the evidence for damage to health and environmental catastophe.'

There are two outdoor field trials taking place in the UK this year. The BASF potato trial at NIAB is a trial for blight resistance in GM potatos; a further trial for nematode resistance is taking place near Leeds, under the auspices of Leeds University Faculty of Biological Sciences.

Leeds University scientists have added a gene to the potatos’ roots that is designed to give it nematode resistance.

At the Cambridge site Rosie Perkins, a spokesperson for Earth First! UK said: "Today’s protest was staged to send a clear message to scientists, companies and politicians across the world; that message is that genetically modified food is not the answer to either climate change or world food shortages and we stand here today in solidarity with the many farmers and local food producers across the world who are speaking out against GM crops.....The GM trial at NIAB is being conducted under siege-like conditions with high levels of security, including a permanent security personnel presence, high metal fences, alarms and floodlights. The fact that this trial is taking place under such conditions clearly demonstrates the contempt in which the people of this country hold the development of these crops."



With reference to the Leeds crop trials, Pete Riley of ‘GM Freeze’ protest group is worried about the inclusion of a gene which confers resistance to the antibiotic neomycin, which he says could interfere with its medical effectiveness.





Joe Cummins from the Institute of Science in Society(ISIS) shares these concerns. He says that Britain’s ‘Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment’(ACRE) shows a disturbing bias towards GM technology and disregard for safety.

Ch. Narenda who covers agricultural issues for’MyNews.in’ reports Cummin’s views. The nptll gene is for resistance to the antibiotic neomycin, a member of the aminoglycoside family. The resistance to neomycin may be cross resistant to other members of the aminoglycoside family including kanamycin, streptomycin, gentamycin, and tobramycin all of which are used to treat humans or domestic animals.“He also said that they have prepared an extensive review which showed that horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA has indeed occurred, and that it has been greatly underestimated, hence, ‘There is little doubt that environmental antibiotic resistance will be significantly enhanced by planting crops modified with antibiotic resistance genes.’(MyNews.in)

Intensive industrial agriculture, reasons why not,-part two.

Email the Commission before May7th GMO vote!

An important vote on GMO's is due to take place on May 7th in Brussels. The agro-chemical industry wants EU permission to grow pesticide-producing maize plants and a GM potato that contains an antibiotic resistant gene.
(For information about GM crops and intensive, industrialized arable agriculture with pesticides, please see my previous post)
Greenpeace International wants EU commissioners to say "No!" when they discuss the applications and vote them. The Greenpeace International website provides more information and the email addresses of all EU commissioners.(Go to 'Greenpeace International' and on the right hand side of the webpage under "things you can do now" follow the link- "Help make Europe GM free.")

Points made by Greenpeace:-

• "The two maize varieties that will be debated on May 7th produce their own pesticide. According to current practices these crops were only tested for 90 days for health effects whereas pesticides are tested for two years!
• The GM potato contains a gene that makes cells resistant to antibiotics! If this were to get released into the environment there could be serious problems in treating diseases such as tuberculosis.
• Recently 37 scientists wrote a letter to the commission pointing out from a scientific point of view the many gaps and uncertainties in relation to GMO's.
• The majority of European citizens oppose the use of GMO's and this opposition has been consistent for the last ten years.
• Industry promotes GM crops as potentially feeding the world, however this has not materialized whilst ecologically sound farming models and methods show real potential. Recently even the UN admitted that genetically engineered crops are not a solution for poverty, hunger or climate change.
• The body responsible for advising the Commission on GMO's, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) is not doing its job properly. First of all it has recognized that it lacks the methods for carrying out long term assessment of the health and environmental impacts of GMO's. Secondly it is relying on incomplete data that is submitted by the agro-chemical industry-and it hardly ever checks it properly." (Greenpeace)

Intensive industrial agriculture, reasons why not.

What is intensive/industrial farming?

Intensive farming is an agricultural system through which (it is claimed) more food will be produced and the lower the price will be for the consumer.

This system infact generates huge external economic costs and other serious impacts on humanity and the environment:-

• Loss of farmers' livlihoods, and cause of malnutrition in developing nations.


• Severe and chronic illnesses caused by pesticides/fungicides


• Environmental pollution.


• Soil degradation.


• Lack of biodiversity.


• Extinction of crop varieties and gene pools.


• Loss of nutritional value of food.


• Huge external economic costs, involved in production and food-supply chain.

More information on the above included in this post.

• Brief description of farming system below:-
  
  · Monoculture. Large areas of a single crop, often grown year after year on the same land, or with little crop rotation.
  
  · Agrichemicals. Intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers to fight pests and diseases and provide nutrients.
  
  · Hybrid seed. Use of specialized hybrids designed to favour large scale food distribution, eg ability to ripen off the vine, to withstand shipping and handling.
  
  · High mechanization.
  
  · Large scale irrigation- heavy water use and in some cases growing of crops in otherwise unsuitable regions (rice paddies on arid land).
  
  · Genetically engineered crops. Use of genetically modified varieties(GMOs) designed for large scale production (with ability to withstand selected herbicides)
  
  Opponents of the intensive system of agriculture say that politicians, business leaders and the media are misleading the public in their claim which states ‘ the more that chemicals and technology are applied to agriculture, the more food will be produced and the lower the price will be for the consumer.’
  
  Opponents also question the fundamental objectives of the structure of the modern food chain.:-
  
  The Ecologist Magazine, in its article ‘Fatal Harvest’(01/11/2002) says ‘The myth of cheapness completely ignores the staggering externalized costs of the food, costs that do not appear on supermarket checkout receipts. Conventional analyses of the cost of food completely ignore the exponentially increasing social and environmental costs consumers are currently paying and will have to pay in the future. Americans spend tens of millions of dollars in taxes, medical care, toxic clean-ups, insurance premiums and other pass-along costs to subsidise industrial food producers. Given the ever –increasing health, environmental and social destruction involved in industrial agriculture, the real price of food production for future generations is incalculable.’
  
  ‘Around 31,000 tonnes of chemicals are used in farming in yhe UK each year to kill weeds, insects and other pests that attack crops and in 2004, 40% of the fruit, vegetables and bread samples tested in the UK contained pesticides. There is very little control over how these chemicals are used in the non-organic sector and in what quantities or combinations. The Food Standards Agency recocnizes that most people do not want pesticides in their food. Pesticides have a devastating effect on the environment and there are real concerns about the effectiveness of official safety regulations of pesticides, and some risks to human health are unknown.’ (Soil Association)
  
  For information concerning exposure to agricultural pesticides for rural residents in the UK, visit the website pesticidescampaign.co.uk
  
  Summary of Impacts of Intensive Agriculture.
  
  1. Health problems. Vast quantities of pesticides and fungicides are sprayed onto farmland every year- 31,000 tons in the UK. This leads to a range of health problems. Pesticide exposure can happen through skin contact, inhalation, or pesticide residues in food and water. .Studies have shown that a combination of low-level insecticides, herbicides and nitrates can effect our bodies in ways chemicals in isolation do not. ‘Studies have shown that 3 pesticides consumed together equal up to 100 times the effect of any one on its own.(sometimes referred to as the cocktail effect) Along with their cancer risk, pesticides can cause myriad other health problems-especially for young people. For example, exposure to neurotoxic compounds like PCB’s and organophosphate insecticides during critical periods of development can cause permanent damage to the brain and nervous and reproductive systems’(Ecologist Magazine,article Fatal Harvest).
  
  2. Environmental Pollution..
  
  1. Pollution though spraydrift in the air. Spraydrift can be carried for many miles by the wind/air currents..Rain water in parts of Europe contain such high levels of dissolved pesticides, it would be illegal to sell it as drinking water.
  2. Pollution through agrichemical build-ups and run-off.
  3. Carbon emissions. Use of fossil fuels for agrichemical manufacture and for farm machinery and long-distance distribution. Processing and packaging also adds to high energy use.
  
  3. Soil degradation. Heavy use of fertilizers, and lack of crop rotation, causes degradation of soil quality and lack of soil fertility.
  “The overuse of chemicals and machines on industrial farms erodes away the topsoil-the fertile earth from which all food is grown. The US has lost half of its topsoil since 1960, and continues losing topsoil 17 times faster than nature can create it”(The Ecologist)
  
  4.Lack of Biodiversity. Biodiversity can refer to:-
  (1) Genetic diversity in agriculture
  (2) Animal/insect/plant species.
  
  The UN Food and Agriculture Organization report that 70% of genetic diversity in agriculture disappeared in this last century. The resulting monocultured crops are genetically limited and far more susceptible to insect blights, diseases and bad weather, than are diverse crops.
  
  Biodiversity in wildlife. Pesticides and fungicides are toxic to insects, fish and wildlife. Some birds, butterflies and non-pest insects have become endangered or extinct through intensive agriculture. This represents a threat to the ecological system.In addition many target insects and plants which damage crops are becoming resistant to pesticides. 1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weedsare now resistant to pesticides.
  
  5.Loss of indigenous crops. Indigenous crops are going out of production because demand is driven by the global market.
  
  6.Crop varieties and gene pools are under threat from monocropping system. - “The world’s crop gene pool contained in seeds is essential for increasing crop productivity, mitigating environmental stress such as climate change, pests and diseases, and ensuring a genetic resource base for the future. Crop diversity contained in the world’s seed collections is constantly under threat from natural and human-led disasters”(Jacques Diouf, Director of Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations.)

7.Loss of farmers' livlihoods. "The economic pressures of industrial
agriculture have led to a sharp decline in the numbers of so-called 'inefficient' farms with smaller family farms being particularly badly hit. For example in the US there were close to seven million farms in the 1930s, but less than 1.8 by the mid 1990s; in France 3 million farms in the 1960s, yet fewer than 700,000 in the 1990s, 450,000 farms in the UK, in the 1950s, half that number in the 1990s. Over the past 50 yrs the number of actual farmers has declined by 86% in Germany, 85% in France, 85% in Japan, 64% in the US, 59% in Korea, and 59% in the UK." (Food Wars,Tim Lang & Michael Heasman).

"In Brazil soybean cultivation displaces 11 agricultural workers for every one who finds employment.....In Argentina 60,000 farms went out of business while the area of 'Roundup Ready' soybean almost tripled. In 1998 there were 422,000 farms in Argentina while in 2002 there were 318,000. One and a half million Mexican farmers have been put out of work because of the Free Trade Agreement with America in which cheap (subsidized)American corn was imported." (GM Soya Disaster in Latin America, Hunger, Deforestation and Socio-Ecological Devastation.Professor Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Professor Walter A. Pengue, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina).

8. Impact on nutritional value of food. This includes freshness, flavour and range of products available.
Research at Newcastle University has found that…”organically produced crops and dairy milk usually contain more ‘beneficial compounds’ such as vitamins and antioxidants. The research has shown up to 40% more beneficial compounds in vegetable crops and up to 90% more in milk. It has also found high levels of minerals, such as iron and zinc in organic produce” (Sunday Times, ‘Eat your words, all who scoff at organic food’, By Jon Ungoed-Thomas,Oct.28,2007)
. For a list of research results regarding nutritional value of organic versus intensively produced produce, see Soil Association Press release, 22/2/2008, ‘Soil Association response to Horizon programme’. ·

Genetically modified crops.

.“In the context of agriculture and animal husbandry this technology has far reaching implications as it allows the introduction into plants and animals of entirely new characteristics including genes originally found in unrelated plants, animals or micro-organisms. This is very different from traditional breeding practices”( From-‘How GM Crops Endanger Environment and Agriculture’. (Bharat Dogra, Mainstream Weekly, Saturday 26 January 2008.)

The crucial claim of gm protagonists is - because the world’s population is rising fast, famine and increasing food deficiency is inevitable without GM crops. They also claim that GM crops are good for consumers, farmers and the environment.

Opponents of GM’s point to how arguments for GM’s are based on a misreading of the worlds food problems. They say that the problem is one of distribution, and globalisation, rather than production. Further to this they strongly dispute the claims for GM crops made by corporates.

Further doubts regarding GM technology in agriculture is that they represent potential health hazards, and endanger the environment and agriculture. These issues are outlined in 'Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods’ by Stephen Lendman, -opednews.com March 2008.

In 2003, six principal countries grew 99% of the global transgenic crop area. The US grew 42.8 million hectares, followed by Argentina with 13.9 million, Canada 4.4million, Brazil 3 million, China 2.8 million and S.Africa 0.4 million hectares.

‘Friends of the Earth International’ has recently published a full, fact-based report called “who benefits from gm crops?"(Jan 2008)
The report seriously challenges the claims of GM proponents, and says they have failed to deliver on any of the proposed benefits, these are summarised below:-

• Claim-GM crops will need less spraying of pesticides and will therefore benefit the environment. FAILED


• Claim-Poor farmers will benefit. FAILED


• Claim-GM's will tackle hunger. FAILED
  
• Claim-Higher crop yields. FAILED
  Summary of report:-



• It describes how in the US there was a 15 fold increase in the use of herbicide Roundup between1994 and2004, because pests and weeds are becoming resistant to pesticides.


• Seed prices are on the rise, fewer suppliers means less competition and more market power to set prices.


• Fewer seed choices.


• Since gm cotton was adopted in the Makhatini Flats in South Africa, around three quarters of small farmers have gone out of business.


• Most commercial gm crops are grown for animal feed for western countries and biofuels. None have been used to address hunger and poverty issues.


• Brazilian experience in 2007 proved beyond doubt that gm crops are extensively contaminating conventional and organic soya.


• By the end of October 2007, it has been estimated that there have been over 900 cotton farmer suicides, or an average of three suicides a day (ENS, 3 October 2007;Wide angle,2007; Petition to Indian Prime Minister,Swift, April2007) Despite the increase in adoption of Bt cotton, this trend has not diminished, and farmers' livlihoods are under dire threat. In addition, many reports of poor performances of Bt cotton have been registered in the area ('The Hindu,' 16 February 2007)

Friends of the Earth International states...."in the US the biotech industry has still not introduced a single GM crop that has enhanced nutrition, higher yield potential, drought tolerance, salt tolerance or other promised traits..."

.

Big Bully says, "Disagreements...should be expressed in legal ways".

On March 7th about 300 Brazilian women raided a research unit of the agricultural biotech company Monsanto and destroyed an experimental field of corn. These facilities are located in Santa Cruz das Palmeiras, in Sao Paulo state.
The group of activists protested the Brazilian government's decision last month to give clearance for two varieties of GM corn for commercial use-MON810, produced by Monsanto and Liberty Link made by Germany's Bayer CropScience.

MON810 is the variety which has been banned in France after strong protests in that country.

The claim by Monsanto that small farmers could be among the most who benefit from biotechnology, is by now proven around the world to be disastrously misleading. (see previous posts).

Monsanto condemned the invasion by the Brazilian activists, saying in a statement "in a democratic regime, disagreements, ideological or not, should be expressed in legal ways". The problem with this rather hypocritical statement is that around the world we see that the takeover by biotech companies is impervious to the democratic process, because governments are approving the GM technology counter to public opinion. Big farmers, and governments are attracted by the financial and convenience factors of GM technology, but these are temporary advantages. GM farming involves loss of land and livlihoods for small farmers throughout the world. Even in Canada, US, and Europe, farmers have discovered that GM crops have not delivered on their claims, and pesticide use has had to be increased.

In Brasilia, a protest by another 400 women from an umbrella group, Via Campesina(the Rural Way) was held in front of the Swiss Embassy against Syngenta, A Swiss company that is selling genetically engineered seeds in Brazil. Via Campesina said in a statement that "no scientific studies exist that guarantee that genetically modified crops won't have negative effects on human health and on nature." A spokesperson for Via Campesina also said "The authorization of these varieties shows once more that (President Luiz inacio Lula de silva's) government favors agribusiness and bigforeign companies abandoning land reform and family farming"

Pro-GM PM.

Public demand for free range eggs and chickens has soared in the UK since the tv series featuring two chefs who highlighted the cruelty involved in raising battery hens. The demand has been so great that UK producers have run out of supply and supermarkets have resorted to sourcing from France. What has all this to do with GM’s?.... despite ever increasing demand for organic and free range produce, these foods which the public prefer are being bullied out of the market by the biotech industries’ unethical practices.

GM’s are making inroads by stealth, one route being by contamination of non-GM crops. Greenpeace said (on 28/2/2008) that it recorded 39 instances (in 24 countries) of genetically modified crops spreading improperly in 2007. Doreen Stabinsky, a US geneticist working on Greenpeace’s anti-GMO campaign said the report dealt with several types of contamination, including cases of crops that have not yet been approved for release escaping into the wild. More commonly crops approved for use in one place had spread elsewhere. Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also soy, cotton, canola, papaya and fish.
Considering that contamination scandals are not good publicity for GM’s exports or reputation, Greenpeace wonders why biotech companies let it happen? They observe that contamination allows biotech companies to argue that their crops should not be regulated as they are already in the food chain.

Meanwhile the UK government is paving the way for future GM trials (somewhere near to Cambridge). They are keeping the locations secret in case anyone may try to rip up the crops. Julian Little of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council said “We have to find a way of reducing the amount of damage you get when you do a field trial in the UK,that’s absolutely imperative.” This statement is of breathtaking audacity, considering the damage they do to farmers’ livelihoods, for which they provide no compensation.

The Independent featured John Turner (28/10/07)….’A succession of trials near his 250 acre farm…..south Lincolnshire, between 2000 and 2002 forced him to stop growing certain crops-suffering heavy financial losses as a result. John Turner said “It was a nightmare and we just felt absolutely powerless to do anything over it at all……without any real protection against contamination, we were forced to stop growing crops like maize that could be vulnerable to cross pollination. It wasn’t easy but it was preferable to the damage that could have been done if our crops were no longer GM free”. Mr Turner believes the facts are being twisted to fit a commercial agenda…”There is no sound science behind the push for GM crops. It’s all about money and control of not only the seeds but also food production from one end to the other. The more I find out about it the less I understand why there has been this impetus to force this technology on farming. It has been hugely overhyped by those trying to promote it. There are plenty of ways of improving crops that don’t involve swapping genes around…..”

So why haven’t the government introduced legislation to hold biotech companies to account financially for contaminating non-GM crops?

GM crops,World Shortage of Wheat and Biotech Industry.

The UK is seen as one of the last bastions to be conquered by the biotech industry regarding GM crops. They aim to establish GMO’s as the only farming system worldwide. At the present time public opinion in the UK and France is standing in the way of this corporate ambition in Europe.
This take-over process doesn’t involve real dialogue with the public about the risks and dangers of GM’s, or the social and moral issues concerning their introduction. It does involve wielding brute economic power. The United States says it could seek compensation for the millions of dollars in lost exports and licensing fees for biotech crops it is suffering because of EU bans.

When the GM industry does attempt to influence public opinion, they often refer to the problems experienced by southern hemisphere countries of food shortage due to crop failure. In answer they claim that GM crops bring higher yields.
John Hillary, Policy Director of ‘War on Want’, supports a safer more sustainable policy for dealing with crop shortages. He points out that as a result of the trade liberalisation packages which opened up new markets, some countries were made more vulnerable to the vagaries of world economy. Because their own domestic supplies are put under more strain as a result of having been opened up to global economy, they are made more reliant to imports of basic staple foods, which they cannot afford. Twenty years ago 90% of all rice eaten in Ghana was grown in Ghana. That percentage is now only 10%. In the last 10 to 15 years, 30 million jobs have been lost around the world because local domestic supply chains have been opened up.
John Hillary says we must support the development of sustainable LOCAL food production systems.

This local control over food production would also mean that communities would be able to grow the most appropriate crops for their own consumption, rather than crops dictated by global trade demand.

Genetically modified crops are not delivering on the promised benefits of increased yields, reduced pesticide use or tackling world hunger.

Last year there was a big increase in the production of crops for biofuels at the same time as an increased demand for wheat (eg from China)

The growing of biofuels last year caused the food prices in the United States to more than double. Tortilla flour, staple food of the Mexicans more than doubled in price.

So one immediate action should be to cease the growing of biofuels.It has been proven that biofuels do not solve the problem of carbon emmissions.

The Sky is Thin as Paper Here.

THE SKY IS THIN AS PAPER HERE.

Section of lithograph, Robert Rauchenberg,1981

GM Crop Trials.

Is this what DEFRA refers to as 'stewardship of the countryside?'

For most people stewardship of the countryside probably brings to mind well-kept hedgerows, woodland and strips of set-aside land, for wildlife to thrive, or at least survive. But DEFRA's brave new world involves the forceful protection of vast acreages of monotonous monocrops, grown so that corporate capitalism can thrive.

The company BASF will begin planting GM potatos on the outskirts of Cambridge soon. In preparation they are constructing hundreds of metal fences with the attendant security and surveillance paraphernalia. Question- 'are they intending to protect commercial crops in this way if they get the government go-ahead in the UK?'

Friends of The Earth have compiled a long and detailed report which exposes the misleading propaganda of the pro-GM lobbies (DEFRA, NFU, Biotech firms) Rather than be misled by the claims for higher crop yields, less pesticide use, etc etc, it's vital to find out what the huge impacts and risks of GM's really are on the environment, on human health, on wildlife, and on the future of food and agriculture. We can't risk not finding out, there's too much at stake. Visit the FOE website to download their report.

Pests have evolved resistance to GM crops.

The GM corporates seem like those stubborn and relentless rulers who won't relinquish their hold on power and cease their destructive policies, despite the suffering and protests of their citizens.

Recent news on 8th Feb, has reported that one of the most destructive pests of cotton crops has evolved a resistance to GM crops. It is believed to be the first documented example in the wild of an insect pest becoming resistant to this particular type of GM crop which was thought to be immune to the problems that have plagued conventional pesticides.

The Independent says that 'In the case of the GM cotton crop the Bollworm insect developed resistance because of the huge area of land in America and elsewhere where GM crops modified with Bt genes are now grown. This has generated one of the largest forces of natural selection for insect resistance that the world has ever known, according to the researches whose study will be published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.'

Genetically modified crops, secrecy, lack of democracy,UK Government and GM crops.

'Friends of The Earth' commented on their website that public companies have to maximise profit and keep investors happy. This means economic growth comes before people and the planet. They also stated that many corporates were now more powerful than governments. Both of these assertions are undoubtedly true but the fact that corporates are more powerful than governments doesn't necessarily mean that there is not an enthusiasm on the part of governments to accomodate the demands of corporates.

Our own UK government is hell bent on introducing GM crops into the UK, in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the population. The purpose, they tell us is to create more economic growth. Yet the experts (and common sense) tell us that economic growth will create more environmental damage and global warming.

In October 2007 newspapers described how the government was concealing its support for biotech research. This support involved funding genetically modified crop projects with scores of millions of pounds every year and colluding with a biotech company to ease its GM tests.

The documents which revealed this information were obtained through the freedom of information act and showed that the government colluded with a biotech company in setting conditions for testing GM potatos. In other words DEFRA officials repeatedly went to remarkable lengths to make sure that the trial conditions supposed to protect the environment and farmers, were 'agreeable' to the company.

FOE obtained information which showed that the government provides at least £50 million a year for research into biotechnology, largely GM crops and food. This in stark contrast to £1.6million given in 2006 for research into organic agriculture.

We always come back to the same question. 'Who really stands to gain from the introduction of GM crops?'

GM crops pose an issue of universal human rights.

The more I learn about farming in Cuba, the more impressive I realize the Cuban achievement is. I mentioned the organic agriculture of Cuba in a previous post. Using little mechanization and no pesticides or fungicides or synthetic fertilizers, Cuba has managed to produce enough food to feed its high population. In addition, the overall effect of living in the city (Havanna) with every available little space of land, and bigger allotment areas given over to the growing of lovingly cared for fruit and vegetables, this is something that environmentally has a positive psychological effect on communities. Britain has a lot to learn in this respect about land use, rather than using our unused bits of grassland and scrubland in towns and cities as dumping grounds for litter, or the UK government making it policy to build housing in gardens. With the problems of global warming this issue of land use is as vital for the western world as it is for Cuba.






Bharat Dogra, a respected journalist in India has written about the social, cultural, human health and environmental problems caused in his own and in developing countries, posed by intensive farming systems and GM crops.Talking about GM technology, Bharat says that ..."critics fear very serious and irreversible damage can be caused to our environment, to our food systems and to the health of millions of people".


His article in 'Mainstream Weekly entitled "How GM crops Endanger Environment and Agriculture" is an excellent summary of the main issues. For the purpose of this post I would just like to mention his comments regarding the social impacts on communities of a technology which is not only in effect stealing and destroying our universal human rights to preserve the genetic make up of our crops and all plant life, but also the right of farmers thoughout the world to farm their land according to their own sophisticated and deep knowledge derived from thousands of years of farming tradition, in their own geographical areas.





Bharat Dogra says GM .."technology is spreading so fast that very adverse consequences can result even before we have the time to understand the consequences"..He continues..."In this context the experience generally has been that the high expectations created by big companies promoting GM crops were not justified. In some cases the yields for a short initial period were indeed high, creating a rush for the new seeds, but after some time such expectations could not be maintained. On the other hand, there are many examples of farmers who invested their meagre resources and borrowed heavily to buy expensive GM seeds and other supporting inputs (for example, herbicides linked to these seeds) but later felt betrayed as the low yield left them indebted and saddled with debts. There were even reports of suicides by these farmers. There have been allegations of GM crops like Bt cotton being introduced in rainfed areas like those of Vidarbha (India) for which these were not suited."


One of the reasons the GM industry uses to justify its reductive technology is that less pesticides will be necessary to use with these crops. However, although this might initially be the case, throughout the world farmers are reporting that soon they are having to use more pesticides than ever.

At the end of his article Bharat quotes a paper written by Ricarda A. Steinbrecker (Science Director of the Genetics Forum UK) and Pat Roy Mooney (widely acclaimed winner of The Right to Livlihood Award).


.........." On March 3rd, 1998 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a little-known cotton-seed enterprise called Delta and Pine Land Company, acquired US patent 5,723,765 - or the Technology Protection System (TPS). Within days, the rest of the world knew TPS as Terminator Technology. Its declared goal is to promulgate plants that will produce self-terminating offspring-suicide seeds. Terminator Technology epitomises what the genetic engineering of food crops is all about and gives an insight into the driving forces behind the corporate campaign to control and own life.


The Terminator does more than ensure that farmers can’t successfully replant their harvested seed. It is the “platform” upon which companies can load their proprietary genetic traits—patented genes for herbicide-tolerance or insect-resistance and get the farmers hooked on their seeds and caught in the chemical treadmill.
Further this paper says:
Most alarming though is the possibility that the Terminator genes themselves could infect the agricultural gene pool of the neighbour’s crops and of wild and weedy relatives, placing a time bomb. Temporary “gene silencing” of the poison gene or failed activation of the Terminator countdown enables such infection.
Between 15 and 20 per cent of the World’s food supply is grown by poor farmers who save their seed. These farmers feed at least 1.4 billion people. The Terminator “protects” companies by risking the lives of these people. Since Terminator Technology has absolutely zero agronomic benefit, there is no reason to jeopardise the food security of the poor by gambling with genetic engineering in the field. Whether the Terminator works immediately or later, in either instance it is biological warfare on farmers and food security. The Terminator also portends a hidden dark side. As a Trojan Horse for other transgenic traits, the technology might also be used to switch any trait off or on. At least in theory, the technology points to the possibility that crop diseases could be triggered by seed exports that would not have to “kick in” immediately—or not until activated by specific chemicals or conditions. This form of biological warfare on people’s food and economics is becoming a hot topic in military and security circles.Clearly the threat from GM crops to natural farming systems and environment is so serious that any commercial release cannot be allowed. Even any experimental trials should be asked to wait till definite ways to avoid hazards can be found."





In terms of human rights alone, there are huge issues at stake with the advent of GM crops. Brutal corporate pressure is eager to recover their investments and make profit.