Thursday, August 28, 2008

YES, GENETIC ENGINEERING MAKES SOY & OTHER SEEDS EVIL!

YES, GENETIC ENGINEERING MAKES SOY & OTHER SEEDS EVIL!

MONSANTO
THE BAD SEED
by Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
Source: http://www.newfrontier.com/asheville/bad_seed.htm

For more than a decade, the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis has been maneuvering to dominate the world's supply of seed for staple crops (corn, soybeans, potatoes) -- a business plan that Monsanto's critics say is nothing short of diabolical. Monsanto says it is just devilishly good business.

Monsanto has spent over $8 billion in recent years buying numerous U.S. seed companies. As a result, two firms, Monsanto and Pioneer (recently purchased by DuPont), now dominate the U.S. seed business. Monsanto specializes in genetically modified seeds -- seeds having particular properties that Monsanto has patented.

The U.S. government is very enthusiastic about these new technologies. From the viewpoint of U.S. foreign policy, genetically modified seeds offer a key advantage over traditional seeds: because genetically modified seeds are patented, it is illegal for a farmer to retain seed from this year's crop to plant next year.
To use these patented seeds, farmers must buy new seed from Monsanto every year. Thus, a farmer who adopts genetically modified seeds and fails to retain a stock of traditional seeds could become dependent upon a transnational corporation.
Nations, whose farmers are dependent upon corporations for seed, might forfeit considerable political independence. The Clinton/Gore administration has been aggressively helping Monsanto promote new, untested gene-altered products, by-passing U.S. health and safety regulations.

A key component of the U.S./Monsanto plan to dominate world agriculture with genetically modified seeds is the absence of labeling of genetically engineered foods. All U.S. foods must carry labels listing the ingredients: salt, sugar, water, vitamins, additives, etc. However, three separate U.S. government agencies -- the. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , the. Department of Agriculture( USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have ruled that genetically- modified foods deserve an exception: they can be sold without being labeled "genetically modified."
This strategy has successfully prevented consumers from exercising informed choice in the marketplace, reducing the likelihood of a consumer revolt, at least in the U.S., at least for now.
Earlier this year, opposition to genetically modified foods exploded in England and quickly spread to the European continent. (See REHW #649.) Burgeoning consumer opposition has now swept into Asia and back to North America. The New York Times recently reported that, "the Clinton Administration's efforts have grown increasingly urgent, in an attempt to contain the aversion to these crops that is leaping from continent to continent." 1

In that same NY Times article, it states that Japan -- the largest Asian importer of U.S. food -- passed a law requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.1 A subsidiary of Honda Motor Company immediately announced that it will build a plant in Ohio and hire farmers to supply it with traditional, unaltered soy beans. Soy is the basis of tofu, a staple food in Japan.

Subsequently, the largest and third-largest Japanese beer makers, Kirin Brewery and Sapporo Breweries, Ltd., announced that they have stopped using genetically modified corn. Other Japanese brewers are expected to follow suit. (American micro-breweries take note.)

South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand have all recently passed laws requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.
However, the U.S. government has publicly protested against such labeling laws, and has privately lobbied hard against them, unsuccessfully.

Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour -- recently announced it will no longer purchase any genetically modified corn. Corn flour is made into tortillas, a Mexicanstaple. Mexico buys $500 million of U.S. corn each year, so the Grupo Maseca announcement sent a chill through Midwestern corn farmers who planted Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.1
Over 1/3 of this year's U.S. corn crop is being
grown from genetically modified seeds.
Gerber and Heinz, the two leading manufacturers of baby foods in the United States, announced that they would not allow genetically modified corn or soybeans in any of their baby foods.2 After the baby food announcements, Iams, the high-end pet food producer, announced that it would not purchase any of the seven varieties of genetically modified corn that have not been approved by the European Union. This announcement cut off an alternative use that U.S. farmer's had hoped to make of corn rejected by overseas buyers.
As the demand for traditional, unmodified corn and soy has grown, a two-price system for crops has developed in the U.S. -- a higher price for traditional, unmodified crops, and a lower price for genetically modified crops. For example, Archer-Daniels-Midland is paying some farmers 18 cents less per bushel for genetically modified soybeans, compared to the traditional product.1

The American Corn Growers Association, which represents mainly family farmers, has told its members that they should consider planting only traditional, unmodified seed next spring because it soon may not be possible to export genetically modified corn.1

Deutsche Bank, Europe's largest bank, has issued two reports within the past six months advising its large institutional investors to abandon ag-biotech companies like Monsanto and Novartis.3
In its most recent report, Deutsche Bank said, "...[I]t appears the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs [genetically modified organisms].'"

Deutsche Bank's Washington, D.C., analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, announced nine months ago that ag-biotech "was going the way of the nuclear industry in this country."
"But we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out," they told the London Guardian.3
In Europe, the ag-biotech controversy is playing out upon a stage created by an earlier -- and ongoing -- scientific dispute over sex hormones in beef.4
Over 90% of U.S. beef cattle are treated with sex hormones -- three naturally-occurring (estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone) and three synthetic hormones that mimic the natural ones (zeranol, melengesterol acetate, and trenbolone acetate). Hormone treatment makes cattle grow faster and produces more tender, flavorful cuts of beef.
Since 1995, the European Union has prohibited the treatment of any farm animals with sex hormones intended to promote growth, on grounds that sex hormones are known to cause several human cancers. As a by-product of that prohibition, the EU refuses to allow the import of hormone-treated beef from the U.S. and Canada.
The U.S. asserts that hormone-treated beef is entirely safe and that the European ban violates the global free trade regime that the U.S. has worked religiously for 20 years to create. The U.S. argues that sex hormones only promote human cancers in hormone-sensitive tissues, such as the female breast and uterus.
Therefore, the U.S. argues, the mechanism of carcinogenic action must be activation of hormone "receptors" and therefore there is a "threshold" -- a level of hormones below which no cancers will occur. Based on risk assessments, the U.S. government claims to know where that threshold level lies. Furthermore, the U.S. claims it has established a regulatory process that prevents any farmer from exceeding the threshold level in his or her cows.

An EU scientific committee argues that hormones may cause some human cancers by an entirely different mechanism -- by interfering directly with DNA.5 If that were true, there would be no threshold for safety and the only safe dose of sex hormones in beef would be zero. "If you assume no threshold, you should continually be taking steps to get down to lower levels, because no level is safe," says James Bridges, a toxicologist at the University of Surrey in Guilford, England.4
Secondly, the EU spot-checked 258 meat samples from the Hormone Free Cattle program run jointly by the U.S. beef industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This program is intended to raise beef cattle without the use of hormones, thus producing beef eligible for import into Europe. The spot check found that 12% of the "hormone free" cattle had in fact been treated with sex hormones. EU officials cite this as evidence that growth hormones are poorly regulated in the U.S. beef industry and that Europeans might be exposed to higher- than-allowed concentrations if the ban on North American imports were lifted.
"These revelations are embarrassing for U.S. officials," reports Science magazine.4 Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to assert that its hormone- treated beef is 100% safe.

Thus we have a classic scientific controversy characterized by considerable scientific uncertainty. This particular scientific dispute has pro- found implications for the future of all regulation under a global free trade regime -- including regulation of toxic chemicals -- because the European Union is basing its opposition to hormone-treated beef on the pre- cautionary principle. The American government insists that this pre- cautionary approach is an illegal restraint of free trade.
The EU's position is clearly precautionary: "Where scientific evidence is not black and white, policy should err on the side of caution so that there is zero risk to the consumer," says the EU.6
The Danish pediatric researcher, Niels Skakkebaek, MD, says the burden of proof lies with those putting hormones in beef: "The possible health effects from the hormones have hardly been studied -- the burden of proof should lie with the American beef industry," Dr. Skakkebaek told Chemical Week, a U.S. chemical industry publication that is following the beef controversy closely.6
It appears that European activists have seized upon hormones in beef, and upon Monsanto's seed domination plan, as a vehicle for opposing a "global free trade" regime in which nations lose their power to regulate markets to protect public health or the environment. The New York Times reports that the Peasant Confederation of European farmers derives much of its intellectual inspiration and direction from a new organization, called Attac, formed last year in France to fight the spread of global free trade regimes.7
The Confederation has destroyed several McDonald's restaurants and dumped rotten vegetables in others. Patrice Vidieu, the secretary-general of the Peasant Confederation, told the NY Times, "What we reject is the idea that the power of the marketplace becomes the dominant force in all societies, and that multinationals like McDonald's or Monsanto come to impose the food we eat and the seeds we plant."
What began as consumer opposition to genetically-modified seed appears to be turning into an open revolt against the 25-year-old U.S.-led effort to impose free-trade regimes world-wide, enthroning transnational corporations in the process. If approached strategically by alliances of U.S. activists and their overseas counterparts (and it must not be viewed as merely a labeling dispute), genetic engineering could become the most important controversy in this century.
________________________________________
Millions Against Monsanto
Monsanto Buys Out Seminis
http://www.gmwatch.org
Deception and Disinformation
1 "Melody Petersen, "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pgs. A1, A18.

2 Lucette Lagnado, "Strained Peace: Gerber Baby Food, Grilled by Greenpeace, Plans Swift Overhaul -- Gene-Modified Corn and Soy Will Go, Although Firm Feels Sure They Are Safe -- Heinz Takes Action, Too," Wall Street Journal, July 30, 1999, pg. A1.

3 Paul Brown and John Vidal, "GM Investors Told to Sell Their Shares," The Guardian [London] August 25, 1999, pg. unknown.

4 Michael Balter, "Scientific Cross-Claims Fly in Continuing Beef War," Science magazine Vol. 284 (May 28, 1999), pgs. 1453-1455.

5 "Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health; Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products." European Commission, April 30, 1999. 139 pgs. The report is available in PDF format from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scv/out21_en.html

6 "Europe's Beef Ban Tests Precautionary Principle," Chemical Week, August 11, 1999, pg. unknown.

7 Roger Cohen, "Fearful Over the Future, Europe Seizes on Food," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pg. unknown.
********************

More Biotech Industry Deception & Disinformation
March 3, 2005
GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here - press article
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
*Steering Commitee.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
The article below describes a new initiative - The Public Research Sector
Initiative executed by a foundation called "Public Research and Regulation".
The initiative is based on deceit.
The biotech scientists involved, who are meeting today anjd tomorrow, are
saying that they represent a third non-aligned group between civil society
and industry who should "weigh in" at meetings of the Cartagena Protocol
that help determine biosafety rules. They claim "the public research sector
has been not able to provide scientific input for the benefit of the
negotiations nor to express its views about the effectiveness and
workability of the provisions of the Protocol."
Their call for increased leverage for "nonprofit" "public sector" players
belies the heavy industrial-alignment of most public sector agricultural
biotechnology where there is a long history of involvement with intensive
agricultural R&D and of collaboration with agribusiness multinationals, not
to mention dependence on industry funding. The effect of this is to generate
convergence between private sector and public sector operators.
This convergence means that the "third" group would not be non-aligned but
would have interests and an agenda that would all too often be
indistinguishable from that of the industry - in other words biotech
proponents would get two bites of the cherry to the rest of society's one.
The problem is apparent as soon as one looks at the detail of this
initiative and those that are driving it forward. Although the biotech
scientists claim it is a "misconception that modern biotechnology, and in
particular its agricultural application, is the exclusive domain of a
handful of big, western multinationals", they are actually holding their
meeting today at the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St Louis,
Missouri ¬ the home town of Monsanto.
This is no coincidence. The Danforth Center was established by Monsanto
Corporation "and academic partners" with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto.
The company also donated the 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million,
on which the Center is built.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200
And don't be fooled when a scientist turned political lobbyist is quoted at
the end of the article as saying, "My career would be much better served if
I wasn't doing this," and "My dream is to win this battle and go back to the
lab full time". For many of the scientists involved in this initiative,
their labs, their research and their current careers would simply not exist
if it were not for the largesse of the biotech industry.
Take, for instance, Roger Beachy, the Danforth Center President, who is
helping to drive forward this initiative and who is quoted in the article.
Monsanto and other biotech companies have helped to fund Beachy's research,
quite apart from the massive corporate support underlying the Center he
heads.
One of the 2 key contacts for the group, and a member of the Steering
Committee, is Willy de Greef of the Institute for Plant Biotechnology for
Developing Countries (IPBO). Prior to that de Greef was a leading light of
Syngenta ¬ the world's biggest biotech corporation. And Beachy and de Greef
are very far from alone - see the list below.
And when the article asks, "Can public-sector scientists become better
salesmen?", it misses the point that many of those involved are "salesmman"
and often their lobbying is underwritten directly or indirectly by the
biotech industry.
Here are more of those who "support the initiative and wish to be actively
involved in its activities":
Prof. Klaus Ammann, Botanical Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland
-ardent supporter and lobbyist for GM crops and co-editor of the Bio-Scope,
supported by GM industry lobby group Europabio.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8
Dr. Gerard Barry, The International Rice Research Institute, Philippines
-former Director of Research, Production and Technical Cooperation at
Monsanto
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=294
Dr. Andrew Bennett, Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture,
Switzerland
-Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's
board.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175
Dr. Joel Cohen, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
United States
-when at USAID Cohen worked with Monsanto to establish the notorious GM
sweet potato project
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
Prof. Philip J. Dale, Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group,
John Innes Centre, United Kingdom
-Dale is on the advisory council of the controversial lobby group Sense
About Science which the John Innes Centre also helps to fund. JIC has been
involved in multi-million pound research alliances with Syngenta, Dupont and
others.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=34
Dr Roger Kalla, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Australia
-active in lobby group AusBiotech
Prof. Drew L. Kershen, University of Oklahoma College of Law, United States
-Well known Prakash supporter
Dr. Muffy Koch, AgBios, Canada
-highly controversial lobbyist. Part of biotech industry-funded AfricaBio
lobby group
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271
Piet van der Meer, HORIZONS sprl, Belgium
-regarded as "having let the industry in" to biosafety development in the
developing world
Dr. James Peacock, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research
Organisation, Australia
-collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's first
major GM commercial crop. According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former chief
executive, "Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense, in the
context of market accessÅ  Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy
to get into bed with these companies. "
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187
Prof. Ingo Potrykus, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Institute
of Plant Science, Switzerland
-golden rice originator who has happily used it for PR purposes for genetic
engineering. Accuses Greenpeace of 'crimes against humanity'
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=105
Prof. Jennifer Thompson, Department of Microbiology University of Cape Town,
South-Africa
-board member of the biotech industry-funded lobby groups AfricaBio and
ISAAA
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170
Dr. Florence Wambugu, A Harvest Biotech Foundation International, Kenya
-notorious GM propagandist, trained by Monsanto. A Harvest is backed by
CropLife International.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
------
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here
By Eric Hand
St Louis Post-Dispatch, 03/02/2005
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/9C9E
EC401D3450EA86256FB9001A6BF2?OpenDocument
Can public-sector scientists become better salesmen?
Nearly 50 university, nonprofit and government biotechnologists from around
the globe will try at a two-day conference beginning today at the Donald
Danforth Plant Sciences Center in Creve Coeur.
Center president Roger Beachy wants them to talk up the benefits of public
research into genetically modified foods and crops, an industry where debate
so far has largely been between for-profit companies like St. Louis-based
Monsanto and environmental activists.
"We think the absence of the voice of public-sector scientists skews the
discussion," he said.
Beachy hopes to encourage public-sector scientists to weigh in by attending
a meeting in June for the Cartagena Protocol, a treaty that governs
biosafety rules.
With Washington University researchers advocating on the stem cell research
issue before the Missouri Legislature, some scientists are finding
themselves in an unusual position: To get public money or permission, they
have to join the political fray.
The Cartagena Protocol took effect Sept. 11, 2003, after 50 nations ratified
the treaty. It was named for the Colombian city in which it was primarily
negotiated in 1999. The treaty contains safety rules for genetically
modified organisms, specifying, for example, that food products must be
labeled and that the international transport of any modified organisms must
be declared.
To date, 114 nations have ratified the treaty. The United States has not.
The treaty is mute about the benefits of biotechnology, said Joel Cohen, a
researcher with the International Food Policy Research Institute, which is
based in Washington. He says that's because treaty negotiations included
for-profit scientists, representatives from the environmental ministries and
non-governmental organization activists, but didn't include public-sector
scientists.
"Nobody has mobilized these scientists before," he said. "The
meeting in St. Louis is intended to address that void"
Public-sector scientists in 15 countries have genetically engineered 45
crops, according to a paper Cohen published January in the journal Nature
Biotechnology.
All but one of the crops - an insect-resistant cotton in China - are stuck
in a regulatory pipeline and have not been released commercially. For-profit
companies are good at navigating regulatory agencies, but the public
researchers need more money for that, Cohen said.
Cohen, who will present his work at the Danforth Center today, says that
some environmental organizations have unjustly ignored the potential
benefits of public-sector engineered products, which would be freely
available.
"They prefer this black-and-white split between right and wrong" he said.
That's not true, said Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that opposes
genetically engineered foods. She says the goals of public-sector
biotechnologists are well-intentioned and sincere, but perhaps too hurried.
Dawkins calls for more research into the health and ecological effects of
genetically modified organisms before they are released commercially.
Two conference attendees, a regulator from Tanzania and a researcher from
Colombia, said that farmers in their countries were less concerned with
possible hazards of modified products and more concerned with their
potential price tags.
Beachy said that this is where the scientists need to be better salesmen and
let people know about products that would eventually be free
He understands the risks of scientists venturing into a political arena.
"There will be accusations, that public scientists are dupes of the big
companies and pushing a profit motive" he said.
Washington University professor Steve Teitelbaum knows about becoming an
advocate. The bone doctor became the university spokesman on the issue of
stem cell research. He has spent many nights dining with state legislators
and debating opponents
"My career would be much better served if I wasn't doing this" he said. "My
dream is to win this battle and go back to the lab full time."
The Cartagena Protocol
Sets up a biosafety clearinghouse where information about genetically
modified organisms is filed and shared after commercial approval.
Requires products to be accompanied by labels and documents that identify
the scientific name and characteristics of genetically modified ingredients
Operates under the "precautionary principle" meaning that worst-case
scenarios for a genetically modified product can justify banning it, even if
no scientific evidence exists of it causing harm
Source: United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological
Diversity
Reporter Eric Hand
E-mail: ehand@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8250
------
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
www.pubresreg.org
Countries and organisations throughout the world have invested considerably
in public sector research, and are continuing to do, so in order to develop
biotechnological applications that meet a variety of crucial needs...
The extent to which modern biotechnology will be able to achieve these goals
will depend to a large extent on the regulatory regimes that apply to
biotechnology and on the way in which they are implemented. These national
regulations in turn are strongly influenced by international agreements,
particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
This Protocol was negotiated between 1995 and 2000, adopted in January 2000,
and came into force in September 2003. The first Meeting of the Parties
(MOP1) took place in February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur and MOP2 is scheduled for
May - June 2005.

A central aim of the negotiations was to involve all stakeholders. Records
of the negotiations show that NGOs and the private sector were indeed well
represented.
However, the public research sector involved in developing biotechnological
applications, which includes over a hundred thousand researchers of
thousands governmental, academic and international research institutions in
developing and developed countries, was not represented in any significant
or organised way during the negotiations or during MOP1.
As a result, the public research sector has been not able to provide
scientific input for the benefit of the negotiations nor to express its
views about the effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the
Protocol. Another consequence of the absence of the public research sector
during the negotiations is the persistence of the misconception that modern
biotechnology, and in particular its agricultural application, is the
exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals.
The initiative described below proposes to offer a forum for the public
research sector to be involved in the forthcoming Meetings of the Parties to
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in May 2005 and related meetings.
Approach of the initiative.
The initiative consists of three phases:
Phase 1: Raising awareness among the public research community about the
issue.
Phase 2: Involvement of the public research sector in MOP2 ( 31 May ¬ 3 June
2005)
Phase 3: Organised involvement of the public research sector in subsequent
MOPs.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
This initiative is coordinated by a Steering Committee, of which currently
the members are:
- Prof. Philip J Dale, former Leader of the Genetic Modification and
Biosafety Research
Group, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom (chairman of the Steering
Committee)
- Prof. Atanas Atanassov, Director of the AgriBiotech Institute of Bulgaria.
- Dr. Roger Beachy, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St-Louis, USA
- Willy de Greef, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries
(IPBO) and International Biotech Regulatory Services (IBRS), Belgium
(vice-chair)
- Prof. Calestous Juma, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
USA
- Drs. Piet van der Meer, esq., Horizons sprl, Belgium (vice-chair)
- Prof. Marc van Montagu, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing
Countries (IPBO), Belgium.
- Prof. Paul S. Teng, Nanyang Technological University, National Institute
of Education,
Singapore.
The Steering Committee will be further expanded to include public research
sector scientists from all regions of the world.
Contact persons for the Steering Committee are Willy de Greef
(ibsr@telenet.be) and Piet van der Meer (pietvandermeer@cs.com).
For the execution of this initiative, a foundation has been established in
the Netherlands with the name Public Research and Regulation, and with the
objective to involve the public research sector in regulations relevant to
the development and application of biotechnology.
Administrative and logistical support for this initiative is provided,
through Delft University of Technology, by Dr. David Bennett and Mrs. Kim
Meulenbroeks. Contact references: kim.meulenbroeks@pubresreg.org, Phone:
+31-15-212-7800, Fax:+31-15-212-7111.
Updates of this initiative, including the list of people who endorse it,
will be made available on www.pubresreg.org.

****************************************************************************
****************************
This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's
Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the
Ecological Farming Association www.eco-farm.org
****************************************************************************
****************************
Dominic Lawson's attack on Prince Charles
Source: http://www.gmwatch.eu/

1.The Prince is entitled to his views – but not his ignorance
2.Comments on the Lawson article

NOTE: By far the nastiest of the responses to the recent criticisms by the Prince of Wales of GM crops and heavily industrialised ag, was the following piece in The Independent by Dominic Lawson.

Curiously, we've seen only one letter published critical of this article, even though it's certain The Independent will have received many. In item 2 we reproduce that letter, plus comments made on the The Independent's website or in letters copied to us. Some comments have been shortened. If you would like to comment, you can easily do so at the url for the Lawson article.
---
---
1.The Prince is entitled to his views – but not his ignorance
Dominic Lawson
The Independent, 15 August 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-the-prince-is-entitled-to-his-views-ndash-but-not-his-ignorance-897493.html

It's shocking to hear this millionaire Gloucestershire farmer denounce the 'Green Revolution' in India

There are any number of reasons why someone such as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales should be passionately opposed to genetically modified crops. For a start, his own position – and future one as head of state – is based entirely on genetic purity (formerly known as "royal blood").

One characteristic he might have inherited from his grandfather, King George VI, is a propensity for sudden, almost incoherent, rage. This week, that excellent journalist Jeff Randall gently suggested to the heir to the throne that the future of farming might be with industrial-scale production, rather than the sort of methods he practises. "What?" exploded the Prince. "All run by gigantic corporations? That would be the absolute destruction of everything!" Randall went on to report that "bouncing in his chair", the Prince set out a nightmarish vision in which millions of small farmers "are driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness".

The Prince, predictably, continued his rant by attacking GM technology – although Randall had never raised it – which he said was: "Guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time. Snakes, some of them thousands of miles long, will roam the countryside." Well, I made that last sentence up, but you get the gist: the world as we know it will come to an end if wicked big business is allowed to introduce GM crops on an industrial scale. The main empirical problem for this argument is that GM crops have already been grown for more than a decade across the globe, providing trillions of meals, with no observable malign consequences for humanity or the environment. Quite the reverse, in fact: many types of GM crops have been designed to produce high yield with minimal soil tillage; others require much lower use of pesticide than conventional crops, thus saving vast amounts in agricultural fuel use.

Now that the area covered by GM crops has reached more than 100 million hectares, involving farmers in countries as varied as China, Uruguay, South Africa and Iran, it is possible to assess the truth of the various "Frankenfood" scare stories promulgated by the likes of the Daily Mail (which yesterday was alone in publishing a leading article endorsing every word of the Prince of Wales's outburst).

Such a study has recently been published by the European Commission. This is especially significant because the member countries of the EU have been more nervous about the consequences of GM technology than any other developed nations. The report, ominously titled "Economic Impact of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide", gives the lie to the notion that GM is somehow only designed for large-scale agribusiness. It states that "analyses show that adoption of dominant GM crops and on-farm economic gains have benefited both small and large farmers... Moreover, detailed analyses show that increases in gross margin are comparatively larger for small and lower-income farmers than for larger and higher income farmers." In other words, Prince Charles's notion that such methods will in themselves cause the extinction of small farmers is simply refuted by the experiences of real people in the real world.

One of the most persistent complaints of the anti-GM lobby is that the owners of transgenic technology will make huge profits at the expense of the farmers. On general grounds alone one might question this: farmers are not known for persisting with methods which reduce their own income. The more innovative among them will try out new methods, and if it improves their business, they will continue with it. If not, they will dump it.

The European Commission report shows how in practice the increased profits are divided, based on an analysis of the adoption on Indian farms of Bt cotton, a cotton modified by the insertion of a bacterium resistant to the blight known as bollworm. It observes that "Indian farmers adopting Bt cotton were the main beneficiaries of adoption, capturing 67 per cent of generated welfare, followed by seed companies with 33 per cent". You might argue that 33 per cent is a pretty big royalty for the GM seed salesmen, but the point is that the farmers would still be well ahead of the game: the Commission's report shows that "in a sample of 157 farmers from three Indian states, the average yield gains of Bt cotton were up to 87 per cent over the non-Bt counterpart". So everyone's happy – except for the Prince of Wales .

It is undeniable that the technology which produces these transgenic strains is dominated by a small number of multinational companies. But if you object to that, you might also wonder why it is: after all, there is no theoretical reason why experiments should not be successfully carried out by much smaller companies. The reason lies in the very neurosis of European consumers and governments about the potential dangers of GM. The number of trials required and the regulatory hoops are so many that only very large companies have the stomach – and the wallet – for the fight.

It's not just a matter of regulation – which is obviously necessary. Groups such as Greenpeace take pride in destroying field trials of GM crops; almost all of the 54 crop trials attempted in Britain since 2000 have been vandalised, a record which would completely deter any small-scale investor from even contemplating such a venture.

These vandals share the Prince of Wales's quasi-religious belief that transgenic technology – presumably including that used in insulin for diabetics – runs counter to the divine order of nature: he has argued that they interfere in matters that are "the realm of God and God alone". With such metaphysical self-assurance, these people have no conscience about wrecking trials which are designed precisely to assess the environmental impact of GM technology: even if such experiments produced no observable adverse impact, ever, they would not alter the mindset which puts "blood and soil" mysticism above mere evidence.

Prince Charles would argue that he is motivated by a concern for humanity – and I don't doubt his sincerity or passion. Still, it was shocking to hear this multi-millionaire Gloucestershire organic farmer denouncing India's "Green Revolution" – the plant-breeding precursor to GM pioneered by Norman Borlaug. It was these techniques that saved millions in the sub-continent from the famines which slaughtered so many of their ancestors, and for which Borlaug received a Nobel Prize.

I can do no better than quote Professor Borlaug's remarks about those who denounced his work as destructive of traditional methods: "They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."

d.lawson@independent.co.uk
---
---
2.Comments on the Lawson article

Dominic Glover:

It would be appropriate if Dominic Lawson did some more thorough research. The article is riddled with misleading claims. Basing his argument on a single EU summary is insufficient. As a researcher who has followed the story of GM crops and the agri-biotech industry in the developing world for 8 years, I can assure Mr. Lawson that the story is much more complex than he pretends.

The 'average' benefits that he cites are just that - averages, which obscure the huge variability of GM crop performance between fields, farms, regions and seasons. That variability, combined with the high costs of GM seeds, creates serious risks for small-scale farmers, who are most certainly not the ones benefiting from GM crops. Read the original studies! GMCs may well have some environmental and economic benefits for some farmers in some contexts but, like any technological innovation, they also have risks. They are certainly not the silver bullet that Lawson, Norman Borlaug, Dick Taverne and others claim.
****
PeterW:

I'm sure Mr. Lawson your rich privileged background makes you an excellent candidate to defend the interest of Indian farmers. My bet is Professor Borlaug and you have never faced starvation either.

Borlaug's "Green" revolution is nothing of the kind. It has mortgaged future agriculture by draining aquifers and depleting topsoil. It has made farming more dependent on external inputs not less.

Did Monsanto write this piece for you?
****
Claire Robinson:

This is an extremely ill-informed article. There are currently no GM crops on the market that [are designed to] increase yields and even the USDA admits that they often result in yield reductions. There has been a lot of research on GM soy yields in the US and some on GM maize showing yield drag. Most of the GM crops currently available are designed either to contain an inbuilt pesticide or to resist herbicide, enabling MORE herbicide, not less, to be used on the crop. Herbicides are made from oil, which is running out. And no tests have been done to ensure that eating GM pesticidal crops is safe. It's obvious that the reason multinational companies don't promote organics is not because organic doesn't work, but because they can't make money from it, unlike the patented GM seeds and accompanying chemicals.
****
Clare Oxborrow
The Independent (Letters), 16 August 2008-08-20 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-visa-shame-899043.html

Dominic Lawson (Opinion, 15 August) makes the fundamental error of ignoring the most relevant research into science and technology in agriculture, published this year. The UN International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), written by 400 scientists and backed by 60 governments, was so unconvinced about GM crops feeding the world that the biotechnology industry pulled out of the process despite contributing substantial funds at the outset.

Lawson's statement that "many types of GM crops have been designed to produce high yield" is simply wrong. The IAASTD found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase yields. Even the US Department of Agriculture has admitted there is not a single GM crop designed to increase yield.

Prince Charles is right to highlight the risks to the environment and small farmers posed by GM crops. His central point, that GM crops are part of the export-led, oil-reliant model of food production that has created the food crisis in the first place, is spot on.
****
Umendra Dutt (Punjab):
umendradutt.blogspot.com

Green revolution brought a short lived prosperity which has taken away the very sustainability of our State. Its perishable prosperity left us with poisoned eco-system , contaminated food chain, empty aquifers, contaminated water sources, destroyed biodiversity, debts, disease and suicides...
****
Dr. Amar Singh Azad
Asstt. Professor
Community Medicine Dept.
Guru Gobind Singh Medical College
FARIDKOT(Punjab):

The Green Revolution in Punjab has indeed played havoc with nature, the environment, and all forms of life including humans. The cumulative effects of forty years of chemical farming are now strikingly visible. The concentration of highly poisonous chemicals-pesticides, chemical fertilizers and heavy metals are much beyond permissible levels in the air, soil, water, food chain and tissues of animals and human beings... Drinking water (surface as well as ground water) in Punjab is not safe for drinking. It contains all sorts of pathogens and highly poisonous toxins.
****
Dominic Lawson:

All right, many of you may feel that my article is badly researched. It's not because I verified every word I wrote on a telecon with my friend Hugh Grant in St. Louis, Missouri. And those who have suggested that my head is stuck up my you-know-what, are again wrong. If the Independent sacks me, Hugh has promised me a PR job with his firm. Jeez... Luddites.
****
Jonathan Matthews:

Dominic Lawson's sounding rattled - see his comment about checking his facts with Monsanto's CEO. I certainly don't think that that's where he gets his dubious information, because Lawson's personal assistant once rang me up by mistake in an effort to check one of his climate sceptical pieces with Philip Stott. I'd done a profile of the GM-loving, climate-change-denying Stotty and her lazy googling for Stotty's contact details had turned mine up by mistake. To give some idea of Lawson's climate guru's passion for all things biotechnik, here's what Stotty had to say about the completion of the human genome project: 'Today, we shall truly ''eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'' (Genesis 1.17), for two teams of scientists... have come together to announce the decoding of the alphabet of human life. And "we shall be as gods".' What was it Lawson was saying about zealots carried away by their pseudo-religious enthusiasm???


*******

Biotech Companies Denounce UK's Most Famous Organic Farmer, Prince Charles
• GM Watch (EU), August 14, 2008
Straight to the Source
1. Prince Charles, science and global hunger
2. JIC scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments
3. GM crops: Here's a health unto His Future Majesty
EXTRACTS: Prince Charles' concerns over GM food are well-founded. Current genetics' methodologies are far from rigorous science and are more aligned to educated (albeit improving) guesswork... In a nutshell, the world is potentially a hundred years from a rigorous understanding of genetics and, critically, in the hands of biologists, we are now on the brink of devastating much of the earth's natural genetic pool through ignorance.
- Kevin Nolan, Institute of Technology, Dublin, 14 Aug 2008 (item 1)
It does not seem to have occurred to these strident critics that... unlike the innumerable special pleaders on this issue - he disinterestedly desires the security of the nation, not profits from mega corporations manipulating nature on the suck-it-and-see principle.
...giant corporations... are ruthlessly cornering the world's food market. Have we learned nothing from the hunger now being suffered by tens of millions as a consequence of biofuels production?
- Gerald Warner, The Telegraph, 13 August 2008, (item 3)
--- ---
1. Prince Charles, science and global hunger
The Guardian (Letters), August 14 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/14/gmcrops...
Prince Charles' concerns over GM food are well-founded. Current genetics' methodologies are far from rigorous science and are more aligned to educated (albeit improving) guesswork.
Most of genetic science is driven by those from the biological sciences. Hence, with a failure of the biology science world to police the application of such crude science practices, a world debate must be engaged that questions the quality of genetics as a true science.
In a nutshell, the world is potentially a hundred years from a rigorous understanding of genetics and, critically, in the hands of biologists, we are now on the brink of devastating much of the earth's natural genetic pool through ignorance.
Kevin Nolan
Physicist, Institute of Technology, Tallaght, Dublin
--- ---
2. Scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments
LORNA MARSH
Eastern Daily Press, 14 August 2008
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPO...
Leading Norfolk scientists last night hit back at the Prince of Wales for his attack against genetically-modified crops, branding his outburst "shocking and ill-informed".
And experts at the John Innes Centre [JIC] in Colney [the leading research institute for GM plants in the UK with a history of big industry links and funding], Norwich, now want the prince to visit their laboratories so they can answer his questions and address his concerns.
Prof Alison Smith, research group leader at the centre, who was made an OBE for her services to plant biochemistry, accused Prince Charles of abusing his role and said he should have used it to launch a debate into the issue instead of making "unhelpful" remarks.
She said: "I was really quite shocked and saddened by what the prince had to say. It was really rather ill-informed and very negative.
"And I'm saddened that the Prince of Wales, who is in a leadership role and able to solve some of the problems he identifies - by bringing scientists, technicians and agricultural and climate change experts together - instead tried to blame the problems of the planet on a technology he clearly does not understand.
"He has a lot of understandable concerns about the way the planet is going but it would be good to see him looking broadly and objectively at how those concerns can be addressed and leading a constructive debate rather than dismiss something out of hand that we need to keep the door open on."
Prince Charles drew criticism with his outspoken attack on industrial farming, warning genetically- modified food could be the "biggest disaster environmentally of all time".
He said millions of small farmers around the world could be driven off their land into "degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness" by the rise of global conglomerates.
The heir to the throne is a long-term supporter of sustainability and locally-produced food and often speaks out on environmental issues.
He has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire and set up the Duchy Originals brand, which sells exclusively organic produce, in 1990.
Prof Smith said: "GM is not a silver bullet but it is one of many things we need to look at to produce sustainable crops in the future. Obviously we have to take cautious, rational decisions in developing that technology."
She claimed that, converse to the prince's comments, GM could be beneficial as global warming increases and crops become unsustainable in the rapidly changing climate.
"Crops at the moment are not going to sustain themselves in this time of unprecedented change. We need to have crops which can survive and will have less impact on the environment."
Farmer William Brigham, of Lyng, near Dereham, whose GM trial crops were destroyed by Greenpeace protesters in the late 1990s, said the prince's comments were "condescending" to farmers who were "really astute businessmen who would not have anything foisted upon them". He added: "I think it is extremely short-sighted to blame GM crops for everything that is going on in the world as far as the environment is concerned."
--- ---
3. GM crops: Here's a health unto His Future Majesty
Gerald Warner
The Telegraph, 13 August 2008
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/08/1...
_heres_a_health_unto_his_future_majesty
God bless the Prince of Wales. The abuse being heaped on him by the acolytes of genetically engineered food reflects the rage of the Nomenklatura at having its received wisdom challenged by somebody who commands public attention.
The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming
The party line is: what can this polo-playing grand seigneur know about the brave new world of genetically modified agriculture, compared to, say, a Labour MP sponsored by the National Union of Widget Makers, a bloke who subscribes to Nerds' Monthly, or Mr Angry from Tooting who believes that Progress is inevitable and crowned heads do not feature largely in that Orwellian landscape? Apparently "Luddite" is now a term of disparagement on the Left.
It does not seem to have occurred to these strident critics that HRH has spent half his life discussing these issues with leading scientists and agriculturalists, that papers daily cross his desk as authoritative as anything on Gordon Brown's and that - unlike the innumerable special pleaders on this issue - he disinterestedly desires the security of the nation, not profits from mega corporations manipulating nature on the suck-it-and-see principle.
The evidence against GM food production is overwhelming. The profiteers are proceeding with no sense of responsibility. As long ago as 2004 a report from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee warned that more than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are contaminated with genetically modified material. Why did the "trials" even in this country take place in open fields, from which the wind and insects would spread contamination? Because that is what the big corporations and the Government wanted to happen: to end opposition by presenting the public with a fait accompli.
Royalty has dared to challenge the New Order - the Scientocracy - and the white-coat arrogance of the new priesthood knows no bounds, whether it is colliding particles at CERN or polluting the global food supply. For these know-alls who cannot cure the common cold, the Earth is theirs and the fullness thereof.
Where are all the Elfin Safety [Health & Safety] control freaks now? Note, too, how "progressives" who normally exhibit a knee-jerk hostility to big business are suddenly supportive of the giant corporations that are ruthlessly cornering the world's food market. Have we learned nothing from the hunger now being suffered by tens of millions as a consequence of biofuels production?
The Prince had a broader agenda than scientific objections to GM production, important though that is: he recognised the cultural degradation that will overtake humanity if farmers no longer exist at a non-industrial level and the whole of mankind is herded into cities to work in call centres. If there was a minimal case for republicanism 24 hours ago, it has evaporated now.
Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14152.cfm

******************

No comments: