GM crops qualify as invasive threat to wildlife and native plants?

GM crop

Himalyan Balsam

GM crops tick all the boxes....as an "Invasive Species Threat?".(see bullet points below) This is just a thought which occurred to me when reading about non native invasive plants and the threats they pose to wildlife and the habitat.

This is International Year of Biodiversity, and in the UK attention has focused on those non-native invasive plants which cause problems for wildlife and other plants.Three troublesome species in the UK are Giant Hogweed(can cause painful blistering on contact with skin),Himalyan Balsam, and Japanese Knotweed.
Conservation groups and Natural England have organized workgroups and volunteers to survey for Himalyan Balsam, and pull them up, before the weed releases its seeds.
　
*Giant Hogweed can be a health risk in areas of public access.
*If left out of hand the plants can lead to bank erosion and a greater risk of winter flash floods.
*These plants are a huge threat because they create vast monocultures that out-compete our native species and threaten the biodiversity of the areas they inhabit.
*"Invasive plants and animals are those which threaten native species, damaging their habitat,spreading disease or by competing with them for their "niche" in an ecosystem.
*Many invasive species are successful because they have no natural predators in their new environment." (Guardian.co.uk, ,jan 22 2010)
　

Pesticides Consultation? Farmers talk through their booms.

In early Chinese tradition the 'human organism is a microcosm of the universe.'- interconnected with our environment, and with the entire ecological system. Unfortunately that's not how our government see things. They prefer treating the natural environment as seperate, unconnected parts to be exploited by different interest groups.

One of the macro/micro relationships between humans and our planet is the earth's network of rivers,streams and lakes, and our own circulatory system of arteries, veins and capillaries.Both these systems supply vital nutrients and oxygen, but there is a problem... any toxic chemicals which are found in our rivers can also find their way into our own bloodstreams in drinking water and food.
The chemical and biological state of our UK rivers, wetlands, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters, is physically linked to the wider problem of pesticides in our soil, and air and food. In the Autumn of 2009 a report by the official pollution watchdog, the Environment Agency found that more than three quarters of our 6,114 rivers are expected to fail new European quality watchdog standards. The Farmers Guardian, (1/03/10) in an article titled "Farmers need to change approach on pesticides" lists the 'crop protection products' which have been discovered at "legislation-challenging levels" in water this winter. Slug pellet active ingredient metaldyde, and clopyralid were found, Both these chemicals are described as very soluble products which are very difficult or impossible to remove from water. Oilseed rape herbicides carbetamide, metazachlor and propyzamide were also found with above-limit peaks. To add insult to injury, the banned herbicide called isoproturon (IPU) has been found in Hertfordshire, through the Midlands to East Anglia, Yorkshire and Aberdeenshire.Levels of chlorotoluron, used instead of IPU have also risen to high levels. Nineteen active agricultural chemicals were detected by the Environment Agency in our rivers.
In reality pesticide pollution is damaging lives, killing wildlife and destroying the environment, whilst government puts big business interests above issues of human health and environmental damage. These problems exist because of the continual insistance by government and agribusiness that there is no problem with pesticide legislation or with the pesticides which are being used. The Crop Protectin Association insists that regulations of pesticides are rigorous. The ACP together with the NFU and DEFRA have resisted the new EU pesticide rules which have banned a significant number of hazardous pesticides. Pesticide Campaigners have highlighted the dangers to public health and the health risks posed for rural residents by pesticide spraying, but again the agri groups are doing all thay can to avoid modifying their bad practice.
Georgina Downs, Pesticide Campaigner has fought since 2001 to stop rural residents being exposed to pesticides. In 2008 she won a High Court victory....
"In November 2008, years of preparation and research paid off when a High Court judge agreed with her legal case,....claiming that the government had failed to safeguard residents from pesticides.Defra has argued that its approach to the regulation and control of pesticides was "reasonable, logical and lawful," but Mr Justice Collins found it failed to comply with a European directive and demanded Defra reassess its policyto protect residents exposed to toxins." (The Independent,Martin Hickman,16/2/10). Unfortunately this isn't the end of the legal battle because.." in July 2009 the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier judgement and referred to her lack of medical of scientific background." Georgina Downs is now determined to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Reacting to the appeal victory, Hilary Benn the Environment Secretary, stressed that the protection of people's health was "our priority". But he added: "In view of the issues raised by Georgina Downs and the new European Directive we will consult this Autumn on how to give people access to farmers spray records, how to give residents prior notification of spraying activity, and what else should be included, for example, monitoring and training." These measures would be woefully inadequate, but are also virtually useless in view of the fact that the NFU want everything to be on a voluntary basis,. hence the Voluntary Initiative.

So, we are expected to place confidence in farmers who seem to have no awareness of the dangers of chemical run-off into watercourses,and who spray illegally by using banned pesticides, not to mention all the other routine breaking of pesticide safety codes.
In Britain DEFRA,(Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has launched a consultation into how the UK will meet the European Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. The consultation is addressing issues such as sprayer testing, training of operators and people testing pesticides, specific measures to protect water, aerial spraying and the promotion of integrated pest management.
　
　

Patent the Planet or Food Sovereignty.

We're all familiar by now with the fact that GM seeds are designed to be bought new every year, and now this applies increasingly to hybrid seeds. BUT DID YOU KNOW that it is illegal in Europe to swap or sell old seed varieties(heritage seeds) that are no longer registered on any approved lists? So even if you sold at a local market, a small box of saved seeds from your garden, of an old variety of bean for example, you could be taken to court. Blimey, what is the world coming to?...basically to a handfull of multinationals.
In the 1970's Europe passed laws which required all seeds to be put on a national list...anything not on the list should not be sold. It is not commercially viable to put heritage seeds on the list because the cost of registration is so high. Many gardeners and small farmers prefer some of the old varieties because they have particular qualities of perhaps more taste,or are more robust in different soil/weather conditions,etc.
Anyway, it's a grey area, the business of 'marketing' seeds, which is the term the legislation uses. Some enterprising gardening enthusiasts see the word 'marketing' to mean 'selling', so they use a system of 'swapping'...voila! The members of Garden Organic, near Coventry exchange their saved seeds, at the Organisation's library, and this is covered by the membership fee.
Happily there are parallel counter movements around the world. Seeds and knowledge are exchanged between communities. Small farmers(who still feed the majority of people in the world) are keen to reclaim use of traditional varieties of seeds, which have largely disappeared. They might have seven or eight different criteria for selecting different seeds...what tastes better, what keeps hunger away longer, what have more nutritive and medicinal properties etc. It takes four or five years to collect traditional seeds and so local seed banks have been set up in some areas, eg the Jarkand area of India. In Rwanda there are similar collaborative approaches, bringing farmers back into the debate with scientists.
This is in stark contrast to the system of privatised plant breeding by the agro chemical companies where the scientists aren't allowed to talk to other companies' scientists.

If we want to regain any say in what we eat, and what we can grow ourselves, it's mad to hand over control of our food production to a handful of companies.

If interested in the above, listen to the audio from 'The Food Programme', available until 14th Feb, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qg0r4

Biodiversity or Bust.

There are many reasons for adopting small-farm agriculture, without pesticides and without GE technology... and to pre-empt those well-worn soundbites of the pro GM lobby it's not about ...'nostalgia or a yearning for a bygone 'green and pleasant land',, it's not about a 'sentimentalised attachment to cuddly animals,and wildlife,' and it's not about an 'idealised or luddite view of pre-industrial agriculture,' or 'antipathy toward technological progress.' IT IS about NECESSITY. I am talking about stopping biodiversity loss.

2010 has been declared International Year of Biodiversity,and according to the experts there is only one generation left to turn it around.
Turn what around, and why? A recent survey compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature,shows that one fifth of all known mammals, one tenth of all known birds,and seven out of ten plants are now classed as threatened.Loss of our flora and fauna is estimated to be as high as 1,000 times the natural rate as a result of human activities.In 1992 192 countries signed up to protect biodiversity at The Rio Earth Summit. Their target aimed to substantially reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.

It's totally legitimate to try and save other species because we appreciate the richness of nature for its own sake,nothing more,nothing less.... although some might say that's just a luxury of rich nations.Not any more..Dr Ahmed Djoghlaf, the general secretary of the treaty, has been unprevaricating in declaring the lack of success of all the participants in achieving their target..and adds that 'business as usual is no longer an option.'

Dr Robert Bloomfield is the coordinator for the UK International year of biodiversity, which features talks, exhibitions, public dialogues, art work and citizen science experiments encompassing both science and the arts.He explains the urgency of this project very clearly,.and failure to achieve the targets for 2020 forsees a bankrupt world in all senses..
...."The equivalent to the Stern report for biodiversity is called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). It warns that our neglect of the natural services provided by biodiversity is an economic catastrophe of an order of magnitude greater than the global economic crisis. Year on year, the irreversible loss of natural diverse genetic resources impoverishes the world and undermines our ability to develop new crops and medicines, resist pests and diseases, and maintain the host of natural products on which humans rely.
Equally significant, are the vital natural services that the world's ecosystems provide. These include providing vital oxygen, decomposing waste, removing pollutants, providing the natural buffers that help manage drought and flood, protect soil from erosion, ensure soil fertility, and provide breeding nurseries to maintain fish ocean stocks. The list goes on, and among these immeasurable vital functions of nature is of course its ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The ability of forests, bogs and salt marches, tundra, coral and ocean plankton to sequester carbon should be our greatest ally in managing the increased emissions of fossil fuel activity – a key theme of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen last month.
Rather than seeing biodiversity and ecological mechanisms being eroded, we need to see a massive effort towards finding a more effective sustainable relationship between human society and nature. This is not a scientific or environmental issue, it is a social question and an ethical one about what our generation leaves for those in the future."(From "Biodiversity is not just about saving exotic species from extinction." Mon 11th Jan. 2010. guardian.co.uk)