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.

Biotech companies reveal their selfish motives....again.

Biotech companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF claim that they are committed to reducing poverty and hunger throughout the world (altruistic motives indeed), but they have withdrawn from a major international project to map out the future of agriculture.

The International Assembly of Agriculture, Science and Technology for Development is concentrating attention on how to feed the world's population. This project is based on the work of 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world.However, Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF resigned after a draft report from the project highlighted the risks of GM crops and said they could pose problems for the developing world.

So, it seems that these corporates are not so altruistic after all. When they are prevented from distributing their GM seeds throughout the world, they are not interested in contributing to the project at all.

The draft report of the project said there is a "wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern technology many of which are yet unknown." The report also stated that it is not clear whether GM crops increase yields and warns that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved, as well as causing problems with patents.
The science journal 'Nature' commented that the view that "......biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty" is mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy makers.

French Farmer Calls Off Hunger Strike.

The following is from Paris 'Associated Press' Jan 11 2008.

..."Militant French farmer Jose Bove and about 15 supporters called off their hunger strike in its eighth day after the government ordered the suspension of the use of genetically modified corn.

France will suspend cultivation of MON810, the seed for the only type of genetically modified corn now allowed in the country, until a European Union review is conducted, Prime Minister Francois Fillon's office said.

The move was based on a recommendation this week by a government-appointed panel calling for "the need for additional analyses on the health and environmental effects of the genetically modified product MON810 in the long term," Fillon's office said in a statement.

Bove and his supporters began the hunger strike Jan 3, saying they hoped to pressure the government to make good on a promise in November to suspend cultivation of MON810. He said they only drank water or unsweetened tea during the protest.

The seed, which resists some types of insects, was authorized before a government-ordered moratorium on genetically modified products took effect in 1999. Last year, it was planted in about 54,000 acres in France-mainly in southern farmland.

Bove rose to fame in August 1999 when he and supporters used farm equipment to dismantle a McDonald's branch under construction in the foothills of France's Massif Central mountains.

He has faced repeated trials and served jail time for destroying genetically modified crops." (End of quote)

France's environment minister Jean-Louis Boloo told the National Assembly that the clampdown on MON810 was a precaution that would only last until the release of an European re-evaluation of the crop in the coming month. Borloo insisted that biotechnologies were crucial for France....."In terms of agriculture it is doubly crucial for us. We have trouble feeding six billion people, nine billion tomorrow, with less arable land and probable less productive soil" Borloss said.

Borloo voices the pro GM mantra here, that 'biotechnology is needed to feed the growing populations.' The more we explore this claim, the more a different story emerges....

I mentioned in a previous post the Ethiopian farmers who have rejected the introduction of foreign seeds, due to the negative environmental and health impacts . The same sort of resistance to the introduction of foreign seeds has recently been expressed by farmers and scientists in Bangladesh. Agents of multinational companies have made a bid to introduce one-time usable foreign hybrid paddy seeds in the Sidr-southern region. (hurricanes have led to a seed crisis in this region.) Local agricultural experts and farmers have said that the introduction of foreign seeds will threaten extinction of local varieties, which have good taste and greater nutritional value. Also production costs will rise as foreign varieties need more care and costly fertilizer, irrigation and pesticides. The Bangladesh Rice Research Institute says that the government should take initiative for collection, preparation development and supply of local varieties of paddy seeds and take measures so that farmers are not lured to use foreign seeds for 'more profit'.

We see here an echo of Jose Bove's warning of how GM crops represent more than a potential risk to health and environment, but also destroy communities as small farmers are forced off the land.

French farmer on hunger strike over GM crops

Much of the opposition to GM crops is based on the potential harm they pose to humans and wildlife, and the possibility of uncontrollable spread of modified genes into non GM plants and crops.

In addition to the risks posed to humans and the environment, Jose Bove expresses a further concern over GM's. His ethical opposition is perhaps best summed up in his slogan "the world is not merchandise" and " the earth is not for sale".

Many French people regret the effects of globalisation on its rural traditions and farming practice. Bove and his supporters talk about "preservation". He describes how small farmers in France preserve nature through their inherited knowledge and expertise in agriculture. These skills are inseperable from the cultural and social aspects of rural life, from land and animal husbandry to food production,(wine, cheese, meats, pate, etc.)

When Bove refers to "preservation" he is not speaking in a nostalgic or luddite way,(as UK Professor David King likes to characterise the anti-GM campaigners).

From 1998 Bove represented small family farmers as being uniquely qualified to speak about food quality and to fulfil their duty to protect and develop French seeds.

The idea of "preservation" that Bove portrays is a practical, robust, and economic concept. One that is both productive and environmentally sustainable, while continuing to care for cultural and social traditions.

Bove challenges the multinationals for imposing an exploitative international economy. By colonizing and controlling the whole of the food chain, multinationals impose homogeneity on agricultural production, and food production. Nations which are colonised in this way by corporates experience the destruction of their rural communities, livlihoods of farmers, environmental degradation, and also detrimental effects on the health of their people.

French farmer Jose Bove on anti-GMO hunger strike.

Jose Bove (see previous post) and 15 other campaigners started their hunger strike two weeks ago on January 3rd.

Bove wants the French government to use European Union Legislation that allows members to ban GM crops.

At the present time Nicolas Sarkozy, France's President, has suspended the use of MON810, the only GM crop currently authorized in France. This crop is a brand of maize which is highly bug-resistent, and developed by the US agrochemical company Monsanto.

A bill on regulating GM crops is due to be debated in Fance's national assembly later this month and a vote is expected before February 9th, when the government's temporary freeze is due to end.

(More on Bove and his campaign here soon.)

EU Faces Deadline on GM Food Ban. The Parasite Crops.

"People who campaign against GM crops are committing a crime against humanity". Not my words. This seems to be the latest ludicrous claim of the GM protagonists in their attempts to conquer the European market. 'Ludicrous' because in view of the problems caused by GM's, described only briefly below, it would be far more accurate to describe the GM corporates as committing a crime against humanity:-

• the contamination of non gm crops and wild plants by gm varieties.



• resistance to pesticides and herbicides of insects and weeds.



• continuous use of herbicides with herbicide tolerant crops leads to serious ecological problems.



• some herbicides effect non target species in the soil such as beneficial predators-spiders, mites, beetles, earthworms, and microfauna and aquatic organisms including fish.



• large scale soyabean monocultures have rendered Amazonian soils unusable. In Bolivia in many areas soils are compacted and suffering severe degradation. In Argentina intensive soybean cultivation has led to soil nutrient depletion.



• The obliteration of traditional crops and horticulture by corporate farming has led to detrimental health effects on local communities, caused by vitamin deficiencies. Eg. monocultural rice, or maize growth (in Latin America) for export as cattle feed is a prime cause of vitamin A deficiency which leads to blindness.



• there are serious legal consequences for farmers regarding contracts that control farming methods and future use, seed purity and its saving for home use, food contamination, the intrusion into non gm crops and wild plants of gm varieties, and the difficulty in obtaining insurance cover should any harm result.


• (The following extract is from "GM soya Disaster in Latin America" by Prof. Walter A Pengue, Univ.of Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Prof.Miguel A. Altieri, Univ. of California, Berkley.)....

...."In Brazil soybean cultivation displaces eleven agricultural workers for every one who finds employment in the sector"........."In Argentina.....in 1998 there were 422000 farms in Argentina while in 2002 there were only 318,000, a reduction of a quarter. In one decade soybean area increased 126% at the expense of dairy, maize, wheat and fruit production............For the biotech industry huge increases in the soybean area cultivated and a more than doubling of yields per unit area are an economic and agronomic success. For the country, that means more imports of basic foods, therefore loss of food sovereignty, and for poor small and consumers increased food prices and more hunger.

This brings us back to the GM corporate pronouncement that "anti-GM campaigners are committing a crime against humanity"....a claim made no doubt to deflect from their own blatant exploitation of farmers and consumers.

It isn't just that GM crops act parasitically on the soil and wildlife and the environment. GM's are a parasite on the health and livlihoods of farmers and local populations in many parts of the world. At the most extreme there are suicides among Indian farmers, resulting from the increased seed costs and reduced yields.

Thankfully some communities, eg in Ethiopia have been able to resist the domineering influence of the corporates. They tried growing imported seeds and noticed the detrimental health effects on children. They also recognized that it was easier to mill and cook wheat which was grown from their indigenous seed varieties. The effect on digestion was also noticed to be better after consuming the traditional varieties. And last but not least the crop yields were higher! Happily farmers and local communities are collaborating with their seed scientists to return to growing and improving their traditional seed varieties.

In his article "Feeding People is Easy" Colin Tudge concludes....."In reality then our food problems are of two kinds. The first is to grow food well, get it to people and then cook it properly. That should be straight forward. Far, far harder is to circumvent the corporates and their attendant governments. New Labour has applied the same general strategy to food as to all things: to sell off the assets to the highest bidders and to hand the reins and profits to the corporates, which in this case means Tesco, Monsanto and the makers of agrochemicals. The aim is not to grow good food but to maximize cash. That in all ways is immensely destructive. In short the great threat to humanity comes from our own leaders. Now that really is a problem".

In 1998 the EU introduced a moratorium on new biotech authorizations that lasted six years, due to continuing concerns about GM crops.In November 2007, the World Trade Organization gave the EU an extra two months to comply with its ruling for the EU to end restrictions of imports of genetically modified food. The United States, Argentina and Canada argue that their farmers lost money because of GM bans, and they are now threatening to call for WTO sanctions against the EU.

French anti-globalisation activist, Jose Bove, who was convicted of destroying GM crops in southern France has gone on hunger strike to demand a year long embargo.

MEP's vote this week, how sustainable are they?

DEFRA supports the spraying of agricultural pesticides next to residential properties and other buildings such as schools and hospitals. Despite the report of the Royal Commission DEFRA CONTINUES TO SHOW CONTEMPT for the UK residents who are repeatedly exposed to highly toxic chemicals in this way. The European Parliament are voting on new safety policies which will provide more protection for people who live near to sprayed crops.

One very important new regulation in the European Commissions pesticide proposals, would be to introduce buffer zones between sprayed crops and peoples homes.

If you are concerned to protect your health from exposure to agricultural pesticides through inhalation, or skin contact, or water pollution, please contact your MEP's today by email. Please recommend to your MEP that they vote for the Environment Committee's adopted reports which will now all go to plenary to be voted on by all MEP'S.

You can find MEP's names and email addresses on the website http://www.europarl.org.uk/ They vote next week!

Urgent.EU vote on pesticide policy proposals.

1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weeds are now resistant to pesticides.-but humans are not!

Rainwater in parts of Europe contain such high levels of dissolved pesticides it would be illegal to sell it as drinking water.


If these facts are of concern to you, it is not too late to email your MEP today, before he/she votes on the EU pesticide proposals this month!


The pesticide proposals include the following amendments, which you might like to support in your email.,

• the prohibition of pesticide use in 'substantial no spray zones' around residential areas, parks, public gardens, sports grounds, school grounds, playgrounds amongst other places, especially to protect local groups, such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly, those with pre-existing medical conditions and who may be taking medication, along with all other vulnerable groups. The amendment also specified that in all these areas non-chemical alternatives should be used.
• a new legal obligation to inform residents and neighbours about pesticides spraying in their locality.
• a new legal obligation for farmers and other pesticide users to provide information on the pesticides used directly to residents and neighbours.
• a clear definition of a substance of concern being any substance that has or potentially has either carcinogenic, mutagenic, endocrine disrupting, neurotoxic, immunotoxic, reprotoxic, genotoxic or skin sensitizing capabilities should be regarded as a substance of concern.
• the entire terminology used throughout the adopted text of the Regulation proposal, including the title, to be changed from "Plant Protection Products"(PPP's) to pesticides.
• a new definition for the prioritization of non-chemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management (including rotation, physical and mechanical control and natural predator management).

After next year the European Commission plans to abolish set-asides. The reason for this is to make way for the growing of cereals for animal feeds and biofuels. Consequently more land will be sprayed with pesticides, providing no breathing space (literally) for wildlife, and a visually more barren and polluted agricultural landscape for all of us. This makes it even more urgent that large buffer zones be provided between sprayed crops and residential areas.

Biofuels, Agro-fuels,-Myth and Rip-off.

Why are we using precious land
to feed our gas-guzzling cars?

Governments and corporate bodies present agro-fuels as the panacea for the problems of a post peak oil era.

Their bold assertions are myths.

(text in colour are quotes from an article of Eric Holt-Gimenez, Ph.D.Executive Director,Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy)

It is now acknowledged by the scientific community that biofuels are not the magic bullet to the problem of either carbon emmissions or the transition from peak oil to a renewable fuel economy. The industrialized countries are aggressively promoting an agro-fuels boom, through mandating renewable fuel targets. However, these targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the Industrial North. Consequently Northern countries expect the Global South to meet their fuel needs, and most Southern governments seem happy to oblige. Indonesia and Malaysia are rapidly cutting down forests to expand palm-oil plantations targeted to supply up to 20% of the EU bio-diesel market. In Brazil-where bio-fuel crops already occupy an area the size of Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Great Britain combined-the government is planning a five-fold increase in sugar cane acreage with a goal of replacing 10% of the worlds gasoline by 2025.

In Columbia, land-grabbing from local peasants as well as from indigenous and minority groups. Should anyone resist they or members of their family might be made to disappear, by paramilitaries.

For more information on Columbia -see September issue of 'Ecologist' September 2007.

MYTHS-
Myth 1- Agro fuels are clean and green.

Myth 2- Agro-fuels will not result in deforestation.

Myth 3- Agro-fuels will bring rural development.

Myth 4- Agro-fuels will not cause hunger.

Myth 5- Better "second-generation" agro-fuels are just around the corner.

(from foodfirst.org).

Pesticides in Farming, Driven by Supermarkets.

Agri-business, food processors and supermarkets have totally taken over control of our food, from the time it is planted, (or born) to its purchase at the retailers. They have degraded its nutritional value, and contaminated it with chemicals:pesticides and herbicides on crops, and antibiotics and growth hormones in animals. This is before it even reaches the processors where additives and more go into the mix.

This whole process is referred to by its protagonists as 'efficiency' but nothing could be further from the truth! It's simply convenient to the corporates, who centralise control.

Food manufacturers attempt to sqeeze more and more profit from food:..."the increasing 'fractionation' of foodstuffs into smaller and smaller biological components and ingredients and then the recombining of these fractions into 'value-added' retail food products. Such activity has spawned a massive food technology industry whose practitioners have been increasingly involved over the past ten years in 'adding' health 'benefits' to foods and beverages.
..........Corporations are often mainly concerned about sourcing a product with the least cost and then move the product where it can be sold at the highest price. In many poor countries workers in rural areas receive less than five dollars a day, with health and environment regulations unlikely to be enforced, again helping to drive down costs. It is remarkable how cheap labour characterises the supposed 'efficiencies' of the food supply chain. Behind low cost food can be even lower cost labour. Transnational corporations are experts at reaping the economic benefits of globalization while pushing the economic, social and environmental costs onto the public.
........some economists now openly argue that consumers in the developed world no longer need their own farmers because countries can import food from poorer countries more cheaply."*

The alternative to this crazy system is to cut these corporations out of the loop, and for us, the customer/consumer to deal direct with local farmers. This action would also benefit populations in the developing world who should be able to decide about their own food needs and the farming system they want to use.

*Quotes from 'Food Wars', Tim Lang and Michael Heasman.

Organic Farming-Small Farms versus Large Farms.

"Food, Trade And US Power Politics In Latin America." Toni Solo. 2004.

He quotes a statement by Columbian Senator Jorge Robledo Castillo:"A nation whose food supply was located somewhere else in the world stands to lose if for some reason it cannot be made available for domestic consumption......"

Toni Solo points out that "people at all levels across Latin America see this very clearly. A spokesperson for the Movement of Landless Workers in Brazil, states, "The principal base for forging a free, sovereign people is that it has the conditions to produce its own food. If a country becomes dependent on another in order to feed its people it becomes a dependent nation politically, economically, and ideologically."

Solo continues.........."Within the broader concern in Latin America about food sovereignty, anxiety about genetically manipulated foods is acute. Writers like Elizabeth Bravo of Equador's Accion Ecologica, have analized what the FTAA would mean in terms of the ability of the US multinationals like Monsanto and Dupont to penalise local agriculture by enforcing Intellectual Property Rights on plants and seeds through patents and related ownership rights. She argues this will introduce monopoly rights into the food production system, limit the free movement of seeds, increase erosion of genetic resources and force farmers to pay royalties on the seed they use, thus generally increasing food prices.

She goes on to point out that, "even without broaching the the ethical monstrosity of patenting life forms, these attempts to prioratise the agenda of the agribusiness multinationals will lead to monocultivation and eliminate small farmers. Latin America agriculture will become more insecure the more it comes to rely on foreign, especially United States, technology. Looking further afield, one has only to consider a country like Honduras to see where the "free trade" model leads: abject dependency, widespread poverty, massive unemployment"

Farming-Small Farms Produce More.

I provide some quotes below from a policy brief by Peter M Rosset, Ph.D. Executive Director Food First/The Institute for Food and Development. The policy brief was prepared for "Cultivating Our Futures" the FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land,12-17 September1999, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

.."In this policy brief I challenge the conventional wisdom that small farms are backward and unproductive. Using evidence from Southern and Northern countries I demonstrate that small farms are "multi-functional"-more productive, more efficient, andcontribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers can also make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safe-guarding the future sustainability of agricultural production.

....Small Farm Productivity

How many times have we heard that large farms are more productive than small farms? Or that they are more efficient? And that we need to consolidate land holdings to take advantage of that productivity and efficiency? The actual data shows exactly the reverse for productivity: that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms. Part of the problem lies in the confusing language used to compare the performance of different farm sizes. As long as we use crop yield as the measure of productivity, we will be giving an unfair advantage to larger farms.

Total Output versus Yield.

If we are to fairly evaluate the relative productivity of small and large farms, we must discard "yield" as our measurement tool.Yield means the production per unit area of a single crop, like "metric tons of corn per hectare." One can often obtain the highest yield of a single crop by planting it alone on a field--in a monoculture. But while a monoculture may allow for a high yield of one crop, it produces nothing else of use to the farmer. The bare ground between the crop rows..."empty niche space" in ecological terms...invites weed infestation. The presence of weeds makes the farmer invest labour in weeding or capital in herbicide.

Large farmers tend to plant monocultures because they are the simplest to manage with heavy machinary. Small farmers on the other hand, especially in the Third World are much more likely to plant crop mixtures--intercropping---where the empty niche space that would otherwise produce weeds instead is occupied by other crops. Thet also tend to combine or rotate crops and livestock, with manure serving to replenish soil fertility.

Such integrated farming systems produce far more per unit area than do monocultures. Though the yield per unit area of one crop-corn, for example- may be lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture, the total output per unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far, far higher. Therefore if we are to compare large and small farms, we should use 'total output' rather than yield. Total output is the sum of everything a small farm produces: various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, animal products etc. While 'yield' almost always biases the results towards large farms, total output allows us to see the true productivity advantage of small farms.

Surveying the data we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This holds true whether we are talking about an industrial country like the United States, or any country in the Third World.".......

Pesticide Pollution,Farming, the Environment, and Gordon Brown's plans.

This is really about the lack of Gordon Brown's plans for the future of agriculture and the agricultural environment. Given the urgency of the need to create strategies for energy, efficiency and production in all fields(excuse the pun), there is almost a deafening silence from government. There are the occasional suggestions for using low energy light bulbs, but that's about the extent of their creative thinking. Let's have some concerted planning and incentives for really moving away from our dependence on oil!
In relation to farming I wonder if Gordon is going to opt for the environmentally sustainable option, or whether he will cave in to the agri business ,or the GM biotechnology industry.
It's a sobering thought that 75% of the UK is agricultural land and 31,000 tons of pesticides are sprayed on UK land every year......" The toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture has increased by an estimated factor of 10-100-fold since 1975.Despite this, resistence is spreading; POPS (persistant organic pollutants)are becoming less effective: they accumulate in the food chain, persist in the environment and travel by being bioaccumulated (as animals eat each other, so the POP is stored in fat and thus consumed and stored).Pesticides are a key route for POPS,, notably through aldrin, chlordane,DDT, dieldrin, endrin and heptachlor. 1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weeds are now resistant, an environmental impact known as the 'treadmill effect'."
Rain water in parts of Europe contains such high levels of dissolved pesticides it would be illegal to supply it as drinking water.
So, Gordon, what's it to be? Give us a clue.

Text in blue is information taken from 'Food Wars' by Tim Lang and Michael Heasman.

No Synthetic Fertilizers, No Pesticides in Cuban Organic Agriculture.

There is an interesting article by Megan Quinn called 'The Power of Community:How Cuba Survived Peak Oil.' It features on the website of Global Public Media.
I'll just quote a little bit about farming in Cuba, but her article is well worth reading for other aspects of cuban life.

....."Havana, Cuba--At the Organiponico de Alamar, a neighborhood agriculture project, a workers collective runs a large urban farm, a produce market and a restuarant. Hand tools and human labour replace oil-driven machinary. Worm cultivation and composting create productive soil. Drip irrigation conserves water, and the diverse, multi-hued produce provides the community with a rainbow of healthy foods.
In other Havana neighborhoods, lacking enough land for such large projects, residents have installed raised garden beds on parking lots and planted vegetable gardens on their patios and roof tops.
Since the early 1990's an urban agriculture movement has swept through Cuba, putting this capital city of 2.2 million on a path toward sustainability.
A small group of Australians assisted in this grass-roots effort, coming to this Caribbean island nation in 1993 to teach permaculture, a system based on sustainable agriculture which uses far less energy.
This need to bring agriculture into the city began with the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of more than 50% of Cuba's oil imports, much of its food and a percent of its trade economy.Transportation halted, people went hungry and the average Cuban lost 30 pounds.....
....Cubans are also replacing petroleum-fed machinary with oxen, and their urban agriculture reduces food transportation distances. Today an estimated 50% of Havana's vegetables come from inside the city, while in other Cuban towns and cities urban gardens produce from 80% to more than 100% of what they need......"

Please read the rest of the article, it's interesting.

Pesticides versus Set-asides.

Setasides are being scrapped next year to make way for the crazy rush to grow biofuel crops. Biofuel crops are also displacing food crops. Truly crazy in a country as small as Britain.

Setasides are not an escape into bygone times-just the opposite. They have been recognized as vital green arteries for wildlife and biodiversity, which are buffers against the burgeoning pressures of intensive farming and pesticide use. They support a critical eco system for the maintainance of food crops and nature.

Georgina Downs, anti pesticide campaigner, points out that 'despite the increasing costs involved in this process and the decreasing number of active substances on the market, actual consumption and use of pesticides in the EU has not decreased within the last ten years. At the same time, the percentage of food and feed samples where residues of pesticides exceed maximum regulatory limits is not declining, but remains around 5%. In addition,certain pesticides are commonly found in the aquatic environment at concentrations well above the regulatory limit, and there is no sign of any decrease'.

So, I enclose some pictures of fields and wild plants/flowers which are due to disappear forever from Britain.

Farming and Food Supply, Who Owns It?

All the big players are jostling for control of the land and control over how it is farmed. The combined power of agri-business and government has taken away a fundamental human right of the international population to make choices about foods grown in our own nations, geographical regions, and local communities.

They deprive us of choice as to whether we have pesticide residues in our food, or whether our food is genetically modified. Remote corporations tell us that the 'free market' provides consumer choice-but giant corporations have deep pockets and their marketing practices manipulate consumer choice. Supermarkets demand strict 'cosmetic' specifications of colour size and shape of produce from the farmer, which forces the farmer to use even more unnecessary chemicals, harmful to human health and animals and the environment.....Agribusiness refers to this system as 'productive, highly efficient, market focused agriculture.'

Foot and Mouth Disease

With this latest outbreak, hopefully things will be handled more efficiently and more humanely than the previous attempts which I described in my previous posts. When this foot and mouth outbreak is over, the arguments for moving to more sustainable, less intensive farming systems becomes even more important. Even in 2007, it is better to work with nature, rather than trying to squeeze every last drop of economic gain out of an exhausted land. Sustainable systems are undoubtedly the best way forward. DEFRA is responsible for critical decisions which have to be made in agriculture, but what are their priorities?

Shambo, and hundreds more.

"The next day there was no dawn chorus"

Shambo hit the headlines.He seemed to symbolize something very dysfunctional with the way DEFRA manages crisis in farming.On the radio this morning a farmer related his experience; he lost hundreds of cattle when they were slaughtered by DEFRA in the last foot and mouth outbreak. He described how his cattle were left in a huge pile,after the slaughter, waiting to be disposed of. DEFRA informed him that the carcasses might have to be left there for a week, in his field. The farmer and his family were expected to live for a week with the piled carcasses of the animals they had cared for, lying nearby. He rightly described this as 'not decent', and described DEFRA as incompetent.

These animals were ,like us, capable of feeling pain, and fear. They were treated as lumps of meat even whilst they were alive, in a country which is supposed to be civilized.

The farmer described how the next day there was "no dawn chorus, everything was totally silent.....there were no birds....the birds disappeared....for weeks"

The return to smaller farms,or farms where acres are divided into smaller units to incorporate more diversity, where animal husbandry, ecology and environmental issues are easier to manage, would provide a sustainable way forward. A system that regularly expects hundreds of animals to be slaughtered because of disease is a brutal and in the end brutalising system,which requires people to shut out of their minds the reality behind the packaged food we buy at the supermarket.

Shambo has gone,-do we feel better now?-problem solved?

Shambo held up a mirror to DEFRA and will remain as a symbol against the 'maximum production at all costs' policies of DEFRA.

Farmers call to scrap set-aside a year early.Set-asides give way to more pesticides.

Set-asides are due to make way for yet more pesticides all over again!

Quote from the Press and Journal:-"cereal farmers are demanding set-aside is scrapped early as floods at home and severe droughts elsewhere in the world increase the prospect of more poor harvests-and potential food shortages."

Ironic isn't it, when it is 'intensive' farming which helps contribute to climate change, and causes soil degradation, which further contributes to the whole environmental problem. But they refuse to abandon the short term policies, and rush towards more environmental destruction-. ".....European farmers' organization Copa-Cogeca now wants a decision on set-aside by September so that growers can plan their 2008 cropping, and bring the land back into production to ensure more grain supplies and resolve problems created by surging demand for wheat to convert into bioethanol for fuel."

There are already big doubts by the experts that bioethanol is going to solve the problem of fuel supply, infact they fear that bio ethanol crops will add to environmental problems, but you can see why farmers and businesses will want to jump on the band wagon.

So, the tiny little vestige of effort that agriculture and DEFRA temporarily made towards stemming the damaging effects of pesticides on the environment and wildlife and livestock, by introducing set-asides, is now going to be abandoned.

Bovine TB

With the intensive farming system it is difficult to track the source of food. An American farming report which I read the other day, stated that hamburger meat may contain the meat of as many as 1000 cows!! We might be able to trace our own food produced in the UK, but do we know what sort of conditions the animal was reared under? Remember Bernard Mathews and his factory farmed turkeys and the avian flu outbreak? There are overwhelming arguments for buying local,organic and free range,not least the need for humane treatment of animals, and the avoidance of inflicting stress and pain on them.To talk round and round in circles about whether or not to cull or to vaccinate seems to be missing the point. Questioning our own behaviour and attitudes towards food and the farming systems which produce it for us would be good all round, for humans and animals I think,- but I know a lot of people disagree-usually for cheap food reasons.

Intensive Farming,and Factory Farming of Livestock. Culling, killing and slaughter.

The devastating effects of
livestock diseases which have

occurred in the UK are difficult to forget;
There is a correlation between livestock diseases and farming practice, including movements of cattle around the country.
The point of industrial agriculture is lower cost products to create greater productivity. When epidemics and mass culling happen, all farms and their livestock(even healthy animals) can be effected, whether their agricultural practice is intensive farming or sustainable farming.
The question I'd like to raise in this post is how many repeated mass slaughters are we, the food consumer ,prepared to accept in the quest for cheap food. I haven't discussed various farming systems, the effects on health and the environment, or animal husbandry here. I do not mean to imply that individual farmers who have suffered the devastating effects of culls on their farms were in any way responsible.
SE(bovine spongiform encephalopathy)- In November 1986 scientists first became aware of the disease. Up to the end of Jan 1998 approximately 170,000 cases were confirmed in the UK. 100,000 cattle were culled.
The human form of the disease, CJD, killed 165 people in Britain.

Foot and Mouth Disease,Spring and Summer 2001.There were 2,000 cases of the disease in farms in most of the British countryside. Around seven million sheep and cattle were killed in attempting to control the disease. This involved concentrating on a cull & then burning all animals located near an infected farm.
Avian Influenza. Feb 2007.160,000 turkeys were killed at a Suffolk 'farm' owned by Bernard Mathews.
Cattle TB. In 2005, 3,300 cattle were thought to be infected with bovine tuberculosis, with the figure rising at 18% each year. Badgers have long been blamed for the spread of TB in UK herds and the government has threatened a cull if further studies back this up. Other research has found that cattle movements are the biggest single factor in TB transmission. This same analysis threw up several issues of farm management, with hedges being particularly prominent; TB was markedly less likely in farms with abundant hedgerows and ungrazed strips of land along fences; but markedly more likely where hedges had lots of gaps. (Dr Fiona Mathews, Oxford University) calculates that "hedge-poor" farms are 60% more likely than "hedge-rich" ones to experience an outbreak.

ECONOMIC COSTS of OUTBREAKS

BSE- Farmers were offered a one-off compensation of £85 million pounds.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.-By April 2001, the UK government had announced the following compensation packages;

*£247 million compensation for slaughtered animals.

*£156 million 'agrimonetry' compensation of the sheep, beef and dairy sectors(over the £15 million compulsory aid.) .

*£200 million compensation for 'welfare' slaughter of livestock.

*£40 million payment of the pig industry restructuring fund brought forward to 2001.

*Rates relief for businesses affected by FMD., eg tourism.

*Rates relief for small businesses in rural areas affected by FMD, eg food shops pubs, garages with a rateable value under £9000.

* Unemployment benefits to people whose ability to work is effected by MD.

AVIAN INFLUENZA-Bernard Mathews was told by government he would receive £600,000 in compensation for healthy birds slaughtered in the bird flu outbreak, (despite health safety precautions having been breached)

CATTLE TB- No figures for yearly compensation are yet available here.£35m was spent on a government-funded study on potential culling of badgers, known as the 'Krebs Trial'.

Sustainable Farming v. Intensive Farming Systems

One third of everything we eat is pollinated by bees; this includes all fruit and most vegetables. According to many scientists working in this area, we have taken the process of pollination in agriculture forgranted. They say that even in this country, the uk, we have had a narrow vision of agriculture, which has been driven by the economic goal of quick, cheap food.
Quick, cheap food has led to mono-crops, and pesticide use. 31,000 tons of pesticides are sprayed on UK land every year.The photograph shown here is not smoke rising up above the trees, it is pesticide spray.

One example amongst many, of mono-culture in this country is the use of rye grass rather than clover. Mono-crops mean lack of bio diversity for bees as well as humans, which means that their immune systems are weakened. Mites have been cited as another possible cause of ccd (colony collapse disorder)in bees,but some mites are now resistant to two different pesticides, and scientists say there are no alternatives to these two chemicals.

Scientists and others are worried because research into ccd is being carried out by scientists working for the agro-chemical companies. They say that this research should be carried out by independent scientists, for obvious reasons! The agro-chemical industries risk loosing a lot of money if their pesticides, fungicides are found to be responsible. The UK government should be doing more to finance independent research into this serious threat, before colony collapse disorder takes effect here and in Europe.

Sustainable Farming

Global trade in food isn't viable anymore. Lots of reasons why not. Even apart from the problems caused by global warming, there are important reasons for nations to meet their own food needs;
Farmers and communities in the developing world are often exploited by globalization. Deprived of their old diversity of food crops which provided a good staple diet, they have to produce huge acreages of one crop(mono-cropping, or mono-culture) for export, often using vast quantities of pesticides.
If countries were able to meet their own national needs, free from the exploitative stranglehold of supermarkets and agro chemical industries,and market forces,- farming systems would be able to adapt more easily to the changing local conditions brought about by climate change. Closer communication between farmer and consumer would bring about a more democratic system.
Independant scientists(ie independant from agro-chemical companies)make an informed hypothesis that mono-crops are partially responsible for the colony collapse disorder in bees in the United States. Another strong suspect for causing this serious state of affairs, is the use of pesticides. I discuss this in my next post.

Pesticides in Orchards.

Exposure to toxins can be by inhalation, skin contact, eyes and ingestion. The diagram(by agro-industry) at the top of the page gives the very misleading impression that spray falls neatly onto the crop, and nothing else. Nothing could be further from the truth. The spray is blasted high into the air, above tree canopies, and the vapour can be inhaled by people many hundreds of yards outside the perimeter of the orchard. This is actually the best scenario- if there is a wind the distance can be miles. Sprayed fields/orchards are a hazard to people using adjacent lanes or main roads, either on foot, cycling or in cars.

It is not safe to enter the orchard for four days after spraying, this is a defra regulation. -but unbelievably public footpaths, under council jurisdiction, often run through orchards. The government has refused to respond to the recommendation of the latest 'Royal Commission for the Environment' report, for on-site notices to warn walkers of spraying. Although it is obvious to any rational person that spraying poses a threat to the health of people who live close to sprayed crops, the government refuses to acknowledge this fact.

Pesticides- Farmers ignore safety regulations.

I often see farmers breaking safety regulations. They spray agricultural chemicals,(ie pesticides,fungicides) over public footpaths and rights of way, which traverse crops, sometimes only two or three minutes before walkers use the footpath.

These chemicals sometimes have rei's of 3or 4 days,(ie it isn't safe to enter the sprayed area for that time.) No notifications or warnings are put on site to warn walkers of the danger.

Crops are often sprayed when the wind speed is well above the 10 mph which is the legal limit for spraying.

Defra's propaganda that the UK has strict safety regulations is laughable. Defra is negligent and cavalier in the way it turns a blind eye to farmers breaking the law in this and in other ways.

Defra's main concern is overwhelmingly on financial and economic considerations rather than protecting the health of people who live or work close to agricultural land.

Genetically Modified Crops.

Shared Terrain or State Terra?

There's a lot of opposition to the use of agricultural pesticides, and the government sees this as an opportunity to promote what they claim are the benefits of genetically modified crops. There are currently two main types of genetically modified crops, those engineered to be resistant to herbicides in order to kill weeds and those engineered to produce toxins to to kill pests.


There are many concerns about introducing GM crops in the UK, and I refer here to the Soil Association for an outline of some of the issues. Coloured text below are quotes from the Soil Association website.


Health

Unlike new drugs, there is no requirement for GM foods to be routinely tested on animals or humans so scientists don't know what the effects are on health. GM food has been available in America since 1996, but no studies have been carried out to assess whether this has led to health problems.



The only known trial on humans of GM food was carried out by the University Of Newcastle in 2002 and commissioned by the Food Standards Agency.Seven people were given a meal containing GM soya and it was found that in at least three people the GM material entered their gut bacteria. The accidental contamination of many US food products with GM maize in 2000 is believed to have caused allergic reactions in over 50 Americans, some serious.

The Environment.
A number of worrying environmental impacts are developing in countries where GM crops are grown commercially:-

Widespread contamination of crops: in America and Canada contamination has caused major problems throughout the food and farming industry in just a couple of years, including the loss of nearly the whole organic oilseed rape sector in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Seeds that are produced to be GM-free are difficult to buy and sometimes are later found to be contaminated.Those who are successful in sourcing non-GM seeds risk having their crops contaminated by neighbouring GM fields.

Increased use of chemical sprays: Contrary to claims from the biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides(weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging crops. However, weeds (sometimes referred to as superweeds) are developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that grow after a harvest(volonteers) have appeared and spread widely. In particular, GM oilseed rape volonteers- the crop most likely to be introduced into the UK- have spread quickly, and some plants have become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to older and more toxic chemicals.

Resistant Pests: Pests are becoming resistant to some GM cotton plant crops in Australia and China (which have Bt genes inserted). There are many laboratory studies to prove this and the biotechnology companies have acknowledged that Bt resistance will develop.

The market
There is also no market for GM food as it has been rejected by all the supermarkets in their own brand food and British Sugar has said it will not buy GM sugar.

GM technology is driven by four commercial biotechnology companies(Monsanto, Syngenta,Aventis Cropscience and Dupont) none is British.